ande

Arnold Abbott cited for second time

26 posts in this topic

What a tradgedy :thumbsd: :thumbsd:

 

90-year-old man charged for feeding homeless cited again :judge:

 

http://www.local10.com/news/90yearold-man-charged-for-feeding-homeless-back-at-it/29566212

 

I can hardly belive such laws excist :growl: he is my kind of favorit criminal :goodjob:

 

cheers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ravnis and kellenw like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm On the face of this article, it looks like Mr Abbot is harshly dealt with...

 

I think there's a bit more to this than we can see...i.e. We're not told why the council thinks it's a safety concern....Just that Experts have said it's a public safety concern....And We're not told what Mr Abbott can practically do to cover the concerns, with out the red tape and costs...If there any off course...

 

I'd like to know exactly what the public safety concern/s are and how Mr Abbott can reasonably get around them...And if he can...

 

I could be wrong and think it's another load of bureaucratic Mumbo Jumbo put in the place of a good hearted thing but I just don't know...

 

Cheers

Edited by bigdaddy (see edit history)
kellenw likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What sort of dickheads would make it an offense to feed the homeless....

 

Is it just that he's doing it publically... and the council would rather they moved the homeless into a dark corner somewhere and pretend they didn't exist.

 

FFS

Edited by RupertofOZ (see edit history)
Johnny3nglish and kellenw like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue is that he is doing it on business parking lots and they don't want the homeless to scare away the customers.  There are a significant population of homeless that are that way due to being mentally ill or mentally retarded, though it is not always the case.   If he had his own place that he was feeding them at it would not be as big of an issue, in the first instance, he moved to a church and continued feeding them.

kellenw likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the old wealthy person attitude, "If I kick you hard enough when you get down, you'll get up off your lazy but and work".  Utter nonsense, but makes them feel better about thumbing there nose at poor desperate people.

kellenw, Johnny3nglish and ande like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an idea... let him setup in the parking lot of the local hospital.... and give them a free health check at the same time

kellenw likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see both sides to this. Many of the homeless are that way because they are drug addicts. And where there are drug addicts there are dealers, and the places these people congregate get congested wih trash all over the place, and people urinating and deficating out in the open.

kellenw likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cecil, the majority of homeless people who take drugs do so after becoming homeless. There of course will be exceptions to this trend. Mostly drug use is a symptom of homelessness and not the direct cause. It's a cycle that make it harder to get off the streets. Shutting the problem away and leaving it to individuals to try to help is not an effective answer. The majority of homeless are people the mental health system has failed to help or missed to identify entirely. In the UK there are large numbers of ex servicemen many with PTSD on the streets. Many drink and many take drugs to escape the desperate misery of a life on the streets. It wasn't drink and drugs that put them there it was seeing their best mates get blown up by an IED etc etc. Family breakdown, loss of a partner, loss of a long term job all can lead to the streets and the addictions follow.

ande likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Cecil

 

I see both sides to this. Many of the homeless are that way because they are drug addicts. And where there are drug addicts there are dealers, and the places these people congregate get congested wih trash all over the place, and people urinating and deficating out in the open.

 

I think making it a crime to feed the homeless is barbaric, and it is not solving anything.

If you are without a roof, you have to do it out in the open (people urinating and deficating out in the open)

Being a drug addict is a illness IMO

I had to google " homelessness in america " do to your statement " Many of the homeless are that way because they are drug addicts"

Really scarry reading & a lot of myths about the reassons

The numbers are the most scarry part I think, (It's higer than 50% of our total population) loads of kids (under 18)

Quote from here: http://www.studentsagainsthunger.org/page/hhp/overview-homelessness-america

Who is Homeless and Why?
The homeless population includes people from all walks of life:

  • In the U.S., more than 3.5 million people experience homelessness each year.
  • 35% of the homeless population are families with children, which is the fastest growing segment of the homeless population.
  • 23% are U.S. military veterans.
  • 25% are children under the age of 18 years.
  • 30% have experienced domestic violence.
  • 20-25% suffer from mental illness.
  • In urban communities, people experience homelessness for an average of eight months.

People become homeless for a variety of reasons. Homelessness is primarily an economic problem, and is also affected by a number of social and political factors. The number of people experiencing homelessness exploded in the 1980s, as federal funds were withdrawn from low-income housing and social assistance programs for low-income families and the mentally ill. Current federal spending on housing assistance programs targeted at low-income populations is less than 50% of 1976 spending levels.

Quote end.

 

I also found this http://www.endhomelessness.org/pages/about_homelessness & http://www.thenation.com/article/181845/mental-illness-homelessness-drug-addiction-do-these-sound-crimes#

 

 

I knew poverty was on the rise in the US but had no idea about the numbers of people (10x our total population)

 

quote from here 

the International Monetary Fund: http://www.imf.org/external/np/ms/2014/061614.htm

3. Poverty. The latest data showed almost 50 million Americans living in poverty (as measured by the Census Bureau’s supplemental poverty measure) and the official poverty rate has been stuck above 15 percent despite the ongoing recovery. Reducing poverty will require, first and foremost, a much more robust return to growth and job creation. However, other policies have a role to play. The recent expansion of Medicaid and the increase in health insurance coverage have been concrete steps whose effect on poverty and health outcomes should become more evident over time. An expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit—to apply to households without children, to older workers, and to low income youth—would be another effective tool to raise living standards for the very poor. Similarly, the government should make permanent the various extensions of the EITC and the improvements in the Child Tax Credit that are due to expire in 2017. Finally, given its current low level (compared both to U.S. history and international standards), the minimum wage should be increased. This would help raise incomes for millions of working poor and would have strong complementarities with the suggested improvements in the EITC, working in tandem to ensure a meaningful increase in after-tax earnings for the nation’s poorest households.

 

IMHO making it a crime to feed & help out, in any way, is the real crime, and does not solve but rather enforce the problem

 

cheers

Edited by ande (see edit history)
Cecil likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Ande for the education.

 

Just to be clear I don't have a beef against feeding the homeless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear I don't have a beef against feeding the homeless. 

 

I never thaught so, and I understand there is more than 1 side to the problem I just don't belive in this way to aproach it, and admire the guts & will of mr Abbott (the "criminal")

Quote from the article

And while Abbott said he wants to compromise with the city, he expects to be charged again.

"I love the city. I live here, it's a beautiful place and I'd like to keep it beautiful, but you cannot sweep the homeless under a rug," he said. "There is no rug large enough for that."

 

cheers

Cecil likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poverty numbers in the US are not a particularly accurate factor.  I've lived comfortably at or below the poverty level, largely because of having several kids and living in an area where the cost of living was not particularly high. 

The increase in government benefits for those who are living below the poverty level (or in some cases such as energy subsidies, at 2 or 3 times the poverty level) in many cases serve as a disincentive to get out and work yourself out of that level.  Half baked expansion of healthcare and the mandate for businesses to provide it for full time employees has caused most of the economic recovery from a jobs perspective to be in part time jobs with no health coverage.  If you get full time work just above the poverty line you are worse off than you are part time and taking handouts.  This causes a widening gap between the middle class and the poverty class which is why you see such a high poverty rate in a "recovering" economy. 

 

The homeless connection is that the more people are in that poverty class, the closer they are to being homeless in the case of any life disruption whether it be job, injury, natural disaster, substance abuse, or anything else that affects someone's ability to have an income.  I think the answer is to treat the addiction issues, provide jobs, eliminate free government handouts, and get people to work for what they receive.  A certain percentage will stay in their rut because they refuse to be helped. 

 

If the homeless crowd being fed is working their butts off, trying to find work, and is willing to work for some substance, I like the idea of providing food - in the right area.  It shouldn't be encouraged in some urban areas because it can have a negative economic impact on people who are working hard to make a living.

 

One of the things I'd actually like to achieve with aquaponics is to assist in providing assistance to the homeless and disadvantaged.  But I'm not going to be out on the street handing out tomatoes and lettuce to whoever shows up, I will be doing it through local organizations that are providing a full range of care and assistance to people in need.  I think this is the best approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It shouldn't be encouraged in some urban areas because it can have a negative economic impact on people who are working hard to make a living.

 

One of the things I'd actually like to achieve with aquaponics is to assist in providing assistance to the homeless and disadvantaged.  But I'm not going to be out on the street handing out tomatoes and lettuce to whoever shows up, I will be doing it through local organizations that are providing a full range of care and assistance to people in need.  I think this is the best approach.

 

What :o

 

How would feeding the homeless "have a negative economic impact on people who are working hard to make a living"

 

Are all those hard working people going to have a day off work helping this guy feed the homeless.. or talking/walking a "mile in another man's shoes" for a day....

 

I'd suggest that before anyone condemns anyone for being "homeless" and in a "rut"... that they go to church and say a silent prayer for their own good fortune... perhaps light an extra candle... or maybe throw a few extra bucks into the collection plate....

 

So that those with a more Christian and charitable disposition... can perhaps do more to help.. than they themselves are prepared to do...

 

Jesus...

Edited by RupertofOZ (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The jobs being provided in the US need to be of sufficient wage to be able to live on though. There are shocking numbers of families that depend on programs like food stamps. These are families that work but whose income leaves them short.

You want to eliminate government 'handouts' yet at the same time deal with addiction issues. I find this an odd position. The only way to deal with addiction effectively would be in two ways.

The first to decriminalize the user of the substance. Not dealers but the user and treat it as a medical issue. But this person is unlikely to have healthcare. Their treatment would then be a government handout which you oppose.

The second part is to massively expand mental health services which would again only be able to come from a social program. Government spending, free treatment or in other words a handout. Without effective mental healthcare addiction cannot be tackled. So many of the long term homeless and drug dependents have serious mental issues. It's not as simple as saying here's a job get on with it.

Your right about the jobs that are being created suck. Short term positions, part time etc. This is a growing trend and went on before the health care changes. Companies pay the lowest they can for profit reasons. What would you do? Force companies to pay a fair living wage? Sounds like government control and a social program right there.

What really gets me though is that people whine about government handouts to the poorest most vulnerable people and say how expensive it is. Then you look at how much is wasted on war, mid term elections, bribery, corruption. The handouts are a drop in the ocean and taking them away would hurt a great many people very badly.

If you can help people through aquaponics though then good on you.

ande likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the very reason that Ravnis pointed out earlier in the thread; if someone is out in a retail parking lot, sidewalk, or beach, feeding homeless people of questionable or unknown character, it can have a negative impact upon whoever is running a business behind that space.  I'm not saying that it would keep me from shopping or dining there, but it would for a lot of people.  Maybe they don't have that issue in Oz, but I'm being a realist in regards to Ft. Lauderdale or pretty much any urban area in the USA.

 

Like I said, I think there's a place for charity of this type, and it should be in a more controlled environment for people who are looking for more help than just a free handout.  I've been involved with charitable ventures that fed homeless people and ultimately there was a large percentage of people that came that were not interested in anything else you were doing for them - but they would show up for a meal three times a day if it was offered.  We pretty much had to make sure people were participating in the other help and services being provided were the only ones who got the meals, or we'd end up wasting most of our resources and budget feeding people who would show up for mealtime and sit around down the street smoking a joint the rest of the day.  It's unfortunately a situation where you have to make a choice whether you will help and encourage only those who truly desire to get back on their feet - or feed everyone and end up encouraging many to remain homeless by keeping their bellies full.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't pretend to have a solution to addiction or poverty.  But I do know that if you feed, house, clothe, etc with no accountability you are throwing money down the toilet.  What's missing in the government handouts here is the accountability.

 

I don't think there is a halfway answer to it.  Either you tax people at a European type level and provide all the associated medical and social services (and stay out of the rest of the world's business, that's the only way those countries can afford to do it), or you get the government out of it and let charitable organizations handle it.  It just seems like nobody here in the US want's to commit to either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what you say with regards to people not wanting to be in an area or near homelessness a depressing thing indeed. It must really put people off their shopping to see a homeless person getting a free dinner.

People would rather this kind if thing be hidden away. I think it's more out of fear than callousness. We humans are not as strong as we might think. It doesn't take much to result in homelessness, mental breakdown and addiction. Nobody no matter how rich is every far away from such problems.

This is a scary thought. People like to be feel in control even though it's a facade most of the time. It's easier to pretend it can't happen if it's not in your face.

People don't suddenly decide that it's easier to get three free meals than have a job. Your idea of only helping those who desire to get up again is flawed. Do you know the persons life or how they got to the street. Is that person mentally capable of following the program you advocate. Depression can sap will and moral. People don't want to be on the streets but it's a vicious cycle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well making a law that prevents someone from doing something... sure as hell doesn't do much either way does it :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People don't suddenly decide that it's easier to get three free meals than have a job. Your idea of only helping those who desire to get up again is flawed. Do you know the persons life or how they got to the street. Is that person mentally capable of following the program you advocate. Depression can sap will and moral. People don't want to be on the streets but it's a vicious cycle.

 

It's certainly not something you can make a snap judgment on.  For instance in one local organization they provide housing, care, addiction help, help finding jobs, meals, the whole package.  But there are rules they must follow and if they continually break those rules after an established period of time, they simply cannot help those people and they have to be turned back out.  I can not have very much compassion for the homeless people begging at the street corners in this area because I know the resources that are available to them and I know that if they are still out begging for money, either that's a more lucrative business for them to prey on the good hearts and charity of others, or they have refused the help that is available to them.

 

In the cases that I worked with in impoverished areas in southeast Asia, it was something that you began to spot over a period of days or weeks.  If you spend time in the local area you begin to see how people respond to your charity and you can make adjustments to what you are doing to benefit the people who are allowing there lives to be impacted positively.

Johnny3nglish and ande like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've sure got that right, Rupert.  The biggest problem with the Ft. Lauderdale story is the apparent lack of any or enough other options available to people who need to be figuratively carried until they can walk again.  To me, if you are going to legislate not doing this in public, you sure had better legislate and commit funds to another option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Europeans have plenty of problems with homelessness regardless of taxation. Some countries do better than others. Mental health is a hugely underfunded and stigmatized area the world over. People with mental issues are seen as weak. Nobody wants to feel weak so it's hidden rather than confronted.

I think that the answer is always in finding a halfway measure. You could enhance mental healthcare in partnership with business. Big businesses setting up could help build housing low paid workers could afford. The drug addict could get free healthcare and treatment and would not need to steal to fund the habit.

The world is a complicated place. I can't uderstand how America can be so divided seemingly into left/right, right/wrong. Leaving the care of the mentally ill and homeless to charities is a recipe for disaster. Throwing money at ill conceived programs is the same.

I find it depressing that socialism is equated in the US with communism.

ande and Ravnis like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Australia, there are plenty of registered organisations that help the needy...There are many, many volunteers doing their thing every day...It's amazing what they all do....I'm happy to say I do volunteer work for Meals on Wheels...This non for profit (I think) organisation Is managed by a few paid staff but mainly run by volunteers.....Meals on Wheels provide 4,200 meals daily(I think) to the needy...Just think...For $7.50 people get a soup, mains and sweets delivered to their door...and it's good wholesome food too....

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meals_on_Wheels

 

This is one of thousands of volunteer organisations throughout Australia that keep the world from crumbling apart...Yes we do get council inspections and have to abide by the federal State and Local law particularly food safety and right we should to...

 

I am aware of soup kitchens about the place and yes there are many churches out there helping the community

 

All of these organisations seem to obey the local laws and get on well with the councils...I would think the U.S. would be similar...Although am happy to be corrected because I really don't know...

 

My point is...Surely it's not in the councils best interest to discourage this type of work...Again, I don't know but I think there is something that we're not being told here...i.e. Has Mr Abbott been shown alternatives and has he chosen not to go that way?...I don't know for sure, but I think there is something we're missing here...

 

Cheers.

Edited by bigdaddy (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot missing to this story.

 

Mental heath funds have been steadily chipped away at over the 40 years as a "conservative"  mindset started taking control.  The idea of mainstreaming or putting the mentally ill back on the street as being cheaper to hospitalization/institutionalizing.    The issue with that is money is given  to an individual with minimal functionality.  They can't make good choices on a consistent basis and maybe do ok for a while, but eventually choose a vice like drugs or alcohol, or shopping. Then they don't have the money for rent.  They then get kicked out of the low income housing and cant get back in for 5 years, so now are sentenced to homelessness for 5 years.  Then because they aren't paying rent the other assistance's get cut and they spiral  into a desperate depression.   This cycle repeats multiple time till they die.

 

Then the politician says "we spent x amount of money on them , but they don't get any better, we must be giving them too much assistance".  I understand the viewpoint.  I don't like shelling out money in taxes for that, but I don't like seeing people starving or sleeping in exposed areas either.   Cutting the money off only drives the ones with some sense to crime and then they get arrested.  Even had one man rob a bank with a clothespin on purpose to get put in jail to get dental care.

 

Ft Lauderdale may be getting homeless from other locales due   to it's climate is very hospitable as compared to other places.  This is one of the fears expressed by the council that it would attract others and overwhelm them.   It could be a real fear too, but I've yet to see a prohibition fix a problem, as the reality has been it has made it much worse when attempted.

 

The other view point is the housing inflation went crazy here in the last 15 years, but because land is not a perishable good,   the price has gone almost back to the level it was at the top of the bubble.  Minimum wage jobs won't  pay the bills and cover for mishaps such as car break down, water leak etc.  Corporations that make billions in profit pay the lowest wages and could afford to pay insurance, but choose not to and pay people part time and hire HR managers and pay them 100,000's $ to figure out new ways to keep people , but pay less. The money they spend to avoid paying, they could have just given to the employees that actually made them the money.    These people live paycheck to paycheck and are only an injury away from loosing everything and being homeless themselves.  The way government services are found about here is word of mouth or social workers in hospital/prison.  Government goes out of it's way to hide and make it difficult to get. Average time to get social security disability is 2 years.

 

Homelessness is a complex problem with no easy one size fits all answer.  Some are just normal people in a temporary hardship and just need a helping hand, others need much more.

Edited by Ravnis (see edit history)
ande, kellenw and Johnny3nglish like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now