Greetings,
  This would be a well-conceived of rebuttal to the "you just haven't been
there, man!"
arguments from authority, as you have phrased it; however, you forget one
critical element,
competency. Of course there are many types of competencies: One can obtain a
degree
in a specific discipline, work in the field for a pre-determined period of
time, serve in an
internship, etcetera. The type of competency I refer to here is experiential
and I would
argue that, in this specific area of concern, many of the legislative and
policy decisions
that are made as they relate to homelessness would be enhanced considerably if
those
who had experienced homelessness were more solidly included in the process.
   Now, in terms of a "definition" of "homelessness", there are many. Chronic
homelessness is defined by HUD as 4 incidents of homelessness in the prior 2
years or
continuous homelessness---as I recall. For purposes of General Assistance here
in the
State of Minnesota "homelessness" is generally determined when a person lacks
shelter
during the period (day) when the person applies to County Social Services for
assistance.
There are other things to consider, of course, such as whether or not a person
is in a
situation where he\she might be considered "battered" or subjected to domestic
abuse.
A person might have dependent children and that will also determine what a
caseworker
might do. Veterans status, disability status, the presence of mental health or
addictive
disorders, status in the correctional system...these are just some of the
factors that
need to be taken into consideration. Minnesota, for example, has over 9,000
people in
prison, just under 150,000 in community corrections programs. Those exiting
prison
are not considered, by HUD definition, to be "homeless".
    Homelessness is not one problem, it is the outward manifestation of a
large number
of social problems---and a very complex set indeed. In a perfect world every
adult over
18 would be literate, would be possessed of the skills Mark uses so well here.
Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world. What seems so obvious to Mark
is not
so obvious to many others. In my case I ended up homeless for a period of time
due
to several things: a really messy separation, loss of residence, a child
custody and
support case...some heavy drinking and a measure of military service---all
played a part.
    Now, I recognized back then and now that I was not the typical homeless
person.
I was educated, articulate and, once I made the decision to make some changes
and
take action my situation changed and my homelessness ended.
    Prior to that experience I thought much like Mark and others
here....during the course
of that experience I met many people and came to understand the problem in much
greater
depth. Many people who are homeless have mental health disorders that are
severe and
persistent---and if you weren't depressed the first day of homelessness you
sure as heck
will be by the end of the first week. You run into a lot of people who are
functionally illiterate. They cannot conceive of a thing like sustained
stability as they have never really
experienced such a thing. Many grew up in Foster Care homes or spent
significant periods
of time institutionalized in other facilities-or both. There are large numbers
of veterans out
there....Many suffer from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome or a Traumatic Brain Injury.
   I know it is hard to get a feel for what it must be like---had the same
problems myself
once. One loses a sense of planning, of an ability to look ahead...if that
makes sense.
Still, amongst those who are homeless there are significant numbers who, if
given the
chance, would move back into a "regular" life. In fact, most of those who are
capable of
doing so do exactly that. It does no good to postulate what you or I or others
might do
in a similar situation....because we are not and can never really be.
   I was raised in a good home. I understood stability. I understood what it
was that I
was missing and I possessed the skills to have those things again...and I came
to recognize that I was fortunate in that regard. Many others who are homeless
lack such
skills, lack the ability to make sense out of what you wrote. That might seem
odd to
you, but nevertheless it is true.
    I guess what it comes down to is compassion. Even those of diminished
capacity
or whose lives have been truly awful from childhood onward....even they dream
of having
better lives one day...in fact that is what keeps most hanging on, day after
day. When
I talk about policy in regard to the homeless that is the sort of thing I have
in mind.
A "successful outcome" for most of the advocates entails sticking someone in
public
housing on fixed income and food-stamps, getting them meds...tick, tick, tick.
What
is forgotten is the common human need for some sort of quality of life, some
measure
of hope. This common human need is what is forgotten time and again in the
derivation
of policy in this range of issues.
        That is the best I can do, I suppose..I would agree that policy should
be firmly
based in reason, but reason without passion will not give you much---in my
opinion.
If you want a more in-depth understanding of how "feeling" or passion can be a
critical
determinant in the formulation of policy...well, I would say that our best
public policy
has been formulated by those whose reason and emotion walked hand-in-hand. How
many examples of that would you care to have? I can provide many. Rhetorical
adeptness
and a knowledge of logic are indeed wonderful things...but without appreciation
for the
emotive side of humanity they ain't much.
     And, I will reiterate that the public urination offenses, in the few
years that I tracked
them, were not perpetrated in the main by the homeless....it was mainly College
kids
downtown at night.
   The City of Minneapolis has a very small fiscal role in comparison to the
State, County
and Federal Governments. Based on a rather large body of research I would say
that, particularly in the case of the chronically homeless, it is simply
cheapere for the government to house them in supportive housing than to leave
them on the streets and
in the shelter system.
         I try to think that the government should provide stable housing for
those incapable
of doing so themselves.
Guy T. Gambill
(612)-208-1815
Rest of post
--- On Sat, 1/2/10, <email obscured> <<email obscured>> wrote:
From: <email obscured> <<email obscured>>
Subject: [Mpls] Homelessness in Minneapolis
To: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org
Date: Saturday, January 2, 2010, 1:57 PM
The repeated arguments of the form, âyou just havenât BEEN THERE, man!â are
non-logical arguments from authority. I wrote âGood policy does not disregard
feelings. But good policy is not driven by feelings.â
The matter is not how much anyone feels that people should not have to sleep
outside, but defining who the government of Minneapolis will help, and under
which conditions.
There are two instances of the collective fallacy at work. One one end, there
is no reasoned definition of who âthe homelessâ are. On another end, there is
no reasoned definition of who âthe we/societyâ are.
I can set aside the society fallacy if we here set aside the claims that anyone
is obligated to help by virtue of participating in that society. âBecause we
have toâ is not a logical argument.
We here seem to agree that some people are in fact homeless, and people in that
condition create externalities which must be addressed. Government is the
mediator and often the means by which externalities are addressed. So, how does
the City of Minneapolis best address the fact that homeless people are imposing
costs on non-homeless people?
Lacking precision about the object of policy, government will necessarily waste
resources and frustrate everyone while leaving some humans without whatever
help they might merit. âyou get what you pay for: 147 million dollar ten year
plan that won't fix the problemâ
We here seem to agree that some humans are too sick or too deficient to provide
for themselves. We also agree, at at least the personal level, those that have
an ability to help have an obligation to help.
Keeping the collective fallacy aside, I suggest that in cases of the infirm and
incapable, the problem is not properly the homeless condition. The problem is
that people are sick. They donât need stable housing, they need medical care.
Homeless advocates (perhaps those suburban ladies) are treating the symptom
instead of the disease.
Providing medical care seems well outside the scope and capacity of the City of
Minneapolis. If you allow that, we have removed a significant portion of âthe
homelessâ from the purview of City policy.
The remaining portion of âthe homelessâ still needs definition. Who are these
people leaving puddles of externality in the public square? Why are they, since
theyâre neither sick nor deficient, unable to hold their place as respectful
equals?
This is where my argument that homelessness is a choice comes into play.
We seem to be in agreement that being homeless is not a mandatory or permanent
condition. We have personal testimony that contradicts an assertion that one is
consigned to sleeping outdoors.
For those who resist my conclusion that homelessness is a choice (a persistent
pattern of poor choices that leave one without stable housing), witness these
quotes, from the same author in our original thread:
âI was able to rent a room this month. Got out of the RV just in time for the
bitter cold. ⌠It would be stupid to get kicked out of here when the rent is
only 250.â
âTurns out eating a few cookies and using the roomates shampoo is an offence
punishable by eviction. ⌠So with 3 days notice, she tells me
to move out. I have no where to go, no employment, $100, and personal
belongings (cloths, etc).â
Taking stuff without permissionâtheftâwas a choice. And in the writerâs own
terms, a stupid one. Note also that it wasnât out of necessity; the writer had
$100.
When someone makes a choice that leads to an external cost, what does
government do? It attempts to make the harmed whole, and to prevent or
discourage the one who caused it from doing the same again.
One who creates an externality by choice may not be a criminal. It may be
negligence. But negligence is still a tort which indicates a legal response.
Keeping that part of the civil law in mind reminds of the âlast clear chance
doctrineâ, where âit was my only choiceâ is tested and usually found to be no
excuse at all. Sometimes a homeless person is a criminal. Not by condition, but
by volition. Where there is tort but not crime, thereâs no way for the harmed
to be made whole if the tortfeasor is broke. I suppose some form of servitude
is an option.
Which then leads to may questions about what the City of Minneapolis can expect
and demand from those who create external costs as a byproduct of the choices
that leave them homeless.
I donât know.
I jumped in here not because I had an answer/solution, but because I see a lot
of lame argument and repeated justification for a failed model. Feelings arenât
helping anyone. So letâs try reason.
Some asides:
Remember that voluntary charity exists. We have a multi-layered safety net that
can (and apparently does) help some portion of homeless people avoid creating
externalities in the public square. It seems we could help government do its
part by making it easier for charities to do theirs. The City has control over
licensing and regulation of group living facilities. I speculate that zoning
hates the homeless. And, ultimately, some people will exhaust their ability to
gain charity. Others may not want to be âin societyâ. That may leave them
homeless, but it doesnât make them crazy.
Mark Fox
Audubon Park Debating Club
Mark Fox
Audubon Park, Minneapolis
Info about Mark Fox: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/markfox
View all messages on this topic at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/4cEwuWclMTxE3ucjVlIKWt
-----------------------------------------
 To post, e-mail: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org
 Use "Reply-to-All" via e-mail to post publicly.
 To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on"
 in subject, then send to: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org
 More information about Minneapolis Issues Forum:
 http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls
 E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
-----------------------------------------
Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
   If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
   <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.