Homelessness in DC- has it gotten worse?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC has to be careful. It is a magnet for folks whose mental illness is triggered by the industrio-political-military complex. They are attractefld.to DC to lodge their complaints. It also risks being overly generous with the social responsibilities of our neighbors (MD and VA), much like the early days of Covid vaccines. DC should take care of DC residents, and by take care of I mean shelter or hospitalize (including involuntarily). If someone is recently arrived from somewhere else and plops on the sidewalk, bus tickets home.

Everyone I know in DC got their vaccine in MD.

Yep. Until about May, Bowser couldn’t get DC’s act together. We know Washingtonians who drove to Winchester, Norfolk, Roanoke, even NC.

Umm don't be obtuse.

The largest federal vaccination center was on the WMATA train line at the Greenbelt station.

https://www.wmata.com/about/news/Greenbelt-vaccination-site.cfm?alerts-widget-next-train-all=F11

It was provided by the U.S. Federal government not the government of Maryland - state lines in this case being immaterial. And don't act like all of you weren't pouring into our city for free Covid tests.

Do you think Greenbelt is in DC? But also, they had JnJ there and no one wanted it. Literally everyone I know in DC got their shots at Six Flags, which was run by the state of MD.

The statistics were that about half of DC shots went to folks from outside of DC the first 3 months. I hope their will be an inquiry into how the whole system was.managed, and then again, state by state (or city in DCs case)

You realize of course that shots were prioritized based on workplace for many of the phases? I live in VA and got my shots in MD because my workplace is there and it was time for those workers to get vaxed. I know people who live in MD and work in VA so they got vaxed in VA. It shouldn't be surprising that many essential employees in DC do not live in DC, because few people want to live in DC. If you are merely a "resident" but not fulfilling a critical workplace role, why should you get vaccinated before someone who lives in MD but fulfills a critical role in DC? Makes no sense.

I'm staying facts. Half went outside the city.

Because the only people that could get a shot in DC were VIPs and half of them live outside the city. Ordinary people had to go to MD or VA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC has to be careful. It is a magnet for folks whose mental illness is triggered by the industrio-political-military complex. They are attractefld.to DC to lodge their complaints. It also risks being overly generous with the social responsibilities of our neighbors (MD and VA), much like the early days of Covid vaccines. DC should take care of DC residents, and by take care of I mean shelter or hospitalize (including involuntarily). If someone is recently arrived from somewhere else and plops on the sidewalk, bus tickets home.

Everyone I know in DC got their vaccine in MD.

Yep. Until about May, Bowser couldn’t get DC’s act together. We know Washingtonians who drove to Winchester, Norfolk, Roanoke, even NC.

Umm don't be obtuse.

The largest federal vaccination center was on the WMATA train line at the Greenbelt station.

https://www.wmata.com/about/news/Greenbelt-vaccination-site.cfm?alerts-widget-next-train-all=F11

It was provided by the U.S. Federal government not the government of Maryland - state lines in this case being immaterial. And don't act like all of you weren't pouring into our city for free Covid tests.

Do you think Greenbelt is in DC? But also, they had JnJ there and no one wanted it. Literally everyone I know in DC got their shots at Six Flags, which was run by the state of MD.

The statistics were that about half of DC shots went to folks from outside of DC the first 3 months. I hope their will be an inquiry into how the whole system was.managed, and then again, state by state (or city in DCs case)

You realize of course that shots were prioritized based on workplace for many of the phases? I live in VA and got my shots in MD because my workplace is there and it was time for those workers to get vaxed. I know people who live in MD and work in VA so they got vaxed in VA. It shouldn't be surprising that many essential employees in DC do not live in DC, because few people want to live in DC. If you are merely a "resident" but not fulfilling a critical workplace role, why should you get vaccinated before someone who lives in MD but fulfills a critical role in DC? Makes no sense.

I'm staying facts. Half went outside the city.

Because the only people that could get a shot in DC were VIPs and half of them live outside the city. Ordinary people had to go to MD or VA.

Exactly. half the shots went to people outside the city. The connection to homelessness, is that DC needs to coordinate with MD and VA--better than it did with Covid shots--to make sure it is taking up its fair part, but no more-certainly not theirs. They have the economic engines to take care of their homeless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC has to be careful. It is a magnet for folks whose mental illness is triggered by the industrio-political-military complex. They are attractefld.to DC to lodge their complaints. It also risks being overly generous with the social responsibilities of our neighbors (MD and VA), much like the early days of Covid vaccines. DC should take care of DC residents, and by take care of I mean shelter or hospitalize (including involuntarily). If someone is recently arrived from somewhere else and plops on the sidewalk, bus tickets home.

Everyone I know in DC got their vaccine in MD.

Yep. Until about May, Bowser couldn’t get DC’s act together. We know Washingtonians who drove to Winchester, Norfolk, Roanoke, even NC.

Umm don't be obtuse.

The largest federal vaccination center was on the WMATA train line at the Greenbelt station.

https://www.wmata.com/about/news/Greenbelt-vaccination-site.cfm?alerts-widget-next-train-all=F11

It was provided by the U.S. Federal government not the government of Maryland - state lines in this case being immaterial. And don't act like all of you weren't pouring into our city for free Covid tests.

Do you think Greenbelt is in DC? But also, they had JnJ there and no one wanted it. Literally everyone I know in DC got their shots at Six Flags, which was run by the state of MD.

The statistics were that about half of DC shots went to folks from outside of DC the first 3 months. I hope their will be an inquiry into how the whole system was.managed, and then again, state by state (or city in DCs case)

You realize of course that shots were prioritized based on workplace for many of the phases? I live in VA and got my shots in MD because my workplace is there and it was time for those workers to get vaxed. I know people who live in MD and work in VA so they got vaxed in VA. It shouldn't be surprising that many essential employees in DC do not live in DC, because few people want to live in DC. If you are merely a "resident" but not fulfilling a critical workplace role, why should you get vaccinated before someone who lives in MD but fulfills a critical role in DC? Makes no sense.

I'm staying facts. Half went outside the city.

Because the only people that could get a shot in DC were VIPs and half of them live outside the city. Ordinary people had to go to MD or VA.

Exactly. half the shots went to people outside the city. The connection to homelessness, is that DC needs to coordinate with MD and VA--better than it did with Covid shots--to make sure it is taking up its fair part, but no more-certainly not theirs. They have the economic engines to take care of their homeless.

The vaccine rollout is a small taste of what is to come if DC becomes a state.

[Anonymous]

1. NIMBYs oppose housing.
2. Housing becomes more expensive as more people want to live in DC
3. Low-income folks are evicted onto the street.

Simple as that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1. NIMBYs oppose housing.
2. Housing becomes more expensive as more people want to live in DC
3. Low-income folks are evicted onto the street.

Simple as that.

I can’t tell if PP is serious or trolling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. NIMBYs oppose housing.
2. Housing becomes more expensive as more people want to live in DC
3. Low-income folks are evicted onto the street.

Simple as that.

I can’t tell if PP is serious or trolling.

They're right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. NIMBYs oppose housing.
2. Housing becomes more expensive as more people want to live in DC
3. Low-income folks are evicted onto the street.

Simple as that.

I can’t tell if PP is serious or trolling.

It’s the Ward 3 Vision Trumper trying to pretend he’s woke to push laissez faire luxury market development as the solution to homelessness! Really?’

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. NIMBYs oppose housing.
2. Housing becomes more expensive as more people want to live in DC
3. Low-income folks are evicted onto the street.

Simple as that.

I can’t tell if PP is serious or trolling.

They're right.

And yet homelessness in DC was a much bigger problem in the 80s and 90s, coinciding with the Reagan administration cutting welfare programs and closing St. Elizabeth's hospital, all the while the suburbs were expanding and there were what are now multi million dollar townhomes on Logan Circle divided up into condos that were then sitting empty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC has to be careful. It is a magnet for folks whose mental illness is triggered by the industrio-political-military complex. They are attractefld.to DC to lodge their complaints. It also risks being overly generous with the social responsibilities of our neighbors (MD and VA), much like the early days of Covid vaccines. DC should take care of DC residents, and by take care of I mean shelter or hospitalize (including involuntarily). If someone is recently arrived from somewhere else and plops on the sidewalk, bus tickets home.

Everyone I know in DC got their vaccine in MD.

Yep. Until about May, Bowser couldn’t get DC’s act together. We know Washingtonians who drove to Winchester, Norfolk, Roanoke, even NC.

Umm don't be obtuse.

The largest federal vaccination center was on the WMATA train line at the Greenbelt station.

https://www.wmata.com/about/news/Greenbelt-vaccination-site.cfm?alerts-widget-next-train-all=F11

It was provided by the U.S. Federal government not the government of Maryland - state lines in this case being immaterial. And don't act like all of you weren't pouring into our city for free Covid tests.

Do you think Greenbelt is in DC? But also, they had JnJ there and no one wanted it. Literally everyone I know in DC got their shots at Six Flags, which was run by the state of MD.

The statistics were that about half of DC shots went to folks from outside of DC the first 3 months. I hope their will be an inquiry into how the whole system was.managed, and then again, state by state (or city in DCs case)

You realize of course that shots were prioritized based on workplace for many of the phases? I live in VA and got my shots in MD because my workplace is there and it was time for those workers to get vaxed. I know people who live in MD and work in VA so they got vaxed in VA. It shouldn't be surprising that many essential employees in DC do not live in DC, because few people want to live in DC. If you are merely a "resident" but not fulfilling a critical workplace role, why should you get vaccinated before someone who lives in MD but fulfills a critical role in DC? Makes no sense.

I'm staying facts. Half went outside the city.

Because the only people that could get a shot in DC were VIPs and half of them live outside the city. Ordinary people had to go to MD or VA.

Exactly. half the shots went to people outside the city. The connection to homelessness, is that DC needs to coordinate with MD and VA--better than it did with Covid shots--to make sure it is taking up its fair part, but no more-certainly not theirs. They have the economic engines to take care of their homeless.

a.) initially a lot of DC's vaccinations were prioritized for front-line workers, like MPD, Fire/EMS etc, the majority of whom live outside of the city. Though I wish they DID live inside the city so that they would be more invested in and connected with the communities they are supposed to serve and protect and I think Council needs to work on that.

b.) DC did not get equal allocation and prioritization of vaccines as states did, was instead lumped in with territories like Guam and US VI and had lower prioritization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Things will improve on the unhoused population front once statehood is achieved. When The State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth comes into being, here will be more Federal resources (as well as local revenue streams) available to assist those who have been priced out of the market.

That’s laughable. How is that working out for San Fran? The homeless population will actually grow with more federal resources. Do you really think the majority of homeless are on the streets because they have been priced out of housing? These are people who cannot hold down jobs due to severe addiction or mental health problems or a combination of both. Do you think they would be able to properly maintain a property? I think there is a very small subset of people who can be helped such as single mothers and most of them are already in transitional housing situations. We need mental institutions and drug rehabilitation centers.

A lot of the homeless ended up in San Fran because they were picked up by police in other communities and given one way bus tickets to the west coast. That happens more than people realize. I personally think they should be sent back to the communities they came from, where for example they may have family who can help look after them, where, if the homeless are distributed out across the country, local social services, shelters, churches et cetera may be better able to provide capacity instead of shipping them to the cities like DC or San Francisco which then get completely inundated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Visited DC for the long weekend after moving away 5 years ago. Is it just me or has the homeless population increased exponentially? There were tents in many parks, on the sidewalk in DuPont Circle…. Basically everywhere. What is being done to help?

Happening in all the big cities. Due to Covid shelters were risky so they started giving them tents. For DC specific it is pretty amazing that the Park Service won't let you camp for more than 7 days at many popular parks but on park service land in DC you can have a homeless tent city for months and they don't care.

Op: I live in Boston and while it has gotten worse here, it is nowhere near as bad as DC. Maybe due to the colder climate in the winter, but I’m not convinced.

+1

I noticed the same. DC situation is abysmal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Things will improve on the unhoused population front once statehood is achieved. When The State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth comes into being, here will be more Federal resources (as well as local revenue streams) available to assist those who have been priced out of the market.

That’s laughable. How is that working out for San Fran? The homeless population will actually grow with more federal resources. Do you really think the majority of homeless are on the streets because they have been priced out of housing? These are people who cannot hold down jobs due to severe addiction or mental health problems or a combination of both. Do you think they would be able to properly maintain a property? I think there is a very small subset of people who can be helped such as single mothers and most of them are already in transitional housing situations. We need mental institutions and drug rehabilitation centers.

A lot of the homeless ended up in San Fran because they were picked up by police in other communities and given one way bus tickets to the west coast. That happens more than people realize. I personally think they should be sent back to the communities they came from, where for example they may have family who can help look after them, where, if the homeless are distributed out across the country, local social services, shelters, churches et cetera may be better able to provide capacity instead of shipping them to the cities like DC or San Francisco which then get completely inundated.

Don't they have any say in this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Things will improve on the unhoused population front once statehood is achieved. When The State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth comes into being, here will be more Federal resources (as well as local revenue streams) available to assist those who have been priced out of the market.

That’s laughable. How is that working out for San Fran? The homeless population will actually grow with more federal resources. Do you really think the majority of homeless are on the streets because they have been priced out of housing? These are people who cannot hold down jobs due to severe addiction or mental health problems or a combination of both. Do you think they would be able to properly maintain a property? I think there is a very small subset of people who can be helped such as single mothers and most of them are already in transitional housing situations. We need mental institutions and drug rehabilitation centers.

A lot of the homeless ended up in San Fran because they were picked up by police in other communities and given one way bus tickets to the west coast. That happens more than people realize. I personally think they should be sent back to the communities they came from, where for example they may have family who can help look after them, where, if the homeless are distributed out across the country, local social services, shelters, churches et cetera may be better able to provide capacity instead of shipping them to the cities like DC or San Francisco which then get completely inundated.

Don't they have any say in this?

Did they have a say in being sent their in the first place?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Things will improve on the unhoused population front once statehood is achieved. When The State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth comes into being, here will be more Federal resources (as well as local revenue streams) available to assist those who have been priced out of the market.

That’s laughable. How is that working out for San Fran? The homeless population will actually grow with more federal resources. Do you really think the majority of homeless are on the streets because they have been priced out of housing? These are people who cannot hold down jobs due to severe addiction or mental health problems or a combination of both. Do you think they would be able to properly maintain a property? I think there is a very small subset of people who can be helped such as single mothers and most of them are already in transitional housing situations. We need mental institutions and drug rehabilitation centers.

A lot of the homeless ended up in San Fran because they were picked up by police in other communities and given one way bus tickets to the west coast. That happens more than people realize. I personally think they should be sent back to the communities they came from, where for example they may have family who can help look after them, where, if the homeless are distributed out across the country, local social services, shelters, churches et cetera may be better able to provide capacity instead of shipping them to the cities like DC or San Francisco which then get completely inundated.

Don't they have any say in this?

Did they have a say in being sent their in the first place?

Well, did they? And if they didn't, does that justify continuing to deny them a say?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1. NIMBYs oppose housing.
2. Housing becomes more expensive as more people want to live in DC
3. Low-income folks are evicted onto the street.

Simple as that.

.

Hey GGW summer intern! 👋 Your talking points are irrelevant to the underlying causes of street living in DC.

We need to have the courage as a society to admit we were wrong when we upended policy in the Reagan 80s and shut down the involuntary psych residential facilities. We need to have the balls to reinstate the regulatory structure that facilitated long-term — even permanent— institutionalization of some segments of society. Then spend everything it takes to staff these hospitals and mandate evidence-based care for these men and women. I know - ha.

The people under the bridge living with incurable schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder and lifelong poly substance use disorder that has permanently remodeled their brains (aka, self medicating for the schizophrenia) can. never. live. independent. lives.

This is the population in the tents and stumbling in the middle of Connecticut Ave. Overwhelmingly so. The striving single mom who just needs a housing voucher for the GGW-endorsed new apartments is an intentional red herring to trigger your guilt. She has zero to do with tent cities and the public health emergency