
Why would anyone try to stop the city from cleaning up its streets? This is the emotional debate that is going on right now, as
local officials try to sweep and steam clean some sidewalks within the “Skid Row” area of downtown
Los Angeles.
Homeless advocates are physically trying to stop the city trucks and workers. They claim that this clean up is just a way of forcing the homeless to move, taking away the possessions of homeless people, and even criminalizing homelessness.
Are these city trucks and workers mechanical wolves gobbling up the mere possessions of the homeless?
Or should a city be allowed to clean up its streets?
I wrote an op-ed piece in the LA Times a couple of years back, called “Clean Streets, Not Mean Streets.” The logic is that if there are enough places for the homeless to go, then communities should be able to clean up their streets.
However, timing is a big issue here. With 90,000 homeless and only 12,000 shelter beds, it will take years to have enough shelter or housing. So in the mean time are cities’ hands tied to do nothing?
I think there is a difference between arresting homeless people for loitering, etc.—and cleaning up the streets. The health hazards of people living on the streets must be taken in consideration.
There are two main values here:
(1) People should not be living on our streets; and frankly, should have the right to shelter.
(2) Cities should be able to clean their streets and keep them safe.
Can we do both, if there is a real strong effort?