One of our commenters made a derogatory comment about the homeless, referring to them as “Drug addicts, Alcoholics, Vagrants, the Insane, and Spongers.” When the comment got pulled he complained about it being pulled, noting, “Because using real words to describe real things isn’t a bad thing.”
Well, I disagree – I do not think it is a good thing to put derogatory labels on suffering human beings. Moreover, as others in on the email noted, the list is hardly exclusive.
This, unfortunately, follows an article that notes community backlash to a plan to create respite centers in various locations.
I have been increasingly concerned over community complaints about Pacifico and the council’s apparent response that the solution to Pacifico is not to find a better way to operate the current facility, but rather to repurpose it – leaving the residents at that facility in a situation where they may or may not have services or a place to live.
While some of the neighbors of Pacifico have raised legitimate concerns over the way the property has been managed, it is far from clear to me that we have exhausted remedies at the current facility. Moreover, the comments by some of the residents have crossed the lines of decency.
Comments about creating ghettos in Davis – an offensive term in modern times – frankly has no place, and yet the council for the most part, while avoiding that type of rhetoric, has done what the 
neighbors have suggested.
But one of the bigger and growing humanitarian crises in urban America these days, particularly California, is the homeless issue.
In recent weeks there has been some pushback over the proposed Paul’s Place – it’s evidently too tall and people do not want homeless services in a residential neighborhood, even though the current location has been serving that clientele for a number of years without problem.
Now Mayor Brett Lee’s respite center proposal is also under fire. Some are concerned about locating it near the Dave Pelz bike overpass.
I have not looked that closely at all the sites to know which one of them seems most reasonable. Maybe that is not a good location. But I highly suspect that there are people in this community for which any location will be objectionable, as they see the homeless population as a blight on this community and some would like to see them removed.
While there is a tendency to look at these issues through the frame of our local backyard, this is a statewide problem and, as a recent NY Times article points out, “California may pride itself on its commitment to tolerance and liberal values, but across the state, record levels of homelessness have spurred a backlash against those who live on the streets.”
The Times quotes a property developer in Oakland and an aggressive critic of the homeless who said, “Refugee camps in Syria are cleaner than this.” His solution is “luring the thousands of homeless people in the San Francisco Bay Area onto party buses stocked with alcohol and sending them on a one-way trip to Mexico.”
The Times writes: “Homelessness is an expanding crisis that comes amid skyrocketing housing prices, a widening gap between the rich and poor and the persistent presence on city streets of the mentally ill and drug-dependent despite billions of dollars spent to help them.”
And while the above example is extreme, the Times notes that “residents say they have found themselves weighing concerns for the less fortunate against disruptions to their own quality of life.”
Will a respite center work? Will Paul’s Place work? I don’t know. What we are doing now seems insufficient and, despite the sentiment expressed above, relocation is not only illegal but simply shifts the problems to someone else.
In fact, the respite center as Brett Lee explained it attempts to address the issue.
Last March he said a big problem is that, because the homeless cannot simply go and hang out in neighborhoods or residential areas all day, they go to the downtown where they can blend in a bit better.
However, they have a new idea about where the homeless can go, so that they are not in the downtown all day.
He said, “(A) respite center where people can go, where it’s planned that they go there.
“There isn’t sort of one solution,” he said. “This is a piece.”
We are not doing nearly enough here. In a July Op-Ed in the LA Times, Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg noted that he had established legislation while he was a legislator that established a “housing first” mentality in California, prioritizing “getting people off the streets and into permanent housing, where they could then get supportive services for mental illness, substance abuse and other issues.”
He writes: “I still believe strongly in the concept of housing first, but I’ve also come to see that focusing primarily on permanent housing is insufficient. We simply don’t have the housing stock necessary to address our current crisis, and building it will take too long and cost too much. We need an infusion of short-term shelter and housing options to serve as a bridge for those currently living on our streets.”
The jarring data he cites is this: “… in New York City, which has a court-ordered right to shelter, approximately 95 percent of the 79,000 homeless people sleep indoors. In California, by contrast, 68 percent of the state’s 130,000 homeless sleep outdoors in the elements.”
Politifact does the research here and finds that he’s mostly correct.
They find: “It shows approximately 95 percent of New York State’s 92,000 homeless people were sheltered in 2018, meaning they slept indoors at a temporary facility.
“By contrast, it found nearly 69 percent of California’s 130,000 homeless individuals were unsheltered, meaning they slept on the streets, in cars or abandoned buildings. It also found California had the highest rate of unsheltered people in the nation.
“California has the nation’s highest rate of unsheltered homeless people, according to the 2018 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress,” they write.
The state of New York has less than five percent of its homeless population as unsheltered. Granted, weather is a problem in New York, but the question should be – is the homeless problem less in states like Maine, Rhode Island, New York, Massachusetts and Nebraska because more people are sheltered than they are in states like California, Oregon, Nevada, and Hawaii where they are not?
Mayor Steinberg clearly believes that sheltering them is optimal, and he notes people who are unsheltered are “vulnerable to disease, violence, and deterioration of their mental and physical health. Record numbers of them are dying. In Los Angeles, deaths among the unsheltered homeless are up 76% over the last five years. In Sacramento, where I am mayor, unsheltered homeless deaths are up 75% since last year.”
I think we need to be doing more, but putting derogatory names on people in unfortunate circumstances, however, is not going to solve the problem – and it may actually make it worse.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
My name is Alan C. Miller, and I’d like to designate myself as the commenter so referred to. And also to thank DG for taking my words out of context and making it look like I am deriding the “homeless”, who people feel are those who are down on their luck due to rising rents, too many bills, loss of a job. In fact, I support having support facilities for those people, as I believe the state should reopen the mental hospitals we once had to take care of the severely mentally ill.
My point was that most of the people we see are not homeless who are down on their luck as above, but “Drug addicts, Alcoholics, Vagrants, the Insane, and Spongers.” (Which happens to spell D.A.V.I.S.) The point is, “homeless” is a bad descriptor for what is really a multi-face problem, and the word is often used politically or to support the Homeless Industrial Complex (look it up).
I’d say more, but no time to do so.
Thanks for finally publishing what was pulled, DG, even if changing my meaning by pulling it out of context. I’m sure that was unintentional 😐
NOT A DUPLICATE COMMENT
My name is Alan C. Miller, and I’d like to designate myself as the commenter so referred to. And also to thank DG for taking my words out of context and making it look like I am deriding the “homeless”, who people feel are those who are down on their luck due to rising rents, too many bills, loss of a job. In fact, I support having support facilities for those people, as I believe the state should reopen the mental hospitals we once had to take care of the severely mentally ill.
My point was that most of the people we see are not homeless who are down on their luck as above, but “Drug addicts, Alcoholics, Vagrants, the Insane, and Spongers.” (Which happens to spell D.A.V.I.S.) The point is, “homeless” is a bad descriptor for what is really a multi-face problem, and the word is often used politically or to support the Homeless Industrial Complex (look it up).
I’d say more, but no time to do so.
Thanks for finally publishing what was pulled, DG, even if changing my meaning by pulling it out of context. I’m sure that was unintentional 😐
Moderator: edited
While there are many empty homes and buildings that could be utilized for housing, the sense that “I work hard for mine, why should they get it for free?” seems to override any practical approach to the problem.
John… I note differences between those who look at homeless folk: on a theoretical plane (positive/negative/in-between); those who have engaged with them by experience, by coincidence or purposefully, at their discretion; those who are, in essence, forced to ‘engage’ with them on a regular basis; those who are homeless themselves.
I can see different views based on those differences… they are what they are… I fit into the second category and can only speak to that, and perhaps how that has informed my theoretical view.
Some homeless have varying degrees of MH “issues”, behavioral “issues”, substance abuse, bad luck, bad choices, PTSD, etc… sometimes more than one… but that can be said for just about every population of neighbors, co-workers, friends that I have known… who are not homeless… but, and I think what you are saying, is that they are human, like us all… and “labels” are not particularly helpful to seeing each other, acting towards each other as human… not sure I’d have the same view if I was in the third category… and, most would judge me as “privileged”… but I have no “perfect” life, but I deal with the cards I’ve been dealt… and we try to help others as we can… the “there, if not for the grace, go I” thing…
Just a thought… other’s experiences will vary… will not judge, except in inordinately malicious circumstances…
Grace of what? God, usually. And I always wonder, what makes you think you get God’s grace but that other guy doesn’t? A really useless saying, actually. What is real is accepting God’s grace. Probably doesn’t apply to the ******. I won’t use the word, as it is probably derogatory by Vanguard standards.
Well, was thinking more of ‘grace’ of good luck, good choices (most of the time), and perhaps “white privilege”… if you equate those, with “God”, those are your words, not mine… I said what I meant… nothing more, nothing less…
The way it was once explained to me is that the term grace refers to unmerited mercy. Catholics and Protestants approach the concept differently.
Please note, Don, I did not use the word ‘God’…
And coming from both a Catholic and Protestant background, the term ‘grace’ is not as different for those ‘faiths’ than you may have been taught… you are right, tho’ in that it goes beyond our direct control (choices)… might be our circumstances, might be sheer dumb luck, might be …
I don’t follow Alan’s comment–is he saying that most homeless are or are not D.A.V.I.S? Having worked at the winter shelter and talked with other homeless, most have a traumatic life event or passage that led to where they are. That so many have resided in Davis most of their lives is striking.
As for John’s comment, it’s pretty clear that he hasn’t talked with many homeless. They are not getting much for free, and the difficulties they face are a high price to pay for “free”.
Try reading what I wrote, you obviously inferred more than was there.
Yep… I think I read exactly what you meant, John… you even put it in quotes, as in apparent attitudes or “words of others“, not yourself.
John’s original comment is so transformed that it’s not possible for me to discern what he originally intended. This string of comments should be deleted due to its irrelevance.
“While there are many empty homes and buildings that could be utilized for housing, the sense that “I work hard for mine, why should they get it for free?” seems to override any practical approach to the problem.”
Too confusing, Richard?
I’m saying that there are many available places to house people that sit unused. Let’s use them. Don’t encourage the butcher to cut any more.
No, the moderator just removed the part that personally insulted me. The rest is the same (I think, though I don’t perfectly remember every comment deleted or partially deleted comment, even my own).
I think the comment is fine. Not that I state that I agree or disagree as my stance is much more nuanced, but the comment that remains is OK.
Moderator, not meaning to challenge moderation, but thought John’s comments were not “over the top” , compared to many others, by others… so, my following comment was not appropriate, as well… will ‘report that one, as well as this one…
It could be that they move to places where the weather is more accommodating, tolerance is greater, and more services are available.
In other words, locations that are more accommodating are bearing all of the impacts/costs, for the entire country. And even within those areas, some individual cities are more accommodating than others. (For example – compare Granite Bay, vs. Sacramento.)
It could be that some are generally opposed to providing services/facilities within a community to those with problems that impact others, without any rules (e.g., “housing first”). Perhaps that’s not a workable model for any community, let alone one that’s tucked under a bicycle overpass on its own.
By the way, there’s a large-scale housing facility under construction nearby (on Fifth Street), which is apparently going to be occupied by those at risk of homelessness.
For God’s sake, compare New York vs. San Francisco! When I was in NYC last year, about 1/10 the so-called ‘homeless’ as San Francisco. And don’t say it’s the weather, because 30 years ago it was the opposite!
Is that right?
What do you think the reason for that change is? (An “honest” question.)
By the way, I wouldn’t be too concerned about the Vanguard’s focus on your comment that they initially deleted, and subsequently “featured” in an article.
A very strange comment, since no email is referenced as an antecedent.
“Well, Excu-u-use Me!” -Steve Martin
D is for: drug ad·dict
/ˈdrəɡ adikt/
a person who is addicted to an illegal drug.
A is for: al·co·hol·ic
/ˌalkəˈhôlik/
adjective: alcoholic
containing or relating to alcoholic liquor.
“beer is the favorite alcoholic drink”
caused by the excessive consumption of alcohol.
“alcoholic liver disease”
suffering from alcoholism.
“his alcoholic daughter was the cause of his anxiety”
V is for: va·grant
/ˈvāɡrənt/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: vagrant; plural noun: vagrants
a person without a settled home or regular work who wanders from place to place and lives by begging.
ARCHAIC
a wanderer.
adjective
adjective: vagrant
characteristic relating to or living the life of a vagrant.
“vagrant beggars”
I is for the: in·sane
/inˈsān/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
in a state of mind which prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction; seriously mentally ill.
“he had gone insane”
S is for: spong·er
/ˈspənjər/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: sponger; plural noun: spongers
1.
INFORMAL
a person who lives at others’ expense.
What does it spell? D.A.V.I.S. !!!
Real words.
I object to Alan Miller’s 12:27 comment. Unfortunately I hit “Ignore Commenter” instead of “Report Comment” and since the dashboard no longer exists I cannot correct the issue.
I object to my 12:27 comment as well.
The moderator giveth, and the moderator taketh away.
Actually, the moderator just taketh away.
No seriously, how is pointing out that I quoted from the dictionary and someone objected to it an issue?
This is really simple. Stop arguing with other people. When people argue, I pull posts. The more you do it, the faster I’ll pull them.
We are trying to stop the incessant squabbling. Don’t bother to reply to this.
Alan… that exchange would perhaps be best ‘off-line’? A friendly suggestion… I’ve used it a bunch of times…
But, as I will, do as you see fit… time, place, method…
I’ve found that to be useful, and more often than not (65% confidence rate) to be effective (here, but mainly, elsewhere)… but, that’s just me… your mileage /investment (past performance does not guarantee future returns)/results may vary…
FWIW… (maybe, nada)
I tried that. Got a snarky response in inquiry of which words were offensive saying the moderator shouldn’t have to explain himself. With that attitude, “offline” is no longer an option. Got similar response from DG. I was asking an honest question, as someone say.
Here is the email I sent in full, in context. Judge me! Offend me!
I have no problem with your judgement, I’ll just say “f*ck you”!
–Alan C. Miller
cc’s: I would have put what led up to this here, but it was “moderated” out of existence. Basically, Don deleted a comment I made because it used what he judged to be derogatory language.
On 10/28/19 12:10 PM, Don Shor wrote:
Don,
You’re being kind of being an a** at this point. These are all things that people are, and you are denying me the use of any of these terms in commenting. Are you serious?
I even looked them up to make sure I had the definitions correct. But why use real words that mean real things?
I didn’t call any one person any of these things. Of course, if I called any specific person one of these terms, that’s totally offensive and judgemental (such as calling you an a**), and I’d expect to have the comment removed. But unless someone recognizes themselves as one or more of these things, and feels bad about being one of these things, they aren’t going to be offended. And if they are, maybe they should be.
I personally find the common use of the word “homeless” to be highly offensive. Mostly because it’s used politically and is inaccurate as a descriptor. It implies that most of the people that are seen in public are there because the rent is $200 too high, they lost their job, or because of Donald Trump (for some reason). In fact, most of the people that residents near the proposed center are complaining about are Drug addicts, Alcoholics, Vagrants, the Insane, and Spongers. Which happens to spell D.A.V.I.S.
Now perhaps in comments people will take issue with my terms, or point something out, or discuss them. Maybe I’ll learn something. Certainly not via the wagging, marm-like finger of Don Shor implying I should know better — according to his values, and then no conversation at all, all cut by Shorensorship.
Perhaps I would have been offended by some of the responses to my use of the terms. Perhaps in that offense I would learn something. No — I should know better. You shouldn’t have to explain yourself. Free speech, pray tell.
I would not have been offended by being offended! Being offended is one of the beautiful side-benefits of knowing we live in a country where we can say unpopular things, and though a private blog, what the h*ll is the benefit to anyone of not even having those conversations? To cut off the conversation is to be self-right-eous. Emphasis on right.
‘merica!
Which brings me back to what I suspect is the real issue here. The one thing you and I disagree most vehemently about (beside Shorensorship) is ‘wet shelters’. I am absolutely against them. And honestly I can’t even wrap my head around the thinking of those in favor. I know the arguments, I know the statistics trotted out . . . that support those who believe.
Is that what this is really all about?
Because using real words to describe real things isn’t a bad thing.
Sincerely,
Alan C. Miller
—
—–
Alan C. Miller
No. It was because your terms were derogatory.
This entire article was a “set-up”, which was bound to encourage defensiveness and divisiveness.
I would encourage David to rethink his approach, thereby taking responsibility for the reactions.
Maybe it’s not David who needs to re-think his approach.
I’ve seen (as well as experienced) these types of articles, previously. It’s one of the reasons you’ve lost some previous commenters/article submissions, to another blog. (Or, chased them off blogs, entirely.)
Which is just as well, really. This activity is probably not the “healthiest” or most productive use of time, in the world.
Perhaps you missed the point – I’m not the one who posted an offensive comment about homeless people and then complained when it was rightly removed.
You subsequently “featured” the comment in isolation, in your article. After your moderator deleted it.
Sort of an attempt at online “shaming”, as with your concerns (as stated in the article) regarding those concerned about Pacifico.
Of course it will draw a reaction, assuming that your target reads it.
Again, I’ve seen this type of journalism from you, previously. However, I (also) do understand that you are trying to make a broader point by using the example. Just seems to me that there’s better ways to do so.
And the facist word banning continues in the form of comments you’ve never read and never will read. Oh, but I’m not being sensitive to group x. Boo hoo. I’ll take offending/being-offended over book burning and censorship. America!
Maybe it’s David who needs to re-think his approach, on a lot of things.
Alan Miller’s 12:37 comment also.
Nah… you just speak your ‘truth’, as you see it, and sometimes irritate folk who disagree… never stop speaking your ‘truth’, even if I or others disagree…
Except as to demonstrable facts… can’t think of any time you’ve crossed that line…