Hemming Park Problem

[Debbie Thompson]

LOL... Comnsense, you are suggesting exactly what Hemming Park used to be.  I started to post this yesterday, but ended up deleting it because I thought I sounded like a cranky old lady remembering the "good old days" but...Hemming Park used to be surrounded by Woolworth and JC Penney (now the courthouse location), May Cohen (City Hall), Iveys (JEA Bldg.)  There was a Luggage Shop where the Library now stands. I forget what was next to it.  Rosenblums, LaRosa Shoes, Lerner were all neary by.  Sears where the Omni is, 2 blocks away.  There were public restrooms in the park.

What killed downtown shopping?  The department stores opened locations in suburban malls with acres of free parking, and eventually the downtown stores withered and died because people didn't want to pay for parking and walk in the cold and heat when they could park free and shop in conditioned space.  But with the SJTC not enclosed, and being so successful, it seems people don't HAVE to have air conditioning any more to shop.

One way to solve it is to open stores downtown that don't exist in the malls.  Wonderful stores.  Offer tax incentives or something to open them.  Free parking.  I know, hard right? I don't have answers, just chiming in.

[ThugBilt]

That's exactly what I'm saying.  Strip away all these straw man distractions and that's what you get.  And yes, I advocate arresting people who violate city ordinances, over and over if necessary.  Eventually it'll get old and the behavior will stop. 

So criminalize homelessness>arrest homeless>put in jail>release next day back on streets in same situation>arrested for being homeless>put in jail>released back on streets in same situation>arrested for being homeless>rinse repeat.

It's time we stop only seeing 1 tree in front of us.  There is a forest of ideas to try.  Ideas we know have worked other places. 

The homeless situation is a whole other issue that needs to be addressed in a much deeper way.  It's more than Hemming Plaza, and if you focus all your energy and effort on just the homeless in Hemming Plaza then you haven't done anything to make people go to the plaza, and you haven't done anything to deal with the homeless.


(Note: I use homeless as the term, despite the fact that a survey concluded the majority weren't homeless)

Jesus, what's with you people?  Another straw man..  NOBODY said anything about "criminalizing homelessness", rather simply enforcing existing quality of life ordinances.  Try this "cycle" out: Homeless person loiters in Hemming, is drunk and disorderly, is arrested, has an unpleasant trip to jail, returns to park, repeats behavior, is again arrested and suffers CONSEQUENCES for his/her actions, eventually associates anti-social behaviors with negative outcomes, finds something better to do than be a nuisance. 

[urbanlibertarian]

That's exactly what I'm saying.  Strip away all these straw man distractions and that's what you get.  And yes, I advocate arresting people who violate city ordinances, over and over if necessary.  Eventually it'll get old and the behavior will stop. 

So criminalize homelessness>arrest homeless>put in jail>release next day back on streets in same situation>arrested for being homeless>put in jail>released back on streets in same situation>arrested for being homeless>rinse repeat.

It's time we stop only seeing 1 tree in front of us.  There is a forest of ideas to try.  Ideas we know have worked other places. 

The homeless situation is a whole other issue that needs to be addressed in a much deeper way.  It's more than Hemming Plaza, and if you focus all your energy and effort on just the homeless in Hemming Plaza then you haven't done anything to make people go to the plaza, and you haven't done anything to deal with the homeless.


(Note: I use homeless as the term, despite the fact that a survey concluded the majority weren't homeless)

Jesus, what's with you people?  Another straw man..  NOBODY said anything about "criminalizing homelessness", rather simply enforcing existing quality of life ordinances.  Try this "cycle" out: Homeless person loiters in Hemming, is drunk and disorderly, is arrested, has an unpleasant trip to jail, returns to park, repeats behavior, is again arrested and suffers CONSEQUENCES for his/her actions, eventually associates anti-social behaviors with negative outcomes, finds something better to do than be a nuisance. 

According to Sheriff Rutherford, getting arrested can be a temporary improvement in living conditions for a homeless person and therefore not much of a deterrent to bad behavior.  IMO increased economic activity is what will improve the situation and that is gradually happening.  As others have said, I don't mind sharing my DT neighborhood with the homeless.  I knew that was part of the deal when I moved here from Jax Beach.

[Bridges]

Jesus, what's with you people?  Another straw man..  NOBODY said anything about "criminalizing homelessness", rather simply enforcing existing quality of life ordinances.  Try this "cycle" out: Homeless person loiters in Hemming, is drunk and disorderly, is arrested, has an unpleasant trip to jail, returns to park, repeats behavior, is again arrested and suffers CONSEQUENCES for his/her actions, eventually associates anti-social behaviors with negative outcomes, finds something better to do than be a nuisance. 

lol, ok.

Look, every time there is a thread or discussion or argument about Hemming Plaza it turns into this "arrest the homeless"/"get the vagrants out" discussion.  And we get nowhere because that is not only not the main problem, but also an issue that has to be dealt with entirely on its own. 

That's why discussions of how to help Hemming Plaza always fail.  Its problem is so narrowly defined by those who think they understand it.  But for once can we take a process improvement strategy to the problem.  We haven't gotten anywhere since we focused only on the "undesirables".  Lake is right, let's try to focus on the park itself, how do we make it a destination, etc.  And just maybe we might see different outcomes.

[JeffreyS]

Jesus, what's with you people?  Another straw man..  NOBODY said anything about "criminalizing homelessness", rather simply enforcing existing quality of life ordinances.  Try this "cycle" out: Homeless person loiters in Hemming, is drunk and disorderly, is arrested, has an unpleasant trip to jail, returns to park, repeats behavior, is again arrested and suffers CONSEQUENCES for his/her actions, eventually associates anti-social behaviors with negative outcomes, finds something better to do than be a nuisance. 

I think they could arrest the drunk and disorderly as well there just isn't much of that happening at Hemming. The people at Hemming mostly aren't homeless either.  The one thing they are that is off putting to so many is black. Nice people not causing problems who happen to be black end of story.  The beginning of this thread even states that the problem is that it is the park is occupied by a certain segment. I'll insert the quote

The fact that the overwhelming majority of the habitual occupiers is black is considered by some to be of significance.  A casual visit to the park seems to indicate that the habitual occupiers consist of about 90% black.  However, even if the habitual occupiers were little old lady knitting groups, or businessmen’s clubs, or all Orthodox Jews, Neo Nazis, or an all-white younger set milling around all day, they too, by their overwhelming and continual presence in the park, would be guilty of preventing other citizens from using it.

Does that pass the smell test to anyone. Seriously if it were little old ladies or a businessman's group you high minded people would still be afraid of this homogenous group.  Just admit you want to steal the seats and diminish Hemming Plaza because Black People like to use the park.  Loitering is what you do at a park.  Nobody is going buy your straw man drivel well no one who has been to hemming.

[sheclown]

Jesus, what's with you people?  Another straw man..  NOBODY said anything about "criminalizing homelessness", rather simply enforcing existing quality of life ordinances.  Try this "cycle" out: Homeless person loiters in Hemming, is drunk and disorderly, is arrested, has an unpleasant trip to jail, returns to park, repeats behavior, is again arrested and suffers CONSEQUENCES for his/her actions, eventually associates anti-social behaviors with negative outcomes, finds something better to do than be a nuisance. 

I think they could arrest the drunk and disorderly as well there just isn't much of that happening at Hemming. The people at Hemming mostly aren't homeless either.  The one thing they are that is off putting to so many is black. Nice people not causing problems who happen to be black end of story.  The beginning of this thread even states that the problem is that it is the park is occupied by a certain segment. I'll insert the quote

The fact that the overwhelming majority of the habitual occupiers is black is considered by some to be of significance.  A casual visit to the park seems to indicate that the habitual occupiers consist of about 90% black.  However, even if the habitual occupiers were little old lady knitting groups, or businessmen’s clubs, or all Orthodox Jews, Neo Nazis, or an all-white younger set milling around all day, they too, by their overwhelming and continual presence in the park, would be guilty of preventing other citizens from using it.

Does that pass the smell test to anyone. Seriously if it were little old ladies or a businessman's group you high minded people would still be afraid of this homogenous group.  Just admit you want to steal the seats and diminish Hemming Plaza because Black People like to use the park.  Loitering is what you do at a park.  Nobody is going buy your straw man drivel well no one who has been to hemming.

I feel/felt the same way. 

[ronchamblin]

Sorry about my absence.  I think, although I must check, that the next meeting about the park, to which anyone interested can come, is this Wednesday at 10:00 a.m. at city hall.   I just read the remaining posts, which include some excellent ideas and criticisms which, along with my recent thoughts, have given me the pressure to change some of my opinions, and reverse a couple.  It is refreshing to realize that a rather old brain is still malleable enough to respond to the insightful ideas and criticisms. 

I now realize, and this was suggested by at least two MJ posters, that the park “problem” is indeed a difficult one, and will not respond to a quick fix, but the solution will involve several changes, programs and actions.  My naïve opinions have brought me through stages of optimism and confidence in my own ability to perceive a solution, and to my current condition of being somewhat discouraged because of my realization that there is no easy solution.  My walk into the park Sunday morning, talking with one of the park occupiers, allowed no return to optimism, but only more discouragement as to the ease of solution.     

In any case, it looks like two somewhat opposing camps have emerged, one suggesting that we aggressively enforce the rules with the view that eventually the occupier population, via banning individuals, will decrease to a manageable level.  This view also suggests, to some degree, that we make the park less enjoyable or inviting to the occupiers, and other citizens unfortunately, by removing some tables and benches, some trees, etc. 

The other view suggests that we increase amenities and introduce programming to the park so that the influx of activities and events, along with things such as retail kiosks, food carts, meetings, music, perhaps a small playground, speeches, etc etc, will result in the gradual displacement of the occupiers from the park. 

Whereas I was formerly attracted to the first opinion, the weight of the arguments as set forth by several of the MJ posters, especially the persistent opinion of the Lakelander, have caused me to reverse by opinion. 

As to why I believe the latter plan is the best, I must first of all suggest that although there will always be the need to occasionally ban an individual from the park because of obvious illegal behavior, the  very act of persistent and aggressive JSO or Security Officer harassment and banning, with the objective of reducing the occupier population, would not only perpetuate a mood of conflict and tension for all involved, but it would introduce a program that would never end because we will not have forged ahead with real solutions.  And who among us could be proud of having to solve a problem in such a manner, suspecting all along that the solution lies in more positive actions. 

And while speaking with a British fellow on Sunday, a physician who works in Jax, who has lived in Britain, and travelled all over Europe, he asked me directly, “Who, exactly, finds the park population offensive or unacceptable?”  I thought a moment about this question.  And then he said “Ron…. These people do not have anything ….. in many cases only the items in their bags, …. and you are trying to take away one of the only positive or comfortable things they have?”  Of course he acknowledged that many of the occupiers are not homeless, although certainly unemployed in most cases.  In any case, I’m sure some of us have similar feelings for and about some of the unfortunates in the park.     

The second suggestion, that of increasing amenities and programming will, by its anticipated effectiveness, preclude the necessity of spending money and time on the stressful act of aggressive rule enforcement and banning individuals in order to decrease their population.  The increased park activities and the appearance of other citizens as a result of programming and creative changes to the park, will produce a condition less inviting for the occupier types.  As we succeed with the programming idea, the park “problem” will decrease to one of insignificance over the next year or two.   

This is not to say that the programming alone will solve the problem.  Continuing with the efforts to provide a day center facility, continuing to engage needy individuals with assistance via a one-on-one basis, and continuing to provide a better job environment will in the long run, decrease the occupier population to a level we can accept. 

Several MJ’s have mentioned the need for a public restroom.  And one or two have mentioned that perhaps a public restroom should be built only when the park has been somewhat “normalized”.  I agree that eventually we should have a public restroom, but that a restroom installed now would be a disaster.  If we are to present a park which is to be attractive and inviting to visitors, we should think about the visitors who come into the park area when all else is closed, on holidays, or in the evenings.  If the library is closed, the lack of a restroom in the area places a strain on any retail which happens to be open.  I realize that restrooms offer problems, but surely there is some way to work them through.  Of course, as the park environment assumes the image and activity level we all desire, then the restroom problem will likely decrease to insignificance.  In any case, the restroom idea seems to be down the road.  Imagine the visitor who comes into the park area while all is closed.  On certain days and times, doesn’t the complete absence of a public restroom discourage people from visiting the downtown core?   

The removal of some or all of the park tables and benches has always been an issue.  As related to our short term goal of getting some relief from the excessive occupation of the park, it does make sense to decrease the density of the tables and benches so that their decreased density will discourage tight groups of occupiers to “commandeer” an area.  The decrease in the density areas of tables and benches can be done by the removal of some of these items or, as some have suggested, spreading them out to other areas.  But, as some have suggested, the removal of all or most would make the park less inviting to other citizens, an action which does not agree with our long term goal. 

There have been suggestions about “flattening” the park, about making it green with grass areas, removing a fountain, removing some or most of the trees, opening up the park for better visibility and safety.  It has been suggested that the different levels and steps prevent some types of activities and events.

To achieve a more open feeling and establishing green, the size of the space taken up by the Confederate statue could be reduced, its pool could be removed and replaced with grass, leaving only the statue.  Currently, each side of the pool area is fifty feet.  Do we need the pool to protect the statue?  Anyone can walk through the pool.  Several areas in the park could be grassed gradually, providing slopes which might be more attractive than the solid brick.  Of course the dog waste issue would have to be enforced so that everyone cleans up after their visit. 

Although my initial opinion was that the park is beautiful and therefore should be left alone, I now agree that it could stand some changes.  The trees are especially beautiful, provide enough shade, and leave enough sun between on cold days.  But although the park is beautiful, it seems that the different levels, ledges, fountains, steps, and statues not only provide hiding places, but these structures also cut people off, restricting the freedom to walk with relaxed freedom in any direction.  The different levels and steps seem to cause unnecessary restrictions and complexity.  But in my opinion the park is basically beautiful, and although some might wish for radical change, we have time to do it, as any proposed radical changes seem not to be critical to the success of our current effort in the park.       

Again, changes to the park is only one aspect to the solution, the primary aspect at this point seems to be the idea of programming activities and events, and the encouragement of kiosks, “anything” viable to encourage people activity, so that the current population of occupiers will be less inclined to be in the park all the time.

Overall, we should focus on the long term, and not destroy the park thinking that certain aspects of our destruction will solve the current problem.  We should imagine the best attributes of a city park and slowly work to achieve these attributes.  We should have confidence that our programming and increased people activity will succeed.  Our vision should be such that we can plan our park to accommodate its heavy use in the future, by all kinds of citizens.   

The appearance of the “unwanted elements” in the park, although awkward, uncomfortable, and offensive to many, is a constant expression of truth, a reminder of reality.  These unfortunate individuals are not hiding under bridges and overpasses, in the woods, out of sight, as if they were lepers.  We need expressions of honesty and truth about our society, and about our city, so we should perhaps at least give these people credit for offering these things, for reminding us by their presence, that all is not right.       


       

 
   
           

[thelakelander]

Ron, a few things.  Since I've been in Jacksonville one thing I've noticed is our city's tendency to make public policy decisions based on fear and limited opinion of those serving on small scale committees, instead of well researched facts or even attempting to truly engage the community in the decision making process.  The result of this over the decades has been devastating to the health and quality of downtown and many urban core communities. 

From a planning perspective, I'd like to say that there is nothing new under the sun.  There is no issue that Jacksonville faces today that has not been addressed in another American community with similar demographics.  Thus, looking outside of our borders can provide us with success and failure methods in addressing a public space like Hemming Plaza.

In any case, it looks like two somewhat opposing camps have emerged, one suggesting that we aggressively enforce the rules with the view that eventually the occupier population, via banning individuals, will decrease to a manageable level.  This view also suggests, to some degree, that we make the park less enjoyable or inviting to the occupiers, and other citizens unfortunately, by removing some tables and benches, some trees, etc.

My challenge for anyone with this view is to identify a public square similar to Hemming in another community were this was done and the space became a vibrant activity center as a result.

The removal of some or all of the park tables and benches has always been an issue.  As related to our short term goal of getting some relief from the excessive occupation of the park, it does make sense to decrease the density of the tables and benches so that their decreased density will discourage tight groups of occupiers to “commandeer” an area.  The decrease in the density areas of tables and benches can be done by the removal of some of these items or, as some have suggested, spreading them out to other areas.  But, as some have suggested, the removal of all or most would make the park less inviting to other citizens, an action which does not agree with our long term goal.

On the surface, removing benches work when solutions based on opinions are placed in higher regards to facts.  However, in reality it doesn't work.  In fact, tufsu1 posted an article of this policy failing in San Francisco in this exact thread.

"Indeed, the homeless still hang out in United Nations Plaza, a 2.6-acre pedestrian mall whose benches were removed 10 years ago."

full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/us/in-san-francisco-a-push-for-public-benches.html?_r=3&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto

What makes people believe a proven failed policy will work in Jacksonville?

To achieve a more open feeling and establishing green, the size of the space taken up by the Confederate statue could be reduced, its pool could be removed and replaced with grass, leaving only the statue.  Currently, each side of the pool area is fifty feet.  Do we need the pool to protect the statue?  Anyone can walk through the pool.  Several areas in the park could be grassed gradually, providing slopes which might be more attractive than the solid brick.  Of course the dog waste issue would have to be enforced so that everyone cleans up after their visit. 

Flexible green space in downtown Detroit's Campus Martius Park.

In a city that doesn't have many water features, perhaps its best to keep the fountains or improve them?  Nearly have the park is a paved flat area for special events.  It would be cheaper (if money were a concern) to simply replace the paving with sod.  That would give you a decent "green flex space" area within the park.

Several MJ’s have mentioned the need for a public restroom.  And one or two have mentioned that perhaps a public restroom should be built only when the park has been somewhat “normalized”.  I agree that eventually we should have a public restroom, but that a restroom installed now would be a disaster.

Why would a restroom in the space now be a disaster?  If the goal is to want better utilization of the space its going to have to become more attractive and accommodating to the average human.  If we look at the situation and search for solutions that have been implementing outside of Duval County, we'll discover how other communities have already addressed this issue and successfully moved on.  A few weeks back, we even covered one solution on Metro Jacksonville called the Portland Loo.



full article: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2012-feb-portland-loo-success-where-others-have-failed

[JeffreyS]

I have been critical of some of the posted solutions so maybe I ought to make some suggestions for others to rip.

1. Add WiFi to the park this may help to change the homogenous face of the occupiers and add functionality.
2. Add a few patron only roped off seating areas in the park that could be served by waiters of the surrounding establishments even the hot dog carts. 
3. I like the bathroom idea. If we are going to try the drive people too the park approach as opposed to the drive people from the park.

[ronchamblin]

quote: Lakelander:

Ron, a few things.  Since I've been in Jacksonville one thing I've noticed is our city's tendency to make public policy decisions based on fear and limited opinion of those serving on small scale committees, instead of well researched facts or even attempting to truly engage the community in the decision making process.  The result of this over the decades has been devastating to the health and quality of downtown and many urban core communities. 

From a planning perspective, I'd like to say that there is nothing new under the sun.  There is no issue that Jacksonville faces today that has not been addressed in another American community with similar demographics.  Thus, looking outside of our borders can provide us with success and failure methods in addressing a public space like Hemming Plaza.

I agree, Lake, that the scenarios at other locations can serve to show us solutions which have worked.  This look at history makes sense because the dynamics are surely quite similar.  Actually you have been a source for offering some of those histories.  And that is why we have made some progress toward a consensus here.  This MJ forum is one method of broadening the dialogue about the park, avoiding its restriction to a dozen or so committee members.

Quote: Lakelander.

My challenge for anyone with this view is to identify a public square similar to Hemming in another community were this was done and the space became a vibrant activity center as a result.

We both agree that the aggressive rule enforcement is not the way to go, especially as a hope for eventual permanent solution.  This was made clear in my most recent post.

Quote: Lakelander.

On the surface, removing benches work when solutions based on opinions are placed in higher regards to facts.  However, in reality it doesn't work.  In fact, tufsu1 posted an article of this policy failing in San Francisco in this exact thread.

"Indeed, the homeless still hang out in United Nations Plaza, a 2.6-acre pedestrian mall whose benches were removed 10 years ago."

full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/us/in-san-francisco-a-push-for-public-benches.html?_r=3&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto

What makes people believe a proven failed policy will work in Jacksonville?

We agree again Lake.  I've always worked against removal of the tables and benches.  Not only does this remove one of the most pleasing and functional aspects of a park, it will never solve the problem we've addressed.  People believe that a proven failed policy will work in Jax because they have not been educated otherwise, which is one reason why we are all having this discussion.

Quote: Lakelander.

In a city that doesn't have many water features, perhaps its best to keep the fountains or improve them?  Nearly ... have the park is a paved flat area for special events.  It would be cheaper (if money were a concern) to simply replace the paving with sod.  That would give you a decent "green flex space" area within the park.

Why would a restroom in the space now be a disaster?  If the goal is to want better utilization of the space its going to have to become more attractive and accommodating to the average human.  If we look at the situation and search for solutions that have been implementing outside of Duval County, we'll discover how other communities have already addressed this issue and successfully moved on.  A few weeks back, we even covered one solution on Metro Jacksonville called the Portland Loo.

I stand by my view that to install a public restroom right now in the park would be a disaster.  This view was given some weight by one of the homeless I spoke with in the park Sunday morning.  He said that the restroom would be trashed and junked by the group currently occupying the park.  My suggestion was to install public restrooms eventually, as anyone can see that not having one is a solid negative for anyone visiting the downtown area around the park.  However, there will come a time, as we approach the goals we seek in the park, when a public restroom would survive as a viable asset for all to use.

Quote: JeffreyS.

I have been critical of some of the posted solutions so maybe I ought to make some suggestions for others to rip.

1. Add WiFi to the park this may help to change the homogeneous face of the occupiers and add functionality.
2. Add a few patron only roped off seating areas in the park that could be served by waiters of the surrounding establishments even the hot dog carts. 
3. I like the bathroom idea. If we are going to try the drive people too the park approach as opposed to the drive people from the park.

JeffreyS, I wish I had thought of No. 1 and 2.  The WiFi makes sense.  And the idea of roping off a segment of tables for a customer group from an adjacent restaurant, or even as catered from a distance restaurant, is viable, and would certainly be one more method of engaging the park in a very positive way.  And of course, we agree that public bathrooms should eventually be in the park because doing so would certainly remove a big negative.

I agree that increasing the spaces with grass would be a good thing.  This could be done without excessive cost, and it would allow for some pleasant slopes of greenery to go along with the beautiful oaks.  I do love the trees, as they add to the "parkness", and hope we can simply replace the diseased trees with young ones, just as we do with people.

[thelakelander]

I stand by my view that to install a public restroom right now in the park would be a disaster.  This view was given some weight by one of the homeless I spoke with in the park Sunday morning.  He said that the restroom would be trashed and junked by the group currently occupying the park.  My suggestion was to install public restrooms eventually, as anyone can see that not having one is a solid negative for anyone visiting the downtown area around the park.  However, there will come a time, as we approach the goals we seek in the park, when a public restroom would survive as a viable asset for all to use.

I agree that a traditional restroom would be trashed.  The Portland Loo example shown is one that is designed to be trash proof.  Hard to believe but so far it appears to be working well in the city's that have invested in them.  However, if the goal is to better utilize the space it's going to have to include basic public health necessities such as restrooms.

1. There's no running water inside.  There's no sink, just a spigot on the outside that pours cold water.  This eliminates the possibility to vagrants attempting to wash their laundry in the facility.

2. There are no mirrors.  Urban history has proven that people tend to smash mirrors.

3. The structure is designed with an open top and bottom.  This enables law enforcement to know when there is more than one set of feet inside.  In addition, the openings allow sound to flow, letting pedestrians hear the grunts and splashes of the person inside and the person inside hear the footsteps and conversation of pedestrians.  Nobody is interested in sitting on such a toilet for long.

4. The structure includes a graffiti-proof coating eliminating the possibility of tagging.

5. The Loo's walls and doors are made from heavy-gauge stainless steel with the idea that somebody could attempt to beat it with a bat.

It can be pulled off.  It just needs to be designed for the proper environment.  Just some food for thought.

[ronchamblin]

I stand by my view that to install a public restroom right now in the park would be a disaster.  This view was given some weight by one of the homeless I spoke with in the park Sunday morning.  He said that the restroom would be trashed and junked by the group currently occupying the park.  My suggestion was to install public restrooms eventually, as anyone can see that not having one is a solid negative for anyone visiting the downtown area around the park.  However, there will come a time, as we approach the goals we seek in the park, when a public restroom would survive as a viable asset for all to use.

I agree that a traditional restroom would be trashed.  The Portland Loo example shown is one that is designed to be trash proof.  Hard to believe but so far it appears to be working well in the city's that have invested in them.  However, if the goal is to better utilize the space it's going to have to include basic public health necessities such as restrooms.

1. There's no running water inside.  There's no sink, just a spigot on the outside that pours cold water.  This eliminates the possibility to vagrants attempting to wash their laundry in the facility.

2. There are no mirrors.  Urban history has proven that people tend to smash mirrors.

3. The structure is designed with an open top and bottom.  This enables law enforcement to know when there is more than one set of feet inside.  In addition, the openings allow sound to flow, letting pedestrians hear the grunts and splashes of the person inside and the person inside hear the footsteps and conversation of pedestrians.  Nobody is interested in sitting on such a toilet for long.

4. The structure includes a graffiti-proof coating eliminating the possibility of tagging.

5. The Loo's walls and doors are made from heavy-gauge stainless steel with the idea that somebody could attempt to beat it with a bat.

It can be pulled off.  It just needs to be designed for the proper environment.  Just some food for thought.

Thanks Lake.  I missed the link in your post No. 97.  The Portland Loo solution is something that might be quite the thing for Hemming, even now.  I will bring it up at the meeting.  Unless somebody can come up with any solid reason to "not" use something of this nature, we might see it or something similar in the park.

[ronchamblin]

My intention is to write a summation of everyone's input on this thread, and thereby assume some consensus, and submit it tomorrow to some key individuals at city hall who are involved in the "park problem".  They can consume it however they wish.  So if anyone has any more criticism or ideas not covered yet, please get them into the thread today or this evening.

This was an interesting experiment in attempting to use the MJ forum to arrive at some consensus about the solution of a problem.  Most of the MJ posts were quite informative to me, as I digested each.  Everyone's posts allowed me to emerge from the wasteful meandering in opinion, and to arrive a some convictions, which of course are necessary in the end. 

[JeffreyS]

I know you are a bit under the gun so I will try to pick a few more ideas out. However if you do have time lots of good info on the Project for Public Spaces website.

http://www.pps.org/

[JeffreyS]

Another idea you may be able to leverage is increased use of the Kings ave parking garage for the new courthouse employees and jurors and even other city groups.  Those people would exit the skyway into Hemming plaza.  I applaud you and your groups efforts to make another part of downtown more vibrant.