The “safe street act” legislation was regulated in the beginning of January 2000 with its main purpose to maintain public safety and ultimately eliminate “squeegee kids “and aggressive pan handing. Squeegee kids who the Ontario government thinks are disorderly youths who are a risk to the public. But to me its seems the private sector is more concerned about homelessness than is the government. One may argue, homeless people are bad for business and scare away customers and tourists and may be one reason government was pursued by the private sector to pass such a law to exclude these members of society. The author describes; “squeeze kids are considered either lazy and often dangerous locusts that take advantage of the public” and then does a 360 …show more content…
Yes there may be less accidents but that was never the issue, as cars were parked behind red lights as the service took place. As sociologist Bill O’Grady and ethnographer Robert Bright study the everyday life of squeegee kids, they argue; “squeegee work provides one of the few types of subsistence activity available to the majority of homeless youth , a form of work that (like other employment) provides a level of stability and subsistence O’Grady and bright suggest that with the safe streets act in place it seems likely that many youth have made themselves “invisible” and may have no choice but to engage in far riskier conduct in order to survive. Implicit in their analysis is the question; whose safety does the safe streets act protect?’ With many homeless people suffering form mental illness and drug addiction, with the government diminishing their source of income is only going to make them pursue in other ways of making cash under the radar, which may end up being far more dangerous and risky for the public. They may go from washing windshields to robberies and thefts. As comprehended in human nature, one will do anything it takes in order to