How important is the core?

[zoo]

... and it's surrounding neighborhoods to Northeast Florida's future?

If the answer is "very", Jacksonvillians have reason to be concerned. Who "owns" the core? Not COJ, the City Council, or any other politicians or lobbyists. Not JEDC, Cornerstone, Downtown Vision, the thousands of residents that live around and support it, the thousands more NEFLians who spend at least 40 hrs per week there, and not even Chris Hionedes.

The owners of the core, and of Jacksonville, are the social service organizations who have convinced the wealthy in Jacksonville that it is their duty to provide a comfortable, welcoming, and convenient environment for many who choose not to work in NEFL. It has gone beyond providing a meal or two, a short-term shelter, and a couple of outfits that can help land a job.

Downtown and its surrounding communities suffer a jail, the host of bail bondsmen, the food and shelter providers -- and the stink, the garbage and disrespect of our metro center brought by throngs of the unmotivated. As a result, developers, companies, educational institutions, small businesses, and a significant amount of intellectual capital who realize this warped morality is too entrenched, go elsewhere.

Social service leaders justify their employment rather than their moral cause, and corporate leaders buy into it because of the politics and lack of time, or desire, to know if these orgs are really helping. These organizations show a year over year growing need in whatever their area to justify more gov't funding and private donations, yet claim they are fixing problems. How does this make sense?!? It's akin to a for-profit company claiming they are growing while their sales revenue drops! Yet, Jacksonville rides this train!

Is need growing right now? Sure, the economy is in the toilet. But is that the only reason "need" is growing? "Need" will keep growing as long as the system (social service and Jacksonville's political and business leaders) keeps rewarding it. This system is broken, yet it owns the core and the future of Jacksonville.

Read the info below -- it is relevant not only to Jacksonville, but to the U.S. Then stop the train so I can get off.


WALL STREET JOURNAL OPINION
MARCH 14, 2009

Is Rand Relevant?

By YARON BROOK

"Ayn Rand died more than a quarter of a century ago, yet her name appears regularly in discussions of our current economic turmoil. Pundits including Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santelli urge listeners to read her books, and her magnum opus, "Atlas Shrugged," is selling at a faster rate today than at any time during its 51-year history.

There's a reason. In "Atlas," Rand tells the story of the U.S. economy crumbling under the weight of crushing government interventions and regulations. Meanwhile, blaming greed and the free market, Washington responds with more controls that only deepen the crisis. Sound familiar?

The novel's eerily prophetic nature is no coincidence. "If you understand the dominant philosophy of a society," Rand wrote elsewhere in "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," "you can predict its course." Economic crises and runaway government power grabs don't just happen by themselves; they are the product of the philosophical ideas prevalent in a society -- particularly its dominant moral ideas.

Why do we accept the budget-busting costs of a welfare state? Because it implements the moral ideal of self-sacrifice to the needy. Why do so few protest the endless regulatory burdens placed on businessmen? Because businessmen are pursuing their self-interest, which we have been taught is dangerous and immoral. Why did the government go on a crusade to promote "affordable housing," which meant forcing banks to make loans to unqualified home buyers? Because we believe people need to be homeowners, whether or not they can afford to pay for houses.

The message is always the same: "Selfishness is evil; sacrifice for the needs of others is good." But Rand said this message is wrong -- selfishness, rather than being evil, is a virtue. By this she did not mean exploiting others à la Bernie Madoff. Selfishness -- that is, concern with one's genuine, long-range interest -- she wrote, required a man to think, to produce, and to prosper by trading with others voluntarily to mutual benefit.

Rand also noted that only an ethic of rational selfishness can justify the pursuit of profit that is the basis of capitalism -- and that so long as self-interest is tainted by moral suspicion, the profit motive will continue to take the rap for every imaginable (or imagined) social ill and economic disaster. Just look how our present crisis has been attributed to the free market instead of government intervention -- and how proposed solutions inevitably involve yet more government intervention to rein in the pursuit of self-interest.

Rand offered us a way out -- to fight for a morality of rational self-interest, and for capitalism, the system which is its expression. And that is the source of her relevance today.

Dr. Brook is president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute."

[Tripoli1711]

Very well stated all around.  I am sure the overwhelming majority of the social service workers really do care and are trying to make a difference, but the entire scenario is akin to the feared motives of the psychiatrist... he never really wants to make you better, or he will lose your regular business.  If true results and progress were made, the public funding for the social service institutions would lessen, people would lose their jobs.  This creates an interesting juxtaposition with the Ayn Rand piece about selfishness.  I totally agree with Rand and with the spirit of the WSJ piece you have quoted, and I think it applies to the social services downtown issue, but my brain isn't working well enough this morning to put it together... any help?

[Joe]

Good post, Zoo.

I generally agree with your points. Some social services might mean well, but they are destroying the urban core. The concentration of poverty and blight is stunting the economic development of our city's most valuable property.

It's not an accident either. Ever since the 1960's local governments all over the US have concentrated social services in their urban cores. Few people fight the status quo because we all fear that if the urban core social services are shut down, then they might move to our neighborhoods.

It's a real shame, because it's akin to municipal suicide. Downtowns are zoned for the most dense, most taxable development. In a true free-market scenario, downtowns would probably be the site of the most expensive and exclusive real estate in any given city. But if you have a bunch of short-sighted, governement subsidized do-gooders enabling the drunks and druggies, no one in their right mind will want to invest there. And that's exactly what has happened.

[BridgeTroll]

I am certainly not a social worker but... are the social services in the core because the bums, druggies and addicts live there?  Or... are the bums druggies and addicts living in the core because of the social service providers.  Would moving the services to Arlington for example really move the customers?

[JeffreyS]

Joe I think many of the do-gooders aren't just enabling but helping.  The problem is if you are going to have concentrated social services it needs to be insulted so not to be detrimental to the surroundings. I prefer the spread out social services so that no area is defined by them.  I get it may be more efficient for management, labor pools and such but being less efficient could help it to be more temporary to those receiving help.  I do not like the idea of "community" for those using social services more of a flop house to get back on track after life has thrown you a curve ball.

[heights unknown]

The core of every city is extremely important as the health and viability (and success) of the core usually (normally downtown) reveals the overall climate, pulse, health, and overall success and well being of the city as  a whole.  It's slowly retreating from that "plumb line" so to speak, but in general the city core is still an indicator of the overall image and success of a city.

Heights Unknown

[heights unknown]

I am certainly not a social worker but... are the social services in the core because the bums, druggies and addicts live there?  Or... are the bums druggies and addicts living in the core because of the social service providers.  Would moving the services to Arlington for example really move the customers?

Pretty much "Bridge Troll, that is, social services tend to be in the core because that's where most or all of their services are needed.  Most cities are being pressured by the populace to shut down social services in the urban/inner downtown cores;" that's why most cities are moving the social services out in the suburbs and/or outside of the city limits.  That's really not good for those in the inner city seeking services if they are homeless, in need or down and out; but this is what is happening and what I have observed in our neck of the woods.  Being the Exec Director of a social service agency, I disagree with such moves.

Just because the social services are moved, doesn't mean that the people who need such services will also move or migrate; that may even aggravate or intensify the problem(s).  The homeless, etc. may opt not to migrate to the area(s) where the social services moved; there are many ways for them to support themselves (some illegal) without the social services no longer located in the urban core/downtown.

Heights Unknown

[JeffreyS]

So heights what if anything do we do about the negative image of so many in need of social services downtown. I do not want to neglect them but I hate to give up the image of the Urban core.

[BridgeTroll]

Good question Jeffrey... now we know the services are in the core because the customers are there...  What is next?  Would moving services to say only a half mile from the core work?  I suppose the residents of those areas would not be happy about the move...

[Captain Zissou]

I feel like if the services are moved to Arlington, it will create a much worse environment than to keep them downtown.  While they are more visible and in the way downtown, I think it helps to reduce some of the seedy activity.  If the behavior went unchecked in Arlington, a neighborhood sized bloody block would result.

[samiam]

If you move the services the vagrants will follow. The information I received from an urban explorer that use to do odd jobs for me is that Jacksonville is known as a good place to spend the winter because you can get 5 free meals a day. 

[BridgeTroll]

An executive director of these type services strongly disagrees... (Heights Unknown)

[zoo]

Good question Jeffrey... we know the services are in the core because the customers are there...  What is next?  Would moving services to say only a half mile from the core work?

More accurately, we now know heights unknown's opinion on the subject. When Downtown was the home of all of the department stores, Independent Life, and a vibrancy it can only hope to return to today, where were the people who were served by the social service organizations? I believe those needing service will go to where the services are, and that is in effect what began happening in the 50s (at the beginning of the white flight era) in Jacksonville and most other cities.

The difference is that many other cities have figured out -- and have implemented or begun implementing -- the strategy of decentralization of social services.

And if there is one social service organization located somewhere, much of Jacksonville has been convinced all of the services should be convenient to each other (this worked out nicely for the NIMBYists). Several cities are not only not centralizing, but have taken it a step further, enacting policies that make it uncomfortable and inconvenient for the person that chooses need. This takes me back to my original post:

The owners of the core, and of Jacksonville, are the social service organizations who have convinced the wealthy in Jacksonville that it is their duty to provide a comfortable, welcoming, and convenient environment for many who choose not to work in NEFL. It has gone beyond providing a meal or two, a short-term shelter, and a couple of outfits that can help land a job.

Heights, what is the timeline for your organization becoming obsolete? Does your organization have such a goal? Have your requests for funding year-over-year (govt or donor) decreased because you are succeeding in solving the problem you are tackling? If your org doesn't define its success through its own obsolescence, how is it defined -- I hope not by growing the amount of assistance you provide!?!?!

Is it possible that your funding needs, as well as those of other Jax orgs, keep increasing because giving to the needy just begets more need?

I'm not heartless, and I know there are populations who have need because they are not capable of contributing including children, the elderly, and the mentally and physically disabled (although some are certainly capable of working).

Maybe a line needs to be drawn about what is needy and what isn't? I'm living in the middle of a ground-zero comparison of social solutions that are working and those that aren't. I see the 4 populations mentioned being used by the capable, and the definition of "need" growing out of control to include those who just don't want to contribute.

Concentrating and isolating needy populations doesn't help them -- it does exactly the opposite. It makes it convenient and comfortable to remain needy. It is convenient and easy for the social service system (because they don't want to have to work too much harder than those they "help"). Concentrating and isolating needy populations in this city's core areas has, and continues to, seriously threaten the future potential of the entire region.

WAKE UP JACKSONVILLE!

[samiam]

Springfield is a good example if you remove a service the people seeking that service will move. At one time springfield was full of boarding houses. ( My house was one of them) In the past I have had People knock on my door and ask if i had rooms to rent, I would explain to them that this is my house and most of the boarding houses are gone. The first year not a week would go by than someone would ask me if I had rooms or if i knew were they could get one. As time passed the number of people asking for room decreased to the point that I have not been asked in 6 months.

[heights unknown]

Good question Jeffrey... we know the services are in the core because the customers are there...  What is next?  Would moving services to say only a half mile from the core work?

More accurately, we now know heights unknown's opinion on the subject. When Downtown was the home of all of the department stores, Independent Life, and a vibrancy it can only hope to return to today, where were the people who were served by the social service organizations? I believe those needing service will go to where the services are, and that is in effect what began happening in the 50s (at the beginning of the white flight era) in Jacksonville and most other cities.

The difference is that many other cities have figured out -- and have implemented or begun implementing -- the strategy of decentralization of social services.

And if there is one social service organization located somewhere, much of Jacksonville has been convinced all of the services should be convenient to each other (this worked out nicely for the NIMBYists). Several cities are not only not centralizing, but have taken it a step further, enacting policies that make it uncomfortable and inconvenient for the person that chooses need. This takes me back to my original post:

The owners of the core, and of Jacksonville, are the social service organizations who have convinced the wealthy in Jacksonville that it is their duty to provide a comfortable, welcoming, and convenient environment for many who choose not to work in NEFL. It has gone beyond providing a meal or two, a short-term shelter, and a couple of outfits that can help land a job.

Heights, what is the timeline for your organization becoming obsolete? Does your organization have such a goal? Have your requests for funding year-over-year (govt or donor) decreased because you are succeeding in solving the problem you are tackling? If your org doesn't define its success through its own obsolescence, how is it defined -- I hope not by growing the amount of assistance you provide!?!?!

Is it possible that your funding needs, as well as those of other Jax orgs, keep increasing because giving to the needy just begets more need?

I'm not heartless, and I know there are populations who have need because they are not capable of contributing including children, the elderly, and the mentally and physically disabled (although some are certainly capable of working).

Maybe a line needs to be drawn about what is needy and what isn't? I'm living in the middle of a ground-zero comparison of social solutions that are working and those that aren't. I see the 4 populations mentioned being used by the capable, and the definition of "need" growing out of control to include those who just don't want to contribute.

Concentrating and isolating needy populations doesn't help them -- it does exactly the opposite. It makes it convenient and comfortable to remain needy. It is convenient and easy for the social service system (because they don't want to have to work too much harder than those they "help"). Concentrating and isolating needy populations in this city's core areas has, and continues to, seriously threaten the future potential of the entire region.

WAKE UP JACKSONVILLE!

Zoo, great post, and your concerns are extremely valid.  Before I answer your question, you, and others must be educated concerning those that are in need.  It appears on the surface that they are just quandering along and sopping dry the social system or the agencies that provide social services.  There are some that fit that criteria; however, the majority of the homeless, or those that are in need are individuals plagued by one or numerous social ills that stem from childhood such as rape, molestation, sexual abuse, child abuse (mental, etc.), and then others are disabled, mentally ill, or have numerous emotional traumas or disorders (ADD, ADHD, PTSD).  We must also not forget those that have lived a life of crime, in and out of the penal systems, whether youth detention, jail or prison, since childhood or teen years.  They are ususally victims of childhood disorders as aforementioned. And yes, there are others that get into trouble or just use the social system or agencies; we must weed those out from the valid cases.

Before I go on to answer your question(s), am I siding with those that are in need?  Yes!  Why?  Because that is my job and what I was called to do, and, I've been in that position myself; so I know what they go through, what they've been through, and what might happen to them.

Solution? Nationwide transitional shelter type programs that address the numerous social ills that plague and/or cause homelessness or people, families and children to fall into "needy" categories.  While the individual is going through that program, by their own choice of course or "need" thorugh counseling and assessment (intake), they would be housed in the program center (funded through federal, state, local and private funds...but we know at present this cannot be "real world" due to the economy, maybe private donations but nothing else).

Zoo:  These are the questions you asked:

"Heights, what is the timeline for your organization becoming obsolete? Does your organization have such a goal?" 
Answer:  There is no timeline, actually.  Social Service Agencies exist yes because of the need for people to request or obtain their services; but remember, as long as there are people, there will be a need, but if the funding is not there, in the way of donations, grants, financial support, etc., then we (social agencies) would become obsolete.  Our organization is determined to exist as long as we receive some type of funding (donations, private donations, or possibly grants), if the funding goes away, we cannot exist.  We cannot provide services without funding, so, our Agency's goal is not to become obsolete (if I understand your question) as lonog as people exist and funding in any way, shape or form continues.

"Have your requests for funding year-over-year (govt or donor) decreased because you are succeeding in solving the problem you are tackling?"
Answer:  No, our request(s) for funding (annual) have not decreased because we are succeeding in solving the problems we are tackling; our funding (all types) has decreased in the last couple of years because of the economy, which constrains us, to some degree depending upon lack or availability of funds, from adequately helping those in need to the utmost relative to our mission and goal statement.  As for tackling problems, we continue to provide services as iterated in our mission, goals and objectives, regardless of funding shortfall(s); however, those services are not as "top notch" or "optimum" as they were in previous years before the economic instability.

"If your org doesn't define its success through its own obsolescence, how is it defined -- I hope not by growing the amount of assistance you provide!?!?!"
Answer:  Our success is not defined by obsolescence; in our eyes we will never become obsolete, unless people disappear which in turn will equate to a halt of funds.  Our success is defined by the ability of us to provide optimum service to our clients, i.e., those that are in need.  Again, obsolescence will only come into the equation if there is a mass genocide against homeless people or those that are in need, or if people simply disappear from the planet.  We always strive to increase our services, support and help to those that are in need, regardless of funding shortfalls (though the economy is bad and the state/federal governments have basically shut off the financial spigot, the money comes from somewhere, sometimes from unanticipated sources or resources, so people still have hearts).  We must keep striving to help those in need and acquire financial support in some way, shape or form regardless of the economy or the government's inability to provide financial support.

"Is it possible that your funding needs, as well as those of other Jax orgs, keep increasing because giving to the needy just begets more need?"
Answer:  I don't think giving to the needy begets more need; I would hope that giving to the needy, relative to your Agency's mission, goals, and objectives, and what services you provide will help get people off of the streets (in the case of the homeless and their problems that cause them to be homeless); that should be the intent of every social agency.  As I mentioned in a previous post, we must attack the root cause or causes of homelessness, and not provide "nickel and dime" temporary "band aid" services.  Nickel and dime services only give a temporary band aid help and does not treat and/or eradicate the problem that causes homelessness. There will always be people in need as long as people exist; so to say that giving to the needy will beget more need does not make a lot of sense; it should be "giving to the needy may, in some way, shape or form, help that person return back into the mainstream of society as a worthy, upright, upstanding citizen." (hopefully, it's their choice).

If you or anyone else desires to support FRESH START, please access our website:  http://www.freshstartreferral.com and click on the "donate" button in the upper left corner; a dollar or more donation, through the numerous individuals in this forum would certainly help; remember, every little bit helps!

So I hope this helps "Zoo."

Heights Unknown