Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i'm hearing a lot of voices on social media that don't seem to understand that these people ARE offered shelter and/or housing and solutions but they reject them in favor of not living under restrictions. In particular, the people who were living on 17th St in Dupont were active drug users who were not ready to get clean. I don't know what kind of treatment options DC has to offer, but EVERYONE was trying to get them housed and they preferred setting up their camp and getting vemo'ed money from passersby and crapping in the alley by the elementary school. People in DC DO NOT have to be on the streets and everyone is acting like these are healthy people who couldn't make rent and now they are destroying their tents. That is not the correct narrative. The tents I've witnessed are a public health threat.

Sounds like you’re not cut out for true city living, then. Still plenty of clean and tidy Mayberrys out there to choose from.

NP here. Actually, it sounds like your idea of "true city living" is stuck in the 1950-1995 period of decline and disinvestment that we have been working to recover from for the last quarter century. Cities are meant to be glorious. They don't have to suck and they don't suck by definition, only by default when dysfunction drives people who have options away. Why on earth do you support this return to the bad old days?

Read your history. Cities have always been dirty and overcrowded.

Crowded, yes. That's only a problem when services are inadequate and people are allowed to be selfish.They're only dirty when civil society breaks down and the populace tolerates people who create filth and an ineffective system for removing filth.

The problem here is not that there are a lot of people, but that DC tolerates (sometimes celebrates) antisocial behavior and is insufficiently prepared to keep things clean. It doesn't have to be that way. Cities can also be palaces of culture and education with grand architecture and vibrant businesses.

I am trying to think of an example of a city that fits your utopian ideal and am really having a hard time thinking of one.

+1 -- That's because this "utopian ideal" only exists within the confines of the PP's mind. He/she/they are clueless.

Nobody is asking for utopia, and you are setting up a straw man. All people want is the DC of 10 years ago, when homicides were less than half, car thefts were low, you could walk around "hip" areas without worrying about violent crime or being mugged. That's not utopia, it's just a decent city that is arresting bad people and maintaining police presence where needed, and, oh yeah, PROSECUTING and following through on arrests. I guess a lot of city dwellers want to watch their city burn. I don't care I live in McLean but have fun with all that!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Homeless tents have become an issue because of Bowser. Literally on her watch.

I don’t like Bowser but I don’t think she’s responsible for the drug epidemics and the closure of asylums in the 80s. This is a federal problem that cities are bearing the brunt of. The best thing to do is spend money on long term treatment and involuntary commitment. Preferably federal money. But in the short term I don’t want tent cities on my city streets.

It is pretty amusing to me that people are still bringing up the "closure of asylums in the 80s" as if there hadn't been decades of between then and now. The homeless encampments weren't nearly as bad even 5 years ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Homeless tents have become an issue because of Bowser. Literally on her watch.

I don’t like Bowser but I don’t think she’s responsible for the drug epidemics and the closure of asylums in the 80s. This is a federal problem that cities are bearing the brunt of. The best thing to do is spend money on long term treatment and involuntary commitment. Preferably federal money. But in the short term I don’t want tent cities on my city streets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i'm hearing a lot of voices on social media that don't seem to understand that these people ARE offered shelter and/or housing and solutions but they reject them in favor of not living under restrictions. In particular, the people who were living on 17th St in Dupont were active drug users who were not ready to get clean. I don't know what kind of treatment options DC has to offer, but EVERYONE was trying to get them housed and they preferred setting up their camp and getting vemo'ed money from passersby and crapping in the alley by the elementary school. People in DC DO NOT have to be on the streets and everyone is acting like these are healthy people who couldn't make rent and now they are destroying their tents. That is not the correct narrative. The tents I've witnessed are a public health threat.

Sounds like you’re not cut out for true city living, then. Still plenty of clean and tidy Mayberrys out there to choose from.

NP here. Actually, it sounds like your idea of "true city living" is stuck in the 1950-1995 period of decline and disinvestment that we have been working to recover from for the last quarter century. Cities are meant to be glorious. They don't have to suck and they don't suck by definition, only by default when dysfunction drives people who have options away. Why on earth do you support this return to the bad old days?

Read your history. Cities have always been dirty and overcrowded.

Crowded, yes. That's only a problem when services are inadequate and people are allowed to be selfish.They're only dirty when civil society breaks down and the populace tolerates people who create filth and an ineffective system for removing filth.

The problem here is not that there are a lot of people, but that DC tolerates (sometimes celebrates) antisocial behavior and is insufficiently prepared to keep things clean. It doesn't have to be that way. Cities can also be palaces of culture and education with grand architecture and vibrant businesses.

I am trying to think of an example of a city that fits your utopian ideal and am really having a hard time thinking of one.

+1 -- That's because this "utopian ideal" only exists within the confines of the PP's mind. He/she/they are clueless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i'm hearing a lot of voices on social media that don't seem to understand that these people ARE offered shelter and/or housing and solutions but they reject them in favor of not living under restrictions. In particular, the people who were living on 17th St in Dupont were active drug users who were not ready to get clean. I don't know what kind of treatment options DC has to offer, but EVERYONE was trying to get them housed and they preferred setting up their camp and getting vemo'ed money from passersby and crapping in the alley by the elementary school. People in DC DO NOT have to be on the streets and everyone is acting like these are healthy people who couldn't make rent and now they are destroying their tents. That is not the correct narrative. The tents I've witnessed are a public health threat.

Sounds like you’re not cut out for true city living, then. Still plenty of clean and tidy Mayberrys out there to choose from.

NP here. Actually, it sounds like your idea of "true city living" is stuck in the 1950-1995 period of decline and disinvestment that we have been working to recover from for the last quarter century. Cities are meant to be glorious. They don't have to suck and they don't suck by definition, only by default when dysfunction drives people who have options away. Why on earth do you support this return to the bad old days?

Read your history. Cities have always been dirty and overcrowded.

Crowded, yes. That's only a problem when services are inadequate and people are allowed to be selfish.They're only dirty when civil society breaks down and the populace tolerates people who create filth and an ineffective system for removing filth.

The problem here is not that there are a lot of people, but that DC tolerates (sometimes celebrates) antisocial behavior and is insufficiently prepared to keep things clean. It doesn't have to be that way. Cities can also be palaces of culture and education with grand architecture and vibrant businesses.

I am trying to think of an example of a city that fits your utopian ideal and am really having a hard time thinking of one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i'm hearing a lot of voices on social media that don't seem to understand that these people ARE offered shelter and/or housing and solutions but they reject them in favor of not living under restrictions. In particular, the people who were living on 17th St in Dupont were active drug users who were not ready to get clean. I don't know what kind of treatment options DC has to offer, but EVERYONE was trying to get them housed and they preferred setting up their camp and getting vemo'ed money from passersby and crapping in the alley by the elementary school. People in DC DO NOT have to be on the streets and everyone is acting like these are healthy people who couldn't make rent and now they are destroying their tents. That is not the correct narrative. The tents I've witnessed are a public health threat.

Sounds like you’re not cut out for true city living, then. Still plenty of clean and tidy Mayberrys out there to choose from.

NP here. Actually, it sounds like your idea of "true city living" is stuck in the 1950-1995 period of decline and disinvestment that we have been working to recover from for the last quarter century. Cities are meant to be glorious. They don't have to suck and they don't suck by definition, only by default when dysfunction drives people who have options away. Why on earth do you support this return to the bad old days?

Read your history. Cities have always been dirty and overcrowded.

Crowded, yes. That's only a problem when services are inadequate and people are allowed to be selfish.They're only dirty when civil society breaks down and the populace tolerates people who create filth and an ineffective system for removing filth.

The problem here is not that there are a lot of people, but that DC tolerates (sometimes celebrates) antisocial behavior and is insufficiently prepared to keep things clean. It doesn't have to be that way. Cities can also be palaces of culture and education with grand architecture and vibrant businesses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i'm hearing a lot of voices on social media that don't seem to understand that these people ARE offered shelter and/or housing and solutions but they reject them in favor of not living under restrictions. In particular, the people who were living on 17th St in Dupont were active drug users who were not ready to get clean. I don't know what kind of treatment options DC has to offer, but EVERYONE was trying to get them housed and they preferred setting up their camp and getting vemo'ed money from passersby and crapping in the alley by the elementary school. People in DC DO NOT have to be on the streets and everyone is acting like these are healthy people who couldn't make rent and now they are destroying their tents. That is not the correct narrative. The tents I've witnessed are a public health threat.

Sounds like you’re not cut out for true city living, then. Still plenty of clean and tidy Mayberrys out there to choose from.

NP here. Actually, it sounds like your idea of "true city living" is stuck in the 1950-1995 period of decline and disinvestment that we have been working to recover from for the last quarter century. Cities are meant to be glorious. They don't have to suck and they don't suck by definition, only by default when dysfunction drives people who have options away. Why on earth do you support this return to the bad old days?

Read your history. Cities have always been dirty and overcrowded.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i'm hearing a lot of voices on social media that don't seem to understand that these people ARE offered shelter and/or housing and solutions but they reject them in favor of not living under restrictions. In particular, the people who were living on 17th St in Dupont were active drug users who were not ready to get clean. I don't know what kind of treatment options DC has to offer, but EVERYONE was trying to get them housed and they preferred setting up their camp and getting vemo'ed money from passersby and crapping in the alley by the elementary school. People in DC DO NOT have to be on the streets and everyone is acting like these are healthy people who couldn't make rent and now they are destroying their tents. That is not the correct narrative. The tents I've witnessed are a public health threat.

Sounds like you’re not cut out for true city living, then. Still plenty of clean and tidy Mayberrys out there to choose from.

Gotta love these posts!

Don’t like having to step over a body to get to your front door? Maybe you’re not cut out for true city living.
Don’t like homeless people camping out and dealing drugs in front of your house? Maybe you’re not cut out for true city living.
Don’t like having your baby hit in the face with a brick by a deranged vagrant? Maybe you’re not cut out for true city living.

Most people who state this nonsense aren’t even long term property owners in the district. They are also very privileged. Poor people who do not have the resources to move don’t want to live in neighborhoods filled with criminal activity and tent encampments either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i'm hearing a lot of voices on social media that don't seem to understand that these people ARE offered shelter and/or housing and solutions but they reject them in favor of not living under restrictions. In particular, the people who were living on 17th St in Dupont were active drug users who were not ready to get clean. I don't know what kind of treatment options DC has to offer, but EVERYONE was trying to get them housed and they preferred setting up their camp and getting vemo'ed money from passersby and crapping in the alley by the elementary school. People in DC DO NOT have to be on the streets and everyone is acting like these are healthy people who couldn't make rent and now they are destroying their tents. That is not the correct narrative. The tents I've witnessed are a public health threat.

Sounds like you’re not cut out for true city living, then. Still plenty of clean and tidy Mayberrys out there to choose from.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i'm hearing a lot of voices on social media that don't seem to understand that these people ARE offered shelter and/or housing and solutions but they reject them in favor of not living under restrictions. In particular, the people who were living on 17th St in Dupont were active drug users who were not ready to get clean. I don't know what kind of treatment options DC has to offer, but EVERYONE was trying to get them housed and they preferred setting up their camp and getting vemo'ed money from passersby and crapping in the alley by the elementary school. People in DC DO NOT have to be on the streets and everyone is acting like these are healthy people who couldn't make rent and now they are destroying their tents. That is not the correct narrative. The tents I've witnessed are a public health threat.

Sounds like you’re not cut out for true city living, then. Still plenty of clean and tidy Mayberrys out there to choose from.

NP here. Actually, it sounds like your idea of "true city living" is stuck in the 1950-1995 period of decline and disinvestment that we have been working to recover from for the last quarter century. Cities are meant to be glorious. They don't have to suck and they don't suck by definition, only by default when dysfunction drives people who have options away. Why on earth do you support this return to the bad old days?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i'm hearing a lot of voices on social media that don't seem to understand that these people ARE offered shelter and/or housing and solutions but they reject them in favor of not living under restrictions. In particular, the people who were living on 17th St in Dupont were active drug users who were not ready to get clean. I don't know what kind of treatment options DC has to offer, but EVERYONE was trying to get them housed and they preferred setting up their camp and getting vemo'ed money from passersby and crapping in the alley by the elementary school. People in DC DO NOT have to be on the streets and everyone is acting like these are healthy people who couldn't make rent and now they are destroying their tents. That is not the correct narrative. The tents I've witnessed are a public health threat.

Sounds like you’re not cut out for true city living, then. Still plenty of clean and tidy Mayberrys out there to choose from.

Anonymous wrote:i'm hearing a lot of voices on social media that don't seem to understand that these people ARE offered shelter and/or housing and solutions but they reject them in favor of not living under restrictions. In particular, the people who were living on 17th St in Dupont were active drug users who were not ready to get clean. I don't know what kind of treatment options DC has to offer, but EVERYONE was trying to get them housed and they preferred setting up their camp and getting vemo'ed money from passersby and crapping in the alley by the elementary school. People in DC DO NOT have to be on the streets and everyone is acting like these are healthy people who couldn't make rent and now they are destroying their tents. That is not the correct narrative. The tents I've witnessed are a public health threat.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i'm hearing a lot of voices on social media that don't seem to understand that these people ARE offered shelter and/or housing and solutions but they reject them in favor of not living under restrictions. In particular, the people who were living on 17th St in Dupont were active drug users who were not ready to get clean. I don't know what kind of treatment options DC has to offer, but EVERYONE was trying to get them housed and they preferred setting up their camp and getting vemo'ed money from passersby and crapping in the alley by the elementary school. People in DC DO NOT have to be on the streets and everyone is acting like these are healthy people who couldn't make rent and now they are destroying their tents. That is not the correct narrative. The tents I've witnessed are a public health threat.

yes, yes, yes

Anonymous wrote:i'm hearing a lot of voices on social media that don't seem to understand that these people ARE offered shelter and/or housing and solutions but they reject them in favor of not living under restrictions. In particular, the people who were living on 17th St in Dupont were active drug users who were not ready to get clean. I don't know what kind of treatment options DC has to offer, but EVERYONE was trying to get them housed and they preferred setting up their camp and getting vemo'ed money from passersby and crapping in the alley by the elementary school. People in DC DO NOT have to be on the streets and everyone is acting like these are healthy people who couldn't make rent and now they are destroying their tents. That is not the correct narrative. The tents I've witnessed are a public health threat.