Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of these "homeless" people are so mentally ill that they are truly unable to adequately care for themselves. In the not-so-distant past, society had a means of taking care of these people: mental institutions where these mentally ill people got food, medical care, and proper housing. Then all of a sudden, the liberals shut down these government-run institutions, and put these crazy people out on the streets....where they do drugs, create filthy "encampments", defecate on the sidewalks, and freeze to death in the winter.

So let's re-open (or build new) mental hospitals where these sad unfortunate people can be taken care of....whether they like it or not.

It's for their own good. And for ours too.

There's an excellent video on the subject. It's an hour long, and it's called "Seattle Is Dying". It's on YouTube.

This is ignorance or revisionist history. Reagan opened the mental institutions. https://sites.psu.edu/psy533wheeler/2017/02/08/u01-ronald-reagan-and-the-federal-deinstitutionalization-of-mentally-ill-patients/comment-page-1/

Yep. The Post has been running terrible articles on how orphanages were shut down but there are not enough host families so foster kids are being sent off to live in reform schools. Its analogous. I guess we call this "progress"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Survival of the fittest. I don't want a bunch of raccoons taking up residence in my backyard and I don't want a bunch of homeless people there either

You are an ugly person. I would not want you living -- in a house -- anywhere near me. Gross. Society needs less people like you in it.

Don't worry about that, you can't afford to live in my neighborhood so the possibility of us crossing paths is zero

Uglier by the post.

I'm just someone who doesn't even enjoy driving into DC anymore because of all the homeless and drug users who have taken up residence in the "hip" areas. Even the valets have become sketchier. It's incumbent upon the useless DC politicians to clean up the city. Instead it's going down the tubes! I didn't move to the region to NOT enjoy nights out in the city.

Said like the true privileged gentrifier that you are. Those "hip" areas were there long before you considered the urban aesthetic to be chic - and some of those homeless were priced out of where they once lived.

I'm not one to say that what happened wasn't valid - the underpass go to the point where people were forced to walk in the street and those with strollers and wheelchairs couldn't even pass without daring traffic. That said - you're part of the problem. You want to come in and transform an area so that you can have your $22 cocktails and latest tapas craze but don't care about the displaced. Truly sickening - your attitude needs to stay in your homogenized neighborhood and no one wants your ass in our city.

Errr.. so which is it? It sounds like the underpass was a huge problem. Not sure what cocktails have to do with that. That's pure emotion. The problem is day shelters kick people out during the day and dont let people store stuff, so they prefer to "camp out" with their objects. Is there a solution for that (that may address concerns about fleas etc)?

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of these "homeless" people are so mentally ill that they are truly unable to adequately care for themselves. In the not-so-distant past, society had a means of taking care of these people: mental institutions where these mentally ill people got food, medical care, and proper housing. Then all of a sudden, the liberals shut down these government-run institutions, and put these crazy people out on the streets....where they do drugs, create filthy "encampments", defecate on the sidewalks, and freeze to death in the winter.

So let's re-open (or build new) mental hospitals where these sad unfortunate people can be taken care of....whether they like it or not.

It's for their own good. And for ours too.

There's an excellent video on the subject. It's an hour long, and it's called "Seattle Is Dying". It's on YouTube.

No dummy. It was your prince Ronald Reagan who shut down all of the mental health institutions which lead to these people having nowhere to go.

Perhaps you are young and have not lived through this time or you are just old and dim?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_Health_Systems_Act_of_1980

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of these "homeless" people are so mentally ill that they are truly unable to adequately care for themselves. In the not-so-distant past, society had a means of taking care of these people: mental institutions where these mentally ill people got food, medical care, and proper housing. Then all of a sudden, the liberals shut down these government-run institutions, and put these crazy people out on the streets....where they do drugs, create filthy "encampments", defecate on the sidewalks, and freeze to death in the winter.

So let's re-open (or build new) mental hospitals where these sad unfortunate people can be taken care of....whether they like it or not.

It's for their own good. And for ours too.

There's an excellent video on the subject. It's an hour long, and it's called "Seattle Is Dying". It's on YouTube.

This is ignorance or revisionist history. Reagan opened the mental institutions. https://sites.psu.edu/psy533wheeler/2017/02/08/u01-ronald-reagan-and-the-federal-deinstitutionalization-of-mentally-ill-patients/comment-page-1/

Anonymous wrote:Can we just build mansions for the homeless? Every homeless person deserves a mansion near the White House. They have such a hard life. Let's tax Bezos and all the corporations that are racist and mean. My heart hurts for these poor people. They need mansions.

How will they get around? BMW or Mercedes?

Can we just build mansions for the homeless? Every homeless person deserves a mansion near the White House. They have such a hard life. Let's tax Bezos and all the corporations that are racist and mean. My heart hurts for these poor people. They need mansions.

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of these "homeless" people are so mentally ill that they are truly unable to adequately care for themselves. In the not-so-distant past, society had a means of taking care of these people: mental institutions where these mentally ill people got food, medical care, and proper housing. Then all of a sudden, the liberals shut down these government-run institutions, and put these crazy people out on the streets....where they do drugs, create filthy "encampments", defecate on the sidewalks, and freeze to death in the winter.

So let's re-open (or build new) mental hospitals where these sad unfortunate people can be taken care of....whether they like it or not.

It's for their own good. And for ours too.

There's an excellent video on the subject. It's an hour long, and it's called "Seattle Is Dying". It's on YouTube.

I think you are correct, but I don’t see it happening.

I am a lifelong progressive. I think we need to build camps for homeless. We should increase property taxes to make sure they are taken care of.

The vast majority of these "homeless" people are so mentally ill that they are truly unable to adequately care for themselves. In the not-so-distant past, society had a means of taking care of these people: mental institutions where these mentally ill people got food, medical care, and proper housing. Then all of a sudden, the liberals shut down these government-run institutions, and put these crazy people out on the streets....where they do drugs, create filthy "encampments", defecate on the sidewalks, and freeze to death in the winter.

So let's re-open (or build new) mental hospitals where these sad unfortunate people can be taken care of....whether they like it or not.

It's for their own good. And for ours too.

There's an excellent video on the subject. It's an hour long, and it's called "Seattle Is Dying". It's on YouTube.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't live in the area, huh, OP?

You're a really insensitive person. I lived in the District for 10 years before moving to the suburbs. It's very sad to see people get displaced without a good alternative.

Did you even read the article you quoted, you nitwit?

Of course I did. Where does it say anything that conflicts with what I wrote? There is NO good alternative. The shelters they cited are often not safe.

Exactly - shelters are where unaccompanied women are often sexually assaulted, and both men and women are subject to bed bugs and constant theft to where they can't even sleep for fear of losing the little belongings they have.

Oftentimes, they show up to a shelter at 6am waiting for 5pm because if they are full, they are turned away. Do you think if the majority of homeless people actually had a safe warm place to stay that they would choose to? There are only a minority that due to drugs and mental illness choose to not have a home. You're a moron.

So your solution is to . . . what? Let them stay under the overpass?

No. My solution would be to actually put things in place that make sense for the homeless - 360 services to include mental health support and providing a safe haven support home. But you'll drone on about costs but never stop to consider how much it costs to arrest homeless, enforcement no tenting, clean up crews, etc. - but never actually concede that people CHOOSE what the government (city/state/federal) are supporting. All that lotto money? Could go to homeless services. Those parking fees? Could go to homeless services. Those property taxes? Could go to homeless services. This country picks and chooses what to do with incoming funds - just like you do at your own house - and MY solution would be to choose differently.

The federal government via the DEA take MILLIONS of dollars through forfeiture laws - many unjustified and pour that money back into their own coffers - or other law enforcement organizations. How much you wanna bet that if that money was tagged for homeless that the forfeitures would go down??!

There are viable solutions - we just simply choose to turn our heads and hope that homeless people and the mentally ill die or disappear.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Survival of the fittest. I don't want a bunch of raccoons taking up residence in my backyard and I don't want a bunch of homeless people there either

You are an ugly person. I would not want you living -- in a house -- anywhere near me. Gross. Society needs less people like you in it.

Don't worry about that, you can't afford to live in my neighborhood so the possibility of us crossing paths is zero

Uglier by the post.

I'm just someone who doesn't even enjoy driving into DC anymore because of all the homeless and drug users who have taken up residence in the "hip" areas. Even the valets have become sketchier. It's incumbent upon the useless DC politicians to clean up the city. Instead it's going down the tubes! I didn't move to the region to NOT enjoy nights out in the city.

Why are you so worried about these people but are totally okay voting Democrat to have illegals move in the area.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't live in the area, huh, OP?

You're a really insensitive person. I lived in the District for 10 years before moving to the suburbs. It's very sad to see people get displaced without a good alternative.

Did you even read the article you quoted, you nitwit?

Of course I did. Where does it say anything that conflicts with what I wrote? There is NO good alternative. The shelters they cited are often not safe.

Exactly - shelters are where unaccompanied women are often sexually assaulted, and both men and women are subject to bed bugs and constant theft to where they can't even sleep for fear of losing the little belongings they have.

Oftentimes, they show up to a shelter at 6am waiting for 5pm because if they are full, they are turned away. Do you think if the majority of homeless people actually had a safe warm place to stay that they would choose to? There are only a minority that due to drugs and mental illness choose to not have a home. You're a moron.

So your solution is to . . . what? Let them stay under the overpass?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't live in the area, huh, OP?

You're a really insensitive person. I lived in the District for 10 years before moving to the suburbs. It's very sad to see people get displaced without a good alternative.

Did you even read the article you quoted, you nitwit?

Of course I did. Where does it say anything that conflicts with what I wrote? There is NO good alternative. The shelters they cited are often not safe.

Oh, please. So the city provides shelter beds, but since people don't want to take advantage of them, they should be permitted to live semi-permanently under an overpass, creating a health hazard harassing other citizens, and generally degrading the quality of life in the entire area? Sorry, it doesn't work like that. The city has tried repeatedly to help the homeless in the encampment; at some point, they have to take advantage of the services.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't live in the area, huh, OP?

You're a really insensitive person. I lived in the District for 10 years before moving to the suburbs. It's very sad to see people get displaced without a good alternative.

Did you even read the article you quoted, you nitwit?

Of course I did. Where does it say anything that conflicts with what I wrote? There is NO good alternative. The shelters they cited are often not safe.

Exactly - shelters are where unaccompanied women are often sexually assaulted, and both men and women are subject to bed bugs and constant theft to where they can't even sleep for fear of losing the little belongings they have.

Oftentimes, they show up to a shelter at 6am waiting for 5pm because if they are full, they are turned away. Do you think if the majority of homeless people actually had a safe warm place to stay that they would choose to? There are only a minority that due to drugs and mental illness choose to not have a home. You're a moron.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't live in the area, huh, OP?

You're a really insensitive person. I lived in the District for 10 years before moving to the suburbs. It's very sad to see people get displaced without a good alternative.

Did you even read the article you quoted, you nitwit?

Of course I did. Where does it say anything that conflicts with what I wrote? There is NO good alternative. The shelters they cited are often not safe.