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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Move them all to a progressive area like Takoma Park.

This!! Daily bus to Tacoma

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Move them all to a progressive area like Takoma Park.

This!! Daily bus to Tacoma

Tacoma, WA would be a week long bus ride.

Takoma Park, MD would be a 20 minute bus ride.

[Anonymous]

I live in NoMa and I just wanted to say this:

It’s possible to be supportive of unhoused populations and want them to have agency and assistance and not want to criminalize homelessness, and still think some of these encampments are huge public health problems that need to be addressed. The encampment under the M St underpass has gotten so bad in the last two years. It is upsetting simply from the standpoint that no one should live like that. It is virtually unpassable at this point. It smells of ruined and human feces at all times. I have heard advocates say that’s not true but I live here and yes, it is.

We used to walk through the encampment with our kids in our way to Harris Teeter. I don’t believe in shielding them from reality. We sought to be good neighbors and we would say hello, give money if we had it on us, sometimes even come by with blankets in the winter.

We don’t do any of that anymore. The encampment feels dangerous, overcrowded, and diseased to me. I can only assume Covid is prevalent. I have nothing but empathy for the people who live there, some of whom have been our neighbors for years. But watching that area decline has made me firmly in favor of clearing out the encampment as soon as possible.

I don’t understand how this can even be debated. I don’t feel this way about people living on the streets in general, but the conditions in this location are alarming. They benefit no one, including the residents there. The city has proposed alternatives and I think we should do whatever it takes to get the folks there moved to a better location.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live in NoMa and I just wanted to say this:

It’s possible to be supportive of unhoused populations and want them to have agency and assistance and not want to criminalize homelessness, and still think some of these encampments are huge public health problems that need to be addressed. The encampment under the M St underpass has gotten so bad in the last two years. It is upsetting simply from the standpoint that no one should live like that. It is virtually unpassable at this point. It smells of ruined and human feces at all times. I have heard advocates say that’s not true but I live here and yes, it is.

We used to walk through the encampment with our kids in our way to Harris Teeter. I don’t believe in shielding them from reality. We sought to be good neighbors and we would say hello, give money if we had it on us, sometimes even come by with blankets in the winter.

We don’t do any of that anymore. The encampment feels dangerous, overcrowded, and diseased to me. I can only assume Covid is prevalent. I have nothing but empathy for the people who live there, some of whom have been our neighbors for years. But watching that area decline has made me firmly in favor of clearing out the encampment as soon as possible.

I don’t understand how this can even be debated. I don’t feel this way about people living on the streets in general, but the conditions in this location are alarming. They benefit no one, including the residents there. The city has proposed alternatives and I think we should do whatever it takes to get the folks there moved to a better location.

I hear what you are saying except picking and choosing locations. Seems like you are simply wanting to "move on" the one that bothers you and is near you? Until there are solutions like involuntary hospitalizations and treatment, these "pop up " encampments will be the inhumane , diseased environs just a little further down the road from you. Please suggest a real solution. What is this better location? How would it be a place free from faeces, criminal elements and disease? How would you ensure people go there? Why is that better than hospitalization that does all of the above?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live in NoMa and I just wanted to say this:

It’s possible to be supportive of unhoused populations and want them to have agency and assistance and not want to criminalize homelessness, and still think some of these encampments are huge public health problems that need to be addressed. The encampment under the M St underpass has gotten so bad in the last two years. It is upsetting simply from the standpoint that no one should live like that. It is virtually unpassable at this point. It smells of ruined and human feces at all times. I have heard advocates say that’s not true but I live here and yes, it is.

We used to walk through the encampment with our kids in our way to Harris Teeter. I don’t believe in shielding them from reality. We sought to be good neighbors and we would say hello, give money if we had it on us, sometimes even come by with blankets in the winter.

We don’t do any of that anymore. The encampment feels dangerous, overcrowded, and diseased to me. I can only assume Covid is prevalent. I have nothing but empathy for the people who live there, some of whom have been our neighbors for years. But watching that area decline has made me firmly in favor of clearing out the encampment as soon as possible.

I don’t understand how this can even be debated. I don’t feel this way about people living on the streets in general, but the conditions in this location are alarming. They benefit no one, including the residents there. The city has proposed alternatives and I think we should do whatever it takes to get the folks there moved to a better location.

I'm glad you stopped exposing your children to human feces particulates. Read up on the health issues that encampments in SF have caused and maybe tell your neighbors that having these camps is not a good idea anywhere in the city.

[Anonymous]

I also hope you realize that by welcoming them, giving them money etc you just welcomed in more and more of these folks, leading to the current apocalyptic situation. Of course they will stay and more will come if there are freebies and sappy UMC ladies to take advantage of!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I also hope you realize that by welcoming them, giving them money etc you just welcomed in more and more of these folks, leading to the current apocalyptic situation. Of course they will stay and more will come if there are freebies and sappy UMC ladies to take advantage of!

+1. Stop giving money, have the city clear the tents and move everyone into shelters.

[Anonymous]

These encampments are third world country stuff. How can people mentally convince themselves that allowing them and supporting them is somehow just and right that people who oppose them are evil and bad?

The next logical step is that once the tents get blown down in a winter storm, they get replaced with plywood and sheet metal roofs and on and on. Next thing we know we have a real shantytown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These encampments are third world country stuff. How can people mentally convince themselves that allowing them and supporting them is somehow just and right that people who oppose them are evil and bad?

The next logical step is that once the tents get blown down in a winter storm, they get replaced with plywood and sheet metal roofs and on and on. Next thing we know we have a real shantytown.

Actually, a big part of why we have this crises is that inexpensive housing has been outlawed. It used to be if you were poor, you’d build a crappy little house. To even get a building permit to do anything in dc takes substantial wealth and sophistication. This is a historical anomaly.

But yes, I agree with you. I do think the root causes are in safety-Ism (excessive building codes) and nimbyism (excessive permitting procedures).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These encampments are third world country stuff. How can people mentally convince themselves that allowing them and supporting them is somehow just and right that people who oppose them are evil and bad?

The next logical step is that once the tents get blown down in a winter storm, they get replaced with plywood and sheet metal roofs and on and on. Next thing we know we have a real shantytown.

Actually, a big part of why we have this crises is that inexpensive housing has been outlawed. It used to be if you were poor, you’d build a crappy little house. To even get a building permit to do anything in dc takes substantial wealth and sophistication. This is a historical anomaly.

But yes, I agree with you. I do think the root causes are in safety-Ism (excessive building codes) and nimbyism (excessive permitting procedures).

I cannot believe it, you are pro-third world shantytown!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These encampments are third world country stuff. How can people mentally convince themselves that allowing them and supporting them is somehow just and right that people who oppose them are evil and bad?

The next logical step is that once the tents get blown down in a winter storm, they get replaced with plywood and sheet metal roofs and on and on. Next thing we know we have a real shantytown.

Actually, a big part of why we have this crises is that inexpensive housing has been outlawed. It used to be if you were poor, you’d build a crappy little house. To even get a building permit to do anything in dc takes substantial wealth and sophistication. This is a historical anomaly.

But yes, I agree with you. I do think the root causes are in safety-Ism (excessive building codes) and nimbyism (excessive permitting procedures).

I cannot believe it, you are pro-third world shantytown!

DP. Obviously the PP thinks slums are an important market solution to affordable housing. Like building codes have emerged sui generis or perhaps they think they’re racist? Honestly some some real genious-level thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These encampments are third world country stuff. How can people mentally convince themselves that allowing them and supporting them is somehow just and right that people who oppose them are evil and bad?

The next logical step is that once the tents get blown down in a winter storm, they get replaced with plywood and sheet metal roofs and on and on. Next thing we know we have a real shantytown.

Actually, a big part of why we have this crises is that inexpensive housing has been outlawed. It used to be if you were poor, you’d build a crappy little house. To even get a building permit to do anything in dc takes substantial wealth and sophistication. This is a historical anomaly.

But yes, I agree with you. I do think the root causes are in safety-Ism (excessive building codes) and nimbyism (excessive permitting procedures).

There's tons of inexpensive housing in America. How many of these people in parks are historically from DC? I'd like to see a statistic on that.

2nd, as DC launches the most expensive re-housing the homeless effort in the nation, what is to keep folks from moving here specifically for their free house? Or will we just "tax the rich" and encourage them to come?

[Anonymous]

Folks don't understand how limiting and dangerous shelters can be. Many homeless prefer to be on the street than in a shelter. Most shelters kick out people from 9am to 6pm each day, so you need to pack up and move your stuff daily.

There's a lot more fighting, theft, and sexual abuse in shelters than on the streets. More interaction with police in the shelters because they are constantly being called to deal with disturbances and interpersonal issues (eg, fights).

At least on the street a homeless person will be left alone if that's what they desire. They don't need to move their stuff everyday. They can keep themselves physically distant from other homeless people.

This city really needs to move to a "Housing First" approach for those homeless who can take care of themselves. Next, the city needs to apply involuntary commitment for those who are mentally insane or too disabled to care for themselves. Finally, any recent homeless who are not from the DC area should be escorted back to their home towns and left with authorities; let them spend their own tax monies on solving this issue. Too many regional localities dump their homeless & mentally ill on DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These encampments are third world country stuff. How can people mentally convince themselves that allowing them and supporting them is somehow just and right that people who oppose them are evil and bad?

The next logical step is that once the tents get blown down in a winter storm, they get replaced with plywood and sheet metal roofs and on and on. Next thing we know we have a real shantytown.

Actually, a big part of why we have this crises is that inexpensive housing has been outlawed. It used to be if you were poor, you’d build a crappy little house. To even get a building permit to do anything in dc takes substantial wealth and sophistication. This is a historical anomaly.

But yes, I agree with you. I do think the root causes are in safety-Ism (excessive building codes) and nimbyism (excessive permitting procedures).

There's tons of inexpensive housing in America. How many of these people in parks are historically from DC? I'd like to see a statistic on that.

2nd, as DC launches the most expensive re-housing the homeless effort in the nation, what is to keep folks from moving here specifically for their free house? Or will we just "tax the rich" and encourage them to come?

No, there is not tons of inexpensive housing in America. Not sure how you propose that mentally ill/drug addicted/unemployable people get access to the affordable housing that does exist? They need help getting housing, period.

[Anonymous]

It would be interesting if this kind of thing was run federally instead of at the city level. You don't need to go to DC to get services - you can stay closer to family/ community if you want. It would probably Sakai be cheaper with lower cost of living.