I am confused about why you think that pedestrian traffic will help reduce the homeless problem Doug. For example. The fisherman maximizes his chances of catching a fish if he casts his line in water where there are a lot of fish. Panhandling functions in the same way. I think that foot-traffic and more residents will actually make the homeless/panhandling problem worse, not better. If these guys find it effective to panhandle now, when the population density is relatively low, they only stand to benefit from higher density/more foot traffic.
- 11K
^ I think people paying $400K+ for their condo will complain and complain until something is done. There's simply been a lack of a critical mass to get movement on this issue.
Because people will scare them off. They don't have an issue heckling one person. That person, when one on one, probably won't confront the homeless person, or will simply try to evade them. The more people the greater security.
If increased pedestrian traffic was the best way to attract the homeless then why aren't they simply camping out at Maryland and Euclid? Because they know that private citizens, collectively, wouldn't deal with that.
If increased pedestrian traffic was the best way to attract the homeless then why aren't they simply camping out at Maryland and Euclid? Because they know that private citizens, collectively, wouldn't deal with that.
ticket the people giving the bums money.
And what's up with that tree in Lucas Park always full of blankets and crap? Ticket them for littering, or lock them up. THey have DESTROYED that park. WHy don't they hang out on ACLU's front lawn in the CWE? They could have a little campout on their property.
And what's up with that tree in Lucas Park always full of blankets and crap? Ticket them for littering, or lock them up. THey have DESTROYED that park. WHy don't they hang out on ACLU's front lawn in the CWE? They could have a little campout on their property.
^^A steady flow of pedestrians makes a world of difference. Even in San Francisco, probably Americas "homeless capital", the flood of people make the panhandlers much less visible. Except those that scream but there aren't that many.
On a recent trip to Chicago, either I went on a good day or didn't go to the right area, I noticed very few homeless/panhandlers compared to St Louis. Maybe they're shipping their people down here like they do their sewage and Cholera.
And sadly, the area around Lucas Park is a no-go for me. Check out the police dept. mapping site and look at the cluster of crimes between 14th & 15th at Olive. To say that Larry's Scarys are not having an impact is BS.
On a recent trip to Chicago, either I went on a good day or didn't go to the right area, I noticed very few homeless/panhandlers compared to St Louis. Maybe they're shipping their people down here like they do their sewage and Cholera.
And sadly, the area around Lucas Park is a no-go for me. Check out the police dept. mapping site and look at the cluster of crimes between 14th & 15th at Olive. To say that Larry's Scarys are not having an impact is BS.
- 1,493
Yup, this is definitely a good start, we discussed this back on page 15 of this thread a while back.JCity wrote:ticket the people giving the bums money.
It might work, but there is absolutely no legal basis for it. However, if it were made illegal to give panhandlers money, everybody could retire their guilt (if they have any) about refusing to hand over spare change. It wouldn't have to be enforced at all. We could all just convince ourselves that we want to help, but we don't want to break the law. Wow, I like it. I don't know about you guys, but I usually feel a tiny twinge of guilt when I get panhandled. This would totally shift the responsibility for my decision not to give anybody money from me to my respect for the law. Next up, make it illegal for me NOT to eat french fries and beer with every meal and I'll be off the guilt train forever.
I never feel guilty for not handing money out on the street. If you do feel guilty, make a donation to a responsible organization that is helping to solve the problem. I am not up to date on this, but I believe the Methodists are trying to help in downtown STL. Maybe someone has a good suggestion. But, handing money out on the street does not solve anything and only encourages annoying behavior.
- 1,493
That's the exact point, create a city ordinace making paying off panhandalers illegal. It wouldn't take too much to get this done.TGE-ATW wrote:It might work, but there is absolutely no legal basis for it. However, if it were made illegal to give panhandlers money, everybody could retire their guilt (if they have any) about refusing to hand over spare change. It wouldn't have to be enforced at all. We could all just convince ourselves that we want to help, but we don't want to break the law. Wow, I like it. I don't know about you guys, but I usually feel a tiny twinge of guilt when I get panhandled. This would totally shift the responsibility for my decision not to give anybody money from me to my respect for the law. Next up, make it illegal for me NOT to eat french fries and beer with every meal and I'll be off the guilt train forever.
More info for the newer board members:
http://www.urbanstl.com/viewtopic.php?t ... &start=210
Yes, and the amount of trash and intentional littering is amazing also.
The idea to privatize Lucas Park is genious. I'd think that the downtown day care center would love to buy and operate it.
St. Louis use to have one of the best homelessness programs in the nation. What happened to it?
The idea to privatize Lucas Park is genious. I'd think that the downtown day care center would love to buy and operate it.
St. Louis use to have one of the best homelessness programs in the nation. What happened to it?
- 10K
Matt wrote:The idea to privatize Lucas Park is genious. I'd think that the downtown day care center would love to buy and operate it.
Just a side note, the day care center is moving a few blocks west down Washington.
- 6,775
Urban Elitist wrote:That's the exact point, create a city ordinace making paying off panhandalers illegal.
Define "panhandler".
(you wouldn't do this before, I suspect you won't now)
- 1,493
pan·han·dle 1 (pnhndl) KEYThe Central Scrutinizer wrote:You're right I won't because it is the same loaded question you asked before. I'll let American Heritage do it for me:Urban Elitist wrote:That's the exact point, create a city ordinace making paying off panhandalers illegal.
Define "panhandler".
(you wouldn't do this before, I suspect you won't now)
VERB:
Informal pan·han·dled , pan·han·dling , pan·han·dles
VERB:
intr.
To approach strangers and beg for money or food.
VERB:
tr.
To approach and beg from (a stranger).
To obtain by approaching and begging from a stranger
A panhandler is a person who panhandles. And I'm not going of on your, "lets write an airtight law on urbanstl" tangent. All I'm offering up is the idea. Treat panhandling like prostitution, and punish the panhandling johns.
Define Prostitute? If you take a girl out on a date, pay for everything, and then she sleeps with you, is she guilty of prostitution? The answer to that is obvious, and law enforcement seems to have no problem distinguishing when enforcing prostitution laws, so I suspect that can tell the difference between a panhandler and a firefighter(even if you cannot).
- 6,775
Urban Elitist wrote:pan·han·dle 1 (pnhndl) KEYThe Central Scrutinizer wrote:You're right I won't because it is the same loaded question you asked before. I'll let American Heritage do it for me:Urban Elitist wrote:That's the exact point, create a city ordinace making paying off panhandalers illegal.
Define "panhandler".
(you wouldn't do this before, I suspect you won't now)
VERB:
Informal pan·han·dled , pan·han·dling , pan·han·dles
VERB:
intr.
To approach strangers and beg for money or food.
VERB:
tr.
To approach and beg from (a stranger).
To obtain by approaching and begging from a stranger
A panhandler is a person who panhandles. And I'm not going of on your, "lets write an airtight law on urbanstl" tangent. All I'm offering up is the idea. Treat panhandling like prostitution, and punish the panhandling johns.
Define Prostitute? If you take a girl out on a date, pay for everything, and then she sleeps with you, is she guilty of prostitution? The answer to that is obvious, and law enforcement seems to have no problem distinguishing when enforcing prostitution laws, so I suspect that can tell the difference between a panhandler and a firefighter(even if you cannot).
I destroyed you before on this. And I'll do it again.
If I ask a stranger for a nickel, because I only have 95 cents and a soda costs a dollar, under your definition, I am panhandling.
- 1,493
You destroyed no one, in fact you got quite embarrased. I said back on page 15 or so that the city's attorneys would have to work with the aldremen to write the legaleze for the bill. I'm not arguing the semantics a non-existant law. I'm putting forward the idea of ticketing panhandaling johns to help reduce panhandling. If you want to debate the actual wording of such a bill/ordinance, I suggust you call one of the city's attorneies.The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Urban Elitist wrote:pan·han·dle 1 (pnhndl) KEYThe Central Scrutinizer wrote: You're right I won't because it is the same loaded question you asked before. I'll let American Heritage do it for me:
Define "panhandler".
(you wouldn't do this before, I suspect you won't now)
VERB:
Informal pan·han·dled , pan·han·dling , pan·han·dles
VERB:
intr.
To approach strangers and beg for money or food.
VERB:
tr.
To approach and beg from (a stranger).
To obtain by approaching and begging from a stranger
A panhandler is a person who panhandles. And I'm not going of on your, "lets write an airtight law on urbanstl" tangent. All I'm offering up is the idea. Treat panhandling like prostitution, and punish the panhandling johns.
Define Prostitute? If you take a girl out on a date, pay for everything, and then she sleeps with you, is she guilty of prostitution? The answer to that is obvious, and law enforcement seems to have no problem distinguishing when enforcing prostitution laws, so I suspect that can tell the difference between a panhandler and a firefighter(even if you cannot).
I destroyed you before on this. And I'll do it again.
If I ask a stranger for a nickel, because I only have 95 cents and a soda costs a dollar, under your definition, I am panhandling.
And I included an anology in my previous pist that already counters your weak argumet:
and someone simply asking for a nickel to round out 95 cents to a dollar from a random person.Define Prostitute? If you take a girl out on a date, pay for everything, and then she sleeps with you, is she guilty of prostitution? The answer to that is obvious, and law enforcement seems to have no problem distinguishing when enforcing prostitution laws, so I suspect that can tell the difference between a panhandler
This law would be enforced with stings and survailance of known panhandlers. Law enforcement doesn't arrest you after sleeping with a woman you just took out to dinner, and they will not ticket you for giving someone legitimite 5 cents.
- 6,775
Urban Elitist wrote:You destroyed no one, in fact you got quite embarrased. I said back on page 15 or so that the city's attorneys would have to work with the aldremen to write the legaleze for the bill. I'm not arguing the semantics a non-existant law. I'm putting forward the idea of ticketing panhandaling johns to help reduce panhandling. If you want to debate the actual wording of such a bill/ordinance, I suggust you call one of the city's attorneies.The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Urban Elitist wrote: pan·han·dle 1 (pnhndl) KEY
VERB:
Informal pan·han·dled , pan·han·dling , pan·han·dles
VERB:
intr.
To approach strangers and beg for money or food.
VERB:
tr.
To approach and beg from (a stranger).
To obtain by approaching and begging from a stranger
A panhandler is a person who panhandles. And I'm not going of on your, "lets write an airtight law on urbanstl" tangent. All I'm offering up is the idea. Treat panhandling like prostitution, and punish the panhandling johns.
Define Prostitute? If you take a girl out on a date, pay for everything, and then she sleeps with you, is she guilty of prostitution? The answer to that is obvious, and law enforcement seems to have no problem distinguishing when enforcing prostitution laws, so I suspect that can tell the difference between a panhandler and a firefighter(even if you cannot).
I destroyed you before on this. And I'll do it again.
If I ask a stranger for a nickel, because I only have 95 cents and a soda costs a dollar, under your definition, I am panhandling.
And I included an anology in my previous pist that already counters your weak argumet:
and someone simply asking for a nickel to round out 95 cents to a dollar from a random person.Define Prostitute? If you take a girl out on a date, pay for everything, and then she sleeps with you, is she guilty of prostitution? The answer to that is obvious, and law enforcement seems to have no problem distinguishing when enforcing prostitution laws, so I suspect that can tell the difference between a panhandler
This law would be enforced with stings and survailance of known panhandlers. Law enforcement doesn't arrest you after sleeping with a woman you just took out to dinner, and they will not ticket you for giving someone legitimite 5 cents.
OK, it's great that in your world they can write a law and everyone "knows what it means". I guess there are no attorneys in your world, are there? Because every law is black and white and there is no room for interpretation.
Sorry to have to embarrass you again.
- 1,493
^Sure you've embarassed me again. 
Anyone who wants to read the original discussion and form their own opinion can do so here:
http://www.urbanstl.com/viewtopic.php?t ... &start=210
Also if anyone is in the mood to go in circles with "Scrutiniter", feel free to do so.
Anyone who wants to read the original discussion and form their own opinion can do so here:
http://www.urbanstl.com/viewtopic.php?t ... &start=210
Also if anyone is in the mood to go in circles with "Scrutiniter", feel free to do so.
- 687
Urban Elitist wrote:
This law would be enforced with stings and survailance of known panhandlers.
St Louis has one of the highest crime rates in the country. Like it or not the media often refers to us as the most dangerous city in the US.
If I found out the police department was using money, time, officers, and resources to set up surveillance and stings to catch people giving a buck to a bum - As a city resident and tax payer I'd be outraged and the first in line to have the chief or who ever approved the spending fired. Not to mention the heyday the media would have with it.
I can see the headline now - "X number of murders in StL and the police set up stings to catch do-gooders."
Ticketing panhandlers? I think that sounds a bit off. If they don't have money how do they pay the fine? And when they don't we put them in jail, which is rather expensive? How about instead we get them off the street and into education and job training.
- 11K
^ I think the idea was to ticket those who give them money and not to ticket the pandhandlers themselves.
- 1,493
????......Doug wrote:Ticketing panhandlers? I think that sounds a bit off. If they don't have money how do they pay the fine? And when they don't we put them in jail, which is rather expensive? How about instead we get them off the street and into education and job training.
Urban Elitist wrote:Yup, this is definitely a good start, we discussed this back on page 15 of this thread a while back.JCity wrote:ticket the people giving the bums money.
I understand your sentiments, but I think it's equally important to tackle quality of life issues(panhandling, car breakins, graffiti,etc) as well as violent crime to move the city's resurgence along.buckethead wrote:Urban Elitist wrote:
This law would be enforced with stings and survailance of known panhandlers.
St Louis has one of the highest crime rates in the country. Like it or not the media often refers to us as the most dangerous city in the US.
If I found out the police department was using money, time, officers, and resources to set up surveillance and stings to catch people giving a buck to a bum - As a city resident and tax payer I'd be outraged and the first in line to have the chief or who ever approved the spending fired. Not to mention the heyday the media would have with it.
I can see the headline now - "X number of murders in StL and the police set up stings to catch do-gooders."
- 107
I have no opinion on the effectiveness of a law targeting panhandlers' benefactors, but I think it certainly is possible. Many laws are based on the old "what would a reasonable person think" question. And yes, arguing over what that theoretical person would think is one of the big reasons we have so many lawyers.
I also think that such a law probably would get some national media attention, and it probably wouldn't make St. Louis look very good.
I also think that such a law probably would get some national media attention, and it probably wouldn't make St. Louis look very good.