In my formative years, those years of adolescence and semi-maturity between 14 and 21, I was exposed to the educational approach known as the Preventive Method based on the trinity of reason, religion, and kindness.

As religion waned for me as important and relevant as time went on, it was replaced in my triumvirate by Transcendentalism as by explaining it in lay men’s terms, the students would see we were all in this together and should help each other as a benefit to another is also a benefit to self. This approach was intended to replace the constant need for discipline that disrupts what should be the constant flow of learning.

With reason, each rule was explained so that students would see they were for the students’ benefit and not just an exercise in power and control. Transcendentalism united the students to help with, not disrupt, the learning of others, and with kindness the classroom was a good and needed safe place to be in despite the occasions a student tried your last nerve and you had to remind yourself on the ride home after school that Jesus once cursed a fig tree because He was hungry and there were no figs.

I know this method to be effective because in the transcript of the case that proved I had been wrongfully terminated from my teaching position due to bigotry, the other side explained to the judge that one of the proofs of my ineffectiveness and negligence of duties was that in all my years at the school I hardly ever sent any students to the office and this showed I either had no discipline and the students were running wild with no consequences or, in the minds of my students, I did not have my authority accepted enough by students to go to the office when told to.

The judged asked if this could also be a sign there were no discipline problems requiring office intervention and thus no need to send someone to the office.

In time her question was answered in my favor by the evidence presented.

The best way to solve a problem is to prevent it in the first place.

To solve the problem of water in the basement that returns or remains no matter the effort you put into removal, the better approach might be to fix the leak in the pipe.

Disappointed with the absence of any renter supportive information at the community development open house a few days prior, upon a friend’s insistence, I attended a four hour presentation and discussion about managing and ending homelessness in the city of New Bedford.

The presenter from Bergen County, New Jersey, had been the driving force in coming up with a solution to homelessness there that has become a national model.

Although New Bedford has eliminated veteran homelessness completely, there is still a problem with the number of non-veteran homeless.

Initially, the theories behind the causes of homelessness and how establishing temporary housing with supportive services were very enlightening and applicable to a city dotted with empty school and factory buildings that could be refurbished into decent temporary housing for the homeless where presently these are all becoming yet more upscale apartments and condos.

Some of the causes of homelessness were reviewed with an emphasis on mental health which was covered in more detail in the afternoon session where it was the topic.

It was toward the end of the morning presentation that the speaker showed us a picture of what had once been a dying city that was now a vibrant place with high end restaurants, luxury hotels, and upscale apartment buildings which not only brought the city back, but brought it back with a vengeance.

It was an example of how eliminating homelessness can bring a city back to life.

Having been un-housed from the apartment building I had been living in that had been bought by someone who is converting it to luxury apartments and needed the building empty to start, giving tenants a 30 quit notice before eviction action would begin causing panic among many tenants who were too young to have experienced this before or knew no one who had, I just had to ask what happened to all the people who had lived in the areas now covered with yellow structures on a relief map representing the reborn downtown area’s luxury apartments and hotels.

Granted, the county had eliminated existing homelessness, but how responsible was it for producing homelessness that often results in people moving away from where they had been rendered homeless by necessity or the desire not to be seen by those who knew them in better days.

In my case I wanted to live within walking distance to the Whaling Museum, where I have been a volunteer since moving to New Bedford, and the other places that I had come to regularly be at for business, politics, or recreation. I found a place that is acceptable but not the dream.

Other tenants had to move away from the city and the jobs they had been conveniently living near. Some went from having an apartment and an established life to couch surfing until able to find a place in a city whose rebirth is creating homelessness, a cause and effect situation that city leadership is too unobservent to see it or, if it is aware of the situation, allows it to continue as it benefits those who should prevent it.

In the past, I am a senior who has lived in various places in the country where city leaders wanted to bring their city back to life making them Class-A cities, I have seen such rebirth being quite the feather in the cap when it comes to leaving a legacy, and in each city, when the plan for rebirth is revealed to an accepting public, what the public does not see, or, as in one situation, saw only too late, the plan was only made public after all advantageous benefits were guaranteed those who formed the plan. No Johnny come latelys.

When one city’s long neglected former storage and factory area was slated for refurbishing for the sake of the city and the plan revealed that called for adding a penny to the sales tax of all dollars spent by anyone in the city, resident or pass-through tourist, what was not revealed was that the buildings that would be refurbished were owned by those promoting the plan they had created claiming it was for city pride.

If the tax was not allowed or after refurbishing the plan did not pay off, the planners would be left with the old buildings they could easily unload to developers having spent very little money on upgrades because those were paid for by everyone else.

It is not unique that those things that benefit a city are coincidentally only things that also benefit the planners regardless how teh Great Unwashed are affected by the plan.

The promoters of the city’s renewal plan, although it was good for the city, benefited the most and would not have promoted the plan had they not been able to benefit. There is a reason the plan only encompassed a certain area and not the area nearby, the Deep Deuce, E 2nd St. that had a more universal history than being a place where stuff was stored and horses shod.

Long before the reveal of a commuter train coming to connect New Bedford to Boston, there was a proposal followed by planning with those in on the planning knowing exactly how this would affect property values.

When ghosts begin purchasing property as a city gets a chance of rebirth, here with a commuter rail and an off-shore wind company after the failure of the plans for an aquarium and/or casino, you can be sure the promoters are benefiting more than the city and are in a position to ensure any changes for the better will only include that which benefits the planners.

It was obvious from the presentation and the schematic of the reborn city in New Jersey, that people only count if they are necessary for the plan, while the plan does not take their existence as people and residents into account.

That city was dying yet people stayed.

Since the downtown areas in many cities like the one touted is heavily renter occupied, one has to ask where the people who had been there went.

Were they removed from old buildings to make way for more expensive and luxurious ones, or removed to make room for those who will be attracted to the city because of its luxurious offerings with no regard for where they go, ignoring that these were the people who, when the city was on life-support, kept it alive so investors, who should be grateful for their having done this by choice or necessity, will prophet.

Disappearance and erasure is a poor expression of gratitude.

Was the building of a model homeless center spurred by the knowledge it would be needed soon if the rebirth were to create the future occupants, or did the city institute a program to ensure that the displaced who chose not to move or could not because of situations like work and school are not just thrown out on their own resources to find housing because there is a place to send them guilt free.

As New Bedford goes through its rebirth and those who planned it, acted according to inside knowledge by investing in property whether openly or more likely as part of a ghost property owner, and want the money and reputation,  where are the displaced going?

Is the desire to manage and end homelessness based on morality, or having a place for the displaced to be sent.

Or, do renters not count enough as citizens to pay attention to?

Two events dealing with the future of the city and housing to excite the citizens about the future city failed to include those who should be able to celebrate the city’s bright future with them in it, yet neither spoke of renters.

The easily displaced, Great Unwashed who stayed when the city was raped and with it after the act, are not people. They, like vermin are to just go.

People will be impressed if the plans for my former building come through. Tenants will have a roof top deck with an unobstructed view of the downtown area and the harbor beyond and the city leaders will point to it as an example of how the city is blossoming again.

What did these same people, knowing that displacement through gentrification was inevitable, do to mitigate the increase in homelessness.

It seemed in the example proffered at this event, as with information at the other, that the city’s plans rely on creating more homeless people who might simply just go away to make room for the more acceptable people who want luxury things and have the income to enjoy them.

It also seemed odd that while the two hour afternoon session was about Mental Health and how that plays into homelessness, in ignoring renters, which means they most likely do not talk to them until after they are un-housed, they are not aware of those whose displacement was the cause or contributing factor to a mental health problem perhaps while previously feeling and presenting as just fine or teetering on an unseen ledge until that knock on the door and the receipt of the 30 day quit notice.

One tenant after nearly 25 years of spotless performance at work and known for an even disposition was injured at work as he was now dealing not just with the requirements of his job but also thinking constantly about his living situation. At the worst possible moment when he needed all his money to move to a desired place, his injury put him on a leave of absence with no promise of his being called back when healed and without Union protections.

The man who moved out of that apartment was not the man I knew as a neighbor for seven years. He was dejected and depressed when he left to couch surf at a friends house obviously a temporary situation as his lack of employment would keep him from contributing to his friend’s home, and an embarrassing situation for an, up to this point, independent person. His length of stay on any couch would depend mainly on the patience of the person whose couch he is on at the moment.

Yet, apparently, whatever issues developed after the displacement, are of no concern because, hey, it is all for luxury apartments.

His mental health will only be a concern if he ends up at a shelter.

The city, like the state, has its ordinances that protect landlords.

It, like the state, has very little to nothing to protect renters .

Some will say gentrification is good for an old city because it improves the economy and quality of life, but it is only good if it benefits the people who are there while welcoming newcomers. It is immoral when gentrification removes, displaces, and un-houses people for the benefit of those not here and are only a hope to those anticipating a good return on their, perhaps secret, investments.

Before touting the wonders of a reborn city, first tell me where the people went and how they  were treated in the process.

Another consideration is that, good or bad, if you do something there should be proof of that and the proof is usually something that can be seen. You manage homeless and end it, and along with the bragging rights, you can show people something. This may be a before and after or a was not then but is now situation, or the opposite.

But if you prevent something there is nothing to show. There is no praise.

We all appreciate the heroics of someone who manages to do the heroics during a flood after the dam bursts, but who gives even a passing thought to the guy who built the damn so it wouldn’t burst and cause a flood to begin with.

No razzle-dazzle there.

The default impulse is to go with the actions with obvious results not the ones whose results, though better, aren’t advantageously visible.

With the excitement of bringing life back to what is left of a city already raped twice for profit that did not go to residents, the effect on the people of the city should have been anticipated and planned for.

The two main choices for present renters should not be Homelessness or Fall River.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.