

There's only one homeless man left in Times Square - budu3
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/nyregion/30heavy.html?hp

======
UmYeah
I started working around Times Square a few months ago and have walked past
this guy daily. One day I had a half sandwich I didn't want so I give it to
him. I now get a friendly smile and hello every time I walk by him.

While I was hoping this article would have more information on his background,
I am glad to now have a name that I can say hello to when I walk by.

------
lukev
So let me get this straight. They're visiting this guy, daily, trying to get
him to do something he obviously doesn't want, while there are probably LOTS
of homeless people in other districts dying (sometimes literally) for a safe,
warm place to live.

Those aren't humanitarians, those are enforcers for the bourgeoisie who don't
want to have to look at poor black people every day.

~~~
smallblacksun
"poor black people"

Why must some people make everything about race?

~~~
jimmyjim
Because statistically, the homeless are most likely to be African America.

Source: www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30442.pdf ("By race, the homeless
population was estimated to be, on average, 49% African-American, 35% white,
13% Hispanic, 2% Native American and 1% Asian.")

~~~
trominos
You've refuted a strawman, but you haven't given an actual justification for
the original wording.

Using the phrase "poor people" instead of "poor black people" is equally
effective -- more, actually, because "poor black people" makes you wonder why
the hell it matters that they're black -- and has the virtue of not
perpetuating (many) people's unconscious associations of "black" with "poor".

~~~
jimmyjim
I agree with your point, and although I'm not the original writer of that
post, I'm guessing he was trying to give a more nuanced response aware of the
racial tensions that exist in socio-economic contexts.

------
theblackbox
Wasn't going to post as I struggle to justify the relevance of the parent _and
my response_ to the community, but think it's ultimately of little consequence
and the words themselves are important to me, so...

~OT: I once worked as a charity fundraiser and had more than a few encounters
with homelessness, one of which (a few years after leaving the job) left me
quite stunned. The company was a bit of a stop-gap for those that could and
would handle it, with accommodation, food, and a pretty interesting lifestyle
all thrown in.

I once found myself in a pub, however, and a homeless guy came up and asked me
for a bit of spare change. Having built up a healthy respect for people and
torn down my impulse to judge on the basis of only a very small amount of
information (from my exp. in said job), I gave the guy what I could when,
looking in his eyes, I saw my friend. A guy I had worked with as a fundraiser,
who, after a brief spell of bad luck had fallen through the gaps of society
and ended up having to constantly climb. I did what I could for the guy, but
more importantly he did so much for me - I had never realised destitution was
so close (or that the climb back up was so high).

Another time I met something I can only describe as otherworldly.... it was
almost sacred. Take what you will from it. I was approached (this was while
fundraising) by a small, fat, black guy in comfortable, though slightly
disheveled clothes in his late 50s or thereabouts. As he came close it occured
to me that he didn't exist... I honestly cannot understand the instantaneous
clarity of that thought... maybe he was just too much of a cliche for my mind
to deal with, but there was something more, an aura that came from somewhere
deep within him, from somewhere I don't think I have. He took my hand and
started talking to me as though it was the most ordinary things in the world,
and he proceeded to tell me about his pebble. He'd been fondling it in his
other hand and as I noticed it he started telling me about where he'd found it
and all the things that could have been while that pebble had remained hidden.
And that, he said, was his point. My pebble was currently hidden, and I was
close to finding it. It could be a stone, a coin, a woman or even the world!
The point was that it was mine and that it had been sitting, passive, until
the day I, and I alone, would come across it and bind myself to it...

I don't even know why that's worth sharing with you. Most people I tell, I'm
sure, just think I was seduced by the romantic ramblings of a mad old man...
maybe so, but I think that moment, myself, the old man and what he said
deserve a great deal more dignity, even divinity, than that. I _choose_ to
make that moment spiritual (and I'm not by any means "religious")....

------
mcantor
Maybe it's the naive and hopeless romantic in me, but when I read the part
about "devising a strategy to prevent people from encouraging his
homelessness," I couldn't help but feel a gentle pang of indignation. I almost
feel like it's too bad that they can't accept this man for the "iconic" symbol
that he seems to be, according to locals.

~~~
wdewind
“I just have this dream that all of a sudden something will snap, and he’ll
say, I’d love to have housing,” said Amie Pospisil, an associate director at
Common Ground Community, a nonprofit that conducts street outreach. “I don’t
rule out that it could happen.”

REEEKS of judgment. Maybe he's fine on his own? I think it's fair to bet that
he's been homeless longer than the outreach people have been outreach people,
maybe he knows something they dont (like he's doing what he wants to?).

I'm all for helping those who want it, but there is a thin line between
assistance and judgment as so many others are pointing out...

~~~
qeorge
I know what you're saying, but its important not to discount the mental
illness usually associated with chronic homelessness.

Housing certainly should not be forced upon him, but when someone is hurting
themselves sometimes you have to push them to stop. Its never so black and
white.

~~~
electromagnetic
Is he considered mentally ill because he's homeless or is he homeless because
he's mentally ill? There's a distinction between the two, and how my reading
of the article comes across is that they're suggesting he's mentally ill
because he doesn't want housing.

I'd assert that the people doing cross-nation marathons spending night after
night sleeping in a tent on a roadside are far more mentally ill than a man
choosing not to have a home.

He doesn't need to be treated for being homeless, if he has a condition he
needs to be treated for its cause not its effect.

Where I grew up there was a chronic homeless man. Throughout the summer months
he saved enough money to ride out the winter in a cheap apartment. He busked
with a guitar and harmonica and was homeless by choice. He frequently refused
people's donation if they threw in anything too big, especially to the kids
and teenagers.

As he once said to me, he chose to be homeless and live off generosity rather
than be homed and live off charity.

------
_delirium
On the whole efforts to move homeless people to various sorts of housing seem
like a good idea, but don't the ones in this article come across as a bit
unnecessary? I mean, visiting him _every day_ , memorizing his walking habits,
etc.? He clearly seems not to be posing a threat to anyone, and if he's the
only homeless person in the entire area, it's hard to say that homelessness is
causing the area a major problem or inconvenience. Why not just leave him
alone, or at least inquire less often than daily as to whether he'd like to
move in somewhere?

~~~
philwelch
Why can't they just leave the man alone, if it's what he wants? The man's
practically an institution now--he's adapted to the lifestyle and Times Square
has adapted to him. Where's the harm?

~~~
Semiapies
They probably want to be able to announce "no homeless people in Times
Square".

~~~
aarongough
That's exactly what I was thinking. The other homeless were helped at east in
part because it was the right thing to do, but with Heavy it seems like they
just want to jump that last hurdle. From the quotes in the article it seems
like they've taken him wanting to stay as a direct challenge, it's not really
about helping him any more.

~~~
electromagnetic
I find it interesting that in a recession, during a time of heightened
homelessness why are they focusing on one man in Time Square. Is it perchance
because Time Square is one of the biggest tourist destinations in New York?
It's all I could think reading this. It's like a desperate attempt to create a
fallacy that will ensure tourists will happily spend their dollars in stores,
it doesn't appear to be a genuine humanitarian effort because harassing
someone daily certainly isn't humanitarian - heck if I lived or worked around
Time Square I'd probably offer to file a claim for injunctive relief on
Heavy's behalf to keep the 'humanitarians' off his back.

------
dhyasama
"Housing first" has been pretty successful so far. It just makes sense on so
many levels, including economic. Just Google it for more info. The fact that
there is only one homeless man left in Times Square is kind of amazing. Of
course there are other factors (keep in mind homeless numbers in NYC are up
overall) such as a policy to move the homeless away from touristy areas such
as Times Square.

On a side note, my girlfriend is opening a residential shelter for women on
Monday! Three levels of housing (short, medium, and long term) and almost five
years in the making. It's called Florence House (part of Preble Street) in
Portland, Maine.

------
johnohara
When I read articles like this I think about all those FEMA trailers that went
unused because of bureaucratic nonsense, incompetence and corruption.

This country has and owes a lot of money but we waste a sh--load too.

~~~
sutro
Given that the FEMA trailers were poisonous
(<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23168160/>) it's probably a good thing that many
remained unoccupied.

~~~
ars
Have you ever measured the levels in a new car? It's about the same.

Or the levels given off by a new sofa? Or new carpeting?

What about trailers purchased on the regular market, are they any different?

BTW, I'm not trying to say we should ignore the issue, but rather extend it
everywhere.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
You don't live 24X7 in those things, usually.

------
akkartik
Reading about Heavy reminded me of Austin's Leslie Cochrane
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Cochran>). He stood for mayor. After
reading his manifesto I would vote for him. Too bad I don't get a vote.

------
weeksie
There's nothing I love more than watching middle and upper-middle class people
talk knowingly about the homeless; both sides indignantly insisting that the
other just doesn't understand it. No judgement, mind you, it's just one of
those issues that brings out the opinions in people least qualified to give
them.

------
korch
While I think it's great what these outreach organizations have accomplished,
the tone of this article is a perfect example of how journalists poorly depict
homelessness.

It's de-humanizing.

For a second there I did a double take because it resembled an old article
from The Onion, which was pointing out how journalists do this so often that
nobody notices.

Do a search and replace on the article, replace the homeless man's name
"Heavy" with "animal", and the article still makes perfect sense, except
instead of being about sociology, it's now zoology, like one of those fluff
local news pieces about some wild animal that ended up in the city limits and
was causing a nuisance. Except it's a man.

~~~
Goladus
That's a rather important difference though, don't you think? It's one thing
to "make sense" after changing a name to 'animal' it's another for it to mean
the same thing.

"There's one homeless man left in Times Square" That is news. The article does
not stray very far from the point, and covers a decent amount in a limited
space. It's an effective article.

~~~
jcl
_It's one thing to "make sense" after changing a name to 'animal' it's another
for it to mean the same thing._

I got the same impression as korch. In several ways, it _does_ mean the same
thing. They've got a bunch of people "studying his habits and movements",
figuring out where he eats and sleeps, and telling the population not to feed
him because it's actually bad for him.

People, even other homeless people, are not usually treated this way, but wild
animals are. At the root of the similarity, I think, is an assumption that
Heavy is not capable of deciding what is in his best interest -- that he can't
be reasoned with but that he might be coaxed to do what they want.

~~~
Nwallins
> _They've got a bunch of people "studying his habits and movements", figuring
> out where he eats and sleeps, and telling the population not to feed him
> because it's actually bad for him._

> _People, even other homeless people, are not usually treated this way, but
> wild animals are._

Actually, it sounds to me like scholars doing social science. They gathering
facts and analyzing behavior.

> _At the root of the similarity, I think, is an assumption that Heavy is not
> capable of deciding what is in his best interest_

Is this an assumption? Or is it a conclusion, based on evidence:

> _“I just have this dream that all of a sudden something will snap, and he’ll
> say, I’d love to have housing,” said Amie Pospisil_

> _Heavy was far from alone on the streets of Times Square in the 1990s, when
> he began sleeping there frequently in the midst of a roiling mess of drug
> dealing, prostitution and crime._

> _The social workers at Common Ground said they have no intention of
> pressuring Heavy to leave the streets._

It sounds like you are saying Heavy is capable of deciding what is in his best
interest. If that is the case, then it follows that living on the streets of
Times Square is in his best interest, since that is what he decided. Are you
really comfortable with this conclusion?

The social workers, on the other hand, seem genuinely concerned for him, but
they are hesitant to overstep the bounds of human dignity and 'pressure' him,
physically or otherwise, to make more prudent decisions.

I see little justification for a critique of the social workers, here.

