Homelessness and the politics of fear

I confess that my personal experiences with police officers have generally aroused negative feelings in me towards them. However, a recent encounter which found me ensnared in Kent’s recently “revitalized” campaign to rid the city of any sight or sound of homeless people persuaded me to accept an offer from a police supervisor to discuss the matter. I came away from this meeting believing that it had been constructive, insofar that I obtained a fuller understanding of the perspective of the police in regard to their responsibilities (or perceived responsibilities from the public). 

It was also understood, at least by this officer, that it was inevitable that “good” people trying to be productive citizens would be caught-up in these homeless people sweeps, but the police didn’t have the time or inclination to sort out the chaff from the wheat. In theory, everyone has to be treated the “same,” although in practice that certainly is not the case. Still, I decided afterward that enough good will was aroused in me that I would make a powerful effort to refrain from making derogatory comments or offensive hand gestures every time a Kent police officer looked at me; I wondered if I should offer friendly gestures or comments, but I don’t think I’m quite ready for that, given the nature of my many prior experiences.

As far as the substance of the conversation, I learned the following: Although this wasn’t stated in the media reports that I read, Kent officials apparently rejected the establishment of a homeless shelter because they claimed that they would be prevented from having any control over the operation. This is due to the fact that the Union Gospel Mission receives nearly all of its revenue from private contributions and “legacies.” In Seattle, this is 95 percent of it’s just under $20 million in revenue, according to its last fiscal report. Because it receives no government funding, the Mission is technically a private non-profit entity and is not responsible to local governments about how it runs its operation. 

Kent apparently wanted a “say” about who the Mission allowed inside the proposed shelter, and regulate their behavior. The stated concern seemed to be that some homeless people who were engaged in criminal activities, like illegal drug production and dealing, would be able to operate “safely” inside the shelter. No doubt there was also the fear that the shelter would be a magnet for all kinds of undesirable “riff-raff,” such as chronic inebriates and the mentally-unhinged. On the other hand, one would think it would be better to have all of these people in one place, so that it would be easier for the police could keep an eye on them there, instead of wasting time prowling every dark nook and cranny in the city and beyond. 

The city apparently prefers a “holistic” approach to the homeless problem—a “collaboration” between various social programs and organizations that cater to the needs of people in misfortune. I took this to mean that Kent preferred to farm-out its homeless problem by persuading entities in other parts of King County to take them. There are some people with good intentions in Kent who want to solve the problem, but it seems to me that most want to avoid making the “hard” choices that make them “uncomfortable,” like a "permanent" presence.

I was also told that there was the local suspicion that Seattle’s recent efforts to clear out homeless camps was having the affect of causing homeless people there to find “alternative” locations, such as in Kent,  which apparently was the primary reason why the Kent police reactivated its anti-homeless people patrols after several years in mothballs. Naturally, this puts these people between the proverbial rock and a hard place. To what extent this is true I don't know, but it does seem to be a prevailing “fear.” With them, come the complaints of trash, human waste, alcohol, drug needles and the like; while accusations of burglary and theft are frequently made,  it seems that there is more hearsay than evidence to suggest that the homeless are responsible for an “epidemic” of such activity. 

Another complaint is “aggressive” panhandling; this is not necessarily a homeless issue, but the homeless are naturally assumed by some to make their “living” in this manner. But I think this accusation is considerably overstated, mainly a sense from people who don’t want to be “put upon” just because they are doing well personally. Another accusation is that wealthy donors to the Mission are not necessarily contributing out of a sense of philanthropy, but out of a cynical desire to keep the shelters operational so that the homeless won’t ever feel the need to wander into their neighborhood. I don’t doubt that this is true to a certain extent; one may recall the scene in Citizen Kane when Kane told his skin-flint former legal guardian that the reason why he “looked after” common people in his newspapers was because if he didn’t, they might eventually turn on people of his “class." On the other hand, personal guilt may also be a strong motivating factor.

One thing that has a powerful impact on the perception of the public on homelessness is the way the city and the media reports on the subject. The Seattle city government released this “study” which basically portrayed the homeless as a menace to society, responsible for the following:

1. Unsanitary hygiene conditions, including the accumulation of garbage, human and animal feces, and other hazardous materials that threaten the health and safety of campers, other members of the public, and City employees;
2. Unsanitary hygiene conditions, including the accumulation of garbage, human and animal feces, and other hazardous materials that increase the presence of rodents and other vermin;
3. Criminal activity, including incidents of violent crime and felony drug tracking, that threaten the health and safety of campers, other members of the public, and City employees;
4. The presence of used hypodermic needles that threaten the health and safety of campers, other members of the public, and City employees;
5. The presence of unlawful weapons and other contraband that threaten the health and safety of campers, other members of the public, and City employees;
6. Destruction or vandalism of public property;
7. Damage to trees, plants, and other vegetation;
8. Fires that threaten the health and safety of campers, other members of the public, and City employees, and have damaged public infrastructure and improvements, including overpasses and public rights of way;
9. A public perception that it is unsafe to enter certain public properties, thereby discouraging the public uses for which the property is intended and maintained;

Structures, garbage accumulation, camping equipment and other obstructions that interfere with the intended uses of the property or with maintenance, repair, or improvements to the property, thereby discouraging the public uses for which the property is intended and maintained.

The local and network media almost uniformly parrot this line, and with the exception of women with or without children, it is through this means that these people are effectively dehumanized. These images of unsightly encampments obscure real stories of privation and tough luck, and unfairly paints a picture that naturally “confirms” this perception of all; but like a painting of an image, is only a facsimile of the truth. 

In the meantime, there continues to be little incentive for developers to build low-income housing, or even abide by local ordinances requiring the building of affordable housing. The Seattle City Council has allowed an “out” for developers by requiring them to pay into an affordable housing and day-care “fund” instead of actually building affordable housing themselves. What the city intends to do with the proceeds of this “fund” appears not to have anything to do with insuring the city actually constructs low-income housing. One independent study suggests that the city is over 3,000 units below its “goal” for the low-income segment, and that even this may be too low an estimate, because of the “moving target” of what qualifies as low-income housing.