Conversation on The Sacramento Press about: Mayor Johnson Camps With The Homeless People Of Safe Ground

By: tdramer

2009-08-18T21:50:57Z

http://www.SafeGroundSac.org

By: The Parrhesiac

2009-08-18T01:22:57Z

Tom I have no hatered towards the homeless whatsoerver. For me it is impossible to see a homeless person and not feel their plight. While I have never had a substance abuse problem, I have been in their shoes. I think the only thing we disagree on is the extent of the homeless who have substance abuse problems. The real issue is funding and support for pragmatic programs that will help those who want help, who are willing to be personally reponsible in finding a path back to a fully engaged life.

By: Matthew Keys

2009-08-17T21:31:46Z

The video from the Mayor's Safe Ground visit is available here: http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/theissues/ktxl-news-issues-homelesscamp0812,0,1966443.story

By: Top Cat 2808

2009-08-17T18:36:09Z

Excuse me for plugging my blog, but I am beholding to no one or organization or thing other than the truth of things [which I, arrogantly, hope to find.] Safe Ground is a topic these days in the Sacramento Homeless blog. sacramentohomeless.blogspot.com

By: Top Cat 2808

2009-08-17T18:29:56Z

I am generally in agreement with what you write, savemidtown. But I am dubious on how cost-effective these very very expensive sounding programs can be. A lot of savings can be seen from stopping law enforcement from focussing on 'warehousing the rabble' instead of chasing real crime, including white-collar crime (which is the almost-sole cause of the economic calamity we're in, btw.) I'm on your side in all this, savemidtown, but I would wager a lot could be done far short of the expense of providing housing for everyone. People need pathways out of destitution. We don't have even THAT, yet. Destitute people need places to keep their things; reliable homeless-help organizations that HELP them to "get their day on," need to come into existence in place of those that destoy people's days, at whim. And an Outreach Program [like what VOA had, but was the first to get 86ed in the bad economy] is needed such that there is a Wolf out there [you know, like the Wolf character in Pulp Fiction] who comes on the scene and fixes lives, individually. Some people just need to be reconciled to their families. Some people need legal help that is unavailable. Some people just need a boost, or dream, or some hope, or a job, or a clean pair of underwear. Many people with mental health problems are dumped on the streets rather than society doing its duty to save them.

By: Top Cat 2808

2009-08-17T18:11:47Z

Somewhat of a good point, Jim. But since 48% were reported, that, alone, disproves your "most anyone" would lie about their problem! I live in Homeless World Sacramento and think that 'about half' is in the realm of the truth on the topic., but I don't know exactly, and people, themselves, don't know 'exactly' when they've crossed the boundry into addiction. BUT the problem I really have with what you're saying, Jim, has to do with this hatred I perceive in your comments, here. YES, addicted people should strive to overcome their addictions. But Homeless World is where you end up when the world has become a horribly unhappy place and one's relationships have fallen apart. The addicted here are knowingly on a path of suicide and need intervention. I GREATLY AGREE WITH YOU THAT THEY DO NOT NEED LOAVES&FISHES ENABLING [or, as I insist it should be called "ENTRAPPING"] POLICIES.

By: thsas

2009-08-17T17:10:20Z

When people are allowed to do whatever they want, they will. That is part of the price of freedom.

By: Pinelli

2009-08-17T13:21:14Z

The two "opposed sides" are not really in opposition--everyone with an ounce of humanity wants to help the poor, sick, and dispossessed. The issue is that the federal government has for very many years eliminated the social safety net and given more money to the already obscenely wealthy, arms traders and corporate tax cuts. We have allowed the housing assistance programs to be starved, the food stamp program to be severely cut and any kind of assistance has become incredibly difficult to obtain--and I know as I help people access these programs. People who demonize the ill and ignored are not only beyond the pale of the human heart but functionally acting like 4 year olds--if i close my eyes it will go away!

By: advocate

2009-08-16T21:10:21Z

Homeless providers' way of "helping" homeless" is antiquated and a proven failure for years. A big part of that is because they don't expect the homeless to succeed in helping themselves to find their way back as productive members of society. In fact, there is a financial disincentive for the providers when the homeless do succeed. They are paid for failures and penalized for successes. Yes, many drug and alcohol addicts can be helped but they must make the decision to do so and that is extremely difficult for each one to do, so the percentage of those that fail is very very high. Many have to repeat trying over and over. Bottom line is that if an addict can see nothing better in their future than an escape through drugs and/or alcohol, then what is the motivation to get or remain "clean and sober?"

By: advocate

2009-08-16T20:48:56Z

I've never heard or read anything that a non-profit said or wrote about itself that didn't report its operation was the greatest thing since sliced bread. More than reading more blather from L&F, I suggest that people go the Secretary of State and read the CT2 report which all non-profits are supposed to file annually. That is the real story, but their operational shenanigans are so convoluted and confusing that it takes both an attorney and an auditor to find that real story.

By: The Parrhesiac

2009-08-16T17:48:04Z

I agree about the City's failures. To that all I can say is this, Sacramento deserves the City Council we have. If those who live in our community fail to hold them accountable, it is our fault not theirs. This is not brain surgery, and everyone knows this....y'all continue to vote the way that you do...If we elect candidates who are supported by wealthy and powerful special interest groups, they will in turn ALWAYS vote in their benefactors favor. The problem is that most voters are lazy, they follow the slick marketing campaigns or follow a party like drones instead of doing their own research as to who is behind a candidate. I disagree with your overall assertion that we need to provide homes before we expect them to become clean & sober. It can be done simultaneously, and as a condition of receiving help. I differ in philosophy than most who want to help the homeless. I do not believe that free housing is a basic human right. As I said above, social responsibility is a two way street. That being said, I believe we have an obligation to provide transitional housing and a hand up for those who are willing to be responsible and active in their own recovery and need help reentering mainstream society. At the same time, we cannot provide so many services that it actually encourages more homeless to migrate to Sacramento. As for the mentally ill, we have many existing programs available, including SSI, subsidized housing, food stamps and free medical care. We also have board and care facilities and in extreme cases for those who cannot care for themselves, we have state institutions. I know the liberals will always scream we are not doing enough about the mentally ill, I gave up on this issue many years ago, for liberals there is never enough government help...that also goes for any issue they feel strongly about. One issue that the liberals also completely ignore is that we spend $7-12 Billion dollars a year in California (depending on what numbers you want to believe) on providing free services for illegal aliens. Our homeless directly compete with these illegal aliens for social services, low income housing, food stamps and medical care. Until the issue of illegal aliens is addresses, liberals have no right to complain that we do not spend enough to help the homeless.

By: savemidtown

2009-08-16T07:13:22Z

The data don't lie - about two-thirds or over 60% of homeless substance abusers who get housed and treated return to gainful employment and stability within a few years. What about the people who are homeless because they were forclosed on or were one paycheck away from not making rent like many millions of people - what about them? How are we to hold them accountable for their actions? I observed first hand 'skid row' in Los Angeles - the culmination of years of not dealing adequately with the issue - it is a regional issue but we are the 800 lb gorrilla whether we like it or not and if we don't step up - how will other cities in our region learn? We must set the example and suck it up and spend a little to save a lot in emergency health care and increased law enforcement costs.

By: savemidtown

2009-08-16T07:11:57Z

Numerous studies and pilot programs in cities across the country show that when substance abusers are given safe shelter and case management services - many return to a fairly normal life and gainful employment within a few years. A 'cure' or 100% success rate is unattainalbe - there will always be a small number who cannot be helped (Gladwell - author of The Tipping Point had a great piece in the Wall Street Journal a few years ago that explained the problem with our backwards approach to homelessness - with scientific evidence to back it up) ...the overhwhelming majority can be helped which leads to a huge reduction in costs and essentially eliminates much of the burden on local governments and its citizens. It' is more cost efficient for cities to provide homes and treatment services than emergency care and the extra law enforcement services needed to deal with all of the problems created by a disproportionately large homeless population. The data are there but again - city leaders will not put the money where their mouth is and it's all hollow words.

By: Jennifer Reed

2009-08-16T02:35:30Z

Yes, more information on Safe Ground... I strongly advise to visit Safe Ground and Sacramento Loaves & Fishes website for more information. http://www.safegroundsac.org/ http://www.sacloaves.org/

By: The Parrhesiac

2009-08-16T01:52:33Z

Tom, I do not believe the conclusions in Street Count. The Street Count was based on facilitated "self reporting". Where you aware Tom that the homeless and..um...yeah...most anyone with a substance abuse problem, either lie about their problem, or really don't think they have a problem?

By: The Parrhesiac

2009-08-16T01:40:34Z

Jennifer can you give us more info on "Safe Ground"?

By: Top Cat 2808

2009-08-15T21:39:23Z

According to Street Count 2009, taken last January, 48% of Sacramento's homeless citizens have substance-abuse issues. That is a great great many of homeless adults, but not the "vast majority" that Jim Knapp wrote. [See: Street Count, 2009 Data: Homelessness up 4.6% in county in past year ] What is especially tragic [to society, to the addicts, to everyone] is that a great, great many of these unhappy people get SSDI checks which are used to feed their bad habit, instead of being used for shelter or to aid in ending the addictions. It is a mostly mistaken notion to suppose, as Jim Knapp seems to, that these homeless addicts are being enabled to party and live a joyous life. They are killing themselves slowly and knowingly with no way out of their sad circumstance. I am very critical of Loaves & Fishes. It is not so much enabling as it is entrapping. People have no way out once they start using L&F's services. The organization refuses to reform itself to make it possible for homeless people who are eager to work to use its services. Believe me: A great great many want out of the Big Bear Trap of homelessness that has come into being from the constellation of Sacramento homeless-services organizations.

By: advocate

2009-08-15T21:07:09Z

Knapp is right that L&F is an enabler--big time--making enough money to buy adjacent properties in fact. Further, it doesn't put its money where its mouth is. Drive or walk south on 12th and see all the vacant space available on the left. Instead of throwing the homeless out of Friendship Park at 3:00 p.m every day, how about pitching a few tents to use the empty grounds and buildings to house several homeless. Homeless providers tell us, and I believe them, that these folks are "self-governing" so they will behave responsibly, be a threat to no one behind those fences , and will clean up after themselves. L&F spent $300,000 showers for homeless to use and if no toilets, then move in porta potties.

By: Jennifer Reed

2009-08-15T18:21:05Z

It's great that Safe Ground require's an agreement to be signed, to avoid substance abuse and violence by our communities. It would great to see those that live in homes, and those that don't have homes, to kick their substance abuse problems... That's a whole issue within itself. Natalie Bomke did mention that she didn't see the homeless people abusing drugs or alcohol at the Safe Ground site. Safe Ground is doing great at keeping their sites clean of that.

By: The Parrhesiac

2009-08-15T17:26:28Z

You can research this for yourself Seth, Google: "homelessness substance abuse" I have plenty of video I took myself on the subject interviewing the homeless, it's on Youtube... go ask the homeless yourself, see if they think the vast majority have substance abuse problems... or go visit Loaves & Fishes and ask around.

By: Seth Sandronsky

2009-08-15T16:19:22Z

Your source(s), Jim?

By: The Parrhesiac

2009-08-15T15:56:39Z

Oh here we go...give me a break... Sandronsky. You are a self proclaimed "social justice radical" and I suspect, given your well known resume that you are a card carrying member of the Communist Party. I am pretty sure that it does not matter to you that most of them are on drugs or are alcoholics...I have no doubt you think it is their RIGHT to be provided with free housing and food even if they are chemically dependent regardless of their lifestyles and poor choices made that preceded their homelessness. I also suspect that you are against substance abuse testing in order for them to receive free housing, food and services from the taxpayers or community based organizations. Unlike you, and those with radical Leftist leanings, I believe that social responsibility is a two way street. Do your own research, I have, and I have been involved with homeless issues personally for 20 years, I know my assertions to be a fact, through empirical evidence and academic research.

By: Seth Sandronsky

2009-08-15T13:29:48Z

What is the source of your fact on homelessness and substance abuse, Jim?

By: ploma

2009-08-15T02:24:10Z

I think it was very good step for Mayor to spend time with the homeless folks out there on safe ground. More people should do so - spend some time with their homeless neighbors either inside or outside - and that will dispell many myths and stereo typing.

By: The Parrhesiac

2009-08-15T15:55:41Z

Homelessness will NEVER be "cured" It is a fact that the vast majority of homeless in Sacramento are substance abusers. We need to be compassionate about the plight of the homeless, but we also need to hold them accountable for their substance abuse and the lifestyles they live. Feeding or housing a drug addict or alcoholic will only enable their behavior. Whatever solution the City decides upon, it must include mandatory rehab and random drug & alcohol testing. Otherwise it is a complete waste of time. Loaves & Fishes only enables the homeless and has created a five city block industry of homelessness and urban blight. Unless organizations like L&F become responsible community partners that require the homeless to get substance abuse treatment as a condition of recieving food, shelter and other services, they are part of the problem not the solution. Creating a homeless camp ground on any public land, without requiring those that camp their to be involved in substance abuse programs, will only attract MORE homeless to Sacramento and increase our burden. If the City, County and State do not have the funds to provide substance abuse programs, providing increased services in Sacramento, will only INCREASE the homeless population and exacerbate an already huge problem. The City of San Francisco, which spends over $200 million providing services to the homeless, and an additional $500 million for non-profits EACH YEAR providing services for them, is a prime example of how providing more services will not resolve the problem. In fact they have only increased the problem because homeless from all over have moved there to take advantage of a generous free ride and their mild weather.

By: tdramer

2009-08-14T21:24:21Z

Very well said!

By: savemidtown

2009-08-14T20:58:25Z

the cure for homelessness is....homes. Once again city leaders are all talk - hollow words- not willing to put the money where their mouth is. The city of Sacramento owns many buildings that currently sit vacant. Some are residental and some could be turned into residential. No one has to date offered a solid reason why we can't use the funds in the merged downtown redevelopment fund ( about $50 million in it right now) to rehab existing buildings owned by the city - like the Hotel Biltmore at 10th & J or offer rehab incentives through the mills act and other tax incentive programs to private owners to rehab and tenant their buildings. The Hotel Wendel at J & 12th - privately owned, the Ridgeway Hotel on 12th near I Street - also privately owned, are vacant. Fortunately the hotel Berry might be getting funds to be rehabbed shortly - a good start and a model to work from. Our city gives away a whole lot of money in 'developer assistance' funds through the City Economic Development Department to developers who create projects that often never materialize - see the hole at 3rd & Capitol or the John Saca Tower on J - while the resources at our feet that could be rehabbed into vibrant and reasonably priced downtown housing are overlooked and continue to deteriorate. We have it backwards and have been doing it wrong for decades which is part of why K street and the JKL corridor still struggles -