St Louis Homeless and Panhandlers

stlmike · PostSep 05, 2006#3262006-09-05T14:51+00:00

I really don't think any of the businesses downtown want to own their bit of sidewalk. It pretty much brings them no benefits.

Do you know how much it costs to maintain a sidewalk on a regular basis? You have to fix cracks and get things repaved every couple of years. It's really more of a burden and a needless expense than anything else. I'm sure many businesses in a struggling downtown don't want to deal with it. And what do you get out of it? You get to tell those scary homeless people to scram. I doubt that the business you'd gain from people too afraid to walk near a panhandeler would outweigh the expense of maintaining a sidewalk. The only panhandelers that are really "scary," are probably breaking a law anyway and you actually can call the police, public sidewalk or not. If they are harassing people, being lewd or obscene, or offensive, the police aren't going to be sympathetic to the homeless man.

bastiat · PostSep 05, 2006#3272006-09-05T17:10+00:00

stlmike wrote:I really don't think any of the businesses downtown want to own their bit of sidewalk. It pretty much brings them no benefits.

Do you know how much it costs to maintain a sidewalk on a regular basis? You have to fix cracks and get things repaved every couple of years. It's really more of a burden and a needless expense than anything else. I'm sure many businesses in a struggling downtown don't want to deal with it. And what do you get out of it? You get to tell those scary homeless people to scram. I doubt that the business you'd gain from people too afraid to walk near a panhandeler would outweigh the expense of maintaining a sidewalk. The only panhandelers that are really "scary," are probably breaking a law anyway and you actually can call the police, public sidewalk or not. If they are harassing people, being lewd or obscene, or offensive, the police aren't going to be sympathetic to the homeless man.

Building owners fixing their own sidewalks would mean that taxes that used to go towards this would be cut. Expenses would be outweighed by this tax cut because businesses and neighborhood associations would look actively for the lowest cost for the highest quality. There would be no government regulations on this, so there would be room for more innovation. For example, rubber sidewalks are being tried in some parts of the country because they last 3 times as long due to their flexibility to ice and tree roots, etc. They are recycled tires, but look like granite pavers. I'd imagine one would get a fine for trying to make an improvement like that.

I should also point out that this is not some crazy idea. This has historical examples from around the country. In our own backyard, property owners in the CWE have private streets and sidewalks. Casinos in Vegas have private sidewalks on parts of the strip. In Salt Lake City, the Mormon church owns the block of Main Street in front of it. All are well kept.

Maybe we could experiment and limit it to new developments such as Ball Park Village and the 14th street mall? Signs should be put up elsewhere for the time being.

stlmike · PostSep 05, 2006#3282006-09-05T17:49+00:00

I just thought I'd point out that, in my opinion, the worst thing about the Central West End is the private streets.

appraisalman · PostSep 05, 2006#3292006-09-05T18:04+00:00

However, if those streets weren't private, I'm sure the historic mansions would of been razed long ago.

steve · PostSep 05, 2006#3302006-09-05T18:33+00:00

appraisalman wrote:However, if those streets weren't private, I'm sure the historic mansions would of been razed long ago.

Why do you say that? In fact, I can think of at least one--on Portland I think--that was torn down. The houses actually on Lindell aren't on a private place, and the majority of them are still standing proud.

appraisalman · PostSep 05, 2006#3312006-09-05T18:37+00:00

"The majority of them" is exactly my point. Have you seen the newer houses that have gone up on Lindell. Anyway, if residents living on those private streets didn't have the "extra sense of security" by having it private I'm sure most of the houses would of been abandoned long ago when the central west end wasn't so hip.

steve · PostSep 05, 2006#3322006-09-05T18:42+00:00

That's definitely a possibility, but I think the point is moot.

buckethead · PostSep 05, 2006#3332006-09-05T18:48+00:00

I agree with appraisalman. I know 4 or 5 families that live on Westmoreland or Portland and if the streets were not private they would not be living there.

steve · PostSep 05, 2006#3342006-09-05T18:50+00:00

Interesting.

Do you know why? Is it because they feel more safe?

buckethead · PostSep 05, 2006#3352006-09-05T19:20+00:00

That's certainly a factor. It's also a prestige thing too.

Expat · PostSep 05, 2006#3362006-09-05T19:27+00:00

appraisalman wrote:"The majority of them" is exactly my point. Have you seen the newer houses that have gone up on Lindell. Anyway, if residents living on those private streets didn't have the "extra sense of security" by having it private I'm sure most of the houses would of been abandoned long ago when the central west end wasn't so hip.

Actually, the CWE private place houses were pretty much abandoned. During the 1970s, I personally know people that bought them for the price of a car. Lucky dogs! They were being given away. It is amazing that so many houses survived that period. Those are grand houses, and the people I know that bought them for a song, would have bought them if they were in a private place or not. In the end, being in a private place did not save them. It was really a matter of good luck and timing. There are elegant neighborhoods in many cities that survived without being on private streets. And having private places did not keep wealthy St. Louisians from moving further west. But, certainly being in a private place can't hurt, I am not arguing against private places. But let's not kid ourselves. Having private streets for our wealthy, did not keep our wealthy from fleeing. There are plenty of cities that kept stable wealthy neighborhoods, probably better than St. Louis, without the benefit of private places.

Now regarding the argument that downtown sidewalks should be private: It reminds me of 3rd world cities. Department stores, casinos, and posh residences have beautiful sidewalks. Elsewhere the streets and sidewalks are literally crumbling. And that is if they are lucky enough to have streets and sidewalks. And no one is safe from beggars or worse. People that can afford it have private security, private maintenance, and private every thing else. Everybody else lives in decay outside the private walls. I don't want to live in a city like that. In my job, I meet people from 3rd world cities on a regular basis. Every one of them is amazed at our infrastructure. They can't believe the high standards we have for streets, sidewalks, bridges, etc. I am not ready to give it up to avoid beggars. Living behind a private wall does not appeal to me.

More and more people downtown will solve the problem. People won't be overwhelmed by beggars when the streets are teeming with life.

steve · PostSep 05, 2006#3372006-09-05T19:38+00:00

Expat wrote:Now regarding the argument that downtown sidewalks should be private: It reminds me of 3rd world cities. Department stores, casinos, and posh residences have beautiful sidewalks. Elsewhere the streets and sidewalks are literally crumbling. And that is if they are lucky enough to have streets and sidewalks. And no one is safe from beggars or worse. People that can afford it have private security, private maintenance, and private every thing else. Everybody else lives in decay outside the private walls. I don't want to live in a city like that. In my job, I meet people from 3rd world cities on a regular basis. Every one of them is amazed at our infrastructure. They can't believe the high standards we have for streets, sidewalks, bridges, etc. I am not ready to give it up to avoid beggars. Living behind a private wall does not appeal to me.

More and more people downtown will solve the problem. People won't be overwhelmed by beggars when the streets are teeming with life.

Bravo.

loftlover · PostSep 05, 2006#3382006-09-05T22:06+00:00

Expat wrote:Now regarding the argument that downtown sidewalks should be private: It reminds me of 3rd world cities. Department stores, casinos, and posh residences have beautiful sidewalks. Elsewhere the streets and sidewalks are literally crumbling. And that is if they are lucky enough to have streets and sidewalks. And no one is safe from beggars or worse. People that can afford it have private security, private maintenance, and private every thing else. Everybody else lives in decay outside the private walls. I don't want to live in a city like that. In my job, I meet people from 3rd world cities on a regular basis. Every one of them is amazed at our infrastructure. They can't believe the high standards we have for streets, sidewalks, bridges, etc. I am not ready to give it up to avoid beggars. Living behind a private wall does not appeal to me.

More and more people downtown will solve the problem. People won't be overwhelmed by beggars when the streets are teeming with life.

Expat, I disagree with the suggestion to privitize the sidewalks, but I spend a lot of time in D.C. (more than I care to) and you can't compare the walkability of the streets there to those DT STL. I'm not sure we should be comparing our infrastructure to that in the third world anyway. We're just exploring a few out-of-the-box suggestions on how to deal with a problem that is borderline out-of-control. Walking around DT this past Monday, there where literally hundreds of homeless. It was the dominent feature for a four or five block radius around the the old library. The friends I was with we're absolutely appauled. We're not going to get to a state where "more and more people downtown will solve the problem" because we need to deal with this reality now or they just won't come.

PostSep 05, 2006#3392006-09-05T22:14+00:00

stlmike wrote:I really don't think any of the businesses downtown want to own their bit of sidewalk. It pretty much brings them no benefits.

Ever been to Germany? Every Saturday morning home owners and shop merchants everywhere go outside and clean the sidewalks and streets outside of their home/establishment. Germany is very much a socialist state and I doubt homeowners and shops "own" their sidewalks. It's called pride of ownership and a culture of order and cleanliness. I'm not advocating anything here, but if we all just do our part . . .

steve · PostSep 05, 2006#3402006-09-05T22:27+00:00

loftlover wrote:
stlmike wrote:I really don't think any of the businesses downtown want to own their bit of sidewalk. It pretty much brings them no benefits.

Ever been to Germany? Every Saturday morning home owners and shop merchants everywhere go outside and clean the sidewalks and streets outside of their home/establishment. Germany is very much a socialist state and I doubt homeowners and shops "own" their sidewalks. It's called pride of ownership and a culture of order and cleanliness. I'm not advocating anything here, but if we all just do our part . . .

Those crazy scrubby "Dutch!"

stlmike · PostSep 06, 2006#3412006-09-06T00:02+00:00

Germany? That happens in the United States. I'm not talking about cleaning. People do that even when they don't own the sidewalk. I'm talking about fixing cracks and repaving every couple of years. That's expensive.

rickc · PostSep 06, 2006#3422006-09-06T00:55+00:00

loftlover wrote:

Walking around DT this past Monday, there where literally hundreds of homeless. It was the dominent feature for a four or five block radius around the the old library. The friends I was with we're absolutely appauled. We're not going to get to a state where "more and more people downtown will solve the problem" because we need to deal with this reality now or they just won't come.

I agree with loftlover.

My wife and I experienced a very similar reaction from some friends that we were with at the recent Strassenfest (one of the couples was visiting from Oklahoma). A wandering homeless man, who was either drunk or delirious, sat down at our picnic table and started talking to us. He didn't stay very long and seemed like a harmless fellow, but you should have seen the raised eyebrows when he first sat down! There was quite a discussion about his little visit after he left and needless to say it had a very negative impact on the couple from Oklahoma's visit to DT StL.

There were also statements made about how the homeless situation downtown would be one factor in not wanting to live DT.

urban elitist · PostSep 06, 2006#3432006-09-06T01:07+00:00

rickC wrote:My wife and I experienced a very similar reaction from some friends that we were with at the recent Strassenfest (one of the couples was visiting from Oklahoma). A wandering homeless man, who was either drunk or delirious, sat down at our picnic table and started talking to us. He didn't stay very long and seemed like a harmless fellow, but you should have seen the raised eyebrows when he first sat down! There was quite a discussion about his little visit after he left and needless to say it had a very negative impact on the couple from Oklahoma's visit to DT StL.

There were also statements made about how the homeless situation downtown would be one factor in not wanting to live DT.

I want to solve the homless situation as much as the next person, but anyone who says they wouldn't live in DT STL just because they are afraid to see a few homeless people is not the type of person we want DT anyways. We need young pioneers and older liberal yupies who won't let a few homeless people run them out of dodge. If the mere presence of a few homeless guys is going to irk them that much then they belong in Clayton with all of the rest of the old ladies because they'd never survive the stress of living in DT STL. Tell your friends to enjoy thier home in Oklahoma.

rickc · PostSep 06, 2006#3442006-09-06T01:15+00:00

^i said the homeless situation was one factor, not the only factor.

jcity · PostSep 06, 2006#3452006-09-06T04:02+00:00

"I want to solve the homless situation as much as the next person, but anyone who says they wouldn't live in DT STL just because they are afraid to see a few homeless people is not the type of person we want DT anyways. We need young pioneers and older liberal yupies who won't let a few homeless people run them out of dodge"

This is ridiculous. I'm sorry. For one, I don't think the homeless problem is any worse in St. Louis than any other downtown. Denver has a homeless problem 10 times as big as ours. The problem is that they're more noticeable due to a lack of pedestrian activity- outside of normal business hours. I am so sick of the "grin and bear it" bs of apologetic liberals. Homeless people don't "scare" me either but, I had to deal with one today, a nusiance that no one wants to have to deal with on a daily basis. This problem will hurt the renaissance of downtown, whether people want to believe it or not. High end condo's in Clayton/ CWE or the Park Pacifica across from Hobo Camp Alley- Hmmm, where do I move... As for "wealthy liberals" living downtown. I want ANY wealthy people to live downtown who have a love for St. Louis City.

urban elitist · PostSep 06, 2006#3462006-09-06T12:11+00:00

JCity wrote:This is ridiculous. I'm sorry. For one, I don't think the homeless problem is any worse in St. Louis than any other downtown. Denver has a homeless problem 10 times as big as ours. The problem is that they're more noticeable due to a lack of pedestrian activity- outside of normal business hours. I am so sick of the "grin and bear it" bs of apologetic liberals. Homeless people don't "scare" me either but, I had to deal with one today, a nusiance that no one wants to have to deal with on a daily basis. This problem will hurt the renaissance of downtown, whether people want to believe it or not. High end condo's in Clayton/ CWE or the Park Pacifica across from Hobo Camp Alley- Hmmm, where do I move... As for "wealthy liberals" living downtown. I want ANY wealthy people to live downtown who have a love for St. Louis City.

My point was that the type of personality that is going to be one of the first to move DT is the type of personality that is going to understand that the homeless situation is only going ot improve after more people move down there and demand change. For people to say "I'm not moving DT because there are some homeless guys walking around" shows that they do not have the stomach to live in a true urban enviornment, so they may as well save themselves the trouble and just live in Clayton. CWE has plenty of panhandlers there as well sot he same theory applies.

matt · PostSep 06, 2006#3472006-09-06T13:50+00:00

This is really another topic but....the idea of owners/occupants in a downtown taking the responsibility for cleaning is something that definately could be developed in downtown St. Louis. I noticed that merchants in the golden triangle in DC clean the exterior of their property each morning during the warm months. This type of ethic is completely absent in St. Louis. I walked by One Bell Center last week and the exterior of the building was absolutely gross.

jeff707 · PostSep 06, 2006#3482006-09-06T15:35+00:00

a problem that is borderline out-of-control

That's absurd and paranoid. Yes, there are a lot of homeless people, and they may be more active now than they were six months ago, but it is not "out-of-control." The homeless people are most common near the Library for three reasons - it's a public space that allows them to find shelter and they don't really kick them out, it's near Larry Rice's place, and there is a ton of open space around it with little pedestrian activity. There are no offices near there to keep the daytime foot traffic up. Why don't we put some buildings up in place of those parks? include reatil, office and residential?

I noticed that merchants in the golden triangle in DC clean the exterior of their property each morning during the warm months

This doesn't really have anything to do with private ownership of sidewalks. It's just good business.

tax guru · PostSep 06, 2006#3492006-09-06T20:01+00:00

Urban Elitist wrote:My point was that the type of personality that is going to be one of the first to move DT is the type of personality that is going to understand that the homeless situation is only going ot improve after more people move down there and demand change. For people to say "I'm not moving DT because there are some homeless guys walking around" shows that they do not have the stomach to live in a true urban enviornment, so they may as well save themselves the trouble and just live in Clayton. CWE has plenty of panhandlers there as well sot he same theory applies.

Even if a potential buyer may not care that a few homeless people are in the neighborhood, he or she may nevertheless draw some pretty negative conclusions about the neighborhood based on their presence, such as: not enough police in the area to manage the problem, so maybe there is more crime and a slower response time; or maybe people in the neighborhood just don't care about the neighborhood, and if they don't care about this problem, maybe they don't care about anything. When you consider how many options people have, and how lazy people are, a few homeless people might just sour a potential buyer enough to get them to choose the CWE or Clayton over DT because of unreasonable assumptions. The homeless problem might not be that bad, but a potential buyer goes downtown to eat at a restaurant and gets harrassed at his table, he might draw the conclusion that downtown is in total disorder--a stretch I admit, but people make these ridiculous conclusions, especially snobby people with money. And while I think it's great that you want to keep these people out of DT, I don't think a city that has been losing population for decades can be too selective about who it wants to attract. I guess what I'm trying to say is that on top of the very real problem of people on the streets harrassing local residents, there is another problem. And that problem is IMAGE. Homeless people do more than cause a real nuisance, they hurt the image of DT and as a result probably even deter some (obviously not all or maybe even most) people from moving there.

bastiat · PostSep 06, 2006#3502006-09-06T21:50+00:00

I want to solve the homless situation as much as the next person, but anyone who says they wouldn't live in DT STL just because they are afraid to see a few homeless people is not the type of person we want DT anyways. We need young pioneers and older liberal yupies who won't let a few homeless people run them out of dodge

JCity is right, this is ridiculous. What you are basically saying is that you don't want people moving downtown who don't like dealing with crime. You almost seem to paint these people as the problem, opposed to the criminals and homeless themselves.

People see dozens of homeless people downtown and rightly do feel uncomfortable. These people are uncleanly, have a terrible smell, are usually slightly to extremely intoxicated/demented, are persistently annoying, and always try to shake your hand. The vast majority of the time they are harmless (in that they don't attack you), but they are a large nuisance and they are driving potential residents away.

What we really need are people in the city who are willing to stand up to the old liberal assumptions that allow this to go on in our center of commerce. No more policies encouraging helplessness in our citizens against these parasites. No more signs saying "lock your valuables away, because this place is unsafe". If we want young urban pioneers who aren't going to be run away by homeless people, we need to give them the tools to run the homeless out of our reviving city.

First, we need to ensure that people have the right to defense against these hooligans, so make sure that concealed carry is an assumed right (like in Liberal Vermont), and firing in self-defense is protected in the courts.

Second, lets cut the support to this lifestyle that is provided by hardworking taxpayers. Instead of welfare checks to those who do not work, let's let St. Louisans keep the money they earned for themselves. Cut any public funding to Larry Rice's homeless "shelter".

Third, let's give business owners the right to expel these pests from the commercial streets. No more "neighborhood bums". Go harass Larry Rice for money and leave the customers alone.

For those who actually believe that these are people who are just down on their luck or victims of capitalist society (opposed to people relieved of any personal responsibility by government handouts), I'll personally donate funds for their one-way bus ticket to San Francisco or any other "progressive city". I'm sure they'll be welcomed with open arms there.

St Louis Homeless and Panhandlers

Choose Display Mode