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:

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.

Weird it’s usually the husband.

The PP who posted about this horrible incident fails to note that statistically the homeless are more likely to be victims rather than perpetrators of crime. We need to stop labeling whole categories of people as criminals, eg homeless people, illegal immigrants, black teenagers.

And the aggressor is usually another homeless person … I don’t think that we should lock up all homeless people but it’s dumb to pretend like they are a really law abiding demographic.

+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:

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.

Weird it’s usually the husband.

The PP who posted about this horrible incident fails to note that statistically the homeless are more likely to be victims rather than perpetrators of crime. We need to stop labeling whole categories of people as criminals, eg homeless people, illegal immigrants, black teenagers.

Should we assume that all of your posts include statistically-related info?

[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:

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.

Weird it’s usually the husband.

The PP who posted about this horrible incident fails to note that statistically the homeless are more likely to be victims rather than perpetrators of crime. We need to stop labeling whole categories of people as criminals, eg homeless people, illegal immigrants, black teenagers.

No one labeled any group. The stabbing of an innocent young woman by a homeless, repeat offender was posted.

It was posted in this thread for a specific reason: to imply that the homeless are frequently criminals who prey on innocent 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:

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.

Weird it’s usually the husband.

The PP who posted about this horrible incident fails to note that statistically the homeless are more likely to be victims rather than perpetrators of crime. We need to stop labeling whole categories of people as criminals, eg homeless people, illegal immigrants, black teenagers.

No one labeled any group. The stabbing of an innocent young woman by a homeless, repeat offender was posted.

It was posted in this thread for a specific reason: to imply that the homeless are frequently criminals who prey on innocent people.

That's YOUR take. I'm sure you don't want anything negative written about a crime committed by a homeless person because it doesn't support your narrative.

[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:

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.

Weird it’s usually the husband.

The PP who posted about this horrible incident fails to note that statistically the homeless are more likely to be victims rather than perpetrators of crime. We need to stop labeling whole categories of people as criminals, eg homeless people, illegal immigrants, black teenagers.

So, sticking these people in an institution might protect them instead of letting them free range with their mental illness. Still not sure why people think free ranging the homeless is protecting their rights.

[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:

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.

Weird it’s usually the husband.

The PP who posted about this horrible incident fails to note that statistically the homeless are more likely to be victims rather than perpetrators of crime. We need to stop labeling whole categories of people as criminals, eg homeless people, illegal immigrants, black teenagers.

So, sticking these people in an institution might protect them instead of letting them free range with their mental illness. Still not sure why people think free ranging the homeless is protecting their rights.

+1 It's not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

+1 The Kennedy Center area and Watergate area is cleared of the encampments. It feels much safer to walk around 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:

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.

Weird it’s usually the husband.

The PP who posted about this horrible incident fails to note that statistically the homeless are more likely to be victims rather than perpetrators of crime. We need to stop labeling whole categories of people as criminals, eg homeless people, illegal immigrants, black teenagers.

So, sticking these people in an institution might protect them instead of letting them free range with their mental illness. Still not sure why people think free ranging the homeless is protecting their rights.

It’s the law. Ronald Reagan’s idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

+1 The Kennedy Center area and Watergate area is cleared of the encampments. It feels much safer to walk around now.

And where have these citizens gone?

[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.

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.

And Congress will need to agree to pay for it. So, here we are.

[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:

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.

Locking people up violates their civil liberty according to the posters on this board. We don't want to violate that man's freedoms.

No. That’s according to the law, not people on this board.

[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:

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.

Weird it’s usually the husband.

The PP who posted about this horrible incident fails to note that statistically the homeless are more likely to be victims rather than perpetrators of crime. We need to stop labeling whole categories of people as criminals, eg homeless people, illegal immigrants, black teenagers.

So, sticking these people in an institution might protect them instead of letting them free range with their mental illness. Still not sure why people think free ranging the homeless is protecting their rights.

It’s the law. Ronald Reagan’s idea.

Nope. It was a Supreme Court ruling.

[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.

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.

+1 Definitely

[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.

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.

And Congress will need to agree to pay for it. So, here we are.

States can pay for it.

[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:

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.

Weird it’s usually the husband.

The PP who posted about this horrible incident fails to note that statistically the homeless are more likely to be victims rather than perpetrators of crime. We need to stop labeling whole categories of people as criminals, eg homeless people, illegal immigrants, black teenagers.

MAGAs, whites, southerners, flyover country folks, Christians, laborers, etc

!1 Agree. No DCUM poster would ever do that!