Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[Comrade]

I hope, if anything happens, they some how repurpose the Coachmans sign.

[ajiuO]

I think 100 south is in some serious need of help. There are a few sections that have so many homeless people that you can’t walk down the sidewalk any more. I’m not sure what happened. It wasn’t that bad even a year ago. They should not be able to block the public sidewalks like that.

Also there have been a lot of abandoned structures burning downtown recently. I kind of wonder if the restriction on tearing stuff down has anything to do with it.

[delts145]

What are the cross streets Ajiuo, and have you called the city about it? The squeaky wheel really does get the grease. I've seen it happen over and over again here in L.A.

[berger4]

Originally Posted by ajiuO

I think 100 south is in some serious need of help. There are a few sections that have so many homeless people that you can’t walk down the sidewalk any more. I’m not sure what happened. It wasn’t that bad even a year ago. They should not be able to block the public sidewalks like that.

Also there have been a lot of abandoned structures burning downtown recently. I kind of wonder if the restriction on tearing stuff down has anything to do with it.

I think because they were pushed out of the library complex, those camps have completely gone away for the most part there. They keep getting moved and just go to new locations.

[Makid]

I think that the City should open an area for those people that would rather camp than go to the shelters/resource centers.

They could use some land near 7200 West, just south of I-15. They can install portable toilets, bring in some water for people, and provide garbage service. They could even offer free transportation to the new camping area. The City could also stand up a communal mail box so that people can have a permanent address to assist them while they look for work.

This area would also benefit these people as they could permanently pitch their tent and work as day laborers assisting with the various projects in the inland port.

There are lots of possibilities here and in the long run it would be cheaper for the City and help both the camping homeless and the businesses/residents near where they are camping now.

Overall, this gives the homeless choices, they can use the resource centers, or they can camp in a safe and designated area.

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by Comrade

I hope, if anything happens, they some how repurpose the Coachmans sign.

Something we can agree on Comrade.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by Makid

I think that the City should open an area for those people that would rather camp than go to the shelters/resource centers.

They could use some land near 7200 West, just south of I-15. They can install portable toilets, bring in some water for people, and provide garbage service. They could even offer free transportation to the new camping area. The City could also stand up a communal mail box so that people can have a permanent address to assist them while they look for work.

This area would also benefit these people as they could permanently pitch their tent and work as day laborers assisting with the various projects in the inland port.

There are lots of possibilities here and in the long run it would be cheaper for the City and help both the camping homeless and the businesses/residents near where they are camping now.

Overall, this gives the homeless choices, they can use the resource centers, or they can camp in a safe and designated area.

The challenge is what to do with people who refuse the options. Are we going to incarcerate them? We assume people want those options, but they may choose to keep doing what they are and then we have to choose to tolerate that or forcibly remove them and lock them up. Not great options.

[ThePusherMan]

Originally Posted by Makid

I think that the City should open an area for those people that would rather camp than go to the shelters/resource centers.

They could use some land near 7200 West, just south of I-15. They can install portable toilets, bring in some water for people, and provide garbage service. They could even offer free transportation to the new camping area. The City could also stand up a communal mail box so that people can have a permanent address to assist them while they look for work.

This area would also benefit these people as they could permanently pitch their tent and work as day laborers assisting with the various projects in the inland port.

There are lots of possibilities here and in the long run it would be cheaper for the City and help both the camping homeless and the businesses/residents near where they are camping now.

Overall, this gives the homeless choices, they can use the resource centers, or they can camp in a safe and designated area.

I am good friends with someone who just moved back from the Bay Area who was working for the Berkeley Mayor's Office. We talked about options like this and she said the major problem with this kind of operation is liability. If the city is providing permanent accommodations then they become liable for what happens at those city provided accommodations. The first time someone is seriously injured or dies the city is at major risk legally. This is the reason encampments get moved every few days. It's not about being cold hearted it's about not wanting to be sued.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by Utah_Dave

That 9th East mixed use is much better then other previous projects but I’m not excited about how wide it is. It would have been nice to have a little variance in height by adding a few levels in a few key spots. All in all it will be nice at street level and attractive.

I agree with you on this. I think they should increase the height by one story on the eastern half of the project. Also, I think they should vary the color of the brick or material from the eastern half to the wester half along 4th south.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by Makid

I think that the City should open an area for those people that would rather camp than go to the shelters/resource centers.

They could use some land near 7200 West, just south of I-15. They can install portable toilets, bring in some water for people, and provide garbage service. They could even offer free transportation to the new camping area. The City could also stand up a communal mail box so that people can have a permanent address to assist them while they look for work.

This area would also benefit these people as they could permanently pitch their tent and work as day laborers assisting with the various projects in the inland port.

There are lots of possibilities here and in the long run it would be cheaper for the City and help both the camping homeless and the businesses/residents near where they are camping now.

Overall, this gives the homeless choices, they can use the resource centers, or they can camp in a safe and designated area.

Originally Posted by ThePusherMan

I am good friends with someone who just moved back from the Bay Area who was working for the Berkeley Mayor's Office. We talked about options like this and she said the major problem with this kind of operation is liability. If the city is providing permanent accommodations then they become liable for what happens at those city provided accommodations. The first time someone is seriously injured or dies the city is at major risk legally. This is the reason encampments get moved every few days. It's not about being cold hearted it's about not wanting to be sued.

I love Maki's idea. The sidewalks are owned by the city as a public access.
It's illegal to encamp or block that passageway. Therefore, the city should have the right to get them off that. I've always thought about shipping them all off to some private encampment somewhere where it's not going to impact areas so negatively. Give them the basic resources to survive and transportation to get to other resources to get the help they need. But, why do the homeless congregate in downtowns? Surely, they did not all originate from there. So, why should the metro donwtown suffer from the ill-repute of the homeless alone? To the extreme, I've even thought of shipping them out to the dessert as an ultimatum. Why don't European & Asian cities have this homeless problem?

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

It looks like more mixed-use is going to be coming to State Street, this time further south. The owner of the property on the southeast corner of 1300 South and State Street (current site of Coachman's and a strip mall) wants to change the zoning to FB-UN2 (same zoning as Central 9th) so that they can tear them down and make a mixed-use development. The advantage to the zoning change would be that they could have increased height and no parking minimum (though along State Street, I would expect some parking). Plus, of course, additional design standards oriented towards street and pedestrian engagement.

That stretch of State Street needs some serious help, and I hope that their proposal goes through. They need the zoning change first though.

http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Plan...f%20Report.pdf

It's nice to see State Street slowly get some love.

This is great news. It's so great to see the proliferaton of mex-use residential developments pop up on these under-utilized & neglected blocks along State Street.

[Rileybo]

Photo from last evening by me.

[ThePusherMan]

^^^ nice picture. I was at Harmon’s today and counted stories. Think there is 9-10 more to come plus a crown on 95 state. Going to look nice and tall once it’s topped out.

[ajiuO]

There was this episode of Star Trek DS9 where they went to the past and part of San Francisco has been turned into a sanctuary district. They basically just locked all the homeless people in there and let them have the run of the place. They gave them food rations but they weren’t allowed to come out of the sanctuary district.

I think part of the problem with 100 s is that the episcopal church feeds them... so they’re kind of moving there now that the road home is gone. Maybe the city should hold the episcopal church liable for causing improper use of public sidewalks.

And while they’re at it they should hold the LDS church liable for driving motor vehicles down the sidewalk.. because that’s also a misuse of public sidewalks.

[bob rulz]

Let's not have this thread devolve into another homelessness rabbit hole...that has caused far too many issues in the past.

[Atlas]

Nice article about Industry and the future of office space in SLC:
https://www.utahbusiness.com/salt-la...an-urban-city/

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

Let's not have this thread devolve into another homelessness rabbit hole...that has caused far too many issues in the past.

Yeah, lets not talk about the social consequences of bad public policy/bad urban planning, lets just talk about form over function, and how pretty the shiny glass skyscrapers are; Oh, and how awesome they look from the freeway! jk

[i-215]

Originally Posted by ajiuO

I think 100 south is in some serious need of help. There are a few sections that have so many homeless people that you can’t walk down the sidewalk any more. I’m not sure what happened.

Solution: Eliminate R-1 and R-2 zoning statewide. Legalize single-room occupancy apartments statewide. Make the free market go to work in EVERY city in Utah, allowing urban, suburban, and rural developers to get creative with bringing new, affordable housing types to market -- rather than being shoehorned into a 1970s hell. (It shouldn't be Salt Lake City's job alone to house the state's poor.)

Once we have a glut of overbuilt housing of all types (single family, duplex, quadplex, townhouse, divided McMansion, guesthouse, SRO, apartment, converted garage, accessory structure, connected tiny house, dormitory), we'll be able to move the destitute back into cheap "slums" where they can at least have a roof over their heads again.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by i-215

Solution: Eliminate R-1 and R-2 zoning statewide. Legalize single-room occupancy apartments statewide. Make the free market go to work in EVERY city in Utah, allowing urban, suburban, and rural developers to get creative with bringing new, affordable housing types to market -- rather than being shoehorned into a 1970s hell. (It shouldn't be Salt Lake City's job alone to house the state's poor.)

Once we have a glut of overbuilt housing of all types (single family, duplex, quadplex, townhouse, divided McMansion, guesthouse, SRO, apartment, converted garage, accessory structure, connected tiny house, dormitory), we'll be able to move the destitute back into cheap "slums" where they can at least have a roof over their heads again.

I was totally with you in many things you said until you seemed to claim that the best the free market can give us is slums for the low income to live in. Wow that is a depressing end game to your policy suggestion.

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by Old&New

Yeah, lets not talk about the social consequences of bad public policy/bad urban planning, lets just talk about form over function, and how pretty the shiny glass skyscrapers are; Oh, and how awesome they look from the freeway! jk

I get what you're saying, but every time we've had a discussion about homelessness on this forum, it's devolved into people yelling at each other, with some nasty comments about homeless people sprinkled in for good measure.