State of Cape Cod

Give, By All Means, But Don't Overdo It

Winter and the holidays have created a lot of media concern for the homeless – people who, for whatever reason, live on the streets. Even the mayor of Boston, according to the newscasts, is out walking through the city helping count the homeless. Or at least he showed up for the photo op. Judging from the alarming speculation being expressed in Cape Cod’s print and broadcast media, the local homeless population is expected to increase for a variety of purported reasons. The state of the economy, the number one whipping boy at this time, comes in for a good part of the blame, deserved or not. Here on the Cape there’s a veritable hue and cry to provide shelter for those who have no homes. A laudable undertaking, to be sure, but one must wonder whether the most vociferous professional advocates are putting career perpetuation and expansion ahead of the needs of their ‘clients’ or the good of the town.

Certainly nobody should be without shelter and food. A humane citizenry ought to, without hesitation, ensure that their fellow human beings are provided with the rudimentary necessities of life. Something to eat, a warm place to lay their heads at night and, if necessary, spend their days during inclemenf weather, should be made available to all who lack them with no questions asked. To look the other way in the face of such basic travail would be unquestionably cruel. There, is, however, a fine line which providers must observe.

The facilities provided to the less fortunate should be spartan, for several reasons. While suffering must be alleviated, the public treasury is not to be wasted on unnecessary frills. There is an obligation to the homeless, to be sure, but there is also a responsibility to the taxpayers and contributors to spend their money prudently. They do, after all, provide the funds.

Cost is another factor. The more opulent the shelters, the more lavish the facilities, and the more extensive the services, the greater the cost. The larger the ship, the bigger the crew needed to keep it afloat. That means greater overhead in the form of a larger and more expensive plant, more and better office space, a bigger staff, and more administrators at higher salaries. One can’t help but wonder when one hears of the need for expanding services for the homeless: is it grounded in necessity, or is it a way for those who make their living in this field to take care of Numero Uno? Non profit basically means an organization doesn’t pay taxes. It certainly does not mean that the employees, especially the administrators, can’t draw ample salaries. While many charitable groups are above reproach, there are some bad apples. While it may not be likely on the local level, it’s something to keep in mind. Always check out a charitable organization before entrusting it with your hard earned cash.

Another reason for keeping the facilities less than luxurious is embodied in the line from the movie “Field of Dreams” – “Build it and they will come.” While there is an obligation to provide for the homeless in our communities, there is certainly no requirement that we reach beyond our borders and import unfortunates from other venues. Rest assured, those towns who provide the bestest and the mostest, and who ask for nothing in return, will find themselves overwhelmed. Word will get around and the “client” list will grow exponentially.   

This may be heresy to the purists among the do-gooders, but some sort of quid pro quo should be required from the recipients of the public largesse. Should not the able bodied homeless who use the facilities be required to perform at least a minimum of community service in return for what they get? While some of the homeless population are mentally ill or physically incapable, those who can ought to be required to do some (God forgive me) work in return for their care. There is never any mention of something along those lines being part of the mix, yet there are certainly chores which the able bodied could contribute in return for the benefits of which they partake. It might even restore some dignity and instill the beginnings of a work ethic in a few souls.

Neither can the problems which the homeless present to those in whose neighborhoods they congregate be ignored. Businesses are especially vulnerable. Many are already suffering from the failing economy and certainly don’t need to provide potential customers with another reason to take their trade elsewhere. It would be counterproductive to have to deal with derelicts impeding the flow of traffic and invading their establishments. When customers are in short supply, as they are now, no merchant needs to antagonize his clientele.

While everyone agrees that no human being should be without food, shelter, and clothing, those who provide these needs must do so prudently. They must satisfy the rudimentary requirements of their charges without alienating those who donate to their cause. They must also take care to provide for the home grown needy population without being so generous as to attract the poor and destitute of other, less generous, towns and thus overtax their own facilities. Because no one values what they get for nothing, and it stifles any incentive, some service should be required from their “clients” in exchange for the goods and services they receive. This will satisfy not only their physical requirements but provide them with dignity by repaying in some small measure those who care for them.

Please Visit
http://mysite.verizon.net/rogrs/
NON ILLEGITIMI CARBORUNDUM