...I'm dreaming of a "Speaker's Corner" similar to London's, with people delivering beat poetry and political rants, somewhere in the new Washington Park.

...I'm dreaming of a "Speaker's Corner" similar to London's, with people delivering beat poetry and political rants, somewhere in the new Washington Park.

 

I have a pretty strong feeling that isn't going to happen...although it would be cool.

how strong Randy? 

You should express your feelings by shouting them in Washington Park :D

I'm more concerned about the Drop Inn Center than the street presence of the building. I am hopeful for this section of OTR, but this issue needs to be addressed before this school opens.

I was verbally attacked by an old alcoholic sitting at the abandoned church on Race St today.  He said something like,  Blahhhhhh Scum!! Get out of HERE!! in a piratelike voice.  :-D  first time ever in OTR and I have walked OTR for many years including the  rough sections on a daily basis. 

Park plans meet skepticism

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Dato=20090123&Kategori=BIZ01&Lopenr=901250304&Ref=AR

 

Michael Black says he can rent a room for $75 a week at a place on West 12th Street.

 

But this isn't one of those weeks.

 

"This is my first week back on the street," says Black, 50, enjoying the day with friends in Washington Park on Race Street.

"What we do with Washington Park will let us know who the park is for," says longtime resident Bonnie Neumeier, who's also co-founder of the region's largest homeless shelter, the Drop Inn Center across from the park on 12th Street.

 

I'll tell you who it's for right now: residents.  And homeless people, by definition, are not residents.  So the park is for Bonnie, but not the people in her shelter.  I'm not 100% sure that's what she was referring to, but I have no problem with that.

^See the OTR Gateway thread for pretty much the same comment you made :) GMTA

 

I see an issue with Bonnie. Those who are stricken with poverty or homelessness, often fall into the trap of requesting hand-me-outs, or demanding certain services or amenities -- such as TANF, SSI, Section 8, and so forth. If the free market were to work correctly in this instance, they would not be given incentives to essentially bear more children -- as is the case with TANF. They would not be given incentives to become 'disabled'. They would not be given incentives to work less so that they remain qualified for TANF and SSI -- and Section 8. Do away with those incentives; let people move where the rent is stable and cheap enough that they can afford. Let people bear less children if they so can not afford any more, or give them up for adoption.

 

They don't _deserve_ anything, except the freedom to move if they can no longer afford their unit.

^

couldn't have said it better. we need to quit panning to the lowest denominator and let the strong survive

"Our level of tolerance for this issue is remarkable," Leeper says. "The behavior that goes in that park - no one should have to put up with that. There are laws in place that are clearly not being followed.

 

 

Sounds like he shares my frustrations

"Our level of tolerance for this issue is remarkable," Leeper says. "The behavior that goes in that park - no one should have to put up with that. There are laws in place that are clearly not being followed.

 

 

Sounds like he shares my frustrations

 

Amen, Leeper! You go booooyyy.

"Our level of tolerance for this issue is remarkable," Leeper says. "The behavior that goes in that park - no one should have to put up with that. There are laws in place that are clearly not being followed.

 

Sounds like he shares my frustrations

 

And mine as well.

 

I was stopped at the traffic signal at 12th and Race yesterday, and had a drunk homeless individual come up to my drivers side window. I refused to roll it down because it was clear he wanted something -- money, food, whatever. I've been haggled in the Washington Park area to know better.

 

He then starts banging on my car with his fists, and then tries to open my car doors. He resumed banging on my windows, so I unlocked my door and flung the door open in his face, then told him to "fuck off or I'd call the cops." He stumbled away.

 

Sorry, the shelters there may provide a service for a few, but they draw in a very bad crowd. They don't screen applicants in the rooms, allowing drunks and druggies to stay overnight. And as admitted in the article, that's what they intend on continuing. That's completely unacceptable; those types of vagrants have brought the worst possible element into OTR, and the charities seem to turn a blind eye to this -- we can fix everyone, just with time. Truth is, that's not the case; those types of social welfare programs have all but failed, and instead, it creates a part of society that is needy and attached.

^

couldn't have said it better. we need to quit panning to the lowest denominator and let the strong survive

 

That's a little harsh. Whatever happend to taking care of the least of us? I agree the current system makes it too easy to slip into a life of hand-outs and unproductivity, but there are people who genuinely need things like Section 8, welfare and the like. You don't want to toss the baby out with the bath water.

 

That said, these places should not be located in a neighborhood that wants property values to go up and ultimately the free market will push these places out. Their self-righteous owners will be made an offer they can't refuse and the homeless will all move to Springdale.

Personally, I've always believed that "taking care of the least of us" is the role of charities, churches, and concerned individuals.  The government has enough to do already with defense, infrastructure, etc, and frankly just doesn't do a good job with most of what it touches.  I think there is a place for government programs, but what we have now is a system that keeps poor people poor.  Even if they aren't actively impeding their own progress (as implied in the posts above) by trying to remain eligible for gov't programs, just the state of being on some of these programs lends itself to continuing in such an existance.  There's a very real psychological effect that sets in when someone relies completely on the gov't for their existence, a feeling that they can't do any better, so why try?  With no gov't safety net, many would be forced to improve their situation as much as possible, because there simply would be no other choice. 

 

I do like the idea of gov't programs that serve as a fail-safe, enacted only under extreme circumstances like when unemployment suddenly skyrockets, and then shelved when conditions level out again.  But these programs that allow people to exist on the streets indefinitely while continuing to feed their addictions... those aren't helping anybody, IMO.

^See the OTR Gateway thread for pretty much the same comment you made :) GMTA

 

I see an issue with Bonnie. Those who are stricken with poverty or homelessness, often fall into the trap of requesting hand-me-outs, or demanding certain services or amenities -- such as TANF, SSI, Section 8, and so forth. If the free market were to work correctly in this instance, they would not be given incentives to essentially bear more children -- as is the case with TANF. They would not be given incentives to become 'disabled'. They would not be given incentives to work less so that they remain qualified for TANF and SSI -- and Section 8. Do away with those incentives; let people move where the rent is stable and cheap enough that they can afford. Let people bear less children if they so can not afford any more, or give them up for adoption.

 

They don't _deserve_ anything, except the freedom to move if they can no longer afford their unit.

 

Sherman it isn't as black and white as you paint it.  There are many stricken with poverty or disabled who try to make a better life for themselves.  It isn't always easy to find a job and many turn to other vices as a way to survive. 

 

These programs are not give-outs like many on the board believe.  They all have requirements and have an expectation that you evenetually make a life for yourself if you are able-bodied. 

 

As with any group, there are those who present a negative image.  I would dare say they don't even represent a minority. 

 

I am willing to bet there are people on this board who for whatever reason have participated in the government programs and do not fit the profile you have eleuded to in your statement.

 

 

 

The government's role is to step in when the open market fails. Forcing poor people into an area filled entirely depressed housing creates a failure of the system since so much of our tax structure is based property/income taxes. It results in huge inequities and perpetuates a cycle of poverty. Does OTR have too many social services, probably. As a "beggar" should these groups get to be "choosers", probably not. But the fact is they are part of the community and should be considered when making plans. We'll see how well 3CDC performs in that area, and I believe they will do at least a decent job that I'm sure many people will think is not enough. But remember, the market still does not exist in OTR and without the subsidy of 3CDC, very little would be happening, so don't talk to much about letting the free open market run its course.

^See the OTR Gateway thread for pretty much the same comment you made :) GMTA

 

I see an issue with Bonnie. Those who are stricken with poverty or homelessness, often fall into the trap of requesting hand-me-outs, or demanding certain services or amenities -- such as TANF, SSI, Section 8, and so forth. If the free market were to work correctly in this instance, they would not be given incentives to essentially bear more children -- as is the case with TANF. They would not be given incentives to become 'disabled'. They would not be given incentives to work less so that they remain qualified for TANF and SSI -- and Section 8. Do away with those incentives; let people move where the rent is stable and cheap enough that they can afford. Let people bear less children if they so can not afford any more, or give them up for adoption.

 

They don't _deserve_ anything, except the freedom to move if they can no longer afford their unit.

 

Sherman it isn't as black and white as you paint it. There are many stricken with poverty or disabled who try to make a better life for themselves. It isn't always easy to find a job and many turn to other vices as a way to survive.

 

These programs are not give-outs like many on the board believe. They all have requirements and have an expectation that you evenetually make a life for yourself if you are able-bodied.

 

As with any group, there are those who present a negative image. I would dare say they don't even represent a minority.

 

I am willing to bet there are people on this board who for whatever reason have participated in the government programs and do not fit the profile you have eleuded to in your statement.

 

No, and there are exceptions to every story, but after reading over countless research reports, papers, and viewing hundreds of statistical models relating to poverty in Kentucky (eastern Kentucky, to be more specific), you develop this notion that the government is not the end-all solution that many seek and hope for.

 

It's actually one of the worst aspects, in terms of monetary waste and accountability, out there. There is very little statistical evidence that indicates that TANF and SSI are fully effective in their original inception. Yes, they do assist some in becoming better off, but overwhelming evidence points to this recurring cycle of poverty that others have mentioned.

 

As I mentioned before, making too much money results in the dropping of TANF assistance, which is bad if you have children; having more children generates an even greater proportion of money from the government. Therefore, there is a financial incentive to have more children in a demographic that should have less by reason of financial and economic support. When TANF benefits expire, many hop over to SSI, which has very few barriers to entry anymore. If we enforced the laws and regulations out there for these government support programs, and declared a real war on poverty by dealing with the underlying issues instead of throwing money with the hopes they will better themselves, then we can make progress.

I just think that the homeless and current crowd down there have had their turn at the park and neighborhood for a long, long time, and look at what  a shitty state its in now.  If they really cared about the park and neighborhood, why did they let it deteriorate so badly? Why are they pissing openly in the park? Why are they shooting up in broad daylight and leaving their needles around?  They obviously don't value the park or the neighborhood, so I say move them the hell out.  OTR is too important to waste time making sure we don't take away a favorite drinking spot from homeless people.

 

About 7 years ago my little sister had to do a project on Music Hall for school where she had to take pictures of the building.  My dad took her, me, and my friend down to Music Hall, and on our walk back to the car on the Washington Park side of the street, we had to cross back over because there was a man peeing from the park onto the sidewalk.  My little sister still associates OTR with that image.

If we enforced the laws and regulations out there for these government support programs, and declared a real war on poverty by dealing with the underlying issues instead of throwing money with the hopes they will better themselves, then we can make progress.

 

Agreed, but this will likely never happen in a system where popularity gets you elected.  Once a government program is put into place, it's almost impossible to get rid of, regardless of what its effects actually are.  Any time someone tries to eliminate or seriously reform broken programs such as these, they are dragged through the mud as being heartless, elitist, racist, etc. 

"Our level of tolerance for this issue is remarkable," Leeper says. "The behavior that goes in that park - no one should have to put up with that. There are laws in place that are clearly not being followed.

 

 

Sounds like he shares my frustrations

 

But 3CDC is still investing in the permanent supportive housing on Odeon that will only exacerbate the problem in Washington Park.  They were also behind the scenes in the deal for the Drop-In Center to sell their buildings at 12th and Elm to CPS to move the transitional housing a whole 5 blocks for a cool half a million dollars of taxpayer dollars.

 

I don't believe they are always looking at a long term strategy, but only doing what is most expedient at the moment.

Would a rapid increase in property values eventually force the Drop-In (and other places) to move out?

Would a rapid increase in property values eventually force the Drop-In (and other places) to move out?

 

They are a non-profit, and don't pay property taxes.

^ but that doesn't preclude them from selling their valuable land and moving if it means better services for their clients.

No, but rising values on their own won't move them.

 

A number of the organizations, especially the Drop-In, value the location as being "in your face".  Dollars aren't always as valued as you think.  In fact, that is one of the problems.  Every organization thinks they are doing things the right way, and don't want to cede any control, so opportunities for consolidation and better operation aren't being pursued.  For example, why are there 4 soup kitchens in Over-the-Rhine?  Having one would present better hours, better use of volunteers, less trash spread through the neighborhood, cost savings by purchasing in bulk, etc and actually provide MORE help those who need.  But I haven't seen one social service agency move this direction.  They are not as altruistic as they like to make themselves out to be.

I volunteered for one soup kitchen on a Saturday a few months ago (the one at 12th and Elm), and it was one of the most poorly managed, disfunctional organizations I have seen. There was little accountability, poor management of food and quantities of said food (locked doors?), and individual items (i.e. not bulk). Volunteers were sitting around talking, smoking, and certainly not working in all instances.

This isn't meant to be a slight, but rather an honest question.

 

Has anyone ever heard any "success stories" from the Drop-in or places like it?  I would think they would receive more funds and donations if they publicized stories of turning around peoples' lives.  I think the sweeping assumption is that these places serve as a stopgap rather than helping to solve peoples' problem ("give a man a fish..., teach him to fish...").  It seems as though they focus on complaining that they're being forced from the neighborhood (and bear in mind, they won't be FORCED to do anything) rather than showing they're a valuable asset to the community.

I agree that a campaign showing how they have improved people's lives and helped people get gainful employment and stable housing would go far in helping the cause.

This isn't meant to be a slight, but rather an honest question.

 

Has anyone ever heard any "success stories" from the Drop-in or places like it? I would think they would receive more funds and donations if they publicized stories of turning around peoples' lives. I think the sweeping assumption is that these places serve as a stopgap rather than helping to solve peoples' problem ("give a man a fish..., teach him to fish..."). It seems as though they focus on complaining that they're being forced from the neighborhood (and bear in mind, they won't be FORCED to do anything) rather than showing they're a valuable asset to the community.

 

This will tell some of the story.

http://jchriscarmichael.com/InShadows/Deinstitutionalization.html

Many of the "problems" of people in drop-in centers are not solved by counseling or job training. There are kind of two layers of poverty, that which is hidden in large households and informal homelessness, more often women and children, and that which is very obvious, like bums, most of which are males with deep substance abuse or mental illness.

 

CINCINNATI -- Police took a suspect into custody Tuesday afternoon in connection with an Over-The-Rhine stabbing.

 

The victim, whose name was not released, told police he was stabbed in the chest just before 2:30 p.m. at Washington Park.

 

Dispatchers said the injuries were considered life-threatening.

 

Police took a suspect into custody at Liberty Street and Pleasant Avenue and brought her to headquarters for questioning.

 

 

FIX THE  PARK!!!  THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE!!!!!!!

I was taking a peek back at the January 3cdc working group report regarding washington park and saw no reference to a dog run.  Anyone know if this idea is no longer being explored?  I live in OTR and know of 8-10 dogs in my immediate building and neighboring buildings.  I definitely think it would get a lot of use as the neighborhood's population increases.  Dog ownership amongst this demographic is clearly pretty high.

As far as I know, it is still in the plans for the northeast corner of the park, near 14th and Race.

I wonder where they are in the finalization of the plans?

I was taking a peek back at the January 3cdc working group report regarding washington park and saw no reference to a dog run.  Anyone know if this idea is no longer being explored?  I live in OTR and know of 8-10 dogs in my immediate building and neighboring buildings.  I definitely think it would get a lot of use as the neighborhood's population increases.  Dog ownership amongst this demographic is clearly pretty high.

 

When I spoke with a Cincinnati Park Board person a few weeks ago about dog parks in the center city he mentioned the renovation of Washington Park as a new dog park that will be available.  So yes, it's part of the plan.

^That sounds like the most promising news about the park I've heard in awhile!  Bums don't like dogs!  I know this!  :wink:

^LOL so true.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090426/NEWS01/904270326/-1/TODAY

 

Would anyone be interested in participating in something like this in Washington Park? You know, use it as an actual park, not a urinal?

 

2 groups of people - one in front of 1132 bar and the others on the corner of 12th and Race where all the drunks congregate.

^ The OTR Citizens on Patrol is looking for additional members.  The more participants we have the more places and times we can be out, whether we're walking around or staying in one spot.

 

Applications are due by May 1 for the next training session.

 

PM me if you need details or have questions.

^^ GetBack: I would some time.  I couldn't commit to every weekend or anything but I totally would hang out some Friday evening or Sunday afternoon at 12th & Race in a lawn chair or a blanket having a picnic, getting some sun, drinking a Diet Snapple, etc.

Moved discussion about social service outreach efforts to this discussion thread:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,15415.0.html

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=blog03&plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&U=b0f34581-34e4-4b11-9a69-1df5eb81e786&plckPostId=Blog%3ab0f34581-34e4-4b11-9a69-1df5eb81e786Post%3a7157b655-7b62-443a-9383-42d917bbf4c8&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Bronson can eat one.  He walks about six blocks once a year and thinks he knows it all. Only he could call streetscape improvements "broken" sidewalks. 

Bronson can eat one.  He walks about six blocks once a year and thinks he knows it all. Only he could call streetscape improvements "broken" sidewalks. 

 

It's all purple prose.. He's an idiot... and a horrible writer

anyone hear that the drop-inn is being told to move?

I hope so. Me and a friend were driving through the Washington Park area two weeks ago, and there were three cop vehicles inside Washington Park and at least eight cop vehicles at the Drop Inn doing a 'house cleaning'. I wouldn't be surprised if they were forced to close for repeated violations -- it is one of the worst hotspots for general crime in OTR.

Ha it would be quite funny if we look at the crime in OTR all these years and find out it's because of one single spot.  Take it away and the neighborhood transforms very quickly.  We can dream can't we? :) but one can't ignore the progress down there.

^ That would be fantastic news.  If true I bet it has everything to do with SCPA about to open.  Washington Park simply cannot continue to be scumbag central with the school opening up right next door. 

As far as I know, there is no way to force the Drop-Inn Center to move.

 

Whether someone or some group is working with them to relocate is a different matter.

Someone told me there was a brief piece on WLWT at lunchtime.  They made it sound like city council would no allocate federal money to the drop inn unless they agreed to move.  I believe it does have everything to do with the SPCA....

Interesting.  I haven't heard anything close to that being proposed before.

 

I'm not sure how that would fly, as council voted to implement the Homeless to Homes Plan earlier this year, and that report has nothing about moving the Drop-Inn Center (only minimal assurances about not adding any more shelters in Census Tract 9 only).