Jump to content

Paramount Tower, 65-68 stories, approx. 750', 200 units, $240 million, Church Street Park


markhollin

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Armacing said:

What other "services" are located on Church street?  Just curious because I couldn't immediately figure out what you were referring to...  I agree with you about the park, by the way.

The downtown Presbyterian Church offers meals and other services as does McKendree Methodist, however I am unsure to what extent the services they offer. This is in addition to all of the other groups that come by almost on a daily basis and feed the homeless in the park and give out goodies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


11 minutes ago, Armacing said:

What other "services" are located on Church street?  Just curious because I couldn't immediately figure out what you were referring to...  I agree with you about the park, by the way.

Several of the Churches on Church street feed them and provide them other needs. Don't get me wrong this is the right and kind thing to do, but it is just a vicious cycle of hanging out in the park, sleeping in it. Hopping over to the church for a meal and to be tended to, and back to the park.

There needs to be a better system... like the homeless services center on the outskirts of downtown that was proposed with the swap.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humanitarian supply is not enabling. By calling it enabling we are essentially trying to kick the can down the street, because we basically are saying lets not help them so they move one. When they move on some other place has to take care that person. Rather, why not try to constructively think about a plausible solution?

Less than 10% of the homeless population will use emergency style shelters. We need to find a better way to help people find a good road out of homelessness and into society. Building an already proposed shelter outside of the core does not help because any meaningful job would be in downtown and if they cannot afford housing, I doubt they can afford transportation to the core. Why is it a wise investment to move the homeless population out of the core just to subsidize moving them back into it? If people are saying investing in a transit center in North Nashville is a bad investment and then turning around and calling a homeless shelter located outside the core is a good investment, then we need to re-evaluate things.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

95% of homeless people are not homeless because they don't have a home.  They are homeless because of other issues.  They are either mentally ill or addicted to drugs.  Until they open back up the mental hospitals and they are put where they can be taken care of.  We will continue to have this issue.  There are several places that will help homeless drug addicts and that's where they should be sent for help.  They should not be allowed to take over a tax payer funded park and beautiful library.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Bos2Nash said:

Humanitarian supply is not enabling. By calling it enabling we are essentially trying to kick the can down the street, because we basically are saying lets not help them so they move one. When they move on some other place has to take care that person. Rather, why not try to constructively think about a plausible solution?

Less than 10% of the homeless population will use emergency style shelters. We need to find a better way to help people find a good road out of homelessness and into society. Building an already proposed shelter outside of the core does not help because any meaningful job would be in downtown and if they cannot afford housing, I doubt they can afford transportation to the core. Why is it a wise investment to move the homeless population out of the core just to subsidize moving them back into it? If people are saying investing in a transit center in North Nashville is a bad investment and then turning around and calling a homeless shelter located outside the core is a good investment, then we need to re-evaluate things.

I think we can agree to disagree, because if you dont offer a way out and keep on giving them everything that enables them to stay on the street, then it is enabling. Its then same with drug addicts or alcoholics. Give them money or other means to support the habit, they will never get help they need. Granted a lot of these folks want to be on the streets, but their decision should not interfere with everyone's else's life just because they want you to feed, clothe, and give them money to let them continue to stay there and do what they do.

There are services but many of the people on the streets refuse those services. So if they refuse those services, they dont have the right to take over a city park, panhandle for money and commit crimes there or anywhere else.

You can blame the plight of the mentally ill on the Dems and Republicans as the Dems back in the day said it was not ethical to keep the mentally ill locked up and the Republicans said it was too expensive. So they came to an agreement and in the long run it cost more to deal with the problem. If someone is unable to take care of themselves, then yes they need to be in an institution that can house them, but by law you cant do it with out their consent now unless they are a danger to themselves or others. But only until they are deemed better and those institutions are very quick to get rid of them.

So we have this dilemma. No one wants to pay for this. The old way of dealing with it was to buy a bus ticket to Memphis, Birmingham or Miami. Which ever bus was leaving town first. Yes this happened and is still happening in some cities. Many times the police in smaller towns , especially in the south would just drive vagrants to the edge of the city and tell them to leave and not to come back. Still happens I will bet, so they end up in larger cities and overwhelms those services.

There will be no solution until the outrage is loud and frankly I dont think either side of the political spectrum really want to deal with it for various reasons.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of how everyone falls on the issues multiply cities have solved the homelessness in their city by giving homes to the homeless. It allows them to then get help for any of their problems be it drug abuse, mental illness or joblessness. 

Giving people homes that don't have them is the answer. 

 

There will always be a small % of our society that doesn't care to live the "normal" life and will be transient for whatever their personal reason is.

Some reading that I found real quick.
https://www.geekwire.com/2018/cities-making-dent-homelessness-seattle-can-learn/

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/03/united-states-cities-using-data-to-end-homelessness/

https://crosscut.com/2017/12/best-of-2017-the-city-that-solved-homelessness

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/03/its-a-miracle-helsinkis-radical-solution-to-homelessness

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the very least, I admire the commitment to legitimately offering up an alternative solution rather than simply trying to prevent anything from changing at all. I can at least be more inclined to believe this group is acting in good faith in the protection of public space in Nashville's core. The Fairgrounds group could have learned a lot from these guys. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

Its called enabling.

Enabling? - Ever consider how many people living on the streets are there because they got sent to the middle east so they could have the pleasure of losing a limb or seeing their buddy get blown away or experienced some other horror?  Now go back home soldier assimilate and get  job because all this homelessness makes me uncomfortable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the problem is that that the real purpose of that park has not yet been defined.  Honestly, what is the purpose of that park?  Is it a patch of greenery that you look at to re-connect with nature?  If yes, then there is too little vegetative growth to satisfy that purpose, in my opinion.  Is it an outdoor lounge where you relax and enjoy the weather?  If yes, then the homeless folks are using it as intended.  Is it a venue for outdoor concerts or artistic performances?  If yes, then it's lacking some stadium seating.  It's too small to play sports.  There is nothing of historical significance to admire like a statue or monument.  Really... what is the purpose of that park?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Armacing said:

Is it a patch of greenery that you look at to re-connect with nature?  If yes, then there is too little vegetative growth to satisfy that purpose, in my opinion.

This is the crux of the issue. The biggest complaint about removing it is that this is the only park space in this area of downtown, yet it's so small it only accommodates about a dozen people at a time. The courthouse will have more green space than this, the plazas around the AT&T Building have three times the green space, War Memorial Plaza is a block to the north as well as Nashville City Center, the plaza area under Paramount would have about as much gathering space. Just turn Capitol Boulevard into a shared street and call it good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, shanky said:

Enabling? - Ever consider how many people living on the streets are there because they got sent to the middle east so they could have the pleasure of losing a limb or seeing their buddy get blown away or experienced some other horror?  Now go back home soldier assimilate and get  job because all this homelessness makes me uncomfortable.

This goes back to the issues of mental illness...many times brought about by something as traumatic as war.  This is where we are failing a generation (or more) of Americans...by not offering true help / assistance to heal these issues and keep the mentally ill off of the streets.

There are many ways for citizens to obtain housing, food, etc through government programs, as evidenced by the sheer numbers of people already receiving this assistance.  The problem seems to lie in an area where so many are either too mentally unstable to be able to follow through with the tedious job of seeking assistance (the government makes you jump through hoops and be really patient before awarding assistance in many instances)...or have just given up hope of obtaining assistance because of the long waiting line.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, titanhog said:

This goes back to the issues of mental illness...many times brought about by something as traumatic as war.  This is where we are failing a generation (or more) of Americans...by not offering true help / assistance to heal these issues and keep the mentally ill off of the streets.

There are many ways for citizens to obtain housing, food, etc through government programs, as evidenced by the sheer numbers of people already receiving this assistance.  The problem seems to lie in an area where so many are either too mentally unstable to be able to follow through with the tedious job of seeking assistance (the government makes you jump through hoops and be really patient before awarding assistance in many instances)...or have just given up hope of obtaining assistance because of the long waiting line.

Working downtown I can tell you not every homeless issue is mental illness. There are definitely mentally ill homeless down there that have been failed by society. Then there's a contingent of "younger ones" I see lately that mostly are just straight up junkies. Then there is a group that talk to you and come off as somewhat normal / but are very aggressive and pushy - I'm sure they've had a bad go at life but these are the ones who have seemed to decide to settle for the homeless way.

Edited by DDIG
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DDIG said:

Working downtown I can tell you not every homeless issue is mental illness. There are definitely mentally ill homeless down there that have been failed by society. Then there's a contingent of "younger ones" I see lately that mostly are just straight up junkies. Then there is a group that talk to you and come off as somewhat normal / but are very aggressive and pushy - I'm sure they've had a bad go at life but these are the ones who have seemed to decide to settle for the homeless way.

I'm definitely not saying mental illness is 100% of the issue...but those are the ones who have a harder time seeking longterm assistance.   I would also assume that many of the "junkies" are also in a state of mind that keeps them from seeking longterm assistance (due to their addictions).  As for the youngsters who are homeless...I'm sure that's a mixed bag...though there is a nationwide increase in young homelessness, for a plethora of reasons.  I would imagine mental illness / addiction makes up a good percentage of the homeless population (though I don't have statistics to back up my assertion).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The court decision that created homelessness was a bad decision.  The homeless have ruined that little park, made our nice downtown library a sketchy experience, and are now taking over the Walk of Fame Park in the middle of the tourist district.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, archilove said:

The court decision that created homelessness was a bad decision.  The homeless have ruined that little park, made our nice downtown library a sketchy experience, and are now taking over the Walk of Fame Park in the middle of the tourist district.

Walk of Fame and Riverfront park are cleared out every so often by events, and keeps them from being overran like Church Street park is. I do wish that Metro would beef up patrols through the tourist district to keep out some of the younger junky crowd. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, CenterHill said:

The what? 

Some years ago the ACLU went to court to oppose the incarceration of the mentally ill against their wishes. Society should be able to provide help for those who need it, even if they don't want it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CenterHill said:

The what? 

Over time, several court cases have further defined the legal requirements for admission to or retention in a hospital setting. In Lake v. Cameron, a 1966 D.C. Court of Appeals case, the concept of “least restrictive setting” was introduced, requiring hospitals to discharge patients to an environment less restrictive than a hospital if at all possible [11]. In the 1975 case of O’Connor v. Donaldson, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that a person had to be a danger to him- or herself or to others for confinement to be constitutional [12]. The 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Olmstead v. L.C. stated that mental illness was a disability and covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act. All governmental agencies, not just the state hospitals, were be required thereafter to make “reasonable accommodations” to move people with mental illness into community-based treatment to end unnecessary institutionalization [13].

These court decisions have certainly limited the ability of state facilities to confine people in hospitals against their will and created conflict between laws that are intended to preserve liberty and prevent wrongful hospitalization, on the one hand, and the need to identify and treat people early in their diseases, on the other. Although preserving the rights of people with severe mental illness to be treated in the least restrictive settings is noble, it has allowed many people with SMI to “fall through the cracks” in the system or be rehospitalized in what has been termed the “revolving door” of acute hospital admissions [8]. An even more egregious situation occurs when difficulty being admitted to a hospital leads to the homelessness of people with severe mental illness, who wander the streets in major cities, being arrested or dying. The term “dying with one’s rights on” was coined by Darold Treffert in 1973 to describe how the laws have gone too far in protecting the rights of individuals at the expense of their safety and well-being [14].

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/deinstitutionalization-people-mental-illness-causes-and-consequences/2013-10

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.