User:Kfelder2/sandbox

= Final Draft =

Georgia
The rise of neoliberal governance has dramatically changed the way that people who are homeless in heavily populated cities are dealt with and treated around the United States. Neoliberal governance is the promotion of human advancement through economic growth. The most accepted idea of achieving this is by pushing towards a free market economy which thrives off of not having much government or state participation. In the 1970s and 1980s, Atlanta, Georgia was one of these cities where businesses were very active in their efforts to decrease homelessness in the spirit of this idea. The Central Atlanta Progress (CAP) was one of the most notable voices in Atlanta promoting these sort of initiatives. For example, their first major initiative was to criminalize homelessness. They saw the homeless population as a threat to public safety. However, their efforts were met with conflicted responses from police and Georgian citizens due to the large size and demographic makeup of the homeless population in Atlanta. Majority of this group's makeup were black males. On top of that, Atlanta’s first black mayor, Maynard Jackson, had been recently elected into office. Having successfully elected a black male into office, the topic of race and politics was prominent in the minds of many Georgian citizens. The idea to criminalize homelessness looked bad in the eyes of these citizens and created a lot of skepticism about the CAP’s true purpose. Participation was not met in the way the CAP had hoped for.

Since the 1970s and 1980s attempts to combat homelessness have continued not just from businesses but from the government level as well. In 1996 to prepare for hosting the Olympic games, Fulton County provided the homeless people in the area with the opportunity to leave the town as long as they could provide proof of either a family or a job waiting for them at their choice of destination. Fulton County would then give them a one way bus ticket provided that the recipient signed a document agreeing not to return to Atlanta. While it is unclear how many people took this offer to leave the city for free, it is estimated that thousands of the homeless population in Atlanta did take this one-way ticket. For the ones that did not leave, around 9,000 homeless persons were arrested for activities such as trespassing, disorderly conduct, panhandling, and urban camping. Urban camping is the use of public or city owned space to sleep or to protect one's personal belongings. For example, the use of a tent underneath a bridge in order to serve as a living space is prohibited.

Action towards panhandling has also been seen from the government. Many downtown cities around the United States have tried to combat panhandlers by prohibiting panhandling at certain locations as well as restricting the time periods that it is allowed. In Georgia, Atlanta was proactive with this idea by banning panhandling in what is known as the "tourist triangle" in August of 2005. Another ban prohibited panhandling within 15 feet of common public places such as ATM's and train stations. Violations are punished with either a fine or imprisonment. In 2012 the city of Atlanta created an anti-panhandling law which criminalizes aggressive panhandling. Aggressive panhandling is defined as any form of gestures or intense intervention for the sake of retrieving monetary substance. This includes blocking the path of a bystander, following a bystander, using harsh language directed at a bystander, or any other indications that could be perceived as a threat by the person it is directed at. Violations are punished based on the number of offenses with the third offense being the highest. The third offense and all future offenses beyond that will result in a minimum of 90 days in jail. A second offense will result in 30 days of jail time while the first offense results in up to 30 days of community service. The policies that Atlanta has put in place were very similar to the ones that Athens, Georgia currently has. Failing to adhere to the law could result in jail time or community service. Athens-Clarke County also added the possibility for a fine to be paid instead of serving prison time or participating in community service.

= SECOND DRAFT = The rise of neoliberal governance has dramatically changed the way that people who are homeless in heavily populated cities are dealt with and treated around the United States. Neoliberal governance is the promotion of human advancement through economic growth. The most accepted idea of achieving this is by pushing towards a free market economy which thrives off of not having much government or state participation. In the 1970s and 1980s, Atlanta, Georgia was one of these cities where businesses were very active in their efforts to decrease homelessness in the spirit of this idea. The Central Atlanta Progress (CAP) was one of the most notable voices in Atlanta promoting these sort of initiatives. [can you give an example to help us understand?]. However, their efforts were met with conflicted responses from police and Georgian citizens due to the large size and demographic makeup of the homeless population in Atlanta. Most of the homeless persons inside Atlanta were black males and with the recent mayoral election that put Atlanta’s first black mayor, Maynard Jackson, into office, the idea of race and politics was fresh on the minds of Atlanta citizens. [cite?] For this reason, ideas from the CAP such as to criminalize homelessness looked bad in the eyes of the citizens and created a lot of curiosity of what the true purpose for the CAP’s actions actually were. [These last two sentences and the next one are not completely clear; I know what you meant, but can you write it in an even more straighforward way?] Participation was not met in the way the CAP had hoped for.

Since the 1970s and 1980s attempts to combat homelessness have continued not just from businesses but from the government level as well. In 1996 to prepare for hosting the Olympic games, Fulton County provided the homeless people in the area with the opportunity to leave the town as long as they could provide proof of either a family or a job waiting for them at their choice of destination. Fulton County would then give them a one way bus ticket provided that the recipient signed a document agreeing not to return to Atlanta. {Did many leave as a result?}

Action to towards panhandling has also seen action p.v./w.c./repetition from the government. Many downtown cities in Georgia have tried to combat panhandlers by prohibiting panhandling at certain locations as well as restricting the time periods that panhandling is allowed. [Watch repetition] Atlanta was proactive with this idea by banning panhandling in what is known as the "tourist triangle" in August of 2005. Another ban prohibited panhandling within 15 feet of common public places such as ATM's and train stations. Violations are punished with either monetary compensation [fine?] or imprisonment. In 2012 the city of Atlanta created an anti-panhandling law which criminalizes aggressive panhandling. Aggressive panhandling is defined as any form of gestures or intense intervention for the sake of retrieving monetary substance. [cite?] This includes blocking the path of a bystander, following a bystander, using harsh language directed at a bystander, or any other indications that could be perceived as a threat by the person it is directed at. Violations are punished based on the number of offenses with the third offense being the highest. The third offense and all future offenses beyond that will result in a minimum of 90 days in jail. A second offense will result in 30 days of jail time while the first offense results in up to 30 days of community service. Their '''Atlanta? unclear''' policies put in place were very similar to the ones that Athens, Georgia currently has. Failing to adhere to the law could result in jail time or community service. Athens-Clarke County also added? the possibility for a fine to be paid instead of serving prison time or participating in community service.

Great revisions; don't forget to add the Georgia section header; and read through carefully / respond to my suggestions!

Georgia
The rise of neoliberal governance has had a big impact on the homeless persons in big or downtown cities around the world. In the 1970s and 1980s, Atlanta, Georgia was one of these cities where businesses were very active in their efforts to decrease homelessness in the spirit of neoliberal governance. The Central Atlanta Progress (CAP) was one of the most notable voices in Atlanta promoting these sort of initiatives. However, their efforts were met with a conflict of interests from both police and Georgian citizens due to the demographics of homeless people in Atlanta. Most of the homeless persons inside Atlanta were black males and with the recent mayoral election that put Atlanta’s first black mayor, Maynard Jackson, into office, the idea of race and politics was fresh on the minds of Atlanta citizens. For this reason, ideas from the CAP such as to criminalize homelessness looked bad in the eyes of the citizens and created a lot of curiosity of what the true purpose for the CAP’s actions actually was. Participation was not met in the way the CAP had hoped for.

Since the 1970s and 1980s attempts to combat homelessness have continued not just from businesses but from the government level as well. In 1996 to prepare for hosting the Olympic games, Fulton County provided the homeless people in the area with the opportunity to leave the town as long as they could provide proof of either a family or a job waiting for them at their choice of destination. Fulton County would then give them a one way bus ticket provided that the recipient signed a document agreeing not to return to Atlanta. Many downtown cities have tried to combat panhandlers by prohibiting panhandling at certain locations as well as restricting the time periods that panhandling is allowed. Atlanta was proactive with this idea by banning panhandling in what is known as the "tourist triangle" in August of 2005. Another ban prohibited panhandling within 15 feet of common public places such as ATM's and train stations. Violations are punished with either monetary compensation or imprisonment. In 2012 the city of Atlanta created an anti-panhandling law which criminalizes aggressive panhandling. Their policies put in place were very similar to the ones that Athens, Georgia currently has. Failing to adhere to the law could result in jail time or community service. Athens-Clarke County also adds the possibility for a fine to be paid instead of serving prison time or participating in community service.

Alabama (example of format of page)
Although throughout the United States panhandling is discouraged, passive panhandling falls under First Amendment rights to free speech.[1] In Alabama the prohibition of aggressive panhandling and regulation of passive panhandling is controlled by individual cities, with many panhandlers being charged with loitering offences.[2] Loitering for the purposes of begging and prostitution in Alabama is a criminal offense.[3] An issue for Alabamians is the proportion of panhandlers defined as vagrants, who contrary to their implications, are not homeless but accept the generosity of the community under this false pretence.[4] As the cities decide ordinances for the control of panhandling, there is a variety of methods used across the state depending on the issues in each city. Many cities such as Mobile, Alabama have introduced a set of ordinances to prohibit panhandling in the "Downtown Visitors Domain" area, as well regulations for panhandlers in the rest of the city including disallowing; panhandling at night, physical contact while panhandling, panhandling in groups, and approaching those in queues or traffic.[5] These ordinances are an improvement on the previously vague prohibition of "begging".[5] For those soliciting donations for charitable organizations, a permit must be obtained for the fundraising operation to be exempt from panhandling ordinances.[6] Panhandling in the Downtown Visitors Domain may result in fines and jail sentences for those involved.[7] Another effort to limit panhandling in Mobile is an initiative using donation meters through which people can donate money to approved charities in attempts to resolve the necessity of panhandling by providing disadvantaged citizens with resources. This method attempts to lessen the recurring arrest and release of the publicly intoxicated, who are often homeless or vagrant and participate in panhandling.[8]

An important concern for those in Alabama's capital city, Montgomery, is those who travel from other cities to panhandle, with a police report from November 2016 showing that most panhandlers in the area had travelled to the city for the purposes of begging.[9] In the city of Daphne, panhandling is prohibited within 25 feet of public roadways and violators are subject to fines,[10] while the cities of Gardendale and Vestavia Hills prevent all forms of panhandling on private and public property.[11][12] The city of Tuscaloosa prohibits all aggressive panhandling, as well as passive panhandling near banks and ATMs, towards people in parked or stopped vehicles and at public transport facilities.[13]Alabama's most populous city, Birmingham has considered limitations on panhandling that disallow solicitation near banks and ATMs, with fines for infractions such as aggressive or intimidating behaviour.[14] Another concern for Birmingham is litter left behind in popular panhandling sites, especially for business owners in the downtown area.[15][16] In Birmingham, specifically asking for money is considered illegal panhandling.[17] The City Action Partnership (CAP) of Birmingham encourages civilians to report and discourage panhandlers throughout the city, especially under unlawful circumstances including panhandling using children, aggression, false information and panhandling while loitering as prohibited by City Ordinances.[18]

Within the city of Opelika it is considered a misdemeanour to present false or misleading information while panhandling, and there are requirements for panhandlers to possess a panhandling permit.[19] Threatening behaviours towards those solicited to are also considered misdemeanours and include; being too close, blocking the path of those approached, or panhandling in groups of two or more persons. Those previously charged with these offences in Opelika are not eligible for a panhandling permit within set time limits.[19]

Outline

 * I will contributing the page Homelessness in the United States by state
 * The information that I will be adding is homelessness in Georgia, there is not yet an entry on this yet.
 * Main points:
 * In the 1970s and 1980s the Central Atlanta Progress (or CAP) made various attempts to decrease homelessness in Atlanta
 * A lot of the efforts to combat homelessness in the 70s and 80s deemed mostly unsuccessful due to controversy of demographics, race, and skepticism of the actual goal of the CAP's actions. (Neoliberalism)
 * In 2012 efforts to combat homelessness continued with a anti-panhandling law being put in place in Atlanta.
 * Sources:
 * Outline:
 * In the 1970s and 1980s efforts from businesses to decrease homelessness in major and downtown cities increased as neoliberal governance was on the rise. In Atlanta the Central Atlanta Progress (CAP) was a major voice for this sort of initiative.
 * Many of these efforts did not match with major success due to the demographics of homeless people in Atlanta. Considering that majority of these people were black males, the idea to criminalize homelessness was not met with the participation that was hoped for. This was also in part due to the recent mayoral election in Atlanta where Maynard Jackson was elected as Atlanta's first black mayor. The idea of race and politics was fresh in the minds of the citizens of Atlanta.
 * Since the 1970s and 80s other attempts to combat homelessness have continued. In 2012 Atlanta created an anti-panhandling law which criminalizes aggressive panhandling. Very similar to the policies put in place in Athens, Georgia, failing to adhere to the law in Atlanta could result in jail time or community service. Athens-Clarke County also adds the the possibility for a fine to be paid instead of having to participate in community service or serve time in prison.
 * In the 1970s and 1980s efforts from businesses to decrease homelessness in major and downtown cities increased as neoliberal governance was on the rise. In Atlanta the Central Atlanta Progress (CAP) was a major voice for this sort of initiative.
 * Many of these efforts did not match with major success due to the demographics of homeless people in Atlanta. Considering that majority of these people were black males, the idea to criminalize homelessness was not met with the participation that was hoped for. This was also in part due to the recent mayoral election in Atlanta where Maynard Jackson was elected as Atlanta's first black mayor. The idea of race and politics was fresh in the minds of the citizens of Atlanta.
 * Since the 1970s and 80s other attempts to combat homelessness have continued. In 2012 Atlanta created an anti-panhandling law which criminalizes aggressive panhandling. Very similar to the policies put in place in Athens, Georgia, failing to adhere to the law in Atlanta could result in jail time or community service. Athens-Clarke County also adds the the possibility for a fine to be paid instead of having to participate in community service or serve time in prison.

Outline

 *  The Central Atlanta Progress (CAP) made various attempts and strategies to get rid of homelessness in the Atlanta area. A part of their attempts was in 1973 to hire Dan Sweat as its President for 15 years who was very adamant in finding a way to lower the amount of homeless persons in Atlanta in the 1970s and 1980s.
 * The practice of neoliberal governance was increasing during this time even though Sweat might not have known at the time that he was practicing this.
 * Many attempts failed as the idea of race was active on many persons minds at this time. Maynard Jackson was elected as Atlanta's very first black mayor around the same time that Sweat was elected as President of CAP.
 * In Atlanta most of the homeless people were black males so the idea of criminalizing them in order to get them off of the streets looked bad and created a lot of curiosity of the CAP's true purpose.
 * Another idea that would have created controversy based on the demographics of the homeless people in Atlanta was when Robert Paul Schmitz proposed having them work on ranches and farms that weren't located inside the city. His idea was that this way they would have all the necessities of life while also being able to work. The problem with this idea was on the outside it looked very similar to sharecropping and slavery.

Final Topic Draft - Homelessness in the United States by state - Georgia
Homelessness in Georgia dropped from 13,790 to 10,373 from January 2015 to January 2017 seeing around a 25% decrease. The city of Atlanta has issued laws regarding homelessness such as its anti panhandling law. This states that forcefully or aggressively approaching someone to ask or beg for money is unlawful. Violations of this law includes imprisonment, fines, or community service. I will add information regarding this law and other statistics regarding the current state of homelessness in Georgia.

This topic is very important to how we see human rights as it deals with the rights of those persons who typically engage in panhandling. As most of these persons tend to consist of those without homes, it is another topic regarding the rights of homeless persons and can also be seen as a possible action discriminating against homeless people. More attention should be brought to these types of laws and topics because not many people know that laws such as anti panhandling laws existed. There is sufficient research regarding the statistics of Georgia's state of homelessness as the state itself conducts public research every couple of years. There are also many other sources such as places trying to combat homelessness in Georgia. These places provide statistics and sources from where they have found their research. The anti panhandling law is a public law that has also caught the attention of journalists and newspaper writers.

Article Evaluation (Cyber Rights)

 * The article mentions that it is written in first person two times in a similar fashion that feels repetitive.
 * It's titled Cyber Rights, however the focus seems to be on the author and his background rather than the book he wrote and its contents.
 * The viewpoint says a lot about the books accomplishments of being favorably viewed.
 * All of the links work, and most of the sources are not websites so it is harder to check the contents of the source.
 * There are only two comments on the talk page, it mentions edits of external links that are being requested for review.