Sunday, April 26, 2015

The Homeless Attitude?

Is it just me? The Times- Standard chatted with a few homeless folks from the Devil's Playground about plans for a legal camping spot. The way I read it, they're not happy or grateful an effort is being made to help them.

One fellow says, "I’d like to get low-income housing. But they’re sitting in there saying in the City Council meeting that they’re going to help provide us housing. I want to call their bluff. I don’t want to go to the MAC center, I want to get a home, you know?”. 

Reads to me as I want a house NOW! I get the impression he's not willing to do much, if anything, to get his own situation turned around.

Another fellow, Alex, seems a little better. But even he complains the homeless aren't given enough respect: “Having people flip you off, throw trash at you, say ‘Oh, here’s some change’ and just throw it at you and expect you to just pick it up, that’s kind of degrading really,”

Yes, I suppose it is. Every "job" has its downsides, huh? 

Alex does seem to have a pretty good handle on the others he hangs with: "The other reason he said people aren’t seeking services is that some of them 'like it back here. Simply the fact that they’re ruled by anybody but by themselves,' he said. 'They live for themselves they don’t like being told what to do.'. 

I'll have to admit, I can't argue with that, and at least they're not demanding anything, to hear Alex tell it.

But, if someone is considering giving me charity, I have enough pride that I wouldn't demand more. Maybe it's just the way it was written? Maybe if those guys were actually talking to me, I might not get the not- so- good impression I got from the story.


At 1:54 PM, Blogger Joe Blow said...

Who says it's "charity," Fred? You?

At 2:03 PM, Blogger Fred Mangels said...

I suppose. Charity is giving to others. Do you argue with that? Or do you think people have a right to a house that others have to pay for?

At 3:03 PM, Blogger Evie Gustafson said...

They sound like they don't trust the city to do right by them. 3rd generation homelessness will do that to a person. They are just being shoved around and not really getting a hand up. So much has been done to make tiny homes now that maybe that would be the solution. At least they are trying to do something besides talk.

At 4:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

dormitory, barracks, curfew.

At 5:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Job=income=housing=food. Try it sometime.

At 6:49 PM, Blogger Anthony Oaul said...

As for the recent push to create a "legal campground" for the homeless, while the city/county make long term plans to help them out? There are 2 city owned lots between the Warfinger Building and the Lumber Yard; one bare vacant lot, the other a fenced, old boat storage lot. If we are going to spend monies on creating a campground, why does it need to be a "throw-away" campground? Spend the monies to improve these 2 lots for camping, and when the homeless are finally housed, use the same location as a city owned public camp/RV area; Parks & Recreation Dept could collect fees from travelers, once it is open for business. The marina office at the Warfinger Building could manage the Camp/RV park. Also, while the lots are used for homeless camping, we solve the problem of putting the "temporary campsite" too close to residential or Old Town, yet still close enough to Social Services offices.
At least the monies would not be permanently tossed down the proverbial toilet; Eureka would have a city-owned Camp/RV park that would generate fees. These properties would be easily, and quickly, developed with shower/toilet facilities and even cooking facilities; facilities that a future Camp/RV Park would be able to use. Also, these properties would be easy to patrol; law enforcement officers routinely fuel up only blocks away at the commercial fuel station.

At 9:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not a bad idea. Funny, I was looking through a california history book today and ran across pictures of "tent city" in coronado, across from San Dieg. The city would rent hundreds of tents for 4.50.a week. Tents included a simple wood fkoor, a cot , chair and a light bulb.

Would it work here? Remember the south jetty? There is no way that people like that are going to pay 4.50 a week for a tent. They were an anarchistisic type of people that wanted their space. What were the squatters called that were some of the original hippies in SoHum? The name escapes me, but they came in school buses and got ran out of town pretty darn quick. Were they the diggers? Anyways, theRe will always be homeless, anarchist types around. So I hope everyone doesn't get freaked out if everyone doesn't sign up for tent city eureka

At 9:37 AM, Blogger Joe Blow said...

State mandated low housing is NOT charity.

At 9:48 AM, Blogger Fred Mangels said...

From the receiver's end, I should think it should be considered charity. It's certainly not in the exact meaning of the word, as charity is voluntarily given. Most of those paying for low cost housing might not be voluntarily paying for it.

But from a receiver's end, I would think of it as charity. When I was on County Medical Services Program- just as with Obamacare now- I considered it akin to charity and thus wouldn't complain that I'm not getting more. I'm grateful for what I was, and am, getting.


Post a Comment

<< Home