absolutely absurd article on homeless encampment clearing on 17th st NW/Safeway

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I live in DC. And I'm not talking about just the homeless people who approach residents. You're seeing the tip of the iceberg and are completely oblivious to a large number of people that aren't anything like the image in your mind. Why do you refuse to acknowledge your own ignorance?

DP. I’m fine with more money going to the homeless. I am NOT fine with homeless people destroying/monopolizing public space. I’m also not really fine with big encampments that don’t provide safety or structure, but I can see why they exist.

+1

NP here. Yes, everyone is very aware that there are more types of homeless people than those who aggressively approach residents, including but not limited to couch surfers, people living in their cars, those in homeless shelters, etc.

What you do not understand is that is not what is being discussed. We are discussing the specific subset of homeless people who destroy and diminish public spaces. Please try to stay on topic.

Yes. Exactly. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Street Sense. Hot off the press, buy my last copy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe you all live around this. That article says an example of an injustice against the homeless was a cafe trying to clear an encampment so they could actually have outdoor seating for their customers. What is it you all are trying to achieve? Drug addicts shooting up wherever?

What are you trying to achieve? Where do you think the people should live?

In some kind of dwelling where they follow social norms and contribute to society.

What's the best way to get there? Kick them and trash their stuff? Or offer them a hand up?

DP. Some of you literally sound like children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I live in DC. And I'm not talking about just the homeless people who approach residents. You're seeing the tip of the iceberg and are completely oblivious to a large number of people that aren't anything like the image in your mind. Why do you refuse to acknowledge your own ignorance?

DP. I’m fine with more money going to the homeless. I am NOT fine with homeless people destroying/monopolizing public space. I’m also not really fine with big encampments that don’t provide safety or structure, but I can see why they exist.

+1

NP here. Yes, everyone is very aware that there are more types of homeless people than those who aggressively approach residents, including but not limited to couch surfers, people living in their cars, those in homeless shelters, etc.

What you do not understand is that is not what is being discussed. We are discussing the specific subset of homeless people who destroy and diminish public spaces. Please try to stay on topic.

Absolutely this +100. This is not about families that fell on hard times and need housing. Again, DC is super generous already. We are talking about a subset that is actively trashing our public spaces and the city is doing nothing about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe you all live around this. That article says an example of an injustice against the homeless was a cafe trying to clear an encampment so they could actually have outdoor seating for their customers. What is it you all are trying to achieve? Drug addicts shooting up wherever?

What are you trying to achieve? Where do you think the people should live?

In some kind of dwelling where they follow social norms and contribute to society.

What's the best way to get there? Kick them and trash their stuff? Or offer them a hand up?

But DC is already quite generous in offering them a hand up. Many just refuse those services because shelters for example come with rules like no drugs.

I don't mean this to be rude or mean, but that's a pretty superficial understanding of what is offered and what that means for someone.

But let's take that example anyway: why is it the right policy to say 'no drugs' as a condition for an addict? Do you think many addicts are going to say 'ok then no more drugs for me'? It's why 'housing first' approaches are so much more successful.

Now consider all the other barriers there are to DC's 'great services'. Do you have ID/documents? Many don't. How about the risk of COVID in a congregate setting? The risk of getting your things stolen?

If you actually spent time with people in that situation and really cared about them then you'd see we aren't providing such great services. Some things are good and getting better, but it's not enough.

So you'd like us to pay for regular housing, (not a shelter with conditions) next to families and neighbors'rs, so people can do drugs? Do you know any addicts and what they are like? Treatment first yes, housing first no.

I hope this isn't a surprise to you, but people in houses also do drugs. You just don't see it as much. Treatment first just doesn't work.

Apparently, those people can keep it together enough to pay rent or a mortgage and not get kicked out by family or housemates. Drug addled street urchins do not *deserve* housing paid for with my very hard-earned income.

+1

You are asking us to pay to house hard drug addicts in regular housing (because shelters won't do). You are not considering the nuisance they will bring to their new living situation, the friends they will bring round, or the disturbance, unkemptness or danger they may cause. I am fine with paying for a shelter, treatment facility or mental health facility. I have zero obligation to provide "housing first" for someone who doesn't like shelters because they have rules.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I live in DC. And I'm not talking about just the homeless people who approach residents. You're seeing the tip of the iceberg and are completely oblivious to a large number of people that aren't anything like the image in your mind. Why do you refuse to acknowledge your own ignorance?

DP. I’m fine with more money going to the homeless. I am NOT fine with homeless people destroying/monopolizing public space. I’m also not really fine with big encampments that don’t provide safety or structure, but I can see why they exist.

+1

NP here. Yes, everyone is very aware that there are more types of homeless people than those who aggressively approach residents, including but not limited to couch surfers, people living in their cars, those in homeless shelters, etc.

What you do not understand is that is not what is being discussed. We are discussing the specific subset of homeless people who destroy and diminish public spaces. Please try to stay on topic.

Absolutely this +100. This is not about families that fell on hard times and need housing. Again, DC is super generous already. We are talking about a subset that is actively trashing our public spaces and the city is doing nothing about it.

I’ve always said that for some, the problem would have to hit them personally in order to finally get angry. Regardless, I’m glad people are waking up. The city should crack down hard on this kind of activity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I live in DC. And I'm not talking about just the homeless people who approach residents. You're seeing the tip of the iceberg and are completely oblivious to a large number of people that aren't anything like the image in your mind. Why do you refuse to acknowledge your own ignorance?

DP. I’m fine with more money going to the homeless. I am NOT fine with homeless people destroying/monopolizing public space. I’m also not really fine with big encampments that don’t provide safety or structure, but I can see why they exist.

+1

NP here. Yes, everyone is very aware that there are more types of homeless people than those who aggressively approach residents, including but not limited to couch surfers, people living in their cars, those in homeless shelters, etc.

What you do not understand is that is not what is being discussed. We are discussing the specific subset of homeless people who destroy and diminish public spaces. Please try to stay on topic.

Absolutely this +100. This is not about families that fell on hard times and need housing. Again, DC is super generous already. We are talking about a subset that is actively trashing our public spaces and the city is doing nothing about it.

I’ve always said that for some, the problem would have to hit them personally in order to finally get angry. Regardless, I’m glad people are waking up. The city should crack down hard on this kind of activity.

Well thanks to clowns like Charles Allen the city will not get around to cleaning up this mess anytime soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are asking us to pay to house hard drug addicts in regular housing (because shelters won't do). You are not considering the nuisance they will bring to their new living situation, the friends they will bring round, or the disturbance, unkemptness or danger they may cause. I am fine with paying for a shelter, treatment facility or mental health facility. I have zero obligation to provide "housing first" for someone who doesn't like shelters because they have rules.

I agree with you. I think "Housing First" policies are naive and unrealistic precisely for those reasons, as well as the fact that in addition to drugs, mental illness is also extremely prevalent among the homeless---probably even more so than drugs, though often they go together. Several years there was an article regarding a recipient of a "housing first" apartment who decided it was a bright idea to dry his shoes by putting them in the oven . . . I believe though, that there needs to be more treatment programs available so that people in shelters can get the support they need to get off the drugs, get medication for their mental illness. This is tough work---every case is different and requires a lot of individualized case management. But just hand people "housing first" with little support?----they will just cycle back to the street.

What makes you think that all homeless people for that stereotype?

I could understand that "all the homeless people who stand out in your memory" fit that bill, but that doesn't say anything about reality.

People who are a danger to themselves and others need something more. But there are plenty of people who would surprise the crap out of you.

This thread is specifically about the encampment on 17th street. I’ve seen an overwhelming amount of evidence over the past two years that those people are drug addicts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are asking us to pay to house hard drug addicts in regular housing (because shelters won't do). You are not considering the nuisance they will bring to their new living situation, the friends they will bring round, or the disturbance, unkemptness or danger they may cause. I am fine with paying for a shelter, treatment facility or mental health facility. I have zero obligation to provide "housing first" for someone who doesn't like shelters because they have rules.

I agree with you. I think "Housing First" policies are naive and unrealistic precisely for those reasons, as well as the fact that in addition to drugs, mental illness is also extremely prevalent among the homeless---probably even more so than drugs, though often they go together. Several years there was an article regarding a recipient of a "housing first" apartment who decided it was a bright idea to dry his shoes by putting them in the oven . . . I believe though, that there needs to be more treatment programs available so that people in shelters can get the support they need to get off the drugs, get medication for their mental illness. This is tough work---every case is different and requires a lot of individualized case management. But just hand people "housing first" with little support?----they will just cycle back to the street.

What makes you think that all homeless people for that stereotype?

I could understand that "all the homeless people who stand out in your memory" fit that bill, but that doesn't say anything about reality.

People who are a danger to themselves and others need something more. But there are plenty of people who would surprise the crap out of you.

This thread is specifically about the encampment on 17th street. I’ve seen an overwhelming amount of evidence over the past two years that those people are drug addicts.

They need to be moved to treatment or given bus tickets home. Not just moved fr.encampment to encampment in the city

[Anonymous]

Any updates on this? Did the homeless camp end up getting cleaned up?

[Anonymous]

So much human faeces all over tenleytown and friendship heights. Guessing the rest of DC as well? This is insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So much human faeces all over tenleytown and friendship heights. Guessing the rest of DC as well? This is insane.

Nope. It’s not happening all over DC. No encampments at the Wharf or Navy Yard. No encampments in Georgetown, Chevy Chase DC or in Rock Creek Park.

If you wondered whether or not the city cared about your neighborhood, this is a pretty good gauge.

[Anonymous]

This happens when housing gets expensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This happens when housing gets expensive.

No it happens when as a city you encourage a small group of people to trash our public space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This happens when housing gets expensive.

This is how you can tell when someone doesn’t know the city and hasn’t been here very long.

There has not been a time in the last 25 years that I have lived here that DuPont Circle had cheap and affordable housing.

On a relative basis, it’s actually cheaper now than lots of other areas of the city because before there was a very limited number of safe neighborhoods to live and the housing stock is now older and run down.

Imagine paying the highest rent in the city to live in the same crummy apartments, which is what people did not so long ago and I guess someone that is unfathomable to people today.