The Grove Project

Downtown Wilmington “Vagrants,” Ontologically Speaking

The issues brought to light in Downtown Wilmington: A vagrant’s paradise? reside in waters much deeper and murkier than a tourist’s observations can possibly shed light on (not to mention observations from one who comes to us from a city/state with one of the largest homeless populations in the world). It is no secret that Wilmington has a homeless issue that is (and this is an understatement) complex. As such, it is important to separate this post into two sub-sections: one to address issues regarding how we communicate regarding the homeless, the other to report just how high this issue climbs up North Carolina’s socio-political ladder.

So let’s start with linguistic definition and the nature of communication… dare I say ontology when it comes to identifying humans who ask for handouts. Ranald’s original post is fairly unassuming and is most admirable as a true journalistic endeavor: to present the facts. As for the tourist, I think it’s important, especially in a town where there are in fact so many people who are homeless, to adequately define the word “vagrant.” The commentary by Rachel is both commendable and accurate by “suggesting” this with her use of quotation marks in response to tourist’s choice of nomenclature. A “vagrant,” beyond being an improper term used in the visitor’s email to generalize, indeed to further marginalize “the homeless,” is a criminal. While the particular people she mentioned may have appeared to be violently moved, begging is not a criminally violent act. Might as well call the homeless “scoundrels” or “savages.” Certainly, these are words (like “vagrant”) that prove the visitor’s observations no less than the product of prejudgment as they overlook this simple fact: people begging for money have serious problems, and not all of them drug or alcohol related. I once paid a man to wash my car (who indeed looked rough, and indeed looked scary), only to find out that his homelessness was due, at length, to a battle with cancer. While my example is tertiary, it points out that perception is indeed a problem. The visitor’s email speaks of Wilmington as if it is some sort of Shangri la purely here for tourism and leisure, as if there are no “real” problems here… please.
So again, Rachel’s response is not in the least “naive” in suggesting that the tourist is embellishing. Quite to the contrary, Rachel’s response is both pointing and accurate in regards to “what people perceive” when approached by the homeless…. which brings me to section two of this post… solving problems related to homelessness rather than running away from them.

I’ll try to make what is already “news” short and sweet. In 2011, the Rhodes Army Reserve Center on Greenfield Lake will be no longer used by the government (WWAY TV). It was put on social auction as it were, and bid on by the Good Shepherd’s House (to use the facility as a transitional housing for homeless seeking to end their plight), Girls Inc. (which would employ the facility in order to help youths in need) and Elderhaus (who would house the elderly and infirmed). Many members of the Sunset Park community (map) surrounding the Center came out more or less to “fight” against Good Shepherd and champion Girls Inc. and Elderhaus. The concern for many of the Sunset community (including myself until I explored their proposal further) was that under the Good Shepherd’s proposal, the Center (which I can literally throw a rock at from my house) would become a mecca for crack-heads, shed-squatters, and other manner of villainous “vagrants.” Their voices were heard at city hall and, at length, a vote was made to pass on the Good Shepherd’s proposal without legally giving it a fair shake. Now, one can’t blame the people of Sunset park for being concerned for their neighborhood and overall well being. After all, they work very hard for what they have, and should have a voice.

That being said, it is of the utmost important to distinguish between representations of the homeless as “those in need” versus “those who do harm.” The more negative of the those two do not litter downtown Wilmington in my experience. The prior, however, do, and they are the ones who need help. The “vagrants,” of course, should be treated as such when and if a crime is committed. But it is somewhat disturbing to hear such blatant reports focused on “potential damage” from people who in no way are considering the actual differences between the homeless and the criminal elements in our city… like the tourist, for example, or like some in our city who discounted the Good Shepherd House’s proposal for the Reserve Center. It was, in short, a plan to help those who want help, who want to get off the streets; not a plan to bring more drugs and alcohol to Sunset park. To believe that all the homeless (as our tourists appears to believe) are “vagrants” is purely a paranoia of those who reside in our society’s farthest margins. It is disheartening to find that our city council sided with such misdirected perceptions. A good place to pick up that story more in depth is with WHQR’s Megan Williams, who reported on just how high up this issue goes several weeks ago.