innov8ion wrote:Try to open your eyes to the point. Moving the shelter to a lower-valued area could provide the people with their needs without endangering the lives and investments of others. It's called gentrification. You don't have to like it, but it will happen.
Just think, downtown is becoming a more valuable area. He should be able to sell that property for a nice profit and purchase in a lower-priced area. With this profit, he could better serve the homeless. It's efficient and makes sense.
If Larry does this of his free will, that's perfectly fine. But being forced out by the city is not and should not be an option. In America people have rights, and the government cannot take your property without very good reason. Anyways, that shelter sure hasn't stopped development so far or held back property values. Moving the shelter by force would have no significant effect on values IMO.
Terra Cotta was one of the first major DT projects, and they have lived side by side with that shelter for years, yet somehow magically they have some of the highest property values DT. All you have to do is take a look at Chicago to see a city where the extremely wealthy live in a high rise next door to the poor in an old midrise. That's my point.
The NLEC (Riceland) has been in violation of countless City codes for ages; only political cowardice has stayed enforcement.
There is a big difference between the down-on-their-luck homeless (often clients of St. Patrick's Center) and panhandling transients (often clients of NLEC). Homeless being Downtown because there are services available and (have been) vacant properties to shelter in is quite different than Rice's pawns choosing a vocation intimidating tourists.
I don't understand, yet, why the police seem to think that enforcing anti-panhandling laws would be the same, politically, as kicking squatters out of vacant property.
Nor do I understand why the well-intentioned suburbanites insist on feeding the homeless out of the back of their trucks, and provide no support for cleaning up the litter. Wouldn't coordination with St. Patricks or Christ Church be more effective?
(And, in the hopes of preempting some finger-waving, a short background: I've been homeless before. I moved Downtown as a property owner 4 years ago. So I've lived both sides.)
I appreciate Xing bringing to light some of the comments that are unfair to the homeless. Calling them bums is a start, I hate to get ultra PC here, but it's unfair to refer to them as a bum when we don't understand their circumstances.
The fact that we live in America, and have the most powerful country in the world, and the richest country in the world, and that we have a homeless epidemic at all should be insulting to Americans. But it's not.
trent wrote:I appreciate Xing bringing to light some of the comments that are unfair to the homeless. Calling them bums is a start, I hate to get ultra PC here, but it's unfair to refer to them as a bum when we don't understand their circumstances.
So bums are off the chopping block? Let's see, so now we are down to Saint Charles residents*, first generation rich people, SUV drivers (I'd assume), and due to my instigation - women that wear wanna be bisexual bifocals.
Man, you can't make fun of anything around here!
BTW, I totally agree with Phobias comments. Rice's deal is monolithic panhandling and it's terribly annoying.
My real opinion on this is that if the market changes to all high end and the home challenged get pushed out, then that's just what was meant to happen.
I mean it isn't as if they won't find another area of the city to "live".
In other words, don't worry, there will always be bums, I mean, the home challenged, around for we superior employed people to either castigate or empathize with. They may be a few blocks further away, but they will still be there.
*My thoughts on Saint Charles have not changed. It no longer exists. Such a horrible place can't possibly exist.
No good person is saying the homeless are anything less than human. And speak for yourself when you say homelessness isn't insulting to Americans.
I love it how some people like to paint homelessness as a result of "evil American capitalism." Homelessness is a problem in all countries, to include the socialist EU and Communist China, where there are rampant problems.
In America, the breakdown of family values can't help any. Teenage pregnancies, drugs, crime, single-parent families. The list goes on. More causes are located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeless#Causes
The fact is, nobody can make another person homeless. When it comes down to it, it's about personal responsibility. And yet, we should help the homeless get back on their feet.
It just makes more sense to place a homeless center in the midst of low-income areas (where the homeless come from) than higher-income areas such as the loft district.
trent wrote:The fact that we live in America, and have the most powerful country in the world, and the richest country in the world, and that we have a homeless epidemic at all should be insulting to Americans. But it's not.
That last post was logical. Thankyou for a logical post!
Here is the scenario I most fear: The Bottle District opens up and quickly becomes lauded throughout the universe as "the place to be". Just when things are looking on the up and up, Sammy Hagar is found b**** slapping a "home challenged" individual for stealing lemon rinds from his dumpster.
The photos splash around the world and within minutes of the incident, the entire population of Saint Louis is bathed in eternal shame. The effort to re-urbanize downtown Saint Louis comes crashing down. Mad crowds led by Larry Rice rush through the streets eventually demolishing the Arch. However, Sammy Hagar moves on to the next city and RAWKS.
Note: This is not intended to be an indorsement of Cabbawhatevertheheckitscalled.
I think the cause of homelessness and the degree to which we are going to respect them is our own choice and not very pertinent to the discussion. The point is that homeless people are here. And they are in all urban downtowns, from the most to the least successful. You can't make homelessness just disappear.
I'm really surprised at the nasty prejudice (and depth of it) directed at the homeless in some of these posts. I'd expect more of us to be a bit more enlightened.
Homelessness is not a matter of personal responsibility for the large portion of the homeless that does not want to be in that situation but cannot control their circumstances.
2. Homeless people may not be an appealing aspect of downtown but I'm not sure how much right new urban dwellers have to come in and radically change what existed before them.
3. Where are the homeless supposed to go? Another down-and-out neighborhood until it too becomes gentrified? Then what?
5. Every city deals with this. Maybe they can offer insights about balancing urban renaissance and persistent social problems. Seems a better road to travel than the NIMBY stance, which isn't going to help anybody.
I'm traveling to St. Louis this week and purposely staying downtown instead of with friends so I get get a sense of whether I'd like to live downtown when I move back. Do I want to be panhandled at every corner? No. Do I want to step over spent needles on the way into my hotel? No. Do I want my rental car broken into, stolen, or torched? No. Might experiences like these deter me from living downtown? Yes.
I don't have the answers either, but my point is that greater sensitivity and understanding for a population that probably numbers in the thousands might be a good place to start. If you want city living, deal with the diversity--grit, grime, pros, cons, and all the rest.
I'm really surprised at the nasty prejudice (and depth of it) directed at the homeless in some of these posts. I'd expect more of us to be a bit more enlightened.
Homelessness is not a matter of personal responsibility for the large portion of the homeless that does not want to be in that situation but cannot control their circumstances.
2. Homeless people may not be an appealing aspect of downtown but I'm not sure how much right new urban dwellers have to come in and radically change what existed before them.
3. Where are the homeless supposed to go? Another down-and-out neighborhood until it too becomes gentrified? Then what?
5. Every city deals with this. Maybe they can offer insights about balancing urban renaissance and persistent social problems. Seems a better road to travel than the NIMBY stance, which isn't going to help anybody.
I'm traveling to St. Louis this week and purposely staying downtown instead of with friends so I get get a sense of whether I'd like to live downtown when I move back. Do I want to be panhandled at every corner? No. Do I want to step over spent needles on the way into my hotel? No. Do I want my rental car broken into, stolen, or torched? No. Might experiences like these deter me from living downtown? Yes.
I don't have the answers either, but my point is that greater sensitivity and understanding for a population that probably numbers in the thousands might be a good place to start. If you want city living, deal with the diversity--grit, grime, pros, cons, and all the rest.
"I'm really surprised at the nasty prejudice (and depth of it) directed at the homeless in some of these posts. "
Please provide some examples. Not trying to be weird or anything, just want to see what specifically nasty prejudice happened.
If I am included in that, please accept my apology. I have dealt with it first hand and have offered my services on occasion to the salvation army. But I refuse to lose my sense of humor about any human subject. Stating empathy is ok, that is fine by me. But sympathy is another story. I reserve sympathy on a case by case basis. There is no way for me to attempt to understand the entirety of a dilemma when the reality is more complex than we'd ever care to admit.
I have been around long enough to know that human behavior isn't always a social problem. In more cases than we'd ever care to admit it is an individual problem. You hang around a soup kitchen for long enough and you would understand that there is truth to what I am saying.
PS. My post in particular was a lame attempt to get this particular thread back on topic regarding the Bottle District.
Village, I don't disagree with your last post, or your attempt to refocus the conversation, and my comment about prejudice wasn't directed at anyone in particular. As others have shared, I just think some of the other posts were out-of-line. Citing examples will only inflame the discussion, which I recognize is off-topic. Maybe it should be moved, because I think these issues are worth talking about in relation to downtown living.
*Maybe this should be moved because it's off topic but it is in response to the posts in this forum.*
Questions: Is it legal for homeless to make a downtown plaza their campsite during nice weather? Also, should they be allowed to do that? Do you think police in the suburbs would ignore many people camping/sleeping in one of their parks? Do police in the city ignore it? Should homeless shelters be moved to the nicest suburbs or areas with the highest median income because that's where the resources to get back on their feet are? Does Larry Rice really help people... really help them... for the long term?
-I'm not taking sides on these questions, I'd just like to see what people have to say about it. I'd really like to hear from people who live downtown and have to live with the situation. If you don't live downtown please don't spout your idealistic viewpoints from afar, because it's easy to take the high ground on an issure you don't have to deal with.
obviously there will be homeless people in any major city; getting rid of them completely isn't the argument. Just walk by Lucas Park during the day. How likely are you going to stop there and have lunch in the park? The place is almost ALWAYS littered with trash.. I wonder which group is doing that.. The new loft dwellers on Washington?? Someone mentioned incentives. If I had the money I'd build a 20 million dollar center right across the walkable Eads Bridge in Illinois. Having them at the heart of downtown prevents the improvement of downtown. Obviously we want to care for these people and make sure they have access to shelters, but it doesn't need to be done in the heart of a "CBD"- notice my quotations on that- that is striving to succeed. Anheuser Busch is moving one of their offices out of downtown within the next six months, another 300 jobs (65,000 sf office space) to move to the county. I wonder if they ever had issues with bums outside of their building at One City Centre.. Maybe the two DO go hand in hand... Interesting...
Xing wrote:Sure it looks bad, but you have to level your reasoning. No major city is free of homeless people. With the perspective that they are bums, useless, or mere pests, is counterproductive to the removal of them. This is not a good location for the homeless, but there are better ways of justifying their removal, without diminishing their human value. They obviously need assistance. Their existence is an essential con of a capitalistic society.
Essential con of a capitalistic society? Please elaborate. Is it those horrible bourgeoisies requiring cleanliness and arriving on time to work?
Maybe they would rather live in the worker's paradise of Cuba or North Korea?
It is hard not to sound callous when refering to the homeless as bums, but there certainly is a difference between the two as was pointed out. I have volunteered to serve breakfast at the shelter downtown with my church early on Sunday mornings. The people there seem to be there for bad circumstances rather than bad decisions like the panhandlers on the street.
It is a common mistake to think that just because someone is against government programs helping the homeless that they wish for them to starve to death. I just don't particularly like the whole idea of "social problems". I believe they are all individual problems and treating them otherwise destroys the responsibility that makes a strong community, both for the downtrodden and the people that should help them.
We have to face the facts that welfare entrenches and increases the amount of poor and homeless people because it removes responsibility for peoples actions. "Go ahead and have that fourth baby because the government will play the daddy and provide for it." Since welfare reform in the midnineties, the welfare rolls have been cut in half. People were forced to take responsibility for their own lives.
Government help also destroys responsibility that we have to help each other. A lot of people seem to be all about helping the homeless, so long as it's with other people's money, other people's effort, and in some place out of sight. I call this the liberal "pseudo-philanthropy" mindset where their guilt is assuaged by thinking that they are doing something but are really just taking other people's money and giving it to others.
There was already a social safety net in place before the New Deal and Great Society. It was friends, family, churches, fraternal organizations, etc helping each other out. This is true charity, voluntary sacrifice for others. I find this to be the opposite of the exchange between the indifferent bureaucrat, giving away other people's money to the welfare recipients demanding their "entitlements" at the government office. I'll take the free market version of compassion over that any day.
innov8ion wrote:There is a good correlation between homelessness and drugs and violence. Therefore the acceptance is implied.
I'm sure there could be incentives made for Larry Rice to move the center. And if not, there are always zoning laws. What right do we have? Well, we're voters. Democracy's a b****, isn't it?
Urban Elitist wrote:
innov8ion wrote:Yeah, you tell em! If you want to live in a nice area, stay in the suburbs. If you want homelessness, vagrancy, drugs and violence move downtown -- it's accepted here.
I never said any of that. I said you should expect to see bums if you are moving DT, not that durgs and violence are acceptable there. Since DT is the hub of the city, It's natural that a shelter would be located there. Doesn't Larry RIce own this building anyway? Since you seem to love the free market, as long as he can pay his property taxes , what right do we have to force him to leave?
I have never heard, from my entire time of being in the East St Louis, Washington D.C., or Chicago area, of a homeless man killing anyone. From my experience, the homeless are more inclined to steel, say unusual things, drink a lot of alcohol, or ask for money... but never have I felt threatened, or seen any use drugs in front of me. Most people to cause trouble , often appear to be more well off than the homeless, and perfectly sane.
From my experience, these fears come from those who have less experience in urban areas.
Europe, ala Africa, and the Us and Canada, ala Latin America.
My family, and many friends are from Latin America, and it couldn't be more obvious that those who do benefit are often European or far north American decent, while those who do not, are often black or Native American.
In Latin America, contrarily to popular American understanding, the more Indian you look, the less wealth, job opportunities, and power you have. This mentality was brought by the Spanish. What many U.S. Americans do not understand, is the amount of control the US has had in Latin America (read CNN, MSNBC... so on, on what's going in Cuba right now, and they appear to have so much opinion for our country that says it doesn’t have an interest in invading Cuba). They have taken everything from Gold, Oil, Tourism dollars, and benefits from the labor of the poor; for clothing, electronics, automobiles, and jewelry. The money then comes back to the US, while the US arrogantly assumes any small profit they give back, is "a lot" to a poor little Indian. The current growth of socialism, and the lack of interest in capitalism, is the result of this abuse. Capitalism is a good system, if used properly.
If we assume this is the greatest aspect of our government, than we would more delicately pass on its influences, rather than abusing , using, and manipulating it for the benefit of only one group of people, in this case, US Americans, and their allies.
It may seem as if I am being overly critical, however, my background was extremely conservative, as I was a republican, and grew up in the US air force. However, all it takes is current immigration policy, an extreme amount of interest and research into Latin American immigrants, and an observation of the obvious manipulation of capitalism's benefits and harms on US American lives.
One thing I can say, is that many Latin Americans agree to my perception, Native Americans, and have my African American friends of St Louis, Chicago, and various other locals. To assume this is not going on, although many minority groups appear to feel abused by the popular system of a "so called" perfect" government, is not mere coincidence, but evidence of a system that needs major improvement.
They say capitalism is the prosperity at the expense of others. Again, my views appear extreme to those who have never been exposed to them, but these views on the homeless, from what I am reading now, are absurd . I am a person who has parents that were once wearing shoes with holes in them, picking onions, and serving gas as Mexican Migrant workers. In my eyes, many people here succeed, because of the hard work of others, and the lack of gratitude because of the small respect they receive from those who employ them.
Anyway, let's continue on with the Bottle District... St Louis deserves this, and I hope it happens.
Xing wrote:Europe, ala Africa, and the Us and Canada, ala Latin America.
My family, and many friends are from Latin America, and it couldn't be more obvious that those who do benefit are often European or far north American decent, while those who do not, are often black or Native American.
In Latin America, contrarily to popular American understanding, the more Indian you look, the less wealth, job opportunities, and power you have. This mentality was brought by the Spanish. What many U.S. Americans do not understand, is the amount of control the US has had in Latin America (read CNN, MSNBC... so on, on what's going in Cuba right now, and they appear to have so much opinion for our country that says it doesn’t have an interest in invading Cuba). They have taken everything from Gold, Oil, Tourism dollars, and benefits from the labor of the poor; for clothing, electronics, automobiles, and jewelry. The money then comes back to the US, while the US arrogantly assumes any small profit they give back, is "a lot" to a poor little Indian. The current growth of socialism, and the lack of interest in capitalism, is the result of this abuse. Capitalism is a good system, if used properly.
If we assume this is the greatest aspect of our government, than we would more delicately pass on its influences, rather than abusing , using, and manipulating it for the benefit of only one group of people, in this case, US Americans, and their allies.
It may seem as if I am being overly critical, however, my background was extremely conservative, as I was a republican, and grew up in the US air force. However, all it takes is current immigration policy, an extreme amount of interest and research into Latin American immigrants, and an observation of the obvious manipulation of capitalism's benefits and harms on US American lives.
One thing I can say, is that many Latin Americans agree to my perception, Native Americans, and have my African American friends of St Louis, Chicago, and various other locals. To assume this is not going on, although many minority groups appear to feel abused by the popular system of a "so called" perfect" government, is not mere coincidence, but evidence of a system that needs major improvement.
They say capitalism is the prosperity at the expense of others. Again, my views appear extreme to those who have never been exposed to them, but these views on the homeless, from what I am reading now, are absurd . I am a person who has parents that were once wearing shoes with holes in them, picking onions, and serving gas as Mexican Migrant workers. In my eyes, many people here succeed, because of the hard work of others, and the lack of gratitude because of the small respect they receive from those who employ them.
Anyway, let's continue on with the Bottle District... St Louis deserves this, and I hope it happens.
You have succeded in confusing me. Are you arguing something to do with the homeless here?
For good or for bad, it would be in the best interests of downtown development to move the NLEC. I see no reason to debate this point. A property located at 14th and Locust in a building that would likely need to be torn down seems like a prime property for development. Moreover, moving the NLEC would also allow many to be more comforatable unsing the adjacent park. All these things would make the area a nicer place to live.
Is such a move best for the homeless? I don't won't pretend to know the answer to that questions. What Rev. Rice does takes a great level of dedication and all St. Louisans should be supportive of his attempts to help the homeless and less forunate in the area. But admiring what he does and supporting it financial does not mean that St. Louis should not explore moving his faclity.
JMedwick wrote:For good or for bad, it would be in the best interests of downtown development to move the NLEC. I see no reason to debate this point. A property located at 14th and Locust in a building that would likely need to be torn down seems like a prime property for development. Moreover, moving the NLEC would also allow many to be more comforatable unsing the adjacent park. All these things would make the area a nicer place to live.
I can agree with this. As long as Rice voluntarily takes an incentive to move, I see no problem woith it as he will always do what he sees is best for the homeless.
^ Very true. And because he wants to do what he sees as best for the homeless, I don't think the NLEC will move unless Rev. Rice is bankrupt or dead. I belive he likes making sure those moving into the pricey new lofts see the homeless everyday, remind them of the less forunate. And in some ways, I don't think it is a bad thing to be reminded of the hard truthes of life sometimes. But at the same time, I would love to see Rice work with the city to find a new place for him to continue his mission in a new faclity flush with cash. Then it's a win-win for everyone.
The NLEC (Riceland) has been in violation of countless City codes for ages; only political cowardice has stayed enforcement.
There is a big difference between the down-on-their-luck homeless (often clients of St. Patrick's Center) and panhandling transients (often clients of NLEC). Homeless being Downtown because there are services available and (have been) vacant properties to shelter in is quite different than Rice's pawns choosing a vocation intimidating tourists.
I don't understand, yet, why the police seem to think that enforcing anti-panhandling laws would be the same, politically, as kicking squatters out of vacant property.
Nor do I understand why the well-intentioned suburbanites insist on feeding the homeless out of the back of their trucks, and provide no support for cleaning up the litter. Wouldn't coordination with St. Patricks or Christ Church be more effective?
(And, in the hopes of preempting some finger-waving, a short background: I've been homeless before. I moved Downtown as a property owner 4 years ago. So I've lived both sides.)
The city seemed to be going after Rice for his numerous code violations and then retreated. At the same time, Rice was filing lawsuits over the city's attempts to acquire the Abrams Building. Now that the city has an agreement to purchase the Abrams Building, I wonder if it will make an issue of NLEC's code violations again. I wouldn't have a problem with it if they did...
JMedwick wrote:I belive he likes making sure those moving into the pricey new lofts see the homeless everyday, remind them of the less forunate. And in some ways, I don't think it is a bad thing to be reminded of the hard truthes of life sometimes. But at the same time, I would love to see Rice work with the city to find a new place for him to continue his mission in a new faclity flush with cash. Then it's a win-win for everyone.
That's a very good point. Why not explore another location such as renovating the Carr Lane School for homeless services? It's large enough, would preserve a run-down historic building, and is close to downtown, but not at the epicenter of its redevelopment efforts.
Terra Cotta started the trend years ago, and Park Pacific is the latest nearby project to be closing in on 14th and Locust. Maybe the market will eventually relocate Rice. If the price of an offer is right, Rice could afford a much nicer, newer facility, by selling his increasingly in-demand location for the right price.
