Noticable reduction in homeless and tents in DC, what about libaries and metro?

[Anonymous]

I see people stopping their car and getting out and sitting on the back bumper doing number two. Getting back in their car taking off.

What country are they from?

[Anonymous]

I've seen people urinating in public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean it's not just about being unsightly. It's because addiction thrives in these tent cities. New people get addicted because others share drugs or sell to them there.

I don't think we should allow people to live on public streets. And yes, there are shelters available. It just isn't what they want.

There are many legitimate reasons why some homeless people don’t want to live in a shelter. Until we find ourselves in the shoes of homeless people, perhaps we shouldn’t judge them.

Some reasons homeless individuals avoid shelters:

- Safety risks (violence, theft, harassment)
- Lack of privacy (shared spaces)
- Health/hygiene issues (bedbugs, illness exposure)
- Substance use restrictions
- Mental health/trauma triggers
- Pet or partner restrictions
- Inaccessibility (location, capacity, eligibility)
- Negative past experiences (mistreatment, discrimination)
- Bureaucratic barriers (intake processes, religious affiliations)

Well, sorry, but they don't get to just live wherever they wish. Accept help and/or get clean, live with family or friends, get a job, pay rent etc. If not possible, then they have to do what's offered.

If it was easy to get clean, people would do it. We all know rich addicted losers who would be out on the street if not for their family safety net. Some people don't have that safety net. It doesn't make them better or worse than other addicts. And people like you throwing out all these so-called options as if nobody else has ever thought of them is the height of stupidity. You don't want to help people, you just don't want to see them. I feel sorry for people like you.

PP here. Nope, ypu have not described me. I work with a volunteer group to help unhoused individuals access resources and social security benefits. Some in my own family have struggled with depression and alcohol. I still say you can't just let people live on the street because they don't want to take meds, be housed with others, be confined, etc. It's not a suitable health option for them or the general public and is not about wanting them out of sight.

If you actually work with this population (in a hands-on way- not on some charity Board), what do you think you have written that is helpful? What is the "suitable health option" that is going to work?

Take each one to an evaluation center. Discuss options. If they refuse help (including medications if needed) from family or city services, then longterm hospitalization. Bribv back mental institutions. Not an option to live on the streets.

This level of infrastructure and services doesn't exist. Setting aside the civil liberties issues, you want the government to raise taxes for all of this, and hire the personnel to implement it? This isn't a real answer...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean it's not just about being unsightly. It's because addiction thrives in these tent cities. New people get addicted because others share drugs or sell to them there.

I don't think we should allow people to live on public streets. And yes, there are shelters available. It just isn't what they want.

There are many legitimate reasons why some homeless people don’t want to live in a shelter. Until we find ourselves in the shoes of homeless people, perhaps we shouldn’t judge them.

Some reasons homeless individuals avoid shelters:

- Safety risks (violence, theft, harassment)
- Lack of privacy (shared spaces)
- Health/hygiene issues (bedbugs, illness exposure)
- Substance use restrictions
- Mental health/trauma triggers
- Pet or partner restrictions
- Inaccessibility (location, capacity, eligibility)
- Negative past experiences (mistreatment, discrimination)
- Bureaucratic barriers (intake processes, religious affiliations)

Well, sorry, but they don't get to just live wherever they wish. Accept help and/or get clean, live with family or friends, get a job, pay rent etc. If not possible, then they have to do what's offered.

If it was easy to get clean, people would do it. We all know rich addicted losers who would be out on the street if not for their family safety net. Some people don't have that safety net. It doesn't make them better or worse than other addicts. And people like you throwing out all these so-called options as if nobody else has ever thought of them is the height of stupidity. You don't want to help people, you just don't want to see them. I feel sorry for people like you.

PP here. Nope, ypu have not described me. I work with a volunteer group to help unhoused individuals access resources and social security benefits. Some in my own family have struggled with depression and alcohol. I still say you can't just let people live on the street because they don't want to take meds, be housed with others, be confined, etc. It's not a suitable health option for them or the general public and is not about wanting them out of sight.

If you actually work with this population (in a hands-on way- not on some charity Board), what do you think you have written that is helpful? What is the "suitable health option" that is going to work?

DP. Well locking them up and throwing away the key isn’t going to help w health. shake my head

Not in a prison, no. An institution, yes.

Do you realize there is a severe shortage of impatient beds in mental health treatment facilities in the US? Haven't you read about acute patients staying in the ER for days while doctors fight for placement? How is this your answer?

You're assuming all the homeless mentally ill can be cured somehow, which seems improbable. Institutionalization may be the best that can be hoped for for them, even if they'd prefer the risks and discomforts of living independently, if only in a manner of speaking, out in public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've seen people urinating in public.

I’ve got one better! My 4 year old son was at Union Station. We wanted to take him to the Postal museum after. A homeless man peed ON my son right at the entrance to union station. Guards didn’t give AF. I’m sure if my dh tried to urinate in public he’d be charged (possibly for exposing himself). Son smelled so bad we tossed his shoes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean it's not just about being unsightly. It's because addiction thrives in these tent cities. New people get addicted because others share drugs or sell to them there.

I don't think we should allow people to live on public streets. And yes, there are shelters available. It just isn't what they want.

There are many legitimate reasons why some homeless people don’t want to live in a shelter. Until we find ourselves in the shoes of homeless people, perhaps we shouldn’t judge them.

Some reasons homeless individuals avoid shelters:

- Safety risks (violence, theft, harassment)
- Lack of privacy (shared spaces)
- Health/hygiene issues (bedbugs, illness exposure)
- Substance use restrictions
- Mental health/trauma triggers
- Pet or partner restrictions
- Inaccessibility (location, capacity, eligibility)
- Negative past experiences (mistreatment, discrimination)
- Bureaucratic barriers (intake processes, religious affiliations)

Well, sorry, but they don't get to just live wherever they wish. Accept help and/or get clean, live with family or friends, get a job, pay rent etc. If not possible, then they have to do what's offered.

If it was easy to get clean, people would do it. We all know rich addicted losers who would be out on the street if not for their family safety net. Some people don't have that safety net. It doesn't make them better or worse than other addicts. And people like you throwing out all these so-called options as if nobody else has ever thought of them is the height of stupidity. You don't want to help people, you just don't want to see them. I feel sorry for people like you.

PP here. Nope, ypu have not described me. I work with a volunteer group to help unhoused individuals access resources and social security benefits. Some in my own family have struggled with depression and alcohol. I still say you can't just let people live on the street because they don't want to take meds, be housed with others, be confined, etc. It's not a suitable health option for them or the general public and is not about wanting them out of sight.

If you actually work with this population (in a hands-on way- not on some charity Board), what do you think you have written that is helpful? What is the "suitable health option" that is going to work?

DP. Well locking them up and throwing away the key isn’t going to help w health. shake my head

Not in a prison, no. An institution, yes.

Do you realize there is a severe shortage of impatient beds in mental health treatment facilities in the US? Haven't you read about acute patients staying in the ER for days while doctors fight for placement? How is this your answer?

You're assuming all the homeless mentally ill can be cured somehow, which seems improbable. Institutionalization may be the best that can be hoped for for them, even if they'd prefer the risks and discomforts of living independently, if only in a manner of speaking, out in public.

Ok in your sicko plan, how would you know who can be cured without offering treatment? Just straight to the institution is your plan?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean it's not just about being unsightly. It's because addiction thrives in these tent cities. New people get addicted because others share drugs or sell to them there.

I don't think we should allow people to live on public streets. And yes, there are shelters available. It just isn't what they want.

There are many legitimate reasons why some homeless people don’t want to live in a shelter. Until we find ourselves in the shoes of homeless people, perhaps we shouldn’t judge them.

Some reasons homeless individuals avoid shelters:

- Safety risks (violence, theft, harassment)
- Lack of privacy (shared spaces)
- Health/hygiene issues (bedbugs, illness exposure)
- Substance use restrictions
- Mental health/trauma triggers
- Pet or partner restrictions
- Inaccessibility (location, capacity, eligibility)
- Negative past experiences (mistreatment, discrimination)
- Bureaucratic barriers (intake processes, religious affiliations)

Well, sorry, but they don't get to just live wherever they wish. Accept help and/or get clean, live with family or friends, get a job, pay rent etc. If not possible, then they have to do what's offered.

If it was easy to get clean, people would do it. We all know rich addicted losers who would be out on the street if not for their family safety net. Some people don't have that safety net. It doesn't make them better or worse than other addicts. And people like you throwing out all these so-called options as if nobody else has ever thought of them is the height of stupidity. You don't want to help people, you just don't want to see them. I feel sorry for people like you.

PP here. Nope, ypu have not described me. I work with a volunteer group to help unhoused individuals access resources and social security benefits. Some in my own family have struggled with depression and alcohol. I still say you can't just let people live on the street because they don't want to take meds, be housed with others, be confined, etc. It's not a suitable health option for them or the general public and is not about wanting them out of sight.

If you actually work with this population (in a hands-on way- not on some charity Board), what do you think you have written that is helpful? What is the "suitable health option" that is going to work?

Take each one to an evaluation center. Discuss options. If they refuse help (including medications if needed) from family or city services, then longterm hospitalization. Bribv back mental institutions. Not an option to live on the streets.

This level of infrastructure and services doesn't exist. Setting aside the civil liberties issues, you want the government to raise taxes for all of this, and hire the personnel to implement it? This isn't a real answer...

No way would this cost more than running homeless shelters and paying $$$&& to these organizations that help the homeless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean it's not just about being unsightly. It's because addiction thrives in these tent cities. New people get addicted because others share drugs or sell to them there.

I don't think we should allow people to live on public streets. And yes, there are shelters available. It just isn't what they want.

There are many legitimate reasons why some homeless people don’t want to live in a shelter. Until we find ourselves in the shoes of homeless people, perhaps we shouldn’t judge them.

Some reasons homeless individuals avoid shelters:

- Safety risks (violence, theft, harassment)
- Lack of privacy (shared spaces)
- Health/hygiene issues (bedbugs, illness exposure)
- Substance use restrictions
- Mental health/trauma triggers
- Pet or partner restrictions
- Inaccessibility (location, capacity, eligibility)
- Negative past experiences (mistreatment, discrimination)
- Bureaucratic barriers (intake processes, religious affiliations)

Well, sorry, but they don't get to just live wherever they wish. Accept help and/or get clean, live with family or friends, get a job, pay rent etc. If not possible, then they have to do what's offered.

If it was easy to get clean, people would do it. We all know rich addicted losers who would be out on the street if not for their family safety net. Some people don't have that safety net. It doesn't make them better or worse than other addicts. And people like you throwing out all these so-called options as if nobody else has ever thought of them is the height of stupidity. You don't want to help people, you just don't want to see them. I feel sorry for people like you.

PP here. Nope, ypu have not described me. I work with a volunteer group to help unhoused individuals access resources and social security benefits. Some in my own family have struggled with depression and alcohol. I still say you can't just let people live on the street because they don't want to take meds, be housed with others, be confined, etc. It's not a suitable health option for them or the general public and is not about wanting them out of sight.

If you actually work with this population (in a hands-on way- not on some charity Board), what do you think you have written that is helpful? What is the "suitable health option" that is going to work?

Take each one to an evaluation center. Discuss options. If they refuse help (including medications if needed) from family or city services, then longterm hospitalization. Bribv back mental institutions. Not an option to live on the streets.

This level of infrastructure and services doesn't exist. Setting aside the civil liberties issues, you want the government to raise taxes for all of this, and hire the personnel to implement it? This isn't a real answer...

No way would this cost more than running homeless shelters and paying $$$&& to these organizations that help the homeless.

Correct. Instead of paying dozens of non-profits to implement half-baked schemes, the government should run and staff the facilities. Get rid of the overhead of all those disparate organizations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean it's not just about being unsightly. It's because addiction thrives in these tent cities. New people get addicted because others share drugs or sell to them there.

I don't think we should allow people to live on public streets. And yes, there are shelters available. It just isn't what they want.

There are many legitimate reasons why some homeless people don’t want to live in a shelter. Until we find ourselves in the shoes of homeless people, perhaps we shouldn’t judge them.

Some reasons homeless individuals avoid shelters:

- Safety risks (violence, theft, harassment)
- Lack of privacy (shared spaces)
- Health/hygiene issues (bedbugs, illness exposure)
- Substance use restrictions
- Mental health/trauma triggers
- Pet or partner restrictions
- Inaccessibility (location, capacity, eligibility)
- Negative past experiences (mistreatment, discrimination)
- Bureaucratic barriers (intake processes, religious affiliations)

Well, sorry, but they don't get to just live wherever they wish. Accept help and/or get clean, live with family or friends, get a job, pay rent etc. If not possible, then they have to do what's offered.

If it was easy to get clean, people would do it. We all know rich addicted losers who would be out on the street if not for their family safety net. Some people don't have that safety net. It doesn't make them better or worse than other addicts. And people like you throwing out all these so-called options as if nobody else has ever thought of them is the height of stupidity. You don't want to help people, you just don't want to see them. I feel sorry for people like you.

PP here. Nope, ypu have not described me. I work with a volunteer group to help unhoused individuals access resources and social security benefits. Some in my own family have struggled with depression and alcohol. I still say you can't just let people live on the street because they don't want to take meds, be housed with others, be confined, etc. It's not a suitable health option for them or the general public and is not about wanting them out of sight.

If you actually work with this population (in a hands-on way- not on some charity Board), what do you think you have written that is helpful? What is the "suitable health option" that is going to work?

Take each one to an evaluation center. Discuss options. If they refuse help (including medications if needed) from family or city services, then longterm hospitalization. Bribv back mental institutions. Not an option to live on the streets.

This is expensive and not at all in keeping with Trump's complete lack of interest in funding social services for the poor. It also runs up against issues of personal freedom that you discount but many judges do not.

Trump won't be POTUS forever. As for personal freedom, the argument can be made about jails. Laws are arbitrary and enforced without your agreement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see people stopping their car and getting out and sitting on the back bumper doing number two. Getting back in their car taking off.

What country are they from?

Where are you hanging out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean it's not just about being unsightly. It's because addiction thrives in these tent cities. New people get addicted because others share drugs or sell to them there.

I don't think we should allow people to live on public streets. And yes, there are shelters available. It just isn't what they want.

There are many legitimate reasons why some homeless people don’t want to live in a shelter. Until we find ourselves in the shoes of homeless people, perhaps we shouldn’t judge them.

Some reasons homeless individuals avoid shelters:

- Safety risks (violence, theft, harassment)
- Lack of privacy (shared spaces)
- Health/hygiene issues (bedbugs, illness exposure)
- Substance use restrictions
- Mental health/trauma triggers
- Pet or partner restrictions
- Inaccessibility (location, capacity, eligibility)
- Negative past experiences (mistreatment, discrimination)
- Bureaucratic barriers (intake processes, religious affiliations)

Well, sorry, but they don't get to just live wherever they wish. Accept help and/or get clean, live with family or friends, get a job, pay rent etc. If not possible, then they have to do what's offered.

If it was easy to get clean, people would do it. We all know rich addicted losers who would be out on the street if not for their family safety net. Some people don't have that safety net. It doesn't make them better or worse than other addicts. And people like you throwing out all these so-called options as if nobody else has ever thought of them is the height of stupidity. You don't want to help people, you just don't want to see them. I feel sorry for people like you.

PP here. Nope, ypu have not described me. I work with a volunteer group to help unhoused individuals access resources and social security benefits. Some in my own family have struggled with depression and alcohol. I still say you can't just let people live on the street because they don't want to take meds, be housed with others, be confined, etc. It's not a suitable health option for them or the general public and is not about wanting them out of sight.

If you actually work with this population (in a hands-on way- not on some charity Board), what do you think you have written that is helpful? What is the "suitable health option" that is going to work?

Take each one to an evaluation center. Discuss options. If they refuse help (including medications if needed) from family or city services, then longterm hospitalization. Bribv back mental institutions. Not an option to live on the streets.

This level of infrastructure and services doesn't exist. Setting aside the civil liberties issues, you want the government to raise taxes for all of this, and hire the personnel to implement it? This isn't a real answer...

No way would this cost more than running homeless shelters and paying $$$&& to these organizations that help the homeless.

Correct. Instead of paying dozens of non-profits to implement half-baked schemes, the government should run and staff the facilities. Get rid of the overhead of all those disparate organizations.

I agree. It’s shocking what many of these orgs spend on building public restrooms, outreach to the homeless, etc.

Mental institutions could cost a lot less than prisons. There’s no need for that much security or guards. But similar facilities with outdoor spaces, cafeterias, and sleeping rooms. Or look at how rehabs work.

[Anonymous]

None of our neighborhood homeless have gone anywhere, and we've picked up some new ones who got thrown out of Thomas Circle.

Trump isn't doing shit for the homeless problem, he's just shuffling some away from downtown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean it's not just about being unsightly. It's because addiction thrives in these tent cities. New people get addicted because others share drugs or sell to them there.

I don't think we should allow people to live on public streets. And yes, there are shelters available. It just isn't what they want.

There are many legitimate reasons why some homeless people don’t want to live in a shelter. Until we find ourselves in the shoes of homeless people, perhaps we shouldn’t judge them.

Some reasons homeless individuals avoid shelters:

- Safety risks (violence, theft, harassment)
- Lack of privacy (shared spaces)
- Health/hygiene issues (bedbugs, illness exposure)
- Substance use restrictions
- Mental health/trauma triggers
- Pet or partner restrictions
- Inaccessibility (location, capacity, eligibility)
- Negative past experiences (mistreatment, discrimination)
- Bureaucratic barriers (intake processes, religious affiliations)

Well, sorry, but they don't get to just live wherever they wish. Accept help and/or get clean, live with family or friends, get a job, pay rent etc. If not possible, then they have to do what's offered.

If it was easy to get clean, people would do it. We all know rich addicted losers who would be out on the street if not for their family safety net. Some people don't have that safety net. It doesn't make them better or worse than other addicts. And people like you throwing out all these so-called options as if nobody else has ever thought of them is the height of stupidity. You don't want to help people, you just don't want to see them. I feel sorry for people like you.

PP here. Nope, ypu have not described me. I work with a volunteer group to help unhoused individuals access resources and social security benefits. Some in my own family have struggled with depression and alcohol. I still say you can't just let people live on the street because they don't want to take meds, be housed with others, be confined, etc. It's not a suitable health option for them or the general public and is not about wanting them out of sight.

If you actually work with this population (in a hands-on way- not on some charity Board), what do you think you have written that is helpful? What is the "suitable health option" that is going to work?

Take each one to an evaluation center. Discuss options. If they refuse help (including medications if needed) from family or city services, then longterm hospitalization. Bribv back mental institutions. Not an option to live on the streets.

This level of infrastructure and services doesn't exist. Setting aside the civil liberties issues, you want the government to raise taxes for all of this, and hire the personnel to implement it? This isn't a real answer...

No way would this cost more than running homeless shelters and paying $$$&& to these organizations that help the homeless.

Correct. Instead of paying dozens of non-profits to implement half-baked schemes, the government should run and staff the facilities. Get rid of the overhead of all those disparate organizations.

Yeah, gov't run mental institutions worked SO well, the first time we tried them and collectively decided to shut them all down because they were basically abusive hellholes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean it's not just about being unsightly. It's because addiction thrives in these tent cities. New people get addicted because others share drugs or sell to them there.

I don't think we should allow people to live on public streets. And yes, there are shelters available. It just isn't what they want.

There are many legitimate reasons why some homeless people don’t want to live in a shelter. Until we find ourselves in the shoes of homeless people, perhaps we shouldn’t judge them.

Some reasons homeless individuals avoid shelters:

- Safety risks (violence, theft, harassment)
- Lack of privacy (shared spaces)
- Health/hygiene issues (bedbugs, illness exposure)
- Substance use restrictions
- Mental health/trauma triggers
- Pet or partner restrictions
- Inaccessibility (location, capacity, eligibility)
- Negative past experiences (mistreatment, discrimination)
- Bureaucratic barriers (intake processes, religious affiliations)

Well, sorry, but they don't get to just live wherever they wish. Accept help and/or get clean, live with family or friends, get a job, pay rent etc. If not possible, then they have to do what's offered.

If it was easy to get clean, people would do it. We all know rich addicted losers who would be out on the street if not for their family safety net. Some people don't have that safety net. It doesn't make them better or worse than other addicts. And people like you throwing out all these so-called options as if nobody else has ever thought of them is the height of stupidity. You don't want to help people, you just don't want to see them. I feel sorry for people like you.

PP here. Nope, ypu have not described me. I work with a volunteer group to help unhoused individuals access resources and social security benefits. Some in my own family have struggled with depression and alcohol. I still say you can't just let people live on the street because they don't want to take meds, be housed with others, be confined, etc. It's not a suitable health option for them or the general public and is not about wanting them out of sight.

If you actually work with this population (in a hands-on way- not on some charity Board), what do you think you have written that is helpful? What is the "suitable health option" that is going to work?

Take each one to an evaluation center. Discuss options. If they refuse help (including medications if needed) from family or city services, then longterm hospitalization. Bribv back mental institutions. Not an option to live on the streets.

This level of infrastructure and services doesn't exist. Setting aside the civil liberties issues, you want the government to raise taxes for all of this, and hire the personnel to implement it? This isn't a real answer...

No way would this cost more than running homeless shelters and paying $$$&& to these organizations that help the homeless.

Correct. Instead of paying dozens of non-profits to implement half-baked schemes, the government should run and staff the facilities. Get rid of the overhead of all those disparate organizations.

I agree. It’s shocking what many of these orgs spend on building public restrooms, outreach to the homeless, etc.

Mental institutions could cost a lot less than prisons. There’s no need for that much security or guards. But similar facilities with outdoor spaces, cafeterias, and sleeping rooms. Or look at how rehabs work.

But you would have to pay healthcare professionals and have specialized rooms/equipment and provide healthcare or pay for/coordinate access to healthcare. This wouldn't be like setting up a dorm or a barracks.

And you would need guards.

I have to wonder, are you familiar with the history of these institutions and the reasons for their closures? They aren't easy to run, like some people on this board keep insisting. And I have no idea why you think it wouldn't be that expensive. Especially if people will be there longterm. You realize you have to meet people's medical needs when they are in custody or institutions right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean it's not just about being unsightly. It's because addiction thrives in these tent cities. New people get addicted because others share drugs or sell to them there.

I don't think we should allow people to live on public streets. And yes, there are shelters available. It just isn't what they want.

There are many legitimate reasons why some homeless people don’t want to live in a shelter. Until we find ourselves in the shoes of homeless people, perhaps we shouldn’t judge them.

Some reasons homeless individuals avoid shelters:

- Safety risks (violence, theft, harassment)
- Lack of privacy (shared spaces)
- Health/hygiene issues (bedbugs, illness exposure)
- Substance use restrictions
- Mental health/trauma triggers
- Pet or partner restrictions
- Inaccessibility (location, capacity, eligibility)
- Negative past experiences (mistreatment, discrimination)
- Bureaucratic barriers (intake processes, religious affiliations)

Well, sorry, but they don't get to just live wherever they wish. Accept help and/or get clean, live with family or friends, get a job, pay rent etc. If not possible, then they have to do what's offered.

If it was easy to get clean, people would do it. We all know rich addicted losers who would be out on the street if not for their family safety net. Some people don't have that safety net. It doesn't make them better or worse than other addicts. And people like you throwing out all these so-called options as if nobody else has ever thought of them is the height of stupidity. You don't want to help people, you just don't want to see them. I feel sorry for people like you.

PP here. Nope, ypu have not described me. I work with a volunteer group to help unhoused individuals access resources and social security benefits. Some in my own family have struggled with depression and alcohol. I still say you can't just let people live on the street because they don't want to take meds, be housed with others, be confined, etc. It's not a suitable health option for them or the general public and is not about wanting them out of sight.

If you actually work with this population (in a hands-on way- not on some charity Board), what do you think you have written that is helpful? What is the "suitable health option" that is going to work?

Take each one to an evaluation center. Discuss options. If they refuse help (including medications if needed) from family or city services, then longterm hospitalization. Bribv back mental institutions. Not an option to live on the streets.

This level of infrastructure and services doesn't exist. Setting aside the civil liberties issues, you want the government to raise taxes for all of this, and hire the personnel to implement it? This isn't a real answer...

No way would this cost more than running homeless shelters and paying $$$&& to these organizations that help the homeless.

Correct. Instead of paying dozens of non-profits to implement half-baked schemes, the government should run and staff the facilities. Get rid of the overhead of all those disparate organizations.

Yeah, gov't run mental institutions worked SO well, the first time we tried them and collectively decided to shut them all down because they were basically abusive hellholes.

Using this logic, we shouldn't have government run anything.