By Alan Miller
An Open Letter to South Davis
Hello South Davis,
I don’t live in South Davis, but I’m looking at District 3 100’ away out my window.
I share your problems and your concerns. There is a spot 200’ from my house where drug addicts / drug dealers / thieves camp outdoors. This is not a homeless encampment, it is a revolving crime den. In Spring 2020 I had three scary men on meth (I believe) approach me late at night and one threw rocks at me. There were numerous incidents of mental health outbursts. I slept 
little for two months as these people were up all night.
Our neighborhood mostly solved the problem *this time* eventually by having meetings with both the Police Chief and his Lieutenant, and relentlessly pestering the City Council. That took two months.
Your problems I have heard regarding Pacifico are similar, and thankfully also seem better but not solved. I am here with you in unity. We cannot participate in these issues only when the problem is next to us. We must support other Davis residents who have similar problems, as the problem is bigger than Pacifico, and bigger than the location next to me.
God Bless the people who are helping the truly homeless population that are in need. Those who spoke today on that are I believe sincere. However, the problem is not the needy, but the criminals. We cannot conflate these.
There have been times when residents, and subtly even our leaders, have shamed “the homed” for being “privileged” and not being sensitive to those in need. These are separate issues. We must recognize the needs of the truly homeless. We must also recognize that there is no shame in having a home and a roof over our heads, nor the need to protect our families and yes, our things.
When people talk of drug dealers and thieves, they are not talking about the needy homeless; we must not conflate the two as a rhetorical trick. We must recognize and acknowledge that shaming the ‘other’ and demonizing those with homes, and those without homes, will not result in constructive resolution. We must recognize the needs of all parties as legitimate. Except for criminals, they ‘need’ to be removed.
Alan C. Miller is a resident of Old East Davis
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
How dare you? Easy for you to say with your white privilege and all. 😉
How dare me? How dare you, KO! Call me “white” that is. I’m Jewish, and don’t you forget it! 😉
I apologize Alan, I should know better than to throw a pejorative at you calling you “white”.
Will you kindly accept my apology, pleeeease…
No apology needed! Technically, I’m “half white”, just like Barack Obama!
Isn’t categorizing people by race fun, kids?
I feel like saying that it’s “o.k.” to be white and homed, as long as you’re willing to apologize for it.
But someone might not think that’s funny, so maybe I won’t say it.
As background info: this was a comment I posted during a workshop yesterday (Friday 11/15) about ongoing issues at and in the area around Pacifico in South Davis (District 5). This was organized by resident Tracy De Wit and was attended by Mayor Partida and District 5 Councilmember Chapman. The meeting was well attended and in my opinion the issues were expressed and people were respectful of each other. There will be followup meetings.
Two minor corrections:
That should be “I’m looking at District 5 . . . “.
This could be better said (I wrote that on the fly during the meeting in about 15 minutes without proofing a draft) as:
That better states what I meant to say.
And no, I don’t think criminals and the mentally ill should be dealt with in the same way, not by a long shot. And yes, I recognize that there are criminals who are also mentally ill and that presents a challenging grey area.
What about “needy criminals”, who aren’t necessarily mentally ill?
No – I’m not trying to be helpful, in case you’re wondering. 😉
Where’s my crayons?
RO, you have succeeded in not being helpful 😐
Kind of what I thought, as well.
But actually, I’ve seen arguments similar to that – not necessarily related to homelessness.
Overall, I agree with your points, and realize that you are trying to word it carefully (and with some sensitivity and thought). (Hence, my poking fun at that.)
The issue(s) themselves are not amusing.
I’m trying to word it exactly as I see it. I realized what I said on the fly was not well said, and I didn’t want to get off on a tangent of having to explain myself for what would be valid criticism as it was initially worded.
I think a great way to solve is homeless crisis is to give them jobs give them a purpose in life. Sometimes I think people really need homelessness and I’m not talking about the homeless I’m talking about the rest of the population I think we gotta to have somebody to cuddle that’s why I love to call him re-range homeless kind of like the turkeys we got around the cemetery people enjoy stopping watching them taking pictures of them they seem to a smile on everyone’s face.
Don’t get angry at me I just one person’s opinion ?
I definitely don’t recommend trying to cuddle those turkeys. 🙂
Yeah but that picture would look good on the front of the Davis Enterprise though. ?
The aftermath of a siege on the Capitol would look tame, in comparison.
I get your point but would ask that we not conflate criminality with mental illness. It is stigmatizing and leads to discrimination.
The vast majority of people with mental disorders are nonviolent, particularly without concomitant substance abuse. They are more likely to be the victims of crime than the perpetrators. When people with mental disorders commit violent crimes research demonstrates it is usually associated with other risk factors: historical (past violence, juvenile detention, physical abuse, parental arrest record), clinical (substance abuse), dispositional (age, sex, etc) and contextual (recent divorce, unemployment, victimization).
I agree with you, EG, and addressed that in my 8:40 a.m. comment.
Eric I have to start off saying that I really like your posts I think you’re a super smart man but.
In my humble opinion you got to be mentally ill to be a criminal I don’t think there’s any other way to look at it who in the right mind would want to be a criminal and go to jail.
Tell that to Jean Valjean. Yours is neither a helpful nor accepted definition.
Thank you Eric I’ll look up that person ☺️
Despite one poster’s “jive”, will try to make a serious comment…
Alan, you’re helping all (hopefully) to get to a more rational discussion… there are likely at least 25 shades of the homeless… I keep thinking of a complex Venn diagram… criminal, MH issues (which is a Venn diagram in itself… organic, injury induced, PTSD, chemical addiction, etc.), and just flat down on luck (economic circumstance)…
I propose we find a new term to serve in lieu of “the so-called homeless” (can’t think of a good one, just now)… the criminal behavior needs to be one way (that behavior is actually as much or more of a risk to the ‘unsheltered’, as it is the sheltered!), substance abuse another (which requires a genuine wish to change those behaviors), and need for basic shelter, clothing, food, due to economic/bad ‘luck’ issues, yet another. But the overlaps make that “tricky”. On another thread, there is the issue of stimulus checks… in this thread, and that one, I opine there is no “one size fits all” direction that will be useful.
Criminals should be sanctioned (yeah, jail, prison, etc.), and with any luck (that’s what it takes, due to other factors, above, reformed… substance abuse should be noted, and with a willing/motivated person/client, supported towards ‘recovery’… basic shelter, which many have in the form of tents, food, access to medical care should be a given, and a logical place for private charity to focus… basic human needs.
I have to say that Alan and I have had different experiences, both valid… the slice of homeless folk I’ve engaged with did not include a ‘criminal element’ except for perhaps ‘gleaning’ bikes unattended rummaging thru recycling bins (yes, technically, ‘criminal’ at a citation/misdemeanor level), etc. I saw the gamut of significant, but ‘harmless’ MH issues (the ‘tin foil hat’ to prevent the CIA from programming them) who were actually appearing to function well… PTSD folk, who actually looked out for and cared for others in “the tribe”… the ‘mild’ drug users, who in effect, ony endangered themselves, or were ‘self-medicating’… the ones who had a ‘cascade’ thing going on, where drug/alcohol abuse led to loss of job, family, and housing (I worked with one guy who fit that profile, for over 12 weeks. Burned me out, but he really wanted to get healthy, ‘clean’ [alcohol was his ‘self medication], and had some cognitive/emotional issues). So many variations in the group lumped into the term “homeless”. Perhaps because of my efforts, and definitely those of others, and his own emerging ‘epiphany’, his situation has significantly improved, but still somewhat fragile.
Alan’s experience has been different, and his observations and concerns are very valid… we need to deal with individuals, and individual behaviors… it is ‘rocket science’… putting a lot of folk into one category, without recognizing the sub-categories, will not move the football forward in any meaningful, constructive fashion. I am not qualified to know the solutions, but feel I am qualfied to assist in defining the problem.
I and many others in town – I can give you numerous examples. What I am talking about is residents of Davis dealing with incidents – some very ugly – caused by a criminal and/or mentally-ill element that is being placed under the same umbrella-term ‘homeless’ right along with the needy, down-on-their-luck persons. You are dealing primarily with needy people coming to a facility for assistance, a facility most criminals would avoid. While the grey areas make any definitive lines to differentiate challenging, having the wrong people labeled as ‘homeless’ when we mean ‘needy’, not criminal, should never be an excuse for criminals to be free to commit acts against Davis residents. Mentally ill persons are difficult to deal with in the ‘homeless’ context, especially due to failed state policies way beyond Davis. But deal with this we must, or we continue to deal with it as we are.
Again, this goes way beyond ‘Alan’s’ experiences.
Agreed… and, by the same token, I am far from alone in ‘my’ observations and ‘my’ experiences… many… most of whom are ‘spiritual’ rather than ‘conspiritual’…
But the “homeless” are not ‘monolithic’, by far… I know of some that are neither significantly MH challenged, no drugs/alcohol, no criminal activities (as I believe you define it, visa/passport issues are not the criminal activity to which you are referring to)… one lived with us for ~ 3 weeks… he was a great house guest… always eager to help with household tasks, gentle disposition, great mind and spirit. Oh, he is a POC…
And, here I thought you were starting to grasp and espouse that it is not ‘simple’… my bad… I apologize, sincerely… I clearly misunderstood… will endeavor not to err in that again.
“When people talk of drug dealers and thieves, they are not talking about the needy homeless; we must not conflate the two”.
I live 150 ft further from District 3 on the same street as Alan. Yet I see the issue from a very different perspective. A point of agreement is that it is important not to conflate “criminals” from the needy homeless when the distinctions are clear. However, the distinctions are rarely clear.
Alan has acknowledged that the mentally ill form a subgroup or “gray zone” on the spectrum of where to classify those in need of help from criminals.
I begin with the premise that those addicted to drugs are suffering from a chronic illness that needs treatment, not punishment. The vast amount of recent medical science supports this claim. Thus many of these “thieves and dealers” can also be seen as individuals in need of medical help.
None of this, of course, helps those who are harmed by this situation whether that harm is loss of possessions, loss of sleep, or loss of peace of mind. The point is not to demonize those who are housed & concerned nor the unhoused but to see the issue as a problem to be solved, not as fingers to be pointed.
I have never believed anyone should be punished simply for being addicted to drugs. However, I do believe that criminal activity that may be induced by one’s addiction to drugs must not be forgiven because of the individual’s drug addiction.
A system such as you have outlined would forgive punishment for driving under the influence of alcohol if the person could be proven alcoholic (addicted to the drug alcohol). Treatment is preferable, but it is successful only in a limited number of cases, and often successful cessation from addiction to alcohol is triggered by a traumatic experience, one of example of which is being jailed and losing many thousand of dollars and driving privileges for DUI.
DUI threatens society and threatens innocents (those not committing the criminal act being maimed or killed by those that are) and cannot be tolerated in civil society.
Bill
I started my comment while yours was still in process. I am in agreement with what you have said about the complexity of the issue and the importance of addressing the issue on an individual basis.
I am not qualified to know the solutions, but feel I am qualfied to assist in defining the problem.
Yes sir you are totally correct and like the California administrations for the past 10 years they’re not qualified to figure out the solution this problem either that’s why we’re still in this sinking ship.
Just one persons opinion
Not convinced it is sinking, but the ship is definitely ‘becalmed’… adrift…
Not sure if it still is, but I believe it used to be a crime (in-and-of-itself) to sleep outside in areas not designated for it.
Not sure if that all applied to “loitering”.
If I was “running the world”, I’d probably suggest large, regional gymnasium (or arena) type shelters, as an alternative. Not to “solve” all problems, but just to provide an alternative, relatively safe and inexpensive (for government) place to sleep.
Then, I would enforce (what used to be?) the law.
Ron
I accept your comment about large, arena-like areas as being in good faith. I would suggest reading about the conditions that tend to exist in what essentially would be poor houses or more recently what happened in the Superdome during Hurricane Katrina as potential reasons for not adopting this strategy.
The Superdome was intended as an emergency shelter.
Whatever is implemented has to be large-scale (not just “by city”), and affordable for the government.
And most importantly – better than the current situation.
RO, you may wish to Google what is often called the “Boise Decision” on sleeping outside. Chief Pytel expressed before Council what I took to be his frustration at the ramifications of this decision on the ability of police to enforce laws such as ‘sleeping outside in areas not designated for it’ – even in many cases when they are trespassing.
I remember that, now.
That’s a lot of the problem. Again, not just in Davis.
It’s a much bigger problem in places like Los Angeles.
Tried to add: If I remember correctly, it might be legal to enforce “no sleeping” zones, if an alternative is available. (Hence, the “arena/gymnasium” suggestion.)
Or an island 😐
Definitely not a workable solution during a pandemic.
Minimum 6 feet apart, with partitions?
That’s “worse” than the current situation?
I doubt there’s enough funding for a permanent “Project Roomkey” type solution.
Or for $500K apartment units. (Somebody ought to look into how that money is being used, and who it’s going to.)
Though I will say that (whatever the cost was per unit), that new Creekside development is physically more-attractive than most market-rate apartment complexes.
I assume this is the Godwin’s Law comment for the day.
What’s happening with (what used to be called) SleepTrain Arena? Other than perhaps plans to tear it down?
On on a temporary basis, how many school gymnasiums haven’t been used for the past 9 months?
In any case, I can’t imagine any “cheaper” way to deal with the problem – other than what’s currently being done. Can you?
Tried to add: Cities that take it upon themselves to pay for a disproportionate share of the problem are essentially “patsies” for cities that don’t.
That’s why I suggest a more regional approach, at least.
Have you seen the scale of the problem in places like Los Angeles?
Interesting concept…
Not sure if National Forests/public lands are ‘designated’ for sleeping… they do require permits for backpacking/camping… perhaps ‘sleeping’ is implied… perhaps urban areas could adopt a minimal/no fee ‘permit’ process for sleeping outdoors…
I believe that there are vast areas of public land where it is perfectly legal and free to sleep, without permits. And that many do so, of all income levels. You don’t even need a “bathroom”.
I was watching a YouTube video the other day, regarding people who obtained cheap RVs and live happily on very-little money while traveling around as desired. One of them pointed out that they are living well-below what’s considered to be poverty level, but was perfectly satisfied with his life.
One of the recurring themes was “freedom” (presumably from jobs, materialism, etc.).
Historically, there have also been people who managed to be “homeless” in cities, but did not select obvious spots to do so.
Those people aren’t generally creating a problem for others, unlike someone sleeping on a sidewalk in a city (and without restroom facilities).
I’m sure that many of you have heard of the place in the link, below. No – not proposing this as a “solution” – just pointing out how some get by (quite happily, and in what I suspect is a friendly community). Are some of these people “homeless”?
Slab City, California – Wikipedia
I see the nuances. There are homeless. There are homeless who happened to be mentally ill. There are homeless that happened to be drug users. There are homeless that happened to be criminals. Then there are combinations of these. Finding solutions becomes more difficult with more complexity and degree. The homeless person who shoplifts food to feed themselves seems easier to solve than the homeless person that burglarizes houses to support their drug habit. The most difficult I think is the homeless mentally ill person that uses drugs that assaults people or terrorizes the neighborhood. There needs to be an effective, humane solution for all of these. It is wrong to continue to allow people to live in squalor or engage in harmful activities.
Sharla
that’s great food for thought.
Does anyone on this thread know of any study that has ever been made that asked the homeless what they think should be done in order to solve the homeless problem?
If there has been a study what did these homeless people say?
All true. Yet if you say instead:
There are a mentally ill who happen to be homeless; there are drug users who happen to be homeless; thee are criminals who happen to be homeless – it’s the same thing but sounds totally different. That’s the problem I have with the ‘homeless’ narrative always leading in the description label.
Honestly, I’m having trouble seeing much difference between what you posted, vs. what Sharla posted. Except for the positioning of the word “homeless”.
(That word alone conjures up a number of various images/impressions – depending upon the person who is doing the conjuring.)
Alan… with your examples, and no “etc.”, if you truly believe all “so-called homeless” are mentally ill (no gradations), criminals (no gradations), and/or drug users (no gradations), that those are the ‘root causes’, guess we have nothing in common in this discussion thread.
C’est dommage…
I definitely agree with your point as to ‘description labels’… those ‘labels’ are what get in the way for meaningful, constructive discussion… and needed action.
BTW, “so-called” is a label…
I think you are over-dissecting one sentence and not finding the perfection you seek.
Etc!
Satisfied?
I don’t. That is clear from the whole of what have I said. Please stop with this.
Not until I see some elipses . . . sprinkled in unusual spots throughout a sentence . . .
Or at least some so-called ones. 🙂
I’m not trying to get this thread off topic or anything but I believe this particular tool should be carried by social workers and the police if they’re dealing with the mentally ill the homeless or even the criminals.
I just have to make sure my wife doesn’t see this video she might buy one and use one on me.
https://youtu.be/gJZu1cKquCQ
CG, I admit at first when I started watching this I thought you were just being a smart arse, but after watching the whole thing this seems like a viable alternative to lethal force worth discussing. And yes, you took this discussion totally off track.
or . . . not
Please stay on topic.