Making homelessness a crime won't create a more liveable city
The Sun has reported that the Downtown Partnership is proposing a plan to revitalize downtown Baltimore ("Proposal seeks to revitalize the city," Oct. 26).
Health Care for the Homeless has served this area for 15 years and we are very concerned by the article's reference to legislation that would make "it illegal to sleep or camp outdoors at night in the downtown area."
This would be a step backward.
Excluding the two religious missions, the city has only 400 emergency shelter beds to serve its several thousand citizens who each night have nowhere to sleep.
Many of these individuals have mental illnesses and physical disabilities that prevent them from using existing shelters.
Criminalizing these individuals, because of the system's inadequacies, would be ineffective and inefficient. It would also contradict our basic commitment to fairness.
The Baltimore City Task Force on Homelessness -- which includes the Downtown Partnership, as well as the Greater Baltimore Committee, Associated Catholic Charities, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) -- is working to devise effective solutions to homelessness.
Arresting people who have nowhere to sleep is not such a solution.
Jeff Singer, Baltimore
The writer is president and chief executive officer of Health Care for the Homeless Inc.
I was distressed by The Sun's article "Proposal seeks to revitalize the city" (Oct. 26). While Baltimore's economic health is important, it's troubling that the Downtown Partnership (DTP) defines the city's needs so narrowly.
Particularly shocking was the suggestion that we criminalize homelessness by making sleeping outside illegal. People are homeless for many reasons, but the common denominator is their inability to afford housing.
How can we ignore this vast army of poor Baltimoreans? Creating new parks and new antique streetlamps will only illuminate their presence.
Anti-panhandling legislation will only exacerbate the tensions between those with cash and those without it. More surveillance cameras will only capture on tape the drama of the city's focus on business needs instead of human needs.
The solutions, while never simple, involve devoting as much time, energy and passion to solving poverty as we have to sidestepping it. A few suggestions:
Require 10 percent of all new apartments to be set aside for the disabled and for low-income families; that would amount to 100 units of the 1,000 the DTP has proposed.
Encourage construction firms working on downtown development to hire city residents.
Put resources into creating addiction treatment on demand for Baltimore's thousands of uninsured addicts and alcoholics, as well as halfway houses and other safe residences where they can recover.
No one wants to live in a city with a slick downtown ringed by desperate poverty.
Lauren Siegel, Baltimore
Schwartz will be an asset to O'Malley and the city
Regarding The Sun's article about Democratic mayoral nominee Martin O'Malley's choice of the Downtown Partnership's Laurie Schwartz to coordinate his transition team, I fail to see why there would be any controversy at all ("Mayoral hopeful picks 2 for team," Oct. 1).
Ms. Schwartz has proved to be a capable leader, showing sensitivity to business and community concerns during the administrations of Mayors Kurt L. Schmoke and William Donald Schaefer.
She can only be an asset to Mr. O'Malley as he chooses his cabinet -- as well as to those who recognize that difficult deliberations on the city's future will need to begin quickly after the inauguration.
Gary Frahm, Baltimore
In presidential year, city issues would be overlooked
The proposal to hold elections for city officials in the same year as presidential elections is idiotic ("Voters should reject city election change," editorial, Oct. 27).
Who will pay attention to local matters in the midst of a national election?
Could it be that local political machine leaders know they can get their loyalists to turn out and vote the machine line while other voters are concentrating on national matters?
Harry E. Bennett Jr., Baltimore
If laws could abolish guns, why do we still have crime?
I take issue with Morris Grossman's assertion that "when the day finally arrives when criminals can't get guns, because of laws preventing their sale and ownership, that will be the end of these senseless shootings" ("When guns are banned, the violence will stop," letters, Oct. 25).
If only it were so simple. If passing laws would do the trick, why do we still have criminals?
Aren't their activities already against the law?
Mel Barnhart, Randallstown
Calling off 'war on drugs' would stem the violence
In his proposal to ban private ownership of handguns, Maryland Attorney General J. Joseph Curran, Jr. said, "For those who oppose this, I challenge them to have a better idea to save 35,000 lives."
I don't oppose Mr. Curran's suggestion. But, if a supporter may be permitted a better idea, I have one.
Three out of every four murders in Baltimore are drug-related. National statistics aren't much different.
There weren't nearly as many murders before the misnamed "War on Drugs" began in the late 1960s, just as there were far fewer murders before alcohol prohibition -- and after it was abolished.
Drug killings are primarily over deals gone bad, competition among dealers or addicts desperate to raise cash for a fix.
If profits were taken out of illegal drugs, by providing addicts drugs at nominal cost, murders would plummet.
So why isn't Mr. Curran speaking out in support of taking the profits out of drugs?
A. Robert Kaufman, Baltimore
New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico is spot on about drug legalization, as our own Mayor Kurt L. Schmoke has been ("Lonely stand for drug legalization," Oct. 24).
The costs for law enforcement and imprisonment of the so-called "War on Drugs" are staggering. A conservative estimate would be in the tens of billions of dollars annually, and escalating.
At the same time, funds for education, jobs for our youth, re-building our cities and other social enhancements are constantly being cut back.
Suppose we call off the drug war -- and legalize drugs and tax them, just as we do with alcohol and tobacco.
The billions wasted on efforts to control drug trafficking and punish offenders could be spent giving us a social structure the world would envy.
Drug addicts need help. They don't need to be put in jail.
The irony is that if drugs were legalized, there'd be money to help them.
Peter Stewart, Towson
Don't blame the teachers for students' performance
The idea of linking teacher pay to student performance is ill-conceived. It will only give the students more power at the expense of the teachers ("Success carries teacher reward," Oct. 10).
No teacher can make a student perform, at any level.
Whatever happened to the idea that a student is responsible for his or her own performance? Or that parents are responsible for their child's performance?
Only after it has been determined that the student and his or her parents have fulfilled their responsibilities should the teacher's performance be evaluated.
William T. Fitzgerald, Cockeysville
Letters to the Editor
To our readers The Sun welcomes letters from readers. All letters become the property of The Sun, which reserves the right to edit each letter. By submitting a letter, the author grants The Sun an irrevocable, non-exclusive right and license to use and republish the letter, in whole or in part, in all media and to authorize others to reprint it.
Letters should be less than 200 words and include the writer's name, address and day and evening telephone number.
Letters can be mailed to The Sun, P.O. Box 1377, Baltimore 21278-0001, e-mailed to firstname.lastname@example.org or faxed to 410-332-6977. Include phone numbers on electronic submissions.