63 replies to this topic

[bordercolliefan]

Interesting posts, Young Curmudgeon. Welcome to myfolsom.

[old soldier]

seems to me the article just brought attention to the fact that there are some homeless folks here, and probably have been for awhile. steve the dad pointed out a lot are under achievers and probably some substance abuse. he missed the vets who may have some post viet nam problems

think the police and churches are on track with an approach to help them and probably identify those that are our homeless, being that they have some roots in Folsom.

I think that calling them just homeless doesn't break it down enough. you got women and children in there. seems like we need to feed them and keep them warm in the winter and hopefully help them solve their problems. the key is the helping condition.

if we built big shelters and got the best food in the area we would just attract them from down town....the police need to sort out the ones who are going to do crime the same way they do keeping the trash from out of town from coming in and breaking into our houses and robbing us. If there are bad guys pretending to be homeless and the word is out that Folsom is not a good place to come because of the police we won't have that problem.

from reading everything before I don't know if I am rich or poor. I like Folsom at lot and the christian in me says we owe a duty to help those who need some help.

I for one am going to look for a place to send a little money to help solve the problem in the best way I can...anybody got any ideas as to who can do the best job helping these poor folks?

[ducky]

I agree with Old Soldier that the label "homeless" has different meanings and it is hard to lump everyone into one category. We all have that vision of the single mother or father with children who is in a bad patch or even the lone person who just needs a hand to get back to independence. Of course we should provide whatever help we can to these people. Whenever I give donations of food, clothing or money to Loaves and Fishes, the Folsom Lake Food closet, et cetera, these are the people I am thinking about.

There is another element that I am thinking of when I don't their population to increase in town. Like the fellow in the wide-brimmed hat that rides around on a bicycle in town and rode past me three times within 20 seconds while I was out walking until I yelled at him to leave me alone. I was out for my walk the next day and he was in front of the Dollar Store yelling profanities while an employee was calling the PD. He then took off and was flipping off traffic on Riley Street. I altered my normal walking route so I wouldn't run into him again, but it just seems a shame that I now lean towards driving places I would have normally walked after 20 years of never feeling safe.

[ducky]

Oops! That last sentence should have read "...after 20 years of never feeling unsafe."

[bordercolliefan]

Powerhouse Ministries on Wales St. in Folsom has recently opened a small homeless shelter. They have been written up in the paper a couple of times. I believe they have about 20 beds. The director stated the shelter is full almost every night, largely with women and children. Local churches provide hot meals. The shelter also provides services (school tutoring, job counseling, etc.) to try to help the people improve their circumstances.

Sounds like a fantastic program. I believe valdossjoyce is affiliated with it; perhaps she can provide more info.

I called over there hoping there might be some volunteer opportunities in which I could involve my children. Disappointingly, they stated that they don't feel their volunteer needs are a "fit" with young children -- I guess they feel some of their clients are in too rough a situation to expose young children to them. (Although I was disappointed, I do appreciate their sensitivity to issues that young children might find disturbing).

Does anyone have more info on this program and potential needs they may have?

[Steve Heard]

Ducky

I think I also said that Folsom residents and PD would not make transients feel welcome if they should start coming here to panhandle, sleep, etc.

Border

My sister is in special ed, and is mother to an autistic son. She now advocates for special ed kids because of a lack of funding. Autistic and other special needs kids have been historically marginalized and treated as imbeciles, something that still goes on to a large degree in certain parts of our country.

When she was a teacher, she was once chastised for telling a parent that the district had to, by law, provide an aide for his son if he requested it. The principal of the school came down hard on her, telling her never to volunteer that sort of info. I feel myself going off on a tangent here, so..

[ducky]

Ducky

I think I also said that Folsom residents and PD would not make transients feel welcome if they should start coming here to panhandle, sleep, etc.

That's right you did say that, Stevethedad. I was trying to point out that I don't think providing services is going to make them feel unwelcome. So are encounters like mine going to lessen with Light Rail and new growth here? Probably not. It is frustrating to read articles like the one in the Bee because if we are vigilant about transients we get labeled as elitists, snobs, or NIMBYs when all we really want is a safe community. Maybe that is too much to ask for in this day and age.

No doubt about it, this is a challenging problem for any community.

[bordercolliefan]

Border

My sister is in special ed, and is mother to an autistic son. She now advocates for special ed kids because of a lack of funding. Autistic and other special needs kids have been historically marginalized and treated as imbeciles, something that still goes on to a large degree in certain parts of our country.

When she was a teacher, she was once chastised for telling a parent that the district had to, by law, provide an aide for his son if he requested it. The principal of the school came down hard on her, telling her never to volunteer that sort of info. I feel myself going off on a tangent here, so..

My point was not to criticize offering services for special needs children, but to point out the problems that occur when there are geographical differences in the level of services offered. Even if you support special needs services, presumably you don't want California being flooded with special needs kids from other states because their parents have heard "how good the services are in California." Especially with our current economic problems, we can't afford to be the nationwide magnet for high-need children.

But since you brought it up, I will say that I believe current laws make it difficult to balance the needs of special needs children against those of "typical" children and above-average children. Because special needs have a legal entitlement to their own customized educational plan (which often includes a one-on-one or two-on-one aide), they are somewhat immune to funding cuts. The school district is required by law to meet their needs. Meanwhile, the "typical" students have no such legal protection; thus, they bear the brunt of the funding cuts. My preference would be to raise taxes so that the needs of all children are met. If this is not politically feasible, however, then I believe we need to distribute the impact of budget cuts fairly between "typical" kids and special needs kids. If typical kids are getting only 2/3 of the funding they need, then special needs kids also would have only 2/3 of their educational needs met.

Otherwise, the "typical" kids (who make up the bulk of the student population) get less and less, and we end up with a very mediocre workforce, thus compounding California's woes.

And I should say this is not just my opinion. One of my relatives is a lifelong teacher/educator (now a professor of education after decades "in the trenches") who says that the increasing focus on the needs of special ed kids has seriously compromised the education we are providing to average students.

[Steve Heard]

My point was not to criticize offering services for special needs children, but to point out the problems that occur when there are geographical differences in the level of services offered.  Even if you support special needs services, presumably you don't want California being flooded with special needs kids from other states because their parents have heard "how good the services are in California."  Especially with our current economic problems, we can't afford to be the nationwide magnet for high-need children.

But since you brought it up, I will say that I believe current laws make it difficult to balance the needs of special needs children against those of "typical" children and above-average children.  Because special needs have a legal entitlement to their own customized educational plan (which often includes a one-on-one or two-on-one aide), they are somewhat immune to funding cuts.  The school district is required by law to meet their needs.  Meanwhile, the "typical" students have no such legal protection; thus, they bear the brunt of the funding cuts.  My preference would be to raise taxes so that the needs of all children are met.  If this is not politically feasible, however, then I believe we need to distribute the impact of budget cuts fairly between "typical" kids and special needs kids.  If typical kids are getting only 2/3 of the funding they need, then special needs kids also would have only 2/3 of their educational needs met. 

Otherwise, the "typical" kids (who make up the bulk of the student population) get less and less, and we end up with a very mediocre workforce, thus compounding California's woes. 

And I should say this is not just my opinion.  One of my relatives is a lifelong teacher/educator (now a professor of education after decades "in the trenches") who says that the increasing focus on the needs of special ed kids has seriously compromised the education we are providing to average students.

Border

Although I don't doubt someone told you the story of the person moving from Texas to Cali for the wonderful special ed programs, it really doesn't make sense.

Would leave your hometown, with a low cost of living, and uproot your family, presumably spending hundreds of thousands more, to live in a place that would give better free services for special ed students?

They might be better off just hiring a private aide.

I understand and agree that the system is skewed and that there are no protections for the mainstream students. I also know that more and more kids are being identified as 'special needs' students every day.

Rather than increasing taxes, I'd rather see administration overhauled. Management is not producing results, no matter how much money they get. Fire them.

[john]

case in point - San Francisco. Do you know why they have such a large homeless population? Because the city provides for them. I personally do not encourage handouts - perhaps assistance in job placement, but that's it. If you start giving homeless benefits, shelter, etc. because you feel sorry for them, they will take advantage of it. What would be their incentive to become productive members of society again if they have the basic necessities in life because people feel sorry for them?

I say let San Francisco deal with them. I can't have pity for a city that brings it upon themselves.

[bordercolliefan]

Border

Although I don't doubt someone told you the story of the person moving from Texas to Cali for the wonderful special ed programs, it really doesn't make sense.

Would leave your hometown, with a low cost of living, and uproot your family, presumably spending hundreds of thousands more, to live in a place that would give better free services for special ed students?

They might be better off just hiring a private aide.

I understand and agree that the system is skewed and that there are no protections for the mainstream students. I also know that more and more kids are being identified as 'special needs' students every day.

Rather than increasing taxes, I'd rather see administration overhauled. Management is not producing results, no matter how much money they get. Fire them.

Actually it was the mom herself who told me they had moved from Texas to Calif. to take advantage of the better services for autistic kids. Presumably she knows her own motivation...

Sounds like you and I don't fundamentally disagree. I, too, suspect there are inefficiencies that cause much of education money to go down a rathole. And you're right -- there are ever-increasing numbers of kids identified as special needs. Some of this is because of a real, and very disturbing, increase in autism rates, but some of it is probably driven by parents trying to get certain advantages. (The other day the Bee had an article that mentioned a family who had their high-achieving daughter branded "special needs" on the ground that she "has difficulty seeing the big picture;" this diagnosis allowed her to have extra time on tests.)

[Steve Heard]

case in point - San Francisco. Do you know why they have such a large homeless population? Because the city provides for them. I personally do not encourage handouts - perhaps assistance in job placement, but that's it. If you start giving homeless benefits, shelter, etc. because you feel sorry for them, they will take advantage of it. What would be their incentive to become productive members of society again if they have the basic necessities in life because people feel sorry for them?

I say let San Francisco deal with them. I can't have pity for a city that brings it upon themselves.

John

It is a tough situation, indeed. Many of these people need help, and they should get it. The resources we should provide should be geared toward helping people lift themselves up, not helping them to maintain the homeless lifestyle.

San Francisco, where I was raised, has indeed become a magnet for the homeless. People know that they can get money from the city as soon as they hit town, and there are numerous places to get free food, medical care, and shelter. No incentive to make their lives better.

[Terry]

As a lifer here in Folsom, I can tell you that most of the homeless here are long-time Folsomites. A lot of us went to school with them and have watched their journeys to and from and back to homelessness. Several of them have at various times had their own homes/apartments, and many of them still do have access to accommodations with friends/family, but they CHOOSE to live in their camps. They work when they choose to (I know several long-time business people who hire them for odd jobs, and even go looking for them - and know WHERE to look for them - to do casual labor), and spend their time doing what they want to do. They may have substance abuse problems, but the majority do not seem to have mental health issues. The few who routinely get arrested for drunk in public would be taken to county mental health by FPD if they were deemed to have mental health issues.

I absolutely do not believe that Folsom is attractive to homeless from other areas. Any transients who end up here come because they may know someone here, but to actually choose Folsom without any other connection is highly unlikely.

Given the current homeless population in Folsom, I would guess that most would not seek city services if available. The one thing people who choose to be homeless do NOT want is to be in any government database. They may not be able to avoid it for occasional police interventions, but from what I've been able to understand from Folsom homeless with whom I'm acquainted, they do not want to be maintreamed. And they wouldn't be interested in any affordable housing options. The homeless population in Folsom is a comletely separate group from those in Folsom looking for affordable housing.

[CataBird]

BC:

I think your ex-Texan friend was referring to the State of California's better social services compared to her home state. That would make sense. One of the many reasons for California's financial troubles is the myriad of social programs added each year by our Legislature. And, each year, there are many programs that fail, yet, these programs are not shut down, so the budget must grow and grow.

Texas, on the other hand, provides a lot less social programs, and as a result, is in better financial condition.

But, enough politics. The perception that Folsom is "rich" by the article writer for the Sacramento Bee probably stems from her own perceptions. I would bet she does not live here, or even close by. From the outside, Folsom appears "rich." If she lived here, or even knew someone who lives here, she would not have held the same perceptions.

I would also bet that a lot of Folsom's homeless folks are families who had lived--like many Americans do--from paycheck to paycheck, and ran into some bad luck. Oak Hills Church (http://www.oakhills.org) is one of the participating churches in PowerHouse Ministries, and provides shelter for many families during the cold winter months.

Temporary homelessness is no reason to label these people "uneducated" or "under-achievers," as these are not the common causes of homelessness. Not everyone--regardless of their education or how hard they work--can afford to have enough money in savings to cover their financial responsibilities for even six months, much less a year. So, it's possible they were "downsized" or temporarily laid off. This can be financially devastating!

Try putting yourselves in THEIR shoes and imagine what THEY are thinking on a regular basis. That might go something like this: Where's my next meal coming from? How do I stay warm and dry? How can I keep my family safe without shelter?

What can WE do to help? Well, we can volunteer at our churches to help with the PowerHouse Ministries programs, or we can donate blankets, coats, and canned food items. If we put our thinking caps on, I bet we can all come up with something helpful we can afford to do to help out.

[CataBird]

John, John, John!

I cannot believe you think San Francisco's homeless population resulted from the handouts the City provides!

I used to live and work in San Francisco. Most of the City's homeless resulted from the loss of state mental health services funding back in the 1970's. Many of the area's mental health facilities were shut down, and their residents turned out onto the streets with nowhere to go.

During my weekday commutes downtown and back via public transportation, I would see these folks walking around muttering to themselves. Sure, a large portion of the City's homeless have substance abuse problems, but much of that is due to sheer boredom.

What sort of entertainment is available to people who have no shelter. They have no TV's, books, computers, or anything most folks can purchase because they can pay rent or mortgage? Personally, if I were homeless, I might go insane simply from the monotony of having no mental stimuli.

While I don't agree with that City's policy of handing out free needles and money--since doing so only helps the homeless population purchase drugs and alcohol to feed their addictions--I don't believe we, as a society, should blanket all homeless people with the blame for their plight. Sometimes, all they need is a little help to get back on their feet, perhaps a hand-UP instead of a hand-OUT.

Gee, all this "sensitivity" from a conservative Republican! That ought to break some stereo-types!