51黑料

Look no further than the recent brouhaha surrounding the 51黑料 Board of Aldermen鈥檚 legislation that supporters like to call the 鈥�Unhoused Bill of Rights.鈥�

Too many others call it the 鈥減ee and poop鈥� bill, thanks to a provision it contained that would have made it legal for homeless people to urinate and defecate in public.

(We鈥檒l pause here a moment to give everyone a chance to re-read that previous paragraph 鈥� just in case some were unaware of the bill鈥檚 鈥渨orld-is-a-toilet鈥� clause, or some still find it hard to believe it was ever included.)

OK, now back to the homeless bill.

The overall aim of the legislation, three bills introduced simultaneously, embraces the honorable wish to provide homeless people with resources to help them off the street and into permanent housing.

This is not something embraced only by the self-styled politically progressive. Anyone with even a dollop of compassion wants to shelter the homeless, feed the hungry and protect the abused. And to be sure, this proposal contains provisions for providing relief.

Which brings us back to the elephant droppings in the room.

How did anyone on God鈥檚 green earth think this proposal would travel through the legislative process with a clause that legalized and relieving oneself in public?

Maybe it鈥檚 just a matter of aldermanic seasoning. The lead sponsor, Alderwoman Alisha Sonnier, of Tower Grove East, is in her first year on the aldermanic board. From all accounts, she is smart, energetic and committed.

But her inexperience showed in Post-Dispatch reporter Austin Huguelet鈥檚 recent story about the opposition the legislation, in its current form, faces from Mayor Tishaura O. Jones and several progressive aldermen.

Sonnier told Huguelet that she is willing to work with colleagues on a compromise. As evidence of that, she pointed to the fact that the pee-and-poop provision has been flushed from the bill.

Like it was some kind of a bargaining chip? How could anyone involved in putting this legislation together ever see that distasteful, unsanitary provision as some viable trade-off for anything?

Instead of serving as a chip, the provision was a time bomb, and not even a hidden one. It blew up early and damaged the bill as soon as it left the starting block.

In short, it made the entire legislation look 鈥渦nserious.鈥� Unfortunately, it made its supporters look the same.

Helping on the bill is Aldermanic President Megan E. Green, who joined Sonnier in complaining about the opposition from Jones鈥� office and some aldermen.

One would think she could have predicted the bumps along this road, given that she was an alderman for eight years before winning the top board spot in 2022.

But Green prides herself on being, by her own description, a policy wonk. And this is not the first time she has shown a penchant for plans that no doubt would earn high marks in a graduate school program.

Right now, in another exercise of policy wonkery, Green鈥檚 office is conducting a survey on how to use about $250 million in Rams relocation money. The process looks good on paper, or on an overhead projector at a symposium.

But while many city residents keep saying they want better police, street and trash service, Green鈥檚 office and allies seem more focused on things she and fellow progressives want.

When the public agrees with politicians, politicians applaud the public wisdom; when it doesn鈥檛 agree, politicians conclude the public is wrong.

This homeless legislation, however, aims to do more than just ignore the public voice.

It sets its sights on taking it away 鈥� by eliminating requirements for shelters to get approval signatures from its closest neighbors, thereby making it easier to open homeless shelters in residential neighborhoods.

A good argument can be made for changing restrictive city zoning codes to allow shelters to operate in more places. But it鈥檚 odd that progressives 鈥� who seem to love signature drives for most any other reason 鈥� want to take power away from the people who could be the most affected.

Did Green and Sonnier both not see the possibility that this disenfranchisement of sorts just might get the public a bit concerned? Really?

Again, no one denies there is a homeless problem that requires both short- and long-term plans to handle current emergencies and correct past inadequacies.

Since this bill was partially a mash-up of several old proposals, a better plan might have been to break it down into segments and introduce them incrementally to address specific issues.

Instead, the bill鈥檚 promoters opted to bring it all forth at once, as a dramatically resonant but ultimately unwieldy 鈥渂ill of rights.鈥�

And because of its initial knockdown, it likely will take more time for the board to hold its hearings and negotiate its way past all of the opposition, internal and external, that it has generated.

Good wishes are nice; good plans help the homeless.

Originally published in the Saturday, Oct. 28 edition.