Why don’t advocates for the homeless build spacious housing for them 1-2 hours away from DC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to be in the city to access services.

No

Yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how would they find job/rehabilitation while they’re out there in the middle of nowhere?

Employees would live on-site & security would be strong. On-site medical & addiction services. Busing back and forth to DC for additional resources.

A complete fantasy.

It's even more of a fantasy to think it could work in DC, where everything is much, much more expensive. It's absolutely ridiculous to think one of the most expensive areas in the country makes sense for housing the homeless. Relocating the homeless and the support services to a more affordable area makes MUCH more sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how would they find job/rehabilitation while they’re out there in the middle of nowhere?

Employees would live on-site & security would be strong. On-site medical & addiction services. Busing back and forth to DC for additional resources.

A complete fantasy.

It's even more of a fantasy to think it could work in DC, where everything is much, much more expensive. It's absolutely ridiculous to think one of the most expensive areas in the country makes sense for housing the homeless. Relocating the homeless and the support services to a more affordable area makes MUCH more sense.

Hey, PP, do you think there's a connection between the cost of housing, the demand for housing, the supply of housing, and the prevalence of people who don't have housing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how would they find job/rehabilitation while they’re out there in the middle of nowhere?

Employees would live on-site & security would be strong. On-site medical & addiction services. Busing back and forth to DC for additional resources.

A complete fantasy.

It's even more of a fantasy to think it could work in DC, where everything is much, much more expensive. It's absolutely ridiculous to think one of the most expensive areas in the country makes sense for housing the homeless. Relocating the homeless and the support services to a more affordable area makes MUCH more sense.

Hey, PP, do you think there's a connection between the cost of housing, the demand for housing, the supply of housing, and the prevalence of people who don't have housing?

Yes. Not everyone can afford to live wherever they want to live. I would love to live in Malibu, but alas, I can’t afford to. So I don’t pitch a tent in Malibu & say I’m entitled to be housed THERE, do I.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how would they find job/rehabilitation while they’re out there in the middle of nowhere?

Employees would live on-site & security would be strong. On-site medical & addiction services. Busing back and forth to DC for additional resources.

A complete fantasy.

It's even more of a fantasy to think it could work in DC, where everything is much, much more expensive. It's absolutely ridiculous to think one of the most expensive areas in the country makes sense for housing the homeless. Relocating the homeless and the support services to a more affordable area makes MUCH more sense.

Hey, PP, do you think there's a connection between the cost of housing, the demand for housing, the supply of housing, and the prevalence of people who don't have housing?

If I didn’t work and did drugs I wouldn’t have housing either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how would they find job/rehabilitation while they’re out there in the middle of nowhere?

Employees would live on-site & security would be strong. On-site medical & addiction services. Busing back and forth to DC for additional resources.

A complete fantasy.

It's even more of a fantasy to think it could work in DC, where everything is much, much more expensive. It's absolutely ridiculous to think one of the most expensive areas in the country makes sense for housing the homeless. Relocating the homeless and the support services to a more affordable area makes MUCH more sense.

Hey, PP, do you think there's a connection between the cost of housing, the demand for housing, the supply of housing, and the prevalence of people who don't have housing?

I do. The highest cost areas are the most desirable because they lack homeless people.

Most homeless people suffer from addiction & mental health issues. Cost of housing isn’t causing them to be homeless. When a mentally healthy person thinks rent is too high, they move somewhere cheaper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how would they find job/rehabilitation while they’re out there in the middle of nowhere?

Employees would live on-site & security would be strong. On-site medical & addiction services. Busing back and forth to DC for additional resources.

A complete fantasy.

It's even more of a fantasy to think it could work in DC, where everything is much, much more expensive. It's absolutely ridiculous to think one of the most expensive areas in the country makes sense for housing the homeless. Relocating the homeless and the support services to a more affordable area makes MUCH more sense.

Hey, PP, do you think there's a connection between the cost of housing, the demand for housing, the supply of housing, and the prevalence of people who don't have housing?

I do. The highest cost areas are the most desirable because they lack homeless people.

Most homeless people suffer from addiction & mental health issues. Cost of housing isn’t causing them to be homeless. When a mentally healthy person thinks rent is too high, they move somewhere cheaper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how would they find job/rehabilitation while they’re out there in the middle of nowhere?

Employees would live on-site & security would be strong. On-site medical & addiction services. Busing back and forth to DC for additional resources.

A complete fantasy.

It's even more of a fantasy to think it could work in DC, where everything is much, much more expensive. It's absolutely ridiculous to think one of the most expensive areas in the country makes sense for housing the homeless. Relocating the homeless and the support services to a more affordable area makes MUCH more sense.

Hey, PP, do you think there's a connection between the cost of housing, the demand for housing, the supply of housing, and the prevalence of people who don't have housing?

I do. The highest cost areas are the most desirable because they lack homeless people.

Most homeless people suffer from addiction & mental health issues. Cost of housing isn’t causing them to be homeless. When a mentally healthy person thinks rent is too high, they move somewhere cheaper.

San Francisco, for example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how would they find job/rehabilitation while they’re out there in the middle of nowhere?

Employees would live on-site & security would be strong. On-site medical & addiction services. Busing back and forth to DC for additional resources.

A complete fantasy.

It's even more of a fantasy to think it could work in DC, where everything is much, much more expensive. It's absolutely ridiculous to think one of the most expensive areas in the country makes sense for housing the homeless. Relocating the homeless and the support services to a more affordable area makes MUCH more sense.

Hey, PP, do you think there's a connection between the cost of housing, the demand for housing, the supply of housing, and the prevalence of people who don't have housing?

I do. The highest cost areas are the most desirable because they lack homeless people.

Most homeless people suffer from addiction & mental health issues. Cost of housing isn’t causing them to be homeless. When a mentally healthy person thinks rent is too high, they move somewhere cheaper.

San Francisco, for example.

Yes, the SFH neighborhoods in the hills on SF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how would they find job/rehabilitation while they’re out there in the middle of nowhere?

Employees would live on-site & security would be strong. On-site medical & addiction services. Busing back and forth to DC for additional resources.

A complete fantasy.

It's even more of a fantasy to think it could work in DC, where everything is much, much more expensive. It's absolutely ridiculous to think one of the most expensive areas in the country makes sense for housing the homeless. Relocating the homeless and the support services to a more affordable area makes MUCH more sense.

Hey, PP, do you think there's a connection between the cost of housing, the demand for housing, the supply of housing, and the prevalence of people who don't have housing?

Yes. Not everyone can afford to live wherever they want to live. I would love to live in Malibu, but alas, I can’t afford to. So I don’t pitch a tent in Malibu & say I’m entitled to be housed THERE, do I.

We have freedom as individuals to decide whether or not to "pitch a tent" on public land in a specific location. Our freedom is not tied to the concept of affordability; we don't buy it. It's enshrined in our Constitution.

Also, traffic in Malibu sucks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I & my kids are going to go be “homeless” in Bethesda so that they can go to BCC or Whitman.

NP and that’s kind of a fantastic idea. If I live in a field in boundary for Mitch in DC for the month of June I could enroll my kid there. Anyone can pitch a tent anywhere they want on public land.

Ahhh. You guys have no idea.

Number one, you can’t just “go sign up for services.” You would get various appointments during which it would be very clear to the people assessing your need that you are full of sh*t and don’t need services. You would have to lie about so much that will be transparent.

It’s like you people think that it’s easy to live on the streets and obvious to accept services. It’s not that simple and there are a ton of complicating factors for people experiencing homelessness of all kinds. In any event, please do not waste the time and resources of a system that is already struggling to meet the needs of people with BS claims that you’re homeless so your kids can go to rich kid schools. It’s disgusting and not the funny joke you clearly thought it was.

What’s disgusting is the idea that anyone can just claim a patch of public land as their own “home.”

Eh? Home is a feeling, not a legal status. Home is where the heart is. Home is the place where, when you have to go there, they have to take you in. Home is something you somehow haven’t to deserve. Etc. etc. etc.

My heart is in Great Falls, then.

Ok? I can't imagine why would anybody except your nearest and dearest would care where you feel your home is.

Apparently governments & schools care, because you can send your kids to the school nearest to where you are “homeless.” Don’t hate the player hate the game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how would they find job/rehabilitation while they’re out there in the middle of nowhere?

Employees would live on-site & security would be strong. On-site medical & addiction services. Busing back and forth to DC for additional resources.

A complete fantasy.

It's even more of a fantasy to think it could work in DC, where everything is much, much more expensive. It's absolutely ridiculous to think one of the most expensive areas in the country makes sense for housing the homeless. Relocating the homeless and the support services to a more affordable area makes MUCH more sense.

Hey, PP, do you think there's a connection between the cost of housing, the demand for housing, the supply of housing, and the prevalence of people who don't have housing?

What makes someone without money entitled to live in DC

In the past there have been times when I had to move because I couldn't afford to stay where I was. Nobody is entitled to a given place. Maybe one could argue things like "but their family is here" but if they are homeless, their family's obviously not doing a hell of a lot to help them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I & my kids are going to go be “homeless” in Bethesda so that they can go to BCC or Whitman.

NP and that’s kind of a fantastic idea. If I live in a field in boundary for Mitch in DC for the month of June I could enroll my kid there. Anyone can pitch a tent anywhere they want on public land.

Ahhh. You guys have no idea.

Number one, you can’t just “go sign up for services.” You would get various appointments during which it would be very clear to the people assessing your need that you are full of sh*t and don’t need services. You would have to lie about so much that will be transparent.

It’s like you people think that it’s easy to live on the streets and obvious to accept services. It’s not that simple and there are a ton of complicating factors for people experiencing homelessness of all kinds. In any event, please do not waste the time and resources of a system that is already struggling to meet the needs of people with BS claims that you’re homeless so your kids can go to rich kid schools. It’s disgusting and not the funny joke you clearly thought it was.

What’s disgusting is the idea that anyone can just claim a patch of public land as their own “home.”

Eh? Home is a feeling, not a legal status. Home is where the heart is. Home is the place where, when you have to go there, they have to take you in. Home is something you somehow haven’t to deserve. Etc. etc. etc.

My heart is in Great Falls, then.

Ok? I can't imagine why would anybody except your nearest and dearest would care where you feel your home is.

Apparently governments & schools care, because you can send your kids to the school nearest to where you are “homeless.” Don’t hate the player hate the game.

^ get a load of this joker, who thinks it's somehow worth it to forgo income, live off of handouts on the street next to meth heads and mentally ill people pissing on themselves in order to send their kid to a different school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how would they find job/rehabilitation while they’re out there in the middle of nowhere?

Employees would live on-site & security would be strong. On-site medical & addiction services. Busing back and forth to DC for additional resources.

A complete fantasy.

It's even more of a fantasy to think it could work in DC, where everything is much, much more expensive. It's absolutely ridiculous to think one of the most expensive areas in the country makes sense for housing the homeless. Relocating the homeless and the support services to a more affordable area makes MUCH more sense.

Hey, PP, do you think there's a connection between the cost of housing, the demand for housing, the supply of housing, and the prevalence of people who don't have housing?

What makes someone without money entitled to live in DC

In the past there have been times when I had to move because I couldn't afford to stay where I was. Nobody is entitled to a given place. Maybe one could argue things like "but their family is here" but if they are homeless, their family's obviously not doing a hell of a lot to help them.

Are you the OP who thinks the DC government should use rural concentration camps to imprison people who are in DC and don't have housing?

[Anonymous]

Instead of forcing people to go, give them incentives to move to more affordable areas and provide them with jobs and healthcare there. Currently, advocates are giving homeless to stay here even though its neither working homeless nor taxpayers, criminal elements sure are benefiting or "non-profits" who depend on "advocacy" to make their own living and careers.