A Politically Incorrect Observation
You'll have to forgive me for not writing about EMS today. Or for writing about EMS only in a peripheral way. I don't return to work until next week, and so I don't have any new incidents to discuss.
Yesterday, though, as I leafed through the Boston Globe for the first time in five months, I saw a column that reminded me of work, even though it had little to do with health care or EMS. Written by Yvonne Abraham, and entitled "Squeezing the Homeless," it demonized a group of citizens who live on Upton Street, in Boston's South End, for objecting to a plan by a local homeless shelter to establish transitional housing in their neighborhood.
Ms. Abraham is entitled to her opinion, of course. And to be honest, it doesn't sound as if the plan will do very much harm. It calls for thirty-seven people--most of them older, some of whom hold jobs--to move into an apartment building under the supervision of the sponsoring shelter, The Pine Street Inn.
Ms. Abraham doesn't just make a case for the plan, however; throughout her column she belittles the neighborhood residents for objecting to it. She portrays them as paranoid hypocrites who "bristled at the suggestion that they don't like the homeless, when they really do like them, a lot."
I don't have a dog in this fight, as the saying goes. (Or, perhaps, in light of Michael Vick's misfortunes and the spirit of political correctness, I should say that "I don't have a horse in this race.") It make no difference to me whether the apartment building on Upton Street is turned over to the Pine Street homeless or not. I don't live anywhere near that street, and if I respond to a 911 call there, it won't make any difference to me whether the patient previously lived in a homeless shelter or not.
I can't say that I blame the residents of Upton Street, though, for objecting to the plan. Upton Street--and, indeed, the entire South End--has undergone tremendous gentrification during the past two decades. When I first responded to calls there, hookers stood beneath the elevated Orange Line and drunks slumbered in many of the doorways. Half of the buildings were either abandoned or falling down. The South End was, more or less, a ghetto.
Recently, though, it has become one of the more desirable locations in the city. Renovated brownstones routinely sell for two or three million dollars. It's not a bad place to live, if you can afford it.
It doesn't sound to me as if the plan proposed by the Pine Street Inn will have much of a negative impact on Upton Street. But then again, I'm not the one who lives there. I'm not the one who laid out millions of dollars for a condo on that street. Yvonne Abraham pokes fun at the Union Park Neighborhood Association because it is worried about the effect of homeless people on their property values. If I'd invested all of my money on a home in that area, then to be honest, I think I'd worry about property values, too.
What really bothered me about Ms. Abraham's column, though, was an attack she leveled on the current president of the UPNA, a guy named Jerry Frank. Now, let me be clear about something: I don't even know Jerry Frank. I don't know whether he's a good guy or a jerk. I couldn't care less who heads the Union Park Neighborhood Association.
In Ms. Abraham's eyes, Jerry Frank is a bad man because he once called the Pine Street Inn a "very, very nasty place." She seems to suggest that the wealthy and homeless would be living side-by-side in perfect harmony right now, if only an anti-homeless man like Jerry Frank hadn't been elected to the board of the UPNA.
And so I can't help wondering--has Yvonne Abraham ever been inside the Pine Street Inn? Even once?
Because the truth is--whether you're a homeless advocate or a homeless hater--the Pine Street Inn is a very, very nasty place. The whole facility stinks of urine and body odor. The belongings of the residents are filthy. In fact, most of the residents are filthy.
Night is the worst time. The snoring of 400 people in varying degrees of health makes an incredible racket. Arguments break out. Residents sneak into the rest rooms to shoot up heroin. Others get drunk. They steal from one another. Violence is not unusual.
The staff is extremely dedicated. I give them a world of credit, because they try extremely hard to set rules that will give the homeless a decent place to sleep. But it's an uphill battle. Residents sneak needles and syringes into the shelter. And bottles of booze. And occasionally knives.
In fact, the Pine Street Inn is so dangerous that many of the city's homeless people refuse to go there. More times than I can recall, after being called to check on the welfare of a homeless man on a sidewalk, I've been told, "I don't want to go to the Pine, or any other shelter. Those places are too dangerous. Whenever I sleep there, somebody steals my stuff."
So, like I said in the beginning, Yvonne Abraham is entitled to her opinion about the wisdom of establishing a transitional house for the homeless on Upton Street.
But, please, Ms. Abraham, don't try to tell us that Mr. Frank is wrong for calling the Pine Street a "nasty place."
Truth is, it's one of the nastiest places in all of Boston.
posted by TS @ 9:32 AM
12 Comments:
First off wow has your voice been missed! As a writer and a medic it is good to have you back.
My sister spent some time in the transitional housing program at Pine Street when she was briefly sober. Some good people in the program: really trying to manage their sobriety, mental health etc.
In my experience with staff and residents at the transitional program it does focus on a different segment of the clients than those you have dealt with in their main shelter more capable of structured living and again, sobriety and compliance with their meds. Sadly, your assessment about the main facility is dead on.
Again welcome, back TS.
Thanks, Kara.
I expected some people to misinterpret this post as an attack on the Pine Street Inn, or on homeless people in general, when it was not meant to be anything of the sort. I'm glad you read it for what it was. Thanks for the insight.
Not having been in the Pine Street Inn, or having worked as a homeless advocate, I recall reading an article in the Boston Phoenix a number of years ago that pointed out much of what ts is referring to, but in more subtle ways. Many of the homeless are afraid to go into places such as the Pine Street Inn, because there are a good many criminal elements in that shelter. A favorite saying among some people who'd been in Pine Street Inn and experienced being victimized in some way or other first hand was "Watch your back, or you might get a knife in it.".
All true, but you're still missing the point. Being "politically correct" is not the issue.
The issue is about letting people with jobs move next door to the people who could afford the pricey condos. The issue isn't whether or not the Pine Street Inn is a nasty place. You're not getting any arguments there.
The issue is that some misguided people buying these fancy homes think they can make the city homeless go away. Where the hell else are the homeless going to go? And these are the people with jobs who aren't doing anything wrong or sticking knives in anyone's back.
It's understandable why homeless people wouldn't want to go to the Pine Street Inn, but a lot of people still need the Pine Street Inn's services. And if the Upton Street snots don't like it, then they should move to Wellesley.
I agree with you partially, Waldorf. But I have to disagree with you partially, too.
You're right that the homeless people in question are unlikely to cause much of a problem. I acknowledged that in my post. So perhaps it's uncharitable of the Upton Street residents to turn their backs on them without giving them a chance.
But why should the condo owners be the ones to move, as you suggest? Didn't they live in the neighborhood first? Sure, it would be nice of them to welcome the homeless to their neighborhood. But it seems to me that they have a right to their opinions, just as the homeless advocates have a right to theirs.
All of that is beside the point, however, at least with respect to my post. What I really objected to was the Globe columnist's portrayal of the Pine Street Inn as a nice place. Despite the efforts of the staff at there, that's simply not true.
The main shelter is indeed nasty, and dangerous. TB, hepatitis, flus. Really, the only reason to go there is to avoid death from exposure.
Which is all the more reason not to go NIMBY on a program for people who are getting it together so they don't wind up going to the main shelter.
Pine Street Inn...agreed, nasty! Homeless and drunks sleeping on the door of your million $ condo...nasty! Finding a solution to the problem...priceless! While we're at it, what about all the resources involved in EMS collecting these souls, putting them in full ED's, and not having room for other sick people? I admit, I have the question, but not the answer! Comments, TS? Did I say welcome back??? :-)
To the two ANONYMOUSES:
I don't disagree with either of you.
Please not that I have never objected to the Pine Street Inn's plan. You're absolutely correct that the transitional housing proposed for Upton Street is a good way to reduce the population in the city's homeless shelters.
My only real complaint is that the Globe writer twisted the facts, suggesting that the Pine Street Inn is "not nasty" in order to make her argument. Since the opposite is true, that tactic strikes me as somewhat dishonest.
A reporter at the Globe dishonest? Dog bites man. Aside from the fact that the PSI is truly a nasty place, I also think that the Upton Street residents have reason to be concerned, if not to outright oppose the plan.
Homelessness brings with it a whole slew of other problems. A large percent of homeless people have drug problems, mental illness, criminal records, or some combination of the three. If PSI is doing a thorough job of vetting the candidates for this transitional housing, that's fine. If they are not, then they are indeed putting the Upton Street residents at some risk of increased crime and decreased property values.
I wonder how the reporter or commenter Waldorf75 would react if PSI proposed transitional housing in their neighborhoods?
Part of the reason that there is such a high incidence of mental illness, in addition to drug & alcohol problems among the homeless is due to the poorly-thought-out de-institutionalization problem which began, in earnest, in the late 1960's. While it's agreed that sticking the mentally ill, drug-addicted and alcoholics in human warehouses, dumping such people out into the streets with no follow-up care has proven disastrous. This, unfortunately, is what the de-institutionalization program amounted to. Hundreds, if not thousands of mentally ill people were removed from state hospitals and turned out into the streets with no follow-up care or other programs to go to, and also faced rejection by friends, family and relatives who didn't want them, either. This, I believe, definitely contributed considerably to the increase in homelessness here in Boston and the United States at large.
From the sounds of it, the PSI proposed for this area is supposed to be a transitional house to get people on their feet and on the way to renting / home ownership themselves. It’s not going to be just any old overnight like the main PSI. I don’t know how well PSI runs it operations, or how well, if at all, they’ve succeeded with plans like this in the past, but the type of people they say they’ll be admitting to the South End wouldn’t be your typical overnighters. They’d be the people most likely to move; not some homeless man who could care less where he sleeps besides winter.
Also, from what I’ve read, this program would replace an overnight facility already there. The new plan is to house fewer people then they currently do, and the makeup of those people seems to be better for the community. It seems the south Ender’s problem is that now people will reside there, not just stop in every night. Personally, to get rid of a PSI that houses the drugged / mentally unstable transient in favor for people looking to get a leg up and are working towards something seems like a win win. If they don’t go through with the renovation, what do they think will happen? The original S.E. PSI isn’t going anywhere, and seems to be more of a burden to the neighborhood in it’s current use.
It just seems like this is a community association trying to flex its muscles over a private venture it has no control over, with unjustifiable reasons once you look at how PSI is using the space now, versus what they want to do with it. I don’t think they have the best of the neighborhood in mind in this case, but rather the need to uphold their grip on community planning. They don’t want to cede any power to anyone else, so they’re fighting the PSI to set a precedent.
I may be coming to this post late, but here goes. Unfortunately, the truth of this issue has been lost.
The Union Park Neighborhood Association asked Pine Street to develop a house on Upton Street of the same size as its other hosues on other residential streets in the South End (i.e., East Speingfield and Shawmut). As for the other space, the neighborhood (because it was asked) recommended that the remaining two buildings be filled with a mix of affordable and market value homeowners. Since the buildings are not currently used as affordable housing, no low income/no income housing will be lost.
As far as why it is the neighborhood's business - Pine Street needs city approval to operate its housing and it is entirely appropriate to opine as to the neighborhood's vision for the street. In other words, the neighborhood voted overwhelmingly to request Pine Street to develop 5,500 sq feet, and the remaining 10,000 square feet to be divided among affordable and market rate units. For some reason Pine Street has declared this position anti-homeless (which it is obviuously not) and anti-affordable housing (which it is also not). Pine Street has taken the tact of attacking the neighborhood association in an attempt to suppress its position. Such a tactic is not good for the South End, regardless of whether one believes (as some do) that Pine Street should be spending almost $5 million on Upton Street.
Post a Comment
<< Home