Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's bad enough that tents are in all the public spaces downtown, but I was dismayed driving in this morning to see a tent in one of the little green public spaces off Mass Ave near the Cathedral.

I'm worried DC will into SF (and I mean the bad parts of SF). Why are city officials letting homeless people live in tents in all the public spaces? It's unsanitary and extremely unpleasant.

I'd bet my house you are a dem.

Safe bet. 100% safe.

Completely agree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would really prefer the people who attack me to own homes, or at least be renters. I would feel much less outrage.

Your facetiousness isn't bringing victims back to life. People point is that instead of advocating that the mentally ill be given tents, advocate for treatment and safe facilities.

Yeah, people who are a danger to themselves and others need help. No one is arguing with you there.

People who you just don't like to see on the streets should get housing, not crappy shelters and restrictions that prevent them from getting work. Or a tent if they need it to survive in the meantime.

Many of them have Ben offered housing and refused it because they don't want to give up using drugs.

Why require them to give up using drugs first? It's not an easy thing. We don't require homeowners to give up drugs before getting a mortgage interest deduction.

Tell you what, if you don't have a problem with people in active, rock-bottom addiction living somewhere, then you go ahead and rent out your apartment to them. See if they burn the place down or kill the kid down the hall by leaving the fentanyl out. I had enough watching fights, people nodding out, scoring, stealing, hustling, and defecating everywhere on 17th street to know I don't want those people in my apartment building until they are clean. If you are in such active addiction that you are now on the street, you are incapable of being okay just because you get housing. There need to be programs that house and treat people simultaneously. I suspect there are some, but these folks have to want to get clean and most simply do not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would really prefer the people who attack me to own homes, or at least be renters. I would feel much less outrage.

Your facetiousness isn't bringing victims back to life. People point is that instead of advocating that the mentally ill be given tents, advocate for treatment and safe facilities.

Yeah, people who are a danger to themselves and others need help. No one is arguing with you there.

People who you just don't like to see on the streets should get housing, not crappy shelters and restrictions that prevent them from getting work. Or a tent if they need it to survive in the meantime.

Yeah, it must have been awesome out there in this snow. You're a real helper.

Drugs don't take themselves and liquor certainly doesn't pour itself down your throat.

School? You never had time. The military? Discipline is for losers. Your family? Burned all of your bridges and now you end up living on the street and blaming society.

I certainly have empathy for individuals that have mental disorders but, then again, politicians are thrilled to see you sitting on the streets so they can pretend the rich somehow put you there when in fact it's the rich that least want you there to begin.


If you truly want to remain on the street because you won't stop taking drugs or drinking you should be involuntarily committed. If you're unable to make cogent decisions for yourself you should be committed.

Time for society to stop playing games with the lives of human beings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good.

+1

I want start seeing them popping up in Bethesda, Chevy Chase, North Arlington and McLean, too.

Let the people who created this problem see it everyday.

I’m not sure that’s who caused the opioid crisis, but sure. And yes, a lot of this is the Opioid crisis.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would really prefer the people who attack me to own homes, or at least be renters. I would feel much less outrage.

Your facetiousness isn't bringing victims back to life. People point is that instead of advocating that the mentally ill be given tents, advocate for treatment and safe facilities.

Yeah, people who are a danger to themselves and others need help. No one is arguing with you there.

People who you just don't like to see on the streets should get housing, not crappy shelters and restrictions that prevent them from getting work. Or a tent if they need it to survive in the meantime.

Many of them have Ben offered housing and refused it because they don't want to give up using drugs.

Why require them to give up using drugs first? It's not an easy thing. We don't require homeowners to give up drugs before getting a mortgage interest deduction.

Well, actually, drugs are illegal (with the recent exception of marijuana within tight parameters). So in order to function freely in society, "we" do require homeowners to "give up" drugs or better yet, never use them. But if you're talking about testing this by ordering mandatory drug testing for everyone filing a tax return and claiming a mortgage interest deduction, then I guess you're correct? This logic is so bonkers its hard to limit myself to just one of its flaws.

I guess mandatory drug testing for mortgage interest deduction could be the equivalent as mandatory drug testing for cash welfare recipients?

But comparing to shelters not allowing drug users to use drugs on premises or to receive services while high on drugs is total apples and oranges, particularly since shelters have a duty of care to their other non-drug using residents. As well as general legal liabilities, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would really prefer the people who attack me to own homes, or at least be renters. I would feel much less outrage.

Your facetiousness isn't bringing victims back to life. People point is that instead of advocating that the mentally ill be given tents, advocate for treatment and safe facilities.

Yeah, people who are a danger to themselves and others need help. No one is arguing with you there.

People who you just don't like to see on the streets should get housing, not crappy shelters and restrictions that prevent them from getting work. Or a tent if they need it to survive in the meantime.

Many of them have Ben offered housing and refused it because they don't want to give up using drugs.

Why require them to give up using drugs first? It's not an easy thing. We don't require homeowners to give up drugs before getting a mortgage interest deduction.

Well, actually, drugs are illegal (with the recent exception of marijuana within tight parameters). So in order to function freely in society, "we" do require homeowners to "give up" drugs or better yet, never use them. But if you're talking about testing this by ordering mandatory drug testing for everyone filing a tax return and claiming a mortgage interest deduction, then I guess you're correct? This logic is so bonkers its hard to limit myself to just one of its flaws.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would really prefer the people who attack me to own homes, or at least be renters. I would feel much less outrage.

Your facetiousness isn't bringing victims back to life. People point is that instead of advocating that the mentally ill be given tents, advocate for treatment and safe facilities.

Yeah, people who are a danger to themselves and others need help. No one is arguing with you there.

People who you just don't like to see on the streets should get housing, not crappy shelters and restrictions that prevent them from getting work. Or a tent if they need it to survive in the meantime.

Many of them have Ben offered housing and refused it because they don't want to give up using drugs.

Why require them to give up using drugs first? It's not an easy thing. We don't require homeowners to give up drugs before getting a mortgage interest deduction.

Comparing someone with a mortgage to someone who is homeless is ridiculous in terms of restrictions. If they can get a mortgage then they are welcome to continue doing drugs. But if they want to rely on government assistance for housing and pay nothing, there are some restrictions.

Life involves working within restrictions. We all do it. I think it is reasonable for our society to provide for their most basic biological needs (food and basic shelter), but no, they don't get additional consideration if they decline what is offered, and they don't get to make public spaces unusable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would really prefer the people who attack me to own homes, or at least be renters. I would feel much less outrage.

Your facetiousness isn't bringing victims back to life. People point is that instead of advocating that the mentally ill be given tents, advocate for treatment and safe facilities.

Yeah, people who are a danger to themselves and others need help. No one is arguing with you there.

People who you just don't like to see on the streets should get housing, not crappy shelters and restrictions that prevent them from getting work. Or a tent if they need it to survive in the meantime.

Many of them have Ben offered housing and refused it because they don't want to give up using drugs.

Why require them to give up using drugs first? It's not an easy thing. We don't require homeowners to give up drugs before getting a mortgage interest deduction.

Comparing someone with a mortgage to someone who is homeless is ridiculous in terms of restrictions. If they can get a mortgage then they are welcome to continue doing drugs. But if they want to rely on government assistance for housing and pay nothing, there are some restrictions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would really prefer the people who attack me to own homes, or at least be renters. I would feel much less outrage.

Your facetiousness isn't bringing victims back to life. People point is that instead of advocating that the mentally ill be given tents, advocate for treatment and safe facilities.

Yeah, people who are a danger to themselves and others need help. No one is arguing with you there.

People who you just don't like to see on the streets should get housing, not crappy shelters and restrictions that prevent them from getting work. Or a tent if they need it to survive in the meantime.

Many of them have Ben offered housing and refused it because they don't want to give up using drugs.

Why require them to give up using drugs first? It's not an easy thing. We don't require homeowners to give up drugs before getting a mortgage interest deduction.

So you should let them use drugs in the shelter? If someone in a shelter died of an overdose it could be negligent homicide.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would really prefer the people who attack me to own homes, or at least be renters. I would feel much less outrage.

Your facetiousness isn't bringing victims back to life. People point is that instead of advocating that the mentally ill be given tents, advocate for treatment and safe facilities.

Yeah, people who are a danger to themselves and others need help. No one is arguing with you there.

People who you just don't like to see on the streets should get housing, not crappy shelters and restrictions that prevent them from getting work. Or a tent if they need it to survive in the meantime.

What are the “restrictions” that would prevent someone from getting to work? The main reason they don’t go to shelters is because there are restrictions on drugs and other anti-social behaviors.

We are literally back to the saying, “beggars cannot be choosers”. Don’t have a home, you need to accept what is given to you or be provided free transportation to somewhere else that you can try your luck.

Timing restrictions are a big one. You don't get to come and go as you please. That can be especially hard for people working a shift who may have unpredictable hours. For example, if the manager says you need to work overtime or lose your job but you need to be at the shelter by 7pm....

It's a system that is designed to keep people down.

If 5% of the homeless tent population has regular “shifts” I would be shocked. From what I have observed the tent people are mostly hard core drug users or mentally ill.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would really prefer the people who attack me to own homes, or at least be renters. I would feel much less outrage.

Your facetiousness isn't bringing victims back to life. People point is that instead of advocating that the mentally ill be given tents, advocate for treatment and safe facilities.

Yeah, people who are a danger to themselves and others need help. No one is arguing with you there.

People who you just don't like to see on the streets should get housing, not crappy shelters and restrictions that prevent them from getting work. Or a tent if they need it to survive in the meantime.

What are the “restrictions” that would prevent someone from getting to work? The main reason they don’t go to shelters is because there are restrictions on drugs and other anti-social behaviors.

We are literally back to the saying, “beggars cannot be choosers”. Don’t have a home, you need to accept what is given to you or be provided free transportation to somewhere else that you can try your luck.

Timing restrictions are a big one. You don't get to come and go as you please. That can be especially hard for people working a shift who may have unpredictable hours. For example, if the manager says you need to work overtime or lose your job but you need to be at the shelter by 7pm....

It's a system that is designed to keep people down.

“You don’t get to come and go as you please” Say what now?

Honestly, I give up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would really prefer the people who attack me to own homes, or at least be renters. I would feel much less outrage.

Your facetiousness isn't bringing victims back to life. People point is that instead of advocating that the mentally ill be given tents, advocate for treatment and safe facilities.

Yeah, people who are a danger to themselves and others need help. No one is arguing with you there.

People who you just don't like to see on the streets should get housing, not crappy shelters and restrictions that prevent them from getting work. Or a tent if they need it to survive in the meantime.

Many of them have Ben offered housing and refused it because they don't want to give up using drugs.

Why require them to give up using drugs first? It's not an easy thing. We don't require homeowners to give up drugs before getting a mortgage interest deduction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would really prefer the people who attack me to own homes, or at least be renters. I would feel much less outrage.

Your facetiousness isn't bringing victims back to life. People point is that instead of advocating that the mentally ill be given tents, advocate for treatment and safe facilities.

Yeah, people who are a danger to themselves and others need help. No one is arguing with you there.

People who you just don't like to see on the streets should get housing, not crappy shelters and restrictions that prevent them from getting work. Or a tent if they need it to survive in the meantime.

What are the “restrictions” that would prevent someone from getting to work? The main reason they don’t go to shelters is because there are restrictions on drugs and other anti-social behaviors.

We are literally back to the saying, “beggars cannot be choosers”. Don’t have a home, you need to accept what is given to you or be provided free transportation to somewhere else that you can try your luck.

Timing restrictions are a big one. You don't get to come and go as you please. That can be especially hard for people working a shift who may have unpredictable hours. For example, if the manager says you need to work overtime or lose your job but you need to be at the shelter by 7pm....

It's a system that is designed to keep people down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would really prefer the people who attack me to own homes, or at least be renters. I would feel much less outrage.

Your facetiousness isn't bringing victims back to life. People point is that instead of advocating that the mentally ill be given tents, advocate for treatment and safe facilities.

Yeah, people who are a danger to themselves and others need help. No one is arguing with you there.

People who you just don't like to see on the streets should get housing, not crappy shelters and restrictions that prevent them from getting work. Or a tent if they need it to survive in the meantime.

What are the “restrictions” that would prevent someone from getting to work? The main reason they don’t go to shelters is because there are restrictions on drugs and other anti-social behaviors.

We are literally back to the saying, “beggars cannot be choosers”. Don’t have a home, you need to accept what is given to you or be provided free transportation to somewhere else that you can try your luck.