A New York Times article “As Homeless Line Up for Food, Los Angeles Weighs Restrictions” goes on to say:
“ ‘If you give out free food on the street with no other services to deal with the collateral damage, you get hundreds of people beginning to squat,” said Alexander Polinsky, an actor who lives two blocks from the bread line. “They are living in my bushes and they are living in my next door neighbor’s crawl spaces. We have a neighborhood which now seems like a mental ward.’
“Should Los Angeles enact such an ordinance, it would join a roster of more than 30 cities, including Philadelphia, Raleigh, N.C., Seattle and Orlando, Fla., that have adopted or debated some form of legislation intended to restrict the public feeding of the homeless, according to the National Coalition of the Homeless…
“There are now about 53,800 homeless people in Los Angeles County, according to the2013 Annual Homeless Assessment Report released by the Department of Housing and Urban Development last week, a 27 percent increase over last year. Only New York had a higher homeless population.”
I recall a couple of years ago standing with Rick Gray in the mayor’s office gazing out the Duke Street window at the homeless across the street lining up for breakfast at St. James’ Episcopal Church. Clearly this was an eyesore, a strain on the facilities of the neighboring Lancaster Public Library, and a public health problem.
Moreover it was not the best way to serve the needs of the homeless, albeit a commendable ‘band aid’ proffered by the parish.
No city by itself can successfully address this problem alone, because to the extent it tries, more homeless will seek them out!
What is required is a national effort led by the federal government, possibly through subsidies to urban areas. We would suggest that facilities be constructed in every city to feed two meals a day, to provide bathroom and shower facilities, and also dormitories. No person should go without food, without sanitary conditions, and without a place to safely sleep.
Moreover, office space should be provided for counseling and perhaps for a physician or nurse to visit a couple times a week.
This may even save money, since we are paying indirectly in so many separate ways to unsuccessfully address the problems of the destitute and often mentally challenged. Centralization can lead to control and efficiency.
Once again we are right but ahead of our time. But just as forward thinking individuals of our generation, the one that is passing away, brought us equal opportunities, Gay Rights, and drug policy and harm reduction reform through efforts over two to three decades, so can aspiring reformers from a younger generation make this their task and by 2030 largely achieve their goals.
” Once again we are right but ahead of our time.”
Not true. A wiser generation knew that problems need to be dealt with, not swept under the rug.
There were plenty of mental health facilities prior to Ronald Reagan’s policy of unfunding for people who cannot handle the strain of daily living. They weren’t perfect in every case, but the costs were up front instead of coming in the form of crime and broken families.
As I recall the mental health community wanted people set free from mental health facilities since, although mentally ill, they were not a danger to the community at large. Now we hear a different tune and the need to cast blame on a long dead president. Again we hear calls for federal programs to deal with social issues but in the end it comes down to one thing. How much of a working persons production (earnings) should be taken by the state and distributed for whatever reasons the state deems necessary?