Inner Cities: The Dumping Ground for the Homeless

The problem of homelessness defies simple solutions. However, the rightwing invokes Social Darwinism and/or faith-based spiritual hand up. Each of these "solutions" are essentially the same. There are millions of homeless. Faith-based organizations never get anywhere near adequate donations to put a dent in the problem beyond passing out "band-aides" of shelter and soup kitchens.
Here is how LA has coped with the problem.
Los Angeles Times

For decades, few questioned the arrangement — largely because that section of downtown had long been home to single-room-occupancy hotels and charity groups that attracted transients.


But in recent years, the neighborhoods around skid row have been at the center of a major revitalization, as long-abandoned office buildings have been converted into luxury lofts and condos. Now, with units in the shadow of skid row going for as much as $700,000, some residents and city officials say they are tired of the area being a dumping ground for the region's problems.


The people brought downtown might arrive for treatment, said LAPD Assistant Chief George Gascon, but "sooner or later, they are going to leave. Where do you think they are going to go?"


The LAPD raised the issue of "dumping" the homeless downtown two weeks ago. Central Division Capt. Andrew Smith told The Times that he saw two sheriff's deputies un-handcuff a mentally ill homeless man and attempt to leave him on a skid row street. Smith also cited four other suburban police departments that his officers said they had observed leaving people downtown, though the agencies deny the accusations.


In the 11 years that Darryle Lewis worked as a police officer for the Metropolitan Transportation Agency, it was routine for him and his colleagues to place homeless people they found riding trains and buses at centers on skid row, he said. "We knew that if we got someone who was indigent, you couldn't leave them on the streets," said Lewis, who now works for the LAPD. More often than not, he said, they took people to the Weingart Center, a social services facility on skid row, because it "rarely turned anyone away."


John King, president and chief executive of the center, said he and other providers "don't dwell upon 'How did you get here?' " But, he added, "we don't think it's appropriate for people from all over the county to be dropped down here."


The Weingart Center is one of more than a dozen facilities for homeless and addicted people along skid row. Entry logs from some of these facilities, along with interviews with officials who run the agencies, suggest that many of the people who come for services arrive from far-flung parts of the county.


Take the Volunteers of America detox center. Almost every day between Sept. 2 and Oct. 3, law enforcement officers from 16 LAPD divisions and at least nine other agencies arrived at the shelter with people needing its services. Most of the drop-offs from the LAPD came from the Rampart Division, which over the last two years has received credit for cleaning up MacArthur Park, once known for its homeless people and drug problems. Other agencies that delivered people to the detox center included the Los Angeles General Services Department police, Los Angeles schools police, Maywood police, Montebello police, Alhambra police, Los Angeles airport police and Los Angeles County police. At least a dozen people were left by the Sheriff's Department, with at least one from the Lynwood station. Because the detox center is funded by the county's Alcohol and Drug Program Administration, it accepts clients from any law enforcement department in the county, said Jim Howat, the group director for homeless services in Los Angeles.


The Volunteers of America detox center is charged with helping addicts but does not have any legal authority to hold them. Of those dropped off by law enforcement, Howat said, "their main interest is, how do they get back to where they were." But it appears that at least some of the people dropped off in the last month remained in and around downtown — and some went on to be arrested for alleged crimes. MORE

The solution to homeless in a preferred part of town is to send them to the inner city where all the services are. Of course asking the suburbs to contribute their fair share to cover the costs of these services is useless. One simply doesn't put up services anywhere else, keep the riff-raft out of the nice neighborhoods with soaring rents and police drop-offs downtown. Then let the city deal with it's own problems. Thus we have the debacle of Detroit, Harlem, Watts and many other poor inner city neighborhoods.
The solution of course is for every community to take care of it's own. One stop-shop social service centers where all manner of help can be acquired is one possible answer. User friendly access to hands-up services, not unlimited hand outs, could very well shrink the homeless population. There is good evidence that most homeless don't stay that way and would find a quicker exit with user friendly access to help.
Other homeless are mentally ill and others are chemically dependent. These same service centers could provide access to treatment for those who are willing.
The biggest problem is affordable housing. There are many people who work very hard and simply don't take home enough money to afford rent. The option of shared housing of multiple families is almost always ruled out by zoning ordinances. So why are those surprised and angry about the homeless resorting to crime? Do people expect them to passively roll over and die? Section 8 voucher system is a prove product. Rather than creating poor ghettos with public housing, vouchers allow affordable housing in most neighborhoods. Why should the inner city inherit everyone's problems?
The chronically homeless is a particularly difficult problem. The level of deprivation and dysfunction in these people is daunting. Most of these people are so alienated from the service system, they avoid all help that isn't on their terms. They are often only interested in handouts. Certainly, a minimalist offer of soup kitchens and shelter may be the only option acceptable to them. The more humane the presentation of these services, the more likely they might accept a hand up with a more comprehensive service.
But of course, funding for virtually every one of these solutions has been cut or squeezed to the point that no locality can hope to do anything but dent the problem. In this era of a new Christian fundamentalist movement, what ever happened to being your brother's keeper?