Store on 8th and Hubbard

[cline]

there really isnt a place for the homeless to go during the day or shower or use the bathroom

I'm pretty sure the Sulzbacher Center has bathrooms.  I think they have showers too.

[heights unknown]

but there has got to be a place where the homeless and needy can go and hang out during the day;

I'm pretty sure Jax already has a few of those places.  We don't need any more.  Its part of the reason we have so many homeless here in the first place.

We need as many of them, or one large facility if you will, preferrably out and away from the core (public and government preference).  They are not going to go away people short of someone initiating genocide or extermination in which I am almost prone to believe this is what everyone wants; so we'd better spend the dollars and build the facilities to take care of them, but as I stated in a previous post, band aid fixes, i.e. temporary help like food, clothing, etc. is not the answer; it goes more deeper and more intense (the problems that plague the homeless) than that.

Heights Unknown

[brainstormer]

I don't want people to think I am against all social services, but the current state of services aren't working.  It isn't efficient, and we are playing into people's stereotypes.  I don't have the answers, but we need to start the conversation, and we know band-aids only go so far.  We have tons of band-aids in education as well, and they fail just as often.

Heights, do you have any insight as to why Jacksonville seems to be the "place to go, when you're down on your luck?"  I understand more so during the winter months, but during the hot summer...the numbers are continuing to increase and they aren't locals needing our help.  I remember when I lived in the Carling, I was always getting into conversations with homeless people who weren't from Jacksonville.  Why is this?  What makes us different than other big cities?

[zoo]

do you have any insight as to why Jacksonville seems to be the "place to go, when you're down on your luck?"

Simple, brainstormer.

Jacksonville is homeless friendly! Here you can get 3 squares free, a bed, a fine $100 million library in which to shower and go to the bathroom, free healthcare choice, and a wonderful park/river view; all with no accountability required, and all within a centralized area.

Much of Jacksonville's citizenry is kind and sympathetic, giving charitably to the non-profit orgs that keep growing their rolls, and even employing vagrants at odd jobs to help them out.

They are rarely asked to hop a bus, pick up their trash, get off a bench, and only occasionally told to "buzz off" when they panhandle.

All Jax needs to do to make itself more homeless friendly is build these folks a nice place to hang out during the day (maybe even better than the Library and Hemming Plaza!), where they can watch tv, use the computers, use the phones and find other ways to make connections with those who feed their vices, all thanks to the generosity of the working class...

WAKE UP JACKSONVILLE!

[strider]

The homeless are here and they can't go anywhere.  More are coming.  Some will be from other cities hoping for a new and better start, some will come for what they can get and many will come from just down the road, may be even a neighbor.  Like any group, some will be hard working, some will not, some will be good people, some will not...pretty much just like the people who post on this forum.

Yeah, WAKE UP JACKSONVILLE.  There have been some good posts here...we need more services that make more sense and address all the needs of the homeless, not just applying a band aide.   We need a day center.  We need a way to find them work.  We need consistent ways to get them ID's, the medical help they need and  some will need permanent assisted living facilities including a way to pay for it.  All of that costs money, and not all that much is available.  More than anything else, we need people who have a heart and actually can think and apply common sense.

[zoo]

A couple of quotes from another thread that apply here:

Yaron Brook on the welfare state:

Economic crises and runaway government power grabs don't just happen by themselves; they are the product of the philosophical ideas prevalent in a society -- particularly its dominant moral ideas.

Why do we accept the budget-busting costs of a welfare state? Because it implements the moral ideal of self-sacrifice to the needy. Why do so few protest the endless regulatory burdens placed on businessmen? Because businessmen are pursuing their self-interest, which we have been taught is dangerous and immoral. Why did the government go on a crusade to promote "affordable housing," which meant forcing banks to make loans to unqualified home buyers? Because we believe people need to be homeowners, whether or not they can afford to pay for houses.

The message is always the same: "Selfishness is evil; sacrifice for the needs of others is good."

I'm sick to death of the wolves in sheeps' clothing using this prevalent moral ideal to justify their jobs. In other words, they have figured out how to marry two opposing tenets -- those of sacrifice to others and self-preservation (and in many cases, greed). This turns my stomach, and there are too many of this kind in Jacksonville, and in Springfield.

Here's a quote on how this affects our Downtown neighborhoods -- keep in mind, a weak core weakens the entire NEFL region.

It's a real shame, because it's akin to municipal suicide. Downtowns are zoned for the most dense, most taxable development. In a true free-market scenario, downtowns would probably be the site of the most expensive and exclusive real estate in any given city. But if you have a bunch of short-sighted, governement subsidized do-gooders enabling the drunks and druggies, no one in their right mind will want to invest there. And that's exactly what has happened.

And also from the "How important is the core?" thread, my last word with the Heights and Striders on the subject (I anticipate their response so they can have the last word):

I'm not heartless, and I know there are populations who have need because they are not capable of contributing including children, the elderly, and the mentally and physically disabled (although some are certainly capable of working).

Maybe a line needs to be drawn about what is needy and what isn't? I'm living in the middle of a ground-zero comparison of social solutions that are working and those that aren't. I see the 4 populations mentioned being used by the capable, and the definition of "need" growing out of control to include those who just don't want to contribute.

I don't and won't support "charity" anymore, but I will keep giving to groups that provide solutions with accountability for results. And good job yanking the crate seating! Without the loiterers, the piles of trash won't reappear after being picked up (by others paying for it).

[Deuce]

Springfield Girl has some great reasonable points, so I guess we won't be adopting them here.

As other posters have indicated, we do need a place where they can go during the day. Maybe workshops to teach them marketable skills or literacy if their educational background is worse.

Well, I find the amazing thing about 'some' of those 'vagrants' is, they are to unsightly to line the vacant lots or parks, but not to unsightly to do 'the odd jobs' at the more blessed individuals in our neighborhood!  (to pitiful to look at, but not so to do your labor?)   Then again, maybe you were just offering a helping hand.

I never ever give them odd jobs around my yard, it just encourages them to remain here. If there's work they'll come around, if there's no work they'll go elsewhere. (This pertains to those who do want work).

I have to maneuver my bike through that Shell station crap every morning. I've seen a lot of new faces since the downturn. If the city is listening, f**ing do something. Cite people for littering, come down hard on the owner, check for alcohol and public drunkenness, cite people for loitering, harass them until they stop hanging around, create a job center where they can wait inside in air-conditioning for work (seriously, that's what other municipalities do to stop this behavior).

[strider]

A couple of quotes from another thread that apply here:

Yaron Brook on the welfare state:

Economic crises and runaway government power grabs don't just happen by themselves; they are the product of the philosophical ideas prevalent in a society -- particularly its dominant moral ideas.

Why do we accept the budget-busting costs of a welfare state? Because it implements the moral ideal of self-sacrifice to the needy. Why do so few protest the endless regulatory burdens placed on businessmen? Because businessmen are pursuing their self-interest, which we have been taught is dangerous and immoral. Why did the government go on a crusade to promote "affordable housing," which meant forcing banks to make loans to unqualified home buyers? Because we believe people need to be homeowners, whether or not they can afford to pay for houses.

The message is always the same: "Selfishness is evil; sacrifice for the needs of others is good."

I'm sick to death of the wolves in sheeps' clothing using this prevalent moral ideal to justify their jobs. In other words, they have figured out how to marry two opposing tenets -- those of sacrifice to others and self-preservation (and in many cases, greed). This turns my stomach, and there are too many of this kind in Jacksonville, and in Springfield.


And I'm sick to death of those who seem to forget that the ones that truly made money with those "forced loans to unqualified home buyers" are the bankers and the stock holders.  Do you honestly believe that any law "forcing" the bankers to loan money would have gotten passed if the bankers did not know they would make a ton of money from it? It was greed alright, but on the part of those who made the money, not the government.  And certainly not the service providers who get to deal with the poor once the rich bankers got done with them. This is nothing but someone looking for someone to blame for their troubles and finding once again that the poor and homeless are easy targets.

These comments you have quoted, Zoo, are indeed all about greed and have nothing to do with "Selfishness is evil; sacrifice for the needs of others is good" or whether anyone believes that.


Here's a quote on how this affects our Downtown neighborhoods -- keep in mind, a weak core weakens the entire NEFL region.

It's a real shame, because it's akin to municipal suicide. Downtowns are zoned for the most dense, most taxable development. In a true free-market scenario, downtowns would probably be the site of the most expensive and exclusive real estate in any given city. But if you have a bunch of short-sighted, governement subsidized do-gooders enabling the drunks and druggies, no one in their right mind will want to invest there. And that's exactly what has happened.

And again, who is saying this?  Is it the same people who fled these all important urban cores?  And left them to the poor, who are often the first to be victims of drug issues and also the first to be blamed for the "normal  people's" problems.  Here's a question: where the downtowns zoned for "the most dense, most taxable development" before the time of "white flight" (society's name for it, not mine.)?  Or did politicians figure out that they could tax the urban cores and make money from it once they were turned over to the poor who didn't have a loud enough voice?  Let us also not forget that the poor, the homeless and all those service providers were in a downtown that just about everyone else left and forgotten about. Now that "you" want it back, they must go and they must be bad?

And also from the "How important is the core?" thread, my last word with the Heights and Striders on the subject (I anticipate their response so they can have the last word):

I'm not heartless, and I know there are populations who have need because they are not capable of contributing including children, the elderly, and the mentally and physically disabled (although some are certainly capable of working).

Maybe a line needs to be drawn about what is needy and what isn't? I'm living in the middle of a ground-zero comparison of social solutions that are working and those that aren't. I see the 4 populations mentioned being used by the capable, and the definition of "need" growing out of control to include those who just don't want to contribute.

I don't and won't support "charity" anymore, but I will keep giving to groups that provide solutions with accountability for results. And good job yanking the crate seating! Without the loiterers, the piles of trash won't reappear after being picked up (by others paying for it).


I do agree that much of what has been done in the past has not helped the long term problem.  But before real solutions to this problem can be formed and put into place, the people who live in the urban core and are against the service providers must start using common sense in their arguments and recognize that the homeless and the poor are here and the numbers are growing.  Society does indeed share the fault and therefore the burden of these people.  The solutions are not going to be easy nor are they going to be cheap.  But I have yet to hear any truly valid arguments for not having the service providers were they are and not building additional facilities here as long as the mission of those service providers makes more sense. The homeless and the poor were left the urban core and this is where it is best to help them.  Recognize that the homeless, the poor and the service providers were all here long before many of you decided the urban core was the new place to be.  They are going to be somewhere and you are just going to have to recognize that you decided to live where they are; they did not come to you, rather, you came to them.  

[fatcat]

I lived in Boston for more than a decade and visited SFO many times. Boston does not have the homeless crowded downtown, even in the best weather. I do not recall seeing any homeless sun tanning themselves topless at the park in Boston.
SFO has very clean downtown and beach. Occasionally, I do see panhandlers in SFO. However, panhandlers in SFO are not as aggressive or persistent as JAX. In fact, I see more "please do not encourage panhandler" signs than panhandlers in SFO.
I have traveled more than a few dozens of metropolitan so far, and JAX is absolutely worst I have experienced.  I have also spend many hours talk to every single panhandler come my way either ask for money or as for work, out of about one hundred or so people, ZERO of them was from JAX.

The suggestions made by Springfield girl is great and let's build up from those good suggestions instead of beat it down.

[fsu813]

Atlanta is worse. I got hassled by 6 guys in 3 hours in various parts of downtown ATL.

[fatcat]

This is absolutely true:

just about half an hour ago I was driving down a semi-busy street towards downtown. An old "lady" is sitting on the side walk step doing a "Sharon Stone" next to a store front.