"[T]he epidemiological evidence is that CPI is enabled by social gatherings of people who are afflicted and give each other support in resisting treatment. Dispersion is not the answer if it means merely shifting the population from one place to the other, but there is evidence that the breakup of a convivial situation will lead to more people seeking treatment and potentially a reduction in the overall social problem."

--Richard Conlin, Seattle City Council

Apparently, Councilmember Richard Conlin's idea of helping those on the street with alcohol disabilities is to "disperse them." In a recent e-mail to a community leader from the Pike/Pine neighborhood, Conlin once again displays his true colors with comments that are as arrogant and as loftily condescending as they come.

To justify his support for adoption of new rules restricting the sale of alcohol in Pioneer Square, Conlin argues that such rules will achieve the goal of "dispersing" those with CPI (Chronic Public Inebriation) and such an outcome is good because "CPI is enabled by social gatherings of people who are afflicted."

This crap is straight out of the Sidran social policy handbook. The restrictions on alcohol are part of a larger strategy aimed at driving all homeless (and there is no distinction this group makes between the homeless and that portion who have alcohol disabilities) out of Pioneer Square. It was a nod to Pioneer Square merchants and developers seeking to push "the problem" elsewhere. But it's typically Sidranesque - to turn what is basically a social control or "order maintenance" mechanism into a virtue. Since when is it a virtue to drive people out of neighborhoods they are familiar with, particularly when, in the case of Pioneer Square--one of a very few places in the whole state--where this group has access to a host of street-level treatment, shelter, and drop-in services they need to get back on their feet. And this is, for God's sake, the original Skid Road, virtually founded by a down-and-out population. Since when has it become a virtue to separate people from their friends and associates, not to mention, their community--which only causes further alienation and anomie that can itself be a contributing factor for those who are "afflicted" to use Conlin's choice of words.

There is not one shred of credible evidence showing that displacement or "dispersion" of individuals from a familiar community is "good for them." For more of this neo-conservative crap, read George Kelling's "Broken Windows," the writings by J.Q. Wilson, or Burns and Baum's Book on Homelessness. These writers (I hesitate to characterize them as experts or academics at all) make other outrageous claims. In reference to cities that provide community services (including treatment, needle exchanges, drop in programs, counseling, etc.) and permanent housing for those with mental health, alcohol, or drug disability, they go so far as to suggest that such programs "are enabling." These are the gurus that Sidran and Giuliani consult with, by the way, and they apparently are the "experts" that Conlin identifies with as well.

By the way, Councilmember Margaret Pageler is reluctant to support funding for some homeless programs, calling them "enabling." The Seattle Police Department has come to embrace this philosophy, and JQ Wilson is often taught in police science classes. Two years ago, the SPD joined the Pioneer Square merchants, in co-sponsoring a visit to Seattle by George Kelling, who presented his views to a large group of reporters and public officials.

This is a perspective that is primarily concerned about maintaining a certain definition of "civility" and "order" as it is defined by elites in the local community. The goal is to get rid of a "problem", not solve it. And in this case, the problem of street alcoholics has to do with the presence of a population that they see as bad for business. It could just as easily be about young people of color who hang out on street corners, or any other population that doesn't fit in, that doesn't "consume." That's what this is about. Surprisingly it isn't even related directly to the issue of crime control. If it were, we'd be talking about restricting alcohol sales in bars that cater to Friday night revelers, tourists, and college students--they are the populations responsible for more drunken induced violence and crime in Pioneer Square than any group of homeless people.

In accordance with this perspective, the Bill of Rights, individuals' rights, ethical considerations, the responsibility that a community has to guarantee a person's right to a decent life, jobs, affordable housing, the provision of community based treatment on demand--these things are only obstacles standing in the way of "order maintenance."

And that is why it is nothing but pure arrogance (hubris) for politicians like Conlin to argue that rules and laws responding to this call are good for the people who are victimized by such policies. By the way, that's what he and other officials say about the no-sitting law, parks exclusion law, and the car impound law as well. What could be more disingenuous?

It's useful in another way for politicians to promulgate the philosophy of order-maintenance and social control. This perspective also argues that the homeless, and those who are ill on our streets, have no one to blame but themselves. Homelessness is not caused by a lack of housing or a lack of community based services and treatment, they say. It's caused by the "irresponsible" actions of individuals. Of course, this also makes it easier for others to scapegoat the poor and it explains why some people get a kick out of beating up the homeless. And, as for the role of the housing and homeless advocates, we are called "classic enablers" in this lexicon of the absurd.

What a convenient way to absolve the politicians who have failed to provide adequate funding for treatment and housing. What a convenient way to "enable" elected officials who ignore the consequences of their own actions: land use policies and funding choices they approved over the years aimed at aggressively promoting redevelopment of downtown and surrounding neighborhoods, policies that also have caused the loss of literally thousands of units of low income housing in our city and precipitated directly the level of homelessness we now see on our streets. So if we're talking about "dispersing" anyone, perhaps we should start by driving these "classic enablers" right out of public office.