urbanSTL

Resurrectus wrote: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.

You are assuming that Lucas Park residents actually use the trashcans. From what I have seen, it is the park that seems to be overflowing with trash, while the trashcans sit empty.

jlblues wrote:

Resurrectus wrote: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.

You are assuming that Lucas Park residents actually use the trashcans. From what I have seen, it is the park that seems to be overflowing with trash, while the trashcans sit empty.

On Sunday mornings, the trashcans in Lucas Park are often overflowing, while there is still trash on the ground.



If McDonald's can post a sign like this, then maybe Lucas Park can too. It could state, "30 MINUTE TIME LIMIT FOR PARK VISITORS."







Dumpsters around Lucas Park could use signs like this:

Homelessness itself is more or less illegal. If one is not allowed to sleep on a sidewalk, in a park, or in an abandoned building, that effectively renders all the homeless lawbreakers.



The "Well, it's the law" mantra doesn't float by with me. Clearly the law is only enforced whenever stakeholders that define themselves in opposition to or held back by the homeless enter the arena.

Resurrectus wrote:

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 can bet it will not. They (Claytonites ) have the <b>political</b> will to keep idiots out. When you have a majority of educated and rich people in a certain "municipality", the politicos know what they can get away with and what they cannot with their constituents.

Matt Drops The H wrote:Homelessness itself is more or less illegal. If one is not allowed to sleep on a sidewalk, in a park, or in an abandoned building, that effectively renders all the homeless lawbreakers.



The "Well, it's the law" mantra doesn't float by with me. Clearly the law is only enforced whenever stakeholders that define themselves in opposition to or held back by the homeless enter the arena.

Well, since you're clearly "holier than thou"--then please state where your home is so that the homeless can be directed to your area. Problem solved!

Resurrectus wrote:

Matt Drops The H wrote:Homelessness itself is more or less illegal. If one is not allowed to sleep on a sidewalk, in a park, or in an abandoned building, that effectively renders all the homeless lawbreakers.



The "Well, it's the law" mantra doesn't float by with me. Clearly the law is only enforced whenever stakeholders that define themselves in opposition to or held back by the homeless enter the arena.

Well, since you're clearly "holier than thou"--then please state where your home is so that the homeless can be directed to your area. Problem solved!

The problem is the concentration of homeless people in one area. I can accept homeless people in my neighborhood - in fact there's a women's shelter just a couple buildings down and I don't have a problem with it at all. I would have a problem with the equivalent of 10 of them on my street though!

Matt Drops The H wrote:Homelessness itself is more or less illegal. If one is not allowed to sleep on a sidewalk, in a park, or in an abandoned building, that effectively renders all the homeless lawbreakers.



The "Well, it's the law" mantra doesn't float by with me. Clearly the law is only enforced whenever stakeholders that define themselves in opposition to or held back by the homeless enter the arena.

That actually is a VERY good point. A human body has to have "some" place to rest. In that regard, do churches offer anyone to sleep in their parking lots, etc? I know that the city provides certain shelters in the winter months, but is there a reason that the homeless "have" to congregate near Larry's park (not a typo).

The solution may be to remove the attraction of the park for the homeless (Rice) and providing a real shelter somewhere.... one that would actually try to solve the problem, rather than enhance it for their own gain.

bsharmastl wrote:

Resurrectus wrote:

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 can bet it will not. They (Claytonites ) have the <b>political</b> will to keep idiots out. When you have a majority of educated and rich people in a certain "municipality", the politicos know what they can get away with and what they cannot with their constituents.

You're right. The huge county jail that can house the homeless is located in Clayton too. How do we lure those educated Claytonites downtown? St. Louis has problems because the stupid are the majority.

^ Maybe I'm not understanding what Matt wrote, but why is he being criticized for not housing homeless people?

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'm SO DOWN, because I can "deal" with the homeless of downtown, or the aggressive panhandlers...

MY GOAL -as it is for many- is to have downtown be the most vibrant place to live in St. Louis. Sure, there are panhandlers and homeless in ANY city, but they should NOT be the majority in Lucas Park. Kick them out! very simple. LOTS of vacant lots elsewhere for them to sleep, piss and sh*t outside all day.

Juice13610 wrote:^ because he's criticizing others for not housing them?

Wrong.



And to CS. I give you only this:



For the record, I live on the edge of the French Quarter. I live mere blocks away from Jackson Square, a de facto homeless encampment after hours. I am less than a mile from City Hall, where a village of the homeless now exceeds 150 in residents (one of the largest visible populations in the south).



I come into contact with the homeless quite regularly. Definitely daily.



While in St. Louis, I also had regular contact with the homeless. I volunteered briefly at Karen House, the mission for women and children in St. Louis Place. I am also known to give rides to the homeless in cold weather. I once drove a woman from Page and Compton to Page and Kingshighway, where she was attempting to walk to a liquor store in twenty-degree weather by herself. On several occasions, I bought food for homeless people while at Coffee Cartel. I also bought food for the homeless woman who hung out in front of my apartment on Manchester. She revealed that she was both pregnant and crack-addicted.



And this is nothing. The only reason I immaturely revealed my acts of kindness is in response to the rather unbelievable immaturity displayed by some of the previous posters. Why don't I house the homeless? Gee, did you ever think that a person who advocates for the homeless isn't necessarily qualified to house them?



That makes as much sense as my saying I think low income people should receive free healthcare, and you responding, I don't want to pay for their treatment, so you PAY...AND PERFORM THE PROCEDURES!!!



People that think complex social phenomena are the result "bad decisions" or acts by those who don't have good priorities have clearly and painfully missed the point.



In short, grow up and develop a cogent thought before you type.



Lastly, because I don't fear the homeless, they're welcome to sleep in the large median on Esplanade in front of my apartment. I'll put up a sign, if you wish.



(EDIT: Ironically, I blamed the wrong poster in mine. Sorry Resurrectus, I was referring to CS's comment)

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.

I saw three vans dumping food in Lucas Park this Sunday evening. There were two unmarked white vans and one van that was marked O'Fallon Christian Church.

This is such a depressing discussion to have. But, what are the chances "O'Fallon Christian Church" is coming by to make sure trash isn't littered everywhere after? Doubtful. They just drive back to O'Fallon feeling good about themselves despite the fact that they have inadvertantly contributed to a huge problem in the city. But what do they care? They don't have to actually deal with them. Drop off some food and head on back to suburbia.

Yay..... Rice has competition.



On a serious note, instead of feeding them, I wish they had loaded some of the homeless into the vans and taken to O'Fallon. Surely these "churches" can house them.



You feed a man fish, you feed him for a day. You teach the man to fish, you feed him for life.



Or....as Bush would say



You teach the man to feed, you fish him for a day. You um....er... feed a man to fish you er.... teach him to eat at the Supermarket.

Busch stadium? I would tend to agree, except make them neon purple instead of plain white. In all seriousness though, tasteful lighting in these parks could go a long way...or it might just make the homeless more visible from the street. I'm all for increasing the light anyway possible downtown. There's a reason why we get phrases like "the bright lights of the city."

I wonder how offended I would be if I were homeless and read some of these comments.



You could say the same thing about starving children in Africa: "Don't feed them. They'll only develop a dependency on you/the agency/the country!" While that may or may not be true, we do it because these are people--starving. As someone previously noted, some of these people are veterans who served the country. Some are mentally ill who should not be in charge of taking care of themselves.



These are not ducks in a park. These are people. Allowing the homeless to eat is not doing any harm. If not a single food-bearing individual or group shows up at Lucas Park ever again, it will still be the homeless hangout. The services are available in the area and it's a safe place to sleep. The only difference would be that they would have to rely on scraps rather than distributed food.



The way we refer to the homeless is shameful.

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Why are these parks so dark? I drove by tonight, and Lucas Park and the park blocks between the Ford and the Park Pacific are pitch black. Why? The city should light them up like Busch Stadium. Make it so bright that no bum can sleep there.

I second that.. great point

Matt Drops The H wrote:I wonder how offended I would be if I were homeless and read some of these comments.

The homeless at Lucas Park have free Internet access at the library. They're free to speak up on this message board.

Matt Drops The H wrote:You could say the same thing about starving children in Africa: "Don't feed them. They'll only develop a dependency on you/the agency/the country!" While that may or may not be true, we do it because these are people--starving.

That's a terrible analogy. You're comparing adults in the United States to children in a third-world country. Get real! You need to take a better look at some of the homeless in Lucas Park since many of them have problems with obesity.

Matt Drops The H wrote:Allowing the homeless to eat is not doing any harm.

Anonymous people dumping food that can spoil in the park is doing harm. At the last neighborhood meeting, they told us about cases of food poisoning in the park because the homeless were eating spoiled meat. The homeless had to be rushed to BJC Hospital for expensive emergency treatment. The caring people of St. Louis already created the Horizon Club so that the homeless can receive free food and assistance.

Matt Drops The H wrote:The way we refer to the homeless is shameful.

You are the one who should be ashamed of yourself. We're trying to improve St. Louis, but you're defending counterproductive actions such as dumping food in Lucas Park.

The homeless at Lucas Park have free Internet access at the library. They're free to speak up on this message board.

Do they? I've heard people say this but, don't you need a library card? To get that, don't you need something proving legal residence in the area? I'm not arguing for or against this, but I don't think they actually can use the library.

The analogy could quite easily be amended to say people in Africa, because we do not send food aid only to children. In that event, it's strikingly similar: people we'd rather not deal with, but feel their lack of access to food represents a humanitarian crisis.



And as far as my being the problem, I simply laugh at that. Look at your motives in order to judge your own actions. Are you moved by the complex problem of homelessness to act, or is it that you're wanting to rid of a nuisance that's a drag on property values?



Realize that shifting them somewhere else might help you, but it doesn't help the homeless, and it doesn't "help" the next round of stakeholders that will likewise rise to the cause of ridding of the homeless.



I laugh when I see reports that the U.S. is morally blind and the topics of discussion are gay marriage and abortion. This country has deep-rooted, systemic hatred of the poor and disadvantaged and is unwilling to examine how policy decisions (and the media's portrayal of them) shape the tyrannous minds of a well-off, middle class-run society.



Civic life has eroded and devolved into reactionary parochialism.



"I live downtown and YOU DON'T HOUSE THE HOMELESS yourself, so YOU can't comment."



"Feeding people who have no income is WRONG!"



Despicable and unconscionable. I am not a religious person in nature, but I do believe that America needs a collective soul-searching--and a much more informed, less partisan education.

I think that the management of feeding homeless in St Louis could be much smarter than it is now and with Larry Rice's influence. The homeless centers do not need to encourage so many homeless people occupying a few parks in the central business district. This is not necessary. These people can still be fed in a different way. Being against feeding the homeless in such a way that encourages their overwhelming dwelling at Lucas Park is not being anti-homeless or anti-feeding-of-the-homeless.

Matt Drops The H wrote:The analogy could quite easily be amended to say people in Africa, because we do not send food aid only to children. In that event, it's strikingly similar: people we'd rather not deal with, but feel their lack of access to food represents a humanitarian crisis.

I have never heard of any food crisis among the homeless population in St. Louis. Again, the issue is in regards to the means of feeding the homeless, not that they are fed.

Matt Drops The H wrote:Realize that shifting them somewhere else might help you, but it doesn't help the homeless, and it doesn't "help" the next round of stakeholders that will likewise rise to the cause of ridding of the homeless.

Since when does instituting plans to provide better care for the homeless not help the homeless? If I were homeless, I would be offended by people like MDTH who would rather keep me down.

stlmike wrote:

The homeless at Lucas Park have free Internet access at the library. They're free to speak up on this message board.

Do they? I've heard people say this but, don't you need a library card? To get that, don't you need something proving legal residence in the area? I'm not arguing for or against this, but I don't think they actually can use the library.

I am certain they can utilize Horizon as an address. Thus, they can obtain a library card and access the tubes for free.