Unsubstantiated....as usual

The things people will take as "fact" without any verification never cease to amaze me. It's as if people already "know" what they want to know.

Case in point...an article in the LA Times this morning about squatters living in an old TV studio in Hollywood. Here's a quote: "Transients are already drawn to the area by services that include free food, medical care and a needle exchange."

Simply put, there is no evidence to support this statement. It's just what people want to believe, one more excuse not to help.

Another Modest Proposal...

In the spirit of Jonathan Swift and his A Modest Proposal, I've found a solution to two problems nagging at the Long Beach city council.

Today (April 30, 2009) the Los Angeles Times reported a possible scheme to transform the Queen Mary from questionable asset to profit center: a transformation that would set her sailing again.

At the same time, the city continues to grapple with the growing issue of homelessness. Indeed, many in the city's neighborhoods are getting worked up over the city's proposed land deal with the Defense Department to obtain control of the Schroeder Hall site for use as a police sub-station, with the stipulation that a facility to assist the homeless be added next to the city's health department in a light industrial area down the street.

Why not kill two birds with one stone? Use the old Queen as an enticement to the city's homeless--lure them on board with the promise of a better life--bring them out to sea (international waters, of course) and pitch them overboard!

It's a solution old Jonathan would likely approve of...and might even become the subject of a tawdry made-for-TV movie (another possible source of income for beleaguered Long Beach!)

Prop 63 (MHSA) works! Vote "NO" on 1E

Too close for comfort?

Vote NO here too!

Vote NO!

People count too....

Now it looks like the Neighborhoods First folks here in Long Beach are retooling as "Neighborhoods Count." Isn't that interesting?

The misinformation that fuels their interest is astounding, and the scare tactics they are using to get their way with an easily manipulated city council are unfair. But hey, without a real voice and few to defend them, those with mental illness are an easy target. Like the bully on the playground that picks on the least-defended, these folks ought to be ashamed. Do they really expect us to believe that THEY are the victims in this? Why are there people on the streets at all in what is touted as the "richest country in the world?"

Ticket to ride....

I have really mixed feelings about an article in today's LA Times about the city of Lancaster providing bus tickets for the homeless to get out of town. Sure, on some level it makes sense to provide people an opportunity to return to places where they have the support of family and friends. But is that what's really happening?

The article says little or nothing about mental illness. Time and time again we've seen "ticket to ride" programs fail because people with mental illness have been shunned by traditional support networks: that's why they're HOMELESS TO BEGIN WITH! Shipping them out of town isn't going to solve anything...it's simply a way of saying "we don't want to deal with this."

It reminds me of the 1976 film about German Jewish refugees on board the S.S. St. Louis. The whole voyage was an anti-Jewish propaganda scheme to "prove" to the world that no one wanted the Jews. It feels that way sometimes, with the homeless, and particularly those who have mental illnesses: no one really wants them...they just want them to go away.

Hate crimes

In 1994 California Governor Pete Wilson vetoed the Legislature's addition of the homeless to the categories of people who can be considered victims of hate crimes. Fifteen years later, Los Angeles County supervisors unanimously recommended that sheriff's deputies, prosecutors and the county Human Relations Commission start tracking and reporting attacks on the homeless as hate crimes.

With concerns about "an emerging pattern of homeless individuals being an easy target of violence in our community," Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky sponsored the proposal with Supervisor Don Knabe.

It's a step in the right direction.

(from LA Times story, March 25, 2009)

More than "facts"

A recent article from the Associated Press did a major disservice to persons with mental illness. Assembling a packet of "facts" into a piece that was clearly designed as a scare tactic, the article basically villified people with mental illness as being uncontrolably violent.

It reminds me of something I heard a long time ago: "Even the Devil can quote the scriptures." The point, of course, is that anyone can string together various facts that are unrelated, create a false relationship, and force whatever point they are already convinced is true.

The truth is that people with mental illness are more often the VICTIMS of violence than they are the perpetrators, and that when variables are adjusted, violent acts against others are most often the result of drug and alcohol use/abuse....a fact that was conveniently left out of the AP piece.

The only thing the article does show (and, unfortunately, it was picked up by internet provider Yahoo and printed in local papers too) was how hungry society is for a scapegoat, and that, once again, those without a voice are the easiest target.

Ivory Tower BS

Well, what can I say? Over and over again the "system" proves it cares not a lick for the people it professes to help.

Every conversation I've ever had or witnessed in the boardrooms of government, agencies, organizations...whatever...was, at best, about people and not for them. I really don't care what people say, what justifications they use, it's all a lot of BS. When you talk about people you objectify them. When you justify actions that result in the harm (or lack of help) of the marginalized, you are doing one thing: justifying yourself.

I don't know the answer. But in a city that has a "10 year plan to end homelessness" that's been gathering dust on a shelf of years while people are dying, well, it becomes pretty obvious that talk is cheap.

Worth a thousand words

Not so simple mathematics

It's something I don't understand. There are those who say we already offer enough help for people who are homeless (or even too much). But if that's the case, then why are there still people who are homeless? If our funding, our programs, our help is "enough," why are there still people out there who need help?

Can't THEY do the math?

Is it simply a matter of fact, as some would have us believe, that those who remain homeless WANT it to be that way?

I suppose it has to do with goals, and logic. Some feel that assistance ought to be offered at a level that helps society's most marginalized to just get by...to barely make it. But there are others who believe that assistance can actually lead to transformation...and in the end, a society that embraces all people and the gifts they have to share.

Worth reading

This is from David Kalke at Central City Lutheran Mission in San Bernardino:

What are Your Images of Homelessness?

When you think of a "homeless person," what image comes to your mind? The media and sometimes our own church news have created an image of a homeless person in America that is not always accurate. Is the created image clear in your mind? Has the image created someone you can trust? Or someone you should fear? Does the image welcome the homeless into your church kitchen? Or does the image suggest you keep him out.

When we began our sanctuary at the Mission program on January 4th, we had some of those images. Board members had some of those images. "Pastor, what about safety?" "Pastor, if they see our computers, are they safe?" "Pastor, what our children? Will they be safe?" And the questions reflected images that all of us carry because of what the media and uncaring politicians have created in our minds.

Does your image include a homeless man who is homeless because of illness? One of the men who came to our shelter had recently been diagnosed with HIV and had subsequently lost his job and therefore his apartment. Living in the streets, he had no idea where to turn. When we discovered his illness, he was transitioned into one of our 16 homes where he is now part of a continuum of care that includes shelter, nutrition, community and medical advice. He and our neighborhood are safer because he has a place to live.
Does your image include a twenty-year old young man in school? While California provides great benefits to go to school, i.e. tuition, assistance with books and fees, housing is not in that package. A part-time job is not enough to pay for a month's rent. He had to choose between continuing his education and being homeless or an apartment and a life-time of low wages. He chose to continue his education. He now joins with three other young men in school living in St. Matthias House, adjacent to the Mission, where young, homeless men are provided shelter as long as they remain in school. Our sanctuary has three other young men in similar situations.

Does your image include working men? Several of the men in our sanctuary are working, but do not earn enough to pay for an apartment. Close to 35% of the men in our sanctuary have jobs but do not earn enough or cannot get an apartment because of a bad credit history, a recent jail sentence or a recent divorce or separation. A shortage of low-income housing in San Bernardino means these men are homeless.
Does your image include a victim of the recent fires? Several of our residents were employed in the mountains before the fires. The fires damaged their work places or their work places closed due to a lack of business following the fires. They lost their low-paying jobs, and became homeless. Coming back into the valley in search of work and shelter, they find themselves at our doorsteps.

Does your image include a man whose family is staying with maternal relatives while they seek to find an apartment that they as a family can afford in a city where housing prices rise much faster than wages? Several of our men have jobs and families but are seeking to save enough for the first month's rent and a deposit. Hardly a family image, right?

We have a growing challenge in America around homelessness. As housing prices rise and jobs or salaries diminish, more and more of the working poor are finding themselves homeless. Cities across the nation are adopting measures that work against the homeless and agencies working with the homeless are not supported.

In San Diego, for example, a recent ordinance makes homelessness "illegal." Following a third citation for being homeless, a mandatory jail sentence of six months is given. A similar law in Santa Ana is being challenged in court by the Catholic Worker as a discriminatory action against the homeless. In San Bernardino, ordinances prohibit agencies from assisting the homeless in public areas, such as food distribution in public parks.

The homeless. A growing number of people. Negative perceptions. Increasing laws and regulations nationwide that discriminate against the homeless.

Churches and non-profits are being challenged to find creative ways to both serve the homeless and to challenge systems that do not meet their needs. Churches are being challenged nation-wide to open their doors and become sanctuaries for victims of economies and policies that have locked them out.

Last Saturday I went to the Mission in the late afternoon to drop off the twenty dozen eggs, four gallons of milk, four loaves of bread, butter and nine pounds of bacon that would be our Sunday breakfast. As I approached the Mission, the laughter and shouts of activity became louder.

As I turned the corner, I could see young homeless men playing basketball with kids in our neighborhood. The men had found children to care for and the children had found adult role models. A new urban community had gathered.

As I entered the kitchen, two of our residents invited me to stay for dinner. They had cooked for themselves and for the kids. Two turkeys, potatoes, vegetables and fruit were on the menu. The hardened faces of the chronic homeless because of mental challenges had softened to smiles and faces showing comfort and relaxation. The fear of the cold night had disappeared. A sanctuary had been found and they were at worship celebrating the feast of life given to all by our common Creator.

Images of homelessness need to change in America. Church persons especially are called to speak truth in a context of misperceptions, lies and attacks. CCLM staff invites you to come visit our sanctuary. Come and share a meal. Our staff is open to come and speak to your council or preach to your congregation about our images of homelessness and share plans for how we can work together to better serve the poor.

Thank you, Steve Lopez!

Once again Steve Lopez (Los Angeles Times) shows himself to be a friend of those with mental illness who are homeless and in need of an advocate. His article in the Sunday LA Times ("Using Tax Dollars to Turn Lives Around is Money Well Spent, March 15) is spot on...recognizing that sometimes it feels to taxpayers as if they are throwing money away on liberal-minded programs with nothing to show for them, when in reality the benefits to individuals and society far outweigh and outlast any of the expenses, and are actually less expensive than traditional "treatment" (ie, repeated incarceration, hospitalization, etc.).

In a few short weeks the voters of California will be asked whether they want to go along with an ill-conceived idea to balance the State budget that includes a redirection of much-needed mental health services funding (Proposition 1A). To do so would set a sad and dangerous precedent. Steve Lopez reminds us that we have an opportunity to say "no" and to speak up for those who are arguably the most marginalized among us.

No easy answers

Hmmmmm.....

As I look out my apartment window I can see that there's someone sleeping in the parking lot next door. I saw him a little earlier...he seemed to be under the influence of something...urinating on the wall. Maybe now he's sleeping something off.

It's but a few feet that separate us--me in my apartment and this man sleeping in a parking lot.

I wondered about solutions...about what it would be like to open my own home to him, and whether that would "solve" anything. I thought about all the services available in town, how hard people are working to help, and how the problems that plague these folks persist.

There are no easy answers. There is no quick fix. There is no band-aid solution. But this I know: these people are a visible sign of failure, and it is not their own...it is society's: self-centered capitalism, unbridled human greed. These human beings, gifted and valuable, are a sign that the system is broken.

But what will?

The dark side of scarcity

The Los Angeles Times posted an interesting article this morning (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cafeteria8-2009mar08,0,4459922.story) about a man who ate regularly in the cafeteria of a Costa Mesa college. He was known for eating almost every meal there, apparently because of the bargain price. For years he sat with students, doling out advice and taking advantage of the inexpensive food.

As it turns out, he was a multi-millionaire, and when he died recently (at age 79) he left his entire forture to the school. They're yet sure how many millions: he made his money by buying and selling oil leases and flipping houses in beach communities.

So, a couple of thoughts come to mind. First, this story made the front page of the LA Times today. Why? It's not simply because someone found a cheap meal and took advantage of it, or even because he lived frugally. What made this story "news" was the secret wealth and the surprise gift to the school. And the meta-story, the "moral" is that we should always befriend the stranger, because who knows...he or she may turn out to be a millionaire and leave it all to us!

now, to be fair no one is saying that...but isn't that what we're thinking? The problem with this thinking is that it's just more of the kind of thinking that has sunk this country into the mess we're now in. It's all about ME. Why not befriend people, welcome them, care about them, even when there is no chance in heaven or hell that they will EVER repay you? In other words, why not look elsewhere (perhaps, inside ourselves) for our reward? (or perhaps, to borrow a phrase, consider a greater reward that is not of this world).

The other problem with this man's story, without trying to take away from his generosity in death, is that apparently he wasn't very generous in life. The article says he would even criticize the "cook" at times, the one who was making the meals that this multi-millionaire was eating every day for FREE (read the article!). And not only that, but he amassed a fortune through savvy business dealing and good fortune. Is that WORK? Is something "work" just because at the end of the day your bank account is larger than it was at the beginning? He bought and sold oil leases and real estate, and then had the nerve to criticize someone who actually worked for a living? Then he hoarded his fortune, apparently he wouldn't even spend money to go to the doctor when he was sick (OK, so I'm guilty here too!) and only shared it when he wasn't around any more.

If that's the "depression era mentality" that we are hoping to revisit in America, I say let's think again. It's the dark side of scarcity, and a real challenge as we trudge through these difficult economic times--to return to a sense of value without becoming fear-based and miserly.

The least and the greatest....

I don't really have anything new to say, which is a disappointment. I'd LIKE to be able to say that the number of homeless people has dropped in Long Beach (and everywhere!) but the numbers from the homeless count are not out yet...and I have a hunch they won't be down. Just looking around, it seems to me that there are more people out there in need than every before. The "least" does not refer to the "smallest number" but rather to those with the smallest amount of power.

It is to this "least" that a society with any heart at all should be reaching. Yes, the job seems impossible at times, the barriers insurmountable. Yet what has been called the "greatest" of emotions--love--surely has the power to reach anyone, anywhere...even to the very least.

To whom are YOU talking?

I have to admit I've always been one to talk to myself. I have an active mind, and much of the process that goes on between my ears is assisted if certain things are said out loud.

Now that's all fine and good if I happen to be by myself. But walking down the street, my mind wandering in one direction while my feet are headed in another, it can (I'm sure) be a little disconcerting for some to witness my ruminations. At least that's how it used to be....

These days, I'm far less concerned about it, because (as I've keenly observed) encountering people who seem to be talking to themselves is a common occurrence. Yes, they may have little bluetooth devices neatly tucked into their ears, but nevertheless, they're talking and there's no one in particular whom I can see who's listening.

This morning I walked by the Village (Long Beach, CA, 5th & Elm) on my way to my internship at Mental Health America of Los Angeles. Outside there were several folks waiting to get into this program that offers support services to persons with mental illness, and more than a few of them were having some very animated conversations with people I couldn't see. A little further down the sidewalk I passed someone who was similarly conversing, and I thought, "Yeah, right."

Yeah, I know...there's a difference. The folks with those little bluetooth devices in their ears are talking to REAL people...or so they say. But once again I was reminded that the line between "normal" and "whatever word you choose for abnormal" is one that is mostly artificial. In the end, we're all just talking. The question is, "To whom are we willing to take the time and listen?"

But first...

The language among caring service providers often includes phrases like: “Oh, they’ll never be productive, but AT LEAST…..”

I think this is plain wrong-headed. I believe that we will not make real progress until we can figure out a way to recognize that EVERY person is gifted and productive, that our definitions of “usefulness” or “productivity” are connected to Northern European/US industrial imperialism and the Protestant work-ethic that says that if you don’t produce something in a narrowly predefined category that you are not useful. But who defines “productive?” Are philosophers UN-productive because they don’t have a pile of widgets to show at the end of the day? Are poets and dreamers unproductive? What about homeless advocates? People with a mental illness? People who have lost their home?

If empowerment is really the name of the game, then we must realize our role in the unlocking of human potential, in both the giving and the receiving, rather than merely defining people and working to fit them into tiny little socially constructed boxes.

But first we need to find them a place to live.

People Count!

Today was the day that hundreds of volunteers hit the streets of Long Beach for the biannual homeless count. It was awesome to see so many people counting...and to see that ALL people count.

We live in a "throw away" culture. For too long we have been tossing out whatever we don't like, whatever we have left. We've been buying disposable and filling the landfills with trash, throwing things "away" as if there IS such a place as "away."

And we've done the same thing with people. Collectively, we've trashed whole populations based on whether we felt they were needed or wanted...choosing those we prefer to keep around using arbitrary distinctions like race or culture and making it all seem palatable by emphasizing what is different about us rather than considering our common humanity.

People with mental illness, and the many who end up homeless (for whatever reason!) have been pushed to the very bottom of the heap. Heck, we've found all sorts of innovative ways to recycle plastic but can't seem to figure out what to "do" with people who seem different.

What we need is a reevaluation of our perspective. Why do we think that certain people have nothing to offer, and quickly label them a "burden" to society? Why do we focus on need rather than gift? It may take a little extra effort, but it seems to me that a consideration of the formidable assets of people we've trashed would be of immeasurable benefit to EVERYONE.

"Hey mister, got some change?"

I think it put it all in perspective for me this morning, as I hurried down the street to get to my internship a man asked me if I could spare some change today. He was with a woman, and they looked tired and desperate.

I said "no, sorry, not today" and was on my way. But I struggled as I continued to walk. The decision I've made to not hand out change indiscriminately makes sense on some level, but when it comes to saying "no" to people who are obviously in need, I'm still at a loss. It doesn't feel very good. (I'm sure it doesn't feel very good to them either).

And then I wrestled with this: I was on my way to an internship at an agency that exists, in good measure, to assist people just like those I had refused to help. Should I go back and tell them about the services available to them? Should I tell them about the programs here in the city that might be able to help them: the Multi-Service Center, the Village, the Salvation Army, etc.?
I kept walking.

This afternoon I'm going to the Multi-Service Center to help set up for the homeless count. And tomorrow morning I'm going to be there at 4:30 am to help in the process. But this morning I had an opportunity to help and I kept walking.

Devils and details

It all reminds me of that old saying, "Even the devil can quote the bible."

The latest figures from Los Angeles show a decline in death rates (non-murder/suicide) on Skid Row. Today's LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-skidrow-deaths27-2009jan27,0,5779952.story) tells the story, with various camps offering explanations.

One side claims that services have expanded and improved: fewer people on the streets means fewer deaths.

Another side claims that police have amped up their efforts to drive the homeless away: fewer people on the streets (in LA) means fewer deaths (in LA).

Both can quote statistics to support their P.O.V. In the mean time, even ONE person homeless remains a travesty in the so-called "richest nation on earth."

Can you feel the love?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I am. How can people be so heartless?

There must be a reason that people who are normally pretty nice, even kind, can somehow talk about or treat other human beings in such a hurtful and hateful way.

Is it the smell?

Is it fear that perhaps, one day, they too will be homeless?

Is it the sometimes strange behavior, as if we don't all act a little weird sometimes?

Thomas Edison was rather fond of a quote that reminded him of the vast energy and creativity expended to avoid the real work that needs to be done...and in the case of people who are homeless, I think there's an application.

Here in the city of Long Beach we've worked long and hard to come up with all kinds of reasons why we shouldn't help people, even to the point of suggesting that having homeless people ride the bus to an assistance program will increase our carbon footprint.

HUH?

So here's the deal: most of the homeless in Long Beach are people from Long Beach. Long Beach is not a "magnet" for homelessness, nor can it be substantiated that offering programs to help them will increase their numbers (folks, these are people, not rabbits...or rats). Homeless people are not more violent than the general public (in fact, they are more often the victims of violence than the general population, probably due to exposure). The homeless are at increased risk of health problems.

The truth is, people are dying at our feet, and we've spent most of our time trying to figure out how NOT to help them.

Schroeder Army Hall and MHA Project Request for Waiver Council Item Withdrawn
By Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske January 21, 2009

On the advice of the City Attorney, item #18 which was co-sponsored by Councilwoman Rae Gabelich, Councilmember Pat O’Donnell and myself, to request a waiver of the requirement that the City provide property for homeless services in order for the City to obtain 5 acres of property now occupied by the US Army, was withdrawn.

The City Attorney advised that in order to make any changes — whether to ask for a waiver or to ask to be allowed to offer cash equivalent for the property at Burnett and Grand instead of land as a full accommodation — that the Council has to vote to withdraw plan submitted to HUD and the contract with MHA terminated and a new public hearing must be held before the City submits the new plan.

The City Attorney will draft an agenda item that sets these actions out for a council meeting in February.

I had attempted to find a solution where both parties could win in this difficult situation. There wasn’t sufficient public outreach when the proposal to use Burnett and Grand for a homeless program for the mentally ill. I had hoped that by requesting a waiver for the accomodation on the basis that I believe the City of Long Beach provides a great deal of services to the homeless –especially compared with cities which surround us — the City could still obtain the Army property without bringing the homeless program to the area.

If you don’t live in the 5th Council District — you need to contact your councilperson and let him or her know if you want the proposal withdrawn from HUD and the process started all over. Without 5 votes, the proposal will stand as written when this issue comes back to the City Council.

A Victory?

The agenda item to "suggest" that a request be made to HUD to circumvent the law of the land (aka McKinney-Vento) by making the argument that Long Beach already "does enough" to serve the homeless was removed from the docket last night. Apparently the city attorney was able to convince a certain council person that it wasn't in the city's best interest to pursue her quixotic quest.

Not necessarily a victory for the mentally-ill/homeless in Long Beach..but not a defeat either.

Just Beautiful!

The city of Long Beach has spent some money in an attempt at beautification of the downtown/Pine Avenue area. There are now large blue barrier walls with design cut-outs surrounding the planters at several street corners.

It all seems a bit strange. Most gardeners will say that plants grow better when they get adequate sunlight, but these walls are barriers to sunlight, not to mention any view of what's growing in the planters. So what's the point?

City scapes are filled with so-called "design elements" with a purpose that often goes unnoticed except by those most-marginalized: those fancy jagged design pieces on ledges and sills in cities across the country are more than "gingerbread," they are there to keep people from staying too long. After all, what could take away from a city's ascetic beauty more than those ugly homeless people. We'd rather hide our lack of compassion and unwillingness/inability to help those in need: never show your ugly side.

Seems to me these little blue walls in Long Beach are yet another attempt to keep the homeless and those with mental illness out of sight...and out of mind.

It won't work, of course...because people don't just disappear. Pushing them away to create an illusion that all is right with the world (at least in downtown Long Beach) is naive and cruel.