Homeless tents creeping into the nice/residential part of DC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They moved these people into my building and they had a shoot out. Shot out two huge bullet holes on the ground floor, which could have killed an innocent tenant walking to the back entrance. Also shot through front door and bullet bounced off the hallway, could have killed someone in the hallway.

Another occasion, there was a police officer sitting outside the door of a neighbor overnight until the next morning when the crime scene unit arrived.

I heard of a knife altercation in the building next to the zoo.

Also heard of woman who was an intentional fire starter and started 3 fires in 3 different new buildings she was "placed" in.

Sorry but anyone who is a danger to themselves or others should be put under institutional supervision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mayor just cut the ribbon in a shiny new 350 bed men's shelter with day services. This in addition to all the new family shelters of the past few years Why are we allowing encampments? Could not believe my eyes passing downtown and the Watergate today.

If you build it they will come. With its generous handouts DC has become a magnet for vagrants from all over the country. What's not to love?

I'm sure that's what sheriffs and police in rural conservative America think when they "solve" their own homeless problem by rounding them up and sending them to DC.

But I say no.

As a DC taxpayer, I think DC's programs and benefits should only be for DC residents and people with an actual DC connection. Send non-DC homeless back to the towns they came from. The rest of America needs to take care of its own homeless.

[Anonymous]

Where's all the wonderful church charity that red state christian conservatives like to tout as the reason why government shouldn't tax and spend for social programs? Maybe we should send the homeless to THEM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where's all the wonderful church charity that red state christian conservatives like to tout as the reason why government shouldn't tax and spend for social programs? Maybe we should send the homeless to THEM.

Those programs as up and running. I work with one of them. I’m sure there is a local church in your area that would be grateful for your support, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mayor just cut the ribbon in a shiny new 350 bed men's shelter with day services. This in addition to all the new family shelters of the past few years Why are we allowing encampments? Could not believe my eyes passing downtown and the Watergate today.

If you build it they will come. With its generous handouts DC has become a magnet for vagrants from all over the country. What's not to love?

I'm sure that's what sheriffs and police in rural conservative America think when they "solve" their own homeless problem by rounding them up and sending them to DC.

But I say no.

As a DC taxpayer, I think DC's programs and benefits should only be for DC residents and people with an actual DC connection. Send non-DC homeless back to the towns they came from. The rest of America needs to take care of its own homeless.

Good luck with that! Any changes would be fiercely opposed by the homeless-industrial complex. There are so many "charities" that receive lavish contracts from DC to "help" the homeless, like handing out PB&J sandwiches at massively inflated prices. Or paying developers double and triple the usual rent for a crappy studio apt. Those kick-backs and vested interests are a major reason why DC spends so much on the homeless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if the response to homeless people harassing / attacking someone is that we should more aggressively ban homelessness

Then what should we do when housed people harass / attack someone. Ban house dwelling??

Maybe just focus on the harassing / attacking part, not their housing problems.

They go to a mental health facility or jail.

So why is the response to a homeless person attacking someone to ban all homeless people? Seems like you care more about appearances than the actual crime

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where's all the wonderful church charity that red state christian conservatives like to tout as the reason why government shouldn't tax and spend for social programs? Maybe we should send the homeless to THEM.

Wow. I'm speechless. My parents are those people and I just got off the phone with them, stroking their annual checks to all kinds of charities. They don't say the government shouldn't spend for social programs - thats such a simplification. And they do contribute to charity, both checks and personally opening their home to their neighbor. Do you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where's all the wonderful church charity that red state christian conservatives like to tout as the reason why government shouldn't tax and spend for social programs? Maybe we should send the homeless to THEM.

Wow. I'm speechless. My parents are those people and I just got off the phone with them, stroking their annual checks to all kinds of charities. They don't say the government shouldn't spend for social programs - thats such a simplification. And they do contribute to charity, both checks and personally opening their home to their neighbor. Do you?

And there are many church charities operating in DC to help the homeless among various needs. I bet you personally contribute ZERO to the people/causes you claim to concern yourself with. Zero

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if the response to homeless people harassing / attacking someone is that we should more aggressively ban homelessness

Then what should we do when housed people harass / attack someone. Ban house dwelling??

Maybe just focus on the harassing / attacking part, not their housing problems.

They go to a mental health facility or jail.

So why is the response to a homeless person attacking someone to ban all homeless people? Seems like you care more about appearances than the actual crime

I think you are over simplifying.

People should not be allowed to sleep on the streets. That is everyone’s goal except for a small minority of extremists who think that we should just give public lands to anyone who shows up there and pitches a tent. It’s a ridiculous notion that no one would find acceptable if someone went to Yosemite and decided to pitch a tent and claim parkland for themselves for their private purposes. And it should be an equally ridiculous notion for a public sidewalk or urban park.

People that commit crimes should go to jail. People that suffer severe mental illness should be provided in-patient care for their disease, which should include involuntary commitment if necessary. This provides people with justice and compassion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They moved these people into my building and they had a shoot out. Shot out two huge bullet holes on the ground floor, which could have killed an innocent tenant walking to the back entrance. Also shot through front door and bullet bounced off the hallway, could have killed someone in the hallway.

Another occasion, there was a police officer sitting outside the door of a neighbor overnight until the next morning when the crime scene unit arrived.

Homeless people don’t generally have guns. Guns are expensive, and if you were homeless, you’d sell the gun on the street and use the money for food/booze/drugs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if the response to homeless people harassing / attacking someone is that we should more aggressively ban homelessness

Then what should we do when housed people harass / attack someone. Ban house dwelling??

Maybe just focus on the harassing / attacking part, not their housing problems.

They go to a mental health facility or jail.

So why is the response to a homeless person attacking someone to ban all homeless people? Seems like you care more about appearances than the actual crime

Cool. Now do guns.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know why there is no tent on the Mall? Does Park Service actively prevent it from happening or the homeless respect the National Mall?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where's all the wonderful church charity that red state christian conservatives like to tout as the reason why government shouldn't tax and spend for social programs? Maybe we should send the homeless to THEM.

Wow. I'm speechless. My parents are those people and I just got off the phone with them, stroking their annual checks to all kinds of charities. They don't say the government shouldn't spend for social programs - thats such a simplification. And they do contribute to charity, both checks and personally opening their home to their neighbor. Do you?

What oversimplification? Conservatives have steadfastly blocked social spending as "free stuff for moochers." That's completely undeniable. There have been innumerable times where I confronted self professed conservative Christians on taking care of the homeless and why they think government should not be doing social spending and they insisted that it's for the church to do it but not for government. What bills for social programs for the homeless have Republicans sponsored? I'm speechless that you're claiming to be 'speechless.' You seem either clueless or in deep denial.

And tell me, how many homeless has Joel Osteen housed? That's the kind of place so many "checks to charity" end up...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more money that goes to supporting the homeless, the worse the problem will get. All you have to do is follow the money. Certain cities are actively encouraging people to live on the streets and seem surprised that the problem continues to get worse.

We relocated to a city where homelessness isn’t accepted or encouraged.

I agree. Homelessness shouldn’t be accepted or encouraged.

That doesn't magically solve homelessness. It just takes your own homeless (many for example mentally ill) and ships them elsewhere. You're only creating a problem and a hardship for some other community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. if your brother lives in a blue state, it is highly likely that if your parents could not house him, he could be moved to a home for adults on the spectrum.

We strategically moved my sister to Arlington so that she could receive the many benefits available to people with mental disabilities. She can function but the county pays for a caregiver to help her with daily activities such as grocery shopping, cleaning and organizing, getting to medical appointments, and other activities.

How wonderful.

I am forever grateful to a co-worker who told me about Arlington's benefit. She impoverished both of her parents by buying their large house in Fairfax County well below market claiming that it had serious water and mold problems (which it did not). She got them into a senior citizen apartment in Pentagon City where they pay very little and Arlington picks up the tab for a caregiver. The parents were very wealthy immigrants but were able to shelter their money in their home country.

That's fraud, yo.

Not really. We did it with my parents and it has worked out well for them.

Yes, it is fraud.