Share
2,953
Life MemberLife Member
2,953

PostAug 17, 2006#151

I've never had a problem with a homeless person, and often get mad at my friends who handle things different than I do, because I've had so much success my way...and they generally cause themselves more problems. Once they start, I simply look at them, tell them I have no cash on me (I usually don't anyway), and that I'm sorry. I sometimes add 'good luck', the most frequent response is a thank you. I think there is an element to general compassion that they can see from me. Which makes a difference also.



Don't give them money, because there are plenty of places to get food and the money won't go for food.
2,821
Life MemberLife Member
2,821

PostAug 17, 2006#152

^Yeah, I have found this to be the most effective rejection as well. Just look them in the eye and say, "Sorry, I don't have anything on me", with a pronounced shrug. They very rarely have any response to this and quickly move on to the next target - provided you don't have a lot of change jingling in your pocket (this makes them mad :lol: ).



I do think there is some truth to a study I read a while back that said that many panhandlers are simply seeking human interaction, or at least, to get people to treat them as human beings. That study recommended that you look them in the eye - provided they are not threatening you - and firmly, but politely, tell them no, however you choose to do it. Of course, there are also many drunk and/or drug-addled panhandlers, many with room temperature IQs, just looking for their next fix. I think the first method works with these people simply because all they are interested in is money, and they won't waste their time with you if there is a chance you don't have any.
6,775
Life MemberLife Member
6,775

PostAug 17, 2006#153

jlblues wrote:^Yeah, I have found this to be the most effective rejection as well. Just look them in the eye and say, "Sorry, I don't have anything on me", with a pronounced shrug. They very rarely have any response to this and quickly move on to the next target - provided you don't have a lot of change jingling in your pocket (this makes them mad :lol: ).


Why do you feel the need to apologize?
2,821
Life MemberLife Member
2,821

PostAug 17, 2006#154

^I don't, but it makes the rejection more convincing, and thus, effective. I think that, unless they have become threatening, any individual confronting a panhandler is completely pointless, since it certainly will not get them to stop panhandling. Or, perhaps you are suggesting a physical confrontation? If so, good luck with that...
6,775
Life MemberLife Member
6,775

PostAug 17, 2006#155

jlblues wrote:^I don't, but it makes the rejection more convincing, and thus, effective. I think that, unless they have become threatening, any individual confronting a panhandler is completely pointless, since it certainly will not get them to stop panhandling. Or, perhaps you are suggesting a physical confrontation? If so, good luck with that...


No, I suggest ignoring them, but first making it clear that you did hear them, and don't feel the need to respond.
1,400
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,400

PostAug 17, 2006#156

^That's when they usually start following you.
6,775
Life MemberLife Member
6,775

PostAug 17, 2006#157

stlmike wrote:^That's when they usually start following you.


They make the assumption that most people are afraid of them. If you take a few steps toward them in an aggressive manner, you'll be surprised how quickly they back off.
622
Senior MemberSenior Member
622

PostAug 17, 2006#158

Just give them a "not today bud" and keep doing whatever you were doing. Works everytime.
1,400
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,400

PostAug 17, 2006#159

I prefer saying "sorry." It works, it's polite, I don't get angry at homeless people.
6,775
Life MemberLife Member
6,775

PostAug 17, 2006#160

ChrisInDownTown wrote:Just give them a "not today bud" and keep doing whatever you were doing. Works everytime.


I used to work with a guy that would walk down the street, and as soon as he saw a homeless guy step toward him, he would say "Excuse me, can you loan me a couple of dollars so I can get something to eat"? LOL - you should have seen the look on their faces. Stunned!
470
Full MemberFull Member
470

PostAug 17, 2006#161

ok, so I'm walking home this afternoon and a guy who looks like he's gonna ask me for money walks up to me and says, "do you know if the GNC is still in the mall?"



Now, I haven't been in St. Louis Centre in years so I answered, "I don't know." I kept walking and then he started following me repeating, "I don't know, I don't know, I don't know." like he was pissed at me getting in my face. What the F***? I don't have "I know everything about downtown St. Louis" tattoo'd on my forehead.



Sheeeesh.
508
Senior MemberSenior Member
508

PostAug 18, 2006#162

rockintheburbsTC wrote:I was talking to my mom about this and I believe she said NPR's gonna have a talk about homelessness in the city of St. Louis tomorrow (thursday) at 11 or 1130 am.


here's the program, it was on "St. Louis on the Air" today. They interview Larry Rice and the director of Human Services for St. Louis. I haven't listened to it yet, but they talked about the Rice's desire for an acre of parkland for the homeless, should be interesting.



Link
6,775
Life MemberLife Member
6,775

PostAug 18, 2006#163

jefferson wrote:
rockintheburbsTC wrote:I was talking to my mom about this and I believe she said NPR's gonna have a talk about homelessness in the city of St. Louis tomorrow (thursday) at 11 or 1130 am.


here's the program, it was on "St. Louis on the Air" today. They interview Larry Rice and the director of Human Services for St. Louis. I haven't listened to it yet, but they talked about the Rice's desire for an acre of parkland for the homeless, should be interesting.



Link


If he wants an acre of land for the homeless, he should buy it.
12K
Life MemberLife Member
12K

PostAug 18, 2006#164

jlblues wrote:It is still around. The guy you saw may not have been a "legitimate" seller, as funny as that sounds. I bought a copy a few weeks ago, but this guy had a stack of them. I believe the homeless have to meet certain standards to sell it (although it is hard to imagine what those might be...just kidding...). The newspaper/magazine is called Whats Up and there are actually authorized homeless vendors that receive training and, I think, a vendor ID.



Washington U Record Article about Whats Up founder



Whats Up Website



If he was legit, the guy you saw would most definitely be fired for not giving you a copy. I used to see it all the time with Streetwise in Chicago, some homeless guy would get a hold of one and try to sell the same grubby, torn-up copy several times. The real Streetwise vendors deal with these guys pretty quickly though, if they see them.


Thanks for the info. I would actually like to buy this paper, but I never knew where to get it. I respect people, homeless or otherwise, who simply make an effort!



BTW, don't you just love the people who try to sell you copies of the RFT or the West End Word. :?
2,430
Life MemberLife Member
2,430

PostAug 18, 2006#165

Jefferson, thanks for the link to that interview. It was really intersting to hear, esp. all of the folks who called in.



It makes pretty clear that Rice will never leave his Locust St location.



I really liked the comarisons between the homelss and the American Indian, with downtown as the homeless 'homeland' and the loft dwellers being the invaders. Yup... nothing says virbant downtown like an area overrun by the homeless.
801
Super MemberSuper Member
801

PostAug 18, 2006#166

phobia wrote:I'm pretty libertarian (and would support a Lucas Park Corporation), but I'm not sure privatization is the answer here. While the market is generally more enlightened than bureaucracy, shared resources like the sidewalks belong under shared control.



Aesthetically, I cringe to consider the result of carving up the streetscape along property lines. Pragmatically, I fear it's naive to assume privately-owned sidewalks would be more consistently maintained than our many neglected building facades.



Also, if the businesses were interested in addressing the "problem" of panhandling, they'd be applying pressure on the City to enforce existing law. Through the DTSLP they are paying the police force to provide extra security... but they don't seem to be providing any direction with that funding.



Finally, as many others have pointed out, it's much more humane for us to target root causes and use a different sort of market force here: make the behavior less attractive by enforcing existing law and support alternative choices for the individuals presently choosing to panhandle.




I think you might have missed this part of my post (understandable, it was a little long):



And this wouldn't be necessarily a property by property basis. Businesses could form street/business organizations to pay for the paving and upkeep, etc on a collective basis. For example, streets like Washington Avenue and areas like Old Post Office Square would prefer to keep to a certain theme (wouldn't want the type of pavement and street lights to change at every property).



I also imagine that this would speed things up considerably. Neighborhoods would not have to fight over the funds that are collected city-wide. I heard that Forest Park Southeast is getting new streetscaping done...in 3 or 4 years, once the work on 40 is completed. Streetscape is important to perception and I'm sure every building owner on Manchester would be willing to pay a little out of their own pocket to ensure their customers would feel safer in the area (and thus get more customers and profit). Even owners of abandoned buildings would probably spring for it because it would increase the property values and they could sell the building for a higher profit to a developer.



As far as building facades go, the owners maintain them unless it is unprofitable to do so. This only seems to occur when property taxes outweigh what rent would be collected, so there is no profit to be made and they are abandoned (I wouldn't really care about trying to attract tenants either, if I was going to be renting at a loss). I'm not saying that the market will pave the streets with gold, but I think it will consistently outperform the work the city has done (hard not to).



What will the businesses do if the police refuse to enforce the law in front of their businesses? As long as the sidewalks are public, that means anyone can be on them (after all, that bum paid his share when he pays alcohol taxes every 40 ounce he buys). Private property clears this murkiness up by letting the owner(s) decide.



Another great benefit I forgot to mention is that this would be a big spending cut for the city. A corresponding tax cut would mean that the city would have an advantage over the county :D
1,400
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,400

PostAug 18, 2006#167

How about we privatize the homeless people.
801
Super MemberSuper Member
801

PostAug 18, 2006#168

stlmike wrote:As more businesses, residents, retail/restaurant/bar options move into town, the busier the street will be and "agressive" panhandeling will certainly decrease. At least, having a crowd of people around, people won't feel threatened by it. I think concentrating on the general health of the city, and making sure it grows in density, will keep this problem in check.


This is why people moved out of the city. There is a sort of defeatist attitude when it comes to the hassles of city living. Panhandling, car break-ins, mugging, robberies all "come with city living". "Sure, your bike might have been stolen or your car was broken into, but that was your fault for not having a better lock or leaving your radio in plain site!" "It's all a part of living in historic buildings and being able to walk to the grocery store. The two are inseparable!" These are not symptoms of a healthy society, they are signs of decay. It's no wonder most families chose to live far away from the criminal class that is allowed to thrive in most urban centers.



A lot of this is the unintended consequences of government trying to act benevolently. The family is the strongest social unit that humans have. Humans come to help each other and expect reciprocity. This builds strong character due to the fact that bad behavior will get one less support. Ever since the New Deal, government has slowly been weakening these social bonds, much in the same way that using a wheel chair instead of one's legs will lead to muscle atrophy and the inability to walk. Government has become the wheels that replace the legs of family support. Welfare checks for single mothers replace fathers. Social security checks take care of grandpa and grandma so that you don't have to. People get their welfare as entitlements, not as a gift of charity (and thus show no gratitude to those that pay it).



Government pay for little Timmy's education and breakfast, but can it really be a role model and set a good example for him? It certainly does not discipline him. With all of the single parent households are we really suprised that 72 percent of adolescent murderers grew up without fathers and 60 percent of America's rapists grew up the same way (Source: D. Cornell (et al.), Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5. 1987. And N. Davidson, "Life Without Father," Policy Review. 1990.)?



We really need to strike the problems at the root instead of trying to trim the branches. Maybe we should look into cutting welfare in the city as much as it is in city control (I figure the state and the Feds hand out a lot more than the city, but it is out of our control). Charity should rest on families and voluntary social institutions. Having government collect it by force actually reduces the bond between the giver and the reciever (unless you are thinking about the homeless everytime you pay sales tax, I guess) and makes our society weaker.



Theodore Dalrymple has a very good article on the ill effects of the welfare state on social structures and behavior that I encourage everyone to read: http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_4_oh_to_be.html
2,821
Life MemberLife Member
2,821

PostAug 19, 2006#169

Bastiat wrote:It's no wonder most families chose to live far away from the criminal class that is allowed to thrive in most urban centers.




These problems are hardly unique to cities, they are just more concentrated and thus more visible in that environment because of the higher population density. The deterioration of families, and the resulting increase in crime, in rural and exurban areas, has been growing almost exponentially, and is well-documented. It just doesn't get as much press coverage. Just ask anyone that works in a public defender's or prosecutor's office in these areas; they can't keep up with the ever-increasing caseload. And personally, I have witnessed, or been a victim of, more serious crime (I'm not including crimes such as panhandling) in rural areas, small towns, and exurban areas than in urban areas, and I have lived in urban areas most of my life. The problem has been growing for decades as wealth and population have shifted to urban and suburban areas, i.e. the decline of the family farm and small town manufacturing, but was greatly accelerated by the advent of crystal meth.



I'm not arguing with your root causes, just the idea that this is unique to urban areas. Unless they are upper-middle class or better, if anyone thinks they can escape these problems by moving out of the city, they are in for a very rude awakening.
995
Super MemberSuper Member
995

PostAug 19, 2006#170

lot of this is the unintended consequences of government trying to act benevolently


Is it?



There seems to be nothing unintended nor benevolent about under-funded county programs and largely non-existent suburban muni programs to address the issue of chronically homeless people.



The consequence, of course, is the concentration of homeless people where the programs are: downtown. Forty percent, or so, of the calls to the City's homeless hotline are from the county.



Ever watch those benevolent suburban church vans dropping off people downtown?
419
Full MemberFull Member
419

PostAug 20, 2006#171

I guess Larry Rice wants Lucas Park to remain a homeless refuge. Totally not cool, I pitty those loft owners at Knickerbocker . . .







http://www.urbanreviewstl.com/archives/000780.php
71
New MemberNew Member
71

PostAug 21, 2006#172

^Interesting article and website. Didn't know it existed so I'll now have to add it to the 'rotation' of webistes I regularly review, such as this one, to learn about what is going on in my new city!



Reading the article prompts me to ask: Where would one take a dog downtown to walk and go to the bathroom, etc.? I don't have a dog so I didn't explore the topic but I'm curious.



Also, are there rules/regulations regarding valet parking? I've noticed that Copia blocks off the spots in front of the Meridian and assumed that the city has granted the authority to promote business in the area but wasn't sure. Again, pardon my "greenness" on these issues but I am new to downtown and the city in general.



(I apologize if there is already a thread for these topics...if so, please direct me there.)
5,433
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
5,433

PostAug 21, 2006#173

loftlover wrote:I guess Larry Rice wants Lucas Park to remain a homeless refuge. Totally not cool, I pitty those loft owners at Knickerbocker . . .


This little factoid from that website is totally uncool:


Also, Larry Rice objected to park space being taken away from the homeless.


I hate to disappoint the Reverend, but the taxpayers of the city, not the homeless or the NLEC, own Lucas Park. I'm tired of Rev. Rice's sense of entitlement, especially given his track record vis-a-vis other homeless shelters and agencies that help those in that situation.



I hold out hope that the city can one day force the NLEC to seriously clean up its act, or take it out of downtown.


There seems to be nothing unintended nor benevolent about under-funded county programs and largely non-existent suburban muni programs to address the issue of chronically homeless people.



The consequence, of course, is the concentration of homeless people where the programs are: downtown. Forty percent, or so, of the calls to the City's homeless hotline are from the county.



Ever watch those benevolent suburban church vans dropping off people downtown?


I can't say I've seen those church vans in action downtown, but I know what you mean. In Los Angeles, there is a place actually called "Skid Row", a part of downtown that people have pretty much given up on since homeless people are clustered there. Most have some form of mental illness, and many of them are brought to the area by suburban law enforcement authorities. I know that's hardly unique or unheard of, but I was surprised to see that police officers and deputies from outlying Los Angeles County were bringing homeless people to that area by the carload. As troubled as I am by the situation in our downtown, it could be much worse.



Since the county has no dearth of vacant big boxes, perhaps one or more could be used to provide shelter and/or essential services, instead of exporting homeless people to the city. Unfortunately, the latter option is convenient and works all too well for those communities west of Skinker.
801
Super MemberSuper Member
801

PostAug 22, 2006#174

jlblues wrote:
Bastiat wrote:It's no wonder most families chose to live far away from the criminal class that is allowed to thrive in most urban centers.




These problems are hardly unique to cities, they are just more concentrated and thus more visible in that environment because of the higher population density. The deterioration of families, and the resulting increase in crime, in rural and exurban areas, has been growing almost exponentially, and is well-documented. It just doesn't get as much press coverage. Just ask anyone that works in a public defender's or prosecutor's office in these areas; they can't keep up with the ever-increasing caseload. And personally, I have witnessed, or been a victim of, more serious crime (I'm not including crimes such as panhandling) in rural areas, small towns, and exurban areas than in urban areas, and I have lived in urban areas most of my life. The problem has been growing for decades as wealth and population have shifted to urban and suburban areas, i.e. the decline of the family farm and small town manufacturing, but was greatly accelerated by the advent of crystal meth.



I'm not arguing with your root causes, just the idea that this is unique to urban areas. Unless they are upper-middle class or better, if anyone thinks they can escape these problems by moving out of the city, they are in for a very rude awakening.


No disagreement here. I was just addressing the city centers directly because of the general attitude of resignation to do anything about the problems.



A lot of people mention the fact that a lot of these homeless are mentally ill. Most of these people were kicked out onto the streets with deinstitutionalization. The driving force behind that movement was that it was wrong to hold people in an institution against their will, but they ended up kicking everyone onto the streets, whether they wanted to stay or not. There should be some effort to get these people the treatment they need, but I'd rather see it done by private charity.

PostAug 22, 2006#175

publiceye wrote:
lot of this is the unintended consequences of government trying to act benevolently


Is it?



There seems to be nothing unintended nor benevolent about under-funded county programs and largely non-existent suburban muni programs to address the issue of chronically homeless people.



The consequence, of course, is the concentration of homeless people where the programs are: downtown. Forty percent, or so, of the calls to the City's homeless hotline are from the county.



Ever watch those benevolent suburban church vans dropping off people downtown?


Try reading my post all the way through. Government "charity" (charity only means something when given voluntarily, not by force) is the root problem here, not lack of government "charity" in the outlying areas.
Read more posts (1212 remaining)
Share