The other proposed solutions -- turn Lucas Park into a dog park, build on it, install many hives of agitated honeybees there, etc. -- wouldn't work, either. The only effect would be to move the homeless over to the mall.
My husband works in the SHell bldg and my kids are at DCC and my husband and I agree: the situation is getting worse. Husband says he thinks there are a lot more "dealers" hanging out selling to and/or beating up on the homless guys.
DCC is moving a few blocks down washington and the DCC space is will be owned/developed by McGowan. DCC leases the eastern part of lucas park (playground) from the city.
DCC is moving a few blocks down washington and the DCC space is will be owned/developed by McGowan. DCC leases the eastern part of lucas park (playground) from the city.
63104mom wrote:My husband works in the SHell bldg and my kids are at DCC and my husband and I agree: the situation is getting worse. Husband says he thinks there are a lot more "dealers" hanging out selling to and/or beating up on the homless guys.
-RBB
I think we need to end the notion that everyone has a "right" to use the parks and the streets, regardless of their actions. If people want the benefits of society, then they must live up to its standards.
This is not an issue of discrimination, just holding everyone to the same standard. A wealthy white man born and raised in Ladue would be kicked out for using the park as his toilet the same as a homeless man would.
The issue should be up to the neighborhood association or the business association for certain retail nodes/streets. This would allow for the people to decide if they want to put up with these parasites or not. Progressive areas like the Loop might allow panhandling, but the CWE would hold its residents and visitors to a higher standard of civilization, etc.
This is not an issue of discrimination, just holding everyone to the same standard. A wealthy white man born and raised in Ladue would be kicked out for using the park as his toilet the same as a homeless man would.
The issue should be up to the neighborhood association or the business association for certain retail nodes/streets. This would allow for the people to decide if they want to put up with these parasites or not. Progressive areas like the Loop might allow panhandling, but the CWE would hold its residents and visitors to a higher standard of civilization, etc.
Many of the things that homeless people do in the parks are no more legal or illegal to homeless people than they are to wealthy land owners. The issue I think is laziness to enforce it on the part of the cops. I suppose it can seem like trying to stop a river from flowing. That's not an excuse, I just bet that's how the cops see it.
Apathy and a blind eye towards law breakers is what has let Lucas Park down. Are they waiting for a real serious crime to happen before the cops will take action?
If the politicians are serious about DT progressing, then this issue will need to be dealt with in the very short term.
If the politicians are serious about DT progressing, then this issue will need to be dealt with in the very short term.
The sad truth is that we will never get rid of homelessness, though we should never stop trying. The sad truth is that homeless people tend to frighten and offend non-homeless people, whether they are doing anything wrong or not. They violate the cultural norms of the majority and that is disconcerting and undesirable. Because of these reasons, the homeless will always be pushed to the fringes of desirable areas. While I am not saying this a good thing, I think it is a reasonable thing. The homeless are a fact of life. We do not live in a utopia, nor will we ever create one. I think that the city should not be afraid to adopt an explicit policy which treats the homeless as a calculated impediment to development. Efforts to help the homeless overcome the issues which led to their predicament should continue and be expanded. At the same time, the city and its residents should make decisions and take actions to remove the homeless from high profile areas where citizens and the city perceive them as causing problems. Like it or not, this is how power works. In our society, the tax-paying, law abiding citizens and the government they authorize will always have it. The homeless, the criminals, and the very poor will not. This does not mean they do not have rights as human beings and citizens (and it doesn't mean that the poor and homeless are criminals). It simply means that their circumstances put them at a disadvantage when confronted with the needs and wants (perceived and real) of the powerful. Though it might not be fair on a philosophical level, it forms the basis of pragmatic human organization. If we want to move them, we can and should move them. Soliloquy over.
For some reason, some one with some type of clout is exerting a hands-off policy.
- 1,044
I disagree with the thought of a hands off policy, there is plenty going on behind the scenes. Because it’s a controversial subject our civic leadership is intentionally not publicizing their strategy and solutions.
- 63
not sure on the details, but i think when the city made an effort to deal with the homeless in this area the ACLU successfully sued the police department.
read more here about that lawsuit.
Apparently all the city can really do is fine them, which is obviously meaningless.
Apparently all the city can really do is fine them, which is obviously meaningless.
Agressive panhandling (only a finable offence in STL) is almost always assault (without battery).
http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term ... A49EA50CEB
Is assault only a finable offence?
http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term ... A49EA50CEB
Is assault only a finable offence?
Thanks for posting the unlawful arrest lawsuit results. I guess that's it then. I do wish "homeless" was defined and used appropriately. There are very few that are in fact homeless that are the problem.
Nothing can be done until something is done about the flames drawing all the moths. I think the flames are the religious groups/churches. The intention is to serve the homeless. The impact is far different.
Nothing can be done until something is done about the flames drawing all the moths. I think the flames are the religious groups/churches. The intention is to serve the homeless. The impact is far different.
rockintheburbsTC wrote:read more here about that lawsuit.
Apparently all the city can really do is fine them, which is obviously meaningless.
From the link
The settlement also makes new laws for the city of St. Louis that make public drinking, public urination, and aggressive panhandling fineable crimes, but not crimes that police can make an arrest for.
That's great.
Because God forbid we lock anyone up.Thats what I'm asking about. Agressive panhandling is ASSAULT. Don't we usually lock people up for assault, or is it only for assault and battery?
- 1,493
^Locking up the homeless would be a vast waste of resources. It is quite expensive hold an inmate in jail. It'd be far cheaper to simply better fund shelters. Perhaps with a new ticketing measure.....
I'm not suggesting we lock them up. I am asking what penalties are generally attached to assault (which aggressive pan-handling is).
Locking up the homeless would be a vast waste of resources. It is quite expensive hold an inmate in jail. It'd be far cheaper to simply better fund shelters.
Umm, they PREFER to lounge in a nice park in the sun all day. Hey, who wouldn't prefer it as compared to sitting inside Larry Rice's sh*ty shelter?
What ever happend to the cop who told the bums to "move it along"? The ol' tap on the shoulder with the police baton...
Thank you ACLU! Again, where do the members of this organization live? We should hand out their addresses, so the homeless can go LIVE with them in their homes, or at least their backyards! great idea, IMOP.
TGE-ATW wrote:Thats what I'm asking about. Agressive panhandling is ASSAULT. Don't we usually lock people up for assault, or is it only for assault and battery?
Well, it could be assault, but only a tortious assault, not a criminal one. Suing a homeless guy in tort is about as effective as imposing on him a criminal fine.
For criminal assault defined in MO, see RSMo. 565.050-565.060, here:
http://www.moga.mo.gov/STATUTES/C565.HTM
What the MO criminal law calls "assault," the civil law calls "battery." More or less.
So to answer your question, no we can't lock up homeless people for aggressive panhandling in MO under the assault statute.
Actually, TGE, I spoke too soon. One way to commit Assault 3rd, a misdemeanor, is to:
purposely place[] another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury.
See RSMo 565.070.
But does asking somebody for some change "purposely" put another in apprehension of "immediate physical injury"?
But I suppose it's possible.
purposely place[] another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury.
See RSMo 565.070.
But does asking somebody for some change "purposely" put another in apprehension of "immediate physical injury"?
But I suppose it's possible.
- 923
Hey guys, I just need some change for the bus? Can you spare some change? Anyone? Change? Ch....ange.....? Channnnnnnnnnnnnnnnngggggggeeeeeeeeeeeee...........................guuuuuurrrrrrrhhhh
- 476
JCity wrote:Thank you ACLU! Again, where do the members of this organization live? We should hand out their addresses, so the homeless can go LIVE with them in their homes, or at least their backyards! great idea, IMOP.
I think it would be more fitting with tradition if the camped out in their front yards...
- 1,493
OK...not quite sure how this response related to anything I said though, Maybe you think I was suggusting funding Rice's shelter? No quite the opposite, the city could use monies colleted that must go to shelters as leverage to make sure the shelters "play ball" with them. For example, they could deny Rice's shelter funding since they dislike his practices, but grant funding to they many reputable chruch run shelters.JCity wrote:Locking up the homeless would be a vast waste of resources. It is quite expensive hold an inmate in jail. It'd be far cheaper to simply better fund shelters.
Umm, they PREFER to lounge in a nice park in the sun all day. Hey, who wouldn't prefer it as compared to sitting inside Larry Rice's sh*ty shelter?
What ever happend to the cop who told the bums to "move it along"? The ol' tap on the shoulder with the police baton...
Thank you ACLU! Again, where do the members of this organization live? We should hand out their addresses, so the homeless can go LIVE with them in their homes, or at least their backyards! great idea, IMOP.
Also, ACLU does a lot of good, just in this case we happened to get the short end of the stick.