Homer and What Not to Do

There is an episode of that best-beloved social mirror called The Simpsons in which Homer gets the job of Sanitation Commissioner for Springfield. After blowing his entire year’s budget in the first few weeks he realizes that he needs to get some money fast- before the garbage collectors strike and the city fills up with garbage. So he devises a lucrative plan to allow other cities to stuff their garbage into Springfield’s abandoned mines.

The plan works perfectly; the department has enough money to provide an unparalleled level of service to the good people of Springfield, and Homer seems to have for once overcome his own ineptitude. Things are going so well in the city that a musical number breaks out in the streets! All is well. Until, that is, garbage starts spouting up through every manhole, pothole, and rabbit-hole in the city. Ultimately, the city decides to enact “Plan B” and relocates the entire town 15 miles down the road.

Aside from the obvious environmental commentary brought forth by this episode, there is another application for us in our cities. The reason I was reminded of this episode was an article in Maclean’s magazine about how different cities are dealing (or not dealing) with panhandlers. In a crude but all too fitting analogy, it seems the city’s garbage has come sprouting up through the sidewalks, right in front of businesses and in public places. And so the question being asked right now (usually with at least a little more tact) is, “What are we going to do about all this garbage?” Well, I believe that we need to learn a lesson from Mr. Simpson. Any approach to the issues of panhandlers, aggressive or otherwise, that does not back up far enough to see exactly where they sprouted from is not going to see any long term success, apart from simply redistributing the problem to somewhere else.

    For the town of Springfield, once the garbage had shot up through their sewers it was already too late to find a simple remedy for the problem. They could not simply shove it back down underground, which in our context is the approach most often advanced by local businesses and governments. This is why stiff fines and prohibited zones for panhandling may be a part of a solution, but are nothing near a solution in themselves. What we need to get at, as long as this may take, is why these people are there. Until we can gain an understanding of that and work towards preventing others from falling through the same cracks, we will not be able to rid ourselves of the backlog that has brought these desperate people to our doorsteps.

Any good Doctor treats both the symptoms and the cause. The inconvenience caused by the person sitting on the sidewalk with his hand out is the symptom and we need to do something about that. But far more importantly we need to identify and address the societal and systemic factors that led to this person sitting there. Unlike the movies, one does not simply reach out a hand, slap a tie on the homeless guy and set up an interview with Goldman Sachs. Deep, meaningful, and lasting change must be made at the other end. The vast majority of the homeless people you see suffer from mental illness, addictions, or both. Without a sincere investment in social programs and scientific research that addresses these issues the long line of people waiting for handouts will only grow longer. Most of these people have lived their lives in cycles of abuse, often starting from a very early age. When we invest in supporting families and communities we are reducing homelessness. In a society that promotes relentless individualism and the myth of complete self-determinism, those who are without bootstraps get left behind and become that society’s refuse. When we stop long enough to really invest in a life, to help someone move forward even just a little bit, we are helping to “keep our streets clean”.

One of the joys about a sitcom (especially an animated one) is that your characters can start again without any consequence. When needed, the town gets a fresh start, and each episode Homer gets a fresh palette with which to draw himself into improbable messes. We in the real cities though, on the real streets, do not have this luxury. We must fix our own messes. We must take the long way around if we hope to affect real change in the lives of our most vulnerable citizens.

2 thoughts on “Homer and What Not to Do

  1. The concern shown by your essay is felt all over the world by many persons but, tragically, not by too many politicians or bureaucrats. In Melbourne, Australia, a city of about 3 million persons, we have 25,000 homeless people.
    It is believed, by charity groups who try to care for them, that about 40% suffer a severe mental illness (SMI); schizophrenia, bipolar 1 disorder or severe clinical depression. Our state of Victoria, of which this city is the capital, has 115,000 SMI. Only about 52% of these receive any specialist mental health care. Persons with SMI have 3 essential needs for optimal living; medication, counselling (which was stopped here in the 1990s for “economic reasons”) and safe, secure, low-cost, long-term adequate housing. Not luxury, not expensive, just adequate, safe and long-term. Such accommodation means lower emergency visits, fewer hospital admissions and more persons with SMI in the work force.
    Our governments, state and federal, like to regard Australia as a first-world country. No such belief is tenable when our most vulnerable citizens receive the treatment available for them in Australia.
    I hope that your governments can begin to realize the ethical, moral and financial advantages of caring for your most vulnerable citizens.

    Caroline Storm

Leave a comment