urbanSTL

Matt,

I doubt anyone on this board would not "want" to solve the homeless problem. However, the issue is not with doing the humane thing, but with doing the right thing. Feeding the homeless at a "certain" public area will cause these people to congregate around that area. Though this may seem "humane" to you, many people (including I) feel this is NOT a solution, but a problem in itself. It DOES NOT solve anything.

The leading question would then be, how do you ensure that the homeless are getting some care. There ARE services available DT that address this issue. There ARE programs that the homeless can avail of to try to be productive. It is just (maybe a bad perception) that many homeless seem to have no drive to avail of these services, but would rather beg or "wait around Lucas park" for free handouts.

This does NOT include the mentally ill, whom I say deserve the real help that people need. I am against giving unconditional help to healthy individuals. You seem to have a very strong moral conviction to help ALL homeless unconditionally. I think that is where the biggest disconnect with other members of the forum is.

If you read any previous post, I am of course not against better care. And to reiterate, I am not a believer that Lucas Park should be a permanent residence of the homeless--only that they should not be uprooted unless a permanent shelter is committed to the problem. And yes, the permanent shelter should be something in the vein of St. Patrick's, which seeks to employ the homeless and give them some work experience and marketable skills.



We are mostly on the same page. The only difference is, as I stated, our motives. I want a better life for the homeless, opportunities for their advancement, and a dedicated struggle against the factors that lead to homelessness. My concern is not for my own property values. A valid concern, but of course, myopic and reactionary in light of an attempt to problem-shift.



Feeding people is not holding them down. Explain the logic.

^ It sounded as if you were against providing better services for the homeless. There is no talk about uprooting anyone. People can go where they please for the most part. It would just stand to reason that people would gravitate to where the best services are provided.



Additionally, there is absolutely nothing wrong with both caring about the homeless and one's property value. Do you not care about the value of your home or other property?

Matt Drops The H wrote:
Feeding people is not holding them down. Explain the logic.

Feeding people (or any charity with no strings attached) is holding down the individual. It takes away ANY need to do something to "earn" your meal. It takes away the "need" to work. (Hunger is the biggest motive to work. Lots of third world Examples, in which people do menial jobs just to feed themselves a couple of times a day).

I would not be as vocal if say, these vans feeding the people would make it a rule that only people who helped clean up the park afterwards would get fed. GIVE THEM SOME INITIATIVE to try to earn their food. Something as simple as that is NOT asking a lot.

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.

For the last time, help from the generous people of St. Louis has already been provided to the homeless in the area of Lucas Park, and it's called the Horizon Club!!! I often walk this same distance to eat at Union Station. If outsiders want to help, then volunteering at Horizon Club would be the most effective method of helping.

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.

The homeless being "shifted" from Lucas Park to the Horizon Club is good for the Washington Ave. neighborhood, and it's good for the homeless. It's a win-win situation!

Matt Drops The H wrote:"I live downtown and YOU DON'T HOUSE THE HOMELESS yourself, so YOU can't comment."



"Feeding people who have no income is WRONG!"

We never said anything like that. You're welcome to comment all that you want.



The people of St. Louis are for providing the homeless with food, showers, bathrooms, laundry, computer access, and psychiatric help at the 24-hour Horizon Club. You are for food being sporadically thrown to the homeless in Lucas Park as if they were pigeons.



Also, some of the homeless do have an income in the form of a monthly Social Security check, but they spend it on drugs.

Kick the bums out. It is a public park that the public can not use. There maybe some respectful, careing, honest among the the homeless there but it is not the rule. Find me a family who would want to have a picnic or toss a ball around with agressive panhandling, fighting, lewd acts, garbage, and filth. Why as a taxpayer can i not use this park. I can and do just go somewhere else, but, should I have to?

What I wouldn't give to hear Darwin's theories regarding the homeless in Lucas Park. Somewhat joking.

robby wrote:Why as a taxpayer can i not use this park.

Who said you couldn't use it now.



What does being a taxpayer have to do with any of this?



The homeless may not be the cleanest, but if people want to use Lucas Park they can and should. Why doesn't anyone want to organize the bbq idea for residents to get out and show themselves, or any other idea. Make the homeless feel uncomfortable in the park by using it, not the inverse. All I read here is a couple people whining over and over that someone else won't do something. Why not take it into your own hands?

Robby--



The homeless are the public, too.



Some comments on here seem to indicate that once you lose your home, you lose your classification as human being as well.

I've almost got my tail, almost...there it is if I can just...damn. *pants* Alright, I think I can get it this time....

Matt Drops The H wrote:Robby--



The homeless are the public, too.



Some comments on here seem to indicate that once you lose your home, you lose your classification as human being as well.

Matt Drops The H, once again...

Resurrectus wrote: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.

Yes, we know that they're classified as humans, but they behave worse than stray animals. That lack of respect for other members of the public and for public property is one reason why the homeless are difficult to employ.

MattnSTL wrote:

robby wrote:Why as a taxpayer can i not use this park.

Who said you couldn't use it now.



What does being a taxpayer have to do with any of this?



The homeless may not be the cleanest, but if people want to use Lucas Park they can and should. Why doesn't anyone want to organize the bbq idea for residents to get out and show themselves, or any other idea. Make the homeless feel uncomfortable in the park by using it, not the inverse. All I read here is a couple people whining over and over that someone else won't do something. Why not take it into your own hands?

If I had as much free time on my hands as some in Lucas Park, maybe I would make an effort to use it more. The point is that someone should feel free to use the park at any time. Those sleeping/peeing there aren't going to be very disturbed by a couple of guys cooking burgers. The homeless will continue to dominate the park if it is a test of wills.

^Sure, if you want to.

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:And when they come around harassing us for free BBQ, then we can beat them with a bat!

MattnSTL wrote:^Sure, if you want to.

How about we make them Fear Factor-style BBQ mystery meat? We'll reveal what the mystery meat is after they're done eating. They'll never again accept food drop-offs from those white vans.

MattnSTL wrote:Make the homeless feel uncomfortable in the park by using it, not the inverse.

That is the funniest thing I have read in quite awhile.

I try.



Seriously. if people were using it maybe the homeless wouldn't feel like it is their space to do whatever they want. Why is the Park Pacific development redoing the park space around the building? Make it feel like it is part of the building and have people using it. Discourages loitering and improves the image of the building.



There will be people in these parks forever. Everyone needs to flat out get over that fact. What needs to happen is the spaces become actively used by residents and the large concentrations of homeless dispersed and helped out. A bit of money for some physical improvements to make the space more usable to residents wouldn't hurt.

I think some lighting would help make it a less comfortable place to sleep. I'm not saying that the homeless are any less human, but there are options and the park has simply be taken over because no one's cared.

That's what I mean. Start by using the park, but also try to identify some money for things such as increased lighting, a better playground, new concrete, benches that are not conducive to sleeping. Make it your park, not just that space down the street that the "homeless bums" sleep in.

MattnSTL wrote:That's what I mean. Start by using the park, but also try to identify some money for things such as increased lighting, a better playground, new concrete, benches that are not conducive to sleeping. Make it your park, not just that space down the street that the "homeless bums" sleep in.

I understand your point. But I don't believe that I should have to make it my park. I believe that it is my park and that I should feel confortable to use it at any time. As someone else mentioned, we pay taxes in part to help maintain city parks. Why should we also have to fight to use them? As I've mentioned before, the Park Pacific and Ford condo developments will likely put a lot of pressure on the city to change the demographics of those using the park. Once people start using the park (because they live next to it) there will be more pressure to keep the homeless from it. Just as in Forest Park, where homeless sleeping in front of the art museum would not be tolerated, they won't be welcome in Lucas Park. But again, people don't use Forest Park so that the homeless won't. People enjoy Forest Park partly because there aren't homeless people sleeping everywhere. I understand how Lucas Park has become what it is, but I fully expect it to change.

That is what I mean, the people around it need to use it, I wasn't saying you as a resident of FPSE need to be the one making the initial effort. The downtown residents have made the most complaints, so why not get off of UrbanSTL for just a bit and really attempt to make a difference.



While Forest Park may not be a great example because of size differences, people do care about that park and wouldn't put up with homeless people sleeping outside of the Art Museum or taking a bath in one of the fountains. So why don;t the residents sow some care for Lucas Park besides some complaints. There's been a lot of talk, but no real action.



For some, Lucas Park is literally their backyard. Maybe it doesn't bother these people as much as we think, or maybe someone needs to actually organize something. Inno posted something of the sort in here, but it was lost by a bunch of people that want somebody else to solve an issue that isn't going to be solved if they don;t get involved outside of the internet.

Perhaps the downtown resident's association can put together enough people that care to have someone there somewhat regularly to keep an eye on the park. Call in anything illegal, pick up some garbage, write down the names and/or license plates of people dropping off food and/or new Lucas Park residents, keep a log of activities in the park, take a walk through the park now and then, etc., etc. Hell, I don't even live downtown and I'd be willing to spend, say a half-hour of my time, once a week, if I thought it was part of a concerted effort that might actually do some good. As I said before, the city either does not recognize the problem, or feel their hands are tied by the ACLU, maybe this will change once the surrounding area is developed, but I am not so sure. The only way I can see the city taking some action is if the developers said, 'We are going to build this $XX million development nearby, but only if you do something about the homeless situation'. Well, developers are building and I still don't see any real action.



As far as more 'legitimate' downtown resident activity in the park goes; you will not get people to use the park if they are going to be surrounded by a couple dozen homeless people, garbage, and human feces. A few homeless people aren't going to be a problem, but right now it is skidrow, more of a campground than anything else. That has to change first.



I think I almost got my tail...

Grover wrote:I think some lighting would help make it a less comfortable place to sleep.

MattnSTL wrote:That's what I mean. Start by using the park, but also try to identify some money for things such as increased lighting, a better playground, new concrete, benches that are not conducive to sleeping. Make it your park, not just that space down the street that the "homeless bums" sleep in.

It would be expensive to light up that entire park.



How about taking away the long wooden benches? Some of them are broken at the moment anyway.



I once saw a group of teen volunteers getting ready to clean up the park, and before they could get the trash bags passed out, the homeless disappeared.



If you want a homeless-free park on the weekend, then just post signs that state, "PARK CLEANUP ALL THIS WEEKEND! VOLUNTEERS MEET HERE."

MattnSTL wrote:That is what I mean, the people around it need to use it, I wasn't saying you as a resident of FPSE need to be the one making the initial effort. The downtown residents have made the most complaints, so why not get off of UrbanSTL for just a bit and really attempt to make a difference.



While Forest Park may not be a great example because of size differences, people do care about that park and wouldn't put up with homeless people sleeping outside of the Art Museum or taking a bath in one of the fountains. So why don;t the residents sow some care for Lucas Park besides some complaints. There's been a lot of talk, but no real action.



For some, Lucas Park is literally their backyard. Maybe it doesn't bother these people as much as we think, or maybe someone needs to actually organize something. Inno posted something of the sort in here, but it was lost by a bunch of people that want somebody else to solve an issue that isn't going to be solved if they don;t get involved outside of the internet.

True. I guess we really agree. There haven't really been people living close to Lucas Park in some time has there? Anyway, it is the responsibility of the new or soon-to-be residents to make a difference.