Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I live in DC. And I'm not talking about just the homeless people who approach residents. You're seeing the tip of the iceberg and are completely oblivious to a large number of people that aren't anything like the image in your mind. Why do you refuse to acknowledge your own ignorance?

DP. I’m fine with more money going to the homeless. I am NOT fine with homeless people destroying/monopolizing public space. I’m also not really fine with big encampments that don’t provide safety or structure, but I can see why they exist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I live in DC. And I'm not talking about just the homeless people who approach residents. You're seeing the tip of the iceberg and are completely oblivious to a large number of people that aren't anything like the image in your mind. Why do you refuse to acknowledge your own ignorance?

DP. I’m fine with more money going to the homeless. I am NOT fine with homeless people destroying/monopolizing public space. I’m also not really fine with big encampments that don’t provide safety or structure, but I can see why they exist.

Anonymous wrote:I totally wish boarding houses still existed!

I would have been totally up for renting a room in a house run by some strict old lady to save money when I was in my twenties.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I live in DC. And I'm not talking about just the homeless people who approach residents. You're seeing the tip of the iceberg and are completely oblivious to a large number of people that aren't anything like the image in your mind. Why do you refuse to acknowledge your own ignorance?

Probably because I’m not ignorant on this issue. DC spends tons of $$$ to help the homeless. More than almost anywhere in the country.

Stop patting yourself on the back and take a look around, PP. it’s not my job to coddle your fragile ego here.

Thank you for being a case study in Dunning-Kruger. You are a waste of time. Bye.

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I live in DC. And I'm not talking about just the homeless people who approach residents. You're seeing the tip of the iceberg and are completely oblivious to a large number of people that aren't anything like the image in your mind. Why do you refuse to acknowledge your own ignorance?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I live in DC. And I'm not talking about just the homeless people who approach residents. You're seeing the tip of the iceberg and are completely oblivious to a large number of people that aren't anything like the image in your mind. Why do you refuse to acknowledge your own ignorance?

Probably because I’m not ignorant on this issue. DC spends tons of $$$ to help the homeless. More than almost anywhere in the country.

Stop patting yourself on the back and take a look around, PP. it’s not my job to coddle your fragile ego here.

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I live in DC. And I'm not talking about just the homeless people who approach residents. You're seeing the tip of the iceberg and are completely oblivious to a large number of people that aren't anything like the image in your mind. Why do you refuse to acknowledge your own ignorance?

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 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?

In some kind of dwelling where they follow social norms and contribute to society.

What's the best way to get there? Kick them and trash their stuff? Or offer them a hand up?

But DC is already quite generous in offering them a hand up. Many just refuse those services because shelters for example come with rules like no drugs.

I don't mean this to be rude or mean, but that's a pretty superficial understanding of what is offered and what that means for someone.

But let's take that example anyway: why is it the right policy to say 'no drugs' as a condition for an addict? Do you think many addicts are going to say 'ok then no more drugs for me'? It's why 'housing first' approaches are so much more successful.

Now consider all the other barriers there are to DC's 'great services'. Do you have ID/documents? Many don't. How about the risk of COVID in a congregate setting? The risk of getting your things stolen?

If you actually spent time with people in that situation and really cared about them then you'd see we aren't providing such great services. Some things are good and getting better, but it's not enough.

So you'd like us to pay for regular housing, (not a shelter with conditions) next to families and neighbors'rs, so people can do drugs? Do you know any addicts and what they are like? Treatment first yes, housing first no.

I hope this isn't a surprise to you, but people in houses also do drugs. You just don't see it as much. Treatment first just doesn't work.

DP. If you live in your own home and pay your own bills, I don’t care much what you do. How is this difference maker not obvious?

Well, as a homeowner you are on the government dole, through tax breaks that aren't available to others. Maybe you should stop taking the mortgage interest deduction before your next hit.

Dear lord, some of you are stupid. I pay way more to this city than they spend on me. If people like my family and me leave, who do you think will be paying for all the crazy and/or addicted homeless people?

Oh, good. The people who believe paying more in taxes makes them morally superior and we can't live without them. You can go. We'll be fine without you.

Who do you think pays taxes these days? It’s not the uber-wealthy ruling class.

Believe it or not, most people don’t want to live in neighborhoods filled with public pissing and pooping where we can’t take our moms on a walk around the block without having to cross the street to avoid potentially violent, crazy-seeming homeless people.

PP here. Do you think all the tax dollars just magically appear (like all the homes for the homeless you want)?

I pay plenty in taxes. And I'm willing to pay more to treat people right.

It's not just about what I want to see on the street as a taxpayer. That doesn't give me more moral authority than someone who pays little to nothing on taxes.

That you caricature all homeless people as "potentially violent, crazy-seeming" says to me that you neither know nor care about these people. Until your willing to recognize their humanity I don't care about you or your tax dollars. We'll be ok without them.

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 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?

In some kind of dwelling where they follow social norms and contribute to society.

What's the best way to get there? Kick them and trash their stuff? Or offer them a hand up?

But DC is already quite generous in offering them a hand up. Many just refuse those services because shelters for example come with rules like no drugs.

I don't mean this to be rude or mean, but that's a pretty superficial understanding of what is offered and what that means for someone.

But let's take that example anyway: why is it the right policy to say 'no drugs' as a condition for an addict? Do you think many addicts are going to say 'ok then no more drugs for me'? It's why 'housing first' approaches are so much more successful.

Now consider all the other barriers there are to DC's 'great services'. Do you have ID/documents? Many don't. How about the risk of COVID in a congregate setting? The risk of getting your things stolen?

If you actually spent time with people in that situation and really cared about them then you'd see we aren't providing such great services. Some things are good and getting better, but it's not enough.

So you'd like us to pay for regular housing, (not a shelter with conditions) next to families and neighbors'rs, so people can do drugs? Do you know any addicts and what they are like? Treatment first yes, housing first no.

I hope this isn't a surprise to you, but people in houses also do drugs. You just don't see it as much. Treatment first just doesn't work.

DP. If you live in your own home and pay your own bills, I don’t care much what you do. How is this difference maker not obvious?

Well, as a homeowner you are on the government dole, through tax breaks that aren't available to others. Maybe you should stop taking the mortgage interest deduction before your next hit.

Dear lord, some of you are stupid. I pay way more to this city than they spend on me. If people like my family and me leave, who do you think will be paying for all the crazy and/or addicted homeless people?

Oh, good. The people who believe paying more in taxes makes them morally superior and we can't live without them. You can go. We'll be fine without you.

Who do you think pays taxes these days? It’s not the uber-wealthy ruling class.

Believe it or not, most people don’t want to live in neighborhoods filled with public pissing and pooping where we can’t take our moms on a walk around the block without having to cross the street to avoid potentially violent, crazy-seeming homeless people.

PP here. Do you think all the tax dollars just magically appear (like all the homes for the homeless you want)?

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 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?

In some kind of dwelling where they follow social norms and contribute to society.

What's the best way to get there? Kick them and trash their stuff? Or offer them a hand up?

But DC is already quite generous in offering them a hand up. Many just refuse those services because shelters for example come with rules like no drugs.

I don't mean this to be rude or mean, but that's a pretty superficial understanding of what is offered and what that means for someone.

But let's take that example anyway: why is it the right policy to say 'no drugs' as a condition for an addict? Do you think many addicts are going to say 'ok then no more drugs for me'? It's why 'housing first' approaches are so much more successful.

Now consider all the other barriers there are to DC's 'great services'. Do you have ID/documents? Many don't. How about the risk of COVID in a congregate setting? The risk of getting your things stolen?

If you actually spent time with people in that situation and really cared about them then you'd see we aren't providing such great services. Some things are good and getting better, but it's not enough.

So you'd like us to pay for regular housing, (not a shelter with conditions) next to families and neighbors'rs, so people can do drugs? Do you know any addicts and what they are like? Treatment first yes, housing first no.

I hope this isn't a surprise to you, but people in houses also do drugs. You just don't see it as much. Treatment first just doesn't work.

DP. If you live in your own home and pay your own bills, I don’t care much what you do. How is this difference maker not obvious?

Well, as a homeowner you are on the government dole, through tax breaks that aren't available to others. Maybe you should stop taking the mortgage interest deduction before your next hit.

Dear lord, some of you are stupid. I pay way more to this city than they spend on me. If people like my family and me leave, who do you think will be paying for all the crazy and/or addicted homeless people?

Oh, good. The people who believe paying more in taxes makes them morally superior and we can't live without them. You can go. We'll be fine without you.

Who do you think pays taxes these days? It’s not the uber-wealthy ruling class.

Believe it or not, most people don’t want to live in neighborhoods filled with public pissing and pooping where we can’t take our moms on a walk around the block without having to cross the street to avoid potentially violent, crazy-seeming homeless people.

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 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?

In some kind of dwelling where they follow social norms and contribute to society.

What's the best way to get there? Kick them and trash their stuff? Or offer them a hand up?

But DC is already quite generous in offering them a hand up. Many just refuse those services because shelters for example come with rules like no drugs.

I don't mean this to be rude or mean, but that's a pretty superficial understanding of what is offered and what that means for someone.

But let's take that example anyway: why is it the right policy to say 'no drugs' as a condition for an addict? Do you think many addicts are going to say 'ok then no more drugs for me'? It's why 'housing first' approaches are so much more successful.

Now consider all the other barriers there are to DC's 'great services'. Do you have ID/documents? Many don't. How about the risk of COVID in a congregate setting? The risk of getting your things stolen?

If you actually spent time with people in that situation and really cared about them then you'd see we aren't providing such great services. Some things are good and getting better, but it's not enough.

So you'd like us to pay for regular housing, (not a shelter with conditions) next to families and neighbors'rs, so people can do drugs? Do you know any addicts and what they are like? Treatment first yes, housing first no.

I hope this isn't a surprise to you, but people in houses also do drugs. You just don't see it as much. Treatment first just doesn't work.

DP. If you live in your own home and pay your own bills, I don’t care much what you do. How is this difference maker not obvious?

Well, as a homeowner you are on the government dole, through tax breaks that aren't available to others. Maybe you should stop taking the mortgage interest deduction before your next hit.

Dear lord, some of you are stupid. I pay way more to this city than they spend on me. If people like my family and me leave, who do you think will be paying for all the crazy and/or addicted homeless people?

Oh, good. The people who believe paying more in taxes makes them morally superior and we can't live without them. You can go. We'll be fine without you.

Anonymous wrote:

You are asking us to pay to house hard drug addicts in regular housing (because shelters won't do). You are not considering the nuisance they will bring to their new living situation, the friends they will bring round, or the disturbance, unkemptness or danger they may cause. I am fine with paying for a shelter, treatment facility or mental health facility. I have zero obligation to provide "housing first" for someone who doesn't like shelters because they have rules.

I agree with you. I think "Housing First" policies are naive and unrealistic precisely for those reasons, as well as the fact that in addition to drugs, mental illness is also extremely prevalent among the homeless---probably even more so than drugs, though often they go together. Several years there was an article regarding a recipient of a "housing first" apartment who decided it was a bright idea to dry his shoes by putting them in the oven . . . I believe though, that there needs to be more treatment programs available so that people in shelters can get the support they need to get off the drugs, get medication for their mental illness. This is tough work---every case is different and requires a lot of individualized case management. But just hand people "housing first" with little support?----they will just cycle back to the street.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

In some kind of dwelling where they follow social norms and contribute to society.

What's the best way to get there? Kick them and trash their stuff? Or offer them a hand up?

But DC is already quite generous in offering them a hand up. Many just refuse those services because shelters for example come with rules like no drugs.

I don't mean this to be rude or mean, but that's a pretty superficial understanding of what is offered and what that means for someone.

But let's take that example anyway: why is it the right policy to say 'no drugs' as a condition for an addict? Do you think many addicts are going to say 'ok then no more drugs for me'? It's why 'housing first' approaches are so much more successful.

Now consider all the other barriers there are to DC's 'great services'. Do you have ID/documents? Many don't. How about the risk of COVID in a congregate setting? The risk of getting your things stolen?

If you actually spent time with people in that situation and really cared about them then you'd see we aren't providing such great services. Some things are good and getting better, but it's not enough.

So you'd like us to pay for regular housing, (not a shelter with conditions) next to families and neighbors'rs, so people can do drugs? Do you know any addicts and what they are like? Treatment first yes, housing first no.

I hope this isn't a surprise to you, but people in houses also do drugs. You just don't see it as much. Treatment first just doesn't work.

DP. If you live in your own home and pay your own bills, I don’t care much what you do. How is this difference maker not obvious?

Well, as a homeowner you are on the government dole, through tax breaks that aren't available to others. Maybe you should stop taking the mortgage interest deduction before your next hit.

Dear lord, some of you are stupid. I pay way more to this city than they spend on me. If people like my family and me leave, who do you think will be paying for all the crazy and/or addicted homeless people?