Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Richard Lawson

Developers helping homeless

13 posts in this topic


When did city leaders begin openly asking for bribes? Given the late timing on this sudden "need" for funds, I find this embarrassing. I'm all for helping those in need, and believe affordable housing needs to be addressed for a diversified city, but yikes. I don't like this method of acquiring funds. To top it off I am ashamed that they are scoffing at $30,000. It's 30,000 freaking dollars people. Be happy you got anything. These developers don't have to give you single dime.

I would love $30,000 free. Wouldn't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When did city leaders begin openly asking for bribes? Given the late timing on this sudden "need" for funds, I find this embarrassing. I'm all for helping those in need, and believe affordable housing needs to be addressed for a diversified city, but yikes. I don't like this method of acquiring funds. To top it off I am ashamed that they are scoffing at $30,000. It's 30,000 freaking dollars people. Be happy you got anything. These developers don't have to give you single dime.

I would love $30,000 free. Wouldn't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to be kidding me. This is one of the most ridiculous things Ive seen in a while. Homelessness is not Tony G's problem. What does the Signature and the Westin have to do with homeless people? IMO if you dont pay taxes you dont have a voice in whats going on in this city. Dont get me wrong, I thinking helping the homeless is a great idea but its not okay to ask some developers who dont have to give a penny to give you $300,000. And then complain because you only get 30. Sometimes I think our council has lost their minds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it may be everyones problem. The fact that you have huge numbers of homeless right downt the street from the Signature would be a problem for Tony. I am sure he doesnt want a bunch of homeless people across from his tower. If it were in Franklin and you have a homeless encampment in a park across from 2 million dollar homes, I am sure the problem would be handled. Its a problem for me when I go DT and get approched a dozen times by pan handlers. I dont know what the solution is. But I do know it will take input and help from everyone.

Another thing is a lot of the guys that are on the street DT are trouble makers and need to be delt with by the police. These are the drug addicts and alcoholics that consistently cause problems. They need to be delt with differently than the others. This is not harrasment, this is public safety. There are homeless people I have seen DT that never ask for help from anyone and they need to be helped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of asking (expecting) these developers to donate money for homeless shelters is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. It preposterous! Impact fees for the homeless? You've got to be kidding me. What do these projects have to do with the homeless situation? The homeless problem existed before these projects were even conceived. If you ask the developers to divy up, to be fair you should have to ask every other existing downtown business to divy up too. We have taxes that everyone pays to fund city government. These developers will be contributing new taxes when their business starts. If government feels the need to do something about the homeless situation, they should put the money in their budget and do something about it from tax revenues. Any private business or charitable institution can help the homeless too, if they so choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As stated above I don't agree with this shakedown. I guess I am biased to the situtation because I encounter it every day outside the office I work. Our office is decked out in security cameras and we get countless shots of drug deals, prostitutes, and a countless number of homeless right outside our door. We are located not too far from the homeless shelter and we maybe have one true needy person stop by a month.

For those of you who don't know, the shelter provides individuals with a place to stay, 6, yes 6 meals a day, and tries to help them with getting back in contact with family and on the right track. The area surrounding the shelter was approved for city re-development and I think something like $600,000 was being set aside for the project. The foucs will be on a public park, public facilities, the relocation of the Greyhound Bus Station, and a number of other little fixer uppers.

Everyday without fail I get hasseld for money. They say they are hungry, but when anyone in the office offers them food they just walk away. When we tell them about the shelter down the street, they turn and walk away. It's sad but they don't want our true help. Yes, there are some that do want the help and once in awhile we get someone who wants directions to the shelter, but the majority don't want the help, they want boozzz.

Prime example is a fella who was know on the streets as Tucker. He was a pretty well known guy in the SoBro area. Tucker had family who wanted him back and tried desparatly to get him off the streets. He had a business owner who let him sleep in his place at night and he fed him and allowed him to wash up. Tucker was hooked on crack and the bottle. A documentary was made about him and gave great insight into Nashville's homeless. Tucker chose the streets. He would get picked up for panhadling every now and then outside our building. After two days in jail he was back out on the same corner. He liked it, he chose it and admited to it. He liked it so much he died this past Dec on the streets due to falling ill during a cold spell.

How do we combat homelessness when people want to be there? When they don't want to be help? It's my experience you can't help someone untill they want it. Shaking down developers for $300,000 may help us get a nice new shelter, start new programs, and fund research on how to fix things, but all that won't make a difference unless we can figure out a way to convince people to change their lifestyle. Forcing impact fees won't do anything but discourage developers from building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Jeez, I don't understand why this problem is so hard to solve - simply reinstate the vagrancy laws. We had them on the books until the 60's when vagrancy became an "alternate lifestyle" rather than a social problem.

This is just another case of how the "enlightened" picked an issue and made themselves the saviors. Too bad, as usual, they just ended up hurting the people they were supposed to be aiding and then walked away to free Tibet or the whales or whatever.

I have heard vagrancy management administrators admit that vagrants are, for the most part, drug addicts and winos. The remaining majority are psychotics that don't take their medication. The remaining minority are those "down on their luck".

I suggest that, as caring citizens, we initiate mandatory institutionalization of all the vagrant drug addicted and psychic vagrants.

Take the wasted money now, build an institution in some industrial park, pick them up and take them there to dry out or get on their medication. Do job training, counseling or whatever but get them off the streets.

Of course this will never happen because the enlightened won't allow it. They really only fear that if the vagrant's freedoms are curtailed it will expand to curtail their freedoms. As usual it is a selfish concern hidden in concern for others.

Please don't follow up with examples of the mental institutions of the 50s. Things have changed considerably since then in the efficacy of psychoactive medication and the understanding of mental disease.

This is an issue, like racism, that will never be solved because the conspicuous compassionist make a living off of it and they don't want to give up their cash cow no matter whose life it destroys.

Their motto is "We care about you so much that it will kill you".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enforcing the vagrancy laws will fill up the jails and there will not be any room for the hardened criminals. It has happened time and again. The jails are too full so they end up releasing hundreds to the streets. The Supreme Court even ruled in favor of a homeless man that was kicked out of a library and they said he had the right to be there since it was a public facility. This was only a couple of years ago.

"I suggest that, as caring citizens, we initiate mandatory institutionalization of all the vagrant drug addicted and psychic vagrants."

I think that has been tried in the past. The problem was the left said it was cruel and the government didn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What amazes me is that The Tennessean never picked up on the dollar amount. I don't disagree with seeking help from the developers in addressing the issue. But it's something that all of downtown needs to address, not just developers. The Downtown Partnership has been enlisted in this as well. Some of the homeless folks could work at helping keep downtown clan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some of the homeless folks could work at helping keep downtown clan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.