This is from Don Schruber and concerns a homeless man in San Francisco, who tried to turn his life around. Turns out it was a mistake.
The city bureaucracy robbed a homeless man of the money he made shining shoes — in the name of getting a $491 sidewalk vendor permit.It is just sad. I am part of the set of Lowell Homelessness Plan sub-committees and am happy to report that I have not seen this kind of short range, sub-optomizing, thinking here in Lowell and if I do see it I pray that I have the courage to point it out.
The Blog author, Don Surber, ends with this:
I left my heart in San Francisco. It needed it more because it had none.Regards — Cliff
PS: Hat tip to Instapundit.
So, how would you characterize the raids on the tent residences awhile back?
ReplyDeletePeople who remain unimpaired by illness or addiction, (i.e. not in need of public services), and who maintain an otherwise-lawful existence, including socially-acceptible and personally-healthy hygiene and nutrition, should not, in my opinion, be pursued and persecuted for the misfortune of their homelessness. No, it wasn't a direct theft of actual cash, but what was taken here in Lowell was of profoundly higher value, and of extremely questionable public benefit. (i.e. none).
New showers and laundry facilities at Living Hope on Adams Street seem a far more productive way to interact with such a situation.
Guys,
ReplyDelete>>New showers and laundry >>facilities at Living Hope on >>Adams Street seem a far more >>productive way to interact with >>such a situation.
And seems like a great way this was done..private money raised through art and concert with tons of "sweat equity" from some who will directly benefit. Seems like a great model for effective change...Cliff, any chance you could say more in a post about the Homelessness Plan? I would be very curious to hear about proposals that have worked, or not worked, and why.
Of all the issues that came up during the community discussion series at UML, homelessness was one of the toughest because you have to find solutions that help those in need but don't encourage the problem itself...also, it's kind of like the casino gambling thing in that you can sometimes wind up with people in pretty distinctly right- or left-wing camps coming to agreement (in this case it was the need for self-sufficiency and 'empowerment' rather than more-traditional models of charity)..
best,
gp
I took Kad's comment to be that I didn't raise a stink about the "tent city" incident and in that he is right. I should have blogged on that and I didn't. I hope to do better the in the future.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I think I do see a qualitative difference between the two.
And, I am actually work up a blog post on the homelessness conditions in Lowell, based upon a remark I heard Thursday, but I am trying to gather some facts before I go to print.
Regards — Cliff