November 16, 2008

homeless health care

Filed under:, , — Chris @ 11:54 am

This is great news:

Homeless people across the city will have access to primary health care thanks to a nearly $1.2 million federal grant and the plans of one Nashville nonprofit to expand care.

United Neighborhood Health Services will use the money to provide medical, dental and behavioral health care to the city’s homeless in a network of walk-in clinics across the city. With the new funds, organization officials say, every homeless person in the city stands to receive free medical care if they want it.

They expect to serve more than 5,000 homeless people a year. The grant is renewable annually if all the service requirements are met.

July 28, 2008

hazel-eyed man opines

Filed under:, , , , , , — Chris @ 9:49 am

For the purposes of sparing my twitter followers that don’t care, relocating discussion here. So far:

cwage: ok this story is awesome: http://www.wsmv.com/news/17008504/detail.html
cwage: why was it important to the story that he was homeless, though.. sounds to me like his defining characteristics were “drunk” + “crazy”
pwnicholson: @cwage I agree the story probably emphasized his homelessness, but it is normal practice to say “John Smith of Antioch” so it fits to me.
cwage: @pwnicholson “John Smith of Antioch” is an identity. “homeless man” is not
pwnicholson: @cwage Their local headline section: #1 is “Clarksville man” #3 is “Homeless man”. Not saying there isn’t bias, just not sure this is it

I left a comment on the story as well. This is not a new argument — institutional bias in media coverage does exist. Witness the age-old argument of how often you see “A black youth” versus “A white youth”, etc. In a news story, ideally you’d identify characteristics that are either relevant to the story or serve as a general cue for the subject’s identity or tie in why it’s even being reported. “John Smith of Antioch” == an identity. “Clarksville man” == “oh, he was from Clarksville, which is near here. that’s why WSMV is reporting it”. “homeless man” is not an identity, nor was it relevant to the fact that he got drunk and stole a trolley. “Drunk man”, yes. “Crazy dude”, yes.

Anyways, wanted to spare the twitterers the discussion. Feel free to continue arguing below! Or not.

July 12, 2008

$2 panhandler portraiture

Filed under:, , , — Chris @ 2:39 pm

I’ve opined about homeless and street photography before, so I’ll merely pose this as a question:

Does focusing on panhandlers and paying them $2 for a picture make it better or worse?

I’ve got mixed feelings, but there’s something vaguely unsettling about it to me.

May 11, 2008

actual quotes

Filed under:, , , — Chris @ 12:47 pm

Today’s entry in the continuing adventures of the Great Nashville Homeless Hysterical Episode. All quotes are real. The names have been withheld to be nice:

Homeless man robs Dunn brothers at Knifepoint

According to what the owner told me, a black homeless man threatened his life in attempt to rob him. I walked in around 11:30 a.m. on Saturday morning and police had already handcuffed the man and put him in a police car. William met me there for coffee a few minutes later.

Just another reason not to live downtown for most Nashvillian’s and why Tony will never build his condo tower for the mega rich. A guy cannot even get a coffee anymore without a homeless thug committing a crime. I would love to read if the homeless guy defends the homeless on this one.

Not sure how he knew the guy was homeless. Maybe he was branded with a scarlet “H”.

Context to the next few. A couple that lives downtown was mugged last week. I have no doubt that this is a very scary thing to have happen to you, without a doubt, and I have nothing but sympathy. But .. anyways. Quotes:

I’m so sorry for what just happened to you, I hope you are ok. THESE GUYS WILL SOME DAY PAY FOR WHAT THEY DID!

This quote isn’t that bad or anything, I just thought it was funny. Okay, batman. Anyways, the real beaut:

There’s something else you could bring up if you have time, and if you agree with me. I think we ought to request that Public Works relocate some of the benches on Church Street to other parts of the downtown area…even as far as James Robertson. We’ve had the benches a few years now and all they do is encourage loitering and panhandling on Church Street. It looks bad for our city.

DOWN WITH BENCHES!! This will fix our panhandling problem for sure. Sigh.

March 12, 2008

chili cookoff

Filed under:, , , , — Chris @ 2:55 pm

Does anyone else find it a little ballsy that the URA, who has steadfastly opposed both the homeless in the Church Street Park, public food distribution to the homeless (by Food Not Bombs and others), and restaurants giving out food, is now holding in the Church Street Park, of all things … a chili cook-off?

I hope their permits are in order. That said, I make some damn good chili. I should enter it.

February 26, 2008

public safety forum

Public Safety ForumJust got back from an exhausting but enjoyable evening.. I went to the public safety forum at the library after work. Let me start by first saying that I’ve dumped a lot of vitriole about the attitudes about the homeless in Nashville that I’ve perceived — it’s something that I’m passionate about, and I am disgusted by a lot of what I see.

But I’ve lately tried to soften the rhetoric and be more engaging.. After all, these people are my neighbors (and you catch more bees with honey than vinegar, right?). Last week over at nashvillecharrette.com I discussed the Scene’s recent article Outlawing the Poor by Jeff Woods (who I have a feeling got some info/inspiration from recent blog posts I’ve made, but maybe that’s my egocentric imagination). As I wrote over there:

I like Skip and Ben and I don’t think they’re bad people. But I do agree with Woods’ editorial eye-rolling at the claims by both of them that they are pioneers because they’re living downtown. I mean, come on. If you wanna be a pioneer, move to lower antioch. That’d be impressive.

But, despite the fact that his article paints all of us with the same brush, I don’t disagree that the attitude he describes is pervasive. Yes, it’s anecdotal, but I’ve spent a lot of time at URA meetings, downtown partnership events. I’ve heard people scoffing at the idea that homeless people could be “allowed” to vote, propositions of “rounding them up” and shipping them to Memphis heard with a straight face, claims that “homeless people don’t have rights, homeowners do, and it’s time we start acting on them” (actual quote from a URA member), people from metro blaming the swallow/pigeon problem on homeless people (?!).. The list goes on. I’ve got lacerations from biting my tongue at these meetings. Before anything gets better, this attitude has to change.

So after this discussion, I have to say that this public forum was (mostly) encouraging. The forum was ostensibly to discuss “public safety”, but of course the only thing discussed (with a few exceptions) was homelessness, panhandling and affordable housing. A few people stood up to discuss other issues of public safety (which is also good), but were quickly drowned out. I don’t think people grasp how large this conversation/debate has grown, or how pervasive it is. So, it was still a lot of talk (and Nashville is really good about talking about solutions for our homeless problem), but it was at least an open dialogue. The few pictures I took do represent what happened all night — lots of different people getting a chance to speak their mind. And it’s hard to go wrong there.

Public Safety ForumThere were some definitely cringe-worthy moments.. a crazy guy heckling and yelling (apparently Charlie Strobel and the CHD could have “cured homelessness” years ago, but they like getting paid. yeah. what?). Then there was the jack-ass of the night who gave a long speech about how homeless people were all just looking for a handout. He even recommended that the homeless people all pull themselves up by their bootstraps. I’m not making this up. I didn’t think people actually said that anymore. There should be some sort of Godwin’s Law for that expression, or maybe it could at least be one phrase in a form of Republican Lingo Bingo or something. Fortunately this woman got up later and very politely and quickly rattled off some statistics about the percentage of working homeless, living wage gaps, etc. and recommended he hop on the Internet to read a little more. Nicely done. And, you know, I call him a jack-ass, but I found my reaction to his little rant to be surprisingly sad rather than angry. It’s sad and frustrating to see people that can still think this way. Hopefully he’s a minority.

And lastly, a guy in an NHPP t-shirt stood up and said he thought it was a sham that we were using codewords like “quality of life” and “public safety” to discuss what’s really a full-frontal class war. Cringe-worthy, yes, but, you know — he’s right. Sorta. But, his comment didn’t really add anything to the forum except to add to the already tense feeling of divisiveness, and worse, it sorta misses the larger fact that class wars are fought along lines of structural institutions, bureaucracy, and years of culture and prejudice. And they aren’t won by demonizing individuals.

Anyways, I digress. So, there were comical or tense moments, but by and large everyone was civil. And I was actually impressed by the bulk of the comments being well-reasoned and sympathetic to the homeless in Nashville. I was also surprised by how quiet the URA and downtown partnership contingent were throughout — I don’t know if that’s because they didn’t have anything to say or because they were listening or swayed, so maybe that’s a good thing. Overall I thought it was a positive experience. I don’t know what this task force is expected to do that the homelessness commission couldn’t be doing or why, but here’s hoping.

February 18, 2008

more homeless photography

Filed under:, , , — Chris @ 9:13 am

This is kinda funny.

February 6, 2008

homeless policy has ramifications

Filed under:, , , , — Chris @ 3:00 pm

From Nick:

Late January: The northwestern Atlanta suburb of Marietta decides to evict all the homeless.

Early February: Four homeless folks, three in northwest Atlanta, are found dead of exposure.

January 29, 2008

alcoholism

Filed under:, , , , , , — Chris @ 8:26 pm

It could be my imagination, but it seems like I’ve noticed a severe uptick lately in homeless alcoholics around town drinking mouthwash.. While the increase is merely anecdotal, it does make me wonder if more stores downtown are bowing to pressure and refusing individual beer sales on their own. Mouthwash, of course, is an unsavory but effective source of alcohol for alcoholics with no other recourse. I know that there’s been a lot of pressure from neighborhood groups in downtown and east Nashville to ban individual sales of alcoholic beverages. Ideally this effort would be founded in a desire to help homeless people struggling with a terrible addiction. In practice, I think it has more to do with the residents of downtown being annoyed at the individual cans and 40oz bottles found around town. Whatever the intent, the effort is misguided at best.

Here’s the thing about alcoholism: it’s an addiction. When someone battling this sort of addiction is unable to get a beer, they don’t shrug, think “oh well” and go home for a good night’s sleep, off on their merry way to being a more productive member of society. No, they move on to the next best thing. Mouthwash, rubbing alcohol, Sterno (so-called “canned heat”), Brut. You name it. We use alcohol for a lot of things, and these various forms of denatured alcohol appear in a multitude of readily available products. They are unsavory, unhealthy, and sometimes downright poisonous. But severe alcoholics can and do turn to these sources of alcohol, which are perfectly legal to sell.

The next thing that I think a lot of people fail to realize about alcoholism is that it’s a severe physiological addiction. The symptoms of withdrawal are more than a mere annoyance or challenge. Everyone has heard of “the shakes”, or Delerium Tremens. This is more than the nervous twitch of an addict looking for his next fix — it’s a severe physiological reaction involving disorientation, confusion, paranoia, seizures, and (in 35% of untreated cases) death. For severe alcoholics (a significant portion of which are homeless), getting alcohol in their system day by day can literally be a matter of life and death.

So, the answer to alcoholism among the homeless (which, I should note, is a sizeable but not dominating perentage) is not as simple as a cold-turkey, “pull yourself up from your boot-straps” type solution. It’s just not, sorry. More creative and rational approaches are necessary — such as this one in Ottawa. While I commiserate with the good intentions of wanting to institute a ban on individual alcoholic beverage sales, there’s a good case to be made that it could make things tremendously worse.

January 18, 2008

street photography and the homeless

Filed under:, , — Chris @ 7:11 pm

There’s some interesting discussion here that I find fascinating. It’s worth reading, if you can get over the self-importance of some of the posts. (As my friend Melissa put it, it’s like some of them are going to the zoo.) The debate centers on the ethics of photographing homeless people, in general. Standard ethics and most jurisdictions of law operate on the principle that basically photographing anyone in public is fair game. They have no expectation of privacy, yadda yada. The interesting argument in this thread is that for a homeless person, public spaces are their home — they have nowhere else to go. So is it still ethical to take their picture without asking permission?

Living downtown, naturally, I’ve been exposed to Nashville’s growing homeless problem — as any reader of my blog knows, since I practically never shut up about it. I’ve tried, with varying levels of success (read: not much) to find time to get involved — either merely arguing about it on the internet or trying to volunteer when I can. But one thing I’ve never really done much of is photography of homeless people. I’ve never felt quite right about it. But let me back up.

It all started even before I really got into photography too seriously, and I ran across someone that had some pictures of homeless people around Nashville on flickr. I wish I could find it, but there was one (very good!) portrait of a particular guy that I recognized. The comments on the flickr pic were hilarious. They were all like “I can see the pain in his eyes” or “that face probably has a million stories to tell!! stoic and full of pride!!” and all this other bullshit. This is hilarious, of course, because I recognized the guy. I was like “stoic and full of pride?? That’s the guy that spit at me cus I didn’t give him money last week.” I mean, not that I don’t have compassion for the guy, but the utter wankery in these comments just totally turned me off. It took me a long time to really put my finger on what it specifically was that bothered me about it. Over the last few years I’ve seen the work that goes into advocacy for homeless issues, and the work done by people that are actually out there working for change. So, when I increasingly run across people taking pictures of homeless people and effusively glowing about how they really “connected” with them, it strikes me as a little hypocritical. It’s easy to ask a homeless dude his name and take his picture with your fancy digital camera and go home to your warm bed feeling really good about yourself because you actually talked to a homeless person and then showing everyone your soulful portrait. It’s a lot harder to do something that actually effects change. There’s one guy in that thread:

Many times the homeless people I photograph have a little jar or cup in front of them. This may sound unethical itself, but usually combined with a few words some loose change will make them realize you are not against them. This is usually their main concern.

Yeah, you’re a real humanitarian, dude. Anyways, so skip forward to today, where I’ve been increasingly experimenting with different forms of photography.. trying to have fun and learn about them all. Recently I’ve been trying my hand at some street photography. Street photography is a wide umbrella, and I suppose it depends on what you want to do with it. I’m also intently following the turf war in Nashville between advocates for the homeless and the encroaching upper-class that wants them gone, basically. It angers me when I talk to people that talk about how homeless people “have no excuse” because there’s “ample help” available — while I’m seeing people sleeping on the street in the cold, and they all tell me the same thing: there’s nowhere to go. The rescue mission is full, and abysmally run to boot. But it’s one thing to argue about this on the Internet, and another to just .. take a picture of it. Maybe it’d be harder to argue with. I had my camera with me (surprise!) the night that I ran across the metro park rangers herding a group of homeless people sleeping at riverfront out of the park. When I asked one of the guys where they were told to go, he just shrugged. It’s a picture of this sort of thing going on that’s hard to argue with, and sometimes I think this is the sort of thing I want to capture. (As it happens, the few pictures I did try to take that night were woefully underexposed because I was trying to use a new camera mode at the time.)

So, anyways. I don’t really know where I was going with this. I am just thinking out loud. The homeless people are undeniably a part of the neighborhood I live in — I feel like it’s something I want to capture somehow, but I am not sure how, and I am not sure how I feel about the ethics involved. My friend Melissa’s take is that basically you should just ask someone’s permission to take their picture in general. No dilemma. I am mostly inclined to agree — I think it’s common courtesy. But there is a sortof aspect of photography that is about capturing a moment that is irreconcilable with actually asking for permission. This picture, for example, or this one. I had reservations even about posting these, but in these cases, I think it’s a little different. It’s not so much the person that is the subject of the photograph but their condition — the moment. And obviously asking for permission to take the picture is not compatible since you’d have to … wake them up.

Last night when I was out wandering around some dude on the corner stopped me.. “hey that’s a nice picture camera you got.. hey listen i don’t mean no harm etc etc but i just need a buck if you could help me out, you can do anything you want.. take my picture whatever.. just help me out”. It’s like.. when faced with that level of desperation, how can you feel like you’re really doing anything worthwhile? How do you take someone’s picture after that and not just feel totally dirty and exploitive? It’s an interesting dilemma, and something I find myself thinking about a lot.

Next Page »