Some Thoughts On The Abandoned House Takeover by the NHPP

I was wandering the streets Thursday and Friday, and discovered something odd. In covering Wednesday's abandoned HUD house takeover by the Nashville Homeless Power Project, some individuals mistakenly believed that because I was writing the newspaper article for the Contributor, this effort somehow equated me with being a full-fledged supporter of the event. I realize I'm in a kind of tricky predicament here, since my job and my heart both demand I help the poor among us, but that would be akin to thinking that because a "social issues" reporter from the Tennessean or Channel 2 covered the event, that somehow made them supporters of the action as well. I'm not a member of the NHPP, although I know quite a few of their members and should know them, since a large number of them are homeless. It's no secret that I've had some differences with previous leadership at the organization because I felt that some of the practices of that leadership were making more enemies than friends for the homeless in general. The house takeover may turn out to be one of those kinds of events, but I know why the new leadership chose this path and I'll be honest with you - and I think this sentiment is shared by many who have tried to stand up to the government in this country and fight back over what they perceive (double-emphasis on perceive) to be grossly unfair practices - the social justice, the humanitarian, the kind and gentle person in me says "finally, someone is doing something about this national disgrace!" The rationales explaining away the illegality of the action are numerous, compelling and if you're a religious sort, morally righteous. It can be argued too by some that those who participated in this event all the way to their arrest were more highly evolved than the rest of us, since they chose to follow what they consider a morally and ethically superior course of action - those kinds of people, it is said, would answer "yes" to the question, "if your mother was dying and the only medicine you knew could save her life was illegal to possess, would you break the law to save your mother?" I myself might be considered to be one of those people by some who knew me back in the 90s, although I surely don't believe it myself and don't have nearly the hubris to think that I am somehow more "evolved" than anyone else on this planet. I did however, choose to break the law to provide illegal medicine to my own mother, so if that impresses some, well, more power to them. Many of you who know me today know that I have stood up against the machine and paid a very high price for my opposition to what I - and many, many others - perceived as an unfair and unjust law. My mother died of cancer while I was fighting this battle for her and so many others who suffer from incurable diseases, and I know firsthand how the law - the system - can crush you like an egg shell beneath a bulldozer track, and they can do it at their leisure because time is not an ally of the poor and/or the oppressed. Dr. Martin Luther King once said that, "An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law." Lord knows, I can relate and empathize with those who are struggling against the rampant unjustness perpetrated again and again against many of my homeless brothers and sisters. But my time in San Quentin prison opened my eyes wide. I spent 61 days in reception on the first tier of the Carson unit in this prison before I was rolled up and sent to Folsom prison. Trust me, it wasn't nearly as clean and neat as the photo on the left might lead you to believe. The Carson unit was referred to as the "10 and over club," it was where the worst of the worst were housed while they awaited placement at other California prisons. I just happened to have the unbelievably bad luck of arriving in San Quentin by "special transport" because I was sent by my county in a squad car and when I arrived, West Block, the typical place new fish end up, was full. My cellie, convicted murderer Mike Wachholtz, was ultimately transferred to Pelican Bay and I shudder to think of a lawless society, since I've been among those who have absolutely no respect whatsoever for the rights of others, and I know firsthand the brutality and selfishness of some of our members of society. As such, while I understand clearly what the NHPP is attempting to do, and I believe wholeheartedly that their hearts are in the right place as they try to do it, that doesn't absolve them of the act. While it provides mitigating circumstances for me, I suspect that for many others it probably will not be enough to exonerate them from the illegal action they took by seizing that home. So yes, a part of me is quietly celebrating a small victory against a government system that is absolutely capable of assisting our people experiencing homelessness in every way needed: job training, higher living wages, drug and alcohol treatment, mental health assistance, housing, etc., but chooses instead to spend taxpayer money - our money - on things that large majorities of people are adamantly opposed to, such as the war in Iraq, and which ultimately perpetuate and contribute to the problem of homelessness in the first place (one of the largest segments of the homeless population happen to be veterans). So I can stand in at least some solidarity with my brothers and sisters who feel they are taxed without representation and who have fought back against a behemoth of a system that rarely hears the voices of the poor and increasingly, the middle class. Now, with all that said, the mature adult, the educated public administrator, the man who recognizes that we are a country ruled by law, that man says that what took place on May 7th was illegal, wrong and the actions of the NHPP are probably going to ultimately hurt the perception the average housed man and woman have of those who are suffering from homelessness in the long run. I recognize that, as Jeannie Alexander (whom I have tremendous respect for and now consider a dear friend) has stated, "people are tired of waiting." I know all too well this frustration and I feel her. Anyone who has read this blog for any length of time knows too that I've been saying the same for quite some time. I would state here that the wise among us pick their battles with judicious care because the government in this country was founded by men who realized that the system must be created in a way that does not allow the "momentary passions of the day" to continually swing public policy back and forth. Therefore, the system is set up to creep along, to have challenges, take time, to deliberate, be difficult to change, demand persistence, move slowly. This is also why it is critically important to know what it is - and who it is - you're voting for, because once something has been done, it's damned hard to undo it or get it changed. I know too that the law is often very unfair, especially to the poor, since they can't afford to pay enough to get those who can manipulate the law effectively to work for them. That's a real bitch, no doubt about it. But it does not excuse them from their responsibility and requirement to use it to resolve differences. I'm not castigating Jeannie here, but she should, of all people, know this better than most, since she has practiced law herself. I do know she'll continue to use the law to advance the NHPP's causes, but the fact that she'll go above the law might be cause for concern - and banishment - by the very people most needed in obtaining the help we are all seeking to end homelessness. I realize she would argue that the common man or woman can't afford a lawyer, and I know she's right; it's a difficult quandary to resolve but it is a bit of a red herring in that we cannot allow it to distract us from the real issue - do we break the law --violently or non-violently - simply because we don't agree with a particular social policy or course of action embarked upon by our government? If we break the law to house others, what stops us from robbing a bank to give money to those who are broke? Do we then burglarize a department store to clothe and shoe our poor, too? I think she is on to something when she talks about acting out of love in a nonviolent, civil disobedience sort of way, before those who are oppressed rise up against the machine in anger. I don't think we're going to like it when people become mad as hell and won't take it anymore. It'll make the scenes in Hotel Rwanda look like people picnicking. But should we be forcing social change in a more traditional manner than resorting to breaking the law? I can't answer that and only time will tell whether this action actually results in something positive arising as a result. I think I take the stance that Father Charlie Strobel does in this matter. I hope it raises some awareness of the severity of the plight of many of those suffering homelessness and I hope it generates some additional money, debate and ideas about how to end homelessness forever. My fear however, is that by taking over empty homes it will cause yet more problems for a population already suffering heavily from ugly stereotypes, disenfranchisement and ostracism from the larger community....