This survey seems to contain two assumptions that we find both biased and offensive. First, the questions imply that people who are homeless or panhandling are the “problem.” In reality, homelessness and poverty are the problem, and the problem will remain, no matter where we force the poor and homeless to flee. In fact, in some respects, we are the problem, because we, as a community, have done too little to truly solve the social, economic and health issues that are the foundation of homelessness and poverty.
The second implied assumption is that any decent citizen who is fortunate enough to be housed and employed would of course call on the police if approached by a homeless person or a panhandler. While the survey asks whether the police were able to “resolve the problem” and later asks whether police behavior was “positive” or “negative,” the operative terms remain undefined. Is it “positive” for the police to make sure someone sleeping in a park is warm enough and then leave the person alone? Or, is it “positive” to rouse the person physically and to then make sure that they never come back to the neighborhood? The results from this survey cannot discern the difference between the two, and, without knowing the difference, the City and the Community Policing Program cannot know what we, the public, want.
Most importantly, contacting the police is ultimately ineffectual–they cannot solve the underlying issue of homelessness. We have to do that. We do not want homeless people, panhandlers, and prostitutes to disappear from our neighborhood only to move elsewhere. We want the issue of homelessness solved. We want for everyone who desires a home, decent food, a job and healthcare to have these things.
We believe that the survey was well-intended, but it is a symptom of our communal blindness, nonetheless. If we blithely check boxes and think the “problem” is solved simply because we don’t have to deal with it, we are ethical failures. The measure of any community is how it takes care of its poor, sick and powerless. It is great to see the city working with homeless advocate groups. Let’s hope that together we can treat the disease and not just the symptoms.
Vanishing Vistas
Today, when approaching the Jefferson crossing, a seven-story high-rise monstrosity, in the process of being built at the very corner of Jefferson and I-25, hits the hapless driver like a brick on the head. Someone told me it was going to be another Holiday Inn.
Do we have any active city planning, any architectural or building permit committees or any aesthetic experts in our city administration? Are they awake? With their eyes wide open? Go drive by Jefferson on your way north on I-25 and take a look. This might well be just the first of more high-rise buildings to our right, soon totally obstructing the mountain views. Also watch the magnificent roadside publicity placards further north on your way, to your right. Such beauty, such good taste!
Integrity On The Air Waves
Greg's description of the difference between BBC and American news sources is right on target. I have listened to the BBC World Service for many years, exclusively on short wave radio until last year, when I found that I can get BBC news programs from a Santa Fe public radio station. BBC interviewers ask follow-up questions that you hardly ever hear in U.S. media, and the news is far more comprehensive and less servile to U.S. leadership. As I write this letter, a segment is being aired about abuse at Guantanamo that you would never hear from an American source.
The problem is that the Santa Fe station can only be received on a very good radio near a northern window. Over the last few years I have implored KUNM more than once to carry BBC, but sadly they haven't given us that opportunity. It's a loss to the community.
Piss ’N' Balsamic Vinegar
Letters
Letters should be sent with the writer's name, address and daytime phone number via e-mail to letters@alibi.com. They can also be faxed to (505) 256-9651. Letters may be edited for length and clarity, and may be published in any medium; we regret that owing to the volume of correspondence we cannot reply to every letter.
