Commentary : Homeless in Irvine? Surely Not!

In 1914, the story goes, England’s King George V passed a street demonstration by a group of those often-tragic figures who these days term themselves gay and asked who they were and what they were doing. Being king and all, of course he was told.

“Good Lord,” he said, “I thought people like that shot themselves!”

I was reminded of that story this Thanksgiving week while musing about the flap over housing for the homeless in Irvine. The architects of this extremely well-planned community never figured on this problem. And, like King George, the residents certainly never thought they’d actually see the poor any more than one would see horse you-know-whats on Main Street in Disneyland.

I mean, we know horses do that sort of thing, and we’ve heard something about people, sometimes even whole families, being on their uppers--but, good Lord, here?

One can only shake one’s head and wonder what the world’s coming to.

And while I must admit to a mild amusement at the situation (certainly not the plight of the homeless, but rather the irony of Irvine suddenly caught in the middle), I am not amused at the refusal of many people there to face an even more important reality than the mere recognition of a serious societal problem.

And that is their inability to see what they really are--or have become.

I have long been intrigued at how people in general can rationalize morally indefensible, even despicable, behavior. It’s nothing new, of course, and certainly not confined to Irvine, but rather just part of the “Some of my best friends are, but . . .” syndrome, mixed with the “we-had-to-destroy-the-village-to-save-it” kind of rationale.

That’s the one that begins with a spirited defense of the wronged party and ends with a lovely eulogy. Somewhere in between, the beneficiary of the sentiments has been lost.

I can remember it in the 1964 election battle over a referendum measure that would have made California the only state in the Union to constitutionally sanction housing discrimination based on race.

Nowhere did we hear anyone saying, “I don’t want blacks in my neighborhood, going to school with my children, lowering my property values.” We were above that sort of thing and, besides, some of our best friends blah, blah, blah. What we were concerned about-- very concerned about-- was the high constitutional principle of private property rights. Now, that issue so concerned California voters, the overwhelming majority of whom didn’t even own any property, that they overwhelmingly passed the measure.

And their consciences were clear.

And the blacks could go back to being invisible, except in their own neighborhoods, wherever they might be.

Except that the scenario didn’t work out that way. The courts overturned the measure and the invisible neighborhoods suddenly became very visible--on our television screens, exploding in flames and violence.

Save for the very large and very obvious difference that the homeless have no neighborhoods to burn down, there seems to me a striking similarity of their plight and that of the blacks of the mid-1960s.

You are hard-pressed to find anyone attacking the homeless--particularly as we enter the holiday season of giving and sharing--and just as hard-pressed to find anyone with any clout helping them, either. Those who disagree with proposals to provide assistance do so on a very high plane.

For those not totally familiar with the Irvine situation, the federal government approved a $496,000 grant to convert a large, mostly unused, state-of-the-art animal shelter in a remote area of the city into temporary quarters for needy families.

To its credit, the City Council approved the measure (by a one-vote margin, which is not to its credit) in the face of great opposition--opposition that now talks about recalling the members who voted in favor of the proposal.

To listen to the testimony before the council, their ire is built on a strong foundation of support for the homeless. Keep in mind, we are talking about people who have no place to go and nowhere to sleep unless it’s in a car or a culvert. Here’s how Steve Churm summarized that testimony in his Times report:

“Most opponents say they agree with the message, but not the method. They contend that housing humans in close proximity to animals, even temporarily, is unthinkable.

“They also contend that low-flying fighter jets from El Toro Marine Corps Air Station often fly near the animal shelter, making it difficult to sleep.”

And nowhere to do aerobics, either.

Good Lord. . . .