Homeless tents creeping into the nice/residential part of DC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question - if it's legal under DC regs apparently to pitch a tent on any DC public property (sidewalk, little pocket parks, etc) .... can my teenage son and his friends put up a $ REI tent in little triangle park and camp there for weeks on end?

If not, why not?

Someone's going to reply to this and demand that I check my privilege and to them I say, eff off.

I envison my son, a junior at a private high school in Ward 3, getting a few friends to camp with him. Fires are a no-no, but they could put up some camp chairs (like the ones I see under Whitehurst Fwy?) and bring a quiet guitar and play songs.

Every single night, they can sleep in their REI tent with their Yeti cooler full of snacks. They can read using their REI solar lanterns and then go to sleep on their NorthFace cots. Maybe they could string solar party lights from tent to tent?

Would they be allowed to do this for months on end if their chosen location was smack dab in the center of Ward Circle Park?

They'd last maybe three hours after dark.

+1 please send privileged private boy out camping and report back in a week

Yes, let us know how rich white boy does in the dark…with a guitar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question - if it's legal under DC regs apparently to pitch a tent on any DC public property (sidewalk, little pocket parks, etc) .... can my teenage son and his friends put up a $ REI tent in little triangle park and camp there for weeks on end?

If not, why not?

Someone's going to reply to this and demand that I check my privilege and to them I say, eff off.

I envison my son, a junior at a private high school in Ward 3, getting a few friends to camp with him. Fires are a no-no, but they could put up some camp chairs (like the ones I see under Whitehurst Fwy?) and bring a quiet guitar and play songs.

Every single night, they can sleep in their REI tent with their Yeti cooler full of snacks. They can read using their REI solar lanterns and then go to sleep on their NorthFace cots. Maybe they could string solar party lights from tent to tent?

Would they be allowed to do this for months on end if their chosen location was smack dab in the center of Ward Circle Park?

They'd last maybe three hours after dark.

+1 please send privileged private boy out camping and report back in a week

Yes, let us know how rich white boy does in the dark…with a guitar.

Uhh, you did see that they said "in Ward Circle Park, right? Do you know where Ward Circle Park is? You think there are random psychos wandering around the mean streets of Spring Valley looking to beat up white kids after dark?

The worst that would happen is the police politely ask them to move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.usich.gov/homelessness-statistics/dc/

DC's official homeless population isn't even 1% of the total population. With the amount of wealth and highly educated people, we have in this area, we could completely eradicate homelessness and also provide drug treatment , mental health services, and employment training to those who need it. Also, while drug use rates in the US are comparable between Whites and Blacks, if you are a BIPOC person and caught doing drugs, you are 3X as likely to go to jail. Once you go to jail, your chance for employment and housing options narrow considerably. The path from jail spirals into drug use and living on the street sadly, all too often.

https://www.hamiltonproject.org/charts/rates_of_drug_use_and_sales_by_race_rates_of_drug_related_criminal_justice

Also, the DC's rapid rehousing program is a joke. It can take 5 years to get in, but you only have 12 months of subsidy. After that, you are on your own again. If you have mental health or substance abuse issues, a year is an unreasonably short amount of time to try to find employment or go into treatment especially when you have to navigate the byzantine DC bureaucracy to get those services.
https://dhs.dc.gov/page/rapid-rehousing-individuals

Tents make homeless people more visible because they used to live under bridges or wooded areas. Their visibility makes some people annoyed that despite their own wealth, power and status having to see poor people as their neighbors does not work with their image of what a "nice neighborhood" should be.

It's more of a question of values: what kind of city do we want to be? One that ignores, despises and makes those who have fallen onto hard times navigate never ending hurdles to gain access to services/puts them on a one-way bus to somewhere else or a city that wants to truly care for all of its citizens in the ways that they need it and give readily access to services for them?

The homeless living on DC's streets are living there because they chose to, not because DC does not have other options for them. We as a city or even a country do not want to believe this, but we have a HUGE mental health loophole that these people have fallen through. At the end of the day you cannot effectively treat people who do not volunteer for those services. If you don't want mental health treatment, you end up on the streets and the city does nothing about it.

So this less than 1% that someone was talking about earlier, it will always exist until we start involuntary treatment. Until then as a city we have decided to accept the issue.

This. Our whole approach to mental health care fell apart in the 1980s when many mental hospitals were closed, driven by BOTH a desire to reduce costs AND calls for more "autonomy" for the mentally ill. Camping in public space should not be an option and is not "compassionate". Options for the unhoused should be (1) placement in a drug-free shelter; (2) detox; (3) mental hospital. And yes, I realize that all of these options need to be available, which sometimes they are not now. Also mentally ill/addicted should not be in the general population shelters.

The people preaching for more autonomy were actually the same ones motivated by reducing costs and cutting “socialized” health care. Literally the same people. It was an astroturf campaign to promote a right wing ideological agenda and it was very successful.

[Anonymous]

Saw a guy in a tent at Mass Ave and around 34th today near the Greek Orthodox church.

Curious how long that lasts. Probably not that long. No access to water or sanitation. Can’t imagine where he defecates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question - if it's legal under DC regs apparently to pitch a tent on any DC public property (sidewalk, little pocket parks, etc) .... can my teenage son and his friends put up a $ REI tent in little triangle park and camp there for weeks on end?

If not, why not?

Someone's going to reply to this and demand that I check my privilege and to them I say, eff off.

I envison my son, a junior at a private high school in Ward 3, getting a few friends to camp with him. Fires are a no-no, but they could put up some camp chairs (like the ones I see under Whitehurst Fwy?) and bring a quiet guitar and play songs.

Every single night, they can sleep in their REI tent with their Yeti cooler full of snacks. They can read using their REI solar lanterns and then go to sleep on their NorthFace cots. Maybe they could string solar party lights from tent to tent?

Would they be allowed to do this for months on end if their chosen location was smack dab in the center of Ward Circle Park?

They'd last maybe three hours after dark.

+1 please send privileged private boy out camping and report back in a week

Yes, let us know how rich white boy does in the dark…with a guitar.

Uhh, you did see that they said "in Ward Circle Park, right? Do you know where Ward Circle Park is? You think there are random psychos wandering around the mean streets of Spring Valley looking to beat up white kids after dark?

The worst that would happen is the police politely ask them to move.

Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This isn't about politics but public decency. There is nothing wrong with having standards.

There are tents by the State Department but they are neat and mostly free from debris. The tents here were in stark contrast to tents in other areas. I suspect it is a security concern for the State Department.

And this should be true of anywhere in the city.

So as long as the homeless live up to your 'neat tents' standard, it's cool.

Surviving on the streets daily isn't enough, they need to make sure they are homeless to your standards too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn't about politics but public decency. There is nothing wrong with having standards.

There are tents by the State Department but they are neat and mostly free from debris. The tents here were in stark contrast to tents in other areas. I suspect it is a security concern for the State Department.

And this should be true of anywhere in the city.

So as long as the homeless live up to your 'neat tents' standard, it's cool.

Surviving on the streets daily isn't enough, they need to make sure they are homeless to your standards too.

Not for me.

Camping in cities should be illegal. They should have the choice of a shelter, an asylum, or getting arrested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.usich.gov/homelessness-statistics/dc/

DC's official homeless population isn't even 1% of the total population. With the amount of wealth and highly educated people, we have in this area, we could completely eradicate homelessness and also provide drug treatment , mental health services, and employment training to those who need it. Also, while drug use rates in the US are comparable between Whites and Blacks, if you are a BIPOC person and caught doing drugs, you are 3X as likely to go to jail. Once you go to jail, your chance for employment and housing options narrow considerably. The path from jail spirals into drug use and living on the street sadly, all too often.

https://www.hamiltonproject.org/charts/rates_of_drug_use_and_sales_by_race_rates_of_drug_related_criminal_justice

Also, the DC's rapid rehousing program is a joke. It can take 5 years to get in, but you only have 12 months of subsidy. After that, you are on your own again. If you have mental health or substance abuse issues, a year is an unreasonably short amount of time to try to find employment or go into treatment especially when you have to navigate the byzantine DC bureaucracy to get those services.
https://dhs.dc.gov/page/rapid-rehousing-individuals

Tents make homeless people more visible because they used to live under bridges or wooded areas. Their visibility makes some people annoyed that despite their own wealth, power and status having to see poor people as their neighbors does not work with their image of what a "nice neighborhood" should be.

It's more of a question of values: what kind of city do we want to be? One that ignores, despises and makes those who have fallen onto hard times navigate never ending hurdles to gain access to services/puts them on a one-way bus to somewhere else or a city that wants to truly care for all of its citizens in the ways that they need it and give readily access to services for them?

The homeless living on DC's streets are living there because they chose to, not because DC does not have other options for them. We as a city or even a country do not want to believe this, but we have a HUGE mental health loophole that these people have fallen through. At the end of the day you cannot effectively treat people who do not volunteer for those services. If you don't want mental health treatment, you end up on the streets and the city does nothing about it.

So this less than 1% that someone was talking about earlier, it will always exist until we start involuntary treatment. Until then as a city we have decided to accept the issue.

This. Our whole approach to mental health care fell apart in the 1980s when many mental hospitals were closed, driven by BOTH a desire to reduce costs AND calls for more "autonomy" for the mentally ill. Camping in public space should not be an option and is not "compassionate". Options for the unhoused should be (1) placement in a drug-free shelter; (2) detox; (3) mental hospital. And yes, I realize that all of these options need to be available, which sometimes they are not now. Also mentally ill/addicted should not be in the general population shelters.

The people preaching for more autonomy were actually the same ones motivated by reducing costs and cutting “socialized” health care. Literally the same people. It was an astroturf campaign to promote a right wing ideological agenda and it was very successful.

No, the ACLU wasn't promoting a right wing ideological agenda. And Reagan was looking to give block grants and push services back to state control. But who cares now?

We've learned that community-based mental health care is a failure for serious diagnoses, and we need to swing the pendulum back to some involuntary treatment. We know how to make it humane and give people as much freedom as possible while making them stay on meds and living in a clean, healthy shelter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn't about politics but public decency. There is nothing wrong with having standards.

There are tents by the State Department but they are neat and mostly free from debris. The tents here were in stark contrast to tents in other areas. I suspect it is a security concern for the State Department.

And this should be true of anywhere in the city.

So as long as the homeless live up to your 'neat tents' standard, it's cool.

Surviving on the streets daily isn't enough, they need to make sure they are homeless to your standards too.

Not for me.

Camping in cities should be illegal. They should have the choice of a shelter, an asylum, or getting arrested.

Unfortunately our elected.officials don't have the spine to take a stand. They rather let.vagrants and drug addicts.trash our public space.

[Anonymous]

Well they are paying attention in San Francisco, finally. Maybe our politicians should look at the chaos there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.usich.gov/homelessness-statistics/dc/

DC's official homeless population isn't even 1% of the total population. With the amount of wealth and highly educated people, we have in this area, we could completely eradicate homelessness and also provide drug treatment , mental health services, and employment training to those who need it. Also, while drug use rates in the US are comparable between Whites and Blacks, if you are a BIPOC person and caught doing drugs, you are 3X as likely to go to jail. Once you go to jail, your chance for employment and housing options narrow considerably. The path from jail spirals into drug use and living on the street sadly, all too often.

https://www.hamiltonproject.org/charts/rates_of_drug_use_and_sales_by_race_rates_of_drug_related_criminal_justice

Also, the DC's rapid rehousing program is a joke. It can take 5 years to get in, but you only have 12 months of subsidy. After that, you are on your own again. If you have mental health or substance abuse issues, a year is an unreasonably short amount of time to try to find employment or go into treatment especially when you have to navigate the byzantine DC bureaucracy to get those services.
https://dhs.dc.gov/page/rapid-rehousing-individuals

Tents make homeless people more visible because they used to live under bridges or wooded areas. Their visibility makes some people annoyed that despite their own wealth, power and status having to see poor people as their neighbors does not work with their image of what a "nice neighborhood" should be.

It's more of a question of values: what kind of city do we want to be? One that ignores, despises and makes those who have fallen onto hard times navigate never ending hurdles to gain access to services/puts them on a one-way bus to somewhere else or a city that wants to truly care for all of its citizens in the ways that they need it and give readily access to services for them?

The homeless living on DC's streets are living there because they chose to, not because DC does not have other options for them. We as a city or even a country do not want to believe this, but we have a HUGE mental health loophole that these people have fallen through. At the end of the day you cannot effectively treat people who do not volunteer for those services. If you don't want mental health treatment, you end up on the streets and the city does nothing about it.

So this less than 1% that someone was talking about earlier, it will always exist until we start involuntary treatment. Until then as a city we have decided to accept the issue.

This. Our whole approach to mental health care fell apart in the 1980s when many mental hospitals were closed, driven by BOTH a desire to reduce costs AND calls for more "autonomy" for the mentally ill. Camping in public space should not be an option and is not "compassionate". Options for the unhoused should be (1) placement in a drug-free shelter; (2) detox; (3) mental hospital. And yes, I realize that all of these options need to be available, which sometimes they are not now. Also mentally ill/addicted should not be in the general population shelters.

The people preaching for more autonomy were actually the same ones motivated by reducing costs and cutting “socialized” health care. Literally the same people. It was an astroturf campaign to promote a right wing ideological agenda and it was very successful.

No, the ACLU wasn't promoting a right wing ideological agenda. And Reagan was looking to give block grants and push services back to state control. But who cares now?

We've learned that community-based mental health care is a failure for serious diagnoses, and we need to swing the pendulum back to some involuntary treatment. We know how to make it humane and give people as much freedom as possible while making them stay on meds and living in a clean, healthy shelter.

You sound so utterly reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well they are paying attention in San Francisco, finally. Maybe our politicians should look at the chaos there.

Seattle just elected a new major who has pledged to end this chaos. Why we are intent of creating these problems for ourselves I do not know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question - if it's legal under DC regs apparently to pitch a tent on any DC public property (sidewalk, little pocket parks, etc) .... can my teenage son and his friends put up a $ REI tent in little triangle park and camp there for weeks on end?

If not, why not?

Someone's going to reply to this and demand that I check my privilege and to them I say, eff off.

I envison my son, a junior at a private high school in Ward 3, getting a few friends to camp with him. Fires are a no-no, but they could put up some camp chairs (like the ones I see under Whitehurst Fwy?) and bring a quiet guitar and play songs.

Every single night, they can sleep in their REI tent with their Yeti cooler full of snacks. They can read using their REI solar lanterns and then go to sleep on their NorthFace cots. Maybe they could string solar party lights from tent to tent?

Would they be allowed to do this for months on end if their chosen location was smack dab in the center of Ward Circle Park?

They'd last maybe three hours after dark.

+1 please send privileged private boy out camping and report back in a week

Yes, let us know how rich white boy does in the dark…with a guitar.

Uhh, you did see that they said "in Ward Circle Park, right? Do you know where Ward Circle Park is? You think there are random psychos wandering around the mean streets of Spring Valley looking to beat up white kids after dark?

The worst that would happen is the police politely ask them to move.

Yes.

Well then you might want to bone up on your camping skills because if you're truly that delusional it's only a matter of time before you're warming your fingerless-gloved hands around a barrel fire unless you get some treatment soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.usich.gov/homelessness-statistics/dc/

DC's official homeless population isn't even 1% of the total population. With the amount of wealth and highly educated people, we have in this area, we could completely eradicate homelessness and also provide drug treatment , mental health services, and employment training to those who need it. Also, while drug use rates in the US are comparable between Whites and Blacks, if you are a BIPOC person and caught doing drugs, you are 3X as likely to go to jail. Once you go to jail, your chance for employment and housing options narrow considerably. The path from jail spirals into drug use and living on the street sadly, all too often.

https://www.hamiltonproject.org/charts/rates_of_drug_use_and_sales_by_race_rates_of_drug_related_criminal_justice

Also, the DC's rapid rehousing program is a joke. It can take 5 years to get in, but you only have 12 months of subsidy. After that, you are on your own again. If you have mental health or substance abuse issues, a year is an unreasonably short amount of time to try to find employment or go into treatment especially when you have to navigate the byzantine DC bureaucracy to get those services.
https://dhs.dc.gov/page/rapid-rehousing-individuals

Tents make homeless people more visible because they used to live under bridges or wooded areas. Their visibility makes some people annoyed that despite their own wealth, power and status having to see poor people as their neighbors does not work with their image of what a "nice neighborhood" should be.

It's more of a question of values: what kind of city do we want to be? One that ignores, despises and makes those who have fallen onto hard times navigate never ending hurdles to gain access to services/puts them on a one-way bus to somewhere else or a city that wants to truly care for all of its citizens in the ways that they need it and give readily access to services for them?

The homeless living on DC's streets are living there because they chose to, not because DC does not have other options for them. We as a city or even a country do not want to believe this, but we have a HUGE mental health loophole that these people have fallen through. At the end of the day you cannot effectively treat people who do not volunteer for those services. If you don't want mental health treatment, you end up on the streets and the city does nothing about it.

So this less than 1% that someone was talking about earlier, it will always exist until we start involuntary treatment. Until then as a city we have decided to accept the issue.

This. Our whole approach to mental health care fell apart in the 1980s when many mental hospitals were closed, driven by BOTH a desire to reduce costs AND calls for more "autonomy" for the mentally ill. Camping in public space should not be an option and is not "compassionate". Options for the unhoused should be (1) placement in a drug-free shelter; (2) detox; (3) mental hospital. And yes, I realize that all of these options need to be available, which sometimes they are not now. Also mentally ill/addicted should not be in the general population shelters.

The people preaching for more autonomy were actually the same ones motivated by reducing costs and cutting “socialized” health care. Literally the same people. It was an astroturf campaign to promote a right wing ideological agenda and it was very successful.

Regardless of who first had the idea, when, or for what reason, we’ve been dealing with the fallout of this policy for decades and it needs to stop. Do you really think it’s the right TODAY who is allowing the homeless and drug addicted and mentally ill to take over it cities?? Look where it’s happening. If you agree that TODAY it’s definitely the left allowing this, please harass your representatives and make it clear that even you as a democrat want these people committed. You’re not going to get any opposition from the right on this. If your representatives know that’s what you want, it will happen.

[Anonymous]

I cannot understand why anyone would support the idea of the homeless leaving in tents in city parks or on city streets.

It is not sanitary or safe for them or for others.

There are homeless shelters and support systems available and if there aren't enough, then we should be volunteering, fighting, and voting for more.

If the homeless don't like a shelter because there are rules against drug use, um, too bad. That doesn't mean you get to live in a tent in the middle of a sidewalk.

We have zoning laws for a reason. Camping in the city is not allowed for anyone.

Mental health issues also don't mean you get to camp on a sidewalk.