graciereilly said:
HiGirlsRHot said:
Despite all the complaints about the laws, they seem to be working for both the citizen, it is not scary to be in the parks and beaches after dark, and the homeless higher occupancy rates for the shelters.
How is the success of this program measured? Is it just on higher occupancy rates of shelters and a decrease in rough sleeping? Do the shelters have adequate facilities to deal with the complex mental illnesses and addictions that a lot of rough sleepers have or are they just used to get them 'out of sight, out of mind'? Has the law had an economic impact or increased visitor numbers to the city? And assuming it has benefited the economy have any of these extra funds been directed towards additional programs for the homeless? Have the views of those who are impacted most by the law, the homeless themselves, been even sought or considered?
I'm not targeting the questions at you directly I just think that measures of success can be very biased and that these type of questions should be addressed. I volunteered for a number of years with a homeless charity group doing soup runs in the inner city so have a little insight albeit it was a European city so the issues will likely differ slightly.
I agree that the original article is overly simplistic but so is the assumption that by passing a law to get the homeless off the street the problem is solved. I personally disagree entirely in penalising some of the most vulnerable in society in this manner. It wouldnt be a law I would support. But I would be a little more inclined to see it as less of a "cleaning up the streets for the rest of the community/tourists etc" and more of a "help" to the homeless themselves if it was supported with a range of both preventive and treatment programs to address the difficult issues which often accompany homelessness - mental ill health, alcohol and drug addition etc. :twocents-02cents:
I haven't seen much in the way of measurements from the law, although I'd argue that higher usage rates of shelters and the public being able to use restrooms is a somewhat of success. On the other hand the author presented no data at all on the impact of the law, just "oh what a mean law, must be bad.". She also neglected to mention that anti-loitering have been on the books in most places for generations, and we don't see hundreds of thousands of homeless people being rounded up and tossed in jail. For instance, Portland, Tacoma, San Francisco and Seattle have recently banned sitting or lying down on public sidewalks in certain neighborhoods during certain times of day.
Broadly speaking you have two types of homeless, the folks like single mom leaving an abusive relationship who want and need a shelter. The vast majority of times the cops are going to tell/take the mom to the shelter and not arrest her. I'd argue getting a person like that off the streets and into a shelter is a good thing. The second type is the chronic homeless and of those the most need help with mental illness and/or substance abuse. The problems is that in many cases that don't want help. They are off their meds or self medicate with booze or drugs they don't think they need help.
It is not hard to convince a mental ill person to go to a shelter when it is -10F out, when its 60 degrees at night in California or Hawaii, it isn't so easy. Sure a shelter offers a bed, and a hot meal, but shelters also impose lots of rules. The most important one being no booze, no drugs. The also have curfews, and they don't let you sleep until noon. So for the mentally ill homeless the trade off of having to give up their booze or drugs, and the legitimate issues of being afraid of being ripped off, means they'd rather sleep on the streets. If they want to sleep in some out of the way place, I am fine with that. The problem is when they interfere with the quality of life for the rest of the population.
At this point societies options are pretty bad. We can let the mental ill just stay on the street pissing and taking a shit where they want and tell the rest of the population learn to deal with them. This was the approach that Berkeley took, and while it added to the zaniness of the place it gets old. We can rouse them for drug charges, public urination, begging etc. and toss them in jail. But cops have to observe them breaking the law to arrest them and the last thing this country needs more people in jail. We can go back to the not good at all old days, where a couple of doctors could decide a person was crazy and lock them up in pysch ward. Or we can use laws like these and threat of jail to coerce mental ill homeless people into shelters. Worse case they get a hot meal and shower, best case they find the help they need. Is there sufficient resources to help all those with mental health issues? probably not.
I doubt many think that passing laws targeting homeless people is going to solve the problems of chronic homelessness. On the other hand if we have a resource, unused shelter beds, than it is really unclear how throwing more money at the problem will help it either.