WASHINGTON — Well, it is time again for the homeless to make
their appearance. Having been housed during (if not by) the Clinton
Administration, it appears that they are now back on the streets on
the eve of the second Bush term.
The homeless first became major news during Ronald Reagan’s
second term when, almost like magic, they began to appear on the
streets. No one — least of all the media — seemed to know whence
they came. Of course, it was no mystery. Right after his reelection
the heartless, uncaring Gipper sent shock troops out to find those
folks, force them out into the cold November night, and bar the
door behind them.
Apparently, the Clinton Administration could not repair all of
the damage. Two weeks after Bill Clinton’s reelection, a
Lexis/Nexis search revealed 1,424 stories containing the term
“homeless.” But Clinton fixed enough of the problem that the
homeless were able to disappear back into their homes. Well, guess
what: They’re baaack! In the two weeks following November 2,
Lexis/Nexis reveals 2,332 stories using the term “homeless.”
The National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH) is on the case. In
a report released November 9 and titled “Illegal
to Be Homeless: The Criminalization of Homelessness in the United
States,” NCH examined the “meanest” cities and states in the U.S.
By coincidence, President Bush’s home state of Texas ranked 4th
meanest to the homeless, while little brother Jeb’s Florida ranked
2nd. Many cities in their states, including Gainesville, Austin,
Sarasota, Key West, Dallas, and San Antonio, ranked among the top
twenty meanest cities.
The NCH criteria for “meanest” are varied. One measure is the
number of anti-homeless laws. According to the report, laws against
panhandling and loitering are counted. But so is any law against
obstructing sidewalks, bathing in public waters, and urinating and
defecating in public. I can still remember a time when it was
considered “mean” to the public if some bum — oops, sorry,
homeless person — relieved himself in a place frequented by the
public. But this is the era of sensitivity, when it is a violation
of civil rights to prevent someone from using any place that
strikes his fancy as a toilet.
The report has other oddities. The states ranked 1st and 3rd
meanest are California and Hawaii where John Kerry did well. Cities
making the top twenty list included San Francisco (9th) and
Berkeley (14th)! Curiously, the NCH report notes that it is
perfectly legal in both cities for the homeless to relieve
themselves in public. Furthermore, according to the report,
Berkeley has only five laws against the homeless and San Francisco
has eight. That’s less than Phoenix (13) Jacksonville (12), and
Colorado Springs (11), none of which are in the meanest top
twenty.
A defensive Cisco DeVries, chief of staff to the mayor of
Berkeley, responded, “Berkeley provides more services per capita to
the homeless than virtually any other city on the planet.” I
believe him, having stepped on countless homeless people in my many
visits to Berkeley. And until late 2002, over 8,000 homeless people
received monthly $395 cash stipends from San Francisco. Here was a
city where homeless folks went to the bathroom wherever they wanted
and got paid to do it. (The city has toughened its homeless laws
recently.)
Why are two traditionally “tolerant” locales considered among
the meanest cities? Perhaps because NCH criteria for meanness is
that “local activist(s) or organization(s) supported the meanest
designation.” Of course, Berkeley and San Francisco are havens for
left-wing extremists. Call it a wild guess, but I’d say they told
NCH researchers that San Francisco and Berkeley were mean.
Apparently, saying so makes it so.
None of the media stories about the report examined its
less-than-rigorous methodology. Only the Dallas Morning
News and the Sarasota Herald-Tribune noted that laws
against public urination and defecation are part of the
criteria.
Expect the media to treat the homeless and their advocates with
kid gloves. Because a Republican has just been reelected stories
about misery and poverty are once again pertinent. It won’t be
until a Democrat is President that the homeless will again
disappear.
