December 09, 2003

• Incidentally, I think they said on the news that there would be 23 flat screen television sets. Just thought you'd like to know that.
• Unlike the Bellevue shelter, the Porter Avenue shelter will be operated not by the city but by an independent nonprofit contractor, the Doe Fund. As far as I'm concerned, "politicians and local businesses" can sit and swivel. This isn't taxpayer's money, and as far as I can tell they're doing a lot of good for the community. Saying that, can I have a TV?
• I guess flat panel televisions are a better way to spend money than, say, beds? Sheesh. And, Blaise, i am pretty sure that it *is* taxpayers money, $180 million worth. It is simply being run by the Doe Fund instead of by the city.
• Have you guys heard about the way Guliani cleaned up New York? He started by making New York not look like a place where one commits crimes. He put the smack down on things like graffiti and subway toll jumping. He literally cleaned it up. As things got nicer looking, people were less likely to commit small crimes and then less likely to commit bigger crimes. That's the theory anyway. So I think that creating a nice environment for the homeless is a good idea. If you accustom people to living in a nice place, they'll be more likely to stop thinking that they suck and will never get ahead. That being said, I think the extent that these people are going to is obscene. It's possible to create a nice environment without flatscreen tvs. I can think of ten better ways to spend the money you'd save by buying less expensive models just off the top of my head. A large precentage of homeless people have psychological problems and drug addictions. Pretty TVs aren't going to help that.
• FYI: 36 inch flat screen televisions are not that expensive. Flat Screen does NOT equal LCD or plasma. It simply refers to the screen being flat versus the standard non-flat. See here. Also, according to the article: "Private donors and corporate sponsors contributed to add amenities throughout the building, like nine new I.B.M. computers in a teaching room and an entryway mural that evokes the Depression-era Works Progress Administration." I would assume (yeah, I said it!) that the televisions fall under 'amenities', but I could be mistaken.
• And, Blaise, i am pretty sure that it *is* taxpayers money, $180 million worth. It is simply being run by the Doe Fund instead of by the city. Well... It ain't MY money. So, uh, nyah.
• "Social tourism" is another interesting concept... do poor/homeless folks deserve vacations?
• Well I'm all about computers and a teaching room. You need those kind of skills to earn a living wage these days.
• I think this sounds great. New York has all sorts of problems housing its homeless and is required by city law to have a bed available for anybody who requests one on the day they ask. There is still a long way to go, but I think it is great to offer people something more than a cot. As IgnorantSlut points out, these TVs are probably dontated, but even if they are not, I think they are important to have. It sounds like this building has been designed to make its residents feel respected. That is very important because shoving somebody into a dank room, or warehouse with 800 cots makes a person feel more like unwanted livestock than a valuable person. Of course it won't solve drug or psych problems, but thats not what this facility is designed for. Imagine the emotional boost you might get if after months or years in dingy places / streets you got to spend a few nights there. Waking up in a nice room, showering in a clean bathroom. This makes me very happy.
• I agree that having nice TVs and computers in the shelter sends a positive message, instead of: "you're homeless and we're helping you so you better be happy with a crappy bed and bare cement room". As Kimberly pointed out, being in a nicer environment often makes the people nicer as well. But would the $500 for a computer or TV been better spent on another bed or two? Hard to say. If these "luxury" items actually help get more homeless off the street and keep them off the street then it's all worth it.
• At least one of the new homeless shelters here in Calgary has extensive computer facilities, so people can take online courses, email loved ones, look for affordable housing... not a bad idea, and they're apparently quite well-used. I hope those corporate sponsors got naming rights on some of the facilities. 'Cos I would love to see an IBM Soup Kitchen...
• As Kimberly pointed out, being in a nicer environment often makes the people nicer as well. I suggest they paint the walls a pale lavender, and do their signage in charcoal gray and burgundy.
• I suggest they paint the walls a pale lavender, and do their signage in charcoal gray and burgundy. I said "nicer", not "Martha Stewarty".
• I said "nicer", not "Martha Stewarty". Good point. That might inspire insider trading.
• Good point. That might inspire insider trading. Haaaa!
• *ponders the thought of a Martha-Stewarty MoFi* I can imagine some people claiming this is "rewarding" people for being homeless. I think it's great - a sort of retreat for people who are literally treated like dirt. I'd hope that while they're getting these big companies to donate electronics, they're also getting the donated services of psychologists, doctors, financial aid advisors, whatever they might need to sort their lives out to a comfortable level. (Of course I can also imagine this as a sci-fi/horror scenario where faceless homeless people are lured in to become food for aliens disguised as flat-screen TVs.)
• "The flat-screen TVs are people! The flat-screen TVs are people!"
• I find these homeless posts hysterical. My diary was linked in the comments to the infamous Metafilter post about the Homeless Guy. Since I know about this subject from a personal experience, I see nothing wrong with the Doe Fund from what I read from the article. I would have to read more about it to have a better opinion one way or another. I thought the best idea they had was the magnetic identification tags. The reason being that in Tampa the Manna House is a den for drugs. So getting rid of some of the bad traffic is a good idea. From what I heard, New York City homeless shelters can be very dangerous. The computers are a good idea. Most homeless people are clueless about the internet. I had one ask me: "What is e-mail." I don't don't think there is a lack of beds. The state will be spending (unless there are budget cuts) "$180 million over the next 22 years." Tampa doesn't want to spend any tax money on homelessness.
• I have minimal problem with any of this, in that media exposure and access is an important part of modern life, and if we expect the homeless to reintegrate back into 'normality,' one of the important methods for doing so is providing them access to media, albeit I would posit two caveats: one, in light of the fact that a great many of the homeless are untreated mentally ill, it could be that such sophisticated (read: delicate) electronics might not last too long. I'd hate to have to replace those big-screens every two weeks, because one of the army of untreated schizophrenics that make up a significant portion of the homeless population decides to damage or destroy the television. Second, a substantial fraction of tax-payers (if this is tax-funded) or moderate-means philanthropists (if this is charity funded) might feel that these items are extravagant, especially if they themselves don't own them (Example: I'm a solidly middle-class middle-American burgher, and I don't have a flat screen TV). That might in turn prompt otherwise giving individuals to stop giving, on the assumption that their gifts are being badly spent.
• What I find alarming is the innate contradiction in providing them comfortable living quarters, yet training them for jobs which would barely allow them to afford rent, much less a flat screen tv. Acknowledging the humanity of people rebuilding their lives by providing them amenities is a good thing. So how come they're not following through with more of a commitment to education, instead of rushing them into minimum wage jobs?
• Dr. Z - you have to start somewhere. I would imagine many homeless have little or no jobs skills, or have skills that are quite out of date. It's a ladder. With some encouragement they'll climb it and go on from there.
• I hope you're right, IgS, but I'm not so sure. I worry that in a rush to get homeless people employed, they're being shoved into miserable jobs that have no possibility for advancement and pay barely enough to break even, much less afford them opportunities for further education. Some research on the effectiveness of welfare to work programs seems to support the theory that the most effective programs provide a good mix of training and job search resources, and not just rushing people into the first job that comes along.
• I can also imagine this as a sci-fi/horror scenario where faceless homeless people are lured in to become food for aliens disguised as flat-screen TVs. Our Monkeybashi is our Monkeybashi, but she occasionally has disturbing thoughts, doesn't she? I tend to agree with Fes' comments. We're don't need to stay beholden to 1930s images of what a shelter "should" look like. Especially in the States, with bankruptcy on the rise and a greater portion of the population with less job security and less savings, homeless people could so easily be...you. So why not have a facility that is utilitarian in a 21st century way? At the same time, people need to know that their money is being spent wisely (though the recent flaps about the Red Cross Katrina spending show that people won't stop and think of how much things really do cost).
• They can't hear you, you know. They are only illusions birthed from memory. Dally not overlong with the ghosts of the 'filter, it will drive you to madness.