.
.
.
This is a little too “on the muzzle” (or is it “on the snout”?) for my taste, but regardless this is the rallying photo (or at least one of them) for the Homeless Sleep-In at Disneyland this evening starting at 9.
Friend of the Blog Jeanine Robbins is reporting in on the big homeless action planned for in front of Disneyland tonight at 9:00 p.m. — “under Mickey,” whatever that means; Disney’s Security Chief Dan Hughes probably knows — and we will be following the action on the “Anaheim Homeless Facebook Page” for as long as it keeps appearing, or until we get distracted, and it may be a close race as to which comes first.
If it seems incredible to you that homeless activists could plan an occupation of the sidewalk in front of Disneyland and expect NOT to be “disappeared” for at least a night, you’re perceiving things pretty well. I don’t know what the strategy is, other than perhaps to make Disney security convulse, or to attract all sorts of ACTUAL homeless there to participate so that Disneyland ends up having them arrested and reaps some bad publicity as a result. Jeanine reported the “under Mickey” location at around noon, so there’s some chance that the element of surprise has already been lost.
Meanwhile, Jeanine has left a link to a pretty good article that people (including Dan Hughes) may want to read: “Americans want to help the homeless — as long as they don’t get too close. This explains why.”
The article, by a couple of junior political scientists is one of those that is perfect for Orange County, because it’s about the role of disgust in politics: something Orange Countians know well. In some psychological theories, there are three basic negative emotions: anger, fear, and disgust. Anger and fear usually get much of the top billing, but disgust is also extremely powerful. (So, in most societies, is humiliation: people will literally die to avoid it. When you think of the homeless, it might be useful to think of them as people who have been strong enough to withstand the experience of humiliation that many of us believe that we could not.)
The article suggests that society has largely cleared (at least in theory) an initial hurdle: we don’t hate (suggesting in part “are angry towards”) the homeless. People favor policies designed to help those homeless, both with material aid (probably meaning food, clothing, toiletries) and with permanent housing. The rubber hits the road when you ask people to pay for it, but even in tax-phobic OC the resistance to “doing our part” through the government seems to be waning.
On the other hand, people don’t like the homeless sleeping in public, and they really don’t like homeless panhandling. This is true even among those who support aid to the homeless, almost as much as among those who don’t.
The authors prevent findings that suggest that this pattern seems to be tied to feelings of disgust: that, essentially, people who are more easily grossed out are more likely to support criminalizing the activities that keep the homeless among us because such emotions of disgust are part of our genetic and cultural heritage of attitudes and behaviors that help us to maintain our own hygiene. There may be something to that, but as a former research psychologist I tend to doubt it.
If you want to test that theory, it seems to me that asking whether people would ever shake hands with, or — hold onto your hats! — even hug a homeless person (one without strong odors or visible stains on their clothes from bodily fluids, let’s say) is a much better test of actual “disgust” than whether they should be able to panhandle. Attitudes towards panhandling, it seems to be are more indicative of fear than disgust: “Will this person hurt me if I decline? Will they follow me, or target me for further panhandling in the future if I accede?” And sure enough, this fear-based question is the one that gets the highest negative response from people.
It’s the “sleeping outdoors” question that most interesting from a social science because — more than any of the others — it is very likely that people didn’t have the same sorts of things in mind. And giving different scenarios is great way to test some of the hypotheses offered about our feelings about the homeless.
For example, “sleeping in public” could mean someone sleeping on the sidewalk right in front of your home — even if it’s one with a public portable toilet available on the street for their use. Probably very unpopular. Or it could mean sleeping under a tree in a rural area where they’re not likely to bother anyone — even if access to “proper” restroom facilities is likely to be less. That’s more of a difference in fear than of disgust. Similarly, different questions just within the category of sleeping in public — in a downtown sidewalk, on a park bench, in a riverbed, etc. — could be rated on each of these emotional reactions to get better understandings of the emotional basis of our responses to the homeless.
The more I think about this, though, the more I think that just a place to crash — a somewhat segregated area near where homeless otherwise gather, one with sanitary facilities (maybe even showers and laundry!), that might be patrolled, with enough space for those who want more privacy and less for those who don’t mind company, where sexual assault could be prevented and other safety-related services could be provided — might just reduce both the public’s fear and disgust towards the homeless. (Nancy West’s “Al Fresco Gardens” idea — which we do intend to write about sometime soon! — seems largely to fit this bill, which may explain why it has already picked up a lot of support.)
My plan — come into Disneyland at midnight, shower, be ferried to Tom Sawyer’s Island, another shower in the morning — and back on the streets — has not gotten the same level of support. Maybe disgust does have something to do with it.
This is your Weekend Open Thread. Good luck to the protesters tonight (and to the protested as well) and may everyone still be doing well at the stroke of midnight and beyond. Talk about that, or whatever else you’d like, within reasonably broad boundaries of decency, decorum — and disgust.
The public right-of-way in front of Disneyland is the purview of APD, not Dan Hughes. Look for Raul’s Boyz to handle the problem, hopefully better than they took care of the KKK fiasco in Pearson Park.
Mickey’s four-fingered gloves will remain lily-white no matter what happens on the street.
When we stop to LISTEN to those homeowners complaining about homeless encampments nearby, their complaints seem legit and are shared by many of us who DO believe ourselves to be empathetic specimens of the human race. They complain of the ILLEGAL and DISRUPTIVE actions of those using the nearby encampment spaces, NOT the PRESENCE of the homeless. Their complaints of trash being dumped on the streets and on their lawns, finding syringes, the loud noises/shouting, garages, sheds, and cars being broken into and looted for anything worth selling, these are all legit complaints. Perhaps if we could get the homeless to stop being so disruptive with the BEHAVIOR we would have fewer people complaining of their PRESENCE. No, not all homeless are thieves and drug addicts, but it comes down to the bad apples spoiling the whole barrel. That some of us don’t want to be crime victims anymore doesn’t make us heartless assholes.
Second, I believe we have a lot of work to do, we have a disastrous combo of low wages and high housing costs combined with cuts to mental health and addiction done NOTHING and that Tom Tait’s “city of kindness” has no meaning because he lacks the power to wave a magic wand and fix a problem that was NOT of his making, is nearly entirely outside of his jurisdiction or authority to solve or even fund, especially when he has already done more than every other Mayor in the region to address the real issues and not simply crack down on the homeless and force them into other cities. Few leaders would put up with being abused and continue to resolve an issue they are given no credit for, and thankfully Tait is a cut above the average looking-for-props leader, but you can’t expect continuing efforts from officials by dismissing the efforts already made. I’m not saying that is the way it should be, just reminding folks that is the way it usually is.
The news that the encampments by the Honda Center and Angel Stadium are being displaced and probably move up north have stirred up more than fear in my part of the town. Again, concerns are being manipulated by people who equate the presence of homeless with disruptive behavior. One of them is the controversial operator of the Anaheim Blog, who lives in the part of Orange close to the shelter and to the river. Some of these people would seriously take nipsey’s insinuation in his comment below.
Advocates have done a great job forcing public officials to address the issue, but an inadequate one educating the public at large. They are not the helping the elected officials who at the end of the day, at the end of their term in office, are voted in or out by the public.
Except for Spitzer who had enough political capital to promote the unpopular institutionalized shelter, and who was re-elected unopposed, no other local politician has the ability to support controversial issues beyond their safe settings, if there is no considerable support from the public.
For an update on what happened, go here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiRRZR0W9ys
ALSO, CONSIDER SPENDING YOUR RELAXING WEEKEND WITH THIS HAPPY ESSAY:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans-annotated.html
but of course, you spent the night in your home “being creative” while others protested for you.
The Tait majority is a massive failure when it comes to dealing with the homeless. When will Jose chide Tom for shame in voting for the camping ordinance
Somehow this one just doesn’t have the feel of “good faith” about it.
For the record, in reverse order:
(1) Campaign was already illegal. The vote was a political trap.
(2) If that were what constitutes “failure” we might have a chance at real progress.
(3) I wasn’t all *THAT* creative…. (haha)
DIsney has Castaway Cay in the Bahamas, they could buy another, ship all the homeless there and call it – Hey wait…
*According to so-called Homeless Counters….there are only 5100 Homeless in Orange County. If you believe that, the swamp land in Florida should be fertile ground for relocation efforts. Forget about the Alligators…..they have great appetites and won’t even fight with the Boa Constrictors and Burmese Pythons. So, they are moving the folks out of the Santa Ana River…….uh huh……..and where are they taking them or rather sending them? And one measly OC Government 200 bed shelter (if you push all the bunks together) will rotate them ever 72 hours …….. Great minds at work…no doubt.
Last week before our Friday night protest I spoke to one LT, one Dep chief, received a letter from THE chief, and finally spoke to a captain. These were all initiated by APD. Everyone was very businesslike and bent over backwards to let me know they were available if we needed assistance with anything. I had numbers to call if necessary. During the actual protest we never saw anyone from APD or Disney security. This was after I assured them it would be peaceful- Thank you APD.
Thanks Ms Robbins for sharing how courteous the APD was. This is an improvement in comparison with the impression I was left after listening the APD team’s report at my last district meeting. The officer in charge of the homeless task force stated that if the homeless didn’t accept assistance, they are forced to move to county property, the river-bend. The lieutenant’s explanation of the perceived larger number of homeless nowadays was the unintended consequence of proposition 47. The task force officer clarified though that the funds resulting from the savings of jailing people, to be used for rehab programs, are being held by the county.
Regarding your campaign, could you please provide specific information or references of your assessment of Disneyland’s negative impact in our housing and job markets. Is Unite Here Local 11 and OCCORD part of the campaign? Both of these organizations normally represent or speak on behalf of significant segments of the community employed by Disney.
The removal of the bus benches near Disneyland made your protest very timely and relevant. Are there any plans to contact Disney representatives to engage them in addressing your campaign’s concerns?