Hemming Park Problem

[bill]

This helped make St Pete's downtown the best in Florida.

http://www.stpete.org/socialservices/homelessness/ordinanceslaws.asp

[cline]

^Gainesville did a similar thing.  In addition to the panhandling and sleeping in public ordinance, they also added a limit on the number of free meals distributed.  That ordinance was eventually lifted.

They also were voted one of the meanest cities in America towards the homeless. 

[climber]

if only we could be more like gainesville.  no matter how you slice it, if the goal is a more inclusive use of a public facility, youre not going to encourage use of the plaza until you clear out the bunch of people who are loitering and occupying the facility (not to mention dont pay for it via taxes, but i digress).  that said, i belive the best way to effectute change is not through hard-core police enforcement, but a combination of enforcement of regulations regarding loitering and encouragement of casual visiting through events, both special and regular (easiest would be to stop banning food trucks in this city and encourage them in pod, maybe the first around the plaza- you would have to be blind or living in a cave to argue that their positive effect/ following hasn't been proven for years in almost every major city in this country).  once you reach a tipping point, the homeless, etc. will leave, just like when the plaza reached the opposite tipping point, and all of the non-homeless, etc. left.  doesnt happen overnight in either instance...

[Tacachale]

Gainesville has a much worse problem with this than either Jax or St. Pete, and it's all over the city. Gainesville is why I don't give money to panhandlers under any circumstance.

It's notable that these ordinances (except for the free meals thing, which seems over the top) target specific problematic behaviors, rather than the homeless population in and of itself.

It does seem that this kind of cracking down should be done in tandem with increased services for the homeless, such as day facilities (preferably out of downtown). And of course by finding ways to increase other use, as climber says.

[John P]

*Returning the park to green space is a good idea long term. Not completely green but like the Friendship fountain renovation. Adding a small playground would make it family friendly. Family friend draws families. Not sure if its big enough area to do that.

*A day center would be good but only if exisiting laws or new laws were enforced to make homeless use it instead of the library and park. Enhanced no loitering law, id checks, or whatever.

*Public restrooms are a nonissue. Tourists and visitors can use Library, cafes, hotel, Landing bathrooms. Office workers would rather wait to use thier own office bathrooms than use a public one. Maybe in 10 years once downtown has more action it would be needed but not now.

*ALL OF THESE IDEAS ARE JUST BANDAIDES. Nothing substantial will change until the shelters are deconsolidated from downtown. Homeless hangout in downtown because that where they get their free meals and get bed if they choose to. Tallyand, Myrtle ave, McDuff ave, Arlington, Beach blvd, Gateway mall have lowend commercial and industrial areas where shelters could be relocated without people raising hell. The BEST money the city could spend on downtown revitalization is relocating one or two of the shelters to other areas of the city.

[thelakelander]

*Returning the park to green space is a good idea long term. Not completely green but like the Friendship fountain renovation. Adding a small playground would make it family friendly. Family friend draws families. Not sure if its big enough area to do that.

There's a ton of space for the inclusion of many amenities.  It covers a full city block.  That's a lot of space to work with.

*Public restrooms are a nonissue. Tourists and visitors can use Library, cafes, hotel, Landing bathrooms. Office workers would rather wait to use thier own office bathrooms than use a public one. Maybe in 10 years once downtown has more action it would be needed but not now.

They are an issue in if you're not familiar with the area (there's no signage specifying you can use private facilities) or get caught down there when everything is closed.  In that event you're screwed.  That also helps solidify downtown as a pedestrian hostile environment worth avoiding if you have the means.  If you done something like a walking tour downtown, this is something that stands out.

*ALL OF THESE IDEAS ARE JUST BANDAIDES. Nothing substantial will change until the shelters are deconsolidated from downtown. Homeless hangout in downtown because that where they get their free meals and get bed if they choose to. Tallyand, Myrtle ave, McDuff ave, Arlington, Beach blvd, Gateway mall have lowend commercial and industrial areas where shelters could be relocated without people raising hell. The BEST money the city could spend on downtown revitalization is relocating one or two of the shelters to other areas of the city.

The issue with deconsolidation is who's neighborhood is going to be sacrificed and who will be funding the new facilities?   Gateway Mall/Norwood is a commercial heart of several residential districts (ex. Norwood, Brentwood, etc.).  Move the facilities there and you'll doom those areas.  The same goes for Arlington, McDuff, Myrtle, etc.  That's a political time bomb that will eventually end in nothing being done, a lot of hurt feelings, and a space still underutilized. 

In reality, even the most vibrant places still have the "undesirable" element in the mix.  They just happen to not stand out because the focus of those environments is on diversifying the amenity mix and not isolating specific economic groups.

[cline]

The issue with deconsolidation is who's neighborhood is going to be sacrificed and who will be funding the new facilities?

Nocatee?

Gainesville has a much worse problem with this than either Jax or St. Pete, and it's all over the city. Gainesville is why I don't give money to panhandlers under any circumstance.

Maybe.  They did have a pretty concentrated population that hung out in the downtown area.  The free meals limit ordinance was developer driven which I thought was interesting.  I think that Gainesville has a large population of younger folks that are basically vagabonds and travel from town to town for fun and are homeless basically by choice.  I have no data to back that up, just from observations.

On a separate note I was at a McDonalds across the street from the Avenues on Philips and there was a guy in there probably in his twenties and he told me that he had just hopped off the freight train and had come from Portland, Maine (the FEC tracks run directly behind the store).  I think that was kinda strange yet cool.  He was "ridin' the rails"

[ronchamblin]

Thanks Lake.  What wonderful and helpful feedback from all.  I plan to digest it all much more closely this evening.  I wish I had started the thread a few days ago.  I will use the quite insightful feedback to adjust my thoughts toward a more balanced view.  Perhaps, after the meeting, we can continue.

But Tacachale, when you said  "Are you really saying that if the park was 90% full of black office workers, middle-class families, and nuns, that we'd be having this issue?"  it informs me that you misunderstood the principle I've been trying to convey.  Yes, I am really saying that "any" homogeneous group, if they do in fact habitually occupy and take over the park, every day, for whatever reasons of meetings etc, then they too should be confronted and enticed to refrain from their unreasonable use of the park. 

I realize that my reluctant drift into the dreaded racial corner because of the percentages in the park offers me to criticism by those who might be inclined to avoid the idea of race, or criticism by those who possess a good measure of emotional emphasis on racial aspects.  My objective is to attempt looking directly at the facts, and to offer the idea that the "habitual occupation" as held by the current set of occupiers, is not to be confronted because of the percentage of blacks, but because of the "unreasonable occupation" by the current population.

I can understand how some might be inclined to criticize me as being too concerned with the racial aspect, but they do so perhaps because they wish to cleanse themselves of racist assumptions.  We all know of the very sensitive issue of race.  I hope we, in our enthusiasm to be pure and objective, do not point fingers at some who are attempting to solve a problem which happens to have within it a component of a homogeneous group of blacks, because "any" group behaving as the current habitual occupiers, no matter the ethnicity, would deserve the same attention and solution.   

The Hemming Park problem has components both simple and complex.  I think there will be several parallel actions and programs which will be needed to actually solve the problem for the long term. 

[JeffreyS]

I have just never had any problem there granted I am Six Four and male. I just think the crowd isn't the problem because based on activities at the time you see the crowd change.

[ronchamblin]

I agree Jeffrey.  I too am not at all intimidated by the park environment.  I have friends there and frequently enjoy talking and simply relaxing.  Although I personally enjoy seeing the dozens of people in the park, I realize that there are too many citizens who avoid the park, and this avoidance is understandable.   

[thelakelander]

What are the complex components with Hemming Plaza?  The way I see it, it works just fine for the environment we've designed it and its surroundings for.  If the goal is the desire of more diversity, the answer is a simple one.  That solution is the addition of a mix of human scale friendly amenities and programming to make it place worth visiting to a larger segment of the population.  You can't regulate urban vibrancy.  However, history has proven time and time again, when the focus is placed on making a space a special place, there will be little need to chase out homeless, suits, little old ladies, or anything else.  The additional mix of people will handle the issue naturally.

[ronchamblin]

What are the complex components with Hemming Plaza?  The way I see it, it works just fine for the environment we've designed it and its surroundings for.  If the goal is the desire of more diversity, the answer is a simple one.  That solution is the addition of a mix of human scale friendly amenities and programming to make it place worth visiting to a larger segment of the population.  You can't regulate urban vibrancy.  However, history has proven time and time again, when the focus is placed on making a space a special place, there will be little need to chase out homeless, suits, little old ladies, or anything else.  The additional mix of people will handle the issue naturally.

Agreed Lake.  But the peope addressing the park problem are also interested in, and pushing for, short term solutions.  The long term solutions are indeed simple, because they can be planned and initiated in good time.  The short term solutions become a little complex because of the various issues such as how the short term actions might conflict and sometimes hinder the long term solutions.  But I think you're absolutely correct in your ideas about getting more into the core so that the the "more" will displace by natural pressures the unwanted elements.  Perhaps implementation of ideas such as yours can produce faster short term results that most anticipate.  As I've said before, the solution will involve multiple actions, including programming the park, so that we will see a gradual increase in activities which will overshadow the problem of habitual occupation.

[Tacachale]

Thanks Lake.  What wonderful and helpful feedback from all.  I plan to digest it all much more closely this evening.  I wish I had started the thread a few days ago.  I will use the quite insightful feedback to adjust my thoughts toward a more balanced view.  Perhaps, after the meeting, we can continue.

But Tacachale, when you said  "Are you really saying that if the park was 90% full of black office workers, middle-class families, and nuns, that we'd be having this issue?"  it informs me that you misunderstood the principle I've been trying to convey.  Yes, I am really saying that "any" homogeneous group, if they do in fact habitually occupy and take over the park, every day, for whatever reasons of meetings etc, then they too should be confronted and enticed to refrain from their unreasonable use of the park. 

I realize that my reluctant drift into the dreaded racial corner because of the percentages in the park offers me to criticism by those who might be inclined to avoid the idea of race, or criticism by those who possess a good measure of emotional emphasis on racial aspects.  My objective is to attempt looking directly at the facts, and to offer the idea that the "habitual occupation" as held by the current set of occupiers, is not to be confronted because of the percentage of blacks, but because of the "unreasonable occupation" by the current population.

I can understand how some might be inclined to criticize me as being too concerned with the racial aspect, but they do so perhaps because they wish to cleanse themselves of racist assumptions.  We all know of the very sensitive issue of race.  I hope we, in our enthusiasm to be pure and objective, do not point fingers at some who are attempting to solve a problem which happens to have within it a component of a homogeneous group of blacks, because "any" group behaving as the current habitual occupiers, no matter the ethnicity, would deserve the same attention and solution.   

The Hemming Park problem has components both simple and complex.  I think there will be several parallel actions and programs which will be needed to actually solve the problem for the long term.

There's speaking honestly about race, and there's blaming problems on race. The problem with Hemming Plaza isn't really that there's unreasonable occupation by a "homogeneous group". We would not be talking about this at all if there was occupation by a group of rich people (or nuns or whatever) that was 90% black. We would still be talking about it if there was over-occupation by vagrants regardless of their demographics, even if they were 65% white, 30% black, and 5% Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American or Alaska Native, and "Other", which is about the figure for the city as a whole.

[Dog Walker]

What if parking meters with 1hr time limits were installed next to each table?  (A light bulb just went off in city hall!)

I was just about to post exactly the same thing.  "Sitting meters" by all of the tables and "loafer rails" ( the pointy one) on all of the masonry edges.  $.50 per hour would pay for a lot of park amenities.

[Jaxson]

[1] Returning the park to green space is a good idea long term. Not completely green but like the Friendship fountain renovation. Adding a small playground would make it family friendly. Family friend draws families. Not sure if its big enough area to do that.

[2]A day center would be good but only if exisiting laws or new laws were enforced to make homeless use it instead of the library and park. Enhanced no loitering law, id checks, or whatever.

[3]Public restrooms are a nonissue. Tourists and visitors can use Library, cafes, hotel, Landing bathrooms. Office workers would rather wait to use thier own office bathrooms than use a public one. Maybe in 10 years once downtown has more action it would be needed but not now.

[4]ALL OF THESE IDEAS ARE JUST BANDAIDS. Nothing substantial will change until the shelters are deconsolidated from downtown. Homeless hangout in downtown because that where they get their free meals and get bed if they choose to. Tallyrand, Myrtle ave, McDuff ave, Arlington, Beach blvd, Gateway mall have lowend commercial and industrial areas where shelters could be relocated without people raising hell. The BEST money the city could spend on downtown revitalization is relocating one or two of the shelters to other areas of the city.

[1] I agree about re-greening Hemming Plaza.  The current incarnation of Hemming Plaza was a misguided attempt to turn an urban retail setting into a suburban mall experience.

[2] A day center is long past due for our city.

[3] Public restrooms are necessary (pardon the pun).  I do not believe that the exisiting facilities (cafes, stores, and even the library.) should be used by people who are not there to use the facilities' services.  Maintenance and upkeep of these restrooms is difficult enough as it is.