User login

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 15 guests online.

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

  • Lisa P
  • GRuB
  • ktcoxster
  • making a differ...
  • johnmac

    Creative Commons License
 
Submitted by Crenshaw Sepulveda on Thu, 10/12/2006 - 7:01am.

[bumped to the front page by Rick]

It seems to me that the voices claiming that downtown Olympia is such a terrible place are very similar to the voices that got us into this war in Iraq. The lead up to the war had the administration trotting out for public display any voice that would claim that Iraq had these weapons of mass destruction and they were pointed at Podunk, Iowa. So we got the war, killed plenty of people. Of course there were no weapons of mass destruction.

So we now have all these voices saying how terrible downtown Olympia is. Between politicians, business people, writers to the comments section of the Olympian, and reporters for the Olympian. All these voices that say downtown Olympia is awful. But really, downtown Olympia is terrific. Most of the people that I know that see it for the first time love it. They love it even more after continued exposure. So we have this disconnect. What people are trying to portray downtown Olympia as and the real truth about downtown Olympia, and that is that it is a very successsful downtown with a distinct personality and unique mix of mostly locally owned businesses. Our downtown is populated with a diverse mixture of people that add to the life of downtown.

So if it is not the weapons of mass destruction, or in this case the horribly unsafe conditions of downtown, it must be that the people that are making the claims are actually going for regime change. The short story is that big business does not like little business. Big business would give us Applebys, Red Lobster, and the Gap downtown. They would give us sterile shopping districts that would be vacated after closing time. Big business would give us the illusion of safety without actually providing safety. I'll say that again, they would give us the illusion of safety without providing actual safety. Huh? Remove the panhandlers, remove the young street people, remove the interesting characters that populate the downtown area and you would have the illusion of safety. No panhandlers, no bums, no mentally ill people wandering around and all will proclaim that downtown is safe. I hope by now that you know better than that. What we will have is a void in our town after hours, the void will be filled by those that really pose a safety threat to the downtown. Where street life doesn't exist you have the increased potential for trouble. Couple that with the sterility of the businesses that would take the place of our local businesses and you have an environment that is so without humanity that it would drive the most pious to a life of crime.

What we have in downtown is what will make it better. We are well aware that there are people in downtown that need help. Unlike most downtowns I believe that our downtown can do this in the most humane and meaningful way. I say that because I believe that even the poorest of our community are worthy of inclusion in our community. I believe that they may be capable of making the most profound of contributions to our community.

Make no mistake, what is going on is not unlike the run up to the Iraq war. They are saying one thing, but you know what they really want, and that is regime change. Yes we have a war on our hands. It is a war against the poor. It is a war against the small business person that makes our town unique. There is a war because downtown Olympia stands for what big business doesn't. Couple that with the fact that downtown Olympia sits on some very desirable and valuable real estate and you can hear the war machines cranking up.

»

hey wait a second...

...I already responded to this!

"If you are a dreamer, come in. If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, a hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer. If you're a pretender, come sit by my fire, for we have some flax-golden tales to spin. Come in! Come in!"
»

I hear you, Crenshaw.  I

I hear you, Crenshaw.  I think the dynamic you observe is part of the reason I am feeling particularly testy towards the folks who still want to argue that Iraq had weapons, harbored al qaeda, or were a threat to us and coincidentally want to tell apocryphal stories about the horrible state of downtown Oly. 

I think these folks are working to create a cultural meme that has little or no connection to the facts on the ground for reasons of their own.  I am sick of it.  I think it's dishonest and self-serving. 

But I am heading to the Oregon coast for a couple of days so I leave you all to sort it out.  Thanks for calling it what it is.  It's a solution searching for a problem. Terraforming, dupontification. Who needs it?
»

Come on....

So, I agree with the first 2 paragraphs and then you go off on what???  Here's my vivew.  I do not have a problem with homeless people.  What I have a problem with is homeless people, or WHOEVER, that are vandalizing, crapping, slashing tires, bashing in doors, breaking windows, painting grafitti, etc. etc.  It is not just an excess of homeless, because I don't believe that it's always the homeless that are doing these things.  In fact I think the homeless are getting a bad rap, actually.  There are a lot of visiting homeless who come from wherever to take advantage of our kind hearted citizens and the City Council. I.e the porta potties, free showers at the pier and a general laissez faire attitude.  Someone should be around to stop these people from defacing downtown.  If you want small business to flourish, and it sounds like you do, then the downtown area should be a place where people who are going to actually shop in the stores want to come to.  I'm pretty sure that the homeless and/or young street people are not the big spenders downtown, and if people are not buying, the stores will eventually die.  Yes, the downtown Olympia is very charming.  Lately, it has been beautiful in the mornings and afternoons as I drive through town.  But it is a shame to see it being trampled on.  I think that most people are not adverse to homeless but to filth and misbehavior.
»

the Procession of the Feces

Oh dear lord, here we go again with the feces.  What next, stepping over people lying on the sidewalks?  You have no problems with the homeless, you say that yourself. You just seem to have a problem with the behavior of the homeless. To quote your own words" "There are a lot of visiting homeless who come from wherever to take advantage of our kind hearted citizens and the City Council. I.e the porta potties, free showers at the pier and a general laissez faire attitude.  Someone should be around to stop these people from defacing downtown."  You don't sound like a person that does not have a problem with homeless people.  You sound like one of those people that run down a successful and interesting downtown.  My question is why?  What is the agenda here?  Why run down downtown?  Surely we don't need more Appleby's and Gaps down there?  Could it be that the homeless are joining the other groups that it is ok to be bigoted against.  First there were the gays, now it is migrant workers and the homeless that bigotry has open season on.  Folks I don't get it.  If you need to be bigoted against some one be bigoted towards those that set up our economic systems that allows homelessness and poverty to exist in its ever increasing numbers in our little town.  Show your derision towards those that bring this poverty about with out providing solutions.  Do not take out your bigotry on the powerless and poor.

"I would make it impossible for the covetous and avaricious to utterly impoverish the poor. The rich can take care of themselves."
^@^
»

I would be curious about the

I would be curious about the statistics of those who are homeless and are either from Olympia and lost their employment in Olympia in comparison to those who have migrated to Olympia and lost their job outside of Olympia.

I've always heard there's a significant population which is not from Olympia, I just wonder whether it's statistically true or not.

»

at the crossroads

I'd be willing to speculate that a good number of the homeless in Olympia are probably not card carrying Olympians.  The way I see it, Olympia is at the crossroads.  We are kind of a feeder community for Gray's Harbor County, Mason County, and Lewis County.  I am aware that there is actually regularly scheduled public transit that comes into Olympia all the way from Kelso/Longview and points south.  So we are at the crossroads and we attract, for whatever reason, the homeless and the poor to our community.  They are still human, they are still worthy of respect, and we should be doing our best to make them the valuable members of our community that I believe they can be.It concerns me very little where the homeless come from.  It concerns me greatly that the homeless are under attack.  Too many people see them as problems to be eliminated.  Go on and argue that we have more than our share of the homeless. I'm not concerned about the arguments, I'm concerned about what we are doing and making certain that the homeless are treated with dignity and respect in our community, regardless of the Olympia credentials they may have.  I don't get it, people are worried about where the homeless come from, I'm worried about the numbers of people that will die over the winter because they don't have shelter or adequate clothing, not to mention food and sanitation facilities.  In The Treasure of the Sierra Madre one of the pseudo federales states "Badges!? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges! I don't have to show you any stinking badges!!"  The homeless do not have anything to prove to me.

"I would make it impossible for the covetous and avaricious to utterly impoverish the poor. The rich can take care of themselves."
^@^
»

Y'know, I think the only

Y'know, I think the only time I have heard that quote in a movie was an old black and white western, and if I recall correctly they had the living shit shot out of them afterward.
»

It makes all of the

It makes all of the difference when individuals from other cities (and even states) are coming into Olympia seeking to use our public resources.

Economically it's not sound policy to maintain a steady influx of people who are only adding more bodies which are only subtracting from resources. Unless the amount of those taking from the system is being offset by an equal number contributing to the system, you will eventually find yourself further in the red than you want to be.

This is why I think there is a large push to make businesses "pay their fair share." It's not that it's their "fair share," it's that it's becoming more and more necessary to take more from those who have done financially well for themselves in order to offset the numbers who are not contributing toward paying for the resources they are using.

»

How's this for a start.

There are a good many businesses that exploit the poor.  I just got a copy of the Brookings Institute Report "From poverty, opportunity". Now there wasn't anything new in it for me, and it didn't give me hope that our legislatures will do much to prevent these businesses from exploiting the poor, it does clearly illustrate how the poor are exploited by business.  I'd make a recommendation that every type of business that exploits the poor pay windfall taxes to support services to the homeless.  The businesses I would target would be: Pay Day Loan Businesses, Sub Prime mortgage lenders, Rent to Own furniture and appliance businesses, Check Cashing businesses that charge huge fees to cash government checks.  There are other businesses that exploit the poor, but this would be a good start.  Punishing the exploiters of the poor would be a good start for me.  If that money didn't help improve the lives of the homeless, I'd then start looking for other sources of funding.  Having said that, money is not the only solution for helping the homeless.  Treating people with dignity and respect goes a long way towards coming up with solutions.  Treating the homeless as if they were problems and treating the homeless as if they were less than human is the best way to make sure that any money you spend helping the homeless will pretty much be insufficient and ultimately fail to improve their lives.

"I would make it impossible for the covetous and avaricious to utterly impoverish the poor. The rich can take care of themselves."
^@^
»

you don't say

Muhammad Yunos might nod his head in agreement about that.

"If you are a dreamer, come in. If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, a hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer. If you're a pretender, come sit by my fire, for we have some flax-golden tales to spin. Come in! Come in!"
»

Yunos deserves a statue in Sylvester Park

Funny you should Mention Muhammad Yunos.  I understand he was in the news recently, got some sort of award.  I've been following his work for the last 30 years and it figures prominently in my thinking.  Across the park, opposite of the statue of Rogers I would have them put up a statue of Muhamman Yunos.  Who would have thought that treating the poor with dignity and respect, giving them credit and control over their futures, giving people the opportunities to escape exploitation and become truly human, would get some one a Nobel Peace Prize.  These are not radical concepts, but they seem to be rare in this world, so much so that when people see these concepts in practice they are really amazed with the results and think that Nobel Peace Prizes are in order.  Personally I would have given Muhammad Yunos the Nobel Prize for Economics and then given him the Nobel Peace Prize for the comments he made after they told him about the prize.  I'm wondering now, who has a problem with poor people being empowered and in control of their futures?  I guess I did make a mistake here, these are radical concepts and there are those that don't want to see an empowered and fully human population come out the ranks of the poor.  That is why so many beat them down about being homeless, that is why they hate the homeless.  The rich need the poor to remain rich.  If we can keep them from becoming fully human, if we can keep them in squalor and degradaton, they will never become the humans they are meant to be.



"I would make it impossible for the covetous and avaricious to utterly impoverish the poor. The rich can take care of themselves."
^@^
»

alternate realities

Welcome to America, TFI.  I'm not sure where you've been living, but feel free to bring us a little taste of that fairness pie.

"If you are a dreamer, come in. If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, a hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer. If you're a pretender, come sit by my fire, for we have some flax-golden tales to spin. Come in! Come in!"
»

Bullshit

The idea that a "good number" of our homeless are not from here is completely unfounded and untrue. Facts simply do not support that notion. It's the promulgation of that idea that keeps people from getting the services that they need. Everyone feels better just believing that "these people" aren't from here, because then they can justify not providing services. One look at the numbers provided by in the Housing Authority's Homeless Census will dispell most stereotypes one holds. Everyday more and more people are losing their housing due to a wide variety of reasons, a lot of them beyond their control. On average, a person is homeless for only three months. That's a fact. If the people you see on the street everyday for years at a time were the majority, would the average be so low? I think not.
»

Here's the numbers.

Less than 5% of homeless households last resided outside of Thurston County.  (2006 Point in Time Homeless Census Report for Thurston County)

There's a lot of phoney-baloney out there about the homeless, and the myths benefit particular people in Olympia.  We don't take care of our neighbors here.  And when our neighbors wind up homeless we persecute them.  Then we justify our behavior with half-cocked bullshit urban legends that make the homeless out to be some kind of roaming, leeching, violent criminals.

It's not just public officials and merchants who do this either.  Social services are just as much to blame.  If Jesus walked into our town today, begging for a cup of water, he'd be asked for an ID, birth date, and social security number.  Then he'd be given a referral to a job search agency.  Then he'd be logged into a computer to make sure that the next time he asked for water he'd be turned away.  Only after all that, he'd be given a thimble sized dixie cup of water.

Lately I've been having a really hard time believing that people don't suck.
»

For the record...

... the showers here are only for paying customers of the marina. You need to have a key. There are showers at the YMCA, but they restrict the number of vouchers and cull out folks with certain criminal backgrounds (understandably). The Olympia Center is touchy about homeless folks using their bathrooms. Other public restrooms (Heritage park and Percival landing) are closed between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., sometimes longer.
»

Aren't the state rest-stop

Aren't the state rest-stop bathrooms open 24/7? and if they are, is it state patrol that monitors them? Having public facilities 24/7 really doesn't seem like it should be that tough.
»

I guess the Quakers are bigots too?

So, because someone doesn't agree with what you say, they are a bigot?  I'm sure you must have read the article in Saturday's paper about the Quakers up in the U district in Seattle.  If not, here it is.  Apparently,  in the mid 90's they began welcoming the homeless to sleep on their property, but last week they evicted them!  Now, why would people who are well known for their 'turn the other cheek' attitude do this?  These are people who are pacifistic, quiet, peace loving citizens.  Why did they suddently evict the homeless?  Well, let me tell you why.  The Quakers had some rules that the homeless refused to abide by which were: While on Quaker property, the homeless had to refrain from drugs and alcohol, not engage in sex or violent behavior, and be gone during business hours.  They couldn't even muster that.  How hard is that?  Too hard for them.  This is why we have the problems that we do down here.  If these people could behave in a civilized manner there would not be any objections to their being on the streets.  What people are objecting to is not the homeless per se, but the way they portray themselves.  People do not want to see public drunkeness, slovenly behavior, and drug transactions in broad daylight.  Apparently that is too much to ask?  So, I guess YOU would call the Quakers bigots??  What's next? 
»

I have been offering

I have been offering hospitality to the homeless directly from my home for quite some time now.  I have not had these kind of problems. 

I am also amused that you would pull an article about troubles at a Quaker church in Seattle as a way of making a point about who homeless people are here.  Tell me, do you know any homeless people here?  If so, how long have you known them, and how much time have you spent with them?  Only ignorance can breed the kind of comments you made above.

I don't know the circumstances of the decision made by the Seattle Friends Meeting.  Nonetheless, I am disappointed and disheartened by it, as I am sure they are.  I attended the Olympia Friends Meeting for a little over a year, and both my parents were brought up in Quaker schools.  The Friends are generally good people, and would not come to a decision like this lightly.  I also suspect that they would not appreciate your use of their decision to promote your anti-homeless propaganda.
»

Better to remain silent be though a...

I will not call you a fool, but I will say you are ignorant, but because you are ignorant you can be schooled.  I'm here to take you to school.  You are expecting the homeless to follow your rules.  If they follow your rules they will be accepted by you.  Oh Goody, the homeless are accepted by Nicki.  Like anyone cares if the homeless are accepted by you.  But you like to sit there and proclaim that the homeless are fine by you so long as they follow "the rules".  The homeless are not trained animals for your amusement.  Sit up, beg, and maybe I'll give you a treat.  We know you think the homeless are uncivilized, you've said it yourself.  Uncivilized as in acting like animals?

So the lesson begins.  The homeless follow the law of the streets.  That is what keeps them alive.  And most, despite the odds against them, do a fairly good job of it.  Bear that in mind "the law of the streets".  No person can survive life on the streets without understanding how this law works and the homeless would be fools to think that following your rules would help them.  You bring up the Quakers and bigotry, all you are doing is to justify your own bigotry by making reference to the acts of others, in this case the Quakers. I'm sure the Quakers don't live by the law of the streets.  I would hope the Quakers would treat the homeless with compassion and respect.  The homeless are resourceful and smart.  They do their best to survive and to ease the pains of their existence.  Give the homeless the credit they deserve for their survival skills, give the homeless the respect for being human.  Give the homeless a chance to do better for themselves, not by creating the Nicki rules for them, but by giving them the opportunities to exit homelessness via empowering opportunities and welcoming, inclusive communities.  "The law of the streets", worth remembering.  No progress can be made towards solving the problems of homelessness until this is understood and the individuals that are homeless are treated with respect.  Calling them "uncivilized" is not respectful, but I guess that is the point of bigotry.

"I would make it impossible for the covetous and avaricious to utterly impoverish the poor. The rich can take care of themselves."
^@^
»

Heh

That's one of my fave's

"Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."

»

Apparently you misunderstood

Apparently you misunderstood what I was saying.  I, as well as most people, do not object to the homeless per se.  What is objectionable is the way these people act (not act as in performing a trick, alright?).  I don't think it is too much to ask for them to respect other people as you suggest we respect them.  The reason, if you had read about what happened with the Quakers in Seattle, that they put the homeless off of their property is because the homeless would not respect the simple basic rules that the Quakers asked them to follow.  It was not enormous what had been asked of them.  After all, the Quakers out of the goodness of their hearts, gave them a place to live free for many years and finally, since these people refused to respect them, they felt they had no other choice but to terminate the relationship.  They gave them compassion and respect and what did they get in return?  A very sad comentary, I think.  The reason I brought that up was just to show that even the most tolerent of people can finally have too much.  As for the 'laws of the street', that's a bunch of crap.  So, these unruly people absolutely MUST be drunk in public, jeer as people walk by, taunt people, because those are the rules of the street?  I grew up learning the laws of good behavior.  Why should they have different rules of behavior that I should.  And by the way, these are not MY rules, they are the rules that most upstanding citizens live by.  Nobody is asking them to perform, unless being civil is a performance.  Also, for all I know, these people I'm seeing downtown actually have homes that they go to. Maybe they are not homeless after all.  I have never followed one of them around for too long so maybe they are just downtown to spend some quality time. 
»

sometimes people will just make your point for you

Thanks for helping me make my points, anyone reading your most recent post will certainly see that the more you go on about what you know nothing about the more you help those that disagree with you.  I think on this matter it would have actually been better for you to remain silent rather than continue with this nonsense and remove all doubts.

"I would make it impossible for the covetous and avaricious to utterly impoverish the poor. The rich can take care of themselves."
^@^
»

Walked into it

The point being made was that you can't break it down into "civilized" or "uncivilized" because the "Laws of the Street" (Rules of Survival, whatever tag you want to apply) are the only thing, as humans, those who are homeless are concerned with. When in a survival situation, it's the only thing nearly any of us would be concerned with.

Basically, the way mom and dad taught you to act in public does not apply because it's a different set of conditions in which the individual is being subjected to.

I don't know whether I agree that being homeless in the United States is so desperate a situation that one has to adbandon any and all regard for social norms in order to survive, but if I've been following correctly (and I'll admit, I've just been skimming through) that's the point being made by Crenshaw.

»

Who?

Social Norm? Where?
»

Nicki

Here is the problem with what you are saying:

"I, as well as most people, do not object to the homeless per se. What is objectionable is the way these people act..."

You say that you don't have a problem with the homeless but with "these people's" behaviors. If you don't have a bigotry problem, why are you referring to them as "these people"? Do think the homeless go to the Downtown Olympia Homeless Caucus together and agree to all consistently act a certain way in downtown Olympia?

If the homeless grouped the middle class together the way you are grouping them together, it would not paint a pretty picture of the middle class. After all, "these people" pour ice water on the homeless on cold winter nights, light them on fire in their sleeping bags, compare them to dogs, bugs, garbage, shit, and dirt, use them for sex, call the police to have them "removed" from their sidewalk like a piece of litter, and enact legislation punishing all homeless people for the alleged misbehaviors of a few. I wonder if the homeless had political power if they would create an ordinance banning "nuisance behaviors" such as honor student bumper stickers, car alarms, wifi, and the sale of expensive cocktails in downtown.

You make the arrogant claim that you would not behave "that way" if you were homeless. Of course, the truth is you have no idea how you would behave if you were homeless. Even if you became homeless, you would have no idea what someone else's experience of homelessness was. But suppose you are right. Maybe you would be a nice homeless person. You wouldn't be the first or the only. And then you would have the experience of listening to people say things like "I don't hate the homeless. Its just that THESE PEOPLE blah blah blah" and they wouldn't listen to you or notice you or care about you and your story thoughts because you'd BE one of "these people".

It appears that University Meeting had the same bigotry problem as you have. How unfortunate that they viewed problem behaviors as being "these people", and used it as a justification to be stingy with their property. I'm sure I am not the only Quaker who disagrees with their decision.

Its true that there is that of God in everyone. There is also selfishness and bigotry in everyone, even Quakers.

Jade

»

Ok, so let's go about this

Ok, so let's go about this constructively and without Quakers...they are great people but I think they shouldn't be what are focused on in the conversation.
 
 I would say, honestly, that many, MANY of the people you see downtown are not homeless, it just happens to be that they hang out downtown. That being said, all of the unruly behaviors you speak of in your previous posts(s) also happen to be problems among the middle class who live in a home. They also tend to be aired out in public, particularly while drinking. Also, just because society has rules does not mean that all people will follow those rules. Remember "the war on drugs" ? Didn't amount to much did it?
 
 So with some of these thoughts in mind ( don't get defensive on me here ) what do you think would be the best way to approach these issues? Do you think people should look beyond the exterior and maybe find out how many of these folks downtown are actually homeless? As I stated earlier does it make a difference if they have a home or not if they act the way they do? Would it be better to try and create more opportunity for the folks who ARE homeless to get back on their feet, or should we enact a few more laws and put more people into our already WAY overcrowded jail?  I would also ask how old you are. The only reason I would ask that is so many, MANY of these behaviors are displayed inside drinking establishments also. The world isn't always a pretty place and these are mere symptoms of a bigger problem...I really don't think throwing a band-aid on a sucking chest wound is going to help much at this point.

 So take a look at those, just think about it. I'm not asking you to change your mind, I agree that some behavior displayed downtown is not very polite, but there are many places that are like that and 99% of those places don't cater to the homeless. I just want you to wonder if there is more to the story.

Norm
»

So, just answer me one

So, just answer me one thing.  Since you KNOW SO MUCH about the whole issue.  You are ok with people harassing you while you're walking down the street with your small children or your elderly mother?  That's ok with you?  I just need to understand what motivates this.  How is it necessary to act this way to SURVIVE?  Sorry, don't get it. But maybe the reason you feel compelled to defend that behaviior is because you are one of those that do it??  Is that it?  And yes, being homeless in the United States is nothing compared to being homeless in so many other places.  I can just tell you this.  If I am ever homeless I know I won't feel compelled to make nasty comments to passersby, nor will I feel compelled to stagger drunk around the streets, and I would probably figure out some way to make some kind of money so I wouldn't have to stay that way.  It is possible.  And how dare you tell me I should be silent...again because I don't agree with you I should not speak?  In your opinion anyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot, correct?
»

Will some one please buy Nicki a Clue

If I am homeless, if I've never been homeless, doesn't mean that the homeless aren't worthy of respect.  Respect is fundemental.  Those in superior positions (those with warm homes to sleep in, friges full of gourmet foods, clean and comfortable places to leave their excrement-other than Olyblog, which Nicki seems to be doing a lot of) should be doing this one simple thing, showing the homeless some respect and allowing them some dignity.  I've gone on about the "Law of the Street".  You don't have to live on the streets to understand this, you just have to know that the homeless world is different than your world.  On the other hand it is probably very much the same as yours.  You want control over your home, you want to invite or exclude people from your home as you choose.  You want to be comfortable in your home doing that which you wish to do and unfettered by your neighbors or even those that might otherwise be close to you.  The same goes for the homeless, the streets are their homes, the shelters are their homes, the homeless camps are their homes. The streets and shelters are all the homeless have.  It is their world and home.  So maybe they don't act the way you would in your home, but they are doing what they have to, or need to, do in their home.

I've never implied that Nicki was an idiot, that would be disrespectful to those that have this psychological label placed upon them.  I did say Nicki was ignorant, and sadly Nicki remains ignorant.  Every post just furthers Nicki's bigotry of the homeless.  Please Nicki, you are doing yourself no favors continuing to post on this subject.  You just can not defend bigotry.  Don't even bother.
 
"I would make it impossible for the covetous and avaricious to utterly impoverish the poor. The rich can take care of themselves."
^@^
»

Ok Crenshaw, I'm going to

Ok Crenshaw, I'm going to step in here. You may not like her posts, as my a few of us, but you are getting a little mean-spirited here. I can see how Nicki would take your posts as you implying that she is an idiot, hell the title of your above post doesn't give you much defense. How about taking a step back and letting her do her thing. You certainly aren't going to change her mind about this by belittling her, I know you are aware of that. Let's try to be a little more constructive with our criticism.

Norm
»

Constructive criticism

I will defend the homeless.  I don't care if this looks harsh to others.  Someone has to be a voice for this powerless population.  I will call out the bigotry when I see it.  People that continue to defend their bigotry will not get much in the way of respect from me.  When you are stepping on someone's neck it really doesn't matter how sweetly you tell them how you have nothing against them.  It doesn't matter if you tell them you are not really a bigot even though you wish they would just go away and leave the normal, homed people, alone.  Don't tell me I'm being mean spirited here, what is mean spirited is the shabby attitude Nicki holds towards the homeless.  More shameless than that, Nicki actually thinks that bigotry needs to be promoted here.

"I would make it impossible for the covetous and avaricious to utterly impoverish the poor. The rich can take care of themselves."
^@^
»

Your being mean-spirited

Your being mean-spirited does not become negated because her views are even moreso. It is simply an addition to the nature of the conversation. It doesn't help anyone. If her bigotry is so obvious than none of us will buy into it, she will simply speak and we will all pretend to listen. I simply wanted to defuse the situation Crenshaw, and the handful of times that I've met you I know that you are a great person. Realize that some people take more time to see reality than others, that's all I ask.

Norm

»

Thanks, dog.


When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion. -C.P. Snow
»

What if it happened to you?

This question seemed to come up in the thread... how would you behave if you became homeless?

First, I'll say that I've met a number of people who fell into homelessness from middle or working class lives, and who held similar opinions about the homeless as Nicki apparently does.  Some of them very, very quickly changed their opinions.  Others maintained a self-righteous attitude.  "I'm not like those others...", they will say.  These folks are often the rudest and most selfish among the street community, refusing to share what they have and refusing to make friends with the people around them.  They also are the people who have the greatest sense of entitlement, who take great insult at the fact that the system doesn't do enough to help them.  Looking down upon the homeless and "these people's" behaviors is a sin of pride.  Unfortunately, even the most humbling circumstances fail to eradicate that pride.

I'd also like to quote Jade for a moment here, "After all, 'these people' pour ice water on the homeless on cold winter nights, light them on fire in their sleeping bags, compare them to dogs, bugs, garbage, shit, and dirt, use them for sex, call the police to have them 'removed' from their sidewalk like a piece of litter, and enact legislation punishing all homeless people for the alleged misbehaviors of a few."

This, Nicki, is how you will be treated if you become homeless.  Now, please tell me again how you would behave?

»

Just one more thing...

First of all, I am not, nor have I ever been, a person who would do such things to  anyone, homeless, or otherwise.  If you had read what I said earlier, which you obviously have not, I said I have no issue with HOMELESS people per se.  What I have an issue with is, people, homeless, street people, wayward youth, local residents maybe, whatever you want to call these folks, exhibiting unacceptable behavior.  For instance, making rude and discussing comments at passersby, or staggering around drunk, or slashing people’s tires while they are dining downtown, or conducting drug transactions in plain sight of children walking in the downtown area, or punching people out while they are trying to open their car doors, or even punching out the police that come to the aid of those people, things like that.  I consider these acts, at the least, disrespectful.  I feel that the gentle people with no homes have rights just like you and me.  They absolutely do, never said they didn’t.  And, I do respect those that respect me, but if someone insults me why do I have to be subjected to that or tolerate it?  Oh, or is that one of those ‘Rules of the Street’, let’s see, rule #346 maybe?  I can be unruly and obnoxious, but because I’m hanging around on the street doing nothing, nobody is allowed to get mad at me for how I feel like acting.  Why can’t the people who own shops downtown and their patrons expect some respect, as well.  That is what I am complaining about.  

 

 

So, it seems apparent that you feel that some of the people without jobs that frequent the downtown area are helpless?  Of course there are some people that are there because they want to live this way.  We all know that, but I’m talking about the ones that are really there because they made a bad choice at some point in their lives, or someone else made a bad choice and they have ended up jobless and homeless.  If you are saying that these people desperately want help and can’t find it in this community then you must consider them stupid.  Therefore, you are the bigot.  And you are being bigoted against these very people that you say you want to defend.  There are many places that will lend a helping hand to people in need.  They will be given clothes for job interviews, and food, and a place to stay.  So, then why are they on the streets?  Enlighten me, oh, great teacher.

 

 

Homelessness and joblessness are sad situations, but they are something that one can recover from if one puts ones efforts into it.  We live in country that will help anyone.  Why do you suppose so many people do anything they can to get here.   Being poor in this country is not great, but poor people in this country are so much better off then poor people around the world.

»

For instance, making rude

For instance, making rude and discussing comments at passersby, or staggering around drunk, or slashing people’s tires while they are dining downtown, or conducting drug transactions in plain sight of children walking in the downtown area, or punching people out while they are trying to open their car doors, or even punching out the police that come to the aid of those people, things like that.

I'm afraid you won't listen to the messenger if it came from someone else, but you do realize many of these activities also stem from the bars downtown, right?

Granted, the major problem bar had their license revoked (or whatever is happening with the whole Bar Code situation), but I think if you went to the police department and asked where the majority of their problems come from, they would say downtown in general.

I'm fairly certain it's equal amount homeless population and another part college-kids (I think we've weeded out the Tacoma population, for now) who come to Olympia.

»

Nicki

First off, I have never believed that the homeless are helpless.  The selfish, cynical, and hard-hearted state of our society is a reflection on society, not on the homeless per se.

While people who experience homelessness seem to be about as diverse as the rest of society, one thing I have found is that people on the streets are generally very resourceful, resilient, and courageous.  They have to be to survive.

You say, "We live in country that will help anyone."  This is a flat falsehood.  If you became disabled today, you could go to DSHS tomorrow, and in about a month you'd start getting a check.  That check would amount to $339 per month.  I'd really like to see your strategy for living on $339 a month.  True, you could apply for social security, but it would take you about two years and an attorney to get it.  Then, if you were working poor prior to becoming disabled, you could count  on getting a check each month for about $600.  In the mean time, you'd be shamed by nearly every social service agency you came into contact with, called dirty names by pedestrians, harrassed by the police, and you'd probably be raped.  If you complain about this treatment, you will be called an ingrate, and be told that "We live in a country that will help anyone."

One last note.  Your attempt to turn the tables and point the "bigotry" finger at others doesn't work.  I've got two folks living in my home whom we offered a place to stay because they were in need.  I'm the founder of Bread & Roses' advocacy program.  Yesterday I spent my evening building a bed for our womens shelter (which is directly next door to my home), and followed that up with baking 3 homemade apple pies for the guests at the shelter and in our home.

I'm doing my part for my neighbors.  When are you going to start doing yours?
»

Also

Oh, and by the way, before you respond, stop calling me names, because you are being intolerant and disrespectful, OK?
»

I will refrain

I will just let Nicki's words speak for themselves.  If this were a court trial, Nicki's lawyer would absolutely keep Nicki off the stand. 

"I would make it impossible for the covetous and avaricious to utterly impoverish the poor. The rich can take care of themselves."
^@^
»

Actually, I only stated

Actually, I only stated events that were reported in our local newspaper as being perpetrated by homeless people, so maybe they got their stories wrong.  On second thought, maybe we should be more careful about what we believe that is printed in our local paper...maybe it's all lies!!!  And as for the bar scene, you are right, but then I said that my gripe is not against the homeless per se.  It's against, I guess you would call them rable rousers??  Mr. Supulveda apparently cannot read very well.  Had I cared to discuss the bar scene, I would have brought to issue the several killings that have happened in the area since the Bar Code, and previously another, now defunct bar, were established.  If you read police reports, there are certain bars that have more than the average number of calls to police, I.e The Bar Code, Frankies and now we can add Pints and Quarts  in Lacey to that list.  And, if you pay attention to what has been said (again in The Olympian) many of the icidents have involved people from Tacoma.  So, there's your outside factor. 
»

Oh yeah, I forgot

Also, in articles that I've read, the outside factor also seems to be coming prdominently from Fort Lewis, so there you go.
»

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Now playing at:

Get Firefox!


More Flickr photos tagged with "olympia" and "washington"

OlyBlog is a site for news and discussion about Olympia, Washington.
free hit counter