^, ^^, Tax Guru, Bastiat - great posts.
When people say that homelessness is a necessary conclusion of capitalism, that's not knocking capitalism or apologizing for all of the homeless. It's basically saying that capitalism essentially makes homelessness a possibility. If capitalism thrives on competition, some people aren't going to, for whatever reason, fit into that scheme. Whether or not that's good, bad, or just the lesser of evils is up to everyone to decide for themselves. But it's the nature of the beast.
^ I agree, while crack addicts have their place in a capitalist society-they do after all purchase a commodity, which in turn fuels the purchase of other goods and services like guns, cars, and homes by the drug dealers themselves--other homeless people, such as those with mental problems are not part of the capitalist system. This is not a joke, I think we had a couple of smart posts about the lack of funding for mental institutions earlier in this thread. Nevertheless, we do not live in a purely capatalist society. If we did, I wouldn't have to hear about the guy living in the Trump Towers who is cashing welfare checks. And if you ask me we have more charities in this country than we need. Each new charity is just another sign that people don't think the other charities are spending the money well. When I have kids I'm going to start a charity to send my kids to college. I'll call it the Please Send My Kids to College Foundation. Due to its lack of charitable purpose your donations might not be tax deductible, but it will be a charity. Where was I? We have a million organizations trying to help these people. Unfortunately, some of them don't want our help. Some of them are very happy, where they are, doing whatever they want, everyday. And as some of you have posted, a few of them probably make more money than they would if they were working at Burger King. Actually, come to think of it, a few of the more clever panhandlers with clever signs etc. are pretty capitalistic themselves. My only conclusion is that I have a lot more respect for people who work low paying jobs.
- 1,493
Huh? Where on earth did you get this nonsense? You and others have completely ignored the very first sentence of my post where I said "I want to solve the homeless problem as much as the next person". The homeless situation is a problem.Bastiat wrote: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.
My post was only saying that if you get bent out of shape over a few homeless people then you probably cannot handle the stress of living in the city. No where did I say homelessness was not a problem or bad for St. Louis's image. The same types of people who would consider it beneath them to live in close proximity to the homeless are also likely to be NIMBYs when someone proposes a tall tower next to their building because it "blocks their view of the Arch from the east" or complain about neighborhood bars closing at 3am. Those types of people are not conducive to progress in St. Louis and they should probably live in Clayton where they would be happier and not annoy people.
Tax guru, while you did seem to understand the true spirit of my post unlike other posters with lower levels of reading comprehension, I have to disagree with this statement(though your response's logic is sound). I think we should be somewhat selective on who we try to lure DT. Do you want to lure people DT who will kill the current movement, or people who will help it along? You could use the same argument to say that a DT that has been losing so many buildings for so long that we should take whatever development we can get regardless of quality, but I'll bet no one on this forum would be in favor of that.Tax Guru wrote:I don't think a city that has been losing population for decades can be too selective about who it wants to attract.
^I second UE's post and conclusions.
Downtown is not the only City neighborhood -- and certainly not the neighborhood for everyone. Some people will like it; some won't.
One great thing about the City is that one can now find almost every style of neighborhood somewhere within the City limits.
Downtown is not the only City neighborhood -- and certainly not the neighborhood for everyone. Some people will like it; some won't.
One great thing about the City is that one can now find almost every style of neighborhood somewhere within the City limits.
Bastiat wrote:
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.
A couple of quick points:
Panhandlers and homeless are not synonymous.
Where would you expel these persons to? They don't disappear into the ether.
and, finally, if they were receiving government handouts, they would not be homeless. Blanket statements about the homeless show a certain level of naivete or ignorance of reality. Your choice.
This point needs to be emphasized. This thread's name and most of its contents are based on a misnomer. There are homeless, some of them Downtown, but the real problem is the panhandlers. Many of these are not homeless, and more still may not have their "own" place but reside at NLEC.mkgsxf wrote:Panhandlers and homeless are not synonymous.
Some panhandlers are homeless, and some homeless are panhandlers, but nonetheless we should consider each population separately. Perhaps we can enlist Bastiat to draw a Venn diagram for this thread.
The panhandlers are themselves a problem, and one we might be able to mitigate with ideas like signs and sidewalk privatization. The homeless are the effect of numerous social problems, which are fun to debate but probably outside the scope of the urbanstl.com community. Large-scale institutions exist to treat the latter, and if that's your concern then put your efforts to helping St. Patrick's.
If we want to discuss and influence St. Louis's urban renaissance, the panhandlers are the problem worth our attention here.
That's true.
Bastiat, you did equate homelessness with criminality. There is no identity there. I think one could argue that crime's natural breeding ground is the lowest end of society, not those outside of it. And spare us, please, of the "it's the government's and only the government's fault" that we have problem x, y, and z. Homelessness is the consequence of a number of factors, and capitalism is one of them.
Tax guru has a point. The image is far worse than any actual harm all those people sleeping in the parks around the library cause. I sat in the outdoor section of a high-end restaurant in Manhattan once. Literally five feet from me stood a homeless man, leaning against the rail separating the restaurant from the public sidewalk. The restaurant was full of the smartly dressed, the sidewalks teeming with people. Nobody paid the man any mind.
D.C. is another example of a successful city that has a serious homlessness problem, far worse than St. Louis'.
Am I saying that homelessness is okay? That we should just tolerate it as "part of urban life?" No, not necessarily. But UE and Expat have valid points. As one famous moralist said, "the poor you will always have with you." This is especially true in light of our political and economic regime.
Bastiat, you did equate homelessness with criminality. There is no identity there. I think one could argue that crime's natural breeding ground is the lowest end of society, not those outside of it. And spare us, please, of the "it's the government's and only the government's fault" that we have problem x, y, and z. Homelessness is the consequence of a number of factors, and capitalism is one of them.
Tax guru has a point. The image is far worse than any actual harm all those people sleeping in the parks around the library cause. I sat in the outdoor section of a high-end restaurant in Manhattan once. Literally five feet from me stood a homeless man, leaning against the rail separating the restaurant from the public sidewalk. The restaurant was full of the smartly dressed, the sidewalks teeming with people. Nobody paid the man any mind.
D.C. is another example of a successful city that has a serious homlessness problem, far worse than St. Louis'.
Am I saying that homelessness is okay? That we should just tolerate it as "part of urban life?" No, not necessarily. But UE and Expat have valid points. As one famous moralist said, "the poor you will always have with you." This is especially true in light of our political and economic regime.
My understanding is dated so feel free to correct me. In the 1980s, the Reagan administration changed rules of care for the mentally ill that were not a harm to themselves or to society. The idea was to create community-based mental health (as opposed to institutionalizing the segment). St. Louis was one of the few cities that successfully created the new approach (Independence Center). State mental hospitals turned patients out onto the streets with no real plan for housing.
- 2,005
I understand how an outsider would feel uncomfortable seeing panhandlers downtown. I was on Washington Ave this past Saturday afternoon and I got my first true taste of the Larry Rice problem.
One or two homeless people don't bother me at all. The sight of twenty or so congregating around Lucas Park or just standing outside a sidewalk cafe staring at people even freaked me out a bit. I've worked downtown for 5 years and thought I was immune to seeing homeless, but the area by the New Life Center needs to be cleaned up. There are just too many people crammed into that little space. Thank God Larry didn't get the Federal Building by the Savvis Center, that would have been disasterous.
I'm not painting the entire homeless problem with such a broad stroke, nor am I suggesting any solutions. Who knows how many 'homeless' are just panhandlers that actually have a place to live. I can't really begin to fathom how to deal with this issue. Nobody wants to have homeless living by them and you can't lock them up either. I remember when Harbor Light tried to move part of their shelter to Old North St. Louis three or four years ago. There was such a large outcry by the neighborhood that the City didn't approve the move.
There have been many so-called solutions over the years, but ultimately the problem has yet to be solved. There always will be homeless and panhandlers in every major city regardless. Are they criminals? Mostly no. A nuisance? Yes.
One or two homeless people don't bother me at all. The sight of twenty or so congregating around Lucas Park or just standing outside a sidewalk cafe staring at people even freaked me out a bit. I've worked downtown for 5 years and thought I was immune to seeing homeless, but the area by the New Life Center needs to be cleaned up. There are just too many people crammed into that little space. Thank God Larry didn't get the Federal Building by the Savvis Center, that would have been disasterous.
I'm not painting the entire homeless problem with such a broad stroke, nor am I suggesting any solutions. Who knows how many 'homeless' are just panhandlers that actually have a place to live. I can't really begin to fathom how to deal with this issue. Nobody wants to have homeless living by them and you can't lock them up either. I remember when Harbor Light tried to move part of their shelter to Old North St. Louis three or four years ago. There was such a large outcry by the neighborhood that the City didn't approve the move.
There have been many so-called solutions over the years, but ultimately the problem has yet to be solved. There always will be homeless and panhandlers in every major city regardless. Are they criminals? Mostly no. A nuisance? Yes.
I think we all know, or at least I feel, that the best solution is to take away their (panhandlers') incentive for panhandling - stop giving them money. A panhandler will only panhandle for so long if no one is giving him money. It's the money that encourages him to continue.
I think where we begin to disagree is on ways to accomplish that goal. One of the more extreme and pretty clever suggestions has been to penalize the people who give the money by ticketing them. Some have suggested this idea is absurd because we shouldn't have the ability to tell people what they can and cannot do with their money, especially if no criminal conduct is involved. While it doesn't seem fair to give some guy a $50 ticket for giving a guy down on his luck a quarter, the idea itself is not absurd. The Federal government already "tickets" you 50% when you gift away more than 12k. If you win the lottery and want to give your mom $1,000,000, you have to pay 500k in gift taxes (let's leave the lifetime exclusion out of it for a second). And while the homeless are not pigeons, most cities attempt to inform the public that feeding the pigeons will only mean more bird sh*t. Well, there you have it. I think rather than the extreme ticketing suggestion, we should treat the homeless like pigeons and beg the public not to feed them unless they want to see an increase in turds.
As many of you have already suggested, people should donate to the charities that take care of the homeless, so as to avoid providing some of the homeless/panhandlers with money for booze and drugs.
I think where we begin to disagree is on ways to accomplish that goal. One of the more extreme and pretty clever suggestions has been to penalize the people who give the money by ticketing them. Some have suggested this idea is absurd because we shouldn't have the ability to tell people what they can and cannot do with their money, especially if no criminal conduct is involved. While it doesn't seem fair to give some guy a $50 ticket for giving a guy down on his luck a quarter, the idea itself is not absurd. The Federal government already "tickets" you 50% when you gift away more than 12k. If you win the lottery and want to give your mom $1,000,000, you have to pay 500k in gift taxes (let's leave the lifetime exclusion out of it for a second). And while the homeless are not pigeons, most cities attempt to inform the public that feeding the pigeons will only mean more bird sh*t. Well, there you have it. I think rather than the extreme ticketing suggestion, we should treat the homeless like pigeons and beg the public not to feed them unless they want to see an increase in turds.
As many of you have already suggested, people should donate to the charities that take care of the homeless, so as to avoid providing some of the homeless/panhandlers with money for booze and drugs.
- 1,493
Yup, ticketing the panhandler "johns" is the fastest and most efficent way to tackle the problem while getting extra funding for shelters at the same time. SOMEONE SEND THIS THREAD TO SLAY ASAP!
- 2,772
The first time I stayed in a downtown hotel and walked to almost everywhere we went, I was asked at least twice by bums for money. Of course, they were all veterans & disabled and trying to feed their kids...except for one guy who actually admitted he just got out of jail and wanted a beer.
The homeless that are asking for money from out-of-towners is a real problem. If I didn't fall in love with the city when I was about 2, that could have deferred me from moving in to the city (rather than a suburb in the metro east) just because they don't JUST ask me for money and I give them a nickel, they make me feel uncomfortable. What if I give him 30 cents, I walk off, and he bashes my head in? I'm a small town guy, but I believe that St. Louis is an attraction to small town people, because its not huge like New York but it is full of activity; major league sports, big business, etc.
I also believe that the homeless should be ran out from downtown. Downtown is the "front lines" for a lot of visitors, and no one wants to walk with their young children through the street while society's leeches beg for change; especially young couples or single mothers with young children
The homeless that are asking for money from out-of-towners is a real problem. If I didn't fall in love with the city when I was about 2, that could have deferred me from moving in to the city (rather than a suburb in the metro east) just because they don't JUST ask me for money and I give them a nickel, they make me feel uncomfortable. What if I give him 30 cents, I walk off, and he bashes my head in? I'm a small town guy, but I believe that St. Louis is an attraction to small town people, because its not huge like New York but it is full of activity; major league sports, big business, etc.
I also believe that the homeless should be ran out from downtown. Downtown is the "front lines" for a lot of visitors, and no one wants to walk with their young children through the street while society's leeches beg for change; especially young couples or single mothers with young children
- 923
The homeless situation is a difficult and sensitive issue in St. Louis, as it is everywhere. However, if people want to point to a popular city with a pervasive homeless problem, go visit San Francisco. If you thought aggressive panhandling was bad in STL, San Fran homeless make used car salesmen look shy.
In downtown australian cities, there are very few aggressive homeless, mostly due a massive social safety net. Unemployed alcoholics and drug addicts get large handouts from the government and get housing in large public housing authority towers. Public housing here has as bad a connotation as it does in the US, however, the layout (they have towers in some of the nicest inner city suburbs) and government support has kept these people from becoming homeless. There's homeless and panhandlers to be sure, but the visible numbers are low (and many even are pseduo-street performers). There's even a program in place to get the homeless and long term unemployed to sell magazines on street corners. I've never bought one, but the program is 10 years running, so it must work.
The problem with the homeless is that they're generally homeless due to their own faults (booze, drugs, bad choices in life) or mental disability. Making panhandling a crime just puts a bigger burden on the criminal justice system that doesn't need to be there. Going all high and mighty saying 'that's their problem' doesn't work if it affects the whole of society. It's not like these people want to live on the streets.
If people want to reduce homelesses in the US, they have to be willing to part with a little more of their money in order to fund larger shelters, better care, and a functional system that helps to rehabilitate these people. I'm as much a fiscal conservative as the next person, but my question is this: if it cost you $100 a year to make sure that the homeless population in the country was reduced in 1/2 or more, would you do it? If it meant you could count on one hand the number of times a YEAR you got harassed for money, would you be in favor of it?
In downtown australian cities, there are very few aggressive homeless, mostly due a massive social safety net. Unemployed alcoholics and drug addicts get large handouts from the government and get housing in large public housing authority towers. Public housing here has as bad a connotation as it does in the US, however, the layout (they have towers in some of the nicest inner city suburbs) and government support has kept these people from becoming homeless. There's homeless and panhandlers to be sure, but the visible numbers are low (and many even are pseduo-street performers). There's even a program in place to get the homeless and long term unemployed to sell magazines on street corners. I've never bought one, but the program is 10 years running, so it must work.
The problem with the homeless is that they're generally homeless due to their own faults (booze, drugs, bad choices in life) or mental disability. Making panhandling a crime just puts a bigger burden on the criminal justice system that doesn't need to be there. Going all high and mighty saying 'that's their problem' doesn't work if it affects the whole of society. It's not like these people want to live on the streets.
If people want to reduce homelesses in the US, they have to be willing to part with a little more of their money in order to fund larger shelters, better care, and a functional system that helps to rehabilitate these people. I'm as much a fiscal conservative as the next person, but my question is this: if it cost you $100 a year to make sure that the homeless population in the country was reduced in 1/2 or more, would you do it? If it meant you could count on one hand the number of times a YEAR you got harassed for money, would you be in favor of it?
San Francisco is one of the most socialist / liberal cities in the nation. The lefties won't like this idea, but no doubt the homeless problem has become so bad there because of the ease and comfort of life which the homeless are afforded. Here's an interesting read which will provide more info and history on the San Francisco homeless condition and serve as an example of how not to combat the problem: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Ho ... 7sep03.htm
SF has spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the years on the problem and look where it got them -- it has become "progressively" worse. More money alone won't solve the homeless problem, people! The homeless need incentives to get off the street; not more money to keep them comfortable on it. And yes, mental health treatment, job training, and anything else that will help them bridge the gap to getting off the streets is integral.
I'm sure as hell not going to pay extra money out of my paycheck so that hundreds of people can permanently live for free in shelters downtown while continuing to panhandle. That'll only make the problem worse, not better.
The tolerant and permissive ignore the human condition by thinking solely with their hearts and not their minds. Let's be cognizant of the human condition. Let's move away from the welfare state which incentivizes laziness and toward the state of self-reliance where we teach men and women to take care of themselves and their families.
Call me cold-hearted if you will. But what is worse, the child who continually behaves badly or the tolerant, permissive parent who doesn't lead the child in the right direction? The parent, of course. In facing the homeless problem, we can either choose to be good parents (leaders) or be tolerant and permissive.
This is why I and so many others are vehemently against Mr. Larry Rice, whose aim is in line with the SF model in creating more transient shelters and less incentives for homeless to get off the street. Maybe his heart is in the right place, but maybe not as others have suggested. I think god wouldn't be so pleased with a Reverend who ignores the human condition and chooses to be permissive and tolerant of bad behavior (which keeps them on the streets) instead of leading them off the streets. That, folks, is blasphemy. Awful ironic coming from a "man of god" don't you think?
Hopefully we're a bit wiser than the San Franciscans. Because if we choose the tolerant and permissive route instead of being true leaders, our downtown will face a similar fate in regards to the homeless problem. And what a pity that would be.
SF has spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the years on the problem and look where it got them -- it has become "progressively" worse. More money alone won't solve the homeless problem, people! The homeless need incentives to get off the street; not more money to keep them comfortable on it. And yes, mental health treatment, job training, and anything else that will help them bridge the gap to getting off the streets is integral.
I'm sure as hell not going to pay extra money out of my paycheck so that hundreds of people can permanently live for free in shelters downtown while continuing to panhandle. That'll only make the problem worse, not better.
The tolerant and permissive ignore the human condition by thinking solely with their hearts and not their minds. Let's be cognizant of the human condition. Let's move away from the welfare state which incentivizes laziness and toward the state of self-reliance where we teach men and women to take care of themselves and their families.
Call me cold-hearted if you will. But what is worse, the child who continually behaves badly or the tolerant, permissive parent who doesn't lead the child in the right direction? The parent, of course. In facing the homeless problem, we can either choose to be good parents (leaders) or be tolerant and permissive.
This is why I and so many others are vehemently against Mr. Larry Rice, whose aim is in line with the SF model in creating more transient shelters and less incentives for homeless to get off the street. Maybe his heart is in the right place, but maybe not as others have suggested. I think god wouldn't be so pleased with a Reverend who ignores the human condition and chooses to be permissive and tolerant of bad behavior (which keeps them on the streets) instead of leading them off the streets. That, folks, is blasphemy. Awful ironic coming from a "man of god" don't you think?
Hopefully we're a bit wiser than the San Franciscans. Because if we choose the tolerant and permissive route instead of being true leaders, our downtown will face a similar fate in regards to the homeless problem. And what a pity that would be.
- 923
The lefties won't like this idea, but no doubt the homeless problem has become so bad there because of the ease and comfort of life which the homeless are afforded.
!?
Ease and comfort?
Innovation, seriosuly, have you ever been to a homeless shelter? Have you seen what the conditions are like? I'd hardly call the current conditions 'comfortable' or 'easy'. They're overcrowded, with up to 50 people sleeping in the same ROOM. And these are the roomates from hell - junkies, alcoholilcs, schizophreincs, manic or severe depressed, violent criminals - not exactly the people who you meet at a lock-in at the local YMCA!
I agree that people need a good kick in the butt sometimes, but lets be honest - if someone is living on the streets, telling them they screwed up and need to get a job is like pointing out the sky is blue. These people are well aware of their own condition. Last I checked, 99.9% of people don't like sleeping on pavement.
If society makes it a crime to panhandle, what would the punishment be? A fine which these people can't pay? In which case they'd spend time in prison, which is just another version of government provided housing. You're still paying taxes to house the homeless! And to what end? These people would just get released back on the streets to do the same behaviour until either getting killed or put back in prison. It's an endless cycle without a means of getting them back and functional into society. Plus the real criminals end up with shortened sentences due to over-crowding, so I ask - Which is worse on the streets: a panhandler or a convicted felon?
The problem in San Francisco (and everywhere) got worse as the economy changed and we went from manufacturing to high skilled jobs, which caused the layoffs of millions of people on the brink of bankruptcy. Not to mention the WONDERFUL job Reagan did when he virtually eliminated state-run mental hospitals, releasing hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people back to family who couldn't or wouldn't care for them. These MUCH larger issues pushed a tsumani of homeless into major US cities. The efforts charities and local government have been like trying to bail out the ocean with an eyedropper.
If society wants to eliminate homelessness, efforts have to be made to provide that person with a means to succeed. How can a person get a job with no permanent address? Or suitable interview clothes? Or a shower for that matter!? How can a mentally ill person survive when they're not getting the treatment they need? You surely can't blame them for their illness (unless you're Tom Cruise
). These people lack confidence and will power, but that doesn't mean every homeless person is a lost cause. If scoiety provides single-room occupancy for those who are likely to succeed in beating homelessness (some people will always end up homeless, due to personal issues that no amount of help can fix), and arrange job interviews and necessary life-skills training (like how to keep a bank account, avoid debt, basic insurance principles), then we can succeed in moving people off the streets and into permanent housing.
If this has turned into a conversation of blaming liberals or conservatives, nothing will be solved. Lately, too much time is used in demonizing liberals and conservatives on this forum. It is taking the fun out of UrbanStlouis for me. It is popping up in too many threads for my taste.
Someone has urged conservatives to stay in the surburbs. Someone else has urged liberals to move to San Francisco. With that attitude, there will be no one left in downtown St. Louis but homeless people. In fact, that is what we have had for decades. Conservatives moving further out. Liberals moving to the coasts. Leaving the City to die.
I hate what Rev. Rice has done to downtown St. Louis and I have for twenty years. I hate that he holds the city hostage. Someone said the city should not be giving him money. I hope the city isn't giving him money. His main agenda is irrititating St. Louis.
And I remember when the mentally ill were turned out on the streets in the early 1980s. Suddenly there were "homeless" people everywhere begging. That is when I learned my own personal way of dealing with beggars. I don't acknowledge them, I don't answer them, I keep walking. It has become second nature for me. I learned this in downtown St. Louis and brought my knowledge to downtown Washington, which has a huge homeless problem. I am always surprised when I see people opening their purses for them. And I avoid streets that have nothing but beggars. And I hate to see people avoid the areas around the library in St. Louis. I believe development of this area is one of most important things we can do in St. Louis. If Rice is scaring people away from Downtown West, it is not acceptable. A decaying downtown does not help poor people. Though it does help Rice maintain his empire.
When streets are busy and prosperous, it is easier to ignore beggars. That is why I said earlier that teeming streets would help. Some people thought I was a liberal fool that didn't understand the situation or was willing to sacrifice the city to coddle the lazy. Or perhaps it was just a chance to bash a liberal. (Actually, I consider myself a moderate)
Instead of blaming each other, perhaps liberals, conservatives, & moderates should work together to find a humane way to solve the problem. Or at least neutralize the problem so Downtown St. Louis won't continue to be held hostage.
PS: I know tons of liberals that can't stand Rev. Rice. Please stop associating him with liberals. His agenda is something else entirely.
Someone has urged conservatives to stay in the surburbs. Someone else has urged liberals to move to San Francisco. With that attitude, there will be no one left in downtown St. Louis but homeless people. In fact, that is what we have had for decades. Conservatives moving further out. Liberals moving to the coasts. Leaving the City to die.
I hate what Rev. Rice has done to downtown St. Louis and I have for twenty years. I hate that he holds the city hostage. Someone said the city should not be giving him money. I hope the city isn't giving him money. His main agenda is irrititating St. Louis.
And I remember when the mentally ill were turned out on the streets in the early 1980s. Suddenly there were "homeless" people everywhere begging. That is when I learned my own personal way of dealing with beggars. I don't acknowledge them, I don't answer them, I keep walking. It has become second nature for me. I learned this in downtown St. Louis and brought my knowledge to downtown Washington, which has a huge homeless problem. I am always surprised when I see people opening their purses for them. And I avoid streets that have nothing but beggars. And I hate to see people avoid the areas around the library in St. Louis. I believe development of this area is one of most important things we can do in St. Louis. If Rice is scaring people away from Downtown West, it is not acceptable. A decaying downtown does not help poor people. Though it does help Rice maintain his empire.
When streets are busy and prosperous, it is easier to ignore beggars. That is why I said earlier that teeming streets would help. Some people thought I was a liberal fool that didn't understand the situation or was willing to sacrifice the city to coddle the lazy. Or perhaps it was just a chance to bash a liberal. (Actually, I consider myself a moderate)
Instead of blaming each other, perhaps liberals, conservatives, & moderates should work together to find a humane way to solve the problem. Or at least neutralize the problem so Downtown St. Louis won't continue to be held hostage.
PS: I know tons of liberals that can't stand Rev. Rice. Please stop associating him with liberals. His agenda is something else entirely.
Pretty much agree with your post, Expat.
And Miguel, yes, ease and comfort. So they're not staying at the Ritz Carlton. So what? No one is entitled to that. The foundation of Maslow's hierarchy is taken care of for most of them if they seek it; food, shelter and clothing. Many homeless are content in meeting that threshold alone. So where's the incentive to get a job and be a productive member of society rather than a leech?
What I'm saying is, help give these people the tools, mental treatment, courage, etc to succeed on the outside and then apply pressure for them to spread their wings and fly. Of course, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink it. If they don't want to be a productive member of society -- I don't think they should be given the food or cot that could be given to another homeless person that honestly does want to get off the street. Maybe they'll change their mind after people stop coddling them.. No one is entitled to anything in society. If you want food, clothing or a home, do something about it! And in the case where there is some true, permanent factor (no excuses) that prevents one from being a productive member of society, that's where the social and private system can step in.
Listen Miguel and others on the left -- We aren't too far apart in our thoughts. I am in favor of the following for the homeless population:
- Providing food, clothing, shelter as a temporary means (no permanent free ride) until they get on their feet.
- Treatment for drug abuse and mental issues
- Providing or linking with existing, basic job training curricula and job placement services
- Helping to assist in finding affordable housing
- Homeless taking responsibility for their lives and stopping the attitude of victimization. Bad sh*t happens. Deal with it and move on with your life.
- Slowly taking away the free ride as a gentle nudge to ease back into being a productive member of society
- Providing advisement to those that need it to stay successful in society
I am not for:
- Giving folks a permanent, free ride
- Excusing the homeless problem by blaming politicians, shifts in the economy, or the direction the wind blows. Enough excuses! Everyone is responsible for taking care of themselves once they reach the age of 18 unless they are irreversibly disabled.
- Building more shelters to attract new homeless. How do you make more homeless people? Take a disgruntled person with a home and a job and build a homeless shelter.
- Panhandling
Honestly, what is so controversial about this? Unless personal responsibility is the issue... And in that case, tough sh*t.
And Miguel, yes, ease and comfort. So they're not staying at the Ritz Carlton. So what? No one is entitled to that. The foundation of Maslow's hierarchy is taken care of for most of them if they seek it; food, shelter and clothing. Many homeless are content in meeting that threshold alone. So where's the incentive to get a job and be a productive member of society rather than a leech?
What I'm saying is, help give these people the tools, mental treatment, courage, etc to succeed on the outside and then apply pressure for them to spread their wings and fly. Of course, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink it. If they don't want to be a productive member of society -- I don't think they should be given the food or cot that could be given to another homeless person that honestly does want to get off the street. Maybe they'll change their mind after people stop coddling them.. No one is entitled to anything in society. If you want food, clothing or a home, do something about it! And in the case where there is some true, permanent factor (no excuses) that prevents one from being a productive member of society, that's where the social and private system can step in.
Listen Miguel and others on the left -- We aren't too far apart in our thoughts. I am in favor of the following for the homeless population:
- Providing food, clothing, shelter as a temporary means (no permanent free ride) until they get on their feet.
- Treatment for drug abuse and mental issues
- Providing or linking with existing, basic job training curricula and job placement services
- Helping to assist in finding affordable housing
- Homeless taking responsibility for their lives and stopping the attitude of victimization. Bad sh*t happens. Deal with it and move on with your life.
- Slowly taking away the free ride as a gentle nudge to ease back into being a productive member of society
- Providing advisement to those that need it to stay successful in society
I am not for:
- Giving folks a permanent, free ride
- Excusing the homeless problem by blaming politicians, shifts in the economy, or the direction the wind blows. Enough excuses! Everyone is responsible for taking care of themselves once they reach the age of 18 unless they are irreversibly disabled.
- Building more shelters to attract new homeless. How do you make more homeless people? Take a disgruntled person with a home and a job and build a homeless shelter.
- Panhandling
Honestly, what is so controversial about this? Unless personal responsibility is the issue... And in that case, tough sh*t.
Last night I dreamt that I was the President and I started a new program to take care of people that can't take care of themselves. In neighborhoods throughout America I created these small self-sustaining cities called work-for-food hotels, that like the Army would take anybody and provide them (and their children) with a room, food, clothing and other basic necessities. But only if the adult was willing to work. The place provided you with EVERYTHING you NEEDED and nothing else, and like a prison you could not leave while you were registered. There was a barber, a store, a school, but no drugs, no liquor, none of the freedoms we enjoy. The point was to get you back on your feet, not to take care of you forever. During the day adults work and kids go to school. Day care was also provided for single parents with small children. At night adults go to school. As long as you continue to work, you can stay. The moment you stop, you go back on the street. Now to pay for this new institution and to make it attractive to those who need it, I stopped all other welfare programs. Basically, if you want a check from the government, you must work for the government. No free handouts. The disabled and/or mentally ill get a pass. I'll let the Vice President figure out that one. But back to my homeless and welfare people, if they don't work, they don't get help from the government. No free handouts. This serves a dual purpose, it encourages people to get off their ass and it makes taxpayers feel like the government isn't just giving it's money away to lazy people. If they want to eat, they have to check into my food-for-work hotel. And if they don't like the rules in my hotel, they can educate themselves at night, get a job on the outside and move out. People become lawyers while they're in prison. It's totally possible. But while you're living in my house (and as taxpayers we pay for that house) you play by my rules. What a dream. Needless to say, I did not get reelected nor was I invited to any celebrity parties.
Expat wrote: Lately, too much time is used in demonizing liberals and conservatives on this forum. It is taking the fun out of UrbanStlouis for me. It is popping up in too many threads for my taste.
I totally agree, Expat! I find myself skipping more and more threads because of this.
- 923
Building more shelters to attract new homeless. How do you make more homeless people? Take a disgruntled person with a home and a job and build a homeless shelter.
I was so close to agreeing with you, and then you say something like this...
Please, explain to me how homeless shelters make more people homeless?
And Expat, I don't think either of us are villifying each other. There can be a logical discourse between the left and right on this subject.
Oh, sorry. It was pretty much a tongue in cheek, smartass comment. I probably should have left it out.
migueltejada wrote:
I was so close to agreeing with you, and then you say something like this...
Please, explain to me how homeless shelters make more people homeless?
And Expat, I don't think either of us are villifying each other. There can be a logical discourse between the left and right on this subject.
migueltejada wrote:
And Expat, I don't think either of us are villifying each other. There can be a logical discourse between the left and right on this subject.
^True. There can be logical discourse between the left and right on this subject - and all subjects. And I love it when that happens. Serious problems can be solved when everyone is working together. Once you get past the more toxic and blaming comments that I have read on this thread, most people have the same goals.
By the way, my post about the left/right demonizing each other was right after your post, but was not in reponse to your post or directed to you. I meant it in a more general way.