Interfaith Ministries For Greater Houston At 3303 Main St.

[kylejack]

I wonder if anyone from IM reads these forums...it would be nice to find out what they are feeling? Especially, seeing how much IM is not wanted in midtown.

Has polling been conducted? Or maybe you've spoken with everyone who lives in Midtown?

[kylejack]

The relocation of Greyhound would be a major win, we tried for a decade with many promises and false hopes. I came to the realization that no matter what we did, at best all we could do is wait it out or move out.

The Greyhound station receives a weekly dump of parolees from Huntsville thanks to an agreement with TDC and the city of Huntsville. No matter where you are ultimately headed, Houston is your first destination. We have always wondered if there was another agreement that made Houston the first stop. Ironically Greyhound's parent company is based out of Dallas. (I believe this has been mentioned before on this board)

For those wanting to take up this fight, I would recommend asking your representatives why Houston is forced to receive these criminals, I'm sorry, rehabilitated persons.... first?

Even with Greyhound gone you still have to contend with the neighbor bad stewards such as Search, Lord of the Streets, Cloudbreak, the Center, etc, etc.

Perhaps because Houston is the nearest major city, and transporting them elsewhere would cost more?

SEARCH and Center are bad stewards? Come on. Homeless people are already here, in this community. If their needs aren't met it makes them more prone to crime, not less, and SEARCH in particular does a lot of really awesome work, like the suit drive.

Edited July 31, 2012 by kylejack

[TGM]

SEARCH and Center are bad stewards? Come on. Homeless people are already here, in this community. If their needs aren't met it makes them more prone to crime, not less, and SEARCH in particular does a lot of really awesome work, like the suit drive.

Search continues to break past promises to maintain their property and surrounding area. Stop by Bremmond street between 6-7AM and report back.

Search allows the use of their address as a mail drop. (They do have or had a small number of apartments at that address) Sex offenders used their address as their sex offender registration address. It is still occurring.

http://www.offendex.com/zipdirectory/TX/77002/Lattian_James_Mouton_1186277

https://records.txdps.state.tx.us/DPS_WEB/SorNew/PublicSite/index.aspx?PageIndex=Individual&IND_IDN=6896668&SearchType=Address

https://records.txdps.state.tx.us/DPS_WEB/SorNew/PublicSite/index.aspx?PageIndex=Individual&IND_IDN=5875280&SearchType=Address

Besides sex offenders here are some other class acts that live there:

http://harriscountyarrests.com/records/MB/ayers/5846/

http://harriscountyarrests.com/records/FS/mcgee/6867/

http://www.harriscountyarrests.com/records/MB/alexander/25875/

http://harriscountyarrests.com/records/MB/lamb/20341/

http://harriscountyarrests.com/records/FS/jackson/1333/

http://www.ultimatemontrose.com/briefs/387736-douglas-charles-atkins-arrested-on-charge-of-motion-to-revoke-parole

http://www.ultimatemontrose.com/briefs/348701-terrell-w-thierry-arrested-on-charge-of-theft-500-to-1-500

http://www.ultimatemontrose.com/briefs/383670-wanda-jean-jackson-arrested-on-charge-of-possession-of-marijuana-0-to-2-grams

http://ultimatemontrose.com/briefs/9881-jack-maurice-hill-released

http://ultimatemontrose.com/briefs/27613-lloyd-morgan-arrested-on-charge-of-theft-under-1500-3rd-off

Mr. Price of 2505 Fannin managed to get arrested in Montgomery county.

http://www.ultimatememorial.com/briefs/454011-montgomery-county-arrests-july-8

I'm sure all these recent arrests are all just big misunderstandings.

Edited August 1, 2012 by TGM

[skwatra]

I honestly know nothing about Search, thanks for sharing this information TGM. are the sex offenders homeless or falsifying their addresses for sex offender sites? I guess there is no way to know. if it is the former I don't see what Search could do about it, this is a service for homeless and though people may taking advantage of it, it can also help people.

I hope you do some research on IM and what they do for our community, and not group all of these places together.

Edited August 1, 2012 by skwatra

[TGM]

I honestly know nothing about Search, thanks for sharing this information TGM. are the sex offenders homeless or falsifying their addresses for sex offender sites? I guess there is no way to know. if it is the former I don't see what Search could do about it, this is a service for homeless and though people may taking advantage of it, it can also help people.

If an offender uses the mail drop service as a permanent address then it probably could be an issue. Search renting apartments to sex offenders is not against the law, it's just not something that I would want my donation money to go to. An even bigger offender are the various bunk houses in midtown that offer a bed and a locker.

I hope you do some research on IM and what they do for our community, and not group all of these places together.

It's not the meals on wheels program that is the issue, it's the scope of services creep that occurs after these services arrive. If they were all well managed and sensitive to community concerns then people would not have much of an issue with them. Sadly that's not the case.

[Pleak]

I had stopped posting in this thread because it had become the same old boring, "people that were here before us but don't look (and smell) like us don't belong here and lower our property values even though we knew they were here when we bought our house" kind of threads but I saw this article today and couldn't pass it up.

http://www.khou.com/news/local/Houstons-homeless-population-declines-164589156.html

So we have the people that count the homeless (and would want to inflate the number to get more federal funding) saying there are less homeless, but we have indignant Mid-towners swearing they are being invaded by hoards of out-of-state indigent. (which if they are homeless and broke - how did they get the money to drive to Houston?)

Because of law enforcement apathy, pressure from homeless groups, and Houstons economy, we have become a sanctuary city for the homeless.

Houston has had a net positive influx from other cities and it is growing faster based on the poor economy. The personal observation is the number of cars with out of state plates parked outside of places like Pacesetters, and the various bunkhouses in Midtown.

[LTAWACS]

Why do some people refuse to understand that we do not want them here? Why is it so difficult to comprehend?

[kylejack]

Why do some people refuse to understand that we do not want them here? Why is it so difficult to comprehend?

"we"

[LTAWACS]

Yes.

[kylejack]

Some do not want, some do. I live downtown and do not mind the homeless because I do not think of them as human refuse but just people trying to get by, for the most part. You may say "we" in Midtown do not want such and such, but I don't think you've asked their entire population of Midtown what they think.

[photohunts]

Some do not want, some do. I live downtown and do not mind the homeless because I do not think of them as human refuse but just people trying to get by, for the most part. You may say "we" in Midtown do not want such and such, but I don't think you've asked their entire population of Midtown what they think.

There's a big difference between not minding and wanting. I don't mind them (as long as they don't mind me), but I prefer them to be elsewhere.

[kylejack]

I prefer them to be in close proximity to public transportation hubs and social services that can assist them. The more stable their lives can be, the better it is for the population at-large.

[Pleak]

Why do some people refuse to understand that we do not want them here? Why is it so difficult to comprehend?

If you want to live in a perfectly controlled idyllic Truman show like environment - go live in Citycentre or the Woodlands. Apparently you (or the developer) can control everything and everybody there.

The city is messy. Deal with it.

[rsb320]

That's my bank and my train station. After the bank closes and IM opens, they better not be messing with me on that train platform. I'll be calling 713-222-Tips (or whatever) so fast it'll make your head spin.

[TGM]

I prefer them to be in close proximity to public transportation hubs and social services that can assist them. The more stable their lives can be, the better it is for the population at-large.

Ah, yes because the solution is making sure that everything is easy in their lives.

I must be doing something wrong in life because I have never found anything I wanted to achieve to be easy.

[kylejack]

Ah, yes because the solution is making sure that everything is easy in their lives.

I must be doing something wrong in life because I have never found anything I wanted to achieve to be easy.

Would that we could all be as awesome as you, but my point was that people who cannot meet their basic needs might resort to bad things such as crime to meet their needs. If we can help arrange good outcomes, then we can reduce the crime the community experiences.

It's kind of like crosswalks. If there are dozens of people crossing a road where there are no crosswalks for a long ways, it makes sense to install a crosswalk. Yes, people who cross without a crosswalk are themselves at fault if they get hit, but why not just make it easier and more reasonable to cross so that fewer people get hit?

[kylejack]

Supposing all homeless aid organizations in Midtown and Downtown closed: There would still be tons of homeless living here, because this area has public transportation hubs and pedestrian traffic. But the people in more desperate circumstances than before would be looking for a way to eat, clothe themselves, etc. What do you think they would choose?

[TGM]

Would that we could all be as awesome as you, but my point was that people who cannot meet their basic needs might resort to bad things such as crime to meet their needs.

Or they might not. The whole poverty=crime takes individual choice and responsibility out of the equation.

[kylejack]

Or they might not. The whole poverty=crime takes individual choice and responsibility out of the equation.

I'm not proposing that we stop prosecuting people for crimes. People are still responsible for their actions, but dire circumstance does often lead to crime, and it's a story as old as time. Poverty can be a motive, but certainly not the only motive.

It isn't billionaires committing B&E in Midtown, that's for sure.

Edited August 1, 2012 by kylejack

[TGM]

Supposing all homeless aid organizations in Midtown and Downtown closed: There would still be tons of homeless living here, because this area has public transportation hubs and pedestrian traffic. But the people in more desperate circumstances than before would be looking for a way to eat, clothe themselves, etc. What do you think they would choose?

So they wake up one morning and there are no services. My guess is that they would head out on public transportation. The funny thing is that your argument for Midtown based on public transportation is the same argument against public transit that you hear in the suburbs. From one side of the mouth they tell them that public transit will not impact the area and out of the other the opposite.

All in all I see the common "sanctification of the victim" thread in all discussions about the homeless. In the end you will not find much sympathy for those unwilling to work. There is no such a thing as a bad job, only bad men unwilling to do them. I look around and I see a lot of won't do rather than can do.

Oddly enough I never see this as a bullet point from those pushing the advantages of light rail.

[kylejack]

Then you should support organizations such as SEARCH, which provide job placement services. http://www.searchhomeless.org/programs/employ/

[rci2145]

The fact that Midtown homeowners bought in this area knowing about the vagrant issues does not mean they should not be concerned about current vagrants roaming the neighborhood. Many of us, (including me) thought that Midtown would continue to progress over time into a more and more pedestrian friendly and resident friendly area -- and it has.

As residents we should continue to pursue our goals. We all know there will be vagrants but they should be controlled as much as possible. Unfortunately, the city doesn't care much. In Dallas, they cultivate urban neighborhoods. Uptown Dallas is light years better than Midtown Houston. It's too bad, because Midtown could have been just as good or better if we had smarter city planning.

[mkultra25]

I had stopped posting in this thread because it had become the same old boring, "people that were here before us but don't look (and smell) like us don't belong here and lower our property values even though we knew they were here when we bought our house" kind of threads but I saw this article today and couldn't pass it up.

I've come to the conclusion that it's a complex issue.

People who oppose the Ashby high-rise (or any similar development) = NIMBYs (preferably uttered with an appropriately spittle-flecked tone of boundless contempt and derision)

People who oppose the homeless being seen or heard anywhere near their place of residence = paragons of neighborhood stewardship

HTH

[TGM]

I had stopped posting in this thread because it had become the same old boring, "people that were here before us but don't look (and smell) like us don't belong here and lower our property values even though we knew they were here when we bought our house" kind of threads but I saw this article today and couldn't pass it up.

I'm not conceding to the narrative that those before us somooow hold veto power over the rights of property owners. If you were able to lay sopping drunk in a pool of piss for 5 years that does not grandfather you to your sidewalk du jour.

The ultimate hypocrisy is claiming "traditional, ie area values" for one group and then attacking another over there own "traditional values"

So we have the people that count the homeless (and would want to inflate the number to get more federal funding) saying there are less homeless, but we have indignant Mid-towners swearing they are being invaded by hoards of out-of-state indigent.

"Coalition CEO Marilyn Brown believes the group’s work with service providers led to the decline in homeless numbers. She does not expect funding cuts because of increased government concern over homeless people not finding shelter."

Re-read what she said. She taking credit (unverifiable, just like the original numbers) for the "decline" and stating that the gravy-train will continue.

[kylejack]

I'm not conceding to the narrative that those before us somooow hold veto power over the rights of property owners.

You're right, you have every right to decide how your property is used. SEARCH also owns property.

[TGM]

You're right, you have every right to decide how your property is used. SEARCH also owns property.

So why don't they open the gates to their facilities instead of letting their valued patrons camp out on the sidewalks? That would be the compassionate thing to do based on their value systems.

[kylejack]

Sidewalks are public property, not your property, so again, you're trying to impose. But anyway, SEARCH has numerous housing arrangements that they're providing.

[TGM]

Sidewalks are public property, not your property, so again, you're trying to impose. But anyway, SEARCH has numerous housing arrangements that they're providing.

Impose? Suggest is more accurate.

Their lack of property ownership, does not entitle them to de facto "ownership" of a sidewalk.

I'm thrilled search has housing arrangements, maybe they can be courteous neighbors and place their patrons in one.

[TonyM]

Sidewalks are public property, not your property, so again, you're trying to impose. But anyway, SEARCH has numerous housing arrangements that they're providing.

Quite the contrary, Kyle. As a taxpaying, productive member of society my hard earned dollars went towards that sidewalk. The non-taxpaying (likely tax leeching) homeless person can make no such claim of contribution or productivity.

I can tolerate homeless wandering around if they don't utter a word to me other than "hello" and mind their own business, don't urinate on the sidewalk (as I watch most of them do), and don't give people a hard time. But considering the fact that there is only one "regular" bum I see who minds his own business every time I see him, I believe that type to be the exception and not the rule. Most do beg for money and some hassle you for it, most do urinate and defecate on the public infrastructure you say we all have no claim to, most are just drunken trouble makers. As harsh as it may sound that's the cold hard reality of it, these people are leeches and contribute nothing positive to society. Forgive me for not shedding a tear for them.

[kylejack]

Impose? Suggest is more accurate.

Their lack of property ownership, does not entitle them to de facto "ownership" of a sidewalk.

I'm thrilled search has housing arrangements, maybe they can be courteous neighbors and place their patrons in one.

They provide what they can. If other individuals are choosing of their own volition to lay on the sidewalk because they don't have anywhere else to sleep (there are more homeless than beds available in Houston), what's SEARCH have to do with that?

And if they weren't laying in front of SEARCH, maybe they'd be laying in front of your house. There's the civility ordinance, but that's only so powerful, and a person can make a civility ordinance complaint regardless of whose business/home the person is sleeping in front of.

Edited August 2, 2012 by kylejack