|
Illustration by Josh Hagler
|
Arizona Daily Wildcat
Wednesday Apr. 10, 2002
Poverty. Wealth. Panhandlers. Tucson.
Panhandlers approaching people for money in the University of Arizona area is not a new trend.
An innovative citywide program - a network between UA, the City of Tucson, the Tucson Downtown Alliance, the Fourth Avenue Merchants Association and eight social service organizations - is hoping to counter that trend. The campaign, "Stop Giving to Panhandlers - Don't feel guilty," provides motivation for citizens to redirect their money out of panhandler's hands into charitable "partners." The program provides the framework for area businesses to volunteer.
A business that chooses to volunteer hangs the campaign poster on their street windows. Sam Spencer, events director for the Fourth Avenue Merchants Association, describes the campaign's philosophy: "The basic message is that giving money only empowers panhandlers to stay on the street."
And panhandler-packed streets deter potential customers.
While the program is designed to filter charity-change into organizations that aid the homeless faction with shelter, employment, food and other services, many doubt it will be successful. How many people will make the extra effort to deliver that 50 cents or a dollar from their wallets to an organization?
As UA students, we seem plagued by panhandlers on- and off-campus wanting us to give them our extra cash. What do you think? Is the new campaign appropriate, and will it actually curb the panhandler population?
Guilt: A loaded word
Give a man a fish; he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish; he eats forever. It's in the Bible, and it's a nice idea in theory, but it usually doesn't work out. This whole City of Tucson win-win situation sounds great: You don't have to give money AND you don't have to feel guilty! In reality, the city's plans for the homeless have not worked out so brightly. Last year, they voted with one dissent to remove all newspaper sellers from the street corners. They pretended this was an opportunity for them to get better jobs. What happened? Those workers lost their jobs, and months later, most were unemployed or had relocated to county corners like Tanque Verde and Sabino Canyon.
Attempting to encourage the migration of the city's homeless toward organizations that can offer them real help is excellent. But in moments of crisis, we all need a little support. If approached on University Boulevard by a panhandler, the students need a ready answer to explain how to get to the nearest shelter by bus. But the human thing is to also give them the bus money and pop into that mini-mart on the corner of Park Avenue and buy them a water bottle. That's just common sense.
Laura Winsky is a senior majoring in Spanish and political science. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
Help them by telling them, 'no'
I don't live on campus anymore, but I remember being pressured for cash more than once when I did, and a couple times since. The problem is large enough to be acknowledged and acted upon.
Of course, I don't know if there's anything dumber than trying to hit up college students - some of the poorest people around - for money.
The cause that some Tucson businesses have decided to take up is noble - and obviously, it's good PR. My only concern is where money raised for the homeless will be used. I hope it's true that a good deal of the money goes toward employment opportunities; if it's only being used for more handouts, the homeless are no better off than they would be panhandling, and there would be no incentive for them to stop.
Regardless, the program is a great way to give the homeless a hand while making UA's campus and surrounding areas a little safer. Students have the right to walk around school freely without being harassed by panhandlers.
And if students really want to help these people, they should tell them, "no." Panhandlers just might stop begging and start seeking some real help.
Shane Dale is a political science junior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
The greater good can suffer
The question of the greater good vs. an individual's betterment is a familiar and intense debate. How can you weigh one person over a few? Who gets that right?
The new campaign, "Stop Giving to Panhandlers," follows this train of thought. I realize that giving money to a specific homeless person isn't really helping him or her get off the street. However, maybe that person hasn't eaten in two days and your $2 will get them a hot bite to eat. I think that is worth the $2, but this campaign is suggesting that I should donate my money to particular programs. The City of Tucson, UA and various merchants associations support the campaign.
The merchant support, which may be justified, seems to be there to protect these businesses from losing patrons because of the panhandlers standing in front. People will see the homeless outside and not want to go to that establishment because of it. I understand their concern, but who are they to tell us not to give money to someone? I would rather buy an exhausted girl a 6-inch Subway sandwich than give money to any organization.
The greater good with all their organizations and businesses can do that. The person standing in front of me has priority.
Mariam Durrani is a systems engineering junior. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
Change is a-comin'
When I first heard about the signs on University - I heard about them before I saw them - my ears perked up. About a year ago, the Tucson City Council passed an ordinance banning homeless vendors from selling newspapers on medians, claiming that it was "inhumane." Apparently, those who voted in favor of it never considered the humanity of depriving the poverty-stricken of their one meager source of income.
Given that, I felt uneasy when I heard about the signs. It seemed like another ploy to purge the streets of something we like to avoid thinking about - the vast, often invisible, population of homeless persons living in our city.
However, when I went down to University to check them out for myself, I was pleasantly surprised. The signs didn't simply urge people to refuse to help; they did the opposite. They encouraged passersby to volunteer their time and money to organized efforts to help the homeless, rather than quelling their guilt by giving them spare change, an act which is much less helpful (and potentially harmful) in the long run.
If people truly heed the intent of the signs - rather than just the request to halt the flow of handouts - this will be a positive step toward curtailing Tucson's homeless population.
Caitlin Hall is a biochemistry and philosophy freshman. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
Spring cleaning
Looking for an excuse to not give charity? "Don't feel guilty." New signs discourage spontaneous donations and empower us to keep the change in our pockets.
There's nothing novel about this approach. Most cities try to sweep their beggars and bums under the bridge. Others have more transients per city block than street signs. The bottom line is to boost commerce by removing the seedy human element.
The signs assume that we give to the needy because they make us feel guilty. Then, they try to get rid of the catalyst for our guilt, namely "panhandlers." The less we see them on the street, the less we think about them, and the less we give. Contrary to the signs' suggestion, people will not channel their charitable impulses into organizations. Acts of kindness are fleeting.
So, while the campaign may "clean up" campus and surroundings, it will not uplift the needy. Tucson is a big city with endless panhandling opportunities. If we give less around campus, they'll go elsewhere, some to organizations, some to El Con Mall.
Among those who can help themselves and choose not to, the decision is still up to them. If they want to get off the street, I think they probably can if they're dedicated to working. But it will take more than drying up University Boulevard to motivate them.
Daniel Cucher is a creative writing senior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
Panhandling symptom of bigger problems
Panhandlers are merely a symptom of many problems facing our community. Symptomatically treating the problem may seem to help for a while but will not make a lasting difference. I agree that people's money could probably go further if it were given to organized charities instead of individual panhandlers, but encouraging people to do so will not solve the problem of homelessness in our community.
Our current state and local leadership seems to be fixated on avoiding the underlying social problems that lead to such large numbers of panhandlers in the streets. A lack of effective job training, an undereducated workforce, and the deterioration of the inner city all contribute to the presence of panhandlers.
Possibly the biggest reason why our state and local governments do not address the problem in its entirety is because it does not affect everyone in the community. Suburban residents don't often deal with panhandlers, and thus, the inner city becomes less desirable. Perhaps if urban sprawl had been better contained in Tucson, reinvestment in the inner city would have taken place and would not have been so conducive to problems such as panhandling.
I agree that people should choose reputable charities over individual panhandlers, but I don't expect this campaign to stop people from giving to panhandlers to make much difference in the long run.
Kendrick Wilson is a political science freshman. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
