The author of the article says that we shoo people out of such places because it makes us feel uncomfortable to walk past people with dirty blankets, but I think it goes a little deeper. I have often thought that the reason we feel uncomfortable lies in the fact that we see ourselves in them.
So we tell ourselves that there are some people we don't want to be associated with, or that there are "some people you just can't help" and that's that. It would be a simple solution if there was still an "Australia" to "ship your undesirables to". In today's hyper-real estate world, there is really no place for destitute people to go. The presence of people in crisis negatively affects property value simply because of the stigma of association, and most parts of the world are owned. Furthermore, the "public" places, such as libraries, parks, and sidewalks, are full of disenfranchised people, because they are the only places that legally allow extremely poor people. This causes communities to rise up and declare that the parks and community spaces are not meant for crisis, which then prompts new bylaws banning feeding the homeless in parks, etc. Exclusion leads to exclusion. We still think that there is some place down the road where the poor old guy can rest his feet, but we don't realize that the place down the road ALSO has security guards and cameras, and other ways to exclude the homeless. And thanks to cheaper and more powerful technologies, we get better at exclusion every day.
At a certain point, it will become obvious that this is not a working system, and we will be forced to find a place for people to go. It is a battle being fought in the courts, and I'm sure we will see many changes down the road, because the courts will always rule in favour of humans having the right to exist. In the end, we will simply give them houses and a basic living wage, because it is cheaper and easier than trying to exclude them.
No comments:
Post a Comment