Considering Seaton, but concerned about the homeless encampment

[Anonymous]

Correct. It’s just not ok for anyone to camp on public city land.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Correct. It’s just not ok for anyone to camp on public city land.

I’m actually ok with camping on public land. it just can’t be in a highly trafficked or disruptive space. especially during covid there are a lot of people who just won’t go to shelters.

[Anonymous]

But under bridges and in parks and on sidewalks — these are all highly trafficked.

If DC has offered shelter, housing, and services, it’s better to just have a rule — no camping on urban public land. We have lots of rules about what individuals can do with public urban land. Many things are prohibited. Camping should be one of them.

[Anonymous]

So just checking in on this thread...people still making legalistic arguments against the existence of homelessness? Yep, OK Bye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So just checking in on this thread...people still making legalistic arguments against the existence of homelessness? Yep, OK Bye.

So in your view I guess the homeless encampment should be right on the school playground? Heck, why not in the school itself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So just checking in on this thread...people still making legalistic arguments against the existence of homelessness? Yep, OK Bye.

Not legalistic.

Pretty sure the argument is: no camping allowed, and provide shelter and services for those who are currently camping.

Spend money to house them WITH services. Then enforce a no-camping rule.

Half of DC insists on “no pop-ups” to avoid ruining their precious brick facade views.
It feels like “no longterm camping” on public land is a much easier lift.

(If you don’t like that, yes, OK Bye.)

[Anonymous]

Wow you guys are the worst

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow you guys are the worst

I've been pleasantly surprised by how few people like you and the previous jackass have been in this thread. Just about every belief goes out the window when your kids are in potential danger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow you guys are the worst

I've been pleasantly surprised by how few people like you and the previous jackass have been in this thread. Just about every belief goes out the window when your kids are in potential danger.

My eye-opening experience was seeing a fake homeless encampment being used as a drug dealing/stolen property hiding/prostitution location. Anyone with eyes could see what was going on. And yet, you still had people on Nextdoor talking oh-so-virtuously about "our homeless neighbors." There are legitimately people who chose to live on the streets, and I actually respect their right to do so, but not in a way that interferes with public space and safety. And there are also very bad elements who exploit those homeless people and their encampments, either by masquerading or just opportunistically using them for their crimes.

[Anonymous]

The neighborhood looked the other way during most of the pandemic and didn’t complain about the encampment except the occasional 311 call to remove the trash the homeless people would leave. But when kids came back to school, it was a different story. Kids and families were harassed going to school and during pick up. The school had to close the side entrance that was closest to the encampment for safety reasons. We all feel for our homeless neighbors but there has to be consideration for the safety of children.

[Anonymous]

Do we feel like the homeless should be able to live in tents wherever they like? When shelter space is available?

Choosing to live outside is one thing. Choosing to live outside on public streets shouldn't be an option. It's not fair to everyone to normalize living on public spaces.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do we feel like the homeless should be able to live in tents wherever they like? When shelter space is available?

Choosing to live outside is one thing. Choosing to live outside on public streets shouldn't be an option. It's not fair to everyone to normalize living on public spaces.
[/quote

No matter how we "feel" we can't change the reality that some people will choose to live outdoors. They just will. In this country, they are people who are choosing not to take social services and available shelter space, may due to mental illness, paranoia, ptsd... Who knows. But some people will choose that.

[Anonymous]

No matter how we "feel" we can't change the reality that some people will choose to live outdoors. They just will. In this country, they are people who are choosing not to take social services and available shelter space, may due to mental illness, paranoia, ptsd... Who knows. But some people will choose that.

Correct.

And those that choose to live outside don't have to be permitted to live on public sidewalks or public property – which is for all of us to share.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No matter how we "feel" we can't change the reality that some people will choose to live outdoors. They just will. In this country, they are people who are choosing not to take social services and available shelter space, may due to mental illness, paranoia, ptsd... Who knows. But some people will choose that.

Correct.

And those that choose to live outside don't have to be permitted to live on public sidewalks or public property – which is for all of us to share.

This. It’s baffling that this is allowed in a city. Could anyone just set up a tent in the tree box in front of someone else’s house and start living there and there would be no recourse?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow you guys are the worst

I've been pleasantly surprised by how few people like you and the previous jackass have been in this thread. Just about every belief goes out the window when your kids are in potential danger.

My eye-opening experience was seeing a fake homeless encampment being used as a drug dealing/stolen property hiding/prostitution location. Anyone with eyes could see what was going on. And yet, you still had people on Nextdoor talking oh-so-virtuously about "our homeless neighbors." There are legitimately people who chose to live on the streets, and I actually respect their right to do so, but not in a way that interferes with public space and safety. And there are also very bad elements who exploit those homeless people and their encampments, either by masquerading or just opportunistically using them for their crimes.

This is what I'm seeing too. Not at Seaton, but it's clear that very vulnerable people, including children, are in serious danger at and near (like schools) exposed encampments. It's not a housed vs homeless issue. It's an intersection of public safety, public health, affordable housing AND criminal justice/policing reform. It's all connected. Like race, gender, and class inequities. I don't have any solutions, but I think school communities and families should keep this in mind. It's not us and them, and it's not just tents. We don't need to accuse each other of virtue signaling or NIMBYism.

On what level can or should DCPS/DME get involved? Ideas?