Considering Seaton, but concerned about the homeless encampment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It's really a DC problem.

We need
- (1) shelter beds and housing
- (2) services (since many of the homeless are mentally ill or suffering from addiction, or both) and
- (3) rules that say no one can camp on public land


We have (1) and (2), but could always have more. Once COVID emergency is over we need (3).

This is a mayor/Council problem. Call the mayor and call your council members.

[Anonymous]

It's just part of city life. Get over it, or move to Ashburn if you want boring and homeless-free living.

[Anonymous]

It's just part of city life. Get over it, or move to Ashburn if you want boring and homeless-free living.

No. It is NOT just "part of city life". I have lived downtown in DC east of Rock Creek park for over 25 years. While there have always been panhandlers and people in the downtown parks like Franklin and McPherson Square, this explosion of tent cities is relatively new in DC and camping on public lands should be banned. There are a lot of shelters in DC. There are a lot of services in DC. And camping needs to be banned in order to force people to avail themselves of those shelters and services.

[Anonymous]

I see reference to housing but you're talking shelters, not actual housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It's just part of city life. Get over it, or move to Ashburn if you want boring and homeless-free living.

No. It is NOT just "part of city life". I have lived downtown in DC east of Rock Creek park for over 25 years. While there have always been panhandlers and people in the downtown parks like Franklin and McPherson Square, this explosion of tent cities is relatively new in DC and camping on public lands should be banned. There are a lot of shelters in DC. There are a lot of services in DC. And camping needs to be banned in order to force people to avail themselves of those shelters and services.

To the po above this one. Ah, this is how racism and hate continues too. You can kick rocks with your complacent and pathetic attitude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's just part of city life. Get over it, or move to Ashburn if you want boring and homeless-free living.

It may be, but it shouldn’t be. Did everyone note how this issue was handled in Austin, TX of all places, just this past weekend?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's just part of city life. Get over it, or move to Ashburn if you want boring and homeless-free living.

You and the other DCUM anti-DC trolls, likely conservative trolls, can stay in Ashburn.

I choose to live in DC because of the intellectual life and the large number of smart people here working to make the world a better place.

Part of that is considering the public good - how everyone lives together. I am willing to pay higher taxes to make society better. I am willing to pay higher
taxes to provide shelter and support for people who currently camp in public places. But I don't want my kids to be in public places where people are camping
long-term, and so it's a public good issue. The Mayor and Council should ban long-term camping in public places while we provide supportive alternatives.

This is, by the way, what most other rich countries do.
And there is a precedent in American history - the Bonus Army came to camp in DC and was nearly converted into a fascist force.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I really don't understand how it is allowed. If I want to park a dumpster temporarily in front of my house, or a storage pod, I need a public space permit. How is a public space permit not needed for pitching a tent by the sidewalk?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I really don't understand how it is allowed. If I want to park a dumpster temporarily in front of my house, or a storage pod, I need a public space permit. How is a public space permit not needed for pitching a tent by the sidewalk?

There have been some court cases saying it's a constitutional violation to criminalize public camping in a municipality where sufficient shelter isn't provided.

[Anonymous]

But there IS sufficient shelter; people are just preferring to live in a tent where there are no rules to living in a shelter where there are. What there is not enough of is mental health treatment, particularly with respect to long-term supervised housing. But again, there are going to be people who will prefer---due to addiction, mental illness, or sheer orneriness (or some combination of the three) to live in a tent even if a longer term alternative is provided. And I agree with the PP above, other wealthy nations provide for their indigent while also not allowing them to encamp on public sidewalks, parks, libraries, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But there IS sufficient shelter; people are just preferring to live in a tent where there are no rules to living in a shelter where there are. What there is not enough of is mental health treatment, particularly with respect to long-term supervised housing. But again, there are going to be people who will prefer---due to addiction, mental illness, or sheer orneriness (or some combination of the three) to live in a tent even if a longer term alternative is provided. And I agree with the PP above, other wealthy nations provide for their indigent while also not allowing them to encamp on public sidewalks, parks, libraries, etc.

Yes. It's fair to ask people who make that choice to live in a tent either on their own land, or on public land specifically provided for camping (and then, to follow rules that do also operate there: like storing food away from animals, camping only on tent pads, removing all waste, etc.).

You need a permit to do many things in this city. One should also need a permit to camp on a public sidewalk.

[Anonymous]

Update -- a fence has been erected and all the tents are gone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Update -- a fence has been erected and all the tents are gone.

Hooray!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Update -- a fence has been erected and all the tents are gone.

Hooray!

good work.

[Anonymous]

Here’s a picture (from a hilariously deluded twitter account. maybe a parody?).
https://mobile.twitter.com/RemoraHouse_DC/status/1392549651191058437

I always wondered why they don’t move school fences all the way our to the sidewalk. That little grassy area will be a nice spot for preschoolers or outdoor lunch, important in the pandemic.