orlando has banned feeding the homeless in downtown parks. i can't be the only one who is really disturbed by the language in this article: "The large feedings were unbalancing constituents who lived near the parks [...]" and "Alana Brenner, a city clerk who serves as the mayor's point person on the homeless problem, says the city has set up 'an alternative location near downtown,' where 'feedings can take place any day, any hour.'"
feedings? they aren't pigeons, assholes. keeping that in mind, this line has an Orwellian ring: "Orlando, population 200,000, works hard to conjure the image of a true-life Pleasantville. But its spotless sidewalks and twinkling skyline belie a real city with real maladies — most notably, a surging homeless population that authorities are struggling to control."
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
NIMBY!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
"the feeding of" - yes, this language did conjure up the image of pigeons. it is a bit callous.
but just to play devil's advocate. remember that house in central square where you used to live - and crackheads would smoke in the entryway? and now, somehow, this doesn't happen anymore in central square? where did the people go? how were they "moved out" so to speak? i.e., didn't the same thing happen in central square?
and even if you feel a little bit guilty (do you?), don't you feel a little safer now? and say that you had a kid and you couldn't afford to live anywhere else... wouldn't you be less likely to tolerate people loitering on your property and doing drugs? i'll be honest and say "definitely." if that paints me as an asshole, so be it. i'm sure your elderly long-time resident landlord would agree. and the other long-suffering (not rich white yuppie but working class minority, not that it matters) landlords who sat around for decades waiting for a break.
anyway, it seems that the homeless were victims of heinous crimes in that neighborhood in orlando (the beatings), and (some, not all!) of them were trespassing and doing drugs in people's entryways. maybe the city thought that moving the homeless somewhere else would protect them as well as residents.
anyway, it's just a thought. my parents lived in pretty thuggerific hoods before i was born, which, i guess, they tolerated, because they didn't have to look out for me - and my dad was po'. but once i popped out, my mom was like, "um, let's get out of here. this place is wack."
i think once a person is in the workforce for a while and especially when a person thinks of having kids, the NIMBY factor kicks in big time. (as well as the "there is no way i'm living with three roommates" factor and the "why, oh why is that stupid car alarm going off down the street" factor, etc.) i'm not saying it's right, but i'm just saying it's bound to happen.
the homeless haven't been 'moved out' of central square. they're still there. cambridge has no laws designed to give cops the permission to harass homeless people and the people who are trying to help them.
orlando is doing nothing to combat homelessness. the city just wants them to conveniently disappear so middle class people can buy 4 dollar lattes downtown without having to face the unpleasant reality that other people in their so-called Pleasantville can't even afford to eat or house themselves. i have no pity, sympathy, or approval for what orlando is doing.
the article was not about preventing the homeless from loitering on private property or doing drugs. the laws forbid sleeping in the parks, washing up in public restrooms, and feeding the homeless. there are already laws that forbid trespassing and drug use. they are about harassing people for doing things they need to do -- sleeping, eating, and washing up.
Alana Brenner, a city clerk who serves as the mayor's point person on the homeless problem, says the city has set up "an alternative location near downtown," where "feedings can take place any day, any hour."
i was referring to this. they moved the locale, but they can still eat. from what i read, it seemed that wherever they were before was unsafe, according to the ACLU.
but yeah, this is a band-aid solution.
however, looking long-term, if more high income residents and businesses move in, wouldn't more tax dollars be available to help the homeless (and create more jobs)?
(but this, of course, begs the question: can't they just build some low income housing from the money already flowing in from disneyworld? wouldn't that help solve the problem?)
sorry, but i have a problem with the 'alternate location' arrangement. i don't like the motive behind all of this -- which is preserving the comfort of the fortunate by sweeping the unfortunate out of sight. i don't know why they won't spend money on low income housing and other services for the homeless in their city. if orlando tried to do that, there would be another NIMBY uproar over where the housing should be built.
yeah, you're probably right. i say just build more shelters and low income housing with all the new tax money and to hell with any ensuing NIMBY complaints on where they are built. that would serve the dual purpose of housing the homeless AND allowing the offended eyes of the latte drinkers not to be offended.
Post a Comment