DC clears homeless near K Street

[Anonymous]

Shelters have rules. Rules that are strictly enforced.

You can't smoke inside a shelter. Cigarettes, cigars or even weed. You can't drink alcohol in a shelter, not even beer. You can't be drunk or high in a shelter.

These are priorities for some, and if you can't meet them in the rigid rule environment of a shelter, then you prefer someplace with more freedom.

They'll find a new place to camp. Let them alone.

[Anonymous]

I couldn't seem to find it, but maybe someone else can. How much does DC spend on homelessness?

I found a post from a homeless advocate group showing the _increased_ spending in 2019 and it was about $120 million:
https://www.dcfpi.org/all/whats-in-the-approved-fiscal-year-2019-budget-for-homeless-services/

Quite strange they go into all those details, and never list the total homeless spending, just the increase.

It looks like there are 6,904 homeless in DC as of a recent count.

So if spending _increased_ by $120mln, let's say it's up to $200mln (and I'll be happy to be corrected on this). That means we're spending almost $29k per homeless person each year. How is such avast amount of spending not solving the problem?

[Anonymous]

The tents outside noma are on m street. It smells like urine over there (from the corner).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I couldn't seem to find it, but maybe someone else can. How much does DC spend on homelessness?

I found a post from a homeless advocate group showing the _increased_ spending in 2019 and it was about $120 million:
https://www.dcfpi.org/all/whats-in-the-approved-fiscal-year-2019-budget-for-homeless-services/

Quite strange they go into all those details, and never list the total homeless spending, just the increase.

It looks like there are 6,904 homeless in DC as of a recent count.

So if spending _increased_ by $120mln, let's say it's up to $200mln (and I'll be happy to be corrected on this). That means we're spending almost $29k per homeless person each year. How is such avast amount of spending not solving the problem?

DC is probably studying the problem. More research will be necessary before a solution is found. Maybe some visits to other cities to see how they are handling the issue. I understand Europe and Hawaii don't have these problems. A personal investigation might reveal some answers. /s

[Anonymous]

Looking for a K St update. Does anyone know why one particularly large tent was allowed to remain? It's surrounded by filth, much dirtier than the tents that were cleared. Kind of defeats the purpose of making sure passage is accessible when you still have to jump into the street to get around this tent. Might as well bring the others back and let people have their "homes" this winter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I couldn't seem to find it, but maybe someone else can. How much does DC spend on homelessness?

I found a post from a homeless advocate group showing the _increased_ spending in 2019 and it was about $120 million:
https://www.dcfpi.org/all/whats-in-the-approved-fiscal-year-2019-budget-for-homeless-services/

Quite strange they go into all those details, and never list the total homeless spending, just the increase.

It looks like there are 6,904 homeless in DC as of a recent count.

So if spending _increased_ by $120mln, let's say it's up to $200mln (and I'll be happy to be corrected on this). That means we're spending almost $29k per homeless person each year. How is such avast amount of spending not solving the problem?

DC is probably studying the problem. More research will be necessary before a solution is found. Maybe some visits to other cities to see how they are handling the issue. I understand Europe and Hawaii don't have these problems. A personal investigation might reveal some answers. /s

Hawaii has a huge and worsening homelessness problem. It rivals LA. https://www.staradvertiser.com/homeless-in-hawaii/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Survival of the fittest. I don't want a bunch of raccoons taking up residence in my backyard and I don't want a bunch of homeless people there either

You are an ugly person. I would not want you living -- in a house -- anywhere near me. Gross. Society needs less people like you in it.

Don't worry about that, you can't afford to live in my neighborhood so the possibility of us crossing paths is zero

Well, I can and also think your attitude is scum. Hope that helps.

[Anonymous]

They’re already back there. Saw a few today. Why can’t they be contained?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t care about them moving the encampments but they need to get a comprehensive strategy together. It’s a rich city - figure it out.

Like this?

District of Columbia Interagency
Council on Homelessness
Strategic Plan 2015-2020

https://ich.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ich/page_content/attachments/ICH-StratPlan2.9-Web.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:K St was the only one cleared, not the L or M St at Metro. That said, there are still tents under K St, so unless the city is going to do daily enforcement, this is all much ado about nothing.

I vote for a designated camp ground for those who could go to shelters but just don't want to. Perhaps in one of the NE industrial zones along the rail heading out of the city. Maybe even go full on IDP (internally displaced persons) / refugee camp with provision of food and tents and a dedicated security and Red Cross or other NGO staff. And for those who are so mentally deteriorated (whether through addiction or illness) that they are a danger to themselves and others, I don't see any humane solution other than state-funded institutionalization.

Yes. The reality is that streets in big cities are becoming open air adult daycare centers and residential mental health facilities.

If that's where the patients are, that's where the services have to be.

One of the services could be to identify people who are too aggressive or too disruptive in other ways to be left on the streets. If homeless people are sitting on the streets and quietly, politely panhandling: OK.

If the street people are being disruptive, or living in a way that shows they're disoriented and not capable of managing their affairs, then we need to figure out how to get them into some kind of formal program.

If people are poor, hate shelters, and can scrape up enough cash through casual labor and polite panhandling to survive, then they ought to have the option of being street people. Maybe they shouldn't be able to camp out wherever they like, but we should designate places where they can camp out.

If street people are actively making other people miserable, or they aren't capable of making a rational decision to live on the street, then, in a kind, orderly society, they shouldn't be living on the street.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The tents outside noma are on m street. It smells like urine over there (from the corner).

You sound racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:K St was the only one cleared, not the L or M St at Metro. That said, there are still tents under K St, so unless the city is going to do daily enforcement, this is all much ado about nothing.

I vote for a designated camp ground for those who could go to shelters but just don't want to. Perhaps in one of the NE industrial zones along the rail heading out of the city. Maybe even go full on IDP (internally displaced persons) / refugee camp with provision of food and tents and a dedicated security and Red Cross or other NGO staff. And for those who are so mentally deteriorated (whether through addiction or illness) that they are a danger to themselves and others, I don't see any humane solution other than state-funded institutionalization.

Yes. The reality is that streets in big cities are becoming open air adult daycare centers and residential mental health facilities.

If that's where the patients are, that's where the services have to be.

One of the services could be to identify people who are too aggressive or too disruptive in other ways to be left on the streets. If homeless people are sitting on the streets and quietly, politely panhandling: OK.

If the street people are being disruptive, or living in a way that shows they're disoriented and not capable of managing their affairs, then we need to figure out how to get them into some kind of formal program.

If people are poor, hate shelters, and can scrape up enough cash through casual labor and polite panhandling to survive, then they ought to have the option of being street people. Maybe they shouldn't be able to camp out wherever they like, but we should designate places where they can camp out.

If street people are actively making other people miserable, or they aren't capable of making a rational decision to live on the street, then, in a kind, orderly society, they shouldn't be living on the street.

Very reasonable. The let free range homeless advocates are so powerful though, and include pretty much all of our DC council. How and to whom does one make this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The tents outside noma are on m street. It smells like urine over there (from the corner).

You sound racist.

Huh? AFAIK there's nothing racial about the smell of urine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The tents outside noma are on m street. It smells like urine over there (from the corner).

You sound racist.

You know there are white homeless people there too, right? I’ve seen them last week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of these "homeless" people are so mentally ill that they are truly unable to adequately care for themselves. In the not-so-distant past, society had a means of taking care of these people: mental institutions where these mentally ill people got food, medical care, and proper housing. Then all of a sudden, the liberals shut down these government-run institutions, and put these crazy people out on the streets....where they do drugs, create filthy "encampments", defecate on the sidewalks, and freeze to death in the winter.

So let's re-open (or build new) mental hospitals where these sad unfortunate people can be taken care of....whether they like it or not.

It's for their own good. And for ours too.

There's an excellent video on the subject. It's an hour long, and it's called "Seattle Is Dying". It's on YouTube.

This is ignorance or revisionist history. Reagan opened the mental institutions. https://sites.psu.edu/psy533wheeler/2017/02/08/u01-ronald-reagan-and-the-federal-deinstitutionalization-of-mentally-ill-patients/comment-page-1/

This push began in the 70s (public sentiment after "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest?) pushed by the ACLU. Reagan's cuts were the last piece, and money was being block granted back to the states to use as they wanted.