Re: Residents say no to men's homeless shelter
From: David James Polewka (joseywales_at_outlaw.nospam)
Date: 01/20/05
- Next message: Jim Blair: "Re: Wages, Inflation and Social Security"
- Previous message: Jim Blair: "Re: Wages, Inflation and Social Security"
- In reply to: Jim Blair: "Re: Residents say no to men's homeless shelter"
- Next in thread: Kristian Lahdensuo: "Re: Residents say no to men's homeless shelter"
- Reply: Kristian Lahdensuo: "Re: Residents say no to men's homeless shelter"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:41:03 GMT
"Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote:
>"David James Polewka" <joseywales@outlaw.nospam> wrote:
>
>> Chapel Hill Herald, Jan 9, 2005, by Rob Shepard
>>
>> CHAPEL HILL -- Another group of local residents is saying
>> they don't want a new homeless shelter for men anywhere
>> near their neighborhood.
>>....
>> Among those reasons were their contention that many of the
>> men in the current shelter were substance abusers, and that
>> "substance-abusers are a nuisance, and sometimes a danger,
>> to adults, children and businesses."
>
>Hi,
>
>The current "homeless debate" in Madison is over building a "wet shelter"
>for drunks and druggies. There is currently enough room in homeless
>shelters, but some are run by churches or other organizations that require
>people to be sober if they want to stay there.
>
>Here it is considered a violation of civil rights to require people to
>sober up or not be high on drugs when they ask you to give them free
>shelter. But since we have not yet expanded the local anti-discrimination
>laws to protect the drunk and stoned, there is a push to build them a
>special shelter.
Protecting addicts from the consequences of their actions by giving them
what they want is called "enabling" (as you cited below). It enables
them to continue in their sickness. Everyone in the recovery business
knows that. That's why I wrote a letter last year saying the IFC could
cut costs by eliminating their kitchen--just give the addicts bread and
water.
>.....
>>
>> Dealing with the homeless problem by centralizing it
>> and throwing money at it would be my second choice.
>> My first choice would be to rescind the laws that
>> suppress the low-end of the housing market, and
>> stop suppressing the low-end of the job market by
>> abolishing the minimum-wage laws. This would
>> allow more people to be involved in dealing on
>> the problem.
>>
>>
>But that would deal only with the "affordable housing" aspect of the
>problem. But much of the homeless problem is not affordable housing but
>behavior. Remember the company that gave cash to homeless people to take
>part in some kind of study? They were criticized for being irresponsible
>and of harming the homeless by paying them in cash, because that just
>enabled them to buy more alcohol and drugs, making their problems worse.
I think decentralizing the thing would go a long way, because when
they're in groups, whether in prison or on the streets, they tend to
compare notes on the "tricks of the trade."
>This gets back to the old Milton Friedman vs Oscar Lewis debate. Are people
>poor because they lack money? Or do they lack money because they live in a
>culture of poverty?
>
>http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/poverty.txt
The 12-step meetings are everywhere, so they always have the
option of getting into recovery. Surrender doesn't typically
occur until the addict hits his "bottom." It would help if more
people knew about recovery and addiction.
=========================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=========================
- Next message: Jim Blair: "Re: Wages, Inflation and Social Security"
- Previous message: Jim Blair: "Re: Wages, Inflation and Social Security"
- In reply to: Jim Blair: "Re: Residents say no to men's homeless shelter"
- Next in thread: Kristian Lahdensuo: "Re: Residents say no to men's homeless shelter"
- Reply: Kristian Lahdensuo: "Re: Residents say no to men's homeless shelter"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
