iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Christine Schanes

GET UPDATES FROM Christine Schanes
 

Homelessness: Man's Inhumanity to Man

Posted: 08/07/2012 4:43 pm

There is no question that every political issue has at least two sides -- the pros and the cons. Issues involving homelessness are no different. However, when weighing the impact of both sides of homelessness issues, often one side appears to have a greater impact upon humanity than the other. In other words, in analyzing the issues of homelessness, the sides are not necessarily even. In fact, sometimes the impact of the political decisions relating to homelessness can be cruel.

For example, there are municipal ordinances in many cities prohibiting sleeping on public land, including beaches and parks. On the positive side, these laws protect public property from overuse -- an important goal so that members of these communities can continue to share open spaces. However, homeless people may experience the impact of these laws as depriving them of a legal place to sleep.

The truth is that no city of which I am aware has adequate housing/shelter beds for its homeless population. Without available housing, many homeless people remain unsheltered.

At night unsheltered homeless people need to sleep somewhere, be it on public property or private property. Sleeping on private property is prohibited by the law of trespass, therefore, it is not a legal option for homeless people.

When cities enact ordinances prohibiting the sleeping upon public land, they remove the last opportunity for unsheltered homeless people to sleep legally. The result of these ordinances is that the police are authorized to issue illegal lodging tickets upon people who are sleeping on public property but who have no other place to sleep.

Of course, sleep is essential for the physical and mental health of all human beings. Without sleep, unsheltered homeless people cannot function at optimum level. But by sleeping on public property, they may be subjected to ticketing for illegal lodging and their consequences.

So, weighing the pros and cons of municipal ordinances that prohibit sleeping on public property, we can contrast the goal of protecting public lands from overuse with the potential negatives on unsheltered human beings who will be denied a legal place to sleep. It appears to me that the negatives outweigh the positives on this issue.

A number of cities have passed municipal ordinances that prohibit the charitable giving of food. They often feel that Good Samaritans who freely distribute food are encouraging homeless people to come to these cities and may even be encouraging people to become homeless so they can receive free food.

Without free food, homeless people often go hungry and have insufficient vitamin intake thereby potentially suffering impaired physical and mental well-being. As many doctors know, starvation is one of the most challenging medical conditions for human beings. Hunger hurts.

It is my opinion that the consequences of municipal ordinances prohibiting the charitable giving of food have a more negative impact upon human beings than positive.

Recently, increasing numbers of cities are passing ordinances prohibiting the sitting on public sidewalks. Among the reasons these cities give to support the passage of these ordinances is that when homeless people sit, they block the sidewalks.

Access to public sidewalks is obviously important, especially when walking may be a more physically and environmentally helpful activity than driving cars.

However, homeless people often have few places to sit. When going about their business, including looking for work, they may need to rest. Public chairs and benches are normally found in parks and beaches that may not be conveniently located. So, they may sit on the public sidewalk.

It seems to me that the impact of prohibiting people from sitting on public sidewalks has more negative consequences by eliminating resting places for human beings than it has positive outcomes.

In addition, there are a number of seemingly small municipal decisions that have major negative consequences upon homeless people, particularly unsheltered homeless people. Take the mid-bench bars that prohibit people from lying flat on bus benches. Often these bars go unnoticed by housed people.

However, in the past, unsheltered homeless people sometimes used these bus benches as safe places to sleep. I recall "The Women of Wilshire" -- the approximately 25 unsheltered senior citizen homeless women who lived on Wilshire Boulevard from 7th to the Palisades Park in Santa Monica. At night, overhead street lights lit the bus benches and The Women of Wilshire used them as beds, hoping that sleeping in a well-lit public place would bode well for their personal safety as they slept.

With the imposition of the mid-bench bars, The Women of Wilshire were no longer able to stretch out and sleep on the bus benches.

Certainly it could be said that the mid-bench bars successfully prevented and prevent unsheltered homeless people from occupying bus benches as beds.

However, I wonder if without available adequate housing, whether denying an unsheltered homeless person some sort of place to sleep is just cruel.

Other apparently neutral decisions on the part of municipalities that can negatively impact homeless people are the cities' landscaping choices. For example, in public parks, grassy areas have sometimes been replaced with bushes so that homeless people cannot recline, even during the day, on the grass.

Of course, there are many municipal ordinances that make great sense in that their positive consequences outweigh the negative. However, in the examples sited above, I believe that these municipal actions create an environment where homeless people are negatively impacted. And reflect man's inhumanity to man.

 
FOLLOW IMPACT
There is no question that every political issue has at least two sides -- the pros and the cons. Issues involving homelessness are no different. However, when weighing the impact of both sides of hom...
There is no question that every political issue has at least two sides -- the pros and the cons. Issues involving homelessness are no different. However, when weighing the impact of both sides of hom...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 15
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
08:09 PM on 08/15/2012
Well written article on a very complex subject. I meet many different categories of homeless, which is confirmed by the San Diego Point-in-Time Count. I run into kids who rather "hang" and exploit available services rather than being responsible adults. i run into veterans who have severe PTSD that has rendered them unable to work. Some are "comfortable" in their various addictions and wasting away. There are "professionally" homeless - often holding down jobs but not able to make enough to afford housing. Some are families who are homeless because they lost their housing through foreclosure.

Whatever mental health issues people may have had initially are made orders of magnitude worse by isolation from the rest of society. The ministry to the homeless requires establishing normal human personal relationships together with opportunities to love and be loved, and to serve (be useful/purposeful) and be served. Sadly, homelessness and hopelessness are often equated.

The Homeless Outreach Team (HOT) in San Diego are compassionate and caring police. They are few in number. They work together with a number of ministries. We have 29 churches and ministries cooperating in our Downtown Fellowship right now, and the HOT team is helpful to our efforts. Our San Diego Rescue Mission in an anchor for homeless ministries throughout the SD region, not just in our downtown area.

I appreciate your article all the more because the homeless population lacks advocacy in the media.

John Townsend
Senior Pastor
MATTHEW 25:34-40 Ministries
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Christine Schanes
12:56 AM on 08/19/2012
Pastor John,

Thank you for your comment. And thank you for all you do to help homeless people.

I agree that there are many kinds of people who are homeless - just like there are many kinds of people who are housed.

I hope that you will keep in touch.

Best Wishes,
Christine
01:34 PM on 08/14/2012
Thank you Christine for hitting the head on the nail. It's just cruel and inhumane. Just think many areas have dog parks yet the homeless can't sleep in a park for fear of a ticket and jail time.

One thing you didn't mention is the fact that many municipalities have done, is to install sprinkler systems and water during the day just to keep the homeless of public property.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Christine Schanes
12:51 AM on 08/19/2012
Hi, coskibum,

Thanks for your comment. And thank you for your kind words.

I am chuckling about your comment that we have parks for dogs but no parks for homeless people - very perceptive!

And also you are very perceptive about many municipaities intalling sprinkler systems and watering during the day.

Just please tell me where and how you get your accurract perceptions?

Christine
10:51 PM on 08/22/2012
I'm not sure if you received my last reply but if you didn't I live in Boulder, CO. I'm a advocate for the Homeless here in Boulder.

We have worked with many faith based congregations to provide a safe haven for the homeless. Recently the city ban one synagogue from providing a safe & sanitary place to camp for the summer. There's great news thought, we banned together as a community and had the city reverse it's self!

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_21377781

Hooray, one for humanity!
06:46 PM on 08/11/2012
Christine, another great to-the-point article. Have you considered writing a myth buster about our homeless citizens mythical preference to peeing and pooping on the streets and in the bushes that exposes
a) why this is : limited/lack of 24/7 access, psychotic medications that cause incontinence, hostility in most commercial outlets like coffee shops etc.)
b) what the impact is to these individuals (fines, accusation of sex offences through public exposure and more dominantly ill health from unsanitary conditions, “holding it in” and generally not hydrating enough thro fear of needing to pee too frequently)
c) the public health issues (it gets washed down the storm drains and flows into the sea)

I know Girls Think Tank did some work to quantify the pee and poop for Downtown San Diego's unsheltered community (in support of our Portland Loos proposal to the City) and would be glad to share it with you. Be well and keep up the good work!

Jacky Vel
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Christine Schanes
12:47 AM on 08/19/2012
Jacky,

Thanks for your comment.

And thanks for all you and Girls Think Tank does to help hoomeless people!

I appreciate your suggestion that I write about the myth that homeless citizens prefer public urination and defication to using a bathroom.

By all means, please share the research GTT and you have done to qualify the public urination and defication in Downtown San Diego. It's about time we had enough bathrooms for all people, including tourists!

Please stay in touch,
Christine
01:25 PM on 08/10/2012
A perfect balance of rationality and compassion. Thank you for pointing out the problem with the mid-bench bars - I'd never really thought about it before. They annoyed me on occasion when I wanted to sit on a bench while waiting for a bus that was late, when the bench was already occupied by two people. Without the bar, those people could have slid closer so I could have also had a seat. Thinking about it now - I wonder if the bars were put there specifically to PREVENT using the bench as a bed. I have been asked by the transit cops to show my trolley pass while sitting n the C-street bench waiting for the trolley, and I've thought it mean-spirited than only people who can afford a transit pass could sit on that bench. We certainly don't seem to be a very compassionate people these days.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Christine Schanes
10:19 PM on 08/10/2012
Jeeni,

Thank you for your comment. And I appreciate your kind words.

I'm sorry about the challenges you've had with transit police.

But, you given me the opportunity to write about the fact that while some housed people call homeless people, "transients," homeless people could not possibly be "transients" because they are never allowed to sit in "transit centers!"

It would be great if we heard from a public seat designer as to the reason those bars were put on those benches.

What I do know is that whatever ther reason those mid-bars were put in place, they have the effect of perventing homeless people from sleeping on the benches.

Can you share something about yourself and how you learned so much about homelessness?

Christine
06:40 PM on 08/09/2012
Hi, Christine,

I think your phrase toward the bottom, "just cruel," hits the nail on the head. The ability to recline -- and sleep! -- becomes a major need in homelessness. Without the ability to do that in a safe and predictable manner, a homeless person can barely move forward an inch. Or he can at great cost, risking circulatory problems and other illnesses.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Christine Schanes
10:55 PM on 08/09/2012
Hi, CarolynDaisies,

Thanks for your email.

I agree with you. I just don't know why eveyrone can't see this? Do you?

Christine
07:35 AM on 08/11/2012
Maybe they haven't mentally walked themselves through a day or longer spent with every little thing, every next step, being an uncertainty. By the time evening comes, it's time to calculate where and how to sleep. But even before then, exhaustion can kick in. So homeless persons may have to calculate these things while they're already feeling ready to drop. Maybe a "walking through a day" piece would be helpful -- the "day" including little decisions such as where to sit, where to recline . . . . unless you've already done this. Just an idea. :)