Panhandling meeting update
Well, contrary to the fears and worries of many, a successful meeting was held between Myself, Joyce Zuk and Chris Foote, Councillor Valentinis and Several BIA Board members where everyone at the table could come to agreement for the sake of helping those who panhandle off the street.
We have a plan that is taking a very cautious and positive approach that will address the concerns many discussed on this blog, Chris Shnurr’s website and Revy Kevy’s blog . It was actually very cool that those attending the meeting used the discussions on the internet to inform themselves. Coucillor Valentinis also stated that he had several constituent calls on the issue
1. Social services is going to create a new outreach program that coordinates volunteers and staff from several different organizations.
2. This outreach program will create contact cards that will be given to all business owners instructing them to call when they see a panhandler
3. This outreach program does not duplicate the Work of Unit 7’s street help program which focuses on harm reduction strategies such as giving out sleeping bags. This new outreach program will be collecting information and data to find out why each individual is panhandling and see if there are programs specific to each person’s needs
4. Social services will set up a subcommittee on which myself and a BIA board member and a downtown resident will be invited to sit on
5. After a set period of time, this subcommittee will review the data collected and determine the success fo the outreach program and if and how further steps will be taken by BIA and resident
First off, this is the first time a program like this has been set up in Windsor and Joyce knew of no programs like it anywhere else
Secondly, we agreed that the public education part can be of harm as well as it focuses too much attention and labels panhandling as a problem. Ie. if we had a public education campaign about bedbugs in Windsor, the media nationwide would likely report that Windsor had a bedbug problem.
Third, we agreed that it could be possible further action would only be taken if the data collected supported it. Right now we have only anecdotal evidence about how many panhandlers there are, that they make $16 per hour (still stand by that number but it is from an anecdote). Joyce has acknowledged that the concerns of the businesses and communities cannot simply be ignored. Panhandlers rights do not supercede the rights of businesses and patrons. Someone’s right to throw a punch ends at the tip of my nose. The current situation also creates dangers as I’ve witnessed several times business owners and the public threaten panhandlers with violence. Panhandling can be a very hazardous career choice.
Data driven outcomes will be minimize the debate and discussion and the negative publicity
Lastly, We did talk about not only an increase in panhandlers but that panhandlers changing tactics such as migrating from city to city following festivals and events as well as panhandlers standing in the medians with signs. We have no illusions that this will put an end to panhandling in Windsor but if even 5 people get put into programs that can help them, that, to me, means 5 lives saved.
Imagine if we did that every year?
Any more information than that must wait until the trial period for the outreach program to be complete
Post Feedback
Good luck with this program! I like the “card” idea for business’. On Tuesday, I actually saw a very well known downtown business owner physically move a panhandler who is downtown every day (the panhandler is older, obviously has mental issues, and is in a wheelchair). I heard the owner screaming at him, saying “I told u to get the f-word off my property” (even though technically it was a city sidewalk). He proceeded to grab his chair and move him 10 feet away, while the older gentleman screamed for help. Maybe that makes me just as guilty for not saying anything to the bar owner…but I know if I would have, he most likely would have just started a fight with me.
Mark McKenzie,
You witnessed a disabled man in a wheelchair verbally abused?
You witnessed a person move a disabled person’s wheelchair without their permission?
Did you report these assaults to the Windsor Police?
Do you intend to report these crimes?
Christine, are you saying you are unaware of the abuse panhandlers face?
These incidents occur on a weekly if not daily basis
Of course I’m not condoning this behavior which is why I’m trying to address the problem and it’s Root causes
They are born of the frustration of people like yourself ignoring it dismissing the very real challenges that small business owners, visitors and residents who also share the same frustrations and have acted out. (sometimes in an illegal manner)
For my efforts I’ve been verbally abused and my restaurant faces the threat of lost business
I cannot however take your outrage that seriously when you attack my motives an favor the status quo
I will stay the course
I am fully aware of the abuse heaped on panhandlers.
How dare you accuse me of ignoring the problem?
You have a lot of nerve to suggest I ignored the plight of the downtown business owners.
The entire purpose of your current campaign is to drive the panhandlers into other areas of the city.
Congratulations for getting the City of Windsor to waste taxpayer dollars, and it will be an enormous sum of money to finance this program.
You are putting out false information about my services.
Factually this is a duplication of my services.
My patrollers reach out to the panhandlers and the homeless. We collect statistics, learn why they are panhandling, their personal circumstances, and, we lead them to the few available services in our community.
If this is not a duplication of our services then have the City of Windsor Social Services explain how they funded us for ten years to provide all of these services?
I do note we also gave our information to business owners to contact us if they saw a person they thought was in need.
Duplication is duplication.
As Joyce Zuk seemed to not know our agency has provided these same services for twelve years, then it is simply because she failed to contact me for a visit to our program, as you also failed to do Mark.
How convenient to not discover first hand the services we offer so you can go forward with your plan to duplicate our program.
The city is going to send people out to talk to the people on the street, (what a laugh). The Social Services is going to waste more money. If that drop-in centre was still downtown it wouldn’t hardly even be an issue.
The poor and the disabled are always picked on, I know I am one of them.
The city is now going to go out and duplicate our services. What the city going to do is going to make the problem a lot worse.
Maybe it’s time the city contact that drop-in centre. It’s time to take a look at that centre again. It’s only been open now for 12yrs..
If the panhandler gets a fine they will have to panhandle even more to pay the fine. If they can’t pay the fine then they go to jail to pay off the fine at $1200.00 a week to keep them there. So the one who actually pays the fine and jail time is the tax payer.
Now you have a police record and now try and find a job.
Its NOT my plan or program. Again you impugn my motives
, it is a plan of social services which we mutually support
I do still have the nerve to suggest you ignore the concerns of business owners with your comments being proof positive as well as the fact that you oppose any of the solutions proposed
The more I learn about unit 7, especially how it refuses to support the efforts of other social service agencies described here, The more I believe unit 7 may be a part of the problem rather than a solution
Heavy handed comments Mark, and, coming from a man who doesn’t deny he failed to see Unit 7 with his own eyes.
Unit 7 has helped many homeless people get off the street.
Unit 7 tells people to go to the shelters because it is the only way a homeless person can get into housing.
Salvation Army and Welcome Centre get a lot of referrals from Unit 7.
You are wrong to tell people this agency run entirely by volunteers is part of the problem.
How ridiculous is that comment?
Why don’t you leave downtown long enough to see the program for yourself?
My comments are heavy handed because I am being maligned
Unit 7 volunteers sat on the DBWIA task force I championed 4 years ago.
I know of no business owner who is aware of a Unit 7 contact number. Being past chair of the DWBIA, I do meet quite a few business owners.
The fact that this agency is not only attacking myself as a concerned business owner who IS ALSO VOLUNTEERING MY TIME (the friggin hypocracy of you defending yourself as volunteers while attacking me as a volunteer is astounding)
That and The fact that this agency is not attacking the efforts of other social services agencies as wasteful shows that you are not willing to act as a team player in contributing to solutions
I am still willing to visit Monday or Tuesday if the offer is still open. Not only would I benefit from understanding better the services offered by Unit 7, I’d be very interested in seeing the data that you’ve collected on the individual panhandlers and what their circumstances are.
“The Alberta Minister of Housing and Urban Affairs Jonathan Denis says: “Most people think if they are giving to panhandlers they are helping the problem, but they are hurting the problem. Almost 80% of money going to panhandlers goes to negative habits — drugs, alcohol, gambling — anything that can be destructive.” ”
Your cheeseburger example is very misleading
By the way, I recall that revenue generation is not the primary goal of a bylaw. the primary goal is to state what is and what is NOT acceptable in a community.
Just having the bylaw will allow police or bylaw enforcement officers to simply tell the panhandler that their behavior is unacceptable. I would assume ticketing would only occur if the panhandler refuses to listen and continues the inappropriate behaviour.
I sat on the Downtown BIA taskforce Mark. When I was there I was blamed for “bringing the homeless into the downtown with the drop-in centre”!
I would say I, and my agency were and continue to be very much maligned by you Mark.
Other businesses, including the Downtown BIA were provided all our information. If not so, then how was it a number of BIA members attended to our agency when we were at Park and Pelissier?
There were twelve (12) Downtown Windsor restaurants and bar owners who welcomed me to fundraise in their establishments. They saw Unit 7 as a great part of the solution to panhandlers and homeless in the downtown area.
Face it Mark, you do not represent all the downtown business owners.
Where do you get the information Unit 7 “are not willing to act as a team player”?
Certainly, I know your source. I challenge you again to name names. Why won’t you?
I would never quote unnamed downtown business owners saying derogatory things about your business.
What was your comment about “this agency is not attacking the efforts of other social service agencies as wasteful”supposed to mean. Clarify please?
Are you suggesting I should attack other agencies?
Are you suggesting that because I am not attacking them I am “not willing to act as a team player”? That doesn’t make any sense.
Why did you fail to invite us to attend your forum?
You can still drop by to visit, however, I would prefer Monday.
I will provide you statistical numbers. I will not provide you any information about our clients. That would violate client confidentiality and no credible agency would turn over that information.
I hope you can back up what you said. These other agencies that get government funding always send them to us. So why don’t you ask them what they are doing with that money. That money they get is to help that problem. Read the contract that they have to sign before they get the money that they need for their agency.
You have been stuck behind a desk too long.
When you are hungry you will do anything, ask the working girl. Sure we have the mission downtown but you eat their once a day, what do you do for the rest of the day.
Now with what little change they do have they hope that they can at least buy a burger at 2 or 3 in the morning.
These agencies do get the money for that very purpose.
ongwriters: Collins, Phil;
She calls out to the man on the street
“Sir, can you help me?
It’s cold and I’ve nowhere to sleep
Is there somewhere you can tell me?”
He walks on, doesn’t look back
He pretends he can’t hear her
He starts to whistle as he crosses the street
She’s embarrassed to be there
Oh, think twice, it’s just another day for
For you and me in paradise
Oh, think twice, it’s just another day
For you, you and me in paradise
Just think about it
She calls out to the man on the street
He can see she’s been cryin’
She’s got blisters on the soles of her feet
She can’t walk but she’s tryin’
Oh, just think twice, it’s just another day
For you and me in paradise
Oh, yes think twice, it’s just another day
For you, you and me in paradise
Just think about it, just think about it
Oh Lord, is there nothing more anybody can do?
[From: http://www.elyrics.net/read/p/phil-collins-lyrics/another-day-in-paradise-lyrics.html
Oh Lord, there must be something you can say
You can tell by the lines on her face
You can see that she’s been there
Probably been moved on from every place
‘Cause she didn’t fit in there
Oh, yes think twice, it’s just another day
For you and me in paradise
Oh, yes think twice, it’s just another day
For you, you and me in paradise
Just think about it, just think about it
It’s just another day
For you and me in paradise
It’s just another day
For you and me in paradise
It’s just another day
For you and me in paradise
It’s just another day
For you and me in paradise
It’s just another day
For you and me
It’s another day
For you and me
It’s another day
For you and me in paradise
In paradise
Christine,
You keep requesting me to back up my statement that u do not work with social service. I am basing them on ur comments
The initiatives discussed are ones that social service agencies will spearhead and run. They’re not my initiatives. The fact that you keep criticizing the
As a duplication an waste is disrespectful to those who are working diligently to see them succeed
Other than that and your attacks on me, i don’t see unit 7 as a problem, my comments were meant to stimulate conversation. I am happy to stand corrected if I am mistaken. I also don’t think it’s wrong to question policies like Handin out sleeping bags when perfectly safe beds are available.
I hope we can diffuse this animosity when we meet, I’ve been a doner to the mission since 1994-5 and I’m not part of the problem. I think it sucks that I even feel u have to say that to try to make my point to you
To be continued when I’m at a computer an not on an iPhone
It is most certainly a difficulty to try to have a conversation with you Mark.
For clarification, I reiterate your remarks:
Panhandling update and Unit 7
Mark on Thursday, May 12, 2011 at 7:19 am
Unit 7’s funding was cut because of a disconnect with the rest of the social service organizations. They do not see eye to eye on how to help the less fortunate. I just assumed they all got along and now I’m finding thats not the case. Unit 7 is the proverbial sesame street’s “one of these things doesn’t belong here, one of these things isn’t the same”
Mark Boscariol on Saturday, May 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm
I spoke to the head of the homeless committee who assured me this is the case. That Windsor does not have a homeless problem, it has an “At risk” homeless problem. WHile that is still incredibly serious, it DOES NOT warrant sleeping bags. It warrants getting couch surfers into homes and permanent residences.
GIVING PEOPLE SLEEPING BAGS ALLOWS THEM TO AVOID GETTING REAL HELP
Mark Boscariol on Monday, May 16, 2011 at 6:56 am
Other than that, I’ve heard tha there is some disagreement between other agencies and unit 7 about how to best help. That funding cuts can partially be attributed to that
Simple Panhandling solution? - point of clarification
Mark Boscariol on Thursday, May 19, 2011 at 6:45 pm
At first i was made to feel that when I said some agencies did not agree with unit 7 that This was an outrageous statement and I should reveal my source. Now it appears there is inter agency infighting over funding
Panhandling meeting update
Mark Boscariol on Thursday, May 26, 2011 at 1:59 pm
The more I learn about unit 7, especially how it refuses to support the efforts of other social service agencies described here, The more I believe unit 7 may be a part of the problem rather than a solution
Again, I ask, name names.
What credible person or agency would say these things and ask for anonymity?
If there are people and agencies in the City of Windsor who are making these defamations against me and my agency, the least you can do is name them.
Let’s move on. My invitation to see my agency and our programs is still open. I will not be available on Tuesday (helping my 86 years mother).
On Monday I will be happy to provide you statistics. I cannot provide confidential information of our clients. (No credible agency would provide this information.)
Can I just add how important it is that this discussion is taking place? I think all of you are contributing immensely in addressing the root causes of the problem and our city is benefitting greatly from this dialogue. Thank you!
Wow …..
It is pretty pathetic that people would try and put down a well needed resource such as Street Help. Christine I really commend you and the volunteers for what you are doing, providing a place of refuge where people can have some worth and dignity. Unless someone is homeless nobody knows what it is truly like to be there. Instead of trying to shove the problem of homeless under the rug, the city should be working to help the situation. I really am disappointed to hear someone would belittle another person such as the man in the wheelchair. Whoever you are SHAME on YOU jerk!!! How dare you try to rob them of whatever worth they feel they might have!!!!!! Yes, it may feel a little annoying at times with the panhandlers but a better solution has to come about. In closing I just want to say that I have personally visited the Unit 7 before and I think it’s a wonderful place–you feel like family there. Keep on working for the homeless Christine. You help give them hope :))
Mark, Mark, Mark. You don’t seem able to comprehend that your statements are aimed like weapons. YOU are the problem here, being unwilling to discuss this issue without shooting at someone. It won’t help your case to blame Unit7 and anyone else who disagrees with you. Those things painting you as an ogre are your OWN words.
Actually, all of this makes me want to defend Christine and unit7 with everything I can muster. There must be something I can do to help them ward off this slander. Christine, I will be sending you a more private email shortly. Thanks
I appreciate your comments. I find that people are afraid to speak. For the most part I’m repeating what I’ve heard and am the proverbial messenger being shot. I feel that I’m actually doing a service by saying aloud what others are saying behind your back.
You can’t solve a problem if you don’t acknowledge it
You should focus more on why Im hearing these things vs who’s saying them. I have. You also haven’t even considered the fact that if your right that this is a duplication of your work, why would they knowingly do this???
Why us unit 7 nit a part of the homeless coalition
There are people who say they would not know where they would be if it weren’t for unit 7.
Now the city going to hire some people to do the work we are doing for free. The social services is complaining about not having enough money. Well since they do not have to pay the benefits for the new hires.
I talked to a few people out there already and they said when they see those people coming they will just walk away.
People are afraid to speak? That is laughable Mark.
It is a certainty that none of these persons are afraid of anything. If they are devious enough to slander me and my agency to you in “anonymity” it is only because they know they cannot prove any of their allegations.
Truth doesn’t need to hide, and certainly, truth doesn’t require a a pawn to speak the message.
I know who your source is, and, this person habitually sends private emails, makes private phone calls, and holds secret meetings for the sole purpose of slandering me and my agency.
If this person had any genuine evidence of wrongdoing on my part or that of my agency, why does this person not come forward.
Sadly Mark, you have been recruited to spread the falsehoods. You are being used.
Demand the evidence of this persons allegations. Demand this person step into the open.
It is important for you to name names.
It is extremely important that you prove you are not making all this up.
It is important for you to start protecting your own reputation.
Would it be fair for me to post negative comments about you and your business from other downtown business owners who are in competition with you?
It is a fact that social service agencies are in competition for government dollars.
Other agencies don’t like that my agency provides services at no cost to the taxpayer. If they could take over my programs they would be able to get hundreds of thousands of your tax dollars to provide the services I provide.
So again I say, name names or stop being a conduit for their unscrupulous attacks.
Christine, I think you are simPly reading way too much t to my writing. Or as shakespear would say “thou dost protest too much”
I simply blogged in what I already admitted was a callous dIsregard the points that unit 7 and other social service agencies don’t always see eye to eye
On methods and strategies. Correct me if I’m wrong but I hear that unit 7 is not a member of the homeless coalition.
The fact that you think I’m against unit 7 and attacking as well as funding cuts indicates to me that there are problems far greater than the manner in which I blog. I find it very diconserting that you have voiced a conspiracy theory that ive been recruited by some malevolent person to harm you . I’ll be happy to “name names” but not on this blog, far more was read into my statements than I intended and the peopleh I poorly paraphrased should not have to face the criticism I faced.
Just because I questioned Some of unit 7’s strategies doesn’t mean I’m against you. I’d like qualified impartial independent people to assess Them in the context of Windsors specific situation obtained from the data collected past and present.
Even at the time of my first blog post on the resurfaced panhandling issue, I referenced unit 7 in a positive way and actually had no knowledge of any perceived or real crlticism of unit 7. My position has since hardened only because Of commentary on these blogs
Remember it wasn’t only u that was stating a knowledge of my motives
CBC had me opposing buskers, sayin I wanted to ban panhandling altogether
I actually called the head of CBC Windsor news dept to make my first media complaint
I had an interviewer telling me how to respond to his questions because he didnt like my answers I find offensive
have I fired back in kind? sure. I’m not going to back down if I feel in my heart I’m doing the right thing and have good intentions. It’s the example I want to set for my son
(although I will train him better in Non violent communication
I say we all steP back, pause and start again.
Ms
I disagree Mark. You have been posting comments you claim come from sources you are keeping in anonymity.
You didn’t simply blog my agency and other agencies are not seeing eye to eye.
You need to name names.
If you will not name your sources, you lose credibility.
My agency was an original member of this coalition.
Joyce Zuk has told me she has taken over as Chair of this coalition.
Joyce has asked us to rejoin as she states “It is a new day.”
I have told Joyce that we will consider rejoining, however, a certain condition must be met to ensure I and any members of staff who would sit in membership will feel safe.
We will not be token members expected to “be seen and not heard”.
The voices of the homeless (remember I and my volunteers were among the ranks of the homeless) should be heard and respected.
In respect to your offer to not name names on this blog, then at the least you should send me a private email which discloses the names and the comments you now say were “poorly paraphrased”.
My email is christine@on.aibn.com
Should you choose to do this, I will accept this as an act of good faith on your part, and, in good faith I will not disclose the identities on this blog.
When I say ” poorly paraphrased and callous disregard” I mean that I am accepting that your comments regarding them as attacks as valid. Those terms are explanations, not excuses. But I alone am responsible as the comments made to me were clearly not meant as attacks. Which is why I’m reluctant to publicly discuss names.
I will simPly tell you in person when we meet Monday and I hope I can resolve any concerns that anyone attacked you.
I don’t want to attack you but merely have a public discussion of the issues in a place that I can speak freely. At worse I hope we can agree to disagree
I can agree to disagree.
I’ll see you on Monday. I am here from 9 am until 4 pm.
We do not close for lunch.
You don’t even see what you are doing, do you? The only information you have on this initiative is second hand from myself. I’ve already acknowledged that I’m unqualified to speak to many of these issues and have no background in social services
The fact is that you have already rushed to judgment without talking to anyone involved thats qualified. By discussing a program with panhandlers that you have absolutely no knowledge other than what you’ve read on an Internet blog written by someone who has no background in this area in itself undermines the program
You’ve witnessed people claiming to refuse to participate (most likely due to your gripes) demonstrates an unwillingness to work and support other social service agencies. For goodness sakes man, you haven’t even had the courtesy waiting to discuss it with Joyce before u appoint yourself judge, jury AND executioner.
Why don’t you take a step back and listen to what the homeless coalition is proposing. You and Christine have voiced your concerns crystal clear. Why not have the decency to allow them to respond before you continue to criticize and undermine the work of volunteers.
The DWBIA and I have already addressed several concerns by agreeing to hold off any requests for bylaws, public education and coin boxes until we see of the data collected warrants further action. Also by letting social services oversee and take the lead. We’ve agreed not to take unilateral action while there is any chance of working together. We’ve demonstrated a willingness to listen and compromise. I would ask the same of you
Mark, the panhandlers have voiced their concerns to Joe.
Joe has not been spreading gripes to the panhandlers. You rush to condemn, and that is flawed judgement.
You are reporting online and very publicly that the City of Windsor Social Services is going to fund supervisors and street patrollers to approach the panhandlers.
The panhandlers are telling Joe they are going to walk away and refuse to speak to them because they are going to be trying to get their personal information.
If welfare and disability are able to identify any of their recipients are panhandling this information could be used to cut them off welfare and disability.
This would lead to greater numbers of homeless people, and, unfortunately for the cause you are championing, a much greater number of people who will be forced to panhandle day and night.
Shelters are not free. If you get cut off welfare or disability you cannot stay in the shelters (unless you can panhandle enough to pay the bill).
Joe is right to make inquiries to the panhandlers, especially to the homeless panhandlers. They only receive the small monthly living allowance of $224.
The homeless panhandlers live on a mere $56 per week Mark.
Can you live on $56 per week?
Imagine the horror the homeless panhandlers are now facing.
Joe would be remiss to not ask for the input of the very persons who could be affected.
In reality, any initiative should address the concerns of the people who will be involved.
Mark
you seem very ready to attack others when they disagree with your position and you couch it all in the language of being the ‘champion’ of a cause, a noble ‘volunteer’ and concerned ‘business owner.’ You claim above “I have acknowledged that I’m unqualified to speak to many of these issues and have no background in social services.” But the sad truth is that from day one when you invited the media into your reality to spotlight that which you say you are ‘championing,’ you have spoken (written) with quite the voice of authority, throwing about facts and figures and statistics that have no basis in fact for our community. Now when people like myself took issue with your words, you cried fowl! Now your livelihood is being threatened you say. But you are the one who has claimed such a strong knowledge and firm answers on how to deal with these issues. My blog received record hits on this matter. I received feedback from my article in the Tribune and well as the letter to the Star …all of this speaks to the importance of this very critical matter. So it is good that this dialogue has taken place…just sad really that Mark is not comfortable with any opposing view and has to turn it into an attack on him and his business which brings me full circle back to my gripe in the beginning with Mark’s attitude in this….
Mark …..this is not about people and their struggle for you…this is about your struggle to not have to come face to face with human suffering and struggle and your need to move those who struggle from ‘your back yard.’ For a guy who is so concerned about this affecting his business, you sure do seem to be keeping this going as long as possible…let’s get honest the publicity is not all that bad for you … allow me to properly quote Shakespeare - “The lady doth protest too much, methinks!”
I think we all need to tune in a little less to Mark’s comments as they are increasingly revealing where his interest really lie - let’s get back to discussion the root causes of this problem and understand that there is no simple solution that will give downtown businesses sidewalks clear of suffering. It is about those who suffer for me Mark….not about those who are worried about the bottom line….
I am actually quite surprised at your comment
1. I feel as though I’m on the defensive and not on the attack. It was my motives that were impugned first an it was a willful mischaracterization of what I proposed by CBC and others that lead to what I feel was a defense.
2. I have acknowledged a few of my statements to show callous disgregard and a poor paraphrase of those I talked with. I accept sole responsibility and began to attempt to be more conciliatory
3.. I feel that although I stand by my beliefs and what ive cive made considerable efforts to be concilliatory. (i duuno Maybe it’s just that a blog commentary attributes the opposite intonation to my words to u)
4. I’ve heard christines opinion as well as that of Joyce Zuk and I changed my position regarding allowing social services to take the lead and patiently waiting to see their results.
5. I’ve agreed to tale no further action for months even though I believe public support would see the proposals I made successful
It is regretful that Christine and I may not come to an agreement but it is not from any lack of compromise or lack of listening on my part
I am sincerely baffled
Mark
Mark there can be no misrepresenting what you wrote yourself in the Star and you reposted here and what you wrote as a letter to the editor just a few short days ago…don’t blame the media for what you wrote yourself. Your words are really not those of defense…I acknowledge that you have had to defend your original position and statements - but often by accusing those who disagree with threatening your livelihood, etc. Nonetheless… I digress I take exception to much of what you wrote, not what the CBC reported.
I think I made it clear to you that most understood ‘the tongue in cheek’ nature of my suggest about opening the restaurant - as I noted to you perhaps in a private message, that was to be taken in the same light as you suggesting that I cannot directly help someone I encounter on the street in my own way….we really cannot mandate how others should help. It was not a cleaver trap to suggest it, many who wrote to me saw it for what it was. But you were quite outspoken from the beginning here about how people should NOT help others, making a blanket statement that all who give to people on the street are contributing to the problem and not helping to find a solution. Nothing could be further from the truth. Working at the root causes and supporting organizations that work to reduce poverty and homelessness while at the same time have a heart to address human suffering when one encounters it face to face are not mutually exclusive. So my ’suggestion’ in my piece - to be clear here - was as likely to happen as it is likely that I will stop taking someone to lunch when they need it and sending them away with some cash. You should no more tell me that I can’t help in that manner as I should tell you to help by opening the restaurant on a once a month basis. As you noted to me in a message to me, we cannot tell one another how to help…I hope that you see that this applies to you as much as it does to me.
This medium leaves a lot to be desired….I did suggest in responding to the comments on my blog post as well in messages to you and indeed in a follow up blog that I had hoped that we might come together to discuss this so that we would have a better idea of where we each sit with this….the invitation remains - I would love to sit and hear from you what you really mean when you write these things because I may indeed be misunderstanding what you are typing …as I do admit this medium leaves much open to interpretation…I suspect from all sides. You might be surprised to hear what I think as well.
I remain,
Kevin
No, I didn’t understand that this was a “tongue and cheek” comment, nor did most who read it. Especially my staff and business partner.
You still don’t understand that what I’m saying is not that you can’t give them money, just that you are foolish or naive to think that giving them money 80% of the time is helping.
I stand by that statement that all who give to the panhandlers are contributing to the problem 80% of the time as that is the amount of money that goes to drugs, alcohol or tobacco according to studies by other locations. You’re killing them with your kindness.
Taking a panhandler to lunch is not giving them money. I would not discourage that.
I agree with Chris Holt. It’s a positive thing that this conversation occurring. But I think if any members of the DWBIA or city admin are serious about helping the homeless, they need to engage Unit 7 and the homeless directly.
It also isn’t lost on me that I’ve never heard Fulvio talk about homelessness or poverty in general until the DWBIA and Mark started making noise. The point being that this has been going on in our city for as long as I’ve been alive and it never gets attention until somebody with some business or political juice gets their dander up. To me that is a shameful commentary on just how we view our most vulnerable citizens.
I could launch into a diatribe on what I believe the true motives are for some individuals, but I won’t. I really don’t care about motivation. I only care about solutions, and in particular ones that don’t involve further marginalizing homeless people.
I’ll be watching closely and hopefully. I also would be willing to help in any way I can.
I’ll also add that you don’t need to have a background in anything to be part of the solution. You only need the courage to pick up a task that many others have failed to tackle.
jwpercy@cogeco.ca
Feel free to contact me.
Jody, of course I agree with you that a background is not required to make a positive contribution
My point was that the program should NOT be judges solely on my second hand interpretation of whatever synopsis I heard
Btw, i also shared your concerns about Fulvio representing downtown. However he was extremely helpful in helping the parties communicate to each other, as well as offering alternative methods of achieving different goals
I’m not just saying that as I’ve always felt councillor Valentinis biggest strengh was hid communication skills and ability to explain
I font know if he realizes but I’ve learned quite a bit from listing to him
And I don’t know If he necessarily supports my position.
Fair enough Mark. I just think people will learn a lot more about this issue by getting out there and talking with the panhandlers themselves than by listening to politicians, and others that likely have no idea what it’s like to live with the problems of homelessness, mental illness, and addiction (often simultaneously).
@jody I guess it boils down to the fact thar Theres a role for each of us and we should not try to assume roles not suited to us. Revy Kevyn I think tried to set out a clever trap for Me by trying to assess my motives by whether I opened my restaurant to panhandlers.
I give in the ways I feel I’m best suited to and I shouldn’t have that effort belittled because I dont meet his criteria. Maybe that isn’t his intent but like my good intent, I learned that it can yield negative results
my staff does not have the experience tondeal with some panhandlers Who may have mental or substance Issues. I would not jeopardize their safety to prove a point. I would not create a situation where I could not identify whose a panhandler and whose a regular customer. Not all panhandlers look like bums.
Instead I accomplish the same results in my way. I also do not wish to jeopardize my profit (maybe it will, maybe it won’t)
My money my choice to Risk. That profit is what allows me to make the contributions to our community
this is not an attack on revy, but I that’s the best I know how to explain myself
I can certainly respect your position. I would just try to keep people focused on what the goal should be. That should be to get as many people back to being as productive as they can be. I think we would all agree that is a long-term goal with a complicated set of remedies. In the near term, we should focus on how to treat everybody with a certain level of dignity and respect. That goes equally for the panhandlers, the general public, and the property and business owners. (IMHO) If we don’t have buy-in from all of the aforementioned, we will be doomed to failure.
I didn’t read Revy Kevy’s blog, but I think a dialogue, or an attempt to have a respectful conversation with some of the panhandlers is a no lose proposition. I notice that homeless panhandlers were the one “stakeholder” that was noticeably unrepresented at that meeting.
Before the eyes roll and I get accused of being naive, I understand that a reasonable conversation is unlikely to be had with all of the panhandlers. However, a certain degree of information from their perspective would be invaluable.
Please don’t misinterpret my comments as discouraging or cynical. I really do applaud everyone for trying to do something about this issue.
I don’t have any solutions to the problem of panhandling or begging, it has been with us since the beginning of civilization. Nor do I have to cite parables of the poor and down trodden and they exist in every community around the world. There will always be economically or socially challenged citizens among us, it’s the nature of the beast we call cities/civilization.
I don’t own a business in the core but I am a twenty-three year resident of the downtown, walking to and from to work everyday and I know all the panhandlers, the street people, I see the homeless every day in the central library and they know me. I am very familiar with Street Help and the work they do and it is a good thing.
So, I am going to take a different approach to this subject, an approach that sets the urban resident against suburban people and why their perceptions of panhandling et al are different and they are.
I’ve lived in the core of this city when I was very young, lived in metro Toronto in my teen years, worked and lived in downtown Ottawa in the late 80’s and 90’s, what you learn living in very dense areas, is to overcome your fear of strangers. There is no way to get to know everyone you see in your neighbourhood or on the streets, in your comings and goings. You have to take faith that most of them will do you no harm and are going about their business or pursuits but at the same time guard yourself for anything that might happen on the street. You learn to tolerate and accept the panhandlers, the homeless, the people of the street as part of your community, some you may help, some you avoid and yes some you step over or walk around and keep going, they’ve just tried to hit on you one to many times. The urban street is always constant and changing at the same time, it does not conform to a norm. It also means that mentally you don’t ignore them but take note of their existence and some you help out, others, the chronic drunks and beggars, the street people, you just side step.
And yes, I would be upset if a drunk or panhandler leaned over the patio railing and asked for a hand out but would probably handle it differently by just brushing him off. A downtown street patio is not the food court at the mall nor a sub-urban restaurant patio where everyone is the same and expected to act accordingly to the conformed mundaneness of sub-burbia and the unstated rules of why you live as you do. You may not know your neighbours but since they live like you, you expect them to have the same values range as you and not to be to different in their behaviour. This you can never expect living in dense areas, there are some like you and a lot that are not, you get over your fear of the stranger and move on.
Where everyone is the same, in my minds eye, tells the story of sub-urban conformity, the fear of strangers, the fear of being different from all those living around you and to expect everyday to be just like the last one. You moved to the burbs to get away from the density of cities and all the different people on the street where the actions of other people may upset you or scare you just by the sheer numbers but yet you the suburbanite suffer all the same strangers in the shopping malls but deep down you know those shoppers, strangers share a same set of values and rules and because a mall is private property, mall cops keep out those that do not belong, thus everything is safe and secure in the sameness of expectations.
Where expectations collide is when suburbanites come downtown and expect the downtown to be same as the food court or suburban restaurant and face the reality that a downtown street is not a controlled environment! They’re shocked, they’re appalled, they’re upset that their safe conforming world has been upset by the display of the unfortunate of their society and they’re face to face with a different reality.
Interviewing the chronic drunks, street people or panhandlers is a waste of time, they’ve been through every social agency and institution that has tried to help them, and they still come back to the street, they chosen their lifestyle, happy or not, they have made a choice. It’s the newer ones that you have to catch, the newly homeless, the ones who may turn one way or another to crime and all that follows from that decision.
The inner city poor know where to get help, to get food, they know what city agencies can help them, they know the food banks and soup kitchens, most are peaceful and law abiding and have accepted their lot in life and they get by.
Yes, Windsor does have a problem with street people, like every other city in this world. Yes, it upsets the reality of a mostly suburban city and some who live downtown but that is the reality of the civilization we have built, not everyone is equal.
Thank you for your well written comments.
You have exposed a syndrome the suburbanites may have not known they suffer from.
It is true that many have chosen to abandon the downtown area to live, work, shop and play in upscale and private communities. Indeed, living this lifestyle causes culture shock when they venture into the mean streets.
I am grateful for your comments about my homeless outreach program.
You have pointed out some of the differences in the types of homeless and panhandlers, which many may not have understood.
The first group are the new street people. It is of utmost importance for us to help them discover the available services. When we reach these individuals before the pimps and drug dealers, we can help them to move forward to become productive members of our community.
The second group is and always will be a greater challenge. They have suffered every abuse at the hands of pimps and drug dealers. Many have suffered countless instances of rape (men and women). Many are victims of child sexual abuse. Many have self medicated with drugs or alcohol to ease their suffering. Many have become hard core alcoholics and drug addicts.
It is apparent when an alcoholic gets drunk on his first beer that his liver is shot. He or she has already been told by their doctor they do not qualify for a liver transplant and they do not have much time left. At this point they give up trying to get help. My heart goes out to these poor souls.
I agree that interviewing this group is a waste of time. They do continue to need the services of my agency, and other services.
When we deliver a sleeping bag to someone we know will sleep in a parking garage on a cold winter night we are miserable in our souls. How much greater would it be to help lead this person to a warm bed.
Sadly, shelters require conformity to their rules. A person who is intoxicated can be unruly as any honest bar owner would admit. For years I have seen and heard the fighting, arguing and aggressive behavior of the young drinking crowds in downtown Windsor. We have all heard of the tragedies which have occurred i.e. do we all remember a young man murdered after leaving a downtown bar at night?
Bar owners regularly bounce drunken people from their premises, however, they continue to serve alcohol.
The question here is: bars kick unruly drunks out and shelters do the same so is one wrong and one right? Of course not. This is the premise of the much maligned wet shelter my husband promoted. A wet shelter helps a person who is in their final stages to die with dignity. A drink in their hand (which their doctor knows they now suffer without) and a warm bed with friends at their side. It is humane.
Toronto is the only city I know of that has a wet shelter. Windsor does not.
Windsor has rejected this act of humanity. It has been often said to me “They can stop drinking. They can conform. They want to be homeless.” It saddens me to hear these statements and it shocks me when I hear these things from Social Services.
Some people need to get off their high horses and support all the programs that truly work to help the homeless.
I am not so supportive of programs that use homelessness funding to primarily support initiatives that rarely help an actual homeless person. I DO NOT think these other programs are unnecessary though.
My point is homeless funding should help the homeless. Other funding should be sought to provide programs designed to help the poor.
Most of the programs are funded under the murky grey area of “at risk of homelessness”. What this means is anyone who lives under the poverty line can access the services! This includes everyone on welfare, everyone on disability, every working poor person and everyone in social housing.
“Sour grapes!” They will cry out. “Just because we have the homeless funding and she doesn’t.” They will add the protest. “We are helping people so they don’t become street people.” They will further protest “The people who are at risk of homelessness are more important. They have not fallen as hard and are easier to serve.”
That seems to make sense to the many. Thus, funds to help the homeless are used to provide services to poor people on the premise if they don’t get these services they could possibly become homeless.
Wouldn’t it simply make a lot more sense to raise the welfare rate. Then these poor people would have enough money to pay their transportation, do their laundry in the machines already supplied by Windsor Housing, pay for their own identification, pay for their hygiene and household cleaning supplies?
Is it truly logical to use funds for the homeless to provide top up services to the poor?
If it is logical, then it is an admission by Social Services they are forcing people to live in such abject poverty they now have to fund service providers with salaries to dole out these necessities.
We live in a community that funds programs designed for the poor and miserably fails to invest in programs designed to help people get off the streets.
The third group of long term homeless are those who suffer from mental health issues.
Most would not know Windsor does not have a safe shelter for people who suffer with mental illnesses. The shelters cannot afford to hire mental health professionals. With shelters so ill-equipped to serve this group it is not surprising these individuals live on the street.
More funding needs to be made available for mental health services.
A fourth group are our homeless children. These youth have been stereotyped. It is often said “They don’t want to do their homework. They don’t want to follow the rules. They don’t want to do household chores. They want to party on the streets.”
The people who so condemn ignore that childhood sexual abuse and childhood mental health issues are the primary reasons for youth homelessness. I was molested in a foster home. I ran away to the mean streets. I was accused of these same things. I was abused by strangers when I panhandled. I was raped countless times. I know.
There is a plan for a shelter for homeless boys in Windsor. This plan though has not been supported by the powers that be for the past six years. Sadly, there is no plan for a shelter for homeless girls.
Homeless youth do not belong in shelters for adult men and adult women. It is illogical to try to house these groups together.
When I see Windsor truly support the homeless with a Wet shelter, a Male Youth shelter, a Female Youth shelter, and a Mental Health shelter I will say Windsor is on the path toward a sustainable and healthy community.
There are other groups e.g. transgendered, gay, lesbian and bisexual homeless adults and youth who are also deprived of a shelter where they would feel safe.
Windsor, you’ve come a long way since I was a homeless youth. There was only a soup kitchen for men. They wouldn’t serve me. The priest said “We only serve men. Women have other ways of making money.” There were no shelters. Food banks wouldn’t give food to me because I did not have a home.
Windsor is about 20 years behind London. London even has a shelter where whole families can live. A hotel room in Windsor is the only option. Couples without children are forced to live in separate shelters. Many couples cannot live apart and live on the street.
I have been much maligned by service providers in Windsor for the twelve years I have been in service to the homeless. I do not have one of their little college diplomas or a university degree. For this single reason a number of service providers have denigrated or ignored my presentations at meetings. I have often been told “We are the real professionals. We know what the homeless need.”
Windsor, you’ve come a long way, but, you’ve got a long way to go.
Very well said Christine!