Noticable reduction in homeless and tents in DC, what about libaries and metro?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are there no shelters for the homeless in DC?

Would you like to spend the night in a room with 50 mostly addicted, mentally-ill and often violent individuals off their meds?

Exactly.

The homeless don't want to share a confined space with these people either. The streets are generally safer than the shelters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there no shelters for the homeless in DC?

Would you like to spend the night in a room with 50 mostly addicted, mentally-ill and often violent individuals off their meds?

Exactly.

The homeless don't want to share a confined space with these people either. The streets are generally safer than the shelters.

PP here. I agree completely, but they are making the choice to remain on the streets. That's not an acceptable option for the community/city in which they live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there no shelters for the homeless in DC?

Not enough and they don't want to go there. And you can't make people stay where they don't want to stay.

That doesn't mean you get to live on the streets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there no shelters for the homeless in DC?

Not enough and they don't want to go there. And you can't make people stay where they don't want to stay.

That doesn't mean you get to live on the streets.

You can't get blood from a stone. People don't have anywhere to live. Whether you want to look at it or not, they don't have anywhere to live.

The amount that is being spent on this national guard nonsense could certainly go towards trying to solve that problem. But it won't and eventually the national guard will leave and people still won't have anywhere to live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there no shelters for the homeless in DC?

Not enough and they don't want to go there. And you can't make people stay where they don't want to stay.

That doesn't mean you get to live on the streets.

You can't get blood from a stone. People don't have anywhere to live. Whether you want to look at it or not, they don't have anywhere to live.

The amount that is being spent on this national guard nonsense could certainly go towards trying to solve that problem. But it won't and eventually the national guard will leave and people still won't have anywhere to live.

NP. Disagree. Many do have places to stay and don't want to stay there. Living on the streets just cannot be an option. We have thrown lots and lots of money at the problem, but it won't be solved until the option just isn't there anymore for them to be on the streets.

Another big issue with allowing people to live on the streets is that this is where many of them get addicted to drugs. It's a bad cycle that will continue. The streets are not a safe place. There's also a lot of violence amongst the homeless that's rarely discussed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there no shelters for the homeless in DC?

Not enough and they don't want to go there. And you can't make people stay where they don't want to stay.

That doesn't mean you get to live on the streets.

You can't get blood from a stone. People don't have anywhere to live. Whether you want to look at it or not, they don't have anywhere to live.

The amount that is being spent on this national guard nonsense could certainly go towards trying to solve that problem. But it won't and eventually the national guard will leave and people still won't have anywhere to live.

NP. Disagree. Many do have places to stay and don't want to stay there. Living on the streets just cannot be an option. We have thrown lots and lots of money at the problem, but it won't be solved until the option just isn't there anymore for them to be on the streets.

Another big issue with allowing people to live on the streets is that this is where many of them get addicted to drugs. It's a bad cycle that will continue. The streets are not a safe place. There's also a lot of violence amongst the homeless that's rarely discussed.

So what’s your solution? How will you force people to do what you think they should do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there no shelters for the homeless in DC?

Not enough and they don't want to go there. And you can't make people stay where they don't want to stay.

That doesn't mean you get to live on the streets.

You can't get blood from a stone. People don't have anywhere to live. Whether you want to look at it or not, they don't have anywhere to live.

The amount that is being spent on this national guard nonsense could certainly go towards trying to solve that problem. But it won't and eventually the national guard will leave and people still won't have anywhere to live.

NP. Disagree. Many do have places to stay and don't want to stay there. Living on the streets just cannot be an option. We have thrown lots and lots of money at the problem, but it won't be solved until the option just isn't there anymore for them to be on the streets.

Another big issue with allowing people to live on the streets is that this is where many of them get addicted to drugs. It's a bad cycle that will continue. The streets are not a safe place. There's also a lot of violence amongst the homeless that's rarely discussed.

What is this place people have to go? I don’t disagree with you that they should just be anllows to stay on the streets because ultimately that isn’t safe or compassionate. I have dealt with it in my own city (Portland). But to say there’s this place they can live is t true. Shelters don’t let them stay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there no shelters for the homeless in DC?

Not enough and they don't want to go there. And you can't make people stay where they don't want to stay.

That doesn't mean you get to live on the streets.

You can't get blood from a stone. People don't have anywhere to live. Whether you want to look at it or not, they don't have anywhere to live.

The amount that is being spent on this national guard nonsense could certainly go towards trying to solve that problem. But it won't and eventually the national guard will leave and people still won't have anywhere to live.

NP. Disagree. Many do have places to stay and don't want to stay there. Living on the streets just cannot be an option. We have thrown lots and lots of money at the problem, but it won't be solved until the option just isn't there anymore for them to be on the streets.

Another big issue with allowing people to live on the streets is that this is where many of them get addicted to drugs. It's a bad cycle that will continue. The streets are not a safe place. There's also a lot of violence amongst the homeless that's rarely discussed.

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that vouchers were available for those who had been homeless for more than a year. If true, it seems it would be an incentive to come here and to cause an increase in the number of unhoused in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there no shelters for the homeless in DC?

Not enough and they don't want to go there. And you can't make people stay where they don't want to stay.

That doesn't mean you get to live on the streets.

You can't get blood from a stone. People don't have anywhere to live. Whether you want to look at it or not, they don't have anywhere to live.

The amount that is being spent on this national guard nonsense could certainly go towards trying to solve that problem. But it won't and eventually the national guard will leave and people still won't have anywhere to live.

NP. Disagree. Many do have places to stay and don't want to stay there. Living on the streets just cannot be an option. We have thrown lots and lots of money at the problem, but it won't be solved until the option just isn't there anymore for them to be on the streets.

Another big issue with allowing people to live on the streets is that this is where many of them get addicted to drugs. It's a bad cycle that will continue. The streets are not a safe place. There's also a lot of violence amongst the homeless that's rarely discussed.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there no shelters for the homeless in DC?

Not enough and they don't want to go there. And you can't make people stay where they don't want to stay.

Life's lessons 101: We don't all get equal opportunities, talents, intelligence, educational opportunities, and degrees of safety/security/love as children. We also don't get to do what we want to do any time we want to do it---life doesn't work that way. A d, yes, we can enforce laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there no shelters for the homeless in DC?

Not enough and they don't want to go there. And you can't make people stay where they don't want to stay.

That doesn't mean you get to live on the streets.

You can't get blood from a stone. People don't have anywhere to live. Whether you want to look at it or not, they don't have anywhere to live.

The amount that is being spent on this national guard nonsense could certainly go towards trying to solve that problem. But it won't and eventually the national guard will leave and people still won't have anywhere to live.

NP. Disagree. Many do have places to stay and don't want to stay there. Living on the streets just cannot be an option. We have thrown lots and lots of money at the problem, but it won't be solved until the option just isn't there anymore for them to be on the streets.

Another big issue with allowing people to live on the streets is that this is where many of them get addicted to drugs. It's a bad cycle that will continue. The streets are not a safe place. There's also a lot of violence amongst the homeless that's rarely discussed.

+1

+1 Also the filth and spread of diseases in a community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there no shelters for the homeless in DC?

Not enough and they don't want to go there. And you can't make people stay where they don't want to stay.

That doesn't mean you get to live on the streets.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there no shelters for the homeless in DC?

Would you like to spend the night in a room with 50 mostly addicted, mentally-ill and often violent individuals off their meds?

Exactly.

The homeless don't want to share a confined space with these people either. The streets are generally safer than the shelters.

Those who refuse to take medications need to be placed in an institutionalized setting or group home with close supervision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there no shelters for the homeless in DC?

Not enough and they don't want to go there. And you can't make people stay where they don't want to stay.

That doesn't mean you get to live on the streets.

You can't get blood from a stone. People don't have anywhere to live. Whether you want to look at it or not, they don't have anywhere to live.

The amount that is being spent on this national guard nonsense could certainly go towards trying to solve that problem. But it won't and eventually the national guard will leave and people still won't have anywhere to live.

NP. Disagree. Many do have places to stay and don't want to stay there. Living on the streets just cannot be an option. We have thrown lots and lots of money at the problem, but it won't be solved until the option just isn't there anymore for them to be on the streets.

Another big issue with allowing people to live on the streets is that this is where many of them get addicted to drugs. It's a bad cycle that will continue. The streets are not a safe place. There's also a lot of violence amongst the homeless that's rarely discussed.

So what’s your solution? How will you force people to do what you think they should do?

Seriously? Make it illegal, make the penalty significant enough to change behavior and then enforce the law? It's a novel idea that has worked for millennia, but seems to be lost on this city. As the kids say...."straight to jail."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:well they didn't get the homeless guy who smeared excrement all over a Wisconsin Ave building door just this past Sunday. I don't like Trump but they can come get that guy.

And take him where? I mean I'm all for housing these people and institutionalizing them if they need to be monitored, but Trump isn't doing that.

Except he is the first president in a long time to take a concrete step TOWARDS "doing that" which is more than previous administrations have done. He has made it a priority through the EO cited above. More federal funding, and greater ease in civil commitment. I imagine this EO has spurred all sorts of folks to begin planning new facilities. Building takes time.

He hadn't done anything new. He's bulldozed tents in a homeless encampment. That's been on for years. Nothing new.