Someone has started sleeping on the sidewalk next to our house

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
um ok … you clearly are waging a battle inside your own mind if you’ve gotten to the point that a phrase like “supportive housing” can set you off like that.

You’re a pretty messed up person if you think dehumanizing people instead of helping them should be called “supportive”. You should take a second to reflect on where your mind is.

zoning zoning ZONING! And density! And streetcars! And bikelanes!

just want to see your head explode.

and omg, this derail started because you freaked the f out when I casually mentioned that an SRO doesn’t seem so bad compared to an aphalt tent city, and then went on to a crazed accusation that I am a nazi because I don’t want homeless people swept up and jailed or institutionalized en masse. You have issues dude - I don’t know what they are - but you should relax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would watch and move their things when they are gone. And call the police/behavior health/shelter emergency line constantly. I’m all for supporting people but not allowing a homeless encampment to be established by my fence. Because it will never go away. They can camp beneath an underpass or on a median - not on a residential corner.

You are not a good person.

+100

Homelessness is not a crime.

Plus, it is an example of the vibrancy of city living.

[Anonymous]

Uh, yeah. Vibrant like Les Miserables? We can do better .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Walked home from dinner..there's human poop in the bus shelter in front of Wilson HS..second pile we've seen this week right in front of Wilson..though I'm guessing there's a lot more in the bushes adjacent.

Are you talking about that area on Fort Dr right in front of the aquatic center and those sketchy woods? That entire area is a cesspool. The homeless started pooping on the benches out front when they realized that those get cleaned. The woods below are simply inaccessible now as they are so full of feces and toilet paper and soiled newspaper. City knows about this but does nothing and it is adjacent to a school. Makes you wonder about Wilson's little organic garden along the sidewalk.

Hmmm, it's the grassy area by Wilson Pool across from the back of Whole Foods. In the past week have seen big piles of human poop (one in a bus stop, one under the bench by the pool entrance). There is a small woods adjacent which appears to have TP littler. Is that the same area? I feel for the homeowners who abut it, as well as the students. How totally sketchy and unhygeinic. i'm puzzled why bus stops, libraries and benches are homeless facilities in our city..I ride the bus but you won't catch me inside a bus stop since I know what happens there (ie it's an outdoor restroom).

There are a few people that now hang out/live in the grass area on Fort Dr behind Chase Bank across Albermarle from the Wawa. They go over to Wilson to defecate.

So the entrance to the public swimming pool and High School is an open air bathroom?

Yuck. And wait until the Hearst Pool amd Metro-style elevator entrance opens several blocks south. That will become another latrine.

Why not have free-standing public bathrooms? Everyone can use them. I am a cancer patient. I regularly need to stop in Target or Starbucks on my way home from chemo. There are people with Crohn’s or they have preschoolers.

I do think we should have those but they need frequent cleaning and also security so they don’t become a place for sexual assaults, drug deals, overdoses, etc. security cameras in the sink areas might be sufficient at this point.

They have self-cleaning ones in Paris. Might be something for DC to look into.

Did DC not just cancel an order of the Parisian kind?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would watch and move their things when they are gone. And call the police/behavior health/shelter emergency line constantly. I’m all for supporting people but not allowing a homeless encampment to be established by my fence. Because it will never go away. They can camp beneath an underpass or on a median - not on a residential corner.

You are not a good person.

+100

Homelessness is not a crime.

Plus, it is an example of the vibrancy of city living.

In and of itself, no. But camping, loitering, trespassing etc on public property is a crime, and should be enforced as such.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why is that tent city on asphalt better than an SRO?

You could do some research. SROs were financially unsustainable and unsafe.

Problems Plague City-Backed Hotel : Housing: Drugs, crime are rampant at Downtown hotel renovated under ambitious program, police say.
NOV. 25, 1995 12 AM PT
TIMES STAFF WRITER
After living on the grimy streets of Downtown Los Angeles, Herman Lewis thought that moving into the Hayward Manor hotel at 6th and Spring streets would bring more safety and comfort.

Within days, he realized he was wrong. “You might as well be on the street,” said Lewis, who lived at the Hayward from August, 1994, through May, 1995. “Drugs are everywhere. You don’t even have to go outside of the place. You can get anything you want inside.”

Drug dealing and drug use are only some of the problems facing the Hayward Manor, according to police and the current manager, a court-appointed receivership representative. There’s also prostitution, murder, sexual assault, robbery and other crimes.

These kinds of problems are not unusual for some of the low-cost hotels on the fringe of Skid Row. But unlike the others, the Hayward is part of a $110-million citywide project hailed as the most ambitious affordable housing effort in Los Angeles history by outgoing Mayor Tom Bradley in 1993. At a cost of $25 million, the Hayward was the most expensive of the 15 affordable housing projects unveiled that day.

Now, two years later, the 525-unit single resident occupancy hotel is in danger of defaulting on a $13.4-million city-authorized revenue bond, according to the credit rating agency Standard & Poor’s. And taxpayers may never be repaid for a $10-million city loan made in 1992 for acquisition and rehabilitation of the beleaguered hotel, city officials acknowledge.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-11-25-me-6994-story.html

tents on asphalt are better?

I see you want to establish a strawman for some bs argument. Look buddy, your problem is that you presume that you are the first person that thought of something. The outcome was that the city lit money on fire while the homeless felt more safe on the street.

From what I understand, the people that think every issue is about land use and zoning are now think that SROs are the solution for homelessness. It quite smug, arrogant and directly contradicts a lot of other stuff they promote, but who needs to be consistent, right? It is just an incredible mindset to think that zoning is the cause and the solution. Total broken brain stuff to think that social ills are effectively an early 2010s "one neat trick" listicle, but about zoning. But also, quite arrogant to not actually consider why there are no SROs.

I’m not sure why you’re throwing so much blame around here? There’s no culture wars over SROs. It’s a totally logical question to ask why SROs can’t be one part of an effective solution, when the one here (tents on asphalt) seems more expensive and not any better an environment for the homeless person than an SRO.

So you just came up with the idea of SROs out of thin air? What neighborhood do you think they should be located it that should be then turned into a "Bowery" or "Skid Row"?

Even minimal research shows why they are terrible on some many fronts and why they were eliminated. Public ones are financially unsustainable and unsafe. Private ones are expensive, unsanitary and unsafe. Both kinds are epicenters of significant social ills that spill out as negative externalities into their neighboring communities, affecting everyone in the area.

No one wants to talk about it, but the only real solution is to bring back sanitoriums and involuntary commitment for the mentally ill, transitional housing with mandatory drug treatment for the addicts, and jail + halfway houses for the criminal sociopaths.

+1. It should be done right and humanely, which will not be cheap. But probably less money that is being wasted on "band-aid" solutions now. Much as the emptying of mental hospitals in the 1970s-1980s was the combined effect of "rights" for the mentally ill and the desire to save money, this solution will require the willingness to spend money AND the willingness to require commitment of one sort or another for people now living on the streets. Allowing troubled people to live on the streets is not humane and is not good for anyone.

+1000. I think most people would prefer higher taxes to tent cities, mentally ill wandering the city and public drug use. I know I would.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why is that tent city on asphalt better than an SRO?

You could do some research. SROs were financially unsustainable and unsafe.

Problems Plague City-Backed Hotel : Housing: Drugs, crime are rampant at Downtown hotel renovated under ambitious program, police say.
NOV. 25, 1995 12 AM PT
TIMES STAFF WRITER
After living on the grimy streets of Downtown Los Angeles, Herman Lewis thought that moving into the Hayward Manor hotel at 6th and Spring streets would bring more safety and comfort.

Within days, he realized he was wrong. “You might as well be on the street,” said Lewis, who lived at the Hayward from August, 1994, through May, 1995. “Drugs are everywhere. You don’t even have to go outside of the place. You can get anything you want inside.”

Drug dealing and drug use are only some of the problems facing the Hayward Manor, according to police and the current manager, a court-appointed receivership representative. There’s also prostitution, murder, sexual assault, robbery and other crimes.

These kinds of problems are not unusual for some of the low-cost hotels on the fringe of Skid Row. But unlike the others, the Hayward is part of a $110-million citywide project hailed as the most ambitious affordable housing effort in Los Angeles history by outgoing Mayor Tom Bradley in 1993. At a cost of $25 million, the Hayward was the most expensive of the 15 affordable housing projects unveiled that day.

Now, two years later, the 525-unit single resident occupancy hotel is in danger of defaulting on a $13.4-million city-authorized revenue bond, according to the credit rating agency Standard & Poor’s. And taxpayers may never be repaid for a $10-million city loan made in 1992 for acquisition and rehabilitation of the beleaguered hotel, city officials acknowledge.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-11-25-me-6994-story.html

tents on asphalt are better?

I see you want to establish a strawman for some bs argument. Look buddy, your problem is that you presume that you are the first person that thought of something. The outcome was that the city lit money on fire while the homeless felt more safe on the street.

From what I understand, the people that think every issue is about land use and zoning are now think that SROs are the solution for homelessness. It quite smug, arrogant and directly contradicts a lot of other stuff they promote, but who needs to be consistent, right? It is just an incredible mindset to think that zoning is the cause and the solution. Total broken brain stuff to think that social ills are effectively an early 2010s "one neat trick" listicle, but about zoning. But also, quite arrogant to not actually consider why there are no SROs.

I’m not sure why you’re throwing so much blame around here? There’s no culture wars over SROs. It’s a totally logical question to ask why SROs can’t be one part of an effective solution, when the one here (tents on asphalt) seems more expensive and not any better an environment for the homeless person than an SRO.

So you just came up with the idea of SROs out of thin air? What neighborhood do you think they should be located it that should be then turned into a "Bowery" or "Skid Row"?

Even minimal research shows why they are terrible on some many fronts and why they were eliminated. Public ones are financially unsustainable and unsafe. Private ones are expensive, unsanitary and unsafe. Both kinds are epicenters of significant social ills that spill out as negative externalities into their neighboring communities, affecting everyone in the area.

No one wants to talk about it, but the only real solution is to bring back sanitoriums and involuntary commitment for the mentally ill, transitional housing with mandatory drug treatment for the addicts, and jail + halfway houses for the criminal sociopaths.

+1. It should be done right and humanely, which will not be cheap. But probably less money that is being wasted on "band-aid" solutions now. Much as the emptying of mental hospitals in the 1970s-1980s was the combined effect of "rights" for the mentally ill and the desire to save money, this solution will require the willingness to spend money AND the willingness to require commitment of one sort or another for people now living on the streets. Allowing troubled people to live on the streets is not humane and is not good for anyone.

+1000. I think most people would prefer higher taxes to tent cities, mentally ill wandering the city and public drug use. I know I would.

Then you need to contact Council Chair Phil Mendelson who thinks we have enough money to make do and we don't need to raise taxes. We certainly don't have enough to do right, which is why we're left with either a half-assed solution as-is, or sweep people away like garbage. No thanks to either of those. We can do far better.

[Anonymous]

Or neither. Yes that’s a choice too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would watch and move their things when they are gone. And call the police/behavior health/shelter emergency line constantly. I’m all for supporting people but not allowing a homeless encampment to be established by my fence. Because it will never go away. They can camp beneath an underpass or on a median - not on a residential corner.

You are not a good person.

+100

Homelessness is not a crime.

Plus, it is an example of the vibrancy of city living.

In and of itself, no. But camping, loitering, trespassing etc on public property is a crime, and should be enforced as such.

Loitering is not a crime in DC, and how can you trespass on public property?? But people who want to sweep away the homeless DO create laws like that to justify jailing or pushing them around. That's what we mean by "criminalizing homelessness".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep in mind, many of these people are still homeless by choice. We need to face the fact that shelters and social programs won't have the same affect on them as they do with the temporary homeless or families.

Why are there no public campgrounds for people who don't want to live in a house?

Be ause they want to live alone on the sidewalk near your fence. Who tf wants to live among a bunch of homeless people?

Right, that's why there are no larger homeless encampments... said no one who has eyes.

The *individual* alone on the sidewalk sleeping doesn't want to live in a homeless encampment; otherwise he wouldn't be alone on the sidewalk sleeping. He must be a highfalutin dcum type of unhoused individual. He's too good to live among the petit bourgeoise.

Lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the last few days, I've noticed a person sleeping on the sidewalk by our house (during the day, I'm not sure if they stay there at night as well or not). They have a few bags, a blanket and that's about it. I'm not sure what to do. I am sure they don't have anywhere else to go and this is a quiet and safe corner for them, but on the other hand, I must admit I'm also not very comfortable with them being there all the time. They haven't done anything wrong, just occasionally ask for money, but my kids now don't want to go play in the part of the yard that faces that corner and they're asking me why this person is there...

Yes, they do have somewhere else to go... don't feel bad calling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why is that tent city on asphalt better than an SRO?

You could do some research. SROs were financially unsustainable and unsafe.

Problems Plague City-Backed Hotel : Housing: Drugs, crime are rampant at Downtown hotel renovated under ambitious program, police say.
NOV. 25, 1995 12 AM PT
TIMES STAFF WRITER
After living on the grimy streets of Downtown Los Angeles, Herman Lewis thought that moving into the Hayward Manor hotel at 6th and Spring streets would bring more safety and comfort.

Within days, he realized he was wrong. “You might as well be on the street,” said Lewis, who lived at the Hayward from August, 1994, through May, 1995. “Drugs are everywhere. You don’t even have to go outside of the place. You can get anything you want inside.”

Drug dealing and drug use are only some of the problems facing the Hayward Manor, according to police and the current manager, a court-appointed receivership representative. There’s also prostitution, murder, sexual assault, robbery and other crimes.

These kinds of problems are not unusual for some of the low-cost hotels on the fringe of Skid Row. But unlike the others, the Hayward is part of a $110-million citywide project hailed as the most ambitious affordable housing effort in Los Angeles history by outgoing Mayor Tom Bradley in 1993. At a cost of $25 million, the Hayward was the most expensive of the 15 affordable housing projects unveiled that day.

Now, two years later, the 525-unit single resident occupancy hotel is in danger of defaulting on a $13.4-million city-authorized revenue bond, according to the credit rating agency Standard & Poor’s. And taxpayers may never be repaid for a $10-million city loan made in 1992 for acquisition and rehabilitation of the beleaguered hotel, city officials acknowledge.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-11-25-me-6994-story.html

tents on asphalt are better?

I see you want to establish a strawman for some bs argument. Look buddy, your problem is that you presume that you are the first person that thought of something. The outcome was that the city lit money on fire while the homeless felt more safe on the street.

From what I understand, the people that think every issue is about land use and zoning are now think that SROs are the solution for homelessness. It quite smug, arrogant and directly contradicts a lot of other stuff they promote, but who needs to be consistent, right? It is just an incredible mindset to think that zoning is the cause and the solution. Total broken brain stuff to think that social ills are effectively an early 2010s "one neat trick" listicle, but about zoning. But also, quite arrogant to not actually consider why there are no SROs.

I’m not sure why you’re throwing so much blame around here? There’s no culture wars over SROs. It’s a totally logical question to ask why SROs can’t be one part of an effective solution, when the one here (tents on asphalt) seems more expensive and not any better an environment for the homeless person than an SRO.

So you just came up with the idea of SROs out of thin air? What neighborhood do you think they should be located it that should be then turned into a "Bowery" or "Skid Row"?

Even minimal research shows why they are terrible on some many fronts and why they were eliminated. Public ones are financially unsustainable and unsafe. Private ones are expensive, unsanitary and unsafe. Both kinds are epicenters of significant social ills that spill out as negative externalities into their neighboring communities, affecting everyone in the area.

No one wants to talk about it, but the only real solution is to bring back sanitoriums and involuntary commitment for the mentally ill, transitional housing with mandatory drug treatment for the addicts, and jail + halfway houses for the criminal sociopaths.

+1. It should be done right and humanely, which will not be cheap. But probably less money that is being wasted on "band-aid" solutions now. Much as the emptying of mental hospitals in the 1970s-1980s was the combined effect of "rights" for the mentally ill and the desire to save money, this solution will require the willingness to spend money AND the willingness to require commitment of one sort or another for people now living on the streets. Allowing troubled people to live on the streets is not humane and is not good for anyone.

Been saying this for a long time as well, but we have zero chance of doing this now that cities refuse to even prosecute crime and everyone has the "right" to do whatever they want, regardless of the cost to those around them - MSW

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would watch and move their things when they are gone. And call the police/behavior health/shelter emergency line constantly. I’m all for supporting people but not allowing a homeless encampment to be established by my fence. Because it will never go away. They can camp beneath an underpass or on a median - not on a residential corner.

You are not a good person.

+100

Homelessness is not a crime.

Plus, it is an example of the vibrancy of city living.

In and of itself, no. But camping, loitering, trespassing etc on public property is a crime, and should be enforced as such.

Loitering is not a crime in DC, and how can you trespass on public property?? But people who want to sweep away the homeless DO create laws like that to justify jailing or pushing them around. That's what we mean by "criminalizing homelessness".

There’s nothing wrong with a loitering law. It’s am important tool for maintaining public order,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the last few days, I've noticed a person sleeping on the sidewalk by our house (during the day, I'm not sure if they stay there at night as well or not). They have a few bags, a blanket and that's about it. I'm not sure what to do. I am sure they don't have anywhere else to go and this is a quiet and safe corner for them, but on the other hand, I must admit I'm also not very comfortable with them being there all the time. They haven't done anything wrong, just occasionally ask for money, but my kids now don't want to go play in the part of the yard that faces that corner and they're asking me why this person is there...

Yes, they do have somewhere else to go... don't feel bad calling.

Seriously. Why don't they just go to their vacation home? Problem solved!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would watch and move their things when they are gone. And call the police/behavior health/shelter emergency line constantly. I’m all for supporting people but not allowing a homeless encampment to be established by my fence. Because it will never go away. They can camp beneath an underpass or on a median - not on a residential corner.

You are not a good person.

+100

Homelessness is not a crime.

Plus, it is an example of the vibrancy of city living.

In and of itself, no. But camping, loitering, trespassing etc on public property is a crime, and should be enforced as such.

Loitering is not a crime in DC, and how can you trespass on public property?? But people who want to sweep away the homeless DO create laws like that to justify jailing or pushing them around. That's what we mean by "criminalizing homelessness".

There’s nothing wrong with a loitering law. It’s am important tool for maintaining public order,

It's an important tool for cracking down on undesirables. Great way for police get Black people behind bars too. Just history, right?