The outboard engine idled smoothly, quietly, barely above a whisper.
Water circulation was instantaneous with the turn of the key, the handy visual spray squirting jet-like from the housing indicating all was good in the cooling department.
All hands were on deck, picnic table with umbrella ready to be unfurled; pre-rigged fishing poles inserted in the rail mounted sleeves; fishing net: check; ice-chest: check; happy, smiling faces of family members seated and life-jacketed (those under 12): check.
The sun was shining, the sky was blue, the water too.
The boat just didn’t go anywhere.
Pushing the throttle handle forward the motor just roared. Ditto in reverse.
Plenty of potential, just no directional capability.
The problem?
Part Number 3C8-63733-0, a keeper, also known as a rod snap.
The friendly dealer guy said the rod snap was readily available.
For $1.00 (one dollar).
For lack of a one-dollar rod snap, the outboard’s internal shifting mechanism would not recognize the action of the boat’s captain (husband and father) at the wheel.
For lack of a simple plastic part which served to keep the Shift Lever Rod connected to the Shift Arm Remote Control which in turn was linked with the cables running to the console where clearly spelled out were the designations for Neutral, Forward and Reverse, nothing happened.
And a fun outing on the water wasn’t going to happen either.
The engine, purring along happily, just sat there.
The family, no longer as happy as they had hoped to be, just sat there.
And with regards homelessness, while at risk of oversimplifying what so many are declaring is a crisis of growing proportions given the litany of ‘missing parts’ (the reasons for, and means by which to solve, homelessness appears to be as variegated – to mix metaphors – as the colors and patterns of a kaleidoscope, all while millions upon millions of dollars are spent on these alleged missing parts), what appears to be singularly absent is certainly not compassion (that’s what’s costing all the money), but rather confrontation.
Without which – confrontation – we will, figuratively speaking, allow the homeless to just sit there, whether it is ‘sit there’ in forested backwoods tarps and tents of their choosing; or sit there in a forest of “tiny home-encampments” tacked here – and taxed there – by government’s choosing.
If we had explored the exploded view of the component parts that make this thing perform like it should; if, rather than haul off in frustration this knuckle-busting piece of work to the experts where we’ll pay big bucks to fix what might have been embarrassingly simple; if we had only taken the time to confront the primary problem rather than throw money at all manner of solutions, chances are we who are onboard – and they, the homeless who need to get on board, as in with-the-program – will get on with it sooner, and cheaper, than not.
We should care. But we should care enough to confront.
Even as Seattle’s Mayor Jenny Durkan prepares to spend another $6.3 million “to create about 500 new beds in basic and enhanced shelters, as well as more tiny-home encampments” – this in addition to $45?million “generated by a controversial new tax on large businesses” which mega-millions Durkan and the City Council have not yet decided how to spend in addressing homelessness – Pierce County appears to have embarked on a somewhat divergent path.
“City rules,” in Seattle, “require shelter and services to be offered first,” before “unsanctioned tent camps – estimated at 400 citywide – are removed and cleaned up.”
The Pierce County Sheriff’s Department (PCSD), on the other hand, offered – in a recently completed exorcise (purposeful) – an encampment of at least 30 adult individuals trespassing on 15 wooded acres the choice of either a job or jail.
“Homeless outreach teams offered the encampment residents access to housing and drug treatment, including specialized services for those that identified themselves as veterans.”
Laborworks, whose business parking lot bordered that of the wooded enclave, “offered to put 15 of the inhabitants to work each day.”
Per the PCSD, not one accepted their offer of job placement.
Not one accepted the services that were offered.
What the homeless did do however was create “90 calls for service” (in 2017) “at just one of the stores” (bordering the homeless encampment) “for crimes including shoplifting, vehicle prowls, loitering/panhandling, littering, trespassing, people sleeping in cars, dumped vehicles, and people urinating on sidewalks.
“Over 300 man hours were required to remove 35 tons of solid waste from the properties – including human feces, shopping carts stolen from local businesses, and eight 1-gallon size containers full of hypodermic needles.”
Nowhere, however, was there found among the vagrants, the trespassers, the homeless a rod snap, a keeper, that small piece that holds in place the backbone, the spine, the rod that connects everything else to enable the machinery of life to operate like it’s supposed to:
Work.
Excellent perspective simply and concisely said. The spotlight directly on the problem. How best to deal with those who just refuse to change? Tough love or just get tough?
While any answers you promulgate now will be of some minor use, may we talk about the elephant in the room, please? Finally? Please? Our infrastructure including schools, water, sewer, other utilities, housing, to say nothing of streets is in crisis. When if ever is the elephant going to roar aloud about “TOO MANY PEOPLE” ? There is limited quality of life without some self limitation on numbers of births.
In a part of our country, our state, our county and certainly our immediate community, we are known for our volunteerism. Are there no fertile residents who will step forward as volunteers to not reproduce for a substantial time or a group who will agree not to move into this community without procreation ?
This would not preclude offering services and benefits to those already born and/or in residence in our city. It would simply say to all: No more people until we can build up our school system, increase our level of transportation, develop more water, sewer, and power resources, demolish the ghetto housing that exists and rebuild livable dwellings for those who do live here. The future is ours to enable.
It all hinges on population control/development. Pick or choose.
So let’s talk about “too many people.” What are you proposing? And if people do in fact have children, what then?
Dear David Anderson,
Thank you for being willing to talk about “too many people”.
I propose a volunteer system which is yet only a fantasy of an idea- but then at one time there were
also the fantasies of a candy bar sized implement which would hold television (television? not
fantasy?), a calculator ( another fantasy at one time) an encyclopedia, a flashlight, a camera, an
alarm clock and so on.
I am proposing a rational self-assessment by each potential birth family in which there is common
sense involved. Some suggested issues might be:
Can we afford another child on our own without support from the state?
What income level do we need to afford a dwelling adequate in size to house our family?
Is the nearest school adequate for our number of children to fit into classroom size?
These are a few of the questions that should be considered prior to multiple reproduction.
In the best of all worlds limitation would be totally voluntary. but volunteerism is the major reason this
doesn’t work now. There is no pride at being voluntarily a self-limiting family. We might create that.
Nothing draconian should be considered as part of this.
I have contrived this fantasy – and it is only that- as a means to get our populace thinking and talking
about a series of things. Where will the next water wells be drilled? Will we continue to have
temporary banks and gas stations on every third street corner ? Will our zoning gurus finally demand
two things to improve our city : First, that ghetto apartment buildings be demolished, replaced and
landscaped by decent homes for families, and secondly, will those who permit buildings to be built will
not cram them ten feet apart just because “we can”, but instead make this city one of beauty that will
attract householders with pride in their surroundings. Combined with volunteer family planning plus
more adequate housing we can build the Lakewood we used to have when I moved here in 1938. a
city of homes filled with prideful tenancy, organized citizenry, and organized activity.
We have so much that is excellent. This draws people to us. Can we really take care of them ? Only
partially. It may not be a fantasy if we can somehow limit population implosion and simultaneously
seriously upgrade housing quality. I believe there are people in Lakewood who can do this. Maybe this
fantasy can become reality for all of us. Infrastructure and all.
Thank you so much for listening and reading.
I maintain, as originally postulated in this article to which you are responding, that the issue to be addressed is not population control – as if to suggest, as you are, that parents need to be strongly cautioned and counseled as to numbers of children they should have, even be allowed to have – but rather control of the population, which is to put the emphasis on the right syllable where it belongs, in my opinion: choices, but not as pertains progeny as to giving life, but rather responsibility to control responsibly the life they’ve been given.
KOMONEWS.com ran this headline just this May 31: “Deadly drug-related crashes on the rise” – a “dramatic rise” in fact – of “fatal car accidents caused by drugs” and “legal marijuana is getting part of the blame.”
How smart is it, how responsible, for a population to pass I-502 in 2012 and not expect headlines like this?
The Seattle Times is reporting the very same date as the statistics covering fatal drug use on the highways that “over 12,000 people in Seattle are homeless now.”
And, ironically enough, Q13Fox on this same date of May 31, is reporting that there’s a farm crisis in Washington, the crisis being lots to harvest and no workers. Millions of dollars in crops at risk “because once the harvest is ready there are not enough workers to pick it.”
I know where 12,000 of them are.
The homeless are not helpless. They have a backbone like everyone else. The government is providing millions in housing are requiring what in return?
If the 30 adults that were removed from the Canyon Road property are any example, the fact that they were offered jobs – and to a man and woman refused – the problem is not population control but control of the population.
And furthermore, more indicative of who we’re dealing with here is this recent development in Seattle according to Jason Rantz, 770 KTTH, June 5, 2018:
“We don’t want to change our lifestyle to fit their requirements,” Melissa Burns told KIRO TV’s Gary Horcher. “We intend to stay here. This is the solution to the homeless problem. We want autonomy, right here.”
“Right here” would be near the Seattle Center where Burns – who moved here from out-of-state – has decided to take up residence, refusing, along with all the others, help from the City.
Life is good on the street apparently. Good enough that the homeless had a keger the other night.
Meanwhile “Seattle is starting to lose tourism revenue and conventions.”
Said Seattle CEO and President Tom Norwalk, “For the first time over the last couple of years we’ve lost conventions to other cities because of what we would call the street scene.”
Well, imagine that.
I am always appreciating wisdom form David Anderson, Thank you. The most unfortunate aspect of trying to help the needy is that the more welfare we give them the more we enable them to stay in their situation instead of encouraging them to full restoration.
Mr. Anderson has hit the nail on the head. During my years as director of Tacoma Rescue Mission, our purpose was not to “help the homeless.” It was to help people to NO LONGER be homeless. Education, medication, rehabilitation, whatever was needed to overcome the root cause that led that person to be homeless. Often, though not always, it was overcoming addiction to alcohol or drugs. Sometimes it was treating mental or physical illness. Getting a GED or learning to use a computer and create a resume, made a big difference in some cases. It started with confronting an individual with the question, “Do you really believe that you were created for this–or does your life have a positive purpose that we can help you to fulfill?