Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

RainCloudz973 t1_jduu6wc wrote

Reply to comment by felsonj in How is the homeless situation in Newark train station made possible? by [deleted]

It’s the language of referring to humans as though they were rats that people take an issue with, not the notion of maintaining a train station. Ideally Newark would provide some form of shelter or housing for them. But if that’s not the case, it seems a bit cold to just wish they’d be “cleared out” with no follow-up plan.

5

Jimmy_kong253 t1_jduvr9r wrote

But what happens if there are services and help available and every time they come around all these homeless people keep telling them no but because we can't force somebody to seek help. Some of these homeless people will tell you they want help yet they turn down help for years . What do you become that if what you're asking for your offered and you keep saying no and I'm not talking about just shelter I'm talking about their offered medical help counseling and shelter and I've seen them turn it down over and over in my 20 years of working in and around Newark Penn. I don't know what else to consider an individual at that point a squatter we can use squatter it's not the proper word but if it makes you feel better then we'll call them squatters

7

Newarkguy1836 t1_jduzmqg wrote

The liberal & media narrative goes like this:

"These are people down on their luck"

This isn't the great depression . Over 90% of these individuals are mental ill cases incapable of following rules. They overwhelmingly refuse to stay in shelters bc they can't shoot drugs or drink there. Neither can they bring their shopping carts & other stuff they hoarde. Nothing is more upsetting than returning to "your spot" to find everything has been cleared of another homeless person went thru "your stuff" while you were in shelter.

Insane asylums were closed based on the theory we could trust the mentally I'll to stick to the medicine regimen. Most don't.

11

RainCloudz973 t1_jduwdtc wrote

That’s another issue to tackle as a city then. But language contains intention, so people will critique inappropriate uses of it in order to curtail the potential for bad intentions seeping into one’s actions. For example, I have less trust in someone’s intentions who refers to queer people as “f*gs” when discussing how to help the queer community, than someone who speaks of them respectfully. It’s not a perfect science of course, but a safe general rule of thumb to keep people on a positive agenda when it comes to fixing societal problems.

3

felsonj t1_jdw7oez wrote

My sense is that there is room at the shelters, but that shelters have strict rules that many people would have difficulty following. Shelters of course impose structure that many would resist. I can understand the mentality of a person who is dealing with severe mental health and drug issues gravitating toward living at a place like Penn Station to the extent that it is made available to him. Then if there is a contingent of people essentially living in the station without realistic alternatives, how should the police handle that? Very difficult question, but I wouldn't fault someone for arguing that there should be rules against squatting / domiciling in the station, and that the police should enforce those rules. That is a legitimate argument, though not the only one.

The police are already clearing the station to some extent. If they weren't, one would see more homeless people at Penn Station, eventually to the point that the core function of the station would be in jeopardy. I think what we're seeing right now is some unhappy equilibrium / compromise between the interests of train passengers and station residents, as it were.

3