Iron Gate

[Conan71]

Oh, you are so right on this piece.  I am not sure how/when the momentum started on that section of trail, but it is ridiculous.   Early this Spring it wasn't too bad, but lately it has been overrun.   I bike early in the morning mostly, and multiple times this Summer there people had made campsites in the middle of the bike lanes.  I had to veer over to the running side to go around them.  Even biking, there were a few encounters that were "less than courteous".  I would definitely avoid that area, particularly early and late, if I were a runner.

I will bring yours and Aqua's concerned up at RPA's user advisory committee meeting tomorrow and see if A) they are aware of a worsening problem and B) what they can/intend to do about it.

I've had near collisions with drunks on the SWB bridge before but not really that bad up to 21st other than all the usual wanderers in the open area around Elwood's.

[rebound]

I will bring yours and Aqua's concerned up at RPA's user advisory committee meeting tomorrow and see if A) they are aware of a worsening problem and B) what they can/intend to do about it.

I've had near collisions with drunks on the SWB bridge before but not really that bad up to 21st other than all the usual wanderers in the open area around Elwood's.

The ones that gather near Elwoods don't seem to be a problem, except that they sometimes seem to occupy the park area there and that (to me) seems to intrude too much on children's use of that space.   Where I had issues was more up between the bridge and about 15th.  Haven't been through there in 2-3 weeks, but was consistently a hassle for a while in that area.

[davideinstein]

Considering the newest proposed location is so near to Central Park and the Townhomes there, I'm surprised there isn't a tremendous backlash against it. Central Park is my favorite right now because it is so pretty, so unused by outsiders to the area and only slightly attended by homeless. The ones there are pretty considerate and hang near the north side of the park.

But if Iron Gate brings its constituency, I foresee that park starting to look like River parks between 11th and 19th. Which is why I stopped running that area. They were hard core drunks, often stumbling around, arguing with each other, occupying all the good spots and leaving their clothes, beer cans, cigarettes behind them. Proximity to the river hides some of them. God help them, but if given a choice, I see too much of that every day. I just want to run a path and relax in natures beauty.

Please don't judge me, I am just noting reality. Central Park will change.

It's Centennial Park, not Central Park. And there are homeless people there every single day. It's a public park and they have every right to use it.

[davideinstein]

Oh, you are so right on this piece.  I am not sure how/when the momentum started on that section of trail, but it is ridiculous.   Early this Spring it wasn't too bad, but lately it has been overrun.   I bike early in the morning mostly, and multiple times this Summer there people had made campsites in the middle of the bike lanes.  I had to veer over to the running side to go around them.  Even biking, there were a few encounters that were "less than courteous".  I would definitely avoid that area, particularly early and late, if I were a runner.

That happens when you have a community that just complains about homelessness instead of being progressive enough to fix it. Not you individually but as a collective we've failed miserably.

[RecycleMichael]

It's Centennial Park, not Central Park. And there are homeless people there every single day. It's a public park and they have every right to use it.

It was Central Park for decades until Tulsa turned 100 years old back in 1998. They then built a new senior and event center, a retention pond and a walking path called "Central Center at Centennial Park" as an homage to the old name.

I work directly the other side of the bridge from here. I am also having a dinner there tomorrow night for 150 people. I am there every week and drive by every day.

There are homeless people there, but they seem to be mostly passing through. They don't hang out near the condos or the Center for long. If I had to pick one place that seemed to be a hangout for the homeless, it would be under the bridge to the west.

[Conan71]

That happens when you have a community that just complains about homelessness instead of being progressive enough to fix it. Not you individually but as a collective we've failed miserably.

B.S.  For a city of our size we are very blessed with quite a bit of social services and programs for the homeless and under-priveledged.  I think of Tulsa as being a pretty caring city. 

What cities do it well or better?  I'm not aware of one which has managed to deal with the problem entirely.  The truth is, there is no such thing as a fix for homelessness. 

For every person you get off the street, there's another heading that direction.  It happens.  Whether it's mental illness, drug use, ex-convicts turned out by family, or someone who had a cataclysm of circumstances which robbed them of everything- there will always be homeless or people temporarily down on their luck trying to claw their way back up.  It's not a reflection on the community at large.

Keep in mind, homeless people will migrate to larger cities because smaller towns don't have any resources to help them.  These are not all Tulsa natives you see out on the streets.

[AquaMan]

The ones that gather near Elwoods don't seem to be a problem, except that they sometimes seem to occupy the park area there and that (to me) seems to intrude too much on children's use of that space.   Where I had issues was more up between the bridge and about 15th.  Haven't been through there in 2-3 weeks, but was consistently a hassle for a while in that area.

Yes, that area.

[AquaMan]

It's Centennial Park, not Central Park. And there are homeless people there every single day. It's a public park and they have every right to use it.

Oh, stop that. It was Central Park for 85 years and it will always be Central Park to natives. Call it Limberger for all I care, its Central Park and Centennial park at the same time. Same thing with the 11th street bridge. No one called it the 66 bridge till someone saw economic benefit to do so.

Yes, there are homeless there every single day and you don't seem to have read my post. Getting sanctimonious is a waste of time. I do not begrudge them even though they pay no taxes, do not clean up after themselves and leave their huts, bush homes,  bottles and piles of clothing all over. They have a right to trash a fine park.

If you cannot see the difference  between Iron Gate and River Parks homeless, then you're just not paying attention.

[cannon_fodder]

I looked long and hard last night for statistics to help understand what might actually help alleviate homelessness. Its hard to find a good source, but I think I found one:

http://www.endhomelessness.org/page/-/files/4361_file_Appendix_One.pdf

The chart lists cities with homeless populations, the estimate of the number of homeless as of 2011 (last year solid data was available for all 100), then breaks it down per capita and rank. It uses MSA, which I think it must. My idea was we could look at this data and find the trends - cities in the south tend to have more homeless, or cities on the coast, or in the rust belt...whatever. Then find the outliers that are doing better than the trends woudl suggest and see what they are doing.

I never got that far. In general, we are doing pretty well - in line with Pittsburgh, Dallas, etc. in per capita homelessness at 9/10k.  I will pick out one early trend, to have a truly astonishing number of homeless, you need to have a nice climate - California, Florida, Seattle, etc. I can't imagine the social functions that lead to homelessness are any different in Fresno California than they are in Pittsburgh, PA, do homeless people move to nice areas, feel more inclined/motivated based on location, or other factors?

Anyway, there is the data, dig into it. See what you can come up with.

[TulsaGoldenHurriCAN]

B.S.  For a city of our size we are very blessed with quite a bit of social services and programs for the homeless and under-priveledged.  I think of Tulsa as being a pretty caring city. 

What cities do it well or better?  I'm not aware of one which has managed to deal with the problem entirely.  The truth is, there is no such thing as a fix for homelessness. 

For every person you get off the street, there's another heading that direction.  It happens.  Whether it's mental illness, drug use, ex-convicts turned out by family, or someone who had a cataclysm of circumstances which robbed them of everything- there will always be homeless or people temporarily down on their luck trying to claw their way back up.  It's not a reflection on the community at large.

Keep in mind, homeless people will migrate to larger cities because smaller towns don't have any resources to help them.  These are not all Tulsa natives you see out on the streets.

Great post! And the link cannon_fodder provided shows Tulsa is one of the better cities in this regard. Far better than just about every renown staunchly liberal city on the list which shows it is not a R/D issue. Two of the best cities for this are Baton Rouge and Provo, Utah. Both areas close to Tulsa's size but slightly smaller. Both very conservative areas. For Baton Rouge, nearby New Orleans has an incredibly high rate of 56 per 10k population. I am not sure what else Baton Rouge is doing, but we should look to them along with Provo Utah.

I would consider Birmingham, Little Rock, Memphis, KC, Wichita, OKC and Jackson regional/climate peers and all of those places have a much higher rate of homelessness except Wichita which is just slightly higher. So all of those cities should look up to what Tulsa is doing about homelessness.

DC, SF, Springfield MA, Seattle, NYC and all of the other major liberal cities should be ashamed of themselves and how they treat those who are not well off and they should all look up to conservative cities who actually help those in need like Wichita, Tulsa and Provo.

[TulsaGoldenHurriCAN]

I looked long and hard last night for statistics to help understand what might actually help alleviate homelessness. Its hard to find a good source, but I think I found one:

http://www.endhomelessness.org/page/-/files/4361_file_Appendix_One.pdf

The chart lists cities with homeless populations, the estimate of the number of homeless as of 2011 (last year solid data was available for all 100), then breaks it down per capita and rank. It uses MSA, which I think it must. My idea was we could look at this data and find the trends - cities in the south tend to have more homeless, or cities on the coast, or in the rust belt...whatever. Then find the outliers that are doing better than the trends woudl suggest and see what they are doing.

I never got that far. In general, we are doing pretty well - in line with Pittsburgh, Dallas, etc. in per capita homelessness at 9/10k.  I will pick out one early trend, to have a truly astonishing number of homeless, you need to have a nice climate - California, Florida, Seattle, etc. I can't imagine the social functions that lead to homelessness are any different in Fresno California than they are in Pittsburgh, PA, do homeless people move to nice areas, feel more inclined/motivated based on location, or other factors?

Anyway, there is the data, dig into it. See what you can come up with.

In Utah, the most conservative state in the union, they provide homes to homeless with no requirements to quit drug/alcohol use (very "liberal" sounding idea, huh?). In the long run, they usually quit using drugs anyways and it actually saves society money immediately. It is much cheaper to have someone in a home than out on the streets (many factors but medical and incarceration are the biggest factors). Tulsa is doing something similar called Better Box Project with the Denver House. That is a way to actually combat homelessness.

Utah plans to house all homeless who want a home. I doubt the number for SLC in that link unless it includes temporarily homeless because chronic homelessness in all of Utah has plummeted from several thousand to around 700 thanks to their housing program.

[TulsaGoldenHurriCAN]

I love how all of the anti-Tulsa anti-conservative pro-democrat rants are posted and then someone posts facts which completely go against that narrative. Travel to just about any major urban area in the US and be thankful for how homelessness is in Tulsa. LA is horrifyingly sad.

It would be great to have zero homeless, but that will never happen, even in Utah where they give you a home for free with very few conditions.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I never got that far. In general, we are doing pretty well - in line with Pittsburgh, Dallas, etc. in per capita homelessness at 9/10k.  I will pick out one early trend, to have a truly astonishing number of homeless, you need to have a nice climate - California, Florida, Seattle, etc. I can't imagine the social functions that lead to homelessness are any different in Fresno California than they are in Pittsburgh, PA, do homeless people move to nice areas, feel more inclined/motivated based on location, or other factors?

Anyway, there is the data, dig into it. See what you can come up with.

I'm betting climate - it's easier to deal with living outside if the climate is not gonna freeze you to death.  But then, there are still several thousand in Alaska....

http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/forum/26/2summer2009/b_homelessness.html

[Conan71]

For some reason a guy sitting behind me at a restaurant last week struck up a conversation about Portland, Oregon where he was from.  He was talking about tiny houses for the homeless so I figured I'd look it up to see how close to the truth it was.  All of these links below are from this year, so this is currently happening or being discussed on the larger projects.

I have reservations about creating communities for homeless without any stipulations to be clean and sober.  My concern rests largely on the kind of criminal activity which follows drug and hardcore alcohol abuse.  I see it as coming with the risk of creating more crime-ridden public housing or essentially ghettos.  I could be all wrong, but this has been a chronic issue in complexes where there are concentrations of low income families.

Dignity Village houses 60 men and women:

http://www.yesmagazine.org/peace-justice/-in-a-tiny-house-village-portlands-homeless-find-dignity-20160128

Health care providers in Portland donating $21.5 million for 400 housing units:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/5-portland-hospitals-donate-215m-to-build-homeless-housing/2016/09/23/a4dd7aea-81bd-11e6-9578-558cc125c7ba_story.html

Here's another $100 million project proposed by developers to help house up to 1400 homeless people:

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/06/portland_developers_pitch_100.html

That link mentions San Antonio's "Haven For Hope"

http://www.havenforhope.org/new/

[rebound]

I have reservations about creating communities for homeless without any stipulations to be clean and sober.  

This right here...   

I don't feel I'm qualified to weigh in on how to solve this problem, and I tend to agree with others that to a certain extent it will never go away.  But running through this string just now I first saw Heirony's line: "They have a right to trash a fine park." (and I am taking that piece in context, it was well-written response.)  And respectfully, I disagree. They, nor anyone, has a right to trash anything.  Use the parks, hang out, etc, fine.  But when you start setting up tents and leaving trash all around, intimidating people, etc, you have overstepped your welcome.

Getting people off the streets, in whatever form that is accomplished, is admirable.  But with aid comes some form of agreement with regard to behavior.  Simply feeding a person, or housing them, etc, without some commitment from the individual only perpetuates a bad situation.