"I could care less about their vigorous representation of the homeless," Henderson said. "At the end of the day, we all want to get them help."

There are going to be some folks who read this and take great umbrage at what I'm about to say, but I can tell you that the post title above is the sentiment of many of the organizations that have been involved with addressing the problematic issues of homelessness here in Nashville. However, over the past few years, a few individuals who claim to be "advocates for the homeless" have, at least in my opinion, done more to harm the homeless than all the aggressive panhandlers and the drunks who've peed or shat on the sidewalks combined. Misplaced priorities and sneaky, often underhanded tactics used by a small number of these "advocates" have caused such anger and consternation among many of Nashville's most "likely to help" that they've essentially turned their backs on the compassionate approach, since nothing seems to satisfy them; too often these "advocates"demand it's either their way or the highway. Many of these businesses and organizations are too frightened to involve themselves publicly with the problem, citing the potential for harassment and negative publicity should they decide not to acquiesce to the full demands or tow the line set down by some of these "advocates." This is a community issue and it takes the entire community to help in resolving it. Energies used in protecting a few individuals for obnoxious and often anti-social behavior are energies not being used to help them - and everyone else on the street - find some services. That there are limited services to get them is a harsh reality, but having all the players on the same page, working in unison with those who can change that, might just help in getting an increase of available services. Instead, these few "advocates" have chosen to focus their energies on issues that do nothing to address the lack of services, choosing instead to complain about the available services themselves. Perhaps their time would be better spent investing their resources in issues that would make a meaningful difference in the lives of those they profess to "protect," rather than to bicker about the poor quality of life these folks have as a result of the "hassles" they must endure while on the streets. Now don't get me wrong; I'm not minimizing the hassles many of my clients must endure while on the streets. Its damned tough out there, no doubt about it. But it seems to me that when you repeatedly bite the hand that feeds you by shouting from the rooftops that the food isn't good enough, everyone notices and fewer and fewer people hold out their hands to you...

CW Nevius

Outsider's take on S.F. homelessness - yikes

C.W. Nevius

Sunday, March 16, 2008

Last week, Christine Oastler came down from Ontario for a vacation. She had a classic San Francisco experience.

She was appalled.

She was hassled by aggressive panhandlers, "scared" by drunken street people, and even spat upon in front of the Metreon shopping center.

"It's stunning to me," she said. "I'm a well-traveled girl. I've been to Europe, the Mediterranean and New York. How can San Francisco, that claims to be this tourist mecca, let this happen?"

Well, you might say, it's a long story. Some of it is institutional, some of it is traditional, and some of it is just that the city has been worn down by constant bickering over this issue. But in another way, Oastler is making a great point. It may be that it takes someone from outside to remind everyone of the big picture.

Not the little stuff - the big, important issue. Because Oastler is right. It is shocking how many people there are on San Francisco's streets.

For the past three years, Anna Morales has been co-supervisor of the San Francisco Police Department's Operation Outreach. She and another manager supervise 21 officers on the street, writing citations for aggressive panhandling, open containers and urination in public.

"I get a couple of dozen e-mails a day," Morales said. "People write to me daily and say, 'Why are we not doing anything?' Well, we are doing something, but nothing happens."

The optimists will say that is changing. But even the smallest progress means aggressive pushback. For instance, hundreds and hundreds of quality-of-life citations are dismissed each year in San Francisco courts.

That's simply a fact. In 2006, Sister Bernie Galvin, executive director of Religious Witness with Homeless People, held a news conference to announce that 80 percent of the so-called quality-of-life citations were dismissed. Her suggestion? Stop issuing those citations.

Or the city could find a way to better process them. At the district attorney's office, Deputy D.A. Paul Henderson has tried to track the citations through the system. He shows up at traffic court to make the city's case, especially in cases of repeat offenders.

The result? When I wrote about James Allen Hill, who had 15 citations but died of a drug overdose in the city library, Henderson was accused of saying that he was blaming, for Hill's death, homeless advocates' attorneys who had battled Hill's citations.

"I could care less about their vigorous representation of the homeless," Henderson said. "At the end of the day, we all want to get them help."

Isn't that true? Yet there seems to be such a disconnect over what's happening on the street and the perception, it is a wonder anything gets done. Local attorney Jim Haas wonders if it might be worthwhile for local law firms, many of whom provide pro bono attorneys for homeless causes, to meet with representatives from the district attorney's office to discuss what is being accomplished.

No one doubts the motives or intentions of pro bono efforts. But what is the best use of the time of idealistic, well-educated attorneys? To get public-drunkenness citations dismissed? Or to help the down-and-out homeless work their way through the complicated system to get monthly Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments? Or to guide homeless veterans through the process to get their benefits and medical plans?

Instead, they, too, often spend their time working the system, and the two sides seem to be speaking different languages. Advocates say there aren't enough places for someone like Hill to get help for his addiction, and Henderson counters that in at least one of his citations, Hill's attorneys turned down services in order to take his case to trial.

It's like the familiar argument that there are not enough beds for every homeless person to sleep in.

"We have beds every single night," Morales said. "Now, I understand that some people don't want to go into the shelter system. They might have to leave a pet or be separated from someone they are dating, but they could sleep in a bed."

And round and round it goes. What seems lost in all of this is a sense of perspective. James Allen Hill didn't suddenly take a turn for the worse. He had chronic, persistent, obvious problems. So do many of those on the street who are cited over and over for the same violations. Is there anyone who walks the streets who can say this system of treatment seems to be working well?

Honestly, there is a common ground. People on both sides of this issue honestly want to get help for those who are battling addiction, mental illness and chronic alcohol abuse. It's just a matter of how the afflicted get help.

At this point, it is all sound and fury. Perhaps there can be a meeting of the minds. Maybe there is a way to stop having the hundreds of citations dismissed, a way to get responsible care for those severely mentally ill people on the street. Or maybe things will just continue as they have for years.

As for Oastler, she says she won't be coming back here.

"I'm from Canada," she said. "I accept the snow. I think it is like San Francisco accepts the homeless."