Root Memorial Square At 1400 Clay St.

[HOUCAJUN]

I passed by the Toyota Center this morning and saw that they have started construction on Root Memorial park. Look like they have been at it for a while. Are there any renderings available and an expected day of completion?

[HOUCAJUN]

someone has to know something about this project,right?

[jookyhc]

Supposedly they're installing basketball courts. I don't think I've seen any renderings, but the Rockets were a major donor to the revitalization.

[Houston Retail]

[HOUCAJUN]

^ You are awesome. Thanks for coming through.

[Dream]

this looks great. i can't wait to see the finished park.

what about the bums? this is prime homeless parkland. i think they may reclaim their lost land. i'm interested to see how the downtown leaders deal with this issue.

dream

[Houston19514]

At one time there was talk of adding another block to the Root Square park. I presume that idea is dead?

[MidtownCoog]

With all due repect, this was a nothing but a diversion from Les Alexander so he could continue to line his pockets with tax payer money.

He wanted to move the bums to Elizabeth Baldwin Park, and paid off that old preacher to take the heat, as if it was his idea.

This is long overdue, and I feel the Rockets sold the city short. How can you build a multi-million dollar area, but take over three years to start work on this park?

And FWIW, it's looks the same now, and it did two months ago when they put up the barracade.

What a shame.

The Rockets owe the city much more than this.

[jookyhc]

I'm not real clear on what your gripe is here, Midtown.

First of all, the land doesn't belong to the Rockets, they've just made a series of donations to the city, to reinvest in the park. If any entity has taken too long to get to work on the park, it's the City. For that matter, it's the city that let the park get run down in the first place, even though it's maybe than two miles from City Hall.

Does it benefit the team? Maybe, it'll make a few dozen suburbanites more comfortable about coming to a game, but it's not going to be a major revenue boost. In fact, the Rockets could well have simply ignored the park altogether as the city's responsibility - which it is - and not bothered to give back to the city a public space, in return for the city's investment in their private space.

Also while I don't necessarily think it's fair to shuttle the homeless population from park to park, I don't think it's appropriate city management to simply "give" certain parks to the homeless, as opposed to actually dealing with the homelessness issue. Last year the Rockets were going to donate the proceeds fom their "Tux N Tennies" gala to the Root Square fund. Instead they donated the gala dollars to a program that helps very low income people with job re-training and placement, and then Alexander went into his pocket to make the Root Square gift.

Frankly, I think the Rockets are one of the best corporate citizens in Houston - as well they should be since their operation is government subsidized. Nonetheless, it's my opinion that criticism of them on this point misses the mark.

[Subdude]

At one time there was talk of adding another block to the Root Square park.  I presume that idea is dead?

I heard something about that, but I thought it was more of a long-term than an immediate plan.

A good thing about this park is that they were able to design in the improvements without tearing out the existing trees.

[The Great Hizzy!]

They've at least made progress on the large kiosk to be built on the SE corner of the park.

[MidtownCoog]

Les wanted to NIMBY the bums to Midtown, and for the large part he was successful.

I was at the meeting with the Rocket's and their attorneys at the HPD Station on St. Emanuel.

They were some slick willies, who now doubt did not live in Midtown.

[jookyhc]

I don't drive through Midtown near as much as I drive through the Near East End, but didn't City Council already NIMBY the homeless out of Midtown, by extending the camping ban south, thus forcing the homeless to the East End and the Museum District?

Ultimately it doesn't really matter what park the homeless move into, no one is going to want them there. In any case, I can't blame the Rockets or the Astros, or Chevron-Texaco, or even a McDonald's franchisee for not wanting a large vagrant presence around their place of business.

The city should get to work on some real alternatives, rather than extending the camping ban zip by zip. Just since the ban was extended to Midtown a few months ago I've already started to see the occasional sleeper in some of our Heights area parks. I even had one person break into my garage to sleep one night when it was raining really bad. Literally - in my back yard.

[Sunstar]

This project is coming along nicely. The court has already been laid out and the goals are up. There's still quite a bit of landscaping to do, but overall it looks like it will be a nice addition to that part of downtown. A good number of homeless people still seem to be hanging around sitting across the street as if waiting for the fences to come down. I guess it's tough to give up a good thing...

[guess]

I took these Saturday:

[texasboy]

guys, i think they were serious when the downtown association released that plan for downtown in the next 20 years. i am loving all the neighborhood amenities coming to downtown to make it more of a neighborhood rather than an office park.

[tigereye]

[houstonsemipro]

Great pics, Tigereye.

[tigereye]

[tigereye]

Great pics, Tigereye.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks but there not mine, from a friend.

I though you guys might be interested in this.....

[tomv]

Les wanted to NIMBY the bums to Midtown, and for the large part he was successful.

I was at the meeting with the Rocket's and their attorneys at the HPD Station on St. Emanuel.

They were some slick willies, who now doubt did not live in Midtown.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To me, a NIMBY is someone who is generally in favor of something new for the community, such as a power plant, a halfway house, or a road, but is not in favor of having it built in their neighborhood.

Why should the Rockets want homeless people living in Root Park? Nobody wants that, just like we don't want homeless living in Memorial Park, Hermann Park, or Tranquility Park. To be opposed to that does not make one a NIMBY. The Rockets are not trying to shut down a homeless shelter. They are trying to ensure that the new park will be something we can all be proud of.

[MidtownCoog]

Dude, they wanted to move the bums to Midtown's Elizabeth Baldwin Park. Those were their exact words.

Someone else on this board must have attended this meeting. I know I am not the only one. It was SRO.

[tomv]

If that is so then that is not right either. Moving the homeless from one city park to another is not a solution. I'm not familiar with Baldwin Park. Is it nice? Where is it?

[hokieone]

I remember when I was looking at townhomes near Baldwin Park, the sales woman told me they had recently passed what was effectively a "no panhandling/ bum" law for the park. Thought it was pretty funny, but also good, that park is going to be a nice gathering area in Midtown one day.

What I am still curious on is when the camping ban is going to eventually hit the heartland of bum camping, Chenevert near Minute maid. Literally, it looks like a refugee camp over there, and some of those abandoned buildings there are basically porches for bums to sleep under. I hate driving down Chenevert just because of it, but I'm still surprised its been allowed to exist with minute maid right there. If I was with someone from out of town, I would never go by there. I know if you go by early in the morning, it looks like an entire boy scout troop has made a trip there, except add about 30 years of age, and I don't think boy scouts collect cans in shopping carts.

[RedScare]

First, we ran the homeless out of downtown, because some white people thought it would be a nice place to watch a baseball game.

Then, we ran them out of midtown, because white people from the suburbs wanted to be 'urban pioneers', but the homeless made it a bit too urban for their suburban tastes.

Now, you want to take away their freeway overpass?!

For those of you that don't spend much time thinking about this issue, let me explain:

The Star of Hope Mission used to have a men's shelter on the east side of downtown. No one bothered them there since no one went over there. Then, we decided to build a baseball stadium right on top of their shelter. They had to go. The non-profit's building was purchased and they rebuilt on Ruiz, next to the US 59 overpass. They also built a women's and family shelter on Dowling, a couple of blocks away. Now, these shelters, being run by a Christian group, have a few rules, if you want a bed. Some of the biggies are no drinking, drugging and fighting. If they smell alcohol, you don't get a bed. These are not harsh or unreasonable rules, but they are the rules.

Now, some of these homeless sorts, like many of us with homes, try to get through their miserable lives by having a drink or 2. Now, they don't get a bed, but they WILL get ameal in the morning, maybe their only one all day. Plus, the shelter has security, so if you sleep near the shelter, you will be reasonably safe, a really big deal for these guys. Since most humans, like most dogs, don't like to sleep in the rain, they bunk under the overpass.

These guys don't ask for much. On my way to the office, at most, they ask for a quarter. When I had my restaurant, they occasionally asked for a water or a coke. They offered to clean up around my restaurant and to watch the place at night, if I would let them use the spigot in the back to clean up, so as not to offend the white people by being unkempt. I told them that was fine as long as they didn't leave it running. They never used a drop more than they needed.

I hope I have not ruined anyone's day by making these people sound a little human. And I hope you will forgive the homeless for sleeping under your 59 overpass. They meant no harm. They just figured you already took their 45 overpass, and you had all the overpasses you need. I'll explain it to them the next time I see them. They are a very understanding lot....they have no choice.

[tomv]

Homeless are here to stay. Maybe we should just call them nomads. Many of them just sort of prefer this lifestyle, it seems, or don't have the drive to seek out something that might be better. Of course many have serious problems too.

But they don't have the right to live on streets or in public parks. Why should I have to endure an overwhelming stench of urine while walking around certain parts of Downtown? And I personally cannot stand being panhandled and never give them anything because it only perpetuates the problem, but I guess you can't outlaw that.

That being said, I don't mind a bit having some of my tax money used to make this situation better for all concerned.

[MidtownCoog]

White people? Does that mean the other races love the homeless?

Sheesh! Half the bums are white, and some are dangerous after sniffing enough glue, etc.

RedScare is way off base. It's against the law to camp under freeways.

What's wrong with enforcing the laws?

If you remember, back in the last 70s, 3,000 white people a week were moving to Houston from the rust belt. Many lived under the San Jacinto River bride on 59 and I-10.

They, too, were evicted.

It's the law, and it's about time we start enforcing it.

[bachanon]

First, we ran the homeless out of downtown, because some white people thought it would be a nice place to watch a baseball game.

Then, we ran them out of midtown, because white people from the suburbs wanted to be 'urban pioneers', but the homeless made it a bit too urban for their suburban tastes.

anyone remember a mayor named "lee p. brown"? anyone know any african-american, hispanic, asian owned businesses benefitting from these improvements? anyone know any african-american, hispanic, asian, etc. city council members?

come on, redscare. "white people"?

[hokieone]

Red Scare,

I get your point, and I realize that there is a greater "issue" at hand in terms of the sociological methods used to control homeless people. I realize kicking them out from one place to another is not a long term solution to ever helping these people move on from their current depleted status.

However, as someone else noted, it is illegal to camp under overpasses. Whether or not they are doing something wrong or not. Do you want to wait until they do something wrong to enforce it? Imagine if you get a flat one night over there trying to get on 59, are you going to get out and give them all quarters?

Also, I don't think there is anything wrong with people, white or another race, not wanting bums filling up their local parks. Yes people do move in for a more urban environment, but not at the cost of a drunk homeless person sleeping on the benches where they go to read or relax, or even take their kids during the day. Also, I just don't think that allowing an entire homeless congregation to gather every single day in one location can be good for anyone, the people camping there included. You mention the issue of no alcohol, drugs, and fighting in the shelters, this is essentially the very same shelter with no rules.

I admire the fact you took little steps to aid the homeless. Its more than I do. I'll be honest, I admit I look at the situation and wish they would all just go somewhere else. I admit my perspective is selfish because it doesn't look to help other fellow humans. I don't have the answer to fixing the situation. And I agree I'm looking from the perspective who wants downtown to be a great place to live and visit without all the eyesores and issues it currently has. However, allowing them to camp in one large location such as the 59 overpass is not a long term solution either. What the answer is, I'm as open to anyone to hearing better ideas. But you are then talking about a much larger issue, one that no city I know of has really managed to tackle.

[midtown_resident]

in all fairness - i don't think it's all "white people" that are taking on the urban frontier as you put it. the homeless issue is one that is cause for deeper exploration rather than applying simplistic assumptions about them and how to help their plight.

I'm all for addressing the problem from a root level. However, it's unfair to blame people who invest their life fortunes in homes and lives - they have every right to demand that their neighborhood be rid of homeless bums. I think it's unfair to paint residents of midtown as selfish, when in truth, they are simply trying to make their living environment BETTER.

I respect the initiatives you take to ensure that they are treated well and with respe ct. I don't have any intention of treating these people poorly. I do understand that they too are human and deserve the same empathy that's reserved for any other human.

But there are some undeniable facts about their lives - and these problems are ones that mere residents cannot address - the government must step to the plate to come up with solutions. Meanwhile, I will continue to tell the homeless bum who pees on my drive to "get the #%^ off of my property" and i will continue to call the police where needed.

There are two sides to every coin...and painting everyone with the same brush is unfair.

First, we ran the homeless out of downtown, because some white people thought it would be a nice place to watch a baseball game.

Then, we ran them out of midtown, because white people from the suburbs wanted to be 'urban pioneers', but the homeless made it a bit too urban for their suburban tastes.

Now, you want to take away their freeway overpass?!

For those of you that don't spend much time thinking about this issue, let me explain:

The Star of Hope Mission used to have a men's shelter on the east side of downtown.  No one bothered them there since no one went over there.  Then, we decided to build a baseball stadium right on top of their shelter.  They had to go.  The non-profit's building was purchased and they rebuilt on Ruiz, next to the US 59 overpass.  They also built a women's and family shelter on Dowling, a couple of blocks away.  Now, these shelters, being run by a Christian group, have a few rules, if you want a bed.  Some of the biggies are no drinking, drugging and fighting.  If they smell alcohol, you don't get a bed.  These are not harsh or unreasonable rules, but they are the rules.

Now, some of these homeless sorts, like many of us with homes, try to get through their miserable lives by having a drink or 2.  Now, they don't get a bed, but they WILL get ameal in the morning, maybe their only one all day.  Plus, the shelter has security, so if you sleep near the shelter, you will be reasonably safe, a really big deal for these guys.  Since most humans, like most dogs, don't like to sleep in the rain, they bunk under the overpass.

These guys don't ask for much.  On my way to the office, at most, they ask for a quarter.  When I had my restaurant, they occasionally asked for a water or a coke.  They offered to clean up around my restaurant and to watch the place at night, if I would let them use the spigot in the back to clean up, so as not to offend the white people by being unkempt.  I told them that was fine as long as they didn't leave it running.  They never used a drop more than they needed.

I hope I have not ruined anyone's day by making these people sound a little human.  And I hope you will forgive the homeless for sleeping under your 59 overpass.  They meant no harm.  They just figured you already took their 45 overpass, and you had all the overpasses you need.  I'll explain it to them the next time I see them.  They are a very understanding lot....they have no choice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>