The Right to Camp in Bus Shelters

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up the same way, OP, but in NYC. Few on dcum care or relate to the exhausted, working poor commuting families who have to experience more exhaustion, discomfort and inconvenience because of a few people who should be in shelters. Some of my worst childhood memories are of commuting with my single mom, knowing how little protection we had.

I'm a staunch Democrat but hate this side of liberal politics. And no one cares if you say unhoused or homeless! It's a nonsense signifier designed to deflect and soothe academic egos.

I am so, so, so sorry that you had to ENDURE the homelss when you were young. That must have been so very hard.

I also hate that we are not taking care of these people. As a society, we shouldn't be pushing them around out of your very sensitive space. We should invest a hell of a lot more into programs that actually help the unhoused. And yes, how we refer to these people matters. They are human beings worthy of decency even if you can't see it.

Tell us all about these "programs" that are going to help the homeless, over and above the billions already spent on this issue?

Tell us how you want to police to kick them 20 yards down the street so you don't have to be reminded that these people exist.

I asked you first, and of course you can't answer, because you as well as anyone can see that throwing more dollars (e.g. "programs") at the homeless issue is not the solution. You just don't have a solution, so it's always more "programs." Very vague, generic term that means nothing, but I'm sure it makes you feel virtuous to support.

I never said that I want the police to kick them 20 yards down the street.

I do support the concept of mandatory day and night shelters. People do not have a right to live on city streets. If they don't have somewhere else to go, they are taken to a shelter for sleeping and another location to spend their days.

Agreed the idea of more money and more programs is spouted by people who don't know what they are talking about. There is a subset of chronic homeless people who refuse all services and choose to live on the streets. They typically have mental health issues. The pendulum has swung such that government cannot involuntarily confine them for treatment, even if their families would like them to and give permission or ask for this level of help. Laws on this vary by state. Me personally I do not think it's humane to let a person suffering from a mental health issue that involves delusions and paranoia to continue to live on the street where the delusions and paranoia that drive them to live on the streets are not treated. But it's our laws and systems that need to be evaluated not just throw more money at the problem.

Completely agree, with one comment: They typically have drug issues, not mental health issues.

What law would you like to have passed? Actually curious. And if you mandate that we put them in shelters, how do you propose we do that without additional funding?

I completely support additional funding for mandatory shelters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up the same way, OP, but in NYC. Few on dcum care or relate to the exhausted, working poor commuting families who have to experience more exhaustion, discomfort and inconvenience because of a few people who should be in shelters. Some of my worst childhood memories are of commuting with my single mom, knowing how little protection we had.

I'm a staunch Democrat but hate this side of liberal politics. And no one cares if you say unhoused or homeless! It's a nonsense signifier designed to deflect and soothe academic egos.

I am so, so, so sorry that you had to ENDURE the homelss when you were young. That must have been so very hard.

I also hate that we are not taking care of these people. As a society, we shouldn't be pushing them around out of your very sensitive space. We should invest a hell of a lot more into programs that actually help the unhoused. And yes, how we refer to these people matters. They are human beings worthy of decency even if you can't see it.

Tell us all about these "programs" that are going to help the homeless, over and above the billions already spent on this issue?

Tell us how you want to police to kick them 20 yards down the street so you don't have to be reminded that these people exist.

I asked you first, and of course you can't answer, because you as well as anyone can see that throwing more dollars (e.g. "programs") at the homeless issue is not the solution. You just don't have a solution, so it's always more "programs." Very vague, generic term that means nothing, but I'm sure it makes you feel virtuous to support.

I never said that I want the police to kick them 20 yards down the street.

I do support the concept of mandatory day and night shelters. People do not have a right to live on city streets. If they don't have somewhere else to go, they are taken to a shelter for sleeping and another location to spend their days.

No you didn't, but that's what they do. You can't make people go to shelters if they don't want to. They aren't committing any crimes. Yes, people have a right to be on the street the same way you do.

Of course more funding would solve a lot of these problems. Currently we do not have enough shelters or programs that allow these people to get off the street.

Your cynicism and hate does nothing to solve the problem and help these people.

They do not have a right to loiter in public places. They do not (should not) have a right to sleep, or set up camp, on the street or in any public place. Yes, these things should be petty crimes and there should be enforcement. Yes, people should be forced into shelters if they have no where else to go.

Actually, THEY DO have a right to sleep on a public bench. It's not against the law. Just like it's not against the law to take a nap on the bus, train, metro or the park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Police dispatcher here:
Couple different perspectives. We get calls about this all the time, probably daily/several times a week. Legally we can’t cite someone for trespassing or laying in a bus shelter because there is no “ victim” per se and they’re not breaking the law either. Also, the bus shelter falls under metro bus or ride on, not the local police.
Also, everyone films the police now, so if they go out and ask someone to move along, next thing the police are being accused of “ harassing the homeless” and it’s all over everywhere how awful the police are for harassing people.
We do go out and check on the person, they say they’re ok, they refuse services and we carry on our way.

Interesting. This "no victim" interpretation implies that I can build a house on public land and live there.

Interesting that you equate sitting on a public bus bench with building a house on public land. Are you really this stupid or is it a temporary lapse?

They aren't sitting. It's an encampment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up the same way, OP, but in NYC. Few on dcum care or relate to the exhausted, working poor commuting families who have to experience more exhaustion, discomfort and inconvenience because of a few people who should be in shelters. Some of my worst childhood memories are of commuting with my single mom, knowing how little protection we had.

I'm a staunch Democrat but hate this side of liberal politics. And no one cares if you say unhoused or homeless! It's a nonsense signifier designed to deflect and soothe academic egos.

I am so, so, so sorry that you had to ENDURE the homelss when you were young. That must have been so very hard.

I also hate that we are not taking care of these people. As a society, we shouldn't be pushing them around out of your very sensitive space. We should invest a hell of a lot more into programs that actually help the unhoused. And yes, how we refer to these people matters. They are human beings worthy of decency even if you can't see it.

Tell us all about these "programs" that are going to help the homeless, over and above the billions already spent on this issue?

Tell us how you want to police to kick them 20 yards down the street so you don't have to be reminded that these people exist.

I asked you first, and of course you can't answer, because you as well as anyone can see that throwing more dollars (e.g. "programs") at the homeless issue is not the solution. You just don't have a solution, so it's always more "programs." Very vague, generic term that means nothing, but I'm sure it makes you feel virtuous to support.

I never said that I want the police to kick them 20 yards down the street.

I do support the concept of mandatory day and night shelters. People do not have a right to live on city streets. If they don't have somewhere else to go, they are taken to a shelter for sleeping and another location to spend their days.

Agreed the idea of more money and more programs is spouted by people who don't know what they are talking about. There is a subset of chronic homeless people who refuse all services and choose to live on the streets. They typically have mental health issues. The pendulum has swung such that government cannot involuntarily confine them for treatment, even if their families would like them to and give permission or ask for this level of help. Laws on this vary by state. Me personally I do not think it's humane to let a person suffering from a mental health issue that involves delusions and paranoia to continue to live on the street where the delusions and paranoia that drive them to live on the streets are not treated. But it's our laws and systems that need to be evaluated not just throw more money at the problem.

Completely agree, with one comment: They typically have drug issues, not mental health issues.

What law would you like to have passed? Actually curious. And if you mandate that we put them in shelters, how do you propose we do that without additional funding?

I completely support additional funding for mandatory shelters.

When you say mandatory shelters, do you propose that we have a police force go around and round people up every morning to take them to shelters?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of the people you are bit7hing about are also disabled and elderly.

Are you also the poster who wants to protect the children from the homeless at the Tennleytown library?

I assume you are wealthy and never have to wait at a bus stop in the library with someones discarded refuse and needles, with ungodly smells, since you drive and uber everywhere and your kids get books from Amazon or on their Kindle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up the same way, OP, but in NYC. Few on dcum care or relate to the exhausted, working poor commuting families who have to experience more exhaustion, discomfort and inconvenience because of a few people who should be in shelters. Some of my worst childhood memories are of commuting with my single mom, knowing how little protection we had.

I'm a staunch Democrat but hate this side of liberal politics. And no one cares if you say unhoused or homeless! It's a nonsense signifier designed to deflect and soothe academic egos.

I am so, so, so sorry that you had to ENDURE the homelss when you were young. That must have been so very hard.

I also hate that we are not taking care of these people. As a society, we shouldn't be pushing them around out of your very sensitive space. We should invest a hell of a lot more into programs that actually help the unhoused. And yes, how we refer to these people matters. They are human beings worthy of decency even if you can't see it.

Tell us all about these "programs" that are going to help the homeless, over and above the billions already spent on this issue?

Tell us how you want to police to kick them 20 yards down the street so you don't have to be reminded that these people exist.

I asked you first, and of course you can't answer, because you as well as anyone can see that throwing more dollars (e.g. "programs") at the homeless issue is not the solution. You just don't have a solution, so it's always more "programs." Very vague, generic term that means nothing, but I'm sure it makes you feel virtuous to support.

I never said that I want the police to kick them 20 yards down the street.

I do support the concept of mandatory day and night shelters. People do not have a right to live on city streets. If they don't have somewhere else to go, they are taken to a shelter for sleeping and another location to spend their days.

Agreed the idea of more money and more programs is spouted by people who don't know what they are talking about. There is a subset of chronic homeless people who refuse all services and choose to live on the streets. They typically have mental health issues. The pendulum has swung such that government cannot involuntarily confine them for treatment, even if their families would like them to and give permission or ask for this level of help. Laws on this vary by state. Me personally I do not think it's humane to let a person suffering from a mental health issue that involves delusions and paranoia to continue to live on the street where the delusions and paranoia that drive them to live on the streets are not treated. But it's our laws and systems that need to be evaluated not just throw more money at the problem.

Completely agree, with one comment: They typically have drug issues, not mental health issues.

What law would you like to have passed? Actually curious. And if you mandate that we put them in shelters, how do you propose we do that without additional funding?

You are responding to a different comment. The above comment is saying there should be a process to do an involuntary commitment to get mental health/drug treatment when all other avenues have been tried.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of the people you are bit7hing about are also disabled and elderly.

Are you also the poster who wants to protect the children from the homeless at the Tennleytown library?

I assume you are wealthy and never have to wait at a bus stop in the library with someones discarded refuse and needles, with ungodly smells, since you drive and uber everywhere and your kids get books from Amazon or on their Kindle.

I take public transportation in DC every day. You're making shit up. Plain and simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of the people you are bit7hing about are also disabled and elderly.

Are you also the poster who wants to protect the children from the homeless at the Tennleytown library?

Are you ok with some tents in your yard?

Can you please stay on subject, for once? No one is pitching a tent in a 5 foot bus shelter.

You arent paying attention— they are using the shelters AS TENTS. They are living sleeping etc in them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up the same way, OP, but in NYC. Few on dcum care or relate to the exhausted, working poor commuting families who have to experience more exhaustion, discomfort and inconvenience because of a few people who should be in shelters. Some of my worst childhood memories are of commuting with my single mom, knowing how little protection we had.

I'm a staunch Democrat but hate this side of liberal politics. And no one cares if you say unhoused or homeless! It's a nonsense signifier designed to deflect and soothe academic egos.

I am so, so, so sorry that you had to ENDURE the homelss when you were young. That must have been so very hard.

I also hate that we are not taking care of these people. As a society, we shouldn't be pushing them around out of your very sensitive space. We should invest a hell of a lot more into programs that actually help the unhoused. And yes, how we refer to these people matters. They are human beings worthy of decency even if you can't see it.

Tell us all about these "programs" that are going to help the homeless, over and above the billions already spent on this issue?

Tell us how you want to police to kick them 20 yards down the street so you don't have to be reminded that these people exist.

I asked you first, and of course you can't answer, because you as well as anyone can see that throwing more dollars (e.g. "programs") at the homeless issue is not the solution. You just don't have a solution, so it's always more "programs." Very vague, generic term that means nothing, but I'm sure it makes you feel virtuous to support.

I never said that I want the police to kick them 20 yards down the street.

I do support the concept of mandatory day and night shelters. People do not have a right to live on city streets. If they don't have somewhere else to go, they are taken to a shelter for sleeping and another location to spend their days.

No you didn't, but that's what they do. You can't make people go to shelters if they don't want to. They aren't committing any crimes. Yes, people have a right to be on the street the same way you do.

Of course more funding would solve a lot of these problems. Currently we do not have enough shelters or programs that allow these people to get off the street.

Your cynicism and hate does nothing to solve the problem and help these people.

They do not have a right to loiter in public places. They do not (should not) have a right to sleep, or set up camp, on the street or in any public place. Yes, these things should be petty crimes and there should be enforcement. Yes, people should be forced into shelters if they have no where else to go.

Actually, THEY DO have a right to sleep on a public bench. It's not against the law. Just like it's not against the law to take a nap on the bus, train, metro or the park.

It should be against the law to set up a camp in public, just like it should be (is?) against the law to loiter in public places.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of the people you are bit7hing about are also disabled and elderly.

Are you also the poster who wants to protect the children from the homeless at the Tennleytown library?

I assume you are wealthy and never have to wait at a bus stop in the library with someones discarded refuse and needles, with ungodly smells, since you drive and uber everywhere and your kids get books from Amazon or on their Kindle.

I take public transportation in DC every day. You're making shit up. Plain and simple.

Have you taken a bus from any part of DC the upper NW?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up the same way, OP, but in NYC. Few on dcum care or relate to the exhausted, working poor commuting families who have to experience more exhaustion, discomfort and inconvenience because of a few people who should be in shelters. Some of my worst childhood memories are of commuting with my single mom, knowing how little protection we had.

I'm a staunch Democrat but hate this side of liberal politics. And no one cares if you say unhoused or homeless! It's a nonsense signifier designed to deflect and soothe academic egos.

I am so, so, so sorry that you had to ENDURE the homelss when you were young. That must have been so very hard.

I also hate that we are not taking care of these people. As a society, we shouldn't be pushing them around out of your very sensitive space. We should invest a hell of a lot more into programs that actually help the unhoused. And yes, how we refer to these people matters. They are human beings worthy of decency even if you can't see it.

Tell us all about these "programs" that are going to help the homeless, over and above the billions already spent on this issue?

Tell us how you want to police to kick them 20 yards down the street so you don't have to be reminded that these people exist.

I asked you first, and of course you can't answer, because you as well as anyone can see that throwing more dollars (e.g. "programs") at the homeless issue is not the solution. You just don't have a solution, so it's always more "programs." Very vague, generic term that means nothing, but I'm sure it makes you feel virtuous to support.

I never said that I want the police to kick them 20 yards down the street.

I do support the concept of mandatory day and night shelters. People do not have a right to live on city streets. If they don't have somewhere else to go, they are taken to a shelter for sleeping and another location to spend their days.

Agreed the idea of more money and more programs is spouted by people who don't know what they are talking about. There is a subset of chronic homeless people who refuse all services and choose to live on the streets. They typically have mental health issues. The pendulum has swung such that government cannot involuntarily confine them for treatment, even if their families would like them to and give permission or ask for this level of help. Laws on this vary by state. Me personally I do not think it's humane to let a person suffering from a mental health issue that involves delusions and paranoia to continue to live on the street where the delusions and paranoia that drive them to live on the streets are not treated. But it's our laws and systems that need to be evaluated not just throw more money at the problem.

Completely agree, with one comment: They typically have drug issues, not mental health issues.

What law would you like to have passed? Actually curious. And if you mandate that we put them in shelters, how do you propose we do that without additional funding?

I completely support additional funding for mandatory shelters.

When you say mandatory shelters, do you propose that we have a police force go around and round people up every morning to take them to shelters?

Yes. 100%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up the same way, OP, but in NYC. Few on dcum care or relate to the exhausted, working poor commuting families who have to experience more exhaustion, discomfort and inconvenience because of a few people who should be in shelters. Some of my worst childhood memories are of commuting with my single mom, knowing how little protection we had.

I'm a staunch Democrat but hate this side of liberal politics. And no one cares if you say unhoused or homeless! It's a nonsense signifier designed to deflect and soothe academic egos.

I am so, so, so sorry that you had to ENDURE the homelss when you were young. That must have been so very hard.

I also hate that we are not taking care of these people. As a society, we shouldn't be pushing them around out of your very sensitive space. We should invest a hell of a lot more into programs that actually help the unhoused. And yes, how we refer to these people matters. They are human beings worthy of decency even if you can't see it.

Tell us all about these "programs" that are going to help the homeless, over and above the billions already spent on this issue?

Tell us how you want to police to kick them 20 yards down the street so you don't have to be reminded that these people exist.

I asked you first, and of course you can't answer, because you as well as anyone can see that throwing more dollars (e.g. "programs") at the homeless issue is not the solution. You just don't have a solution, so it's always more "programs." Very vague, generic term that means nothing, but I'm sure it makes you feel virtuous to support.

I never said that I want the police to kick them 20 yards down the street.

I do support the concept of mandatory day and night shelters. People do not have a right to live on city streets. If they don't have somewhere else to go, they are taken to a shelter for sleeping and another location to spend their days.

Agreed the idea of more money and more programs is spouted by people who don't know what they are talking about. There is a subset of chronic homeless people who refuse all services and choose to live on the streets. They typically have mental health issues. The pendulum has swung such that government cannot involuntarily confine them for treatment, even if their families would like them to and give permission or ask for this level of help. Laws on this vary by state. Me personally I do not think it's humane to let a person suffering from a mental health issue that involves delusions and paranoia to continue to live on the street where the delusions and paranoia that drive them to live on the streets are not treated. But it's our laws and systems that need to be evaluated not just throw more money at the problem.

Completely agree, with one comment: They typically have drug issues, not mental health issues.

What law would you like to have passed? Actually curious. And if you mandate that we put them in shelters, how do you propose we do that without additional funding?

You are responding to a different comment. The above comment is saying there should be a process to do an involuntary commitment to get mental health/drug treatment when all other avenues have been tried.

There is a process. Petition the court to have them declared incompetent and have them committed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of the people you are bit7hing about are also disabled and elderly.

Are you also the poster who wants to protect the children from the homeless at the Tennleytown library?

I assume you are wealthy and never have to wait at a bus stop in the library with someones discarded refuse and needles, with ungodly smells, since you drive and uber everywhere and your kids get books from Amazon or on their Kindle.

I take public transportation in DC every day. You're making shit up. Plain and simple.

I like your deflection— you take the Metro not the bus, but both are “public transportation”. Bravo.

[Anonymous]

I have lived all of the world, Europe, Asia, America… the nice cities had parks that were clean, inviting, and safe. They had mass transit that was clean, inviting, and safe. Their libraries and public buildings were likewise clean, inviting, and safe…

It seems only in America that the general citizens of a city are the absolute lowest priority. You can’t have a nice city without mass transit and public spaces, but who in their right mind would send their child to ride the bus or play in a park alone knowing it is a literal encampment of drug addicts and the mentality ill?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up the same way, OP, but in NYC. Few on dcum care or relate to the exhausted, working poor commuting families who have to experience more exhaustion, discomfort and inconvenience because of a few people who should be in shelters. Some of my worst childhood memories are of commuting with my single mom, knowing how little protection we had.

I'm a staunch Democrat but hate this side of liberal politics. And no one cares if you say unhoused or homeless! It's a nonsense signifier designed to deflect and soothe academic egos.

I am so, so, so sorry that you had to ENDURE the homelss when you were young. That must have been so very hard.

I also hate that we are not taking care of these people. As a society, we shouldn't be pushing them around out of your very sensitive space. We should invest a hell of a lot more into programs that actually help the unhoused. And yes, how we refer to these people matters. They are human beings worthy of decency even if you can't see it.

Tell us all about these "programs" that are going to help the homeless, over and above the billions already spent on this issue?

Tell us how you want to police to kick them 20 yards down the street so you don't have to be reminded that these people exist.

I asked you first, and of course you can't answer, because you as well as anyone can see that throwing more dollars (e.g. "programs") at the homeless issue is not the solution. You just don't have a solution, so it's always more "programs." Very vague, generic term that means nothing, but I'm sure it makes you feel virtuous to support.

I never said that I want the police to kick them 20 yards down the street.

I do support the concept of mandatory day and night shelters. People do not have a right to live on city streets. If they don't have somewhere else to go, they are taken to a shelter for sleeping and another location to spend their days.

Agreed the idea of more money and more programs is spouted by people who don't know what they are talking about. There is a subset of chronic homeless people who refuse all services and choose to live on the streets. They typically have mental health issues. The pendulum has swung such that government cannot involuntarily confine them for treatment, even if their families would like them to and give permission or ask for this level of help. Laws on this vary by state. Me personally I do not think it's humane to let a person suffering from a mental health issue that involves delusions and paranoia to continue to live on the street where the delusions and paranoia that drive them to live on the streets are not treated. But it's our laws and systems that need to be evaluated not just throw more money at the problem.

Completely agree, with one comment: They typically have drug issues, not mental health issues.

What law would you like to have passed? Actually curious. And if you mandate that we put them in shelters, how do you propose we do that without additional funding?

I completely support additional funding for mandatory shelters.

When you say mandatory shelters, do you propose that we have a police force go around and round people up every morning to take them to shelters?

Yes. 100%

Pure insanity. You don't get to take people's freedom away because they offend your nose.