Homelessness An Issue

[+sbell111]

...A thread trying to discuss an issue : Should cachers be warned about the presence of homeless persons ? turns into a tribunal on their personal attributes and how did they become homeless. Which turns into a diatribe regarding "their choices and their personal failings"...

I'll try to get back on subject, if you feel that I wasn't.

 

The cache owner should warn others via a note on the cache page. Further, he should contact the appropriate authority to have them removed, thereby protecting any cacher or non-cacher from becoming prey if any of the squatters are not peaceful.

[+reveritt]

... You right-wingers will be interested to read about how this movement began as a well-meaning, but misguided initiative of a liberal, Democratic administration.  ...

Don't you love it when people insist on explaining your politics to you? I argued for removing these people to get them the help they need. How can you pigeon-hole this position into the far-left or the far-right? Whatever.

Sorry--poor choice of words on my part. I didn't really intend that remark for you, personally. I meant that this is an example of a liberal social policy that didn't work out as planned--which will delight many right-wingers.

 

I don't classify your position as being either left- or right-wing. I merely feel that is based on assumptions that are most likely incorrect.

Edited June 11, 2005 by reveritt

[vagabond]

Heres one, GC22FA thats been around since 10/16/2001. A homless person named Danny lived very close to it, he even signed the log and kind of kept an eye out fot it. I don't know if Danny is still there but the cache is.

[+sbell111]

While I'm sure that I am using too broad of a brush here, I believe that there are basically three types of homeless people:

• Those people who are down-on-there-luck who would prefer to have a job and home. Through the use of the right services, these people can be helped. An intervention can help these people.
  
• People with some sort of mental disease. For my benefit, I'll dump the alcoholic and drug addicted ones in this group. This group can certainly benefit from available services. An intervention can help these people.
  
• Lazy people who don't want a job. They are homeless by choice. These people can't be helped. They have no right to squat. (No pun intended)
  

Edited June 11, 2005 by sbell111

[+sept1c_tank]

...You can't stereotype the homeless, they're just like you and me, except they don't have what we call home.   

BTW, if you want to be politically correct, the United Nations no longer uses the word homelessness. Instead of homelessness they now use the term houselessness. Looking at some statistics, it appears that a large percentage of houseless people are in that situation because of domestic violence or simply because their previous accomodations are no longer available for whatever reason.

 

Throughout my life, I have had occasion to associate with many houseless. I have even interviewed them for news publication. And, as I stated above, I have actually temporarily lived with them.

 

Maybe I've led a sheltered life (pun intended), but my experiences with houseless people all over the world have never been traumatic. Some have put themselves into that situation by choice, others have not.

 

The bottom line: feel empathy if you choose, but do not judge these people quickly; some are happy, some are not, but they are all human.

[KBoyKool]

Wow. I'm the only one who read the first post and though that someone should notify the land manager or cops to have the squatters removed.

...my cache is placed in the Nichols Arboretum

The Arb staff are aware of the situation

 

It seemed to me like the operators are aware of the homeless population.

[+Team Dromomania]

Did that 1/2 of them choose to have a "mental problem" or was it some sort of physiological/ biochemical brain chemistry distortion, (which incidentally is the proven cause of "mental problems"

 

I can only speak for the homeless people whom I personally know. Their mental problems are real. Only by court order do a couple of them take their drugs. In the case of my family member, he becomes enraged and has set fire to houses without his drugs. Of course, I don't for a minute believe that any of these people CHOOSE to have these medical problems.

 

Most strangers do not make me feel uneasy. Without knowing a person I WILL judge that person first by their actions and appearance. Most of my caching is now done away from home. In many cases I do not know what the areas I'm heading for are going to be like. If a cache is placed in an area which would make me feel uneasy about being there I'd like to be forwarned of that possiblity. Homeless camps, cliff climbing, known drug areas, nudist camps or beaches, certain parks after dark, and snake pits all would fall under this blanket statement. And if the owner of a cache should know such things exist around thier cache locations then a note stating as much would be very nice IMOHO.

 

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is also part of the diagnostic reference text as in compulsion to engage in activities to the exclusion of other activities, as in the case of cachers who get overly engrossed.

 

Heh heh. Where do you think I came up with "Dromomania"?

[Digital_Cowboy]

Wow.  I'm the only one who read the first post and though that someone should notify the land manager or cops to have the squatters removed.

I'd have to say that as long as they aren't making a nusance of themselves, and aren't bothering anyone, and aren't doing any damage to the property. Then why hassle them? I've known several Service Members who have ended up as homeless or would have without places like Veterans Village in Tampa, Fl. And yes, I know that there are plenty of "proffesional" homeless people out there, but there are also those who are homeless who don't want to be, but because of circumstances they are.

 

And IF they are actually doing something to help maintain the area around them, then they should be appuladed for their efforts and not critized.

 

Yes, I do know that there are also plenty out there who would just as soon "gut ya as look at ya." BUT you can run into that kind of a person just about anywhere you go these days.

 

Digital Cowboy

[Digital_Cowboy]

Wow.  I'm the only one who read the first post and though that someone should notify the land manager or cops to have the squatters removed.

I see no reason to assume that the arboretum management doesn't already know about the homeless people. Assuming that they do not, however, that leaves three choices:

• 
   
  
• A) Remove the homeless people in order to protect a tupperware box full of trinkets that is part of a game being played by comfortable, middle-class geeks.
   
  
• B ) Remove the Tupperware box full of trinkets to a new location so as not to disrupt people who are barely able to survive.
   
  
• C) Leave both in place, but maybe let geocachers know that the land is occupied so they can approach with caution (and bring some bananas).
   
  

While you are ponder those choices, ponder this, also. It is easy to look at homeless people and see them as not quite human--to think that they must be to blame for their own predicament--to think that you could never let yourself sink to that condition. But maybe--if the dice had rolled differently for you once or twice--you might not be so well off. Maybe less separates you from those people than you think.

 

I don't know what the future holds for me. Considering that I work in the I/T industry, and Republicans are running the country, I guess I could end up sleeping in a refrigerator box under a bridge some day. But I am relatively certain that I will never sink low enough to go with option A.

I think that "C" is the best choice. A friend of mine back in Tampa, Fl had a VERY good idea/suggestion for those who want money. Instead of just giving them money that most of "know" will "only" be used to by drugs or alchol with. Go to McD's, or BK's, etc. and get a book of gift certificates. Then when approached by someone who wants money. Give 'em a certificate.

[+sbell111]

... I've known several Service Members who have ended up as homeless or would have without places like Veterans Village in Tampa, Fl. ...

If it were me, I'd rather someone steered me toward getting the help I needed instead of ignoring the issue.

Edited June 18, 2005 by sbell111

[+tabulator32]

Homeless people are like the candlestick holders your Aunt Gladys got you a couple years ago.

 

They may not look so hot and YOU may not have any use for them but they aren't going to go away any time soon and we really don't know what do do with them.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

... that leaves three choices:

• 
   
  
• A) Remove the homeless people ...
   
  
• B ) Remove the Tupperware box  ...
   
  
• C) Leave both in place, ....
   
  

...  But maybe--if the dice had rolled differently for you once or twice--you might not be so well off.  Maybe less separates you from those people than you think. ...

Forgive me for mincing your post, but I think your point is still there.

 

It has been said, that one of the problems with getting homeless persons the services that, unlike you and I, they need is that they exist out of the system. It often takes intervention to push these people to these services.

 

Imagine a situation where these people are removed. They are taken to a shelter and are able to access services. Those that choose to accept these services get some hot meals and warm beds (and needed medical treatment). Some of those actually get back into an employable state. They get jobs (perhaps not great ones). Step by step, they get back on their feet and are no longer homeless.

 

By ignoring the problem and letting the people squat, how are they being served? Aren't they better off getting the services that they need to get back on their feet?

 

Maybe I'm not the heartless one in this thread..

 

And what IF they don't want to "come in for help?" Do we have the "right" to force them to do something that they don't want to do? And what about those who have come to learn that that "pretty nice lady" who is offering them a warm place to sleep, a hot meal and a check-up doesn't mean what she says? And that when "they're" done with them for the day drops them off 10, 20, 30, or more miles away from where they were living, and they've now lost the only "home" that they've come to know, but also all of their belongings? No, matter that to "us" that their "belongings" are nothing but "worthless trash."

 

To them it is "all" that they own in the world and it is as important and valuable to them as "our" belongings are to us. So who are we to sit in "judgement" of their life or quality thereof.

 

IF they pose no danger to themselves, or others, or the property on which they're living who are we to say that they are "wrong" for doing what they're doing?

 

Also why do they "have" to go to where the services are? Why can't services go to them?

 

The last year that I was in the Reserves back home in St. Pete, Fl. We didn't go out of state to do our two wks training. We set-up "camp" at Bay Pines and had as many of the area's homeless vet's come in for check-ups, and to let them know of the various services for them at the VA.

 

I would have to say that as long as they do NOT pose a danger to themselves, and they do NOT pose a danger to those around them, and are NOT causing any damage to the area that they are living in. That we should just leave them alone.

[Digital_Cowboy]

 

You are assuming I'm repulsed.  I'm not. Lets say I'm indifferent.  The overwhelming majority of homeless are there because of choices they made in life. I don't buy the "there but for the grace of God go I" line.

 

Some live that way because they prefer to. Most are drug or alchohol abusers. Many are high school dropouts. Nearly all have been cut off from their friends and families for one reason or another.

 

Yeah, we all have heard stories of the guy with the PhD who lives in his car. These wind up on the news because they ARE news.  If you stay off drugs and get an education and keep a good relationship with your family, you probably have a better chance of being struck by lightning than ending up homeless.  And by homeless I mean the chronically homeless, not someone who has to crash at a friend's house for 6 months.

 

Just because YOU don't "buy" the "there but for the grace of God go I." Does NOT make it any less true.

 

Also keep in mind that there are quite a FEW people/families out there that ARE only one or two paychecks, OR a major illness/surgery away from being homeless.

 

And trust me after working with the homeless vet's in the Tampa/St. Pete area for two wks I can tell you that the "there but for the grace of God go I" IS very true. As is the fact that a lot of them have been burned so many times by those claiming to want to help them that it is understandable that they would become cautious of trusting those who say that they want to help.

 

NOT everyone who is homeless is so because of choice or because they've "given" up on society, BUT because society has given up on them.

[Digital_Cowboy]

...

Forgive me for mincing your post, but I think your point is still there.

 

It has been said, that one of the problems with getting homeless persons the services that, unlike you and I, they need is that they exist out of the system.  It often takes intervention to push these people to these services.

 

Imagine a situation where these people are removed.  They are taken to a shelter and are able to access services.  Those that choose to accept these services get some hot meals and warm beds (and needed medical treatment).  Some of those actually get back into an employable state.  They get jobs (perhaps not great ones).  Step by step, they get back on their feet and are no longer homeless. 

 

By ignoring the problem and letting the people squat, how are they being served?  Aren't they better off getting the services that they need to get back on their feet?

 

Maybe I'm not the heartless one in this thread..

Actually, you did chop out the first sentence, which made part of my point, so I will make it again.

 

Do you really think that the people who maintain the arboretum don't already know that there is a homeless camp there? Don't you think that if the solution were as simple as you imply, the arboretum management wouldn't have had the homeless removed by now?

 

It's amazing how a person's station in life can change the perception of their weaknesses. If you make $100,000 a year, get hooked on drugs or alcohol, and check yourself into a facility to clean up, your friends pat you on the back. When you come back, you are admired for your courage in dealing with the problem.

 

If you are at the bottom of the social scale and get hooked on drugs or alcohol, there is no 28-day program, no health insurance, and those who are more fortunate blame you for your condition.

 

Many homeless people are mentally ill, and are not capable of acting in their own best interests. Some have been schizophrenics since early adulthood. Some were once productive members of society, but fell on hard times. If you have never suffered severe depression, you may not be aware of how debilitating it is.

 

The number of homeless in this country took an enormous jump in the 60s and 70s, when "deinstitutionalization" became the vogue in treating mental illness. Like many fads, it was taken too far. You right-wingers will be interested to read about how this movement began as a well-meaning, but misguided initiative of a liberal, Democratic administration. See this article.

 

For an interesting article on a better approach, read this article.

Let's also not forget that during that time that a LOT of Viet Nam vet's were coming home to cries of "baby killer" and being spat on by the very people that they were trying to defend and protect. And that a LOT of the homeless vet's are Viet Nam vet's. Men who when returning to "civilian" live did NOT get the the help that they needed upon being discharged from service.

[Digital_Cowboy]

BTW, if you want to be politically correct, the United Nations no longer uses the word homelessness. Instead of homelessness they now use the term houselessness. Looking at some statistics, it appears that a large percentage of houseless people are in that situation because of domestic violence or simply because their previous accomodations are no longer available for whatever reason.

 

Throughout my life, I have had occasion to associate with many houseless.  I have even interviewed them for news publication.  And, as I stated above, I have actually temporarily lived with them.

 

Maybe I've led a sheltered life (pun intended), but my experiences with houseless people all over the world have never been traumatic.  Some have put themselves into that situation by choice, others have not.

 

The bottom line: feel empathy if you choose, but do not judge these people quickly; some are happy, some are not, but they are all human. 

That was very well said.

[Digital_Cowboy]

... I've known several Service Members who have ended up as homeless or would have without places like Veterans Village in Tampa, Fl. ...

If it were me, I'd rather someone steered me toward getting the help I needed instead of ignoring the issue.

Veterans Village IS a place where homeless vets can go to have a roof over there heads as well as having the services of the VA made available to them.

 

That aside, IF a person is homeless, and is not a danger to themself, or to others, or are not causing any damage to the area that they are living in, does anyone really have the right to forceably move them? Just because "we" feel that it is in their "best interest" to do so?

[nobby.nobbs]

would they consider themselves homeless??

 

who says you can't count the tent etc as a home....and if they are ok mentally and physically then no we don't have the right to do anything. if they are not ok then it's not the right but the responsibilty to help them even if they don't want it. tough one to judge.

 

we all live our lives differently and we need to respect that choice.

[Digital_Cowboy]

would they consider themselves homeless??

 

who says you can't count the tent etc as a home....and if they are ok mentally and physically then no we don't have the right to do anything. if they are not ok then it's not the right but the responsibilty to help them even if they don't want it. tough one to judge.

 

we all live our lives differently and we need to respect that choice.

Good point, or say a person buys an empty lot. And instead of building a house they pitch a tent on their property. Does that make them "homeless" because they choose to live in a tent verus' an actual house???

[+Marcie/Eric]

would they consider themselves homeless??

 

who says you can't count the tent etc as a home....and if they are ok mentally and physically then no we don't have the right to do anything. if they are not ok then it's not the right but the responsibilty to help them even if they don't want it. tough one to judge.

 

we all live our lives differently and we need to respect that choice.

Good point, or say a person buys an empty lot. And instead of building a house they pitch a tent on their property. Does that make them "homeless" because they choose to live in a tent verus' an actual house???

Say a person buys an empty lot, some stranger comes along and pitches a tent. Just because he has a "home" on uninhabited property, does that give him a right to be there?

 

There is no unowned property in the United States. It is owned by the Federal Gov't. Sate Gov't, a corporation or bank, private company or person. No one has a right to squat on anyone else's property without expressed permission, this includes the government who owns most of the streets, alleys, parks, overpasses, beaches, etc etc.

 

A homeless person is someone without a home. Just because you occupy a space on another entity's property does not make it your home or give a right to tennantship.

 

I can't believe people stick up for rampant homelessness. Someone said something regarding a homeless person not doing damage to their occupied space.. Sorry to sound blunt and unsympathetic, but a homeless person being in a place is enough 'damage' for me and my family.

 

-

PS: I'm still for forced relocation of homeless to labor camps.

Edited June 19, 2005 by Marcie/Eric

[+sbell111]

Good point, or say a person buys an empty lot. And instead of building a house they pitch a tent on their property. Does that make them "homeless" because they choose to live in a tent verus' an actual house???

Changing the core criteria does not make your point any more valid. If they owned the land, they would not be squating. If they are living on the land illegally, they should be removed. If they accept help that is offered, wonderful, but if they do not, it doesn't meen they should stay.

 

Your 'Grace of God' argument, also doesn't hold up. I once knew a guy that owned a car wash. He would hire homeless people to work at the car wash. He only had a few simple rules.

• Be polite to customers.
  
• Don't be late.
  
• Don't no-show without getting word to him.
  
• Don't show up under the influence.
  

He didn't pay much, but it gave those individuals who wanted to get on their feet a chance to do so. Those that put in the effort, got to make a living. There were many that didn't. My point is, no one has to be homeless. There are jobs out there. They may be crappy minimum wage jobs, but they are there.

 

We make our own luck, for the most part. I refuse to accept that the homeless are homeless and nothing can be done.

[+sbell111]

Let's also not forget that during that time that a LOT of Viet Nam vet's were coming home to cries of "baby killer" and being spat on by the very people that they were trying to defend and protect. And that a LOT of the homeless vet's are Viet Nam vet's. Men who when returning to "civilian" live did NOT get the the help that they needed upon being discharged from service.

Nothing draws my ire like someone using the fact that he is a vet as an excuse for him not taking any responsibility for his life. There is help out there and I have never met a vet who wasn't aware of the VA.

[Digital_Cowboy]

Good point, or say a person buys an empty lot.  And instead of building a house they pitch a tent on their property.  Does that make them "homeless" because they choose to live in a tent verus' an actual house???

Changing the core criteria does not make your point any more valid. If they owned the land, they would not be squating. If they are living on the land illegally, they should be removed. If they accept help that is offered, wonderful, but if they do not, it doesn't meen they should stay.

 

Your 'Grace of God' argument, also doesn't hold up. I once knew a guy that owned a car wash. He would hire homeless people to work at the car wash. He only had a few simple rules.

• 
   
  
• Be polite to customers.
   
  
• Don't be late.
   
  
• Don't no-show without getting word to him.
   
  
• Don't show up under the influence.
   
  

He didn't pay much, but it gave those individuals who wanted to get on their feet a chance to do so. Those that put in the effort, got to make a living. There were many that didn't. My point is, no one has to be homeless. There are jobs out there. They may be crappy minimum wage jobs, but they are there.

 

We make our own luck, for the most part. I refuse to accept that the homeless are homeless and nothing can be done.

 

True, but one could still argue that they're "homeless" because they do not live in what is "reconized" as being a "home." And I would [b}NOT[/b] be surrpised that IF for whatever reason someone was to try and to raise a family under those circumstances that some "well meaning" person wouldn't be "dropping a dime" on them to the local child welfare office. Based solely on the fact that he wasn't raising his family in an actual house. . .

 

And what would you have done with them IF they didn't accept the help that might be offered to them? And IF they're on public land then (providing that they are citizens of the USA) don't they have the right to be there???

 

That may be your opinion on it, but trust me it does. As I've already stated there are a LOT of people/families out there who ARE just one or two paychecks away from being homeless. Sadly in this country we have way TOO many people/familes who don't have enough healthcare coverage. This is evidanced by all of the various companies that are offering "discount" cards for perscriptions.

 

Also what about those who are on a fixed income and have to choose between their perscriptions, food, or rent???

 

There are a LOT of things that can happen to render a person (or family) homeless that ARE beyond the control of person (family) that is left homeless.

[Digital_Cowboy]

Nothing draws my ire like someone using the fact that he is a vet as an excuse for him not taking any responsibility for his life.  There is help out there and I have never met a vet who wasn't aware of the VA. 

 

Granted, yes all Vets are or should be aware of the VA and the programs that it has to help them out. But let's also NOT forget that a lot of the Viet Nam and Viet Nam era Vets feel as IF they have been "burned" by the system already and aren't likely to trust them for helping them out of their current situation.

 

And given that understandably a LOT of them don't trust the "system" anymore it shouldn't be that hard to understand that they'd be reluctent or even unwilling to turn to that system for help.

 

Or what about someone who has been living on the streets for quite a while and has a lot of property, should they be "forced" to leave it behind because it won't fit where they're going???

 

And again what IF we have a Vet (regardless of the era) who is living in the woods, and has made a nice "life" for himself. In which he is NOT hurting himself, or others or the ground that he is living on. Then what is the harm in allowing him to continue to do so???

[+reveritt]

Once, about thirty years ago, I spent a sleepless night in Port Authority bus terminal in New York City. It was Christmas, and I was on my way back to RI after visiting my mother in PA. I had to change buses in New York. As it turned out, my connecting bus had been cancelled, and there was no bus until the following morning. I was flat broke, and had no recourse but to spend the night in the terminal.

 

A lot of people were traveling that Christmas evening--soldiers in uniform, mothers with kids in tow, elderly couples--all with packages. The food vendors were doing a brisk business, and food smells were everywhere. Christmas carols were being played.

 

As the hour grew later, the traffic died down to nothing, the shops closed, the music stopped--and the homeless people began to appear. There were dozens of them. There were both men and women, and they ranged in age from early twenties to quite elderly. Many appeared to be in poor health, and a large percentage were clearly mentally disturbed--muttering, shouting, and exhibiting compulsive behavior. One man apparently thought he had bugs crawling on him, and became very agitated and picked at his skin, trying to remove them.

 

This shadowy company descended like vultures on the trash cans to harvest food scraps and newspapers. There appeared to be considerable urgency. I thought this was just competition for the best tidbits, but I soon learned there was another reason.

 

Policemen presently began herding everyone (me, too) into one area of the terminal, which was then shut off with steel gates. Resources in this area were very limited, and there was no further access to the trash barrels near the fast food shops. There were rest rooms, however. I did not see the women's room, but the men's room was warmer than the chilly concourse--a fact well-known to the regulars. The floor was covered, wall-to-wall, with men trying to sleep under newspapers. The crowding made use of the facilities impossible, and urination was best relegated to the lower level where the buses park. Not everyone bothered to make the trip.

 

I spent a cold and unpleasant night observing these unfortunate people. I could not help thinking that they must have once been wide-eyed, happy children on Christmas mornings long ago, when their lives held promise, and anything seemed possible. How had they come to be in this condition? Every story is different, of course, but there was much evidence of serious mental illness, and alcoholism.

 

We don't like to look at homeless people. We hurry by them without making eye contact. We want them removed so we don't have to see them. We would like to pretend that they don't exist, but when we can't do that, we pretend that their condition is their own fault. We smugly tell each other that we could never sink so low, and they could find work if they wanted it.

 

I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think it's that simple. People don't live like this because they want to, or because they are lazy. Most of the people I observed appeared to be incapable of helping themselves. All of them appeared to be unemployable.

[+Team Dromomania]

I was doing some repair work in a local shoe store when my conversation with the female store owner turned to the "new" homeless problem then appearing in town. There was one middle aged lady among the homeless who spent most of her daytime hours roving about town. This lady comes walking down the steet and the store owner went outdoors to offer a pair of shoes to her. The lady growled, "If they are made of human skin I'll take them, otherwise I don't want them!"

 

The store owner suddenly got a fear of her and even locked the store doors when that lady walked by. The lady died a few years later having live - by choice - on the streets.

 

In my mind it doesn't matter if you were a VET, rich, black, girl, or whatver - if you refuse to accept help you are no longer a homeless person but rather a bum.

 

I would like to avoid areas which support bums. If a cache is placed in one of these areas then a note stating that fact would be nice in the cache's web page.

[nobby.nobbs]

the trouble is you're lumping lots of people into the same bracket. would you say all of one ethnic group were drug dealers? no then why have all homeless people got to be bad?

is living in a tent different from a teepee? so the whole native american population are homeless and should be forcibly made to live in houses and abide by the white mans rules/laws etc.....oh but that's pretty much already been tried.

 

there various types of homeless are too diverse to be clumped together.

 

i hope you never experience mental health probs so severe that you loose your touch with society. yes there are those that bring it on themselves via drugs etc.

 

many of your popular folk hero's lived a life that you would categorise as being homeless. how the west was won? by a bunch of people who you think should have been forced to live in a house like proper decent folk......

[+Blind Avocado]

Good point, or say a person buys an empty lot.  And instead of building a house they pitch a tent on their property.  Does that make them "homeless" because they choose to live in a tent verus' an actual house???

Changing the core criteria does not make your point any more valid. If they owned the land, they would not be squating. If they are living on the land illegally, they should be removed. If they accept help that is offered, wonderful, but if they do not, it doesn't meen they should stay.

 

Your 'Grace of God' argument, also doesn't hold up. I once knew a guy that owned a car wash. He would hire homeless people to work at the car wash. He only had a few simple rules.

• Be polite to customers.
  
• Don't be late.
  
• Don't no-show without getting word to him.
  
• Don't show up under the influence.
  

He didn't pay much, but it gave those individuals who wanted to get on their feet a chance to do so. Those that put in the effort, got to make a living. There were many that didn't. My point is, no one has to be homeless. There are jobs out there. They may be crappy minimum wage jobs, but they are there.

 

We make our own luck, for the most part. I refuse to accept that the homeless are homeless and nothing can be done.

This is exactly right. A friend of mine who is a Pastor makes a habit of going to downtown L.A. to pass out food to the homeless there. One day he mentioned that there were over 100 beds at the Salvation Army; all they had to do is pass a drug test. The S.A. drug test only needs to show they have not taken any drugs for 3 days. Not one of them said they could do it. As one who has been there I have very little sympathy for them, and I never give them money. Instead I give to the S.A. who has done more for the homeless then all the liberal "progressives" combined.

[Digital_Cowboy]

I was doing some repair work in a local shoe store when my conversation with the female store owner turned to the "new" homeless problem then appearing in town.  There was one middle aged lady among the homeless who spent most of her daytime hours roving about town.  This lady comes walking down the steet and the store owner went outdoors to offer a pair of shoes to her.  The lady growled, "If they are made of human skin I'll take them, otherwise I don't want them!"

 

The store owner suddenly got a fear of her and even locked the store doors when that lady walked by.    The lady died a few years later having live - by choice - on the streets. 

 

In my mind it doesn't matter if you were a VET, rich, black, girl, or whatver - if you refuse to accept help you are no longer a homeless person but rather a bum.

 

I would like to avoid areas which support bums.  If a cache is placed in one of these areas then a note stating that fact would be nice in the cache's web page.

And what about the mentally challenged person who is homeless because his or her health insurance ran out and the facility that they were living at rather then trying to find alternate means of paying their bills just "turned them out on the street?"

 

Are they "bums" simply because of the fact that they have a mental illness that makes it impossible for them to lead anything even remotely like a "normal" life? Are they to be considered "bums" even IF they are on meds which do little if anything to give them a "normal" life?

 

I do not dispute the fact that there are a LOT of what can best be discribed as a professional "homeless" person, i.e. someone who knows that they're likely to "earn" more money by standing at an exit with a "Will work for food" sign then working a "9-5" type of job. BUT there are a LOT of people who are homeless because of circumstances beyond their control. And it doesn't make them "lazy" or "bums" because of it. And yes, even IF one chooses NOT to beleive it , it CAN happen to just about anyone at anytime.

 

And again I would have to say that as long as they do NOT pose a danger to themselves, or to others, or are causing damage to the land that they're "living" on then just leave them alone.

 

I'm not sure who it was that made the comment that "squaters don't have rights." ALL I can say is that IF we're going to use that "standard" then each and everyone us who is NOT decended from the Native American Indians had better start looking for a new place to live and to call home. As the Pilgrams were the original "squaters," as the Native American Indians WERE the first ones here. . . Think about that for awhile.

[Digital_Cowboy]

the trouble is you're lumping lots of people into the same bracket. would you say all of one ethnic group were drug dealers? no then why have all homeless people got to be bad?

is living in a tent different from a teepee? so the whole native american population are homeless and should be forcibly made to live in houses and abide by the white mans rules/laws etc.....oh but that's pretty much already been tried.

 

there various types of homeless are too diverse to be clumped together.

 

i hope you never experience mental health probs so severe that you loose your touch with society. yes there are those that bring it on themselves via drugs etc.

 

many of your popular folk hero's lived a life that you would categorise as being homeless. how the west was won? by a bunch of people who you think should have been forced to live in a house like proper decent folk......

And let's not forget that the "White man" did his damnedest to wipe out the Native American Indian. Which I think is quite "funny" given that "we" condemed Hitler for trying to wipe out the Jew, yet "we" did the same dadgum thing to the American Indian. Why is/was that ok, but not Hitler's actions? Or any of the other "racial" clensings(sp) that have taken place in other places around the world???

 

Something to think about. . .

[+sept1c_tank]

You used the H word.

[+Blind Avocado]

And let's not forget that the "White man" did his damnedest to wipe out the Native American Indian.  Which I think is quite "funny" given that "we" condemed Hitler for trying to wipe out the Jew, yet "we" did the same dadgum thing to the American Indian.  Why is/was that ok, but not Hitler's actions?  Or any of the other "racial" clensings(sp) that have taken place in other places around the world???

 

Something to think about. . .

I'm sorry, that is simply not true. If the white man had “did his damnedest” to wipe them out, they would all be gone. I'm sorry for going off topic, but I could not let a statement that ignorant pass.

Edited June 20, 2005 by Blind Avocado

[+sbell111]

This thread went off-topic long ago. Surely, the discussion is at an unbreakable impasse. Nothing new is likely to be introduced. What do you say we kill this one off?

[Keystone]

Perhaps five or so of the posts on this page have anything to do with geocaching. If folks want to debate issues about homelessness, please open a thread in the Off-Topic Forum. The thread has remained open long enough -- perhaps too long -- to give everyone an opportunity to express their views on the issue of encountering homeless people while geocaching. So, I am closing this thread.