Eminent Park Towers?

Scott Leffler · Guru

Eminent Park Towers?

Date: Thu Nov 3 9:21 AM, 2005

I am not sure what the answer is - but if they do want a viable downtown you need to maximize your potential - you can't use half of it for low income elderly people. It would be interesting if they could take some of those old banks and put luxery apartments in them, really start updating Lockport!

If they do take it they should look at rebuilding other places for them. hey - how about taking genesse(spell?) street and that whole surronding area and rebuilding that!

BTW, your home page isn't working today-----

Phantom · Veteran Member

Did they mention what this out of town company wanted to do with it? Thanks to recent rulings, they could take it by eminent domain just as easily as buying it. Is the City just trying to beat them to it, to save it it perhaps?

Either way, tearing it down should only be viable if they had an alternative building for the tenants to go to.

Scott Leffler · Guru

It seems as though the "out of town company" - and I feel bad for saying it like that ... I'm not xenophobic, but I don't recall where they're from - is in the market for apartment buildings. They're also buying one in the Falls.

kspeer · Senior Member

Tear it down ! Tear it down! Tear it down!

RattyJenn · Senior Member

I deliver to UPT a few times a week, and believe me, the people who live there don't have anywhere else to go...This ends up being alot like Mount View in a way, because officials and legislators say, "Oh, well, there are so many wonderful private agencies...blah, blah, blah..." But the people who live in these facilities live there out of financial neccesity, not by choice. They are there because they can't afford to live anywhere else. I just think it would suck to live in low income housing, which is certainly not all that great to begin with, and then get booted out from even that. These outside entities, that always seem sort of fly by night, at best, swoop in here and snap up all of these properties and in the long run Niagara County suffers.

I am not saying that UPT isn't an eyesore, it is, by all means, but it does provide housing to a large group of people that really don't have much else. And I dare say that some out of state intrest is NOT going to fix it up and let the low income people stay there out of the goodness or their hearts...

Date: Thu Nov 3 3:48 PM, 2005

There are very few that live there because they have nowhere else to go, most are low income lazy scumbags who live off the government. This is an ugly building that blocks one the most scenic view of the canal in Lockport...tear it down!!!!!! You will never have an "historic" downtown as long as that place exists and it will be the downfall of all businesses that go in across the street...unless of course they move Social Services in. Now let’s hear from the politically correct who seem to think these people have nowhere else to go, they have their pick of the many fine welfare slumlord apartments around the city and should not reside right in the middle of our revitalized downtown.

Date: Thu Nov 3 3:54 PM, 2005

Phantom wrote:

Did they mention what this out of town company wanted to do with it? Thanks to recent rulings, they could take it by eminent domain just as easily as buying it. Is the City just trying to beat them to it, to save it it perhaps? Either way, tearing it down should only be viable if they had an alternative building for the tenants to go to.

What do you think they want to do with it?? Make money by moving in the welfare scuz and getting their checks directly from the state.

RattyJenn · Senior Member

There are a lot of old, infirm and/or mentally ill people who live at UPT, and they are NOT all lazy scumbags. UPT and other places like it often end up being the last chance safety net before people end up living in the streets. I am not saying this out of political correctness, but because I really believe we need places like this, and it just happens to sit where it is, in front of the locks. The tenants who live there didn't opt for it to be built there, it just was. I believe that sort of thinking is called blaming the victim.

--I never, ever want to be old and poor in this county, that's for sure.

Scott Leffler · Guru

Anonymous wrote:

There are very few that live there because they have nowhere else to go, most are low income lazy scumbags who live off the government. This is an ugly building that blocks one the most scenic view of the canal in Lockport...tear it down!!!!!! You will never have an "historic" downtown as long as that place exists and it will be the downfall of all businesses that go in across the street...unless of course they move Social Services in. Now let’s hear from the politically correct who seem to think these people have nowhere else to go, they have their pick of the many fine welfare slumlord apartments around the city and should not reside right in the middle of our revitalized downtown.

Always nice to see compassion. The other day when I was talking about not feeling bad for people who have it all - rub it in your face - lose it - and beg for help. Yeah, apparently I was talking about you.

Funny thing is, you'd look down on welfare recipients even if they got a job ... cause they'd JUST be working at McDonalds ... or Dunkin' Donuts. So attempting to please you is apparently pointless.

I agree that UPT is a blight. It's just plain ugly. And, yes, I'd like to see it removed. But ... this isn't a video game. There's no reset button. Mistakes were made. Apparently we have to live with them until we find something that works ... I'm just not sure throwing hundreds of people out on the street is the solution.

Maybe we could do a trade ... the city gives something to the county ... not sure what. In turn, the county gives the Davison Road complex to the city. We exchange it for UPT - move residents out there - tear it down - and give someone a $50,000 no-interest loan to put of a coffee shop.

Date: Thu Nov 3 7:20 PM, 2005

That's great Scott! stick up for the welfare recipients but put down a business owner who pays taxes,and has created jobs..oh, but she received a no interest loan... At least she is paying it back..what do we get back from the welfare recipients?

I am not a mean hearted person and when I say welfare recipient I mean the able bodied ones, no the people that welfare originally was intended for.

Scott Leffler · Guru

I'm not putting down the business owner. Good for her. I'm putting down the IDA. If we get all of our money back, they'll be quite lucky. In general, government is WAAAAY short sighted. That was the point I was trying to make. If you want to read more into it, feel free. But you'd be wrong.

-- Edited by Scott Leffler at 20:01, 2005-11-03

Mindcrime · Guru

Anonymous wrote:

There are very few that live there because they have nowhere else to go, most are low income lazy scumbags who live off the government. Have you ever been inside? Talked to the people who live there? How do you know all this? Do you always judge other people based on their pocketbooks? Guess that Jesus guy was a scumbag too, he had no income at all.

This is an ugly building that blocks one the most scenic view of the canal in Lockport...tear it down! So you'd tear down a building just for the view? I'd rather look at a building than scores of homeless people wandering around the "revitalized downtown." That'll be great for business. When's the last time you went for a walk to look at the locks? You want to tear down the building so you'll be able to glance at them as you zoom by? There are better reasons to knock over a building, which incidentally, would probably screw up Main St. and traffic for another year.

You will never have an "historic" downtown as long as that place exists and it will be the downfall of all businesses that go in across the street...unless of course they move Social Services in. Now let’s hear from the politically correct who seem to think these people have nowhere else to go, they have their pick of the many fine welfare slumlord apartments around the city and should not reside right in the middle of our revitalized downtown. Firstly, 'historic' is just another word for 'old.' Old is not always good. I've spoken with tenants who lived there, some still do, some were able to get back on their feet and improve their lives. Most of them are not able to. Many are in wheelchairs or have debilitating conditions, so 'just getting a job' is not as easy as you make it sound. Some have been screwed by the Social Security system. Would you hire any of them? They are not lazy roofers and ditch diggers. They are people down on their luck. That's why we have welfare, it's a safety net. Yes there are those who abuse it. But people abuse alcohol and there's no law against drinking, is there?

You're probably one of those gutless whiners who post about the cost of of services. (I can make assumptions about you because I've never met you, right?) From now on, you don't get any police protection. It's your fault if you get robbed. You don't get any ambulance rides either. It's your responsibility to not get hurt. Why should I pay to help YOU with YOUR heart attack? And if you ever lose your job, you won't need that federally mandated minimum wage, we'll just let your employer make up a number. How's $1.50/hr. sound? If yer not afraid of a little hard work, you should be able to make a living just fine. The people in that building recieve less than $6,000 a year. But don't worry, we'll throw in some food stamps. There, right back up to where you were.

And for the record, some new lamposts and a median does not a revitalized downtown make. I'll say it's revitalized when every storefront is filled with real businesses.

-- Edited by Mindcrime at 07:54, 2005-11-04

kspeer · Senior Member

Other low income housing options in Lockport:

Ruhlman Rd. (Apple Blossom Acres) - elderly section in back court
Sweetwood Drive (Strauss Rd.)
Garden St. Apts.
Gabriel Drive Apts.
Michigan St. (across from LVL)
Robinson / Dysinger

elderly low income:
The Spires
BTW, UPT was exclusively for low income elderly until recently.

Plus, many private landlords take section 8 and Bellmont as rent (guaranteed money)

So no, UPT is not the end of the line before living on the streets........Lockport has plenty of low income housing in existence. In fact, Ruhlman and Sweetwood are located conveniently by Tops and Walmart!

Oh, and if we just wait a couple more years, it'll probably fall down by itself just like the parking garage already is. There are huge cracks in UPT, and a little green paint won't fix that.

-- Edited by kspeer at 08:44, 2005-11-04

Date: Fri Nov 4 9:20 AM, 2005

"Have you ever been inside? Talked to the people who live there? How do you know all this? Do you always judge other people based on their pocketbooks? Guess that Jesus guy was a scumbag too, he had no income at all."

Yes I have and I walk by several times a week, and like I said most are able bodied welfare recipients, few deserve to live there. I don't believe in Jesus because I don't believe in Mother Goose.

"So you'd tear down a building just for the view? I'd rather look at a building than scores of homeless people wandering around the "revitalized downtown." That'll be great for business. When's the last time you went for a walk to look at the locks? You want to tear down the building so you'll be able to glance at them as you zoom by? There are better reasons to knock over a building, which incidentally, would probably screw up Main St. and traffic for another year."

There are scores of lazy, able bodied welfare recipients walking around downtown right now because of that place, how great is that for business? I take daily walks down and around the canal. You are right, tearing it down would not work, put a facade on it and turn it into a hotel or condos.

"Firstly, 'historic' is just another word for 'old.' Old is not always good. I've spoken with tenants who lived there, some still do, some were able to get back on their feet and improve their lives. Most of them are not able to. Many are in wheelchairs or have debilitating conditions, so 'just getting a job' is not as easy as you make it sound. Some have been screwed by the Social Security system. Would you hire any of them? They are not lazy roofers and ditch diggers. They are people down on their luck. That's why we have welfare, it's a safety net. Yes there are those who abuse it. But people abuse alcohol and there's no law against drinking, is there?

"I agree, I did not say everyone who lives there is a scumbag, read my post again. Lazy roofers and ditch diggers?? At least they work, some may be lazy but there are lazy people in every profession. There are many laws against drinking alcohol, you can't drink if you are under 21, you cannot drink and drive, you cannot buy alcohol on Sunday before noon etc...

"You're probably one of those gutless whiners who post about the cost of of services. (I can make assumptions about you because I've never met you, right?) From now on, you don't get any police protection. It's your fault if you get robbed. You don't get any ambulance rides either. It's your responsibility to not get hurt. Why should I pay to help YOU with YOUR heart attack? And if you ever lose your job, you won't need that federally mandated minimum wage, we'll just let your employer make up a number. How's $1.50/hr. sound? If yer not afraid of a little hard work, you should be able to make a living just fine. The people in that building recieve less than $6,000 a year. But don't worry, we'll throw in some food stamps. There, right back up to where you were.

And for the record, some new lamposts and a median does not a revitalized downtown make. I'll say it's revitalized when every storefront is filled with real businesses."

What I am is a taxpayer who has a job who is sick of the able-bodied living off the system. I pay taxes so I pay for police and fire protection and would never complain about that. There are many places for the low income/wefare people to go, I don't think the center of downtown Lockport is the place for them.

new kid · Member

UPT was section 8 and senior housing, has that changed? If it hasn't the residents are disabled or of retirement age. Remember that you can't always see a disability.

Date: Fri Nov 4 10:38 AM, 2005

Take anything Mindcrime writes with a grain of salt..remember he is the same guy who thinks prostitution is a victimless crime and should be legalized..Hey! How about we turn 77 Main into a whorehouse!

Date: Fri Nov 4 10:39 AM, 2005

new kid wrote:

UPT was section 8 and senior housing, has that changed? If it hasn't the residents are disabled or of retirement age. Remember that you can't always see a disability.

It is now federally subsidized low income housing.

Date: Fri Nov 4 11:10 AM, 2005

Anonymous wrote:

Take anything Mindcrime writes with a grain of salt..remember he is the same guy who thinks prostitution is a victimless crime and should be legalized..Hey! How about we turn 77 Main into a whorehouse!

Atleast if UPT was a whorehouse they would be working for a living. As for roofers and ditch diggers being lazy. The lazy don't last more than a day at those jobs. Maybe we can find a solution that makes everyone happy. We can tear down the buildind, put up a whore house with a view. And hire the old tenants to work in it. ie. Whores, Studs, laundry crew (whorehouses go through a lot of sheets), kitchen help, pharmacy for the viagra, EMS staff, janitors, maids, valets, and a host. See problem solved. Now Quitcher Bitchin'.

Phantom · Veteran Member

Anonymous wrote:

What I am is a taxpayer who has a job who is sick of the able-bodied living off the system. I pay taxes so I pay for police and fire protection and would never complain about that. There are many places for the low income/wefare people to go, I don't think the center of downtown Lockport is the place for them.

Statistics show that the 'able-bodied, living off the system' are in the minority (Meaning there is a low percentage of them) and are being weeded out of the system with new regulations all the time. (Ideally we need more limitations on child-bearing.) Most of the people on welfare these days are in dire need of the assistance because they don't have the means to work or make money. This is not a reason to hide them away somewhere so you don't have to see them or think about them. Sorry if they ruined your day by existing. Why don't we work towards helping these people instead of shuffling them into a dark corner.

And yes, prostitution is a victimless crime. And when someone can prove to me otherwise, I'll buy the first round of...whatever.

Date: Fri Nov 4 1:11 PM, 2005

Phantom wrote:

Statistics show that the 'able-bodied, living off the system' are in the minority (Meaning there is a low percentage of them) and are being weeded out of the system with new regulations all the time. (Ideally we need more limitations on child-bearing.) Most of the people on welfare these days are in dire need of the assistance because they don't have the means to work or make money. This is not a reason to hide them away somewhere so you don't have to see them or think about them. Sorry if they ruined your day by existing. Why don't we work towards helping these people instead of shuffling them into a dark corner. And yes, prostitution is a victimless crime. And when someone can prove to me otherwise, I'll buy the first round of...whatever.

Statistics is the science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.

Lets put all there people downtown then..fill the area with people pushing there shopping carts full of cans around, ...I am sure the tourists who visit would come back after seeing that.

Prostitution has many unseen victims..the wife who gets an STD because her husband see's a prostitute, the children born with AIDS..etc. Victimless? maybe in your house.

Phantom · Veteran Member

Anonymous wrote:

Prostitution has many unseen victims..the wife who gets an STD because her husband see's a prostitute, the children born with AIDS..etc. Victimless? maybe in your house.

So we should outlaw dating? Because the same problems could come from 2 teens in a parked car tonight. Gun control has unseen victims. So does religion and driving a car and playing sports, eating a meal, spreading freedom, and just about anything else for that matter.

Places with regulated prostitution have strict health requirements and safety regulations, with constant testing and supervision. What I'm getting at is that all sex has risks, whether you pay for it or it's free. Prostitution won't affect that. But it will stimulate the economy.

Date: Fri Nov 4 2:26 PM, 2005

Phantom wrote:

So we should outlaw dating? Because the same problems could come from 2 teens in a parked car tonight. Gun control has unseen victims. So does religion and driving a car and playing sports, eating a meal, spreading freedom, and just about anything else for that matter. Places with regulated prostitution have strict health requirements and safety regulations, with constant testing and supervision. What I'm getting at is that all sex has risks, whether you pay for it or it's free. Prostitution won't affect that. But it will stimulate the economy.

You cannot compare prostitiution with dating...protitututes have multiple partners in just one night..most people who date may have 2 or 3 partners a year. Gun control does have unseen victims..just like prostitution. You stated: "prostitution is a victimless crime. And when someone can prove to me otherwise, I'll buy the first round of...whatever." What is the wife of a man who visits these regulated whorehouses? She is not a victim? What is she?

new kid · Member

Anonymous wrote:

You cannot compare prostitiution with dating...protitututes have multiple partners in just one night..most people who date may have 2 or 3 partners a year. Gun control does have unseen victims..just like prostitution. You stated: "prostitution is a victimless crime. And when someone can prove to me otherwise, I'll buy the first round of...whatever." What is the wife of a man who visits these regulated whorehouses? She is not a victim? What is she?

She is a victim of an unfaithful spouse! That same spouse will go wherever they can to get some action with the same consequences. Legalizing prostitution would clean up the profession if a license were required. Maybe this is the shot in the arm Niagara County needs.

Date: Fri Nov 4 3:40 PM, 2005

This is my last post, I am dealing with a bunch of dolts here who think legalizing protitution is the answer..pretty sad when you have to go to a prostitute for sex...I am going to another board where maybe I can find someone with 1/2 a brain.