Poll: What, If Anything, Should St. Louis Do About the Homeless Camps on the North Riverfront?
St. Louis, like so many other cities has homeless camps, ours are located along the Mississippi riverfront just north of Laclede’s Landing.
St. Louis streets are home to more than 1,300 people on any given day. Just north of the Gateway Arch are a number of people, huddled in tents, adding to those numbers.
Littered with tents, just west of the flood wall, separating the Mississippi from the city, sits a group of people who prefer living on the streets over housing. (KSDK)
Yesterday I visited the largest of the three, Hopeville, with about 50 residents. Sparta and Dignity Harbor each have about 20. All three camps occupy a stretch of land just west of the flood wall between Mullanphy and Dickson (aerial).
Recently one camp resident was stabbed by another:
In response to the killing, city officials hinted that the camps might be eliminated by the end of summer. A few days after the stabbing, three aldermen representing parts of downtown sent Mayor Francis Slay a letter arguing that a “take it or leave it” plan might exacerbate the problems. They urged him to include elected officials, community and business leaders and the homeless in the city’s search for solutions to camps of homeless people on the riverfront. (St. Louis Beacon)
The victim was the camp’s leader, he got involved when one resident was being aggresive with another. I spent over two hours at Hopeville, sitting and talking with residents, including the new leader Moe.
Here is the poll question and the answers I’ve provided:
Q: What, if anything, should St. Louis do about the homeless camps on the north riverfront?
- Nothing
- Force them to leave immediately
- Provide services to make them more comfortable there
- Provide alternate land to use that has running water,power, restrooms and some shelters (ie: campground)
- Arrest them for trespassing
- Put them on a bus to somewhere else
- Fund more emergency / transitional housing
- House them in safe supportive apartments
- Allow them to remain but charge for trash service and cite for maintenance violations
- Offer them annual lease option from City of St. Louis. Lease would require sub-leases with all residents. Rent would be paid with required volunteer service
These answers are presented in a random order on the poll, located in the upper right corner. Â Thanks to Jay Swaboda, Kathleeen Wilder and Brian Matthews for their feedback on the poll wording. Check back on Wednesday June 22nd for the poll results and for my thoughts.
– Steve Patterson
5235 Page
Great poll, Steve. I’m a big fan of both of your poll assistants’ work which is laudable. But after 5 years of trying to entice new residents to downtown, I can point to ONE glaring, and consistent problem. It’s these folks who just seem to loiter around during the day and retreat to halfway houses and Hopeville at night. We know these folks by name now, actively pursue them for illegal activity, and have actively engaged the police and other neighbors. We know for a fact (from police and the homeless themselves) that due to the lax prosecution of homeless here that other cities have even bought their homeless a bus ticket to St. Louis. Hopeville residents are in fact trespassing and need to move out. If they are homeless by CHOICE as the news story suggested, they could organize, find some land beyond St. Louis, and form a commune. The problem is they cannot panhandle for income. Many also often lack the desire to work. I’ve offered some of these folks some day labor jobs and they turn their nose up at me saying “that’s work”. I really do understand a number have mental health issues, can’t afford or choose not to take meds and such. For those, there are services and those programs should be funded and expanded if the need is there, however squatting on property should be swiftly prosecuted just like passing out drunk on the sidewalk, drug trafficking, etc. The idea of spending City resources to manage leases/sub-leases is ludicrous.
Great poll, Steve. I’m a big fan of both of your poll assistants’ work which is laudable. But after 5 years of trying to entice new residents to downtown, I can point to ONE glaring, and consistent problem. It’s these folks who just seem to loiter around during the day and retreat to halfway houses and Hopeville at night. We know these folks by name now, actively pursue them for illegal activity, and have actively engaged the police and other neighbors. We know for a fact (from police and the homeless themselves) that due to the lax prosecution of homeless here that other cities have even bought their homeless a bus ticket to St. Louis. Hopeville residents are in fact trespassing and need to move out. If they are homeless by CHOICE as the news story suggested, they could organize, find some land beyond St. Louis, and form a commune. The problem is they cannot panhandle for income. Many also often lack the desire to work. I’ve offered some of these folks some day labor jobs and they turn their nose up at me saying “that’s work”. I really do understand a number have mental health issues, can’t afford or choose not to take meds and such. For those, there are services and those programs should be funded and expanded if the need is there, however squatting on property should be swiftly prosecuted just like passing out drunk on the sidewalk, drug trafficking, etc. The idea of spending City resources to manage leases/sub-leases is ludicrous.
!!! which cities have bussed their homeless to saint louis?
!!! which cities have bussed their homeless to saint louis?
Urban areas are attractive to homeless people / people with mental issues / vagrants / bums because a) other areas won’t put up with them, b) more and varied “social services” are provided for them, and c) urban police departments have higher priorities when it comes to enforcement. Underlying all this is a different mindset on the part of the general population. In Chesterfield or Ladue or Affton, individual economic success is the norm, and the attitude is to either remove the “problem” person and/or throw money at the problem, to make it go away. In the city, economic non-success (failure?) is more tolerated, and even celebrated, by sympathetic, “bleeding heart liberals”. The homeless camps and the shelters are a microcosm of the issue, as are the do-good efforts of suburban churches to deliver sandwiches to them.
Urban life is, by definition, messy. Balancing these conflicting demands and perspectives will remain a challenge. The status quo seems to be working, and I see little that will be gained from “shutting down the camps”. The residents / squatters won’t disappear, they’ll just relocate somewhere else. At least now, they’re somewhat centralized, so they’re easier to monitor and “manage”, plus, they’re NIMBY, in south city. That’s probably not PC, but it’s the way many / most working folks feel . . . .
Urban areas are attractive to homeless people / people with mental issues / vagrants / bums because a) other areas won’t put up with them, b) more and varied “social services” are provided for them, and c) urban police departments have higher priorities when it comes to enforcement. Underlying all this is a different mindset on the part of the general population. In Chesterfield or Ladue or Affton, individual economic success is the norm, and the attitude is to either remove the “problem” person and/or throw money at the problem, to make it go away. In the city, economic non-success (failure?) is more tolerated, and even celebrated, by sympathetic, “bleeding heart liberals”. The homeless camps and the shelters are a microcosm of the issue, as are the do-good efforts of suburban churches to deliver sandwiches to them.
Urban life is, by definition, messy. Balancing these conflicting demands and perspectives will remain a challenge. The status quo seems to be working, and I see little that will be gained from “shutting down the camps”. The residents / squatters won’t disappear, they’ll just relocate somewhere else. At least now, they’re somewhat centralized, so they’re easier to monitor and “manage”, plus, they’re NIMBY, in south city. That’s probably not PC, but it’s the way many / most working folks feel . . . .
>>In the city, economic non-success (failure?) is more tolerated, and even celebrated, by sympathetic, “bleeding heart liberals”.<<
What does this statement mean? I know hundreds of people who live in this city and many others. Liberal or not, I can't think of any who go around celebrating "economic non-success". The fact that cities in many places have high concentrations of poverty doesn't mean that residents exult in the fact. It also seems to me that a stereotypical "bleeding heart liberal" would be concerned by economic failure, not complacent or happy about it.
People hanging out on street corners with cardboard signs, begging for money. People living in places like Hopeville. I grew up with expectation that I would not get arrested, that I’d finish school (college, not high school) and that I’d find a job, work hard and “better” myself, in short, be a success. That is significantly different from a culture of baby daddies, dropping out of high school, dealin’ weed and relying on the government to pick up the slack. The culture glorified in urban rap music is one that “celebrates” a perverted vision of “success”. Blaming poverty isn’t much different than blaming racism – both make life more of a challenge.
Steve, are you going to make a more detailed blog post about your visit?
Steve, are you going to make a more detailed blog post about your visit?
Yes on Wednesday the 22nd.
In Finland the Government devised a multifaceted response to the problem. It
included building of social housing, the creation of social welfare and
health care services, and setting a target to provide a dwelling of
minimum standards for every homeless person. The number of single
homeless persons at that time was approximately 18 000. In just 10
years, the number of homeless in Finland was cut in half. (From the European Federation of National Organizations working with the homeless)
In America and St. Louis, the long standing depression with no jobs for those on the lower end of society contributes heavily to the problem. Shipping jobs overseas only benefits those running the political system, not the average American. Germany has developed a more balanced approach and has avoided much of the current economic downturn. (America is too arrogant to learn from others)
A broad commitment is needed to reduce homelessness, and also crime. The root is the same, outcast members of society that are not allowed to contribute. Of course as the Mayor of Affton points out there are those who don’t want to work. Even so, until there are new approaches in homeless policy, as well as job retention and creation efforts, nothing will change.
To the members of the corporate elite, the homeless are merely collateral damage on their path to the black hole of greed.
In Finland the Government devised a multifaceted response to the problem. It
included building of social housing, the creation of social welfare and
health care services, and setting a target to provide a dwelling of
minimum standards for every homeless person. The number of single
homeless persons at that time was approximately 18 000. In just 10
years, the number of homeless in Finland was cut in half. (From the European Federation of National Organizations working with the homeless)
In America and St. Louis, the long standing depression with no jobs for those on the lower end of society contributes heavily to the problem. Shipping jobs overseas only benefits those running the political system, not the average American. Germany has developed a more balanced approach and has avoided much of the current economic downturn. (America is too arrogant to learn from others)
A broad commitment is needed to reduce homelessness, and also crime. The root is the same, outcast members of society that are not allowed to contribute. Of course as the Mayor of Affton points out there are those who don’t want to work. Even so, until there are new approaches in homeless policy, as well as job retention and creation efforts, nothing will change.
To the members of the corporate elite, the homeless are merely collateral damage on their path to the black hole of greed.
I think that the United States should have reached a point where homelessness and the formation of slums as a result would be unacceptable. Is everyone blind to the fact that communities with people in shoddy tents and housing with no running water is the definition of a slum? Yes a few of these people may have chosen to live in tents, but as a society we must recognize that people deserve to live in housing, it’s not as if we can’t make room for them.Â
I think that the United States should have reached a point where homelessness and the formation of slums as a result would be unacceptable. Is everyone blind to the fact that communities with people in shoddy tents and housing with no running water is the definition of a slum? Yes a few of these people may have chosen to live in tents, but as a society we must recognize that people deserve to live in housing, it’s not as if we can’t make room for them.
>>In the city, economic non-success (failure?) is more tolerated, and even celebrated, by sympathetic, “bleeding heart liberals”.<<
What does this statement mean? I know hundreds of people who live in this city and many others. Liberal or not, I can't think of any who go around celebrating "economic non-success". The fact that cities in many places have high concentrations of poverty doesn't mean that residents exult in the fact. It also seems to me that a stereotypical "bleeding heart liberal" would be concerned by economic failure, not complacent or happy about it.Â
We have multiple social “safety nets”. After how many poor life choices should a person no longer “deserve to live in housing”? Alcohol abuse, other drugs and/or a criminal record all make it much more difficult to get a job and be able to pay rent. As a society, we reward good behaviors and punish bad ones. Why should we always be expected to “make room” for everyone who doesn’t, or chooses not to, play by the rules?!
We have multiple social “safety nets”. After how many poor life choices should a person no longer “deserve to live in housing”? Alcohol abuse, other drugs and/or a criminal record all make it much more difficult to get a job and be able to pay rent. As a society, we reward good behaviors and punish bad ones. Why should we always be expected to “make room” for everyone who doesn’t, or chooses not to, play by the rules?!
It’s a classic showdown between functionalists and conflict theorists.
You are talking crazy. We paid off the bankers that put a lot of people on the street. The affluent more often than not are rewarded regardless if they make the wrong decision. What America are you living in?
Yes, “we paid off the bankers”. Yes, CEO’s are often rewarded for bad decisions. But the two big reasons people are losing their homes are losing their jobs (and not being able to find another “good” one) and/or agreeing to mortgage terms (interest-only, ARM and balloon products) they could never live up to, if / when the economy slowed down. And losing one’s home to foreclosure does not make one homeless, it changes most people from owners into renters – you can easily rent an apartment for $400 a month around here. That’s $100 a week, or $2.50/hour for a 40 hour week.
I may be “talking crazy”, but I think we both agree that we have a real problem on the income side of the equation. Businesses are rewarded for shipping jobs overseas, and many CEO’s are paid way more than their employees, the ones actually producing something tangible and useful. Banks aren’t being “motivated” to start lending again, leaving many small businesses, the true economic generators in our country, “sitting on their hands”, unable to expand and hire. And with statistical unemployment around 10%, and real un- and under-employment probably more than twice that, the “affordability” issue driving the increase in homelessness is really an income one.
Needless to say, Jim, you’ve really missed the mark on why so many people are losing their homes. Fraudulent loans, fraud on the part of brokers and lenders changing the terms of the loans (unbeknownst to the borrowers), economic meltdown caused by the Ponzi scheme known as Wall St. Mitt Romney and Bain Capital, and hundreds of corporate raiders like them, leveraging buyouts of manufacturing cos., dumping the workers, and sending those jobs overseas. Three million industrial jobs in the Bush admin alone. NAFTA, WTO, and other trade agreements which make it easier to simply dump American workers in favor of foreign manufacturing, at greater profit, but with little of the balance to benefit the consumer. Millions more during the current Depression. No one is buying because no one has money. And banks and supranationals are hoarding upwards of 3 TrillionUSD, not lending, and not opening new factories or hiring workers. Workers not having a job and losing the house is probably more common than the pattern you describe. Even if people bought houses too expensive for their income, that wouldn’t have been enough to bring down the economy. That was caused by the TrillionsUSD (yes, TRILLIONS, about 60 TrillionUSD, last time I checked) that Goldman Sachs and Lloyd Blankfien, et al., eventually ran up into derivatives, CDO’s, hedges (which brought down AIG, amongst others), and other such securitized “products”, rolling them into one debt product after another, time and time again, with the same and new loans rolled into the next generation of derivatives. I would guess that most people now suffering under the burden of underwater mortgages operated under the same delusion we did: work hard and you will be rewarded with the American Dream, not realizing of course that it was all a bit of a Marketers sham.
Don’t even know why I’m responding the you, as you seem to be imbibing heavily from the cup prepared by the Tea Party folks. Look around you, Jim, we didn’t cause this economic catastrophe. It can be laid straight at the feet of Wall St. and corporate foolishness. The CEO class in this country is full of idiots like Jeffrey Immelt, head of GE, who has sent thousands of good-paying jobs to China and elsewhere. We are paying the price for their greed and stupidity.
http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=off_register How about this, Jim? This is just one company, in one county, in one state. Imagine, extrapolate if you will, these same types of um, irregularities across millions of mortgages, which were then securitized over and over and over and over…well, you get the point. Maybe this to help explain a good deal of the mess: http://www.greycourt.com/whitepapers/WhitePaper044-FinancialCrisis.pdf Collapse of ethical behavior. To say the least.
Nobody forced anyone to accept these “fraudulent” mortgages. They signed legally-binding contracts. By signing, they acknowledged that they understood what they were getting into. We all take risks assuming that we will stay healthy and employed. How and why the economy cratered is both open to debate and completely out of the control of us midwestern mortals. But we are each ultimately responsible for our own contractual obligations.
What would you propose we do with these people? What is your solution? Do we put them all in jail for their poor decision making? Do we round them up and put them into concentration camps? At what point does a person loose their human rights for you? I’m glad you are able to play by the rules. Your lack of compassion for those who can’t is worrisome, as that reasoning has been used time and time again to violate human rights. What if it was you our one of your loved ones?
If it were one of my loved ones, I’d help them. And, as I stated before, we have a wide range of safety nets, including homeless shelters, Section 8 housing assistance, Social Security disability payments, public housing, the military and even prison. The people in Hopeville choose to live someplace with both few services and few rules. I’m not advocating that they be run off or shut down – the status quo seems to be working, however imperfectly – but I’m not in favor of providing them with more free services, either. Other cities have tried this (San Francisco and St. Petersburg, FL, to name two), and they only succeeded in attracting more like-minded, chemically-dependent “free spirits”. We’re a city with a lot of problems and limited resources. We also seem to have a managable number of homeless. I have compassion for people willing to work to get past their demons and challenges; I have little patience for those willing to game the system while living in a chemical fog.
*woe to clicking like instead of reply, lesson learned*
Do we have any credible evidence these folk are Freegans, and freeloaders? Or are we just assuming things. *Not posting as snark, just curious as to what evidence exists for the folk to be characterized as ‘free spirits’)
Many people in the homeless camps, nationwide, either don’t want to “play by the rules”, at the shelters or in the community, or are incapable of doing so due to mental illness. Playing by the rules includes avoiding alcohol and/or illegal drugs, and addiction can also make that an insurmountable challenge. So, yes, both drug addiction and mental illness contribute to homelessness, but until an adult is willing to seek treatment, there is very little society can do to help. And enabling a destructive condition is not helping . . . .
People hanging out on street corners with cardboard signs, begging for money. People living in places like Hopeville. I grew up with expectation that I would not get arrested, that I’d finish school (college, not high school) and that I’d find a job, work hard and “better” myself, in short, be a success. That is significantly different from a culture of baby daddies, dropping out of high school, dealin’ weed and relying on the government to pick up the slack. The culture glorified in urban rap music is one that “celebrates” a perverted vision of “success”. Blaming poverty isn’t much different than blaming racism – both make life more of a challenge.
It’s a classic showdown between functionalists and conflict theorists.
You are talking crazy. We paid off the bankers that put a lot of people on the street. The affluent more often than not are rewarded regardless if they make the wrong decision. What America are you living in?Â
Yes, “we paid off the bankers”. Yes, CEO’s are often rewarded for bad decisions. But the two big reasons people are losing their homes are losing their jobs (and not being able to find another “good” one) and/or agreeing to mortgage terms (interest-only, ARM and balloon products) they could never live up to, if / when the economy slowed down. And losing one’s home to foreclosure does not make one homeless, it changes most people from owners into renters – you can easily rent an apartment for $400 a month around here. That’s $100 a week, or $2.50/hour for a 40 hour week.
I may be “talking crazy”, but I think we both agree that we have a real problem on the income side of the equation. Businesses are rewarded for shipping jobs overseas, and many CEO’s are paid way more than their employees, the ones actually producing something tangible and useful. Banks aren’t being “motivated” to start lending again, leaving many small businesses, the true economic generators in our country, “sitting on their hands”, unable to expand and hire.  And with statistical unemployment around 10%, and real un- and under-employment probably more than twice that, the “affordability” issue driving the increase in homelessness is really an income one.
What would you propose we do with these people? What is your solution? Do we put them all in jail for their poor decision making? Do we round them up and put them into concentration camps? At what point does a person loose their human rights for you? I’m glad you are able to play by the rules. Your lack of compassion for those who can’t is worrisome, as that reasoning has been used time and time again to violate human rights. What if it was you our one of your loved ones?
Yes on Wednesday the 22nd.
If it were one of my loved ones, I’d help them. And, as I stated before, we have a wide range of safety nets, including homeless shelters, Section 8 housing assistance, Social Security disability payments, public housing, the military and even prison. The people in Hopeville choose to live someplace with both few services and few rules. I’m not advocating that they be run off or shut down – the status quo seems to be working, however imperfectly – but I’m not in favor of providing them with more free services, either. Other cities have tried this (San Francisco and St. Petersburg, FL, to name two), and they only succeeded in attracting more like-minded, chemically-dependent “free spirits”. We’re a city with a lot of problems and limited resources. We also seem to have a managable number of homeless. I have compassion for people willing to work to get past their demons and challenges; I have little patience for those willing to game the system while living in a chemical fog.
*woe to clicking like instead of reply, lesson learned*
Do we have any credible evidence these folk are Freegans, and freeloaders? Or are we just assuming things. *Not posting as snark, just curious as to what evidence exists for the folk to be characterized as ‘free spirits’)
Many people in the homeless camps, nationwide, either don’t want to “play by the rules”, at the shelters or in the community, or are incapable of doing so due to mental illness. Playing by the rules includes avoiding alcohol and/or illegal drugs, and addiction can also make that an insurmountable challenge. So, yes, both drug addiction and mental illness contribute to homelessness, but until an adult is willing to seek treatment, there is very little society can do to help. And enabling a destructive condition is not helping . . . .
Poll is great thing, because it is based on our country politics. Poll is totally depend on public and those are selected leader of our country. They are make a good rules and regulation’s. Many types of advantage in this poll, after selection leader do the work properly from public. so the best thing of poll.
Needless to say, Jim, you’ve really missed the mark on why so many people are losing their homes. Fraudulent loans, fraud on the part of brokers and lenders changing the terms of the loans (unbeknownst to the borrowers), economic meltdown caused by the Ponzi scheme known as Wall St. Mitt Romney and Bain Capital, and hundreds of corporate raiders like them, leveraging buyouts of manufacturing cos., dumping the workers, and sending those jobs overseas. Three million industrial jobs in the Bush admin alone. NAFTA, WTO, and other trade agreements which make it easier to simply dump American workers in favor of foreign manufacturing, at greater profit, but with little of the balance to benefit the consumer. Millions more during the current Depression. No one is buying because no one has money. And banks and supranationals are hoarding upwards of 3 TrillionUSD, not lending, and not opening new factories or hiring workers. Workers not having a job and losing the house is probably more common than the pattern you describe. Even if people bought houses too expensive for their income, that wouldn’t have been enough to bring down the economy. That was caused by the TrillionsUSD (yes, TRILLIONS, about 60 TrillionUSD, last time I checked) that Goldman Sachs and Lloyd Blankfien, et al., eventually ran up into derivatives, CDO’s, hedges (which brought down AIG, amongst others), and other such securitized “products”, rolling them into one debt product after another, time and time again, with the same and new loans rolled into the next generation of derivatives. I would guess that most people now suffering under the burden of underwater mortgages operated under the same delusion we did: work hard and you will be rewarded with the American Dream, not realizing of course that it was all a bit of a Marketers sham.
  Don’t even know why I’m responding the you, as you seem to be imbibing heavily from the cup prepared by the Tea Party folks. Look around you, Jim, we didn’t cause this economic catastrophe. It can be laid straight at the feet of Wall St. and corporate foolishness. The CEO class in this country is full of idiots like Jeffrey Immelt, head of GE, who has sent thousands of good-paying jobs to China and elsewhere. We are paying the price for their greed and stupidity.
http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=off_register How about this, Jim? This is just one company, in one county, in one state. Imagine, extrapolate if you will, these same types of um, irregularities across millions of mortgages, which were then securitized over and over and over and over…well, you get the point. Maybe this to help explain a good deal of the mess: http://www.greycourt.com/whitepapers/WhitePaper044-FinancialCrisis.pdf Collapse of ethical behavior. To say the least.
Nobody forced anyone to accept these “fraudulent” mortgages. They signed legally-binding contracts. By signing, they acknowledged that they understood what they were getting into. We all take risks assuming that we will stay healthy and employed. How and why the economy cratered is both open to debate and completely out of the control of us midwestern mortals. But we are each ultimately responsible for our own contractual obligations.
Tent Cities are popping up across the globe…many are only a paycheck away…the disaster in Joplin has sprung up sets of tents by now I’m sure…the RealitY of the matter is it is a disaster…a sign of system failure…what is the crime rate of St Louis in comparison to the crime rate of the camps…the camps wouldn’t even be there if it wasn’t for the systems failures in the first place…people are not disposable…and they should have a right to live outside the system if they so choose…Jesus told us to help the needy…not to judge…Jesus helps HopeVille.. not the system…
~My Heart is still in HopeVille~Â
Deana Weber
Tent Cities are popping up across the globe…many are only a paycheck away…the disaster in Joplin has sprung up sets of tents by now I’m sure…the RealitY of the matter is it is a disaster…a sign of system failure…what is the crime rate of St Louis in comparison to the crime rate of the camps…the camps wouldn’t even be there if it wasn’t for the systems failures in the first place…people are not disposable…and they should have a right to live outside the system if they so choose…Jesus told us to help the needy…not to judge…Jesus helps HopeVille.. not the system…
~My Heart is still in HopeVille~
Deana Weber