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?

It’s definitely complicated but in this country most people who are homeless are choosing to be (to avoid restrictions placed in them by shelters.)

Absolutely untrue. A passing glance at housing costs in this area should disabuse you of this notion.

The people in question in the article weren't pushed out of housing because it got expensive. They are addicts. They deserve our sympathy and help, but pretending they made no choices to put themselves on the street is disingenuous at best.

Odd, then, that rich addicts, who made the same "choice," are not living on the street. What could the difference be?

Anonymous wrote:I read an interesting article about housing. They made the point that our housing needs have not changed in the last 100 years. The difference is that we used to have boarding houses, etc. Now, zoning discourages that type of housing. Some people don't want a whole apartment. They just want a safe room. We have limited our options by saying you live in either a shelter or an apartment or house. People need more options than that.

ooops you’re going to trigger the insane anti-SRO guy!

I think housing costs are part of the story. As is transit, access to drug treatment. And also community and dignity. An SRO-type solution could provide some of that.

I read an interesting article about housing. They made the point that our housing needs have not changed in the last 100 years. The difference is that we used to have boarding houses, etc. Now, zoning discourages that type of housing. Some people don't want a whole apartment. They just want a safe room. We have limited our options by saying you live in either a shelter or an apartment or house. People need more options than that.

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?

It’s definitely complicated but in this country most people who are homeless are choosing to be (to avoid restrictions placed in them by shelters.)

Absolutely untrue. A passing glance at housing costs in this area should disabuse you of this notion.

The people in question in the article weren't pushed out of housing because it got expensive. They are addicts. They deserve our sympathy and help, but pretending they made no choices to put themselves on the street is disingenuous at best.

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?

Not on the sidewalk outside of my house!

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?

It’s definitely complicated but in this country most people who are homeless are choosing to be (to avoid restrictions placed in them by shelters.)

Absolutely untrue. A passing glance at housing costs in this area should disabuse you of this notion.

Quality of living has gone down near 17th street significantly in the past few years. I've lived near there since 2005.

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?

I think people should live in their own homes. If they are unable to unwilling to find housing for themselves, they should live in a mental health care facility if mentally ill, drug treatment facility if addicted, homeless shelter if down on their luck, or jail if behaving criminally, depending on the circumstances.

This. I have no idea why this is so controversial. People who can't take care of themselves cannot live on the street. Period. At least in an institution, they'd get a private bed and three square meals a day.

The institutions have been closed for decades now. There is no way to house all of the destitute people who are mentally ill, the beds simply don't exist

Can we not build new institutions? Bizarre helplessness in this country towards treating the mentally ill.

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?

I think people should live in their own homes. If they are unable to unwilling to find housing for themselves, they should live in a mental health care facility if mentally ill, drug treatment facility if addicted, homeless shelter if down on their luck, or jail if behaving criminally, depending on the circumstances.

This. I have no idea why this is so controversial. People who can't take care of themselves cannot live on the street. Period. At least in an institution, they'd get a private bed and three square meals a day.

The institutions have been closed for decades now. There is no way to house all of the destitute people who are mentally ill, the beds simply don't exist

Then it is more than past time to re open them. I for one am sick of this s t. Any compassion I had is long gone, especially after my ankle was grabbed by one of these sidewalk dwellers as I walked by on my way to the job that pays taxes that supposedly provides services to people in need.

Anonymous wrote:In so many ways, DC still resembles a Third World city, with its weird wealthy residents and unhoused.

Lol, how many cities in the world have you been to?

In so many ways, DC still resembles a Third World city, with its weird wealthy residents and unhoused.

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?

DP. I don't know where they should live - I don't think anyone has a clear answer to that. I would like to see more access to housing, sure. And I don't think they should be forced into shelters. But the fact that we don't have a clear answer on where they SHOULD live does not mean that the community has no say in where they DO live. Homeless people need to follow basic community rules just like everyone else. They don't get to monopolize public space in a city, create nuisances, or conceal crime behind a facade of homelessness.

I don’t think these people are faking homelessness

Some of them absolutely are, to use the tent encampments for crime.

Anonymous wrote:Just FYI, one of the long-time unhoused people who lived on the streets near Safeway died of an overdose during the daytime in late 2019. My child and I watched her body being taken away in an ambulance after school let out. Alice's death was tragic. I have conversations with my child about drugs, unhoused people, and hard facts of life, but this community can't become skid row. We have the means to help these people. I understand they can't be involuntarily committed, but tolerating their encampment isn't the answer. Pushing for real help is.

Similar experience. I also witnessed, with my child, an OD death connected to a "homeless" encampment that was actually a pop-up drug market. I don't know if the person who died was homeless, but they had almost certainly gotten their fatal dose from that tent. The people who "lived" in the tent turned down all offers of assistance and would come right back after the tent was cleared by DC and just set up camp again. Anyone with a little common sense just had to observe that encampment for a second to realize that it was not innocent down-on-their-luck people, but nevertheless, there were plenty of people saying "don't harass our unhoused neighbors!" The fact is - these newer encampments are almost inevitably connected to drug use and drug dealing, and plenty of other worse crime (I witnessed prostitution of a mentally disabled woman in that tent). Older encampments downtown (like Franklin Park) I think were more legitimately people who could not cope elsewhere. But the tent cities are basically open-air drug markets.

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?

DP. I don't know where they should live - I don't think anyone has a clear answer to that. I would like to see more access to housing, sure. And I don't think they should be forced into shelters. But the fact that we don't have a clear answer on where they SHOULD live does not mean that the community has no say in where they DO live. Homeless people need to follow basic community rules just like everyone else. They don't get to monopolize public space in a city, create nuisances, or conceal crime behind a facade of homelessness.

I don’t think these people are faking homelessness

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?

I think people should live in their own homes. If they are unable to unwilling to find housing for themselves, they should live in a mental health care facility if mentally ill, drug treatment facility if addicted, homeless shelter if down on their luck, or jail if behaving criminally, depending on the circumstances.

This. I have no idea why this is so controversial. People who can't take care of themselves cannot live on the street. Period. At least in an institution, they'd get a private bed and three square meals a day.

The institutions have been closed for decades now. There is no way to house all of the destitute people who are mentally ill, the beds simply don't exist