Center City Park Euphemisms for Homelessness
Despite lots of folks’ coordinated and best efforts to run them all off, there are still homeless people downtown, and so, you know, uh oh…
(click photo to enlarge)
(click photo to enlarge)
Dear Center City Park Homeless-Avoidance Wordsmithing Committee,
WOW.
Sincerely,
Cara Michele
======================
From sign marked “RULES AND REGULATIONS” at Center City Park in downtown Greensboro:
“Camping is prohibited and is defined as resting or sleeping anywhere in the park while in possession of several days of clothing and/or camping materials.”
Note the word “resting.”
From the Center City Park web site:
“The planned new Center City Park will be… enjoyed by downtown residents, office workers, visitors, and all of Greensboro’s citizens…. With its dynamic fountain, areas of quiet repose… [T]he Park’s many benefits are available to Greensboro residents and visitors of all ages…”
Emphasis mine.
And here’s a handy glossary:
repose: a state of rest or inactivity
all: the whole of a particular thing, amount, group, or area is involved or affected
citizen: a permanent resident of a county, town, or city
Greensboro citizen: a permanent resident of Greensboro
resident: one who resides in a particular place permanently or for an extended period
Greensboro resident: one who resides in Greensboro permanently or for an extended period
I’m not sure if this convoluted camping ordinance is a particularly bad attempt at civility and political correctness, or if they’re just trying to avoid the potential negative repercussions of putting up signs that say “No Homeless People Allowed.” But to break this down, what’s happened here is the folks behind Center City Park have warmly invited all of Greensboro’s citizens and residents in for a little “quiet repose” in their lovely new park, and then put up a couple of small signs with even smaller writing that disallows resting while in possession of several days of clothing. And unless you think that means don’t stop by the park right after you do your laundry, or don’t wait in the park while your room is being readied at the hotel across the street, then you understand that what it means is “HOMELESS PEOPLE KEEP OUT.” Welcome to Greensboro. This is how we do it.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Maybe we should start a discussion about getting the city to exercise eminent domain so that we can better control the park. After all, wouldn’t that be in the interest of the greater community and therefore legal under eminent domain?
I mean, we’re already paying 3 prices for the park, and the park’s owners have managed to dodge property taxes, why shouldn’t we own the property?
January 18th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Another benefit to having the park private is for the city to provide maintenance and insurance on an asset that can be held until the downtown real-estate market matures enough to make selling the land for a high rise or being bought out by the city at the future market price feasible.
January 18th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
I would prefer that homeless people slept in a bed in their own home. But “sleeping” is not the big issue here. Note the use of the word “resting,” which can be widely interpreted, which is no doubt why it was chosen. For instance, sitting on a park bench is technically “resting.” The ordinance is carefully worded to keep homeless people out of the park altogether. If the idea was to keep homeless people from sleeping in the park, then the sign should have said, “Homeless people are welcome to visit during the day, but no camping at night.” It doesn’t say that. It’s written to exclude their presence, and it’s written in language that attempts to conceal its real meaning while still giving security guards and cops the right to oust the homeless from the park. And what I feel is not “angst,” it’s disgust.
January 18th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Would you prefer that homeless people slept in the park? Is that your point? Is it desirable to have homeless people camping out / sleeping in the park? If not, then why the angst about using words to make that point?
December 12th, 2006 at 11:35 pm
Stew, you crack me up. Thank you. Seriously. Laughter is a welcome break today. It’s been a long one.
December 12th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
Oh – my goal was actually to tick them off. Your goal is probably better.
December 12th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
Stew: Your suggestion made me smile. But if the goal is to change the other’s perspective, then ticking them off may not be the best plan of action.
Roch: The “rules and regulations” sign does seem to back up the latter of your suspicions. Sadly.
Lorraine: Good point. “Homeless” is a particularly baggage-laden term, isn’t it?
December 12th, 2006 at 7:27 pm
You know, Michele, I really think we need a less loaded word for homeless. How about “non-domiciled.”
December 12th, 2006 at 12:54 am
In discussions about whether or not to deed the park to the city or to have it remain in private hands, I heard two reasons for keeping it private: so that the city wouldn’t be on the hook for its costs and so that alcohol could be served. As we see, the city is going to be paying for maintenance anyway and the alcohol issue never made sense to begin with as, with an easy-to-get permit, it is permissible to serve alcohol in city parks.
This had me suspicious, unfortunately, that there were ulterior motives. I suspected two: one, that the park may one day be sold for a profit one day and two, a desire for stricter rules than one could impose on a public park. While privately owned, it will be possible for anybody who is deemed undesirable to be removed as a tresspasser, whether they be protesters, preachers, performers or homeless.
December 11th, 2006 at 11:29 pm
You should gather up a few non-homeless friends and go spend an afternoon in the park with a few changes of clothes and a sleeping bag stacked next to you on the bench. Be sure to rest. See what happens.