Some people in Indy are wringing their hands over what to do about three dozen or so of the "homeless" who have built themselves a ramshackle village under a railroad bridge in downtown Indianapolis. "Issue of bridge people defies easy solution," the headline says, and one person attending a "summit" about the problem said "you can't just kick them out" but they should at least "be required to clean up after themselves." Most solutions, the group concluded, are complex. "Substance-abuse counseling, transitional housing and job training will require a coordinated effort over the long term."
That's a whole lot of sympathy for a group that isn't exactly going out of its way to earn it.
Campi said many residents feel empathy for the homeless, but they are also angry and frustrated by the squalor and sometimes rude, drunken behavior of the camp dwellers.
"A lot of people are scared of what's over there," he said.
The homeless live in tents on the sidewalk and loiter in the street. Their garbage is strewn over a large swath of the area.
Tina LaGrotte, owner of the Milano Inn, said her employees park near the bridge and are often intimidated by the homeless.
Campi said many residents feel empathy for the homeless, but they are also angry and frustrated by the squalor and sometimes rude, drunken behavior of the camp dwellers.
"A lot of people are scared of what's over there," he said.
The homeless live in tents on the sidewalk and loiter in the street. Their garbage is strewn over a large swath of the area.
Tina LaGrotte, owner of the Milano Inn, said her employees park near the bridge and are often intimidated by the homeless.
The story does point out that there are shelters these people could go to. But they prefer not to, thank you very much.
The homeless at the camp said they prefer the bridge to shelters because the shelters have rules, including those against alcohol. But the camp can get unruly; recently a man was beaten by five other bridge people.
Can't have no stinkin' rules, by God. That cramps a man's style. And a place with no rules "can get unruly"? Who knew? The most bizarre part of the story acknowledged that, although "the bridge people bore responsibility for keeping their camp clean," they were not the only ones with a duty.
. . . they agreed that the good Samaritans who drop off food, blankets and clothing at the homeless camp should help, too, along with CSX railroad and the city.
People who enable drunken bums to take over part of a city and live in squalor while they harass and intimidate anyone who comes near are not "good Samaritans." They're morons. Tell the morons to stay home and mind their own business. That would be one part of a "simple solution." So would giving the bums a choice: shelter or jail. No, an attempt to bring back vagrancy laws is not required. But neither is looking the other way while all kinds of other laws are broken.
Comments
Leo:
Much of the exact SAME can be said when THUGS (and criminal activities) are ALSO allowed to take over a part of a city...
(But, it's not like I've ever seen this happen...,in my neighborhood...in the past decade. Nah. Never happen here, right?)
;)
Yeah, I hate those undeserving poor, too. Everyone knows they chose their addictions and mental illnesses. Couldn't we just build, you know, special camps for them? I mean, it's not like they're people or anything.
What's your solution for them Littlejohn? (besides chastising Bob)
Time for one of my favorite quotes!
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." - Anatole France
But I'd think their aversion to infringements on their liberty would get more support in these parts.
Tim:
We can round them up and send them to littlejohn's littlecrib...LOL!
(his littleheart's bleeding enough to take them ALL in)
There's POOR...and then there's LA-ZY.
Know the difference!
And wise up, pinhead.
:)
Wisecracks aside, I wish I had a reasonable solution. I don't. But I don't see where throwing them in jail, where your taxes will pay for their beds and meals, is likely to help.
As the Bible says, the poor will always be with us. And objecting to giving them food and blankets is simply inhuman. Would you really prefer they simply starve/freeze to death and stop annoying you?
No I wouldn't want them to starve/freeze to death, but I wouldn't want them as next door neighbors, would you?
Camping is one thing, setting up a permanent tent city is quite another. My only point was you were quick to make Bob out to be a bad guy, when all he does is actually live by the rules, while those around him make up their own rules, while the authorities completely ignore the rules.
Tim:
Wow...I like that last line of yours...it's not copyrighted (yet), is it?
Kinda fits like a glove...
We don't want to go the "Hooverville" route, trust me.
And sticking them on the south side is just adding insult to (a perpetual) injury.
MY main beef with a lot of these "homeless"people is that they CHOOSE to live in the manner they do.
(much like slum-dwellers)
Shelters don't mean a damn to them, nor does any and all other programs "designed" to get them off the streets.
You can always lead that horse to water, but you're NOT going to get him to drink (unless he wants to)...
Therein lies the REAL issue.
And if the ONLY way to get these people into better surroundings is to make their current living arrangements "less desirable", so be it.
THAT is how you can best serve them...and everyone else.
It should be done by charitable organizations, though, and not at the taxpayers' expense.
That can become a real catch-22, however.
Almost makes a case for the poor houses of Dickens' era.