urbanSTL

Matt wrote:Purely by perception. In the recent past, you could identify 2-3 on downtown streets and usually none in the parks west of Tucker. Now, you can easily count 50 or more. Because of two churches in Soulard who feed them, we have a bit of a growing problem around Soulard market park and some other areas. For the first time since moving here in 1989, I've seen people living under bridges.



I'm talking about the chronic homeless. My guess is that most are severely mentally ill. The men who ride my bus I take home in the afternoon are usually drunk.



I've also noticed that day labor agencies seem to be very busy. There's one on S. Broadway that always has a small crowd out front.

I don't know that the problem is any worse now - it's more visible though (probably thanks to Larry Rice).

I have noticed that there are a lot of homeless in Soulard around 6pm coming out of the churches. Is there anyway we can prevent the churches from feeding them? Yes, I agree Downtown has an increase in the number of homeless as well.

Both my husband and I have been living/working downton and near southside for 10 years and the homeless are much worse. There are more of them, they are more aggressive, and they are more lewd. Lucas Park is as bad as I've ever seen. My children attend Downtown Children's Center (a great place) and we pass Lucas Park daily. It's bad- drinking, drugs, indecency, urinating. You name it- I've seen more of it in the past 6 months than in years past. By the way, DCC has constant security outside the facility to keep the agressive bums from bothering the children or parents.



And that's just Lucas Park. I'm sick of the same 2 guys at 7th and Pine begging every day. My husband is tired of being panhandled every single time he comes to and from the lot on Washington to his office in Shell.



Not all of the homeless are aggressive, rude or lewd. Let's help the ones who want help and get rid of the rest.

Prevent churches from feeding the homeless......I'm speechless.

It sounds like all of the complains could be solved by the polece preventig panhandling. That would punish those who harass and no tthose simply trying to survive.

63104mom wrote:Not all of the homeless are aggressive, rude or lewd. Let's help the ones who want help and get rid of the rest.

One quick note: a friend in the social services business told me many years ago that a large majority of the panhandlers (especially the agressive ones) are most definitely NOT homeless. They are addicts trying to get money for drugs. So the best thing anyone can do is not give them a dime.



That's really what causes the problem. They are like stray dogs - if you feed them, they will keep hanging around. Same with panhandlers - if you "feed" them (i.e, give them money), they will keep hanging around.

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:[One quick note: a friend in the social services business told me many years ago that a large majority of the you "feed" them (i.e, give them money), they will keep hanging around.

This is true. Dateline NBC had a story onthis a while back where they interviews panhandalers across the country. Many of those the interviewed that they make up to 70k a year panhandining ona good corner. They have normal lived oher than they panhandle for a living...horendous.

I think thats a good idea but is there a law against panhandleing in the city? Does the STL PD have the resources to combat it? I would think they are concerned about more serious crimes than homeless people asking for money. They MUST do something before it gets out of control.

I personally know three loft owners who have pack their bags, sold their units, and moved directly because of the homeless problem downtown. Another two of my colleagues were on the fence vis a vis moving downtown but opted out because of what they saw. The problem is getting worse. I see it every day. I was told that several high profile developers offered to buy Rice out but he declined and is obviously not concerned about the downtown community, only his own righteousness. I'm concerned this isssue could be become more serious over time and impeed downtown's comeback. I'm hoping the redevelopment of the two parks adjacent to the Park Pacific will help, but we need local politicians to get involved and take what ever action necessary/possible.

loftlover wrote:I personally know three loft owners who have pack their bags, sold their units, and moved directly because of the homeless problem downtown. Another two of my colleagues were on the fence vis a vis moving downtown but opted out because of what they saw. The problem is getting worse. I see it every day. I was told that several high profile developers offered to buy Rice out but he declined and is obviously not concerned about the downtown community, only his own righteousness. I'm concerned this isssue could be become more serious over time and impeed downtown's comeback. I'm hoping the redevelopment of the two parks adjacent to the Park Pacific will help, but we need local politicians to get involved and take what ever action necessary/possible.

I also think it's getting worse. While not as bad as say, Portland or San Francisco, the numbers are increasing.



I think Larry Rice is just being pissy because he wasn't given the Abrahms (sp?) Federal Building for a dime (alomst literally).

Tax Guru wrote:Who is this Larry Rice and why does he sound so powerful? Is she like an Al Sharpton--wrong most of time but always on tv.

Actually you're dead right on both.



http://www.knlc.tv/

JMedwick wrote: I would sadly guess the value of high-profile homelessness is invaluable.

Very insightful. I couldn't agree more.

Loitering and Panhandling are illegal right? lock them up. Help the ones who really need it. Lucas Park does not need to be a playground for the homeless. And to the IDIOTS who give money to panhandleres, you are doing NOTHING but exacerbating the problem. Give that money to the St. Louis Food Bank. It drives me CRAZY to see these tards give these guys money. Do they think that helps? Do you think there's a reason there are signs in the loop that say DO NOT GIVE MONEY TO PANHANDLERS!? Hmm, maybe to prevent the total failure of the neighborhood.

Example:

Mom takes group of girls to shop in loop. Mom has mutiple confrontations with panhandlers. Mom decides it's not worth the hassle. Mom takes kids shopping at West Co Mall.

Maybe this spread and "worsening" or increase in homeless is because there are people living in lofts downtown with money in walkable proximity to service providers. Thus, it makes sense developers may want to buy out Rice. More money = more panhandling?

or

Does Post-Indistrialism, rising real estate costs, and aging population have more of an influence? Keep in mind that children are the fastest growing homeless group with their parent(s) as opposed to conventional old men.

63104mom wrote:Not all of the homeless are aggressive, rude or lewd. Let's help the ones who want help and get rid of the rest.

I couldn't agree more. It seemed like the panhandling downtown subsided for awhile. However, and this is just my anecdotal observation, I'm coming across more lately whenever I'm downtown, and FWIW, they seem to be more aggressive than in years past. It doesn't change my habit of ignoring them, but it certainly gets aggravating at times.

Urban Elitist wrote:Prevent churches from feeding the homeless......I'm speechless.

Me too, especially given drastic (in the not-so-recent past, and inevitably, in the future) cuts in social services funding at the state and federal levels. Cutting off the churches certainly isn't the answer IMHO- as there are several places of faith in and near downtown that are willing to offer a hand up and not merely a handout.



Just as I believe the majority of homeless people are those that seek the aforementioned hand up, and not just a handout, I'd like to see much more done to reign in the panhandlers and those that constantly loiter in Lucas Park. However, I think it's a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Obviously homelessness, and specifically, aggressive panhandling, are serious concerns in our community, but I figure that critics of all sorts will come out of the woodwork once the city takes any swift and decisive action to combat the problem.



Oh, and I agree with what's been said about Rev. Rice, but for brevity's sake, I'll just leave it at that.

i am thrilled this topic is finally being addressed by this board.



first of all, as earlier posters have generally implied, homelessness is unquestionably a tragic, sad condition that deserves our attention. that said, the homelessness problem downtown is one of the biggest challenges we face as a reigion. the rampant homelessness currently existing in some parts of downtown seriously threatens further development in the one area that must continue to be improved in order for this city and region to thrive and propser.



the homeless people one encounters on the streets downtown -- particularly in the blocks near the NLEC center -- are intimidating and often agressive. lest we want downtown development (and, by extension, our region) to stagnate, we must address this problem. by"we" here i mean the city, the police department, and downtown developers, the latter of whom must increase pressure on city hall to act. i believe the current situation is untenable.



this is not to say that we must reduce services to homeless people. to the contrary. but it is to say that there is no bigger threat to downtown. to put it rather bluntly, haven't we passed the point at which it makes plain economic sense -- for any number of actors -- to buy out larry rice and move him to a new facility in an area where his work won't decrease possibilities for further economic growth in our region's most important area?

As more and more people move downtown, their complaints will grow louder and louder. At some point, the city will have to react, and take out the trash.



As far as bums being aggressive - carry a can of mace. If they get in your face, mace them.

Why is moving the homeless shelter to a different locale such a bad thing? Isn't there an advocacy group trying to set up a village near downtown to help the homeless? Our main focus should be on helping those in need, and cracking down on those who aren't. There are laws that can be upheld for the betterment of the city.



Personally, I don't like the idea of buying a loft in an area that is populated heavily with homeless people. And the reasons are mostly because of the reasons 63104Mom stated. I understand being down on your luck, but you do have an oppurtunity to better your situation. If you're mentally ill, there are places that can help.

The true Great Society is us working together as one community to help the low income and homeless.



Obviously, this ideaology does not work and is too optimistic for our era of "Me First." The two books below address how homelessness became so rampant. I recommend that we restart the WPA or Works Projects Administration.

Yes, we are in the midst of a depression and unemployment is skyhigh at 4.8%. Ok, enough with the sarcasm. Unemployment is near historical lows. See for yourself at http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/index ... sson=EM219



Here's a story about the WPA:

"Some who experienced work in the WPA have been known to refer to it as "We Poke Along," "We Piddle Along" or "We Putter Around." This is a reference to WPA projects that sometimes slowed to a crawl, because foremen had no incentive to speed up workers. This criticism was, in part, because when the WPA began, payments were based on a "security wage", ensuring workers' wages even if the project was delayed or incomplete.



A typical joke was repeated in Harper Lee's 1960 novel, To Kill a Mockingbird. Bob Ewell, the resident slacker of Maycomb county, is described as "the only person fired from the WPA for laziness.""

SMSPlanstu wrote:The true Great Society is us working together as one community to help the low income and homeless.



Obviously, this ideaology does not work and is too optimistic for our era of "Me First." The two books below address how homelessness became so rampant. I recommend that we restart the WPA or Works Projects Administration.

I purposefully went a route that took us from the excellent looking Washington Ave to then driving by the Bum shelter, Public Library, and finally Lucas Park. We had a discussion on this forum about how the homelessness is creating a negative image with people visiting the city, so I wanted to guage her reactions to the large concentration of homeless people.





We were heading West on Washington Ave. She doesn't go downtown often so she was very impressed at how the city is looking very good. She even commented about how she would consider living in a loft along Washington. I continue driving a little futher West on Washington and I hang a left and then immediately hang another left. So at this point I am Traveling back East along the road that runs on the North side of the public library. The first site that greets us after turning back East is a homeless guy pissing all over a building in broad daylight. Next, we drive by the bum shelter and see a parking lot full of drifters hanging out. As we pass by the shelter, we look around us and notice that the public library is full of bums sleeping and grouped together around all of the steps. We look around us and notice that bussiness people are hard to spot, but homeless people are everywhere walking around. Finally, we come to the pinnacle of St. Louis bum activity, Lucas Park. After seeing the "bum campsite", her next words are:"There is no way in hell I would move here. I was actually impressed until I saw this."



So there you have it. I think moving the homeless shelter downtown was a BIG MISTAKE and is giving off very bad images.

Why did you re-create a thread that we already have and are currently discussing this very issue?



http://www.urbanstl.com/viewtopic.php?t=1821