(December 20, 2011 at 4:24 am)Rhythm Wrote: I wish I had some idea as to how to deal with homelessness. I truly do, even if only in St. Pete. I don't have any answers there or I'd probably be out campaigning for my idea. What I can say is that police officers taking a knife to a homeless persons tent sitting on city property is no way to deal with the situation. Writing laws that criminalize homelessness (however carefully written as to avoid being blatantly obvious) isn't any way to deal with the situation. They had the city govt ground to a standstill for awhile, one of them was smart enough to call it a protest. The city got around that as well (though I can't remember how). The point is that the city of St. Pete (and Pensacola as well, it seems) is not trying to deal with the situation at all. They're trying to drive homeless people out of the city. These people are residents, mind you, the city government is supposed to be accountable to them, in theory, it is supposed to be working with their best interests in mind as residents of the city. St. Pete's govt also shouted down anyone who would dare to speak up against such a thing (not that there were a lot of people speaking up honestly, beachfront condos with a tent city in the middle on a six or seven mile wide peninsula..) I can't be more blunt than that.
The people who spoke out against this tent city the loudest did not own the property that it was on. They owned expensive homes on the periphery. The idea of a tent city, and the sheer number of homeless people we had wandering around an area they thought they would buy dirt cheap and redevelop (it was destitute) was too much for them to handle. They feared for their pockets books, and they had friends in govt (some of them didn't need friends, because they were the government officials in this case).
I'm in no better a position as yourself in regards to how I think homelessness should be dealt with. I have opposing moral views - one of humanism and one of progressive socialism. I didn't ask you the question to demean your position, I was just curious to see if you had an opinion more workable than what the city government had proposed.
(December 20, 2011 at 4:24 am)Rhythm Wrote: These people are residents, mind you, the city government is supposed to be accountable to them, in theory, it is supposed to be working with their best interests in mind as residents of the city.
They are residents in the sense that they refer to their 'chosen' location on a piece of public property their "home-base". Residency is generally determined by property ownership as far as I was aware.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
