urbanSTL

jstriebel wrote:Does it offer an immediate service that is better than the immediate alternative for some people? Undoubtedly.

Does that mean it is good? Debatable.

Does that mean we can't and shouldn't do much better? Absolutely not. We should and we must.

The NLEC must go. And then we—as a region—must replace it with better options.

We—as a region—are generally very good at following through on the "NLEC must go" part and then throwing up our hands when it comes to "better options."

If we can commit to "better options" first, then I'm okay with seeing it go, as I'm sure all the people relying on it would. But not before.

"I think all too often, based on the posts in this thread, people don't actually care about the reality that hundreds of homeless people rely on the New Life Evangelistic Center as a lifeline, they just want the shelter with all its icky homeless people away from their downtown lofts and coffee shops ASAP. The people relying on this shelter and its services deserve a say, too. I'm glad the author of this piece is giving voice to them."

I apologize for my crassness, but that is complete bleeding heart BS. The NLEC is a HUGE problem, not just for residents, not just for businesses, not just for visitors, not just for Downtown as a whole, the most affected group is the homeless that Larry puts in a constant state of danger through his archaic, unsafe practices.

This argument is so wrong it is maddening. Until you experience it you can't truly appreciate what a mess the NLEC is. Hiding behind the assumption that a homeless shelter, religion, or "pastor" is inherently good is ignorant. Assuming that DT residents are bad for caring about the state of their community, their NEIGHBORHOOD, is even more ignorant. The NLEC is a nuisance and a danger to everyone. That is not an opinion. That is a documented fact. It is unconscionable that the city has allowed it to exist in this state for as long as it has.

Mound City wrote:

jstriebel wrote:Does it offer an immediate service that is better than the immediate alternative for some people? Undoubtedly.

Does that mean it is good? Debatable.

Does that mean we can't and shouldn't do much better? Absolutely not. We should and we must.

The NLEC must go. And then we—as a region—must replace it with better options.

We—as a region—are generally very good at following through on the "NLEC must go" part and then throwing up our hands when it comes to "better options."

If we can commit to "better options" first, then I'm okay with seeing it go, as I'm sure all the people relying on it would. But not before.

Actually, it seems like in this case we've been very good at doing nothing because "the NLEC seems like it helps some people."

I very well could be ignorant because I only interact with one homeless shelter (St. Pats - which is pretty restrictive in the type of people they allow in).

What services are being offered by NLEC that aren't anywhere else? (Family shelter? I know NLEC lets moms with sons stay where most shelters don't allow that once the boy reaches a certain age)
What has to be offered to make up for NLEC if NLEC is gone? I am genuinely asking this.

Presbyterian wrote:I can see a lot of sides to this issue.

The shelter is clearly in violation of city ordinances. Other approaches to care have a better track record at moving people permanently out of homelessness. And concentrating our most vulnerable citizens -- many with significant mental health issues -- in one neighborhood causes a lot of problems.

At the same time, a social worker I know in St. Charles told me that New Life is the only emergency shelter in the St. Louis region that will take anyone -- men, women and children. There are people who will face hardship without providing an alternative.

I've also been told that Chris Rice (the son) would love to move toward having multiple small shelters throughout the region instead of one big one downtown... but that it would require funding that regional governments have not been willing to devote toward the problem.

I think there is a solution that covers all concerns. It just requires that the other 11 counties and 150 or so municipalities in the region pay their share instead of driving and dumping their homeless people on Locust Street.

You are spot on.

Go Fund Me to shut down the NLEC

Apparently the City of St. Louis is considering allowing the New Life Evangelistic Center to waive the “plat and petition” process in the evaluating their request for a new permit to operate their facility in Downtown. The “plat and petition” process allows the neighboring community to weigh on the permit and requires the applicant prove to the community that they can be a good neighbor prior to the permit being approved. The Mayor is planning on making a decision on allowing this waiver by Thursday of this week.

My understanding is that the Board of Directors of the downtown Community Improvement District has voted to oppose the waiver.

Apparently the NLEC just had their permit denied again.

So what happens now?

They will have to apply for a permit and go through the process. Will be tough to do since they have not been on good terms with the neighborhood.

At what point will they finally have to vacate the building?

A proposed alternative for them time being until they come up with a better plan.

^I think he means it's an alternative TO NLEC, not FOR NLEC. But I could be entirely wrong.

jstriebel wrote:^I think he means it's an alternative TO NLEC, not FOR NLEC. But I could be entirely wrong.

Yes. Alternative.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... ice-s.html

Dose any one know when NLEC would actually close?

Not soon enough.

I would imagine they are waiting for the city to get their shelter up and running before shutting down Rice.

Update on the downtown residents association dealings with 7Eleven and NLEC.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... -on-7.html

Summary
Residents to 7Eleven - "clean up your chit, add security, and stop catering to drunks"
7Eleven to residents - "I've added security from 3pm on, I've added lighting, I've removed my stoop but now I feel like I'm being unfairly targeted. I can't control who comes in my store. I am the only place open after 6pm"

Residents to NLEC - "Here is a letter of all the ways you're a nuisance. We've tried to reason with you. You have 60 days to comply or we're suing you"
NLEC to Residents - "Stop intimidating us. We cannot control our patrons. We cannot control the streets. We have no control"

dweebe wrote:

moorlander wrote:Summary
Residents to 7Eleven - "clean up your chit, add security, and stop catering to drunks"
7Eleven to residents - "I've added security from 3pm on, I've added lighting, I've removed my stoop but now I feel like I'm being unfairly targeted. I can't control who comes in my store. I am the only place open after 6pm"

I'm not sure what else 7-11 can do besides going completely dry. They stopped selling the 24oz cans years ago.

They can stop people from loitering. They have no loitering signs and a security guard. Yet there are always people loitering. They need to enforce that and tell people caught loitering there more than once or twice, not to return and charge those that continually loiter with trespassing.

What stoop was removed? Those steps just south of the entrance, along Pine are always full of people and overpowering urine smells.

It's a rare day when there aren't any weirdos standing around outside (on 7-11 property). It most definitely is a nuisance.

Don't they still sell pints of hard liquor there, as well?