Enraged with the multitudes of homeless all over town
I used to be annoyed with the multitudes of homeless all over town. Now, after the lengthy article in your paper and Rachel Justice's letter ("Area's homeless soon to be left without shelter - again," Jan. 10), I am enraged.
Let's see if I have it right. A couple receive $850 a month each and are probably eligible for taxpayer-provided commodity programs, food stamps, housing assistance, Medicare, and if old enough, low-cost meals at the senior center. They can receive additional handouts from CAN and are fed at least three times a week by the ministry. Yet, they remain homeless.
Many continue their addiction to drugs and alcohol and, according to Ms. Justice, need more help.
I know of a young couple where the husband has an illness and is unable to work. She is pregnant and is working. They are receiving some support, but have an apartment and car. I am sure that she will resume work as soon as possible after the birth.
I am sick and tired of all the do-gooders that say we taxpayers should do more to help. I say no. Put strings on the handouts. First, no taxpayer aid to support a drug or alcohol habit. If they are on drugs and/or are drunks, no aid. If they are able-bodied, get a job. If they are homeless and don't find a place after three months, eliminate the aid.
Do the taxpayers have to picket and file frivolous suits to get something done, like the Community Watchdogs? It will never happen because the taxpayers are working to care for those that don't deserve it.
Awhile ago I wrote what the newly-elected councilwoman (who likes to get her name in the paper) could do to help Crescent City. In case she forgot, research other city ordinances to limit loitering and panhandling and send the bums packing.