During an early September interview with the Modesto Bee, Stanislaus County Sheriff Jeff Dirkse voiced strong support for safe camping for homeless people.
“(With safe camping), outreach folks can actually solve problems because we’re condensing them into camps where they can interact with them” said Dirkse.
“So, yeah, I fully support it — it’s a necessary step. Nimbyism will be huge. No one wants them (nearby) and I do understand that; I wouldn’t want them in my neighborhood, either. But we have to acknowledge that what we’re doing now is not working. You put them in a house (with no support), in 12 months the house is going to be destroyed and they’re homeless again. They need mental health assistance and they need addiction treatment and a far more robust conservatorship program.”
In supporting safe camping, Dirkse has joined a growing contingent of local officials in support of better management for Stanislaus County’s growing homeless population. By far the greatest concentration of unhoused people in the county is in the City of Modesto, where three city councilmembers have proposed a safe sleeping plan that would get homeless people off the streets and onto safe ground.
Modesto City Councilmembers Chris Ricci, Eric Alvarez and Nick Bavaro recently presented their Modesto Safe Ground Homeless Vision to City Manager Joe Lopez and asked that it be placed on the agenda for an upcoming meeting. Councilmember Jeremiah Williams has voiced support for safe camping as long as management of sleeping sites is contracted out to qualified service providers.
At the county level, Supervisors Channce Condit and Mani Grewal recently acknowledged the need for safe ground for homeless people. During a late June meeting with the Modesto Citizens’ Action Group (MoCag), Grewal said that, “Having a safe place to sleep is a fundamental human right.” He added that, “If we don’t address this situation, we’re not only failing ourselves, we’re failing our community,”
The plan by Councilmembers Alvarez, Bavaro and Ricci,
“reduces the negative impacts and public health and safety concerns of unregulated encampments on local businesses and residents by providing basic services such as portable toilets, mobile showers, and trash disposal bins in addition to case management, service referrals and housing placements.”
Opponents to safe ground for homeless people have argued that permitted encampments attract people from out of the region, but voluminous evidence has shown again and again such concerns are groundless. In any case, under the guidelines of the Modesto Safe Gound Homeless Vision, admission to permitted campsites would be, “determined by qualified staff and volunteers on the ground and will be behavioral based and predicated on potential for movement forward.”
In Modesto, local homeless people are well known by volunteers and outreach workers. Outsiders are easily identified as are those who prey on the weak and vulnerable. Concerns about people coming from outside the region to access safe campsites have no basis in evidence or experience.
For Modesto City Councilmember Nick Bavaro and other officials who support safe ground, homelessness is a daily management problem. Recent assaults on homeless people in Bavaro’s District 4 are just one more of the escalating problems Bavaro must deal with as new campsites spring up almost as fast as the old ones are ordered torn down. Like Sheriff Dirkse, Bavaro is tired of seeing homeless people moved from one place to another as camp sweeps ultimately end in futility.
“It’s a frustrating game of Whac-A-Mole” said Sheriff Dirkse. “You deal with it, some may go to jail and it pops up somewhere else. (Safe camping) doesn’t get them out of it but gives them a spot to be homeless for now and it’s not in your backyard or your business or your alley.”
With overwhelming evidence showing that homelessness in California is due less to drugs and behavior than to housing costs, safe ground isn’t just the most pragmatic tactic for managing homelessness, it’s also the most humane. As Supervisor Grewal said, “Having a safe place to sleep is a fundamental human right.”
As a outreach worker and a Director of a homeless ministry I have lots to say
Angela HUERTA,
The Homeless Crisis has exploded, deepining the chasm between “the haves” and “have nots.” The costs of inequality are a collection of contradictions and cognitive dissonances. The American optimism of “the haves” contradicts the reality so many of us recognize and refuse to turn a blind eye to.
When they ask us to believe the lies they tell us, especially, about the have nots, it is no minor feeling, it is dissonant.
What have you to say?
How about a few pieces of property that the city and county that is nearby food stores and gas station and public transportation, since the city and county has a lot of property that is not being used at all by them,okay and have utilities and water hook up and dumpster and trash cans to put their trash in and have a lot of trees to put their vehicle or tents and anything else they have to sleep in there .
I cannot help but to see atleast three groups of people without housing in need of safe ground encampments.
Many of the people I have had the privilege of discussing encampments with have quickly announced their fear of being harmed if they were encamped with behaviorally challenged people. Point being, there is a need to address that possible situation prior to any such incidents. I have heard that same concern for why some people do not like shelters. So there is that…
It appears that some need a lot of management, and from what my research uncovered, Newsom’s new mental health court is not going to be even close to what many have been hoping for. It certainly is not going to have the teeth to enforce what family, loved ones, Nimbys and local government hopes for. Pretty much, unless a person accepts help the process is going to be lengthy. Disability Rights (legal help aids only the disabled) and Valley Mountain Regional Center (VMRC) is of the same thought, they will fight for what their clients’ want, prefer, or desire, against what others want, prefer, or desire. They comply with the Lanterman Act.
Whereas, others may only need security available on the outside perimeter (not management), to keep their encampment from being imposed on, or just in case of emergency. Staff will be a lot less costly.
Hence, I envision more than one type of encampment necessary. I think it would be best if local government, the houseless advocates at MoCAG, and the public could agree to that right away.
I envision encampments being open 24 hours, with an early evening curfew. Otherwise, during the day Modesto will once again be impacted with a group of people who have no where to get out of the heat, rain, cold, and, unless keeping an appointment elsewhere, they will want to meet with services providers inside their encampment. I raise this because I read “safe sleeping.”
There is talk in this post of condensing.
I want to be clear safe encampment does not entail anything jail-like, while at the same time safe encampment does entail close management for the behaviorally challenged, on a 24 hours a day basis. For that matter I suggest Disability Rights is consulted so as to know how to go about such an arrangement legally, if possible.
I envision, therefore, those not needing behavioral management, being safely encamped, first, especially, since predicated on potential movement forward.
Here, I find myself envisioning at least a third group. Not everyone is ready for a potential movement forward, and that is not against the law, not should it be. Modesto does not even have housing ready, thus, a movement forward is only a potential for all concerned. This third group has time to change their mind. So where do they go, certainly not jail.
Housing can be offered as a carrot, yet should never be used as a club. Remember many have gone along for years, making all the correct moves, and, yet, nothing came through for them. I think Modesto is a long way from making offers for housing, and following through. Some need their trust restored, for good reason.
As for me, I am entirely disappointed to read the words that came out of certain mouths in this post. Mostly I read those without homes were being, what I call, “trashed.” On the one hand, it is very refreshing to think there is a behavior based and predicated on potential for movement forward by multiple officials, right here in Modesto and Stanislaus Co.
Yet, I envision a time when most of those officials and even some MoCAG members, no longer speak with such low disregard about our houseless neighbors. Sure, when it comes to housing, some make all look bad. But, we need to be gracious and not give anyone a reputation to live up to.
We need to give people hope, and, belief in themselves.
When one most needs love, it is when one seems to least deserves it. Keep that close to heart and mind.
Pray for Modesto, Stanislaus County, and MoCAG member advocates when it comes to Safe Ground Encampments, they have a lot of things to consider.
My personal opinion is that these safe encampments need to have at least one person who can be there 24/7 to monitor and interact with those that are staying there. We need to be building relationships, meet the unhoused where there at…emotionally, physically, and mentally. Have the camps set up in groups. Give the ‘tenants’ responsibility. Assign one group to trash pick up…etc. charge them $10/month so they feel like they are contributing to their community. They all can afford $10 a month. It gives a sense of providing for themselves and a sense of responsibility. Maybe there should be some sort of incentive to help these individuals to engage with outreach groups. It is a proven fact that monetary incentives are are extremely effective and it doesn’t even have to be allot. Maybe a gift card to Target for $5. Something to think about. Having a safe camping area may not be enough for some of these individuals to engage with outreach and get involved but a small monetary incentives may be what gets that first foot in the door of drug treatment or mental health services. Something to talk about and possibly consider.
[…] Story continues […]
Eric, I’m surprised your “moderation” of these comments did not stop Lou V. From using what I’m sure he considers an insult (nimby) or his internet “screaming” with ALL CAPS.
Actually, I embrace the “not in my back yard” (or in yours, unless by invitation) concept. It’s not a pejorative, it’s how most folks feel.
The current plan panders to ideologues and those who profit on the disadvantaged. It won’t solve poverty, sloth, addiction, illness, infirmity, mental issues or hustlers.
But some folks are always there to profit. Sad, but true.
I believe in real solutions. I haven’t heard one.
Mr. Winston: Many of us are convinced reason and justice are ours and ours alone. People with a better fundamental comprehension of homelessness and poverty might well ask why I permit your comments despite their errors and inaccuracy. Self-appointed experts abound in all discussions, and the prevailing theory is they have a right to be heard. You should not be surprised I print comments you find unwelcome. I print your comments knowing full well they originate from a base of ignorance and prejudgment.
Well, Eric, it seems I touched a nerve and you’ve become negative and judgmental. Why do you presume, as does Lou V. that you know me or my life experiences? I’ll drop out of this post stream now, as it seems fruitless to continue.
Mr. Winston: I don’t presume to know your life experiences. What I offer is informed evaluation of your (mis)comprehension of homelessness at the macro-level.
The sad truth is that many (not all) “homeless” people choose that situation. We, the tax-paying citizens, provide numerous benefit programs, and charitable programs funded by our donations do as well. Food, money, housing, medical care, clothing, etc.
Sadly, many potential recipients reject this generous help because it comes with “conditions”. Conditions such as sobriety and civility, perhaps a reasonable curfew before access is curtailed.
For some “free spirits” or the addicted, or mentally compromised, these “conditions” are unacceptable.
Let’s repeal the Lantrum-Petris-Short act, and the like.
Some folks need a locked care facility for their benefit.
Pearl-clutchers and hand-wringers may be horrified, but true civil libertarians will look at the beneficial result and applaud.
This used to work “back in the day”. Most readers are too young to know that, and will perhaps focus on the several abuses of that system which occasionally occurred.
No system is without flaws.
Let’s do something that works, not what sounds friendly.
Mr. Winston: The notion that most homeless people “choose” homelessness has been disproved thoroughly. How do you explain the data showing that states with higher poverty levels than California have lower rates of homelessness? How about states with higher levels of drug use yet lower rates of homelessness? California’s housing shortage, over one-hundred thousand, means BY DEFINITION, there is not enough housing for people who want and need it. As for tax-payer provided services, try accessing those services sometime. It will be a good learning experience.
Well, I’ve seen it the real world. I don’t need to depend on “statistics” or “reports” which are often of dubious worth. If the programs are hard to access, fix that, don’t add another level of government incompetence.
Mr Winston, do you think Sheriff Dirkse has NOT seen it in the real world? How long do you think it would take to “fix” the lack of services and housing that are major factors in homelessness? How many years are we away from sufficient housing and mental health professionals? Statistics and reports are compiled by professionals who account for multiple sources and data. You are one individual whose experience can’t begin to encompass reports, records, and testimony from multiple sources.
Robert Winston:
I am for what works, and, what is friendly.
Does there have to be an either, or?
There is such a term as “self-neglect.” Many, who may be labeled as: “behaviorally challenged” may likely have not been “habilitated.”, But, were “institutionalized” by a non-caring government, and public. Not meaning confined inside a building called an “institution.” Yet, confined none-the-less.
Many families did not bother to teach their own children, once identified: “intellectually and/or behaviorally challenged,” because they were told it was futile. Therefore, those children grew to be adults who cannot help but to self-neglect
themselves, and, neglect their environments, with out knowing there are boundaries, norms, etc.
They know no better. Yet, truth has a certain ring to it, when taught at any age.
Having been a licensed family day care provider, I had children brought to my home with harnesses on, attached to leash-like straps, because parents did not dare take their child out in public for fear they would run in the streets and be injured.
When their parents gave them an instruction, they ignored their direction. The parents were at their wits end. Without going into detail, all I did was use consistency and said only what I meant, and meant only what I said. These children changed within a day or two under my care.
Often, I went on walks and tours to different places, with these same children. Not once did I use a leash. People would comment on how well behaved the children were, and, some made comments to me, such as, “You must be an angel, to have 6 such obedient children.” I would cordially smile, and, at times remarked: “it only takes”consistency.”
“Repetition is the mother of retention,” who has not heard that?
Later, when working with older developmentally challenged individuals, I could not help but notice many labeled in their case files, “intellectually challenged” were actually very intellectual. Their challenge was that they had not been talked to as if each could understand. I often heard family hush a grown adult up, the second he or she opened their mouth to say something challenging what had just been said about him or her. I am writing about non-conserved individuals, not that anyone deserves to be hushed up.
I often witnessed families, and, even Valley Mountain Regional Center (VMRC) staff, and, the SLS agencies who contracted with VMRC, treat those identified as “challenged” individuals as if the Lanterman Act did not have to be complied with. And, I have witnessed more…
Yes, not all behaviorally challenged houseless individuals are identified as developmentally disabled. Yet, from my perspective many who are identified as behaviorally challenged did not have caretakers who spent sufficient time educating them. Sadly, even when sent to school at taxpayers’ expense. That fact is to be blamed on the system who allots little time to be spent with each client, and, who hires people who clearly do not follow their job descriptions. Though, the job descriptions could be lacking.
The true story of Helen Keller speaks volumes.
Also, a book written by a Doctor, the topic being about how severly brain damaged children, in his care, grew up to be genius, is well worth reading. At the end of his true story, the Doctor asks each reader: “If this is what can be done with severely brain damaged children, what is wrong with non-brain damaged children?”
There is the crux of my comment. What’s wrong?
Interesting conversation. So what does this new “enlightened” program do for these folks? Is it real progress or just optics?
Mr Winston: People without safe sleeping areas become sleep-deprived, suffer trauma, and lack access to services, among other things. For the effects of extreme poverty on the brain, read Robert Sapolsky. Exposure to constant stress and fear causes measurable organic brain damage. Homeless people suffer higher rates of assault and crime than housed people, among other punitive consequences of extreme poverty. As for optics, the streets of Modesto offer plenty.
Well done, Eric! You have created a forum which addresses a very substantive problem and brought the attention of it to people like Mr. Winston.
Ideally, we should overhaul our educational system with a “School Choice” voucher program to wrest the control of our public sector systems back from the parasitic unions that are destroying it. Let parents decide how best to educate their children; Not by home address or a government bureaucracy.
Let schools compete for voucher tuition money, the “American Way”; This makes all schools better and then pays teachers too based upon performance, not union protected tenure. Let the market alone determine the values.
If affordable housing is a problem; Build it! Allow condominium developers access to public lands with below market long leases on the land if they will build affordable housing for first-time buyers and retirees wishing to down-size in their late years. Pre-market mortgage financing packages too should be arranged through the FHA. [As of today; FHA Loan applicants must have a minimum FICO® score of 580 to qualify for the low down payment advantage which is currently at 3.5%.]
These should be very high quality 200~500 sq.ft. studio, 1& 2BR units built with very high quality materials and appliances included and designed in such a way so that walls can be removed should someone need a larger family space in “blocks” of 4 story cluster housing . These units could be profitably sold at ~$400/sq.ft.; A studio for ~$80,000; A 2br unit >$200,000; A nice 1br ~$150,000.
These “Planned Urban Developments” [PUDs] would have stores, professional offices and ample parking systems for vehicles, with school building and play areas for children.
Sure, every person that is living without shelter must be triaged and assigned accordingly. If they are a “danger to themselves or to others”, they should be forced, if necessary, into a rehabilitation program, as determined by a process defined by qualified social services professionals subject to reviewed by the courts, of course.
Some will be “institutionalized”, naturally..
What Mr. Losh says makes good sense. Yes, vouchers are a needed to help upgrade and combat our government indoctrination centers (public schools).
Regarding the “homeless” reasonableness blended with compassion should prevail. Most of us really want to help them. BUT, we must realize that “ Safe Sleeping for Homeless” is more slogan than solution.
How does that help the addicted? How does that help the mentally ill? How does that really hinder those who prey on these folks? Do we use the portions of Trump’s border wall being sold off by Biden to surround them?
Would this protect them or confine them?
Further, the public must decide between anarchy and reasoned cultural norms, which necessarily includes public safety.
Frankly, consistency is fine, but it’s application can run the gamut from benevolent caring to totalitarian torture.
Institutionalization, with real opportunities for improvement and rehabilitation, is a top-tier solution to protect both the “mentally disadvantaged”, the gravely addicted who cannot care for themselves, and the public.
Me again! What bothers me most: all of this building of housing and designing of what has to constitute honest to goodness successful institutions, will take time. No getting around that fact.
Yet, we are waiting on government to proceed, at a rate of speed of one sluggish meeting per week, perhaps bi-weekly, or even monthly. Plus, money to be gathered.
So, all this sudden, supposed, meeting of the .minds has only just begun. I cannot even begin to breath a sigh of relief for our houseless.
We need brainstorming and all the warm bodies that can be mustered to attend, and keep on attending, all such special meetings held to keep moving this movement forward for the unhoused
We can form our own meetings, we do not need government consent to hold our own meetings such as MoCAG, and, such type gatherings in houses and meeting rooms all across Modesto and Stan County. We can expect Nimby’s to do the same, and, to have the ears of government close.
Why do I say this? Because: if readers will be so inclined to reread over Eric Caine’s post, above, looking for obvious derogatory, pejorative, disparaging or indicative words, contained in quotes from locals who have come around to agreeing Safe Ground Encampments would be useful, these words reveal strong hints at what is motivating this change of mind.
Forgive me for harping on words, but “Out of the heart’s abundance the mouth will speak” states the Bible.
I do not seek discouraging any who are truly for the unhoused being allowed on Safe Ground. After all, they are citizens with legal rights, backed by the 9th District Court, so to Encamp should not have to be an issue, but has been a huge issue, right? Why do the unhoused have to be “allowed?” The 9th District Court took away local government’s teeth. They pull off sweeps because they are not being called on their law breaking selves.
One nasty reason these sweeps are pulled off is that people love their private property at the expense of other human beings going without. Streets, parks, alleys and public property are the abode of other citizens who go without. Who are too poor to own housing? Even renting is out of the question for far too many. There is not a single non-greedy excuse for any to stand by and gloat, or complain the unhoused are sleeping in parks nearby and/or hanging out near their homes.
I am not telling anyone news, especially not good news. I am motivated by wanting to keep focus on how the haves think as opposed to the have nots.
Obtaing use of Safe Ground is likely to cost many, more of the current freedoms they now have right to. There will be an exchange extracted as colonialism has been so inclined to do keeping a blind eye to the similarities.
Home owners and business owners will come around to the idea of Encampments, even Nimbys, just as Modesto City Council members and County Supervisor board members have slowly came around, not so much for the unhoused as for the public interest: already accustom to intentionally and willfully excluding the unhoused out and off
of public parks. Playing a game of make believe that the unhoused are not part of the public. Is this why people are invested in telling themselves and others that the unhoused are not from around this city or county. Conscience appeasing myths?
Make no mistake, Sheriff Dirkse, sees the benefit in “condensing” the unhoused onto plots of land. Not unsimilar to how the First Nation People groups were, and, still are, hundreds of years later, condensed on reservations. Our unhoused will not be put on ground they can call their own. They will still be beholden to gov’t, and, private ownership’s baser thought processes. Add to that the fact government membership changes seats, along with that can come undesirable upheavels.
Despite that, I am grateful to Eric Caine and other community authors’ posts on the subject matter of greatest importance: Safe Ground Encampments. MoCAG members who bore pressure on local government can not be thanked enough. We need more support now, more than ever, from all who have love, justice, and peacemaking at heart, even though truth needs speaking. There has been a whole lot of censoring going on but the 1st Amendment exists to voice opinions.
Now, the particulars need hammering out. Do not be at all surprised if arms length decisions are not as easily come by as we would want. And, keep in mind we will be asked to compromise. That is where we need resolve to think most about the unhoused willingness to go along with any of this.
As good as Safe Ground sounds to us, it may seem like a trap to the unhoused among us. if and when the rules start to be laid out before them inorder to gain entrance.
So let us come together and think positive and thoroughly, starting now, about what rules are absolutely necessary, and none others should be implemented.
This is why I suggested earlier that the 1st group of Safe Ground Encamped should be those who need not view themselves as being managed but rather in cooperation with each other: local gov’t and unhoused inclusive. In order for that to happen their needs to be open dialog and meeting of the minds on both ends toward the preferred middle ground. Advocate mediators may be necessary throughout.
It does not have to be difficult, yet it does help to exercise foresight. Who cannot sense hypocrisy? I cannot stress enough to go into this with open eyes and minds. For this to work successfully there must be cooperation. Deciding things by votes that outnumber others is nothing akin to finding consensus with one another.
Welcome to a best way of proceeding amongst the unhoused that have been written off far too long.
As for the Nimby’s and rest of government against this civil rest, expect our fortitude towards gaining Safe Ground Encampments for the have nots, that does not punish them any longer. You have your private property, be thankful for that much. You cannot have it all your way. Times have changed and are still changing. A new more sensible economy is dawning.
It is obvious that Modesto City Council already has a name for their project and is intendng to proceed soon. At 3 minutes per public speaker none is really going to be heard. They will hold the reigns as usual which is unsettling.
Everyone be prepared to demand, if need be, that this agenda item, coming up, Modesto Safe Ground Homeless Vision, be tabled to “allow” for full discussion. The unhoused have waited this long, we owe it to them to get this right on their behalves.
Please do not let this turn into another closed session committee, or slam bam thank you public for your wasted effort.
Might I suggest that our locally elected officials (in this region) look into converting our recently abandoned prison site in Tracy.
Yes, it would be expensive creating individual small living spaces from the existing cells and it wouldn’t be what one would call warm and fuzzy conditions.
But it does have everything else that could contribute to helping homeless get back on their feet.
Office facilities, exercise areas, medical facilities, restrooms, eating facilities, a once operational dairy, etc.
Why don’t we take a one time punishment lockup place and turn it into a place of safety and comfort and perhaps a step to recovering one’s life?
I know people in Modesto wouldn’t want to be relocated, but if it were made to be a temporary step to getting back on one’s feet, who knows.
We are throwing millions at this problem with very little success.
OK. Clearly no one has any expectation that the new “solution” would actually do anything for members of this sad group of the mentally ill, gravely addicted, anarchists, sick and antisocial. The suggestion to move them to Atascadero has merit and should be considered. Let’s exercise “in loco parentis” for the needy, not shuffle them off to Buffalo (safe space).
And please STOP using the woke pejorative “nimby”. Those who have worked their whole lives for the “house with a white Pickett fence”” American dream, who has paid for those public spaces and parks with years of overtaxation, do deserve to enjoy the fruit of their labors.
What about their children? Have they no right to run and play in the light?
Or would you rather they stop working for that American dream and join those who are the takers not givers?
Communism promotes equal outcomes, do you want Modesto homeowners and renters to provide more tax dollars to support these folks over themselves and their families?
A helping hand is best offered temporarily. After an attempt to help, more effective and ultimately benevolent measures must be utilized. Hence Atascadero. BTW, keep the locked gates for those who would not choose to stay.
Would you provide them with 5-star accommodations? Bus them to Times Square where hotels are being funded by local taxpayers.
YOU SOUND LIKE A BITTER “NIMBY,”
ROBERT WINSTON.
Seems my last post got lost. My abbreviated comments were/are that we should act in loco parentis to help the mentally ill, the sick, the gravely addicted, the anarchists, and those who cannot care for themselves.
Stop using the pejorative “nimby”. It’s insulting to those who have worked their entire lives and paid high taxes in pursuit of the American dream of a house with a yard and a white picket fence (note the fence has a gate to invite in the welcome).
These taxpayers also have funded parks and public spaces to beautify their community and give their children and grandchildren a safe place to run and play.
Apparently this was wrongheaded. Communists among us seek equality of outcomes, even for those who are beyond helpless.
Fine, invite them into YOUR yard, your house, your apartment. Have at it. Let us all know how that works out.
Until you do, don’t lecture to us about idealistic feel-good, but useless “new” programs.
The only honest answer to to help those capable and willing to receive help, to institutionalize those who cannot, and to know the difference. Shuffling them off to Buffalo (safe spaces) is no better than bussing them to a Times Square 5-star hotel paid for by NYC taxpayers.
COMMUNIST BUFFALO, WINSTON?
WHAT YOU REFER TO AS “SHUFFLING THEM OFF” IS NOT ACCURATE AND NO WHERE EVEN CLOSE TO A 5-STAR HOTEL ACCOMODATION.
YOU MADE YOUR POINT: YOU DO NOT SUBSCIBE TO HOSPITALITY.
AS FOR THE AMERICAN DREAM, IT IS SUPPOSE TO MEAN ENOUGH WHITE PICKET FENCES FOR ALL, NOT JUST FOR BLOWHARDS.
YOU ARE AWARE FOR CAPITALISM TO WORK FOR THE SOME, A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF AMERICANS HAVE TO BE UNEMPLOYED AT ALL TIMES.
DO YOU VOLUNTEER TO BE NEXT? SO YOU CAN TRADE PLACES WITH ONE OF THE POOR UNEMPLOYED CHILDREN OF GOD? “YOU WILL HAVE THE POOR WITH YOU ALWAYS.” “BLESSED ARE THE POOR.” “DO NOT JUDGE, THAT YOU NOT BE JUDGED.”
YOU HEARD IT SAID, GENERALLY IT ONLY TAKES A FEW WEEKS OUT OF WORK FOR BAD BREAKS TO START TO TUMBLE. IT ISN’T SO EASY TO CATCH UP,. BUT YOU COULD MANAGE, RIGHT? BECAUSE, YOU’RE SO VERY DIFFERENT.
‘NEVER SAY, ‘NEVER.’
Hurling insults and “screaming” with all caps does not enhance your opinions.
¡Hola! He querido escribirte porque veo una excelente oportunidad para que tu empresa sea el foco de una *entrevista* que tengo en mente que podríamos realizar.
Esta entrevista no sólo sería una conversación enriquecedora, sino que además, *se publicaría en decenas de medios* y periódicos de gran reputación. Como beneficio adicional, enlazaremos tu sitio web en la entrevista, lo cual ayudará a mejorar su posicionamiento. El hecho de que aparezcas en una entrevista en medios confiables contribuirá a generar más confianza en tu negocio.
¿Sería posible que me dieras un *número de teléfono* para discutir los detalles? Gracias.