Graphic Matt,
That's a tough one and I could probably only answer that in a way that I would probably re-think if I came back to the issue in a few years.
First, we should not craft the city and policy around the needs of this individual. What I mean is that this guy is not what we should spend most of our time talking about. Improving the standard of living for everyone in the neighbourhood benefits this gentlemen as much as everyone else. That should be the focus of government.
However, this does not mean the same thing as sweeping him under the rug. No mature government could possibly suggest that we should not provide assistance to people who are true societal dependents, that is people who cannot take responsibility for themselves and for whom others have abandoned responsibility. To this end I would devote MORE resources to him not less. The problem with societal dependence is not the resources we spend on dependent people but the inclusion and encouragement of people to be dependent who do not need to be. There is a whole entitlement industry that, out of self-interest as much as well intention, tries to herd as many people as possible into the dependent camp.
Second, we should not judge him. People living in poverty are judged by the right, but I feel they are judged by the left as well. The idea the we need to "eradicate poverty" is in itself a value based judgement. It's saying that people haven't made any of the decisions that influence their lives or that all people have the same priorities in life. Poverty eradication is also implicitly suggesting that financial or material success are higher goals in life (I'm not talking about extreme poverty here such as people starving in the streets. No one would suggest that anyone should be starving). So take some guys who do some odd jobs for me who would probably be considered close to poverty. These guys have multiple children by multiple women and don't take any responsibility financial or parental for them. They also have cable TV, cell phones, internet etc. even though they access some government support. They have made different choices in life and spent their resources in different ways and on different experiences then I. I have more money than them even though I am decades younger but they are actually more successful then me biologically. So then who now is more successful?
When you speak of the panhandling guy, it reminds me of personal experiences I have had knowing and dealing with people with mental disability. Most of these men / women who I know do not come from poor backgrounds. They have mental disability and are unable to take responsibility for themselves and also have family that are unwilling to take care of them. When I say this 'm not judging the family. The conditions where a family decides to not take care of their own son or daughter etc. could have resulted from decades of problems and even abuse of the care-givers. This is an extreme example. Most people who have mental disability are lovingly cared for by sacrificing family and friends. But those who are not we should be spending more resources on not less. These programs are tiny expenditures relative to the larger entitlement programs offered by society.
The problem is that individual freedom has trumped positive outcomes for individuals. I'm sorry to say this but it's the truth. People with mental difficulties who need medication cannot make the decision to be helped or not unless they are helped first. The system is fundamentally broken, I've seen it with my own eyes. So the panhandling guy probably has mental illness and a "normal" middle-class family. He's probably fine if he's on meds but no one is there to check up on him and so he goes off, gets evicted from apartment after apartment and no social worker or psychiatric help is able or even allowed to help him. In the odd case where he does get some help it is because a social worker broke the law or bent the rules or his family tricked him into letting them see him. So his main connection with the system is through the police who arrest him time and time again and he goes in and out of the system wasting tens of thousands of dollars. This guy is basically a real dependent and needs regular check-ups. Not like an animal in a cage but not like an adult either. More like a teenager. From a maturity perspective this guy is basically like a perpetual teenager. This means, I'm sorry to say, without curtailment of individual freedoms you cannot find a compassionate solution. You either curtail his freedoms or say the hell with him. Present Canadian society would rather he be free then cared for.
