urbanSTL

Thought I would pop back up and point out something ...



The Springfield, MO SSA building that he received was listed in the Federal Registry : http://frwebgate6.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bi ... n=retrieve



Social Security Building

806 N. Jefferson

Springfield Co: Greene MO 65802–

Landholding Agency: GSA

Property Number: 54200530006

Status: Excess

Comment: 17,346 sq. ft., needs repair,

possible asbestos/lead paint, to be

vacant approx. 12/2006



Now since that was listed in the Sept. 2005 Federal Registry, he most likely would have had to use some sort of financial statement from December 2004 (as NLEC is probably on a yearly accounting basis, i.e. his 12/2007 financial statement).



So, all one would need to do is do a FOI (Freedom of Information) request to the HHS for the application, specifically, the financial statements from NLEC and then compare against the Federal Court document records...



By the way...



I sure hope that place or any other building that's occupied and undergoing "renovation" doesn't have asbestos or lead paint and if they do proper procedures are followed... as both of these are pretty nasty when ingested into the system.

innov8ion wrote:

YAWN. Wake us up when you find Larry's $25 million mansion. Your alleged care for the homeless is a convenient shroud for your bashing of Larry's, Every. Single. Word. And. Every. Single. Action. It's tiresome, and I'm making a prediction that larryricetruth is going to continue to be the same tired, worn-out 99% non-issue grasping that it's been so far. Prove me wrong, and good for you. But you're really spinning your wheels, particularly the outrage over the "Nazi label" -- a name which he didn't, by the way, call anyone, only saying they're traveling "the same slippery slope as the Nazis" -- an allegation which is repeated in stronger words, what, tens of thousands of times a day by thousands of people and yet doesn't stir the emotions in you that Larry does. And now you mischaracterize my words as defense. I said Rice's statements were hyperbolic...and you mischaracterize it by saying I "think it's OK". I think it's a stupid comparison, but as a Pole who visited Warsaw , I don't have to drum up reasons to be outraged about it to provoke a reaction.



And I don't intend on getting into a pointless, unwinnable debate to discuss how to help or not help the homeless. I replied to you previously telling you that I'm not debating the homeless issue. And neither is larryricetruth.



My observations are only to suggest that your nuclear-bombing campaign against Rice and the NLEC in order to clean up a playground was, is, and will be, completely ineffective. Prove me wrong. Please. I work downtown and would like nothing more than to see Lucas Park and other public spaces free of urine, panhandling, and filth. But launching an all-out smear attack from every angle against Rice and the NLEC organization is not going to do anything about it. And neither is your loud and ceaseless equivocating about nothing in particular on a message board.

bprop



At least gopher is trying something. What, pray, tell me, have you done except post on this board?



It is very simple to don the shroud of annonymity message boards like this provide and try to poke remarks about gopher, but of all of us, he seems to be the only one doing something about it(unlike many on this board, including I). He is publicly speaking out against Rice. You may want to close your senses to the detriment that Rice's org is to the homeless, the region and the residents, but should at least try to support the fight to cleanse the effects of people dumping that Rice promotes.



Homelessness is a problem that is not an easy one to solve. Making EVERYONE to follow the law can be achieved. That is what gopher's cause is.

bprop wrote:
Your alleged care for the homeless is a convenient shroud for your bashing of Larry's, Every. Single. Word. And. Every. Single. Action.

Huh? I guess you don't know who I am. I despise hypocrisy and injustice when I see it. And I will and do expose it.



The value of people are infinitely more important than any park. That's why I volunteer on the Board of Centenary CARES, an effective homeless organization. I also advocate for the homeless and that is the main reason for http://larryricetruth.com.



How do you help the homeless, bprop, besides defending a minister that abuses them?



Let's summarize for our readers:



- Rev. Larry Rice & the NLEC mistreat the homeless (bprop says nothing)

- Rev. Larry Rice has issues with character and integrity (bprop says nothing)

- Dave volunteers on a board helping the homeless and spends countless hours advocating for them. (bprop says dave doesn't care about the homeless)



Your logic is perfect. I congratulate you for help making it clear to any reasonable reader that your only interest is in defending Larry Rice. Whereas I have made it abundantly clear that I am here to improve conditions for the homeless.



Good day.

Calm down guys.

STLDTFAN wrote:bprop



At least gopher is trying something. What, pray, tell me, have you done except post on this board?



It is very simple to don the shroud of annonymity message boards like this provide and try to poke remarks about gopher, but of all of us, he seems to be the only one doing something about it(unlike many on this board, including I). He is publicly speaking out against Rice. You may want to close your senses to the detriment that Rice's org is to the homeless, the region and the residents, but should at least try to support the fight to cleanse the effects of people dumping that Rice promotes.



Homelessness is a problem that is not an easy one to solve. Making EVERYONE to follow the law can be achieved. That is what gopher's cause is.

I respect gopher for wanting everyone to follow the law. I don't believe carpet-bombing Larry Rice and the NLEC for absolutely everything -- whether it relates to legality or not -- is effective. I don't know how to put it any clearer.



To answer the ongoing yelping and whining about my opinion: I don't believe Rice abuses the homeless with bologna sandwiches. I don't care about his alleged "character" issues and believe they're immaterial to the debate, and I never once did not say Martello does not care about the homeless. It's easy to see the campaign goes nowhere when opponents' words are constantly mischaracterized in order to try to invoke some sort of anger towards them.

bprop wrote:

STLDTFAN wrote:bprop



At least gopher is trying something. What, pray, tell me, have you done except post on this board?



It is very simple to don the shroud of annonymity message boards like this provide and try to poke remarks about gopher, but of all of us, he seems to be the only one doing something about it(unlike many on this board, including I). He is publicly speaking out against Rice. You may want to close your senses to the detriment that Rice's org is to the homeless, the region and the residents, but should at least try to support the fight to cleanse the effects of people dumping that Rice promotes.



Homelessness is a problem that is not an easy one to solve. Making EVERYONE to follow the law can be achieved. That is what gopher's cause is.

I respect gopher for wanting everyone to follow the law. I don't believe carpet-bombing Larry Rice and the NLEC for absolutely everything -- whether it relates to legality or not -- is effective. I don't know how to put it any clearer.

Someone must speak up for the homeless and the community. Pressure will be applied in an ever-increasing fashion until Rev. Rice and the NLEC start treating both the homeless and community with the respect and dignity they deserve.

bprop wrote:To answer the ongoing yelping and whining about my opinion: I don't believe Rice abuses the homeless with bologna sandwiches. I don't care about his alleged "character" issues and believe they're immaterial to the debate, and I never once did not say Martello does not care about the homeless.

No one is whining about your opinion. Either you want increased respect and dignity for the homeless and community or you don't. In the end, you're the one that has to look yourself in the mirror every day.



Regardless, standards and practices at the NLEC must and will be improved for the sake of the homeless. San Francisco has passed a law regulating minimum standards in shelters due to past abuses. If the St. Louis government has one ounce of care for the homeless, it will seriously consider the same.



Rev. Rice & The NLEC:

- Violate labor laws (Works employees 72 hours a week, paying them $0, with little hope for a job after the program)

- Promote malnutrition through improper diet

- Provide no washers or dryers for client use (lack of dignity)

- Provide no secure storage lockers & force the homeless to take all their gear with them every day, lest it be thrown in the dumpster (lack of dignity)

- Force homeless clients to surrender cellular, camera phones and other personal electronic devices upon entry to the facility. (lack of dignity/opennness)

- Exploit the homeless via public calls to set up a ghetto in St. Louis (Rice has millions yet won't even upgrade his own facility to meet minimum standards)

Ok... back on topic...



NLEC is a detriment to our neighborhood.



So, how can we effectively change our neighborhood?



Here's some suggestions...

1) Clean the park. (I've already committed to taking a trash bag out each and every day, that I can, to pick up trash)



2) Contact the parks department and ask for routine maintenance, work with the parks department, ask to borrow tools, put some sweat equity into the park.



3) Hold events in the park, e.g. bbq, halloween party (god knows it's scary enough), etc.



4) Plant and beautify the park.



All of this goes back to fixing the "broken window" scenario. Make it a respectable place, increase visibility, and we will change the environment for the better for all.



5) Increasing our visibility is going to chase the drug dealers, litters, and prostitutes that congregate around the area.



Are some people going to trash the park? Sure... but with increased visibility, we are gonna call them out on it.



6) Call and ask for enforcement, but also do constructive things in partnership with the city.



These are all actionable items that we can do immediately to create positive constructive change.



We are here, and we will change our neighborhood for the better either with or without NLEC and Larry.

A couple of weeks ago I was walking through some of the parks in the Civic Center area and was again dismayed by the numerous trash bags filled with personal belongings and miscellaneous piles of blankets and clothing left under the trees. I know these are left by the homeless while they are off doing something else like getting lunch or hanging around the library. Why can't the sanitation department or the downtown cleanup crew pick up this stuff and dispose of it? Not only would it improve the look of the place, it would also discourage congregation.

^ This is just another reason why a minimum standards of care legislation for homeless shelters is necessary. You see, if the homeless weren't forced to carry around their worldly possessions everyday, this problem would be far less severe.



Until legislation passes, and although not a shelter, perhaps this is a service that Centenary CARES Outreach could provide.



The homeless would have more freedom to apply for jobs / go about their business without having to worry about their goods being stolen.



The community would also be much cleaner.



I know it's awful of me to work toward solutions that help both the homeless and the community, but does this make sense to anyone other than me?

Individuals that use the faculties at Centenary must check their bags with an attendant that stores them in a secure area. This is mainly used to keep drugs and weapons from coming inside. The bags are returned when people leave the building.

So then it begs to reason if Centenary provides this service then the people who leave their crap in the parks are the individuals who are causing greatest amount of trashing to our city center. Perhaps they are also the ones that don't want to be helped but are happy with the status quo (as un-politically correct as that statement might be)

^But they don't allow homeless to store their belongings there when they are out, right?



Now this is something for which there might actually be a solution. I can't think of one, but maybe there are examples of successful solutions around the country.



I can see why shelters wouldn't want to provide storage space though. Lockers would have to be locked if you want anyone to use them. But of course if they are locked, then you have the problems of people storing contraband and items that most people would consider garbage, and the potential of attracting vermin and spreading lice and disease, not to mention the smell.

^ That sounds like a process issue that can be addressed by administration. Shelters should already have security that can check goods coming in, just as Centenary does. They work these issues in San Francisco shelters -- why not ask them?

Here's why the city may not be able to "clean the parks"...

Why can't the sanitation department or the downtown cleanup crew pick up this stuff and dispose of it? Not only would it improve the

look of the place, it would also discourage congregation.

I agree with the idea wholeheartedly and could even make an obvious, effective argument as to why it should be done...



but here's the problem...



http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/0 ... 504842.php

Summary:

FRESNO – United States District Judge Oliver W. Wanger gave preliminary approval today to a $2.35 million dollar class-action settlement between a class of hundreds of homeless Fresno residents and the City of Fresno and the California Department of Transportation. The court had already determined that Fresno’s practice of immediately seizing and destroying the personal possessions of homeless residents violates the constitutional right of every person to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The homeless plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Kincaid v. Fresno, were represented by a team of attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California (ACLU-NC), the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights (LCCR) and the law firm of Heller Ehrman LLP.

But according to Burdeau V. McDowell (1921)

http://supreme.justia.com/us/256/465/case.html states,

The Fourth Amendment gives protection against unlawful searches and seizures, and, as shown in the previous cases, its protection applies to governmental action. Its origin and history clearly show that it was intended as a restraint upon the activities of sovereign authority, and was not intended to be a limitation upon other than governmental agencies; as against such authority, it was the purpose of the Fourth Amendment to secure the citizen in the right of unmolested occupation of his dwelling and the possession of his property, subject to the right of seizure by process duly issued.



In the present case, the record clearly shows that no official of the federal government had anything to do with the wrongful seizure of the petitioner's property or any knowledge thereof until several months after the property had been taken from him and was in the possession of the Cities Service Company. It is manifest that there was no invasion of the security afforded by the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure, as whatever wrong was done was the act of individuals in taking the property of another. A portion of the property so taken and held was turned over to the prosecuting officers of the federal government. We assume that petitioner has an unquestionable right of redress against those who illegally and wrongfully took his private property under the circumstances herein disclosed, but with such remedies we are not now concerned.

Before you think I'm advocating that we throw out "stuff" remember, everyone is still beholden to the law...

We assume that petitioner has an unquestionable right of redress against those who illegally and wrongfully took his private property

Personally, I think the way to go is to establish maintenance windows in each park for daily cleaning. It's generally applicable and would be fair. If I left my things in the park unattended, I would expect them to be gone, heck I would expect a fine from the city for littering.



But I'm not an attorney so I don't really know a good answer to this one, I just have a feeling that this one is probably pretty legally treacherous.



I'm open to suggestions on this one...



Oh and P.S. let me write the name "Larry Rice"... so that this can go in this thread

gopher wrote:Personally, I think the way to go is to establish maintenance windows in each park for daily cleaning. It's generally applicable and would be fair. If I left my things in the park unattended, I would expect them to be gone, heck I would expect a fine from the city for littering.



But I'm not an attorney so I don't really know a good answer to this one, I just have a feeling that this one is probably pretty legally treacherous.



I'm open to suggestions on this one...

I believe this was the policy at Lucas Park (and its environs?) between 2-3 pm. Although it seemed to help, I don't know if this continues to this day or not. We could really use support from the city to continue enforcement of this. If not, regression will occur and tensions will likely increase.



Over the weekend I was in Lucas Park when this guy came by and asked me if I had any rolling papers. Then he asked if I wanted any "hydro" (marijuana) and continued to show me his stash. It takes the police like 15-30 minutes to arrive (if they come at all), so I didn't bother calling them.

According to the posted signs this is still the policy at Lucas Park...



As is the 10pm curfew...



I'm not sure if this applies to the other parks...



Enforcement is a different issue altogether...

innov8ion wrote:
Over the weekend I was in Lucas Park when this guy came by and asked me if I had any rolling papers. Then he asked if I wanted any "hydro" (marijuana) and continued to show me his stash. It takes the police like 15-30 minutes to arrive (if they come at all), so I didn't bother calling them.

Was this a homeless person peddling weed in the park?



more likely a hoodlum taking advantage of the homeless and making a quick buck in the park..



and you ignored it? arent you involved in the "friends of Lucas Park"?



you didnt report criminal activity in the park?



you could have snapped a photo with your camera phone, or recorded the conversation and took it to the precinct 1 block away

^ I have to say that I find your tone of questioning amusing. I never made any claims as to who was selling what nor did I inquire about housing status. You see, it was a quick interaction and I was on the phone at the time.



I consider myself more as a sociologist when I hang out in Lucas Park. I just want to talk, listen and observe. I want to better understand the plight of the homeless so I can more effectively help them.



This guy left the park as soon as he understood I wasn't interested. He was also marketing less pharmaceutical-grade wares. If he had stuck around the park or was selling some more serious stuff, you can bet I would have done something. That was the judgment call I made. Unfortunately our superhero, citywatcher, couldn't save the day. Too busy with Lois Lane, I presume.



And yeah, I am involved with Friends of Lucas Park. I have an interest in improving both the park and homeless welfare. Both are intertwined. I really love the concept of sourcing some of the labor necessary to improve the park with skilled homeless laborers. We can provide them both a sense of accomplishment and honest pay for their hard work. G-d willing, this will be possible.



And don't get any silly ideas in your head that there are any insidious plans of displacement. The park will be a more vibrant place for everyone to enjoy. I'm a firm believer that dilapidated places are treated like dumps. Beautiful, vital places are treated with dignity. And in such a transformation, everyone is lifted in the process. That's what I want. And together, as a caring community we can accomplish it.



I understand in the past that there was some controversy about park improvement. I don't know the specifics, other than there was some claim that the rights of homeless veterans would have been infringed. But no one will be infringed here. Welfare for all will be improved. And you know what, I'm a Marine Corps veteran. I've bonded with several of the homeless veterans out there.



So Semper Fi!

I can't stress this enough...



It's imperative that ANY criminal activity be reported to the police. They WILL respond, and have responded very quickly, especially, when there are drugs involved.



The cops will come...



The response time of the 4th district is usually under 2 minutes, with multiple cruisers. Trust me I've timed it.



Anyone seeing this activity must call and report it period. It is our moral duty to do so. Read Immanuel Kant's philosophy on moral duty.



To do otherwise sends a message that "it's ok and that it's tolerated". Snapping someone's picture in a public place of them doing / selling drugs makes the job of the police officer much, much easier, and they [the criminal element] are gonna get the message to get the f*** out of there and not to come back.



The police can't do it alone, and we shouldn't expect them to, it's up to us to call them, leave our phone numbers on the report, go to court and follow through. EACH and EVERY time.



No one is above the law. NO ONE. not the homeless, not me, not Larry, no one.

Doug wrote:I still think we should have a BBQ in Lucas Park. I called to Parks and they said we would need special permission from the department because it's not one of the parks they normally allow.

^ Sure, why not?



Are there other activities that can be held in Lucas Park that do not revolve around food? What about a band? Art exhibits? (I believe Crepes in the City may be interested in this.)

More interesting information...



http://martello.org/blog/2008/09/compar ... trast.html



$40-50 million in assets filed in 2004 AND 2005 along with a signed affidavit...



Oh, and then there is the 2002 accounting records from NLEC in exhibit 11...

Hello I am a graduate of the NLEC training program in 1989. Since that time I have been working in Broadcasting. I got my start in that field there, and they helped me greatly. I lived in the building at 1411 locust street for 3 years (also sometime in house springs and Jeff city).



I hear a lot of criticism here of NLEC.



I have a question for you?

So what is your solution? And are you willing to put your life into it?

Larry has. Have you ever worked with the homeless?

Do you understand how difficult a calling this is?



That said hello everyone!

Vis.

^ Welcome to the forum, Vis! Congratulations on your broadcasting job. May I ask where you work and what your current position entails? If you're going to make a claim, it's best to back it up.



I agree, there is much valid criticism of the NLEC.



1. So what is your solution?

- Create the "Greater St. Louis Coalition for the Homeless." This organization would unite the Greater St. Louis area in order to raise homeless awareness, increase funding, and help facilitate the distribution of homeless services throughout Greater St. Louis.



- Create city legislation to enforce minimum standards of care and dignity within homeless shelters.



2. Do you understand how difficult a calling this is?

Do you mean to talk about how the NLEC imposes difficulties on the homeless? I understand how difficult the calling is, and it would be much easier if the NLEC worked to stop the cycle of pain rather than cause it to persist. If Rice wanted to stop the cycle of pain, he would provide marketable skills and an honest wage for 72 hours of weekly work. Or he would provide a diet conducive to good health and morale. How about providing washers and dryers to the homeless clientele so they can clean their clothes? Or secure storage lockers so the homeless wouldn't be forced to carry their worldly possessions with them everyday? The list goes on and on...



3. And are you willing to put your life into it? Larry has.

I don't understand what you are getting at. Hitler was willing to dedicate his life to the Nazi regime. This regime forced Jews into the Ghettos, fed them substandard food, and paid them nothing for their labor. In comparison, Rice has requested to put homeless into downtown ghettos, feeds them bologna and bread, and pays them nothing for their labor.



Now I'm not calling Larry Rice a Nazi. I'm merely drawing comparisons between Nazi practices and those of Rev. Rice and the NLEC.



3. Have you ever worked with the homeless?

Yes



See more here: http://larryricetruth.com

innov8ion wrote:^ Welcome to the forum, Vis! Congratulations on your broadcasting job. May I ask where you work and what your current position entails? If you're going to make a claim, it's best to back it up.

Hello,

I am a Broadcast Engineer. I work for a Christian television station.

I have worked my way up from production (NLEC) to engineering.

I attended collage after NLEC, 2 year degree and 2 more years (degree pending.) Plus trade certification's and all that.

To link my name "Vistronic" to my exact place of employment is not in my plans but if you email me I can tell you more if needed.

At NLEC I started as cameraman, to audioman , to editor, fieldcameraman, to director, to head of production, I also learned master control.

They gave me a great opportunity to learn from the ground up...

Was it hard... yes.

Do I have war stories? Yes.

Was it worth it... yes.



Like I say I am thankful for NLEC it helped turn my life in a good direction.

Vis.





I will address your other statements later, as right now a towerman is on the tower, and its my job to shut transmitters down I do this remotely.



Have a good day,

Vis.



BTW- I will check out the link you posted.

EDIT: I just checked it out you need to finish the about and training program page as they are blank. I will read the rest.

BTW#2- I suggest you stop using the word Nazi as its a saying that the first person to use the word Nazi loses the argument.

---ahhhhh I see someone used that term at NLEC that is rather unfortunate