lucas park

stldtfan · PostNov 03, 2007#1512007-11-03T16:44+00:00

11/3. Around 9am (as I am walking down Washington, near 14th)

Me : {Oblivious to everything, walking to coffee shop}

Bum : Excuse me sir..... God Bless you

Me : Uh... God Bless you too {jarred back to reality, trying to focus}

Bum : Can I shake your hand?

Me : Um..... huh? {still reeling from last night}

Bum : My mom died yesterday in that fire in Compton

Me : Huh? {Trying to comprehend}... sorry to hear that

Bum : Can you spare some change man?

Me : {Shake my head and keep on walking}

I have started seeing a regular pattern of bums hanging around that area (no surprise) waiting for anyone to walk by and asking for money.

Lucas park rehab might reduce some of these "hangouts". Oh... and please note this was a "physically healthy" individual who chose to tell me his "mother" died in a fire last night and "then" asking me for change. Sorry.... no sympathies for these guys.

resurrectus · PostNov 03, 2007#1522007-11-03T18:11+00:00

Juice13610 wrote:^^ Homeless advocate, not a homeless person, I think.

The homeless don't need special treatment or representation. If a homeless dog owner wants to walk his dog in the future dog park, then he should follow the same rules that apply to the general population.

There are many parks in the area, besides Lucas Park, that the homeless can trash.

bsharmastl wrote:Bum : Can I shake your hand?

You didn't shake that hand...did you?

The other day I was walking by the library and a hobo from across the street yelled, "Excuse me sir, come over here!" as though I was going to go out of my way to cross the street and approach him so that he could beg me for free money.

matt drops the h · PostNov 03, 2007#1532007-11-03T18:27+00:00

Your map was almost helpful. Alas, the Park Pacific Development is claiming the park you have indicated.

stldtfan · PostNov 04, 2007#1542007-11-04T13:52+00:00

That map is hilarious (but may come true).

Can Park PAcific truly "claim" that park? If so, my guess is it was private to begin with.

bastiat · PostNov 04, 2007#1552007-11-04T16:19+00:00

A map of Denver or San Francisco's park system would be even better.

juiceinkirkwood · PostNov 04, 2007#1562007-11-04T16:40+00:00

Resurrectus wrote:
Juice13610 wrote:^^ Homeless advocate, not a homeless person, I think.
The homeless don't need special treatment or representation. If a homeless dog owner wants to walk his dog in the future dog park, then he should follow the same rules that apply to the general population.

There are many parks in the area, besides Lucas Park, that the homeless can trash.

bsharmastl wrote:Bum : Can I shake your hand?
You didn't shake that hand...did you?

The other day I was walking by the library and a hobo from across the street yelled, "Excuse me sir, come over here!" as though I was going to go out of my way to cross the street and approach him so that he could beg me for free money.

It's not my group.

jlblues · PostNov 04, 2007#1572007-11-04T18:23+00:00

Somebody in a white van pulled up next to Lucas Park - I think it might have even been sitting on the sidewalk - and was handing out food last night around 7. A large crowd was gathered around the van, of course, so I couldn't see where it was from (if the name was even on the van). The detritus of the meal was apparent around the van and in the park, of course it is difficult to tell what trash came from where. Apparently the city's attempts to discourage this practice have been ineffective.

publiceye · PostNov 04, 2007#1582007-11-04T19:05+00:00

Apparently the city's attempts to discourage this practice have been ineffective.

The City and its partner groups provide alternative services for homeless people who gather in Lucas Park, enforce the health code, speak directly to the sponsoring churches asking to direct their charitable efforts elsewhere, clear the park daily for cleaning, patrol the park often with both police officers and CID guides, work with the neighborhood group to find alternative uses for the park, post and enforce a curfew, work with other municipalities and the county to provide their own homeless services, and they are installing cameras.

Next time, try to get the name on the van, a description of the people passing out the food, and a license plate. A couple thousand 24/7 neighbor eyes are better security than a single patrol shift.

PS Did you pick up any of the trash? (There are plenty of neighborhoods in the City where residents would probably have.)

jlblues · PostNov 04, 2007#1592007-11-04T19:34+00:00

publiceye wrote:
Apparently the city's attempts to discourage this practice have been ineffective.

The City and its partner groups provide alternative services for homeless people who gather in Lucas Park, enforce the health code, speak directly to the sponsoring churches asking to direct their charitable efforts elsewhere, clear the park daily for cleaning, patrol the park often with both police officers and CID guides, work with the neighborhood group to find alternative uses for the park, post and enforce a curfew, work with other municipalities and the county to provide their own homeless services, and they are installing cameras.

So then, we apparently agree.

publiceye wrote:Did you get the name on the van, a description of the people passing out the food, or a license plate? Did you pick up any of the trash? (There are plenty of neighborhoods in the City where residents would probably have done both.)

No, and that is my bad. But, as I said, the feeding frenzy was still in progress when I was driving by looking for a place to park, and I probably would have had to physically force my way into the mass of unwashed bodies to get (do) any of the above. Besides, I feel very confident that any complaint, even with said information, would, a) fall on deaf ears because I am not a downtown resident; and 2) fall on deaf ears period.

BTW, if it really is as simple as a resident complaining and noting the license plate number and organization of said van, then how difficult would it be for the city, police department, some downtown org, or some combination thereof, to provide some type of periodic presence to do the same? Are the police or any city employees prevented from noting and passing this information along? Obviously, it isn't difficult to figure out what time the park resident feedings occur...

publiceye · PostNov 04, 2007#1602007-11-04T20:19+00:00

I do not believe that there is a predictable feeding schedule, that this involves only a few churches or individuals, or that watching for irregular feedings is a particularly productive use of police or park staffing.

I much prefer the vans that feed people to the vans that dump people.

I am a downtown resident.

resurrectus · PostNov 04, 2007#1612007-11-04T20:37+00:00

publiceye wrote:I much prefer the vans that feed people to the vans that dump people.

Dropping off food is like dropping off bums. It's like dropping candy on the floor and then having an army of ants to deal with.

the central scrutinizer · PostNov 04, 2007#1622007-11-04T22:10+00:00

jlblues wrote:Somebody in a white van pulled up next to Lucas Park - I think it might have even been sitting on the sidewalk - and was handing out food last night around 7. A large crowd was gathered around the van, of course, so I couldn't see where it was from (if the name was even on the van). The detritus of the meal was apparent around the van and in the park, of course it is difficult to tell what trash came from where. Apparently the city's attempts to discourage this practice have been ineffective.

You called 911, right?

dutchtowner · PostNov 05, 2007#1632007-11-05T15:13+00:00

A dog park for the bobos would be wasting Lucas Park, its history and its potential. Fix the park up for people, and send the dogs to an unremarkable stretch of the mall, if they have to be accomodated at all.

the central scrutinizer · PostNov 05, 2007#1642007-11-05T15:24+00:00

dutchtowner wrote:A dog park for the bobos would be wasting Lucas Park, its history and its potential. Fix the park up for people, and send the dogs to an unremarkable stretch of the mall, if they have to be accomodated at all.

While a dog park may not be the highest and best use of that block, it does get the trash out of the park.

MattnSTL · PostNov 05, 2007#1652007-11-05T15:30+00:00

I would agree that a dog park is not a good use for this area. I would like to see the park restored to it's original appearance. This park should be for people, not dogs. A dog park can go anywhere, but this is one of the best spaces around for a park, as it was originally designed to be. With Skyhouse going up and the possible library addition, the surrounding views will only get better.

juiceinkirkwood · PostNov 05, 2007#1662007-11-05T15:30+00:00

Anything but a homeless park.

arch city · PostNov 05, 2007#1672007-11-05T15:36+00:00

Yeah, dogs should be able to displace humans that are down on their luck and have no place to go.

I wonder what are advocates of this dog park doing to help the homeless/mentally-ill population of downtown?

matt drops the h · PostNov 05, 2007#1682007-11-05T15:39+00:00

^

It's not about helping, silly, it's about shifting problems to another part of downtown. Or ideally, another part of the metro. The concern is civic, not humanistic.

arch city · PostNov 05, 2007#1692007-11-05T16:00+00:00

^LOL!

the central scrutinizer · PostNov 05, 2007#1702007-11-05T16:01+00:00

Arch City wrote:Yeah, dogs should be able to displace humans that are down on their luck and have no place to go.

Dogs have owners. It's for them too.

Arch City wrote:I wonder what are advocates of this dog park doing to help the homeless/mentally-ill population of downtown?

Personally? Nothing.

(although I do donate money to mentally ill people, but none of them live downtown.)

arch city · PostNov 05, 2007#1712007-11-05T16:19+00:00

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
Dogs have owners. It's for them too.

With that argument, one could say the park is for the homeless too. After all, they were there before the pooping dogs who owners probably don't clean up after. Dog owners just need share the park as it is for ALL citizens. They need to accept this fact until the homeless problem is addressed and mitigated by the city.

Arch City wrote:I wonder what are advocates of this dog park doing to help the homeless/mentally-ill population of downtown?

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
Personally? Nothing.

Figures.

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
(although I do donate money to mentally ill people, but none of them live downtown.)

Oh well, maybe you should donate to Larry Rice's shelter. That way you'd know a cornucopia of them who live downtown.

the central scrutinizer · PostNov 05, 2007#1722007-11-05T16:29+00:00

Arch City wrote:
The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
Dogs have owners. It's for them too.
With that argument, one could say the park is for the homeless too. After all, they were there before the pooping dogs who owners probably don't clean up after. Dog owners just need share the park as it is for ALL citizens. They need to accept this fact until the homeless problem is addressed and mitigated by the city.

I would say the park is for the taxpayers who support it.

Arch City wrote:
The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
(although I do donate money to mentally ill people, but none of them live downtown.)

Oh well, maybe you should donate to Larry Rice's shelter. That way you'd know a cornucopia of them who live downtown.

You're assuming they are mentally ill. Most are not.

stldtfan · PostNov 05, 2007#1732007-11-05T16:39+00:00

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
(although I do donate money to mentally ill people, but none of them live downtown.)

Yeah..... I help my relatives time after time too

PostNov 05, 2007#1742007-11-05T16:49+00:00

The one thing about the park that we need to note (and is the crux of the problem) is that the current "inhabitants" are breaking every established rule and ordinance that exists for that real estate.

There are plenty of arguments to be made about a "compassionate society", about "moral responsibility", but in any legally binding ruling, both of those arguments are null and void.

The homeless have a right to use the park as does anyone else. They do NOT have a right to break laws and deface/litter as they please. They have no right to say "we are downtrodden and you cannot touch us", nor has Larry Rice a right to use the Park as "he" pleases.

matt drops the h · PostNov 05, 2007#1752007-11-05T16:58+00:00

Many of these laws and ordinances were created nearly specifically for the purpose of prosecuting/removing the homeless. In that light, we may not be able to hold up existing law and call it just as we remove people who have no where to go from the only place it's safe to sleep at night (in numbers).

lucas park

Choose Display Mode