^They are going through some traffic modeling to see what the effects would be if they, for example, closed Ontario and/or Superior, or created bus-only lanes thru the Square.

Being homeless doesn't give one a right to usurp the public space for their own private use (sleeping, urination, etc.).  We have shelters, and people should be directed there.

I don't know what could make an appropriate place for the homeless to sleep, outside of the shelters and other supportive housing. I know some of the people on the street may indeed be getting turned away because of lack of space on peak nights, but from what I understand the bigger problems is that alot of the guys on the street got kicked out for being troublemakers, or for drugs and alcohol, which aren't allowed on premise.  If such is the case, I would think that prison might be a good place for them to stay instead of right around the corner from my place.

 

We are, indeed, adding a good amount of permanent supportive housing, though i suppose that it might not be coming on line quick enough.  And I agree that more shelter space should be opened if warranted.  I think that when/if there is enough space, the police should be allowed to tell vagrants- "we can take you to a shelter or to a prison (assuming they won't go to the shelter), but it's not legal to sleep here". 

 

I would also think that some of the local churches should ask, WWJD?  I doubt it would consist of dropping off some food once a week then hightailing it to the burbs. 

 

Someone else mentioned a tent city- perhaps a somewhat more regulated tent city down in the industrial flats could be an interim solution.  It may sound ridiculous, but not any more so than having people sleep in our public square on benches.

I don't think a tent city is ridiculous. Obviously, affordable housing or shelter would be preferable. But until the overcrowding at the men's shelter is addressed, individuals with housing should have places to sleep without the threat of being menaced by kids, as has been reported a number of times lately both locally and nationally. Not looking for any special considerations for these individuals, but they also haven't foresaken their rights as citizens simply because they don't have a permanent mailing address or a job.

Wouldn't a better response be to assign a couple auxiliary police officers to monitor Public Square 24x7? It couldn't be that outrageously expensive to do so. I agree with 8Shades, enforcement of this is going to be problematic at best.

 

While I'm generally very sympathetic to the homeless, I have to agree though that Public Square is not the place for the mobile soup kitchens. I've walked through it a couple times and it is utter chaos. There's got to be a better place for it, if for no other reason than logistics.

What citizen's rights are being forsaken, here?  The law being considered would apply to all.  If anything, we are forsaking our own rights because some people abuse them.

Nothing about this particular policy ... But coupled with the mall prohibition and assuming that these types of exclusions were to continue to occur in other nodes downtown, it could ultimately create a situation where "undesirables" are having geographic barriers prescribed on them. Granted, you're right that if these policies are enforced against everyone equally, no violation is really occurring. But my guess is that if a legitimate event were to take place or run later than 10 p.m. on Public Square (the easiest example being the annual Orchestra concert), my guess is that they would be afforded an exception to the rule. And then what we're really saying is that one group of citizens' use of public space is preferable to another's use of the same space. And maybe that's the case ... maybe we as a community are okay with that. But without a doubt, that's a regulation not of all citizens of Cleveland but only those who are economically and socially unfortunate enough to be sleeping outside in a high-visibility public space.

^They are going through some traffic modeling to see what the effects would be if they, for example, closed Ontario and/or Superior, or created bus-only lanes thru the Square.

 

Cool.  I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the evaluations of the traffic modeling results.  My suspicion is that all traffic-related decisions are based on the busiest one hour each day, the other 23 hours bedamned.  It's really hard for me to accept that a street pattern can't be changed because suburban Joe-blow will have to sit through another light cycle.  Hope I'm wrong.

that's a regulation not of all citizens of Cleveland but only those who are economically and socially unfortunate enough to be sleeping outside in a high-visibility public space.

 

Depends, I would think.  I would imagine the homeless would be allowed to occupy the space as well during events.  And that I or others wouldn't be allowed to on non-event days.  So I don't see the discrimination there.  And a no-sleeping rule, as I would prefer, would equally apply to a power napping executive or a bum.

Bringing back the hobo camps of pre-Torso Murderer in Kingsbury Run would be fine with me.

While a lot of these homeless people are so dispositioned because of drugs/job loss/mentally ill, there are also a lot of people who just choose to be homeless because they're too lazy to get a job.  I find it hard to have any sympathy for the people that piss on the streets, get confrontational when I don't give them my hard earned money, basically just leech off of the public and make parts of my city unacceptable for the tax paying, law abiding citizens.

^^ But the fact is that the napping executive is likely doing it out of pleasure, while the homeless person is likely doing it out of necessity. Even when such a law is applied equally (and I still think that people would be profiled in application of this policy), its intent is aimed at one particular group of citizens and its result is a disproportionate burden on the same group. It's not discrimination de jure, but it may be discrimination de facto.

 

 

I guess just have to agree to disagree about whether this is an effective policy. My intent is not to change anyone's mind about whether it's a good idea. It may have a tremendously positive effect for that area. And, since I don't live downtown and don't experience the spillover effects of it on a nightly basis, it's easy for me to take this position. My only intent is to offer a reminder that it's easy for us to treat the homeless as this undesirable mass, but these policies have very real consequences on individuals' well-being. I think it's perfectly reasonable to consider policies like this, but in the absence of community-wide strategies for addressing some of the underlying issues leading people to the streets, I don't think this is going to have much of an impact, other than shifting the homeless two blocks in any direction.

^They are going through some traffic modeling to see what the effects would be if they, for example, closed Ontario and/or Superior, or created bus-only lanes thru the Square.

 

Cool.  I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the evaluations of the traffic modeling results.  My suspicion is that all traffic-related decisions are based on the busiest one hour each day, the other 23 hours bedamned.  It's really hard for me to accept that a street pattern can't be changed because suburban Joe-blow will have to sit through another light cycle.  Hope I'm wrong.

 

why not, that's how parking lots are designed! (i.e. mall parking lot capacity to hold vehicles for the day after Christmas)

 

okay that's a bit inaccurate, but you get what i mean

get confrontational when I don't give them my hard earned money

 

I usually find that the homeless people are confrontational in a more begging way, trying to convince you they need the money, or they try to joke.

 

Last week, though, I had one repeatedly call me a "tight ass" and tell me to "tighten it up" after I told him I didn't have any change for him and walked by him.  The guy actually seemed pretty with it, so I actually found it pretty funny that someone who wanted something for absolutely nothing would call someone else a tight ass.

I don't think a tent city is ridiculous. Obviously, affordable housing or shelter would be preferable. But until the overcrowding at the men's shelter is addressed, individuals with housing should have places to sleep without the threat of being menaced by kids, as has been reported a number of times lately both locally and nationally. Not looking for any special considerations for these individuals, but they also haven't foresaken their rights as citizens simply because they don't have a permanent mailing address or a job.

 

I suspect we can put it on the outskirts of steel yard commons. Perhaps even designing it like  temporary camp grounds with a P.O Box . Hell Walmart needs workers

get confrontational when I don't give them my hard earned money

 

I usually find that the homeless people are confrontational in a more begging way, trying to convince you they need the money, or they try to joke.

 

Last week, though, I had one repeatedly call me a "tight ass" and tell me to "tighten it up" after I told him I didn't have any change for him and walked by him.  The guy actually seemed pretty with it, so I actually found it pretty funny that someone who wanted something for absolutely nothing would call someone else a tight ass.

 

 

I doubt he was actually homeless.

 

 

Shades of Grey, you hit the nail on the head: it's "public space."  That's what Public Square is.  It's not a shelter; it's not a present-day Hooverville.  PUblic space belongs to all of us to use, and it is not for individuals to personalize as their home at night, however unfortunate one's situation may be (and is).

get confrontational when I don't give them my hard earned money

 

I usually find that the homeless people are confrontational in a more begging way, trying to convince you they need the money, or they try to joke.

 

Last week, though, I had one repeatedly call me a "tight ass" and tell me to "tighten it up" after I told him I didn't have any change for him and walked by him.  The guy actually seemed pretty with it, so I actually found it pretty funny that someone who wanted something for absolutely nothing would call someone else a tight ass.

 

 

I doubt he was actually homeless.

 

 

 

Sorry, me too.  With all the talk of homeless I used the wrong term...I meant to say panhandler.

Cleveland Public Square may get curfew; homeless advocates upset

Thursday, July 12, 2007

Susan Vinella

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

Cleveland City Council wants to ban late-night gatherings on most of Public Square, a move that one critic says targets homeless people.

 

Legislation introduced Wednesday would permit only walkers to pass through from 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. and would apply to three of four quadrants of the square. It would not apply to the county-controlled southeast quadrant, home of the Soldiers and Sailors Monument ...

 

... More at http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1184229218289000.xml&coll=2

Extend this beyond PS.  Especially into the emerging/re-emerging adjacent neighborhoods

""... unless you come up with a strategy for people who don't like shelters," Davis said."

 

Sorry, bleedyheart - that's where I draw the f#cking line. I donate money to shelters so that the homeless have an option other than the street - the shelters need all the help they can get, and they aren't perfect. But I will be d@mned if I'm obligated to find yet ANOTHER alternative for someone who "doesn't like shelters".

""... unless you come up with a strategy for people who don't like shelters," Davis said."

 

Sorry, bleedyheart - that's where I draw the f#cking line. I donate money to shelters so that the homeless have an option other than the street - the shelters need all the help they can get, and they aren't perfect. But I will be d@mned if I'm obligated to find yet ANOTHER alternative for someone who "doesn't like shelters".

 

A lot of times activists are more worried about "visibility" for their issue than they are about actual solutions.  That would explain the objection to "clearing" a high visibility place like Public Square.  It's also why I tend to favor places like St. Herman's which are long on rehabilitation and short on rhetoric, and think that Bush was right about "faith based charities" even though I'm as hard core a Separationist as most liberals.

 

My extremist right wing view, that we need to take another look at the definition of "danger to self" in the involuntary commitment laws, would likely piss him off even worse.  Some of the homeless people on the streets clearly have very serious problems beyond mere "laziness".

I don't know, I think I read that quote differently mayday.  not so much that anyone is obligated to provide an alternative.  but rather, that the shelter strategy only catches some of the people, but not all.  and if you ban people from congregating on public square, they will congregate elsewhere.  this is such a divisive issue, it is easy to see every line as loaded.  I just wish there was a larger, unified plan for addressing the homeless problem in cleveland.  rather than a group of largely unconnected, or at least poorly connected services. 

 

we cannot simply expect a nuisance law to alleviate the ills of the city.  for all of guiliani's work to rid time square of its seediness, nyc is still nyc.  it just has a corporate image for a front porch. 

Public Square is for everyone and no one. Staking out an area of the square as one's bed deprives others full use of the space. So I'd say this new rule is in the spirit of keeping the square truly public.

 

I'd be upset if homeless people were banned from sleeping outside anywhere in the city (or even in a large area of the city), but keeping them out of this small area doesn't bother me. They still have 76.9 square miles of other places to sleep at night, not to mention shelters if they so choose.

math, having heard Davis blather on and on over the years, I truly believe he means just that, and that providing shelters isn't enough. Apparently there are those in the homeless population who (for whatever reasons) prefer not to live in shelters - i.e. some don't like the restrictions placed on them, etc. Davis would suggest that it's my (and every other residents') obligation to provide for those who are "out of the loop". I would suggest that his Grapevine vendor at Lincoln Park clean up after his dog, but that's probably too harsh and oppressive of a request :roll:

 

I agree with blinker12 - I would never suggest that they be arbitrarily banned from sleeping outdoors, but there are other (probably better) places for them to set up camp.

 

 

All good points; I would just add that some people disfavor shelters not because of the restrictions but because of the abundance of drugs present (which can pose a serious problem for individuals who are seriously committed to getting clean) and concerns about property crimes. Sure, some individuals probably just don't like the structure (curfews, etc.), but others do have some legitimate concerns about living en masse with people with criminal backgrounds, mental health issues, etc.

 

And if Public Square is not the appropriate place for the homeless (and I think a lot of people on here have made valid points as to why it is not), I would just hope that we would keep in mind the interest of these individuals when talking about where appropriate areas would be ... not just thinking about which areas will minimize tourist encounters with the homeless, minimize impact on new housing projects, etc., but also areas that are in close proximity to support services and that are walkable/transit-oriented to necessities. I don't think the Industrial Flats site that was proposed earlier in this thread would adequately fulfill this.

thanks for the clarification.  I am not familiar with him.  perhaps I am shading my reading with my own beliefs a bit.   

"They'll just move somewhere else, unless you come up with a strategy for people who don't like shelters," Davis said.

 

Yeah, it's called a job and a subsidized apartment. Maybe they could be taken out to some remote woods and left with a book about survivalism in natural environments. Bet they live better there than in the city.

 

And I think it's the point to move them somewhere else so we don't have to be asked for money by them, smell them or be chastised by them for actually doing something positive with our lives.

My extremist right wing view, that we need to take another look at the definition of "danger to self" in the involuntary commitment laws, would likely piss him off even worse.   Some of the homeless people on the streets clearly have very serious problems beyond mere "laziness".[/b][/color]

 

I agree with this statement.  So often "homeless rights" has become the right to allow them to continue to destroy their own lives.

 

I would also suggest that Brian Davis open up his front yard as a place for those homeless who don't prefer shelters.  He seems to think that is an ideal solution for those of us who live downtown.

""... unless you come up with a strategy for people who don't like shelters," Davis said."

 

Sorry, bleedyheart - that's where I draw the f#cking line. I donate money to shelters so that the homeless have an option other than the street - the shelters need all the help they can get, and they aren't perfect. But I will be d@mned if I'm obligated to find yet ANOTHER alternative for someone who "doesn't like shelters".

 

Couldn't have put it any better myself.

on a different note - for the first time in several years (in my opinion) - public square finally is somewhat inviting.  The new grass and landscaping that was done this summer in the SW quadrant near TC - looks great.  The downtown alliance/city workers have done a great job pressure washing the bricks in that little concrete valley - and the trash has been picked up quickly out front of TC.

 

It is a complete 180 from the condition it was in 2-3 summers ago.  Keep up the good work!

True, now if we can only get Pesht built, we can lure in some suburbians to enjoy it, and a few may even stick around and buy a place.

I'm mixed.  I thought that the design direction was going to be to try combine the quadrants into one space and avoid the hidden areas that the current inward looking landscape creates.  As such, the trees on the exterior of the SW quadrant seem to be the wrong direction.  That said, it looks nice, as long as it doesn't create a place that seems unsafe because it is unsurveillable.

 

Upkeep has been mixed, too.  Some days it is very clean, but the last time I was there, a couple of days ago, the place was a shameful wreck.

^there is no plan. Sometimes one possible version gets leaked and everyone things that one is the plan. Everything is on the table.

I'm mixed.  I thought that the design direction was going to be to try combine the quadrants into one space and avoid the hidden areas that the current inward looking landscape creates.  As such, the trees on the exterior of the SW quadrant seem to be the wrong direction.  That said, it looks nice, as long as it doesn't create a place that seems unsafe because it is unsurveillable.

 

Upkeep has been mixed, too.  Some days it is very clean, but the last time I was there, a couple of days ago, the place was a shameful wreck.

 

How much of that had to do with the Terminal Tower exterior renovation?  It's pretty much impossible to keep a construction site looking clean. 

 

Personally, I'd withhold judgement till that work is done.  Especially if they reopen the observation deck.   :)

This was definitely trash, not construction waste, and outside of the work area.  It was really disgusting, with large amounts of trash swirling in the breeze.  But really, it usually is better.  It just seems like it requires constant vigilance to keep a lid on the trash there. I think there are just a lot of people on Public Square that don't care at all if they trash their surroundings.

This was definitely trash, not construction waste, and outside of the work area.  It was really disgusting, with large amounts of trash swirling in the breeze.  But really, it usually is better.  It just seems like it requires constant vigilance to keep a lid on the trash there. I think there are just a lot of people on Public Square that don't care at all if they trash their surroundings.

 

now if we can just do something about the pigeon flock (or whatever the plural is). I swear to god, today seemed like a scene from The Birds, with approximately 30-40 pigeons swooping in around the land around Moses.

I think they do that everywhere, whenever I come out of the PS side of TC, I think the same thing.  When I'm in NYC we have the same problem on Columbus Circle or (Manhattans) Grand Army Plaza.

I also felt new life in the Square today.  I walked through around 1:30 and there were people everywhere.  The big new sidewalks (bring on the patio seating!) across the street from the SE quad are great and the visitor center really is inviting. 

 

The solution to the pigeons?  more falcons...

Athens, Greece has the most ridiculous pigeon "problem" I've EVER seen!  It's creepy!

I think Paris has Athens beat.

Athens, Greece has the most ridiculous pigeon "problem" I've EVER seen!  It's creepy!

Athens, Greece has the most ridiculous pigeon "problem" I've EVER seen!  It's creepy!

 

I think Beijing and Istanbul are by far worse!

 

.....now back on topic

Athens, Greece has the most ridiculous pigeon "problem" I've EVER seen!  It's creepy!

 

Venice is the worst in my opinion.

Athens, Greece has the most ridiculous pigeon "problem" I've EVER seen!  It's creepy!

 

Venice is the worst in my opinion.

 

Venice is just nasty all around!  LOL

I thought the curfew was already approved...

 

Overnight curfew approved for Cleveland Public Square

Posted by Susan [email protected] August 08, 2007 21:50PM

Categories: Breaking News

 

Cleveland City Council approved a curfew today for Public Square.

 

No one can loiter in the three city-owned quadrants near Tower City Center between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m.

 

Also, the council voted to create an adult entertainment district in the Flats. The district will be limited to two existing strip clubs: Diamond Men's Club and Larry Flynt's

Hustler Club.

 

I don't think I'm a fan of the curfew - just throwing that out there.

A council committee had approved it a month or two ago. Bear in mind that this does not apply to RTA bus stops where RTA police has jurisdiction.

good thing the SW block is closed, only two blocks to patrol!

CPD doesn't have juristiction at RTA bus stops?  That seems odd.

Not for enforcement of the curfew.

Not for enforcement of the curfew.

 

are you sure?  i think that RTA has primary jurisdiction over their right of way in the downtown transit zone for things like this, and the CPD has secondary jurisdiction, meaning they can still enforce it.  so, in effect, RTA will have to enforce it, but the CPD should still be able to stop someone from sleeping in a shelter at 3am on public square. 

 

if there was a murder at a downtown RTA stop, then b/c of the felony nature or some other definition, RTA would have secondary jurisdiction, but could still respond to the initial complaint, etc.