Our sad responses to visible poverty

Seven years ago, despite the Orchard Church’s Sunday meal being forced off City Plaza, I naively assumed that basic “homeless human rights” were embraced by the general public.

At the same time, I always took it for granted that a small percentage had zero tolerance for the visibly poor and their impacts; within this contingent, the poorest people are seen as blight, to be removed at the lowest possible cost. This position I associate with hard-nosed, right-wing conservatism, as extolled by the Sean Morgans and the Rob Berrys.

I’ve come to respect these authoritarians for their transparency, if not their depth of principle; they say what they believe. But, while remaining silent, most others want the homeless gone-from-view. This majority — the charity oriented included — hide behind the Morgans and the Berrys.

When I see a letter to the editor from a lifelong liberal, objecting to tents in our parks, I’m not surprised. My impression is that even understanding a principle like “right to rest” is a bridge too far. Where the need for a night’s sleep conflicts with a sense of esthetic entitlement, human rights be damned.

I can’t help but wonder about the long-term implications in this age of increasing wealth inequality, as the hammer of “law and order” and “anywhere but here” sentiment remain our most popular responses to visible poverty. Wittingly or not, we’re entrenching a public policy opportunity for tyrants.

— Patrick Newman, Chico