PostDec 24, 2014#726
I hear what you're saying but does that mean in any way that the descendants of the Lucas family have a legitimate gripe? Oh, wait, I guess I mean Native Americans... Er... Maybe whatever living organism were inhabiting the area pre-human evolution... Not sure who that would be... Is there an evolutionary biologist who can weigh in?Aesir wrote: YOU moved in to THEIR neighborhood, not the other way around. YOU are the bad neighbors.
Dude, you are not even remotely close. I grew up in Wildwood, not Chesterfield. Get your facts straight. Jeeze...Aesir wrote: 1. Grow up in Chesterfield
2. One day decide you want to be "hip" and "urban"
3. Don't like dealing with the trash you see as below you, so get the city to do your dirty work and kick them out
4. Profit
- 8,155
Downtown should be a functioning neighborhood for everyone.... the issue as I see it is whether the homeless population is being well-served by having NLEC operate in the manner it has been. I think the answer is no and the challenge in the next 6 months is getting Rice, the city (and county), and other service providers to cooperate in a way that will best serve one of our most vulnerable populations.downtown2007 wrote:Just because someone was there first doesn’t mean they have exclusive rights on the neighborhood and can do whatever they want. Neighborhoods change as time passes.Aesir wrote: YOU moved in to THEIR neighborhood, not the other way around. YOU are the bad neighbors.
I think a well-managed emergency shelter operated by NLEC that serves 30-50 people and works to place their clients into comprehensive services could be quite productive. And a second shelter in the county and probably a third in Metro East as well. But their current business plan is pretty questionable not only with respect to how it impacts the surrounding neighborhood but with respect to how it serves their clients as well.
- 118
St. Patrick's Center is what Rice should emulate. Works to be a good neighbor and follows current best practices in homeless services. Salvation Army in Midtown is rapidly joining that model and Midtown doesn't seem to be any worse off for their presence and in fact actually might be benefiting from their investment.
Rice is following an outdated model that serves HIS (hint: not Jesus's) best interests. He doesn't have to go, he just has to get with the times in terms of service practices - AND -be held accountable for the impact his facility has on neighboring properties, like any other property owner should be. Just my 2 cents.
Rice is following an outdated model that serves HIS (hint: not Jesus's) best interests. He doesn't have to go, he just has to get with the times in terms of service practices - AND -be held accountable for the impact his facility has on neighboring properties, like any other property owner should be. Just my 2 cents.
This doesn't have to be so polarizing...
It is not whether you are for or against the homeless.
It is not whether you are for or against the NLEC.
It's not "Yuppies" vs. "Poverty"
It is not who got there first.
And it certainly has nothing to do with where you came from.
The fact is the current set-up is not working. Having the entire region's homeless services in one area is not the solution. It's not fair to the homeless, the city, the NLEC, or downtown and the residents/businesses that took a chance on it with their time and money.
The NLEC's track record shows it is not the solution. The overcrowding and lack of services keep the homeless there in a perpetual state of danger.
Turning a blind eye is not the solution.
There is a better approach out there and yesterday's decision is the first step in altering the current paradigm. It's never pretty but it had to be done. I also believe it was done fairly. The May closure date provides a reasonable time frame to find an alternative solution. It also leaves the door open for Larry to comply with his 32 bed permit and operate his emergency shelter in a safe manner.
I lived a block from the NLEC for 7 years and I don't have enough fingers and toes to count how many times I helped the victim of an overdose, broke up a fight, stopped a domestic violence incident, or helped children of the homeless left on the street. All at Larry's doorstep.
I knew very well that I was buying a home next to a homeless shelter in 2006 and I had no issue with it. It was OK for several years and I came to personally know many of the chronic homeless there. They were for all intents and purposes "good neighbors". One gentleman would even watch my dog whenever I went into a store. Around 09 something drastically changed. The area around the shelter became unmanageable. The violence, drug dealing, filth, lewd behavior, and constant harassment were out of control. The situation inside was even worse. The emergency services were running a perpetual loop to the shelter at night and my wife personally treated many of the victims at St. Mary's (which Rice ironically led a march on later) for anything from stab wounds to fractured skulls.
All of us can be a solution to the homeless problem by taking an active role. The region must also do a much better job. Less than 10% of the metro's population is located in the city, but the city provides 100% of the shelters and services. This must change immediately. Other municipalities can no longer turn a blind eye to their own homeless problem.
It is not whether you are for or against the homeless.
It is not whether you are for or against the NLEC.
It's not "Yuppies" vs. "Poverty"
It is not who got there first.
And it certainly has nothing to do with where you came from.
The fact is the current set-up is not working. Having the entire region's homeless services in one area is not the solution. It's not fair to the homeless, the city, the NLEC, or downtown and the residents/businesses that took a chance on it with their time and money.
The NLEC's track record shows it is not the solution. The overcrowding and lack of services keep the homeless there in a perpetual state of danger.
Turning a blind eye is not the solution.
There is a better approach out there and yesterday's decision is the first step in altering the current paradigm. It's never pretty but it had to be done. I also believe it was done fairly. The May closure date provides a reasonable time frame to find an alternative solution. It also leaves the door open for Larry to comply with his 32 bed permit and operate his emergency shelter in a safe manner.
I lived a block from the NLEC for 7 years and I don't have enough fingers and toes to count how many times I helped the victim of an overdose, broke up a fight, stopped a domestic violence incident, or helped children of the homeless left on the street. All at Larry's doorstep.
I knew very well that I was buying a home next to a homeless shelter in 2006 and I had no issue with it. It was OK for several years and I came to personally know many of the chronic homeless there. They were for all intents and purposes "good neighbors". One gentleman would even watch my dog whenever I went into a store. Around 09 something drastically changed. The area around the shelter became unmanageable. The violence, drug dealing, filth, lewd behavior, and constant harassment were out of control. The situation inside was even worse. The emergency services were running a perpetual loop to the shelter at night and my wife personally treated many of the victims at St. Mary's (which Rice ironically led a march on later) for anything from stab wounds to fractured skulls.
All of us can be a solution to the homeless problem by taking an active role. The region must also do a much better job. Less than 10% of the metro's population is located in the city, but the city provides 100% of the shelters and services. This must change immediately. Other municipalities can no longer turn a blind eye to their own homeless problem.
It's unfathomable to me that anyone is against this. As if literally providing a roof is the right and best way to help the homeless. It's not. It hasn't been. It's only gotten worse.
It'd be nice if the alternative could be ready immediately, but unfortunately, that's not how things works. There have been years and years for an alternative to emerge, but as long as the NLEC was there, none did. Now it will have to. And EVERYONE will be better off for it.
It'd be nice if the alternative could be ready immediately, but unfortunately, that's not how things works. There have been years and years for an alternative to emerge, but as long as the NLEC was there, none did. Now it will have to. And EVERYONE will be better off for it.
I think if Larry's was closed tomorrow you'd see 5 - 10 major development announcements within 6 weeks.
These homeless people need more than just a roof over their head and to be kicked out during the day. When they get kicked out, they fight, kill each other, urinate publicly, hang around by the newly renovated library and harass people who want to use it, etc. Not all of them are bad people, but a good percentage make the area a dangerous place to live. Just because you are "there first" doesn't give you a right to harass your neighbors.
The bottom line is that this city needs to figure out how to move forward, and not let one or two egos hold up massive projects that would generate more revenues for the city as a whole--the end result of which being that they actually have the income to tackle problems like homelessness, blight, and crime. Larry Rice's center makes an entire segment of what should be functional real estate undevelopable. That doesn't mean these people shouldn't have shelter and services available to them. They should--it should just be the kind of service that doesn't pose a threat to the surrounding neighborhood, be it downtown or anywhere else.
People really just need to get over their self-righteousness so that this city can move forward as a whole. Economic development and gentrification is good for everyone, because it generates the revenue to rebuild the city and pay for the kinds of services that improves peoples lives. Use the tax money to provide better public housing and better homeless services.
The bottom line is that money has to be coming in to pay the bills. If St. Louis can't figure out a way to turn blight into economic development, it will go the way of Detroit, and then nobody will get any money or services, and everyone will end up getting a haircut in bankruptcy.
The bottom line is that this city needs to figure out how to move forward, and not let one or two egos hold up massive projects that would generate more revenues for the city as a whole--the end result of which being that they actually have the income to tackle problems like homelessness, blight, and crime. Larry Rice's center makes an entire segment of what should be functional real estate undevelopable. That doesn't mean these people shouldn't have shelter and services available to them. They should--it should just be the kind of service that doesn't pose a threat to the surrounding neighborhood, be it downtown or anywhere else.
People really just need to get over their self-righteousness so that this city can move forward as a whole. Economic development and gentrification is good for everyone, because it generates the revenue to rebuild the city and pay for the kinds of services that improves peoples lives. Use the tax money to provide better public housing and better homeless services.
The bottom line is that money has to be coming in to pay the bills. If St. Louis can't figure out a way to turn blight into economic development, it will go the way of Detroit, and then nobody will get any money or services, and everyone will end up getting a haircut in bankruptcy.
This is exactly what I'm talking about when I mention self-righteousness.Aesir wrote:I trust the yuppies and whatnot will house the homeless now that they have forced out Rice because of their property values.
And yes, that is absolutely what this is about. You people place a higher value on pretty buildings and high property values than desperately homeless people having a warm place to not freeze and die at night.
Truly f***ing despicable.
High property values pay the bills. Bills allow the city to function instead of crumbling. More high property values means more money for safe neighborhoods, PROPER public housing and homeless shelters, and updated infrastructure.
Show me a city that thwarts development in areas that should be viable for high property values, and I'll show you a place that has shot itself in the foot and cannot afford to pay anyone or build anything that serves the public.
Interesting how this clash is making very, very strange bedfellows out of white county conservatives and the Ferguson progressive activist people. Who knew they could find common ground?
- 173
It's a socially legitimate way to support something that hurts a downtown they hate and fear. Coming out and saying you hate downtown and celebrating its failure, is just too strong a statement for most people. This allows them to do so, but not in so many words. It should remind us all, that St. Louis and many other American cities didn't fall, they were pushed in the post-war decades. Suburbs CAUSED urban decline in America and suburbanites are still trying to hold onto their ability to do so today.wustl_eng wrote:Interesting how this clash is making very, very strange bedfellows out of white county conservatives and the Ferguson progressive activist people. Who knew they could find common ground?
I still don't get why people fear and hate downtown and want it to fall. This puzzles me Even if you live in chesterfield a strong downtown would give you higher land value.MatthewHall wrote:It's a social legitimate way to support something that hurts a downtown they hate and fear. Coming out and saying you hate downtown and celebrate its failure, is just too strong a statement for most people. This allows them to do so, but not in so many words.wustl_eng wrote:Interesting how this clash is making very, very strange bedfellows out of white county conservatives and the Ferguson progressive activist people. Who knew they could find common ground?
Then open a better one.Rice's shelter sucks
But we all know that won't happen. Because this is about property values and making yuppies feel comfortable, not with providing people with beds.
Fact is, they go there when they don't have anywhere else. Fact is, you're taking that away.
Maybe if all you people screaming about how you care so much about the homeless that you want to clear them out actually built something, a better solution, people wouldn't think you are so duplicitous. But that never happens.
When development pushes north on Tucker, how long before the cries to shut down, or at least relocate St. Patrick's? Give it 10 years, and I think a lot of people will be surprised.
- 2,093
^Actually a lot of people on this forum have suggested alternatives to hoarding 300 people a night into a shelter meant to hold 32.
Somebody mentioned rehabbing the Spivey Building in downtown East St. Louis. It would be accessible to downtown STL both via MetroLink and by foot on the Eads Bridge. You could also open up training centers there to help the homeless gain skills to be self sufficient.
Other ideas include opening smaller shelters around the region maybe in proximity to suburban retail centers where entry level jobs could help them get back on their feet.
You seem to be more interested in bashing "yuppies"--a term that's been around for 30 years and has become pretty much meaningless if you ask me.
Having employed young professionals living downtown is a good thing. Most of the downtown residents I've met are very comfortable associating with people all along the socio-economic scale. Many of the alternatives to Rice's shelter have been proposed by these "yuppies" you despise.
But I guess since they aren't cool with having hundreds of homeless pan handling, doing drugs, urinating, fighting, drunk and having sex outside their windows at all hours they are heartless and only concerned with their own bottom line.
Somebody mentioned rehabbing the Spivey Building in downtown East St. Louis. It would be accessible to downtown STL both via MetroLink and by foot on the Eads Bridge. You could also open up training centers there to help the homeless gain skills to be self sufficient.
Other ideas include opening smaller shelters around the region maybe in proximity to suburban retail centers where entry level jobs could help them get back on their feet.
You seem to be more interested in bashing "yuppies"--a term that's been around for 30 years and has become pretty much meaningless if you ask me.
Having employed young professionals living downtown is a good thing. Most of the downtown residents I've met are very comfortable associating with people all along the socio-economic scale. Many of the alternatives to Rice's shelter have been proposed by these "yuppies" you despise.
But I guess since they aren't cool with having hundreds of homeless pan handling, doing drugs, urinating, fighting, drunk and having sex outside their windows at all hours they are heartless and only concerned with their own bottom line.
I have to assume you do not live downtown to make all those statements. I lived exactly one block from St. Patricks and that was and still is our primary charity that we donate to. If i wanted them to fail I would not be giving them money.Aesir wrote:
But we all know that won't happen. Because this is about property values and making yuppies feel comfortable, not with providing people with beds.
When development pushes north on Tucker, how long before the cries to shut down, or at least relocate St. Patrick's? Give it 10 years, and I think a lot of people will be surprised.
Now... when we walked 4/5 blocks to either Lucas Park or the Public Library, it was pretty much scary sometimes. We had to stop going to the library because of all the people smoking/drinking and worse of all verbally shouting out at us as we tried to walk in. What should be one of our crown jewels (Central library) we could not visit anymore.
You can not have this type of shelter in an area that is still trying to GROW. You have little kids at the play ground and I know my wife never would go with out me because yes... she felt uncomfortable there by herself, with good reason.
Math Hall, you are TOTALLY correct. This is a way for city bashing, downtown hating county "Christians" to have the best of both worlds. Feed their pseudo Christian Jesus teachings and at the same time they know this throws a monkey wrench into downtowns further development, which would raise all boats, more development, more jobs, etc.
everyone on here wants the homeless to have a safe place to stay with good resources and training programs. Places that actually provide a way OUT of homelessness. NLEC does not offer these services and only perhaps pretends to offer them. People are getting raped and murdered in this shelter. This is not a shelter but a poverty pawn palace for Larry Rice who exploits these people for his own personal gain; a flop house for people that don't want to be a part of a rehab program. Look at any evangelical tv personality, but add a cheap toupee for Larry.
Again, turn the Spivey or the vacant building, well anywhere, that is newly updated, up to code with compliant systems like fire sprinklers, air-conditioning, etc. get rid of Larry the poverty pimp.
Again, this shelter isn't even compliant with all the codes of all city shelters. So, for those that are such NLEC defenders, do you think that should be ok?
everyone on here wants the homeless to have a safe place to stay with good resources and training programs. Places that actually provide a way OUT of homelessness. NLEC does not offer these services and only perhaps pretends to offer them. People are getting raped and murdered in this shelter. This is not a shelter but a poverty pawn palace for Larry Rice who exploits these people for his own personal gain; a flop house for people that don't want to be a part of a rehab program. Look at any evangelical tv personality, but add a cheap toupee for Larry.
Again, turn the Spivey or the vacant building, well anywhere, that is newly updated, up to code with compliant systems like fire sprinklers, air-conditioning, etc. get rid of Larry the poverty pimp.
Again, this shelter isn't even compliant with all the codes of all city shelters. So, for those that are such NLEC defenders, do you think that should be ok?
Anyone who still believes in Larry Rice should watch a couple of hours worth of programming on his American Renewable Energy TV station (24.2). From the 1970s Audio/Video Club vibe to the Deer-Stuck-In-The-Headlights interviews; from the backyard Tilapia fish farming to the guys creating perpetual-motion in their garage, this guy is completely clueless. And he's proven over and over again that he's just as ineffective at helping the homeless.
I haven't read this thread in a couple days...wow. At least from my perspective, my comment about the alternative to Rice was more literal. Rice is a scape goat for the city. He bears the brunt of a problem that the city would have to dedicate resources to regardless.
I'm also surprised no one said move the shelter to one of the desolate areas of North City? See, but I sound like a NIMBY saying it. I'm just pointing out the issue is sticky.
Fwiw, hipsters and yuppies are cool by me. The homeless are cool, too. They do need to get the hell out of the way of progress for our downtown.
I'm also surprised no one said move the shelter to one of the desolate areas of North City? See, but I sound like a NIMBY saying it. I'm just pointing out the issue is sticky.
Fwiw, hipsters and yuppies are cool by me. The homeless are cool, too. They do need to get the hell out of the way of progress for our downtown.
I really do think we need to see what the city itself comes up to fill the void here. Again, the city has had a homeless strategy that other cities have sought to emulate. It's a relatively successful program.
Shouldn't we give the people with a positive track record a chance before we just assume this is 300 new people on the streets that will have no help?
Shouldn't we give the people with a positive track record a chance before we just assume this is 300 new people on the streets that will have no help?
I just had a great idea. I'm pretty sure the quadrant between Washington, Tucker, 18th, and Chestnut is already covered by a TIF. But we can create an overlapping TIF right now. Set all the property values as they are today as the baseline. Then destroy Larry Rice's shelter and TIF up the increased tax revenues that roll in from this 30-block area and channel it straight into building a new homeless shelter in a neighborhood that isn't expected to be a prime real estate area. The guy is a huge egomaniac, so call it the Larry Rice TIF. With all the development this will spur, you could build a palace for all the homeless Reverend Larry houses right now--especially in comparison to that crap hole he stores them in right now.
Bottom line is that his shelter brings this entire quadrant down. It makes the newly renovated gem of a library basically unusable. And it serves mostly as a monument to Larry Rice's ego. And you're helping the homeless, and helping downtown all at the same time, so you can't be accused by the self-righteous brigade of being insensitive.
Bottom line is that his shelter brings this entire quadrant down. It makes the newly renovated gem of a library basically unusable. And it serves mostly as a monument to Larry Rice's ego. And you're helping the homeless, and helping downtown all at the same time, so you can't be accused by the self-righteous brigade of being insensitive.
I'm glad there has been talk about the homeless problem for 2015 with alternate solutions, hope it happens sooner than later. I was in the central library Sunday and it was almost scary. The lobby had 2 armed guards keeping an eye on about 50 presumably homeless people just loitering, the other room had a guard, and all the clerks seemed on edge. Wasn't a welcoming experience.
Funny, but I've never felt uncomfortable at the Central Library. Maybe I've just got good timing (or maybe the homeless avoid the Art & Architecture room).
I've felt uncomfortable, but maybe in the more literal sense. I don't trust the cleanliness of the chairs. The smells aren't good. The bathrooms aren't great.framer wrote:Funny, but I've never felt uncomfortable at the Central Library. Maybe I've just got good timing (or maybe the homeless avoid the Art & Architecture room).
Outside I feel uncomfortable more in the nervous sense. Whether it's being asked for money or being unsure about your safety, the large gathering of homeless isn't great.
The library is fantastic, and everyone is welcome. But it's not supposed to be a daytime shelter.
^Wouldn't a simple solution to the "daytime shelter" problem be to limit the library to city residents. 80% of the people utilizing the NLEC are not from the city.
City residents should not be uncomfortable in a library they're paying for.
I don't feel uncomfortable around the homeless. Never have, even the ones with serious mental issues (except the guy that threatened me with a knife in Larry's parking lot). However most people do, especially when the panhandling gets aggressive. The Central Library is a jewel and the city should be taking steps to protect and promote it.
City residents should not be uncomfortable in a library they're paying for.
I don't feel uncomfortable around the homeless. Never have, even the ones with serious mental issues (except the guy that threatened me with a knife in Larry's parking lot). However most people do, especially when the panhandling gets aggressive. The Central Library is a jewel and the city should be taking steps to protect and promote it.
First of all, not just City residents use the library; County residents are allowed to hold library cards for SLPS. Also, people from outside St. Louis visit Central Library, because as you said, it is a jewel and attracts visitors. I don't think banning people from outside the City is the right solution.