by frog
It seems what Auckland City Councillor Paul Goldsmith really wants is a huge carpet at the end of Queen Street under which he can sweep all the homeless people. (Well, at least they might be warmer).
Since when did our collective response to homelessness and the associated housing poverty that accompanies it become to complain that it is an eyesore. Radio New Zealand reports Goldsmith saying it is unacceptable for vagrants to be seen on the city’s streets. The important word is apparently ‘seen’. If you listen to the interview his concern seems to be partly that they were still ‘in bed’ lounging about at 9:15am, presumably rather than up and about doing aerobics or dusting or similar.
I note he has not specified which suburb he will be moving this central city problem on to. (My guess is Parnell). Someone else’s problem.
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare | Society & Culture by frog on Thu, September 4th, 2008
Tags: Auckland, homeless, housing, paul goldsmith
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Wellington City Council’s response to similar problems was initially to place liquour bans in the central CBD, which moved homeless ‘vagrants’ out to the inner suburbs.
Currently, the proposal is that a ‘wet-house’ will be developed, like the night shelter, but a place where alcoholics can stay; this is the unstated subtext to Paul Goldsmith’s arguments – ‘get the disgusting alkies off the streets’.
The Downtown Community Ministry are involved in the development of the ‘wet-house’, along with WCC housing staff.
This is a solution which as been in development for a couple of years, and is not predicated by any large public event about to come to Wellington!
Anyone who wishes to contribute to this excellent initiative might usefully go down to the DCM booksale at the TSB Arena, on the waterfront near Frank Kitts’ Park, this Saturday, and as well as finding a huge collection of recycled books, music and dvd’s, give funds to continue vital social programs being funded by the proceeds.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The wet house proposal has been on the drawing board since before the liquor ban.
and by the way, while people will not be prohibited from drinking in the wet house, I think they will be required to undergo counselling and make progress towards breaking their addiction.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I saw Goldsmith on Breakfast this morning and he really didn’t say anything apart from some homeless are abusive and leave puddles of urine around. He didn’t say anything about it being unacceptable for them to be seen. As for ‘what to do’ – they don’t have much of a clue, might like some ideas.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If they’re creating a public nuisance, arrest them. If they do it three times, put them in jail. Problem solved.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
yeah..that’d be bluepeter speaking for the ‘compassionate right’..
..that goldsmith is a right ‘number’.
..and he’s my pick for..’new zealands’ whitest-man-2008′..
http://whoar.co.nz/2008/council-wants-to-rid-homeless-people-from-its-streets/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You have to love the left, they helped create the problem of homeless people and now they are happy to use these poor sods (as the left are always happy to use the disadvantaged to score political points) in a battle with the Auckland city council.
Funny thing is that I do not remember this being a problem when Hubbard was the mayor.
The left championed the idea of putting the mentally ill back into society when so many of them were not capable of coping.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB said: The left championed the idea of putting the mentally ill back into society when so many of them were not capable of coping.
The Greens, as opposed to whoever you call “the left”, do not “champion” this. Read the policy:
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
That’s simply more uncosted vote grabbing rhetoric.
You cannot keep saying “more funding” without telling the people where it is going to come from.
The Greens would not let the Nat’s get away with uncosted policy (you let Labour get away with it all the time but then you always have been their lap dogs) so the very least you could do is tell us how you intend to pay for “more funding”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Would love to know how ‘the left’ created the problem of a bunch of addicts losing their possessions and families, I really would.
Brian Rudman:
If Mr Goldsmith had put his professional researcher hat on before he started scare-mongering, he’d have discovered that the last council had launched a three-year Homeless Action Plan which was recently renewed for another three.
Whadya know, its been a problem for ages!
As for costs:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/author/story.cfm?a_id=1&objectid=10530647&pnum=0
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter: “If they’re creating a public nuisance, arrest them. If they do it three times, put them in jail. Problem solved.”
No, problem entrenched. Do you know how much cheaper it would be to arrange housing and social service support than imprisonment? Putting people in prison is a seriously expensive and completely ineffective ‘solution’ to this issue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The commentaries seem to be blurring two groups of behaviour. Most of the “romantic? tales are about “homeless people? who occupy genuinely public space such as parks or even park benches.
However, I have been a retailer and retailers pay high rents and rates, especially in a main street such as Queen Street. Put yourself in the position of a Queen St retailer who suddenly finds that his entrance foyer has become the “permanent? home to a homeless person who is one of those closer to the criminal class than the wandering tramps so many treat a measure of tolerance and even affection. As one City Mission person said on TV, the reality is that some of these people are more criminal than mentally ill and these are the ones who tend to occupy the doorways of high fashion stores and abuse the customers who try to enter. If you are a young sales assistant what do you do? It seems to me that the foyers I saw on TV were part of the rental property and as private property the owner/occupier should be able to have the police remove someone from their private property if they will not leave of their own accord.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well they can. Who’s to say they can’t?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)