Editor:
Regarding the proposal for a tent city to serve the homeless (Aug. 20): Let’s think about this for a moment. Homeless are living and sleeping on and near Main Street, on business properties or on private residences’ yards.
Most of the same group of homeless get money either by begging or can and bottle collecting on Main Street (at least they turn the cans in on Main Street). Police get called for these same individuals, which has been called a burden, but it’s a normal police function and call. Domestic violence calls (yes, even verbal – which isn’t a crime, but they have to respond) are even more common.
Should they not handle those domestic calls because “it’s wasting money?” I digress.
Take away mental-issues homeless and the majority of homeless are there because they don’t want responsibility. There are church charities for help, yet they choose not to get it. Sweet Home has many churches for the small size of the community. Again, some people don’t want responsibility.
Let’s say the city allows a tent city in the proposed area. The homeless are out of sight at night, but hey, they’re back in the day doing homeless stuff on Main Street. The problem didn’t go away.
Once they’re established on the proposed property, they will demand running water and restroom facilities. Even Porta-Potties and “barreled” water need to be serviced. Who pays for that? Oh yeah. Taxpayers do.
What happens when someone gets hurt on the property? The city allowed the homeless to live there, so who’s responsible in a lawsuit? The city. Who pays for that to run? Taxpayers.
If the thought of a lawsuit seems outrageous, extreme, or downright ridiculous, think about the idea which started the ball rolling. A homeless tent city in Sweet Home.
The county can go out and offer help to those who want it instead of creating a future problem with the tent city. Those who chose to decline the help can live with those who support the tent city and who’ve signed the petition.
By the original post in the paper, there were 120 signatures supporting the camp and 45 homeless in Sweet Home. That can allow every homeless person 2.6 options of places to stay. That seems pretty favorable. The fact that 120 people signed the petition doesn’t mean the rest of the residents want it, especially since Sweet Home has a little over 9,000 people.
I donate time and money to many charities, but I choose the ones who want to help themselves, or ones who are too young to help themselves, in case the above truth seems heartless.
Mark Cirkosz
Sweet Home