Comments on: Center City Park Euphemisms for Homelessness

By: Billy The Blogging Poet

Billy The Blogging Poet — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 03:38:29 +0000

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?

By: hugh

hugh — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:08:43 +0000

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.

By: Cara Michele

Cara Michele — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:38:03 +0000

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.

By: Sue

Sue — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:16:30 +0000

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?

By: Cara Michele

Cara Michele — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 03:35:37 +0000

Stew, you crack me up. Thank you. Seriously. Laughter is a welcome break today. It's been a long one.

By: PotatoStew

PotatoStew — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 02:02:28 +0000

Oh – my goal was actually to tick them off. Your goal is probably better.

By: Cara Michele

Cara Michele — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:50:59 +0000

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?

By: Lorraine

Lorraine — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:27:41 +0000

You know, Michele, I really think we need a less loaded word for homeless. How about “non-domiciled.”