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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Definitely. It would also end the games of moving the homeless from place to place to shirk the burden. Localities would be incentivized to keep their homeless in place, as it bring federal dollars and jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The tenements that sparked zoning and building codes were utterly unacceptable but the pendulum has now swung in the opposite absurdist direction. To perform basic housing changes/construction in cities like Washington, one must pay a very expensive professional team and then do things like install sprinklers in single family houses. This was not even done in the 1990’s. I don’t think people with 1990’s era houses are dropping like flies….we are seeing the outcome of a set of extreme bad policies that were crafted with the best of intentions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I agree with this, but what would the litmus test be? And I can already see the legal challenges to commiting or escorting. Unless DC lays this out as PART of the plan, we are going to be the new hosts for the entire nation's homeless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I agree with this, but what would the litmus test be? And I can already see the legal challenges to commiting or escorting. Unless DC lays this out as PART of the plan, we are going to be the new hosts for the entire nation's homeless.

If that is what DC voters want, which it seems like it is, then yes you should host the homeless and provide them with housing.

[Anonymous]

It is absolutely not "supportive" to allow these encampments.

It is true that we have a shortage of mental health and drug treatment facilities, and more are needed. Mental health institutions were closed on a large scale in the 1970s by a combination of interest cost-cutting (generally from the right) and increasing hte "agency" of patients (generally from the left). It was not one or the other, but both.

But to the extent that the treatment facilities are available, people unable or unwilling to care for themselves should be either involuntarily committed or told to move along.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is absolutely not "supportive" to allow these encampments.

It is true that we have a shortage of mental health and drug treatment facilities, and more are needed. Mental health institutions were closed on a large scale in the 1970s by a combination of interest cost-cutting (generally from the right) and increasing hte "agency" of patients (generally from the left). It was not one or the other, but both.

But to the extent that the treatment facilities are available, people unable or unwilling to care for themselves should be either involuntarily committed or told to move along.

+1000. I strongly believe that we need more long term treatment facilities for people who are unable to care for themselves. Drop in centers and scattered services are not working. Leaving people to suffer in their own filth on city streets is not working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I agree with this, but what would the litmus test be? And I can already see the legal challenges to commiting or escorting. Unless DC lays this out as PART of the plan, we are going to be the new hosts for the entire nation's homeless.

What do you mean we are going to be? The homeless from all over the country are already streaming to DC because our city is already super generous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I agree with this, but what would the litmus test be? And I can already see the legal challenges to commiting or escorting. Unless DC lays this out as PART of the plan, we are going to be the new hosts for the entire nation's homeless.

What do you mean we are going to be? The homeless from all over the country are already streaming to DC because our city is already super generous.

Yes, it's absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let them do drug in shelter so they will stay under a cover, not on the street.

Hard NO. Wouldn't solve the problem but would make it worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I agree with this, but what would the litmus test be? And I can already see the legal challenges to commiting or escorting. Unless DC lays this out as PART of the plan, we are going to be the new hosts for the entire nation's homeless.

What do you mean we are going to be? The homeless from all over the country are already streaming to DC because our city is already super generous.

Yes, like San Francisco and look what's happening to it. Horrible

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What crazy bubble do you live in that you don’t realize there is a ton of affordable housing in places like Huntsville, Alabama where you can get a 1 bedroom apartment for $525 a month. Two people sharing that and with utilities they each only have to come up with $300. So many homeless people in places with the worst homeless problems like DC, coastal California, Seattle, etc. aren’t locals. The homeless probj will NEVER end in DC because even if you build 100,00 low cost units then the word gets out and 100,000 more unsheltered people will show up. There should be priority given to people who can show they grew up in DC. Like if you went to high school in DC, you have priority for housing.

[Anonymous]

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?

It’s definitely complicated but in this country most people who are homeless are choosing to be (to avoid restrictions placed in them by shelters.)

The shelters suck. That needs to be fixed as well. But won't.

It just makes me shake my head when I see some right wing meme about something like "oh lookie they are housing illegal immigrants on a military base while vets are left on the streets to be homeless" as if it were some wonderful cushy lifestyle to be impounded behind chain link and barbed wire. My usual response is, "OH SO YOU MEAN WE SHOULD PROVIDE HOUSING FOR MILITARY VETS?" which of course they don't, because that's "gubmint socialism freebies."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What crazy bubble do you live in that you don’t realize there is a ton of affordable housing in places like Huntsville, Alabama where you can get a 1 bedroom apartment for $525 a month. Two people sharing that and with utilities they each only have to come up with $300. So many homeless people in places with the worst homeless problems like DC, coastal California, Seattle, etc. aren’t locals. The homeless probj will NEVER end in DC because even if you build 100,00 low cost units then the word gets out and 100,000 more unsheltered people will show up. There should be priority given to people who can show they grew up in DC. Like if you went to high school in DC, you have priority for housing.

that may be true, but we can't deport all homeless or poor people to Huntsville Alabama. So we have to deal with lack of deeply affordable housing here.

[Anonymous]

And the landlords in those places won’t rent to these people even if they do have the &600 a month they their SSI payments. They have bad credit, some have criminal convictions or history of prior eviction or foreclosure, can’t get the first/last/security deposit together. I used to do homeless advocacy in a place with a lower COL and even though rents were cheap, it didn’t mean people could get housed. Even the public housing authority wouldn’t let them in if they had a prior history of eviction due to failure to pay rent.

[Anonymous]

I work at GW and there is a large encampment near the campus. I’ve worked there for twenty years and have never seen violent encounters with people who are homeless until this fall. All encounters I’ve seen have been between people who are homeless (and most like suffering from mental illness) and hourly wage workers at local businesses. It is a real problem and has resulted in physical altercations and verbal abuse. And again these are not UMC people dealing with these potentially dangerous situations, it’s minimum wage workers in their twenties.