I fear what would happen if that was an actual rule.
Uh, sorry, but did my previous post get overlooked? I thought news of the City closing the park for an hour every afternoon would have piqued someone's interest. Anyone?
- 153
Framer, I doubt many homeless monitor this site 
I fail to see how an hour-long stroll south will keep vagrants from hanging in the park. Maybe the city feels as if this daily disruption will lead some park regulars to find a new spot where they don't have to move five days a week. Can't wait to see the actual enforcement.
Seems like it would have been better to do this at 4-5 in the afternoon, right before many residents get back home. Then the park may have a shot a transitioning. The current plan just gives the homeless 2 hours to repopulate the park before 5 pm. Most residents will not see any impact because of the plan.
I fail to see how an hour-long stroll south will keep vagrants from hanging in the park. Maybe the city feels as if this daily disruption will lead some park regulars to find a new spot where they don't have to move five days a week. Can't wait to see the actual enforcement.
Seems like it would have been better to do this at 4-5 in the afternoon, right before many residents get back home. Then the park may have a shot a transitioning. The current plan just gives the homeless 2 hours to repopulate the park before 5 pm. Most residents will not see any impact because of the plan.
- 1,768
Framer wrote:Uh, sorry, but did my previous post get overlooked? I thought news of the City closing the park for an hour every afternoon would have piqued someone's interest. Anyone?
My initial reaction was "I'll believe that when I see it."
That will be hard since I work in the county.
So did it go down? I agree with the above post, I can't imagine this is really going to cure anything. Now the city is picking up after them. Whay would they want to leave? They're being coddled.
I wouldn't be the least bit suprised to see them all get up, walk across the street, sit on the library wall, and come back to their spic and span digs.
"Hey thanks guys. Really sweet you just picked up all that trash I threw around...and look! You scooped up my fecal matter and washed that spot I had so purposefully miterated upon! Nice work! Did you chlorinate the fountain for me? Can you fluff my pillow?"
Is this some crazy reverse-politcal ideological psychology? "We'll make it really nice, and they won't want to be there...They'll feel out of place..."
Right.
OK...I'm going to bed...
Yesterday there was a rock show by some band called "Harry and the Potters" (I think they are exactly what they sound like they would be-- a band dressed as Harry Potter....) on the Library steps and people hanging out in the park watching.
I think the reason why the homeless overtake a park is that they think that no one will bother them. They think that no one else really wants to go there, which has actually been more true than it should have been until about five years ago. This is true in the bigger cities too. I often wonder why I don't see forty bums hanging out brown bagging it on some of the small parks near the Gold Coast or in the Near North Side of Chicago. Sure, they show up, but not in droves. They are clean places that people use. I actually do think that cleaning Lucas Park up on a daily basis, hosting events on it, and enforcing the laws more strongly will send a clear message that the park is not a toilet. My recommendation would be that if "we" are ever going to meet on the park or if anyone wants to host a large picnic or something like that, to do it immediately after the park gets cleaned.
I think the reason why the homeless overtake a park is that they think that no one will bother them. They think that no one else really wants to go there, which has actually been more true than it should have been until about five years ago. This is true in the bigger cities too. I often wonder why I don't see forty bums hanging out brown bagging it on some of the small parks near the Gold Coast or in the Near North Side of Chicago. Sure, they show up, but not in droves. They are clean places that people use. I actually do think that cleaning Lucas Park up on a daily basis, hosting events on it, and enforcing the laws more strongly will send a clear message that the park is not a toilet. My recommendation would be that if "we" are ever going to meet on the park or if anyone wants to host a large picnic or something like that, to do it immediately after the park gets cleaned.
innov8ion wrote:Bastiat, do you seriously feel the need to take up a whole page on a topic that you've already addressed multiple times in this thread? A little self-moderation goes a long way. I think it'd be nice if we brainstormed ideas to improve Lucas Park. You've already addressed the public / private ownership paradigm. Thank you.
innov8ion, do you seriously feel the need to police this thread when it is not your duty to do so? So if an idea is not to your liking, I should censor myself? Perhaps I should pm you every time before I post so that you can deem my material acceptable.
Yes, I have posted several times about the private company idea, but each time with new information and to clarify my ideas.
The idea was well received and my last post was in response to Central Scrutinizer:
That was going to be my next question - how do we get started? As a downtown resident, I would gladly "buy" into this corporation.
I also showed the expenses and revenue for the privately-run Bryant Park. It shows that it is not maintained by donations from the ruling families of the city. We do not need to sit around and wait for the Danforth's generosity. Lucas Park is much smaller than Bryant Park and would not need to generate much revenue to cover expenses.
And I'm really sorry. Posting those pictures of the park to give context of the superb existing architecture (Central Library, Christ Church Cathedral and the Park Pacific), potential sites for dense development and the potential of Locust street to the west was just really out of place. I didn't mean to "take up a whole page" on something so unrelated to a thread on Lucas Park.
Edit: oops, I forgot to clear this post with you first. I'll remember next time.
Play nice with each other, or you'll both be out of the Lucas Park Sandbox. Or is it a litter box...
- 1,768
stlmike wrote:Yesterday there was a rock show by some band called "Harry and the Potters" (I think they are exactly what they sound like they would be-- a band dressed as Harry Potter....) on the Library steps and people hanging out in the park watching.
I think the reason why the homeless overtake a park is that they think that no one will bother them. They think that no one else really wants to go there, which has actually been more true than it should have been until about five years ago. This is true in the bigger cities too. I often wonder why I don't see forty bums hanging out brown bagging it on some of the small parks near the Gold Coast or in the Near North Side of Chicago. Sure, they show up, but not in droves. They are clean places that people use. I actually do think that cleaning Lucas Park up on a daily basis, hosting events on it, and enforcing the laws more strongly will send a clear message that the park is not a toilet. My recommendation would be that if "we" are ever going to meet on the park or if anyone wants to host a large picnic or something like that, to do it immediately after the park gets cleaned.
This conversation always comes full cirle. This will not help until LArry Rice is shut down. That is why they come to this particular park in droves.
True.
I have lots of birds in my backyard all the time. Know why? I have a bird feeder and a nice little bath where they can splash around. Sound familiar?
I have lots of birds in my backyard all the time. Know why? I have a bird feeder and a nice little bath where they can splash around. Sound familiar?
There is a mini survey on the Mayors website about the homeless in St. Louis. Might be worth a minute or two fill out and let your opinion be heard. You also can see the results thus far after you take the survey.
http://www.mayorslay.com/polls/20070719Homeless.asp
http://www.mayorslay.com/polls/20070719Homeless.asp
Coming back from the Cards game, saw only 1 person in the park. Guess the homeless are in heat shelters.....
joelkamp wrote:There is a mini survey on the Mayors website about the homeless in St. Louis. Might be worth a minute or two fill out and let your opinion be heard. You also can see the results thus far after you take the survey.
http://www.mayorslay.com/polls/20070719Homeless.asp
As of 7:30 this morning:
Current Totals:
Have you ever been homeless?
Yes:
6%
No:
94%
Do you know the full name of any person who is currently homeless?
Yes:
22%
No:
78%
How close to your own home is the nearest homeless shelter?
A few blocks, or less:
19%
Not that close, but within a mile or two:
14%
Within several miles:
23%
Further than ten miles away:
15%
I really don't know:
28%
Which of the following do you believe is the most important cause of long-term homelessness?
Laziness or personal choice:
6%
Misfortune, karma, or unavoidable bad luck:
5%
Lack of affordable housing:
9%
Lack of jobs that pay a living wage:
14%
Mental health issues:
39%
Drug or other substance addiction problems:
26%
Which segment of the community do you think is most likely to experience homelessness?
Single adults:
61%
Families with children:
31%
Teenagers:
1%
Seniors:
7%
Do you believe that the problem of chronic homelessness in the St. Louis region has gotten better in the last couple of years, gotten worse, or stayed about the same?
It's gotten better:
27%
It's gotten worse:
29%
It's stayed about the same:
45%
Do you think that St. Louis should follow the lead of some Sun Belt cities and begin to crack down on charities that feed homeless people in public places like city parks?
Yes:
38%
No:
62%
Do you think that local curfew laws restricting people from sleeping in parks or other public places should be more stringently enforced?
Yes, people should go to shelters to sleep:
59%
No, not as long as people aren't harming the parks or public places:
41%
Do you think that St. Louis bears a unfair percentage of the cost of caring for the region's homeless people?
Yes:
61%
No:
39%
Do you support the idea of bringing voting machines to homeless shelters to encourage eligible voters there to participate in elections?
Yes:
55%
No:
45%
What percentage of the people you see panhandling for money on the streets do you believe are really homeless?
All or most them:
34%
Some of them, but not most of them:
57%
Hardly any of them or none:
9%
How often do you give money to the strangers who ask you for spare change or a handout?
Almost always:
6%
Sometimes:
28%
Hardly ever:
38%
Never, because I can't afford to:
3%
Never, because I don't want to:
25%
Do you believe that it is more important to protect the right of individuals' free speech to panhandle, or to protect property values by banning panhandling?
Free speech issues trump property values in this case:
44%
Property values outweigh free speech issues in this case:
56%
Do you avoid visiting cities -- like Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and San Francisco -- that have large populations of homeless people or panhandlers?
Yes:
6%
No:
94%
Do you generally avoid certain areas of St. Louis where homeless people congregate?
Yes:
40%
No:
60%
Note: Due to rounding, results for some questions may not total 100%.
-RBB
- 6,775
Misfortune, karma, or unavoidable bad luck
Using a term like "karma" dumbs down the poll. There's no such thing.
Other than that, it was ok. I really hope action results from it, but I won't hold my breath.
- 10K
I'm surprised that so many people oppose cracking down on charities that feed homeless people in the parks.
Here is what I hate about this poll :
People who live "near" Lucas park and are directly affected and clooged together with people who have no idea how bad it is (rest of the city has VERY skecthy homeless issues). Charities feeding the homeless are one of the reasons (Rice included (but no pun here)) why parks become an attraction for the homeless to gather (and Lucas park has been an attraction for a while).
They should find out which neighborhood's are in favor of this and bus all the homeless to those neighborhoods. Have the polls with geographic info
People who live "near" Lucas park and are directly affected and clooged together with people who have no idea how bad it is (rest of the city has VERY skecthy homeless issues). Charities feeding the homeless are one of the reasons (Rice included (but no pun here)) why parks become an attraction for the homeless to gather (and Lucas park has been an attraction for a while).
They should find out which neighborhood's are in favor of this and bus all the homeless to those neighborhoods. Have the polls with geographic info
This isn't a scientific poll and as such can't really be used to cull any overly useful information from it. For all we know, Jerry Rice stuffed the ballot box.DeBaliviere wrote:I'm surprised that so many people oppose cracking down on charities that feed homeless people in the parks.
innov8ion wrote:This isn't a scientific poll and as such can't really be used to cull any useful any information from it. For all we know, Jerry Rice stuff the ballot box.DeBaliviere wrote:I'm surprised that so many people oppose cracking down on charities that feed homeless people in the parks.
Why would a 49ers wide receiver stuff the ballot box?
My favorite was the question asking if I liked to visit other cities with panhandling problems, listing New York, LA, Chicago and San Francisco. I like visiting these cities, but don't like being asked for money while I'm there from somebody sitting in the street.
I liked the question about whether you supported the idea of bringing voting machines to homeless shelters to encourage eligible voters there to vote. That is great. Lets really work to turn out the homeless vote next election by bringing the voting machines to them, while everybody else has to either take time off of work or fight the crowds before/after the work day to vote. If there is one thing this country needs it is more people voting on issues that they know nothing about. Yes, I am assuming that homeless people in general are even less well versed in the issues that the country faces than the average American.
- 6,775
TGE-ATW wrote:Yes, I am assuming that homeless people in general are even less well versed in the issues that the country faces than the average American.
They will vote for whoever promises them the biggest handout. In other words, they will vote Democrat.
People who live "near" Lucas park and are directly affected and clooged together with people who have no idea how bad it is
Does this make it unfair -- or does it actually model the political reality that every neighborhood feels strongly about the need to commit more public resources to the problem that affects it most?
- 2,093
They will vote for whoever promises them the biggest handout. In other words, they will vote Democrat.
_________________
And they are different from the corporate CEO who votes Republican based on his handout (in the form of corporate welfare) how?
_________________
And they are different from the corporate CEO who votes Republican based on his handout (in the form of corporate welfare) how?
- 6,775
southsidepride wrote:They will vote for whoever promises them the biggest handout. In other words, they will vote Democrat.
_________________
And they are different from the corporate CEO who votes Republican based on his handout (in the form of corporate welfare) how?
"Corporate welfare" can create jobs or be used to pay divends, which can then be reused as investment capital. Handouts to bums do neither.
But I suspect you knew that already.
publiceye wrote:People who live "near" Lucas park and are directly affected and clooged together with people who have no idea how bad it is
Does this make it unfair -- or does it actually model the political reality that every neighborhood feels strongly about the need to commit more public resources to the problem that affects it most?
can't it be both?