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.

Imagine being so much of a self-centered jerk that you're more concerned with neighborhood aesthetics rather than worried about the severe housing crisis people are clearly undergoing.

The only thing that is unpleasant is you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if said person who is homeless or addicted to drugs did contribute to taxes for a large part of their life? What if they are a veteran who contributed a lot more than your few dollars?

If they are a veteran they often qualify for quite a few benefits related to their service, and any "homeless agency" that works with them that is worth their salt will seek that on their behalf. Leaving them in the street or untreated for addiction or mental illness doesn't show respect for their service.

Ideally, yes. But the VA can be a complicated bureaucracy.

Who is suggesting leaving them in the street?

It’s not just the VA. Arlington County has a no homeless veteran policy. Lots of avenues of support for veterans in the area.

Have you talked to homeless veterans about why they haven't accessed those services?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if said person who is homeless or addicted to drugs did contribute to taxes for a large part of their life? What if they are a veteran who contributed a lot more than your few dollars?

If they are a veteran they often qualify for quite a few benefits related to their service, and any "homeless agency" that works with them that is worth their salt will seek that on their behalf. Leaving them in the street or untreated for addiction or mental illness doesn't show respect for their service.

Ideally, yes. But the VA can be a complicated bureaucracy.

Who is suggesting leaving them in the street?

It’s not just the VA. Arlington County has a no homeless veteran policy. Lots of avenues of support for veterans in the area.

Have you talked to homeless veterans about why they haven't accessed those services?

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.

Imagine being so much of a self-centered jerk that you're more concerned with neighborhood aesthetics rather than worried about the severe housing crisis people are clearly undergoing.

The only thing that is unpleasant is you.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if said person who is homeless or addicted to drugs did contribute to taxes for a large part of their life? What if they are a veteran who contributed a lot more than your few dollars?

If they are a veteran they often qualify for quite a few benefits related to their service, and any "homeless agency" that works with them that is worth their salt will seek that on their behalf. Leaving them in the street or untreated for addiction or mental illness doesn't show respect for their service.

Ideally, yes. But the VA can be a complicated bureaucracy.

Who is suggesting leaving them in the street?

It’s not just the VA. Arlington County has a no homeless veteran policy. Lots of avenues of support for veterans in the area.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if said person who is homeless or addicted to drugs did contribute to taxes for a large part of their life? What if they are a veteran who contributed a lot more than your few dollars?

If they are a veteran they often qualify for quite a few benefits related to their service, and any "homeless agency" that works with them that is worth their salt will seek that on their behalf. Leaving them in the street or untreated for addiction or mental illness doesn't show respect for their service.

Ideally, yes. But the VA can be a complicated bureaucracy.

Who is suggesting leaving them in the street?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if said person who is homeless or addicted to drugs did contribute to taxes for a large part of their life? What if they are a veteran who contributed a lot more than your few dollars?

If they are a veteran they often qualify for quite a few benefits related to their service, and any "homeless agency" that works with them that is worth their salt will seek that on their behalf. Leaving them in the street or untreated for addiction or mental illness doesn't show respect for their service.

Anonymous wrote:What if said person who is homeless or addicted to drugs did contribute to taxes for a large part of their life? What if they are a veteran who contributed a lot more than your few dollars?

Anonymous wrote:

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:In her seventies my mother went off her meds. Her schizophrenia resurfaced and she became convinced that she couldn't stay in her section 8 housing because people were after her. She moved into the downtown area of her local city (not DC) and began sleeping on the street. I've been estranged from her since early childhood, in case you're wondering why I *allowed* this to happen. I had no control over it, but eventually was notified by the a hospital in the city where she'd been taken. At that point I hadn't spoken to her in years.

At that point I did try and become involved. I learned that the city wasn't going to give her back her apartment, the home she'd had for forty years. Instead a social worker suggested I could collect her (I lived 3,000 miles away) in the next two days or she could 'choose' to live in a hotel where they discharged all their patients. The monthly rent for a room at the hotel was *only* 1000. Her social security payment was 1100. Therefore, the social worker told me brightly, she'd be fine!

I googled the motel's location. It was on a six-lane highway in the city's exurbs, the kind of place that's impossible to travel from without a car. There was no way for her to live there (even if she would), or go to medical appointments, or access any care. There was also no follow up plan. My mother was, the social worker explained, fully in charge of her own life and her own choices. It wasn't their problem... And why couldn't she move in with us?

I expect a lot of you wonder the same thing. Why couldn't she move in with us?

I don't think anyone doesn't love their mother. I love mine. But this is also a woman who physically abused me and abandoned me when I was in elementary school. She has at least as much baggage about that as I do, and putting her into our lives would be like pulling the pin of a live grenade. It would destroy my marriage. It would destroy my children. It would destroy me. It was a terrible choice. I'm crying as I type this and I'm not sure why I am sharing it at all in this unfriendly place except to say that sometimes the homeless aren't drug addicts, or irresponsible people, and sometimes all the best intentions in the world can't fix something. Medicated, my mother is a sweet old lady, by all accounts, polite and charming and well-read. She plays the piano and loved mysteries. Unmedicated, she is psychotic, ranting about rape and accusing everyone of plotting against her. She'll pick up knives and strip naked and run out into the street. I believe something like that was how she got picked up from her downtown city in the first place.

What finally happened with my mom was she ended up on a Greyhound bus, which let her off in a small Midwestern town, which mysteriously has this sort of thing happen all the time. They have a fairly robust social services network to deal with it. My mother now lives in assisted living there. They give her shots of haldol, which keep her sane. We write letters. After years of failed connections I think we both know both of us can't handle more than that from each other. There's too much pain there for it to be otherwise.

When I see the homeless encampments in DC all I can think about is my mom and how terrible schizophrenia is as a disease. Some people need support. Out society needs to give it to them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Agree 100%. I think the fairly recent opening of rentals in Van Ness-area apartment buildings to recently homeless people has been a disaster because their behavior has been disruptive to the neighborhood. This is unfortunately why "housing first" is not the answer. Nor is it acceptable to leave people without reasonable shelter, and come on guys--tents are not humane! Housing and treatment (voluntary or not) have to go together and might need to be compulsory.

Can we go back to when they were stuffed in poor black neighborhoods only?

/s

From whence they came