urbanSTL

The mental health part was right here.
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/05/07/ ... -st-louis/

I just went into the 7-Eleven at 17th and Olive about five minutes ago to get a hot dog.

A loiterer (southern edge of the building, the part with the strong urine odor) got into it with another guy. Threatening to kill one another, being held back by security guards (who were definitely earning their $8/hour). I'm surprised no one pulled a gun.

I didn't interrupt the near-fight to ask what their daily schedules looked like, what local businesses and social service centers they patronized.

This 7-Eleven just installed a port-a-potty out front (which I guess is better than me seeing people urinating and defecating on a near-daily basis).

I don't stop the loiterers who endanger my safety and sexually harass my wife to ask where they sleep.

But I don't see any way in which it's not related to the NLEC and the concentration of homeless services in this small area.

OK, so the story doesn't appear to have anything to do with NLEC or even the homeless, certainly not directly. I understand you don't ask about their schedules or what facilities they patronize; you just make blanket assumptions. Thanks for clarifying.

All of this activity there is DIRECTLY related to the NLEC. I lived, observed, questioned, and tried to improve it for 7 years. As long as Larry enables it, the problem will continue and DT/DT West will never reach its potential. Concentrating mentally ill, addicts, and ex-cons in a small area is irresponsible and dangerous.

The victims/responsible parties were not there because they like that particular park downtown. They were there because of the dangerous community/culture the NLEC has created there.

I know it's a stretch to think that those who hang out all day near social services and have nowhere but the streets to use the bathroom are somehow related to the social services they hang out near.

So I assume you're going to be protesting the mental health facility that they were actually patronizing?

I've never heard of a single issue with any other homeless shelter other than NLEC. St. Patrick center gets people off the street. The NLEC created a homeless convention that doesn't help them get on the right track but instead pulls down that entire area of downtown. An area that we need to continue to revitalize and fill with loft dwellers. There are PLENTY of other areas for shelters in this city.

NLEC is a disgrace. Anyone who supports it is delusional.

jcity wrote:I've never heard of a single issue with any other homeless shelter other than NLEC. St. Patrick center gets people off the street. The NLEC created a homeless convention that doesn't help them get on the right track but instead pulls down that entire area of downtown. An area that we need to continue to revitalize and fill with loft dwellers. There are PLENTY of other areas for shelters in this city.

St. Patrick Center isn't a homeless shelter. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

(Also, for reference, walk by around noon. If one were inclined to be 'scared' with the environment around NLEC, I guarantee the same person would feel the same way around St. Patrick Center.)

bprop wrote:

jcity wrote:I've never heard of a single issue with any other homeless shelter other than NLEC. St. Patrick center gets people off the street. The NLEC created a homeless convention that doesn't help them get on the right track but instead pulls down that entire area of downtown. An area that we need to continue to revitalize and fill with loft dwellers. There are PLENTY of other areas for shelters in this city.

St. Patrick Center isn't a homeless shelter. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

(Also, for reference, walk by around noon. If one were inclined to be 'scared' with the environment around NLEC, I guarantee the same person would feel the same way around St. Patrick Center.)

Frankly that is incorrect. There is an entirely different climate around the NLEC than there is around St Patrick Center. What Larry does there is dangerous. Dangerous for the homeless, dangerous for residents, and dangerous for visitors downtown. I wish I could produce a list of people injured in or around his shelter. His tactics don't work. They never have. For Larry it is all about Larry. There is a reason other more sensible cities have told him to take a hike.

robertn42 wrote: I wish I could produce a list of people injured in or around his shelter.

I wish you could too. Let's also list the people and property that has been injured or damaged in or around City Museum recently. Then you can close that down as well. Hey, one good non sequitur deserves another.

There is a reason that NLEC will be operating next year the same way it has for the past forty. The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight with their petitions and mock concern for the homeless seem to have a really hard time staying focused. Go back a few hundred pages and see how things like personal attacks and misdirected anger have worked. Then keep it up and see how NLEC looks in five more years.

bprop wrote:

robertn42 wrote: I wish I could produce a list of people injured in or around his shelter.

I wish you could too. Let's also list the people and property that has been injured or damaged in or around City Museum recently. Then you can close that down as well. Hey, one good non sequitur deserves another.

There is a reason that NLEC will be operating next year the same way it has for the past forty. The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight with their petitions and mock concern for the homeless seem to have a really hard time staying focused. Go back a few hundred pages and see how things like personal attacks and misdirected anger have worked. Then keep it up and see how NLEC looks in five more years.

I live a block from the NLEC and there are emergency vehicles at the shelter every night. Comparing the CityMuseum to the NLEC is absurd and a futile attempt to stand up for an organization that uses the homeless for its own benefit and not tending to them in a manner that gets them back into society.

downtown2007 wrote:

bprop wrote:

robertn42 wrote: I wish I could produce a list of people injured in or around his shelter.

I wish you could too. Let's also list the people and property that has been injured or damaged in or around City Museum recently. Then you can close that down as well. Hey, one good non sequitur deserves another.

There is a reason that NLEC will be operating next year the same way it has for the past forty. The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight with their petitions and mock concern for the homeless seem to have a really hard time staying focused. Go back a few hundred pages and see how things like personal attacks and misdirected anger have worked. Then keep it up and see how NLEC looks in five more years.

I live a block from the NLEC and there are emergency vehicles at the shelter every night. Comparing the CityMuseum to the NLEC is absurd and a futile attempt to stand up for an organization that uses the homeless for its own benefit and not tending to them in a manner that gets them back into society.

I agree that making connections where there are none is absurd and futile. Thanks for pointing that out (btw, that's kinda what "non sequitur" means). I also hope the city's new plan to open shelter beds and get the homeless working and back into society works well.

bprop wrote:

downtown2007 wrote:

bprop wrote: I wish you could too. Let's also list the people and property that has been injured or damaged in or around City Museum recently. Then you can close that down as well. Hey, one good non sequitur deserves another.

There is a reason that NLEC will be operating next year the same way it has for the past forty. The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight with their petitions and mock concern for the homeless seem to have a really hard time staying focused. Go back a few hundred pages and see how things like personal attacks and misdirected anger have worked. Then keep it up and see how NLEC looks in five more years.

I live a block from the NLEC and there are emergency vehicles at the shelter every night. Comparing the CityMuseum to the NLEC is absurd and a futile attempt to stand up for an organization that uses the homeless for its own benefit and not tending to them in a manner that gets them back into society.

I agree that making connections where there are none is absurd and futile. Thanks for pointing that out. I also hope the city's new plan to open shelter beds and get the homeless working and back into society works well.

I think you need to spend some time near the NLEC on a consistent basis. Thanks for coming out.

^^ I'm not pontificating or making personal attacks. My personal experiences with Larry and the NLEC have been incredibly poor. My wife treated several people for severe brain/spinal cord injuries at St Mary's who were assaulted inside his facility. I personally helped many people he left on the streets to suffer on the sidewalk outside of his place (kids, addicts, elderly, etc.) because downtown was my neighborhood and I want to do what I could to make it better. The NLEC does not offer the services or have the necessary resources to support the people he recruits to the area. His facility is known as a no accountability flop house within the transient community and it draws a very nefarious element.

I moved downtown knowing he was next door and was fine with it. If he would have even tried to be a good neighbor everything would have been different. He didn't and isn't.

Could the City of St. Louis pass a law infringing on the ownership of guns in the city arguing that gangs have become unregulated and dangerous militias, thus violating the people's rights as defined by the 2nd amendment?

Then to become a well-regulated militia, say, gun owners or groups of gun owners would have to petition the city and prove that they meet criteria of a well-regulated militia, as defined by X -- (police, or possibly a private militia regulation certification organization?) to have their gun rights restored. One characteristic of a well-regulated militia could be to have all their guns stored in a central location for retrieval when they believe their militia services are required. At least then, criminals would not have such an easy time getting guns away from the law-abiding gun owners as they apparently do now.

When criminals are able to acquire guns so easily from current lawful gun owners, to me, that means the lawful gun owners' "militia" is out of control and unregulated, thus violating the 2nd amendment.

Well I'm sure you don't want this to turn into a debate on constitutional law, but the 2nd amendment (or any amendment) doesn't grant or conditionally grant any right; it only enumerates very specific ones.

Second, Missouri law, at least as far as weapons carry, is preemptive against any attempt at overriding it locally. This goes for open carry now as well.

That said, go ahead and write that bill.

I'm just asking, what happened to my right that gun ownership have at least a whiff of relationship to well regulated militia membership, as stated in the Constitution. Has nobody ever challenged this?

Of course they have, and as I already mentioned, a well-regulated militia is not a precondition of gun ownership. The second amendment enumerates (states) the right but does not apply a condition to it. Don't know how to say it any differently.

Ok, I understand. So the framers just put the part in about well regulated militia to be nonsensical filler. Why is it there? Are you and the Supremes saying it has no meaning? It is in the same sentence as the right. So is it a post condition? -- you can buy a gun, but then you have an obligation to a well-regulated militia. If you shirk that, you forfeit your right to non-infringement. Gun owners here are an unregulated non-militia, and are taking no steps to regulate themselves to reign in the gun owners who are wreaking havoc on the population. Is today's individual gun crime epidemic really what the framers intended? Or did they really mean that only responsible organized groups of individuals should have guns? How did this get so far out of whack? Instead of well-regulated militias, we have a large politically powerful gun hobby group perverting the intent and letting guns escape to unregulated criminal lawless elements the framers would never have permitted in their communities.

In a well regulated shootout, you should always have a second.

Just to let gary know, as I would probably qualify as one of these potential "regulated militia members" he wants to see......

Most of "us" just see the constitution as a piece of paper, a means to an end. This is a sentiment shared by a lot of people on both ends of the political spectrum. Very few see it as some kind of holy commandment. "We" see it as one more hurdle that an aggressive government intent on harm would have to clear before armed action against this government would be necessary to protect oneself.

We aren't out to hurt you, gary. At the very least, not if people like you don't try to hurt us. We just like our guns, for a whole spectrum of different reasons. We'd appreciate it if people like you weren't so intent on seeing us be robbed of some of our possessions. And if you are truly concerned about "public health crises" like people owning guns has recently been re-branded as, maybe shift your priorities to things like federal subsidies for corn, leading to massive obesity and spiraling healthcare costs, or drone attacks that seem most effective at blowing up little brown kids and weddings.