Bastiat wrote:PostDispatch wrote:Opening a center called New Horizons, a 24-hour "safe haven" for the homeless near 23rd and Pine streets where, at any time, as many as 25 homeless people can bathe, watch television, play video games or apply for jobs and social services.
The centerpiece of the plan is a privately run effort at Centenary Church. The church offers breakfast and lunch to as many as 200 homeless people six days each week, and soon will offer dinner on three nights.
Wow are these people incredibly stupid or what!?!?!
I'm starting to consider homelessness as an option. Not only can I make better than minimum wage by asking clueless liberals for their change, but I get free meals, free showers and I can sit on my ass and watch television or play video games all day if I need a break from harassing decent citizens! Even better, I can fill out forms to receive other people's money while I sit on my ass and watch tv! Does this New Horizons place also have a fully-stocked open bar? Free alcohol would really complete the package!
I can't wait for the mayor's office to comment on the tripling of homelessness once this "plan of action" takes effect!
This would be HILARIOUS if it weren't so darn detrimental to the rebirth of downtown!
Here are some thoughts I came up with. Dissect, if you will.
Assumptions Concerning the Homeless Issue Downtown
1. Many suggest that the measure of success of a city is dependent on its downtown core.
2. One of the most noted threats to the continued growth of downtown is the homeless issue.
3. Homeless tend to congregate where homeless services are concentrated.
4. Generally speaking, the better the services are in a given area, the more homeless that will be attracted to it.
5. Although most homeless service providers may be well-meaning and noble, the metrics of success for soup kitchens and other homeless services seem diametrically opposed to the true goal of ending homelessness. IE, the more they serve, the more funding they can obtain and the greater their stature becomes. Who actually works to put themselves out of business?
Environmental Issues
1. The past judgement against the city police by the ACLU seems to hamper the ability to enforce loitering. Ref:
http://www.aclu-em.org/pressroom/2004pr ... rabuse.htm
2. The city states that they disproportionately pay the brunt of homeless services with the county coming off virtually scot-free.
3. The homeless issue is a NIMBY-type issue (Not In My Back Yard). It's a hot potato that no neighborhood relishes dealing with.
Proposed Strategies
1. First and foremost, homeless people should be treated with respect and be aided by society to help get them back on track. I believe no one wants to stop providing homeless services. The question is, where should these services be located to serve the greater good of the city and its residents?
2. NLEC
Although he does serve the homeless, I and others are aware that Larry Rice is driven by self-interest and does not necessarily have the welfare of the homeless and that of downtown in mind. He instructs the homeless that utilize his services to become ever visible and even outfits them with NLEC shirts. Basically, the man would be ecstatic if the homeless problem exploded downtown.
Given this, many want to demonize Larry Rice and the NLEC. They cry, "Can't the city cite eminent domain and tear the NLEC down?" This could be considered political suicide. One can't simply take away services when there is currently no better option as the opposing public opinion (Rice, media, etc) will grow louder than the cries of the eminent-domain backers.
The key is to not attack Larry Rice and the NLEC directly. Instead, a more wise strategy may be to provide better services elsewhere as the homeless will naturally gravitate toward service providers where they receive better treatment. If the homeless gravitate away from downtown, his stature and funding will decrease, eventually forcing him to sell the property.
3. Where should the concentrated services be located?
Why must the predominant amount of homeless services be located downtown? As far as I know, there is no law dictating this. If one were to agree with assumptions 1-5 above, quality homeless services could be established in a concentrated area elsewhere, dissipating the homeless problem downtown.
Why should the city care where homeless services and therefore homeless issues are located? If a concentration of homeless services were relocated to a more depressed section of the city, the negative consequences and potential hit to the tax base would be less.
Now this is where things could get interesting. If the concentration of services could also be located in an area that overlaps the city and the county, homeless funding could then be split between the city and county. Even if this weren't possible, the net gain in taxes due to downtown becoming more successful is greater than any loss in a depressed area.
Risks
1. Downtown service providers would not be happy to have their stature or importance lessened. Can mitigate by providing incentives to reputable downtown service providers (Not NLEC) in order to relocate or otherwise be involved in the new location(s).
Targeted Outcomes
1. The homeless receive better quality care.
2. The homeless problem dissipates downtown.
3. NLEC closes due to lack of funding.
4. Net tax base increases due to the ever strengthening of downtown and much revenue is saved due to a more equitable split of city/county homeless funding.
'plan' is to