Union Station smells like urine, has a homeless problem, and is half deserted.

[Anonymous]

I like taking the train and the bathroom there is why Ive switched to bus. It just really disturbs me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I am not the about PP "Paris Hilton" poster, but there is truth in the statements. At what point did we as a society decide that it was acceptable for people to just pitch a tent on public property and live there? The park at McPherson Square is literally full of tents. What advocates SHOULD be pushing is humane and safe mental health treatment facilities. In the early 80s, the unholy alliance of Reaganite conservatives (who didn't want to spent $$) and ACLU civil libertarians emptied the mental hospitals (which were indeed horrific) and made it much, much more difficult for people to be involuntarily committed. We don't need tent cities and we don't need to overpay commercial apartment and hotel owners to provide unsupervised shelter to those who cannot take care of themselves. Instead, we need to completely rehaul St. Elizabeth's to make it safe (which it isn't now) and humane, and revamp the involuntary commitment laws.

It was the point at which you voted for politicians who embrace this approach to homeless. Vote in different people and you get different solutions.

Muriel Bowser has been clearing encampments. I'm not a super fan, but she is doing that..I can't think of a single politician except the senator whose son committed suicide who is advocating for mental health,.more beds for mental health etc. Involuntary commitment is a travesty in that it's impossible for family to get their loved ones help. the only way to get a mentally ill person "care" is to hope they commit a criminal act and are held for a while. Is that good - of course not - but it's literally the only contact they have with institutions if they are unwilling to seek help... And even then so many obstacles.

She's just pushing them around. If she really wanted to she could bust down some barriers to getting them housing, but it's all just optics.

What barriers would she able to bust down to get stable housing for mentally ill people who either can’t or won’t follow rules, are unwilling to take medication for their illness, are potentially addicted to drugs, etc.? Come on, the idea that all the people you see in encampments are just a little down on their luck and just need to get be able to get on their feet is patently false. Many of these people have significant mental health issues that are a huge impediment to getting them into housing.

That's a spectrum and you're binning everyone as needing to be restrained at St. Es or something. Many people could function on their own, especially with a little help / guidance.

One example would be IDs / documents. Have a team that can pull together birth certificates, social security cards, ID cards on the spot. People languish for months trying to recover documents.

Many people currently living on the streets or in encampments are not capable of functioning on their own with a little support. DC provides a ton of services to those willing to avail themselves of it and abide by the rules. The city has sent outreach teams to encampments to offer assistance and housing, those that are left are the people that have refused. I’m not saying everyone needs to be at St Es, but the answer cannot be people permitted to pitch tents in public and create public health and public safety concerns. I’ve lived in the DC area since 2000, working downtown since 2007, and to see what has become of places like Union Station is horrifying.

This may be where we disagree. There are *a lot* of rules at the places that are available that are unnecessary and cruel to try to force people to abide by.

For example, you have to be in/out of shelters by specified times. People trying to work shifts at irregular hours struggle with that. It's intantilizing and counterproductive.

What about people who have pets who lost their housing? It's really easy to sit from the comfort of your home and judge people because you don't like that they are visible there. Or you can have compassion and push for a real housing-first approach.

How much of people's mental issues are driven by the hardships of living on the street or in shelters? Don't tell me it wouldn't affect you if you haven't been there yourself.

If they were just good people who lost their housing, they wouldn't urinate all over the station, harass people as they enter/exit the building, and rant like they are having hallucinations. Nobody would be objecting if they just kept a tidy tent and occasionally came in to use the bathroom (carefully cleaning up afterwards).

It's much less about the "good people who just fell on hard times" as it is about the mentally ill, the drug addicts and others who were dumped on DC's doorstep for the last several decades by cynical a-hole cops and politicians around the country "to make a statement" just as Greg Abbott thinks he's doing by shipping busloads of illegals to DC.

Abbott’s strategy is successful. He has you beginning to care about the border. Before this stunt, were you even thinking about it? Just because Texas is a border state doesn’t mean that it should be responsible for so many migrants let through by the federal government. There is no reason any of them should be here. Until it’s addressed, more and more should be sent to DC.

I was originally against it, but after the immediate and hypocritical response by DC and NYC, and apparently that is the only way to get people’s attention, keep them coming.

Funny how nothing happens until sometimes it is literally on a mayor’s front lawn (Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle).

Send them direct to the CEO and Board of every lobby industrial complex too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I use Union Station a lot and it looks to me like they have cleared out a fair number of the homeless, at least as compared to last year when it really was like an open air homeless shelter with all kinds of florid psychotic behavior.

Not back to as busy or positive as it was 5-8 years ago though. Contrary to what some in this thread are saying Union Station has not always been like this. It used to be a nice place to go for lunch, even though there was always some homeless presence.

I think most people can put up with "some" homeless presence. If there is one in a neighborhood, the neighborhood can kind of take care of them, kind of befriend them and clean up after them. The problem is when they group together, hurting each other, creating lots of filth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I am not the about PP "Paris Hilton" poster, but there is truth in the statements. At what point did we as a society decide that it was acceptable for people to just pitch a tent on public property and live there? The park at McPherson Square is literally full of tents. What advocates SHOULD be pushing is humane and safe mental health treatment facilities. In the early 80s, the unholy alliance of Reaganite conservatives (who didn't want to spent $$) and ACLU civil libertarians emptied the mental hospitals (which were indeed horrific) and made it much, much more difficult for people to be involuntarily committed. We don't need tent cities and we don't need to overpay commercial apartment and hotel owners to provide unsupervised shelter to those who cannot take care of themselves. Instead, we need to completely rehaul St. Elizabeth's to make it safe (which it isn't now) and humane, and revamp the involuntary commitment laws.

It was the point at which you voted for politicians who embrace this approach to homeless. Vote in different people and you get different solutions.

Muriel Bowser has been clearing encampments. I'm not a super fan, but she is doing that..I can't think of a single politician except the senator whose son committed suicide who is advocating for mental health,.more beds for mental health etc. Involuntary commitment is a travesty in that it's impossible for family to get their loved ones help. the only way to get a mentally ill person "care" is to hope they commit a criminal act and are held for a while. Is that good - of course not - but it's literally the only contact they have with institutions if they are unwilling to seek help... And even then so many obstacles.

She's just pushing them around. If she really wanted to she could bust down some barriers to getting them housing, but it's all just optics.

What barriers would she able to bust down to get stable housing for mentally ill people who either can’t or won’t follow rules, are unwilling to take medication for their illness, are potentially addicted to drugs, etc.? Come on, the idea that all the people you see in encampments are just a little down on their luck and just need to get be able to get on their feet is patently false. Many of these people have significant mental health issues that are a huge impediment to getting them into housing.

That's a spectrum and you're binning everyone as needing to be restrained at St. Es or something. Many people could function on their own, especially with a little help / guidance.

One example would be IDs / documents. Have a team that can pull together birth certificates, social security cards, ID cards on the spot. People languish for months trying to recover documents.

Many people currently living on the streets or in encampments are not capable of functioning on their own with a little support. DC provides a ton of services to those willing to avail themselves of it and abide by the rules. The city has sent outreach teams to encampments to offer assistance and housing, those that are left are the people that have refused. I’m not saying everyone needs to be at St Es, but the answer cannot be people permitted to pitch tents in public and create public health and public safety concerns. I’ve lived in the DC area since 2000, working downtown since 2007, and to see what has become of places like Union Station is horrifying.

Horrifying is right. DC is my hometown. I no longer recognize it. It’s been going downhill for decades.

[Anonymous]

Portlander here...our Mayor just moved instead of dealing. Its gotten more dangerous 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:Ok, I am not the about PP "Paris Hilton" poster, but there is truth in the statements. At what point did we as a society decide that it was acceptable for people to just pitch a tent on public property and live there? The park at McPherson Square is literally full of tents. What advocates SHOULD be pushing is humane and safe mental health treatment facilities. In the early 80s, the unholy alliance of Reaganite conservatives (who didn't want to spent $$) and ACLU civil libertarians emptied the mental hospitals (which were indeed horrific) and made it much, much more difficult for people to be involuntarily committed. We don't need tent cities and we don't need to overpay commercial apartment and hotel owners to provide unsupervised shelter to those who cannot take care of themselves. Instead, we need to completely rehaul St. Elizabeth's to make it safe (which it isn't now) and humane, and revamp the involuntary commitment laws.

It was the point at which you voted for politicians who embrace this approach to homeless. Vote in different people and you get different solutions.

Muriel Bowser has been clearing encampments. I'm not a super fan, but she is doing that..I can't think of a single politician except the senator whose son committed suicide who is advocating for mental health,.more beds for mental health etc. Involuntary commitment is a travesty in that it's impossible for family to get their loved ones help. the only way to get a mentally ill person "care" is to hope they commit a criminal act and are held for a while. Is that good - of course not - but it's literally the only contact they have with institutions if they are unwilling to seek help... And even then so many obstacles.

She's just pushing them around. If she really wanted to she could bust down some barriers to getting them housing, but it's all just optics.

What barriers would she able to bust down to get stable housing for mentally ill people who either can’t or won’t follow rules, are unwilling to take medication for their illness, are potentially addicted to drugs, etc.? Come on, the idea that all the people you see in encampments are just a little down on their luck and just need to get be able to get on their feet is patently false. Many of these people have significant mental health issues that are a huge impediment to getting them into housing.

That's a spectrum and you're binning everyone as needing to be restrained at St. Es or something. Many people could function on their own, especially with a little help / guidance.

One example would be IDs / documents. Have a team that can pull together birth certificates, social security cards, ID cards on the spot. People languish for months trying to recover documents.

Many people currently living on the streets or in encampments are not capable of functioning on their own with a little support. DC provides a ton of services to those willing to avail themselves of it and abide by the rules. The city has sent outreach teams to encampments to offer assistance and housing, those that are left are the people that have refused. I’m not saying everyone needs to be at St Es, but the answer cannot be people permitted to pitch tents in public and create public health and public safety concerns. I’ve lived in the DC area since 2000, working downtown since 2007, and to see what has become of places like Union Station is horrifying.

This may be where we disagree. There are *a lot* of rules at the places that are available that are unnecessary and cruel to try to force people to abide by.

For example, you have to be in/out of shelters by specified times. People trying to work shifts at irregular hours struggle with that. It's intantilizing and counterproductive.

What about people who have pets who lost their housing? It's really easy to sit from the comfort of your home and judge people because you don't like that they are visible there. Or you can have compassion and push for a real housing-first approach.

How much of people's mental issues are driven by the hardships of living on the street or in shelters? Don't tell me it wouldn't affect you if you haven't been there yourself.

If they were just good people who lost their housing, they wouldn't urinate all over the station, harass people as they enter/exit the building, and rant like they are having hallucinations. Nobody would be objecting if they just kept a tidy tent and occasionally came in to use the bathroom (carefully cleaning up afterwards).

It's much less about the "good people who just fell on hard times" as it is about the mentally ill, the drug addicts and others who were dumped on DC's doorstep for the last several decades by cynical a-hole cops and politicians around the country "to make a statement" just as Greg Abbott thinks he's doing by shipping busloads of illegals to DC.

Abbott’s strategy is successful. He has you beginning to care about the border. Before this stunt, were you even thinking about it? Just because Texas is a border state doesn’t mean that it should be responsible for so many migrants let through by the federal government. There is no reason any of them should be here. Until it’s addressed, more and more should be sent to DC.

I was originally against it, but after the immediate and hypocritical response by DC and NYC, and apparently that is the only way to get people’s attention, keep them coming.

Funny how nothing happens until sometimes it is literally on a mayor’s front lawn (Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle).

Send them direct to the CEO and Board of every lobby industrial complex too.

This. There need to be busloads every day and they need to be dropped off all across dc.

[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:Ok, I am not the about PP "Paris Hilton" poster, but there is truth in the statements. At what point did we as a society decide that it was acceptable for people to just pitch a tent on public property and live there? The park at McPherson Square is literally full of tents. What advocates SHOULD be pushing is humane and safe mental health treatment facilities. In the early 80s, the unholy alliance of Reaganite conservatives (who didn't want to spent $$) and ACLU civil libertarians emptied the mental hospitals (which were indeed horrific) and made it much, much more difficult for people to be involuntarily committed. We don't need tent cities and we don't need to overpay commercial apartment and hotel owners to provide unsupervised shelter to those who cannot take care of themselves. Instead, we need to completely rehaul St. Elizabeth's to make it safe (which it isn't now) and humane, and revamp the involuntary commitment laws.

It was the point at which you voted for politicians who embrace this approach to homeless. Vote in different people and you get different solutions.

Muriel Bowser has been clearing encampments. I'm not a super fan, but she is doing that..I can't think of a single politician except the senator whose son committed suicide who is advocating for mental health,.more beds for mental health etc. Involuntary commitment is a travesty in that it's impossible for family to get their loved ones help. the only way to get a mentally ill person "care" is to hope they commit a criminal act and are held for a while. Is that good - of course not - but it's literally the only contact they have with institutions if they are unwilling to seek help... And even then so many obstacles.

She's just pushing them around. If she really wanted to she could bust down some barriers to getting them housing, but it's all just optics.

What barriers would she able to bust down to get stable housing for mentally ill people who either can’t or won’t follow rules, are unwilling to take medication for their illness, are potentially addicted to drugs, etc.? Come on, the idea that all the people you see in encampments are just a little down on their luck and just need to get be able to get on their feet is patently false. Many of these people have significant mental health issues that are a huge impediment to getting them into housing.

That's a spectrum and you're binning everyone as needing to be restrained at St. Es or something. Many people could function on their own, especially with a little help / guidance.

One example would be IDs / documents. Have a team that can pull together birth certificates, social security cards, ID cards on the spot. People languish for months trying to recover documents.

Many people currently living on the streets or in encampments are not capable of functioning on their own with a little support. DC provides a ton of services to those willing to avail themselves of it and abide by the rules. The city has sent outreach teams to encampments to offer assistance and housing, those that are left are the people that have refused. I’m not saying everyone needs to be at St Es, but the answer cannot be people permitted to pitch tents in public and create public health and public safety concerns. I’ve lived in the DC area since 2000, working downtown since 2007, and to see what has become of places like Union Station is horrifying.

This may be where we disagree. There are *a lot* of rules at the places that are available that are unnecessary and cruel to try to force people to abide by.

For example, you have to be in/out of shelters by specified times. People trying to work shifts at irregular hours struggle with that. It's intantilizing and counterproductive.

What about people who have pets who lost their housing? It's really easy to sit from the comfort of your home and judge people because you don't like that they are visible there. Or you can have compassion and push for a real housing-first approach.

How much of people's mental issues are driven by the hardships of living on the street or in shelters? Don't tell me it wouldn't affect you if you haven't been there yourself.

If they were just good people who lost their housing, they wouldn't urinate all over the station, harass people as they enter/exit the building, and rant like they are having hallucinations. Nobody would be objecting if they just kept a tidy tent and occasionally came in to use the bathroom (carefully cleaning up afterwards).

It's much less about the "good people who just fell on hard times" as it is about the mentally ill, the drug addicts and others who were dumped on DC's doorstep for the last several decades by cynical a-hole cops and politicians around the country "to make a statement" just as Greg Abbott thinks he's doing by shipping busloads of illegals to DC.

Abbott’s strategy is successful. He has you beginning to care about the border. Before this stunt, were you even thinking about it? Just because Texas is a border state doesn’t mean that it should be responsible for so many migrants let through by the federal government. There is no reason any of them should be here. Until it’s addressed, more and more should be sent to DC.

I was originally against it, but after the immediate and hypocritical response by DC and NYC, and apparently that is the only way to get people’s attention, keep them coming.

Funny how nothing happens until sometimes it is literally on a mayor’s front lawn (Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle).

Send them direct to the CEO and Board of every lobby industrial complex too.

What “hypocritical response by DC and NYC” are you talking about? Some specific comments by the mayors? Something else? If you’re supporting the stunts created by the governors of Texas and Arizona to bring attention to the asylum seekers in their states, I hope you are also supporting DC’s efforts to get statehood. What response are you expecting from a city without the resources of a state in handling what is essentially a federal issue?

[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:Ok, I am not the about PP "Paris Hilton" poster, but there is truth in the statements. At what point did we as a society decide that it was acceptable for people to just pitch a tent on public property and live there? The park at McPherson Square is literally full of tents. What advocates SHOULD be pushing is humane and safe mental health treatment facilities. In the early 80s, the unholy alliance of Reaganite conservatives (who didn't want to spent $$) and ACLU civil libertarians emptied the mental hospitals (which were indeed horrific) and made it much, much more difficult for people to be involuntarily committed. We don't need tent cities and we don't need to overpay commercial apartment and hotel owners to provide unsupervised shelter to those who cannot take care of themselves. Instead, we need to completely rehaul St. Elizabeth's to make it safe (which it isn't now) and humane, and revamp the involuntary commitment laws.

It was the point at which you voted for politicians who embrace this approach to homeless. Vote in different people and you get different solutions.

Muriel Bowser has been clearing encampments. I'm not a super fan, but she is doing that..I can't think of a single politician except the senator whose son committed suicide who is advocating for mental health,.more beds for mental health etc. Involuntary commitment is a travesty in that it's impossible for family to get their loved ones help. the only way to get a mentally ill person "care" is to hope they commit a criminal act and are held for a while. Is that good - of course not - but it's literally the only contact they have with institutions if they are unwilling to seek help... And even then so many obstacles.

She's just pushing them around. If she really wanted to she could bust down some barriers to getting them housing, but it's all just optics.

What barriers would she able to bust down to get stable housing for mentally ill people who either can’t or won’t follow rules, are unwilling to take medication for their illness, are potentially addicted to drugs, etc.? Come on, the idea that all the people you see in encampments are just a little down on their luck and just need to get be able to get on their feet is patently false. Many of these people have significant mental health issues that are a huge impediment to getting them into housing.

That's a spectrum and you're binning everyone as needing to be restrained at St. Es or something. Many people could function on their own, especially with a little help / guidance.

One example would be IDs / documents. Have a team that can pull together birth certificates, social security cards, ID cards on the spot. People languish for months trying to recover documents.

Many people currently living on the streets or in encampments are not capable of functioning on their own with a little support. DC provides a ton of services to those willing to avail themselves of it and abide by the rules. The city has sent outreach teams to encampments to offer assistance and housing, those that are left are the people that have refused. I’m not saying everyone needs to be at St Es, but the answer cannot be people permitted to pitch tents in public and create public health and public safety concerns. I’ve lived in the DC area since 2000, working downtown since 2007, and to see what has become of places like Union Station is horrifying.

This may be where we disagree. There are *a lot* of rules at the places that are available that are unnecessary and cruel to try to force people to abide by.

For example, you have to be in/out of shelters by specified times. People trying to work shifts at irregular hours struggle with that. It's intantilizing and counterproductive.

What about people who have pets who lost their housing? It's really easy to sit from the comfort of your home and judge people because you don't like that they are visible there. Or you can have compassion and push for a real housing-first approach.

How much of people's mental issues are driven by the hardships of living on the street or in shelters? Don't tell me it wouldn't affect you if you haven't been there yourself.

If they were just good people who lost their housing, they wouldn't urinate all over the station, harass people as they enter/exit the building, and rant like they are having hallucinations. Nobody would be objecting if they just kept a tidy tent and occasionally came in to use the bathroom (carefully cleaning up afterwards).

It's much less about the "good people who just fell on hard times" as it is about the mentally ill, the drug addicts and others who were dumped on DC's doorstep for the last several decades by cynical a-hole cops and politicians around the country "to make a statement" just as Greg Abbott thinks he's doing by shipping busloads of illegals to DC.

Abbott’s strategy is successful. He has you beginning to care about the border. Before this stunt, were you even thinking about it? Just because Texas is a border state doesn’t mean that it should be responsible for so many migrants let through by the federal government. There is no reason any of them should be here. Until it’s addressed, more and more should be sent to DC.

I was originally against it, but after the immediate and hypocritical response by DC and NYC, and apparently that is the only way to get people’s attention, keep them coming.

Funny how nothing happens until sometimes it is literally on a mayor’s front lawn (Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle).

Send them direct to the CEO and Board of every lobby industrial complex too.

x1000

[Anonymous]

Shooting IN the station today @ 4pm. Capitol Police have arrested 2 suspects.

https://news.yahoo.com/person-wounded-shooting-dc-union-222729517.html?fr=yhssrp_catchall

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I am not the about PP "Paris Hilton" poster, but there is truth in the statements. At what point did we as a society decide that it was acceptable for people to just pitch a tent on public property and live there? The park at McPherson Square is literally full of tents. What advocates SHOULD be pushing is humane and safe mental health treatment facilities. In the early 80s, the unholy alliance of Reaganite conservatives (who didn't want to spent $$) and ACLU civil libertarians emptied the mental hospitals (which were indeed horrific) and made it much, much more difficult for people to be involuntarily committed. We don't need tent cities and we don't need to overpay commercial apartment and hotel owners to provide unsupervised shelter to those who cannot take care of themselves. Instead, we need to completely rehaul St. Elizabeth's to make it safe (which it isn't now) and humane, and revamp the involuntary commitment laws.

It was the point at which you voted for politicians who embrace this approach to homeless. Vote in different people and you get different solutions.

Muriel Bowser has been clearing encampments. I'm not a super fan, but she is doing that..I can't think of a single politician except the senator whose son committed suicide who is advocating for mental health,.more beds for mental health etc. Involuntary commitment is a travesty in that it's impossible for family to get their loved ones help. the only way to get a mentally ill person "care" is to hope they commit a criminal act and are held for a while. Is that good - of course not - but it's literally the only contact they have with institutions if they are unwilling to seek help... And even then so many obstacles.

She's just pushing them around. If she really wanted to she could bust down some barriers to getting them housing, but it's all just optics.

What barriers would she able to bust down to get stable housing for mentally ill people who either can’t or won’t follow rules, are unwilling to take medication for their illness, are potentially addicted to drugs, etc.? Come on, the idea that all the people you see in encampments are just a little down on their luck and just need to get be able to get on their feet is patently false. Many of these people have significant mental health issues that are a huge impediment to getting them into housing.

That's a spectrum and you're binning everyone as needing to be restrained at St. Es or something. Many people could function on their own, especially with a little help / guidance.

One example would be IDs / documents. Have a team that can pull together birth certificates, social security cards, ID cards on the spot. People languish for months trying to recover documents.

Many people currently living on the streets or in encampments are not capable of functioning on their own with a little support. DC provides a ton of services to those willing to avail themselves of it and abide by the rules. The city has sent outreach teams to encampments to offer assistance and housing, those that are left are the people that have refused. I’m not saying everyone needs to be at St Es, but the answer cannot be people permitted to pitch tents in public and create public health and public safety concerns. I’ve lived in the DC area since 2000, working downtown since 2007, and to see what has become of places like Union Station is horrifying.

Horrifying is right. DC is my hometown. I no longer recognize it. It’s been going downhill for decades.

Because the Dems run it. I moved out after getting mugged.

[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:Ok, I am not the about PP "Paris Hilton" poster, but there is truth in the statements. At what point did we as a society decide that it was acceptable for people to just pitch a tent on public property and live there? The park at McPherson Square is literally full of tents. What advocates SHOULD be pushing is humane and safe mental health treatment facilities. In the early 80s, the unholy alliance of Reaganite conservatives (who didn't want to spent $$) and ACLU civil libertarians emptied the mental hospitals (which were indeed horrific) and made it much, much more difficult for people to be involuntarily committed. We don't need tent cities and we don't need to overpay commercial apartment and hotel owners to provide unsupervised shelter to those who cannot take care of themselves. Instead, we need to completely rehaul St. Elizabeth's to make it safe (which it isn't now) and humane, and revamp the involuntary commitment laws.

It was the point at which you voted for politicians who embrace this approach to homeless. Vote in different people and you get different solutions.

Muriel Bowser has been clearing encampments. I'm not a super fan, but she is doing that..I can't think of a single politician except the senator whose son committed suicide who is advocating for mental health,.more beds for mental health etc. Involuntary commitment is a travesty in that it's impossible for family to get their loved ones help. the only way to get a mentally ill person "care" is to hope they commit a criminal act and are held for a while. Is that good - of course not - but it's literally the only contact they have with institutions if they are unwilling to seek help... And even then so many obstacles.

She's just pushing them around. If she really wanted to she could bust down some barriers to getting them housing, but it's all just optics.

What barriers would she able to bust down to get stable housing for mentally ill people who either can’t or won’t follow rules, are unwilling to take medication for their illness, are potentially addicted to drugs, etc.? Come on, the idea that all the people you see in encampments are just a little down on their luck and just need to get be able to get on their feet is patently false. Many of these people have significant mental health issues that are a huge impediment to getting them into housing.

That's a spectrum and you're binning everyone as needing to be restrained at St. Es or something. Many people could function on their own, especially with a little help / guidance.

One example would be IDs / documents. Have a team that can pull together birth certificates, social security cards, ID cards on the spot. People languish for months trying to recover documents.

Many people currently living on the streets or in encampments are not capable of functioning on their own with a little support. DC provides a ton of services to those willing to avail themselves of it and abide by the rules. The city has sent outreach teams to encampments to offer assistance and housing, those that are left are the people that have refused. I’m not saying everyone needs to be at St Es, but the answer cannot be people permitted to pitch tents in public and create public health and public safety concerns. I’ve lived in the DC area since 2000, working downtown since 2007, and to see what has become of places like Union Station is horrifying.

This may be where we disagree. There are *a lot* of rules at the places that are available that are unnecessary and cruel to try to force people to abide by.

For example, you have to be in/out of shelters by specified times. People trying to work shifts at irregular hours struggle with that. It's intantilizing and counterproductive.

What about people who have pets who lost their housing? It's really easy to sit from the comfort of your home and judge people because you don't like that they are visible there. Or you can have compassion and push for a real housing-first approach.

How much of people's mental issues are driven by the hardships of living on the street or in shelters? Don't tell me it wouldn't affect you if you haven't been there yourself.

If they were just good people who lost their housing, they wouldn't urinate all over the station, harass people as they enter/exit the building, and rant like they are having hallucinations. Nobody would be objecting if they just kept a tidy tent and occasionally came in to use the bathroom (carefully cleaning up afterwards).

It's much less about the "good people who just fell on hard times" as it is about the mentally ill, the drug addicts and others who were dumped on DC's doorstep for the last several decades by cynical a-hole cops and politicians around the country "to make a statement" just as Greg Abbott thinks he's doing by shipping busloads of illegals to DC.

Abbott’s strategy is successful. He has you beginning to care about the border. Before this stunt, were you even thinking about it? Just because Texas is a border state doesn’t mean that it should be responsible for so many migrants let through by the federal government. There is no reason any of them should be here. Until it’s addressed, more and more should be sent to DC.

I was originally against it, but after the immediate and hypocritical response by DC and NYC, and apparently that is the only way to get people’s attention, keep them coming.

Funny how nothing happens until sometimes it is literally on a mayor’s front lawn (Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle).

Send them direct to the CEO and Board of every lobby industrial complex too.

This. There need to be busloads every day and they need to be dropped off all across dc.

Where do you live. I’ll have them bussed to in front of your house.

[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:Ok, I am not the about PP "Paris Hilton" poster, but there is truth in the statements. At what point did we as a society decide that it was acceptable for people to just pitch a tent on public property and live there? The park at McPherson Square is literally full of tents. What advocates SHOULD be pushing is humane and safe mental health treatment facilities. In the early 80s, the unholy alliance of Reaganite conservatives (who didn't want to spent $$) and ACLU civil libertarians emptied the mental hospitals (which were indeed horrific) and made it much, much more difficult for people to be involuntarily committed. We don't need tent cities and we don't need to overpay commercial apartment and hotel owners to provide unsupervised shelter to those who cannot take care of themselves. Instead, we need to completely rehaul St. Elizabeth's to make it safe (which it isn't now) and humane, and revamp the involuntary commitment laws.

It was the point at which you voted for politicians who embrace this approach to homeless. Vote in different people and you get different solutions.

Muriel Bowser has been clearing encampments. I'm not a super fan, but she is doing that..I can't think of a single politician except the senator whose son committed suicide who is advocating for mental health,.more beds for mental health etc. Involuntary commitment is a travesty in that it's impossible for family to get their loved ones help. the only way to get a mentally ill person "care" is to hope they commit a criminal act and are held for a while. Is that good - of course not - but it's literally the only contact they have with institutions if they are unwilling to seek help... And even then so many obstacles.

She's just pushing them around. If she really wanted to she could bust down some barriers to getting them housing, but it's all just optics.

What barriers would she able to bust down to get stable housing for mentally ill people who either can’t or won’t follow rules, are unwilling to take medication for their illness, are potentially addicted to drugs, etc.? Come on, the idea that all the people you see in encampments are just a little down on their luck and just need to get be able to get on their feet is patently false. Many of these people have significant mental health issues that are a huge impediment to getting them into housing.

That's a spectrum and you're binning everyone as needing to be restrained at St. Es or something. Many people could function on their own, especially with a little help / guidance.

One example would be IDs / documents. Have a team that can pull together birth certificates, social security cards, ID cards on the spot. People languish for months trying to recover documents.

Many people currently living on the streets or in encampments are not capable of functioning on their own with a little support. DC provides a ton of services to those willing to avail themselves of it and abide by the rules. The city has sent outreach teams to encampments to offer assistance and housing, those that are left are the people that have refused. I’m not saying everyone needs to be at St Es, but the answer cannot be people permitted to pitch tents in public and create public health and public safety concerns. I’ve lived in the DC area since 2000, working downtown since 2007, and to see what has become of places like Union Station is horrifying.

This may be where we disagree. There are *a lot* of rules at the places that are available that are unnecessary and cruel to try to force people to abide by.

For example, you have to be in/out of shelters by specified times. People trying to work shifts at irregular hours struggle with that. It's intantilizing and counterproductive.

What about people who have pets who lost their housing? It's really easy to sit from the comfort of your home and judge people because you don't like that they are visible there. Or you can have compassion and push for a real housing-first approach.

How much of people's mental issues are driven by the hardships of living on the street or in shelters? Don't tell me it wouldn't affect you if you haven't been there yourself.

If they were just good people who lost their housing, they wouldn't urinate all over the station, harass people as they enter/exit the building, and rant like they are having hallucinations. Nobody would be objecting if they just kept a tidy tent and occasionally came in to use the bathroom (carefully cleaning up afterwards).

It's much less about the "good people who just fell on hard times" as it is about the mentally ill, the drug addicts and others who were dumped on DC's doorstep for the last several decades by cynical a-hole cops and politicians around the country "to make a statement" just as Greg Abbott thinks he's doing by shipping busloads of illegals to DC.

Abbott’s strategy is successful. He has you beginning to care about the border. Before this stunt, were you even thinking about it? Just because Texas is a border state doesn’t mean that it should be responsible for so many migrants let through by the federal government. There is no reason any of them should be here. Until it’s addressed, more and more should be sent to DC.

I was originally against it, but after the immediate and hypocritical response by DC and NYC, and apparently that is the only way to get people’s attention, keep them coming.

Funny how nothing happens until sometimes it is literally on a mayor’s front lawn (Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle).

Send them direct to the CEO and Board of every lobby industrial complex too.

This. There need to be busloads every day and they need to be dropped off all across dc.

Where do you live. I’ll have them bussed to in front of your house.

1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Washington, DC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I am not the about PP "Paris Hilton" poster, but there is truth in the statements. At what point did we as a society decide that it was acceptable for people to just pitch a tent on public property and live there? The park at McPherson Square is literally full of tents. What advocates SHOULD be pushing is humane and safe mental health treatment facilities. In the early 80s, the unholy alliance of Reaganite conservatives (who didn't want to spent $$) and ACLU civil libertarians emptied the mental hospitals (which were indeed horrific) and made it much, much more difficult for people to be involuntarily committed. We don't need tent cities and we don't need to overpay commercial apartment and hotel owners to provide unsupervised shelter to those who cannot take care of themselves. Instead, we need to completely rehaul St. Elizabeth's to make it safe (which it isn't now) and humane, and revamp the involuntary commitment laws.

It was the point at which you voted for politicians who embrace this approach to homeless. Vote in different people and you get different solutions.

Muriel Bowser has been clearing encampments. I'm not a super fan, but she is doing that..I can't think of a single politician except the senator whose son committed suicide who is advocating for mental health,.more beds for mental health etc. Involuntary commitment is a travesty in that it's impossible for family to get their loved ones help. the only way to get a mentally ill person "care" is to hope they commit a criminal act and are held for a while. Is that good - of course not - but it's literally the only contact they have with institutions if they are unwilling to seek help... And even then so many obstacles.

She's just pushing them around. If she really wanted to she could bust down some barriers to getting them housing, but it's all just optics.

What barriers would she able to bust down to get stable housing for mentally ill people who either can’t or won’t follow rules, are unwilling to take medication for their illness, are potentially addicted to drugs, etc.? Come on, the idea that all the people you see in encampments are just a little down on their luck and just need to get be able to get on their feet is patently false. Many of these people have significant mental health issues that are a huge impediment to getting them into housing.

That's a spectrum and you're binning everyone as needing to be restrained at St. Es or something. Many people could function on their own, especially with a little help / guidance.

One example would be IDs / documents. Have a team that can pull together birth certificates, social security cards, ID cards on the spot. People languish for months trying to recover documents.

Many people currently living on the streets or in encampments are not capable of functioning on their own with a little support. DC provides a ton of services to those willing to avail themselves of it and abide by the rules. The city has sent outreach teams to encampments to offer assistance and housing, those that are left are the people that have refused. I’m not saying everyone needs to be at St Es, but the answer cannot be people permitted to pitch tents in public and create public health and public safety concerns. I’ve lived in the DC area since 2000, working downtown since 2007, and to see what has become of places like Union Station is horrifying.

Horrifying is right. DC is my hometown. I no longer recognize it. It’s been going downhill for decades.

Because the Dems run it. I moved out after getting mugged.

Yet other Dem localities don't have the issue. Maybe its not always Red vx Blue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I am not the about PP "Paris Hilton" poster, but there is truth in the statements. At what point did we as a society decide that it was acceptable for people to just pitch a tent on public property and live there? The park at McPherson Square is literally full of tents. What advocates SHOULD be pushing is humane and safe mental health treatment facilities. In the early 80s, the unholy alliance of Reaganite conservatives (who didn't want to spent $$) and ACLU civil libertarians emptied the mental hospitals (which were indeed horrific) and made it much, much more difficult for people to be involuntarily committed. We don't need tent cities and we don't need to overpay commercial apartment and hotel owners to provide unsupervised shelter to those who cannot take care of themselves. Instead, we need to completely rehaul St. Elizabeth's to make it safe (which it isn't now) and humane, and revamp the involuntary commitment laws.

It was the point at which you voted for politicians who embrace this approach to homeless. Vote in different people and you get different solutions.

Muriel Bowser has been clearing encampments. I'm not a super fan, but she is doing that..I can't think of a single politician except the senator whose son committed suicide who is advocating for mental health,.more beds for mental health etc. Involuntary commitment is a travesty in that it's impossible for family to get their loved ones help. the only way to get a mentally ill person "care" is to hope they commit a criminal act and are held for a while. Is that good - of course not - but it's literally the only contact they have with institutions if they are unwilling to seek help... And even then so many obstacles.

She's just pushing them around. If she really wanted to she could bust down some barriers to getting them housing, but it's all just optics.

What barriers would she able to bust down to get stable housing for mentally ill people who either can’t or won’t follow rules, are unwilling to take medication for their illness, are potentially addicted to drugs, etc.? Come on, the idea that all the people you see in encampments are just a little down on their luck and just need to get be able to get on their feet is patently false. Many of these people have significant mental health issues that are a huge impediment to getting them into housing.

That's a spectrum and you're binning everyone as needing to be restrained at St. Es or something. Many people could function on their own, especially with a little help / guidance.

One example would be IDs / documents. Have a team that can pull together birth certificates, social security cards, ID cards on the spot. People languish for months trying to recover documents.

Many people currently living on the streets or in encampments are not capable of functioning on their own with a little support. DC provides a ton of services to those willing to avail themselves of it and abide by the rules. The city has sent outreach teams to encampments to offer assistance and housing, those that are left are the people that have refused. I’m not saying everyone needs to be at St Es, but the answer cannot be people permitted to pitch tents in public and create public health and public safety concerns. I’ve lived in the DC area since 2000, working downtown since 2007, and to see what has become of places like Union Station is horrifying.

Horrifying is right. DC is my hometown. I no longer recognize it. It’s been going downhill for decades.

Because transients came in, parts of the city were remade to accommodate them, and then, many moved on. The poorly designed changes now don’t meet anyone’s needs. Gentrification mostly sucks, especially without a long term comprehensive plan.

[Anonymous]

So sad what beautiful Union Station has become. Back in the early 90s, I actually looked at it as a wedding reception venue. What a waste.