With an attitude like that, the only person that would care about you is your mother.The Central Scrutinizer wrote:innov8ion wrote:^ Despicable, deplorable comment
Not at all. I'll start caring about the homeless when they start caring about me.
Unfortunately, Larry Rice and the NLEC take away hope and dignity from the homeless through substandard care. The best defense for Larry Rice will be to vastly improve the level of care. Please read about the various failings of Larry Rice and the NLEC organization here: http://larryricetruth.com/ttricamo wrote:
Debatable and moot only because part of Rice's defense tactic will be claiming Martello and others care only about the park and not the homeless. Having a well proposed solution to the problem will strengthen Martello's position.
Rice said flat out he'll have lawyers building a defense so you'll need an airtight case.
Perhaps it is time for new city legislation to be passed that will call for the creation and enforcement of minimum standards of care in homeless shelters. Shelters in St. Louis may be private institutions void of public funding but they still require hoteling permits to operate. These permits could be made contingent upon meeting the minimum standard of care. Additionally, there could be other means of enforcement to include fines for violations.
I challenge homeless care providers to band together with the DHS and investigate this option to improve welfare for the homeless population. I also challenge our aldermen to work with the DHS in crafting and passing effective legislation. Tangible actions can be taken to right the wrongs of inequity and exploitation of the homeless. For these same wrongs cause societal issues that affect the whole community as well. The time for status quo has ended. The time to act is now!
San Francisco has passed such a law recently. Please view it here: http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles ... Cfinal.pdf. Here is a description: h[url]ttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c ... 005&sc=245[/url]
A city governmental organization, the Shelter Monitoring Committee, is responsible for operation and oversight. Ref: http://www.sfgov.org/site/sheltermonito ... p?id=39792
A Few of the Potential Minimum Standards
- Maintain a moderate temperature range in shelter. Perhaps 68-75 degrees Fahrenheit. (Research has shown a correlation between ambient temperature and aggression. Maintaining proper temp range is likely to reduce violence in our shelters. See more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_temperature)
- Require a reasonable amount (standard for capacity per capita) of free clothes washing and drying.
- Require minimum standards of nutrition.
- Clean bed linens. Linens shall be cleaned at least once per week and upon client turnover.
- Provide secure property storage for homeless clients.
- Provide access for homeless clients to charge cell phones and other personal electronic equipment.
- Homeless clients must not be forced to surrender their personal electronic devices while in the facility.
- Meet ADA standards.
- 6,775
innov8ion wrote:With an attitude like that, the only person that would care about you is your mother.The Central Scrutinizer wrote:innov8ion wrote:^ Despicable, deplorable comment
Not at all. I'll start caring about the homeless when they start caring about me.
Why would you care about anyone if they didn't give a damn about you? Have you no pride in yourself?
^ My sense of self-worth isn't based upon external criteria. I maintain sympathy and empathy for others, regardless of the situation. In the case of the homeless, it is clear they are being exploited and treated poorly by Larry Rice and the NLEC. And when one is treated like an animal, they are likely to act like them. This is why we must fight for minimum standards of care in St. Louis. For the sake of the homeless. For the sake of the community. This must and will change for the better.
You can choose to be a cold-hearted, bitter man if you wish. But you do not speak for caring, downtown residents.
You can choose to be a cold-hearted, bitter man if you wish. But you do not speak for caring, downtown residents.
The SF ordinance seems to regulate "city funded" shelters. Which ones would those be in St. Louis?
^ I understand that. Both public and private sectors are subject to regulation as a form of administrative law. I believe shelters depend on city permits in order to operate. Even if permiting is not required for a shelter to operate, I suggest they can still be regulated because homelessness is a societal problem and in key cases the market has failed to provide us with shelters that treat the homeless with care and dignity. When the market fails, regulation provides the impetus to improve the public good. Mismanaged shelters are a big problem in St. Louis and we should not keep looking the other way.
One such shelter, the largest in St. Louis, is in apparent violation of St. Louis city code 11.72 which can be reasonably attributed to the inhumane treatment of its clientele. Regulation can demand and enforce minimum standards of care for the homeless which serve to improve their welfare. In doing so, quality of life issues for the greater community in a shelter's environs are likely to improve as well. This is why city regulation is crucial and necessary.
Which politicians are willing to tell the homeless that that they will not work to create and enforce minimum standards of care for them? I want to know. I'm sure the voting public does as well.
Granted, I'm not a lawyer. So bring on the litmus test...
One such shelter, the largest in St. Louis, is in apparent violation of St. Louis city code 11.72 which can be reasonably attributed to the inhumane treatment of its clientele. Regulation can demand and enforce minimum standards of care for the homeless which serve to improve their welfare. In doing so, quality of life issues for the greater community in a shelter's environs are likely to improve as well. This is why city regulation is crucial and necessary.
Which politicians are willing to tell the homeless that that they will not work to create and enforce minimum standards of care for them? I want to know. I'm sure the voting public does as well.
Granted, I'm not a lawyer. So bring on the litmus test...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation wrote:Regulation mandated by a state attempts to produce outcomes which might not otherwise occur, produce or prevent outcomes in different places to what might otherwise occur, or produce or prevent outcomes in different timescales than would otherwise occur.
Regulations are justified using a variety of reasons and therefore can be classified in several broad categories:
o Market failures - regulation due to inefficiency. Intervention due to a classical economics argument to market failure.
o Collective action, or public good
o Collective desires - regulation about collective desires or considered judgements on the part of a significant segments of society
Mismanaged shelters are a big problem in St. Louis
How many can you name?
^ I do not understand the root of your question. What is pertinent? The number of mismanaged shelters or the measure of negative effects to the homeless population and community caused by the offending shelter(s)?
No shelter would be singled out or treated unfairly. Proposed legislation would apply to all shelters equally. Most city shelters do treat the homeless population with dignity and respect. The public, however, is aware of cases where they are not.
No shelter would be singled out or treated unfairly. Proposed legislation would apply to all shelters equally. Most city shelters do treat the homeless population with dignity and respect. The public, however, is aware of cases where they are not.
^ You said:
I asked:
Mismanaged shelters are a big problem in St. Louis
I asked:
How many can you name?
The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
Why would you care about anyone if they didn't give a damn about you? Have you no pride in yourself?
Scroooooooooooooooooooooooooooge!
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Answering that question faithfully would require additional time I don't have right now. If I did, I would obtain a list of each shelter and investigate to better understand the mission, situation, strengths and weaknesses of each.publiceye wrote:^ You said:
Mismanaged shelters are a big problem in St. Louis
I asked:
How many can you name?
Off the top of my head, I know of one prominent shelter.
What are you driving at, sophist?
I don't think it is false argument. If you make claims - back them up with facts and not merely impressions.
^ Would the accounts of the homeless who have experienced the NLEC be sufficient in your opinion? And if not, why should the plight of those most affected be discounted?
I'm sorry, I was not speaking of discounting any true plight of the homeless or discounting in any way their existing condition. I think the statement was made that "mismanaged shelters are a big problem in St. Louis". If there are facts to back this statement up they should be brought to the discussion - questioning a statement however should not impose a label of "false arguement". That was the point I was trying to make.
^ I'm glad you are not discounting the plight of the homeless. Many arguments are located here: http://larryricetruth.com/
I'm not catching your line of thought when you talk about questioning a statement and "false argument." You may want to be more clear.
I'm not catching your line of thought when you talk about questioning a statement and "false argument." You may want to be more clear.
That goes back a few posts where you referred to publiceye as a "sophist" and I was commenting that just because he questioned the comment about mismanaged shelters in St. Louis, his position should not be considered a "false arguement" - I thought that was the definition of a "sophist". That was all.
^ Heh, no! I believe he knew what I was referring to -- wisdom.
Sophism can mean two very different things: In the modern definition, a sophism is a confusing or illogical argument used for deceiving someone. In Ancient Greece, the sophists were a group of teachers of philosophy and rhetoric.
I may have missed something that will answer this, but I have a question: What is the plan for after Larry Rice is defeated? Is there a plan in place to pick up the slack and give these people a place to sleep at night? Or will there be a gap in time where not only do these people not have a place to go during the day but no place to go at night either?
^ I believe your assertion is incorrect. This is one viewpoint of the issue:
1. Shelters are a necessary piece of the puzzle to advance homeless welfare (Smaller, distributed shelters are better although NIMBY is an issue.)
2. The NLEC is in violation of St. Louis City Code 11.72 (Per the code definition).
3. The NLEC houses sex offenders within 1000 ft. of an Elementary School which is a violation of Missouri State Law. (Call for better screening processes?) Ref: http://www.mshp.dps.mo.gov/MSHPWeb/Patr ... iderations
4. Code 11.72 violation is caused in part or whole by the NLEC's poor treatment of the homeless. The NLEC also divides the community with its rhetoric. Larry Rice's spokesman in Springfield labeled their Mayor, School Board, etc as Nazis. Ref: http://larryricetruth.com/
5. Standards of care and dignity should be created and enforced for all shelters (to include the NLEC.) There must be effective recourse. San Francisco has passed and enforces such a law.
St. Louis is interesting in that it is a big labor town, yet our social programs are very market-oriented. The market has let us down if it has allowed Larry Rice and the NLEC to operate in the manner it has. When the market lets you down, regulate it. If the city does not regulate, perhaps the city should fund shelter services on its own. Unless the city acts to improve conditions for both the homeless and the community, pressure will only continue to increase until something boils over.
1. Shelters are a necessary piece of the puzzle to advance homeless welfare (Smaller, distributed shelters are better although NIMBY is an issue.)
2. The NLEC is in violation of St. Louis City Code 11.72 (Per the code definition).
3. The NLEC houses sex offenders within 1000 ft. of an Elementary School which is a violation of Missouri State Law. (Call for better screening processes?) Ref: http://www.mshp.dps.mo.gov/MSHPWeb/Patr ... iderations
4. Code 11.72 violation is caused in part or whole by the NLEC's poor treatment of the homeless. The NLEC also divides the community with its rhetoric. Larry Rice's spokesman in Springfield labeled their Mayor, School Board, etc as Nazis. Ref: http://larryricetruth.com/
5. Standards of care and dignity should be created and enforced for all shelters (to include the NLEC.) There must be effective recourse. San Francisco has passed and enforces such a law.
St. Louis is interesting in that it is a big labor town, yet our social programs are very market-oriented. The market has let us down if it has allowed Larry Rice and the NLEC to operate in the manner it has. When the market lets you down, regulate it. If the city does not regulate, perhaps the city should fund shelter services on its own. Unless the city acts to improve conditions for both the homeless and the community, pressure will only continue to increase until something boils over.
who is going to pay the lawyer's fees when LR and NLEC take this to court? The city will not. Hell, he almost beat the federal government by taking them to the supreme court over the Abrams building. Ready to argue before the supreme court? I just hope this whole thing brings about some positive changes and not just an outlet for some neighborhood puffery.
^ The cause I support is rooted in improving conditions for both the homeless and that of the neighborhood. Shouldn't this be a cause that all of us can support, to include the NLEC? If so, why would there be a need for courts and controversy?
If it can be proven that there are bad actors, their bad behavior can be identified and corrected. This is my hope.
If it can be proven that there are bad actors, their bad behavior can be identified and corrected. This is my hope.
A Larry Rice completed an "Executive Director Hat" course in Scientology back in 1976. Ref: http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/st ... -rice.html
Did Rev. Rice learn some tricks from Scientology? Scientologists marginalize and sue those that oppose the more controversial aspects of their practices as well.
Did Rev. Rice learn some tricks from Scientology? Scientologists marginalize and sue those that oppose the more controversial aspects of their practices as well.
Thanks to the website for posting the FAQ from the NLEC. Rice addresses many of the anti-Rice points pretty well.
As for Scientology, your baseless parallel between "a" Rice and "the" Rice just shows that you're totally out of steam, like the website.
As for Scientology, your baseless parallel between "a" Rice and "the" Rice just shows that you're totally out of steam, like the website.
^ Regarding Scientology and Larry Rice -- this is worthy of investigation because parallels exist between the lesser acts of Scientology and those of the NLEC. It helps us see how they operate to obtain their means.
NLEC's FAQ does not adequately explain where $35-40 million in donations disappeared to. I think we all know that downturns in the market do not cause 90% losses in assets. Additionally, selling tangible assets does not cause them to disappear. They are transferred into owner's equity. Paying off debt and upgrading an HD station does not account for a $35-40 million discrepancy. Now I'm not claiming he's using it for his own personal gain, but where is it, and how well is it accomplishing the mission that donors were promised? Something's fishy....
And why should we trust Rev. Larry Rice on his word? He lied during a TV interview claiming he hasn't received pay in 36 years. Yet, he has disclosed to the Better Business Bureau that he receives $27,000 in pay and other compensation. Please check the truth: http://larryricetruth.com/finances#salary
You mentioned the FAQ. Did Larry Rice cover the points about him mistreating the homeless? Providing a steady diet of bologna sandwiches may cause malnutrition. What about homeless allegations of verbal abuse by NLEC's employees? Are his employees qualified? No. How about working his employees 72 hours a week and providing no pay?
Now it is true that Rev. Rice does perform a small bit of good. But he also does many bad things as we have observed here, on http://larryricetruth.com, and by talking with the homeless themselves. All the bad things Rev. Rice and the NLEC performs should not be excused just because they do a little bit of good. It is time for reform at the NLEC and it starts at the top...
But at every step, bprop defends Rice and the NLEC. bprop thought it was ok a couple pages back for an NLEC Church spokesman to marginalize a government, school board, etc by pulling the Nazi card (regardless if a million a**holes have done it before, you're still the million + 1 a**hole) -- spitting on the memories of 6 million Jews who perished under Hitler. Rev. Rice has yet to have the human decency to apologize.
These are examples of very serious character and integrity issues for anyone -- let alone a man claiming to be a man of the cloth. I think his past and current donors will be very interested to hear about all these issues. And prospective donors??? Well, I think they can find more effective uses for their money to actually help the homeless.
I think we all understand your level of objectivity and interest in helping to end the cycle of pain for the homeless. I'm sure we all find this very enlightening.
NLEC's FAQ does not adequately explain where $35-40 million in donations disappeared to. I think we all know that downturns in the market do not cause 90% losses in assets. Additionally, selling tangible assets does not cause them to disappear. They are transferred into owner's equity. Paying off debt and upgrading an HD station does not account for a $35-40 million discrepancy. Now I'm not claiming he's using it for his own personal gain, but where is it, and how well is it accomplishing the mission that donors were promised? Something's fishy....
And why should we trust Rev. Larry Rice on his word? He lied during a TV interview claiming he hasn't received pay in 36 years. Yet, he has disclosed to the Better Business Bureau that he receives $27,000 in pay and other compensation. Please check the truth: http://larryricetruth.com/finances#salary
You mentioned the FAQ. Did Larry Rice cover the points about him mistreating the homeless? Providing a steady diet of bologna sandwiches may cause malnutrition. What about homeless allegations of verbal abuse by NLEC's employees? Are his employees qualified? No. How about working his employees 72 hours a week and providing no pay?
Now it is true that Rev. Rice does perform a small bit of good. But he also does many bad things as we have observed here, on http://larryricetruth.com, and by talking with the homeless themselves. All the bad things Rev. Rice and the NLEC performs should not be excused just because they do a little bit of good. It is time for reform at the NLEC and it starts at the top...
But at every step, bprop defends Rice and the NLEC. bprop thought it was ok a couple pages back for an NLEC Church spokesman to marginalize a government, school board, etc by pulling the Nazi card (regardless if a million a**holes have done it before, you're still the million + 1 a**hole) -- spitting on the memories of 6 million Jews who perished under Hitler. Rev. Rice has yet to have the human decency to apologize.
These are examples of very serious character and integrity issues for anyone -- let alone a man claiming to be a man of the cloth. I think his past and current donors will be very interested to hear about all these issues. And prospective donors??? Well, I think they can find more effective uses for their money to actually help the homeless.
I think we all understand your level of objectivity and interest in helping to end the cycle of pain for the homeless. I'm sure we all find this very enlightening.