Robert L. Terrell

The old man who lives with his dog in a van at the end of my block is extremely angry with me.

Someone showed him the article I wrote about him last week for a local newspaper published by the Quakers. The newspaper, Street Spirit, is sold on street corners here in the Bay Area by homeless people.

Virtually all the articles, commentaries, and photographs in the paper address problems of homelessness. I have been writing articles about various aspects of poverty and homelessness in the newspaper for approximately a decade.

After reading the article, he sent me an email message registering his discontent, and what he considered the article’s “dark, negative” tone. He recommended that we get together and discuss the matter. Yes, he has a web site and email account.

I stopped by his van on Sunday and tentatively knocked on the window on the driver’s side of the van. While waiting for a response, I peeked through the dirt- streaked window. The van is filled with an eclectic collection of his possessions, including large stacks of unsold paintings.

But the old man was not there. Knowing his routine, I headed for his office—the local Starbucks located around the corner.

He was indeed at his office, and when I arrives he stepped away from the table where he was holding court to speak with me. We sat on a low concrete bench adjacent to one of the luxury high-rise buildings that has been constructed in the neighborhood during the past few years.

The dog sat and watched us and the old man began to speak.

“I think your article was total bullshit,” was his opening remark. That was the nicest phrase that came out of his mouth during the next 15 minutes. Nonetheless, I sat and listened as he grew increasingly angry and hostile, reluctant to interrupt his tirade less I provoke his anger even more.

Mostly, I was intent on providing him the opportunity to vent. I was also intrigued by his response to the article, and hoping to learn something I could use to produce better journalism.

My best sense is that he is angry because the article highlighted the fact that he lives in his van, and that he has few options to improve his situation. He is in denial regarding his homeless status. As far as he is concerned, his residency in the van is an irrelevant, private matter. His residency in the van might be irrelevant, but it certainly isn’t private.

When it became apparent to me that I should not attempt to discuss this subject with him, I offered an apology if he was offended by the article. He responded with a string of curses, and I stood to leave. I reached out my hand, and he rejected it.

As I turned and walked slowly away, he showered my ears with the worst, most demeaning curses he could think of. I am still attempting to make sense of it all. The old man has little understanding of the fact that my article was intended to draw positive attention to people facing problems such as his.

His response to the article probably provides important indications of the reasons why he has moved from mainstream society into street side residency during the past decade or so.

Most important, it highlights the difficulty inherent in individual, and governmental, efforts to do the right thing regarding the tens of millions of U.S. citizens who are encumbered by problems similar to the ones which bedevil the old man who lives with his dog in a van at the end of my block.