Passenger Trains > homeless and graffiti

Homeless people seem have migrated from the eastern stations, probably naturally, to California, and provided a great bother to my wife and me in the last few weeks.

So I want to add to the graffiti discussion on the freight threads and say both these problems must be a security issue and should be addressed.

I realize there is no money available, but it is question of priorities and I would think some local police departments, railroad police, border patrol, or drug police would spend a little time on these problems instead of the seemingly stupid low yield things they are doing (border sweeps on the train at Havre?) (drug sweeps at KC?.

Homeless people inhabited the station at Jack London Square, moving into the phone cubicles, seats, and toilets. The nice UP policeman questioned my wife and I if we were Amtrak ticketholders, but ignored these guys. Homeless people set up shop at the Antioch station, sleeping in the only sheltered area out of the rain and wind for us to wait, and only feet from the track which I assume freights also use.

I realize these people need help, and there seems to be a little awakening to the problem, per recent news in Los Angeles, but if New York can deal with it, how about the rest of the country.
traveling but not homeless--David in Ohio

Well good thing is I have never seen a Homeless person graffity a train or other item.
If you want change in policies try it at voter booth next ellection or there will be lots more homeless in future.

Jaap Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well good thing is I have never seen a Homeless
> person graffity a train or other item.
> If you want change in policies try it at voter
> booth next ellection or there will be lots more
> homeless in future.


And Lord knows there were NO homeless people under a Democratic administration...Please. Now, let me respond from a law enforcement standpoint. I have spent years dealing with homeless people in a major city. I agree that they are an annoyance, but they can also tie up a police officer for hours. Many have mental or substance abuse problems. If they refuse to move or keep coming back, you can arrest them. Unfortunately, it will take the police officer hours to process them (hours that he/she is off the street), then you have to show up the next morning in court (now the taxpayer is paying for overtime), then you sit around and wait for the case to be called. The vast majority of cases I went to court with were immediately dismissed by the judge because they were not a serious enough offense to warrant jail time, and your not going to be able to fine them, so what do you do? You can't force someone to go to a shelter and many shelters are more dangerous to the homeless person than the streets. I've dealt with this problem first hand and its a catch-22. Oh, lets not forget the time you will spend trying to get that stench out of your patrol car when you transport them. Or the overtime spent getting Hepatitis vaccinations. How about the joy of going home and finding out you caught lice from them? Trust me, its not fun. If I were the politician holding the checkbook, I would hire an army of social workers that were properly equipped (medical protection equipment) to deal with the issue. Even with that solution, it seems the minute you move one, two more show up. I don't have the answers, but I do know that it has nothing to do with who is in the White House. A lot of these people are folks that have fallen through the cracks of society. Because of mental or substance abuse problems, they would be on the streets regardless of the unemployment rate. Some are genuinely down on their luck. I've always tried to help them out, especially if they have children with them. They also were more willing to seek help for their families and are trying to better their situation.

Thank you for a thoughtful and insightful post, RF and PF Fan.

Mr RF&P I did not say one word about either party, I did not blame republicans I just said todays policies will create more homelesss due to greed of ALL politicians who rather sell out this country than make changes for the better.

I agree with RFandPFan's post about the problems with homeless people and his sensitive way of handling them but, In the case mentioned above "regular folks" were questioned about their business in a semi-public facility while people that make that facility less desirable for the paying public weren't worth the trouble.

It seems the cop's want to pick the easy targets instead of doing the "work" needed to clean up the area. I guess that is why people need bosses, to make them do their job. Is law enforcement about making the streets safe or is it about raising money from people who have some and not wasting it on people that will cost money?

When I was in the Amtrak Jack London Square Station (Oakland), they permitted only a few homeless for short periods, and then moved them on.

I hope they are keeping up that policy.

Jaap Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr RF&P I did not say one word about either party,
> I did not blame republicans I just said todays
> policies will create more homelesss due to greed
> of ALL politicians who rather sell out this
> country than make changes for the better.


I agree with you there. Now if we could make a bunch of politician homeless...that might help!

OliveHeights Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree with RFandPFan's post about the problems
> with homeless people and his sensitive way of
> handling them but, In the case mentioned above
> "regular folks" were questioned about their
> business in a semi-public facility while people
> that make that facility less desirable for the
> paying public weren't worth the trouble.
>
> It seems the cop's want to pick the easy targets
> instead of doing the "work" needed to clean up the
> area. I guess that is why people need bosses, to
> make them do their job. Is law enforcement about
> making the streets safe or is it about raising
> money from people who have some and not wasting it
> on people that will cost money?

I see your point about talking to regular people. I guess my point is that most officers probably feel like they are wasting their time trying to deal with homeless people. Its more a societal problem than a law enforcement issue. Not sure the solution here. One person mentioned that at least they are not spray painting graffitti...I would only point out that many of the homeless people defecate and urinate all over buildings. Some are downright disgusting and cause the building owners a lot of money in clean-up costs.

> I agree with you there. Now if we could make a
> bunch of politician homeless...that might help!

Nope, politicians are pretty much in sync with the hopelessly selfish people they represent.

TB

Amtrak had some success in the late 1990s in concert with the NYC Coalition for the Homeless in inspiring homeless to move out of NY Penn Station and contiguous tunnels, stairways, vents and abandoned subterranean space into Coalition-provided apartments. Don't know what the situation is currently. A few "homeless," however, would prefer to live like they prefer to live. I once stood behind a ragged, reeking homeless guy in a bank line who hung out, panhandled and slept around Washington Union Station. He was checking his bank balance. I overheard the amount, $60K+ in his account. He was homeless and unwashed by choice. We used to warehouse people who marched to different drummers in mental institutions which wasn't any way to treat a fellow human but fortunately that's illegal now.
But there's a choice, you could ride the Virgin Galactic commercial space shuttle and get away from it all.

Thanks RFandPFan for your thoughtful reply to the original posting.

This may be a bit off our normal railroad topics but here goers:

Unfortunately, a police response not the quickest or most effective response to the homelessness issue. Having said that our original poster has a valid point that the quality of all our lives is adversely affected when our public areas become sleeping and latrine facilities.

The problem of homelessness is more intractable then it might appear because the hard core long-term homeless population is much smaller than most people think. Most of the homeless are in that state for a very short period of time. The realities of shelter life or life on the streets is a strong stimulus to do anything to get back into stable environment.

Malcolm Gladwell has written an excellent article on several situations like this that are not the typical "bell shape" curve but a "power" curve. the power curve is one where a small number of individuals represent the majority of the sustained problem. Our typical solutions to societal problems like automobile pollution or homelessness are based on a broad systemic response that assumes that the bulk of the problem is represented by the bulk of the individuals - the classic "bell shaped " curve. However, these power curve situations call out for different and more focused public responses.

The articles is on-line at:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060213fa_fact

No easy or cheep answer...not republican answer nor a democrat answer...Also, don't overlook the MH individuals who were thrown out of the institutions when supreme court said they must be released as they were not dangerous to themselves or others...US prison system shows high percentage of prisoners have mental health issues that probably should not be in the prisons but in MH institutions...Many of those individuals are your homeless also.

It is really a difficult problem--thanks for some of the knowledgeable comments--actually I will be making the rounds of my congresspeople tomorrow IF the Capitol Limited arrives in Washington DC before 3 pm, for my connection to Florida, to visit my dad . . . .

My observation, at Los Angeles and Portland OR is that what seems to work best for train stations in big towns, is private security guards with rather strong arms, probably hired by the building owners---I would think in smaller towns the police would have a few minutes to drive by the train stations use some gentle persuasions, maybe more available to small town police . . . .I agree the only permanent answer is the army of social workers . . . .but is not a person living in a train tunnel, like the approach to Penn Station in New York, a security problem?

Nobody said anything to these homeless guys in OKJ while we waited about three hours for the late Coast Starlight--which worked out great for snow seeing in Shasta!

> My observation, at Los Angeles and Portland OR is
> that what seems to work best for train stations in
> big towns, is private security guards with rather
> strong arms, probably hired by the building
> owners---I would think in smaller towns the police
> would have a few minutes to drive by the train
> stations use some gentle persuasions, maybe more
> available to small town police . . . .I agree the
> only permanent answer is the army of social
> workers . . . .but is not a person living in a
> train tunnel, like the approach to Penn Station in
> New York, a security problem?

Private property makes dealing with homeless a lot easier from a legal stance as well. A property owner or their agent can easily identify persons without proper business on their property, and can force anyone to leave. If they don't leave, the local police can usually coerce that person to leave without actually citing/booking/etc. That is easier to deal with. On public property (parks, libraries, etc., even just unused public land) a person is not required to have a reason for loitering and enjoying public facilities.

It cuts both ways. Many railroads are being far more restrictive on railfans in the same manner - but you can take all the photos you want from a public road.


Crashela

RFandPFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jaap Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> but they can also tie up a police officer for
> hours. Many have mental or substance abuse
> problems.

Although not a "new" problem either, the number of homeless with mental illnesses grew dramatically when Regan emptied the mental wards onto the streets in a "cost saving" move. That was 20 years ago and cities have still not recovered. Drug treatment has also been cut back with the obvious result. Short term cost savings usually results in long term problems much more difficult and expensive to fix, if fixable at all.

WP

tburzio Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > I agree with you there. Now if we could make a
> > bunch of politician homeless...that might help!
>
> Nope, politicians are pretty much in sync with the
> hopelessly selfish people they represent.
>
> TB

The irony of this thread is that it is far cheaper to help these people work their way out of this situation than it is to ignore the problem. In the last couple of years there have been several studies that have shown this.

Crashela Wrote:

> Private property makes dealing with homeless a lot
> easier from a legal stance as well. A property
> owner or their agent can easily identify persons
> without proper business on their property, and can
> force anyone to leave. If they don't leave, the
> local police can usually coerce that person to
> leave without actually citing/booking/etc.

Not so in California. Homeless people were sleeping and otherwise causing problems at the Santa Ana city hall and were rushed off several times. A homeless advocacy group sued the city and the appeals court sided with the group awarding each individual named in the lawsuit several thousand dollars of the city's money. The ruling was as long as homeless individuals do not block or abuse patrons of the property, they are allowed to stay. This went all the way to the Supreme court I believe and they ruled the same way.

Now I know some people reading this will say that the Santa Ana city hall was public property not private but because of this ruling most DA's are reluctant to prosecute for a homeless person trespassing (or anyone else trespassing for that matter) and police officers are under pressure not to bother with the homeless unless they are causing a disturbance (or if it's cold).

'Care not Cash' is a surprisingly un-liberal approach that was only [reluctantly] accepted by San Francisco voters because it was introduced by their 'progressive' mayor.

It seems to be working. http://www.sfgov.org/site/dhs_index.asp?id=13701

The numbers are at http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/dhs/CareNotCashMonthlyStatisticalReportDecember05.pdf

ProRail Wrote:
> The irony of this thread is that it is far cheaper
> to help these people work their way out of this
> situation than it is to ignore the problem. In
> the last couple of years there have been several
> studies that have shown this.

And going back even farther, to Victorian England, we had Debtor's Prisons, workhouses and other 19th century social institutions that dealt with these members of society. Stealing a loaf of bread in old London might earn you passage on a convict hulk to Australia...interesting how that place has turned into a jovial, bouncy, beer-appreciating society from its convict beginnings. Years ago a book called The Fatal Shore covered the subject in detail.
But I am agreeing with ProRail that these people should be shown ways to work their way out, instead of just throwing money at these problems and looking the other way like the cops at Jack London Square did, as milkcow describes in the first post.