"Fresno homeless camp scheduled for demolition has been spared -- at least for a while."

Long-term readers of this blog (all two or three of them) will probably remember well the efforts of Nashville's advocates and service providers (self included) to keep our local and largest homeless encampment, Tent City, from being closed.  Every rationale that could be put forward by police and some city officials was utilized, and while my advocate friends hate to admit this, many of those rationales had at least some merit, which is why they happen to be used so successfully at times in other cities by cops and local government to raze encampments with no repercussions, save a few comments to the editor in the local paper. 

And it's definitely truth that anyone who has spent any time at all in a homeless encampment knows that there can indeed be issues with sanitation, human waste, criminal concealment, etc. Those things often do happen, especially when camps are first established, and to deny or gloss over them I think does a disservice to the population of the camp.  Trivializing or minimizing these "concerns" can often seed the minds of those in favor of closure with the idea we're not being honest about the reality and therefore, are not to be trusted.

It's exactly the same mentality we advocates bring to the table when we hear officials trot out the claims to close the camp in the first place, yes?

The good news for advocates is that in each of the rationales punted out by officials, it doesn't take much to remedy the problems if the people who can assist with the necessary resources are both inclined and committed to providing some solutions.

Addressing the physical, logistical and environmental challenges involved with an operating camp has been going on for as long as people have been gathering in groups for survival and there is a sort of primal recognition about what needs to be done in a camp by most of its residents almost from the start.

The majority of those who work to assist the homeless recognize the importance of addressing the Maslovian shelter need, no doubt.  But I think they understand one additional important aspect of encampments that seems to often escape those clamoring for their closures.

The fact is, in many cities, Nashville included, a functioning, coordinated, and maintained Tent City - especially one set up like the Camp that washed away during the historic flood of 2010 - is about the closest the city comes to a real Housing First program.

Outreach specialists, social workers, food-service providers, even police (although they don't often publicly admit it) know well that having folks in one area makes finding and accessing them to provide services and protection a helluva lot easier than when folks are scattered and hiding out of fear of persecution, attacks, mental illness or any one of a hundred and one other reasons folks on the street keep low profiles. 

Furthermore, it assists the homeless community as well because there is an alternative available to those who, for whatever their personal reason - and there can be a large number of those reasons which are just as valid (and often more so) than the rationales put forth by officials when arguing to close encampments - will not use available sanctioned shelters. There is also the "adjustment" factor that living in a communal camp provides, and this is a critically important component in preparing an individual for a return to larger society, especially if the odds are high that the individual, when he/she does obtain housing, will end up in "multiple-dwelling" rather than a "scattered site" unit (an apartment complex versus a house/mobile home).

By exposing the person experiencing homelessness to "community" rules, operating within a group of people to care for both personal and communal needs and responsibilities, conflict management, becoming used to having people around again, etc., the groundwork is being laid for the transfer and introduction into another community.  Talk to anyone who places persons experiencing homelessness into housing after that person has been on the bricks for an extended period and they'll just about all tell you that they start with the most basic of things; how to wash a dish, clean a toilet, treat a neighbor, vacuum a floor, cook a can of soup, etc.  It takes a lot of peer support to help a person re-enter mainstream life.

But honestly - and herein lies the crux of this post - this whole discussion around justifications for and against homeless encampments are really just distractions from the overarching issue about skewed priorities that cause us as a community to argue for a homeless encampment at all.

One would think that, given our repeated rhetoric around America as a "compassionate, moral example" for the rest of the world, that the argument should be laser-focused on how to end homelessness rather than manage populations of folks trapped on the streets. Areas needing intense focus include increasing the interest of developers in building affordable housing, helping low income families remain housed while increasing their earning potential, and helping those who want employment but are in no position to even begin the process (address, working phone, transportation, small buffer cash amount to eat for those first 3 weeks while they await their initial paychecks) overcome the myriad barriers in front of them in order to accept and keep a job once they get one.  For those who cannot work, the focus should be on how best to support them while ensuring they remain connected and living as vibrant and rich a life in our community as possible.

It's really about us as a people not becoming so distracted by the urgency of the immediate needs of those on our streets that we fail to address the systemic problems causing people to end up on the street in the first place.

So the next time someone starts telling you why a camp should be closed or remain open, ask the bigger question:

"What is it about our community that forces us to "need" a camp in the first place?

Fresno homeless camp gets temporary reprieve from demolition

December 8, 2011 | 12:36 pm

A Fresno homeless camp scheduled for demolition has been spared -- at least for a while.
Bulldozers, dump trucks, city officials in suit jackets and Caltrans workers in orange vests gathered Thursday at the last remaining downtown homeless encampment after a month of city sweeps.
Assistant City Manager Bruce Rudd told workers to remove shacks under an abandoned overpass but not to disturb Ray Polk's encampment, which officials said could stay until the actual demolition of the overpass begins, probably in March.
Polk, a former appliance repairman who ended up on the streets 22 years ago, has for several years run a one-man social agency out of his encampment. He distributes food and clothes donated by local churches and individuals. He also has a "counseling station" open 24 hours a day.
"I give them my ear to hear what they have to say. Sometimes that's what people need most: somebody hearing what they're saying," Polk told The Times in March.

Polk also has made a memorial to homeless people who died on these streets. Marsel Bufford, 55, said the names of his girlfriend and infant daughter -- Gail Smothers, 37, and Gail Loretta Smith, who lived 14 hours -- were the latest additions to the memorial. On Thursday, Bufford warmed his hands over a fire in an oil drum on Polk's place as other homeless people dragged mattresses and cooking utensils from makeshift shacks.
"When they died it was like I was just turned upside down; like someone hung me up by my feet and shook me," he said. "I go to the memorial everyday."
A homeless woman hollered at Bufford that he needed to move his mattress before workers destroyed it.
"I don't have anywhere to go," he said. "Where am I going to take it?"
In 2008 the city of Fresno settled a lawsuit over the destruction without warning of homeless people's property. This time the city posted eviction notices and helped some people into housing. City officials said they identified 140 available places through social agencies. Estimates of the number of people who lived in the makeshift homeless communities range from 500 and 1,000.
Polk said he is thankful for the reprieve.
"It's the coldest time of the year. And all these people's shelters are gone," he said. "It's a blessing I can be here at the darkest time."
ALSO:
New ordinance would end artistic mural ban in L.A.
LAPD commanders' personal information posted on website
'MythBusters' misfire sends cannonball through neighborhood
-- Diana Marcum in Fresno
Photo: Ray Polk and Marsel Bufford warm their hands over a fire during demolition of homeless encampment. Credit: Diana Marcum / Los Angeles Times

"Rick Santorum promised to significantly reduce federal funding for food stamps, arguing that the nation’s increasing obesity rates render the program unnecessary"

“If hunger is a problem in America, then why do we have an obesity problem among the people who we say have a hunger program?”

The gross ignorance of Mr. Santorum is beyond shocking here. I'm getting tired of doing the homework for our politicians, who claim to "represent" us but are so utterly naive as to be dangerous to our health and wellbeing.

Marc Ambinder, writing in the Atlantic, gets to the heart of the matter in his excellent piece, Beating Obesity:

Food companies like to keep us happy, and they’ve figured out which molecular combinations make our mouths water. Cheaply manufactured, energy-dense, sugary and salty snacks now crowd our refrigerators and pantries. David Kessler, a former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, has written a book, The End of Overeating, that accuses the food industry of manipulating the levels of sugar, salt, and fats in food in order to create a neurochemical addiction. Over time, these “hyperpalatable” foods change our brain chemistry in ways that make us overeat. Other researchers have discovered that withholding sugar from rats seems to bring on symptoms similar to those produced by drug withdrawal. Food companies have also done their best to turn food into entertainment: we barely blink at fast-food commercials that lure kids by offering free toys with their meals. Even the non-food economy has learned the benefits of having food around: according to researchers at Tulane University, a fifth of furniture stores, for example, serve up candy and other high-calorie snacks. As Kessler puts it, “It’s socially acceptable to eat at any time. That wasn’t the case four or five decades ago.”

Some of the better information available on how to address the problems of obesity rates in the poor does NOT include stripping the only source of available funds for food from huge numbers of the poor and is delivered to us - Mr. Santorum, are you paying attention here? - by Sharron Dalton, PhD, RD, writing in the Southern Medicat Journal • Volume IOO, Number 1, January 20 in an article entitled Our Vulnerable Children: Poor and Overweight:

A crucial starting point in stalling this rapid rise in obesity is with the vulnerable, the economically disadvantaged and minority children who are most affected by environmental factors. A new report from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation shows that, compared with advantaged children, low-income kids have more commercial advertising exposure per hour of tv (mainly high-calorie food products), more fast food restaurants and fewer vendors of healthful foods nearby, more unsafe streets, and more dilapidated parks and school playgrounds. Intervention from both business and government-local and federal-is required.

The bottom line here was summed up perfectly in a USA Today piece:

"'...Healthier diets cost more... and access to physical activity 'depends on how much money you've got.'"

Please Mr. Santorum, before speaking about topics you clearly know absolutely nothing whatsoever about, do a little research.

Frankly I would be embarrassed enough to find other work if I were to so flippantly and erroneously suggest such drastic and dangerous policies that had the potential to negatively impact so many people in such terrible ways. You sir, should be ashamed of yourself for promoting this course of action and those who voted for you would do well to re-examine the rest of your policy recommendations as well.  Clearly, you are unable to sufficiently understand the complex problems you are charged with addressing and you are doing a serious disservice to the office you hold.

Some pertinent resources to further your understanding of obesity in the poor:
1. Correlation Between Obesity and Poverty: Healthy People 2010 Should Increase Attention On Those In Poverty
2. Study: Obesity rises faster in poor teens
3. Why are poorer people in western societies more likely to be obese?
4. Beating Obesity
5. Our Vulnerable Children: Poor and Overweight (You'll need a subscription for this one, Rick, but in your case, there probably isn't a better use for your money!)

Santorum: We Don’t Need Food Stamps Because Obesity Rates Are So High

By Igor Volsky on Dec 7, 2011 at 10:35 am

Speaking in Le Mars, Iowa on Monday, Rick Santorum promised to significantly reduce federal funding for food stamps, arguing that the nation’s increasing obesity rates render the program unnecessary:

Santorum told the group he would cut the food stamp program, describing it as one of the fastest growing programs in Washington, D.C.
Forty-eight million people are on food stamps in a country with 300-million people, said Santorum.
“If hunger is a problem in America, then why do we have an obesity problem among the people who we say have a hunger program?” Santorum asked.

The cost of the food stamp program — the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — has jumped because more Americans are out of work and wages are down, not because of obesity rates. Recent data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that nearly “70 percent households that relied on food stamps last year had no earned income,” although many households did benefit from Social Security benefits and other government programs. But a whopping 20 percent of households had no cash income at all last year.
Food prices have also gone up, adding additional costs. In fact, the food stamp program has been critical for reducing poverty and pumping money into local economies during the down economy, so cutting it now would not only take food out of peoples’ mouths (regardless of whether they are obese or not) and could slow down the recovery.

What the OWS Means To Me

I was reading something the other day in the Huffington Post about another brutal paramilitary police attack upon peaceful OWS protestors and as I was perusing the comments left by readers, I read one that was so seriously skewed with ignorance I was driven to respond, and over the past few days, some folks I admire greatly have said that I did a fair job of capturing the movement's core Raison d'être. Here's what I said:

Police arrest protestors at an OWS event

UC Davis Officer John Pike Blasts Pepper Spray on sitting, peaceful protestors.

I'm so tired of folks "wondering" what the OWS movement is about and argue we're already debating these things. Look, it's not about the content of the debate. it's about the fact that those who represent us aren't listening to us IN the debate.  It's about the fact that there are different standards for different folks, and those who HAVE decide the standards. It's about the fact that the playing field isn't level - at all - and those who HAVE make damned sure that those who don't stay that way. It's about media that sides repeatedly with corporate/­political interests and fails miserably in presenting us with the truth about issues. It's about the decades of frustratio­n we as a middle class have felt as our wages have stagnated, our pensions have been raided, our jobs have been shipped overseas and we've been dragged into wars around the world we have no business being in. The OWS movement is the collective consciousn­ess of a nation who was raised to believe in moral, ethical, compassion­ate fair and honest behavior and who has discovered that those who preach those things the loudest are nothing but hypocrites­. Imho, this is really what the OWS is about.

I'm not sure this resonates with you, but after 52 years of life in America, I can surely tell that things have changed for the worse - dramatically - in the last couple of decades.  I was a young man when the riots in Detroit occurred, and I knew about, although did not understand, the Kent State killings when they occurred.  I watched Los Angeles erupt into violence when the thugs who beat Rodney King senseless were declared innocent and knew then that we'd just been given a forceful push down the slippery slope. 

The OWS movement is testing the very limits of police abuse under the color of authority.  I think it is very safe to assume that the vast majority of people out there, whether they agree with the OWS protestors or not, would not only agree but also be outraged if it was their 84 year old mother or grandmother who was pepper sprayed - for damned near any reason whatsoever, but especially for peacefully protesting something she felt passionate about.  That this actually occurred stands as stark testament to just how far down the slope we've traveled in this country.