I left my shovel in my other life.

Make it panhandler, wino, transient unfriendly?

Make it all concrete, no trees, no benches for people to sit on.

Statues of prominent HISTORICAL figures that helped settle and mold the area.

It would be a great place for monuments such as the Bill of Rights, The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution.

You know the kind of things NOT taught in the government indoctrination centers.

The Ten Commandments would be good.

Christmas displays would look good there also.

It would serve a dual purpose that way.

The liberals would have something visible to cry over, and the Honest God-fearing Christians would have a visible celebration of the Birth of Christ.

84% of the United States population is Christian, why let the other 16% pretend they’re feelings are hurt because of something they saw?

http://johnlinko.blogspot.com/2008/03/catching-up.html

Gregg Palmer was right on two counts; that the four lanes of Fifth Street may prove to be a daunting and costly challenge to this conceptual integration, and that design alone may not resolve the ‘problems’ associated with Whitman Park.

If the Sentinel’s article is any indication, a good portion of these transients are camping along the river, and walking into town during the day. They can take a shower, have a cup of coffee, read the paper, do their laundry, and even check their mail at the Outreach Day Center. A hot meal is available just down the street at the Soup Kitchen. Other meals and a bed are available at the Rescue Mission. The proximity of the Greyhound Bus station to the park also adds to its’ population, especially during the day.

Whitman Park is a hub of green space for this segment of our society, and the various services they utilize. Our hospitable climate makes it an attractive way station for the homeless in our area. These services and the park are proximal to locations favored by transients for camping.

The initiative to gradually move shelter, treatment, and employment services to the North Avenue corridor served only to create a transient community in two locations instead of just one, and brought the spectre of panhandlers, Chronic Public Inebriates, and other problems to the main commercial corridor as well as the city center. This all served to provide another ‘proof’ of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

With regard to the park’s limited usefulness to families because of traffic; this may change somewhat once the Riverside Parkway is open, and a lot of that traffic headed south will no longer need to go through the heart of the city. We’ll see how long it takes for population growth and downtown redevelopment to bring with them another example of the above law in action.

-I’m in full agreement with Mr. Wilson’s assessment of the issues surrounding redevelopment of the park. Councilman Palmer also has his head in the right place when he says that design will not resolve the problems inherent in homelessness and its’ unfortunate side effects.

As with many arguments, there are those things unsaid which loom heavily as components that need to be looked at as potential ways to address the problem. There are at least two here:

1. The continued inability of certain components of our human services infrastructure, both public and private, to effectively deal with the root causes of homelessness. The recent problems at Colorado West Mental Health are an example.

2. The availability and abuse of alcohol, which is an issue that transcends all social strata but presents a true regulatory dilemma to local and state officials, especially in this context. We want to make Downtown an attractive place to be as possible, and a big part of this is providing vibrant and appealing public gathering spaces. It is the perception of many that you cannot be successful in this area without having alcohol in some form available for sale. As street festival season approaches Downtown, you’ll see examples of this as those organizing seek their city permits for beer and/or wine sales.

At the same time, we struggle everyday with those for whom alcohol abuse is a chronic problem. The liquor stores downtown and elsewhere do not appear to be struggling to survive. While there is no real way to track it, the percentage of their revenue that begins as government entitlements or the proceeds from panhandling has got to be significant.

So the question remains; how do we deal with the homeless, unemployed drunks while accommodating the productive, taxpaying ones? Where is the line drawn between personal freedom and responsible citizenship?

We must also remember that the bulk of our transient population are likely not the chronically drunk. How do we deal with the troublemakers in the park without demonizing those who are victims of poverty and its’ contributing factors?