urbanSTL

I guess my point is this: today, people are forced to make a choice. Either go to college, or work at McDonald's. Now, this is simplifying things a bit, but as a whole it's true. Now, some might be fine with this.

I disagree, you can make very good money as a tradesman ie (machinist, electrician, plumber) or as a construction worker or truck driver. These jobs are blue collar jobs that can afford someone at least a middle class lifestyle.

steve wrote:OK, if that's what you mean, fine. I just didn't realize "society" had a consciousness that could will things into reality.

It doesn't.

steve wrote:
Well, no, not blacksmiths qua blacksmiths. But if you want to use blacksmithing as emblematic of the disappearance of the type of job I'm talking about, fine. I realize those jobs are gone, and I don't think the gov't or anyone else should force them to return.

Great! Then what are you complaining about?

steve wrote:
However, I think there's a problem when people of the middling sort--middling in terms of intelligence--can't get reasonably well paying jobs that offer a sense of self-satisfaction. Again, I'm not demanding the state to step in here, but it's hard to deny that this can cause problems.

Define:



1) "middling in terms of intelligence"

2) "reasonably well paying job"

3) "sense of self-satisfaction"

steve wrote:However, I think there's a problem when people of the middling sort--middling in terms of intelligence--can't get reasonably well paying jobs that offer a sense of self-satisfaction. Again, I'm not demanding the state to step in here, but it's hard to deny that this can cause problems.

This assertion is flawed. They can be paid reasonably well if they desire and work for it. It's called higher-education, whether it be a university or trade school.

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:

steve wrote:OK, if that's what you mean, fine. I just didn't realize "society" had a consciousness that could will things into reality.

It doesn't.

steve wrote:
Well, no, not blacksmiths qua blacksmiths. But if you want to use blacksmithing as emblematic of the disappearance of the type of job I'm talking about, fine. I realize those jobs are gone, and I don't think the gov't or anyone else should force them to return.

Great! Then what are you complaining about?

steve wrote:
However, I think there's a problem when people of the middling sort--middling in terms of intelligence--can't get reasonably well paying jobs that offer a sense of self-satisfaction. Again, I'm not demanding the state to step in here, but it's hard to deny that this can cause problems.

Define:



1) "middling in terms of intelligence"

2) "reasonably well paying job"

3) "sense of self-satisfaction"

Point One: well, that's exactly what you said.



Point Two: I'm complaining about the fact that people don't seem to view this as a problem, or at least part of a larger problem. Read before you respond.



Point Three: all terms self-explanatory.

steve wrote:

innov8ion wrote:

steve wrote:However, I think there's a problem when people of the middling sort--middling in terms of intelligence--can't get reasonably well paying jobs that offer a sense of self-satisfaction. Again, I'm not demanding the state to step in here, but it's hard to deny that this can cause problems.

This assertion is flawed. They can be paid reasonably well if they desire and work for it. It's called higher-education, whether it be a university or trade school.

What exactly is flawed? I never said anything about desire and industry. Many people desire and labor for well paying jobs, pursue higher education, and they still languish. Buying into the Horatio Alger myth is also an intellectual flaw.

It's flawed because much of the statement is vague which serves to weaken the whole argument. I have an idea what average means. I'll suggest average means someone with 100 IQ and corresponding EQ (Emotional Quotient.)



But reaonably-well paying job? That means nothing to me and most others because it's all relative. To view the true gauge of human success, look to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_h ... y_of_needs. This diagram is shown as a pyramid with physiological needs at the bottom. At the bottom rung of the pyramid, the needs to be fullfilled include food, clothing shelter, breathing, excretion, etc. As long as these are met, one generally doesn't need money to move up the hierarchy. Perhaps in today's material world, one feels they need quite a surplus, when in reality they don't.



Also, self-satisfaction is a personal choice. It's naive to say that those of average (middling) intelligence can't find satisfaction in their work. I believe that at every level of intelligence, there is a potential to be satisfied in their work.



Regarding Horatio Alger, it is better to believe in both yourself and your potential instead of believing that external factors are insurmountable. No one was promised a rose garden, yet through effort, one can grow beautiful flowers (maybe even roses too.) The opposite point of view is fatalistic, the "poor victimized me... I'm not smart enough, I don't have this I don't have that..." People should concentrate on what they do have, and work toward improving their condition (and i'm not talking in the materialist sense!)

just a few notes and thoughts of the subject ( like you want to hear..huh)



Not many people in the US ever make note that this same $3 hr would put this individual in the middle class of many a country.



this set aside, I think one of the biggest problems St. Louis has is that we tend to bring hundreds of bums together into a neighborhood and completly ruin the values for the other owners...say like the Rev. Rice... If this is the most cost productive way to offer care then fine.. buy a couple hundred acres away from the city and the liquor stores and send them there. I would assume most city people would be willing to pay a tax to transport them and offer some traing classes.with NO OTHER SERVICES..either take it or forget it! ( and take the guy pissing on my building ) ..

we tend to bring hundreds of bums together into a neighborhood and completly ruin the values for the other owners...say like the Rev. Rice

Who's "we"? And, is it even close to accurate to say that downtown's homelessness situation has brought anything close to "complete ruin" to downtown or Downtown West? Less than 15 years ago, 50 cents a square foot was about right to buy buildings along Washington.



Regardless, the best reason to address chronic homelessness is compassion, not calculation.

I meant the city of St. Louis by we .. WE live here and I thought that point was pretty clear in my post ...



I agree compassion should play a part but at some point calculating what

effect a shelter the size of Rice's has on an area must come into play .. and you can't point at the rest of downtown's revitaization.as a fair gauge as the impact gets greater the closer you get. I would guess ( And bet ) if Rice's shelter was next to ball park village he would be gone by now...



I can tell you the only people willing to give you .50 a foot for adjacent properties to his shelter even today would either be speculators who would sit on the properties and never develop them or someone who has the swack with the city to get him to move ..



Would it not be showing compassion by spending millions to bus them to an area with no liquor stores nearby and training available to help them help themselves? I'm sure there are many nominal jobs currently being filled by illegals that most of these people could qualify for with just a little training .. and If they decide not to .. then .. sorry the compassion should end... and we might become known as SARASTLOUIS..

I meant the city of St. Louis by we .. WE live here and I thought that point was pretty clear in my post

Not very. Did YOU bring "hundreds of bums together into the neighborhood"? I know I didn't and I don't know anybody -- in or out of city government -- who did.



I'll repeat an earlier lesson in City history.



The Lucas Park area has drawn homeless people and vagrants for more than 45 years. Their presence -- due to the proximity of several generous churches, the Ys, and the public library -- pre-dates everyone living on Washington Ave. now (and, probably, most of the people posting on this BB.) Certainly, every person who bought a condo or signed a lease on Washington or Lucas did so knowing about NLEC.



What would it take to move NLEC? A willing buyer and a willing seller. Or an unwilling seller, a condemnation authority, a lengthy and uncertain litigation, and the money to pay the condemnation award.

If I won the lottery one of the first things I would do would be to give Larry Rice a cool million to build a facility somewhere else. and it could be written off as a charitable donation.

publiceye wrote:
I'll repeat an earlier lesson in City history.



The Lucas Park area has drawn homeless people and vagrants for more than 45 years. Their presence -- due to the proximity of several generous churches, the Ys, and the public library -- pre-dates everyone living on Washington Ave. now (and, probably, most of the people posting on this BB.) Certainly, every person who bought a condo or signed a lease on Washington or Lucas did so knowing about NLEC.

Are you saying that just because they pre date us all at Lucas Park gives the homeless a right to be there, including making Lucas park an open air restroom and eyesore?

Compassion is a positive thing if it helps someone. Showing Compassion without a means to solve the problem (like giving them free handouts) does little to actually motivate them to better themselves. I AM NOT saying they don't need help, but am stating they need a differnet sort of help than free hand outs. St. Patrick's center has a good idea to at least "try" to teach the homeless some skills that may enable them to get a job and better themseves.

As for those who are mentally challenged, they are the ones who need the true medical help and need to be looked after.

Are you saying that just because they pre date us all at Lucas Park gives the homeless a right to be there, including making Lucas park an open air restroom and eyesore?

Not exactly. No person, homeless or not, has the right to violate City ordinances or state law -- in Lucas Park or anywhere else. However, "the right to be there" is a pretty important principle -- and crux of a lot litigation against the City's enforcement policies. And, as for being an "eyesore" -- sorry, but that is a right also exercised by people in tight rolled jeans, hyper-color T shirts, and bowties.



I am pointing out that the situation is neither new nor simple.

Larry Rice a cool million to build a facility

Not even close to what it would likely cost to acquire and relocate the facility.

Showing Compassion without a means to solve the problem (like giving them free handouts) does little to actually motivate them to better themselves

There's a plan to end chronic homelessness in the region. Pretty much every provider group is cooperating. It seems to be working. You should look at it.

publiceye wrote:There's a plan to end chronic homelessness in the region. Pretty much every provider group is cooperating. It seems to be working. You should look at it.

Are we getting better cooperation than we have in the past? To include St. Louis County? Metro East?

publiceye wrote:There's a plan to end chronic homelessness in the region. Pretty much every provider group is cooperating. It seems to be working. You should look at it.

Forgive me if this was posted elsewhere, but is the plan available online? I'd be interested in seeing it.

publiceye wrote:

innov8ion wrote:Are we getting better cooperation than we have in the past? To include St. Louis County? Metro East?

Better than it was. Far from enough, though.

I've looked at the study fairly closely and overall thought it was a good plan. It includes more stable housing w/ better connections to the transition process including social services, psychological care, and job training instead of the disjointed emergency housing we have now. I hope that this would lessen the issues we have with people loitering in and around the NLEC area.



You give a man a fish he can eat for a day. You teach a man to fish, he can eat for the rest of his life. So how does this plan deal with those that don't want to fish because they're already getting fed and have housing?



We need a means to eventually wean people off of the free food, housing, etc. instead of serving as a dumping ground for those that don't want to help themselves. At some point, little chicky has to learn to fly...



Of course, social services should step in for those that truly can't take care of themselves... Defining that threshold would seem difficult, however.

publiceye wrote:http://www.mayorslay.com/news/display.asp?prID=139

Much obliged.