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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is DC somehow obligated to take care of people who became destitute elsewhere but ended up in DC?

Interesting. Think about how Texas feels.

That's different.

I think you mean, "That's different!"

I also forgot to mention Texas is a "taker state."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is DC somehow obligated to take care of people who became destitute elsewhere but ended up in DC?

Interesting. Think about how Texas feels.

Here's something for Texas to think about -

Texas doesn't think they should have to take care of migrants, but somehow they think it's reasonable for the taxpayers of DC to have to pay for them and deall with them, given the taxpayers of DC don't even have a vote or representation in Congress? Truly truly bizarre or clueless that anyone would ever think that somehow makes sense.

Are you really this stupid? Texas does indeed take care of as many migrants as they can. At a certain point, however, THERE IS NO MORE ROOM AND NO MORE MONEY for them to continue to take in other countries' citizens. As for DC, it's full of LWNJs who think that the US is obligated to take in anyone who wants to come here. So if DC has to accept a tiny fraction of the migrants that Texas does, so be it. You are truly bizarre and clueless, indeed.

You're on a local DC message board about local DC issues, yet you somehow are unaware of all of the reports in local DC news about how DC already has taken thousands of migrants and that DC shelters, hotels and housing are all maxed out at full capacity and there is no more room and no more money for DC to take any more on. Yet you still think DC is obligated in spite of that, but Texas isn't.

Along with the fact that you somehow think it makes sense to punish DC taxpayers by sending them here when DC taxpayers HAVE NO SAY in border politics. We have no vote. No representation.

And here you think somehow I'm the stupid, clueless and bizarre one when your own cluelessness and lack of logical thinking is on glaring display.

[Anonymous]

To the original point, it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to house migrants and homeless people in Texas than it would in DC.

Average cost of an acre of land in Texas: Less than $4,000
Average cost of an acre of land in Washington DC: over $4,000,000

How does it make any sense to send them to a place that costs 1,000x more?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the original point, it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to house migrants and homeless people in Texas than it would in DC.

Average cost of an acre of land in Texas: Less than $4,000
Average cost of an acre of land in Washington DC: over $4,000,000

How does it make any sense to send them to a place that costs 1,000x more?

How do you "send" people in DC to DC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the original point, it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to house migrants and homeless people in Texas than it would in DC.

Average cost of an acre of land in Texas: Less than $4,000
Average cost of an acre of land in Washington DC: over $4,000,000

How does it make any sense to send them to a place that costs 1,000x more?

How do you "send" people in DC to DC?

Huh? Nobody said anything about sending people in DC to DC.

The thread is about not sending people in Texas to DC, and sending people in DC to someplace where they can be housed and receive the services they need in a much more cost-effective way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the original point, it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to house migrants and homeless people in Texas than it would in DC.

Average cost of an acre of land in Texas: Less than $4,000
Average cost of an acre of land in Washington DC: over $4,000,000

How does it make any sense to send them to a place that costs 1,000x more?

How do you "send" people in DC to DC?

Huh? Nobody said anything about sending people in DC to DC.

The thread is about not sending people in Texas to DC, and sending people in DC to someplace where they can be housed and receive the services they need in a much more cost-effective way.

How about we don't send anybody anywhere? Provide services to people where they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the original point, it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to house migrants and homeless people in Texas than it would in DC.

Average cost of an acre of land in Texas: Less than $4,000
Average cost of an acre of land in Washington DC: over $4,000,000

How does it make any sense to send them to a place that costs 1,000x more?

How do you "send" people in DC to DC?

Huh? Nobody said anything about sending people in DC to DC.

The thread is about not sending people in Texas to DC, and sending people in DC to someplace where they can be housed and receive the services they need in a much more cost-effective way.

How about we don't send anybody anywhere? Provide services to people where they are.

No, because "no capacity" and "too expensive to add more capacity" have literally been repeatedly stated over and over by multiple posters throughout this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the original point, it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to house migrants and homeless people in Texas than it would in DC.

Average cost of an acre of land in Texas: Less than $4,000
Average cost of an acre of land in Washington DC: over $4,000,000

How does it make any sense to send them to a place that costs 1,000x more?

How do you "send" people in DC to DC?

Huh? Nobody said anything about sending people in DC to DC.

The thread is about not sending people in Texas to DC, and sending people in DC to someplace where they can be housed and receive the services they need in a much more cost-effective way.

How about we don't send anybody anywhere? Provide services to people where they are.

No, because "no capacity" and "too expensive to add more capacity" have literally been repeatedly stated over and over by multiple posters throughout this thread.

DC has plenty of capacity. You’re making very weak NIMBY excuses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the original point, it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to house migrants and homeless people in Texas than it would in DC.

Average cost of an acre of land in Texas: Less than $4,000
Average cost of an acre of land in Washington DC: over $4,000,000

How does it make any sense to send them to a place that costs 1,000x more?

How do you "send" people in DC to DC?

Huh? Nobody said anything about sending people in DC to DC.

The thread is about not sending people in Texas to DC, and sending people in DC to someplace where they can be housed and receive the services they need in a much more cost-effective way.

How about we don't send anybody anywhere? Provide services to people where they are.

No, because "no capacity" and "too expensive to add more capacity" have literally been repeatedly stated over and over by multiple posters throughout this thread.

DC has plenty of capacity. You’re making very weak NIMBY excuses.

The shelters are full. And to build more housing, land in DC is averaging $3m per acre, which I'm sure is a lot more than it is wherever you lvie. Far cheaper to put them elsewhere. You're the one making very weak NIMBY excuses for why you want them in DC instead of where you live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the original point, it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to house migrants and homeless people in Texas than it would in DC.

Average cost of an acre of land in Texas: Less than $4,000
Average cost of an acre of land in Washington DC: over $4,000,000

How does it make any sense to send them to a place that costs 1,000x more?

How do you "send" people in DC to DC?

Huh? Nobody said anything about sending people in DC to DC.

The thread is about not sending people in Texas to DC, and sending people in DC to someplace where they can be housed and receive the services they need in a much more cost-effective way.

How about we don't send anybody anywhere? Provide services to people where they are.

No, because "no capacity" and "too expensive to add more capacity" have literally been repeatedly stated over and over by multiple posters throughout this thread.

DC has plenty of capacity. You’re making very weak NIMBY excuses.

DC itself does not have "plenty of capacity." I don't mind anyone who needs help being "in my backyard" so to speak, but there's limits.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/05/11/dc-migrant-buses-immigration-tite-42-costs/

[Anonymous]

Frederick does not want your problems plus there are more services in DC.

Generally the unhomed are unhomed by choice and do not want to live in shelters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Frederick does not want your problems plus there are more services in DC.

Generally the unhomed are unhomed by choice and do not want to live in shelters.

The services in DC are maxed out, and they aren't "our" problems because many of them were sent here from elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

If DC is making decisions, shouldn't DC face the consequences, why expect Texas to do carry burden of DC's decisions? Why not ask every state, how many immigrants they are willing to take?

[Anonymous]

... or assign an equal quota for every state

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If DC is making decisions, shouldn't DC face the consequences, why expect Texas to do carry burden of DC's decisions? Why not ask every state, how many immigrants they are willing to take?

DC doesn't and can't make any decisions on border and immigration policy. Those decisions are exclusively a federal matter.

And, you must not be from DC, to realize that DC taxpayers do not have any representation in Congress where those decisions are made.