INC NEWS - [TrinityPark] RE: agenda and proposed resolutions for April 25...

Sat Apr 22 22:27:27 EDT 2006

Newman? 

Is that really you? I've never heard you sound so defeatist.

You said:
"Over a four year period, ....one panhandler was arrested 53 times.   

Clearly, under the current ordinance, the arrests are not deterring  these
individuals from aggressive panhandling.  What possible benefit  would come
from arresting even more individuals, who for more complex  socio-economic
reasons will continue to stand by our streets and highways  soliciting for
alms?"

Geez, Newman, some idiots get arrested a dozen times for DWI, clearly that  
ain't stopping them either. But do we just shrug and say "That's not working"  
and let them drive drunk? No, we continue to arrest them every time we catch  
them. Expensive? You bet, but we have no choice.

This is the first issue I recall ever being on opposite sides with you, and  
the debate has been, I think, enlightening. Don't think your excellent 
research  hasn't effected my opinion, because it has.

Originally, my position could be summed up as:
"This ordinance WILL work, and we should do it!"

I heard you say, and supply research to this effect:
"It won't work, it hasn't in other cities, don't do it"

Now here are my final words on the subject, then I'll keep my fingers  
crossed Tues night when INC votes on it.

Thanks to the well behaved debate, my position could now be summed up  as:
"It probably won't have a huge effect, but it still MUST be done"
And  here's why:

*First and foremost, this is only the county for the moment, while the mass  
majority of the problem is in the city.
{But this is the first step in getting the city to follow suit}

*Even if the City and the County were to adopt, and aggressively enforce,  
Durham would likely see similar effects as other cities have experienced. And  
their results are not impressive.
{But if the problem were severe littering in an area without any public  
trash cans, placing trash cans isn't likely to suddenly stop the littering. But  
that's the right thing to do before you start ticketing litter bugs}

*Educating the givers to stop passing dollars out the window of their car  is 
likely the most productive route. (I think we agree on that)
{Education would also be most productive in abating littering, but it would  
be absurd not to also have anti-littering laws and trash cans as well}

*to be totally honest, the safety aspect has never been high on my list,  but 
it isn't a wise idea to stand in the middle of the road for any reason, and  
especially at our busiest intersections. Nor is it smart to stop suddenly to 
buy  a paper or donate a dollar

*Perhaps my greatest motivation is the one I can't prove. Where does your  
dollar go after you close the window. One of the smartest, and kindest, PAC  
participants, spoke of never giving them money, but offering to buy them a meal  
instead. I've heard from others who employ this, and they are quite often 
turned  down. The sign might say they are hungry, but if all they accept is 
money....  well, you be the judge. 

I know a woman who financially supported her alcoholic son, which allowed  
him to drink himself to death. Her love caused her to be an "enabler", and in  
essence kill her own son. Does our love for our fellow human beings cause us to 
 do the same?

Could anyone have talked that woman out of sending money to her alcoholic  
son? Probably not. If the son had been suicidal, would the woman have sent a gun 
 one day, and bullets the next? I contend the dollars you hand out the window 
are  often just like bullets.

And Newman, that's backed up with equal research. Some percentage of those  
panhandlers have an empty needle in their pocket, and giving money to them will 
 eventually fill it. Food won't go through the little hole, so offer a 
sandwich,  but never money.

Just as targeting the johns often has a greater impact on prostitution than  
re-arresting hookers, it would still be insane not to outlaw both the sale, 
and  the attempt to purchase. 

Had a delightful chat with a fellow at one of our intersections today.  
Former Vietnam vet, 82nd Airborne, my kind of guy! You see, I'm speaking from  more 
experience than I've admitted to. Besides having jumped out of planes for  
ten years, I also spent about three years (late '70s) as a modern day hobo. And  
those years taught me plenty that is helpful at the table of this  discussion.

That's why it wasn't surprising when this interesting fellow spoke of our  
shelters as the other choice, because he has two choice here in Durham. Get to  
our resources and help himself, or remain on the street as long as we support  
him out the windows of our cars and allow him to stand there.

We might fail Newman, but we have to try and stop being enablers, just like  
that woman who killed her son with checks through the mail. Education might 
have  stopped her, she wouldn't have given him a loaded gun if she knew he was  
suicidal. In fact, I think that would have been murder. 

The most relevant thing those three years as a bum taught me is that some  
cities are just plain "bum friendly." Since I've admitted to being a former bum, 
 I should also confess I did it a little differently. Frequently wore freshly 
 pressed button down shirts, in fact, usually better dressed than I am  today!

Generally avoided Tuscon, Az because it was so full of bums. That was  
reflected both in the quantity of programs and services, and the generosity  of the 
residents. Did they all flock there because they could receive  the help they 
needed? No, they found Tuscon because it was there, that they  could survive 
while avoiding it.

On a scale of 1-10, with Tuscon as ten, Durham is probably about a  nine.

If that woman knew she were killing her son, she would have stopped  mailing 
those checks. And if we knew how the dollars were used after  being passed out 
the window, we'd stop that as well.

Let's stop being enablers, and keep Durham from being overly bum friendly. 
Supporting the ban doesn't mean we have no heart, it means we have both a  
heart and a brain. 

Passing the ban doesn't mean we hate panhandlers or newspaper venders, in  
fact it means we care enough to see that they don't do it in the  roadways.

Bill Anderson

In a message dated 4/22/2006 5:41:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
newman at nc.rr.com writes:

Susan,

One more thing ...

You may ask, well, if we  enforce the ordinance why would that not reduce
panhandling at street and  highway intersections?

We know from Durham Police Department arrest  records that the individuals
arrested the most in Durham are arrested for  aggressive panhandling (covered
by the current ordinance).  Over a  four year period, for instance, one
panhandler was arrested 53 times.   Now consider the cost associated with
arresting and processing someone that  many times.

Clearly, under the current ordinance, the arrests are not  deterring these
individuals from aggressive panhandling.  What  possible benefit would come
from arresting even more individuals, who for  more complex socio-economic
reasons will continue to stand by our streets  and highways soliciting  for
alms?

Newman

_______________________________________________
INC-list  mailing  list
INC-list at rtpnet.org
http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20060422/ed470e18/attachment-0001.htm 