The Kindest People in This World
DEAR EDITOR: We are deeply troubled by your recently published article by Samantha Kiyomi Witt “Columbus Day Strengthens Solidarity Between APAs and Indigenous People,” (Oct. 17).
The article is a shining example of how to write a rabble-rousing, hate-mongering, divisive, identity politics article and denigrate, dehumanize and defame European Americans.
Let’s cut to the chase: Asian Pacific Americans did not come to America in search of pristine waters and forests to don loincloths, build teepees and enjoy the benefits of a hunter-gatherer society.
No sir, they came here to enjoy the benefits of a fantastic society created by European Americans that is the envy of peoples all over the world — a society so rich in political freedom, fairness to all its people, a provider of an unbelievable array of goods and services and so generous to its newcomers that many the world over are willing to risk death to reach our shores and take advantage of our goodness.
Instead of forming coalitions to beat up European Americans, won’t you consider setting aside some time to thank the European American people of American who may very well be the most decent, generous and kindest people in this world. In my opinion, to do less is to shame the name of Asian Pacific Americans.
It’s okay to belong to a racial advocacy group — but such a group need not denigrate other racial groups while speaking out for their interests and a fair piece of the American pie.
Louis Calabro
San Francisco
Is It Really the Right Solution?
DEAR EDITOR: I would like to comment on Elaine Wong’s editorial on how to take care of the homeless in the Bay Area, “The Right Solution to Homelessness,” (Oct. 10).
I read with interest her perspective on solutions to people living on the street as I am interested to know what youth have to say.
First, I have a question for Ms. Wong. Do you think that you could afford to feed yourself, let alone survive on $59 per month? Even if one’s housing and health services are paid for, do you think it is possible to survive on this kind of money? $300 per month is already impossible, but $59? A month?
Secondly, I would like to ask Ms. Wong if she has ever experienced living in a homeless shelter or dealt with the mental health system personally?
There are reasons why people do not want to deal with these bureaucracies. Women especially are unsafe in these places and often at risk of being attacked or worse. Men are not in safety either and often have their few possessions stolen.
These places can be very frightening and humiliating and do not feel like a safe and viable alternative to the people you are writing about. Currently, it is rare for people living on the street to be provided with apartments, especially in light of the tight Bay Area housing market. Please correct me if I am wrong about this and provide me with the documentation or contacts to call and verify.
Although handing a person on the street a buck does not solve the problem it does enable them to perhaps alleviate a tiny, little, immediate suffering, whether the money is to buy food, purchase a room for the night or yes, even to buy a drink.
Perhaps, a balance of figuring how the structure can help and giving a donation on the street would help. This is not to say that there are not worthy organizations out there to give one’s dollars to — there are. But I hardly think that the $59 per month which Care Not Cash is proposing is realistic. I would encourage you to do a little more research and even, perhaps, talk to people on the street about this proposition and see what they think; after all, they are the ones we are talking about helping — why not let them speak for themselves?
Tivela Seeche
Oakland, Calif.
DEAR EDITOR: In the “Right Solution to Homelessness,” (Oct. 10), Elaine Wong relates the misgivings she felt when donating money to a homeless person, and turns those feelings into an endorsement for Proposition N, the “Care Not Cash” initiative appearing on the November ballot in San Francisco.
Wong’s heart is in the right place, but don’t let her simplistic overview of the proposition fool you into thinking that the measure will help the homeless situation. It won’t. In fact, Prop N may actually exacerbate homelessness.
First, Prop N takes cash assistance away from qualified homeless recipients — who have to work for their money unless they are disabled, over 55 or in a job-training program. They’ll receive less money for their work, and they’ll lose the flexibility to obtain needed services on their own.
Second, Prop N does not guarantee services. It makes promises, but as written, it does not guarantee that any new housing will be created, or that current services will be improved, or that new services will be created. It also makes no guarantee that redirected funds won’t be siphoned off for use elsewhere. It simply cuts the assistance given to qualified homeless individuals and replaces it with services it already offers — services that are already taxed beyond belief.
Third, cutting off cash assistance with no guaranteed services in return will not magically improve a homeless person’s life. On the contrary, it’s a good bet that homeless people who are deprived of their ability to survive will be driven to aggressive panhandling, stealing food and petty crime. Prop N supporters want to take away the incentive for homeless people to congregate in San Francisco. They’re actually making it more difficult for homeless people to improve their lot.
Finally, the claim that Prop N will cut down on the number of homeless deaths by drug/alcohol overdose is a bogus statement unsupported by fact. There’s no data on the number of affected homeless people who are suffering from addictive disorders, and there is no evidence that homeless deaths are linked to general assistance. The studies that Gavin Newsom presents as evidence do not fully support his argument. In fact, one of the studies concludes that taking away payments will not eliminate drug abuse and might aggravate hunger and homelessness.
I agree with Wong that homelessness is a serious issue, but it is a complex issue that requires real solutions, not empty promises. Vote NO on Proposition N.
Brian Tom
San Francisco
|
