... 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."
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?
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.
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?
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.
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
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 09, 2009, 10:30:35 AM
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
An executive director of these type services strongly disagrees... (Heights Unknown)
QuoteGood 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:
QuoteThe 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!
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.
Quote from: zoo on June 09, 2009, 04:22:14 PM
QuoteGood 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:
QuoteThe 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
i'm a social worker, persay, and used to work with that kind of population....though not in Jax. the only reason why they are all downtown is because of proximity to one another. it's advantagous for each organization to be close to other similar organizations, which are pretty much all downtown.
Quote from: fsu813 on June 09, 2009, 07:37:36 PM
i'm a social worker, persay, and used to work with that kind of population....though not in Jax. the only reason why they are all downtown is because of proximity to one another. it's advantagous for each organization to be close to other similar organizations, which are pretty much all downtown.
Yeah, but they are slowly getting away from that because of public pressure, and, City and County Governments are bending to those pressures; that used to be norm, for all the orgs to be together, not for convenience, but mostly because the majority of the homeless always congregated or "hung out" downtown.
Heights Unknown
Quote from: JeffreyS on June 09, 2009, 01:50:14 PM
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.
Please refer to my post to "Zoo." This will give you great insight and education regarding what social agencies, City/County Government, and others should do.
Heights Unknown
Great discussion... I certainly have learned a lot... both from Zoo and H.U. :)
Quotewe 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.
So how many needy persons has your organization converted into tax-paying, contributing citizens? How does that number compare to the number of how many you have assisted (conversion rate)? My intent is not to offend with this comment, but I'll be surprised if your org, or any others in Jax, actually track this statistic -- too risky in the event the the type of assistance being provided doesn't work. And if it isn't tracked, your org can't even measure delivery on its stated objectives.
There is as much accountability tracking for orgs like yours as there is accountability tracking for those you assist -- not much.
Quote(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)
There's more of that convincing that a person must "level the field" if they get to claim the morality of "having a heart." It's working in Jax, so may as well keep saying it.
Quotein our eyes we will never become obsolete
So the need just continues to exist, with no hope of diminishing or being completely solved? As I said, seems it is growing, and the existing economy is certainly a factor (refer to my original post re: "affordable housing" and the entitlement to comforting, welcoming, convenient environment -- maybe I should add "equal," though I think our Founding Fathers had the "pursuit" part in mind when that idea was conceived/codified).
We'll just have to disagree here, but need is also growing because organizations like yours aren't giving of heart, but are giving of hand -- hand outs, that will continue until some non-existent or undefined judgement mechanism deems the needy cured of neediness.
Once again, I say, WAKE UP JACKSONVILLE!
Zoo; I respect everything that you have said. And you are right to some degree, and I am right in some degree. Most agencies don't keep "firm" statistics on who actually returns as normal tax paying citizens, clean, healthy, etc. back into society. We do initiate followup on the individual to see how they are, how they are doing, whether they are progressing, etc.
Zoo; our job is to help the individuals; it is not up to us to ensure that they remain clean, sober, etc. for the rest of their lives. What normally happens from time to time is the person relapses, comes back for help, and here we go again from square one, but, at least that type of person is crying out for help in order to not end up homeless as they were; then you have the person that relapses and returns back into the homeless population. Zoo, there is no firm answer for all of your concerns; we as social agencies help people, that's what we do, we don't hold their hands, however, we do the best that we can with the available resources at our disposal (and there are many, funds permitting). I would totally agree with you 100% if I knew that we did nothing, but we work extremely hard to ensure that person gets the help that they need, whatever their request is; the problem is that the person's need goes much deeper than just food, clothing and shelter. We tend to forget about the mental, spiritual, emotional, and physical aspect of those needs which are oft times missed by social agencies.
Then you have the other groups that are homeless who are mentally ill, disabled, etc. These groups are much more prone to not go back to homelessness; the mentally ill or people who cannot care for themselves, yes, they will end up being cared for through government funded health and hospital institutions. And those with illnesses that they can live with, will get benefits from the gov in order to care for themselves so they can continue to live. I know you disagree with this Zoo, and you are possibly repulsed by it (as it sounds from your tone in your posts), but this is the way it is.
As a social service professional who helps others, and as a human being let me say this, and this is primarily directed, in all due respect of course, to you "Zoo:"
There are many people who are homeless or in need who didn't ask to be in that predicament. The majority of them want out, but once you are in that vicious circle, it is hard to bounce back and return to normalcy for a variety of reasons in which if I listed them all or discussed them in length, I would be here all day writing. Our social system to help the homeless and others in need in the USA is sorely lacking, and is basically unsympathetic and unsupportive. The main thing Zoo, and we social agencies are also guilty of this, is that we must attack the problems and social ills that cause homelessness in order to hopefully help those (those who choose to be helped and want help) who are crying and shouting out to return to normalcy.
I am a smart man Zoo, but I have made mistakes in my time as have you. No one is perfect. Not everyone is privvy enough to have a college degree or been reared in a rich or well to do family, or have had the privilege of living a "normal" life free of any infractions. Not all people, or families for that matter are perfect and many things happen to innocent people. Since I begun working in the social service arena I have found that 90% of the people that are homeless have some type of mental disorders stemming from a traumatic event that happened or has happened recently within their lives; and I am not giving excuses for them being homeless, I am giving you facts based on intake counseling, professional medical counseling and other factors and variables I and other social agencies use to assess why a person becomes homeless.
It is very easy for us to sit back and say this person is this, or he or she doesn't do that, or they don't ever want to amount to nothing, etc. Don't ever think Zoo that nothing can ever happen to you where you will be in their place...as the old saying goes, "never say never."
I respect your questions relative to what I and peer agencies in my field do, whether we are doing it right, whether we need to continue on doing what we do, whether we are effectively doing our job or whether what we do is relative, and whether we possibly are obsolete and need to close the doors. I strongly defend myself against your questions based on what I see and experience from day to day. I respectfully answer your questions based on facts and based on what I do from day to day. I clearly understand that most of us, especially those of us who have been privvy or are privvy to a "good life" don't fully understand homelessness or those that become homeless and are even afraid of discussing it or seeing it before our very eyes, but folks, it is here and will always be here; you may not think so, but as long as there are humans, there will be some type of social ill or disgrace to be revealed before our eyes.
All of us would like a perfect world; but dream on. From the beginning of time we have had the "haves" and the "have nots," and this still lingers in our modern age. I too would love to see pristine, clean, and unlittered downtowns, urban cores, suburbs, and other areas without the homeless or the people in need; but I firmly believe that once a person falls into that group, the "Power that be" purposely ensures that they are placed before our eyes to see how we treat or mistreat them. There is injustice and inequity in this present world system and always will be. If we fail to try and fix it, or fail to offer help in any way, shape or form, not just temporary help (feed em and kick em out), or close our eyes or turn our head and hope the problem will go away, then the problem will probably always remain. Even if we build shelters or programs that get to the root of the homeless problem, that is, get into that homeless person's head to see what makes them tick and why they are homeless, we will still have the homeless; not everyone is going to choose to return to normalcy; not everyone will be treated, cured, and remain normal, some will relapse and go back to being homeless, and others will relapse and return back to square one crying for help.
I didn't mean to single you out Zoo, but it is very easy for anyone to sit back and play "expert," or "professor" on issues like this. The bottom line is this: "If you've never been in that type position or in the place that a homeless or needy person has been, you will never, ever understand." And...no P.H.D. or Master's Degree in this world can prevent anyone from being homeless...ask a friend of mine that had a Master's Degree and became homeless and committed suicide.
I hope, and wish with all of my heart, that none of you in this forum, or in this world ever become homeless. I was and I did, and Zoo, it was not by choice. It doesn't matter how I became homeless or what event happened for me to become homeless; that is passe. The truth of the matter is this: Once I became homeless I wanted out, needed help, and no one wanted to help me. In addition, the right type of help was not there, and after I became homeless it was extremely hard for me to get out of that vicious circle, but with the help of my Creator, I got out, and here I am to help others who might fall in that same predicament.
The social service field, which contains numerous resources to help those in need, basically and in general have got it all wrong. I am crusading daily to peer agencies, and to mega agencies like United Way and Salvation Army to "get it right." Remember, getting it right is to not give or issue temporary "band aid" help to people in need, we must extend (hopefully if they choose), permanent help and fixes to them in the way of attacking the reasons and root causes of why they are homeless.
All of you have a nice day; and again, Zoo I respect your assertions, opinions, comments, and investigatory prodding, and rightfully so with your challenging questions. Homelessness is a huge problem; but if we the people, the government and agencies are not heading into the right direction regarding eradicating the problems that causes homelessness, homelessness will remain as is; and...homelessness may never go away completely, but we can do much more, as I iterated in the previous paragraphs, to reduce it to near nil proportions.
Heights Unknown
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 10, 2009, 07:34:39 AM
Great discussion... I certainly have learned a lot... both from Zoo and H.U. :)
And...you'll learn much much more; everything happens for a reason.
Heights Unknown
The questions Zoo asked are many I have also asked and I also search for answers to this problem. I appreciate your answers H.U. and applaud your efforts. Your victories or successes are measured by individuals helped and I am sure you see your fair share of them... Congratulations and thank you. At the same time home and business owners probably do not see the individual successes and see a never ending problem. I think you are right that the problem will never "go away" but governmental and social agencies need to see the problem through the eyes of the home and business owners also.
Zoo stated:
"We'll just have to disagree here, but need is also growing because organizations like yours aren't giving of heart, but are giving of hand -- hand outs, that will continue until some non-existent or undefined judgement mechanism deems the needy cured of neediness."
Disagree "Zoo," and am offended by your statement but respect it.
We ARE giving of heart, regardless of what you say or think.
That "undefined judgment mechanism" might soon cure all of us of any type of neediness; just look at our world...it is basically a mess and on the verge of unraveling.
Be careful of what you say Zoo, it may come back to haunt you in some way, and I say that with all due respect to you and humility for what you believe.
I wish the best for you, and others in this world. I would never wish anything contrary for anyone whether they be rich or poor.
Have a great day Zoo. If there is anything I can do for you, other than closing our doors or deeming ourselves obsolete, let me know.
Respectfully,
Heights Unknown
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 10, 2009, 09:39:55 AM
The questions Zoo asked are many I have also asked and I also search for answers to this problem. I appreciate your answers H.U. and applaud your efforts. Your victories or successes are measured by individuals helped and I am sure you see your fair share of them... Congratulations and thank you. At the same time home and business owners probably do not see the individual successes and see a never ending problem. I think you are right that the problem will never "go away" but governmental and social agencies need to see the problem through the eyes of the home and business owners also.
We do "Bridge Troll," believe me we do; but what can we do? I guess we could move our agencies out west off of I-10 or in my case I-75, that is really what people want and this I respect; I too would like to see the homeless population off the streets, and doing something productive within their lives, but again, we do not live in a perfect world.
Thanks for your accolades. I and peer agencies are doing the best we can for the homeless population and trying to not offend business Owners and others who are adversely affected by homelessness or our agencies being in their neighborhoods; believe me, we are trying to sort this mess out.
However, we can't do it alone; as the old saying goes, "It takes money to move mountains;" remember that. Zoo stated that we always have "hand out" rather than "heart out" which is far from the truth. Anyhoo, thanks again "Bridge Troll," and don't think we are not working on home or business owner's concerns or are not receptive to the needs and concerns of the public in that regard.
Heights Unknown
Quote"If you've never been in that type position or in the place that a homeless or needy person has been, you will never, ever understand."
HU, please don't justify your argument by pretending to know me, my mental health, or the circumstances I am in or from which I've come. I do not believe providing assistance, in what seems to be the prevalent ways in Jacksonville, works. I think the environment downtown, and increasing rolls of "needy" prove that. In my neighborhood alone, these abuses of the social system are occurring:
1. Blight: Some economically-challenged persons (who, rightfully or wrongfully, I'll make the assumption are receiving some govt assistance), throw their trash on the ground to control the market -- that's right, these persons know that keeping an area blighted means those "investors" you've mentioned will provided them housing (albeit, unsuitable, imho) at cheap rents. Advantageous to me or no, I won't do this as it pollutes the earth and I'd never CHOOSE to live in my own garbage.
2. Food stamps: Some who receive them in this area do not use them for their own, or their children's sustenance. They have negotiated with restaurant owners to use them to purchase $x of food, then trade the $x of food for 1/2 $x of cash to be used for who knows what.
3. Subsidized housing: It is well known by many who receive housing vouchers that their landlords do not care to receive rent from them -- they are already receiving it from the subsidizing govt entity. These persons also know that criminals are not allowed in these housing sites, but that crime pays. This is why 90% of subsidized housing rolls are women, and 90% of arrests at subsidized housing sites are men. The women "rent", pay nothing, and charge their male friends who are involved in illegal earnings activities fees to reside at, or use, their housing.
4. Housing & Food: Teenagers are generally very "me" focused and irresponsible. Teen girls who are "in love" get pregnant on purpose because they know, once they do, they will receive housing and food assistance (and free pre-natal care, of course) because of the child. This also enables them to move out of mom's/grandma's house and "lay up" with their beau anytime they want without the interference of any authority figure.
These abuses are known and practiced. Face it, being "needy" is incentivized in this country, and even more so in this community, thanks to the pitches of organizations like yours. I don't doubt that there are legitimate needy who should have assistance -- but they are lost in our current system, which is beyond broken.
After living in Jax, and seeing very clearly that the programs that are supposed to be helping/improving the situation ARE NOT WORKING, my conversion from Christian moderate to Objectivist is pretty complete. IF I were ever to jump on the govt-as-keeper bandwagon, it would be in support of the social service orgs being regulated better and providing proof that their approaches are working -- that
need is decreasing rather than increasing.
As a social service worker, you call that heartless. I call it practical and results-oriented. When your org or any other has proven this, and only then, would I give a dime to support your efforts. As you've stated,
you'll keep giving your kind of assistance, even if it doesn't have conclusive results, until the money stops coming in.WAKE UP JACKSONVILLE!
Perhaps the question of homelessness that Zoo is questioning is why this problem has only gotten worse over the past decades. This surely was NOT a problem of this magnitude prior to Johnson's "War on poverty". The problem seems to have gotten worse. It is WAY to easy to blame our current economy... but the problem of homelessness, vagrancy, etc in the city cores has increased even during economic boom times. I used to live in "Silicon Vally" during that particular boom... vagrancy persisted and I dare say increased because of the money flowing through the region. Zoo's and my question is why? Are we somehow enabling this behavior? Are the very services designed to help those down on their luck producing "social rejects" incapable of, or unwilling to, provide for themselves...
Quote from: zoo on June 10, 2009, 10:03:59 AM
Quote"If you've never been in that type position or in the place that a homeless or needy person has been, you will never, ever understand."
HU, please don't justify your argument by pretending to know me, my mental health, or the circumstances I am in or from which I've come. I do not believe providing assistance, in what seems to be the prevalent ways in Jacksonville, works. I think the environment downtown, and increasing rolls of "needy" prove that. In my neighborhood alone, these abuses of the social system are occurring:
1. Blight: Some economically-challenged persons (who, rightfully or wrongfully, I'll make the assumption are receiving some govt assistance), throw their trash on the ground to control the market -- that's right, these persons know that keeping an area blighted means those "investors" you've mentioned will provided them housing (albeit, unsuitable, imho) at cheap rents. Advantageous to me or no, I won't do this as it pollutes the earth and I'd never CHOOSE to live in my own garbage.
2. Food stamps: Some who receive them in this area do not use them for their own, or their children's sustenance. They have negotiated with restaurant owners to use them to purchase $x of food, then trade the $x of food for 1/2 $x of cash to be used for who knows what.
3. Subsidized housing: It is well known by many who receive housing vouchers that their landlords do not care to receive rent from them -- they are already receiving it from the subsidizing govt entity. These persons also know that criminals are not allowed in these housing sites, but that crime pays. This is why 90% of subsidized housing rolls are women, and 90% of arrests at subsidized housing sites are men. The women "rent", pay nothing, and charge their male friends who are involved in illegal earnings activities fees to reside at, or use, their housing.
4. Housing & Food: Teenagers are generally very "me" focused and irresponsible. Teen girls who are "in love" get pregnant on purpose because they know, once they do, they will receive housing and food assistance (and free pre-natal care, of course) because of the child. This also enables them to move out of mom's/grandma's house and "lay up" with their beau anytime they want without the interference of any authority figure.
These abuses are known and practiced. Face it, being "needy" is incentivized in this country, and even more so in this community, thanks to the pitches of organizations like yours. I don't doubt that there are legitimate needy who should have assistance -- but they are lost in our current system, which is beyond broken.
After living in Jax, and seeing very clearly that the programs that are supposed to be helping/improving the situation ARE NOT WORKING, my conversion from Christian moderate to Objectivist is pretty complete. IF I were ever to jump on the govt-as-keeper bandwagon, it would be in support of the social service orgs being regulated better and providing proof that their approaches are working -- that need is decreasing rather than increasing.
As a social service worker, you call that heartless. I call it practical and results-oriented. When your org or any other has proven this, and only then, would I give a dime to support your efforts. As you've stated, you'll keep giving your kind of assistance, even if it doesn't have conclusive results, until the money stops coming in.
WAKE UP JACKSONVILLE!
I won't argue with you, and, I am not justifying anything I'm giving you facts.
I think you need to get a "dose" of homelessness, neediness, or even get sent to a social service boot camp (if one existed) for 3 months or more catering and servicing the homeless and needy so you will understand a little better (a spanking if you will).
One more thing: "Parents can tell a child a thousand times not to touch a hot iron, but the child will not fully understand the iron is hot or why the Parents are telling them not to touch it unless they physically touch it, get burned and see for themselves." - Heights Unknown June 2009
.......And the same is true with homelessness!
Heights Unknown
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 10, 2009, 10:10:04 AM
Perhaps the question of homelessness that Zoo is questioning is why this problem has only gotten worse over the past decades. This surely was NOT a problem of this magnitude prior to Johnson's "War on poverty". The problem seems to have gotten worse. It is WAY to easy to blame our current economy... but the problem of homelessness, vagrancy, etc in the city cores has increased even during economic boom times. I used to live in "Silicon Vally" during that particular boom... vagrancy persisted and I dare say increased because of the money flowing through the region. Zoo's and my question is why? Are we somehow enabling this behavior? Are the very services designed to help those down on their luck producing "social rejects" incapable of, or unwilling to, provide for themselves...
In all due respect and humility Bridge Troll, it doesn't matter how much worse it is now than 30, 40 or eons ago. The fact is, the problem is here, hasn't gone away, hasn't gotten any better, and there are agencies and people that are trying their hardest and damnest to do something about it.
Most agencies are trying their best and that's the best we can do; some agencies more so than others.
We could go round and round in circles with Zoo trying to find good and bad reasons to close the doors of social agencies, and find a justifiable reason to do away with people who are homeless (let's not get rid of the problem, let's get rid of the people with the problem).
This is my last post regarding this subject as I am basically "off topic" relative to the central topic of this thread. There are numerous other reasons why the urban core or downtown if you will is not successful, or why it is or is not successful, and homelessness and the homeless is just one of them.
Thanks Zoo, thanks Bridge Troll.
Heights Unknown
Bridge Troll stated: Zoo's and my question is why? Are we somehow enabling this behavior? Are the very services designed to help those down on their luck producing "social rejects" incapable of, or unwilling to, provide for themselves...
Heights Unknown Answers for the last time on this subject: Read my detailed book length post again, the one mostly directed at Zoo; my answers, facts and opinions are in there; read it with a fine tooth comb. Don't just skim over it or speed read through it, study it and you will find the answer to your question(s).
Heights Unknown
My replies were not meant to offend. If I have done so I sincerely apologize for that was not my intent. The questions you quoted from me were not directed at you but are simply questions many of us ask as we are told we need to direct ever increasing amounts of money at this problem. I am quite certain you and your organization do a commendable job. I appreciate your efforts. :)
QuoteI think you need to get a "dose" of homelessness, neediness, or even get sent to a social service boot camp (if one existed) for 3 months or more catering and servicing the homeless and needy so you will understand a little better (a spanking if you will).
Again, don't justify your argument by pretending to know me or my circumstances, or to discredit my opinion with condenscension -- I don't need a spanking from you or anyone else because I choose to do my own research, draw my own conclusions based on that research and firsthand experiences, and won't be guilted by Christian-based morality into enabling others to need and accept handouts.
"A morality that holds
need as a claim, holds emptiness -- non-existence -- as its standard of value; it rewards an
absence, a defect: weakness, inability, incompetence, suffering, disease, disaster, the lack, the fault, the flaw -- the
zero." - Ayn Rand,
Atlas Shrugged.
And here is a quote from a review:
"The most important thing to remember is not to take everything you read here as dogma. Think for yourself and apply whatever ideas make sense to you and ignore that which you don't like. Think for yourself. I think Rand would object to anyone blindly following her philosophy without actually believing in it.
No one says you can't be charitable to others. Just make sure you do it of your own volition and not because it is expected of you or because you feel guilty.
I'm happy to be charitable to others, with the limiting factor being, has it resulted in an improved situation? A needy person would say, "I received food, when I had none, so my situation was improved." I say, if they feed themselves, their situation is also improved. If a social service org's goal is to "grow the help it can provide," without proof of overall social improvement for all, they won't get my support.
QuoteThere are numerous other reasons why the urban core or downtown if you will is not successful, or why it is or is not successful, and homelessness and the homeless is just one of them.
I agree with this. But the social service orgs in the core is perhaps the biggest reason the core struggles to be successful, as this reason negatively affects most, if not all, of the other issues.
for the city of jacksonville, the core is unimportant. Thats basically because of consolidation My place is on the westside I can take care of everything I need within a couple of miles. Is it walkable, no, but it doesn't need to be.When I worked downtown I enjoyed it, still catch the jaguars when I'm in town. But truthfully is the downtown important to a significant minority in town, no it isn't. Most can go years and not have the need or desire to go downtown.
Zoo, am I correct in saying that your core argument is that ANY social service provider, public or private, should have metrics which display a reduction in the problem that they are servicing, otherwise it is a wasteful or even enabling service? Is that right?
If that is the case, I don't see a conflict in what Stephen Dare! proposes, which appears to be a housing and work force skills development service, so long as that service can show employment and client independence statitics which support their success. One problem is that the "workforce" system in jails and prisons has been essentially struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. I don't remember name but it was a Texas case. I don't know where Stephen Dare! got his numbers for expenses but if it is possible, then why not? Another problem is that, in my experience, the majority of the population we are talking about (chronic homeless) will not voluntarily attend such training. Should it be a condition of incarceration? An alternate to incarceration? Where will this housing and training occur? How much will it cost? Will funding be private, public, or a combination? Are current training programs fully utilized and if not, why not?
The mentally ill contingent simply must be treated, outpatient if possible, but a return to some ability to house the chronic mentally ill is a responsibility that I think we must face.
QuoteAm I correct in saying that your core argument is that ANY social service provider, public or private, should have metrics which display a reduction in the problem that they are servicing, otherwise it is a wasteful or even enabling service?
Imho, yes. As I said in an earlier post, no for-profit company would continue throwing money at a department that loses more and more revenue each year. So why should non-profits get to keep justifying the commitment of more dollars if their methods of addressing a particular problem doesn't show measurable results (it doesn't work). In most cases, a dept in a for-profit company that had such a situation would be forced to re-assess its approach, or be shuttered.
I indicated I realize there are some groups that are incapable of caring for themselves. But I believe there are persons who choose homelessness, just as there are persons who choose incarceration (3 squares and a bed), in an abuse of the system. I just think it needs to be monitored more closely so
if we have any system based on need the resources reach REAL need. Maybe if the resources reached real need, social service orgs could show improvement rather than a backwards slide and continuing increases on their rolls.
I also don't purport to have a solution, though economic development and employment opps may get us part way there. Of course, that supposes that folks who are able to work will make the effort to be ready to work and responsible in doing it (no more cracking that Colt at 8 a.m.) Call me naive, but I'm hopeful
some able folks might make an effort if other support systems weren't there?
Imho, the current approaches to solving the problems are proving to be unsuccessful, so why not try a different approach? Because the social service system is no more interested in change/hard work than those who are abusing it?
Until I see some approach with its primary focus on accountability, I won't be supporting any social service orgs, and I think Jacksonville should wake up and do the same.
We've already heard the orgs will keep spending in the same way until the money train goes dry. Seems withholding support is the only thing that will get the orgs to reconsider their approach, and try something -- anything -- else that might prove successful...
Zoo, I am impressed. You speak the truth.
I certainly can't argue with your premise that what we are doing is not working.
Quote from: civil42806 on June 14, 2009, 05:59:37 PM
for the city of jacksonville, the core is unimportant. Thats basically because of consolidation.
I disagree on the consolidation point. Indianapolis, Louisville, Philadelphia, San Francisco, New Orleans, Norfolk and Nashville are great examples of consolidated cities with vibrant downtown cores. As for our core's importance, although it has been reduced over the decades, it is still the dominant epicenter of cultural, entertainment, business and governmental uses. Outside of that and retail in the SJTC area, this city is really a collection of suburbs with a mix of uses spread around like a kicked ant hill.
QuoteMy place is on the westside I can take care of everything I need within a couple of miles. Is it walkable, no, but it doesn't need to be.When I worked downtown I enjoyed it, still catch the jaguars when I'm in town.
If we can make our neighborhoods walkable, this is how it really should be. Vibrant neighborhoods, in addition to a vibrant downtown, is what makes places like NYC, Chicago, San Francisco and Boston great urban environments.
Anyway, to answer the thread's original question, our downtown is still the face of our community to the outside world. This should be a major reason to strive to improve the quality of our core.
Quote from: civil42806 on June 14, 2009, 05:59:37 PM
for the city of Jacksonville, the core is unimportant. That's basically because of consolidation My place is on the westside I can take care of everything I need within a couple of miles. Is it walkable, no, but it doesn't need to be.When I worked downtown I enjoyed it, still catch the jaguars when I'm in town. But truthfully is the downtown important to a significant minority in town, no it isn't. Most can go years and not have the need or desire to go downtown.
It really doesn't matter if you think you can live the rest of your life without "downtown" or the "core" in Jacksonville. Frankly, you can't. Nobody in this region of the State can. Without the core, Jacksonville would quickly cease to exist.
WHY?
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N !
When Isiah Hart, William Duval, and a few other pioneers settled the area, the first money making venture at "Cowford," was Harts dugout canoe FERRY. As the railroads grew to prominence, Harts little ferry grew to become a row boat, hence a steamboat, a railroad bridge (single track), then a railroad bridge double track, then a highway ACOSTA bridge, next came the Alsop (MAIN STREET) bridge, and with it the last ferry retired in the core.
Not a carload of freight moves anywhere in Florida without passing through our core and "Gateway" (railroadese for an interchange point with all manner of routes and combinations calculated into the fares and charges). Without our core this business would shut down the rest of Florida in a matter of hours. In fact the 45 +/- railroads headquartered here could snuff out commerce and shut us down in hours is a statement completely true.
Today the FULLER WARREN, ACOSTA, ALSOP, HART, MATTHEWS, all roads lead into and out of the core of the city, at the narrows in the river. Cow's CAN SWIM, they're just not strong swimmers, so from the earliest Spanish Exploreres to the pseudo modern times our crossing is the Heartbeat of a state.
JTA has an interesting campaign running right now, "WHAT IF THE XXX HAD NEVER BEEN BUILT? JTA PART OF YOUR DAY...etc..." I'd like to ask a question of all of you naysayers. If God hadn't saw fit to give us our beautiful river, or, "What if God had never built the St. Johns River?" Folks without it, there wouldn't be a JACKSONVILLE. WITHOUT Jacksonville, the language here would still be Spanish, and Miami, Tampa, Orlando, would look more like Antioquia, Colombia, then anything any of us would recognize. OCKLAWAHA
Well I guess if you mean by driving over the bridges downtown the core is important then your right. Actually what your saying is that the narrowest part of the river is important, says nothing about the core. If I goe from one side of the river to the other, via matthews, fuller warren or main street, doesn't mean I visited downtown, means I went across the river.
Anyone who thinks the core of Jacksonville isn't important is just not thinking. Most of the nation's top think tanks on planning, urban development and a variety of other issues that affect U.S. cities have now concluded, through exhaustive research, that a region cannot succeed economically without a strong center (no matter how many of its residents in the suburbs try to deny it).
From Brookings and the Richard J. Daley Urban Forum:
Bruce Katz moderated the fifth annual Richard J. Daley Forum at the University of Illinois at Chicago. In his keynote address, Vice President Joseph Biden used Metropolitan Policy Program data to illustrate how the top 100 U.S. metropolitan areas occupy 12 percent of the nation’s land mass but generate 75 percent of the economic output, making them the fundamental drivers of recovery and long term prosperity.
Here's a tidbit from CEOs for Cities that our local politicians should pay attention to:
"Seventy-two percent of political donors strongly agree that America cannot be strong without strong cities, and they view cities as the solution for some of the country's most pressing problems, including job growth and development, according to a new survey released today by CEOs for Cities and Living Cities."
Check any of the following resources or find your own:
Urban Land Institute (uli.org)
CEOs for Cities (ceosforcities.org)
Brookings Institute (brookings.edu/metro.aspx)
The Urban Institute (urbaninstitute.org)
Suburbanites sticking their heads in the sand about the core reminds me of all of the folks in 1995 (and even through 2005!) that claimed the internet wouldn't last...