Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- No More Steubenvilles: How To Raise Boys to be Kind Men
- 37 Percent of People Completely Lost
- An Open Challenge to Michelle Rhee and the Corporate Education Zombies
- Ten Years After: How Not to Teach About the Iraq War
- Which Members of Congress Are Standing Up for Economic Decency – And Which “Progressives” Aren’t
Popular content
Today's Top News
Throw Them Out With the Trash: Why Homelessness Is Becoming an Occupy Wall Street Issue
As anyone knows who has ever had to set up a military encampment or build a village from the ground up, occupations pose staggering logistical problems. Large numbers of people must be fed and kept reasonably warm and dry. Trash has to be removed; medical care and rudimentary security provided -- to which ends a dozen or more committees may toil night and day. But for the individual occupier, one problem often overshadows everything else, including job loss, the destruction of the middle class, and the reign of the 1%. And that is the single question: Where am I going to pee?
Some of the Occupy Wall Street encampments now spreading across the U.S. have access to Port-o-Potties (Freedom Plaza in Washington, D.C.) or, better yet, restrooms with sinks and running water (Fort Wayne, Indiana). Others require their residents to forage on their own. At Zuccotti Park, just blocks from Wall Street, this means long waits for the restroom at a nearby Burger King or somewhat shorter ones at a Starbucks a block away. At McPherson Square in D.C., a twenty-something occupier showed me the pizza parlor where she can cop a pee during the hours it’s open, as well as the alley where she crouches late at night. Anyone with restroom-related issues -- arising from age, pregnancy, prostate problems, or irritable bowel syndrome -- should prepare to join the revolution in diapers.
Of course, political protesters do not face the challenges of urban camping alone. Homeless people confront the same issues every day: how to scrape together meals, keep warm at night by covering themselves with cardboard or tarp, and relieve themselves without committing a crime. Public restrooms are sparse in American cities -- "as if the need to go to the bathroom does not exist," travel expert Arthur Frommer once observed. And yet to yield to bladder pressure is to risk arrest. A report entitled “Criminalizing Crisis,” to be released later this month by the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, recounts the following story from Wenatchee, Washington:
"Toward the end of 2010, a family of two parents and three children that had been experiencing homelessness for a year and a half applied for a 2-bedroom apartment. The day before a scheduled meeting with the apartment manager during the final stages of acquiring the lease, the father of the family was arrested for public urination. The arrest occurred at an hour when no public restrooms were available for use. Due to the arrest, the father was unable to make the appointment with the apartment manager and the property was rented out to another person. As of March 2011, the family was still homeless and searching for housing."
What the Occupy Wall Streeters are beginning to discover, and homeless people have known all along, is that most ordinary, biologically necessary activities are illegal when performed in American streets -- not just peeing, but sitting, lying down, and sleeping. While the laws vary from city to city, one of the harshest is in Sarasota, Florida, which passed an ordinance in 2005 that makes it illegal to “engage in digging or earth-breaking activities” -- that is, to build a latrine -- cook, make a fire, or be asleep and “when awakened state that he or she has no other place to live.”
It is illegal, in other words, to be homeless or live outdoors for any other reason. It should be noted, though, that there are no laws requiring cities to provide food, shelter, or restrooms for their indigent citizens.
The current prohibition on homelessness began to take shape in the 1980s, along with the ferocious growth of the financial industry (Wall Street and all its tributaries throughout the nation). That was also the era in which we stopped being a nation that manufactured much beyond weightless, invisible “financial products,” leaving the old industrial working class to carve out a livelihood at places like Wal-Mart.
As it turned out, the captains of the new “casino economy” -- the stock brokers and investment bankers -- were highly sensitive, one might say finicky, individuals, easily offended by having to step over the homeless in the streets or bypass them in commuter train stations. In an economy where a centimillionaire could turn into a billionaire overnight, the poor and unwashed were a major buzzkill. Starting with Mayor Rudy Giuliani in New York, city after city passed “broken windows” or “quality of life” ordinances making it dangerous for the homeless to loiter or, in some cases, even look “indigent,” in public spaces.
No one has yet tallied all the suffering occasioned by this crackdown -- the deaths from cold and exposure -- but “Criminalizing Crisis” offers this story about a homeless pregnant woman in Columbia, South Carolina:
"During daytime hours, when she could not be inside of a shelter, she attempted to spend time in a museum and was told to leave. She then attempted to sit on a bench outside the museum and was again told to relocate. In several other instances, still during her pregnancy, the woman was told that she could not sit in a local park during the day because she would be ‘squatting.’ In early 2011, about six months into her pregnancy, the homeless woman began to feel unwell, went to a hospital, and delivered a stillborn child."
Well before Tahrir Square was a twinkle in anyone’s eye, and even before the recent recession, homeless Americans had begun to act in their own defense, creating organized encampments, usually tent cities, in vacant lots or wooded areas. These communities often feature various elementary forms of self-governance: food from local charities has to be distributed, latrines dug, rules -- such as no drugs, weapons, or violence -- enforced. With all due credit to the Egyptian democracy movement, the Spanish indignados, and rebels all over the world, tent cities are the domestic progenitors of the American occupation movement.
There is nothing “political” about these settlements of the homeless -- no signs denouncing greed or visits from leftwing luminaries -- but they have been treated with far less official forbearance than the occupation encampments of the “American autumn.” LA’s Skid Row endures constant police harassment, for example, but when it rained, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa had ponchos distributed to nearby Occupy LA.
All over the country, in the last few years, police have moved in on the tent cities of the homeless, one by one, from Seattle to Wooster, Sacramento to Providence, in raids that often leave the former occupants without even their minimal possessions. In Chattanooga, Tennessee, last summer, a charity outreach worker explained the forcible dispersion of a local tent city by saying, “The city will not tolerate a tent city. That’s been made very clear to us. The camps have to be out of sight.”
What occupiers from all walks of life are discovering, at least every time they contemplate taking a leak, is that to be homeless in America is to live like a fugitive. The destitute are our own native-born “illegals,” facing prohibitions on the most basic activities of survival. They are not supposed to soil public space with their urine, their feces, or their exhausted bodies. Nor are they supposed to spoil the landscape with their unusual wardrobe choices or body odors. They are, in fact, supposed to die, and preferably to do so without leaving a corpse for the dwindling public sector to transport, process, and burn.
But the occupiers are not from all walks of life, just from those walks that slope downwards -- from debt, joblessness, and foreclosure -- leading eventually to pauperism and the streets. Some of the present occupiers were homeless to start with, attracted to the occupation encampments by the prospect of free food and at least temporary shelter from police harassment. Many others are drawn from the borderline-homeless “nouveau poor,” and normally encamp on friends’ couches or parents’ folding beds.
In Portland, Austin, and Philadelphia, the Occupy Wall Street movement is taking up the cause of the homeless as its own, which of course it is. Homelessness is not a side issue unconnected to plutocracy and greed. It’s where we’re all eventually headed -- the 99%, or at least the 70%, of us, every debt-loaded college grad, out-of-work school teacher, and impoverished senior -- unless this revolution succeeds.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...



114 Comments so far
Show AllThanks for another good one, Barbara. The prejudice against the poor is institutionalized in the USA. Can anyone imagine tring to get job when they are homeless - or when they have no teeth and no dental care.
Yesterday while at a local OCCUPY, I had a conversation with a Ron Paul supporter. He could not understand that sometimes economic injustice is imposed on a person, and not a failure of the person. This nice young man, just does not get it. Ralph Nader recently said that in a nation where there is more justice - less charity is required.
How about NADER for president - EHRENREICH for VP.
Ehrenrich is younger than Nader. How about she for President?
trask... wouldn't that be discrimination based on age - and would that be any more acceptable than any other form of prejudice...? Prejudice based on age is a big hidden problem in this culture.
Maybe we should ask Nader. He looks a little tired these days.
Preference, not prejudice. Ralph Nader will be the first to get behind a really good independent, progressive candidate. He may or may not want to accept an offer to run as vice president, and of course, the presidential candidate first has to choose a vice presidential candidate.
Ralph Nader won't run for president if the progressives do their part and put forth a candidate that will represent the people.
duplicate
Like hobo "jungles' of the past, homeless encampments can be brutal. Bullies regularly shake down anyone with money and women are raped violently without a response from authorities. If ever there was a need for the presence of lawful authority, a tent city would be the place, but instead of protecting those most vulnerable to criminal behavior, the police often make things worse by enforcing what amounts to vagrancy laws. It is as if the cops avoid the homeless because the homeless are not worth dealing with--and it's too much trouble anyhow.
NADER / EHRENREICH 2012
"Homelessness is not a side issue unconnected to plutocracy and greed. It’s where we’re all eventually headed -- the 99%, or at least the 70%, of us, every debt-loaded college grad, out-of-work school teacher, and impoverished senior -- unless this revolution succeeds." ................ABSOLUTELY - IT MUST SUCCEED!
Evil is a word that can be used to describe a situation where it is required that every individual must have adequate money to live but where so many are callously and capriciously denied access to income in order that the few might benefit.
Yes, there is a lot of evil in the United States and most of it seems to be in our hallowed halls of government at the Federal level. Of note is the fact that those honored members are all millionaires or more. These people, the 1%, are enjoying the death of Kaddafi of LIbya. Kaddafi is called by these people who lack empathy or conpasion, a terrible dictator. Hillary Clinton was filmed laughing with glee at the brutal murder of Kaddafi.
This terrible dictator headed a government that provided the highest standard of living on the continent of Africa. People in Libya all had homes, health care, free public education, and all citizens received funds from the sale of the oil that belonged to the people of that nation. When a couple got married they were given funds to buy a home. If a person wanted to be a farmer they were given land, tools and seeds as well as the water of the major man made river that pumps up the water from deep under the desert. If you got a college degree and could not find a job in your field you were given the pay of that position until you did get a job.
Sounds like the people of Libya under Kaddafi were better off that we are under Obama.
I'm glad you added that bit. While Qaddafi was certainly no civil libertarian, nevertheless he did a lot of good for the Libyan people. Obama in some ways is worse that Bush. At least Bush went to the level of holding a kangaroo trial and hanging Saddam. Obama just allowed Qaddafi to be killed in brutal fashion without any semblance of legal process while h and EU leaders likely had the ability to call off the rebels from killing him. Same with Bin Laden.
Glad that you noticed!
This tells me everything I need to know about the left - what matters is not freedom, even from a brutal tyrant. What matters that everyone be kept safe and comfy-cosy by the paternalistic state, even if, to repeat, that state is a brutal tyranny. How perfectly slavish and contemptible. Thanks for posting this, it was an enlightenment.
@dwatkins9, Freedom is a concept worth discussing and the sloppiness in our use and understanding of the word and concept enables what you say to make some sense.
I do understand the concept of "give me liberty or give me death". I can find freedom on the streets in the cold and rain, with hunger and freedom from access to medical care, dentistry, employment and freedom from any hope of being able to have a family.
One measure that we have to measure freedom with is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. ( http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ ). In many respects Libya does not do well by this standard of freedom. In many respects neither do we. America's record on articles 22 to 26 for example is quite poor. I expect that the main reason that we do not hear hear much about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is that America overall does not do better than most other countries. It would be interesting to see how America and Libya compare on this measure. Neither will do exceptionally well. (ps. One does not need to be Left-wing to use this measure to compare the two countries.)
Showing approval for Qaddafi's role in sharing Libya's oil wealth with the libyan people does not imply approval of Qadaffi's human rights violations.
That's logic 101. Perhaps I should go on a tirade about how your post tells me everything I need to know about the right, ie. that righties don't understand basic rules of logic and and let their negative emotions do al their "thinking."
There are many brutal US supported middle east dictators who don't sahre their nation's wealth with the masses. Does that tell you everything that you need to know about the US?
Thank you Joe,
The poor in American supported dictatorships, Egypt, Pakistan, Ethiopia, etc, have neither rights, freedom, nor any comfort. But neither logic nor compassion have any following among the right. They will say anything, rationalize anything, as long as it gives them an excuse to get richer at the expense of everyone else.
Thank you for another does of reality Barbara, but I'm full. For thirty years since the failing brain pan of Ronny Raygun I have fully understood the odor of power, and tried doing my part by never voting the incumbent back into it. This disgraceful institutional system of government needs to be looking at its final days. No longer can we afford people like Dick Cheney who started his career in the 60's fighting against civil rights and going in and out of government and the private sector for his sole benefit. Can anyone name one thing Dick did that was good for our country as a whole? Probably not. Or John Kerry, Graham, Lieberman? It is time for these characters to leave so the rest of us can live.
Google, Winter soldier testimony...
"Can anyone name one thing Dick did that was good for our country as a whole?"
Developed heart disease?
I'm sure the Dick is responsible for a lot of developing heart disease.
Now this is an article that matters. I've read so many from old Liberal activists trying to talk about their pet issues or old activist neuroses on the backs of the Occupy movement. They seem vaguely parasitic no matter how worthwhile the topic. This one however is at the core. Just have to check out Linh Dinh's photos or his article on resurrection cities to gain an understanding of life on the streets.
Ronald Reagan, on December 23. 1988, told David Brinkley: 'Tthere are always going to be people'' who live in the streets by choice. ''They make it their own choice for staying out there,'' Mr. Reagan said in a farewell interview. ''There are shelters in virtually every city, and shelters here, and those people still prefer out there on the grates or the lawn to going into one of those shelters.''
No one who has ever experienced how homeless people live could possibly believe that anyone other than a severely mentally ill person (and a fair percentage of the urban homeless do have mental health issues) would "choose" to live like they have to. The so-called conservatives believe that the homeless are kicking back, drawing benefits they don't deserve, and laughing up their sleeves at all the workaday people who are supporting them. Not even the mentally ill homeless, at least none that I experienced during the years I worked at a mental health clinic, thought or felt like that. It's a kind of smug assholeishness that to this day never ceases to amaze me.
Yes, only someone with severe mental illness would to live as you described. I would only add that it would also take someone with severe mental illness to make comments that Ronnie Raygun made in his farewell interview.
I live in downtown Detroit and the homeless are my neighbours.
If they weren't suffering mental illness before they soon become so because of the traumatic lives they lead.
And yes, I bring people into my home for food, clothing , shelter, care and I give money.
It a rock and a hard place is it not? The Corporate State would like nothing better then to halt all social program spending and leave it to "Charity" to feed and clothe and house the homeless and the poor.
The more people give that charity the more that Corporate State can claim it a system that works.
Yet, as an individual , it hard not to provide that charity.
All over the United States of America homes are empty and the Banks bulldoze many of these homes, some newly built, because it cheaper to maintain an empty lot then it is one with a home on it and they wait for the prices of land to climb so they can recoup their "investment".
Yet people live in tents. This is that hallowed "Capitalist Free Market" system at work.
Here in Kingman Arizona there is a strange situation: I live near a row of new two and three bedroom houses that are completely built and were ready to sell until very recently. These places have broken windows and have obviously been used by kids for beer parties. There is a fence around this row (about 15 houses) and signs saying 'private property--keep out'. These places are much larger and were much nicer than the two bedroom mobile home I'm living in at present. I'm 70 years old and have never in my life seen anything like this.
The United States is becoming a very strange place to live. I never thought I'd see anything like it. Back in the 50s this would be Science Fiction.
“If they weren't suffering mental illness before they soon become so because of the traumatic lives they lead.” Thanks for saying that, Morticia. The idea that mental illness is a chemical imbalance has never been even remotely proven. This theory makes the same assumption that Freudians did: the problem is not in society, but in the individual’s inability to adapt to society, whether by insufficiently comprehending one’s role or just having rotten brain chemistry. I think the latter is the more pernicious theory.
In a previous article, Ehrenreich likened being poor to the situation of a caged rat given random shocks. I was struck by that insight.
God bless you for helping the poor among you.
I've been homeless but never carless in the United States and have been considered mentally ill by many ... but the feeling is mutual as I consider many work-addicted people a bit off center. By "off center" I mean those who feel it is morally wrong to work at least 11 months of the year, even though you have enough wherewithall to not work for various periods of time and would rather spend your time doing something else. You don't see many such people as it's to their advantage to look somewhat poor. After all "Subways are for Sleeping."
While I agree with much of what you said I do believe that the link between "mental health" & homelessness is like the discussion about the chicken and the egg. Do people with severe mental health and addiction issues become homeless? Or does the day to day reality of being homeless lead to severe mental health and addiction issues?
As someone who has been homeless and now works in a supportive housing agency. I challenge each of you to imagine what it would be like to lose your housing, job, and how long would it take living that struggle day to day for you to develop "mental health issues"?
Supposedly, vagrancy laws were outlawed during the '60s-'70s as being capricious and vague, but it seems that the greedy-rich are intent in bringing them back. Following the Amerikan Civil War vagrancy (Jim Crow) laws were used to arrest blacks (or for that matter or anyone else) who might be unemployed. The pigs arrested these people and put them on a chain-gang to build roads or to be farmed out to local business to the financial benefit of the local sheriffs or judges. When the project was completed, the prisoners were released only to get picked up again if they were unable to get out of the county fast enough. A good description of this horrible existence is described in Steinbeck's "East of Eden."
Look for these laws to re-emerge as we continue into the 21st century's version of the New Gilded Age.
John Steinbeck's home is in Salinas, Ca a modest home. It is a historical building. in Salinas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salinas,_California
The author doesn't mention in this article when and how homelesssness became a common condition in the US. It began with one of our republican presidents who tossed people out on the street who had been wards of the state due to mental illness. This was one way the government could spend less money and turn the care of people in need over to.........no one. The comment someone else made that a state with more justice and integrity needs less "charity" is true.
Absolutely correct. Ronald Reagan during his prepresidential stint as Governor of California instituted "deinstitutionalization" which would supposedly make things better for the mentally ill by taking them out of snake pit asylums and putting their services closer to the streets where they lived. Of course that didn't happen. The "services" they were supposed to receive never materialized..
San Francisco instituted "Care Not Cash" to try to cut back on General Assistance welfare money expenditures by supposedly doing the spending for the street mentally ill. Well, as could be expected, the "not cash" part kicked right in but the "care" was largely inaccessible.
It wasn't just Reagan--it was governors from all the states including mine, Michigan. The same outcome, though, mentally ill people being released into the community with little to no support. Society started turning its back on those at the bottom during the eighties, accepting Reagan's "welfare Cadillac mom" meme. It's great when being cheap goes along with an emphasis on making people self-reliant by withholding services. That is just what Americans did.
The shutting of mental hospitals was going on throughout the 70’s and 80’s with the widespread use of anti-psychotic drugs to “treat” serious conditions such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and others. Mental hospitals were deemed no longer necessary, a needless expense and a violation of patients’ individual freedom. These closings occurred not only in the U.S. but throughout the western world. The services provided to newly homeless patients was generally better outside of the U.S.
The severe recession of 1981-82 with an unemployment rate in California of 13% added to the growing homeless population with the appearance of unemployed families and their children on the streets of our cities. This population ebbs and flows but has never gone away.
There were few if any services and there were no follow-up funds for mental health patients in California. You still find them living under bridges and in the criminal justice system. The closures was sold as a budget reduction plan.
Reagan? I always remembered deinstitutionalization as being something that was set forth from Nixon.
It was Reagan, we have urine soaked sidewalks here named in his honor.
It started even before that. The civil liberties crowd was advocating for it beginning in the early 60's. There was a reaction to "snake pit" accusations (many well founded, it must be said) re: conditions in long term mental hospitals in the 50's and 60's.
The comment someone else made that a state with more justice and integrity needs less "charity" is true.
This can't be repeated enough.
Kathy, thank you for bringing this point to light. As another reader commented, it was Ronald Reagan who booted the mentally ill out of state custody and into the streets. A large number of these mentally ill people were veterans of the Viet Nam War who were suffering from PTSD and other war related psychiatric illnesses.
It never ceases to amaze me, but it seems to be the republikkans who are so gung ho on using military action to solve conflicts, it is the republikkkans who use "connections" to evade military service (see Dick Cheney, Dubya, and a whole slew of other neocons), it is the republikkans who endlessly chant "support the troops", yet it is the republikkkans who always are first to deny them basic rehabilative services once they have served their purpose as cannon fodder for the MIC profiteers.
Not so fast. Unfortunately the Vietnam war was escalated to the status of a war by Democrats. The democratic party led the call for land theft and murder that started the The US century of colonial Indian Wars. The Iraq war had majority support in both parties. The Democrats have created as many casualties of criminal wars as the Republicans and have never prevented a war. These are amerikkkan problems.
At the time, the left-wing civil-liberties crowd was all in favor of deinstitutionalization, and pushed it hard. I dont know how many PTSD patients were actually in long-term asylum care, tho.
Thank you for this article, and for your continuing defense of the impoverished. I always have my students read your articles about the poor--sadly, all too many believe that people who are poor deserve to be.
I'm reminded me of that famous Thomas Jefferson quote:
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
Elizabeth, I loved the article and am a fan of Ehrenreich. I liked your quote, but did some searching and found that it's not quite accurate. http://www.snopes.com/quotes/jefferson/banks.asp
Oh. Thanks for telling me. Whoever said it, though, it seems fairly prescient.
In many ways, as far as the State is concerened, you don't really exist if you are homeless. Try getting a post office box, or registering a car, or applying for health insurance, without a residential mailing address. I don't think it should be the governments business where I chose to live.
In Minnesota, homeless people are allowed to use the address of a shelter as their home address to become registered voters. Shelter operators certify their residence on lists of residents given to their nearest precinct voting place. Right-wing members of our legislature (and ALEC) are trying to pass legislation requiring all voters to have picture i.d.s specifically issued for voting to deprive these citizens of their right to vote lest they vote for people who actually want to help them.
Good comment by 'rosemarie jackowski'... "I had a conversation with a Ron Paul supporter. He could not understand that sometimes economic injustice is imposed on a person, and not a failure of the person." ...as this is a primary reason that the Libertarian philosophy (Government should exist only to defend us {i.e. military} and to administer justice {courts, cops, prisons}) is flawed. It assumes that everyone will benefit in the long run from a free market system, yet history shows that this has never been the case. Corporate America, prefers corporate socialism which taxes the bottom 99% to reinforce the chosen 1%, but can also claim that they will readily support Libertarian ideals only because they salivate at the idea of eliminating the meagre social safety nets that the working class have struggled to create in the twentieth century.
Barbara's articles are excellent insights into the absence of these same social safety nets that are born out of true democratic initiatives. A trip to Europe, Australia or Canada by any American quickly opens their eyes to the diminished amounts of marginalized people in those societies. Yet the FCM continues to ignore our plight at home or the practical solutions practiced abroad by redirecting us to focus on celebrities, faux news and the stock market.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a government that focused on eradicating poverty at home instead of impoverishing us all?