It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

St. Louis to try new tactic to curb panhandling.

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   
The new St. Louis director of human services wants to send a proposal to Mayor Slay in the next 6 weeks.


He said the city may ask panhandlers, who are not necessarily homeless, to obtain a business license with the city. Downtown STL Inc. said it is looking into alternative ways to give money to the homeless, either at meters, on the street, or through an app.


www.kmov.com...


Brilliant idea! In fact they can use the money from panhandling to buy the business license-it's only $200 for a street vendor license (which I'm assuming is the one they'd need) plus I assume they'll need to pay taxes on any revenue received from their "business".

Maybe a better idea is addressing the underlying issues, whatever they may be.




posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Offer one way plane or bus tickets to the city of their choice...



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: phoenix9884

Another cruel way to treat poor people. This gives more legal cover for institutional harassment by law enforcement.
Turn the cameras off for this one.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: phoenix9884
The new St. Louis director of human services wants to send a proposal to Mayor Slay in the next 6 weeks.


He said the city may ask panhandlers, who are not necessarily homeless, to obtain a business license with the city. Downtown STL Inc. said it is looking into alternative ways to give money to the homeless, either at meters, on the street, or through an app.


www.kmov.com...


Brilliant idea! In fact they can use the money from panhandling to buy the business license-it's only $200 for a street vendor license (which I'm assuming is the one they'd need) plus I assume they'll need to pay taxes on any revenue received from their "business".

Maybe a better idea is addressing the underlying issues, whatever they may be.


The difference between panhandlers and the city:

Panhandlers can ask me for money, and I can say no an walk away.

The city asks me for money, and if I say no, a person with a gun will eventually tell me I have to pay or go to jail.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   
I do not know the solution to panhandlers and homeless folks, but we need to be compassionant towards them and try to help them out in whatever ways possible. In todays world, this is a position in which almost anyone can finds themselves in with a few strokes of bad luck in life.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Now in the US you have to pay the government for the privilege to beg. But still don't need a license to practice politics



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   
This is so when the prison (State level) and the jails (County level) run out of bodies for their "For Profit Incarceration" then they can do 'street sweeps' and collect 100's of bodies to house in the aforementioned. ALL those who thought it was more important to eat/drink than pay $200 to their captors will get sucked up in these sweeps. Because these victims of "Them" didn't pay the fee for a license what are the chances they will be represented by a fancy lawyer? In walks the "Plea Agreement" instead of 10 years working in the for-profit Prison clothing shop, this poor turd, #1892408, gets a 'suspended sentence' and is given 15 years Probation which probably includes a "search and Seizure clause"

And because 'many' of these jails are now privately run, the taxpayer is footing the bill.. Before a Suspect was given a citation, now they are "booked" and We, the taxpayer gets to foot the bill. The CEO of the Jail sends the bill to the Sheriff.. Why do You think the cops are so aggressive now? The more bodies, the more numbers and versa-visa

ergo, "the game" is rigged...



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: phoenix9884

I think it is highly improper, if not downright callous, for a capitalist society to treat its poor so badly. The fact is, that capitalism does not function unless there is a group of people in that society who have little or nothing. This is supposed to be because unless there are those with nothing, others cannot have much, and further more that without destitution, there is no incentive to improve ones circumstances, which I have always found to be a deeply disturbing way to run a society.

These things considered, it is the height of bad form to mistreat and lambast those who find themselves so poor as to not be able to maintain a dwelling place, since it is their suffrage, their struggles, and their being the ones living that life, which mean that others will not have to. The sheer audacity of the St. Louis council in this is staggering. They should be ashamed of themselves.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
Offer one way plane or bus tickets to the city of their choice...


Which city will you choose if need be?

Jude11



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
I have very little compassion for these losers. There is a big difference between being part of the working poor and just being a drugged out panhandler. The bums where I live are all fairly young and able bodied. They just choose beg rather than work to feed their meth and heroin addictions.

These people are like pigeons. There is a reason there are signs that say don't feed the wildlife. The same applies to these dregs of society. The bleeding hearts that keep giving them money just encourage the behavior.

I know I sound callous and cold hearted, but having lived around these folks for an extended period helps me see reality. If you want to give them food, then fine. But please stop giving them money to feed their addictions.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated


but having lived around these folks for an extended period helps me see reality.


That's just it tho. You have lived "around" them. What about next to them?

I have and I'll tell you that you are wrong about so many. Some choose to be there but most do not.

Peace



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: jude11

Where am I wrong? Vast majority of homeless have severe drug and alcohol addictions. They are homeless by choice. They made/make the wrong choices. Some are clearly mentally unstable. For those who are a small fry short of Happy Meal, there is absolutely nothing we can do to help them other than throw them in the looney bin.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Your first two statements say an awful lot about your level of understanding of these issues. Your first statement, that the vast majority of homeless have severe drug and alcohol addictions, is entirely true. The second statement however, is false, and is not backed up by the first statement in the least.

Addiction amongst the homeless is just as much a product of homelessness for some, as it is the cause of it for others, and I would hope that you have the imagination and empathy necessary to see how that could be the case. Furthermore, the correct way to deal with those who are on the streets because they have a mental condition is not to throw them in a looney bin, as you put it. I am sure that there are those who are in need of residential psychiatric care, but the fact is that it is the governments job to ensure that there are enough such facilities, with enough staff and rooms and beds, for everyone who needs them, something that governments consistently fail to do. Some of those who have mental health conditions which lead them to life on the streets, merely need treatment and understanding to allow them enough stability to return to some level of function, and the longer they go without those things, the harder the route back.

Furthermore, your assertion that people on the streets have made the wrong choices, uniformly, that the majority of people who live on the streets, do so through their own fault, is precisely the sort of thing I would expect a person to say, if they had no idea what so ever, what it is like to be totally unsupported, and unprepared for a random, and devastating event. People lost their homes during the banking crash, people who should never have been exposed to that level of risk. People who were very responsible and dilligent lost their pensions, lost the money in their accounts, lost their futures.

en.wikipedia.org...

The above is a link to a Wiki, which lists the tent cities in the United States, by state. These are cities which sprung up after huge numbers of people were forced to abandon their homes, people who had lost jobs and homes all at once, and were out on their rears with nothing, thrown aside by circumstances totally outside their control. You have people working hard but living in their cars, people doing anything to keep their families in bread and water, and you think that everyone who has fallen afoul of the law or finance has somehow messed up?

I respect your right to have an opinion, but as far as I can tell you formed this one while walking around with your eyes closed for the last decade!



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Edumakated

Your first two statements say an awful lot about your level of understanding of these issues. Your first statement, that the vast majority of homeless have severe drug and alcohol addictions, is entirely true. The second statement however, is false, and is not backed up by the first statement in the least.

Addiction amongst the homeless is just as much a product of homelessness for some, as it is the cause of it for others, and I would hope that you have the imagination and empathy necessary to see how that could be the case. Furthermore, the correct way to deal with those who are on the streets because they have a mental condition is not to throw them in a looney bin, as you put it. I am sure that there are those who are in need of residential psychiatric care, but the fact is that it is the governments job to ensure that there are enough such facilities, with enough staff and rooms and beds, for everyone who needs them, something that governments consistently fail to do. Some of those who have mental health conditions which lead them to life on the streets, merely need treatment and understanding to allow them enough stability to return to some level of function, and the longer they go without those things, the harder the route back.

Furthermore, your assertion that people on the streets have made the wrong choices, uniformly, that the majority of people who live on the streets, do so through their own fault, is precisely the sort of thing I would expect a person to say, if they had no idea what so ever, what it is like to be totally unsupported, and unprepared for a random, and devastating event. People lost their homes during the banking crash, people who should never have been exposed to that level of risk. People who were very responsible and dilligent lost their pensions, lost the money in their accounts, lost their futures.

en.wikipedia.org...

The above is a link to a Wiki, which lists the tent cities in the United States, by state. These are cities which sprung up after huge numbers of people were forced to abandon their homes, people who had lost jobs and homes all at once, and were out on their rears with nothing, thrown aside by circumstances totally outside their control. You have people working hard but living in their cars, people doing anything to keep their families in bread and water, and you think that everyone who has fallen afoul of the law or finance has somehow messed up?

I respect your right to have an opinion, but as far as I can tell you formed this one while walking around with your eyes closed for the last decade!


I could not have said it better thank you!



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: jude11

Where am I wrong? Vast majority of homeless have severe drug and alcohol addictions. They are homeless by choice. They made/make the wrong choices. Some are clearly mentally unstable. For those who are a small fry short of Happy Meal, there is absolutely nothing we can do to help them other than throw them in the looney bin.


Well...can't argue with such well researched and thought out logic like that.

So I won't.

Peace



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Clearly they want a fine line drawn between social, class, race, and economic divides.

Oddly enough it it seems like they are poking the lion with a stick by introducing this in St Lious doesnt it?



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Will the Homeless panhandlers be allowed a sign saying "Help, need $200 for panhandling licence" ?

It's about time we all sent a letter stating, Sorry cant pay you this week as i decided a Homeless dude needed the money more than you. They cant make us all homeless.
edit on 3-1-2015 by Soloprotocol because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: jude11

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: jude11

Where am I wrong? Vast majority of homeless have severe drug and alcohol addictions. They are homeless by choice. They made/make the wrong choices. Some are clearly mentally unstable. For those who are a small fry short of Happy Meal, there is absolutely nothing we can do to help them other than throw them in the looney bin.


Well...can't argue with such well researched and thought out logic like that.

So I won't.

Peace


My logic is infallible. Thanks for playing.

Here is some research for you to digest... from the National Center for Homeless:

www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/addiction.pdf

If your reading comprehension is lacking, here are the key points:

"A 2008 survey by the United States Conference of Mayors asked 25 cities for their top three causes of homelessness. Substance abuse was the single largest cause of homelessness for single adults (reported by 68% of cities)... According to Didenko and Pankratz (2007), two-thirds of homeless people report that drugs and/or alcohol were a major reason for their becoming homeless."

There will ALWAYS be homeless bums and panhandlers. There will always be people who become addicted to drugs and make other poor life choices. Yes, we should try to help them, but acting like they are just homeless because some evil bank kicked them out of their house or Mitt Romney laid them off or whatever other BS excuse making progressives can come up with just impedes developing solutions so these people can learn some personal responsibility so they can stay off the streets.

The mentally ill are an entirely different issue. Part of the problem is that are we as a society going to forcibly commit some of these nut jobs? Some of the people do not need to be on the public streets but at the same time do you want to essentially just throw them in the crazy house/jail?



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   
in the UK and Norway, they let homeless people sell magazines dedicated to social issues (The Big Issue). Each copy sells for £1, and the homeless person gets to keep the money. The only problem is that East European gypsies were muscling into this business to the point that no homeless people were employed in this way.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

This is a big problem in Sweden now, I don't have anything against panhandling but when thousands of people come to a country just to panhandle it's a big problem, they're not even citizens. We literally have a gypsie outside of every single store in Sweden these days, that's a lot of people.
They fake injuries too, but the sad thing is that they're being ruthlessly exploited by Romanian mafia, and the government is essentially sanctioning this extortion by daftly easing migration restrictions. No one wins, not us Swedes, and certainly not the gypsies who has to live in makeshift camps during harsh Scandinavian winters while having most of their profits taken by them.

This is a different situation though, can't say I support it at all. If societies truly tried to mend issues like these I bet we could make progress. There are so many sick aspects to society it's almost laughable, I'm a cynic but deep down I believe in the possibility of drastic positive change, people just need to wake up to some of the more overarching problems and maybe after that we could try to earnestly tackle the smaller issues. I think corrupt banking practices would be #1 on that list.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join