absolutely absurd article on homeless encampment clearing on 17th st NW/Safeway

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These particular people are REALLY trying to start s hit with this newest tent. After spending forever in the encampment on the street and feuding with neighbors (who did probably steal their stuff to clear the encampment in the middle of the night...) they are NOT currently unhoused. Housing was obtained for them through city vouchers and they are not living on the street.

So why the tent? They like to come back during the day to hang out and sell their wares/do drugs and panhandle there. That's it. I have no sympathy at this point, they have adequate housing and just want to use a small tent as a drug den and hangout spot. Knowing how fed up everyone was with the situation I think they're being intentionally provocative. I'm not going to do it, but I bet that tent "goes missing" at some point when they're at their new home

They sound like complete a**- hats of the above is true

[Anonymous]

Jessie Rabinowitz is a horrible advocate for the homeless. He encourages them to refuse placements and he encourages people to directly provide addicts with money so they can get high or spend the cash on liquor. He's an example of people who use others to push a political agenda. We get it you don't like the rich or gentrifiers but let's not kill people and create a public health emergency for your personal pleasure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read it and weep: https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/527774/the-story-behind-an-illegal-dumping-attempt-to-keep-out-unhoused-residents-outside-ward-2-safeway/

Some day these dummies are going to have to face the fact that they aren’t helping anyone by encouraging homeless encampments on highly trafficked public space.

All this article makes me think is that I will be especially vigilant to ensure that no tents pop up in parks near me. You have to get rid of the first one you see.

Btw - I actually support the right of people to camp on public space. It just cannot be in actual parks used by the public for recreation or on any sidewalks, and they have to be clean and crime-free.

I like how liberals just euphemistically change the names of things to sanitize them out of political correctness. It’s the equivalent of changing your profile picture to support a cause.

Instead of being homeless you are now “experiencing homelessness” or “unhoused”. Ugh. This country is fked. We either have psycho boat parade and billy billy Trump supporters who want some kind of Christian sharia laws or we have liberal, neo-macarthyist, speech police, wealth redistribution-for-equity types who are both hardline idiots.

Call them "bums" if you want. How does that change anything?

It’s just unnecessary. Homeless as a term worked fine. Now it’s magically verboten as being insensitive. Who is the arbiter of sensitivity? It’s not just the semantics, I don’t really care about the new nomenclature, it’s the whole pandering at all costs to every perceived underdog group at the expensive of tax paying citizens. Tax payers work hard and don’t deserves to have a massive honeless camp right in front of their house. Or like the poor rent paying people over at the Harlow apartments in DC who are living with section 8 tenants who are literally physicallly attaching them and the staff there on a frequent basis. It’s basically this soft bigotry of low expectation, take from the rich, strange Robinhood pandering mentality that is frustrating.

I could go on. Our liberal city council sucks on crime prevention and seems not to care about rising crime, as they won’t hire more police all while lowering jail sentences for violent offenders. I am liberal myself, but am losing patience with how idiotic so many of the “solutions” seem to be.

OK, so what's your suggestion? Round them up and put them [somewhere]?

Well, some variation on, "you don't have to go home but you can't stay here." You don't have to go to a shelter, but we're not going to let you plop down a tent on a busy sidewalk permanently.

Ah, your solution is "Move along somewhere else where I don't have to see you."

My thoughts exactly.

Yup. That’s exactly what I want as well. It doesn’t have to be cruel. You want to deploy tax dollars to build a homeless oasis of free housing and heroin out in some unoccupied chunk of western VA or rural MD, have at it. Want to raise taxes for that purpose, fine. But I don’t want to navigate aggressive mentally deranged beggars, putrid tent cities and piles of fences walking down the street in the capital of the United States.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These particular people are REALLY trying to start s hit with this newest tent. After spending forever in the encampment on the street and feuding with neighbors (who did probably steal their stuff to clear the encampment in the middle of the night...) they are NOT currently unhoused. Housing was obtained for them through city vouchers and they are not living on the street.

So why the tent? They like to come back during the day to hang out and sell their wares/do drugs and panhandle there. That's it. I have no sympathy at this point, they have adequate housing and just want to use a small tent as a drug den and hangout spot. Knowing how fed up everyone was with the situation I think they're being intentionally provocative. I'm not going to do it, but I bet that tent "goes missing" at some point when they're at their new home

they put up another tent? wow.

[Anonymous]

I used to live on 17th and P. I would never live there now that I have a child.

[Anonymous]

Does unhoused sound better than homeless? Is it less offensive? Is this just changing a term because people just want to do something? Is this a way to shift fault to others?

Unclothed vs clotheless?

Unarmed vs armless?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These particular people are REALLY trying to start s hit with this newest tent. After spending forever in the encampment on the street and feuding with neighbors (who did probably steal their stuff to clear the encampment in the middle of the night...) they are NOT currently unhoused. Housing was obtained for them through city vouchers and they are not living on the street.

So why the tent? They like to come back during the day to hang out and sell their wares/do drugs and panhandle there. That's it. I have no sympathy at this point, they have adequate housing and just want to use a small tent as a drug den and hangout spot. Knowing how fed up everyone was with the situation I think they're being intentionally provocative. I'm not going to do it, but I bet that tent "goes missing" at some point when they're at their new home

they put up another tent? wow.

Yes, Stevie put up another tent. I walked by this evening and it looked...deflated? But it is there. Stevie and Savon of the former encampment are now in housing but holding down the fort in their former space for daytime related activity and handouts. I'm a liberal who has a lot of sympathy for the unhoused and most of my neighbors feel the same, but this is honestly an aggressive move on their part. The "unhoused" argument doesn't stand.

[Anonymous]

If I were running for mayor of a city like SF or DC, I pledge to get all the homeless out of the city. I’d give them a bus ticket and a couple thousand dollars and never let them back.

All the liberal benefits cities offer make it way to easy and comfortable to be homeless. I’d end it all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I were running for mayor of a city like SF or DC, I pledge to get all the homeless out of the city. I’d give them a bus ticket and a couple thousand dollars and never let them back.

All the liberal benefits cities offer make it way to easy and comfortable to be homeless. I’d end it all.

Not arguing the pros and cons of this, but this is textbook Giuliani style.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does unhoused sound better than homeless? Is it less offensive? Is this just changing a term because people just want to do something? Is this a way to shift fault to others?

Unclothed vs clotheless?

Unarmed vs armless?

It’s because they consider their home to be where they lay their head so they don’t consider themselves homeless. They just don’t have a house at their home, hence unhoused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I were running for mayor of a city like SF or DC, I pledge to get all the homeless out of the city. I’d give them a bus ticket and a couple thousand dollars and never let them back.

All the liberal benefits cities offer make it way to easy and comfortable to be homeless. I’d end it all.

Not arguing the pros and cons of this, but this is textbook Giuliani style.

… and that lunatic was credited (not entirely without reason) with the Renaissance of NY.

DC, SF, Portland are already at or exceeding 70s era NY. None of y’all want to actually experience that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe you all live around this. That article says an example of an injustice against the homeless was a cafe trying to clear an encampment so they could actually have outdoor seating for their customers. What is it you all are trying to achieve? Drug addicts shooting up wherever?

What are you trying to achieve? Where do you think the people should live?

It’s definitely complicated but in this country most people who are homeless are choosing to be (to avoid restrictions placed in them by shelters.)

Absolutely untrue. A passing glance at housing costs in this area should disabuse you of this notion.

The people in question in the article weren't pushed out of housing because it got expensive. They are addicts. They deserve our sympathy and help, but pretending they made no choices to put themselves on the street is disingenuous at best.

Odd, then, that rich addicts, who made the same "choice," are not living on the street. What could the difference be?

It’s so very, very clear that you have never set foot in a city in California, Oregon or Washington. Venice Beach, Santa Barbara, Portland, Seattle, and a lot of LA are packed with white homeless-esque addicts. Judging from some of their surfboards and jeeps (SoCal), it’s pretty clear there was good money coming into their lives at one point.

When I lived in Seattle, I often noted the beautiful, perfect straightened teeth of the young dirty jonesing “homelessness” living in sidewalk tents.

The country, if not necessarily the District, is full of white addicts living on the streets. Some of them with spendy longboards

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These particular people are REALLY trying to start s hit with this newest tent. After spending forever in the encampment on the street and feuding with neighbors (who did probably steal their stuff to clear the encampment in the middle of the night...) they are NOT currently unhoused. Housing was obtained for them through city vouchers and they are not living on the street.

So why the tent? They like to come back during the day to hang out and sell their wares/do drugs and panhandle there. That's it. I have no sympathy at this point, they have adequate housing and just want to use a small tent as a drug den and hangout spot. Knowing how fed up everyone was with the situation I think they're being intentionally provocative. I'm not going to do it, but I bet that tent "goes missing" at some point when they're at their new home

They sound like complete a**- hats of the above is true

They're total assh*t trash and people shouldn't waste their compassion on feeling sorry for them. Care about people who truly need help. These two are housed and fine, they're just grifting as they always grift. Grift isn't it all, they also have rap sheets a mile long with many cases of assault, some with a deadly weapon. I too want the homeless housed, but defending these total assholes is really not the hill you want to die on.

[Anonymous]

We have a system to provide services to the homeless. You won’t have grifters and criminals on the street in tents if we ban camping on public property and require the unhoused to use the social services provided for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read it and weep: https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/527774/the-story-behind-an-illegal-dumping-attempt-to-keep-out-unhoused-residents-outside-ward-2-safeway/

Some day these dummies are going to have to face the fact that they aren’t helping anyone by encouraging homeless encampments on highly trafficked public space.

All this article makes me think is that I will be especially vigilant to ensure that no tents pop up in parks near me. You have to get rid of the first one you see.

Btw - I actually support the right of people to camp on public space. It just cannot be in actual parks used by the public for recreation or on any sidewalks, and they have to be clean and crime-free.

I like how liberals just euphemistically change the names of things to sanitize them out of political correctness. It’s the equivalent of changing your profile picture to support a cause.

Instead of being homeless you are now “experiencing homelessness” or “unhoused”. Ugh. This country is fked. We either have psycho boat parade and billy billy Trump supporters who want some kind of Christian sharia laws or we have liberal, neo-macarthyist, speech police, wealth redistribution-for-equity types who are both hardline idiots.

Call them "bums" if you want. How does that change anything?

It’s just unnecessary. Homeless as a term worked fine. Now it’s magically verboten as being insensitive. Who is the arbiter of sensitivity? It’s not just the semantics, I don’t really care about the new nomenclature, it’s the whole pandering at all costs to every perceived underdog group at the expensive of tax paying citizens. Tax payers work hard and don’t deserves to have a massive honeless camp right in front of their house. Or like the poor rent paying people over at the Harlow apartments in DC who are living with section 8 tenants who are literally physicallly attaching them and the staff there on a frequent basis. It’s basically this soft bigotry of low expectation, take from the rich, strange Robinhood pandering mentality that is frustrating.

I could go on. Our liberal city council sucks on crime prevention and seems not to care about rising crime, as they won’t hire more police all while lowering jail sentences for violent offenders. I am liberal myself, but am losing patience with how idiotic so many of the “solutions” seem to be.

+1