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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

One of the biggest problems for these people is the lack of a structured treatment environment. No, living on the street in a tent doesn't count. And now, I am confused. You don't want the homeless to have healthcare now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

One of the biggest problems for these people is the lack of a structured treatment environment. No, living on the street in a tent doesn't count. And now, I am confused. You don't want the homeless to have healthcare now?

DP: You are being disingenuous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

One of the biggest problems for these people is the lack of a structured treatment environment. No, living on the street in a tent doesn't count. And now, I am confused. You don't want the homeless to have healthcare now?

DP: You are being disingenuous.

PP seems to think we should hospitalize and treat the homeless, and then release them back to the streets to just repeat the cycle when they don't take care of themselves. The revolving hospital door is expensive since these people don't head to the hospital unless it's the ER.

[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.

+1

[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.

There are no easy or inexpensive answers and solutions for the homeless individuals who are also mentally ill. Yes, if they can't be treated for their issues successfully, they will need longterm hospitalization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

One of the biggest problems for these people is the lack of a structured treatment environment. No, living on the street in a tent doesn't count. And now, I am confused. You don't want the homeless to have healthcare now?

DP: You are being disingenuous.

PP seems to think we should hospitalize and treat the homeless, and then release them back to the streets to just repeat the cycle when they don't take care of themselves. The revolving hospital door is expensive since these people don't head to the hospital unless it's the ER.

What are you even talking about? Most of these people have very serious mental health issues, like schizophrenia. They are not and will never be functioning, employable people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

One of the biggest problems for these people is the lack of a structured treatment environment. No, living on the street in a tent doesn't count. And now, I am confused. You don't want the homeless to have healthcare now?

DP: You are being disingenuous.

PP seems to think we should hospitalize and treat the homeless, and then release them back to the streets to just repeat the cycle when they don't take care of themselves. The revolving hospital door is expensive since these people don't head to the hospital unless it's the ER.

What are you even talking about? Most of these people have very serious mental health issues, like schizophrenia. They are not and will never be functioning, employable people.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

One of the biggest problems for these people is the lack of a structured treatment environment. No, living on the street in a tent doesn't count. And now, I am confused. You don't want the homeless to have healthcare now?

DP: You are being disingenuous.

PP seems to think we should hospitalize and treat the homeless, and then release them back to the streets to just repeat the cycle when they don't take care of themselves. The revolving hospital door is expensive since these people don't head to the hospital unless it's the ER.

What are you even talking about? Most of these people have very serious mental health issues, like schizophrenia. They are not and will never be functioning, employable people.

That's not how we treat them. We wait until a critical event, hospitalize them, get them stable, and the release them to the street to protect their civil rights. It doesn't matter that once outside of the structured hospital environment they become non-compliant with medication or relapse to addiction. Yes, yes, I know there are very famous CEOs that get high every day and are worshiped as heroes. When they become famous CEOs, they can get high every day too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

One of the biggest problems for these people is the lack of a structured treatment environment. No, living on the street in a tent doesn't count. And now, I am confused. You don't want the homeless to have healthcare now?

No I was listing all the reasons why it's not like booking people into a dorm. It's not cheap, it's not easy, and it's been tried before. You people act like you're easily going to solve this issue when clearly you know nothing about the population or the history of public policy in this space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

One of the biggest problems for these people is the lack of a structured treatment environment. No, living on the street in a tent doesn't count. And now, I am confused. You don't want the homeless to have healthcare now?

No I was listing all the reasons why it's not like booking people into a dorm. It's not cheap, it's not easy, and it's been tried before. You people act like you're easily going to solve this issue when clearly you know nothing about the population or the history of public policy in this space.

Again, the argument that it was abused before isn't valid. The prison system is abused. Should we eliminate prisons?

I will just fall back on the standard arguments given on these boards, Europe does it. If it's good enough for Europe, it shouuld be good enough here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

One of the biggest problems for these people is the lack of a structured treatment environment. No, living on the street in a tent doesn't count. And now, I am confused. You don't want the homeless to have healthcare now?

No I was listing all the reasons why it's not like booking people into a dorm. It's not cheap, it's not easy, and it's been tried before. You people act like you're easily going to solve this issue when clearly you know nothing about the population or the history of public policy in this space.

Again, the argument that it was abused before isn't valid. The prison system is abused. Should we eliminate prisons?

I will just fall back on the standard arguments given on these boards, Europe does it. If it's good enough for Europe, it shouuld be good enough here.

But it's not easy and cheap and that's the point I was making to people arguing it will be a tax savings. They pay more in taxes in many European countries and have a better standard of living. Americans don't want ro pay- especially our billionaire class. The current effort isn't about setting up a European model and that's what this thread is about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

One of the biggest problems for these people is the lack of a structured treatment environment. No, living on the street in a tent doesn't count. And now, I am confused. You don't want the homeless to have healthcare now?

DP: You are being disingenuous.

PP seems to think we should hospitalize and treat the homeless, and then release them back to the streets to just repeat the cycle when they don't take care of themselves. The revolving hospital door is expensive since these people don't head to the hospital unless it's the ER.

What are you even talking about? Most of these people have very serious mental health issues, like schizophrenia. They are not and will never be functioning, employable people.

That's not how we treat them. We wait until a critical event, hospitalize them, get them stable, and the release them to the street to protect their civil rights. It doesn't matter that once outside of the structured hospital environment they become non-compliant with medication or relapse to addiction. Yes, yes, I know there are very famous CEOs that get high every day and are worshiped as heroes. When they become famous CEOs, they can get high every day too.

A woman just stabbed to death in Charlotte, NC by a homeless man who's been repeatedly arrested and released sinxe 2011. Took a young innocent victim's death to hopefully keep him away from the public indefinitely.

[Anonymous]

Just drove into D.C. for the first time since July. The area around the State Department is green and lovely. There are no more tents, bags, and garbage piled up from the homeless encampments. The drive around Foggy Bottom is cleaner and without tents all over the sidewalks. Much much improved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

One of the biggest problems for these people is the lack of a structured treatment environment. No, living on the street in a tent doesn't count. And now, I am confused. You don't want the homeless to have healthcare now?

DP: You are being disingenuous.

PP seems to think we should hospitalize and treat the homeless, and then release them back to the streets to just repeat the cycle when they don't take care of themselves. The revolving hospital door is expensive since these people don't head to the hospital unless it's the ER.

What are you even talking about? Most of these people have very serious mental health issues, like schizophrenia. They are not and will never be functioning, employable people.

That's not how we treat them. We wait until a critical event, hospitalize them, get them stable, and the release them to the street to protect their civil rights. It doesn't matter that once outside of the structured hospital environment they become non-compliant with medication or relapse to addiction. Yes, yes, I know there are very famous CEOs that get high every day and are worshiped as heroes. When they become famous CEOs, they can get high every day too.

A woman just stabbed to death in Charlotte, NC by a homeless man who's been repeatedly arrested and released sinxe 2011. Took a young innocent victim's death to hopefully keep him away from the public indefinitely.

And that's terrible. But that's a law enforcement issue, not a homeless person issue. I agree we let repeat violent offenders off too easy (if the suspect was a repeat violent offender). Any repeat violent offender belongs in jail for a long time, regardless of their housing status.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

One of the biggest problems for these people is the lack of a structured treatment environment. No, living on the street in a tent doesn't count. And now, I am confused. You don't want the homeless to have healthcare now?

The right to healthcare also includes the right to refuse care.