Public vs. Public Access
For my public policy analysis class, I have been working on a mock Cabinet Submission on the access of homeless people to public spaces, and their rights when in these spaces, most specifically, do they have a right to sleep in public places? My answer so far has been yes, withing limitations, if we don't have enough shelters for these people, than where else are they supposed to go?
Anyways, this has gotten me thinking about broader questions about how we, the public, view our spaces. It is my belief that we increasingly have turned public spaces into public access spaces via user fees, limitations, regulations and probably (well, in my mind) most profoundly by the increasing adoption of CPTED (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design) initiatives that are being adopted nation-wide by various police agencies. This has led me to question how these initiatives have shaped how we view public spaces because the main idea behind CPTED regarding public spots such as parks is to make it easily for surveillance and clearly defined for 'legitimate' users as opposed to 'illegitimate' users. This has made parks boards including measures such as benches that have handles through the seats so that people cannot sleep on them. This has led me to think that 'illegitimate' users are specifically the homeless, which of course, makes sense from a police perspective.
My final question is when did we give the police the right to decide who is legitimate and who is illegitimate when it comes to public spaces? Isn't that the right of the government who administers such spaces? Don't get me wrong, I believe that regulation is needed to preserve such spaces and for public safety, but if we continue to redefine public spaces as only open to legitimate users as defined by the police, they are no longer public, but rather public access. Further, if we continue to push illegitimate users such as the street person that can't get a bed at the local shelter away from places such as parks, then where are they going to go? this is only serving to further ghettoize the people that are left on the margins.
Anyways, this has gotten me thinking about broader questions about how we, the public, view our spaces. It is my belief that we increasingly have turned public spaces into public access spaces via user fees, limitations, regulations and probably (well, in my mind) most profoundly by the increasing adoption of CPTED (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design) initiatives that are being adopted nation-wide by various police agencies. This has led me to question how these initiatives have shaped how we view public spaces because the main idea behind CPTED regarding public spots such as parks is to make it easily for surveillance and clearly defined for 'legitimate' users as opposed to 'illegitimate' users. This has made parks boards including measures such as benches that have handles through the seats so that people cannot sleep on them. This has led me to think that 'illegitimate' users are specifically the homeless, which of course, makes sense from a police perspective.
My final question is when did we give the police the right to decide who is legitimate and who is illegitimate when it comes to public spaces? Isn't that the right of the government who administers such spaces? Don't get me wrong, I believe that regulation is needed to preserve such spaces and for public safety, but if we continue to redefine public spaces as only open to legitimate users as defined by the police, they are no longer public, but rather public access. Further, if we continue to push illegitimate users such as the street person that can't get a bed at the local shelter away from places such as parks, then where are they going to go? this is only serving to further ghettoize the people that are left on the margins.
posted by Sylvia | 1:27 PM
4 Comments:
I can't pretend to be an authority on this subject or anything related, but don't most shelters have rules about number of nights stayed, drug use, and general conduct? This leads me to wonder if there isn't a segment of the homeless population that has been unable or unwilling to live with these expectations, and thus all the shelters in the world would still not eradicate homelessness.
If we assume that every homeless person would enter and be successful in a shelter if only presented with the opportunity, then we could logically conclude that our money would be better spent on shelters than on CPTED. However, I would submit that the real question becomes, what can be done with those who are unwilling or unable to live in shelters? Now we are faced with all sorts of questions, depending on one's reasons for refusing shelter. There is potential for willful refusal to participate in status quo society, for mental illness (or perceived mental illness), and a host of other problems.
To what extent do we, as the majority in society, made up of people who pay money for shelter regularly and indefinitely, have the right to control spaces within our political boundaries? Presumably someone without fixed address is paying minimal taxes, and is therefore not a part of paying for the maintenance of said park bench, so now the question is, how must the majority, represented by government and law enforcement, respond to those who apparently expect some level of support from the society to which they are apparently not contributing?
I say we let them sleep on the park bench, and buy them a cup of coffee in the morning.
Sylvia said...
Ah heather, you provide me with such food-for-thought in your lengthy replies to my serious blogs.
So, to answer, I will comment here. I hope you all don't mind. if you are curious as to what the heck I am talking about, then look at my blog.
Anyways, on to the topic at hand. Heather your comments were well taken. there are restrictions as to how many nights and admittance to various shelters based on mental illness, perceived mental illness or addictions of various sorts. Anyways, you are correct, there are people that decide to not go into shelters, and maybe thats a criticism of the shelter? or the person is just picky? i can't say i know for sure because i have not been in that situation. However, numbers have shown that the amount of people that are homeless now compared to those in 2002 is substantially greater. Also, in 2002, the amount of shelter users far outnumbered the amount sleeping on the streets. By september of last year, that trend had reversed. So, while our shelter system and systems for getting people out of the street life, or preventing them from even entering it need to be evaluated, something has to be done about people sleeping in public and their right to sleep. I agree with you. let them sleep on the bench. but the public, city councils, and the police are no longer agreeing with that, and they are increasingly not having tolerance for it. so, CPTED and arrests seem to be the way they are going. i personally think safe sleep zones where they public would be satisfied, and the homeless could still get a decent sleep seems like a reasonable short term answer to the increase in numbers. for the long term, well, thats really complicated, and really i haven't researched that enough to make an educated comment. my guess would be that housing and more specific social programming (maybe doing something about those people from Riverview that we 'released'?) could be an answer. but maybe i'm wrong.
alright. time for bed.
Good night!!! Sleep well. (We all need it! even the homeless...makes you think doesn't it?)
Yes, I certainly wrote that post with those Riverview 'released' people in mind. We as a society have committed to provide care to those who lack ability to function normally on their own, and living in the downtown eastside cannot be considered normal. Our intentions in 'releasing' them may have been lofty, but I think we have done them wrong.
Interesting questions about shelters. It's funny to me how most of me wants so desperately to show every kind of mercy and compassion to these people, but there is still a strong part of me that feels adament that we must try to differentiate between the legitimately down trodden and the free-loaders who might seek to take advantage of our mercy. I am certain there is some selfish motivation in this comment, but I also think that as long as we continue to live within the political social and economical construct we have, we need to work to keep it from collapsing into anarchy of any sort. (suddenly I had this image of homeless people rioting on West Hastings - not exactly what I was implying, but a funny image)
I think it's probably healthy within our society, to hold a healthy tension between making room for homelessness, and implementing measures that say "hey, actually, we'd like it if you did your best to become a more involved member of our society".
I am reminded of a line I read in a call to worship this weekend, saying "Does God love us just the way we are, or does he love us too much to leave us as we are?" We don't have the ability to rehabilitate everyone out there, but I certainly think it is our collective responsibility to try, not only for the sake of not being overrun by homeless people and their stuff in the streets, but because no one should have to live as a slave to the drug use, anger, or whatever other reasons would cause a person to exist in such conditions.
So really, CPTED everything you want. There will always be homeless, and we will never be quite able to offer help and hope to everyone. We need redemption with a capital 'R' for that.
It is true. there is no way we can help everyone out there all the time. But, agreeing with you. we should make the effort. You are right about the freeloaders, but i just cant come up with a way to differentiate. Also, i can't really think of someone that is a street homeless on the Downtown eastside as a free loader, if so, this person is a free loader in a really bad free loading situation.
Something i didn't get into in this submission too much is the problems with getting a criminal record, and the reprecussions that has, but that also contributes so much to the situation and comes directly from police initiating 'get tough' type of programs.
Aay, what a mess!
Post a Comment
<< Home