The media have finally discovered homelessness. Not surprisingly, they get the story wrong

One of the fundamental human requirements is shelter. How do homeless people survive? Where do they sleep? On friends and family's couches and floors (if they are lucky), at shelters, in churches, in parks, on sidewalk grates, in abandoned buildings, in doorways, under bridges, in cars, or wherever else they can.

And of course, they sleep in tents. The burgeoning tent cities in the U.S. have finally made the national awareness. Interestingly, it seems as though the media is only interested in the newly homeless, those middle class folks who lost their homes because of the economic collapse. In other words, those who they believe are homeless because of circumstances, not because of some kind of individual moral failing. Unlike, you know, the other kind of poor.

Over the past few months, reporters from around the world have flocked to the now-famous tent city in Sacramento, Calif. When they find out that 55-year-old John Kraintz has been living in a tent for almost seven years, they turn around and walk away.

"They don't want to talk to me," he says. "They're searching for people who just lost their homes. It's kinda tough to lose a home when you've never owned one. Sorry, but most of the people here have been homeless for a long time."

Homelessness is seen as an anomaly, a sign of the economic crisis, not as a structural problem with capitalism. But there are homeless during the boom times, too, lots of them.

"The other day, I heard a German reporter ask if this is happening because of the recent economic collapse," says Kraintz. "This has been happening for 30 years, but the powers that be have been able to pretend it doesn't exist. Why aren't reporters asking about flat wages, jobs being shipped overseas and the lack of affordable housing?"

Burke agrees, saying one of the many issues ignored in most articles about tent city and homelessness is the fact that poor people cannot afford housing, especially in an expensive state like California.

"People who are poor end up homeless through no fault of their own, but because people higher up on the food chain have made affordable housing a very scarce commodity," she says. "If we had sound housing policies and programs that helped people when they have a run of bad luck, we would not have a tent city."

Kraintz says he knew the system would finally blow up. It was just a matter of time. The question, according to him, is this: Do the powers that be have the political will to create a fairer, more just economic system? <Alternet>

Photo Credit: A tent city in Fresno, from a 2004 article by Mike Rhodes on Indybay

'Tent cities' of homeless on the rise across the US

Homeless encampments dubbed "tent cities" are springing up across the US, partly in response to soaring numbers of home repossessions, the credit crunch and rising unemployment, according to a report.

Homelessness, car camps and tent cities are certainly not new, but they are growing rapidly.

In Reno, Nevada, the state with the nation's highest repossessions rate, a tent city recently sprung up on the city's outskirts and quickly filled up with about 150 people. Many, such as Sylvia Flynn, 51, who came from northern California, ended up homeless after losing their jobs and home.

Officials say they do not know how many homeless the city has. "But we do know that the soup kitchens are serving hundreds more meals a day and that we have more people who are homeless than we can remember," Jodi Royal-Goodwin, the city's redevelopment agency director, said.

In California, the upmarket city of Santa Barbara is housing homeless people who live in their cars in city car parks while Fresno, has several tent cities. Others have sprung up in Portland in Oregon, and Seattle, where homeless activists have set up mock tent cities at city hall to draw attention to the problem.

Meanwhile, new encampments have appeared, or existing ones grown, in San Diego, Chattanooga in Tennessee, and Columbus, Ohio.<Story>

Some quick internet searching uncovered many others, in Dallas, Olympia, L.A., Athens, Georgia, Columbus. Others, like Tenessee and St. Petersburg have been shut down.

MSNBC has a photo essay on a large tent city in Sacramento, juxtaposing it with the Sacramento tent city of the Great Depression.

There are homes sitting empty, while people have no place to live. Excess supply coexisting with excess demand. The invisible hand has failed these people.

Toronto: Homeless Man Frozen to Death

Shelter is not an option. It is a matter of life and death, especially on long Canadian winter nights.

OCAP:

Wednesday night an Aboriginal man who was homeless was found frozen to death in a stairwell around Yonge and Charles St. Another man was found in Chinatown with serious injury from exposure.

Just six days ago the City heard 12 deputations from agencies and community members about the current crisis. After the loss of over 300 shelter spaces and basic needs such as food, we have been left in a dangerous situation. Demands were made for only the most basic need -shelter. The City's response was to leave people in danger and to risk injury and death. The death of this man and the injury and suffering of other homeless people is on the hands of the City.

On Tuesday will be going to City Hall to face Miller and demand an immediate response to this crisis. This is aserious situation and we ask that you make all efforts to join us. For more info contact OCAP.

Meanwhile, here's a new publication on the shelter crisis in Toronto (PDF). It looks at some of the results of the cuts to the shelter system, including the 5 downtown shelters that the city recently shut down. The $4 million dollar saving comes at a cost of increasing overcrowding at other shelters. People are walking and waiting for hours, only to be turned away. The lucky ones get to sleep on chairs inside. The not so lucky... well, they might freeze to death.

Taking a look at the current shelter crisis in Toronto, this issue includes writing on the $4 million cuts to the shelter system, the new police cameras at Dundas and Sherbourne, the illusion of the City's "Streets to Homes" policy and crumbling public housing.

Read more on homelessness -especially this

Edmonton's Army of Homeless

The skyrocketing rents in Edmonton have increased pressures on limited social housing and shelter spaces. This has made Edmonton's homeless problem worse. A lack of a home often means a lack of safety, and so it isn't uncommon for homeless people to sleep close together. This gives rise to tent cities and squats, such as what had sprung up behind the Bissell Centre (a centre servicing low income people in the inner city).

Tue, May 22, 2007
Squatters Say They're Staying:

Officers told more than a dozen people camping in at least six tents in a field behind the Bissell Centre yesterday morning that they're going to have to move.

But most of the tent dwellers are refusing to budge, claiming they have nowhere else to go.

Sat, May 26, 2007
The poor need a tent city

Almost every night, dozens of homeless people - some of whom have day jobs - gather to sleep on the grass there in Edmonton's inner city. Some put up tents to keep the night chill at bay.

Yet, most nights, city police evict the hapless homeless, forcing them to go someplace else.

Bissell Centre spokesman Ele Gibson is ticked off. "Where are they supposed to go?" asks Gibson, who's the resource development director for the inner-city charity that provides everything from a drop-in centre to family services for the poor.
[...]
There's lots of talk from our politicians about affordable housing and homelessness. But the problem persists.

If these people can't stay on this particular patch of land, surely to God someone could find a small slab of public land somewhere where the homeless can have a simple tent over their heads. Other cities have set up safe tent cities. Is that too much to ask, given there's no affordable housing for them?

Mon, May 28, 2007
Homeless gathering an army of supporters for rally

Homeless Edmontonians are taking their plight to the steps of the legislature.

Those recently evicted from provincial land behind the Bissell Centre and others who will be evicted from winter shelters at the end of the month plan to rally on June 27.

These people were sleeping on public land, and it is immoral to force people into dangerous situations just so you don't have to see them. Not to mention: being too poor to have a home isn't illegal. So, I say good for them. We need some proper squatter's rights. The bullies in the provincial government will never do anything for the people unless they are forced.

"You let people live like abandoned animals on the street?"

Los Angeles has one of the biggest homeless populations in the US. We know this because it had the first accurate homeless census done in 2005 (82,291 homeless people in 2005)

(Photo from Wikipedia)

LA's financial district is merely a few blocks away from the urine-soaked, tent-strewn streets of Skid Row, shown in these photos.



(Photos from Down and Out in Downtown LA: The Story of a Homeless Couple)

---

(Photo by Stephen Shames)

---

(Film stills from TIES ON A FENCE - Women in Downtown Los Angeles Speak Out )

---

(Photos by mattlogelin)

Notice any pattern to the faces seen here? African Americans make up 38.7% of LA's homeless population (they are only 9.5% of the general population of LA)

Listen to Jennifer Westaway's award-winning portrait of Skid Row (highly recommended), or check out this LA Times article

Another View of The Good Life

Following on the heels of yesterday's post, here's another way of looking at The Good Life.

Robert Neuwirth, author of Shadow Cities: A Billion Squatters, A New Urban World , who blogs at Squattercity.blogspot.com does a presentation about the amazing vibrancy of so-called slums: squatter communities. This will be of special interest for anarchists because there are real examples here of self-organizing, self-government. These are people taking their lives into their own collective hands - many because they have no choice, but others because they love these communities and the freedom they provide.

Please Keep our Streets Clean: Over 818 People Have to Sleep on Them

Seen around Toronto:

"Please Keep our Streets Clean: Over 818 People Have to Sleep on Them"

"Homeless Sleeping, QUIET"


"Approximately 5052 Homeless Living in Toronto as of April 2006"
Turns out these signs are the work of Mark Daye, a 4th year graphic design student at OCAD, who says:

Instead of rebranding a product, or service for my 4th year thesis project I chose to represent a local population that usually gets overlooked. I re-coded official signage and affixed 30 of them to poles in the downtown core with messages pertaining to an obvious but ignored urban sub culture. The goal was not only to catch people off guard by creating signs that acknowledge the homeless population on a seemingly official level, but to get people to think about codes of behaviour, conformity, acceptance and to maybe spare some consideration for the homeless who live mostly ignored in the city, blending into the background just like the signs.

"2 Homeless People Die Every Week in Toronto"

Via 3 excellent Toronto blogs: Torontoist, BlogTO, and Spacing Wire

UPDATE (APRIL 4): Reactionary Signs

Waste Makes Want, by Skeletonwoman, Homelessnation.org

homeless & disabled in toronto,
originally uploaded by lomo_iberico.

Exerpts from Waste Makes Want, by Skeletonwoman, Homelessnation.org (a community for & by the homeless in Canada):

You call barbarism an economy and inhumane living conditions are alluded to as the widening gap between the rich and the poor. Do you expect the destitute to dine on your abstractions or choke down more peanut butter& jam sandwiches and leftover donuts, while another generation of humanity lives and dies in the streets alongside their elders?
....
Were you absent when sharing went on in kindergarden? Were you the little monsters who grabbed stuff out of other kids hands and liked to make they cry? Now it's time to grow up !
...
How much longer do you intend to pretend that mothers are "unemployed" when parenting is the most important work there is? It's ludicrous pretend that mothers are not working and to require them to be trained to sit in front of computers in cubicles all day, while strangers raise their kids according to schedule to become the robots of the future? Who wiped your ass when you were a baby?
...
We have no use for the planned obsolence you pollute the planet with or the military might of your vile drug war fought under the guise of helping the woman of Afganistan whose lives are worse than ever.
...
Are you proud of your accomplishments? Are you teaching your children how to rob the poor and keep it for themselves? Are you instructing them to peck away at the middle class social structure as well? How are parents supposed to explain the scourge of corporate capitalism to little kids who ask what happened to their schools? Are your own children looking forward to following in your footsteps? Or are they contemplating the possibility of joining the ranks of the poor, in an effort to achieve the social and economic justice everyone is entitled to? We will see what we will see as we continue to live off the scraps of corporate capitalism.

(Emphasis Mine) Read the Whole Thing

Class and The Pursuit of Happyness (Film Review)

I saw Pursuit of Happyness yesterday and found it to be a very emotionally engaging film. This feel-good story features a homeless single father going to extraordinary ends to try to make it big in nearly impossible circumstances.

I was struck by the fairly realistic portrayal of working class life... The precariousness of this existence; those who scrape by are always only one small disaster away from financial ruin. The bone-weariness of constantly overextending oneself. The emotional fallout from all the stress and anxiety, which impacts self-esteem and relationships. The distress at not being able to protect one's kids from the realities of poverty.

I liked that Chris Gardiner's character was at once hero and anti-hero; he is intelligent, loving, and determined. He also doesn't always make the best decisions - in fact he makes some pretty bad mistakes. He is ultimately moral, but does a lot of unethical things (some due to panicking in tight circumstances) such as lying and stiffing others for money they also need.

I've read some reviews which describe this movie as a dramatization of the American Dream, the "meritocracy" that insists everyone can make it if they are upright, smart, and willing to put in the effort. Moralizing class like this leads to blame and judgment: if you don't make it you are lazy, immoral, or stupid and deserve your lot in life.

For me, however, as for this blogger I see the happy ending in the film as very unrealistic. Not everyone can make it in America. Indeed it "shows that for someone starting with nothing in America, it take a ludicrous amount of talent and drive to pull oneself up." For every one rags-to-riches story like this, there are millions of people who go from rags to rags, and many others who go from rags to slightly better. And of course, what little class mobility there is goes both ways.

Getting out of the cycle of homelessness is an incredible struggle, and many of us who have done it were lucky enough not to fall too deeply into that cycle, perhaps to have some help or an unexpected stroke of fortune. Those who think anyone can do it should try finding a job without a permanent address, a phone number, safety, or clean clothes, the need to carry everything on your back, lack of sleep, and a generally scruffy appearance. Hard, but many do it.

Now add a small child, and try to get a stockbroker job. Virtually impossible, and as noted, the extreme jump from total poverty to millionaire is "about the only jump that many black people get to see others of their race make when they’re growing up." Unfortunately there's no exploration of the injustice of the entire structure, or the need for collective action.

So is the film pro-capitalist propaganda or does it portray the realities of poverty? Both, a little. And neither. But it's emotionally satisfying, and ultimately worth watching.

Today's Rant on Poverty and Class

It is slightly disturbing to reflect upon the fact that our world isn't naturally and magically overcoming the vast inequalities that exist; we aren't racing towards a golden future.

One of the related questions that keeps popping up lately is: How much personal responsibility should someone take for a poverty-stricken life?

One thing is true: taking reponsibility is empowering. Not taking responsibility leads to being and feeling trapped. However, there is only so much room to maneuver in any given life situation. I would argue that, it is absolutely an individual's responsibility to maximise opportunities, but at the same time, it is not up to anyone else to judge that individual for "failure", because no one else knows the circumstances of this individual life. No one knows the starting point, or the obstacles faced by this individual.

A little analogy related to my favourite sport: Imagine a 10k running race. The start line is not at the 0k position for everyone. One runner (Joe), starts 2 kilometers before the start line, meaning he has to run 2K to even reach the start. Bill starts at the start line (0k). Sally starts at the first kilometer (1k head start). Is it certain that Sally would win the race? Of course not.

If Joe runs a 3:30 Minute kilometer, he will complete the race in 42 minutes. Sally might run a 7 minute kilometer (like Leigh and I did at the Niagara marathon this past weekend), which would give her a finish time of 63 minutes, so she would not beat Joe even though she had a head start. Bill might trip and twist his ankle, allowing Joe to pass him. In other words, there are many variables other than starting position to determine how someone will place in a race. That doesn't change the fact that starting 1k behind someone else is a disadvantage. No one would dispute, that all other things being equal, a staggered start is very unfair. If all runners were to run a 6 minute kilometer, the finish times would be 54 minutes (Sally), 60 minutes (Bill), and 66 minutes (Joe).

In the gut, this feels very obvious, doesn't it? As though it isn't even a question. So why does a comparable discussion of class and poverty elicit such inflammatory comments so often? "She is poor because she is lazy", "I worked for everything I have, why should someone else deserve a hand out", "There will always be poor people so why do anything about it", "rich people are better and more important than poor people".

At the finish line of the 10k race, no one in their right mind would say that Joe lost because he is slow, or lazy. No one would dispute that Sally ran her best race: she ran as fast as she can. Bill, too, ran as fast as he can, but he neither the right to feel superior to Joe because he beat him, nor should he feel as though he didn't earn his 60 minute finish. The point is, they all ran exactly the same speed and should be considered equal winners.

A person has a responsibility to run the best race possible, but should not be judged on the basis of the final finishing time.

I am (rather unsubtly) talking about the lack of class mobility here, which tends to contradict the much-spouted idea that capitalism is a meritocracy.

It is a fact that, at least in the US, there is a Growing Gulf Between Rich And Rest Of Us. There is a huge tendency to blame the poor as a group for this, without considering the individual challenges any given poor person might have had to face. Yes a poor person might be lazy, but so might a rich person. For example, by the standards of the majority of the world's income levels, I am rather well to do. Even by the standards of my own society, I am certainly comfortable. I am sometimes lazy. I have been homeless, and probably worked harder back then than I do now.

The world is infinitely complex; questions of poverty, disadvantage, and other social ills are equally so. Rather than be so quick to judge, perhaps we should exhibit some understanding and work towards collective solutions that benefit everyone.

More on Poverty & Class Issues

Purging the Poor

Wealthy white folk who could afford to live on higher land in New Orleans have been cleared to go back home. Poor black folk who lived in the low-lying areas still cannot return. Will they ever? Not if policy makers have their way. There is a push to rebuild New Orleans into a sort of new New England, says Naomi Klein. Her article in The Nation shows how the reconstruction is becoming another example of disaster profiteering, as well as a sort of ethnic cleansing.

Instead of providing housing in New Orleans itself (Klein estimates there are 23,270 vacant apartments in the dry areas, which could easily house 70,000 evacuees) the 200,000 homeless are scattered and separated, and many have no means to return. This means they will be unable to affect decisions, leaving policy totally up to the white elite minority, whose main advantage was being able to afford altitude.

When the poor majority is excluded from decisions, you get horribly unjust ideas like getting rid of wage laws (somehow giving poor workers less money is supposed to be helpful), repealing environmental regulations, introducing flat taxes and corporate tax breaks, etc. These policies have either already been adopted or will be soon.

What are the results? Probably a radically different New Orleans. Certainly a huge cash cow in the form of no-bid contracts:

"Reconstruction," whether in Baghdad or New Orleans, has become shorthand for a massive uninterrupted transfer of wealth from public to private hands, whether in the form of direct "cost plus" government contracts or by auctioning off new sectors of the state to corporations.

There is an insatiable greed on brazen display here. Gated communities protected by militias amount to wealth and power hoarding. Getting rid of the poor (who are a visible indicator of the failures of this wealthiest nation in history) by carting them away or ghettoizing them rather than helping them to get out of the state of poverty just makes no sense! It is unfathomable to me that the powers that be can justify handouts to oil companies for things like subsidized oil exploration, (or tax break for the wealthy), but they can't justify a mandatory living wage?

After all, class matters, and it's certainly not getting any better. If you are unfortunate to be in the wrong class I guess you are SOL.

Shouts out to the Common Ground Collective, anarchist activists providing free medical treatment to residents in the Algiers neighbourhood. They will not only provide temporary emergency care; they are working to create an ongoing community controlled clinic. Listen here.

More on Hurricane Katrina.
More on Poverty & Class Issues.