Regarding The Daily Sentinel’s June 3 article on homeless camps: When you evict the homeless annually or routinely from homeless/transient camps, where do you evict them to? Unless you have places to evict them to, there will continue to be clandestine camps sprouting along the river, under bridges or in vacant lots — same cat-and-mouse game leading to no real solution.

Each year the city undertakes a yearly effort to identify, eliminate and clean up homeless/transient camps. However, if they have nowhere else to go, don’t you think they’ll be back to the same spots or other hidden spots? So, the city cannot say that it has eliminated a site. Rather, it has just temporarily upset it.

What is the cost of ID, eliminatio” and clean up to the city each year? Isn’t it a cost that is wasted in that it just supports the problem? Is it not better to have designated places for homeless/transient camps with dumpsters, porta-potties and other basic essentials – places you can evict people to. These camps can be organized, maintained, inspected, and controlled – and yes, be places to evict people to.

It can be managed and controlled by the homeless for the homeless with oversight from the city.  This would be much better than the present situation of yearly identification, seeming elimination and clean up. Why not look into some successful homeless camps such as the ones in Seattle?

VI STEVENS
Grand Junction

This entry was posted on Thursday, June 4th, 2009 at 4:13 pm and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.