Guy asking for money on Berkeley 7th
Comments
-
i hate poor people. if i stand next to them, people might think i am poor too. we should round em up and ship em all off somewhere.
Guestpks: i think the funniest bit of that posting was that you want your parents to think you live in an affluent neighborhood. just curious, why? are they from CT by any chance? my mom is and I could live anywhere in NYC and she'd still think it was sketchy...because she's basically a stepford wife. -
My old roommate works in mental health and housing, he finds places for homeless people to live. When he sees people begging for money on the subway or everywhere else, he hands them a card to where they can get help. Sure, there is a stigma about going to get help, but it's not as bad as shuffling your feet. My point is, for the large amount of cards he hands out, it sounds like very few people seek help. It's easier to beg than try to better your life. And I am talking mentally ill too, his housing is for everyone. So, next time someone asks you for a penny,dime, quarter, whatever the robotic spiel, tell them where they can get some real help. Giving them money only keeps them in a state of constant needing and begging.
-
Guestpks wrote:
It is a sad reflection of what Park Slope has become. I just don't understand the harshness towards someone asking for some change for God's sakes?? CHANGE! You can't even get a cup of latte with that pile of change. And of course you can just walk by, they aren't shaking the change out of your pockets. Having done some volunteer work for Coalition for the Homeless, I can tell you that the majority are either substance abusers or mentally ill. Our government turned them on to the streets by cutting programs and with no hand to help them up and off the street. The compassionate conservatives asked us to shoulder the responsibility and I guess we did so by being disgusted and wanting them removed. Wow, I just find this very disturbing.
1. Panhandlers - anywhere - affect the appearance, safety level, and the true and perceived socio-economic status of any given location.
2. I pay a LOT of rent to live in the North Slope because I like that it is a) safe b) nice looking (that's right - like when my parents come over I would like them to know that I live in a pretty, affluent neighborhood), and c) I am of the "sterling2000" opinion that "...I have a greater respect for those who are willing to put their backs and sweat into earning an honest wage rather than pushing a frankly insultingly dishonest handout with a shuffle, eye roll and toothy smile."
There. I said it. Let the flames begin. Unless, of course, some of you feel the same way but were afraid to say it because it's so darn un-PC.
I think Guestpks you should be more concerned what your mother thinks of your cold heart--as a mother I am more concerned that my sons grow up to be kind towards the less fortunate and not that they wear name brand clothes and live in a name brand neighborhood. -
Right Kensingtonmom!!
Guestpks: I actually don't think PS is that impressive anyway...it's nice but if you want to impress someone you should get one of those brownstones across from the Met. -
Kensingtonmom wrote: It is a sad reflection of what Park Slope has become. I just don't understand the harshness towards someone asking for some change for God's sakes?? CHANGE! You can't even get a cup of latte with that pile of change. And of course you can just walk by, they aren't shaking the change out of your pockets. Having done some volunteer work for Coalition for the Homeless, I can tell you that the majority are either substance abusers or mentally ill. .
Do you really not understand the people that we're talking about? Yes, the majority of the homeless are mentally ill, we get that... and we're not talking about them. We're talking about the people that panhandle simply because it's easier to take advantage of the generosity of others than it is to earn a living.
PS- several times a year, I deposit close to $100 in change. Change does add up, you need only ask a career panhandler. -
we should send them all the alaska to a labor work camp. alaska needs labor and we have a surplus panhandling population! that or san fran which ever is cheaper.
-
I think I am a compassionate person but I very rarely give money to panhandlers. When I first moved to NYC from the suburbs, I would give money to anyone who asked for it, because I thought of how desperate I would have to be to approach a stranger for money. Then I moved to an apartment building in the East Village where panhandlers hung out on the stoop and after getting hassled every time I went in or out of my building I definitely lost some of my compassion or at least my naivete and I decided to donate a set amount of money each month to charity rather than give money to panhandlers. So that's what I do.
I also remember that several years ago there were arrests of a couple of men who were robbing houses and apartments in Park Slope -- it turned out that they were regular 7th Avenue panhandlers who were begging for money during the day and committing robberies at night. I have a vague recollection that another panhandler "regular" from 7th Ave was convicted of rape. So, I don't know what I'm saying -- I guess, that some of them are probably nice people who have fallen on hard times and are deserving of compassion and handouts, and others are not -- and I personally do not have the ability to distinguish so I would prefer to donate to charities that presumably have the resources to direct money to those who really need it most. -
WhyFi wrote:
I get it. I know who you are talking about. What bothers me is the blanket attitudes towards being annoyed by homeless people that some people are expressing. They don't look pretty standing on a street corner blocking the view to the Corcoran windows. Yes, they obviously can be an annoyance--all I am saying is don't justify your disgust with ridiculous statements that they are living a good life on $9000 a year or what not. You can justify any base emotion or prejudice. And yes, some homeless people do commit crimes, and that is why we need programs to get some of these people help and OFF the streets.
Do you really not understand the people that we're talking about? Yes, the majority of the homeless are mentally ill, we get that... and we're not talking about them. We're talking about the people that panhandle simply because it's easier to take advantage of the generosity of others than it is to earn a living.
PS- several times a year, I deposit close to $100 in change. Change does add up, you need only ask a career panhandler. -
some homeless people commit crimes, but some wealthy people commit crimes too--like lying to start a war that has resulted in 2454 dead US soldiers and between 34-38,000 dead iraqi civilians (innocent civilians). i'm more worried about that than panhandlers. we should ship the residents of the white house off to alaska first, then worry about the guy on 7th ave.
-
kensingtonmom wrote: I get it. I know who you are talking about. What bothers me is the blanket attitudes towards being annoyed by homeless people that some people are expressing. They don't look pretty standing on a street corner blocking the view to the Corcoran windows. Yes, they obviously can be an annoyance--all I am saying is don't justify your disgust with ridiculous statements that they are living a good life on $9000 a year or what not. You can justify any base emotion or prejudice. And yes, some homeless people do commit crimes, and that is why we need programs to get some of these people help and OFF the streets.
Who's expressing this blanket attitude towards homeless people? I'll put my lunch money up against yours in a bet that the people that we're expressing an annoyance with aren't homeless. -
its not the homless thats the problem its the can work but wont work pandhandle people!
-
WhyFi wrote: Who's expressing this blanket attitude towards homeless people? I'll put my lunch money up against yours in a bet that the people that we're expressing an annoyance with aren't homeless.
How about Guestpks for one?
"1. Panhandlers - anywhere - affect the appearance, safety level, and the true and perceived socio-economic status of any given location." -
findcate wrote: some wealthy people commit crimes too--like lying to start a war that has resulted in 2454 dead US soldiers and between 34-38,000 dead iraqi civilians (innocent civilians).
Yeah and I wouldn't give that guy any of my money either if I could help it.
-
kensingtonmom wrote: How about Guestpks for one?
a) Panhandler does not necessarily equal homeless. And again-
"1. Panhandlers - anywhere - affect the appearance, safety level, and the true and perceived socio-economic status of any given location."WhyFi wrote: I'll put my lunch money up against yours in a bet that the people that we're expressing an annoyance with aren't homeless.
b) ... I don't think that there is really a need for a "b."
How 'bout this- show me where someone expresses this 'blanket attitude' towards the homeless. Show me the quote, and please highlight the word "homeless." You can't, 'cause it's not there.
Don't try to look down on us from your high horse because you naively equate "panhandler" and "homeless." -
WhyFi wrote: Don't try to look down on us from your high horse because you naively equate "panhandler" and "homeless."
I am not looking down from a high horse--
I am guilty of the same--I walk past blindly all the time. But I don't see what the big deal is if these "panhandlers" "hobos" "bums" "homeless people" "street people" whatever you want to call them, ask for money. I don't think they ruin a neighborhood and I think they have a right to bottom feed off the wealth pouring in. And I am willing to bet YOU that none of these people are living comfortable lives in decent apartments -
panhandler and homeless have been used interchangeably throughout this thread. the offensive bit of guestspks message to me was that he seemed to find it aesthetically inconvenient that there were poor people who might make his neighborhood less beautiful and might make him seem less wealthy for living there, and on top of that he just didn't want to have to even look at anyone who was poor.
that was what i presume kensingtonmom meant by the 'blanket attitude towards the homeless'... i found it pretty sinister, personally.
'Don't try to look down on us from your high horse because you naively equate "panhandler" and "homeless."' Now that just seems like a silly thing to say. what's naive about it? i think YOU're naive that you swallow the rhetoric that the carnegies and rockafellers invented when they hijacked our national resources and started paying people to go around the country giving speeches that America was a 'field of diamonds' and that if anyone wasn't a millionaire, it was due to a personal defect. it caught on at first, then went out of style for a while, until Ronald Reagan revived it. He also cut alot of the benefits that kensingtonmom was refering to that benefited people with psychiatric problems, so they were kicked out of their institutions and onto our corners.
(i think k-mom mentioned that she had personal experience working with the homeless, which hardly makes her naive.) I just hate the way insulting labels are tossed around so lightly on this forum. it is just not a good arguement to say that someone who disagrees with you is naive.
i'm sure a large part of homeless people are panhandlers, the two are commonly associated for good reason, and i know that around a quarter of them have part time jobs, and about 1/3 of them have psychiatric problems. it's not all black and white. no one on this thread knows people's situations & can judge them. if it bugs you just don't give them your money! -
findcate wrote: some homeless people commit crimes, but some wealthy people commit crimes too--like lying to start a war that has resulted in 2454 dead US soldiers and between 34-38,000 dead iraqi civilians (innocent civilians). i'm more worried about that than panhandlers. we should ship the residents of the white house off to alaska first, then worry about the guy on 7th ave.
"Militaryindustrialcomplexification!" -
Subject: Re: Guy asking for money on Berkeley & 7th
Guestpks wrote: Forgive me if this has already been discussed (I am new to the board), but what is up with the guy who is always asking for money in front of Ace Supermarket on Berkeley and 7th? He seems to be friends with everyone! So many people stop by to chat with him. I wonder...does he really need to be asking for money?
To go back to the original question - yes, he (Jake) has been a neighborhood staple for years. There was a brief period in which he was not seen outside Ace regularly. That was after his 6-figure settlement with the city after he was arrested on ridiculously false charges. Seems he squandered that money very quickly and is back on the street. -
Wow. findcate and kensingtonmom, you need to start reading and stop interpreting...
findcate wrote:
People expressing any annoyance have been consistent in making it clear that panhandlers were their subject of their ire. findcate and kensingtonmom, you two have been consistent in interchanging "poor" and "homeless" with "panhandlers."
panhandler and homeless have been used interchangeably throughout this thread.findcate wrote: the offensive bit of guestspks message to me was that he seemed to find it aesthetically inconvenient that there were poor people who might make his neighborhood less beautiful and might make him seem less wealthy for living there, and on top of that he just didn't want to have to even look at anyone who was poor.
guestpks wrote: 1. Panhandlers - anywhere - affect the appearance, safety level, and the true and perceived socio-economic status of any given location.
For your convenience, I've highlighted the words "poor" and "homeless" in guestpks' above quote.findcate wrote: i think YOU're naive that you swallow the rhetoric that the carnegies and rockafellers invented when they hijacked our national resources and started paying people to go around the country giving speeches that America was a 'field of diamonds' and that if anyone wasn't a millionaire, it was due to a personal defect.
I think that you're arrogant to think that you have my belief system down. I understand that some people are in need of our assistance, but how many times do I need to clarify that they're not the subject of this thread? One last time-WhyFi wrote: We're talking about the career panhandlers that are fixtures at certain high-traffic locations - outside of the stores on 7th Ave or Flatbush... strategically placed to collect the change from your purchase before you can put it in your pocket... the ones with no obvious mental or physical limitations... the ones with the clean and not-at-all-threadbare clothing... those are the ones that we're talking about.
This topic not about the homeless or the poor, it's about those that engage in the act of panhandling even though they're as capable as you or I. But go ahead, keep making this topic into something that it's not. Fight the good fight! I'll see you at the next crusade! -
Damn 'guest' posting! The above was me.
-
this is giving me a headache. i'm not making the topic into something it's not--i think that trying to distinguish between homeless and panhandling is pointless, although i am aware that's where you and a few others are trying to steer the topic...(and i do think they are used interchangeably in our culture and on this thread, with good reason).
"I understand that some people are in need of our assistance, but how many times do I need to clarify that they're not the subject of this thread?"
whyfi, I didn't realize you were in charge of deciding the subject of this thread...? -
Wifi not sure why you feel so pissed at Flexichick and I for defending the less fortunate?. I recall the thread started with a question about a guy asking for money. YOU interpreted that as a deadbeat panhandler, and we interpreted that as someone who MIGHT be down on their luck or mentally ill or homeless or whatever. We just are seeing the world differently.
-
i think YOU're naive that you swallow the rhetoric that the carnegies and rockafellers invented when they hijacked our national resources and started paying people to go around the country giving speeches that America was a 'field of diamonds' and that if anyone wasn't a millionaire, it was due to a personal defect.
also whyfi you're right, i was projecting my own frustrations (with the whole phenomenon of blaming the poor for our societies troubles) onto you. point taken. it just pushes my buttons when people blame the poor for being poor. being homeless, panhandling, these are complex issues and i think it's shameful that there are so many people falling through the cracks in our society, for whatever reason. i just find it sad. And i get annoyed when people are so arrogant that they look down on the less fortunate, I think it's heartless. Like barbara bush when she was touring the houston astrodome: "And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this--this (she
chuckles slightly) is working very well for them." Ironically, I would guess that some of those evacuees worked at the refineries that contribute to her family's wealth. -
Sorry Findcate I mean to say you and not Flexichick in my last post.
Very eloquently put by the way! I totally agree with you. I think that the comment by the person who worried about the aesthetics of panhandlers, homeless whatever we want to call them and the parallel to Babs Bush after Katrina is very well drawn. -
Kensingtonmom, I agree with your post too, especially about wanting your sons to have a kind heart rather than a name brand address.
I guess that's where bush learned the compassion he showed in his reaction to the victims of Katrina--in his commitment to rebuild trent lott's house. It really opened my eyes to extent to which they (the whole bush 'dynasty') doesn't empathize with the people in this country, after all the unbelievable images we were seeing...the horrible suffering & death. They tried to pass it off like she didn't mean it that way but i actually listened to the audio clip and you can hear it in her voice. Very cruel, unmistakable class prejudice, and just a total lack of empathy. -
Hi All. I don't want to belabor my point, because I think it - and many other good points - have already been made. But I do feel obligated to respond to some of the inquiries which have been directed to me.
1. Findcate: "i think the funniest bit of that posting was that you want your parents to think you live in an affluent neighborhood. just curious, why? are they from CT by any chance?"
The reason why is because I would like my parents to be aware (visually as well as mentally) that I am (somewhat) financially successful. And a panhandler on the street corner near my house is somewhat contradictory to that assertion. Also, they are not from CT, but they do live near CT.
2. Kmom: "I think Guestpks you should be more concerned what your mother thinks of your cold heart--as a mother I am more concerned that my sons grow up to be kind towards the less fortunate and not that they wear name brand clothes and live in a name brand neighborhood."
How ironic. If only you knew that I am, in fact, an extremely compassionate person. Don't believe me? Need evidence? Fair enough. I applaude you for working with Coalition for the Homeless. I, too, have done some volunteer work in my time. I used to live in Australia where I volunteered with a church-affiliated organization in which we walked the streets of the "worst" neighborhood of Sydney from 9PM - 3AM getting to know the people who lived on the streets (including panhandlers, prostitutes, drug dealers, homeless people...) and offered them help to get off the streets, clean up for a while, or maybe just talk to someone who cares about their lives. Enough evidence for you?
3. Findcate: "I actually don't think PS is that impressive anyway...it's nice but if you want to impress someone you should get one of those brownstones across from the Met."
Point taken. Unfortunately, as I previously stated, I am merely (somewhat) financially successful. You'll remember that I rent.
4. Rose brought up a very good point. Safety was my number 1 issue. If I see Jake (now that I know his name) or any other panhandler walking down the sidewalk towards me at night when I am alone, I will cross to the other side of the street. Yup, that's right. And I ain't ashamed of that. I've been assaulted and almost mugged on the street once. (Please, spare me the whole "but a rich looking guy could mug you, too" shpiel. Yes, I know that. But when I see the news about people who get mugged or assaulted, and they show the surveillance tapes, the perpetrators are generally NOT wearing business suits.)
5. Kmom: Whyfi already addressed my point to your "How about Guestpks for one?" comment. I purposefully did not write "homeless". I wrote "panhandler". There is a difference, according to the Oxford English Dictionary.
6. Joncane: Thank you. That was extremely insightful. And your Avatar is hilarious!
7. Findcate: "the offensive bit of guestspks message to me was that he seemed to find it aesthetically inconvenient that there were poor people who might make his neighborhood less beautiful and might make him seem less wealthy for living there, and on top of that he just didn't want to have to even look at anyone who was poor."
Also very ironic. I come from a developing country (not Australia, but rather my native country) where there is an incredible amount of poor people on the street. If you've been to an urban area in a developing country, you know what I'm talking about. The people there don't bother me in the slightest. You know why? Because either they are carrying more weight on their backs than seems humanly possible, or they are grabbing your ankles to ask for money because they don't have legs, or they are 12 years old, female, wearing way too much makeup and threadbare clothes, and it is very clear that THESE PEOPLE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER CHOICE. As opposed to our friend, Jake.
Furthermore, I am a woman. Not a man. Isn't it funny the assumptions we make about people based on their comments?
Thank you for reading, and enjoy the crazy weather. -
You're not the only one getting a headache!!! Maybe it would be easier to first look at the things that we agree on-
Yes, some people really do need a little help now and again. I realize this, I'm happy to do what I can, and I don't begrudge anyone for doing likewise. That being said, if that someone isn't really in need of the help OR if they're not equally willing to help themselves, it becomes a parasitic relationship.
Now, the original poster title the thread "Guy asking for money on Berkeley & 7th" and his first post ended withI wonder...does he really need to be asking for money?
to me, this clearly indicates that the OP's topic is a particular panhandler that the OP feels doesn't need to panhandle to get by. If you don't interpret that, there's little doubt left of the OP's intention when, a short while later, he clearly statesI don't like being asked for money by a panhandler who has a home, decent clothes, is not starving...
If anyone has strayed off the subject, it's not me.
This brings us to -kensingtonmom wrote: Wifi [edit - ahem... WhyFi
Okay, two things. a) I don't feel that this person is truly less-fortunate, see my definition parasitic relationship above. b) it's not that I'm pissed about you defending anyone, it's that you're doing it at the expense of judging myself and others. This, when you refuse to acknowledge that the subject is, and always has been, about people that ask for a handout when they truly don't need it. We're very specifically expressing a distaste for these people and no one else. You two are condemning us as you take it upon yourselves to take our annoyance with a small group people and apply it to a much larger demographic that is in no way mutually exclusive. Can you not see that? You're judging us on words that you put in our mouths. As we say, "it's really annoying when people that aren't in need, aren't homeless, aren't dirty, and have clean clothes have the balls to ask us for our hard-earned money..." you say, "shame on you for looking down on the poor and homeless!!!" That's like you saying, "John Leguizamo is a sucky comic..." and me firing back, "You racist prick! What do you have against Latinos?!" It doesn't equate.] not sure why you feel so pissed at [findcate] and I for defending the less fortunate?
Stop judging for a hatred towards a specific group when it was neither stated nor implied. -
guestpks wrote: Furthermore, I am a woman. Not a man. Isn't it funny the assumptions we make about people based on their comments?
So, um... in my above post... everywhere that I said "he" in reference to the OP... yeah, replace that with "she." -
WhyFi wrote: DI don't think they ruin a neighborhood and I think they have a right to bottom feed off the wealth pouring in. And I am willing to bet YOU that none of these people are living comfortable lives in decent apartments
While people may have the right to bottom feed, it is not right to mistake the harm they cause. Most people, even those living in PS have limited disposable income, and it is completely inefficient to use that income on our friend Jake. Better you give it to someone who really needs it.
And ultimately, that is the real issue here, right? Issues of neighborhood cosmetics and illegal wars (both of which have been brought up in this thread, and both of which are equally invalid) aside, the real point is, with people like Jake around, it becomes harder to tell who needs money and who doesn't. And it makes income distribution even more inefficient. And believe me, our society doesn't need any more ineffciencies when it comes to wealth distribution. -
"The people there don't bother me in the slightest. You know why? Because either they are carrying more weight on their backs than seems humanly possible"
guestspk, so you just need to see them visibly suffering and/or maimed before you toss them a quarter? How do you go from staying up all night with people on the street to "This is not an experience I enjoy on my daily commute to Manhattan from my nice, extremely expensive neighborhood."??
i definitely understood that people didn't think that Jake needed to panhandle, but my own view is that if he didn't need to, he wouldn't be doing it..and I just hate seeing elderly people on the street. How do we know he doesn't need it? for some mysterious reason i am not carrying more weight on my back than is humanely possible, so i don't mind giving him some spare change.
joncane, that sounded a bit unlikely...link?
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds