Friday, October 21, 2011
When “Occupy” Moves Out Will Homeless Move In?
They Should - The Precedent Has Been Set
By Dell Hill
They’re normally relegated to spending their nights in a tent city, usually in a wooded area and far removed from the city lights. They are America’s homeless and they’ve not been allowed to set up campsites in city parks....but that may all be about to change.
In cities all across the land the “occupy” protest movement has set a precedent that may be extremely difficult for big city mayors, especially, to reverse. The protest movement in cities like Boston, where no permits were ever sought, electricity was provided by the city - along with wi-fi Internet connection service - all free of charge! And it’s an open-ended deal. No time limit on how long they can stay and new demands for items of convenience, like porta-potties, are being considered on a daily basis.
So, when this occupy movement comes to an end - and it will (even Woodstock ended), what’s to prevent the homeless from immediately taking their place?
Knowing what we know about how each of the big city governments has bent over backwards attempting to accommodate and placate the occupy crowd, why couldn't a group of homeless people do exactly the same thing? In fact, I think they should...and I’d openly support such an effort. After all, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
The current accommodations could simply remain in place; the donated tents, sleeping bags, cooking utensils, clothing, everything! The only thing that would change is the inhabitants, and it’s quite likely that the homeless would be a far better group to deal with.
You seldom hear of the homeless raping, stealing and using police cars upon which to defecate and the all-night chanting, drumming and extra-terrestrial music would undoubtedly end immediately. The homeless tend to police their own and panhandling would probably be the only issue for government concern. But, they’re going to have that concern, anyway.
Until now, this idea would have been instantly stopped by local ordinances, state laws, etc., etc., but now a new precedence has been established and the homeless should be giving serious consideration to replacing the occupiers. Any effort to treat them differently than the protesters would be seriously frowned upon by our court system.
The homeless certainly wouldn’t destroy public property any worse than the current scumbags. They’d probably treat it much better.
Posted by Dell at 10:33 AM