Only 24 homeless in downtown Chi. So you say...

I was made aware this morning of a census report that the City of Chicago released earlier this month stating that

a city census of people living on the street in the downtown area has produced a surprisingly low number: 24.

Call me pessimistic, but upon reading this I (like many others) did a double take. Was this a typo? Did they forget a zero or two? How was "homelessness" being defined? What geographic area did the census cover? Over what length of time was the counting done?

How could the number of homeless in ALL of downtown Chicago be ONLY 24 people? That struck me as utterly absurd. Had the census takers actually walked through downtown Chicago?

The Sun-Times article went on to say:

The downtown count was released on the same day Mayor Daley claimed homelessness across the city was down 12 percent -- from 6,715 in January 2005 to 5,922 at the same time this year -- marking progress in his 10-year Plan to End Homelessness.

"Many people say, 'Are you gonna do it?' I say, 'There's nothing wrong with being on a mission -- a mission of saving souls,'" the mayor said.

Despite my abhorance of anyone on "a mission of saving souls" (it's a power struggle/dominance thing that rubs me the wrong way -- but that's a personal vexation to be dealt with another time), I was interested by this 10-year plan, which I had not heard of previously. Apparently, "The Plan" is a three-front effort begun in 2003 that targets homelessness through up-front prevention, getting homeless persons into permanent housing, and providing wraparound support services that help people address elements in their lives that may lead to homelessness. And the goal is that within ten year's time (by 2013) that homelessness in Chicago will be eliminated. (And we claim our city officials don't have vision!)

By some the 10-Year Plan is already being touted as a success. Mayor Daley said within the last two weeks,

"In short, our plan is working. We're making real progress in helping people find a way out of homelessness -- and preventing them from becoming homeless in the first place. This is exactly what I envisioned when I endorsed Chicago's Plan to End Homelessness in 2003, because I knew we could do better for Chicagoans who find themselves homeless."

What do you say to that? Personally, I don't know if it holds truth or is a political manipulation. But, when the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless is claiming that over the course of a given year approximately 166,000 people experience homelessness in the great Chicago area, and other advocacy groups are claiming that the nightly number of homeless in the Chi is over 21, 000, it makes you wonder the real significance of this current, City-sponsored count of 24. Homelessness is incredibily difficult to count, but the disparity in estimates is alarming.

Some are claiming that the City's report is part of a greater effort to "sanitize" Chicago's downtown image in efforts to bolster their bid for the 2016 Olympics. (Because any of the other city's vying for the spot can claim to have no homelessness...) While this may be true, my concerns are, I think, more grave. (Cheerful thought, eh?) On my personal assumption that the City's data is faulty, I hold great concern that our community's problems are being manipulated merely as progress points on City official's measurements of popularity and "progress," rather than being addressed as serious issues to be dealt with candidly without pandering to a positive voter opinion. (If you ask me, honesty wins my vote more than your doing nothing and claiming you did.) I question if this "24 homeless" is a manifestation of the City's interest in hiding or refusing to recognize the scope of problems including homelessness and poverty in the city. Ignoring the problem does not make it disappear but merely creates additional barriers to positive change. To me this report is a warning siren that the City is preparing to turn its head on homelessness as a "problem solved." Scary thought.

Interestingly enough, less than a week after info about the City's census report first hit the public, the Sun printed a follow-up article that answered some of the original questions concerning the collection details of the census data.

Apparently the census was taken in only a 12-block area of the downtown (because surely downtown Chicago is only 12 blocks big...).

Acting Housing Commissioner Ellen Sahli said a separate count conducted between 9 p.m. and 2 a.m. on a cold night in January -- in a much broader swath that includes all four community areas that take in parts of downtown -- turned up 995 homeless people.

And to the best of my knowledge, that near 1000 people does not include the roughly 6000 that utilize shelters on a nightly basis, nor those that "double-up" (stay in housing with someone else for the night). (Surely if you are staying in a shelter or with a friend you are not really "homeless," right?)

All that said, what is the truth in all this? And who (if anyone) has information that can be utilized to really address this problem and not merely neglect the reality of its graveness? On the Chicago Olympics 2016 webpage they say,

In the words of Daniel Burnham, the pioneering architect of the World's Columbian Exposition who embodies the spirit of Chicago, "Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood. Make big plans; aim high in work and hope. Remember that our children and grandchildren are going to do things that will amaze us."

If we really believe these to be inspirational words by which to guide the future of our city, shouldn't that mean that as we make big plans we should rely on honest, politically unmotivated evaluations of the situation to guide our efforts, with a concern for betterment not just a good public image? What's the purpose of a beautiful surface if the core is rotting away?

Are Oompah Loompas an incarnation of Mexican gods?

Apparently I am veering away (at least momentarily) from the generally "focused" approach I try to bring to the blog. Today I have been pondering the undeniable likeness between Deep Roy (of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - the remake - fame) and an artifact I saw at the Museo Nacional de Antropologia while in Mexico City. (I honestly cannot remember which time period or region of Mexico from which the figure came. I'll pay better attention next time. Promise.) Now, Roy was born in and has spent much of his life living in Nairobi, the capital city of Kenya, and his parents are Indian. Thus it's all the more striking, and satisfying, to me that his stone likeness would come from a third continent. Maybe he's related to the gods of Mexican mythology. Who knows. But it's worth pondering, don't you think?

Hey Kelly, where've you been?!

I have been gone for a while (almost two months, it seems). Can you find it in the goodness of your hearts to forgive me? (Or at least start reading again?) I've been flirting with the idea of getting back online for a while, but the world has been a bit of a whirlwind and I needed a bit more time to resettle myself.

The primary reason I've been absent is that I have been out of the country for a while and without consistant, reliable access to the internet. I spent several weeks in June and July living and learning in Mexico. I was involved in a short term study abroad program (through a partnership between DePaul and the CIEL program at the Universidad de La Salle in Mexico City) and also did some travelling around on me own. And yes, a "young thing" like me travelled Mexico alone. Horrors did not befall me. In fact, I met some wonderful new friends and worked diligently to explore and situate the many warnings heaved upon me prior to my departure for Mexico, realizing quite promptly that while attention, tact, and sensitivity were required in my everyday interactions abroad, those "precautions" are strikingly similar to those that are a regular part of my everyday, "safe" life State-side. I guess that's the gift of experiencing things yourself; you are reminded (as is the repeating lesson of life) that what you're told is not always the truth as lived through your own experiences. Thankfully, my time travelling alone gave me space to explore both the physical richness of Mexico as well as my own thoughts about it. While companionship and group-shared experiences hold powerful offerings for growth, sometimes independence yields equally powerful opportunities to process your own thoughts and feelings in a time and space more suitable to your own growth. (Ya feel me?) Anyway, I'm back. And to answer your questions (because people seem to only ask two -- you should work on changing that): "Yes, it was a good trip, and yes, you can see pictures."

One of the reasons I've been hesitant to get back online is that I have this deep desire to "do justice" to my time and experience in Mexico. It's hard to convey to folks the richness of one's own experience in just a few words or images. But I've been working pretty hard trying to. I did this big final project about my travels for class, I've been organizing and sorting photographs (both mine and others) for public displays and thank you packages being sent back to the Mexico, I've been designing program brochures advertising the study abroad opportunity for future students, and so forth, and in some ways I've been finding all of the value judgements I've been making in the process difficult on my mind. Every photograph is being assigned a meaning. Who is being represented (and forgotten)? What stories are being told (or not told)? What images will evoke the desired responses from viewers? What images are close enough to American stereotypes yet different enough to take viewers from what they know to one step closer to a "bigger truth"? And myriads of other questions. I find myself spinning in this representational, storytelling world that is full of hope for growth and change beyond those who travelled themselves, but also threatens to further ingrain stereotypes, injustices, incorrect perceptions, and all sorts of unhelpful things. As I continue to search my own photographs (there are nearly 1200, y'all; I'm a photo-freak; we knew this, right?), I'm continually asking myself what it is that my photographs are saying. Is it possible for this American born and raised girl to catch the soul of Mexican culture in a photograph? Or will the images always be filtered through the lens of my own cultured experience and minds' eye? I photograph things that strike me -- a human being with a very set history that frames how I view the world. That vision changes as I learn and do new things, but will always be through the lens of "me." So what does that mean for my photographs -- my visual markers of cultural meaning, both mine and that which is foreign to me? Who knows.

So, here are some photos. BUT, for once I haven't sorted them to suit a specific, manipulative or thematic purpose (other then narrowing 1200+ images to roughly 50). They are photographs from my time in Mexico that I find beautiful. And not always "beautiful" because they are of beautiful things, though they may be, but because they have meaning to me for whatever reason. Take a look. Make a comment. It's "Mexico through the lens of Kelly, as she tries to leave behind the 'meaning' and find value in mere 'being' instead." (That title is much too long...)

I'm looking forward to being back to chat about other stuff soon. Hope you're all well. 'Til next time...