"I couldn't possibly fail to disagree with you less."
17 May 2008Panhandling by proxyA curious San Francisco innovation:
Rather than tossing loose change into a panhandler's empty cup, San Francisco officials want you instead to slide your spare quarters and nickels into a homeless meter.
The city's latest attempt to deal with one of its most vexing problems will be announced in coming weeks in the form of 10 old parking meters installed in some of the most heavily panhandled areas.... Money deposited in the meters would go directly to charities that help the homeless. The goal, officials say, is to reduce panhandling and to educate tourists and residents about the problem of giving money directly to people on the streets. It should surprise no one that the Homelessness Industry is not keen on this notion:
Paul Boden, director of the Western Regional Advocacy Project that deals with homelessness issues, recalled attempts under previous mayors to place jars by cash registers in businesses and sell coupons for services that could then be handed over to panhandlers. He said the meters idea was especially "asinine" and San Francisco's all-time second-worst idea to curb panhandling.
The worst, he said, was a failed proposal during Willie Brown's administration to equip homeless people with credit-card machines like those used for retail purchases. People could swipe their cards and choose how much to donate, with 80 percent going to homeless programs and 20 percent to the individual panhandlers. I'll give Boden this much: that card-reader idea was indeed insane. Of course, in the unlikely event that this scheme actually helps, he's out of a job. (Via e-Claire.) Posted at 10:45 AM to DyssynergyWhat is it about San Francisco that the denizens feel every single attempt by people to do something good for the downtrodden, has to be made bureaucratic and impersonal? I'm not saying it's a good thing to be accosted by a panhandler, nor to enable whatever problems they have in life by giving to them -- but setting up a Municipal Department of Panhandler Maintenance and Support creates whole new problems while solving nothing. Posted by: McGehee at 2:33 PM on 17 May 2008Of course, that may very well be the reason why big cities are hotbeds of conventional progg-liberalism: everyone, regardless of economic status, sees the relative squalor of those on the lowest rungs, and feels the wish to do something -- but none want to have to actually deal with those on the lowest rungs. Hence: get the gummint to take care of 'em. Posted by: McGehee at 2:37 PM on 17 May 2008AIUI, the problem in San Francisco is that they really *don't* want to "do something good" for the downtrodden, homelessness (and panhandling to support it) being viewed as a "lifestyle choice" which should be respected even when it's a hassle for everybody else. Which dovetails nicely with the agit-prop idea that the squalor of the homeless serves as some kind of an in-your-face lesson for the "wealthy" (i.e., anybody else). If they really wanted to "do something good," they'd start by sorting out the mentally incompetent (get them into custodial care) and the genuinely disabled (get them onto welfare). The rest I don't care about. The meter thing results from aggressive panhandlers scaring the tourists. Rather than bust the panhandlers (lifestyle choice, see above), they're putting in meters so the marks can say, "I gave at the office." It won't work. Posted by: Old Grouch at 3:54 PM on 17 May 2008San Francisco is a behavioral sink, and it is the panhandlers who have made it that way. Posted by: miriam at 9:10 PM on 18 May 2008 |