urbanSTL

the closing off of St. Charles Street along Lucas Park

bad idea. sorry. I HATE when streets are closed off. The street next to Lucas Park should be reopened to Washington.

The primary focus of the effort should be to ensure the safety of the food, not to discourage generosity.

No, it should be to discourage "generosity". why don't these people who drive in from wherever, serve these sandwiches out of their garages? Why does it have to be done in someone's neighborhood? Surely, they wouldn't want them loitering around Valley Park or wherever these "good Samaritan's" live. They can volunteer INSIDE any of the shelters downtown. No more sandwiches in the parks!

Thanks, Dweebe, for summing-up the meeting. Sounds like it was a worthwhile event.

1) You claim the ACLU is "a convienient crutch". The problem is the cops are not allowed to question "residents" of Lucas Park. In my opinion it's not a crutch, which implies an excuse for them to not do their job, but a severe limitation which prevents the police from doing what they need to.

I'm not starting a "quote war" either, but where does this come from? When did the ACLU opine that you can't question any person who is, presumably, doing something illegal?



Or are we advocating questioning homeless people for another reason?

I was referring to the street that's closed between Washington and St. Charles, next to Lucas Park Restaurant.

But, yes, closing St. Charles next to Lucas Park is worthless if you ask me. No retail on these buildings faces the park, but rather rear entrances to the buildings on Washington.

^ I agree, if more aforethought was put into the situation Lucas Park wouldn't be what it is now. But you have to remember, up until about 5yrs. ago just getting Washington Street going at all hours (not just for the midnight to 3 a.m. clubgoers) was the main focus.

True they turned their back on Lucas Park but it wasn't intentional.

Bastiat wrote:

PostDispatch wrote:Opening a center called New Horizons, a 24-hour "safe haven" for the homeless near 23rd and Pine streets where, at any time, as many as 25 homeless people can bathe, watch television, play video games or apply for jobs and social services.



The centerpiece of the plan is a privately run effort at Centenary Church. The church offers breakfast and lunch to as many as 200 homeless people six days each week, and soon will offer dinner on three nights.

Wow are these people incredibly stupid or what!?!?!



I'm starting to consider homelessness as an option. Not only can I make better than minimum wage by asking clueless liberals for their change, but I get free meals, free showers and I can sit on my ass and watch television or play video games all day if I need a break from harassing decent citizens! Even better, I can fill out forms to receive other people's money while I sit on my ass and watch tv! Does this New Horizons place also have a fully-stocked open bar? Free alcohol would really complete the package!



I can't wait for the mayor's office to comment on the tripling of homelessness once this "plan of action" takes effect!



This would be HILARIOUS if it weren't so darn detrimental to the rebirth of downtown!

Here are some thoughts I came up with. Dissect, if you will.



Assumptions Concerning the Homeless Issue Downtown

1. Many suggest that the measure of success of a city is dependent on its downtown core.

2. One of the most noted threats to the continued growth of downtown is the homeless issue.

3. Homeless tend to congregate where homeless services are concentrated.

4. Generally speaking, the better the services are in a given area, the more homeless that will be attracted to it.

5. Although most homeless service providers may be well-meaning and noble, the metrics of success for soup kitchens and other homeless services seem diametrically opposed to the true goal of ending homelessness. IE, the more they serve, the more funding they can obtain and the greater their stature becomes. Who actually works to put themselves out of business?



Environmental Issues

1. The past judgement against the city police by the ACLU seems to hamper the ability to enforce loitering. Ref: http://www.aclu-em.org/pressroom/2004pr ... rabuse.htm

2. The city states that they disproportionately pay the brunt of homeless services with the county coming off virtually scot-free.

3. The homeless issue is a NIMBY-type issue (Not In My Back Yard). It's a hot potato that no neighborhood relishes dealing with.



Proposed Strategies

1. First and foremost, homeless people should be treated with respect and be aided by society to help get them back on track. I believe no one wants to stop providing homeless services. The question is, where should these services be located to serve the greater good of the city and its residents?



2. NLEC

Although he does serve the homeless, I and others are aware that Larry Rice is driven by self-interest and does not necessarily have the welfare of the homeless and that of downtown in mind. He instructs the homeless that utilize his services to become ever visible and even outfits them with NLEC shirts. Basically, the man would be ecstatic if the homeless problem exploded downtown.



Given this, many want to demonize Larry Rice and the NLEC. They cry, "Can't the city cite eminent domain and tear the NLEC down?" This could be considered political suicide. One can't simply take away services when there is currently no better option as the opposing public opinion (Rice, media, etc) will grow louder than the cries of the eminent-domain backers.



The key is to not attack Larry Rice and the NLEC directly. Instead, a more wise strategy may be to provide better services elsewhere as the homeless will naturally gravitate toward service providers where they receive better treatment. If the homeless gravitate away from downtown, his stature and funding will decrease, eventually forcing him to sell the property.



3. Where should the concentrated services be located?

Why must the predominant amount of homeless services be located downtown? As far as I know, there is no law dictating this. If one were to agree with assumptions 1-5 above, quality homeless services could be established in a concentrated area elsewhere, dissipating the homeless problem downtown.



Why should the city care where homeless services and therefore homeless issues are located? If a concentration of homeless services were relocated to a more depressed section of the city, the negative consequences and potential hit to the tax base would be less.



Now this is where things could get interesting. If the concentration of services could also be located in an area that overlaps the city and the county, homeless funding could then be split between the city and county. Even if this weren't possible, the net gain in taxes due to downtown becoming more successful is greater than any loss in a depressed area.



Risks



1. Downtown service providers would not be happy to have their stature or importance lessened. Can mitigate by providing incentives to reputable downtown service providers (Not NLEC) in order to relocate or otherwise be involved in the new location(s).



Targeted Outcomes



1. The homeless receive better quality care.

2. The homeless problem dissipates downtown.

3. NLEC closes due to lack of funding.

4. Net tax base increases due to the ever strengthening of downtown and much revenue is saved due to a more equitable split of city/county homeless funding.

"Can't the city cite eminent domain and tear the NLEC down?" This could be considered political suicide.

WHY!?!?! I really don't understand this. WHO is in favor of what Larry Rice does? Who is on his side? who are all these people that would be upset with Slay? PLEASE tell me.

JCity wrote:

"Can't the city cite eminent domain and tear the NLEC down?" This could be considered political suicide.

WHY!?!?! I really don't understand this. WHO is in favor of what Larry Rice does? Who is on his side? who are all these people that would be upset with Slay? PLEASE tell me.

He has a TV station where he can evangelize. Believe me, there are a ton of naive people in the region who aren't familiar with the true Larry Rice. All they see is a nice, toupeed old man who wants to help the homeless. They don't see the calculating, self-serving man who wants to set up homeless tent cities downtown and would be ecstatic to see the homeless problem boom to increase his stature.



So the strategy should be for a private entity to offer services similar to yet of higher quality than NLEC. Most importantly, a mission aligned and integrated with the city's 10 year plan on homeless, whose true interests are in transitioning homeless to getting back on their feet. No doubt the homeless would leave NLEC for the other location... And without homeless to serve, Rice is powerless.



Additionally, there must be many code violations at the NLEC. The place really is a trash heap and I don't see why it wouldn't be a candidate for eminent domain. The only problem is, as awful as Rice is, one can't cite eminent domain on the NLEC unless there is another entity that offers similar services. When this is the case, I believe the city can and would go forward with eminent domain.



In coordination, expose Larry Rice in the media for what he truly is... A Riverfront Times expose, maybe? Investigative tv reports? Who's got the dirt on him? If you can win over people's minds while working to help the homeless, you can win the battle.

SOOOO



The Mayors 'plan' is to

Opening a center called New Horizons, a 24-hour "safe haven" for the homeless near 23rd and Pine streets where, at any time, as many as 25 homeless people can bathe, watch television, play video games or apply for jobs and social services.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... itycounty/

story/4C565BB87666CB0E8625734200164954?OpenDocument



While the Downtowns Children Center moves to

2201 Washington Ave.



If I remember grumblings, they moved to specifically get away from Lucas Park and the Homeless vagrants. (and expansion)



This takes their buffer that they created by moving and narrows it down again to a 'closeness' level that is probably uncomfortable...



They had a good plan until this proposal..



I would see this as a setback for the Children's Center who are just trying to keep the kids safe..



I would be fuming at this news and make sure the Mayors plans were modified...



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

EDIT removed extreme words.



I do see this as a positive IF and these are BIG IFS



IF This is the first step in cutting funding for Larry Rice and NLEC..



The plan will need our taxdollors and I would rather them go to this new center than LR. (he has a huge building and he kicks folks out during the day?)



IF steps are taken to acquire the NLEC by eminant domain or whatever.



IF the property is sold to a developer that would turn it into condos or apartments, similar to its surroundings.



THEN I will be impressed...

^ You may be projecting a bit.



Lucas Park and the Downtown Children's Center have shared space for quite some time. While this has been a challenge, it doesn't seem to have been the reason for the move.



According to a story in tomorrow's P-D:

The day-care center, a fixture in the area for almost 30 years, is moving a few blocks farther west this fall, but an official said that homelessness in the park wasn't a factor in the decision.

^

I mentioned they were 'grumblings' probably from somewhere on this forum.

Quote:

The day-care center, a fixture in the area for almost 30 years, is moving a few blocks farther west this fall, but an official said that homelessness in the park wasn't a factor in the decision.

BUT a simple mention of the ''problem" tends me to think otherwise.



You can read whatever you want into that statement..

The Children's Center and Horizon will be four blocks from each other. I wouldn't exactly call them next door. Additionally, Horizon will be located even further from the core of downtown. I see this as a positive.

You know what I dont like about the article in the Post? They mentioned that homeless find a nice place to sit on the steps in front of Christ Church Cathedral, but they fail to mention that a woman who worked at the church was murdered by a homeless man a few years ago who probably frequented the park. I know you cant attribute one person's actions to a whole group but that woman wouldnt have been killed if the homeless werent allowed to loiter in that vascinity (or any vascinity).

From the PD article:

Discarded food at the park doesn't just make it look ugly, it's also caused a rat infestation there. The Downtown Children's Center had to close its fenced-off playground in the park for fear that the children would be exposed to rat poison.



The day-care center, a fixture in the area for almost 30 years, is moving a few blocks farther west this fall, but an official said that homelessness in the park wasn't a factor in the decision.



Smith, the homeless Lucas Park regular, says it's a good thing the center is moving.



"This is no place for children," he said.



Wow, you're right. Why on earth would we think that a park with a playground would be aplace for kids. Our apologies to you, sir. We are clearly idiots for thinking that we could bring our kids to a park.

^

That guy seemed to be enjoying the homeless lifestyle a little too much. But, for the reasons that Bastiat mentioned, I guess I can see why.

Weird drive going home thise evening. Drove up Locust at 10:00 p.m. and from Tucker to 16th Street only saw one homeless person out and about. Normally the area behind the library and in front of NLEC is very active but not tonight. Wonder is something is going on?

Funny. I drove by Lucas Park on 14th street around 6:00, and I noticed the same thing. Are they all off to a convention somewhere?

Cleaning up for the big sports/festival weekend downtown?

seemingly has yet to yield

The coordination of all but one of the service providers, the creation of the new drop-in center, and the measured reduction in the size of the region's homeless population seem to belie that observation.