Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read it and weep: https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/527774/the-story-behind-an-illegal-dumping-attempt-to-keep-out-unhoused-residents-outside-ward-2-safeway/

Some day these dummies are going to have to face the fact that they aren’t helping anyone by encouraging homeless encampments on highly trafficked public space.

All this article makes me think is that I will be especially vigilant to ensure that no tents pop up in parks near me. You have to get rid of the first one you see.

Btw - I actually support the right of people to camp on public space. It just cannot be in actual parks used by the public for recreation or on any sidewalks, and they have to be clean and crime-free.

I like how liberals just euphemistically change the names of things to sanitize them out of political correctness. It’s the equivalent of changing your profile picture to support a cause.

Instead of being homeless you are now “experiencing homelessness” or “unhoused”. Ugh. This country is fked. We either have psycho boat parade and billy billy Trump supporters who want some kind of Christian sharia laws or we have liberal, neo-macarthyist, speech police, wealth redistribution-for-equity types who are both hardline idiots.

Call them "bums" if you want. How does that change anything?

It’s just unnecessary. Homeless as a term worked fine. Now it’s magically verboten as being insensitive. Who is the arbiter of sensitivity? It’s not just the semantics, I don’t really care about the new nomenclature, it’s the whole pandering at all costs to every perceived underdog group at the expensive of tax paying citizens. Tax payers work hard and don’t deserves to have a massive honeless camp right in front of their house. Or like the poor rent paying people over at the Harlow apartments in DC who are living with section 8 tenants who are literally physicallly attaching them and the staff there on a frequent basis. It’s basically this soft bigotry of low expectation, take from the rich, strange Robinhood pandering mentality that is frustrating.

I could go on. Our liberal city council sucks on crime prevention and seems not to care about rising crime, as they won’t hire more police all while lowering jail sentences for violent offenders. I am liberal myself, but am losing patience with how idiotic so many of the “solutions” seem to be.

OK, so what's your suggestion? Round them up and put them [somewhere]?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read it and weep: https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/527774/the-story-behind-an-illegal-dumping-attempt-to-keep-out-unhoused-residents-outside-ward-2-safeway/

Some day these dummies are going to have to face the fact that they aren’t helping anyone by encouraging homeless encampments on highly trafficked public space.

All this article makes me think is that I will be especially vigilant to ensure that no tents pop up in parks near me. You have to get rid of the first one you see.

Btw - I actually support the right of people to camp on public space. It just cannot be in actual parks used by the public for recreation or on any sidewalks, and they have to be clean and crime-free.

I like how liberals just euphemistically change the names of things to sanitize them out of political correctness. It’s the equivalent of changing your profile picture to support a cause.

Instead of being homeless you are now “experiencing homelessness” or “unhoused”. Ugh. This country is fked. We either have psycho boat parade and billy billy Trump supporters who want some kind of Christian sharia laws or we have liberal, neo-macarthyist, speech police, wealth redistribution-for-equity types who are both hardline idiots.

Call them "bums" if you want. How does that change anything?

It’s just unnecessary. Homeless as a term worked fine. Now it’s magically verboten as being insensitive. Who is the arbiter of sensitivity? It’s not just the semantics, I don’t really care about the new nomenclature, it’s the whole pandering at all costs to every perceived underdog group at the expensive of tax paying citizens. Tax payers work hard and don’t deserves to have a massive honeless camp right in front of their house. Or like the poor rent paying people over at the Harlow apartments in DC who are living with section 8 tenants who are literally physicallly attaching them and the staff there on a frequent basis. It’s basically this soft bigotry of low expectation, take from the rich, strange Robinhood pandering mentality that is frustrating.

I could go on. Our liberal city council sucks on crime prevention and seems not to care about rising crime, as they won’t hire more police all while lowering jail sentences for violent offenders. I am liberal myself, but am losing patience with how idiotic so many of the “solutions” seem to be.

"Retard" worked fine until it didn't. Same with "negro," "homo," or "tranny." Do you still use those terms?

Language changes with the times. People are striving to be better when it comes to our language. Deal with it, "I refuse to make a very simple change to my language to make others feel more comfortable" is a bad hill to die on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read it and weep: https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/527774/the-story-behind-an-illegal-dumping-attempt-to-keep-out-unhoused-residents-outside-ward-2-safeway/

Some day these dummies are going to have to face the fact that they aren’t helping anyone by encouraging homeless encampments on highly trafficked public space.

All this article makes me think is that I will be especially vigilant to ensure that no tents pop up in parks near me. You have to get rid of the first one you see.

Btw - I actually support the right of people to camp on public space. It just cannot be in actual parks used by the public for recreation or on any sidewalks, and they have to be clean and crime-free.

I like how liberals just euphemistically change the names of things to sanitize them out of political correctness. It’s the equivalent of changing your profile picture to support a cause.

Instead of being homeless you are now “experiencing homelessness” or “unhoused”. Ugh. This country is fked. We either have psycho boat parade and billy billy Trump supporters who want some kind of Christian sharia laws or we have liberal, neo-macarthyist, speech police, wealth redistribution-for-equity types who are both hardline idiots.

Call them "bums" if you want. How does that change anything?

It’s just unnecessary. Homeless as a term worked fine. Now it’s magically verboten as being insensitive. Who is the arbiter of sensitivity? It’s not just the semantics, I don’t really care about the new nomenclature, it’s the whole pandering at all costs to every perceived underdog group at the expensive of tax paying citizens. Tax payers work hard and don’t deserves to have a massive honeless camp right in front of their house. Or like the poor rent paying people over at the Harlow apartments in DC who are living with section 8 tenants who are literally physicallly attaching them and the staff there on a frequent basis. It’s basically this soft bigotry of low expectation, take from the rich, strange Robinhood pandering mentality that is frustrating.

I could go on. Our liberal city council sucks on crime prevention and seems not to care about rising crime, as they won’t hire more police all while lowering jail sentences for violent offenders. I am liberal myself, but am losing patience with how idiotic so many of the “solutions” seem to be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read it and weep: https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/527774/the-story-behind-an-illegal-dumping-attempt-to-keep-out-unhoused-residents-outside-ward-2-safeway/

Some day these dummies are going to have to face the fact that they aren’t helping anyone by encouraging homeless encampments on highly trafficked public space.

All this article makes me think is that I will be especially vigilant to ensure that no tents pop up in parks near me. You have to get rid of the first one you see.

Btw - I actually support the right of people to camp on public space. It just cannot be in actual parks used by the public for recreation or on any sidewalks, and they have to be clean and crime-free.

I like how liberals just euphemistically change the names of things to sanitize them out of political correctness. It’s the equivalent of changing your profile picture to support a cause.

Instead of being homeless you are now “experiencing homelessness” or “unhoused”. Ugh. This country is fked. We either have psycho boat parade and billy billy Trump supporters who want some kind of Christian sharia laws or we have liberal, neo-macarthyist, speech police, wealth redistribution-for-equity types who are both hardline idiots.

Call them "bums" if you want. How does that change anything?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who are addicts will do anything up to including dying for a high. If you put an addict in an apartment for free, they will leverage the apartment to get more drugs until they die.

honestly- that is better and more humane than letting them do it on the sidewalk in front of Safeway.

Depends on if you're the one living next door to them or not.

There need to be ways to get people into treatment centers. These exist. One problem the couple in front of Safeway is probably facing is that to get clean, they will need to be apart for the rest of their lives. They are codependent addicts. Getting clean while in contact with the other person is next to impossible. The woman has already lost her kids. She's going to let addiction kill her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read it and weep: https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/527774/the-story-behind-an-illegal-dumping-attempt-to-keep-out-unhoused-residents-outside-ward-2-safeway/

Some day these dummies are going to have to face the fact that they aren’t helping anyone by encouraging homeless encampments on highly trafficked public space.

All this article makes me think is that I will be especially vigilant to ensure that no tents pop up in parks near me. You have to get rid of the first one you see.

Btw - I actually support the right of people to camp on public space. It just cannot be in actual parks used by the public for recreation or on any sidewalks, and they have to be clean and crime-free.

I like how liberals just euphemistically change the names of things to sanitize them out of political correctness. It’s the equivalent of changing your profile picture to support a cause.

Instead of being homeless you are now “experiencing homelessness” or “unhoused”. Ugh. This country is fked. We either have psycho boat parade and billy billy Trump supporters who want some kind of Christian sharia laws or we have liberal, neo-macarthyist, speech police, wealth redistribution-for-equity types who are both hardline idiots.

You tell 'em.

Let's keep calling people "Down's babies" or "illegitimate children" or "mulatto".

Anonymous wrote:Read it and weep: https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/527774/the-story-behind-an-illegal-dumping-attempt-to-keep-out-unhoused-residents-outside-ward-2-safeway/

Some day these dummies are going to have to face the fact that they aren’t helping anyone by encouraging homeless encampments on highly trafficked public space.

All this article makes me think is that I will be especially vigilant to ensure that no tents pop up in parks near me. You have to get rid of the first one you see.

Btw - I actually support the right of people to camp on public space. It just cannot be in actual parks used by the public for recreation or on any sidewalks, and they have to be clean and crime-free.

I like how liberals just euphemistically change the names of things to sanitize them out of political correctness. It’s the equivalent of changing your profile picture to support a cause.

Instead of being homeless you are now “experiencing homelessness” or “unhoused”. Ugh. This country is fked. We either have psycho boat parade and billy billy Trump supporters who want some kind of Christian sharia laws or we have liberal, neo-macarthyist, speech police, wealth redistribution-for-equity types who are both hardline idiots.

Anonymous wrote:People who are addicts will do anything up to including dying for a high. If you put an addict in an apartment for free, they will leverage the apartment to get more drugs until they die.

honestly- that is better and more humane than letting them do it on the sidewalk in front of Safeway.

Anonymous wrote:People who are addicts will do anything up to including dying for a high. If you put an addict in an apartment for free, they will leverage the apartment to get more drugs until they die.

OK, but they will be housed - in housing, not in a tent on the sidewalk - while they are doing it.

People who are addicts will do anything up to including dying for a high. If you put an addict in an apartment for free, they will leverage the apartment to get more drugs until they die.

People live on the sidewalk because it is allowed and it is lucrative enough to pay for their pursuits.

But a sidewalk is either a public space or up-for-grabs housing. You can’t pitch a tent wherever you want. They could go to a shelter. They could go to a campground. Those are the public spaces where you’re allowed to dwell with your belongings. That’s it.

Anonymous wrote:

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 definitely think we should invest in SROs again!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

insane asylums were nightmare fuel that were closed for valid reasons. I doubt there would be the political will to rebuild them

That is true, but can't we recreate that system in a better way? We really need to create a better support system in this country.

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.

Absolutely untrue. Numerous studies demonstrate the link between homelessness and housing affordability. It's a lot easier to be an addict and have housing when it costs $500/month instead of $1,500/month.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

insane asylums were nightmare fuel that were closed for valid reasons. I doubt there would be the political will to rebuild them