Homeless tents creeping into the nice/residential part of DC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would really prefer the people who attack me to own homes, or at least be renters. I would feel much less outrage.

Your facetiousness isn't bringing victims back to life. People point is that instead of advocating that the mentally ill be given tents, advocate for treatment and safe facilities.

Yeah, people who are a danger to themselves and others need help. No one is arguing with you there.

People who you just don't like to see on the streets should get housing, not crappy shelters and restrictions that prevent them from getting work. Or a tent if they need it to survive in the meantime.

Many of them have Ben offered housing and refused it because they don't want to give up using drugs.

Why require them to give up using drugs first? It's not an easy thing. We don't require homeowners to give up drugs before getting a mortgage interest deduction.

Tell you what, if you don't have a problem with people in active, rock-bottom addiction living somewhere, then you go ahead and rent out your apartment to them. See if they burn the place down or kill the kid down the hall by leaving the fentanyl out. I had enough watching fights, people nodding out, scoring, stealing, hustling, and defecating everywhere on 17th street to know I don't want those people in my apartment building until they are clean. If you are in such active addiction that you are now on the street, you are incapable of being okay just because you get housing. There need to be programs that house and treat people simultaneously. I suspect there are some, but these folks have to want to get clean and most simply do not.

Agree 100%. I think the fairly recent opening of rentals in Van Ness-area apartment buildings to recently homeless people has been a disaster because their behavior has been disruptive to the neighborhood. This is unfortunately why "housing first" is not the answer. Nor is it acceptable to leave people without reasonable shelter, and come on guys--tents are not humane! Housing and treatment (voluntary or not) have to go together and might need to be compulsory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure I know when DC was this pristine city? I've lived in VA (but not DC) for most of my life, and I remember when large parts of DC were considered dangerous. And maybe because I'm white when other white people said that it was code for "black," but I do remember when you could be walking down one street and it was totally fine, and then you'd turn the corner and be like....I feel very unsafe.

What I don't understand is why Arlington has virtually no homeless people that I see and DC has so many, when the two locations are so close. My assumption is that DC is allowing homeless people to have access to a lot of things that Arlington isn't. Or there would be way more homeless people there.

It reminds me of Giuliani (before he went totally Trump crazy). A lot of people hated him for making it very difficult to be visibly homeless in NYC. But large parts of NYC that had been pretty gross and not tourist friendly became much nicer. Yes. It was bad for people who were already hurting, and I don't have an answer for that. But it was better for the city as a whole. And I hate Giuliani. But I saw NYC before and after, and maybe after was more "plastic" and Times Square got "Disneyfied," but after was better.

I look at what's happening in SF, and it's not good. The last time I visited there was right before the pandemic and I was pretty shocked. I felt unsafe in some pretty touristy areas of the city. And I'm not clutching my pearls. I have lived in big cities. But there were a lot of people around who were obviously homeless but also obviously either mentally ill or on drugs or both.

I'm a Dem because I don't like the religious right, Trump, the pro-lifers, etc....all the moral crap Republicans want to shove down my throat. My more liberal friends are horrified when I suggest that DC should stop making it easy to be visibly homeless because they say...well...what are those people supposed to do? We have an obligation to help them. And I agree with that. But I don't think the answer is people creating tent cities. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think what's going on now is the answer.

Mental institutions where they can be medicated on a schedule, and gradually removed from drug and alcohol addictions. Most will not return to society, but be kept in institutions for their own safety. The APA did a terrible disservice to these poor souls when they insisted they should become part of the normal world. They just are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would really prefer the people who attack me to own homes, or at least be renters. I would feel much less outrage.

Your facetiousness isn't bringing victims back to life. People point is that instead of advocating that the mentally ill be given tents, advocate for treatment and safe facilities.

Yeah, people who are a danger to themselves and others need help. No one is arguing with you there.

People who you just don't like to see on the streets should get housing, not crappy shelters and restrictions that prevent them from getting work. Or a tent if they need it to survive in the meantime.

Many of them have Ben offered housing and refused it because they don't want to give up using drugs.

Why require them to give up using drugs first? It's not an easy thing. We don't require homeowners to give up drugs before getting a mortgage interest deduction.

Tell you what, if you don't have a problem with people in active, rock-bottom addiction living somewhere, then you go ahead and rent out your apartment to them. See if they burn the place down or kill the kid down the hall by leaving the fentanyl out. I had enough watching fights, people nodding out, scoring, stealing, hustling, and defecating everywhere on 17th street to know I don't want those people in my apartment building until they are clean. If you are in such active addiction that you are now on the street, you are incapable of being okay just because you get housing. There need to be programs that house and treat people simultaneously. I suspect there are some, but these folks have to want to get clean and most simply do not.

Agree 100%. I think the fairly recent opening of rentals in Van Ness-area apartment buildings to recently homeless people has been a disaster because their behavior has been disruptive to the neighborhood. This is unfortunately why "housing first" is not the answer. Nor is it acceptable to leave people without reasonable shelter, and come on guys--tents are not humane! Housing and treatment (voluntary or not) have to go together and might need to be compulsory.

Can we go back to when they were stuffed in poor black neighborhoods only?

/s

[Anonymous]

FWIW, you don’t see as many tents in European cities because historically the “bad stuff” (poverty, crime, drugs, etc) has been pushed to the “Banlieues” or equivalent…there’s no pretty suburbia by and large. Rich live in fancy city center apartments and the unfortunate away from there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's bad enough that tents are in all the public spaces downtown, but I was dismayed driving in this morning to see a tent in one of the little green public spaces off Mass Ave near the Cathedral.

I'm worried DC will into SF (and I mean the bad parts of SF). Why are city officials letting homeless people live in tents in all the public spaces? It's unsanitary and extremely unpleasant.

It’s who you voted for. What did you expect?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FWIW, you don’t see as many tents in European cities because historically the “bad stuff” (poverty, crime, drugs, etc) has been pushed to the “Banlieues” or equivalent…there’s no pretty suburbia by and large. Rich live in fancy city center apartments and the unfortunate away from there.

This is not really true. European cities typically have both rich low density suburbs and impoverished high density suburbs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Funny how liberals are all for affordable housing then turn around and say not in my backyard. Homelessness and affordable housing are dem created problems. Doesn’t happen where republicans control because they fix the issues for the blue collar working class.

Name me one issue that Republicans have fixed for the blue collar working class. Democrats support strong union rights, higher minimum wages, strong labor provisions in trade agreements, workplace safety laws, stronger health care programs, Affordable Care Act, etc. The prime beneficiaries of all of these policies are the blue collar working class. Republicans oppose all of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny how liberals are all for affordable housing then turn around and say not in my backyard. Homelessness and affordable housing are dem created problems. Doesn’t happen where republicans control because they fix the issues for the blue collar working class.

Name me one issue that Republicans have fixed for the blue collar working class. Democrats support strong union rights, higher minimum wages, strong labor provisions in trade agreements, workplace safety laws, stronger health care programs, Affordable Care Act, etc. The prime beneficiaries of all of these policies are the blue collar working class. Republicans oppose all of them.

And yet it’s pretty cheap to buy a house almost anywhere it Texas that’s not named Austin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny how liberals are all for affordable housing then turn around and say not in my backyard. Homelessness and affordable housing are dem created problems. Doesn’t happen where republicans control because they fix the issues for the blue collar working class.

Name me one issue that Republicans have fixed for the blue collar working class. Democrats support strong union rights, higher minimum wages, strong labor provisions in trade agreements, workplace safety laws, stronger health care programs, Affordable Care Act, etc. The prime beneficiaries of all of these policies are the blue collar working class. Republicans oppose all of them.

And yet it’s pretty cheap to buy a house almost anywhere it Texas that’s not named Austin.

Yes, Texas' geography is flat and sprawly because of Republican policies.

And besides, their property tax rate is more than three times DC's, so monthly expenditures aren't all that different. What's your point again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny how liberals are all for affordable housing then turn around and say not in my backyard. Homelessness and affordable housing are dem created problems. Doesn’t happen where republicans control because they fix the issues for the blue collar working class.

Name me one issue that Republicans have fixed for the blue collar working class. Democrats support strong union rights, higher minimum wages, strong labor provisions in trade agreements, workplace safety laws, stronger health care programs, Affordable Care Act, etc. The prime beneficiaries of all of these policies are the blue collar working class. Republicans oppose all of them.

And yet it’s pretty cheap to buy a house almost anywhere it Texas that’s not named Austin.

Yes, Texas' geography is flat and sprawly because of Republican policies.

And besides, their property tax rate is more than three times DC's, so monthly expenditures aren't all that different. What's your point again?

I don’t have a point. I’m just pointing out that you don’t either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would really prefer the people who attack me to own homes, or at least be renters. I would feel much less outrage.

Your facetiousness isn't bringing victims back to life. People point is that instead of advocating that the mentally ill be given tents, advocate for treatment and safe facilities.

Yeah, people who are a danger to themselves and others need help. No one is arguing with you there.

People who you just don't like to see on the streets should get housing, not crappy shelters and restrictions that prevent them from getting work. Or a tent if they need it to survive in the meantime.

Many of them have Ben offered housing and refused it because they don't want to give up using drugs.

Why require them to give up using drugs first? It's not an easy thing. We don't require homeowners to give up drugs before getting a mortgage interest deduction.

Tell you what, if you don't have a problem with people in active, rock-bottom addiction living somewhere, then you go ahead and rent out your apartment to them. See if they burn the place down or kill the kid down the hall by leaving the fentanyl out. I had enough watching fights, people nodding out, scoring, stealing, hustling, and defecating everywhere on 17th street to know I don't want those people in my apartment building until they are clean. If you are in such active addiction that you are now on the street, you are incapable of being okay just because you get housing. There need to be programs that house and treat people simultaneously. I suspect there are some, but these folks have to want to get clean and most simply do not.

Agree 100%. I think the fairly recent opening of rentals in Van Ness-area apartment buildings to recently homeless people has been a disaster because their behavior has been disruptive to the neighborhood. This is unfortunately why "housing first" is not the answer. Nor is it acceptable to leave people without reasonable shelter, and come on guys--tents are not humane! Housing and treatment (voluntary or not) have to go together and might need to be compulsory.

Can we go back to when they were stuffed in poor black neighborhoods only?

/s

From whence they came

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny how liberals are all for affordable housing then turn around and say not in my backyard. Homelessness and affordable housing are dem created problems. Doesn’t happen where republicans control because they fix the issues for the blue collar working class.

Name me one issue that Republicans have fixed for the blue collar working class. Democrats support strong union rights, higher minimum wages, strong labor provisions in trade agreements, workplace safety laws, stronger health care programs, Affordable Care Act, etc. The prime beneficiaries of all of these policies are the blue collar working class. Republicans oppose all of them.

What is interesting is that you take as a given that all those things are good for blue collar working class people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny how liberals are all for affordable housing then turn around and say not in my backyard. Homelessness and affordable housing are dem created problems. Doesn’t happen where republicans control because they fix the issues for the blue collar working class.

Name me one issue that Republicans have fixed for the blue collar working class. Democrats support strong union rights, higher minimum wages, strong labor provisions in trade agreements, workplace safety laws, stronger health care programs, Affordable Care Act, etc. The prime beneficiaries of all of these policies are the blue collar working class. Republicans oppose all of them.

What is interesting is that you take as a given that all those things are good for blue collar working class people.

1. strong unions: like the Chicago Teachers Union that has shut down the schools, many of which serve the blue collar working class or non-working class
2. higher minimum wages: which spur automation so that there are fewer jobs for the blue collar working class
3. strong labor provisions in trade agreements: which offshore blue collar jobs and more and more, white collar jobs -- it used to be a liberal becomes a conservative when she is mugged; it is now a liberal becomes a conservative when her HR job is move to Bangalore
4. workplace safety laws: that are ignored by one of the largest employers of blue collar workers in the country - Amazon
5. stronger health care programs: the Affordable Care Act that made many companies employing blue collar workers stop providing health insurance and leave them to seek it at higher cost on the ACA market

With the growing power of blue collar workers because of labor shortages, blue collar workers will move up the pay scale and power scale. Them what will the Dems do with only the underclass as their supporters?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny how liberals are all for affordable housing then turn around and say not in my backyard. Homelessness and affordable housing are dem created problems. Doesn’t happen where republicans control because they fix the issues for the blue collar working class.

Name me one issue that Republicans have fixed for the blue collar working class. Democrats support strong union rights, higher minimum wages, strong labor provisions in trade agreements, workplace safety laws, stronger health care programs, Affordable Care Act, etc. The prime beneficiaries of all of these policies are the blue collar working class. Republicans oppose all of them.

What is interesting is that you take as a given that all those things are good for blue collar working class people.

1. strong unions: like the Chicago Teachers Union that has shut down the schools, many of which serve the blue collar working class or non-working class
2. higher minimum wages: which spur automation so that there are fewer jobs for the blue collar working class
3. strong labor provisions in trade agreements: which offshore blue collar jobs and more and more, white collar jobs -- it used to be a liberal becomes a conservative when she is mugged; it is now a liberal becomes a conservative when her HR job is move to Bangalore
4. workplace safety laws: that are ignored by one of the largest employers of blue collar workers in the country - Amazon
5. stronger health care programs: the Affordable Care Act that made many companies employing blue collar workers stop providing health insurance and leave them to seek it at higher cost on the ACA market

With the growing power of blue collar workers because of labor shortages, blue collar workers will move up the pay scale and power scale. Them what will the Dems do with only the underclass as their supporters?

“ 2. higher minimum wages: which spur automation so that there are fewer jobs for the blue collar working class”

Higher minimum wage laws not only spur automation, they directly harm poor people of color.

- when a business is hit with laws that effectively DOUBLE their labor costs, they invariably lay off some of the lowest paid workers, and force the remaining ones to do more to take up the slack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FWIW, you don’t see as many tents in European cities because historically the “bad stuff” (poverty, crime, drugs, etc) has been pushed to the “Banlieues” or equivalent…there’s no pretty suburbia by and large. Rich live in fancy city center apartments and the unfortunate away from there.

This is not really true. European cities typically have both rich low density suburbs and impoverished high density suburbs.

Agree, the idea that European cities don't have well-off, pleasant suburbs is kind of a myth. I feel like this belief is pushed by the inexperienced US urbanist crowd a lot.

Central Paris for example? Yes, it is on the whole wealthy and expensive, but there are also wealthy, nice suburbs to the west and south.