All quiet on the eastern NLEC front;
Lucas Park (today 8 May 17)
Christ Church (today 8 May 17)
Lucas Park (today 8 May 17)
Christ Church (today 8 May 17)
I imagine the central library isn't getting as abused since it's no longer the city's main daytime shelter. Yes, that sounds cold and snarky: but there has to be a better approach.
- 289
- 10K
Dumb question, but is Lucas Park really necessary with all the green space just a block away, on the other side of the library? Even without all the questionable activity that's taken place there in recent years, it's never struck me as a particularly appealing place - kind of a pit, faces the backs of loft buildings, etc.
- 2,620
I would rather keep Lucas and get rid of Kaufman and Eternal Flame Park
Lucas is the only park downtown that actually has value (other than homeless hangout and place for residents to take their dogs to the bathroom).
All the rest of them are mostly just vacant lots, some with a couple benches, some without anything at all.
All the rest of them are mostly just vacant lots, some with a couple benches, some without anything at all.
I live and work on Wash Ave between 11th and 13th. From my observations, yes, the sidewalk in front of NLEC is not full of people but the Cathedral and the Central Library haven't changed much. The "homeless highway" is very much still alive. Also, lets keep in mind that simply shifting the homeless population up to Columbus Sq is not a victory by any means. It's an extremely fragile neighborhood as is.
As for building on park land, I agree that the Soldiers Memorial parks are better candidates but don't flatter yourselves and think that there's demand for that much new construction in downtown STL right now. If anything, we have far too many empty parking lots east of Tucker to deal with first.
As for building on park land, I agree that the Soldiers Memorial parks are better candidates but don't flatter yourselves and think that there's demand for that much new construction in downtown STL right now. If anything, we have far too many empty parking lots east of Tucker to deal with first.
- 3,235
YupGoHarvOrGoHome wrote:I would rather keep Lucas and get rid of Kaufman and Eternal Flame Park
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Larry Rice has handed out 600 tickets for MetroBus and MetroLink, so that the homeless can apply for jobs around town. Oh, and also so they can ride around all night and have somewhere to stay:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... ca6bd.html
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... ca6bd.html
- 1,864
I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that he actually cares about helping homeless get off their feet is insane at this point. Since being shut down there has been ZERO discussion from him about renovating or fixing up the NLEC to make it up to code. It's only about the next marketing ploy or getting back to the status quo of reopening the NLEC in its previous form.
He needs to go, the city needs to file a restraining order against him, or someone needs to file a lawsuit against him for being liable for dangerous practices.
Enough is enough.
He needs to go, the city needs to file a restraining order against him, or someone needs to file a lawsuit against him for being liable for dangerous practices.
Enough is enough.
- 3,235
Yes Rice has made a fortune bringing people to his shelter and denying them housing and services. He needs to go away.chaifetz10 wrote:I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that he actually cares about helping homeless get off their feet is insane at this point. Since being shut down there has been ZERO discussion from him about renovating or fixing up the NLEC to make it up to code. It's only about the next marketing ploy or getting back to the status quo of reopening the NLEC in its previous form.
He needs to go, the city needs to file a restraining order against him, or someone needs to file a lawsuit against him for being liable for dangerous practices.
Enough is enough.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Larry Rice is selling his TV station (but not his building downtown).
http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/colu ... ign=LEEDCC
http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/colu ... ign=LEEDCC
- 3,762
damn those gentrifying loft-dwellers not wanting themselves and their kids to get stabbed while walking around Larry Rice's downtown!Rice alleged the city wanted him out of the location to placate loft-dwellers who had gentrified the area in recent years.
And damn all those loft dwellers giving monthly donations to St. Patrick's Center.urban_dilettante wrote: ↑Sep 13, 2017damn those gentrifying loft-dwellers not wanting themselves and their kids to get stabbed while walking around Larry Rice's downtown!Rice alleged the city wanted him out of the location to placate loft-dwellers who had gentrified the area in recent years.
Don't know if its relevant or not - but arrests for loitering and begging have fallen significantly since NLEC closed
http://www.slmpd.org/Crimereports.shtml
http://www.slmpd.org/Crimereports.shtml
Loitering and begging? People are clearly (and rightfully) more concerned about getting stabbed or otherwise harmed/robbed or having their cars broken into. Have those crimes similarly dropped in the vicinity?beer city wrote: ↑Dec 05, 2017Don't know if its relevant or not - but arrests for loitering and begging have fallen significantly since NLEC closed
http://www.slmpd.org/Crimereports.shtml
- 1,290
It's baaaaaack:
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/met ... -top-story
Let's see how it goes this time.
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/met ... -top-story
Let's see how it goes this time.
It will be the exactly same. Larry has a decades old track record of exploiting people in need, ignoring best practices, shunning the law, and being a horrible neighbor. I can't believe this is happening.Trololzilla wrote: ↑Nov 13, 2018It's baaaaaack:
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/met ... -top-story
Let's see how it goes this time.
- 6,118
I fail to see what's remotely surprising about it. Like it or not, Rice is responding to a very real problem. If we had no homelessness in town there would be no need for a shelter on Locust or anywhere else. You can't just sweep the problem under Biddle and hope it goes away. You want New Life gone? Okay. Let's fix the problem. It's time for realistic, compassionate solutions. You can argue about whether Rice is helping, but you can't really argue about why he's there. If you don't want him there . . . fix it. Raise property taxes in the fancy parts of town to pay for services. Pay for housing now out of the city budget with no strings attached on the assumption that it will lower policing and heath care costs later. And probably raise property values. Maybe more than enough to offset the cost. Figure out how we CAN afford this. Because we really need to if the city is going to thrive.
I guess those of us living in Downtown get to bear the brunt of the homeless camping in our alleys, incessantly panhandling, and harassing us in our neighborhood while the rest of the metro area reaches a consensus on how to go about tackling the problem with all great haste.
I sympathise with the terrible situation that most of the homeless are in and want to see the situation resolved as quickly as possible. That being said, I do not see how reopening the NLEC as a "church" is going help any of the homeless population down here. Why not donate $350,000 to other existing shelters instead of bringing the NLEC up to code? Why is the altruistic Rev. Rice insistent on reopening the NLEC when there are other shelters that already do most, if not all, of what he claims to want to do?
I sympathise with the terrible situation that most of the homeless are in and want to see the situation resolved as quickly as possible. That being said, I do not see how reopening the NLEC as a "church" is going help any of the homeless population down here. Why not donate $350,000 to other existing shelters instead of bringing the NLEC up to code? Why is the altruistic Rev. Rice insistent on reopening the NLEC when there are other shelters that already do most, if not all, of what he claims to want to do?
- 6,118
Because it's his baby. He feels he's doing something helpful. It's his organization to run. People entrusted the money to him. And make no mistake, downtown certainly does not bear the brunt of the problem of poverty and homelessness in our town. More than Southampton, to be sure. But there are pandhandlers everywhere in this town as in most. Anywhere there is traffic and money. And there are homeless people everywhere there's a dry and not too heavily policed doorway or underpass. Downtown has a lot, but not the brunt. And clearly doesn't suffer so heavily from the basic problems as genuinely distressed neighborhoods. I think anyone north of Martin Luther King would have a bitter laugh at that sentiment.
Homeless people go downtown because that's where the resources are. People with money go downtown because . . . that's where the resources are. Simple as that. Rice doesn't bring them there. He didn't put City Hall, the various federal offices, the library, or anything else downtown save for his shelter. And I doubt any of us would want to move the resources out. To be frank, there are ALWAYS more people panhandling in districts where there are more tourists. In any city. In Seattle. In Chicago. In New York. That's just the way it works. And people tend to want to stay near where they work. So it seems to me the solution will have to involve several layers of helping people who are homeless and jobless find the resources to fix the problems that made them homeless and jobless. (I don't think I know anyone who actually wants to be that way. And I've known quite a lot of people who ended up there at least temporarily.) We can connect people with mental health resources. We can connect them with shelter, sustenance. We can help people find dignity.
But we cannot tell Rice how he should be doing that and expect him to listen when we are not ourselves doing anything tangible. Or even offering useful suggestions. And telling Rice to invest in shelters he's expressed skepticism about, which he's on record as saying don't solve the problem, is barking up a tree with nothing up it. He feels he knows the right thing to do. He's going to do it. Like it or not. If you don't want him to do it . . . show the world a better way. Take away the reason he wants to do it. Solve the problem. (We do, after all, need the problem solved. All of us. Downtown and elsewhere. Poor and getting by. We all want a better, safer, freer, more prosperous city.
I would truly, honestly love to live in a city where there was absolutely no need for a shelter at NLEC. Maybe even Larry Rice would love to live in that city. (I very much suspect he would, actually.)
Homeless people go downtown because that's where the resources are. People with money go downtown because . . . that's where the resources are. Simple as that. Rice doesn't bring them there. He didn't put City Hall, the various federal offices, the library, or anything else downtown save for his shelter. And I doubt any of us would want to move the resources out. To be frank, there are ALWAYS more people panhandling in districts where there are more tourists. In any city. In Seattle. In Chicago. In New York. That's just the way it works. And people tend to want to stay near where they work. So it seems to me the solution will have to involve several layers of helping people who are homeless and jobless find the resources to fix the problems that made them homeless and jobless. (I don't think I know anyone who actually wants to be that way. And I've known quite a lot of people who ended up there at least temporarily.) We can connect people with mental health resources. We can connect them with shelter, sustenance. We can help people find dignity.
But we cannot tell Rice how he should be doing that and expect him to listen when we are not ourselves doing anything tangible. Or even offering useful suggestions. And telling Rice to invest in shelters he's expressed skepticism about, which he's on record as saying don't solve the problem, is barking up a tree with nothing up it. He feels he knows the right thing to do. He's going to do it. Like it or not. If you don't want him to do it . . . show the world a better way. Take away the reason he wants to do it. Solve the problem. (We do, after all, need the problem solved. All of us. Downtown and elsewhere. Poor and getting by. We all want a better, safer, freer, more prosperous city.
I would truly, honestly love to live in a city where there was absolutely no need for a shelter at NLEC. Maybe even Larry Rice would love to live in that city. (I very much suspect he would, actually.)
- 3,762
with all due respect,symphonicpoet wrote: ↑Nov 15, 2018And telling Rice to invest in shelters he's expressed skepticism about, which he's on record as saying don't solve the problem, is barking up a tree with nothing up it. He feels he knows the right thing to do. He's going to do it. Like it or not. If you don't want him to do it . . . show the world a better way.
. fortunately most things aren't regulated based on whether or not the proprietor has good intentions. (and I'm definitely not convinced that Rice's intentions are pure.) Rice criticizing other shelters/services for not solving the problem is either the height of dishonesty or the height of incognizance. the guy has never presented a shred of data to demonstrate that his shelter gets better results than the ones he derides, and since he continuously and conveniently rejects any outside oversight there's no metric by which to compare his services to theirs. seems if he were actually concerned about finding a "better way" he'd work with other services. so, sorry, but i'm calling BS.in any case, if NLEC can play nice with downtown residents in its new form then great. if it devolves into the same crap again, shut it down for good. i'm a little concerned about it having "church" status as that might create a whole mess of legal complications if it needs to be shut down again.