Shelters in Heartside

[GRDadof3]

 

The Downtown Market cares about the people in Heartside.

 

We're teaming up with our wonderful Heartside neighbors trying to make a difference!

Starting this Saturday, June 22, join the Market, and our vendors, by purchasing something fresh, healthy, and local from a Market vendor, and drop it off at the food donation truck right on-site. At the end of the day, your fresh food donations will go to folks in need at Mel Trotter Ministries, DéGagé Ministries, Guiding Light Mission and God's Kitchen.

Fresh Food For Heartside Donation Truck Hours:

Tuesday: 11a-1p

Thursday: 5p-7p

Saturday: 11a-1p

 

 

Did you copy and paste a press release? We really don't allow that on UP unless you specify it.

[John E]

Did you copy and paste a press release? We really don't allow that on UP unless you specify it.

That is from their Facebook page.

[RegalTDP]

There's definitely laws against it. Try to do a protest on a city sidewalk without moving from point to point and see how long before you get arrested.

City ordinance (in almost every city in the country) states that a sidewalk is a thoroughfare and can only be used for movement from one place to another. Standing, stopping, sitting, laying, or blocking the sidewalk (not necessarily the whole sidewalk, either) are all against the law. Technically, even the lines of tents for arena events are in violation of the ordinance, but the ordinance is never enforced in such cases. It may occasionally be enforced in higher traffic areas outside of the mission triangle with sleeping, and it's definitely strictly enforced to the T anywhere downtown when there's a protest, but other than that it's usually ignored. (And a good thing, too, otherwise Mr. and Mrs. Smith stopping to take a photo on the sidewalk could get in trouble, according to the ordinance.) (This is why you usually see protests marching back and forth along a section of sidewalk, they do so to avoid being arrested for blocking the sidewalk.)

OK, modify my last post: There's no enforceable law against that AFAIK. It's more complicated.

Here in L.A., back in 2003 downtown was going through a resurgence of development. The city, based on the existing ordinances you mention, adopted a controversial hard line policy toward the homeless in the Skid Row section of downtown, busting or citing campers and confiscating unattended belongings. In 2006, in Jones v. Los Angeles, the 9th Circuit ruled sleeping and loitering are inevitable activities for homeless people, and that can't be criminalized, even on sidewalks. The city preferred not to appeal, and tried to work out a compromise policy between hardliners and homeless advocates, but it didn't work. So they gave up on the policy altogether. Downtown is still growing, and Skid Row is still Skid Row.

The point is, getting heavy-handed on sleepers and loiterers isn't a solution. Maybe on a case-by-case basis (like somebody blocking a curb cut), but not as a general policy. It doesn't solve anything, and just makes the community look bad.

[Guiding Light Mission]

There's definitely laws against it.  Try to do a protest on a city sidewalk without moving from point to point and see how long before you get arrested.

 

City ordinance (in almost every city in the country) states that a sidewalk is a thoroughfare and can only be used for movement from one place to another.  Standing, stopping, sitting, laying, or blocking the sidewalk (not necessarily the whole sidewalk, either) are all against the law.  Technically, even the lines of tents for arena events are in violation of the ordinance, but the ordinance is never enforced in such cases.  It may occasionally be enforced in higher traffic areas outside of the mission triangle with sleeping, and it's definitely strictly enforced to the T anywhere downtown when there's a protest, but other than that it's usually ignored.  (And a good thing, too, otherwise Mr. and Mrs. Smith stopping to take a photo on the sidewalk could get in trouble, according to the ordinance.)  (This is why you usually see protests marching back and forth along a section of sidewalk, they do so to avoid being arrested for blocking the sidewalk.)

Again, I want to suggest we find a way to come together as a group. Degage and Guiding Light Mission are as concerned as the others posting.

 

The sleeping on the sidewalk, the pan handling are symptoms not the disease.  Collectively we need and can address the disease.

[Raildudes dad]

I remember the first time I visited LA in 1993. I was astonished at the number of individuals begging (That's exactly what it is) at almost every freeway exit. It never occurred to me that we didn't have that here due to the panhandling law. I don't know what the solution is. I do know the same "problems" with the "homeless" have been with us at least since the mid 60's when I took the city bus home from high school and observed the same things on lower Monroe (s of Michigan) and later on Bridge St w of the river.

[joeDowntown]

Degage briefly hinted at it in a post above, but I heard from someone today that they were moving from their current building. Does anyone know (if, and) where they are moving? I hope if they move, they service another part of the city.

 

Joe

[fakkelsey]

How much this link really fits in is questionable but I found it quite interesting regardless. We think often of the Heartside being the worst area of town, but ironically, they seem to have less crime than the heart of downtown. I found it interesting how widespread crime really is. You can adjust the settings and dates as you desire. This is a very up to date map of where crimes happen and is up updated I believe day by day.  http://www.crimemapping.com/map/mi/grandrapids 

 

I enjoyed just kinda browsing around town with this. I hope you all get some, ahh, enjoyment too.

[John E]

I was talking with a gentleman near the Blue Bridge while out taking photos and he said that the police have cleaned up this area of drug users/dealers a lot.

[fakkelsey]

Thanks for all the continuously new photos John. It certainly helps put words into reality.  

[Sunlover38]

Maybe if people stop giving money to the people on the corners they would stop begging.  They wouldn't be out there if they weren't making money.  As far as the shelters, they do help some people and some people don't want to be helped.  Lots of good discussion and I particularly like the cop idea . .would be nice to see more police walking around downtown . .  .

 

But as far as the homeless/mentally ill/drunks who don't want help, where are they supposed to go?  NIMBY.  Good luck with this issue.

[GR_Urbanist]

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/11/homeless_shelter_near_downtown.html

 

This is one of those stories that really makes me question the mental sanity of some people in this town.

You have an area where these homeless guys were sleeping and piling up trash all year long. It isnt a safe place to be, period. People in the area have complained about this, it is unsightly, and the city months ago said they were going to block that area off.

 

 

So now that the city has, the usual holier than thou community in Grand Rapids is "angry".

 

"'They're poor; they don't matter.' Welcome to Michissippi."

 

 

"If Grand Rapids is truly concerned with creating a city in which people experiencing homelessness don't interrupt the ability of others to enjoy the city, then Grand Rapids must create a city in which people do not experience homelessness. "

 

"Who cares what soccer Moms from EGR and Cascade shopping for fresh fish "want" to see and don't want to see. "

 

"This fence only harms the efforts that the organizations in the Heartside Neighborhood puts into assisting the homeless to accept help."

 

"There is a definite GOP push to clamp down on the homeless and urban poor. Just last week FOX did something on never giving to panhandlers because you really are not helping them. Well that is a delusional view of the world. "

 

"I understand they were moving a 20x80 "shed" from the Doug DeVos compound down to Heartside for use as a non denominational shelter last night when it burned."

 

"GR is one of the fastest gentrifying cities in the Midwest. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be able to find people that are willing to tell them to put the brakes on these efforts despite the glut of evidence from other cities around the country who went down that path before and created disaster areas."

 

 

And this wasnt even a fraction of the crazy!

 

Yeah I know it's Mlive, but this is the level of stupidity that actually exist in people's minds! Notice how none of these know-it-alls have even once offered to let these guys live in their homes. All of them likely have no idea, or care, what their names were. I really do think that these people dont really give a darn about the homeless. That they are nothing more than props for them to play off of to position themselves as some sort of compassionate angels to assuage their own guilt, or to engage in their 2nd favorite activity of attacking local Christians, conservatives, whites, anyone named DeVos, bashing Grand Rapids, or anyone that have the evil nerve to live in Ada or something.

 

The guys that "lived" under there were trespassing at a minimum, and if they wanted help, they can go to any one of the shelters in the area. The fact that they didn't is not a permission slip to turn a highway overpass into a shanty town.

 

And aren't these people complaining the same people that bragged about "ending homelessness" in GR by like 2014 or 15? Of course some seem at this point to still not get that homelessness cant be solved by throwing money at the problem or demanding that Grand Rapids stop all development, like that is going to do something.

 

Good for the city for finally taking care of this problem. The people complaining will get over this "horrid injustice" in 24 hours. Believe me, it isnt like these guys were the center of their thoughts until 24 hours ago anyway.

[Jippy]

Homeless people will always be with us, and some will insist on living out of buildings. This isn't the worse place in the world, but from a community development standpoint I understand the desire to force relocation. 

 

However, I do question the timing of the whole thing. This is a really bad time of the year to effectively kick someone out of where they are living. Thanksgiving is upon us and we are getting the first blasts of wintery weather, and now is the time we choose to fence off the area? There is a lack of compassion in the timing of the whole thing. 

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/11/homeless_shelter_near_downtown.html

 

This is one of those stories that really makes me question the mental sanity of some people in this town.

You have an area where these homeless guys were sleeping and piling up trash all year long. It isnt a safe place to be, period. People in the area have complained about this, it is unsightly, and the city months ago said they were going to block that area off.

 

 

So now that the city has, the usual holier than thou community in Grand Rapids is "angry".

 

 

And this wasnt even a fraction of the crazy!

 

Yeah I know it's Mlive, but this is the level of stupidity that actually exist in people's minds! Notice how none of these know-it-alls have even once offered to let these guys live in their homes. All of them likely have no idea, or care, what their names were. I really do think that these people dont really give a darn about the homeless. That they are nothing more than props for them to play off of to position themselves as some sort of compassionate angels to assuage their own guilt, or to engage in their 2nd favorite activity of attacking local Christians, conservatives, whites, anyone named DeVos, bashing Grand Rapids, or anyone that have the evil nerve to live in Ada or something.

 

The guys that "lived" under there were trespassing at a minimum, and if they wanted help, they can go to any one of the shelters in the area. The fact that they didn't is not a permission slip to turn a highway overpass into a shanty town.

 

And aren't these people complaining the same people that bragged about "ending homelessness" in GR by like 2014 or 15? Of course some seem at this point to still not get that homelessness cant be solved by throwing money at the problem or demanding that Grand Rapids stop all development, like that is going to do something.

 

Good for the city for finally taking care of this problem. The people complaining will get over this "horrid injustice" in 24 hours. Believe me, it isnt like these guys were the center of their thoughts until 24 hours ago anyway.

 

[GRDadof3]

Homeless people will always be with us, and some will insist on living out of buildings. This isn't the worse place in the world, but from a community development standpoint I understand the desire to force relocation. 

 

However, I do question the timing of the whole thing. This is a really bad time of the year to effectively kick someone out of where they are living. Thanksgiving is upon us and we are getting the first blasts of wintery weather, and now is the time we choose to fence off the area? There is a lack of compassion in the timing of the whole thing. 

 

I don't see how letting people sleep out in the cold on freezing cold concrete, light fires under a major highway overpass, and literally trash the neighborhood is compassionate.

[GRDadof3]

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/11/homeless_shelter_near_downtown.html

 

This is one of those stories that really makes me question the mental sanity of some people in this town.

You have an area where these homeless guys were sleeping and piling up trash all year long. It isnt a safe place to be, period. People in the area have complained about this, it is unsightly, and the city months ago said they were going to block that area off.

 

 

So now that the city has, the usual holier than thou community in Grand Rapids is "angry".

 

 

And this wasnt even a fraction of the crazy!

 

Yeah I know it's Mlive, but this is the level of stupidity that actually exist in people's minds! Notice how none of these know-it-alls have even once offered to let these guys live in their homes. All of them likely have no idea, or care, what their names were. I really do think that these people dont really give a darn about the homeless. That they are nothing more than props for them to play off of to position themselves as some sort of compassionate angels to assuage their own guilt, or to engage in their 2nd favorite activity of attacking local Christians, conservatives, whites, anyone named DeVos, bashing Grand Rapids, or anyone that have the evil nerve to live in Ada or something.

 

The guys that "lived" under there were trespassing at a minimum, and if they wanted help, they can go to any one of the shelters in the area. The fact that they didn't is not a permission slip to turn a highway overpass into a shanty town.

 

And aren't these people complaining the same people that bragged about "ending homelessness" in GR by like 2014 or 15? Of course some seem at this point to still not get that homelessness cant be solved by throwing money at the problem or demanding that Grand Rapids stop all development, like that is going to do something.

 

Good for the city for finally taking care of this problem. The people complaining will get over this "horrid injustice" in 24 hours. Believe me, it isnt like these guys were the center of their thoughts until 24 hours ago anyway.

 

Yes, those comments were just mind-boggling. Fastest gentrifying cities in the Midwest? Even if it were true, what does it even mean? Under what metric?

 

In addition, there has been no mention anywhere that patrons of the market  complained and asked for the fence. Why would they, since most of them (according to the MLive-arrazi) don't even live in that area? There has been however plenty of mention of people who live and work in that area asking for help to solve this issue. Their opinions don't matter in this? They should be expected to endure abuse of their neighborhood because people in Eastown see it as a social issue that should just be accepted?

[John E]

Freedom and Liberty have no meaning in the Tyrannical States of America.

They did not trash the sidewalk near as much as the overflowing dumpster behind the Globe Apartments, which also blocks the sidewalk and is an eyesore.
People would rather complain about people surviving on the streets.
People are not allowed to be free in the Tyrannical States of America.

The fence is more of an eyesore than the people sitting up there. They never bothered anybody. They have been there for decades, why have they fenced it off at this time? The truth is that tyranny is at this stage and getting worse.
It amazes me how many people support tyranny.

[GRDadof3]

Freedom and Liberty have no meaning in the Tyrannical States of America.

They did not trash the sidewalk near as much as the overflowing dumpster behind the Globe Apartments, which also blocks the sidewalk and is an eyesore.

People would rather complain about people surviving on the streets.

People are not allowed to be free in the Tyrannical States of America.

The fence is more of an eyesore than the people sitting up there. They never bothered anybody. They have been there for decades, why have they fenced it off at this time? The truth is that tyranny is at this stage and getting worse.

It amazes me how many people support tyranny.

 

If you live in that area John, you have a right to file a complaint with the city about the overflowing dumpster at the Globe. It's one of the rights that come with owning or renting property. Try that.

[wingbert]

I don't see how letting people sleep out in the cold on freezing cold concrete, light fires under a major highway overpass, and literally trash the neighborhood is compassionate.

 

Also, am I reading those comments correctly?  Is the argument really that gentrification is a bad thing and the city was better off with lots of empty, decaying buildings because those place offered a free place for the homeless to live?

[Jippy]

I don't see how letting people sleep out in the cold on freezing cold concrete, light fires under a major highway overpass, and literally trash the neighborhood is compassionate.

Again, I question the timing. People have been sleeping there for decades. Why now?  Eliminating a bridge as a sleeping option doesn't address the fundamental problem, it just shifts it somewhere else (likely the next closest underpass). A homeless person doesn't go "oh, the bridge is no longer an option, I guess I will go back to my old job now." 

[Veloise]

Again, I question the timing. People have been sleeping there for decades. Why now?  Eliminating a bridge as a sleeping option doesn't address the fundamental problem, it just shifts it somewhere else (likely the next closest underpass). A homeless person doesn't go "oh, the bridge is no longer an option, I guess I will go back to my old job now." 

As I understand the endless thread on The Salon (FB), a couch arrived in the space, and that drew attention. The folks were relocated or encouraged to depart, and then the fence was installed.

 

Saloners also got together for an impromptu clean-up last summer. Lots of broken glass and other debris had slid down the slope on landed on the sidewalk. According to some of the posters, last week the debris field was in the street, and it was as tall as the curb.

 

Jeff has made a good point in a couple of forum locales; the heat synch of concrete coupled with the arrival of cold weather could have disastrous effects.

[GRDadof3]

Again, I question the timing. People have been sleeping there for decades. Why now?  Eliminating a bridge as a sleeping option doesn't address the fundamental problem, it just shifts it somewhere else (likely the next closest underpass). A homeless person doesn't go "oh, the bridge is no longer an option, I guess I will go back to my old job now." 

 

I actually don't believe that the solution to that problem falls on the city's shoulders. I could review the city's charter but I don't think they're paying for homeless shelters. Responding to a dangerous and unsightly condition does fall on the city's shoulders. And on the shoulders of the police who actually have been dealing with homeless people sleeping under there for years and lighting fires. 

 

But if not in sub-zero degree conditions, when it's the most dangerous for them to stay there, then when?

 

Since I have lived here, about 18 years, I seem to recall about half a dozen homeless people who have died under the underpasses in the winter, while sleeping there overnight. No one wants them there, not the shelters, not the neighbors, not the police, not even the Coalition to End Homelessness.

[Jippy]

Nor do I believe the responsibility falls entirely on the city government to solve, but they do play a critical role in addressing it. Whether it is stated in the charter or just the result of broader moral imperative is not really the issue (although I would assume Mayor Heartwell would be a bit more compassionate in his view of the role of city government should play). Homelessness is by far the most complex issue communities must deal with.

 

You do bring up a good point that many of us urbanists must face: the balance of dealing with "unsightly" issues (i.e. livability initiatives) versus "homeless" issues. While I typically gravitate towards livability as a priority focus area, I would argue that homelessness is of more importance. America's propensity has been to castigate the poor for being lazy and self-entitled, which most objective people would be able to say is cause in a minority of cases.

 

That said, fencing off the location doesn't make the problem go away. A segment of the homeless population has chosen to sleep there for a reason. If that option is now taken away, then they will find the next best place, meaning someone else's bridge or backyard, and probably less secure or warm than this (already undesirable) location. I agree with fencing off the location, I just think it is unfortunate that it had to be done now. 

[arcturus]

Living outside in an upper midwest city in the winter is probably the first sign of mental illness but hey, let them live in your garage or shed.

 

Problem solved. 

[GRDadof3]

Nor do I believe the responsibility falls entirely on the city government to solve, but they do play a critical role in addressing it. Whether it is stated in the charter or just the result of broader moral imperative is not really the issue (although I would assume Mayor Heartwell would be a bit more compassionate in his view of the role of city government should play). Homelessness is by far the most complex issue communities must deal with.

 

You do bring up a good point that many of us urbanists must face: the balance of dealing with "unsightly" issues (i.e. livability initiatives) versus "homeless" issues. While I typically gravitate towards livability as a priority focus area, I would argue that homelessness is of more importance. America's propensity has been to castigate the poor for being lazy and self-entitled, which most objective people would be able to say is cause in a minority of cases.

 

That said, fencing off the location doesn't make the problem go away. A segment of the homeless population has chosen to sleep there for a reason. If that option is now taken away, then they will find the next best place, meaning someone else's bridge or backyard, and probably less secure or warm than this (already undesirable) location. I agree with fencing off the location, I just think it is unfortunate that it had to be done now. 

 

 

I don't think anyone is claiming that fencing the bridge is making the homeless problem go away. Where did anyone make that claim? MDOT didn't make that claim.

 

I don't know that I would consider Heartwell's opinion on the matter unbiased, as he is an ordained minister. It doesn't mean his viewpoint would be the correct one either. But again, I would argue that leaving the people there under the bridge is the "uncompassionate" thing to do. Depends on whether you'd prefer to see homeless people kept in their little compartments or not, where you don't have to deal with them, which I think a lot of people who are against the fence are doing. "Oh, those poor homeless people out in the cold. At least they're under a bridge. Leave them alone."

 

I think if most of the people aghast at the fence were honest with themselves, they'd realize this is the case.

 

Putting up the fence was neither. It was a solution to a criminal activity problem. And the people who worked to solve that issue are demonized. Sounds about right.

 

Hope that helps.

[John E]

I don't think anyone is claiming that fencing the bridge is making the homeless problem go away. Where did anyone make that claim? MDOT didn't make that claim.

 

I don't know that I would consider Heartwell's opinion on the matter unbiased, as he is an ordained minister. It doesn't mean his viewpoint would be the correct one either. But again, I would argue that leaving the people there under the bridge is the "uncompassionate" thing to do. Depends on whether you'd prefer to see homeless people kept in their little compartments or not, where you don't have to deal with them, which I think a lot of people who are against the fence are doing. "Oh, those poor homeless people out in the cold. At least they're under a bridge. Leave them alone."

 

I think if most of the people aghast at the fence were honest with themselves, they'd realize this is the case.

 

Putting up the fence was neither. It was a solution to a criminal activity problem. And the people who worked to solve that issue are demonized. Sounds about right.

 

Hope that helps.

I totally disagree with this.

Going back and forth about it would be senseless.

 

[GRDadof3]

I totally disagree with this.

Going back and forth about it would be senseless.

It's only senseless if you don't have a good argument.