Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 4

[Orlando]

I like a lot of your ideas.

[jedikermit]

...I just got back from Detroit, which I completely loved, btw -- if you're ever there, take the free skyscraper/downtown tours, because they've got some amazing Art Deco masterpieces there...

Anyway. In my time downtown, I saw maybe two people panhandling? And hundreds of people out and using their equivalent of a Gallivan Plaza (which had some great features like an outdoor beach/sand pit), some great renovated/repurposed buildings, nice public spaces.

I take that back. Along their riverfront, there were more expended condoms than I've ever seen in my life in one place. And homeless/panhandlish people in that area. But less aggressive.

In the last week I've almost hit two panhandlers who were entering traffic, and overheard some visitors for a convention (USANA I think?) talking about how you "need to avoid the homeless camp" on 500 South. Which...I don't know what they'd be doing down there anyway. Point is, it's a big and growing problem, and while numberswise maybe things are improving, the perception is that it's not. And for visitors and would-be residents, that's what matters.

I like some of those suggestions too -- I hadn't ever thought about relocating/decentralizing that liquor store, but I love that idea. Maybe not putting into City Creek, but even dividing it into several smaller stores would help things. Weekends there are terrible.

[asies1981]

Construction has finally started on the downtown DA office building.

[arkhitektor]

Just for the hell of it, I thought I'd see what the most recent street views of 500 W. look like. Welcome to Salt Lake City:

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by arkhitektor

Just for the hell of it, I thought I'd see what the most recent street views of 500 W. look like. Welcome to Salt Lake City:

Yes. Welcome to Any Major U.S. City USA.

It's not unique to Salt Lake.

[ajiuO]

Originally Posted by Comrade

Yes. Welcome to Any Major U.S. City USA.

It's not unique to Salt Lake.

Its true that salt lake appears to have the same number of homeless people as any major US city. The problem with that analogy is that it's questionable to even consider Salt Lake a major US city. Most of downtown looks like the twilight zone half of the time.... it's almost like one of those ghost cities that they build in China. But yet there still seems to be just as many homeless people as there are in cities with much more people.

And just because it's a problem in other cities doesn't mean that we shouldn't address it... there are a lot of things that we can do to make it less concentrated.... and I think that's really the problem with Salt Lake, is that it's so concentrated in one area.

It's almost impossible to make the people get off of the drugs and do something with their lives... but through city planning we can at least somewhat control the issue. There are conditions that exist that make a small area very appealing to such people. It's very easy to change those conditions and make it less convenient, appealing, and comfortable for them.

[Marvland]

HAMSTERDAM

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by ajiuO

This is what needs to happen...


- Construct a new women shelter in the peoples freeway district.
- Construct a new men's shelter in the South Temple and Redwood Road area.
- Demolish all of the homeless facilities on second S. / Rio Grande.
- Demolish all of the homeless facilities in the 400 W. 500 S area.
- Pass laws that prohibit any panhandling directed at traffic. The argument can easily be made that it's distracting, unsafe, and interferes with traffic. This would include standing at freeway exits, in the middle of roads, parking lot exits, and any solicitation directed at traffic in anyway. Citations could be issued to both panhandlers and citizens who stop their car and interfere with traffic.
- Panhandlers are generating income. They should be required to have a panhandlers license... This has been done in other cities. We could also limit the number of panhandlers per block. Currently I would expect to run into about 10 to 15 panhandlers on certain city blocks... That number is just too high.
- The state should close down the liquor store on 200 west. They should lease some small space inside of city Creek Center, Gateway, and trolley square for new smaller stores. Having the liquor stores inside of malls would make them subject to the mall's rules, dress codes, and loitering policies. It would also be more convenient and solve traffic problems created by the liquor store on 200 w
- Remove the grass from the 400 W islands. Plant large trees and surround them with shrubbery.
- Use eminent domain to demolish PCA and the other factory across the street. Sell the land to developers.
- Clean up 500 and 600 S. Remove all of the billboards, put the power lines underground, redo the sidewalks in a way that eliminates areas for large numbers of homeless people to congregate and swap parts from their stolen bikes, do something to encourage development on vacant land... I'm sure addressing the issue with all the sketchy people in the area would be encouragement enough
- Put a Harmon sized grocery store in the area
- Redevelop Pioneer Park. Keep the trees but eliminate the out houses
- Use eminent domain to develop the vacant land owned by the Greek Orthodox Church... Allow them to use Pioneer Park for the Greek festival.
- Redevelop the area west of the Rio Grande depot. It would be nice to better connect to that area with Gateway.

Why not federal heights?

[ajiuO]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

Why not federal heights?

For a few reasons. And I'm going to hit you with some painful truth here....

Beggars can't be choosers. Federal heights is a buetifull upscale community with very elegant single family dwellings. While it is convintly located close to down town it is still a quiet, developed community. The property values is very high there, and the people who live there pay really high property taxes to reflect that.

It would serve absolutly no purpose to put a Homless shelter in a developed community such as Federal Heights, other than to try to stick it to the people that live there... Likely out of jealousy for their personal success.

The people who are staying in these homeless shelters are takers. They are basically receiving something without giving anything in return. As takers they pretty much have to take what they can get and don't get much say.

The people who pay taxes and live in communities are givers. They are the ones paying for these homeless shelters... I think it's perfectly within reason to do it as effectively as possible. And yes that means putting shelters in under valued areas, with low taxes, and low impact on the areas that they work and pay to maintain.

The S. Temple Redwood Rd. area would be great. It's not well developed and mostly consist of truckstops. It would have little impact on developed or developing communities, it's close to the trax, and truckstops are a great place to get drugs... so win, win, win, win... but still we should only put limited shelter there... there are certain parts of the peoples freeway district that would also be a good candidate for limited shelter... there are probably several good places throughout the entire stretch of State Street.

We are not going to get rid of homeless people. But the Rio Grande and Gateway areas are too valuable to just allow them to become a slum that's overly saturated with homeless people, Who a large portion of are druggies and drunks BTW. So as tax paying citizens it's well within our right to move the problem to where it will have the least impact on us... life's tough.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by ajiuO

For a few reasons. And I'm going to hit you with some painful truth here....

Beggars can't be choosers. Federal heights is a buetifull upscale community with very elegant single family dwellings. While it is convintly located close to down town it is still a quiet, developed community. The property values is very high there, and the people who live there pay really high property taxes to reflect that.

It would serve absolutly no purpose to put a Homless shelter in a developed community such as Federal Heights, other than to try to stick it to the people that live there... Likely out of jealousy for their personal success.

The people who are staying in these homeless shelters are takers. They are basically receiving something without giving anything in return. As takers they pretty much have to take what they can get and don't get much say.

The people who pay taxes and live in communities are givers. They are the ones paying for these homeless shelters... I think it's perfectly within reason to do it as effectively as possible. And yes that means putting shelters in under valued areas, with low taxes, and low impact on the areas that they work and pay to maintain.

The S. Temple Redwood Rd. area would be great. It's not well developed and mostly consist of truckstops. It would have little impact on developed or developing communities, it's close to the trax, and truckstops are a great place to get drugs... so win, win, win, win... but still we should only put limited shelter there... there are certain parts of the peoples freeway district that would also be a good candidate for limited shelter... there are probably several good places throughout the entire stretch of State Street.

We are not going to get rid of homeless people. But the Rio Grande and Gateway areas are too valuable to just allow them to become a slum that's overly saturated with homeless people, Who a large portion of are druggies and drunks BTW. So as tax paying citizens it's well within our right to move the problem to where it will have the least impact on us... life's tough.

Thank you. That's exactly what I thought you would say. Now I don't have a problem with moving the shelter next to Rocky Mountain Power as I doubt it would effect the property value of its neighbors(I could be wrong). You made the point that I hoped you would about moving them into another neighborhood. The question: Why not Federal Heights?, was made in hopes that I would get exactly this response. Destroying the property of value of others is theft. It should be avoided at all reasonable effort. In the event that it cannot be than those property owners should be compensated. I think you made some good points that more or less show that this is the case. Minimizing liability does not erase the debt, it simply minimizes it.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Also, what happened to the "scattered facilities plan"? It sounds like we are going to get a 250 person women's shelter next door to a 250 person men's shelter. It doesn't sound like it's going to be scattered or that we are really going to try and address sub-communities within the homeless population as was envisioned.

[ajiuO]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

Also, what happened to the "scattered facilities plan"? It sounds like we are going to get a 250 person women's shelter next door to a 250 person men's shelter. It doesn't sound like it's going to be scattered or that we are really going to try and address sub-communities within the homeless population as was envisioned.

And if you read the wording very closely it says that it "may" eliminate the need for the road home... so I'm guessing they're going to add new facilities and the old one is going to stay right where it is.... they will come up with some excuse To keep it going... I think the people of the city should say hell no to this project unless it's a guarantee that the old ones are going.


On a sidenote... does anyone know when the alcohol limit got raised to 4% ? I've been noticing a lot of 4% beer at grocery stores but I never heard anything about it.

[stayinginformed]

Originally Posted by ajiuO

On a sidenote... does anyone know when the alcohol limit got raised to 4% ? I've been noticing a lot of 4% beer at grocery stores but I never heard anything about it.

4% by volume is equal to 3.2% by weight, just a different way of measuring, still the same weak beer.

[ThePusherMan]

Originally Posted by ajiuO

For a few reasons. And I'm going to hit you with some painful truth here....

Beggars can't be choosers. Federal heights is a buetifull upscale community with very elegant single family dwellings. While it is convintly located close to down town it is still a quiet, developed community. The property values is very high there, and the people who live there pay really high property taxes to reflect that.

It would serve absolutly no purpose to put a Homless shelter in a developed community such as Federal Heights, other than to try to stick it to the people that live there... Likely out of jealousy for their personal success.

The people who are staying in these homeless shelters are takers. They are basically receiving something without giving anything in return. As takers they pretty much have to take what they can get and don't get much say.

The people who pay taxes and live in communities are givers. They are the ones paying for these homeless shelters... I think it's perfectly within reason to do it as effectively as possible. And yes that means putting shelters in under valued areas, with low taxes, and low impact on the areas that they work and pay to maintain.

The S. Temple Redwood Rd. area would be great. It's not well developed and mostly consist of truckstops. It would have little impact on developed or developing communities, it's close to the trax, and truckstops are a great place to get drugs... so win, win, win, win... but still we should only put limited shelter there... there are certain parts of the peoples freeway district that would also be a good candidate for limited shelter... there are probably several good places throughout the entire stretch of State Street.

We are not going to get rid of homeless people. But the Rio Grande and Gateway areas are too valuable to just allow them to become a slum that's overly saturated with homeless people, Who a large portion of are druggies and drunks BTW. So as tax paying citizens it's well within our right to move the problem to where it will have the least impact on us... life's tough.

Sorry to be inflammatory but this sounds like a damn Trump speech. Little compassion would be great. I think our homeless community is pretty pleasant and polite. I've never been spit on for not giving change to a homeless person in this city like I have in Vegas or San Francisco. Our homeless population is largely transient. Chronic homelessness virtually doesn't exist in this city because a lot of good people are making a real effort to address the real problems. Not just bitching about how homeless people exist. I'm sorry that you have to look at them once in a blue moon when you travel to their hood but those people are living their lives. They are more than just an inconvenience they are human beings.

[Palladio]

Originally Posted by ajiuO

The people who are staying in these homeless shelters are takers. They are basically receiving something without giving anything in return. As takers they pretty much have to take what they can get and don't get much say.

So I have a problem with this statement. It is not that you are technically incorrect-- homeless people provide very little in the way of tax money, as you are suggesting and so the money that helps provide for them does come from other sources. But let's apply that to another group of people who are "takers"-- children.

The kids in our school system provide nothing in the way of tax money, other than the fact that they are related to tax paying adults-- which can most likely be said for most people with housing insecurity. But we don't tell children, "you have to take what you can get, and you don't get much say". Instead, realizing that this segment of the population cannot advocate for itself, adults from all segments of the population have stood up to advocate for them. They make a very simple argument that by investing in kids now, no matter where they come from or how much money people in their family make, we help better the future of our community at large.

I want to be clear that these are still very different groups of people, and their needs are going to be vastly different-- but to me, the argument that they are "takers" and don't deserve a choice just doesn't hold up. Like the children in our schools, these people deserve to be able to receive basic services without being targeted by drug traffickers, dangerous criminals or harassers. And in order to make sure the next generations of facilities accommodate their needs, we need to hear their voices and realize that perhaps putting a shelter on Redwood Road would mean a single mother and her kid cannot get there on transit before it stops running. Putting a shelter in a lower income west side neighborhood might mean a young family who has worked three jobs to afford their mortgage will lose thousands of dollars in property value and will never be able to make that up.

I don't claim to know the perfect set of criteria for where the new shelters should go, but it seems obvious to me that unilaterally letting the taxpayers decided where they should go leaves out far too many voices whose life and security depend on these facilities.

[Stenar]

Uhhh... children are vastly different than adults who are living on the street.
Although, some of the people living on the street are there because of economic forces outside their control, or have mental illness that is untreated since Reagan cut funding for pretty much all of the mental facilities.
Growing up, my oldest sister had a friend who was often homeless. He would occasionally get a girlfriend who wanted to live in an apartment, but after about six months, he'd end up moving back onto the streets. I think he couldn't deal with the stress of having to pay rent and other housing bills every month. I've read that this is common among the chronically homeless.

Originally Posted by Palladio

So I have a problem with this statement. It is not that you are technically incorrect-- homeless people provide very little in the way of tax money, as you are suggesting and so the money that helps provide for them does come from other sources. But let's apply that to another group of people who are "takers"-- children.

The kids in our school system provide nothing in the way of tax money, other than the fact that they are related to tax paying adults-- which can most likely be said for most people with housing insecurity. But we don't tell children, "you have to take what you can get, and you don't get much say". Instead, realizing that this segment of the population cannot advocate for itself, adults from all segments of the population have stood up to advocate for them. They make a very simple argument that by investing in kids now, no matter where they come from or how much money people in their family make, we help better the future of our community at large.

I want to be clear that these are still very different groups of people, and their needs are going to be vastly different-- but to me, the argument that they are "takers" and don't deserve a choice just doesn't hold up. Like the children in our schools, these people deserve to be able to receive basic services without being targeted by drug traffickers, dangerous criminals or harassers. And in order to make sure the next generations of facilities accommodate their needs, we need to hear their voices and realize that perhaps putting a shelter on Redwood Road would mean a single mother and her kid cannot get there on transit before it stops running. Putting a shelter in a lower income west side neighborhood might mean a young family who has worked three jobs to afford their mortgage will lose thousands of dollars in property value and will never be able to make that up.

I don't claim to know the perfect set of criteria for where the new shelters should go, but it seems obvious to me that unilaterally letting the taxpayers decided where they should go leaves out far too many voices whose life and security depend on these facilities.

[ajiuO]

Originally Posted by ThePusherMan

Sorry to be inflammatory but this sounds like a damn Trump speech. Little compassion would be great. I think our homeless community is pretty pleasant and polite. I've never been spit on for not giving change to a homeless person in this city like I have in Vegas or San Francisco. Our homeless population is largely transient. Chronic homelessness virtually doesn't exist in this city because a lot of good people are making a real effort to address the real problems. Not just bitching about how homeless people exist. I'm sorry that you have to look at them once in a blue moon when you travel to their hood but those people are living their lives. They are more than just an inconvenience they are human beings.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. First of all I don't see them once every blue moon. I see them every single day. I see a lot of them every single day. I see the same people standing in the same places day after day, month after month, year after year... yes, I recognize them and I remember them. I see people drunk and strung out on drugs, I see the people sleeping on the sidewalk with infected needle trackmarks all over their arm and legs. There are certain homeless people that I know right where to find. So whoever told you that chronic homelessness is virtually not a problem in the city, is pulling your leg son.

Some of them are very polite. There's a guy who often sits outside the North City Creek Center entrance. He always presses the walk button for people so that they can cross the street, because a lot of people don't realize that you have to press the button in order for the light to change. There is a guy who walks up and down main street and offers to rap for you if you give him money. If you don't he'll probably rap for you anyway, and he's horrible, but a nice guy. There is a really nice guy who has been standing at Smiths Market Place for years.

Then there are a great number of crazy people. Some of them are war veterans, some of them are just because, but a lot of them are from years of drug abuse. It's really easy to identify which are which. The veterans are generally very proud of their service. It's really easy to identify the chronicly growing number of druggies.

The fact that you haven't bumped into any of the mean ones tells me that you haven't spent enough time around the problem to have half a clue what you're talking about... because they are there. There's a guy who walks up and down North Temple almost every day screaming and yelling at people and cars. He throws stuff into traffic and scares people away from the bus stop. There's a really special guy who hangs out around JB's a lot... He has no problem telling you what a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 🞵🞵 🞵🞵🞵🞵 you are if you don't give him money. I could easily picture him spitting on people. Why don't you try hanging out on the southside of 200 S. & about 450 W. for a while... let's see how nice and polite you think some of these homeless people are after that.

The drugs and crime revolving around the Holmes population is a problem and growing fast. In fact drugs are a big cause of homelessness. I've mentioned this before. But on the southside of 500 S. Right before 400 W. There is a huge stolen bike operation that I see taking place on almost a daily basis. They go around the city and they take bikes, and in some cases they just steal parts from bikes. They have a little makeshift shop made from blankets hanging in the tree. I see homeless people dropping off bikes and parts there all the time, then there is a group of people there working on them. They do a lot of parts swapping so that they're not as identifiable. I even see them spray painting the frames. A lot of times there's anywhere from 5 to 15 bikes being chopped there... but I've seen a few times where a quarter of the block will be filled with this kind of activity... It's absolutely astonishing to me that the city allows this to take place and does not have a police presence there. Even if the bikes were not stolen... People can't just set up mass operations like that on public sidewalk space. If I were to go outside of Temple Square and just set up a bike repair business on the sidewalk without a permit... There's no way in hell I would get away with that. Is it Okay to let these people get away with this 🞵🞵🞵🞵 just because they're homeless? Helping people out is one thing but allowing them to behave in ways that is not acceptable for anyone else is quite the other thing.

And your right, they are people... But so are we. As people we all make our choices, and we all have to live with our choices. I'm not against helping people who want to be helped and who can be helped. I don't talk a lot about those type of people because I don't need to. I don't see them is a problem. For the most part those people except help and work on changing their lives for the better. And it's good that we have those services to help them. There's a distinct difference between those types of people and the people that I'm generally talking about on here. I want there to be shelters... but not all concentrated in the same area.

Having homelessness concentrated into one area, brings down property values, which leads to abandonment, crime, and drugs. In the case of Salt Lake, that part of our city happens to be a very valuable asset. I don't think that it's unreasonable for people who work and pay taxes to want to protect that asset and make it better... and one thing you need to get straight... It's not their hood. They didn't build it, they don't own it, and it doesn't belong to them... Hell, a large percentage of these people aren't even from Utah. They come here because the generosity is well known..

So yeah they have the right to exist and be people... But if they are going to do it at the expense of other people then they are going to do it on those people's terms... and it's not so much about them being an inconvenience as it is about them destroying the values of certain neighborhoods. And I don't see anything wrong with being pissed off about the inconvenience of druggies all over the streets... and people who disrupt traffic, which is dangerous by the way.

I have never bitched about the fact that homeless people exist... I 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 about the drunks, I 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 about the druggies, and I 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 about the city creating conditions that concentrate this problem into one area... Spreading the problem out isn't just good for the city, it's good for the homeless people as well. It's not really helpful to segregate all of the homeless people in to one small area. It exposes people that could potentially turn their lives around to drugs, crime, and hopelessness.. When they are more integrated into the general population they have a better chance of seeing what other people can accomplish and wanting that for themselves...

Homelessness is not just the Rio grande /!gateways areas problem... and it's no fair that people of those areas should exclusively have to deal with the negative effects of homelessness, because that's where all the homeless shelters have to go. Homelessness is the problem of the whole state... there should be smaller shelters throughout the valley... and yes they should be built in places that make sense to the taxpayer.

[Comrade]

I've walked down the Rio Grande area with my camera, taking photos of the homeless people, standing in the middle of a 100 of 'em, and only a couple times have I felt uneasy and never really threatened. Generally, they'll spark up a conversation and some are even willing to pose for my camera. Some will get angry, or tell me to stop taking photos, but on the whole, I've heard more vile things, been yelled at far more often, taking photos of random non-homeless people. They can be complete dicks.

The homeless problem in Salt Lake is a nuisance. But there's a lot of nuisances here and more that annoy me than the homeless - like our employed legislature, who've done far more damage than anything a homeless person can do.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Stenar

Uhhh... children are vastly different than adults who are living on the street.
Although, some of the people living on the street are there because of economic forces outside their control, or have mental illness that is untreated since Reagan cut funding for pretty much all of the mental facilities.
Growing up, my oldest sister had a friend who was often homeless. He would occasionally get a girlfriend who wanted to live in an apartment, but after about six months, he'd end up moving back onto the streets. I think he couldn't deal with the stress of having to pay rent and other housing bills every month. I've read that this is common among the chronically homeless.

The ACLU won landmark cases that prevented institutions from forcing drugs onto the mentally ill and from committing them unless they could prove to a judge that that person was an imminent danger to themselves or others. Believe it or not but most mentally ill people didn't want to live in hospitals. The government could not force them into hospitals and it did not make sense to fund empty hospitals. They tried to fund outpatient facilities but many of the people that need help either don't want it or aren't very good at seeking it.

Why do you think that neither Clinton nor Obama in the 16 years that they togetther had in office tried to reopen them? The old model was litigated out of existence it wasn't legislated out. We have yet to find something effective, and legal, to replace it with.

[ajiuO]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

The ACLU won landmark cases that prevented institutions from forcing drugs onto the mentally ill and from committing them unless they could prove to a judge that that person was an imminent danger to themselves or others. Believe it or not but most mentally ill people didn't want to live in hospitals. The government could not force them into hospitals and it did not make sense to fund empty hospitals. They tried to fund outpatient facilities but many of the people that need help either don't want it or aren't very good at seeking it.

Why do you think that neither Clinton nor Obama in the 16 years that they togetther had in office tried to reopen them? The old model was litigated out of existence it wasn't legislated out. We have yet to find something effective, and legal, to replace it with.

Probably because them along with clintons wife Hillary and Donald Trump are all mentally ill themselvs. I would like to see all 4 of them locked in a hospital.