If the Lou is less mean than the allegedly "bleeding heart" cities of SF, NYC or even Austin, then I don't see this as that bad of a ranking.
You can also look at this ranking as pretty much those cities with significant homeless population. If that's the case, you could say St. Louis is among the "friendliest" of cities with significant homeless service strains.
It probably isn't fair or productive to paint the city as mean based on a single, isolated incident (rather than on a local law, ordinance or policy). Doing so tends to take away from the credibility of the entire report. St. Louis has always been recognized as a leader in community-based mental health, affordable housing and homeless services. Recall that the issue of homelessness has its roots with the Reagan administration. Similar to Bush's No Child Left Behind, Reagan opened up the doors of mental hospitals without funding the alternative---community-based mental health. Independence Center in St. Louis is one of the best examples of how the plan was supposed to work.
Even so, I'm glad the lawsuit was decided for the plaintiffs. The city took another misstep. However, I support the second sweep mentioned. The area around Larry Rice's place on Locust is populated by persons who harrass you.
from the report...
#19 St. Louis, MO
In October 2005, the City of St. Louis settled a lawsuit filed against it by twenty-five
homeless and impoverished people, claiming they were illegally ?swept? from the
downtown area before the city?s Fourth of July festivities. The city paid $80,000 in
damages to the plaintiffs. The payment of damages will be shared by the city, the police
department and the Downtown Partnership, all of whom were defendants in the case.
The plaintiffs claimed that homeless people and those who appeared to be homeless were
abused, harassed, and illegally detained in order to clear the city streets before the holiday
festivities, and alleged that the defendants have a policy ?of intimidating and driving
homeless people and homeless-appearing people from downtown St. Louis.? Plaintiffs
also alleged that some of them were told they would be released if they performed free
community service - cleaning up after the festivities - even before they saw a judge. City
Counselor Patricia Hageman admitted these accounts were accurate. Attorney for the
plaintiffs, Steven Gunn, stated, ?This agreement makes it clear that sweeps violate the
law and human dignity.? Although the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in granting a
42
preliminary injunction and the city agreed to the settlement, the city has not admitted any
wrong-doing.
As a result of the settlement, the police department has agreed to do the following: avoid
arresting homeless people or removing them from downtown areas without probable
cause that a crime was committed; institute a policy, where under most circumstances, a
summons to court will be issued for ?quality of life? violations rather than arrest; reaffirm
to its officers that an ?individual?s status (homeless or non-homeless) will not be
considered in any of [their] decisions;? and acknowledge begging is not a crime, if it is
not ?aggressive.?
In early November 2005, police officers swept a downtown park, instructing homeless
people to leave. No arrests were made but park workers removed belongings for
temporary storage. The sweeps sparked a protest march from the park to City Hall. The
marchers demanded an end to sweeps and more services for homeless people.
Of course, the report could be referring to the dozens of municipalities in the region that have no homeless services at all -- and whose only homeless policy is to export them to the City.
What constitutes 'being nice?' I suppose that means giving them a cash hand out and some soup and expecting them to then get a job, a house, and stop using substances. The idea that St. Louis is 'mean' to the homeless is absurd. Slay just came out with his 10 year plan to end homelessness, which I think is a good plan.
Homeless people cannot live on the streets, it makes the city look bad, and it is dangerous, as some homeless are on drugs. Even if the area they are sleeping is public property, they do not have the right to call public property their own private space to live.
The county spends a meesly 2.3 million dollars (or less) every year on their homeless problem. In fact, most homeless are sent to the city (voluntarily mostly) because the city offers free programs and shelters for the homeless - the county does not.
In fact, the City of St. Louis has done studies to show that most homeless in St. Louis are not even from the city itself - the most being from St. Louis County (which in turn does not provide applicable or enough services for them - leaving them to come to the inner city to be "served" or "helped".
The city spent over 16 million dollars every year on their homeless problem - and most cases are county cases that have to come to the city for help.
THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THAT PICTURE! The county has over 1.6 million more people than St. Louis city and they only spend a meesly 2 million dollars on their homess and offer hardly any services and shelters for them - and you wonder why St. Louis officials and the Mayor (Francis Slay) get so worked up about the city having to take care of the county's problems - it's true!!!
People rather look past the facts than the real issues... the county pretty much says - let the city take care of our "undesirables" and send them there because they are doing the job and spending the money.
SAD!
Now you can see why the County doesn't really favor having a merge with the City!
I don't see any Homeless shelters or centers in Clayton - and there will never be any either - THANKS to the City (from the county)!
St. Louis County has 1,016,000 people which is 666,000 more people than St. Louis City
Faith based groups DO provide services for the impovershed, but it is difficult to serve the homeless in a very auto-dominated area where people do not randomly set up cardboard divisions at night in stripcenter entrances. Granted providing converted homes for the homeless is a posibility that can be tried pending the cooperation of neighbors.
Community Helping Ministries services the Pattonville area, Florissant has a large faith based help group too that helped my mother with food when she was down on her luck.
Yet, I am not talking about private and faith-based homeless shelters/help. Thank goodness we have them in the county and metro to serve people who need it - THE COUNTY sure isn't doing or spending much.
True. ST. Louis needs to get rid of that damn bum shelter downtown as well. Who in the hell wants to live on Washington Avenues and look at a bunch of beggars all over the place.
JCity wrote:"Many will be market rate with some marked for low income"
This is an endless cycle of bs. The whole mixed income/ "market" rate housing needs to be built miles from downtown. This is an endless cycle. I give these a shelf life of no more than 20/30 years. HIGH END developments need to occur around the downtown core or we might as well forget about the whole "rebirth" of downtown. Lafayette needs to connect to downtown and so does Soulard, now there's Pyramid's "mixed income development" that I think is today's version of Laclede town- well HOPEFULLY not that bad. These are always "feel good" developments that don't always work as planned. Ideally, I hope they do, I'll try to be an optimist but just look at their track record. I don't think people are going to buy into a "50" story high rise in the bottle district with a "mixed income" development across the street, sorry. Put the mixed/ income developments elsewhere in the city, they're a drain on the comeback of downtown.
2taall wrote:True. ST. Louis needs to get rid of that damn bum shelter downtown as well. Who in the hell wants to live on Washington Avenues and look at a bunch of beggars all over the place.
And move it(the bum shelter) to where? I accepted that bums were going to be part of the package when I signed on the dotted line to purchase a loft, as did everyone else. Take a trip to any major urban center and you will see a lot of bums simply because the city is where the services that serve them are located. Do you suggest that we abandon them?
The homeless shelters need to leave downtown, not because I care if there are homeless people around my neighborhood, but because it deters other people from moving there. Most of us are tolerant of this, but the population we need to attract, unfortunantly, is not. Leaving the homeless to private and non-profits allows them to stay anywhere these organizations setup shop, i.e. downtown; if the government did something, they could control where the homeless shelters are.
I would like to see people have more respect for the homeless. Most are mentally ill, and it takes some respect to see them as human beings. Granted, I don't think this location is in the best of places, but it isn't necessary to diminish their dignity in explaining our urbanist perspective.
ToastedRavioli wrote:The homeless shelters need to leave downtown, not because I care if there are homeless people around my neighborhood, but because it deters other people from moving there. Most of us are tolerant of this, but the population we need to attract, unfortunantly, is not. Leaving the homeless to private and non-profits allows them to stay anywhere these organizations setup shop, i.e. downtown; if the government did something, they could control where the homeless shelters are.
The homeless have their place DT. Those who are detered by them had best stay in the burbs. If the shelters leave DT where do you propose they go? If people can't get over living by a sheleter, then they do not belong in the city.
You guys can talk about people needing to stay in the suberbs, or we should respect the homeless, or whatever, but the simple fact is that this looks bad, real bad to visitors and people(like myself) who live in other parts of the city.
Yeah, you tell em! If you want to live in a nice area, stay in the suburbs. If you want homelessness, vagrancy, drugs and violence move downtown -- it's accepted here.
That's utter rubbish. The area is changing. If we don't clean things up, our investments may be cleaned out. The homeless should be helped, and the shelters can be moved to lower-value areas.
Urban Elitist wrote:The homeless have their place DT. Those who are detered by them had best stay in the burbs. If the shelters leave DT where do you propose they go? If people can't get over living by a sheleter, then they do not belong in the city.
Sure it looks bad, but you have to level your reasoning. No major city is free of homeless people. With the perspective that they are bums, useless, or mere pests, is counterproductive to the removal of them. This is not a good location for the homeless, but there are better ways of justifying their removal, without diminishing their human value. They obviously need assistance. Their existence is an essential con of a capitalistic society.
I am not diminishing anyone's human value. It is true that homelessness makes the area more dangerous to residents and tourists. They are simply more prone to be involved in vagrancy, violence, and drugs. Yes, homelessness will always be an issue. But a homeless center downtown only attracts more homeless to the area, not less.
Respect goes both ways. Maybe they should respect our right to live in an area that is safe to live. Maybe they should respect our investments.
Should they be helped? Yes. Is a homeless center in the middle of an area striving for revitalization the right place? No. Caring people should help relocate the facility to a lower-valued area.
Xing wrote:Sure it looks bad, but you have to level your reasoning. No major city is free of homeless people. With the perspective that they are bums, useless, or mere pests, is counterproductive to the removal of them. This is not a good location for the homeless, but there are better ways of justifying their removal, without diminishing their human value. They obviously need assistance. Their existence is an essential con of a capitalistic society.
innov8ion wrote:Yeah, you tell em! If you want to live in a nice area, stay in the suburbs. If you want homelessness, vagrancy, drugs and violence move downtown -- it's accepted here.
I never said any of that. I said you should expect to see bums if you are moving DT, not that durgs and violence are acceptable there. Since DT is the hub of the city, It's natural that a shelter would be located there. Doesn't Larry RIce own this building anyway? Since you seem to love the free market, as long as he can pay his property taxes , what right do we have to force him to leave?
There is a good correlation between homelessness and drugs and violence. Therefore the acceptance is implied.
I'm sure there could be incentives made for Larry Rice to move the center. And if not, there are always zoning laws. What right do we have? Well, we're voters. Democracy's a b****, isn't it?
Urban Elitist wrote:
innov8ion wrote:Yeah, you tell em! If you want to live in a nice area, stay in the suburbs. If you want homelessness, vagrancy, drugs and violence move downtown -- it's accepted here.
I never said any of that. I said you should expect to see bums if you are moving DT, not that durgs and violence are acceptable there. Since DT is the hub of the city, It's natural that a shelter would be located there. Doesn't Larry RIce own this building anyway? Since you seem to love the free market, as long as he can pay his property taxes , what right do we have to force him to leave?
innov8ion wrote: There is a good correlation between homelessness and drugs and violence. Therefore the acceptance is implied.
I implied nothing of the sort. Stop trying to win a debate by putting words into my mouth. If anyhting the shelter providing them with their needs helps to prevent robberies and violence.
innov8ion wrote:
I'm sure there could be incentives made for Larry Rice to move the center. And if not, there are always zoning laws. What right do we have? Well, we're voters. Democracy's a b****, isn't it?
The city has been doing this for years to no avail (offering Rice incentives). If Larry Rice pays his property taxes, we have no right no emminent domain away his property. No vote can do that. Just think how absurd it would be if people could votre away property you paid for fair in square. And I am not for "spot zoining" in hardy any situation because it causes more trouble than it solves.
Try to open your eyes to the point. Moving the shelter to a lower-valued area could provide the people with their needs without endangering the lives and investments of others. It's called gentrification. You don't have to like it, but it will happen.
Just think, downtown is becoming a more valuable area. Larry Rice should be able to sell that property for a nice profit and purchase in a lower-priced area. With this profit, he could better serve the homeless. It's efficient and makes sense. Unless, of course, he is more interested in pissing off residents than better providing for the homeless.
