By Tia Will
A recent article on the Vanguard about panhandling in Davis drew some comments that caught my attention. I quote:
“Davis is getting what it deserves. They coddle the homeless instead of cracking down on them”
“What if you feed feral cats or hungry wild bears that don’t actually live in your community but come in for handouts.”
“If people understood that giving cash to panhandlers is like giving food to wild bears, we might not be having the panhandling problem.”
These are quotes from posters on the Vanguard. At least one of these individuals claims to be a person of faith, and yet likens fellow human beings to feral animals. I feel that it is important that an alternative view be heard.
I do not understand or believe that there is a similarity between giving cash to panhandlers and giving food to wild bears. I strongly object to the characterization of other people in this way.
Do we have a “panhandling problem” in Davis, or is this just a matter of aesthetics, interpretation, and personal preference? Since I live in Old East Davis, I spend time in downtown Davis nearly every day, usually on foot. I do not perceive a problem with panhandlers. I understand that others do perceive a problem. But lets consider this from a different perspective.
What panhandlers are doing is also called solicitation. They are asking us to give them money out of the goodness of our hearts with no expectation for receipt of anything in return. Some find this activity objectionable. But throughout our community businessmen and women are also soliciting. They are using their individual store fronts and businesses to solicit the exchange of our money for some service or product they have to offer. In many cases, just like the panhandlers, they are also using the public space for their solicitation. So what is the actual magnitude of solicitation by panhandlers versus that of local merchants? I decided to do a one woman totally non-scientific survey to address this question.
On Sunday morning between 10 and 11, I walked through the portion of downtown Davis between 2nd and 4th and the railroad tracks on the east to E St on the west. Counting only free standing folding signs encroaching on public sidewalks, I counted 37. In addition to these signs, there were three businesses that had their wares displayed on tables extending well onto the public sidewalk. I do not like these signs and displays. I find them intrusive and not aesthetically appealing. However, I do not feel that my personal distaste for this form of solicitation should dictate the removal of these signs.
During the same time, in the same area, I also counted the number of people panhandling or soliciting for money or goods without the anticipation of reciprocity. There was one man who was actively soliciting at the time. He was seated quietly holding a sign which read “anything helps.” He was taking up less sidewalk space than were many of our merchants and was not making any sound or speaking to anyone without first being spoken to.
Passing by at the same time was a garishly costumed person affectionately referred to by one mother as “sandwich man” who was walking up and down the street swinging a sign with the name of his employer. When I pointed out to the “panhandler” that he was also soliciting, his rejoinder was “yes, but he is getting paid for it.” Same behavior, completely different level of public acceptance and reward. Just as I do not feel that my aesthetic preference should dictate where a businessman can place his sign, I do not believe that others should be able to dictate where a peacefully soliciting panhandler should be able to hold his sign.
In my very limited observational study, the ratio was 38 to 1. Thirty-eight businesses using the public space to solicit to one panhandler engaged in the same activity. By the numbers, it would seem that our established businesses are using far more of the public space in order to solicit than was the sole panhandler. And no one is objecting to their presence.
While downtown, I also encountered two individuals who when asked, stated that they also solicited on occasion, but were not doing so at that time. One was pushing a cart with his belongings down the street, the other was lying down on a shaded grassy patch near a public building. We regularly tolerate exactly this same behavior from people a few blocks down the street at the park. But this individual was drawing obvious hostile looks from folks sitting outdoors nearby.
What amazes me most about our attitudes is that we support the exact same behaviors from those who appear to be like us, clean, relatively well-dressed and groomed or who obviously have enough money to own or rent a business space, but abhor these same behaviors from those of whom we do not approve. No one has ever criticized me for lying down or even falling asleep on the grass, a not uncommon act for me when I was younger. As a society we remain very tolerant of those who appear to be succeeding, but extremely intolerant of those who are in apparent need of help.
I do not believe that human beings are analogous to feral animals. What I do believe is that those of us who are fortunate enough to own a business, or who have a safe home to go back to in the evening, should be extremely grateful for our good fortune. We would be doing far better to consider how best to aid the less fortunate rather than considering how we might best force or starve them out of our community.
I applaud the efforts of our council and the city staff to do just that, aid those who are less fortunate not “crack down on them.” I thank all for their compassion, attention, consideration and actions to help those who are most in need rather than to sweep their needs under the carpet, or banish them to other communities.
The analogy given by one poster dehumanizes the person, that is Tia’s relevant point posed in this rebuttal. The offensive analogy, however, does have another point to add to the discussion of the homeless condition. There is some valid comparison between a feral animal and a panhandler. Both are in “survival mode.”
Many years ago, an outdoorsman and I were discussing what it would be like to be an animal in the wild. He wisely noted that most every animal in this situation is constantly obsessed with one primary need–hunger. Animals in reality have two great fears, eating or being eaten.
So, in more than a casual way there is valid comparison between a person without financial means and a feral animal. A panhandler is always hungry and to a certain extent at least he/she is preyed upon. They are constantly threatened and degraded in one fashion or another. Panhandling is not for the timid or easily offended. And they live literally, day-to-day.
The comparison of panhandlers staked in front of business to these same business persons taking public walkway space to display their wares is interesting. It’s true that merchants illegally takes this space as “their” own and it is a code violation. Ironically, the homeless person is legally entitled to occupy that same space under existing law, even though the presence of homeless discourages patronage in the downtown area.
The merchant can offer the counterargument that they are forced to pay various fees and taxes for their presence and operation. These monies go to governments providing services to all, including homeless. Panhandlers pay nothing, they only “compete” with merchants for the same customer, hinder local business traffic, and visually blight the area.
I find it interesting that…
is seen as a slight against Davis homeless.
It is probably more a slight against cats and bears since they lack the options that the humans have.
Again, hypersensitivity gets in the way of a conversation.
Phil makes the salient point that all of these “homeless” visitors are hungry. And yes, when you offer free food (or free money to buy food in the human homeless visitors’ case) you will attract them to the community. That is the point and the only point.
There are freedoms exploited by the homeless to panhandle and it absolutely impacts the merchants. Also, I know a couple of female employees of downtown merchants that have been harassed, threatened and stalked by homeless men downtown.
Also, Governor brown will sign or has signed a bill to force people to get vaccinations over fears of disease spreading through the population. Homeless people more often are not getting vaccinations and because many of them lead an unhealthy life, they can contract contagious disease and because the concentrate in populated areas where there are more “customers” to ask for handouts from, they increase the risk of disease spreading.
So, if you give money to homeless downtown, you are in fact hurting the downtown and causing danger to the people working and shopping downtown.
Getting back to the cat and bear analogy… because the same would be true. Feral cats are known to spread disease to domestic cats. Bears are dangerous and people feeding them put other people in danger as the bears multiply and more frequently visit.
If public services and facilities exist and homeless people chose to NOT use them because they like handouts instead, if they are not getting handouts they would likely have to use the services and facilities. And in these services and facilities the homeless can be diagnosed and treated and the community will be made safer.
I think it is irresponsible to give money or food to homeless people. It puts other people in the community in greater danger. The better solution is to make sure there are adequate services and facilities and that they are well funded.
Yes, I also have talked with several females who feel threatened and intimidated by panhandlers. The perception of what “aggressive” is can be very different and for some women being confronted by a ragged, smelly street person asking for money can seem very frightening.
Frankly
” Homeless people more often are not getting vaccinations and because many of them lead an unhealthy life, they can contract contagious disease and because the concentrate in populated areas where there are more “customers” to ask for handouts from, they increase the risk of disease spreading.”
We have no way that I know of to verify your statement. Some of these people will have been fully immunized as children. Some homeless are former military and may also be fully immunized. Others may have been immunized during an ER visit ( yes, I know it isn’t common, but I have personally ordered it myself when I knew that the one likely opportunity). I am much more concerned about the lack of immunization of the students at the Davis Waldorf school where we know the low immunization rate than I would be about any random panhandler in town.
“ It puts other people in the community in greater danger. “
I would be very interested in your data to support this. Just because someone feels intimidated does not mean that they are actually at any increased risk. If you were to present real data that individuals had actually been harmed by the homeless, rather than just being scared by their appearance, I would be happy to modify my opinion.
“The better solution is to make sure there are adequate services and facilities and that they are well funded.”
On this point, we are in complete agreement.
Tia states,
Who is trying to starve the homeless form our community? No one should be starving in this town. There is plenty of food available through charitable organizations that no one should be starving. This is due to the hard work of volunteers and the generosity of Davis citizens. Giving money to these organizations instead of individual homeless just means you know how the money will be used. It is the responsible option.
When giving the money to a street homeless individual it will more likely than not go to alcohol or weed or some other substance. Giving money to individual street homeless is irresponsible and just perpetuates the problem.
Our county and city governments and local non-profits are not working together in an efficient manner to address the issue of what to do about the current increase in homelessness. There are limited resources currently available and they should be used in an efficient manner. Hopefully this will happen soon. This will require the cooperation of government and non-profits working together as opposed to doing their own thing.
Yes, This has been my point in this discussion too. I’ve seen panhandlers using the money they collect to purchase beer and cigarettes. I believe that social service organizations can utilize the money in a way that is better for everyone.
When I was in NYC, recently, I saw stock brokers and bank execs snorting cocaine and employing escorts and they don’t politely ask for our money, but rather employ deception. Talk about a pestilence…
When I see someone in need, I try to help, then and there.
;>)/
When you try to help them please purchase them something useful like food or clothing. Please do not just give them money which can be turned into alcohol and drugs. That helps neither them nor the community. That makes you part of the problem instead of part of the solution.
Yes, this is what I would like to see the Council telling the citizens of Davis. I would also like so see encouragement to contribute to social service organizations that help the disadvantaged. I am particularly supportive of NAMI Yolo which helps those with mental illness. They have been very good to a member of my family with mental health problems.
zaqzaq
I agree with all of the substantive points of your comment. As to who is “trying to starve the homeless from our community”, this is pure straw man argument. My quote was a specific reference to those who would make the analogy to “wild bears” and the expressed desire to “crack down” on them….which presumably did not include giving them a lift to the closest food distributor.
Unless things have changed, those are likely illegal. Signs are more strictly regulated in Davis than panhandling.
Don
And yet, they are there, demonstrating that we turn a blind eye to infractions that we condone, while vilifying the perfectly legal use of space by those of whom we do not approve, usually the weakest amongst us.
Most of those types of ordinances are complaint-based. If they bother you, file a complaint. We don’t have city staff going around looking for infractions.
Don… that won’t “work”… Comm Dev/Planning encouraged businesses to do this (signs, other “encroachments” on downtown sidewalks), and waved PW off from enforcing the ordinances related to encroachments in the public R/W. No permits, no nothing… after many frustratrating years of this PW went to “whatever”. You are technically correct, but reality is something quite different.
Think Planning/Econ Dev staff referred to ‘new urbanism’ principles.
Don
Understood. I was trying to make the broader point of what we as a society tolerate vs what we do not. I have no personal desire to interfere with the solicitations of either the merchants or the panhandlers.
Tia, the problem with giving cash to panhandlers is that that many end up in our neighborhood parks drinking their day’s collection, along with fighting, yelling obscenities, defalcating and public urination. When downtown merchants start doing that, I’ll be the first to complain.
Yes, yet another bad analogy, comparing panhandlers to our downtown merchants.
You should call the Police when you encounter these activities that are clearly illegal.
Just what do you expect the police, DA and Courts to do with them? I suspect they get released from jail rather quickly and then do it again in a vicious cycle that does not change. What we need to do is cut off their supply of alcohol and drugs by ending the giving to panhandlers and then get our governments to do something new and different rather than the same old thing. What that is and what it looks like I am not the expert. But working to cut off their supply of alcohol and drugs should be a start.
We did call the police. Regularly. Unless there is a fight or an assault, the calls are the same as noise violations in priority. I would see the people panhandling downtown and then later in the day these same people would show up at the park to drink. The police could only do so much. We finally took steps to remove the picnic tables where they gathered, which helped.
And corporations often use their profits to engage in unlawful activities; so, let’s limit their ability to make money. Public intoxication, public defacation and urination, etc. are already unlawful. That’s an entirely separate issue.
Giving food to a bear, and money to a street person are both potentially dangerous. The bear learns to hang with humans, which can turn disastrous for both, and street people often use money for drugs and / or alcohol, part of the problem which put them in their predicament.
This conversation thread is very useful. Almost all elements and complexity of the societal problem of homelessness has been identified. I was a bit amazed at the high number count Tia determined on the presence of homelessness here. The “Homeless Grapevine” holds Davis as a soft-touch, but these numbers are still quite high and way out of proportion to our general population. Alas, not even Davis can save the entire homeless population.
Remember when I said prepare to be frustrated? Regulate, hassle, arrest measures are off-set by the contrary values of, these are humans in need, and as caring fellow humans we need to meet these needs. Yet, when/if we do that, we increase the population with these needs. Every time we go around in this big circle of homelessness we always end up where we started, which is traveling in circles does.
Don’t give up. Discussion forums have already been scheduled and will receive additional stimulus when City Council meets tonight and collectively (again) scratches its head on the transient population issue. Participate in these forums and see if your specific idea gets any traction in these public discussions.
Phil
Thank you for your comment and your contribution. And thanks to all who chose to read and post their constructive view points. This is actually exactly what I hoped for when I chose to write this article in time to have it precede tonight’s city council meeting.
Panhandler does not equal homeless (in many cases). Homeless does not equal panhandler (in the overwhelming majority of cases). However, since people insist on turning this into a conversation of homelessness here are some relevant statistics from this year’s homeless count done in January of this year:
# of Homeless per 10,000 residents
USA 19.27
California 35.62
Yolo County 24.25
Davis 19.79
West Sacramento 33.47
Woodland 33.93
Winters and Rural 2.44
I would also like to recommend a book: “Help: The Original Human Dilemma” by Garret Keizer. It is a forthright look at the question of what it means to give help: its challenges, why we do it, who we do it for–and what we really want. Maybe we could have a virtual book discussion here on the VG!
This is a fabulous idea. Like a book club. The problem is that I already have a queue of books I am reading and waiting to read. I will add this one to the list. My iPad Kindle is overflowing!!!
thanks for the stats. while the two are not synonymous i think our focus on panhandling should focus on caring for the homeless rather than legislating against panhandling.
Hmm, Why don’t we just ear-tag the homeless with RFID’s and track their migration like an endangered species?
6/26/15:Clem Kadiddlehopper:
Barack Palin:
Robb Davis:
Calculate panhandlers and homeless per square mile of commercial retail and Davis has a much bigger problem than Woodland.
Then, gosh, Winters must really have a big problem. Or that’s a totally meaningless statistical comparison. Whichever.
Come on Don. The point is the concentration of homeless and panhandlers in our small and dense highly-populated medium-sized California City. We have a little retail area compared to our population so the homeless encounters are higher than other communities where they are more spread out.
Maybe we should set aside some unused parcels for homeless camps. That’s the next step, right?
Mace 391 would have been perfect for a homeless camp and homeless community farm.
No, the point is that this statistic is not helpful without a mixed method approach by which you would directly observe panhandling behavior at retail/commercial centers in both cities. For example, Woodland has much more retail square footage but much of it is at the periphery–not a prime location for panhandling.
If you are interested in funding a study to assess this issue I am very happy to help develop an RFP to find a firm to conduct it. Let me know.
By contrast, the statistic I shared has meaning in terms of potential burden placed on services in each city. And for what it’s worth, Davis has far more providers of services for homeless individuals than West Sacramento (though Sacramento has many and is not far away). Woodland, as a center for County services outstrips Davis and, not surprisingly, has a larger per capita share of homeless individuals