Homeless advocates name mean cities

 

Friday, January 13, 2006; Posted: 9:36 a.m. EST (14:36 GMT)

 

SARASOTA, Florida (AP) -- Sarasota, which recently imposed a no-camping ban, is the meanest city in the nation toward the homeless, according to a national advocacy organization.

 

The annual list of the 20 worst cities for treating the homeless in 2005 ranks Lawrence, Kansas, as second meanest, and Little Rock, Arkansas, third. Atlanta, Dallas, Las Vegas and Houston were also among the top 10.

 

For more info, click the link

www.plaindealer.com

Forty-five people were arrested last year for violating the ordinance, which gives police the option of transporting suspects to a shelter instead of jail.

 

This seems like a great law to me.  Why are homeless advocates against something that puts homeless people in shelters and on the path to recovery?  Sometimes I think advocacy groups just complain for the sake of complaining.

I think advocacy groups just complain for the sake of complaining.

Truer words have never been spoken.

 

"They could have been taken off the mean list if they would have just done away with that ordinance," said Michael Stoops

Perhaps we could do away with all laws and ordinances and we could do away with the whole crime problem also.

Dayton has, I think, a law that requires panhandlers to get liscensed, so there is some police action against the segement of the homeless community that begs, but doesn't have the liscense.

 

Otherwise I think the various social services agencies here are teaming up to address the problem. I think the approach here is that this is a social problem not a law enforcement issue. 

 

Its a good question as to whether or not the problem can be "solved" with the local economy deteriorating.  My hunch is that as more people drop into poverty or close to it into low-paying jobs, the demand for cheap housing is going to be high, and the poorest will be forced onto the street.

 

 

 

Its a good question as to whether or not the problem can be "solved" with the local economy deteriorating.  My hunch is that as more people drop into poverty or close to it into low-paying jobs, the demand for cheap housing is going to be high, and the poorest will be forced onto the street.

 

Jeff, I understand what you are saying if you are in a slowing economy.  But what about the inverse? 

According to the report, homelessness, as measured by increased demands for emergency shelter, went up nationally

NEW YORK, Jan 10 (Reuters) - Confidence of U.S. consumers, steadily improving since last fall, rose in the latest week, ABC News and the Washington Post said on Tuesday.

 

The nation's unemployment rate dipped slightly to 4.9 percent as the country's payrolls added about 108,000 jobs in December, according to a report by the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics.  During December 2004, the unemployment rate was 5.4 percent.

 

I am sure you were referring to the local Dayton economy and I can not speak to that, however this article seemed to be referring to a national trend.

 

as more people drop into poverty or close to it into low-paying jobs, the demand for cheap housing is going to be high, and the poorest will be forced onto the street.

 

Using that same argument, we also have people moving upward and moving into newer, more expensive homes.  Inventories are high and getting higher in most real estate markets nationally as we move into a buyers market pushing home pricing down.  As I said, I can not speak to the local Dayton market but I guess my question back is, in an improving economy, can it be "solved" without a legal remedy?

 

 

 

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say in your post, but it is worth mentioning that 108,000/ month payroll gain isn't enough to keep up with population gain.  So a concurrent drop in unemployment rate means that people are most likely dropping out of the labor force, and no longer counted as unemployed, though they may not have jobs.  For example, most homeless people and beggars are not considered "unemployed".  Most are not actively pursuing looking for a job and thus are not in the labor force.

 

Knowing unemployment rates over a given time is actually pretty useless without knowing the "Labor Force Participation Rate" as well.  My guess would be that given the anemic job growth, yet drop in unemployment rates that we have seen means that number is taking a nosedive.

 

We have yet to see any sort of drop in housing costs outside of a couple of metros such as San Francisco, which I believe is rising again.

The mindset of the homeless is quite strange. I knew a guy who was living out of his car and I asked him why he didn't get a job at Burger King or something while he was looking for a decent job. He said he "could never work at a Burger King" suggesting it was below his level.

 

Excuse me? And what level are you at by living out of your car???

 

It seems to me that some homeless are of the same mindset. They would rather sleep anonymously on the street than be seen at a homeless shelter.

 

If I was confident I wouldn't get stabbed, I'd tell each and every bum who asks me for money to either jump off a bridge or get some help for themselves rather than stay the human equivalent of a mosquito.

There is a connection between mental illness and homelessness.  That is not to say everyone who is homeless has a mental illness, or that everyone who has a mental illness is homeless, but there is definitely a higher percentage.

x,

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say in your post

well let me try again,

 

Most are not actively pursuing looking for a job and thus are not in the labor force.

I am not arguing this one bit.  Unemployment rate and cc were two economic indicators I pulled to show an upswing in a national economy to frame the question "in a growing economy, is there a solution to the poverty problem (in the realm of what has been viewed as deviant behavior, ie sleeping in parks and panhandling) without a legal action.

Forty-five people were arrested last year for violating the ordinance, which gives police the option of transporting suspects to a shelter instead of jail.

 

this being the legal action

I think the approach here is that this is a social problem not a law enforcement issue.

this being the quote stating that the legal action may not be the way to go.

"They could have been taken off the mean list if they would have just done away with that ordinance,"

Another quote indicating that legal action may not be right.

 

Jeff asked the question

Its a good question as to whether or not the problem can be "solved" with the local economy deteriorating

My response was that he may also want to ask if the problem can be "solved" with an improving economy.

 

If these people lost there jobs and were kicked out on the street by an evil landlord, and they had no other choice well then perhaps we should not impose legal action against them, however if

Most are not actively pursuing looking for a job and thus are not in the labor force.

then perhaps panhandling laws and no sleeping in parks ordinances should exist for such people, unlike what the homeless advocate says.

 

My apologies, I will try and explain myself better in the future.

 

 

 

 

^

that seemed somewhat evident when I lived in California, but they also had a lot of drifter/hobo types in Sacramento, too.  Here in Ohio, or Dayton, perhaps there is more a mental health situation involved.

 

Like all things human I doubt one will get to 100% no homeless...there will always be some small percentage.  I think the goal should be to get to as low a % as possible.

 

Using that same argument, we also have people moving upward and moving into newer, more expensive homes.  Inventories are high and getting higher in most real estate markets national

 

Given that Dayton has a problem with vacancies and abandonment, one thinks that homelessness could be solvable here. 

 

Another question is if there is a point where the economics of a house or apartment does not support it being on the market for either rental or purchase...people not making enough money to afford housing, and the housing can not be "made" cheap enough for people to afford as sort of a vicious cycle?

 

 

Jeff,

Are you referring to people who are unable to sell their home because they are upside down, therefore diminishing supply?  If that is the case (and I am making the assumption that they can not afford to stay there) and they lose their home to foreclosure, it will be put back on the market at a minimum of 75% of the owed amount (and I am going to have to check HUD guidelines again but to the best of my recollection) and unless there are several people bidding on the property, this generally makes the home a good deal and sometimes far below market rate which in turn makes it affordable to those who could not have purchased it under regular market circumstances.

I'm just wondering if there is a point where income does match the economics of housing..where the rents would be to low for a landlord to maintain a property and turn somewhat of a profit or meet mortgages/taxes,

 

...or purchase price/carrying cost too high for a pooer or lower income person.

 

I

 

 

 

We have yet to see any sort of drop in housing costs outside of a couple of metros such as San Francisco, which I believe is rising again.

Sorry, I forgot to address this.  We are seeing drops in housing cost in pockets throughout any city, at any time.  Especially now, with more going on the market right now, you are beginning to see more competive pricing and even more will be hitting the market this spring.  If you need a local example of lowered cost due to longer DOM and higher inventories, look at Westwood.

"Local homeless advocates are trying to relocate people who have been staying near the convention center. Volunteers of America of Northeast and North Central Ohio sends a van to the area many times a night, offering a ride to an emergency shelter or another outdoor location. "

 

What is this other outdoor location?  I'm sure its probably Beachwood or Westlake, right?

 

Here is the list of the 20 meanest cities:

 

1.    Sarasota, FL

2.    Lawrence, KS

3.    Little Rock, AR

4.    Atlanta, GA

5.    Las Vegas, NV

6.    Dallas, TX

7.    Houston, TX

8.    San Juan, PR

9.    Santa Monica, CA

10.  Flagstaff, AZ

11.  San Francisco, CA

12.  Chicago, IL 

13.  San Antonio, TX

14.  New York City, NY

15.  Austin, TX

16.  Anchorage, AK

17.  Phoenix, AZ

18.  Los Angeles, CA   

19.  St. Louis, MO

20.  Pittsburgh, PA

 

If you care to read the full report, it's here:

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/civilrights/crimpress2006.html

 

There was a thread (I think) with the 2004 numbers for comparison's sake, but I couldn't find it.

 

For some reason Lawrence, KS seems out of place on that list...  :wtf:

I think tagging a city as being "mean" is a bit misleading.  What I think more accurately describes the situation is that most cities just don't know what to do with them.  Having worked with the homeless in Columbus, I can tell you that they are as diverse a group as you'd find anywhere, so there is no cookie-cutter solution. 

 

Unfortunately, local officials and the Columbus Shelter Board have tried to provide such solutions instead of taking a broad-based approach that can deal more effectively with that diversity.  They have all but eliminated shelters, the last one (The Open Shelter) closed up almost two years ago after the Shelter Board cut off its funding.  There were some politics involved here, which I won't go into.  But there is and always will be a segment of the homeless population that will need sheltering either on a short-term or long term basis: some just need temporary shelter after losing their permanent housing for whatever reason, while other (such as one with essentially terminal alcoholism or mental problems) are unable to take care of themselves.  These are the ones (mostly men) who wind up being found frozen in dumpsters or otherwise dead on the street. 

 

Other homeless won't ever set foot in shleters and prefer to live in what amount to hobo camps.  One such camp was recently bulldozed by the railroad after people walking on the tracks to and from the camp became a problem and sveral were hit by passing trains.  They don't camp there anymore, but they just moved across the tracks into some city-owned property (mostly woods) along the Scioto River.  Most won't go into shelters, because they fear being attacked or having their belongings stolen.  I once met a guy who was a Vietnam vet, who preferred living in his shack by the river.  he said he lived in and survived a lot worse in Vietnam.  A good number of them even have jobs.

 

Still others are families or couples who can be transitioned into temporary housing until jobs and more permanent housing can be found.

 

I note a lot of anger and frustration, even on these pages, about the homeless you may encounter on the streets.  But keep in mind, most of these are either professional panhandlers (like the guys who stand by the freeway ramps) or just mental cases with no place to go.  Most of the former are not homeless.... it's an act to get your cash.

I would welcome an effort to sweep these true "bums" off the streets.  But for the rest, most are certainly not homeless by choice.  Who the heck aspires to live on the street or in a shelter.  And they are not all poor folks.  In the Open Shelter, when I worked there, I met decorated veterans, a doctor, skilled mechanics, chefs, and even a ex-journalist who once worked at the Chicago Tribune.  Being a former journalist myself, that encounter hit home... because this guy died on the streets a few weeks after I met him and we had to track down his family to claim his body.  That's when we found out (from them) what he had been in his former life.

 

So when you wonder who these people are, the answer is simple.  They are us ... only less fortunate or the victims of circumstances beyond their control.