Current Events > anti-homeless ordinance set to move forward in the mean city of Little Rock, Ark

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/loaves-and-fishes/Content?oid=7260408

The last time I talked about this was before they decided to table the ordinance and instead put it into an interim 45 day study.

The city administration is essentially taking the exact argument @Clad made back then, which is that feeding homeless people is bad because they're drug users and make a mess of city property:



"A basic human need is survival and food," said Alan Sims, Little Rock Convention and Visitors Bureau vice president for sales and services. "So if you're feeding, it's an attractant. They're going to be attracted there. Why can't we balance? Why can't we attract them? It doesn't have to be in a park. It doesn't have to be where our children are. It doesn't have to be where there are safety issues and visitor issues. Why can't we attract them someplace else? I hope this group can find that. We want to feed and we want a great city. We can have both."

Asked whether he believes there is a direct correlation between feeding in Riverfront Park and needles found in the park, Jones repeated that the perception of a link is there.

"Are there facts to support that? I don't know. There's a perception that there is," he said. "There are a lot of homeless people who do sleep in the park. ... There are some people who think that when the feedings take place, they're going to stay where they're fed, and they'll stay there until the next day. That is a perception of citizens that call us all the time. They believe that. Is it a fact? I can't say that I have actual documentation to back that up."


...

"Our convention center is right downtown, our primary hotels are right downtown, and they're all adjacent to the park," he said. "To be a guest in the hotel and look out the window and there's a large mass feeding going on right outside your hotel room, I'm questioning whether that's the image or the perception that we want. Would there not be a better place that might be more conducive to the feeding?"

Of course, the groups who actually work with the homeless justifiably point out that the homeless congregate downtown regardless, as demonstrated by Jericho's Way and by Our House, both homeless shelters that are not located downtown
---

I like how the language in those quotes makes them sound like a pack of animals, or vampires.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

I like how the language in those quotes makes them sound like a pack of animals, or vampires.

yeah, the whole "feedings" thing is incredibly dehumanizing imo

they're called meals
---

Balrog0 posted...

"Are there facts to support that? I don't know. There's a perception that there is,"

Everything wrong with politics right now, on both sides.
---

feedings wtf
---

Balrog0 posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

I like how the language in those quotes makes them sound like a pack of animals, or vampires.

yeah, the whole "feedings" thing is incredibly dehumanizing imo

they're called meals

Weird as fuck
---

Asherlee10 posted...

We have this problem in my city, as well. But I am very shocked at the dehumanization in that language, too.

So many homeless people suffer mental illness. Even if someone is homeless and is mentally sound, they need help. Why isn't the answer to create more facilities and programs to help these people get in better places? That could be group homes, government housing, temp jobs, etc.

A lot of homeless in the northeast are actually the byproduct of shutting down those types of facilities. As the story goes, when the federal government started enforcing standards on asylums a lot of facilities just shut down for being grossly noncompliant. All the tenants were just... let go. Anyone who had family that bothered to pick them up were taken home, but many of them just became instantly homeless.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

We have this problem in my city, as well. But I am very shocked at the dehumanization in that language, too.

So many homeless people suffer mental illness. Even if someone is homeless and is mentally sound, they need help. Why isn't the answer to create more facilities and programs to help these people get in better places? That could be group homes, government housing, temp jobs, etc.

I know the Vice Mayor, she is also the Executive Director of an anti-hunger nonprofit. I'm sort of surprised by how tepid her response has been, though. I really wonder what they're going to suggest.
---

More good Christian behavior in the south
---

The way homeless people are treated in so much of this country is disgusting.
---

That wording...

god damn that stupid river market and those snobby yuppies that run it

nah I do see the concern, but there are plenty of places in downtown that could be suitable for group meals for homeless people. I walk from work to the other side of the freeway every day, and there are a lot of empty lots and abandoned buildings. The issue, partially, is that developers would rather see such land go unused so that they can redevelop it. The public parks are the only real feasible option right now-- but the city, I believe, maintains a land bank and I think they should use some of that to house the homeless.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

Balrog0 posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

We have this problem in my city, as well. But I am very shocked at the dehumanization in that language, too.

So many homeless people suffer mental illness. Even if someone is homeless and is mentally sound, they need help. Why isn't the answer to create more facilities and programs to help these people get in better places? That could be group homes, government housing, temp jobs, etc.

I know the Vice Mayor, she is also the Executive Director of an anti-hunger nonprofit. I'm sort of surprised by how tepid her response has been, though. I really wonder what they're going to suggest.

I wouldn't be surprised if they are all just worried about making the next dollar. Homelessness affects tourism and downtown LR does have a lot to offer.

It could also just be the reality of finite resources. Theoretically, this woman is forced with the choice of boosting care for the homeless, an endless money sink with no return on investment, against things like public school funding, road repair, etc. It may very well be the tepid response is her way of acknowledging that you can't help everyone. A tax increase would also like tank her chance of reelection, so if she thinks she's legitimately good for the city, the question becomes is it worth sacrificing the homeless in this instance to give her more time to help a larger group of people for a longer period of time.
---

s0nicfan posted...

It could also just be the reality of finite resources. Theoretically, this woman is forced with the choice of boosting care for the homeless, an endless money sink with no return on investment, against things like public school funding, road repair, etc. It may very well be the tepid response is her way of acknowledging that you can't help everyone. A tax increase would also like tank her chance of reelection, so if she thinks she's legitimately good for the city, the question becomes is it worth sacrificing the homeless in this instance to give her more time to help a larger group of people for a longer period of time.

she does represent the limousine liberal district of the city, so her constituents almost certainly dont care about the homeless as much as they care about all the other things you mentioned
---

I'm not convinced that the people upset at this decision care about the homeless either. There's a lot of posturing about how this is anti-homeless and how we need to help the homeless, but what I've seen is that this is just moral grandstanding.

My reason for being jaded in this regard is because when I was in LA, I wanted to start a company to fix two problems in the community - the homelessness and also the extremely filthy trash issues in many parts of the city. Venice and Santa Monica in particular are filthy despite having the potential to be pristine gems. Instead of letting homeless people languish around, why not employ them to provide a better cleaning service than the bloated and inefficient public services that aren't getting shit done? The homeless know all the places around town and could easily allocate time to cleaning and recycling shit.

But surprise of surprises, you can't do something like that without getting shafted up the fucking ass because there's too many rules in order to get started.

Politicians just use the homeless as a talking point when all is said and done. Essentially, I agree with this - "It doesn't have to be in a park. It doesn't have to be where our children are. It doesn't have to be where there are safety issues and visitor issues. Why can't we attract them someplace else? I hope this group can find that. We want to feed and we want a great city." You cannot demand moral grandstanding at the expense of the vast majority, or else you risk compromising your city. It's not fun to have to choose between these things, but imo it's the right decision.
---

But surprise of surprises, you can't do something like that without getting shafted up the fucking ass because there's too many rules in order to get started.


Please elaborate on some of these rules.
---

Clad posted...

I'm not convinced that the people upset at this decision care about the homeless either. There's a lot of posturing about how this is anti-homeless and how we need to help the homeless, but what I've seen is that this is just moral grandstanding.

you're literally saying that someone who works 80+ hours a week to feed the homeless and members of the clergy that they are pretending to care about this issue.

Clad posted...

Politicians just use the homeless as a talking point when all is said and done. Essentially, I agree with this - "It doesn't have to be in a park. It doesn't have to be where our children are. It doesn't have to be where there are safety issues and visitor issues. Why can't we attract them someplace else? I hope this group can find that. We want to feed and we want a great city." You cannot demand moral grandstanding at the expense of the vast majority, or else you risk compromising your city. It's not fun to have to choose between these things, but imo it's the right decision.

The politicians are not the ones who oppose this measure for the most part, though.

And I already said the city administration reflected your views. It's just that that is a pretty poor excuse with no real evidence supporting it. There aren't any complaints about safety -- and the complaints about homelessness are generally directed more at panhandling than people congregating to eat in a park.
---

Don't give out food for free. Instead, give all homeless people looking for food a job and then feed them and offer free housing until they've built up enough savings to be able to rent a room. But only so long as they have continued employment.
---

That's a fine sentiment, but I doubt the people who are giving them food have the ability to just suddenly provide employment to all the homeless people
---

Balrog go debate with your city officials if you want to debate the law
---

yeah, I'm not against that in principle, but its a different thing than charity

I'm sure @Clad is correct that there are many regulatory hurdles if you're trying to employ people, even if you're paying them in-kind some how

in any case, my point is that banning homeless "feedings" isn't gonna make them go away from downtown
---

Clad posted...

Balrog go debate with your city officials if you want to debate the law

I have, and intend to again.
---

Burgess posted...

But surprise of surprises, you can't do something like that without getting shafted up the fucking ass because there's too many rules in order to get started.


Please elaborate on some of these rules.

well, I know that you're probably trying to be a facetious bitterbeard in some way, but for starters:

https://beta.smgov.net/strategic-goals/inclusive-diverse-community/minimum-wage-ordinance
---

Balrog0 posted...

yeah, I'm not against that in principle, but its a different thing than charity

I'm sure @Clad is correct that there are many regulatory hurdles if you're trying to employ people, even if you're paying them in-kind some how

in any case, my point is that banning homeless "feedings" isn't gonna make them go away from downtown

and having regular meals in parks and on streets isn't going to resolve homelessness or hunger.

Balrog0 posted...

Clad posted...

Balrog go debate with your city officials if you want to debate the law

I have, and intend to again.

good, maybe they'll cajole you into avoiding the emotional "you're anti-homeless" diatribes
---

Clad posted...

and having regular meals in parks and on streets isn't going to resolve homelessness or hunger.

I never said it would, though.

Clad posted...

good, maybe they'll cajole you into avoiding the emotional "you're anti-homeless" diatribes

how can anyone possibly construe anything I've done itt as a diatribe? you've got a real problem being respectful of people who disagree with you, and you should fix that. It's obnoxious.
---

Balrog0 posted...

you're literally saying that someone who works 80+ hours a week to feed the homeless and members of the clergy that they are pretending to care about this issue

The idea of caring about somebody other than himself is literally incomprehensible to proudclad. Things like compassion for other people baffle him.

Clad posted...

you're probably trying to be a facetious bitterbeard

Hurt feelings detected.
---

Balrog0 posted...

how can anyone possibly construe anything I've done itt as a diatribe? you've got a real problem being respectful of people who disagree with you, and you should fix that. It's obnoxious.

look at your topic title. and also look at this gem where you misrepresented what i argued: "The city administration is essentially taking the exact argument Clad made back then, which is that feeding homeless people is bad because they're drug users and make a mess of city property:"

pretty sure i never said anything about not feeding homeless people because they're drug users, wtf
---

Sphyx posted...

Clad posted...

you're probably trying to be a facetious bitterbeard

Hurt feelings detected.

All I did was ask a question and he went straight to that.
---

Burgess posted...

Sphyx posted...

Clad posted...

you're probably trying to be a facetious bitterbeard

Hurt feelings detected.

All I did was ask a question and he went straight to that.

No, you have a history of being snarky and passive aggressive. You have never before just asked a question without trying to angle it or abuse it in some way, so that's why I don't trust your intentions.
---

I've asked questions plenty of times, like now, with no other motive. Stop being so paranoid.
---

Clad posted...

look at your topic title. and also look at this gem where you misrepresented what i argued: "The city administration is essentially taking the exact argument Clad made back then, which is that feeding homeless people is bad because they're drug users and make a mess of city property:"

pretty sure i never said anything about not feeding homeless people because they're drug users, wtf

it is an anti-homeless ordinance.

you're probably right, I don't have anything saved but I do remember you being concerned with safety issues in the previous topic about this exact issue, and I don't understand what that might mean other than drug users. I don't think you think homeless people are mugging people, but maybe.
---

eston posted...

That's a fine sentiment, but I doubt the people who are giving them food have the ability to just suddenly provide employment to all the homeless people

I'm in California and there's a shit ton of work that needs to be done. Mostly updating infrastructure. The roads are shit, many buildings are dilapidated, not enough parking lots, roads need to be widened, etc.

There's plenty to do but there is an upfront cost of all these things and most people vehemently oppose tax increases.
---

Also, do people know you need money for drugs? Sure you can turn tricks but when you're actually homeless, eating becomes kind of a priority so I'm not sure how well they budget for heroin and the like.
---

After just skimming, it looks like this prevents feeding homeless people in parks. Is there some reason they can't just move accross the street from a park, or even just onto some other street block and set up their tables?
---

Proud you really do need to learn how to talk to people. Balrog literally just asked a simple question and you flew off the handle. Stop.

MutantJohn posted...

eston posted...

That's a fine sentiment, but I doubt the people who are giving them food have the ability to just suddenly provide employment to all the homeless people

I'm in California and there's a shit ton of work that needs to be done. Mostly updating infrastructure. The roads are shit, many buildings are dilapidated, not enough parking lots, roads need to be widened, etc.

There's plenty to do but there is an upfront cost of all these things and most people vehemently oppose tax increases.

Don't forget about Cali's crippling water shortages, long history of summer brown-outs due to power problems, and insolvency.
---

In general you can't block sidewalks on a city street, but parks are fine because no one is walking into traffic to avoid your table. At least from the explanations I've heard.

Ah, that makes sense.

Yeah that doesn't leave a lot... maybe parking lots? Though you might get shot setting uo a table in a parking spot in the city.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Don't forget about Cali's crippling water shortages, long history of summer brown-outs due to power problems, and insolvency.

No longer on drought, the rolling brown outs have not happened in like a decade since Enron, and California is not having issues paying debts and Jerry Brown is doing a good job making sure we don't add entitlement programs without having the revenue to pay for it.

CruelBuffalo posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Don't forget about Cali's crippling water shortages, long history of summer brown-outs due to power problems, and insolvency.

No longer on drought, the rolling brown outs have not happened in like a decade since Enron, and California is not having issues paying debts and Jerry Brown is doing a good job making sure we don't add entitlement programs without having the revenue to pay for it.

Oh, well that's good. The state was in some dire shit even as recently as last year, so it's good to hear they're turning it around.
---

Balrog0 posted...

Clad posted...

look at your topic title. and also look at this gem where you misrepresented what i argued: "The city administration is essentially taking the exact argument Clad made back then, which is that feeding homeless people is bad because they're drug users and make a mess of city property:"

pretty sure i never said anything about not feeding homeless people because they're drug users, wtf

it is an anti-homeless ordinance.

you're probably right, I don't have anything saved but I do remember you being concerned with safety issues in the previous topic about this exact issue, and I don't understand what that might mean other than drug users. I don't think you think homeless people are mugging people, but maybe.

Anecdote: I've seen homeless people physically attack bystanders for no reason. It happened to the Uber driver I was with in LA once too. It's definitely a safety concern.

CruelBuffalo posted...

Proud you really do need to learn how to talk to people. Balrog literally just asked a simple question and you flew off the handle. Stop.

Like I said, the topic title and the way he lumped me into the OP was definitely not just asking a simple question.
---

thats probably fair

sorry Clad, I apologize
---