Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Mayor seeks to rid streets of panhandlers

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 4
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
  • #1

    Mayor seeks to rid streets of panhandlers

    Mayor Ballard is initiating a campaign that will seek to lower the number of panhandlers downtown. I came up to Indy from Bloomington on Saturday night to visit downtown. It's a great little downtown, with the mass of restaurants and entertainment, and you feel safe because there are a lot of people down there up until a pretty late hour.

    But one thing that bothered me was the amount of people trying to hit me up for change. I don't have a big problem if someone just sits with a bucket without saying anything, but most of these people were borderline harassing pedestrians. I was trying to have a nice evening with my girlfriend, and was a little irked to be bothered on every corner for change, which was then followed by a smart-ellic remark when I ignored them. I think people who want to spend time downtown and who are filtering money into the Indy economy shouldn't have to deal with this.


    I support the mayor's plan. Here is an article from the star today.

    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...316/-1/ARCHIVE


    Mayor seeks to rid streets of panhandlers
    Ballard's plan includes campaign to encourage people to give to charities instead of cup-shakers
    By Brendan O'Shaughnessy
    Posted: March 31, 2008

    * Read Comments(78)
    * Recommend (7)
    * E-mail
    * Print
    * Share
    o del.icio.us Del.icio.us
    o Digg Digg
    o Reddit Reddit
    o Yahoo Yahoo
    o Google Google
    *

    A

    A

    Mayor Greg Ballard wants to sweep Downtown streets clean of panhandlers such as Chris Hall.

    Hall, 33, slumped against a newspaper vending box Friday on Monument Circle, bundled in a thick jacket with a half-full cup of change and a sign saying he is homeless. He said he has pulled in $20 or $30 by panhandling about three hours per day for the past eight or nine years on and off.
    Advertisement

    John Cochran, Ballard's special counsel, said the Mayor's Action Center receives complaints and the mayor's staff hears about panhandling regularly.

    "People who live Downtown are tired of it," Cochran said. "We want to reduce it to a palatable level."

    To do that, Ballard wants to bring a "tough love" approach to the issue.

    He said people shouldn't feel constantly harassed to give money.

    "The immediate goal is to get them out of Downtown so that citizens and visitors don't have to look at it," Ballard said last week.

    His three-pronged plan will include:

    A public awareness campaign to encourage people to give to homeless charities instead of cup-shakers.

    More aggressive enforcement of current laws.

    Possibly requiring a pricey license to try to regulate panhandlers the same way the city does hot dog vendors.

    The mayor, whom Democrats accused of being insensitive on the topic during his campaign, said homeless advocates also want to curb donations, which can foster dependency instead of change.

    "They're not all homeless," Ballard said. "Panhandlers are a sham. I think most people know that."

    Andrea De Mink Kaufmann, executive director of The PourHouse, an Indianapolis homeless advocacy group, said aggressive, professional panhandlers do give the others a bad name.

    "But if someone is sitting there quietly, that's their right," Kaufmann said. "To say it's ugly and we want it out of view, I have an issue with that from a humanitarian point of view."

    Hall said he doesn't think it's fair to harass him when he doesn't bother anyone.

    "Just because someone's down and out doesn't mean you should arrest them," he said. "There's always going to be someone on the streets no matter what the mayor does."

    Hall said he doesn't like pushy panhandlers, either, because they ruin it for others.

    Cochran, who is leading the panhandling effort for the mayor, plans to hold a focus group Friday with local nonprofits and government agencies involved with the homeless.

    "We've been looking at what other jurisdictions do and considering increased regulation," he said. "Cincinnati requires panhandlers to have a license that costs $400. It seems to be effective in decreasing the numbers."

    The mayor's office will help coordinate a public awareness campaign being conducted by the Coalition for Homelessness Intervention and Prevention and Indianapolis Downtown Inc., two nonprofits that recently received Lilly Endowment grants for that purpose.

    "We ask people to redirect their charitable instinct to charities as opposed to giving to those on the street, which can perpetuate that lifestyle," said Jennifer Hunt, CHIP's development director.

    The mayor's plan should receive strong support from the Garfield Neighbors Neighborhood Association. Recent meetings have featured residents of the Southside neighborhood complaining to city police officers about panhandlers who camp out at the Raymond Street exit off I-65.

    "I don't like to see the same guys there begging every day," said Julie Dolen, the association president. "It gives a bad image. They break into garages to sleep and contribute to petty crime."

    Soliciting a stopped vehicle is among the activities made illegal under city code in 1999. Other revisions include prohibiting asking for money at night, aggressive actions such as touching or following and soliciting within 20 feet of an ATM or bus stop. The state passed a similar criminal law in 2005.

    A spokesman for the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department said there isn't a full-time unit charged with enforcing the panhandling law. There apparently was a special unit in 2002, but Sgt. Paul Thompson of the IMPD said neighborhood resource officers now handle complaints.

    The department has received 11 complaints so far this year, and the vice squad does occasional sweeps, Thompson said. But tickets don't do much good.

    "They don't pay because they have no reason to," he said. "Typically, they don't have credit or a license, so you're not getting any money out of them."

    Tom Goins, 64, said he and his guitar have been a fixture Downtown for 18 years. Passers-by dropped coins into his guitar case as he went through his repertoire of golden oldies Friday.

    Goins said he has a home on the Eastside and earns money as a busker, playing music for money. He hopes the mayor's plan will make a distinction between busking and panhandling.

    "Those cup-shakers really make money," Goins said. "They make more than me but I don't begrudge them. They got their own problems."
    Call Star reporter Brendan O'Shaughnessy at (317) 444-2751.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Mayor seeks to rid streets of panhandlers

    I am in 100% support of the Mayor's plan.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Mayor seeks to rid streets of panhandlers

      Wasn't that a good picture of me on the front page?

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Mayor seeks to rid streets of panhandlers

        You know what bothers me?

        There is a group of folks that walk around pulling little red wagons each day at noon, delivering lunches to people on street corners. Now, I'm sure they are filled with laudable compassion, and I understand that they deliver the food to where the hungry people are at mealtime. But the effect of their program is to encourage homelessness by subsidizing it. They aren't fighting homelessness -- they are sustaining it.

        Let's do what it takes to help everyone have a place to live, even if it is a dormitory for some of them. And then let's make panhandling as nearly illegal as possible -- not because it is unpleasant for the bypasser ("Go Back to Carmel!!"), but because it is a bad way for the panhandler to live.

        And by all means, leave Tom Goins out of it. He needs to replace the strings on his guitar, but there's nothing wrong with him singin' his hillbilly heart out.
        And I won't be here to see the day
        It all dries up and blows away
        I'd hang around just to see
        But they never had much use for me
        In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Mayor seeks to rid streets of panhandlers

          Steps need to be taken to help a lot of panhandlers, I don't really know if those of them who are mentally ill would be able to function in the workplace. Perhaps if there could be a way to get them in the SHARES program or something like that?

          There should be an attempt to rid the city of those who actively hassle people for money, in Washington I have never really had that much of a problem. But there are so many homeless there it may have gotten toa point where I just don't hear them anymore. But if someone is just going to sit there with a cup and that's what they want to do to a living, they have every right to do that. It is not until people stop giving them money that they will begin to take personal responsibility for themselves.

          As for people that play the guitar or something like that for money, there is no reason that that should be regulated. If people want to do that, by all means they are just out there earning a living. To take that away would take away a ton of charm from downtown. If people want sqeaky-clean living and can't appreciate a guy who like to play the sax on the side of the street for money, they probably should either live in the suburbs or not live in an urban area altogether.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Mayor seeks to rid streets of panhandlers

            Putnam, giving a hungry person something to eat is not "subsidizing homelessness" in my world. Could you please explain you position a little more?
            “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

            “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Mayor seeks to rid streets of panhandlers

              Originally posted by dcpacersfan View Post
              But if someone is just going to sit there with a cup and that's what they want to do to a living, they have every right to do that.
              You know, they actually don't. They are not "endowed by their Creator" with an inalienable right to ask passersby for money.

              The best we can say is that current social practices allow it. But it is surely a legitimate public question as to whether or not there is a better solution.


              Originally posted by dcpacerfan
              As for people that play the guitar or something like that for money, there is no reason that that should be regulated. If people want to do that, by all means they are just out there earning a living. To take that away would take away a ton of charm from downtown. If people want sqeaky-clean living and can't appreciate a guy who like to play the sax on the side of the street for money, they probably should either live in the suburbs or not live in an urban area altogether.
              Yup. Though I still wish he'd change his strings.
              And I won't be here to see the day
              It all dries up and blows away
              I'd hang around just to see
              But they never had much use for me
              In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Mayor seeks to rid streets of panhandlers

                I agree that playing a guitar goes with city life, and usually people playing music don't harass anyone. I've never really seen anyone who is playing music harass people for money, they just stand there and play.

                If someone wants to just sit on the corner with a cup in front of them in hopes that they get money without harassing people, then I guess that really isn't bothering anyone too badly. Only problem is, that case is extremely rare as just sitting there isn't a very effective way to make money. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the ones I encountered on Saturday night were actively hitting every passerby for money, and many of them had wisecracks that would follow when you ignored them. That really ticked me off as someone who was just trying to enjoy downtown Indianapolis. I feel that I should be able to go downtown without being harassed like that. If you harass enough people, many of them will cave, and these people have figured it out.

                You might say that goes with the territory of an urban area. To an extent, maybe. There will always be some amount of homeless on streets. But there is absolutely no need for ones to be on the street that harass people for money, and I believe that should be stopped. Downtown Indianapolis has way to much going for it to allow these people to affect residents and tourists. It is small and convenient, but allows a ton of restaurants and a good amount of entertainment selections that can easily please the average visitor. But when people get harassed at every corner, that rubs visitors the wrong way and is a turn off.

                Did you see in the beginning of the article where that man said he can make 20-30 hours for 3 hours? That is ridiculous! 30 dollars to sit there and bother people for money, to do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING at all. I mean, why in the hell would he go get a job at McDonalds that paid 7 dollars an hour or what have you when he can sit on the street and make 10 an hour that is non tax deductable? 30 dollars for 3 hours as opposed to the 17 or 18 that he would make after taxes at McDonalds for the same amount of time. And of course, at McDonalds he would have to actually do something and contribute to society and stand on his feet.

                30 dollars for doing nothing vs. 17 while being a productive member of society. It's not a hard choice as far as that man is concerned, and that is the problem. As long as we as a society continue to give these people money, then there is absolutely no incentive for them to actually try to contribute to society. Why lift a finger to make 17 bucks when you can make 30 while sitting on your ***? They certainly aren't idiots.

                I 100% support the mayors plan. It's too beautiful a downtown to allow this to happen and something must be done. But as long as citizens continue to give them money it will never fully end. I wish there was a way for every citizen to stop giving them money, because as long as these people can collect more per hour sitting on their buts than someone who is trying to make a living doing a minimum wage job (and actually contributes to the betterment of society), then this will never end.
                Last edited by Sollozzo; 03-31-2008, 03:37 PM.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Mayor seeks to rid streets of panhandlers

                  Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                  Putnam, giving a hungry person something to eat is not "subsidizing homelessness" in my world. Could you please explain you position a little more?

                  Carrying the food to the street corners is, on the one hand, simply practical. They want to feed as many people as possible and so they go around looking for the people where they are. But it also rewards people (let's say men, since they are all men on the streets downtown) for being on the street. And by rewarding them, it encourages them to be on the street again tomorrow.

                  We should be generous to people we encounter, and "Give to the one who asks." But what I'm talking about is not simply a kind response to a chance encounter. It is a formal program that says to homeless men: "Be out here again tomorrow, and we'll feed you again."

                  I would much prefer that we expand shelters and other services that allow people to get off the streets. Especially in the winter. Indy has resources to provide the homeless women with decent shelter during the day as well as the night. We need to do a little more and do the same for the men. Once they are engaged in effective services, those who can work need to do it. I often can't help laughing when I see a man holding a sign saying "Can't find Work" standing right in front of a business that I know is hiring. the problem is that I wouldn't wish many of those people on any respectable business. Maybe the best solution would be to give all the panhandlers jobs dealing cards at Hoosier Park and Indiana Downs. Anyway, I think the best real solution for a lot of those people is social aid. I don't begrudge them asssistance if they aren't fit to work. But I think they ought to behave respectfully if they are going to benefit from the social compact.

                  I'm not sure, but I think many of our programs are still operating on the principles of a century ago, when tramp labor was a common thing. Anywhere a new railroad or dam or whatever was being built, itinerant workers would gather and provide the labor. But they didn't have any place to stay, so "missions" were established to let them stay overnight, expecting them to clear out during the day and then to leave the area altogether when the work was finished. That made sene then, but not now when we have endemic homelessness, aggravated by mental health / drug issues, domestic violence, etc. Today, our services should be day/night, and it makes no sense for Wheeler Mission (one of the best programs in Indy) to lock its door during the day.
                  Last edited by Putnam; 03-31-2008, 03:41 PM.
                  And I won't be here to see the day
                  It all dries up and blows away
                  I'd hang around just to see
                  But they never had much use for me
                  In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Mayor seeks to rid streets of panhandlers

                    I have noticed a significant increase in panhandlers over the last few years. Seems they're everywhere these days.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Mayor seeks to rid streets of panhandlers

                      Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                      Putnam, giving a hungry person something to eat is not "subsidizing homelessness" in my world. Could you please explain you position a little more?
                      I have to agree with Putnam on this. If someone knows they can sit on the corner and someone is going to bring them food - doesn't that create an incentive to just sit on the corner and do nothing.

                      I'll be honest if someone would pay me my yearly salary and I didn't have to work, I wouldn't ever step one foot into work. If someone else is going to pay my rent, pay for my food, pay all my bills, pay for everything (including Pacers tickets), then I wouldn't work then either.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Mayor seeks to rid streets of panhandlers

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        I have to agree with Putnam on this. If someone knows they can sit on the corner and someone is going to bring them food - doesn't that create an incentive to just sit on the corner and do nothing.

                        I'll be honest if someone would pay me my yearly salary and I didn't have to work, I wouldn't ever step one foot into work. If someone else is going to pay my rent, pay for my food, pay all my bills, pay for everything (including Pacers tickets), then I wouldn't work then either.

                        I definitely agree with this 100%.

                        Just like I said earlier, what's the incentive to work at McDonalds for 3 hours and make 18 or so bucks after taxes, when you can do absolutely nothing on the street for the same amount of time and make 30? They make more money on the street per hour doing nothing, whereas at McDonalds they would have to operate a grill or work a cash register....you know, do legitimate work like the rest of us.
                        Last edited by Sollozzo; 03-31-2008, 03:48 PM.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Mayor seeks to rid streets of panhandlers

                          I'm sorry, I think I have to step out of this one.

                          Starving disabled people is not a reasonable solution to their problems.

                          Now if you will excuse me, I'm going to buy a sandwich and give it to a panhandler on the beach. (Yes I really am). I will have confidence that I have done far more today to help someone in need than anyone posting in this thread.
                          “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                          “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Mayor seeks to rid streets of panhandlers

                            Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                            I'm sorry, I think I have to step out of this one.

                            Starving disabled people is not a reasonable solution to their problems.

                            Now if you will excuse me, I'm going to buy a sandwich and give it to a panhandler on the beach. (Yes I really am). I will have confidence that I have done far more today to help someone in need than anyone posting in this thread.
                            LA FTW!

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Mayor seeks to rid streets of panhandlers

                              I get a *lot* of people begging me for money whenever I'm out, too. I'm not really to sure what should be done of it--haven't really thought of it. I don't really mind giving them like a buck, or whatever change I might have, but I get pissed when I help them out and instead of saying "thanks" they just ask (sometimes demand!) for *more*. I mean, I'm sympathetic to where they're coming from, but christ!
                              You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
                              Working...
                              X