urbanSTL

publiceye wrote:

There has to be something done about lucus park. As someone who is considering buying downtown, lucus park is a big factor that is holding me off form buying

Don't buy here. Find another neighborhood. Take it from someone who has lived in downtown St. Louis for 15 years (and loves it) and in downtowns in several other cities. You'll hate it. Promise.



There's a great "new construction" condo building on Clayton Road. Try there.



One of the great things about the region: there's something for everyone . . . within reach, too.

I was unaware Washington Ave existed 15 years ago...



Anyways, I already live downtown, and love it. Now I am just hesitant to buy because then i would be "stuck" with the little bad things that make such a huge impression (Lucus Park)



Buying a condo on clayton rd only to drive everywhere 'with in reach'... is the same thing as buying a house in the suburb, just more $$$ and no yard.

Arch City wrote:Hmm. This isn't about "guilt" or "innocence", TCS. We as a society need to take a serious look at the crisis of homelessness in this country. Most of the homeless are children.

The topic is "Lucas Park"--and I have never seen a homeless child in Lucas Park. Why would a child want to go to Lucas Park when the adults are sleeping on the playground equipment?



We're not complaining because they're homeless--we're complaining because they litter, use the park as a toilet, aggressively panhandle, break into cars, use loud vulgar language, use illegal drugs, and blame the rest of society while society provides many nearby programs to give them a hand. I overheard one homeless man, who looked like a crystal meth addict, brag about how he receives a Social Security check (probably for mental illness) monthly. I'm sure that drug dealers can't wait until the 1st of every month to get in on that Social Security money.

Arch City wrote:So if you get clucked upside the head by a homeless or mentally-ill person while downtown, remember you did nothing to help prevent it.

If you pay taxes, then you're doing something to help prevent it. Also, people with mental illnesses don't commit any more crimes than people without mental illnesses. What you're saying is a total slap in the face to people with mental illnesses.

Some of you won't like this, but the simple fact is that downtown needs to be an attractive neighborhood in order to draw the kind of people who can contribute to the tax base. There is TONS of unused land in this city and plenty of places to provide homeless services that won't cause hordes of homeless people to scare everyone out of downtown.



Some of you seem to think we are all morally obligated to be verbally assaulted by homeless people all day. Guess what? That doesn't attract a lot of the people who actually have the money and power to do good things in this town.



Personally, I like a little grit, but even I have my limits. Sure, there is a moral obligation to treat homeless people humanely, but there is also a very large benefit to the homeless population to have a city that can afford to take care of them.

Aviator, well said. I don't understand how some people disagree with this way of thinking. I drove around parts of North STL on Sunday. Endless blocks with NO houses left standing. Build your shelter there... Homeless don't harass people in Clayton or piss/crap in Shaw Park, why are they allowed in Lucas Park?

Does anyone remember City Hospital?



Back in the day the mentally and emotionally challenged people were INSTITUTIONALIZED.



That is how it was done by our governments not that long ago.



They were drugged, given shock treatments and lobotomies.



That is how the mentally challenged and troublesome folks used to be 'handled'



These days it is too expensive to take these actions and they are mostly ignored..



hence, the crazies on the streets.



off topic I know

JCity wrote:I drove around parts of North STL on Sunday. Endless blocks with NO houses left standing. Build your shelter there... Homeless don't harass people in Clayton or piss/crap in Shaw Park, why are they allowed in Lucas Park?

The panhandlers actually manipulate some Washington Ave. area tourists to give money. There used to be an NLEC in East St. Louis too, but it's no longer in existence.

citywatcher wrote:They were drugged, given shock treatments and lobotomies.



That is how the mentally challenged and troublesome folks used to be 'handled'



These days it is too expensive to take these actions and they are mostly ignored..

It's now illegal to force a mentally-ill person to take medication or undergo treatment (unless he's going to harm himself or others). Also, there have been drastic advancements in medicines for the mentally ill--so mental institutions are a thing of the past.

This thread is about Lucas Park. If you want to speak about general homeless issues in St. Louis, there is a thread for that. Thanks.

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:

Grover wrote:

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Trust me, I am ZERO percent to blame for their problems.

What would be great is if you were partly to thank for any solutions.

I have the solution. Except the whiners won't like it.

True 'nuff.

publiceye wrote:

There has to be something done about lucus park. As someone who is considering buying downtown, lucus park is a big factor that is holding me off form buying

Don't buy here. Find another neighborhood. Take it from someone who has lived in downtown St. Louis for 15 years (and loves it) and in downtowns in several other cities. You'll hate it. Promise.



There's a great "new construction" condo building on Clayton Road. Try there.



One of the great things about the region: there's something for everyone . . . within reach, too.

Wow. Well, I assume this was an attempt at a joke, rhetoric, playing devil's advocate, or possibly with you, some combination of all three. If not, I hope this doesn't reflect the attitude of your cohabiter, or anyone else in the mayoral administration.



In any case, I have lived, worked, and/or played, and otherwise proceeded about my life, with little regard for time of day, in and around the CBD's of most of the major cities of the U.S. I have done so for a good part of the last fifteen years or so. Most of these cities certainly had their share of homeless, and I have been solicited, accosted, and otherwise harassed in all of them, despite the fact that I have a somewhat, shall we say, imposing, physical presence. I state this simply to assure you that these situations no longer inspire fear or angst in me, if they ever did in my adult life, although I have empathy for those in which it does. So, having clarified my perspective, let me state categorically that in all of that time, I have never seen anything so close to another city's CBD, approaching the current situation in and around Lucas Park. Why?

publiceye wrote:

There has to be something done about lucus park. As someone who is considering buying downtown, lucus park is a big factor that is holding me off form buying

Don't buy here. Find another neighborhood. Take it from someone who has lived in downtown St. Louis for 15 years (and loves it) and in downtowns in several other cities. You'll hate it. Promise.



There's a great "new construction" condo building on Clayton Road. Try there.



One of the great things about the region: there's something for everyone . . . within reach, too.

So you're completely satisfied with the current state of Lucas Park? And anyone that doesn't share your views shouldn't move downtown?

Do you think some people look at moving downtown while maintaining suburban lifestyle expectations? Not necessarily defending publiceye but I've seen a few people make comments like "if they don't change this, I won't move there" or something to that effect. I agree WE as downtown residents can work on improving Lucas Park but at the same time there is "grit" (to quote someone else) of living in the city that one must be able to live with. I don't think one can expect perfection living downtown and that's part of what makes it attractive to some.

There has to be something done about lucus park. As someone who is considering buying downtown, lucus park is a big factor that is holding me off form buying

Perhaps the downtown community is better off without residents that come with that attitude because it doesn't sound as if they want to contribute to the solution. In order to CHANGE Lucas Park, people must actively contribute to that change. Once that change occurs, people must then actively contribute to the MAINTENANCE of the park. Waving your dollars and expecting something to be done because you're paying a high price to live downtown isn't reason enough to bring about a change at the park.

Why not? It has worked very successfully for Clayton. They wave their $$ and ensure that the ambience is maintained.

Fact is, if DT has to revive itself, it needs a HUGE infusion of capital and tax $$. If you take the issue of morality aside, ANYONE would have the same argument that what is heppening in Lucas Park is ILLEGAL and has a valid argument they would rather invest their money elsewhere.

That's absolutely true. And I don't think anyone is arguing with the fact that activities occurring in the park are illegal. It has taken "urban pioneers" with a vision to make the neighborhood attractive. If downtown needs a HUGE infusion of capital and tax $$, and it does, downtown needs people with $$ that ALSO have that vision and are willing to work towards that rather than expect that at the start. That's the difference between Clayton and downtown.

bsharmastl wrote:Why not? It has worked very successfully for Clayton. They wave their $$ and ensure that the ambience is maintained.

Fact is, if DT has to revive itself, it needs a HUGE infusion of capital and tax $$. If you take the issue of morality aside, ANYONE would have the same argument that what is heppening in Lucas Park is ILLEGAL and has a valid argument they would rather invest their money elsewhere.

I agree. Also, raising taxes is not necessary. St. Louis just needs to spend existing tax revenue in the right places (such as Lucas Park) instead of flushing it down the toilet.

Clayton is, at its best, a charming business district with a lot of extra curriculars.



It has a beautiful streetscape and some mildly interesting architecture in spots.



I would not like to see downtown St. Louos emulate Clayton.



And the reason that Clayton has no homeless presence is not because they've spent money to keep them out. The homeless remain downtown and in the city because it has the lion's share of the services. And because of that, it has more homeless population, which is another factor that a homeless individual will look for--presence of other homeless. Whenever you sleep on the street, it's best to do it in larger groups. That's a lot of the reason why there's usually a hub or two for the homeless in any metro. The congregation of people and services is the attraction.



So when Lucas Park is disbanded, its homeless scattered, where will be the next spot? What kind of friction will it cause with neighbors there?



Clearly, we need to think longer and harder about this than recommending outright displacement. When you only start enforcing laws because some wealthy people are offended at the sight of the homeless, that's an ethical problem as well, at least in my book.



I am not saying that the homeless should be allowed to colonize Lucas Park forever. I am merely saying that a better and more comprehensive strategy needs to be developed where the roots of homelessness are examined more thoroughly, where the homeless find opportunities to begin employment training or find temporary housing.

Matt Drops The H wrote:So when Lucas Park is disbanded, its homeless scattered, where will be the next spot? What kind of friction will it cause with neighbors there?

Lucas Park is not being disbanded. It is being improved.

Matt Drops The H wrote:Clearly, we need to think longer and harder about this than recommending outright displacement. When you only start enforcing laws because some wealthy people are offended at the sight of the homeless, that's an ethical problem as well, at least in my book.

Simply put, laws are meant to be enforced. Additionally, I fail to see the ethical issue in providing better care for the homeless and improving the park itself.

Matt Drops The H wrote:I am not saying that the homeless should be allowed to colonize Lucas Park forever. I am merely saying that a better and more comprehensive strategy needs to be developed where the roots of homelessness are examined more thoroughly, where the homeless find opportunities to begin employment training or find temporary housing.

And that is being worked by the city and various groups. However, some groups have proven to be more capable than others.

The truth is that we should always look to the roots of the homeless problem in any effort to end (reduce) homelessness. However, to put it bluntly, many (if not most of us) are not talking about ending homelessness: we are interested in reclaiming Lucas Park for people who will not throw trash everywhere, drink/use drugs, sleep on the benches, and take big ole steaming dumps under the playground equipment. Yes, we as a society should make an effort to help homeless people to get on their feet, but at the same time, why should we feel bad for forcing them out of our most prime real estate? If a bunch of homeless people took up residence in the Statue of Liberty's head, we would kick their asses out: that doesn't mean we have stopped trying to help them, it just means that a homeless camp is not the most desirable use of that space.

Matt Drops The H wrote:And the reason that Clayton has no homeless presence is not because they've spent money to keep them out.

Exactly. Someone in a city spends money to build a homeless shelter, and every hobo from surrounding cities will come. If Larry Rice relocated to Clayton, then Clayton would have the huge homeless problem.

I swear, I just got back from the central library and I overheard one homeless guy describing another. He said: "that guy has been at Larry Rice for 5 years, he gonna be there another 50." Pretty telling.

Arch City wrote:

Resurrectus wrote:If you pay taxes, then you're doing something to help prevent it.

But what are you doing besides paying your mandated taxes?

Enough is already being done for the homeless. NLEC is giving too much of the wrong kind of help and has become an enabler (similar to how welfare provides too much of the wrong kind of help).



Ever since the last neighborhood meeting, I have told several beggars about the new Horizon Club, but 100% of them said that they were already aware of it. We can't force anyone to receive help at any of the many helpful places because that's illegal.



Residents by Lucas Park also pay higher condo fees for cleanup in front of their buildings and because Lucas Park visitors sometimes use their private dumpsters as public dumpsters. Those extra trash pickups aren't free. People handing out food at Lucas Park need to take their trash with them because the trashcans at Lucas Park can't hold that much waste without overflowing. Adding even more trashcans to the park will also make the park look trashy.