Metro Jacksonville

http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/downtown-st-petersburg-will-see-fewer-homeless-people-soon-mayor-promises/1173207




ST. PETERSBURG â€" The days of seeing downtown parks and sidewalks hosting makeshift homeless camps are nearly over, Mayor Bill Foster said Thursday.

In the next two weeks, the city will begin enforcing ordinances that ban sleeping or reclining on public sidewalks and the storage of personal belongings on public property.

Williams Park, City Hall, the Princess Martha senior apartments, all known for attracting the homeless, will be transformed, Foster told council members.

"You will see success," Foster said. "All eight of you have made this happen. When your constituents ask you about this in the coming weeks, take credit for it because you guys made it happen."

Violators will be given the option of going to Pinellas Safe Harbor â€" a shelter the county opened with the city's help in January â€" or jail. Located off 49th Street near the Pinellas County Jail, Safe Harbor has already become the county's largest shelter, averaging 320 to 350 people a day.

Word of the changes is getting out, said Shawn Samples, a 38-year-old unemployed waiter who spends his days at Williams Park and his nights sleeping along Fifth Street.

"I heard through word of mouth," Samples said. "And I don't want to go (to the shelter). It reminds me too much of a jail."

St. Petersburg's move could cause ripples for other Tampa Bay cities.

Last year, when the city banned street solicitation to stop homeless people from panhandling, Tampa and Hillsborough County officials reported an uptick in those begging for money and food on their streets.

For months, Foster delayed enforcing ordinances aimed at the homeless because there wasn't enough shelter space. The jail no longer had room for violators of small crimes such as trespassing. Yet he continued to catch flak from downtown businesses and residents who said he was doing little to address the surging homeless population.

Late last year, he pushed for a solution â€" the opening of Safe Harbor, which has room for 500. Its intent was to help remove homeless people from downtown streets, but also to allow the shift of homeless people accused of smaller crimes away from jail, where the costs are $125 more a day.

Its expansion is made possible by a recent shipment of 100 bunks the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office ordered from an Alabama jail for $20 apiece. Metropolitan Ministries has agreed to provide food there, saving more than $300,000 in annual costs.

Soon, a courtyard will be open that will add even more space.

Since April 25, the city has been enforcing other ordinances aimed at the homeless population, such as prohibitions on urinating in public and open containers of alcohol.

Since then, 151 people who violated those ordinances have been taken to the shelter, where they have access to an array of services, such as showers, food and security, said St. Petersburg police Maj. DeDe Carron. In exchange, they agree to perform community service or attend mental health or addiction evaluations or rehabilitation sessions.

Of the 151, 37 have been there more than once.

If someone is sent there three times, they go to jail or their first appearance before a judge.

Some local business owners said they had noticed a decrease in the homeless population downtown recently.

Barb Morlack, who owns Kauffman's Jewlers on First Avenue N, said she has seen fewer of the homeless outside her store over the past few months.

"I assumed it was because they opened the shelter by the jail," she said. Her store has been a presence on First Avenue for 62 years.

Lexi Clavizzao, whose mother owns Vizaj Essentials, a boutique next door to Kauffman's, said groups of homeless people used to gather on the bench outside the store but disappeared once "the cops started driving by."

Even from Leigha Good's perspective, the ranks of the homeless have grown thinner in recent weeks.

A former waiter, Good, 24, has been living on St. Petersburg's streets for the last month.

She said she has seen fewer homeless people in the last couple of weeks. Based on what she has heard from her friends about Safe Harbor, she has security concerns and thinks it sounds jail-like.

"From the city's point of view, it's working," Good said. "But from our point of view, it's scary. I don't really want to go to Safe Harbor."

Times staff writer Aubrey Whelan contributed to this report. Michael Van Sickler can be reached at mvansickler@sptimes.com or (727) 893-8037.


[Last modified: Jun 02, 2011 11:25 PM]

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2011 St. Petersburg Times

No jobs...no jobs in the near future...of course the homeless population is on the rise..when is the world going to realize that 80% of the world is one paycheck from ruin...I'm sick of people on here screaming negatives about the homeless..if you were homeless on the street you'd be so damn depressed that you act just like the ones you see on the streets...i see a sea of depression in the eyes of the homeless...i hope this city can keep it's promise to help those that have been hurt and put out of their homes due to this awful depression.

GG, no one is screaming.  Unemployment has nothing to do with aggressive panhandling and urinating and defecating in the street.  The major cause of "homelessness", drug and alcohol addiction, is not directly related to unemployment.  Those that have run into financial difficulty tend to attend the homeless centers and take advantage of available programs, not sit in a park, drink alcohol, piss and sleep. 

These are programs that work.  I know that from personal observation and experience.  There is no need for you to "assume" what I would do in any situation.

It's apparent that you've spent no time with the homeless....yes there are those that have issues but many many are there because their rug got pulled out from them...i hope you won't be homeless...it would drive you crazy to. Psycosis can happen due to loosing everything finding yourself stuck with nothing...so yes jobs play a huge part in these people lives...not everone is perfect or has the tools to deal with life as well as you can NOTNOW...again..i hope you don't find yourself homeless.

I hope I don't find myself homeless as well.  I would venture that I have spent more time with the homeless than most.  I stand by my statements.

I hope I am never homeless either- but I know I would not be camping on the sidewalk downtown, nor would I be urinating in the skyway elevator, or sitting in someone's front yard swilling my 40 ouncers of Steele Reserve. I would hope I would never scream obscenities at people who chose not to give me money. I would like to think I would be more like Joe. A homeless gentleman that would spend almost everyday at Klutho Park on the baseball stands reading a book he checked out from the library. For almost a year I saw and talked to Joe almost everyday, I would give Joe money even though he never once asked me, or I would bring him some lunch or a cold drink. Joe told me the only good thing about being homeless was he could now read every book he ever wanted to. Joe eventually did get a job over on the southside and help with obtaining an apartment. I have not seen Joe in over two years, but I think about him often, especially when I see other people down on their luck that have completely lost any grace and pride they may have ever had. Joe never let his situation beat him, he beat his situation.

Quote from: NotNow on June 03, 2011, 08:47:43 AM
The major cause of "homelessness", drug and alcohol addiction,

Really?  Interesting.  Would love to see your facts regarding this.  Or is this some sort of "I see it a lot and I've read other articles about seeing it, but I haven't seen any statistics on it".  The fact is, only 2% of the homeless are actually visible to the public.  Now, I know you wouldn't make a judgment on a group of people from just 2%.  It's easy to sit there and blame drug and alcohol problems without knowing the full extent of the problem.  Treating all homeless for drug and alcohol problems and not for any mental issues that might be leading to self-medication is not going to solve anything.  Treat the symptom not the disease. 

Now, as to the article, I have a few thoughts.  Every time I see one of these articles I have to ask myself, is this an idea of dealing with a situation that does not attack the situation itself?  It sounds wonderful right?  We're removing the problem from our sight, and if we can't see it, it's not a problem right?  All cured.  But we haven't cured anything or really addressed any problems.  The problem isn't that we need to enforce these laws; it’s that we've abandoned the homeless community and the systems in place to deal with the homeless community.  We've gutted mental health facilities, defunded programs, and removed safety nets. 

What this article is suggesting is a criminalization of homelessness.   Study after study shows that this is not only a bad policy for dealing with the problem, but it’s bad fiscal policy.  For instance: back in 2004 the Blueprint to End Homelessness stated that over a 12 month period: 1,564 arrests we made at a cost of $764 per arrest (most for trespassing), at the conservative cost of $59 per day it cost the city of Jax roughly 5 million.  Now, imagine what that 5 million could have done in preventative measures.

We had a blueprint to end homelessness formulated years ago.  We committed ourselves to it, and worked with it for almost 5 years, when we inexplicably decided to get away from it.   Time to stop with the grandstanding and political football that is the poor and homeless.  Let’s do something that actually works.  We can do this.  But it starts with not vilifying the poor and the homeless.

Well It looks like Jacksonville isnt the only city in Florida with a high homeless population downtown.

Quote from: stephendare on June 03, 2011, 12:49:42 PM
Sounds like the kind of scary authoritarian kind of government action that is specifically forbidden by the US Constitution to me.

Luckily I know that my friend, notnow will be fearlessly against this kind of liberty infringing anti constitutional nonsense.

I agree Stephen. I have a question though. It seems that homelessness is wide spread (not just a Jacksonville issue or tampa/st pete issue), in your opinon, what is the best solution?

Quote from: uptowngirl on June 03, 2011, 11:24:51 AM
I hope I am never homeless either- but I know I would not be camping on the sidewalk downtown, nor would I be urinating in the skyway elevator, or sitting in someone's front yard swilling my 40 ouncers of Steele Reserve. I would hope I would never scream obscenities at people who chose not to give me money. I would like to think I would be more like Joe. A homeless gentleman that would spend almost everyday at Klutho Park on the baseball stands reading a book he checked out from the library. For almost a year I saw and talked to Joe almost everyday, I would give Joe money even though he never once asked me, or I would bring him some lunch or a cold drink. Joe told me the only good thing about being homeless was he could now read every book he ever wanted to. Joe eventually did get a job over on the southside and help with obtaining an apartment. I have not seen Joe in over two years, but I think about him often, especially when I see other people down on their luck that have completely lost any grace and pride they may have ever had. Joe never let his situation beat him, he beat his situation.

Really enjoyed reading this :)

Good for Joe.

Quote from: stephendare on June 03, 2011, 01:15:08 PM

Quote from: duvaldude08 on June 03, 2011, 12:55:47 PM

Quote from: stephendare on June 03, 2011, 12:49:42 PM
Sounds like the kind of scary authoritarian kind of government action that is specifically forbidden by the US Constitution to me.

Luckily I know that my friend, notnow will be fearlessly against this kind of liberty infringing anti constitutional nonsense.

I agree Stephen. I have a question though. It seems that homelessness is wide spread (not just a Jacksonville issue or tampa/st pete issue), in your opinon, what is the best solution?

Restoring our middle class to the levels it reached by the late 1950s.  Reinvesting the obscene expenditures that presently build highways to the suburbs into affordable housing that supports single income families.  Restoring the safety nets, pumping money into re education, education, and treatment of mental illness.  Creating urban farming projects on a grand scale, restoring the county extension offices of the department of agriculture, including the canneries, making sustainable skills (which used to be called "Home Ec" and "Four H" programs) a mandatory part of education at all levels, from elementary school to high school graduation.

I would restore volunteer voucher programs for civic projects, build a day center with free public showers and plenty of bathrooms, I would try and treat the homeless that come here as an asset rather than a liability.  I would create dormitories, and transitional facilities.  I would completely remove them as a revenue source for the sheriff's department by taking them out of the jails and putting them to work.

I would set up an aggressive program of reconnecting travelling drifters with their families and returning them to their homes and communities, and I would provide mental health care along the same lines that San Diego does.

And it would still be cheaper than our present method of putting them in jail and destroying the downtown tax base.

I knew you would have some great suggestions. Thanks Stephen!

Quote from: duvaldude08 on June 03, 2011, 12:27:12 PM
Well It looks like Jacksonville isnt the only city in Florida with a high homeless population downtown.

I would venture to say St. Petes is worse than jacksonvilles. We stayed in downtown St. Pete for a wedding and walking back to the hotel there were literally dozens and dozens of homeless sleeping in rows next to each other in the parks.

Gainesville is horrible too, and it's bad everywhere in town, not just downtown.

These measures seem pretty draconian, but I don't think that cracking down on certain problematic behaviors like panhandling are necessarily anathema to trying to get to the root of the problem and getting people back on their feet. It's the behavior that bothers people, not the condition of homelessness. The problem is pursuing the first measure and not the second; that just pushes the issue out of sight (or into someone else's sight).

Quote from: stephendare on June 03, 2011, 01:15:08 PM

Quote from: duvaldude08 on June 03, 2011, 12:55:47 PM

Quote from: stephendare on June 03, 2011, 12:49:42 PM
Sounds like the kind of scary authoritarian kind of government action that is specifically forbidden by the US Constitution to me.

Luckily I know that my friend, notnow will be fearlessly against this kind of liberty infringing anti constitutional nonsense.

I agree Stephen. I have a question though. It seems that homelessness is wide spread (not just a Jacksonville issue or tampa/st pete issue), in your opinon, what is the best solution?

Restoring our middle class to the levels it reached by the late 1950s.  Reinvesting the obscene expenditures that presently build highways to the suburbs into affordable housing that supports single income families.  Restoring the safety nets, pumping money into re education, education, and treatment of mental illness.  Creating urban farming projects on a grand scale, restoring the county extension offices of the department of agriculture, including the canneries, making sustainable skills (which used to be called "Home Ec" and "Four H" programs) a mandatory part of education at all levels, from elementary school to high school graduation.

I would restore volunteer voucher programs for civic projects, build a day center with free public showers and plenty of bathrooms, I would try and treat the homeless that come here as an asset rather than a liability.  I would create dormitories, and transitional facilities.  I would completely remove them as a revenue source for the sheriff's department by taking them out of the jails and putting them to work.

I would set up an aggressive program of reconnecting travelling drifters with their families and returning them to their homes and communities, and I would provide mental health care along the same lines that San Diego does.

And it would still be cheaper than our present method of putting them in jail and destroying the downtown tax base.

So when are we going to start Stevens campaign for council?

It would have to be an at large seat so all of us could vote.

[
[/quote]

Quote from: Bridges on June 03, 2011, 12:08:18 PM

Quote from: NotNow on June 03, 2011, 08:47:43 AM
The major cause of "homelessness", drug and alcohol addiction,

Really?  Interesting.  Would love to see your facts regarding this.  Or is this some sort of "I see it a lot and I've read other articles about seeing it, but I haven't seen any statistics on it".  The fact is, only 2% of the homeless are actually visible to the public.  Now, I know you wouldn't make a judgment on a group of people from just 2%.  It's easy to sit there and blame drug and alcohol problems without knowing the full extent of the problem.  Treating all homeless for drug and alcohol problems and not for any mental issues that might be leading to self-medication is not going to solve anything.  Treat the symptom not the disease.  

Now, as to the article, I have a few thoughts.  Every time I see one of these articles I have to ask myself, is this an idea of dealing with a situation that does not attack the situation itself?  It sounds wonderful right?  We're removing the problem from our sight, and if we can't see it, it's not a problem right?  All cured.  But we haven't cured anything or really addressed any problems.  The problem isn't that we need to enforce these laws; it’s that we've abandoned the homeless community and the systems in place to deal with the homeless community.  We've gutted mental health facilities, defunded programs, and removed safety nets.  

What this article is suggesting is a criminalization of homelessness.   Study after study shows that this is not only a bad policy for dealing with the problem, but it’s bad fiscal policy.  For instance: back in 2004 the Blueprint to End Homelessness stated that over a 12 month period: 1,564 arrests we made at a cost of $764 per arrest (most for trespassing), at the conservative cost of $59 per day it cost the city of Jax roughly 5 million.  Now, imagine what that 5 million could have done in preventative measures.

We had a blueprint to end homelessness formulated years ago.  We committed ourselves to it, and worked with it for almost 5 years, when we inexplicably decided to get away from it.   Time to stop with the grandstanding and political football that is the poor and homeless.  Let’s do something that actually works.  We can do this.  But it starts with not vilifying the poor and the homeless.

From the National Coalition for the Homeless:

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/addiction.pdf

Substance abuse is often a cause of homelessness. Addictive disorders disrupt relationships with family and friends and often cause people to lose their jobs. For people who are already struggling to pay their bills, the onset or exacerbation of an addiction may cause them to lose their housing. A 2008 survey by the United States Conference of Mayors asked 25 cities for their top three causes of homelessness. Substance abuse was the single largest cause of homelessness for single adults (reported by 68% of cities). Substance abuse was also mentioned by 12% of cities as one of the top three causes of homelessness for families. According to Didenko and Pankratz (2007), two-thirds of homeless people report that drugs and/or alcohol were a major reason for their becoming homeless.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bridges, the measures outlined in the article are not meant to "cure" homelessness.  They are meant to combat using our public venues as bedrooms and bathrooms.  As the article points out, public facilities must be available to house and service the "homeless" before any enforcement action can be taken.  All that they are trying to do is to preserve our public places for the use of ALL citizens for the purposes that they were designed.  Everyone, including the homeless, are better off under such conditions.

Quote from: stephendare on June 03, 2011, 12:49:42 PM
Sounds like the kind of scary authoritarian kind of government action that is specifically forbidden by the US Constitution to me.

Luckily I know that my friend, notnow will be fearlessly against this kind of liberty infringing anti constitutional nonsense.

This is a local government that is providing shelter and services for the homeless population.  They are reserving public venues for ALL citizens for the use for which they were intended.  What "right" do you think someone is infringing upon?

Quote from: duvaldude08 on June 03, 2011, 12:55:47 PM

Quote from: stephendare on June 03, 2011, 12:49:42 PM
Sounds like the kind of scary authoritarian kind of government action that is specifically forbidden by the US Constitution to me.

Luckily I know that my friend, notnow will be fearlessly against this kind of liberty infringing anti constitutional nonsense.

I agree Stephen. I have a question though. It seems that homelessness is wide spread (not just a Jacksonville issue or tampa/st pete issue), in your opinon, what is the best solution?

Rooming Houses used to be in every city.  Folks could rent a room at a reasonable rate in a homelike enviroment.  Then rooming houses, poorly supervised, became crackhouses and cities across the country began zoning them out. 

People are homeless b/c they can't afford the rent on an apartment, the utilities and their down payment and etc.

And jobs don't pay daily anymore.  Even if one finds a job tomorrow, he won't get a paycheck for a couple of weeks.

Mental illness, drug addiction, post traumatic stress from various life situations, illness, umemployment all add into the mix.

The missions are beyond capacity.  If all of the homeless went to shelter it would be bedlam.  Not enough beds to go around.

Most homeless folks that I have talked to are extremely afraid of sleeping outdoors.  But after awhile, (seems like a year or so) something happens and then the chronically homeless get sort of a claustrophia when they are inside.

I can't imagine making homelessness criminal and I would be very afraid to arrest anyone for being so (afraid in a losing-my-soul-forever type of way).

Mostly, the homeless people I have talked to just want to die.

Sheclown, I understand your sentiment and I admire your sensitivity to the issue.  What St. Pete has done is to expand their homeless shelter and homeless services so that they can meet the need.  Then they have not outlawed homelessness, but sleeping, storing personal goods, urinating,  and defecating on public property have been outlawed.  This allows for a better quality of life for both the homeless and the public, who can once again enjoy their public places in the way they were meant to be enjoyed. 

To call such actions "heartless" is to ignore the facts.  It is not "heartless" to provide a home, hygiene, and job assistance to the homeless.  It is not "heartless" to allow businesses to operate without having to pick up trash and clean human waste every morning.  It is "heartless" to allow (or even advocate for) the homeless to languish in doorways and city parks.  Whether this is due to addictions, mental illness, or ignorance is beside the point.  The laws in the article will only apply to a small number of the people we are discussing.  Many of the aggressive panhandlers are not "homeless" at all but simply choose to beg.  This is almost always the case for the "highway" beggars at the interstate ramps. 

You are right that single room occupancies are becoming harder to find.  That is because those occupancies have become difficult to maintain and avoid criminality.  It is a problem that our shelters are addressing.

Take a realistic look at the individuals that are roaming the sidewalks downtown, Hemming plaza, and other "homeless" gathering places.  I have dealt with these spots for years throughout downtown and Springfield.  I am aware of the personal history of many of the individuals who spend their time in these areas.  I don't talk to many that want to die, although there are a plethora of complaints.  I have a clean conscience.  I have done what I can to help those that need help, and I have done what I can to ensure that those that seek to take advantage of others get what they deserve.  I don't claim to be "all knowing" or an expert on homelessness, but I am not blind or stupid either.

You cannot work a job and live in a shelter.  You must be in line before 3 oclock to get a bed.  Some of those who are sleeping in the weeds actually are working and must make the cruel choice of giving up their job to go to a shelter.  It is a step back to have their basic needs met.

This discussion always returns to day shelters -- a place to have the (non-working) homeless safe during the day so that they are not a nuisance to downtown businesses.  After all, people rarely complain about the homeless sleeping outside at night.  It is the presence during the day which is upsetting to business and an unreasonable demand on our fragile city.

I had a business on Main Street.  I understand the problems of homelessness.  I also gave out t-shirts to folks who had their last small bag of belongings thrown out by JSO.

It would be much better for everyone concerned to have day shelters and to change the way the current shelters are run allowing for lines to start at 6:00 for an evening's bed.

We are very blessed to have the shelters that we do have.  But there is a gap --

...and he was also arrested.

a friend posted this on facebook this morning --

Quote from: Garden guy on June 03, 2011, 03:35:07 PM

Quote from: stephendare on June 03, 2011, 01:15:08 PM

Quote from: duvaldude08 on June 03, 2011, 12:55:47 PM

Quote from: stephendare on June 03, 2011, 12:49:42 PM
Sounds like the kind of scary authoritarian kind of government action that is specifically forbidden by the US Constitution to me.

Luckily I know that my friend, notnow will be fearlessly against this kind of liberty infringing anti constitutional nonsense.

I agree Stephen. I have a question though. It seems that homelessness is wide spread (not just a Jacksonville issue or tampa/st pete issue), in your opinon, what is the best solution?

Restoring our middle class to the levels it reached by the late 1950s.  Reinvesting the obscene expenditures that presently build highways to the suburbs into affordable housing that supports single income families.  Restoring the safety nets, pumping money into re education, education, and treatment of mental illness.  Creating urban farming projects on a grand scale, restoring the county extension offices of the department of agriculture, including the canneries, making sustainable skills (which used to be called "Home Ec" and "Four H" programs) a mandatory part of education at all levels, from elementary school to high school graduation.

I would restore volunteer voucher programs for civic projects, build a day center with free public showers and plenty of bathrooms, I would try and treat the homeless that come here as an asset rather than a liability.  I would create dormitories, and transitional facilities.  I would completely remove them as a revenue source for the sheriff's department by taking them out of the jails and putting them to work.

I would set up an aggressive program of reconnecting travelling drifters with their families and returning them to their homes and communities, and I would provide mental health care along the same lines that San Diego does.

And it would still be cheaper than our present method of putting them in jail and destroying the downtown tax base.

So when are we going to start Stevens campaign for council?

:D  PLEASE   :D

Sheclown, the Sulzbacher Center is an "emergency" shelter.  From there, clients basic needs are met.  Through the available services, clients are prepared for the task of employment.  More permanent housing, such as the Liberty Center, is designed to assist the clients maintain employment and gain independence.  I will be the first to say that more capability is needed.  And that Mental Health INPATIENT services should be available.  The article clearly stated that St. Pete has the capacity to house the homeless and provide them services.  And that certain acts were infractions, not "homelessness".

You gave t shirts to people who SAID they had their last small bag of belongings thrown out by JSO.  The JSO does not throw away people's possessions.  Unattended bags are placed into property if they appear to have value, and trash is thrown in the garbage, whether that be done by the property owner of an Officer called to the scene of abandoned property.

Your reference to Jesus is not only false, but a fallacy in that it is an appeal to emotion, rather than reason.  The verse you quote is Jesus explaining the call to dicipleship and the cost of that call.  Our Saviour was not homeless, He endured hardship for us, and chose poverty to teach us.  Jesus had more than a profession or calling.  The Son of Man came to save us all.  I find a comparison to the Hemming Plaza crowd ... disconcerting.  Similarly, to compare the arrest of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane to an arrest for aggressive panhandling or curb drinking is, I hope, an act of ignorance on your part.  If you are not familiar with the Passion then I must inform you that it had nothing to do with homelessness.

Your inference about JSO is also mistaken.  Officers are some of the most charitable citizens.  You might be surprised at what many Officers have done and the personal sacrifices they have made.  (Although they will say that they get more out of it than what they give.  I am very proud such people are my friends.)

Your "spinning" of biblical verses speaks for itself.  Your personal attack on me by speculating on "what I would have done" during the arrest of Jesus is ANOTHER fallacious argument on your part, and against the rules of this (your) board.  Your characterization of modern Police Officers, and JSO in particular, are again biased and without factual basis.  You have no education or training in law enforcement, and your opinions show that fact.  It is obvious to me, based on your last post, that you have no education or training in Biblical matters as well.  Your ( and sheclowns) attempt to compare Jesus and his followers to the "Hemming Plaza crowd" is laughable on its face.  You might want to review some of your Biblical claims, as you are clearly adding your own words to the gospel.  I assume that you know what that is called?  I don't have the time or space to educate you on the Passion, but you might review Luke for the actual political charges.  It should also be noted that both of the political powers of the time, Pilate and Herod, found Jesus innocent of all charges.  (Luke 23:4)(Luke 9:7-9, 13:31-33) (Which were grouped under "blasphemy" by the way.  To read what the scriptures say Luke 23:2 and 23:5.)  Only when faced with repeated demands from the Jewish religious leaders and the political consequences of opposing the Jewish majority did Pilate agree to a crucify Jesus.  As for the rest, if you want to start comparing Bible stories, then we should probably start a new thread.

Your statements about my experience in handling the homeless is typical of you.  Baselessly deride those that have actual experience while claiming intimate knowledge.  That is easy to do, and easy to see for what it is.  I don't claim to be an expert on homelessness, but I have years of real experience in dealing with the "problem" side of "homelessness".   All opinions are just that, but I will continue to listen to those who have actually done something in the field being discussed.  

In an attempt to drag this thread back on point, I will AGAIN point out that the ordinances discussed in the article are enforced ONLY after capacity for all demand was achieved in the St. Pete shelter.  Can there be any argument that the "homeless" are better off in shelter with services available to them?  Can there be any argument that one of the main goals of this site, the development of downtown, would be well served by eliminating as much as possible aggressive panhandling, camping out in business doorways, urinating and defecating in our public places, and open drinking and drunkeness as well as the trash generated in such activities?  

I don't disagree with most of your points in the previous post.  Of course the biggest reason for the loss of SRO or single room occupancies, is the criminality that became associated with them.  I would also point to the previously posted statistic that addiction is the leading cause of homelessness.  I would also submit that autos are not "evil" and that a good bit of our economy is based on transportation.  The automobile frees most to travel at their own will, which I think is a good thing.  

Should we be frugal and simplify our lives?  Yes.  I agree with your points about our food and preparation.  I am in agreement that gardens are important, for many reasons.  I find it strange that you would legislate such things as this and yet refuse to criminalize the desecration of our public areas.  I will state one...more...time that this is NOT criminalizing the homeless, it is providing for the real homeless and reopening our public areas to....the public.

Thank you for your assistance to your young friend, that is an admirable act.

Thanks for a reasonable response, but I will agree to disagree on St. Pete's response to their problem.

Quote from: stephendare on June 04, 2011, 01:43:21 PM

Quote from: NotNow on June 04, 2011, 12:29:24 PM
Your "spinning" of biblical verses speaks for itself.  Your personal attack on me by speculating on "what I would have done" during the arrest of Jesus is ANOTHER fallacious argument on your part, and against the rules of this (your) board. Your characterization of modern Police Officers, and JSO in particular, are again biased and without factual basis.  You have no education or training in law enforcement, and your opinions show that fact.  It is obvious to me, based on your last post, that you have no education or training in Biblical matters as well. 

Your ( and sheclowns) attempt to compare Jesus and his followers to the "Hemming Plaza crowd" is laughable on its face.  You might want to review some of your Biblical claims, as you are clearly adding your own words to the gospel.  I assume that you know what that is called?  I don't have the time or space to educate you on the Passion, but you might review Luke for the actual political charges.  It should also be noted that both of the political powers of the time, Pilate and Herod, found Jesus innocent of all charges.  (Luke 23:4)(Luke 9:7-9, 13:31-33) (Which were grouped under "blasphemy" by the way.  To read what the scriptures say Luke 23:2 and 23:5.)  Only when faced with repeated demands from the Jewish religious leaders and the political consequences of opposing the Jewish majority did Pilate agree to a crucify Jesus.  As for the rest, if you want to start comparing Bible stories, then we should probably start a new thread.
 

What in the name of god are you talking about?

Who mentioned the JSO?  Especially in particular?

I did however reference some of your statements on police training, which I would hope were accurate on your part.  If you have misled me or other posters, then I can hardly apologize for that.

I think you are over reacting to sheclown's post to be frank.

She made a blanket statement about homelessness, and you kind of went off the deepend about the "Passion".

Your points were fallacious.

Regardless of their spiritual interpretations, Roman law and policy were regular, secular, and lasted for a thousand years both before and after the time of Jesus.

I did make a point, which is hardly original to me, that if the events described in the bible happened in the modern streets of America, he would hardly have been greeted as a Messiah.  In fact, if anyone doubts that the scene as I described it above, would have been the likely outcome, then let them now speak up.

With one proviso:

Jesus would have already been on probation for reckless endangerment, conversion, and destruction of property for his antics in destroying the tables of the money changers in the Temple.  He probably would also have had his wages garnished to pay off debts arising from the personal injury lawsuits.  Which would explain why he was homeless and unemployed.

There was also the matter of illegal production and distribution of alcohol at the wedding in Cana, practicing free public medical care without a license (how socialist of Him).  Depending on who would have busted him, that can carry a fine and a jail sentence in the modern world.

No the list of modern crimes that would have landed Jesus flat on his back downtown in Jail certainly didnt begin or end with the assault by his followers against an arresting officer in Gethsemane.

For example, when he was feeding all of the unemployed people at his outdoor sermon, were the facilities licensed and inspected by a health department?  Any health measures taken?

Was he using the public sidewalk when he was demonstrating without a license on Palm Sunday?

I doubt he would have had the permits to simply march in and basically shut down traffic on a donkey (which I don't believe are legal street vehicles in Duval County, btw.)

Nah.  Jesus wouldnt have lasted two weeks here.  He would have gotten sick of being called a communist and an idiot who didnt know what he was talking about by various individuals on the blogs. ;)

I am sorry to see you return to such tactics.  I will leave your statements to stand by themselves, they say more than I can ever hope to comment.  Have a good Saturday.

Notnow, I just returned and read this thread. 

The man did come into the thrift store crying about the "roundup" and the loss of his one bag of clothes.

JSO did not set out to terrorize the homeless, but is following policy and frankly just doing what they are told to do. 

I am a big fan of police presence.  Makes me happy to see them out and about.  I called just last week on a suspicious car near an elementary school and I was VERY glad that they are nearby and eager to help.

& btw, I have had to toss out personal items belonging to homeless folks who have wandered off and left them too.

But this thread is talking about increasing the criminalization of homelessness. 

And who carries out the implementation of that? 

Day centers scattered throughout Duval County is what is needed.  I'm not a big fan of Walmart social services, prefer moms and pops -- faith based, but that's just me.

Phillips Highway would be a great place to locate a nice sized day center.  There are plenty of rundown stores and warehouses, on the bus lines, could offer showers and bathrooms and lunch.  Internet for job searches. 

Could be cheap and simple and downtown's burden could be greatly reduced.

Put smaller ones on major bus routes and hand out a special bus token like the ones for the disabled.

We could have "magnet" day centers...ones with washer/dryers or ones with internet or ones with case workers for mental health consults. 

Give the homeless special IDs that scan to open the doors to get in so you can track who is where. Let them "buy" food at the drop in centers so you know what services they are using and where. 

Give churches incentives to open day centers--perhaps surplus government property and the use of a trained social worker.  Churches are charged with the duty of protecting the poor -- help them do it.

Stephen, you're so Thoreau.

Agreed and agreed and agreed.

We live in an age where it is totally acceptable to pay a dollar for a plastic bottle of water and we wonder why we are in financial crisis.

What group or organization has the greatest financial ability or potential to deal with helping
the true homeless?

Churches throughout the city

Quote from: NotNow on June 04, 2011, 10:14:34 AM

Your reference to Jesus is not only false, but a fallacy in that it is an appeal to emotion, rather than reason.  The verse you quote is Jesus explaining the call to dicipleship and the cost of that call.  Our Saviour was not homeless, He endured hardship for us, and chose poverty to teach us.  Jesus had more than a profession or calling.  The Son of Man came to save us all.  I find a comparison to the Hemming Plaza crowd ... disconcerting.  Similarly, to compare the arrest of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane to an arrest for aggressive panhandling or curb drinking is, I hope, an act of ignorance on your part.  If you are not familiar with the Passion then I must inform you that it had nothing to do with homelessness.

You are discounting my statement regarding my faith b/c it appeals to emotion rather than reason? 

The call to discipleship is nothing if not to further these two commandments:  Love God and Love Your Neighbor.

Cities which inact policies that criminalize homelessness are (IMHO) directly in opposition to these commandments and I can hardly believe anyone would think otherwise.

It is the city government, not JSO, ultimately responsible for this.  I am not a cop-hater and don't make me out to be. 

If a person is arrested for peeing in public but has no other place to relieve himself, how can this be tolerated by a compassionate society?  Where are the public bathrooms for the homeless to use?  If they are arrested for hanging out in the park, how will you separate the homeless from the other park attendees?  By their appearance?  How's that going to work for us? 

All martyrs die quite simply for standing up for their belief in direct opposition to the authority of the day.  This is why Jesus died.

He certainly was homeless, a transient who wandered proclaiming his belief in direct opposition to the authority of the day. 

And I'm quite sure he pee'd outside.

While I don't see the homeless in Hemming Park as martyrs, I certainly see persecuting them for their homelessness and enacting policies which criminalize their status having the potential to elevate them to martyrdom.

Sheclown,  what serves the goal of "love your neighbor" more, providing shelter, restrooms, showers, and employment services or allowing any and all to live and campout in our public parks?  

For about the umpteenth time, I will repeat a fact that you guys seem to just ignore...the City of St. Petersburg is providing ample shelter, food, restrooms, showers, and employment services for any citizen who is truly homeless.  

What is really happening here is that a very small segment of society is demanding to camp out in our taxpayer financed public venues.  This small segment is denying the use of these properties by creating conditions that no civilized parent or citizen would abide.  They are doing this despite any effort by those same taxpayers to provide proper facilities and adequate services for that segment.  In St. Petersburg's example, arrests are made based on behaviors, not appearance or other imagined slights.

I hesitate to discuss religious matters, as we all have our own relationship with God.  I will state my opinion that any comparison of our modern transient problem with "martyrdom" is pretty outrageous and makes no sense to me.  Jesus did not oppose any political authority, but presented a challenge to the religious structure of the day.  He did not seek an earthly kingdom, but sought to establish a spiritual kingdom.  The religious leaders of the day, who were NOT the civil authority, opposed Jesus's claim to be the Son of God and feared his popularity.  To compare the path of Jesus with our modern transient problem is .... not accurate, to say the least, IMHO.

I admire your compassion, but I urge you to channel that compassion into efforts that will REALLY help those that need your compassion.  Remember the Chinese proverb, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

Notnow, we agree that facilities need to be available for the homeless.  We also agree (I believe) that they needn't be all located downtown.

Where we disagree is with compelling people to go to the shelter or go to jail under threat of arrest.

And we see Jesus in different ways --

And I do believe in teaching men to fish -- If you knew me, you'd understand that.

QuoteI hesitate to discuss religious matters, as we all have our own relationship with God.  I will state my opinion that any comparison of our modern transient problem with "martyrdom" is pretty outrageous and makes no sense to me.  Jesus did not oppose any political authority, but presented a challenge to the religious structure of the day.  He did not seek an earthly kingdom, but sought to establish a spiritual kingdom. The religious leaders of the day, who were NOT the civil authority, opposed Jesus's claim to be the Son of God and feared his popularity.  To compare the path of Jesus with our modern transient problem is .... not accurate, to say the least, IMHO.

I'm no biblical scholar, but it is my understanding that the political authority for Jesus would have been the  Jewish leaders of his time.  The Romans left the governance of the Jews to their religious leaders. 

Quote from: sheclown on June 04, 2011, 02:55:54 PM
Day centers scattered throughout Duval County is what is needed.  I'm not a big fan of Walmart social services, prefer moms and pops -- faith based, but that's just me.

Phillips Highway would be a great place to locate a nice sized day center.  There are plenty of rundown stores and warehouses, on the bus lines, could offer showers and bathrooms and lunch.  Internet for job searches. 

Could be cheap and simple and downtown's burden could be greatly reduced.

Put smaller ones on major bus routes and hand out a special bus token like the ones for the disabled.

We could have "magnet" day centers...ones with washer/dryers or ones with internet or ones with case workers for mental health consults. 

Give the homeless special IDs that scan to open the doors to get in so you can track who is where. Let them "buy" food at the drop in centers so you know what services they are using and where. 

There's a JTA transit hub at Gateway Mall, which appears to be mostly empty and dead except for the food stamp and WorkSource offices. Hmmmm.

Dead girls, you are right.  That would be awesome.

I have no doubt of your good heart, sheclown. 

The Jewish political authority was King Herod.

Quote•The Jews understood the world to be divided into two types of people: Jewish and Gentile (non-Jew). The Jews worked hard to disassociate themselves from the Gentiles.
•The Jewish people accepted their freedom in both their governing system, and in maintaining their own traditions, yet the Roman government required that everything be ultimately subject to Roman authority. For example, Jewish citizens were under the authority of the Jewish court system (the Sanhedrin), yet all rulings for the death penalty were sent to the Roman government.
•The Jewish religious and governing system was divided between two parties: the Pharisees â€" the ‘people’s party’, taught the law and traditions of Israel’s patriarchs, and were strictly conforming to Jewish law; and the Sadducees â€" the wealthy and conservative leaders who rejected the traditions in favor of political and religious cooperation with the Romans.

http://www.jesuscentral.com/ji/historical-jesus/jesus-firstcenturycontext.php?ccZ=&vrZ=&llid=&lgZ=en&scZ=&add=Read&show=Editor

When Jesus went against the Jewish religious leaders of the time, he was going against his government.

Quote from: stephendare on June 05, 2011, 08:56:03 PM

Quote from: NotNow on June 05, 2011, 06:46:19 PM
For about the umpteenth time, I will repeat a fact that you guys seem to just ignore...the City of St. Petersburg is providing ample shelter, food, restrooms, showers, and employment services for any citizen who is truly homeless.  

What is really happening here is that a very small segment of society is demanding to camp out in our taxpayer financed public venues.  This small segment is denying the use of these properties by creating conditions that no civilized parent or citizen would abide.  They are doing this despite any effort by those same taxpayers to provide proper facilities and adequate services for that segment.  In St. Petersburg's example, arrests are made based on behaviors, not appearance or other imagined slights.

1.  Do you personally guarantee that showers and restrooms are being 'amply provided', by the City of St. Petersburg, notnow?

2.  The small segment of society is allowed to use all taxpayer financed public venues.  You seem to be calling them 'taxpayer financed' venues in an effort to distract from the fact that they are owned by the public.

That means all of us. Not some of us. No one has the right to deny the public access to its own possessions.  If people choose not to use them because they do not want to associate with other members of the public, then that is their right.

But you do not have the right to pick and choose which of the Public is preferential.  You are literally trying to deny people access to their own belongings.

1.  I am relying on the article, as we all are.  The article makes it clear that the need has been met.  If you feel differently, then post any such evidence.

2.  They are taxpayer financed AND public.  And we have every right to regulate their use.  We regulate the use of our roads and who can drive on them, we regulate the telephone and television cable infrastructure, we regulate our football, baseball, and basketball venues, we closely regulate our schools and public buildings.  Many military installations cannot be visited by the public.  The purpose of parks and sidewalks is NOT to house people, but to provide green space and walkable space as well as to honor past events, people, or events.  These venues are being denied to responsible parents and citizens for their daily use by this small segment of society, the behavior of which we would not tolerate anywhere else.  Being "homeless" or "transient" or "addicted" does not relieve one of the responsibility to conform to community based and sanitary standards.  

While we should not "force" anyone to take advantage of the charity offered by a city's citizens, we can certainly protect our assets from misuse and desecration.  It is not a question of "association", it is a question of personal safety and sanitation as well as community standards of conduct.  The people who are being denied use of their "belongings" is those of us who wish to bring our children and families into these venues, who wish to walk unmolested on our downtown sidewalks without stepping in human waste or exposing our children and families to exposure of genitalia, outward and scary manifestations of mental illness, and drug and alcohol addiction.  

While I am sure that we all agree that services should be offered, we also have a responsibility to ALL of the citizens of a city to ensure equal and proper use and access to any public venue.  No one is "picking and choosing", they are requiring compliance with universal rules of public behavior and the proper use of public property for which it is designed and intended.

What possible reason do you have for insisting that the "homeless" live outside in public parks, without proper sanitation, without services, while denying access to the rest of the citizens of the city?

Yes, but the point is that the Jewish people were governed by their own religious leaders making the religious leaders ...well...their government.  So, to Notnow's point that Jesus was not a threat to the government of that time is inaccurate.  He was highly critical of his Jewish goverment and the hypocrisy that the religious leaders lived especially the Sadducees.

I think there are plenty of Sadducees walking around downtown Jacksonville now.  Religious leaders who hold political power and who cross to the other side of the street to avoid the beaten traveler.

@ Notnow, we all wish for public restrooms, places for homeless people to take care of their most human needs.  

We all wish for significant and meaningful occupation for lost souls wandering around.

Point is, how do we get there?  Many of us would feel more comfortable if force wasn't used against already marginalized people.

As for the "government" arguments, the reason that the Jewish leaders brought Jesus to trial before Herod and Pilate was because that was the government, and was the only institution that could punish Jesus.  The Jewish leaders had no such power.  

Again, I reject any comparison of the life and path of Jesus to this subject matter.  It is a fallacious argument and has no merit in the discussion at hand.  

If there is some logical reason to insist that we continue to leave the "homeless" and all of the other categories lodged in our public venues without proper sanitation or service, while denying the proper and designed use of these venues to families, downtown workers, and the citizens of the city then make that argument.

Quote from: sheclown on June 05, 2011, 09:29:37 PM
Yes, but the point is that the Jewish people were governed by their own religious leaders making the religious leaders ...well...their government.  So, to Notnow's point that Jesus was not a threat to the government of that time is inaccurate.  He was highly critical of his Jewish goverment and the hypocrisy that the religious leaders lived especially the Sadducees.

I think there are plenty of Sadducees walking around downtown Jacksonville now.  Religious leaders who hold political power and who cross to the other side of the street to avoid the beaten traveler.

We could spend pages discussing the society of the time and place, as well as Jesus's mission here on Earth.  I disagree with your view.

I reinterate that the religious discussion that has been initiated is not applicable to the debate at hand. 

Marginalized people?  Should we just let anyone who is "marginalized" (who gets to decide that?) do as they please?  That is an illogical and impossible statement.

This is an issue near to my heart... here's an idea I first saw in Colombia, and an article about one in Austria, this could certainly be a huge part of our own solution.


This would certainly expand our capacity, add to this idea the concept of shipping container-bunkhouses, and park and sleep facilities. The only thing any of these would need would be a small office unit, with bathrooms, and a shower facility. Covered with a dirt berm, these units would not even need heat or AC (underground temperatures are constant year around).

OCKLAWAHA

This is just people typing on a web forum StephenDare!.  I will assume by your resorting to personal attacks that you just have no logical argument. 

We all have an opinion.  The goal here should be to help those who truly need help, and enable an environment downtown that encourages citizens to visit and live there.  I offered the article as a possible answer.  I have attempted to explain my views as logically as possible.  I can think of no reason for anyone to take a personal affront to any of this.  I will not offer any explanation for your behavior, as only you can explain it. 

I think that we have come to a conclusion of our discussion, based on your behavior.

This is yet another idea that we could employ in the outskirts of the city, along the interstates and US Highways. A small group of PARK-N-SLEEP facilities roughly following the guidelines set forth below would go a long way to assisting our mobile transients toward becoming stable contributing citizens of our city.

OCKLAWAHA

QuoteIssues and Conditions:

Homeless Conditions:

For  a variety of reasons, people find themselves in homeless conditions. Solicited donations to homeless citizens are sometimes used to rent hotel rooms to escape unforgiving weather. To support other critical needs and objectives, homeless citizens need a reliable and secure place to sleep, especially overnight. Otherwise, family, employment, health, emotional states and overall functionality will be at further risk.

Traditional City Issues & Strategy:

Cities often find themselves unable to sustain the shelter needs of the homeless population, primarily due to financial constraints.

City management tries to implement policies best for traditional and homeless residents, but it is difficult to achieve a mix that accommodates both. Cities usually offer some form of shelters. However, availabilities are temporary and not guaranteed. Often city policies are against loitering, panhandling, sleeping in public or in cars. It is clear that cities need alternate homeless strategies to satisfy the interests of city management, business/residential entities and the homeless population.
Policy Proposal:

Minimum Requirements:

One vacant lot, portable restroom facilities and one on-duty staff person is required to establish a minimum Park-N-Sleep site. The lot is to be enclosed by a wall or fence suitable for security and privacy. Although there would be an emergency exit, there would be only one authorized entry and exit point which is monitored by an on-duty staff person. Those needing a place to sleep would drive to the gate entrance, be greeted by the on-duty staff, directed to the site rules clearly posted, provided with a vehicle pass for display and then allowed to park and sleep overnight.

Optional Modifications and Considerations:

Access can be more comprehensive with the presentation of valid identification and filling out a registration form to include names and ages of all car guests, vehicle identification data, anticipated number of nights as guests and a certification that all rules are understood and potential penalties for violations.

Parking spaces could be numbered to designate reserved areas. Pavement markings could outline traffic, entrance and exit pathways.

Park-N-Sleep sites could make available window covers, eye-blinders, earplugs and other coverings to filter out occasional disruptions. Do-Not-Disturb signs for each car would discourage disturbing guests who desire privacy. Transactions could be free, loan, rent or purchase.

More formal sites could provide official mailing addresses to guests, using mailboxes or personalized mail baskets for mail administration. Decision-makers must not underestimate this policy to satisfy employment eligibility requirements.

Homeless services paraphernalia, resources and contact phone numbers could be readily available as handouts.

Suggested Site Rules:

Prohibited:

    * Unmonitored children under 18 years of age.
    * Horn blowing, loud music, excessive revving of engines / disruptive noises.
    * Headlights Hi/Lo beam. (Assumes safe external lighting for driver safety.)
    * Pets.
    * Alcoholic beverages, illegal drugs, guns, knives and other weapons. (strictly enforced by local law.)
    * Unlocked doors.
    * Cooking.
    * Sexual activity or Indecent exposure.
    * Tampering with cars or property of others.
    * Littering and improper food disposal.
    * Flat tires. (noncritical â€" recommended for general appearances and morale.)
    * Unofficial visits.
    * Disregarding Do-Not-Disturb signs on guest cars. (except emergencies.)

General courtesy should be practiced at all times.

PARK-N-SLEEP assumes no liability for property or personal damages incurred on the premises.

Vehicles, properties and guests are subject to search for contraband while on the premises.

Guests are subject to DUI sobriety and other testing.

Violators are subject to temporary or permanent revocation of guest privileges and legal prosecution.

Site Selection:

Park-N-Sleep locations should be free from excess environmental noises, lights and odors that would impair proper sleep. Location selection should also consider proximity to needed storage facilities and bus routes, especially for guests who do not drive. Ideally, the site would be near affordable food establishments and YMCA,YWCA or other affordable gyms for showering privileges. Selection should also consider average commute times to the most common work subdivisions.

To avoid typical community objections, site should not be within or  adjacent to established residential communities.
Obstacles Expected:

Rigid City Management Philosophy:

City management may initially dismiss the idea of authorizing its citizens to sleep in their cars. PARK-N-SLEEP is a compromise between continuing homeless policies that simply do not work and allowing unlimited sleeping in cars citywide. The PARK-N-SLEEP program can provide all interested homeless citizens a shelter from the environment under controlled conditions and at predetermined locations. Thus, management of homeless citizens will be greatly facilitated.

The PARK-N-SLEEP program should not be delayed because policy-makers devise the many scenarios against it, while having no superior alternative to substitute in its place.

City Code:

Relevant codes that restrict sleeping in cars should be modified to accommodate city controlled PARK-N-SLEEP sites.

Security Intervention:

Programs of this nature are not immune from incidents. Sites must have clearly established staff policies and protocols for police, fire and medical intervention. Sites should consider audio and video recordings of all areas. Roving security staff should be considered, especially if all property cannot be easily seen by the gate staff.

Multi-Use:

Depending on the site size and intent for usage, guests could be limited to noncommercial transportation vehicles. Otherwise, larger sites could have special areas for large trucks, RVs and Trailers. The separate area will ensure a minimum peace and availability for regular guests.

Limited car ownership, availability and driving privileges:

Some homeless individuals have neither cars nor current driver licenses. Therefore, car donations to the Park-N-Post program will enable anyone to sleep at the site.  If donated cars are in short supply or for other prudent reasons, PARK-N-SLEEP may choose to prevent donated cars to be driven. Then, the drive or axle systems of donated cars should be disabled to prevent movement. Recipients of donated cars will have access to entry, exit and ignition for heating and cooling purposes. Cities need not delay implementing minimal PARK-N-SLEEP programs in order to accomodate car donations.

The on-duty or security staff will have duplicate keys for all donated cars at all times. Good heating and air conditioning systems would be preferred over aesthetic appearances of donated cars. Qualified local automotive repair specialists could be encouraged to volunteer to perform regular maintenance in exchange for tax breaks.

The optional donated,  immobilized cars will require regular intervention for gas and maintenance. Donated cars do bear added expenses and risks, thus they may be deemed unsuitable  for some city PARK-N-SLEEP programs.

Guest Safety:

To help protect guests and property, all car doors are required to be locked at all times while guests are in or away from their cars.

Those sleeping while running heat could provide a window opening of a minimum prescribed size to prevent carbon monoxide issues. PARK-N-SLEEP sites can provide mandatory, properly-sized inserts into car windows as evidence of sufficient ventilation. To retain maximum heat, one alternate approach is to use portable carbon monoxide detectors within the compartment of each car. While private car owners would be responsible for their own energy expenses, this policy option would increase city energy expenses for  guests using donated cars. Policy could be adapted to disallow running engines of donated cars or all cars at the site. In doing so, guests would rely exclusively on sufficient blankets and clothing for warmth.

More developed sites should strive for an optimum layout compromise between maximum site capacity and distances among parked vehicles. While close, adjacent parking spaces will maximize capacity, it would also increase accidental door-to-car contacts, damages and sleep interruptions due to insufficient minimum space between vehicles. Parking space layouts should incorporate side buffer zones between cars to reduce these occurrences. Likewise, front buffer zones would reduce accidental fender-bumper contacts.

Parents With Children:

It is generally accepted that living in a car is not an environment for children. Accordingly, all registrations with children are immediately referred to local social services system intervention to find suitable shelter arrangements. If after exhausting every resource, no suitable place is found, then the PARK-N-SLEEP site becomes their best option for temporary sleep and safety until an improved family environment becomes available. The site is preferred to the alternative of parking in unknown and dangerous areas with children. Parents must monitor all children under their care at all times for their safety, according to site policy.

Drug Users:

A zero tolerance drug possession and use policy must be fully enforced while on PARK-N-SLEEP sites as a prerequisite for all guests. Site drug behavior will rapidly degrade the intended use and relative enjoyment of PARK-N-SLEEP sites. On-duty staff must be trained to report all known or suspected drug activity to police. Verified or voluntary admission of drug addictions should be referred according to local protocols for services and appropriate medical and other professional interventions.

Restrictive Qualifications Requirements:

The goal is to ensure that essentially any adult agreeing to the site terms can obtain rest at the site. Because the reasons for homeless status are varied, data such as income, employment, cause of homelessness or previous residency may be collected but should not be considered for qualification.

City Mayors and PARK-N-SLEEP Management:

The goal is not to place an excessive burden on city finances and resources. Minimum sites could offer limited hours to enable only overnight sleep. Note that this plan would not accommodate those working alternate hours and unfortunately would be unavailable for this limited time PARK-N-SLEEP service.

To reduce or possibly eliminate city budgeting concerns, city government should consider local PARK-N-SLEEP sponsorships and donations from individuals, businesses and goodwill organizations. Land may be donated by philanthropic organizations and individuals, as providing a path to sheltering those in need is a very noble cause. Likewise, many individuals will search their hearts and will be eager to donate their unused cars, knowing that their gifts will provide much needed shelters for others.  A comprehensive search may reveal that state or federal funds could be considered for this program under emergency relief, social need, research or other essential services.

City officials should not dismiss the efficiency gained  and cost reduced by using the sites as one-spot screening and delivery locations for  homelessness related duties by local social services departments. This will actually reduce time and fuel expenses related to identifying and serving the homeless population.

Mayors and city council representatives may habitually desire “business as usual” homeless policies. The topic may be politically sensitive. What is unrealized are the many eligible voters who would be very grateful for their improved daily conditions due to this new city program.

Remember that while citizens may lose their homes, they often have cars.  A suitable, secure parking site could be just what they need for now.

City Management may consider an open community hearing to obtain a consensus of all affected parties, which includes the locall homeless population.

Contingencies should be considered for full capacity demand. If the current lot becomes full, the staff should call or provide phone numbers to alternate PARK-N-SLEEP sites within the city or nearby cities. To ensure fairness, reservations should be disallowed as a policy. Space should be provided as available.

For long-term management, city governments should consider awarding contracts based on bid and experience to run their PARK-N-SLEEP programs.

Basic background checks for outstanding warrants may be a component of pre-admissions policy. However, these administrative efforts should be organized not to delay delivery of same-day benefits. State driver license and vehicle license plate checks may be sufficient initial entry criteria.

Policy makers must always remember the central goal of battling and eradicating homelessness within the city. So, potential fee-related products and policies must not impede access to the PARK-N-SLEEP program in any way.

Negative Perceptions and Objections:

Resistance exists when there is something to lose. Entities will resist PARK-N-SLEEP sites because they may organize unwelcomed groups of citizens within perceived safety boundaries. Concerned residents and businesses will evaluate both benefits and risks. Unfortunately, improving the lives of many homeless citizens alone will not be a sufficient motivator for many communities.

Perimeter gates or walls will control entry and exit, protect guests and provide barriers such that citizens outside will see and hear minimal activity from inside.

Concessions may be given if site guests routinely volunteer time and services to the local community. Site guests could provide value to every community. Examples include neighborhood cleanup, painting and preservation. Some will even have specialized skills to offer. A successful public relations campaign can help manage perceptions and responses.

Entities objecting to this proposal or otherwise finding it to be unfeasible are very likely to already have a secure place to exist and to sleep at night. Proper justice will be given to  this proposal only by perceiving it through the eyes and experiences of those homeless citizens who are actually living on the streets.  While some entities believe sleeping in cars to be uncivilized, those in need will find it to be an essential leap forward. So it is a matter of perspective and life experience. Ultimately, in the absence of a superior plan that sustains all homeless citizens, PARK-N-SLEEP  becomes the most feasible, effective and morally correct action.

Capacity and Expansion Limitations:

The capacity to provide for every interested homeless entity is limited only by the availability of feasible land and the number of donated automobiles to accommodate those not owning cars within the city.

PARK-N-SLEEP Adaptability  Challenges:

This proposal is actually a general template designed to be modified according to local needs and inspirations. Many varieties of PARK-N-SLEEP programs are possible to meet the needs of government, residential, business and homeless entities.
Vision:

This proposal is designed for cities requiring a fast, effective and sustainable plan for many homeless citizens. As difficult as one may imagine, this program may provide improved, long-term conditions for many. After giving full consideration and contemplation to this proposal, one will realize the potential for PARK-N-SLEEP programs to end “on-the-street” homelessness within any city at relatively low or zero cost to government.

It is speculation that city management may have the opportunity to possibly reclassify citizens at PARK-N-SLEEP sites as an improved status compared to “on the street” homeless citizens. While they would not be living in traditional homes, they also would not be “on the street.” They would be in a program that gives them the opportunity to sustain some degree of normality by having a fixed location to exist, rest and enjoy increased privacy. This policy supports further progress for positive individual self-esteem, optimism, employment eligibility, family stability, social bonds and contemplations for the future.

http://humanitytest.org/blog/park-n-sleep-sites-homeless-solution-for-the-city-mayor

I like the way you think Ock!

PLEASE, before anyone jumps that Ock want's to put the homeless in containers, pipes or parked vehicles, consider the photo above. Just another trailer you say? Not! When I worked for Dan Curtis Productions in Hollywood, our whole cast and crew lived in such primitive settings for weeks at a time. Poor homeless people like Cloris Leachman, Jack Palance, Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter and Chloe Moretz.


One more time, this doesn't have to be hard, nor does it have to break the city budget, we just need determination to do some simple changes to make livability and a solid work ethic meld with our mass transit, education, medical and other social services. Given a chance to have a hot shower, a ride to work, a training program, and a safe comfortable place to sleep (including spouse and children if needs be) most of the homeless problem would melt away. Homelessness shouldn't be a crime, but like so many things today, we tend to legislate lifestyle based on some Utopian mantra. Many of the rules and regulations at our shelters are completely unreasonable, most of our hours of service windows are out of touch with reality, and many of our sundry agencies could be playing a much bigger role in solving the problem.

Far from being pure expenses, these things should be looked at as INVESTMENTS IN HUMANITY, imagine the dividends. We could even finance them through local labor pool services. How many homeless do you know with a skill? I know a "professionally unemployed" woman who is an RN! I know a homeless guy who can build a computer out of old shoe boxes and bailing wire... What if we were able to market some of those skills? This is so doable, we just need the will.

10 years ago, there were so many homeless in DT SP that as a kid growing up in the area going to Rays games, we would avoid being DT at all costs so were were not berated by them for money left and right. Now, I love going down to SP and there are no homeless in sight. This of course is a combination of new development and good policies. It is pretty incredible to see. Of all cities. SP should serve as the blueprint for a DT revival in Jax because it is the most similar.

Definitely. As residents, business and restaurants exploded, it naturally pushed the homeless away. The homeless, as discussed here, normally are not looking to be in populated places.

I am SO on the fence about this subject ! I agree that the death of rooming houses has contributed greatly to the homeless problem,St.Pete was basically a city full of hotels and rooming houses when I started going there in the late 70s. Charmingly run down grand old hotels ,private rooming houses and small guest houses were everywhere,and very cheap. Williams park was full of little old gents in seersucker suits  and immaculate little old ladies in hats (and some in gloves!) and there was a charm to St. Pete,whispers of a bygone era. I last lived there in the early 90s,and in 2007 I made a much anticipated trip back there after a many year absence,even treating myself to a stay at the Vinoy (as I remembered it as a ruin and was thrilled it was rehabbed). I checked in,got settled and walked up to Williams park. As I came around a corner,I was completely stunned at what I saw. I felt like Scarlett when she went down to the depot to fetch the doctor,absolutely shocked and appalled ! I encountered a veritable SEA of 100s of homeless people,and the air reeked like an open air cess pool ! They were everywhere,on all the benches,sleeping,drinking,arguing,trash strewn everywhere. Long gone were the little old ladies in their hats,the old gents in their summer suits,the charm,the gentility . I was asked for money,cigs,propositioned to pay for sex at least 10 times in 15 minutes. I was cursed at when I refused,and had it been night Id have been afraid. Absolutely heartbreaking to see how it had gotten.
So,yes,I feel for the homeless deeply (I managed the Ambassador and worked with several agencies that dealt with them) but I can see how it would be preferable if they didn't congregate in public places in such vast numbers.I hate that they had to criminalize homelessness there,but you truly had to see it to appreciate the reason why. St.Pete has transformed their downtown,and lets face it,people wouldn't have started patronizing downtown if they had to wade through a sea of homeless . its unfair I guess,but its reality.

As an aside,I was stunned at how much rents are there now ! Never in a million years would I have thought itd get so expensive to live in St.Pete !

I'm hopeful that in Jax, the local business leadership will become more involved in this issue, with Moran at the Jax Chamber now.

That was key in Charlotte's approach.

Gulliford had the same conclusion when he participated in a series of workshops on the Downtown homeless issue a couple years ago: key business stakeholders need to care about this issue.