1) That Minneapolis Police stop harassing and physically abusing those without homes. (Refer to a Minneapolis Star Tribune editorial published in February of this year.)
Dyna says: By and large this isn't a problem- I know of several homeless folks in my 'hood and they don't seem to be being hassled by MPD. Some homeless folks sell illegal drugs though and thusly draw legitimate police attention. Peter responds: Again, if the generally Pro City Hall, Pro Police Federation Minneapolis Star Tribune cites police abuse against homeless people then THERE IS a problem. As for drawing legitimaate police attention, whether the culprits are homeless or not, selling illegal drugs or doing something else that's illegal, the police still have the responsibility to behave in a courteous and professional manner without resorting to excessive force and abuse. Otherwise the city of Minneapolis racks up a moral debt and risks further lawsuits. 2) That local anti-camping laws and ordinances be repealed so that those without homes who are turned away from homeless shelters for lack of beds are less vulnerable to police brutality. When people are technically breaking the law, whether the law is consistently enforced or not, they are at the mercy of our dubious legal and law enforcement system. Dyna says: For all practical purposes the anti camping law is unenforceable- it's quite legal to pitch a tent or own a van or RV in Minneapolis. The city has to actually prove "occupancy" to make what is at most a misdemeanor charge. Peter responds: While I agree these laws are unenforcable for all practical purposes, just having them on the books gives the Minneapolis Police further opportunities to abuse our most vulnerable citizens. Anyone who's breaking the law, whether the law is generally enforced or not, is at the mercy of the police, especially if they belong to a racial minority. Futhermore, if our city council made it legal for homeless people to camp out and regulate where they can camp out, then existing violation of anti-camping laws and ordinances wouldn't be CONTAINED to certain areas of downtown, thus placing an unfair burden on a few businesses and their council representative (Natalie Johnson Lee). Also, we can make the homeless campers RESPONSIBLE for their behaviors when they are camping out. (Again, even though there was much about the Skyway News article about homeless campers I didn't care for, I thought the article was most enlightening in that it uniquely highlighted an unfair, unwritten homeless containment policy. I'm sorry now for not giving it due appreciation.) 3) That bridge rods not be installed, so those turned away from homeless shelters can at least stay halfway dry when it rains or snows, and havesome protection from the wind as well. Dyna says: Peter, this is a cold climate and the bridges do not provide adequate shelter for sleeping under. I looked at the locally available outlet for cheap stuff, Target, and found that there best sleeping bag was only rated for 0 degrees farenheit. That rating assumes the sleeping bag is dry, clean, still has some loft, and you have something to block the wind from blowing right through it. Target has cheap tents too, but there not built to handle a heavy snow load and might collapse on you while you're sleeping. Among knowledgeable campers winter camping is considered to be an adventure suited for experienced campers only, and requires around $500+ of camping gear you won't find at Target. Peter responds: Of course, people shouldn't have to sleep under bridges, even in pleasant weather. But when homeless people are turned away from several shelters any given night for lack of available beds, then the bridge rods are cruel and immoral. 5) That existing shelters stay open 24 hours a day, so that those without homes are not forced to compound their misery and despair by wandering the streets from 6 or 7 in the morning until the shelters reopen in the evenings. Dyna says: Staying open during the day would mean less staff would be available to keep shelters open at night when they're needed most. Peter responds: For demands such as the above, politicians from both major parties will cite revenue shortfalls and budgetary constraints. Again, this is nonsense. Given all the public money given to for profit and "non profit" housing developers, military contractors, and stadium proprietors, and additional war machine apparatus, our local, state and federal governments have the money to open and staff quality homeless shelters,24/7. One would think that a wise politico like R.T. would want to provide the homeless a permanent address and all that entails so they can register and vote... for him and his fellow progressive candidates. Given that at least 1% of the population is homeless, the republicans have won control of all three branches of federal government by far less than 1% margins, and few homeless folks would vote republican... one would think that housing the homeless would be high on every Democrat and Green elected officials agenda! Peter responds: Contrary to popular belief, our office holders, local and otherwise, work for big business, not for the citizens who elected them. This holds true for the few Greens who hold office, as well as for the Republicans and Democrats. Our system of government on all levels is rotten to the core. This is why the NEW GUARD at City Hall has been a huge disappointment to so many of us. Still, citizens must ACT AS IF we have a government that's of, by and for the people. If we put enough pressure on office holders, then they'll have to start applying pressure to their corporate masters. Thanks for the input, Dyna. It's always good to hear from you, even when we disagree. Barb Lickness: I love your posts. You have an awesome grasp of details that I envy. However, I don't agree with you that housing for vulnerable populations puts neighborhoods and cities at a disadvantage. I live next to a nursing home and two large board and cares for people with mental illnesses. None of these facitlities or their dwellers have presented a problem to me and my neighbors. Of course, we want an economically diverse neighborhood. If neighborhoods were packed with too many low-income people then local small businesses wouldn't do so well. Plus there's the issue of our city's unwritten policy of crime containement. So I think I understand where you're coming from, but maybe I don't. As for Shoreview and other suburbs that don't do their share in housing vulnerable populations, please keep in mind that our metro area does not have the best transportation system. Like it or not, poor people in the metro area fare better in Minneapolis and Saint Paul where they have better access to buses that can get them to jobs and service providers. If there are other problems related to cities and neighborhoods housing vulnerable populations, please let me know. I truly regard your input highly, even when I disagree with it.-------Peter Schmitz CARAG ------Peter Schmitz CARAG REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
