Homelessness in Boston

Alright well whatever it is, this person is at least a couple cans short of a Bud Light six pack and this ignorant statement is just the tip of the iceberg. We can expect lots more like that and then many, many statements that will make you think this person is Captain Obvious incarnate. Oh and a smiley/whatever face at the end of every. damn. post.

Again, mark my words.

Here are our options on how to deal with it: ignore them when they post (yeah that ain't happening); play the diplomat game where we respond with reason and empathy knowing fully well that such traits will be completely lost on them (we'd all have to be Mother Teresa to pull that off for any length of time); or we hurl insults at them and eventually scare them off (a protracted battle where nobody ends up looking good).

The fine folks of WiredNY chose the third option (full disclosure: I got in on some of the insult hurling) and I really don't want to go down that path again. But the alternative--putting up with post after post of inane ignorance--is excruciatingly painful too. And the number of posts is only going to skyrocket as they become attached to certain topics and threads; their postings will become incessant and we will all become sick of them, even the best of us.

So there...I wish I had some real advice to offer, but I'm not sure such a thing exists in this situation. All I can do is let everyone know what we're in for. It won't be pretty.
 
I had assumed someone tired of playing Bostonbred and moved on to a new character.

Disappointed.
 
There is a fourth option if it gets out of hand...the mods can make him invisible so he can post all he wants and no one will care. They did the same with that troll who kept blowing up threads calling everything stumps.
 
Homeless is an issue we have to deal with that will never go away. There are a few categories:
Homeless that will go to shelter when pushed, if shelter is available and has not been forced out due to high end residential development
Hardcore homeless that will never go To a shelter
A younger group of homeless that Rome the streets at night that will break into your car if they see a couple dollars in change.

Never give a homeless person money, buy them A coffee or food instead
 
Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

The continued bashing of homeless people on this site is seriously disturbing. It comes up frequently and is often subtle but is very wrong.

chumbolly said:
while I like the new benches, without the center armrest of the existing benches, they're more likely to attract people who need a place to sleep.
Click to expand...

How about we worry about providing people society has ignored a chance at a decent life by providing housing like Salt Lake City instead of trying to keep them out of parks and off of benches? They sleep there because they don't have a choice not to inconvenience you. People on this site seriously need to develop a basic level of human decency.
 
Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

chumbolly said:
I fully agree. The Greenway is becoming really successful, and unlike most parks, instead of being created and then slowly decaying through neglect, it is clearly improving with each passing year. One comment--while I like the new benches, without the center armrest of the existing benches, they're more likely to attract people who need a place to sleep.

I wish the next $100-200 million museum fundraiser, instead of going to further improve the MFA or PEM, would create a world class Boston history museum on the northern ramp parcel. I think it's remarkable that there really isn't a museum with this specific focus, and it seems it could really tie together the Freedom Trail experience and create a landmark on the Greenway. We need a Paul Allen to just dream the thing into existence.
Click to expand...

Or we could take that $100–$200 million and spend it building in-city housing for the homeless. Add to that whatever ridiculous amount of money we're prepared to spend on a new bridge to Long Island and its homeless shelter and switch that to in-city housing as well, and we've got ourselves a winner.
 
Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

timsox6 said:
Or we could take that $100–$200 million and spend it building in-city housing for the homeless. Add to that whatever ridiculous amount of money we're prepared to spend on a new bridge to Long Island and its homeless shelter and switch that to in-city housing as well, and we've got ourselves a winner.
Click to expand...

Agreed. putting the homeless on a far away island 1) makes people ignore the magnitude of the problem and 2) makes it impossible for the people living there to find employment.
 
Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

As someone who moved from Boston to San Francisco, and has lived here for a while now, I can say with confidence that no matter the good intentions, if you let up, you will rue the day you didn't take measures to prevent homeless degradation of public spaces.
Look on Reddit SF today and the top article is 'Homeless man pisses and drinks his own urine in the middle of Market Street.'
Any passive attitude is destined to fail if you make open areas too accommodating to long stays of those without a home. It's territoriality. People will stay out of habit and adopt the space as their own.

Our biggest saving grace is the weather, and the lesser degree of mentally damaged homeless in Boston than out here, but it's a slippery slope. I'm all for spending money on dedicated facilities AND anti-homeless measures in our most valued parts of Boston. But I really can't do the whole sympathetic open arms routine any more, after seeing what it has lead to out here.
 
Last edited:
Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

Bubbybu said:
As someone who moved from Boston to San Francisco, and has lived here for a while now, I can say with confidence that no matter the good intentions, if you let up, you will rue the day you don't take measures to prevent homeless degradation of public spaces.
Look on Reddit SF today and the top article is 'Homeless man pisses and drinks his own urine in the middle of Market Street.'
Any passive attitude is destined to fail if you make open areas too accommodating to long stays of those without a home. It's territoriality. People will stay out of habit and adopt the space as their own.

Our biggest saving grace is the weather, and the lesser degree of mentally damaged homeless in Boston than out here, but it's a slippery slope. I'm all for spending money on dedicated facilities AND anti-homeless measures in our most valued parts of Boston. But I really can't do the whole sympathetic open arms routine any more, after seeing what it has lead to out here.
Click to expand...

Agreed, you can hold the opinion that people shouldn't sleep in parks AND that the homeless need services/housing.

The fact of the matter is that there is always some small segment of the homeless population that rejects help and acts in a destructive manner. You can't let compassion for those who need help compel you to be tolerant of assholes behaving like assholes.
 
Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

Mongo said:
Agreed, you can hold the opinion that people shouldn't sleep in parks AND that the homeless need services/housing.

The fact of the matter is that there is always some small segment of the homeless population that rejects help and acts in a destructive manner. You can't let compassion for those who need help compel you to be tolerant of assholes behaving like assholes.
Click to expand...

Most of those "Assholes behaving like assholes" have mental illnesses that society has ignored. Mental illness is hugely prevalent amongst the homeless in a large part because it is not well treated and this forces people into the streets. Again they need help not condemnation. The man drinking his own pee undoubtedly has mental issues and I take that as a failing of society not in his being allowed to do that in public but in ignoring him until he did that in public.

I want to ask where are the homeless supposed to sleep in the meantime? The reality is that the condemnation and exclusion is focusing your anger at the wrong place. keeping homeless people out of public spaces will only make their lives harder not provide them the help that they need and you claim to support.

Look, I don't love that the homeless have to sleep in parks but recognize that they face challenges that you simply don't and are doing the best they can. If you want to keep them off benches you need to fix societal problems not force them further and further to the fringes, that will only make things worse.
 
Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

coleslaw said:
If you want to keep them off benches you need to fix societal problems not force them further and further to the fringes, that will only make things worse.
Click to expand...

So all public spaces should be available for mentally ill people to act as they wish/are compelled (as, let's face it, we will never 'fix societal problems')? Just trying to understand the logic of so broad a statement. I think psychosocial support (including shelters) needs to be available to the mentally ill and that citizens who are uncomfortable/feel unsafe around the mentally ill should not have to "get over it" or forfeit their right to public spaces. We put spatial restrictions on all kinds of people we believe engage in antisocial behavior (e.g., smokers...people who were convicted of sex crimes--meant to illustrate the range and not to equate them or equate either with homeless people) so why can't some public spaces (like parks) be off-limits? Yes, it's a slippery slope (e.g., what if we perceive someone to be exhibiting "thuggish" behavior? Playing radios too loud? Swearing in public? Wearing white before Memorial Day?) but we cannot be blanketly inclusive or exclusive and expect that it separates good people from bad people.
 
Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

Tombstoner said:
So all public spaces should be available for mentally ill people to act as they wish/are compelled (as, let's face it, we will never 'fix societal problems')? Just trying to understand the logic of so broad a statement. I think psychosocial support (including shelters) needs to be available to the mentally ill and that citizens who are uncomfortable/feel unsafe around the mentally ill should not have to "get over it" or forfeit their right to public spaces. We put spatial restrictions on all kinds of people we believe engage in antisocial behavior (e.g., smokers...people who were convicted of sex crimes--meant to illustrate the range and not to equate them or equate either with homeless people) so why can't some public spaces (like parks) be off-limits? Yes, it's a slippery slope (e.g., what if we perceive someone to be exhibiting "thuggish" behavior? Playing radios too loud? Swearing in public? Wearing white before Memorial Day?) but we cannot be blanketly inclusive or exclusive and expect that it separates good people from bad people.
Click to expand...

If you really think there are good and bad people you are fooling yourself. Also I was not saying people should "get over it." I never once said that so I am very confused as to why you put that in quotation marks. What I was saying is that excluding people who have already been excluded from society even more is not beneficial to anyone. Keeping people out of public spaces because of their material condition is virulently disgusting. You are the one asking people to forfeit their right to public spaces so I don't know how you are going to try to pus that on me. And seriously not all homeless people are violent or dangerous and society does not need to protect itself from them. Society instead needs to protect them as people who's lives have been destroyed by the system. Seriously be thankful you are not in their position and recognize how easy it is to criticize things that make you uncomfortable without giving any attempt to understand why people are in these circumstances and that treating them like criminals and making their lives more difficult is not an attempt to help them. It is really just to make you more comfortable because you no longer need to think about their suffering.
 
Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

I'm gonna end this thread real quick: if you cite Reddit as a part of your argument, you lose.
 
Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

Roxxma said:
St Mary's Cathedral in San Francisco has come up with a novel approach to dealing with the local homeless population. Surprising, considering all the work the Catholic church does for those in need. This gives it a very black eye.
Click to expand...

They reversed course..

"In order to prevent homeless people from sleeping outside of Saint Mary’s Cathedral, the Archdiocese of San Francisco installed a system that dumps water onto the ground near its sheltered doorways, where people tend to rest at night.

On Wednesday, after facing substantial backlash for the deterrent, the archdiocese announced that the system will be removed “by the end of the day.”

In the statement, the archdiocese said it initially decided to install the controversial system “after learning from city resources” that similar deterrents were “commonly used in the Financial District” in San Francisco to “avoid the situation where needles, feces and other dangerous items were regularly being left in these hidden doorways.”


I mean this is a beautiful church in a nice area. Keeping it clean and helping the homeless according to the church 'values' (snicker, yes) are not incompatible. But there's also nothing wrong with looking at it from the perspective of protecting the church when simply sleeping in that specific doorway is a random act, in that it makes no difference if it's that space or one of a hundred thousand others.

The church shouldn't be held at the mercy of any faux outrage, but separately it's formal efforts should be judged according to doctrine.
 
Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

Bubbybu said:
They reversed course..

"In order to prevent homeless people from sleeping outside of Saint Mary’s Cathedral, the Archdiocese of San Francisco installed a system that dumps water onto the ground near its sheltered doorways, where people tend to rest at night.

On Wednesday, after facing substantial backlash for the deterrent, the archdiocese announced that the system will be removed “by the end of the day.”

In the statement, the archdiocese said it initially decided to install the controversial system “after learning from city resources” that similar deterrents were “commonly used in the Financial District” in San Francisco to “avoid the situation where needles, feces and other dangerous items were regularly being left in these hidden doorways.”


I mean this is a beautiful church in a nice area. Keeping it clean and helping the homeless according to the church 'values' (snicker, yes) are not incompatible. But there's also nothing wrong with looking at it from the perspective of protecting the church when simply sleeping in that specific doorway is a random act, in that it makes no difference if it's that space or one of a hundred thousand others.

The church shouldn't be held at the mercy of any faux outrage, but separately it's formal efforts should be judged according to doctrine.
Click to expand...

Jesus, it is not faux outrage. That is a legitimate cause for criticism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top