To Whom It May Concern:

I would like to submit the following proposal for your consideration:

I. The Problem: There are always individuals who are allergic to life in mainstream society. The goals and incentives offered are insufficient inducement for them to work. Their need to "not be told what to do" and "not worry about paying the bills" outweighs their fear of starvation or homelessness. Historically, the down-and-out always had the option of moving -- or being moved -- elsewhere, first to America itself, then within America to the frontier. With the closing of the frontier, the escape valve of "the territories" ceased to exist, and the pressure of this problem has been building ever since. What is a compassionate and workable solution?

Reaching back in history, there was a time when a person moved from his/her village to a city state to compete in the labor market, to sell a product, and to try his/her luck in the Consensus Game of earning a better living. Gradually, with industrialization, the poor were starved out of their villages and forced to the city to create a cheap labor pool. In retrospect, this can be viewed as an unfortunate breakdown of 'the village model' and a disservice to basic human scale of needs. Be that as it may, the bottom line is that city living is basically designed for those willing to 'play the game.' Cities were never designed to serve as 'encampments'.

II. Proposal: If a person wants to camp out in nature, offer them a 'nature camp' where they can build themselves a lean-to in a hospitable climate (not too cold, not too hot) grow their food, raise some chickens, learn some crafts, and wait for their soul to regenerate. The basic axiom is that Nature is the Greatest Healer.

Details: The Department of Social Services would interview the homeless population for placement in one of the following three groups:

Group 1) Willing to be trained and employed. These would remain in the city.

Group 2) Physically or mentally disabled or drug-addicted, These would be placed in treatment centers, but many of the so-called mentally disabled would benefit by being placed in Group 3.

Group 3) Unwilling to be trained but willing to 'return to nature' under minimum supervision, following the time-out center therapeutic concepts of R. D. Lang et al. They would be moved to parcels of land opened for this purpose either by the federal government on the sixteen million acres in California controlled by The Bureau of Land Management or by the State of California. Lumber, livestock, water, gardening equipment and food stamps would be provided.
A) Group 3 Program Participants would be encouraged to build their own living quarters -- in the 1960s, on the so-called 'open door hippy enclaves,' we found this to be a very important aspect of the rehabilitation program. The participants would be encouraged to create a self-sufficient homestead. The basic model somewhat parallels The Civilian Conservation Corps of the 1930's. These TOIN Camps (Time Out In Nature Camps), scattered through isolated areas of the state, would also provide on-site volunteer fire fighting teams during the fire season. "Why don't you take your TOIN (Time Out In Nature)?" could become a catch phrase.

Conclusion: This program requires only an absolute minimum of financing and oversight, keeping in mind that the residents are people who have become oversensitive to bureaucracies and 'being told what to do.' An absolute rule of no alcohol and other drugs would apply. Do not underestimate the healing aspects of living out in nature. Perhaps a pilot program could be quietly started somewhere under the auspices of a group such as Glide Church? I would be glad to discuss this proposal in further detail.

Respectfully Yours,

co-signed by

Ramón Sender, Admin. Dir., Noe Valley Ministry and Community Center
and
The Rev. Keenan C. Kelsey. Pastor, Noe Valley Ministry