New Haven Independent

Posted by: Leslie Blatteau | September 20, 2007 10:58 AM

I believe a new urban farm in New Haven is a big deal. A place to buy locally grown produce is good for our city's residents and good for the people who will work hard to plant and grow the food. Perhaps instead of the attitude, "If it fails, we will reclaim it," a more productive attitude would be: Let's make the most of this local, innovative, healthy and environmentally-friendly opportunity. Best of luck to the new farm and I look forward to next summer's tomatoes!

Posted by: Daniel Sumrall | September 20, 2007 11:40 AM

I agree with Leslie, this should be a bigger deal and the Parks Commission exceptionally blase attitude is (to my mind at least) emblematic of city hall.

An urban farm could be such a boon to the city as a source of genuine nutrition for our schools, a method of social integration for those who have landed on the fringe (for whatever reason), and a symbol of our city's committment to sustainable urban living.

I commend the Parks Commission for going forward with the idea, and I hope the project will be a success (if you need a volunteer, hit me up).

Posted by: cedarhillresident | September 20, 2007 12:34 PM

Ditto and ditto!

Do we know who voted against it???
I don't thing that Bob Levine's comment was meant in a bad way. I would love to see this program get bigger and be able to support itself...what a great thing!

Posted by: ROBN | September 20, 2007 1:01 PM

Great project,

Learning basic skill sets and getting in touch with nature is all very healthy. To the director who voted against....I'm all for dissenting opinion, but for petes sake, pull your head out of your keister! 1/6th of the land mass of New Haven is parks...it will hardly break the back of Parks and Rec to allow some land to be used for this good purpose.

Posted by: on whalley | September 20, 2007 2:44 PM

Okay so I dont get it. We take all the vagrants and addicts and make them tend to vegetables that we feed as lunch to government school kids? We get to save money on the schools and on the numerous ineffective happy-go-lucky help the crackhead programs by combining them? Fantastic!

Ive been saying this for years and when I bring it up it's called cruel or some type of classist slavery. These guys bring it up and its suddenly a godsend answer to all our woes?

I just dont get it.

Posted by: BJ | September 20, 2007 3:40 PM

On Whalley,

That's because you've been calling them "crack-heads" and "crack-head program(s)". The politically correct folks call the same people & programs "homeless" and "job- training program for the homeless & former homeless".

Got it, my friend?

Posted by: Carole | September 20, 2007 5:21 PM

BJ,

If it's politically correct to call people "people" instead of "crack-heads," criminals," and "trash" -- terms that On Whalley has previously used on this site as synonyms for addicts and homeless people -- then we should all be politically correct.

On Whalley,

In the years that you've "been saying this," have you actually proposed something that might work? If so, then it's a shame that nobody (including you?)ran with it. If not, then you can't really expect anyone to take your snarling, hateful name-calling and turn it into a positive effort.

Posted by: BJ | September 21, 2007 1:24 AM

Thank you Carole!

Posted by: on whalley | September 21, 2007 8:38 AM

I didnt know I wasnt supposed to call a crack-head a crack-head. Should I use sobriety challenged and under employed?

You're funny.

It is what it is and no amount of denial or sugar coating will change that. The best that semantic games and PC jargon can do is eventually replace currently offensive words with longer offensive words.

Imbicile and moron were once perfectly acceptable medical terms. So fifteen yesrs from now as we all give out grandparents odd looks for using the term "colored" my kids will give me odd looks for saying "crack-head" but then they'll run off to school and use the new descriptive term for the sobriety-challenged.

You call it "hateful name-calling" I call it accurately descriptive. Who cares? It's not like either approach is going to get the pipes out of their mouths or their baby's back from the government.

By the way, will the sobriety-challenged crop pickers, ditch diggers and otherwise agricultural technicians be payed appropriate wages or will this program pay on a scale similar to other welfare to work programs. Be careful. We wouldnt want to take some of the work away from New Haven's illegal population. Perhaps the illegals and the sobriety-challenge should unionize to protect their interests.

Posted by: Carole | September 21, 2007 10:40 AM

On Whalley,

"Homeless" and "drug-addicted" are not euphemisms. They're neutral descriptions. "Crackhead" and "trash" are not neutral. I doubt that "imbecile" and "moron" were ever perfectly acceptable to the people labeled that way -- only to those arrogant enough to attach the labels. The point is not about sugarcoating. It's about seeing people as human beings.

I can think of lots of labels for you. The most relevant one here is "willful ignoramus." Not offended, are you? I'd call it accurately descriptive. It's not that you're stupid. You just want to miss the point so you can go on hating everyone.

Posted by: on whalley | September 21, 2007 11:20 AM

"willful ignoramus"

Not offended at all. Why should I be? Why should anyone? I'd like to think that the days of simple offense ended with grade school but apparently they have not.

Being a crack-head doesn't make one not human. It makes them a crack-head. Somebody who uses crack.

Are you implying that a person using crack is less than human? I never did. Neither is the description of somebody as "trash" indicative of a less than human state. Plenty of abusive, uneducated, substance abusing individuals squatting in boarded up trailers clinging to dreams of spinning rims are pretty trashy. Last I checked they were still very much human. I have seen no anatomic metamorphosis to the contrary though the severe lack of proper hygienic practices on their part may result in an animal like appearance and odor they are still human.

Moron - A mentally deficient person, a fool. Coined by Dr. Henry Goddard in 1910 as an official designation for someone whose I.Q. is below 75 but who ranks above an imbecile or an idiot.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | September 21, 2007 4:39 PM

As a gardener I know the joy and peace I get from it and feel that even if job skills are not learned from this, being able to have that feeling of I DID THIS, brings you to a better place in your mind. And that is a lasting feeling that can help restore some of there self worth.

but not to change the subject from such a wonder program..

I weirdly enough am going to "kind of" stand with "on whalley" in an indirect way on just one thing, depending on who you are were you live, the people in your life past and present to say these things are a part of the language.
If I see a guy on my street all zooted out on crack passing up and down he is a crackhead!!

But..."on whalley"... someone that is recovering and is trying to get there life back together by all means should not be called a crackhead.

and homeless hmmmm don't go there... this is such a large variety of people that to put them in one group is not fair. You have your mentally disabled that the government has cast aside and they have know choose but to be out there... you have your hard luck people that just landed there and have given up because they are not afforded the chance to get out. You have your runaways and cast away teens that would rather be squatting than go back to there homes.

So always think before you judge because if it was you on that street wanting out how would you want people looking at you??? Seriously?

Posted by: Edward_H | September 22, 2007 2:44 PM

"I don't think it's a big deal," said Bob Levine (at right in the photo at the top of this story), the director of the Department of Parks, Recreation and Trees. "If they fail we can certainly reclaim the area."

I am curious to know if there is any provision in this plan for Liberty Community Services to shoulder some or all of the reclaimation costs if this project fails.

Posted by: on whalley | September 22, 2007 4:17 PM

"So always think before you judge because if it was you on that street wanting out how would you want people looking at you???"

Not to belittle the point or anything and thank you for backing me up at least in part in my use of the word but when I was out on that street and if I happen to end up there again by whatever means I assure you I was not concerned in the slightest with how others perceived me.

Lets just say I had more pressing matters to attend to than feeling bad about being called names.

Now, I could understand why certain career vagrants who have been on the same street corners and in and out of the same shelters for decades now might be concerned with being called names or looked upon with disgust. See, the difference is those who wouldn't concern themselves with nonsense are focused on rectifying the situation. Those who would harvest guilt and pity are largely in their situation by choice of lifestyle and do not wish for one minute to climb up and out. The difference is often described as one being broke, the other poor. Broke is a temporary state of affairs. Poor is a mindset and taints every aspect of one's life. I have been broke. Never poor.

I think an awful lot of people find it difficult to make that distinction. They are quick to satisfy their own guilt or warped sense of morality (often a guise for a sense of superiority) by offering these dead end do nothing programs that serve to enable far more addicts and vagrants than they actually help.

Of course those suffering from mental/physical impairments are another class altogether.