urbanSTL

wheelscomp wrote: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.

Why not build a new one right in the same spot?



Seriously, the homeless are often made fun of, but oft maligned, and rarely taken seriously. However, they are a problem and have their own problems, and pushing them out of the city where they're closest to jobs and transport and education is not a viable or practical solution. If anything, we should be intensifying and improving our homeless centers so that sleeping or being a vagrant in Lucas Park isn't more attractive than spending the night in a shelter!



The horrors and incompetence of shelters is well documented, especially for those with mental illnesses. If anything, fixing the massive gap in mental health provision will be more cost effective than throwing money at more shelters. Thanks to good ol Regan, the country lost more than 250,000 long-term state-run mentally ill beds during his presidency, and unleashed them all onto unwilling families or incapable local services. The largest de-facto mental health "center" in this country is Cook County Jail in Chicago, which processes more mentally ill per year than the entire state of Illinois has beds.



We can talk til we're blue in the face about how much we don't like homeless and pan handlers, but the deal is that most of them wouldn't be doing these things (and other crimes) if they had a viable alternative that worked to rehabilite them in a safe and nurturing environment. I've volunteered in an all-male homless shelter before, seen what these men are going through, spoken with the staff, know what they're dealing with. Wishing the problem to go away or making light of the situation is not the answer.



The best way to deal with this situation is through 4 ways:



1. Fix the gaps in mental health provision - find a way to make sure those with chronic mental problems avoid hitting the streets in the first place, and if they do, make sure there's a detour program in place to keep them from going to prison when they should be going to a hospital



2. Develop a comprehensive program to encourage, train, and reward social work professionals. These people have a shorter life span than a goldfish. They get burned out on low pay and poor recognition. A mantadory rewards system might keep more of these important individuals on staff longer.



3. Properly develop homeless shelters with adequate sleeping facilities (no massive dorms), secure shower and change facilties, and develop partnerships with training and rehab (if necessary) institutions to better rehabilitate them into functional society



4. Provide transitional housing so those with low incomes trying to get back on their feet aren't handcuffed by high rents they can't afford to pay.

migueltejada wrote:If anything, we should be intensifying and improving our homeless centers so that sleeping or being a vagrant in Lucas Park isn't more attractive than spending the night in a shelter!

Except the more the city does these things the more it encourages other municipalities to dump their homeless into the city - since we have the shelters, services, etc. And discourages the county and other cities from funding and providing their own solutions.



I'm not saying we shouldn't help or try to find solutions. Just that it's not as easy as provide more shelters and services...

Miguel..



While I'm sure none of your four point of light to help the homeless have ever been tried in the last 50 years here in St' Louis I thought it important to note that had GOOD OL RONNIE not cut the Carter prime rate of over 21% .. many more would have certainly joined the ranks if they didn't jump off a bridge first.



I have to agree with innov8ion .. either fish or cut bait but no more free rides in the boat!

Miguel,

Clayton has excellent access to public transportation. Bus terminal and Metro link, why doesn't Clayton/ St. Louis County build a homeless shelter there? Why does it HAVE to be downtown? I'm honestly curious.

I never said I would move them out of the city either. There are many vacant lots in the city that would make great places for the NLEC, but they are just too much in the middle of things if you know what I mean. I have lots of respect for Larry Rice and what he does. But Im pretty sure that most people here would agree (and have said before) that they are only a hinderance where they are.

wheelscomp wrote:I never said I would move them out of the city either. There are many vacant lots in the city that would make great places for the NLEC, but they are just too much in the middle of things if you know what I mean. I have lots of respect for Larry Rice and what he does. But Im pretty sure that most people here would agree (and have said before) that they are only a hinderance where they are.

I'd like to see New Life in a renovated Carr School north of downtown. Save a historic building, move Larry's shelter out of the downtown core but still close enough to the current location.

Was STL a big sub prime lending market? Are we going to have an increase in homeless people DT with the sub prime lending market collapse?



I don't think our DT can support more homeless. Lucas Park is almost always overflowing with homeless. How does our near big neighbor Chicago deal with this? How do they keep them out of public parks?

They don't. Grant Park is loaded with homeless.

And is that in the middle of DT, right next to expensive housing?

Denver's homeless problem is a million times worse than ours. I never see more than 20 total around lucas park, locust.

No one seems to be answering my question. Why does it HAVE to be downtown? Couldn't we build it elsewhere? why not Clayton? If Clayton is "too good" for a homeless shelter, shouldn't downtown be "too good" as well? I'm not trying to sweep the homeless under the rug.

I'm purely a realist who wants to see downtown completely revived. Larry Rice's homeless shelter isn't going to be too attractive being right next to the loft developments to "Barb in Ballwin" who's contemplating a move downtown.



Again, Larry Rice does NOT need to be in the center of downtown.

There is no reason for Clayton not to have a shelter except that the people over there ( and the politicos) know how to keep the poor people out. Wish DT politicos did......

JCity wrote:Miguel,

Clayton has excellent access to public transportation. Bus terminal and Metro link, why doesn't Clayton/ St. Louis County build a homeless shelter there? Why does it HAVE to be downtown? I'm honestly curious.

They don't have to. Clayton would be an ideal location as well, as long as it's designed properly and patrolled well. The massive open parking lot across from the prison and county offices would be an ideal redevelopment site for a homeless shelter. They'd have immediate access to county services, close to public transport, affordable housing is nearby to the south in Richmond Heights/Brentwood and to the north, and in other sections of U-City, and in case oany of them start breaking laws the police would only have to walk them to the nearest holding cell.



The point is that homeless provision should be provided in the most suitable locations. Ladue is not suitable, or appropriate. More urban areas are.

bsharmastl wrote:There is no reason for Clayton not to have a shelter except that the people over there ( and the politicos) know how to keep the poor people out. Wish DT politicos did......

Yeah, it's an ideal location except the cost of land there is prohibitive. Soon that should ring true for downtown.



Let's think out of the box for a moment. The strategy of influencing Rice to do X or Y is completely weak. Instead, it's time to utilize a more proactive strategy. You see, the smart money is on providing far better services for the homeless than Rice and the NLEC can. If the City and its leaders are smart, their 10 year plan will include working with public and private institutions to building competent transition facilities outside (or perhaps on the periphery) of the newly gentrified area.



What homeless person wants to stay in Rice's dump when they can live in a Shangri-La by comparison. With integrations to social services that include mental care, job training, etc - we will put Rice and the NLEC out of business. If Rice is smart, he'll integrate w/ the 10 year plan and sell the place before the NLEC becomes irrelavent and the property is foreclosed / condemned.



Competition sure is a b****. And the only way to beat Rice at his own game. The homeless win and so do we. What do you guys think?

Yeah, it's an ideal location except the cost of land there is prohibitive.

To who? The county owns the parking lot doesn't it? I can't imagine a private owner would hold that lot - it's WAY too valuable as commercial space to leave vacant.

What homeless person wants to stay in Rice's dump when they can live in a Shangri-La by comparison. With integrations to social services that include mental care, job training, etc - we will put Rice and the NLEC out of business. If Rice is smart, he'll integrate w/ the 10 year plan and sell the place before the NLEC becomes irrelavent and the property is foreclosed / condemned.

WHAT!????!??!?!?!



Innovation - I understand you believe the market can take care of many issues, and I agree that less government is usually a better answer, but not in this case. NLEC out of business? That's rich - since when do they turn a profit? They get government grants and charitable donations. They're a non-for profit! They can't GO out of business. http://www.newlifeevangelisticcenter.org/aboutnlec.htm



If Rice had more money, he probably would do the things you're talking about -but he doesn't have it! You think he honestly would prefer to have a shoestring budget? He's got his heart in the right place, even if his methods are often misguided. Maybe if he had more support and less disdain perhaps the homeless problem would be less severe than it is now.



That, and we get those damn drugs off the streets

migueltejada wrote:

innov8ion wrote:Yeah, it's an ideal location except the cost of land there is prohibitive.

To who? The county owns the parking lot doesn't it? I can't imagine a private owner would hold that lot - it's WAY too valuable as commercial space to leave vacant.

"To whom?" Land should be put to its best use. Let's get real here; obviously that's not building a homeless shelter in Clayton.

Miguel wrote:

innov8ion wrote:What homeless person wants to stay in Rice's dump when they can live in a Shangri-La by comparison. With integrations to social services that include mental care, job training, etc - we will put Rice and the NLEC out of business. If Rice is smart, he'll integrate w/ the 10 year plan and sell the place before the NLEC becomes irrelavent and the property is foreclosed / condemned.

WHAT!????!??!?!?!

Yup If you can't beat em, join em...

Miguel wrote:Innovation - I understand you believe the market can take care of many issues, and I agree that less government is usually a better answer, but not in this case. NLEC out of business? That's rich - since when do they turn a profit? They get government grants and charitable donations. They're a non-for profit! They can't GO out of business. http://www.newlifeevangelisticcenter.org/aboutnlec.htm

Listen. It's not about profit. Government grants and charitable donations will lessen because that money should instead be funneled into the 10 year plan which appears incongruent with Rice's self-serving plan of keeping homeless on the streets and in the public eye. What a selfish, unchristian man. Especially for someone who calls himself a minister.

Miguel wrote:If Rice had more money, he probably would do the things you're talking about -but he doesn't have it! You think he honestly would prefer to have a shoestring budget? He's got his heart in the right place, even if his methods are often misguided. Maybe if he had more support and less disdain perhaps the homeless problem would be less severe than it is now.

Should we pity him because he doesn't have much money and is not successful at dealing with the homeless issue? Hell no! We should put resources in the hands of those best able to deal with the issue.



I care about the homeless. And that's why I'm advocating this policy. If you actually cared about the homeless, you'd consider it too. Support those who can, not who can't.

"To whom?" Land should be put to its best use. Let's get real here; obviously that's not building a homeless shelter in Clayton.

Yes, but that's a better use than a vacant parking lot. The site is so large you could make half of it offices/residential and the other half a homeless shelter - or something else in any case.

Listen. It's not about profit. Government grants and charitable donations will lessen because that money should instead be funneled into the 10 year plan which appears incongruent with Rice's self-serving plan of keeping homeless on the streets and in the public eye. What a selfish, unchristian man. Especially for someone who calls himself a minister.

So - a program with more money is going to be more eligible for government grants? I thought grants were merit based, not spite based.



Rice's plan is self serving? How so? The TV station is one thing, the homeless is comepletely different. I guarantee you the man would prefer to not have to deal with the homeless issue. He'd love to be "put out of business", as you call it. You really think the man would prefer people stay homeless so he can be in the limelight? That's absurd.

Should we pity him because he doesn't have much money and is not successful at dealing with the homeless issue? Hell no! We should put resources in the hands of those best able to deal with the issue.

I totally agree. So who's more qualified to deal with the homeless issue? Bureacrats? Politicians? The private sector? Or perhaps the social workers and volunteers and academics who have been at the forefront of this issue since time in memoriam? (sic) Rice is one of these people. Is he doing a bad job? Yes. But how good of a job would you do if you had 500 people coming onto your doorstep every day looking for food, a place to sleep, etc., and you have little money to help them? The man needs help - both financially and manpower.

Support those who can, not who can't.

What a close-minded statement. I don't even know where to begin. Not everyone in this life was born on 3rd base, with the proper upbringing and education and family circustances to make themselves capable. People always "can't" do something, that's WHY THEY NEED HELP. I know for a fact there are things you can't do. I don't even know you and I know you can't do certain things. Does that mean people shouldn't try to help you to acheive those goals?



I support those who need supporting.

I was flipping through my cable-less tv one day, and I happened upon Ch 24. Larry was walking through his center, asking "extemporaneously" the homeless in his shelter what they thought about it. They all were just raving about the place. You could tell by the looks in their faces and the way they stumbled over what they were saying that they had been coached (coerced?). That's when I realized Rice is a charlatan.

Rice runs a bird feeder. The birds all flock around the feeder. They have no reason to go any where else. They are not encouraged to go anywhere else. They are not helped to find better bird feeders, or (god forbid) learn how to provide their own seed.

TheWayoftheArch wrote:

steve wrote:That's when I realized Rice is a charlatan.

Charlatan...an even more succinct description of the man.

Right, a charlatan who spends his money on snazzy suits

TheWayoftheArch wrote:

steve wrote:That's when I realized Rice is a charlatan.

Charlatan...an even more succinct description of the man.

Yeah, that about sums it up IMHO.



bprop, by most accounts, Rice is part of the problem, not the solution.