Urban Elitist wrote:Why did you re-create a thread that we already have and are currently discussing this very issue?
http://www.urbanstl.com/viewtopic.php?t=1821
Maybe he didn't see it.
- 6,775
Maybe he didn't see it.
Maybe he was trying to post on the other thread, and clicked on new topic instead of post reply. The post seems pretty vague to be a new thread.
"moving the homeless shelter downtown was a BIG MISTAKE and is giving off very bad images."
Did you just move to St. Louis?
New Life, which is privately owned, pre-dates every loft project on Washington Avenue. That means that every developer and buyer invested despite the shelter.
And, there are actually several such facilities downtown, though New Life seems to be most carelessly administered.
Did you just move to St. Louis?
New Life, which is privately owned, pre-dates every loft project on Washington Avenue. That means that every developer and buyer invested despite the shelter.
And, there are actually several such facilities downtown, though New Life seems to be most carelessly administered.
I think the point here is that the "problem" is getting worse, not better. Before deciding to purchase downtown I thought that the process of downtown's revitalization would evetually bring the problem under control. Certainly, no downtown core is without its homeless and panhandling, but there appears to be absolutely no resolve by local government do anything more than study and talk. I'm not sure what we can do to elevate and bring more heat and light, I just know something needs to be done soon or we won't get to the next stage.
- 5,433
publiceye wrote:And, there are actually several such facilities downtown, though New Life seems to be most carelessly administered.
No kidding. I'd like to know what is being or will be done at City Hall to address that.
- 154
2taall wrote:I. . . Finally, we come to the pinnacle of St. Louis bum activity, Lucas Park. After seeing the "bum campsite", her next words are:"There is no way in hell I would move here. I was actually impressed until I saw this." . . .
I used the Public Library last year to do some genealogic research. When I had to use the restroom I found it was full -- of homeless people camped-out in the stalls. I gave up studying in the library and left. I haven't been back, and won't return until the Main Public Library throws the bums out -- and off the premises.
But Mr. (no Rev to me) Larry Rice llives for stories like this. He's doing everything possible to foment ill-will and stymie downtown development. That place on Locust is firetrap and should be closed - or at the very least renovated with some of his purported millions.
He battled redevelopers in Lafayette Sq. when he worked out of one of those old mansions in the 80s. He thought people who bought and renovated the old houses in the square were somehow doing evil.
This guy is a cold, self-centered, contrarian. He's so meanspirited and demanding it's a wonder he ever became a preacher. For all his so-called compassion, this guy could have been a mafia hit man; no problem.
The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Urban Elitist wrote:Why did you re-create a thread that we already have and are currently discussing this very issue?
http://www.urbanstl.com/viewtopic.php?t=1821
Maybe he didn't see it.
exactly. sheeesh, lighten up francis.
- 6,775
BL211 wrote:The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Urban Elitist wrote:Why did you re-create a thread that we already have and are currently discussing this very issue?
http://www.urbanstl.com/viewtopic.php?t=1821
Maybe he didn't see it.
exactly. sheeesh, lighten up francis.
LOL!
I'd like to know what is being or will be done at City Hall to address that.
Did you just move here?
Human Services has formed a coalition of every local provider/activist group, including the Downtown Partnership, to coordinate services and programs. New Life, of course, refuses to join.
AHC is funding the creation of affordable housing to support the effort.
The City's anti-loitering efforts downtown have generally not withstood lawsuits brought on behalf of the homeless by the law clinics of Saint Louis University and Washington University.
New Life (like every other occupied building in the City) is inspected for life/safety.
Efforts to encourage other municipalities and St. Louis County to create and fund their own programs and increase housing opportunities have met with limited success.
Finally -- and this is an aside -- one or two posters on this thread might be better suited to New Town than downtown. And that's OK.
Could we turn Lucas Park into something that actively brings residents into it? Like a German-style beer garden. Feature Live music? Other than being right next to Riceland, one of the reasons it attracts so many homeless is that is a vacuum. It's BEHIND the Wash Ave. stores and bars. It's BEHIND the library... If you actively make it something that draws people in, with security and police and prying eyes, it becomes less seedy. Can we subcontract out it's operations? Give the police a reason to enforce anti-loitering rules? Also, a problem I have always had with that park is that it is below street level. It's in a hole. I think there is a psychological issue with that...
Utlimatly, any action to try and move Rice to another locaiton might be political suicide. I mean imagine the backlash both from the area where a new NLEC would locate combined with all the fight Rice would put up.
Would be nice to know if Slay is going to run for Mayor again, because if he was not, then he is the perfect canidate to play such an ugly game.
Would be nice to know if Slay is going to run for Mayor again, because if he was not, then he is the perfect canidate to play such an ugly game.
"any action to try and move Rice to another locaiton might be political suicide"
Not true. Buy it.
Not true. Buy it.
You can't force someone to sell something. I think he sees putting homeless people in front of everyone's faces as very valuable, so even a huge amount of money won't sway him to sell.
Hmm, perhaps I should have been more specific. Any aciton led by the city to try and remove Rice might be political sucide.
Either way, given his unwillingness to sell the property, it would almost have to take city involvment to get Rice to move.
Maybe the city should take the bullet and agree to his crazy plan to create a 1 acre common plot for the homeless to create a comunity. The condition being that the NLEC move to an adjacent property and that both be outside of downtown. City would give him he land (sell it for a dollar) and allow him to sell the current NLEC building. Maybe even throw in money to build his new facility.
Either way, given his unwillingness to sell the property, it would almost have to take city involvment to get Rice to move.
Maybe the city should take the bullet and agree to his crazy plan to create a 1 acre common plot for the homeless to create a comunity. The condition being that the NLEC move to an adjacent property and that both be outside of downtown. City would give him he land (sell it for a dollar) and allow him to sell the current NLEC building. Maybe even throw in money to build his new facility.
Maybe the city should take the bullet and agree to his crazy plan to create a 1 acre common plot for the homeless to create a comunity. The condition being that the NLEC move to an adjacent property and that both be outside of downtown. City would give him he land (sell it for a dollar) and allow him to sell the current NLEC building. Maybe even throw in money to build his new facility.
A one-acre "tent community" for the homeless is even more regressive than Rev. Rice's current warehousing of homeless people. Why would the City abet such a bad plan?
We all already know this, but nobody at City Hall, no matter how far up or down, touches Mr. Rice's fiefdom.
His shelter downtown meets all of the qualifications to be considered a public nuisance under City ordinance and be shut down, just like any other dwelling with that many police calls, disturbances, violence, etc. I've seen the 911 call logs for that place, and it is staggering.
But it's never happened and it never will.
His shelter downtown meets all of the qualifications to be considered a public nuisance under City ordinance and be shut down, just like any other dwelling with that many police calls, disturbances, violence, etc. I've seen the 911 call logs for that place, and it is staggering.
But it's never happened and it never will.
even a huge amount of money won't sway him to sell.
Has anybody offered him "a huge amount of money"?
But it's never happened and it never will.
If you have reason to believe that any building in the City is unsafe or operating in violation of City ordinances, file a complaint at the Citizens Service Bureau, (314) 622-4800.
The tent city idea reminds me of Needle Park. Where is that again...Holland?
Don't know, but I want to say that when Rice proposed the idea, he based it on a similar program in Portland.
publiceye wrote:even a huge amount of money won't sway him to sell.
Has anybody offered him "a huge amount of money"?
But it's never happened and it never will.
If you have reason to believe that any building in the City is unsafe or operating in violation of City ordinances, file a complaint at the Citizens Service Bureau, (314) 622-4800.
That's what I'm telling you. The CSB calls are outrageous, but the city has done and will continue to do nothing.
http://www.wftv.com/news/9680199/detail.html
BTW: Walking to work, to and from lunch I've been panhandled four times today. Can't wait to leave work!
Police Use Undercover Officers To Nab Panhandlers
POSTED: 7:46 am EDT August 15, 2006
ORLANDO, Fla. -- Police have started using undercover officers to nab panhandlers downtown, but some are calling it an overkill.
The city has made 186 panhandling arrests since October 1 2005, more than half of them resulting from decoy teams. Undercover, plainclothes officers place themselves near suspected beggars and wait until they're asked for something of value.
Mayor Buddy Dyer said the city saw a spike in aggressive panhandling three to four months ago, and the changes were needed to keep downtown safe.
Critics said the undercover operation was a waste of resources.
Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
BTW: Walking to work, to and from lunch I've been panhandled four times today. Can't wait to leave work!
I work in the loop in Chicago. I get panhandelled that much too. And what a failure of a city, huh?
stlmike wrote:I work in the loop in Chicago. I get panhandelled that much too. And what a failure of a city, huh?
Show me where I said St. Louis was a failure.
And what sort of panhandling was it? Just the dude sitting there with a cup and makes eye contact with you? Or the person that crosses the street in the middle of the block, blocks your path and asks for money? The first type is an passive panhandler while the other one is aggresive.
Most in Chicago are the passive style since there are so many people they can just take it easy, sit in front of the Walgreens on Michigan Ave and wait for the occasional quarter to be put in their cup.
St. Louis panhandlers tend to be more aggresive because they are fewer people(targets) downtown and have to work for their money.
I prefer people who work for their money. At least make your BS story entertaining, and then I might give you a quarter.
stlmike wrote:I work in the loop in Chicago. I get panhandelled that much too. And what a failure of a city, huh?
Interesting, I thought that a city could prosper in spite of urban problems such as bums, traffic congestion, crime, etc.
Seeing now that they actually are a mark of a successful city, let's start importing homeless. Imagine if you got panhandelled 10 times going to work, that would mean that we are a much better city than Chicago. People from New York and San Francisco would be jealous of our hip, urban city!