Cathedral to remove sprinkler system that drenched homeless
Source: AP
By OLGA R. RODRIGUEZ
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco on Wednesday dismantled a sprinkler system it had installed at the city's cathedral during one of the worst droughts in California history to soak the alcoves and prevent homeless people from sleeping there.
The archdiocese took down the sprinklers after a barrage of criticism because the system installed at St. Mary's Cathedral was drenching homeless people at night.
KCBS Radio first reported undeterred homeless people were using umbrellas and waterproof gear, but they were still getting soaked as they slept in the doorways. The sprinklers ran for about 75 seconds, about every half hour, starting before sunset in all four doorways, soaking homeless people and their belongings, a KCBS reporter who saw the sprinklers at work reported.
The archdiocese, which supports and helps the homeless, apologized and said its intentions were misunderstood. It said the purpose was redirect homeless people to safer areas on the cathedral grounds.
FULL story at link.
Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/9b1533e8f8604b718976d6b4da8ec93d/cathedral-remove-sprinkler-system-drenched-homeless
See this earlier story in GD: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026380335
= new reply since forum marked as read
Who Would Jesus Douse?
What do you do with these people? These are NOT the family who have lost their home and need to find one they can afford, but people who should be in a mental institution but Reagan closed all of them down. Those people who lost their home can maintain one with minimum support. Such homeless are NOT the people living in these sheltered alcoves, the people sleeping in these alcoves are like the person who is sleeping in your front poach without your permission or even knowledge.
These are some of the most difficult people to work with. There are technically "sane" for they have enough knowledge to know right from wrong and technically can avoid harming themselves or other and thus can NOT be committed for mental impairments. There have enough skills to meet the employability requirements of Social Security Disability thus NOT eligible for Social Security disability. Many have serious untreated mental health issues, but will NOT seek treatment for they think nothing is wrong with them. Their mental health problems prevent their family from working with them, for they often attack family members who try to help them or even take them home with them.
The people sleeping in these alcoves are that group of people no one wants to hire. Economists call them the "Last Hired, First Fired" employees.
Prior to the 1960s, such people were often put into the various institution for the insane we had in the US. In such institutions they could be watched and taken care of and "Normal" people did not see them. The bad side was these people did NOT need to be locked up 24 hours a day, seven days a week, but there was no place else to put them if their family could no longer take care of them (and many stayed with families in that time period, often in semi-isolation from the rest of the family).
Starting in the 1960s it was decided these people needed to be out with the public not locked up 24/7. The plan was to close the old mental health institutions and replace them with smaller institutions in urban areas. The closing of the old institutions was rapidly approved of by the State Legislatures of the time period, for it cut costs. The expansion of smaller replacement units never took off, for two reasons. First, Cost, the State Legislatures wanted to REDUCE costs not INCREASE costs and while closing the old institutions helped in reducing costs, building the proposed new smaller units would increase costs. Thus massive resistance to such building.
The second problem was zoning. A lot of suburbs refused to permit such group homes, for they were group homes often for people with criminal backgrounds. Such suburbs and inner cities just did NOT want these people in their municipalities. Such bans were fought for decades and when actually ruled on by the courts, the disable people won, but all they won was to restart the zoning process. In the long term this, along with the refusal of the State to even come close to funding such housing, the marginally sane were left out of the old institutions and told they were on their own.
Now there are groups that can help such people, but they must want to get such help. If they do NOT, no help. I have seen people refuse even give such a group their Social Security, even when the option is Social Security KEEPS THE MONEY (Social Security do NOT think they can take care of their money, but rather then work with someone, they prefer to live on the streets).
These are the Homeless sleeping in alcoves, not people who just lost their homes. What do you do with them?
What is needed is a place to commit such people, that permit them to interact with the rest of society, but checked up on a daily basis to make sure their rent is paid and they have food. They can NOT be permitted to live elsewhere, for they can NOT really survive in society without assistance but they do NOT need to be fully committed to an institution where their ability to go out and interact with the rest of society is limited.
This would require a change in the law so that people with mental impairments that are NOT insane or incompetent (both are very low standards, I always point out that a seven year old was viewed as Competent enough to know what a "Normal" 14 year would know, for that was the test to be HANGED in England when that seven year old was hanged in the early 1700s). Yes, a seven year old could be competent. The test today is NOT the Common Law Test (competency of a normal 14 year old) but the common law test shows you how LOW the test for competency is.
I am sorry, the law should be if you do NOT have the competency of an normal 18 year old, you should be subject to some sort of court ordered supervision. Leave it up to Judges and make sure the test is in an open court room (I can see such power being abused if the Court hearing is closed to the public). If someone is subject to such an order, he or she MUST stay in a home where the rent and food is provided by the care taker (and if the care taker thinks the person may be able to handle it themselves, leave it up to the person in such care, but subject to supervision). Every municipality MUST be ordered to have such homes, and the movement of such people out of your municipality must be made a Federal Crime.
Dealing with the people who live in such alcoves and elsewhere on the street is NOT an easy subject. It is NOT like helping someone who just lost his or her home. People who just lost their home almost always have the competency to get their act together with very minimal help. It may takes some time, but it is NOT semi-permanent,
The people living in such alcoves generally have mental impairments that do NOT meet the definition of incompetency, and are technically employable. On the other hand they have problems that prevent them from keeping a home. Thus they homelessness is semi-permanent. They can often get a home for a short time period, but then lose it when they fail to pay the rent (even when they can) or just leave for they no longer want to live in that home. Those are the people living in the alcoves of the Church as pictured below:
?w=620&h=349&crop=1
What do you do with such people, given the REFUSAL of the Government to even address the problem of such people? Such people cost MONEY to take care of, they cost more then Children, and the states do NOT even want to pay money to families with children when the problem is only temporary.
These are difficult people to work with and help, that someone (in this case the Church) became tired of people sleeping where they are NOT suppose to sleep is understandable. The Church does NOT have the power to put these people into any institution, that power is in the sole possession of the State and the refusal of the State to address the needs of such homeless people is why people have to do things to prevent such homeless people from tearing up and abusing their property. Unless these homeless do a crime, the state will do nothing for them. If they do a crime, they end up in prison, where they should NOT be sent for it will do them no good, but prisons are popular with the voters, helping the mentally challenged is NOT.
Sorry. Could not resist.
