Posted on 03/18/2015 6:26:18 PM PDT by DaveMSmith
SAN FRANCISCO (KCBS) — KCBS has learned that Saint Mary’s Cathedral, the principal church of the Archdiocese of San Francisco, has installed a watering system to keep the homeless from sleeping in the cathedral’s doorways.
The cathedral, at Geary and Gough, is the home church of the Archbishop. There are four tall side doors, with sheltered alcoves, that attract homeless people at night.
“They actually have signs in there that say, ‘No Trespassing,’” said a homeless man named Robert. But there are no signs warning the homeless about what happens in these doorways, at various times, all through the night. Water pours from a hole in the ceiling, about 30 feet above, drenching the alcove and anyone in it. The shower ran for about 75 seconds, every 30 to 60 minutes while we were there, starting before sunset, simultaneously in all four doorways. KCBS witnessed it soak homeless people, and their belongings.
(Excerpt) Read more at sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com ...
You may not know this, but in major cities, the “homeless” come and go, different people drifting in and out, and the first hour is all it takes for this church to have ambushed another homeless person while sleeping, and wet them and their bedding down, to face the winter.
Why deliberately not put up a sign?
No it wasn't, nor was installing the system on the sly an oversight, nor was the use of the water in what appears to be a clear violation of the drought laws.
Scores of business in the Financial District and in the Restaurant/Entertainment District have used, and are still using, sprinklers. Where the Cathedral differed from this, was in their commitment to permit the homeless to use other facilities -- available right there, right on the Cathedral grounds (!), AND to offer them more comprehensive help in terms of safe, clean shelters, meals, medical care and substance abuse treatment.
How do you protect your flock from being verbally harassed, physically accosted, and exposed to unsafe, unsanitary conditions (I'm including the homeless, themselves, in the wider definition of "flock")? None of us wants the obvious other alternatives involving dogs, barbed wire, and law-enforcement "come-along holds."
My solution would be involuntary admission to residential treatment facilities, but that has not been legally possible for decades now.
If among these unfortunates were your mentally-addled aunts or old military buddies, how would you want them treated? Especially if they wouldn't come with you voluntarily?
Honest question. Looking for humane answers, as, I think, most of us are.
But that’s not why you are upset. You used the term ambush. It was more like a warning shot. Plus, the archdiocese says that it was following the example of banks etc, in the city. By your standard they would be equally wrong.
Drenching people and their gear in their sleep is not a warning, it is the ambush.
By my standard the church admitted they were wrong and that they are getting a permit to remove the illegal system and would have it gone by tomorrow.
They did not put up a warning sign about what they were pulling, and that the unsuspecting drifters and strangers who happened to find shelter there on these winter nights, would suddenly find themselves and their sleeping bag and gear, drenched
If you are going to decide to be honest, then simply look at what this church admits it did, how they went about it, realize that they got busted, and that it stopped and the illegal system will be gone tomorrow, and quit trying to switch to unrelated topics such as homelessness in general and charities and such.
As I've said, having the church hire the homeless to keep the grounds and entrances clear - who are working a 12 step program - to be able to deal with people who are there is a compassionate solution. That is ministry and 12 step work - helping others.
In our community, homelessness isn't an issue. There are people who 'couch surf' - staying with friends until they can get on their feet again.
I'm not into pushing problems onto someone else. I've seen jail and institutions from the inside - it's just hiding the problem. Time to step up and deal with this.
The law that Reagan signed was the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS), passed by the legislature & signed into law in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan. The idea was to "stem entry into the state hospital by encouraging the community system to accept more patients, hopefully improving quality of care while allowing state expense to be alleviated by the newly available federal funds." It also was designed to protect the rights of mental patients. It was considered a landmark of its time--a change in the attitude toward mental illness and its treatment.
Mark Twain :
“The coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco “
Winters aren’t bad, though.
Yes, I know the date is wrong, the democrats sent the bill to Reagan in 67 and he signed it, it was a result of the 1963 Federal bill that democrat JFK signed to empty the state mental institutions, and which did.
Why are you fighting to defend the democrat president who created the problem and instead go after Reagan, who was only a governor of a single state?
Just saying, Reagan was the first to implement it and other states followed. The issue isn't political.
Personally, I believe involuntary institualization is inhumane. Other cultures do not do this.
I fault JFK for the law, and I fault him for what he wanted for our nation, and for what he did to get elected, and how his election resulted in our destruction, and Vietnam and the 1960s.
Really, you have to get past casting blame what happened half a century ago and look at today's problems.
LOL, seriously you need to quit thinking of the hero of the left as a conservative and thinking of Nixon as being the same man that he would have been as Eisenhower’s veep taking over in 1960, before JFK and LBJ destroyed America, gave us JFK’s 1965 Immigration Act, unionized government, created Vietnam and the 1960s and so empowered the world’s communists and the world’s and America’s left.
JFK’s immigration dream coming to pass on his death, it truly destroyed us, and there is no recovery possible.
In a private letter in 1960, Reagan labelled JFK a deep threat and a “Marxist”, and he asked Nixon to be able to help him defeat JFK.
That is water wastage! Call the EPA!
see post 29
The illegal plumbing system is not legal, that is why they will have a plumbing contractor remove it.
The water usage also appears illegal, they said they will get a legal permit this time to remove the system and be inspected afterward.
I can't imagine Jesus Christ (or Mother Teresa or St. Vincent de Paul) turning the water on these guys; and I can't imagine thinking it would be a good thing if it happened to me.
It has the "feel" of treating very unfortunate men as if they were an infestation of rodents.
I tried to imagine what could be done to get these guys to the shelters. The Archdiocese could actually pay for vans to drive them down to the St. Joseph's Family Center on Guerrero, or the Hospitality House on Turk Street --- those I remember, and I know the city has more.
That would work if the men were cooperative, and willing to obey the shelter rules (no drugs, no alcohol, no weapons, no fighting.)
If they weren't cooperative -- and some might not be, some have serious mental health issues --- I don't quite know what to do.
Drenching people with water is not respectful, and also it apparently isn't even effective ---since the system has been been in operation for 2 years, and the homeless still come to sleep, pee and poop in the 4 alcove doorways. In any case, I was wrong to defend the sprinkler system. I should have realized that a once.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.