63 replies to this topic

[ducky]

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. 

Terry,

Since you seem to know a these guys, are you familiar with the guy I described? Is he a local? He used to wear kind of like a cowboy hat but with a wider brim. He is usually riding a bike. Last time I saw him he had ditched the hat and the bike. I've lived here a long time and I don't recognize him as a local. He really creeped me out when he rode up behind me and kept circling back while I was out walking. It would be nice to know if he's harmless.

I hate the treadmill and would like to continue my neighborhood walks but I still feel uneasy.

[cybertrano]

Everyone moves to California for services. Seriously......

Hey we pay for it.... so why not....

Ducky, you raise a fair point.  Whether or not Folsom is "wealthy," we are well off enough that it is a moral imperative to take care of our residents who become homeless.  But it is a fact that sometimes providing services attracts more people who need services. 

This was brought home to me a few months ago when talking to the mother of an autistic boy at my daughter's preschool/kindergarten.  He has a full-time aide (paid for by the state) who attends classes with him and helps him at home.  The mother told me that they moved from Texas to here "because the autistic services are so much better here." 

That gave me some pause.  We are almost at the bottom of per-student school funding... yet we have special needs students moving here from other states because our special needs services are so much more generous???

[bordercolliefan]

Coincidentally, I got a call from Powerhouse Ministries tonight (in response to my earlier inquiry).

As far as volunteering, she suggested that the best way to involve young kids is through collecting such items as cereal bars, snack foods, toilet paper, toothpaste, etc. For adults there are other ways to help such as serving breakfast on the weekends.

She let me know that the Powerhouse shelter is not intended as a "one night" shelter for a homeless person. Rather, it is a program where people typically stay for some length of time while they receive counseling, job help, etc. Although the shelter has only been open a few months, they have already transitioned 3 homeless people/families to more stable situations (I assume this means helping them get a job and find an affordable place to live).

She let me know that right now there is a family with 3 children staying there. She didn't tell me the demographics of other current residents.

[Steve Heard]

Excellent posts by all.

I'd be interested in the demographics, myself. The homeless I've seen have been overwhelmingly white males, looking to be in their 30's and 40's. I haven't seen but one or two women hanging out with them, and no children. If there are families out there, I haven't seen them (that doesn't mean they don't exist.)

As for the root of the problem in San Francisco, yes, much of it can be attributed to Ronald Reagan's decision to virtually shut down our mental health system, saying that these were problems that should be taken care of by the families, not the state. Well, the families didn't want them, or couldn't control/take care of them, so they wander the streets.

Many others have come to SF over the years, beginning in the 60's, when it was a magnet for the hippie movement. Everybody was crashing on each others' couches, sleeping in cars, or in the parks and doorways. I remember my mom and my neighbors wetting the front stairs to keep people from sleeping or hanging out on them. Young people continue to come to SF to hang out, many of them ending up 'spanging' on Haight street.

Some years ago, I was in Chicago on a business tour. I remarked to one of our hosts that I didn't see any homeless downtown. She replied, "It's too cold out here. We sent them all to San Francisco!'

Who knows if that was or wasn't true. I've also heard of cops getting rid of trouble makers and giving them a one-way bus ticket to SF, with instructions on how to apply for aid.

Add in those who don't have marketable skills because of lack of education or desire, and you'll find that most homeless are not families with fathers who lost their jobs.

They are lifers.

Here in town there's a guy named Jeff. He's known by the kids as 'Homeless Jeff'. I am told he has an ex-girlfriend and a child, and has family here, but prefers to live on the street.

I don't believe that many people have become homeless because of affordable housing or lack thereof.

I also don't think many more homeless will be coming our way if we offer shelter and services to the ones who are here.

[bordercolliefan]

The Powerhouse director stated that some homeless are doing the "couch-hopping" thing where they can stay at a friend or relative's house for a few nights, but it is not a permanent arrangement. This may be why we don't see more homeless moms with kids on the streets.

Presumably the goodwill of friends and relatives runs out after a while, and these folks still need help.

When I became a mom, I saw how easy it would be for a single mom to lose a job and become homeless. A lot of low-wage jobs don't have sick days. Kids get sick A LOT. Seems like if your child has one bout of a bad flu or bronchitus -- or worse, a chronic condition like asthma -- you could be out of a job before you knew what hit you.

[Steve Heard]

The Powerhouse director stated that some homeless are doing the "couch-hopping" thing where they can stay at a friend or relative's house for a few nights, but it is not a permanent arrangement.  This may be why we don't see more homeless moms with kids on the streets. 

Presumably the goodwill of friends and relatives runs out after a while, and these folks still need help. 

When I became a mom, I saw how easy it would be for a single mom to lose a job and become homeless.  A lot of low-wage jobs don't have sick days.  Kids get sick A LOT.  Seems like if your child has one bout of a bad flu or bronchitus -- or worse, a chronic condition like asthma -- you could be out of a job before you knew what hit you.

So, that brings up the issue of treating homelessness like a medical condition. We need to address prevention and treatment. Those currently homeless need treatment, in the form of temporary housing and aid to get back on their feet.

Everyone else needs prevention services. Education will ensure that one will not have to take minimum wage jobs so that they will be 1 check away from the streets. Women need to realize that being a single mom is an enormous challenge, and one not to be taken on unless one is financially sound and emontionally prepared to handle it. Being a mom is tough enough. I know. I have one, and my wife is one (they tell me how tough it is all the time! :-) )

We truly do need to stress the importance of education and self reliance, rather than creating more programs for people to depend on. Those programs will get cut someday.

I'll never forget when my cousin's 18 year old kid got pregnant by her 18 year old unemployed boyfriend. She explained to her dad that it would be okay. She wanted to get pregnant. She was in love. Besides, she could get free medical from the county, Section 8 housing, AFDC, and to top it off, she looked young enough to ride the bus at the student discount rate! She had it all figured out. Here child, now 16, just had a baby of her own! Ain't that sweet?

The liberal in me wants to take care of the world, particularly those who CAN'T take care of themselves. The pragmatist in me sees that we can't cure all of society's ills, and that sometimes, our programs can perpetuate problems, rather than solving them.

As an aside, my cousin's daughter eventually got married to a great guy, and they moved back to his home state of Ohio, because it was AFFORDABLE.

[Young Curmudgeon]

I'd love to see stronger support for Powerhouse. Check out this article on the kind of people they serve ...

http://www.folsomtel.../01homeless.txt

[Terry]

Terry,

Since you seem to know a these guys, are you familiar with the guy I described?  Is he a local?  He used to wear kind of like a cowboy hat but with a wider brim.  He is usually riding a bike.  Last time I saw him he had ditched the hat and the bike.  I've lived here a long time and I don't recognize him as a local.  He really creeped me out when he rode up behind me and kept circling back while I was out walking.  It would be nice to know if he's harmless.

I hate the treadmill and would like to continue my neighborhood walks but I still feel uneasy.

If this is a guy who is about 30ish, then yeah, I know of him. He's a friendly guy and was (I think) just trying to see if you would talk to him or greet him. He's very chatty, so depending on the time you have to chat, you'll have to decide if you want to say hi. I haven't heard of him being a criminal problem.

As to there not being homeless women and children, actually there are just a few in Folsom, but again, those with whom I'm familiar have alternatives (friends, relatives) as to where they can go. Within the last year, there was a young couple who were living in the camp and they were pregnant. Father-to-be took work with a local contractor during the day (the contractor picked him up and dropped him off each day for work) and was finally able to get a room to rent when the baby (a girl) came (in October as I recall). During this woman's pregnancy, the other homeless people in the camp were really caring towards this woman - gave her extra food, clothes and blankets. The last I heard, this new family is doing okay, he's still working, and they still have a place to live. Their homeless friends still check on them and the baby.

Like I said, based on my knowledge of those who are homeless in Folsom, this is not a criminal element that will be breaking into your homes or cars, committing vandalisms or other property crimes.

[ducky]

Terry,

That does sound like the guy. Thanks for the info and, most of all, the peace of mind.

[CataBird]

Steve,

Ronald Reagan did not take office until January of 1981--he was not in office during the 1970's, when the mental healthcare cuts took affect.

[Steve Heard]

He was governor of California during those cuts. They were cuts to State programs, not Federal.

Much has been written about it, including this from 'the Street Sheet' a publication many SF residents are familiar with "An estimated 30 to 40 percent of homeless San Franciscans are psychiatrically disabled, but only a tiny fraction receive the benefits they are legally entitled to. This has been the case in California since the late 1960s, when then-Governor Ronald Reagan approved the closing of most state-run mental health facilities, with the announced intention of transferring the responsibility to the community level. In reality, most de-institutionalized patients were simply dumped on the streets, contributing to the present crisis in mental health care."

But since you mentioned Reagan's presidency, here's something from the SF Chronicle "When homelessness first became a national issue, however, the Reagan administration all but turned a blind eye to the problem. Federal expenditures for low-cost housing plunged during Reagan's watch from $32 billion in 1981 to just $7 billion in 1987.

At the same time, funding was slashed for a variety of social services, including public health, drug rehab and food stamps -- programs that were relied upon by the thousands of mentally ill people who'd been released from state facilities as a cost-cutting move.

Reagan was asked in a 1988 interview, shortly before Christmas, what he thought of the homeless people sleeping just across the street from the White House in Lafayette Park.

"There are always going to be people," he replied. "They make it their own choice for staying out there."

A couple of years later, Reagan's daughter, Patti Davis, commented on her fear that she might be recognized by a homeless person while out jogging.

"What would I say if I were asked why I didn't talk to my father, or argue with him, about this national tragedy?" she wrote in Parade magazine. "How do you argue with someone who states that the people who are sleeping on the streets of America 'are homeless by choice?' "

[bordercolliefan]

The lack of services for the mentally ill is so sad. Reagan's idea of getting families to "take care of their own" may have seemed like a good idea, but most families are just not equipped to handle mental illness.

I know a very respected doctor who, after years of trying to deal with his schizophrenic son -- and having called the police many times to deal with potentially violent situations -- finally came to the realization that he had to close the doors permanently on his son. He simply could not risk the lives of his wife and other family members any longer. Evidently there were very few services available for his son, and no way to coerce his son into accepting those services. (I guess "being committed to a mental hospital" just doesn't happen anymore).

[donto2000]

Reagan is no longer with us, so can we let him rest in peace and don't trample on his grave......and i sincerely doubt that he is responsible for the 60 homeless in Folsom....homeless is a very complex issue and need more indepth analysis and discussion but this thread is "homeless in Folsom" so can we create another thread something like "homeless: why? is it avoidable? and what can we do to have a homeless-free society??"....btw, what is your definition of "homeless" someone who can't afford a house/apt, do not want to live in a house, can't support and take care of himself and live by himself in a place??

[Steve Heard]

Sure, we can let Reagan rest in peace. The issue is homelessness, and to ignore the causes or compare the history of it, and how other cities deal with it is foolish. We must look at the root causes. Is it laziness? The economy? Destiny? Bad luck? Mental illness?

Those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it.

As for the definition; yes.