A Socially Just City?

I have just finished reading what can be described as "fascinating," for lack of a better word, article about the "Taco Flats," or tent city in Fresno, CA called, "Tent City U.S.A." by George Saunders, author of the book Braindead Megaphone, in the September 2009 issue of GQ. It's the one with the young Michael Jackson on the cover, not Olivia Wilde.

I don't know what is wrong with GQ's/Men's Style Web site, but lately I can't find half the articles I want on there, or else I would have enclosed a link. This is unfortunate as I'm revising my definition of the aforementioned article to "excellent" upon further contemplation. (as soon as I figure out my new scanner/printer I will scan it in and "publish" it as a PDF- stay tuned)

Mr. Saunders, who is a professor at Syracuse University, sets out to find out what life is like living off the 41, between H Street and the Freight Yard, in Fresno, CA. He literally pitches a tent, (with the help of some of the local inhabitants as his initial lone attempts prove unsuccessful) and lives among them for a temporary period.

I have enclosed a link to Mr. Saunders's Web site, which mentions his research for this piece, but probably due to copyright infringement, he is unable to publish it. Yet GQ continues to have the articles from a few months ago that really well, why dedicate space to? Such as the sex extortion scandal in New Berlin, WI (my old old sortof stomping grounds- go Eisenhower! Or in the light of that article, maybe not) and Levi Palin (yawn. . .)

However, based on the note on his Web site, Mr. Saunders hopes to expand his piece into potentially a book, which I think would be a fascinating read.

When I first heard about the Taco Flats "project," if you will, in TIME magazine, I was horrified. How could this happen in America (?!) I wondered, and literally so close to me- Fresno was only an hour away from my last place of resident- yet I was doing nothing. . . again, conducting the car-less experiment sometimes has unexpected variables.

This article was incredibly insightful- painting incredibly illuminating and compassionate portrayals of the people who live here, but not flinching away from the traits that make them all too human and keep them tied to this unusual "settlement." Yes, most of them are "crazy" i.e. mentally ill, a lot of them are drug addicts, and just about all of them are liars to a pathological degree.

But are they any less deserving of our compassion?

Reading the article I was relieved to know that they are not entirely destitute- there is a nearby shelter that provides them with free meals, no questions asked, as well as showers and laundry. There are also Port-a-Potties on-site and charity groups that come by to drop off meals and toiletries. No, it's not the Ritz, but I'm sure it is a step above some refugee camps in other parts of the world, and even some camping trips that I've had to endure.

Some of these people have "chosen" to come here. They didn't exactly make a wrong turn heading for Disneyland, but with few other options they have made a home and a community for themselves in admittedly squalid conditions. One woman named Sweet Mamma left home and headed straight here. Another woman was a recently released convict and ditched her prison-issued train ticket to squat at Taco Flats. Another couple, one of the disputed "settlers" of the area, had been living under a bridge and had relocated. A woman named Large Jo disputed that claim and said that it was the paisas who'd set up. One man left his life after his wife died and set up here.

I admit that I grew up in the suburbs/small Midwestern towns where we honestly just don't have homeless people. And if we did, I was too naive to see them.

I remember the first time I encountered a homeless person. I was in San Diego, with my family, and must have been about 9 or 10. The experience frightened and bewildered me. Why were there people sitting on the street? Why were they so dirty? Why were they asking for money? Didn't they have somewhere to go?

And the sad answer remains, yes and no. Some homeless people are too mentally unfit to make rational decisions, such as go to a shelter, others are too proud, and still others remain uncategorizable.

Every time I am confronted by a homeless person I'm not sure what to do. My dad buys them a cup of coffee, or a meal. But my dad is 5'10" and 195+ lbs. I am 5' and not. Also, I'm never sure if I do give the person money, if they are going to buy drugs, or actually buy food. And there are also shelters that will take the person in, admittedly only for a limited time. But surely there must be a long-term option for them? I can't believe that we can just let these people fall through the cracks.

In my History of Planning class we talk a lot about "socially just cities"- not just building for the wealthy, or even the middle class, but considering all peoples of a city i.e. the poor. But I'm not sure how much we consider the homeless?

As I'd mentioned in an earlier posting, "Helping Those Who Can't Help Themselves" (November 9, 2008) I have no prior experience in the social sciences and still do not.

I still like the idea presented in the Livable City: Revitalizing Urban Communities by Partners for Livable Communities, where in Washington D.C. a Business Improvement District (B.I.D.) opened a "daytime drop-in center in a local church where the homeless can eat, shower, wash clothes, and meet representatives of various government and nonprofit agencies offering job training and detoxification programs." (the Livable City, 166)

I don't think that there are any perfectly cut-and-dry answers to this problem. I'm sure that there are many solutions, as there are many solutions to fix what ails urban planning, not all of them are "right," though most of them are valid.

As I go to sleep I do know for one thing, that I must remember to be grateful now and always for what I have and not to forget those who lack.