Homeless Plan in Columbia

[sonofadod]

More on the announcement from The State

[vicupstate]

Two homeless centers at the gateway to DT. Just what Columbia needs. Wasn't there a plan to put a service center in the Bluff Rd. corridor after the Hampton Stplan fell through ?

[waccamatt]

That is a poor location for the homeless shelter. I think moving it to an industrial location would be the best option, but of course, everyone is a NIMBY when it comes to this shelter. I don't have any problems with aggressive panhandlers, but it does look bad when you have a lot of people loitering outside the Salvation Army. Does anyone know of any cities that have highly successful solutions to their homeless problem?

[krazeeboi]

Two homeless centers at the gateway to DT. Just what Columbia needs.

I thought the same thing. This could have been avoided had Coble put his foot down about the first proposed location and had the original plan that included contributions from homeless services providers, the business community, etc. not gotten scrapped.

[Captain Worley]

waccamatt, that area around the Salvation Army is already overrun with homeless/panhandlers in the morning. Maybe they thought since they were already congregating in that area....

[CorgiMatt]

I go back to what I've always said. What does a homeless person look like and what problem does he or she cause if he or she isn't carrying around all of his or her belongings on his or her person because he or she has a room or locker to put them in, and if he or she isn't hanging around on the sidewalk begging? The center would have an interior gathering area so that it would look like any other building, unlike the Oliver Gospel Mission, where a line forms every evening. How does a building that houses people who have nowhere else to stay look any different from a hotel? WIS-TV and WLTX both have a new article on their websites today saying Columbia police are going to begin enforcing the new anti-panhandling ordiance. But for the grace of God... y'all know the rest.

[digital_sandlapper]

waccamatt, that area around the Salvation Army is already overrun with homeless/panhandlers in the morning. Maybe they thought since they were already congregating in that area....

You can say that again, Capt. The current Salvation Army is in a very unfortunate location, and now they are going to ADD more foot traffic to this, one of the city's busiest intersections/arteries? Dumb, dumb, dumb! Locating it on Shop Road was not simply a "NIMBY" issue, but an issue of safety for the clientele as well.

[digital_sandlapper]

I go back to what I've always said. What does a homeless person look like and what problem does he or she cause if he or she isn't carrying around all of his or her belongings on his or her person because he or she has a room or locker to put them in, and if he or she isn't hanging around on the sidewalk begging? The center would have an interior gathering area so that it would look like any other building, unlike the Oliver Gospel Mission, where a line forms every evening. How does a building that houses people who have nowhere else to stay look any different from a hotel? WIS-TV and WLTX both have a new article on their websites today saying Columbia police are going to begin enforcing the new anti-panhandling ordiance. But for the grace of God... y'all know the rest.

Not really sure what your question is, but to attempt an answer: the same. A homeless person with or without a locker looks essentially the same. Their appearance aside, its their behavior once they leave the shelter that is the issue here. They can still loiter, panhandle, disturb the peace, bum you for a cigarette, attempt a con, harass, sleep under a bridge, rummage through trash cans, etc., etc. like they always have. Having indigent people rule the streets may be a charming part of "real city" life, but that's no excuse to condone or encourage it in our midst here or elsewhere. This "new and improved" homeless center is in the WRONG location, and will hinder that part of town for years to come if its goes through, IMO.

[CorgiMatt]

IMO, if it goes through you'll be proved wrong.

[sonofadod]

wow...i'm shocked at how cold people can be. these are our neighbors and they have no place to go and you're more concerned with appearance. i think this shelter (along with hope plaza being announced in a couple of weeks) will be one of the greatest developments that columbia has seen in years!

the goal of homeless shelters is to get people off the streets. creating a central area for a shelter, job services, rehab programs, and other agencies is vital to this effort. homeless people don't have cars and can't afford bus tickets, so everything has to be accessible by foot.

columbia has one of the worst homeless problems in the nation, statistically. i think the reason for this is that the citizens reject every effort made to care for our homeless neighbors. we live in the middle of the bible belt, where values and friendliness are highly esteemed. why does this not flow down to the least of these?

[CorgiMatt]

Not really sure what your question is, but to attempt an answer: the same. A homeless person with or without a locker looks essentially the same. Their appearance aside, its their behavior once they leave the shelter that is the issue here. They can still loiter, panhandle, disturb the peace, bum you for a cigarette, attempt a con, harass, sleep under a bridge, rummage through trash cans, etc., etc. like they always have. Having indigent people rule the streets may be a charming part of "real city" life, but that's no excuse to condone or encourage it in our midst here or elsewhere. This "new and improved" homeless center is in the WRONG location, and will hinder that part of town for years to come if its goes through, IMO.

The question(s) was (were) rhetorical. I already know the answer.

[Captain Worley]

"columbia has one of the worst homeless problems in the nation, statistically. "

Really? I thought they did a homeless censusand came up with something like 1200. And if Columbia would take a tougher stance on them, there'd be less of them.

Honestly, I get tired of being panhandled in the area. I wok too hard for my money to give it away to someone who'll by who-knows-what with it.

Don't we have enough programs to help people get back on their feet? I'm not against helping those who truly have a need and will try to rehab themselves, but from Craig Melvin's expose on WIS a while back, I think the ones that will want help and try are in the minority.

[waccamatt]

It is definitely an ethical dilemma as far as what to do about the homeless. They can be a nuisance, but I don't think they are usually dangerous. There is a fine line between free speech and not allowing the homeless to ask for money as long as they don't accost the people they ask. There does come a point, however, where people need to have some personal responsibility and get off the streets. The city's enforcement of the new regulations should help a lot. Hopefully this new building will keep the homeless off the streets.

[CorgiMatt]

This gives an idea of what the shelter/services center would look like. Notice all the interior space for gathering. Also notice how the existing surface parking lot on the corner of Main and Elmwood would be filled in in an urban manner.

http://www.wach.com/uploadedImages/wach/homelesscenter.jpg

[waccamatt]

It looks well thought out and it would improve the eyesore that is there now.

[krazeeboi]

I hope they do something to "soften" the side that looks like it will be lined by a big blank wall. Some plantings and perhaps a mural would be nice.

[Spartan]

Thats actually not a bad massing design, and general layout. The homeless have to be dealt with, and I think we all agree that the locations of the current facilities are counter productive to the city's revitalization efforts.

[CorgiMatt]

It appears from the attached article that Belinda Gergel has some spunk and sees the big picture on the homelessness issue. That said, given that the homeless center will be a true success story and fit in as nicely as it apparently does in downtown Miami, I really don't see why they don't put it somewhere on the State Hospital campus, either temporarily or permanently.

http://www.thestate.com/breaking/story/549713.html

[waccamatt]

It appears from the attached article that Belinda Gergel has some spunk and sees the big picture on the homelessness issue. That said, given that the homeless center will be a true success story and fit in as nicely as it apparently does in downtown Miami, I really don't see why they don't put it somewhere on the State Hospital campus, either temporarily or permanently.

http://www.thestate.com/breaking/story/549713.html

Yes, I was delighted to see her response to the Beach Company. Who the hell do they think they are, threatening the city with a lawsuit if the homeless shelter locates on Calhoun Street? I contemplated moving to Canalside in 5 or 10 years when the real estate market recovers and I sell my house, but now hell will have to freeze over before I buy anything from the Beach Company.

[Spartan]

Yes, I was delighted to see her response to the Beach Company. Who the hell do they think they are, threatening the city with a lawsuit if the homeless shelter locates on Calhoun Street? I contemplated moving to Canalside in 5 or 10 years when the real estate market recovers and I sell my house, but now hell will have to freeze over before I buy anything from the Beach Company.

I would have said that before now. This project in reference to the Beach Company, despite my optimism, has not made a good impression on me. Part of that is the City not choosing the better site plan, and part of it is things like this.

It has to go somewhere. Deal with it. Its part of that whole "city" thing we're going for.

[krazeeboi]

I think I might have to side with the Beach Company on this one for a few reasons. First of all, city leaders said the Calhoun Street site was only temporary; now they are backtracking on their word and that's no way to do business, especially for a company that essentially did the city a favor and took this property off their hands after their misguided attempts to develop it themselves. Secondly, it is most certainly true that the developer will lose money if that's where the shelter goes. Why in the world would city leaders want that, considering that 1) they sold the site AT A LOSS and 2) this is a prime parcel downtown with the potential to be a hub of urban activity, something city leaders claim they are striving for? The city doesn't want to develop a reputation for pissing off developers (first with Harpe and Swinson with Five Points South, now this) with all of this land downtown ripe for development. Pick another site. Main and Elmwood would seem best suited right now, although it's too bad since that site has a lot of potential to be a gateway to a revitalized Main Street. It's instances like this where I wish Coble would grow a backbone and be a friggin' leader here. But since he wants to be mayor forever, he doesn't want to piss anyone off. Well, it's inevitable either way and he needs to face that fact.

[Captain Worley]

I think the Beach Co. sees this as a convient excuse in case the project doesn't do well, which it probably won't now that the housing markets gone belly up. They'll probably cut their losses and sue Columbia. I wouldn't bet on seeing any more developement on that site for a while after they finish with the current construction.

[gman430]

The exchange came at a meeting of city officials and community leaders who went on a taxpayer paid trip last week to Miami, Fla., to look at its homeless shelter.

That's all I needed to hear. If I was building a mixed use development of any kind, I wouldn't want a homeless shelter nearby either. It would hurt property values and the chance of selling residential units.

[CorgiMatt]

Response to Captain Worley's last post:

Not until and unless: 1) the housing market bottoms and starts coming back (in our lifetime), and 2) the homeless center locates on Calhoun and time proves it causes no problems in that area and is basically out of site-out of mind.

[gman430]

Yes, I was delighted to see her response to the Beach Company. Who the hell do they think they are, threatening the city with a lawsuit if the homeless shelter locates on Calhoun Street? I contemplated moving to Canalside in 5 or 10 years when the real estate market recovers and I sell my house, but now hell will have to freeze over before I buy anything from the Beach Company.

A homeless shelter near Canalside would actually make me less likely to buy anything there than before. Everybody knows homeless people beg for money so they can buy liquor and drugs. Would any family really want their kids or themselves exposed to that? I would think not. Can't the city of Columbia just build it somewhere else? I'm sure there are plenty of other sites around downtown.