News   Oct 01, 2024
 1.3K     1 
News   Oct 01, 2024
 621     0 
News   Oct 01, 2024
 1K     2 

Pitfield, on Panhandling...

N

nassauone

Guest
The most interesting part of this is the uncanny resemblance to Miketoronto with here Quote:

"They feel this has contributed to the decline, especially of the downtown core,"

Ah HA! The true doppleganger has shown their face.

Homeless panel votes to oust Pitfield
Panhandling issue sparks friction
Advocates for homeless angered
May 16, 2006. 05:36 AM
JOHN SPEARS
CITY HALL BUREAU

Her efforts to control Toronto's panhandlers has mayoral candidate Jane Pitfield battling the city's homeless advocates.
During a raucous meeting yesterday members of the city's homelessness advisory committee voted to remove Pitfield as co-chair.
But Pitfield says only city council can remove her from the post. And she said she won't quit voluntarily in the face of opposition to a motion she has presented in city council seeking tougher measures against panhandling.
Some members of the committee walked out after voting 28 to 4 in favour of asking the city's community services committee to begin the process to have Pitfield removed as co-chair.
The homelessness committee's rules are informal, allowing all those who attend meetings to vote.
"Not having confidence in the co-chair leaves us in a bit of a conflict of interest in staying in a meeting with a co-chair who shouldn't be there," explained Beric German, a member of the Toronto Disaster Relief Committee, which led the charge against Pitfield.
Pitfield will present a motion at next week's city council meeting asking for several reports from city staff about what can be done to curb panhandling.
One asks whether the city can pass a "quality of life" bylaw making it illegal to "impede any other person's reasonable enjoyment of day-to-day activities through panhandling."
Her motions were prompted by an incident April 26 when Councillor Michael Thompson was "aggressively approached by a panhandler" in Nathan Phillips Square.
Dan Heap — a former Toronto councillor and MP — presented a motion of non-confidence in Pitfield's leadership of the committee, calling her proposal "a bylaw to oppress the poor."
"Taking an action against panhandling is a mistake," Heap, now 80, explained in an interview outside the meeting.
"Panhandling is not the cause of the trouble. The cause of the trouble is some of the people who are working are sometimes not paid enough to pay the rent and feed the kids.
"That's what has to be dealt with: Low, low incomes."
Pitfield originally ruled Heap out of order, because she's appointed by city council, not the committee. That touched off a series of angry outbursts that caused Pitfield to call a recess for tempers to cool. When the meeting resumed, Heap's motion was redrawn as a recommendation to council to unseat Pitfield.
Tom Smarda of the Toronto chapter of the Council of Canadians said her motions are simply part of her campaign for the mayoralty in November's municipal election.
"Her motion can be moved as a publicity strategy to garner right-wing votes on her behalf while hurting the sick and marginalized even further," he said.
But some committee members supported Pitfield remaining co-chair. Greg Paul is executive director of Sanctuary, a Christian outreach agency serving street people.
"I don't think we do ourselves a service by insisting that everybody have the same view about how to address issues of poverty," Paul said.
"The reality is Mrs. Pitfield — although I may disagree with some of her politics — has been there and she's been present and she'd stepped up when some councillors who have a more progressive reputation have not."
Pitfield (Ward 26, Don Valley West) told her opponents that counselling and job training — not panhandling — are what the city's street people need.
Panhandling isn't necessarily a homelessness issue, because some panhandlers have homes, and even cars, she said adding that most people in Toronto are worried about the extent of panhandling.
"They feel this has contributed to the decline, especially of the downtown core," she said later.
Pitfield said her motions shouldn't result in a police crackdown on the poor.
"(I see) this more as a decision by our council to do more, to do better and say we want to help people off the streets."
 
Re: Pitfield, blah blah..this...

nassauone:

Thanks for posting the article - would you mind editing/renaming the subject heading so it's more intuitive to the reader? Much appreciated.

AoD
 
Re: Pitfield, blah blah..this...

Sure Pitfield is a freak but honestly so are some of the advocates for the homeless. Aggressive panhandling is an issue and Pitfield, not necessary in the specific words or actions she choses but on the subject of panhandling and people sleeping on the street is on side with the majority view.
 
Re: Pitfield, blah blah..this...

Good for Pitfield. She should stand her ground against these hysterical poverty pimps.
 
Re: Pitfield, blah blah..this...

AoD - You bet.

Done

as for the other two poasters. I couldn't agree with you more. I just love the quote.
 
Re: Pitfield, blah blah..this...

One asks whether the city can pass a "quality of life" bylaw making it illegal to "impede any other person's reasonable enjoyment of day-to-day activities through panhandling."



That line made me laugh. Maybe they should be talking about the quality of life of the homeless.
 
Re: Pitfield, blah blah..this...

Honestly, some of the most aggressive panhandlers I've come across are not even homeless. They choose to panhandle to make a living. Take for example, the fella who hangs out in front of Tim Horton’s on Danforth Ave, the guy with the green neon sign "HUNGRY", he lives with his mother in an million dollar home in Riverdale. He's just plain lazy and a bully. Aggressive panhandling and homelessness are 2 separate issues.
 
Re: Pitfield, blah blah..this...

Is panhandling really that bad in Toronto? I don't find it so. I live at Yonge & St. Clair and work at Bay and Queens Quay and often walk between the two, through the heart of the "decayed" downtown. There are panhandlers, true. But generally they just sit there or perhaps ask a question. In the 10 years I have lived in the city (Jarvis and Gerrard and Yonge and St. Clair) I have only a few times been harassed by a panhandler.

How does one decide if someone's reasonable enjoyment has been impeded?

Greg
 
Re: Pitfield, blah blah..this...

I don't think my quality of life has taken a hit by panhandlers. I walk by, nothing happens.

Agressive Panhandling is already illegal isn't it? Harassment, threats? Those are already illegal. Wrapping it in homelessness is pure right-of-centre populist politics.
 
Re: Pitfield, blah blah..this...

Wingnuts like Pitfield, Harper and that ilk need to make stupid people afraid of SOMETHING. That's they only hope they have of getting votes. For Pitfield it is poor people and skyscrapers, for Harper it is reporters, or pacifists, or homosexuals, or women, or the courts, or the constitution.
 
^True AP but the fact is that normal people are strange and cranky and like to angry up the blood on a host of busy-body issues so Pitfield and Harper are in tune with normal people in this.
 
Something needs to be done about the panhandling. Everyday there are these two guys who seem to stand there all day long at the offramps from the Gardiner at Bay Street, and bug people coming off the highway and stopped at the stop light.
They don't ask us people walking by for money. But they do go right up the cars.

I am sorry but alot of the panhandlers bug the hell out of me. There is one guy that was outside of the Union Station the other day, with a tin and sitting there pandhandling, while listening to his walkman, and dressed in nice clothing.

I have friends who work two jobs to pay bills, and they don't need to panhandle. If you need more money, you go get another job, because the time you waste panhandling, you could be making money at a real job.

Some people do need help. But I have feeling alot of the panhandlers are just lazy people looking for a quick buck.
 
I think there is something very problematic about panhandling. The trouble is that the issue gets confused with so many others that result in people begging on the streets.

There are individuals who are homeless, others who are chronically unemployed, the mentally ill and those that are addicted to alcohol or drugs. Then there are the panhandlers who are none of the above; these are the people who have joined the culture of begging.

I often wonder if this "culture of begging" has become too accepted? If one raises issues against panhandling, there is all too often an accusation of cruelty to those who are homeless, sick or dependent on drugs or acohol. Isn't living on the streets pretty low, if not cruel? Why is this issue so confused?
 
Its confused because we have to be politically correct.

Look, the gov has to step up to the plate and help the mentally ill, etc like it use to.

Allowing them to beg on the streets is not helping anyone.

At the same time, we have to get tough on the people who are panhandling for fun. I am sorry, but a guy sitting there with a walkman on, and wearing the lattest designer jeans, etc should not be allowed to sit on the street and beg for money. He can't be that poor.

What happen to self worth. There are ways to make a living like two jobs, etc. You don't need to beg.

I know my friend who works two jobs, is saving money for school, etc, really gets mad with the panhandlers, who are doing nothing to try and get a real job.

Everyone has different circumstances I understand. But I think more of them could be off the streets if they wanted.
 
Why is this issue so confused?
Well, in large part, the poverty pimps have made it that way. Look at what that nutbar ex-MP called Pitfield's suggestions on a proposed recommendation about a possible panhandling by-law: "A war on the poor". It's nothing of the sort, and everyone knows it. Pitfield, and everyone else who wishes to eliminate panhandling, are often the first to make the distinction between the homeless with genuine need, and the opportunistic beggars who harass people. But everytime they try to do so, Cathy Crowe or OCAP or some other activist with an axe to grind and grants to fight for come in and accuse the city, the police, Pitfield, whomever, of launching a class war when nothing of the kind has ever been suggested. The strawman of "cops clearing the streets" usually follows, again, without any foundation whatsoever. And so you have this tiresome kabuki theatre where the cameras point at the loudest shouters (homeless activists), and it's inevitable that the issue is simplified and distorted to the point where, in people's minds, if you're against panhandlers, you're against the poor, ergo, clamping down on panhandling becomes a war against the poor even if many panhandlers aren't necessarily poor. And let's face it, the Star, the CBC, Adam Vaughan, and virtually no one else is going to frame the issue in the form of, how can you defend aggressive begging, as opposed to the way they normally present the problem as the onus being on the city to show why the "rights" of panhandlers should be violated. The latter is the default position of virtually all media when this issue is examined, usually as a result of interviewing people like Crowe or the bums themselves. Never do you hear from a BIA rep, or someone else offended by panhandling who, through no fault of their own, almost always comes across as the heavy when they are asked. It's a rigged game.

It's also ridiculous and counter-productive, but these activists, to give them credit, know how to play the game, and they know the issue will always be framed as the big bad city against admittedly visually jarring (and useful for that very purpose) panhandlers. The media doesn't help when they themselves do not distinguish between the mentally ill homeless and obnxious bums in their reports and visuals. Neither do the activists, at least when it suits their purposes, hence the "war against the poor" garbage. It doesn't help either when idiot columnists like Joe Warmington or Joe Fiorito constantly profile these "colourful characters" and use them as grist for columns. It's no wonder then that a "culture" of begging arises because the societal norm, as a result of being told over and over that people have a "right" to beg aggressively and chronically, start to believe that giving change to these people is the "right" thing to do, the "decent" thing to do, etc, when we know the opposite is true, either because the person doesn't need it, or it will be pissed away on drugs, booze or hookers.

No one ever proposes, for example, a campaign to NOT give any beggar anything. I've never seen such a proposal discussed by anyone, or explored by the media, not even the Globe, who several years back sent a reporter undercover and discovered how much money these people make. I have never seen a reporter grill a young panhandler with questions like, how old are you? Are you sick? If not, how come you don't look for work, that sort of thing. It's always people like Pitfield and everyone else who's offended by panhandlers who are asked the tough questions and made to look intolerant by comparison. Funny enough, as bad as the Sun is, at least they finally broke the con of the "shaky lady". I have no doubt she is one among many. I thought that when that story broke, that finally, the tone of the debate would change, but it looks like it was a flash in the pan. No one else but the Sun touched that story, again, no doubt because they didn't want to appear "insensitive" or "harsh" or some other bullshit, probably as a result of emotional blackmail and bullying by the OCAP-TDRC crowd, who know they'll be the first called by the media about *anything* to do with the homeless, and hence be in a better position to frame the issue in the first place as most journalists are too apathetic, lazy, biased or complacent to explore different angles to the story.

So we get the same old, tired debate. The same activists yelling, the same calcified coverage of the issue, and nothing changes. Look, full marks to Pitfield for bringing this up. I'm underwhelmed with her as a candidate, but if she has to take up the standard for people not enamoured with the laissez-faire attitude to public order and quality-of-life issues that infests much of what passes for thought in the media and in certain influential academic, legal and political circles in this city, then so be it.
 

Back
Top