Money: The power of impotence

Recently, I received an e-mail which caused me great consternation. Although the author of this digital communication shall remain unidentified, the subject of the message and its major tenets will not.

The e-mail addressed the current controversy surrounding the location of a homeless shelter to the downtown area. I must iterate that it is not my intention to lobby for or against this issue; it is my intention, however, to peel away the various layers of the aforementioned e-mail and manifest its broader social and cultural commentary. Its implications are striking, sobering and unfortunately, quite sad.

The author begins by asserting that the proposed location of the shelter is near public and private schools, and that students would be in imminent danger from the “common type of homeless person that are (sic) around.” (Which of course begs the obvious question, is there an “uncommon” type of homeless person?)

Pandering to the population of Danville, the author’s slanderous approach is highly inappropriate and seeks to incite fears of attacks from “homeless panhandlers.” Though offering no statistics to corroborate numerous conclusions, the writer of this e-mail claims that the shelter will further exacerbate rampant drug dealing and prostitution.

Yet these blatant appeals to communal insecurities are overshadowed by the remainder of the letter, which shamelessly appeals to communal purse pockets. The author pointedly proclaims that the “Middle and Upper Middle class families” have invested millions of dollars in a particular neighborhood in the downtown area, and an ensuing question posed by the author further emphasizes the obvious importance of this cash infusion: “What old neighbor-hood invested that much in 2008?” Upon blaming the “condition of the downtown and the people” who therein reside for a paucity of commerce and industry, the person responsible for the e-mail unabashedly predicts “local bussiness’s (sic) will move out.”

And finally, the author resolutely declares that “all the money that the taxpayers of Danville has (sic) invested so far will be hurt or lost … There is just to (sic) much to loose (sic) between money already invested, potential investments in the pipeline, new families moving into the area, and people moving into the downtown area.”

To be sure, the author raises specific concerns regarding the safety of Danville residents while simultaneously questioning the financial efficacy of a homeless shelter in the vicinity of an economically viable area. Certainly, these are important issues that must be unequivocally and objectively addressed. The duplicity, however, which the author writes is insulting and patronizing, for fiscal concerns eclipse purported distress over physical location. Devoid of the integrity that is so essential to rational and reasonable debate, the e-mail smacks of elitist bias and, overall, is condescending and rather parochial. Surely, this issue affects everyone, not simply the middle and upper-middle classes, and perchance the author overlooked high unemployment rates, a flailing economy and budget incisions as possible reasons for businesses closing or relocating elsewhere? And painting members of society — specifically the homeless — with such verbally offensive brush strokes is an attack upon their dignity and a cowardly denial of a real and relevant human element.

Indeed, one may argue that additional businesses and start-up ventures will resuscitate Danville and a homeless shelter may deter prospective investors from advancing the city’s future. Yet, a community predicated upon economic success alone is dangerous, for it masks and casually ignores underlying social problems and exposes a dearth of cultural, social and educational outlets. Perhaps — to quote Leon Samson — “money is the power of impotence,” for the quantification of social and cultural problems may alleviate nothing and aggravate much more. In order for Danville to expand and prosper, citizens must be proactive, not reactive, and sanitizing reality only augments existing discord and ultimately inhibits growth and progress. Furthermore, a reactive approach is counterintuitive to renewal efforts, and I find it highly ironic that those whom most visibly and vocally support revitalization would do so at the expense of those who have nothing and are in need of everything.

The author paradoxically writes Danville “cannot afford to have” a homeless shelter in the downtown area. What else are we compelled to view only in terms of possible financial gain and economic loss? I wonder if, in fact, the price of social progression is too steep?

Wallace is chair of the History Department at Danville Community College.