| ONE LAST LETTER ABOUT PANHANDLING |
| Rick had been in the process of applying for Social Security Disability (SSD), because of a recognized mental illness, since we lived in the quad. It turned out he was approved on the first try, and was due to receive his retroactive check in the latter part of the summer. When the money came in, we promptly got rooms in another Springfield motel (separate rooms as our TV habits differed), and proceeded to shop for another vehicle. We ended up buying a Ford pickup truck with a little six-pack camper perched on the back, and this became our new home. Now that we had a steady source of income again, we no longer had to panhandle as our daily occupation. But since we'd been thoroughly sensitized to the issue, we had a few things to say about the way we'd been treated before. In October of that year there was a story in the Eugene Emerald entitled "Homeless evicted: A tale of three cities". It was about some of the new anti-homeless legislation that was cropping up in other cities, and stated that Springfield's new anti-begging law was less severe than the others. I had to take exception to that after our experience, so I wrote a rebuttal that outlined the fate of my letter to Bill Morrisette. This one wasn't printed: October 12, 1993 Dear Emerald, I must make a few comments about the editorial "Homeless evicted: a tale of three cities." It was on the whole a very right-on commentary, but I was offended by the way it minimized the panhandling issue in Springfield. "Residents of this area should be thankful that Springfield's measure is so much less severe than the others?" Excuse me, but there are many of us who would disagree with you on that. The problems of homelessness and unemployment are very severe in Eugene/Springfield, and getting moreso. The measure that was intended to sweep panhandlers off the busiest corner in Springfield was a very pathetic attempt to sweep under the rug the issue of employment discrimination against the homeless. Up until recently, when we came into another source of income, my partner and myself were among the most frequently-seen panhandlers on the corner of Q Street and Pioneer Parkway. When we heard about the city's latest attempt to get us off that corner, I wrote Bill Morrisette a letter saying the same thing we've said to the press over and over and over, and which was quoted in your own paper a year ago: we are stuck in a Catch-22 situation because so many employers refuse to hire homeless people and give them a chance. The Springfield Fred Meyers and Safeway, among many other corporations, have official policies against hiring people without a "verifiable residence address." So how on earth is a homeless person supposed to "Get a job!" as people are constantly telling us to do, when we run into this type of discrimination everywhere we turn? This is why so many of us are forced into panhandling as a last resort and can't get out of the rut we're in. We made copies of this letter for all the Springfield City Councillors. But our attempts to air our concerns in person at their meetings were frustrated by the fact that the panhandling issue was never put on the agenda for public discussion. Instead they decided on the matter in closed sessions where no members of the public were present to give their input. We were, and are, very angry that Morrisette chose this cowardly route and refused to include us in the democratic process as we were entitled to be. Also that he and the City Councillors completely ignored my letter. Springfield is just as guilty as all the other cities of attempting to sweep the real issues under the rug, and in this sense its measure was NOT "less severe than the others." Morrisette will, sooner or later, have to see this, and will come to regret the cowardliness of his actions. Bridget Reilly (click here to view next page) |
 |