Login or Signup
Go Pro



‹ ›


Moondog History Moondog History
La silueta de la indigencia La silueta de la indigencia
El fenómeno social de la indigencia en la Zona Centro de Guadalajar El fenómeno social de la indigencia en …
Miroslav tichý Miroslav tichý
La silueta de la indigencia La silueta de la indigencia
Julia Julia

almacelia1 + Follow
Amster 2003 – patterns of exclusion sanitizing space, criminali
by almacelia1 on Nov 29, 2011



No comments yet
Notes on Slide 1

Subscribe to comments Post Comment

Amster 2003 – patterns of exclusion sanitizing space, criminali — Document Transcript

1. Patterns of Exclusion: Sanitizing Space, Criminalizing HomelessnessAuthor(s): Randall AmsterReviewed work(s):Source: Social Justice, Vol. 30, No. 1 (91), Race, Security & Social Movements (2003), pp. 195-221Published by: Social Justice/Global OptionsStable URL: .Accessed: 25/11/2011 12:18Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact Social Justice/Global Options is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Justice.
2. Patterns of Exclusion: SanitizingSpace, Criminalizing Homelessness Randall AmsterIN RECENT YEARS, A PATTERN HAS EMERGED, A SEEMINGLY SELF-EVIDENT TREND toward restricting, regulating, and removing from public view persons commonly referred to categorically as “the homeless.” I first encountered theseprocesses in a variety of scholarly and journalistic sources and,most acutely, inmy thenplace of residence, Tempe, Arizona, a southwestern “college town” of just under 200,000 that is often seen as the social and recreational center of the Phoenix metropolitan area. While exploring these questions theoretically and pragmatically, I discovered that rather than an “emerging” trend, patterns of spatial exclusion and marginalization of the impoverished that have existed throughout modern history have reemerged. As such, this study attempts to locate contemporary manifestations of these patterns in theirhistorical contexts, comprising a theoretical overview of anti Moreover, these inquiries are homeless legislation and regimes of spatial control. grounded in events and activities observed in practice, drawing upon various media publications, government and corporate documents, participant observa? tions of homeless communities, and open-ended interviewswith streetpeople in Tempe (approximately 75, conducted over a three-yearperiod from 1998 to2001). In the end, bothmy theoretical exposition and grounded case study conclude that street people have been frequent subjects of demonization and homeless criminalization, and that contemporary trends reflect even further “advance? ments” in patterns of regulatory fervor and casual brutality. Accordingly, this study aims to illuminate these trends, to raise awareness about and encourage activism around the implications for thehomeless and thepublic spaces theyoften occupy, and to make “legible” the violence thatpervades such social policies. What is it about the homeless that inspires such overt antipathy frommain? stream society?What is so special about theirparticular variety of deviance that elicits such a vehement and violent response to theirpresence? After all, “the Randall Amster is a visiting instructor of Peace Studies and Social Thought at Prescott College (301 Grove Avenue, Prescott, AZ 86301; e-mail; His research interests and activist endeavors focus upon anarchism, ecology, Utopia, resistance, homelessness, globalization, peace movements, radical pedagogy, and community building. The author wishes to acknowledge Pat Lauderdale, Cecilia Menjivar, Randel Hanson, Emily Gaarder, and Sahee Kil for their input and support throughout the formulation of this essay, as well as the editors and reviewers at Social Justice for their constructively pointed comments. Social Justice Vol. 30, No. 1 (2003) 195
3. 196 Amsterhomeless” as a class lack almost all indicia of societal power, posing no viablepolitical, economic, ormilitary threatto thedominant culture.Of course, as studiesof deviance have continually borne out, a society s response to “deviant” elementsis rarely linked in a directway to any actual or credible threat.The threatismoreone of perception than reality,more of a societal preemptive strike against an asyet-unborn threatthatoften originates within thedominant culture itself, but findsconcrete expression in some abject, powerless element of society. As such,depictions of “deviant subcultures” in the mainstream media are likely to feed intostereotypes of danger, disorder, disease, and criminality,helping to construct “theother” as inferior, inhuman, unsympathetic, deserving of theirfate, and perhapseven requiringpunitive measures. That all of thisarisesmore fromperception thanfact testifies to thepower of human emotions and collective consciousness, as wellas to theirhorror. It is, after all, a shortjourney from diversity to deviance, fromdeification to demonization, and from sanctification to criminalization. Demonization and Disease As Henry Miller (1991) has observed, therehave been times inhistory in whichthe image of the homeless beggar was one of sacrificial piety and mendicantholiness. Nevertheless, such characterizations have been the exception, and, atleast since the enclosure of the common lands in 16th-centuryEngland, almostnonexistent. Once domains of private propertybegan todominate thecultural andphysical landscape, “vagrancy began tobe seen as a threatto the order of things”; later, as urban centers began to develop and market economies took hold,”vagrancy was to be perceived as a threat to capitalism” (Ibid.: 9). This wasparticularly true in thedeveloping United States, where a version of theProtestantWork Ethic is intimately connected to the national mythos of equal opportunityand free-market meritocracy (cf.Weber, 1958). Fast forwarding to thepresent, thedominant culture heavily stigmatizes poverty as an “individual pathology,” rather ? because of their inescapably than a structuralphenomenon,1 and thehomeless ?public presence and frequent juxtaposition to centers of leisure invariably most virulent derogation and overt animus. Poor people with homes are inspire theat least “out of sight” for thedominant culture, ifnot “out ofmind”; lacking privatespaces, however, the homeless are often in plain view, and thereforeare subjectto the most direct forms of official exclusion and public persecution. Inmainstream publications, both academic and journalistic, even depictions intended to be sympathetic to the homeless often contribute to a mindset ofdemonization. One of the most enduring signs of this is the association ofhomelessness with images of dirt,filth, decay, and disease (see Gowan, 2000:98).Henry Miller (1991:22) notes thathistorically thevagrant was seen as a person of”many vices and debilities; was sickly and suffered from the ravages of tubercu? losis, typhus, cholera, scrofula, rickets, and other disorders too numerous tomention; was apt to be a member of the despised races; [and whose] lifewas
4. Sanitizing Space, Criminalizing Homelessness 197characterized by all the usual depravities: sexual license, bastardy, prostitution,theft.”Millers analysis suggests two related strands that contribute to homelessstigmatization. The first arises from invocations of disorder, illegality, andimmoralityand leads toprocesses of regulation, criminalization, and enforcement.The second is the disease and decay image, which leads toprocesses of sanitization, sterilization, and quarantine. In a sense, these two spheres are inseparable, leading to the same ends of exclusion, eradication, and erasure. Both strandsconverge in another sense vis-?-vis the homeless who occupy spaces that, likethemselves, are often viewed as dirty and disorderly and thus require regulationand sterilization; as Mike Davis (1990: 260) opines, “public spaces,” like thehomeless, are imbued with “democratic intoxications, risks, and unscentedodors.” The analysis in thisessay considers the “disease” metaphor tobe conceptuallydistinct from the”disorder” image. This arises out of the”Disneyfication” of urbanspace that geographers have often noted (e.g., Sorkin, 1992), since theDisneymetaphor (and reality) is one of antiseptic sterilityand disinfected experience, ofshiny surfaces and squeaky-clean images. It is the apotheosis of what HermanHesse described inSteppenwolf(l912:16) as “bourgeois cleanliness,” represent? ing “the very essence of neatness and meticulousness, of duty and devotion…aparadise of cleanliness and spotlessmediocrity, of ordered ways.” Disney is aboveall the sterilized environment, a place strippedof any outward signs of filth, decay, spoliation, or despair. Underneath thatfacade, however, is an interiordystopianworld of darkness, brutal efficiency, neurosis, rigid control, and emptiness. AsHesse (1972:23-24) describes theplight of his protagonist, trapped in a place notunlike the Disney-dystopia, thedisease he suffersfrom “is not theeccentricity ofa single individual, but the sickness of the times themselves, theneurosis of thatgeneration…a sickness, it seems, thatby nomeans attacks the weak and worthlessonly but, rather,precisely those who are strongest in spirit and richest in gifts.”Disneyland, then,comes tobe seen not as a place for the”clean” togather and play,but as an antiseptic retreat for the diseased of spirit to be temporarily distractedfrom the depredations of their existence. In a sense, itmight be said that “thepalpable fears of the bourgeoisie” (Mitchell, 1997a: 328) have, throughout ?modernity, reflected doubts about the health and vitality of the elite classesdoubts that are often subsequently projected on and attributedto somemarginalizedor colonized “other” (cf. Fanon, 1991). In lightof thehegemonic nature of the Disney aesthetic, it isworth consideringhow this notion of “disease” seems to originate primarily within the dominantculture, and then is projected ontomarginalized populations such as thehomeless.In this regard, it is instructive to consider how constructions of streetpeople andthe homeless serve to perpetuate stereotypes and maintain stigmatization, sincethese processes serve to reinforce such projections and reifybourgeois fears.AsTalmadge Wright (1997:69) infers,”the homeless body in thepublic imagination
5. 198 Amsterrepresents the body of decay, the degenerate body, a body that is constantlyrejected by the public as sick, scary, dirty,and smelly, and a host of otherpejoratives used to create social distance between housed and unhoused persons.”This sense of social distancing reflects “the desire of thosewho feel threatened todistance themselves fromdefiled people and defiled places…places associated withethnic and racialminorities, like the innercity, [that]are still taintedand perceived aspolluting inracistdiscourses, and place-related phobias [that]are similarlyevident inresponse to otherminorities, like gays and thehomeless” (Sibley, 1995: 49, 59). In analyzing “new urban spaces,” Wright (2000: 27) thusobserves: “In effect,streetpeople, camping in parks, who exhibit appearances at odds with middleclass comportment, evoke fears of contamination and disgust, a reminder of thepower of abjection. Homeless persons embody the social fear of privilegedconsumers, fear for theirfamilies, for theirchildren, fear that those people willharm them and thereforemust be placed as far away as possible from safeneighborhoods.” Likewise, Samira Kawash (1998: 329) notes: “The public viewof thehomeless as filth marks thedanger of thisbody as body to thehomogeneityandwholeness of thepublic… The solution to this impasse appears as theultimateaim of the homeless wars: to exert such pressures against this body thatwillreduce itto nothing, to squeeze ituntil it is so small that itdisappears, such that thecircle of the social will again appear closed.” Bringing thiscycle of demonizationand repression to its logical conclusion, Wright (2000: 27) concludes: “Thesubsequent social death which homeless persons endure is all too often accompa?nied by real death and injury as social exclusion moves from criminalization of ?poverty to social isolation and incarceration in institutional systems of controlshelters and prisons.” Disturbingly, many proponents of regulating and criminalizing thehomelessreadily embrace such disease metaphors and theirethnocidal implications. RobertEllickson (1996), Yale Law School Professor of Property and Urban Law, forexample, implicitlyaffirms the image throughhis “revulsion atbody odors and thestinkof urine and feces” (Waldron, 2000). “Others, includingmany city officials,celebrate gentrification for reversing urban decay and boosting the tax base. Theyoften refer to it as revitalization, drawing on themetaphors of disease, deterio?ration, death, and rebirth” (Williams, 1996: 147). As JeffFerrell (2001: 175)observes, “drawing on evocative images of filth, disease, and decay, economic andpolitical authorities engage in an ideological alchemy throughwhich unwantedindividuals become [a] sort of street trash [and which] demonizes economicoutsiders, stigmatizes cultural trespassers, and thereby justifies the symboliccleansing of the cultural spaces they occupy.” Countless newspaper editorials,including cartoons {cf.Wright, 1997:209), contribute to these trendsby depictingthehomeless as vile, malodorous, and dangerous? which is starklyevident in an MillArizona Republic editorial image ofTempe smajor downtown thoroughfare,Avenue (February 12, 2000).
6. Sanitizing Space, Criminalizing Homelessness 199 In political terms, thepervasiveness of the disease image in connection withthehomeless serves simultaneously toempower officials andmerchants to assumethemantle of speaking for “the community” in devising and implementingschemes to remove theperceived threat,and to disempower the homeless fromhaving effective domains of self-presentation and resistance. As Wright (1997:39) concludes, “living with spoiled identities, the very poor are categorized,inspected, dissected, and renderedmute in thepublic discourse about theirfutureby thosewho have thepower to enforce [such] categorical distinctions.” Tempes”Piper” (interview, 2000), a 20-year-old self-described “gutter punk,” waxesphilosophically about the whole state of affairs: “They think their liveswould besomuch better if theydidnt have to see the slime and the scum that lives onthe street,but you know what? This is fucking real life, this is here, a diverseamount of things ? in thisworld you never know what youre gonna see, sowhytry to hide it?Their kids are gonna find out about itanyway.” Lyn Lofland (1998: 190) also notes this eventual permeation of homeless identity, despite attempts atregulation: “If regulation alone could achieve thepurification of thepublic realm,we would all currently live ina world from which…the homeless…had completelydisappeared.” Nonetheless, despite their lack of full realization in thepresent, it isapparent, as Ferrell (2001: 175) explains, that such efforts “promote a type ofspatial cleansing whereby unwanted populations are removed, by the force of lawand money, fromparticular locations and situations. But this spatial cleansing isat the same time a cultural cleansing; as economic, political, and legal authoritieswork to recapture and redesign thepublic spaces of the city, theywork to controlpublic identity and public perception as well, to remove from new spaces ofconsumption and development images of alternative identity.” Disorderly Conduct: The Absurdity ofAnti-Homeless Legislation It is notmuch of a stretch to move from this sense of “spatial cleansing” and”cultural sanitization” (Ibid:. 169) topatterns of criminalization and enforcement.As Smith (1994) notes, “increasingly, communities are using the criminal law tocleanse their streets of homeless survivors.”Whereas the “disease” metaphor ispredicated on a view of thehomeless as physical pestilence, the “disorder” imageupon which criminalization often is based arises from a view of thehomeless asa “moral pestilence” (Simon, 1992; cf. McConkey, 1996) and a “threat to the socialorder” (Simon, 1992).Whereas thedepiction of disease leads to the imposition ofregimes of sterilityand sanitization, images ofmoral decay and social disorder set the table for legislative effortsaimed at regulating streetpeople and criminalizinghomelessness. Whereas the former results in a type of “cultural cleansing” (cf.Noonan, 1996), the latterbegins to approach ethnocidal proportions in itsuse of ?overt force, imprisonment, and concentration constitutingwhat Don Mitchell(1997a) has likened to a “pogrom.” Whereas Disneyfication denotes the friendlyface of fascism, criminalization often represents itsblatant brutality.
7. 200 Amster For at least six centuries, homelessness has been associated with “disorder” (e.g., Simon, 1996: 159) and “criminality” (e.g., Snow and Anderson, 1993: 11;Wright, 1997:212), patterns thatcontemporary “official efforts toharass, punish,or restrict transientpeople who use public space are repeating” (Stoner, 1995: 151). Mitchell (1997a: 312) even suggests, quite appropriately, thatwe ought tobe talking about “recriminalizing homelessness.” Constructing the other asdisorderly and criminal requires theconstruction andmaintenance of a dominantculture thatembodies order and lawfulness. It is equally apparent that standardsof civility and legality are generally determined by those inpositions of power andadvantage who manipulate such standards to suit their interestsand protect theirdomains of property and authority. Thus, any construction of “otherness” aslawlessness necessarily becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy ? as numeroussociological expositions of “labeling theory” have indicated (e.g., Lauderdale, ? since one can only be guilty of violating a law after someone else passes 1980)it. In otherwords, it is the law itself thatessentially creates the crime. Such tautologies were prominently displayed in an article written soon afterpassage of a Seattle ordinance thatcriminalized sittingon sidewalks: “This isnot aimed at thehomeless, itis aimed at the lawless,” says Seattle City Attorney Mark Sidran. By “the lawless” Sidran and other city officialsmean people who, lacking anywhere else to go, sitdown on the sidewalk. Jim Jackson, an Atlanta businessman, confidently declares thathis citys new laws will “not punish anyone but the criminal.” San Franciscos Mayor Frank Jordan assures us that”homelessness is not a crime. It is not a crime to be out there looking like an unmade bed. But if criminal behavior begins thenwe will step in and enforce the law” (Howland, 1994: 33). The logical flaw in this “official” position is all too apparent: “But ifcriminalbehavior begins….” “We punish only the criminal.” “It is aimed at the lawless.”All of these statements are made in reference to conduct such as sitting on thesidewalk that, before passage of this recent spate of laws, had been legal andgenerally seen as innocent acts. Now, by virtue of a law prohibiting sitting, anentire category of people ismade “criminal” for acts committed before the lawexisted! The lesson? Ifyou want to eliminate a particular social class or subcultureor deviant group, locate some behavior that is largely peculiar to thatgroup andmake it illegal. Alternatively, one may pass laws under the guise of universalapplicability thatplainly affectonly the targetcommunity: “The law in its majesticequality forbids the rich as well as thepoor to sleep under thebridges” (AnatoleFrance, in Waldron, 1991).2 In the end, asWaldron (1991) points out, “everyone is perfectly aware of the point of passing these ordinances, and any attempt todefend them on the basis of theirgenerality is quite disingenuous,” Returning to the first strategy suggested above, in which “the targeted
8. Sanitizing Space, Criminalizing Homelessness 201 behaviors are thosewhich characterize certain social classes” (IWW, 1994), the aim is simply to locate a behavior peculiar to the targetgroup and criminalize it.With the homeless, it is very apparent: panhandling, sleeping in public, and sidewalk sitting. Despite frequent assertions thatonly “conduct” isbeing targeted and not “status” (e.g., Kelling and Coles, 1996:40), it is clear thatcertain conduct attaches to specific groups, and that proscribing the conduct is equivalent to criminalizing the category. In some cases, as with teen curfews or “car cruising”laws, theprohibited conduct affects the targetgroups identities and liberties,butdoes not necessarily undermine theirbasic ability to survive,Neil Smith (1996:225), however, observes that”the criminalization ofmore andmore aspects of theeveryday life of homeless people is increasingly pervasive.” Likewise, Ferrell(2001:164) notes thatthedaily lives of thehomeless “are all but outlawed througha plethora of new statutes and enforcement strategies regarding sitting, sleeping,begging, loitering, and urban camping.”3 As Mitchell (1998a: 10) emphasizes,”if homeless people can only live inpublic, and if the things one must do to liveare not allowed inpublic space, thenhomelessness is not just criminalized; life forhomeless people is made impossible.” The implications and intentions are all tooclear: By ineffectannihilating the spaces in which thehomeless must live, these laws seek simply to annihilate homeless people themselves…. The intent is clear: to control behavior and space such thathomeless people simply cannot do what they must do in order to survivewithout breaking laws. Survival itself is criminalized…. In otherwords, we are creating a world inwhich a whole class of people simply cannot be, entirelybecause they have no place to be (Mitchell, 1997a: 305-311) 4According to Smith (1996: 230), “in the revanchist city, homeless people suffera symbolic extermination and erasure.” An impressive and detailed body of work that illustrates and amplifies thesepoints has been generated byMaria Foscarinis and various associates affiliatedwith her National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty (NLCHP). A seriesof scholarly articles (e.g., Foscarinis et al., 1999; Foscarinis, 1996; Foscarinis andHerz, 1995; Brown, 1999), demonstrates beyond doubt an ongoing and pervasivenational trend toward “the criminalization of homelessness,” evidenced by themounting number of cities and townswith laws prohibiting behaviors including”aggressive panhandling,” “urban camping,” and “sidewalk sitting.”5 In assessingthe purpose of these laws, Foscarinis (1996: 22) notes that “some cities stateexpressly thattheir intention is to drive theirhomeless residents out of the city…. In other cases, the stated purpose is to remove homeless people from particular such as streets or downtown areas…. Some target the visible places, parks, homeless with the goal of making them invisible.” Noting certain negative ? effects of such laws in terms of public policy including poor use of fiscal
9. 202 Amster ?resources, divisiveness, and a deepening of political and social tensionsFoscarinis (1996: 63) concludes that”eriminalization responses to homelessnessare inhumane, do not solve the problem, and are subject to constitutionalchallenge.” In 1999, theNLCHP published an influential report (Out of Sight? Out ofMind? Anti-Homeless Laws, Litigation, and Alternatives in 50 United StatesCities) thatexpanded on some of these importantpoints. The report found that, inthecross-section of cities surveyed, 86% had anti-begging ordinances, while 73%had anti-sleeping laws. The presence of such laws and accompanying enforcementstrategieswas also found to constitute “poor public policy” by acting as barriersto self-sufficiency,unduly burdening the criminal justice system,wasting scarcemunicipal resources, and subjecting cities to legal liabilities and expenses. Thereport concluded that “eriminalization is ineffective, counterproductive, andinhumane,” and suggested “alternatives to eriminalization,” including expandedservices, places to perform necessary functions, transitional and public housing,more employment opportunities, and greater cooperation among city officials,business people, and thehomeless themselves (NLCHP, 1999; Foscarinis et al., 1999; Brown, 1999). Additional positive alternatives are noted in a subsequentarticle that analyzes theNLCHP report.Fabyankovic (2000) includes alliancesformed between police officers, homeless advocates, and outreach workers;programs thathelp the homeless move toward self-sufficiency; compassionateapproaches rather than law enforcement approaches; the development of policesensitivity trainingprograms; thecreation of a day labor center; and the mediationof disputes between property owners and thehomeless. Despite overwhelming and persuasive evidence that eriminalization is anuntenable and inhumane approach, the trend is increasing, as documented in the scores of articles on the subject in recent years (e.g.,Moss, 1999; Lydersen, 2000;Tanner, 2002). A Denver Post column (Kulp, 2000) observes that “many localgovernments have responded [to a growing number of homeless people] byempowering police to basically run them out of town through sweeps ofhomeless campgrounds, liberalized stop-and-search procedures, and laws againstbehaviors characteristic of the homeless. Known as the eriminalization ofhomelessness, this response is seen in a spate of new laws passed inU.S. cities.”An earlier London Guardian piece (Pressley, 1996) also noted that”inmore than40 cities across theUnited States, thehomeless are facing a determined push ofnew laws aimed at banishing them from the streets. What is notable now is theforcefulnesswith which these communities are attacking theproblem?using thepolice as theirmain weapon. Even more striking is thatmany of the cities in thevanguard of the get-tough approach are among the countrys most liberal,” including Seattle, New Orleans, and San Francisco (OBrien, 2001; Nieves, 2002).Other cities in this vanguard include Denver (RockyMountain News, 2000),Asheville and Chapel Hill, North Carolina (Barber, 1998; Blythe, 1998), Santa
10. Sanitizing Space, Criminalizing Homelessness 203Cruz, California (Herman, 1997), Austin, Texas (Duff, 1999), and Tucson andTempe, Arizona (Tobin, 2000; Riordan, 1999) fiAs Simon (1996:148) confirms,”in city after city,municipal decisions to use criminal sanctions toprotect publicspaces have come intoconflictwith efforts civil rightsadvocates toprevent the bycriminalization of homelessness. Ironically, cities traditionally identified as liberal or progressive have seen some of the most bitter struggles/7 Perhaps most notable “liberal” city to apply criminalization is Berkeley, theCalifornia, as indicated by aNew York Times article (Nieves, 1998) on homelessyouth there: Whether they are scared or just plain fed up, plenty of people in the nations most famously liberal citywant the youths, panhandlers, drug addicts, drinkers, andmentally ill homeless swept offTelegraph Avenue, the shopping districtherementioned in every touristguide…. The police have been all over Telegraph Avenue, in squad cars, on bicycles, and in front of businesses…. The mayor said she is proposing a plan that involves both increased social services for the homeless youths and “tough love.” That includes pushing them off the streetswith an anti encampment ordinance.Events inCleveland, Ohio, depict like strategies thatare plainlymore “tough” than”love”: “In a move to attractholiday shoppers downtown, Mayor Michael R. White has ordered stepped-up police patrols. The mayor said thepatrols are aimed at keeping the citys streets safer and will focus not only on shoplifters,muggers, and other criminals but also on panhandlers and homeless people sleeping on sidewalks” (OMalley, 1999). “White said this crackdown is designed to move poverty out of sight so they (shoppers) will have a peaceful shopping season” (Faith, 1999). “Its not an issue of being anti-homeless, said themayor. Its an issue of balancing everyones rights” (OMalley, 1999). Interestingly,many of the articles and columns detailing ongoing patterns ofcriminalization also present various alternatives to criminalization that accordwith, but also go beyond, those suggested byMaria Foscarinis and the NLCHP.In an article fromChapel Hill (Blythe, 1998), a local civil rights lawyer asserts that”the town needs to…have a comprehensive strategy for eliminating the povertyand racism thats at the root of a lot of these problems.” In Berkeley, “homelessadvocates said the citywould be wiser to address theproblems of homelessness, rather thancriminalize thebehavior of thepeople on the street” (Nieves, 1998). ADenver Post column (Kulp, 2000) aptly inquires: “When will governments realize they cannot solve the problem of homelessness throughnew laws, police action,
11. 204 Amsterand incarceration? The causes are more If governments are complex…. sincerelyconcerned about reducing thevisibility of thehomeless, then amore rational andcost-effective strategyinvolves affordable housing, medical care, public transpor?tation,decent-paying jobs, and patching up theholes inpublic benefit systems likedisability and workmans compensation.” A recent telephone survey of 500 Ohioresidents conducted by theCoalition on Homelessness and Housing inOhio (inFaith, 1999) reflects, the publics strong belief that homelessness primarily is caused by external factors such as unemployment rather than internal factors such asmental illness or drug use…. Those surveyed overwhelmingly rejected proposals to “make life on the street more difficult and unpleasant until thehomeless decide to leave town” as a possible remedy forhomelessness. They stronglyendorsed a fundamental shiftinoverall policy, and amove from large emergency shelters to smaller, geographically scattered permanent housing and programs that include job trainingand support? ive services…. The poll seems to indicate thatresidentsmay understand better than our political leaders that the remedy for homelessness depends on jobs, affordable housing, and services?not criminalization. Some of themore interestingalternatives have been suggested by thehomelessthemselves, as inBerkeley (Nieves, 1998): “Some of theyoung people have comeup with theirown plan, which theypresented to theCity Council lastweek. Theypromise that theywill stop urinating and sleeping on Telegraph Avenue, pan?handle in smaller groups, keep theirdogs on leashes, and pick up their trash. Inreturn,theyhave asked thecity toprovide more trashcans, create a dog run, cleanthe public bathrooms more often, and open Berkeleys first shelter for youngpeople.” Clevelands Lynn Key, one of the”firsthomeless targets”of crackdownsthere,was equally pragmatic (OMalley, 1999): “[Key] was sleeping on a warmsteam pipe cover outside the county welfare building. Police toldKey he had tomove, but the homeless man refused, saying that he had been banned fromdowntown emergency shelters foramonth forbeing drunk and thathe had no place to go. Police arrested him, charged him with disorderly conduct, and took him tojail, where he spent thenight. Tf you cant sleep in frontof thewelfare building world, Key said. Tf thecitydoesnt want themat night, theres nowhere else in theon the streets, they should open City Hall and let them sleep in there.” Apology Rejected: The Incivility of “Civility” With anti-homeless ordinances rapidly proliferating, their proponents andapologists have redoubled theireffortsto construct justifications for laws restrict?ing conduct inpublic places. Standard justifications have included public healthand safety, economics, and aesthetics (see NLCHP, 1999; Foscarinis, 1996).
12. Sanitizing Space, Criminalizing Homelessness 205Concerns of the”health and safety” variety essentially employ the”disease” image to depict the homeless as “unsanitary” and responsible for the “attraction ofvermin” (Foscarinis, 1996: 57). “Economic” considerations includemaintaining”commercial vitality” and preventing “urban decay” (NLCHP, 1999), merchantsfears of losing clients and consumers fears of encountering homeless people, andpromoting tourism and shopping (Foscarinis, 1996:56). “Aesthetic” concerns aregenerally expressed in termsof preserving and protecting the “quality of life” of thecommunity and often include overt desires to “remove unsightlypeople frompublic view…and to make downtown areas welcoming to all” (Ibid.: 55).Evaluating such “aesthetic and pecuniary” justifications, Smith (1994) notes thateven ifeffective, “it isdeeply troubling to finda community valuing these interestsmore than the survival of streetpeople.” As the NLCHP reportobserves, when itcomes to health and safety concerns, “in most cases the presence of peoplesleeping, sitting,or lying down in public places, or peacefully soliciting alms,cannot reasonably be deemed a direct threattopublic health or safety.”The reportfurthernotes thataesthetic concerns are oftenmerely “a pretext for rationalizingbiases against a certain group of people, or as an excuse for excluding certainpeople frompublic spaces based on stereotypes and stigmas.” Finally, with regardto economic concerns that the homeless are bad for business, such notions areinverted, since business is bad for the homeless. Another theme of such “quality of life” campaigns, one that has becomesomething of amantra for itsproponents, is thenotion of “civility.” As Ellickson (1996: 1246) predicted, “cities, merchants, and pedestrians will increasinglyreassert traditional norms of streetcivility.” One of the staunchest proponents of theconcept has been Rob Teir (1998:256), who begins froma premise thatpublicspaces are primarily spaces of commerce, shopping, and recreation. Teir (1996)laments that”homeless people have taken over parks, depriving everyone else ofonce-beautiful places,” but believes that through “fair-minded law enforcementand tough love..urban communities can reclaim theirpublic spaces.” Anotherproponent similarly notes thata “perception grew that [thehomeless], and not thecommunity as a whole, owned the areas they occupied,” and concludes thatefforts ought to be undertaken toward “reclaiming public spaces from thehomeless” (Conner, 1999). Likewise, Chuck Jackson (1998), the director of adowntown Houston “business improvement district” (BID), claims that thehomeless have “colonized public areas.” As Neil Smith (1996: 211) points out,however, a more accurate label for such “civility” arguments is “revanchism,”namely, theestablishment of a vengeful policy bent on regaining original areas lostin war. “This revanchist urbanism represents a reaction against the supposed theft of the city, a desperate defense of a challenged phalanx of privileges,cloaked in thepopulist language of civic morality, family values, and neighbor?hood security. Itportends a vicious reaction againstminorities, the working class,homeless people, the unemployed, women, gays and lesbians, immigrants.”
13. 206 Amster Nonetheless, proponents such as Teir (1996) continue to argue that”measuresaimed at maintaining street order help mostly the poor and themiddle class [since] thewell off can leave an area when itgets intolerable. It is the rest of uswho depend on the safety and civility of public spaces.” The problem is that it isprecisely the “well-off who have “stolen” and “colonized” thepublic places of thecity, literallyand legally converting supposedly prized havens of public space into exclusionary domains of private property.As Mitchell (1996:164) observes, the concept of “civility” has often been invoked historically “to assure that thefree trade in ideas in no way threatened property rights.” The essence of such”civility,” then,is toprotect and reinforceprivate property claims (many ofwhichinclude previously public spaces now converted toprivate ownership) advancedby “urban stakeholders,” including “central business district property owners,small business owners, real estate developers, and elected officials” (Conner, 1999). The Web site of theDowntown Tempe Community, Inc. (DTC), a probusiness lobbying entity,for example, emphasizes that”we seek ordinances thatadvance our strategyof order and civility in thepublic space. Working with ourprivate property owners, we seek cooperation on interdependent security is?sues.”8 The DTC furtherclaims that such efforts have “made the downtown asafer place.” Itmust be noted that images of “public safety” and “communitystandards” specifically exclude the homeless and the poor from participation,since these groups are constructed as not part of the community, the public, orthose with a stake in political decisions and city affairs. Civility proponents, including DTC Executive Director Rod Keeling (Petrie, 1999), also emphasize thatpublic behavior laws “apply to everyone equally”(Teir, 1998). They “ask all residents toobserve minimum standards of public life”thatwill “put a stop tomuch of the anti-social conduct that is destroying propertyvalues and the quality of downtown life” (Teir, 1996), arguing that “civilityordinances demand thatall citizens adhere to a reasonable level of behavior whileoperating inpublic space” (Jackson, 1998).9 The homeless have no private spaces inwhich toperform “uncivil” functions such as eliminating and sleeping. As JohnHannigan (1998: 9) opines, “it is easy to equate civility with a certain lifestyle.” Claims such as Teirs (1998: 290) ? according to which the effect ofordinances prohibiting sleeping, begging, and sittingon sidewalks is “preservingwelcoming, attractive,and safepublic spaces forall ofus touse and enjoy”?amount more than “cynical hucksterism” (cf.Hannigan, 1998: 9). Plainly, “all areto littlewelcome” ? except thehomeless and otherswho threatentoundermine bourgeois inconsumerist values. Civility proponents also seem tohave littleinterest preservingpublic spaces,” but in fact are often the chief advocates and direct beneficiaries ofprocesses of privatization that are eroding the citys public spaces. Ironically, thehomeless themselves function topreserve public spaces as democratic, spontaneous, ?and inclusive. They are not thecolonizers of public space, but are rather like the in the coalmine ? the immediate victims of its colonization.proverbial canary
14. Sanitizing Space, Criminalizing Homelessness 207 Breaking Down “Broken Windows” Another significant justification for anti-homeless laws, one thathas receivedmuch attention and critical treatment,is the “brokenwindows” theory. Originating in a landmark Atlantic Monthly article, the theorys chief proponents, JamesWilson and George Kelling (1982), argue that “disorder and crime are usually inextricably linked, ina kind of developmental sequence. Social psychologists andpolice officers tend to agree that if a window in a building is broken and leftunrepaired, all the restof the windows will soon be broken.” The authors go on tohypothesize that “serious street crime flourishes in areas in which disorderlybehavior goes unchecked. The unchecked panhandler is, ineffect, the first brokenwindow.” They conclude that “the police ? and the rest of us ? ought torecognize the importance of maintaining, intact, communities without brokenwindows.” In otherwords, the aim ought to be the maintenance of communitieswithout “broken people,” since they represent the source and origin of the crimeproblem, the first step on the slippery slope from “untended property” to “un tended behavior” to “serious streetcrime.” Robert Ellickson (1996:1171,1182) attempts to linkone step to thenext in thissuspect syllogism: “A regular beggar is like an unrepaired broken window ? asign of the absence of effective social-control mechanisms in thatpublic space….Passersby, sensing this diminished control, become prone to committing addi?tional, perhaps more serious, criminal acts.” Wilson and Kelling (1982) attemptto support theprogression from “disorder” to “serious crime” by citing studies inwhich “untended property” (such as a parked car with itshood up) was found tolead eventually to the complete vandalization of thatproperty, suggesting that”untended behavior [exemplified by the unchecked panhandler ] also leads to thebreakdown of community controls,” and that in shortorder, “such a neighborhood [becomes] vulnerable to criminal invasion.” The broken windows theoryhas become a cornerstone of “community polic? ing” programs premised upon “aggressive ordermaintenance” and a proactive, “interventionistpolice strategy” (Kelling and Coles, 1996; Kelling, 1999). Givenits widespread implementation and the obvious implications for the properfunction of police in society, the theoryhas been roundly criticized from a numberof fronts.The first wave of critical questions was raised byWilson and Kelling(1982). Upon noting that”society wants an officer tohave the legal tools to removeundesirable persons,” they ask: “How do we ensure that thepolice do not becomethe agents of neighborhood bigotry?” Disturbingly, they respond to this crucialconcern of equity by stating: “We can offer no wholly satisfactory answer to thisimportantquestion…except to hope thatby their selection, training,and supervi?sion, the police will be inculcated with a clear sense of the outer limit of theirdiscretionary authority.”Thus, in termsof deciding who is deemed “undesirable”and subject to intervention and removal, the sole check on police harassment or
15. 208 Amsterdiscrimination is to be the discretion of the police themselves.10 A subsequentstudy called Fixing Broken Windows (Kelling and Coles, 1996: 256) evenconcludes: “Can citizens go too far? Will therebe injustices? Yes, at times.” In amore recentwork, Kelling (1999) admits that”ordermaintenance has thepotentialfor abuse, [since] police have used vagrancy, loitering, and panhandling laws toharass citizens and discriminate against groups in the past, [and] since policingteeters near the edge of militarism in so many locations.” The response to theseconcerns is that “police discretion” will somehow avoid such eventualities,notwithstanding the remarkable fact that “police are almost uniformly unable toarticulate what theydo, why they do it,and how theydo it…virtually all of theirordermaintenance, peacekeeping, and conflict resolution activities are unofficial”(Kelling, 1999). Beyond the critiques suggested (and weak responses offered) by the theorysprimary architects and apologists, many scholars and commentators have de?nounced “broken windows” as discriminatory in intentand application, funda?mentally unfair, logically flawed, and unsupported by studies of criminality andbehavior. Jeremy Waldron (2000), for example, asks two related and pointedquestions: (1) “Relative towhat norms of order are bench squatters or panhandlersor smelly streetpeople described as signs of disorder ?” and (2) “What is to countasfixing thewindow, when the broken window is a human being?” In addressing Waldrons answer is in the form of a question reminiscent of objectionsthe first,raised to the “civility” proponents: “Are these thenorms of order fora complacentand self-righteous society, whose more prosperous members are tryingdesper?ately to sustain various delusions about the situation of thepoor?” In termsof thesecond,Waldron notes that”giving himmoney” is not an accepted response underthe theory,nor is theprovision of “public lavatories and public shower facilities.Instead, fixing thewindow is taken tomean rousting the smelly individual andmaking himmove out of thepublic park or city square.. .as though the smartestwayto fix an actual broken window were to knock down the whole building, ormoveit to just outside the edge of town.” Unless attention is paid to the factorscontributing towhat caused thewindow to break in the first place, “fixing” thewindow is only a band-aid solution, since more broken windows are likely todevelop from the same socioeconomic conditions. The NLCHP (1999) asserts that the theory “raises serious concerns aboutbasic fairness. First, punishing one group of people to prevent future criminal ouractivity by others runs afoul of the basic notions of equality underlyingcriminal justice system.” Indeed, the theory is premised not on thenotion that”asingle broken window” will lead to additional or more serious crimes by theperson who broke thewindow, but rather that others (including passersby and”ordinary” citizens) will somehow be tempted by the appearance of disorder tocommit crimes of property and person. Asking police officers todiscern and evenremove individuals based on the likelihood that their mere presence will cause
16. Sanitizing Space, Criminalizing Homelessness 209other people to commit crimes is unfair, absurd, and almost certain to lead tomyriad abuses of authority. Maria Foscarinis (1996: 57) raises a related set of objections. She citesevidence that “homeless people are notmore likely to be perpetrators of seriouscrime than anyone else; in fact, they are more likely tobe victims. Further, there is evidence that themajority of thepublic does not perceive homeless people asperpetrators of crime.” Smith (1994) concurs that”the fear of homeless crime thatprompts police sweeps is grossly disproportionate to the levels of homeless crimesuggested by available empirical evidence.” He adds, “with an arrest rate forviolent offenses significantly lower than thatfordomiciled males, itwould appearthatthehomeless certainly are nomore, and probably less, likely tocommit crimesof violence than the general population.” For example, “police inAustin, Texas,are keenly aware that neighborhood claims and fears [regarding homelesscriminality] had little empirical substance.” As Kress (1995: 97) opines, “thecorrelation between homelessness and crime is, at best, tenuous…. Several studieshave been conducted that lay to rest the belief thathomelessness causes crime.According to [one study], among thehomeless, arresteeswere more likely tohavecommitted trivial, victimless crimes, and to have engaged in acts related to surviving in the absence of housing.” The net effect is that thehomeless are beingpunished not only for crimes theydidnt commit, but also for crimes others havenot yet committed, which flies in the face of equity and fairness. A final objection to “broken windows” as social policy is suggested byWaldron (2000) in the implicit derogation that comes when human beings arecompared “even figuratively to things” Waldron wonders what would haveensued if Wilson and Kellings article had been titled “Broken People.” Thecentral premise of the theory thus rests on a blatant form of dehumanization,figuratively in its principles, but literally in itswidespread deployment as thecutting edge of urban social policy. This is anotherway of expressing the tiredanddangerous characterization of thehomeless as pathological deviants or structuralvictims and serves to undermine theiragency, autonomy, and dignity.However,the impressive adaptability, social solidarity, and inherent resistance often dem?onstrated by streetpeople and theircommunities of coping (see Amster, 1999)effectively rebut such dominant conceptions, as Mitchell Duneier (1999: 315) implies inSidewalk. Because Americans ruthlessly use race and class categories as they navigate through life, many citizens generalize from the actual broken windows to all thewindows that look like them ? and assume that a person who looks broken must be shattered, when in fact he is tryingto fix himself as best he can. Only by understanding the rich social organization of the sidewalk, in all its complexity, might citizens and politicians appreciate how much is lostwhen we accept the idea that the
17. 210 Amster presence of a few broken windows justifies tearing down thewhole informal structure. Duneier goes on to suggest that allowing survival activities such as panhan?dling can actually preventmore serious crimes, implying a sortof “reverse brokenwindows theory” thatTempes “Kevin” (interview, 2000) intuitively grasps:”Would you ratherhave me spare-changing? or selling drugs to your kids orbreaking into your house?” Policing “Pleasantville”: The Private Security Matrix A recent study on “Policing Entertainment Districts” (Berkley and Thayer,2000) analyzes thepractices and policies utilized in “every entertainmentdistrictknown to the authors” (nearly 40 in all), in cities such as Houston, Cleveland, NewOrleans, Denver, Seattle, Austin, Philadelphia, and downtown Tempe. The studybegins by noting that”urban redevelopment [is] now driven by entertainment,”11 that “responsibility formanaging entertainment districts inevitably falls on thepolice department,” and that such districts “are naturally appealing to transientsand panhandlers [who] contribute to a perception of lawlessness and are primarilya problem during the day when they sit in frontof businesses and scare awaypatrons.” The authors go on to observe that “business owners want officers tomaintain a friendlyprofile while simultaneously running off gang members and thosewith nomoney to spend.” This leads to a process inwhich “undesirables” are”contacted and discouraged long before they reach core entertainment areas.”Those who make it into thedistrict can be “marked for surveillance or shadowed.”Identification of “undesirables” in the study is based on responses from policemanagers in 30 districts,and “troublemakers expect trouble and dress accordingly,while those in fine clothes” tend not to be a problem. For the police managers,”transients and panhandlers” were the most problematic, and “police departmentinteraction with merchant associations” was deemed the most effective method forpreventing problems in thedistricts. Business improvement districts (BIDs) play a role in policing entertainmentdistricts inparticular and urban space in general, since “the typical BID involvesa quasi-law enforcement forcewhose job includes, in large part, removing peoplewho appear to be homeless from theBID areas” (NCH/NLCHP, 2002). Besides”arresting beggars” (Parenti, 2000: 96), BIDs “typically focus on brokenwin?dows in the literal sense, cleaning streets and providing a visible, uniformedpresence, all toward the goal ofmaking public spaces more inviting” (Conner, 1999).12 Kelling and Coles (1996: 199) note that many BIDs have a “uniformedpresence” thatoften serves as the “eyes and ears” of the police, and they are in”radio contact with the police, and are trained to report suspicious behavior.”Parenti (2000: 96), however, asserts that such “private security forces [have] asurpassed the cops as themain violators of street peoples rights,” yielding
18. Sanitizing Space, Criminalizing Homelessness 111″private securitymatrix.. .whererent-a-cops are imbricated into the largerpolicingproject through a delicate division of labor: private forces control interiorspaces,aid thepolice inholding pacified streetscapes, and even launch offensives againstnonviolent undesirables.” Thus, Jones and Newburn (1999: 106) discern that “a new feudalism is emerging, inwhich private corporations have the legal spaceand economic incentives to do their own policing. In this view, mass privateproperty has given large corporations a sphere of independence and authoritywhich can rival thatof the state.” The result, identifiedby Hil and Bessant (1999:42), is that”police and [private] securitypersonnel seek to exclude young people [and other undesirables] from such places so that they can be purified and ? an outcome that reclaimed formore legitimate consumptive purposes”Parenti (2000: 97) appropriately terms “free-market social hygiene.” In Tempe, theDTC and itsprivate security force, TEAM (Total Events andManagement), embody all of these practices, as noted by Berkley and Thayer (2000): Private security can be effective, even on public streets,as a presence and deterrent,as a means of urging voluntary compliance, and as a firststage in an escalation. If they cannot gain voluntary compliance, they simply call the police. For example, theDowntown Tempe Community, Inc., uses private security to serve as eyes and ears for thepolice department and to provide a low-contact variety of security. TEAM guards are young, mostly untrained, and unarmed, but effective nonetheless. On Friday and Saturday nights,TEAM makes 60 percent of all calls to the police department from thedowntown area.When bicycle officers arrive to trouble spots, TEAM watches thebicycles. DTCs literaturenotes that ithas “increased relations with theTempe PoliceDepartment to ensure criminal activity within the homeless population wascurbed.” To thatend, the DTC was able to”directly affect thearrestof 8 individualsengaged in illegal activity and provide information on criminal activity to thepolice officers assigned to the downtown.” The DTCs Web site observes,”through ourDowntown Ambassador Program and private securitycontractor, weserve as crowd watchers and crime reporters for the police.”13 In early 2001, however, theDTC severed official contractual tieswith TEAM,which isnow employed byDMB Associates, a commercial development companywith one of the largestprivate property stakes indowntown Tempe, including the”Centerpoint” retail complex. As Rod Keeling (DTC, 2001) explains: The DTC has a long-standing relationship with our Police Department. Over the years, the relationship has evolved and refined to the point where other cities around the country are looking at how we work DTC made a fundamental change to our together….Earlier thisyear, the
19. 212 Amster downtown safetyprogram.We discontinued contractingwith a security guard company and turnedour focus on our Ambassador program. Our DTC Ambassadors are crowd watchers and crime reportersfor thepolice but theyare not securityguards.We want to assist thepolice, not take the place of them.We believed then and are convinced now thatour move from street security to street concierge presents a better image for downtown Tempe without compromising safety. In fact, downtown is safer thanever before. Now its friendlier too. Just look for the teal shirts. With all those “crowd watchers” (i.e., voyeurs) and “crime reporters” (i.e.,snitches) in place, the feeling of “security” is indeed palpable. Cleaning Up, Cracking Down, and Ordering Out The face of “social hygiene” presented by such scenarios isnt quite so”friendly” forTempes homeless residents, who experience regular “sweeps”and “ID and warrant checks” (Kevin interview, 2000), as well as episodes inwhich “the copsll go out and find our squats and burn all our clothing, ourIDs.,.they harass us all the time” (Katy interview, 2000).14 As the SalvationArmys JulieCart (interview, 2001) notes, “everyone out there living on Tempestreets has been arrested…its part of their lives.” In this regard, Gregg Barak(1991: 85) reports the results of a study of police harassment of thehomeless inSan Francisco. Based on a survey of almost 300 street people, 96% reportedhaving been told to “move along” when doing nothing wrong; 93% had beenordered to produce identification without cause; 80% said that their body,clothes, or possessions had been searched for no reason; and 50% had been”physically beaten or brutalized by a police officer.”As one possible explanationforwhy thehomeless suffer such affronts and attacks at the hands of thepolice,Don Mitchell (1997b: 393) observes that”the homeless so effectively challenge the authority of the police. They challenge the polices competence to control space.” In Tempe, “Kevin” (1999, 2000) inparticular has been a frequent targetof this spatial battle, having been arrested 43 times in a three-yearperiod (1997 to 2000) for offenses such as public consumption of alcohol, trespassing onprivate property, and public urination.15 These patterns of enforcement are so common in Tempe that the leadresearcher on a city-sponsored “homeless needs assessment” study told the citycouncil on the night it was submitted (November, 26, 2000): a Doing the report has been a real eye-opener. It is very disturbing as Tempe resident to see the harassment of people who are homeless in Tempe. Being homeless has itselfbeen criminalized. I have seen people harassed by thepolice and TEAM inTempe. Where is our public space? The dehumanization of itall really disappoints me, and Ihope that tonight
20. Sanitizing Space, Criminalizing Homelessness 213 is the first step in stopping this criminalization. These are our residents and they shouldnt be treated as they are. Despite such sentiments, the enforcement situation in Tempe has worsenedsince the time of the “needs assessment.” A particularly sinister trendhas been theimposition of fines on homeless defendants convicted of petty offenses. “Katy”(2000), for example, a middle-aged homeless woman inTempe, incredulouslydescribes how she received a fine for drinking in public: “A $285 ticket! Where theheck is a homeless person gonna get $285 topay themoff?Thats pretty stupid, Imean, get real.” Tempes “Bill” (2000) likewise refers to such fines as “extortionmoney,” and notes thatthe result is usually that”an unpaid fine thenbecomes anarrest warrant, so thenext time theyrunyour ID, youre goin tojail” (cf. Howland, 1994). With such punishments inmind, offhand comments such as Kelling andColes (1996: 15) thatpublic disorder laws are usually “punishable only by finesor community service” come across as particularly cruel. As for the “community service” option, theDTC Web site touts “increased relationswith theTempe CityCourt thatallow thehomeless to complete theircommunity service by working toclean up the downtown under the direction of theDTC.” Apparently, the microrepublic of theDTC, like itsalter ego thecity of Tempe, now possesses thepowerof punishment and criminal corrections. In fact, a recent report on homelesscriminalization in theUnited States (NCH/NLCHP, 2002) has properly criticizedsuch “alternative sentencing” schemes as “the newest marketing tool for publicsafety advocates who cloak their urban cleansing policies in social service language.” A further enforcement wrinkle in Tempe appeared in a joint DTC-PoliceDepartment pronouncement thata “new crackdown on panhandlers and sidewalk sitters” would commence in early 2002, a scheme in which the police are”encouraging businesses to act as witnesses tohelp make arrests” (Davis, 2002).”Right now we are on a mission to reeducate businesses that they can bewitnesses,” Tempe police Sergeant Noah Johnson told theASU State Press.”Businesses can aid inarrests like individuals can,” he said. For their DTC part, the (throughoperations manager ChrisWilson) stressed that”now, businesses can callpolice ifone of theircustomers is panhandled, as long as someone saw ithappen” (inDavis, 2002).16 “The police are finally coming around,”Wilson said. “Theyrealize thatif theycan get ridof low-level crimes and criminals, thenthebig crimeswill disappear with them.”Given the inherent illogic of these “broken windows”policies, the self-fulfillingnature of such constructions of “crimes and criminals” is apparent. The DTC s (2002a) account of thisnew police crackdown is revealing: Thanks to thePolice Department, downtown Tempe may become a safer and more friendly place. On Thursday, Dec. 27, Officer Whit Roesch made an important arrest.He took into custody a young man who was aggressively panhandling on thecorner of Fifth andMill Avenue in front
21. 214 Amster of Starbucks. This arrestmarked the firstof a new campaign to crack down on aggressive panhandlers. The new crusade has sprung from clarification of a certain city code thatstates thatofficers need only have witnesses to thepanhandling, not necessarily thevictim. This will allow many more arrests of aggressive panhandlers, making Tempe a safer place. This “new crusade” includes a punitive and exclusionary twist called an”Order Out,” which is “a stipulation to the parole of people arrested under thepanhandling city code [mandating] thattheperson arrested could not returnto thatdistrict, in this case downtown Tempe” (DTC, 2002a). Such “ordering out” is notwhat one might ordinarily thinkof in a city full of restaurants and eateries? anirony evident in the fact that many homeless panhandlers are begging for food ormoney to buy it.Then again, perhaps starvation is an (un)intended “benefit” ofsuch blatantly discriminatory and brutally exclusionary schemes.17 Conclusion: From Criminalization to Extermination Unsurprisingly, the “extermination” scenario is never far from the surface ofthe homeless experience, since it is the logical aim of thesemyriad policies andpractices of criminalization. As Madeleine Stoner (1995: 161) notes, the images of homeless sweeps are reminiscent of holocaust roundups in Nazi Germany. To dramatize the message thathomeless people are not welcome, police officers frequently conduct large-scale campaigns in which they arresthomeless people, handcuff them, mark theirarmswith identification numbers, drive them to thepolice stationwhere theyawait formal charges forhours without food and water, and finally drive them to the edge of town afterdetention, drop them off, and tell them not to return. Samira Kawash (1998:336-337) likewise describes an “increasingly vengefulwar on thehomeless” inwhich “both threatsand acts of violence are necessary tomaintain this exclusionary force.” As Tempes “Bill” (2000) laments, “its likeGestapo Germany around here.” Street people are repeatedly subjected to “violent processes of containment,constriction, and compression that seek not simply to exclude or control thehomeless but rather to efface theirpresence altogether” (Kawash, 1998: 330).Much of this overt and recurring violence logically flows from the fact that little in the lives of thehomeless takes place behind closed doors, yielding a conditionof having “no place to perform elementary human activities” (Waldron, 1991).Constrained to exist in public places, the homeless are constant targets of regulation, criminalization, expulsion, and erasure. They are at once exceedinglyobvious, and yet ghost-like in their transparency; they are “visible and invisible at
22. Sanitizing Space, Criminalizing Homelessness 215the same time” (Miller, 1991:164). Thus, tobe homeless means having “nowhereelse to go” (Waldron, 2000) and having “lost entitlement to any existentialground” (Davis, 1990). As “Katy” (2000) muses: “Whatre theygonna do, put uson a rocket ship and send us to Mars? I mean, where theheck is thehomeless gonnago, besides Tempe?” Kawash (1998: 326) adds, “there is no place in the contem?porary urban landscape for thehomeless tobe,” and “to be homeless is thus tobethrustinto thepublic without recourse.”Waldron (2000) defines homeless peopleas thosewho “have no private space” and are thus left with “no alternative but tobe and remain and live all their lives inpublic.” He raises theobvious dilemma thatthehomeless are excluded from all theplaces governed by private property; sinceprivate and public places exhaust all the possibilities, there is nowhere for thehomeless to perform basic survival actions. Thus, “such a person would not bepermitted to exist” (Waldron, 1991). As an antidote to thephilosophical and pragmatic horrors of such extermina?tion scenarios, homeless advocates must “discover ways tomake the violencewritten on thehomeless body legible” (Kawash, 1998). Throughout my investiga?tions of homeless policymaking, such principles, grounded in the materialconditions and lived experiences of streetpeople, have guided me, as has my desireto “make the violence legible” throughdiscourse and activism. NOTES 1. A relevant example here is that: “Tempes mayor supports individual culpability forhomelessness, identifying the homeless problem in Tempe as primarily related to packs of kidschoosing to be homeless and frequenting the downtown area…. Business organizations also emphasizethe individual deviancies of the homeless and actively pressure public officials to reduce homelessaccess and resources”(Brinegar, 2000: 510). 2. As Mitchell (1996: 166, 171) notes, in “asserting the primacy of property rights,” thelawgivers “often struggled to couch those rights in a universal language thatmasked the class-basednature of their rulings. This universal language typically was a language of civility and order….Orderliness can thus quite easily serve power.” 3. Legal scholars such as McConkey (1996) and Baker (1990) assert that prohibitions againstconduct associated with basic survival come dangerously close to violating the Supreme Courts aproscription against “status crimes,” and suggest the interposition of “necessity defense” when thereis no other choice presented to people charged with crimes regarding acts such as sleeping andeliminating. 4. See also Howland (1994: 34): “If sleeping in public places is illegal, thatmeans at least325,000 people are faced with the nightly choice of breaking the law or staying awake.” 5. Numerous other studies confirm the growing appearance and application of “anti-homeless legislation,” including Baker (1990), Barak (1991), Smith (1994), Millich (1994), Stoner(l 995), NCH Mitchell (1998a, 1998b), NCH/NLCHP (2002). Munzer (1997),(1997), and 6. The latter article is subtitled “Tempe follows college towns trend of tougher restrictions,”and notes that “theValley s liberal college town has attacked personal libertieswith a slew of restrictive laws.” 7. Though there is no obvious single reason for this trend, some possible explanations include:(1) “liberal” cities have often been viewed by the homeless as more tolerant and welcoming, thereby
23. 216 Amster increasing the number of homeless in such cities; (2) many of these “liberal” cities are in the “newWest,” where development schemes are fast being implemented, causing immediate spatial conflictswith homeless populations; and (3) “liberalism” as a socioeconomic philosophy entails the growth ofcorporate hegemony and managerial values, processes that can contribute to homeless exclusion. 8. See 9. In response to Jacksons assertions, a Houston alternative paper (Liskow, 1999) maintained that “in reality, civility ordinances would primarily target street people.” 10. “More importantly, in relying on police to distinguish between desirable and undesirableelements in the community, there isno way to ensure that thecriteria they use to make these distinctionswill not be invidious or impermissible ones…. The likely success of the only safeguard suggested by ? ? is belied[Wilson and Kelling] appropriate selection, training, and supervision of police officersby examples of discriminatory enforcement of criminal laws and ordinances by police officers across the country” (NLCHP, 1999). 11. See Zukin (1997). 12. See also Mealer (1999) and Jackson (1998) on how the directors of BIDs inAustin andHouston are “firm believers” in the broken windows theory. The DTCs Web site likewise notes that “we seek ordinances that advance our Fixing Broken Windows strategy.” 13. The origins of private security indowntown Tempe are instructive, as explained by theDTC sDowntowner newspaper (2000a): “Mill Avenue and downtown Tempe have seen many changes in the last century with themost dramatic coming in the last ten years. As Tempe has evolved, so has TEAMtomeet the needs of this growing community. During theweekly gatherings of eclectic and diversegroups, conflicts arose. Several business owners asked Mick Hirko to help and TEAM was started toprovide security for downtown Tempe. Today, 250 TEAM members do everything from keepingparking safe to answering visitors questions and providing security services to businesses. TEAMexists because of downtown Tempe, said Hirko. And were dedicated to its future.” A subsequentarticle (DTC, 2000b) adds: “TEAM watches theTempe community as if it were their home? becausethats exactly what it is.TEAMs patrol service roams thedowntown Tempe area, checking propertieson a regular schedule seven days a week. Late in the night, after restaurants and bars have closed andmost people have gone home, TEAM can be found looking for break-ins, checking doors, observing areasuspicious behavior and coordinating with theTempe Police Department to keep the downtownsafe.” 14. A joint report by theNational Coalition for theHomeless (NCH) and theNLCHP (2002)confirms the prevalence of such practices: “People who are homeless routinely report losing theirpossessions, identification, medication, and employment as a result of being arrested.When homelesspeople are arrested, they lose whatever tenuous hold they have on getting their lives back together.”See also Lelchuk (2001), who notes that San Francisco often “throws out personal belongings andmedication.” 15. Though I remain critical of such policies, there are hopeful examples. Recently, New YorkCity police officer Eduardo Delacruz “was suspended for 30 days without pay after he refused a sergeants order to arrest a homeless man found sleeping in a parking garage. In gratitude, organiza? tions for the homeless put together a fund for the officer, his wife, and five children. Homeless peoplealso contributed change scrounged from passersby, money earned from recycling cans and bottles,even a portion of their welfare checks. According to police, Delacruz told his superiors in thedepartments Homeless Outreach Unit thathe would not arrest a homeless man for trespassing because theman had nowhere else to go” (Williams, 2002). 16. However, in their DTC Insider publication, the DTC (2002b) asserts that, “thanks toclarification of a city code, Tempe police officers no longer need a victims account of aggressive ?panhandling to make an arrest businesses, or individuals may act as witnesses. Downtownbusinesses may now notify police of aggressive panhandling themselves, rather than waiting forsomeone else to report these activities. The reportsmay be made anonymously, as well.” 17. An example of these patterns arises from events inAsheville, North Carolina (Barber, 1998):
24. Sanitizing Space, Criminalizing Homelessness 217″T started hearing how kids were being chased away by police for sitting downtown during the day, [one resident] relates. There were a lotof stories floating around about kids being shook down by cops,which means they run your ID or flip through your bags forno apparent reason, other than youre sittingthere and you look different. According to Asheville Police Chief Will Annarino, these youngpeoples behavior often violates specific city ordinances. He denies that the police are harassing thekids, saying officers are merely doing their job by responding tomerchants complaints. Annarinoadmits that certain selective law-enforcement practices come into play, but he insists that thosepractices are based not on cultural biases but on economics. We have tomake tough decisions everyday on how to best utilize our personnel in direct reaction to complaints from citizens, adding that themajority of complaints come not from kids who feel harassed but frommerchants and tourists. Themerchants demand that their rights not be violated, Annarino explains. Some kids charge that thepolice are using farmore force than is necessary to respond to nonviolent crimes, crossing the line intoundue aggression and outright harassment. Annarino admits that some ordinances are now beingenforced more aggressively than before, but he says this is simply due to the increased police presence.Annarino denies knowledge of any such incidents. All I can say is that officers sometimes use their matters like these, he observes. Some merchants say theyhave no interest in compromise:discretion inThey just want the street people cleared out, period.” REFERENCESAmster, Randall 1999 “Ethnography at theMargins: Vagabonds, Transients, and the Specter of Resistance.” Humboldt Journal of Social Relations 25,1.Baker, Donald E. 1990 “Anti-Homeless Legislation: Unconstitutional Efforts to Punish the Homeless.” University ofMiami Law Review 45.Barak, Gregg 1991 Gimme Shelter: A Social History ofHomelessness inContemporary America. New York: Praeger.Barber, Marsha 1998 “No Shoes, No Shirt? No Rights?” Asheville Mountain Xpress (November 18).Berkley, Blair J. and John R. Thayer 2000 “Policing Entertainment Districts.” Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 23,4.Blythe, Anne 1998 “Downtown Problems Could Get New Fixes.” Chapel Hill News (September 27),Brinegar, Sarah J. 2000 “Response toHomelessness inTempe, Arizona: Public Opinion and Government Policy.” Urban Geography 21,6.Brown, Kristen 1999 “Outlawing Homelessness.” National Housing Institute, Shelterforce Online (July/August).Conner, Roger L. 1999 “Disorder Laws and the Courts: Review of Recent Developments.” At, Kristina 2002 “Police toTarget Panhandlers, Sidewalk Sitters.” ASU State Press (February 20).Davis, Mike 1990 City of Quartz: Excavating theFuture in Los Angeles. New York: Verso.
25. 218 AmsterDTC (Downtown Tempe Community, Inc.) 2002a “Police Crackdown on Aggressive Panhandling.” The Downtowner (Febru? ary). 2002b “Businesses May Aid inAggressive Panhandling Arrests.” DTC Insider (February). 2001 “State of theDowntown.” The Downtowner 5,3. 2000a “T.E.A.M. Helps Tempe Grow.” The Downtowner 4,1. 2000b “Everywhere Theyre Needed,” The Downtowner 4,4.Duff, Audrey 1999 “This Aint No KOA.” Austin Chronicle 15,24.Duneier, Mitchell 1999 Sidewalk. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.Ellickson, Robert C. 1996 “Controlling Chronic Misconduct in City Spaces: Of Panhandlers, Skid Rows, and Public-Space Zoning.” Yale Law Journal 105: 1165.Fabyankovic, Janet 2000 “Alternatives toHomeless Criminalization.” Law and Order: The Magazine for Police Management 48,8.Faith, Bill 1999 “Criminalizing Homeless Is No Solution.” Columbus Dispatch (December 25).Fanon, Franz 1991 Black Skin, White Masks. New York: Grove Press.Ferrell, Jeff 2001 “Remapping theCity: Public Identity, Cultural Space, and Social Justice.” Contemporary Justice Review 4,2.Foscarinis, Maria 1996 “Downward Spiral: Homelessness and Its Criminalization.” Yale Law and Policy Review 14: 1.Foscarinis, Maria and Richard Herz 1995 “The Criminalization of Homelessness: An Overview of Litigation Theories and Strategies.” Clearinghouse Review 29,8-9.Foscarinis, Maria, Kelly Cunningham-Bowers, and Kristen E. Brown 1999 “Out of Sight ?- Out ofMind? The Continuing Trend Toward the Criminalization of Homelessness.” Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy 6: 145.Gowan, Teresa 2000 “Excavating Globalization from Street Level: Homeless Men Recycle Their Pasts.” Michael Burawoy et al. (eds.), Global Ethnography. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Hannigan, John 1998 Fantasy City: Pleasure and Profit in thePostmodern Metropolis. New York: Routledge.Herman, Marc 1997 “Down and Out.” Santa Cruz Metro Active (November 13).Hesse, Herman 1972 Steppenwolf. New York: Bantam.Hil, Richard and JudithBessant 1999 “Spaced Out? Young Peoples Agency, Resistance, and Public Space.” Urban Policy and Research 17,1.Howland, George 1994 “The New Outlaws: Cities Make Homelessness a Crime.” The Progressive (May). ?IWW (Industrial Workers of theWorld) Santa Cruz Branch 1994 “The Criminalization of Poverty in Santa Cruz: Managing Social Dissent.” Pamphlet. Santa Cruz, CA.
26. Sanitizing Space, Criminalizing Homelessness 219 Jackson, Chuck 1998 “A Little More Civility inOrder inHoustons Public Places.” Houston Chronicle (December 20). Jones, Trevor and Tim Newburn 1999 “Policing Public and Private Space inLate Modern Britain.” Pat Carlen and Rod Morgan (eds.), Crime Unlimited? Questions for the 21st Century. London, U.K.: Macmillan.Kawash, Samira 1998 “The Homeless Body.” Public Culture 10,2.Kelling, George L. 1999 “Broken Windows” and Police Discretion. Washington, D.C.: NILKelling, George L. and Catherine M. Coles 1996 Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime inOur Communities. New York: Martin Kessler/Free Press.Kress, June B, 1995 “Homeless Fatigue Syndrome: The Backlash Against the Crime of Homelessness in the 1990s.” Social Justice 21,3.Kulp,Cyndy 2000 “Panhandling Begs for Solutions.” Denver Post (January 16).Lauderdale, Pat 1980 A Political Analysis ofDeviance. Minneapolis, MN: University ofMinnesota Press.Lelchuk, Ilene 2001 “S.F. Stung by Accusations of Callousness.” San Francisco Chronicle (August 23).Liskow, Samantha 1999 “Civil(ity) War: Does Houston Have toGet Tougher on Street People?” Houston Press (July 22).Lofland, Lyn H. 1998 The Public Realm: Exploring the Citys Quintessential Social Territory. New York: Aldine.Lydersen, Kari 2000 “In Many Cities, Being Homeless Is Against the Law.” In These Times (June 12).McConkey, Robert C. 1996 “Camping Ordinances and theHomeless: Constitutional and Moral Issues Raised by Ordinances Prohibiting Sleeping inPublic Areas.” Cumberland Law Review 26: 633.Mealer, Bryan 1999 “Safety First: Are theHomeless Targeted in theName of Crime Prevention?” Austin Chronicle 18,31.Miller, Henry 1991 On theFringe: The Dispossessed inAmerica. Toronto: Lexington.Millich, Nancy A. 1994 “Compassion Fatigue and the First Amendment: Are theHomeless Constitu? tional Castaways?” U.C. Davis Law Review 27: 255.Mitchell, Don 1998a “Anti-Homeless Laws and Public Space: Begging and the First Amendment.” Urban Geography 19,1. 1998b “Anti-Homeless Laws and Public Space: Further Issues.” Urban Geography 19,2. 1997a “The Annihilation of Space by Law: The Roots and Implications of Anti Homeless Laws in theUnited States.” Antipode 29,3. 1997b “Power, Tactics, and the Political Geography of Policing: Comments on Steve Herberts Policing Space” Urban Geography 18,5. 1996 “Political Violence, Order, and theLegal Construction of Public Space: Power
27. 220 Amster and the Public Forum Doctrine.” Urban Geography 17,2.Moss, J. Jennings 1999 “Increasingly, Homeless Seen as Blight.” (November 24).Munzer, Stephen R. 1997 “Ellickson on Chronic Misconduct inUrban Spaces: Of Panhandlers, Bench Squatters, and Day Laborers.” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 32: 1.NCH (National Coalition on Homelessness) 1997 “The Criminalization of Homelessness: U.S. Cities Ban Homeless Activity.” Safety Network (September/October).NCH andNLCHP 2002 Illegal toBe Homeless; The Criminalization ofHomelessness in the United States. At, Evelyn 2002 “In Famously Tolerant City, Impatience with Homeless.” New York Times (January 18). 1998 “Fed Up, Berkeley Takes Aim at Homeless Youths.” New York Times (November 3).NLCHP (National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty) 1999 Out of Sight ? Out ofMind? A Report on Anti-Homeless Laws, Litigation and Alternatives in 50 United States Cities, Washington, D.C.Noonan, Dennis 1996 “Cultural Cleansing: Is There a Solution forHomeless Camp?” Tucson Weekly (March 21).OBrien, Keith 2001 “Undue Process.” New Orleans Times-Picayune (October 7).OMalley, Michael 1999 “Holiday Crackdown Sweeps Up Citys Homeless.” The Plain Dealer (December 1).Parenti, Christian 2000 “Discipline inPlayland: Policing theThemepark City.” In Lockdown America. New York: Verso.Petrie, Bob 1999 “Tempe Cruising Crackdown.” Arizona Republic (April 3).Pressley, Sue Ann 1996 “Homeless Are Run Out of Town.” London Guardian (January 2).Riordan, Nikki 1999 “New School of Thought.” East Valley Tribune (January 29).Rocky Mountain News (editorial) 2000 “Too Much of a Crackdown” (May 18).Sibley, David 1995 Geographies of Exclusion: Society and Difference in theWest. London, U.K.: Routledge.Simon, Harry 1996 “Municipal Regulation of theHomeless inPublic Spaces.” Jim Baumohl (ed.), Homelessness inAmerica. U.S.: Oryx Press. 1992 “Towns Without Pity: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis of Official Efforts toDrive Homeless Persons fromAmerican Cities.” Tulane Law Review 66: 631.Smith, David M. 1994 “A Theoretical and Legal Challenge toHomeless Criminalization as Public Policy.”Yale Law and Policy Review 12: 487.Smith, Neil 1996 The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and theRevanchist City. New York: Routledge.
28. Sanitizing Space, Criminalizing Homelessness 221Snow, David A. and Leon Anderson 1993 Down on Their Luck: A Study ofHomeless Street People. Los Angeles; University of California Press.Sorkin, Michael (ed.) 1992 Variations on a Theme Park: The New American City and theEnd of Public Space. New York: Hill andWang.Stoner, Madelaine R. 1995 The Civil Rights of Homeless People. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Tanner, Robert 2002 “Homeless Numbers Rise; So Do Panhandling Rules.” Arizona Republic (December 25).Teir, Rob 1998 “Restoring Order inUrban Public Spaces.” Texas Review of Law and Politics 2: 256. 1996 “Safety and Civility inPublic Spaces.” Atlanta Journal and Constitution (January 24).Tobin, Mitch 2000 “Panhandler Law Put in Jeopardy.” Tucson Citizen (February 4).Waldron, Jeremy 2000 “Homelessness and Community.” University of Toronto Law Journal 50: 371. 1991 “Homelessness and the Issue of Freedom.” UCLA Law Review 39: 295.Weber, Max 1958 The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, New York: Scribner and Sons.Williams, Brett 1996 “There Goes theNeighborhood: Gentrification, Displacement, and Homelessness inWashington, D.C.” Anna Lou Dehavenon (ed.), Theres No Place Like Home. Connecticut: Bergin and Garvey.Williams, Timothy 2002 “Homeless Give Officer $3000.” Arizona Republic (December 25).Wilson, James Q. and George L. Kelling 1982 “Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety. Atlantic Monthly (March).Wright, Talmadge 2000 “New Urban Spaces and Cultural Representations: Social Imaginaries, Social Physical Space, and Homelessness.” Research in Urban Sociology 5: 23. 1997 Out of Place: Homeless Mobilizations, Subcities, and Contested Landscapes. New York: SUNY Press.Zukin, Sharon 1997 “Cultural Strategies of Economic Redevelopment and Hegemony of Vision.” Andy Merrifield and Erik Swyngedouw (eds.), The Urbanization of Injustice. New York: New York University Press. INTERVIEWS CITED “Bill” 2000 Interview on Mill Avenue (April 24).Cart, Julie 2001 Interview at Salvation Army (February 23). “Katy” 2000 Interview on Mill Avenue (April 29). “Kevin” 2000 Interview on Mill Avenue (April 29). 1999 Interview at the Salvation Army (December 16). “Piper” 2000 Interview on Mill Avenue (April 24).

Learn About Us
Our Blog
Contact us
Help & Support

Using SlideShare
SlideShare 101
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Copyright & DMCA
Community Guidelines

SlideShare Outside
SlideShare Mobile
Facebook App
LinkedIn App
Widgets for your blog
Like SlideShare on Facebook
Follow @SlideShare

Pro & more
Go PRO New
Business Solutions
Advertise on SlideShare

Developers & API
Developers Section
Developers Group
Engineering Blog

© 2010 SlideShare Inc. All rights reserved.


About homelessholocaust

Tijuana Hobo , Hebrew Hobo Railroad Rabbi, The Truth Teller Tell True Truth Truthfully. If the Truth is Repugnant to you, You are a Reagan Cultist. Ronald Reagan was Taught by L. Ron Hubbard, Reagan & Hubbard FOUNDED THE SCIENCE FICTION MIND FUCKING GAME- SCIENTOLOGY- then REAGAN USED NERO LINGUIST PROGRAMMING as PRESIDENT to MURDER THE MINDS of AMERICANS!
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s