Quote:
Originally Posted by Old&New
But it's their neighborhood too! And you're telling people to stay away. Do you intend to foist shame on these kids? Because that's exactly what you're doing.
|
Well a few points:
If you chose to spend your life as a drunk or druggy and resort to crime and begging to support your bad lifestyle choices.. Then yes you should have shame. I'm not perfect either. We have all done things in our life that we feel shame for. and it is that shame that makes us strive to be better.. Shame is a good thing. We can't pretend that everyone is a winner and that no one should feel shame for anything that they do.. That is a common symptom of societal breakdown. most of the people I'm talking about have no shame.. and thats the problem.. They don't care. They just want their drug and don't want to contribute anything to get it.
Its their neighborhood because that is where they choose to stand on the sidewalk. They choose that because it is close to places where they can get a free meal and close to lots of people to whom they can beg for drug money. they don't pay taxes, they don't own or rent property, They don't contribute anything.. so yes! they are apart of the neighborhood and have every right to be there.. but they take no ownership in the community.
Im not telling anyone to stay away.. I'm basing myself in reality. The truth is, rather its a good thing or not, people feel uncofrtable around the crazier varaiety of transients. People tend to favor walking routs that feel more comfortable to them. South temple would be a much nicer experience for people form out of town in that regard.
I do think that we have a very compacted problem that needs to be addressed. putting the whole of the situation all in one small part of town really amplifies it and creates an area with a segregated culture. it would be much better to move certain facilities to different parts of the valley to spread the problem out.. If we mix things up and spread them out they don't have such a huge impact on a small area. Creating a singular area where this type of cultre is ever-present and acceptable does not help anything.. Because it gets to a point where that is all that they people see and know.. It become acceptable to them.. and they have no shame and no desire to better themselves... its really very similar to what was created with segregated housing projects... BAD!!!
So for example... spread things out. Keep the road home where it is.. they are helping mostly good people and are not contributing to keeping drunks and druggies on the street. lets move the soup kitchen.. put smaller facilities at various places throughout the valley. The state could also close the liquor store on 200 West and instead opt to leas a newer location inside of a private mall.... they could offer a better facility, more parking, and the mall would enforce a code of conduct that would not allow it to become a hotspot fro drunks... better yet privatize liquor stores.... not going to happen :-(
Quit trying to lump all homeless people together.. and make it sound like I'm talking about all of them.. because I'm not.. It is unfortunate that they have to be segregated and lumped together geographically.. and thats the real problem.. and no I don't have a lot of sympathy for druggies... That life style is 100% their choice.
Prev
) will help them get jobs and family. Simply denying service is bad and I wouldn't mind a new skyscraper to get put on hold to help every homeless person get a house and a stable income and for every drug user to get rehab and get out of the streets. Why? The fact that there are no "threatening transients" downtown would be attractive to residents, tourists, employers, developers, etc. and most importantly it helps those people who can not help themselves.
Linear Mode
