The Right to Camp in Bus Shelters

[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 grew up the same way, OP, but in NYC. Few on dcum care or relate to the exhausted, working poor commuting families who have to experience more exhaustion, discomfort and inconvenience because of a few people who should be in shelters. Some of my worst childhood memories are of commuting with my single mom, knowing how little protection we had.

I'm a staunch Democrat but hate this side of liberal politics. And no one cares if you say unhoused or homeless! It's a nonsense signifier designed to deflect and soothe academic egos.

I am so, so, so sorry that you had to ENDURE the homelss when you were young. That must have been so very hard.

I also hate that we are not taking care of these people. As a society, we shouldn't be pushing them around out of your very sensitive space. We should invest a hell of a lot more into programs that actually help the unhoused. And yes, how we refer to these people matters. They are human beings worthy of decency even if you can't see it.

Tell us all about these "programs" that are going to help the homeless, over and above the billions already spent on this issue?

Tell us how you want to police to kick them 20 yards down the street so you don't have to be reminded that these people exist.

I asked you first, and of course you can't answer, because you as well as anyone can see that throwing more dollars (e.g. "programs") at the homeless issue is not the solution. You just don't have a solution, so it's always more "programs." Very vague, generic term that means nothing, but I'm sure it makes you feel virtuous to support.

I never said that I want the police to kick them 20 yards down the street.

I do support the concept of mandatory day and night shelters. People do not have a right to live on city streets. If they don't have somewhere else to go, they are taken to a shelter for sleeping and another location to spend their days.

No you didn't, but that's what they do. You can't make people go to shelters if they don't want to. They aren't committing any crimes. Yes, people have a right to be on the street the same way you do.

Of course more funding would solve a lot of these problems. Currently we do not have enough shelters or programs that allow these people to get off the street.

Your cynicism and hate does nothing to solve the problem and help these people.

They do not have a right to loiter in public places. They do not (should not) have a right to sleep, or set up camp, on the street or in any public place. Yes, these things should be petty crimes and there should be enforcement. Yes, people should be forced into shelters if they have no where else to go.

Actually, THEY DO have a right to sleep on a public bench. It's not against the law. Just like it's not against the law to take a nap on the bus, train, metro or the park.

Buses, trains and Metros are not public space. You pay for the privilege of being there. If you want to zine out and take a nap on your train ride home, go for it.

Completely different from loitering on public sidewalks.

If they are on the train, they paid to be there, just like everyone else.

For the price of one ticket, you can stay on a train all day?

Do you even know how Metro works?

It's a transit, not transitory, system. It's purpose is to move people from A to B efficiently.

You have no idea how long they are on the train unless you're riding with them. Which begs the question, why are you there riding with them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP and a few thoughts on this:

The homeless situation burdens people differently. If you are a young male, it probably matters less to you and you have the privilege of being all magnanimous. But for smaller women or children, it truly inhibits their sense of safety moving about the city.

I think people who argue that all the homeless are just harmless people loitering around are all full of baloney. Many of these people are mentally ill and/or high on drugs that are increasingly tainted with dangerous substances. It is objectively more dangerous for someone to have to walk by a lot of homeless people today.

This. They are not a group of harmless nice people simply loitering. Some indeed are, but most of them have severe mental health issues plus/minus substance abuse. It is impossible to predict their actions. Several have prior criminal records. The poor women stabbed to death on public transport in Chicago and Charlotte could not have done anything to defend themselves. I’ve helped and worked closely with many different kinds of people in this category. Unless their situation is clearly sudden/temporary/abuse related, there are always mental health aspects. You are well advised to keep your wits about you, and have excellent situational awareness, never turn your back. This is hard for women especially with young children. So imo instead of paying for various houses, or “meeting them where they are” with “encampments all over, we need more psychiatric beds, more therapists, and more involuntary, or at least longer term, commitment. Case by case basis of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP and a few thoughts on this:

The homeless situation burdens people differently. If you are a young male, it probably matters less to you and you have the privilege of being all magnanimous. But for smaller women or children, it truly inhibits their sense of safety moving about the city.

I think people who argue that all the homeless are just harmless people loitering around are all full of baloney. Many of these people are mentally ill and/or high on drugs that are increasingly tainted with dangerous substances. It is objectively more dangerous for someone to have to walk by a lot of homeless people today.

This. They are not a group of harmless nice people simply loitering. Some indeed are, but most of them have severe mental health issues plus/minus substance abuse. It is impossible to predict their actions. Several have prior criminal records. The poor women stabbed to death on public transport in Chicago and Charlotte could not have done anything to defend themselves. I’ve helped and worked closely with many different kinds of people in this category. Unless their situation is clearly sudden/temporary/abuse related, there are always mental health aspects. You are well advised to keep your wits about you, and have excellent situational awareness, never turn your back. This is hard for women especially with young children. So imo instead of paying for various houses, or “meeting them where they are” with “encampments all over, we need more psychiatric beds, more therapists, and more involuntary, or at least longer term, commitment. Case by case basis of course.

+1 You are most definitely correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up the same way, OP, but in NYC. Few on dcum care or relate to the exhausted, working poor commuting families who have to experience more exhaustion, discomfort and inconvenience because of a few people who should be in shelters. Some of my worst childhood memories are of commuting with my single mom, knowing how little protection we had.

I'm a staunch Democrat but hate this side of liberal politics. And no one cares if you say unhoused or homeless! It's a nonsense signifier designed to deflect and soothe academic egos.

I am so, so, so sorry that you had to ENDURE the homelss when you were young. That must have been so very hard.

I also hate that we are not taking care of these people. As a society, we shouldn't be pushing them around out of your very sensitive space. We should invest a hell of a lot more into programs that actually help the unhoused. And yes, how we refer to these people matters. They are human beings worthy of decency even if you can't see it.

As someone who had a homeless man say he was going to grape my mother in front of me when I was 7, I truly wish you would shut up. I imagine you’ve lived a very sheltered life and never had to deal with this. Unlike you, this isn’t theoretical for me.

+1
It's only after idiots like the PP experience something like that themselves, or their kids do, that they finally wake up and change their tune. Until then, they won't believe any of that happens. Or if it does, it must happen to "other people" and they need not concern themselves with 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:I grew up the same way, OP, but in NYC. Few on dcum care or relate to the exhausted, working poor commuting families who have to experience more exhaustion, discomfort and inconvenience because of a few people who should be in shelters. Some of my worst childhood memories are of commuting with my single mom, knowing how little protection we had.

I'm a staunch Democrat but hate this side of liberal politics. And no one cares if you say unhoused or homeless! It's a nonsense signifier designed to deflect and soothe academic egos.

I am so, so, so sorry that you had to ENDURE the homelss when you were young. That must have been so very hard.

I also hate that we are not taking care of these people. As a society, we shouldn't be pushing them around out of your very sensitive space. We should invest a hell of a lot more into programs that actually help the unhoused. And yes, how we refer to these people matters. They are human beings worthy of decency even if you can't see it.

Tell us all about these "programs" that are going to help the homeless, over and above the billions already spent on this issue?

Tell us how you want to police to kick them 20 yards down the street so you don't have to be reminded that these people exist.

I asked you first, and of course you can't answer, because you as well as anyone can see that throwing more dollars (e.g. "programs") at the homeless issue is not the solution. You just don't have a solution, so it's always more "programs." Very vague, generic term that means nothing, but I'm sure it makes you feel virtuous to support.

I never said that I want the police to kick them 20 yards down the street.

I do support the concept of mandatory day and night shelters. People do not have a right to live on city streets. If they don't have somewhere else to go, they are taken to a shelter for sleeping and another location to spend their days.

Agreed the idea of more money and more programs is spouted by people who don't know what they are talking about. There is a subset of chronic homeless people who refuse all services and choose to live on the streets. They typically have mental health issues. The pendulum has swung such that government cannot involuntarily confine them for treatment, even if their families would like them to and give permission or ask for this level of help. Laws on this vary by state. Me personally I do not think it's humane to let a person suffering from a mental health issue that involves delusions and paranoia to continue to live on the street where the delusions and paranoia that drive them to live on the streets are not treated. But it's our laws and systems that need to be evaluated not just throw more money at the problem.

Completely agree, with one comment: They typically have drug issues, not mental health issues.

What law would you like to have passed? Actually curious. And if you mandate that we put them in shelters, how do you propose we do that without additional funding?

I completely support additional funding for mandatory shelters.

When you say mandatory shelters, do you propose that we have a police force go around and round people up every morning to take them to shelters?

Yes. 100%

Pure insanity. You don't get to take people's freedom away because they offend your nose.

Oh here we go.

It's not taking away their "freedom."

If they have no where else to go, the city is taking care of them. It's also allowing other cititzens to enjoy the amenities they pay for.

Uhm, you want the police to round them up and put them in shelters. You are 100% taking away their freedom. No one is stopping you from getting on the bus and going about your business. If you can't hack it in DC go to the suburbs and drive.

All of sudden you’re a radical libertarian, huh? This isn’t a MAGA right / left issue. I guarantee you can’t do whatever the hell you want at bus shelters in Shanghai. This crap isn’t tolerated in Tokyo either. But for some reason people like you scream “muh freedom” only if the people you are advocating for are mentally ill or drug addicts.

All of a sudden 😂😂😂😂. Like you know the fist thing about me. If your armament is that we should be more like the communist China, then you’re too dumb to walk the same streets as me. Can we put you away too?

DP. Learn how to spell before posting your ridiculous arguments over and over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Police dispatcher here:
Couple different perspectives. We get calls about this all the time, probably daily/several times a week. Legally we can’t cite someone for trespassing or laying in a bus shelter because there is no “ victim” per se and they’re not breaking the law either. Also, the bus shelter falls under metro bus or ride on, not the local police.
Also, everyone films the police now, so if they go out and ask someone to move along, next thing the police are being accused of “ harassing the homeless” and it’s all over everywhere how awful the police are for harassing people.
We do go out and check on the person, they say they’re ok, they refuse services and we carry on our way.

Interesting. This "no victim" interpretation implies that I can build a house on public land and live there.

Interesting that you equate sitting on a public bus bench with building a house on public land. Are you really this stupid or is it a temporary lapse?

DP. Are you that stupid to not understand that these homeless people are "building their home" in the bus shelter, taking it over.

You say that I like I don’t take the bus almost daily. You’re full of shit.

I just passed a shelter on the way to the metro. It’s on Mass Ave in case you are wondering. Men line up at 4:30 to be able to get in for the night. Many of them don’t get in because when the shelter fills up that’s it. Can’t get in. I hope they are able to go to a public space tonight and not freeze to death.

Why on earth didn't you give them directions to your home? Or at the very least, the sidewalk in front of it? Your driveway? What's wrong with you, you spoiled, privileged jerk?
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly if people don’t want to go to a shelter because they aren’t clean and continuously drain resources by forcing the city to clean out their encampment l, maybe prison is the solution

A true fascist in our midst!

Clean as in clean of drugs.

Is your solution to allow them to build defacto villages anywhere? Do you think they should have to get permits to make sure their structures are inhabitable?

What is your solution?

Oh, so you have a problem with paying for a permit and going through a review process to build a shed in your yard when someone can just set up shop in a bus shelter? What are you, a fascist?!!!

You are both fascists if you think you can put people in prison because “they aren’t clean.”

Just once I would like to see a thread started that expresses concern for these people instead of these selfish, tone deaf, idiotic rants about their smell and them simply occupying a public space. You are not good people.

The PP clarified they meant clean as in "clean of drugs." At any rate, I'm sure you've given these people your home address, right? Surely you have extra space that they could occupy. Otherwise, you're really not a good person. Shame on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP and a few thoughts on this:

The homeless situation burdens people differently. If you are a young male, it probably matters less to you and you have the privilege of being all magnanimous. But for smaller women or children, it truly inhibits their sense of safety moving about the city.

I think people who argue that all the homeless are just harmless people loitering around are all full of baloney. Many of these people are mentally ill and/or high on drugs that are increasingly tainted with dangerous substances. It is objectively more dangerous for someone to have to walk by a lot of homeless people today.

+100
Unfortunately, we stopped taking our kids to our public library years ago due to the number of mentally ill homeless men who loitered there during the day, leering at women and children. Our LIBRARY. It's beyond shameful that taxpayers can't even safely enjoy the services we are paying for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of the people you are bit7hing about are also disabled and elderly.

Are you also the poster who wants to protect the children from the homeless at the Tennleytown library?

NP. I'm not the poster you're referring to but why do you continue to insist the homeless - often mentally ill men - should be able to masturbate, expose themselves, and leer at women and children in public spaces? I think that's a better question.

Never suggested that nor did OP reference any of it. Criminal behavior is just that, whether committed by a homeless person or anyone else. If that happens, call the police.

However, sitting in a bus shelter or the library is perfectly legal and acceptable behavior.

Lastly, leering is not against the law.

I can only hope you/your children are leered at and even masturbated in front of by some of these mentally ill people. When that happens, do be sure to get back to us about how it was such an eye-opening experience.

Honestly, people like you make me sick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP and a few thoughts on this:

The homeless situation burdens people differently. If you are a young male, it probably matters less to you and you have the privilege of being all magnanimous. But for smaller women or children, it truly inhibits their sense of safety moving about the city.

I think people who argue that all the homeless are just harmless people loitering around are all full of baloney. Many of these people are mentally ill and/or high on drugs that are increasingly tainted with dangerous substances. It is objectively more dangerous for someone to have to walk by a lot of homeless people today.

This. They are not a group of harmless nice people simply loitering. Some indeed are, but most of them have severe mental health issues plus/minus substance abuse. It is impossible to predict their actions. Several have prior criminal records. The poor women stabbed to death on public transport in Chicago and Charlotte could not have done anything to defend themselves. I’ve helped and worked closely with many different kinds of people in this category. Unless their situation is clearly sudden/temporary/abuse related, there are always mental health aspects. You are well advised to keep your wits about you, and have excellent situational awareness, never turn your back. This is hard for women especially with young children. So imo instead of paying for various houses, or “meeting them where they are” with “encampments all over, we need more psychiatric beds, more therapists, and more involuntary, or at least longer term, commitment. Case by case basis of course.

+1 You are most definitely correct.

+100
Absolutely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unhoused.

The cause of homelessness is not having a home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unhoused.

The cause of homelessness is not having a home.

+1
So ridiculous to insist on another word that means exactly the same thing.