Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I am not the about PP "Paris Hilton" poster, but there is truth in the statements. At what point did we as a society decide that it was acceptable for people to just pitch a tent on public property and live there? The park at McPherson Square is literally full of tents. What advocates SHOULD be pushing is humane and safe mental health treatment facilities. In the early 80s, the unholy alliance of Reaganite conservatives (who didn't want to spent $$) and ACLU civil libertarians emptied the mental hospitals (which were indeed horrific) and made it much, much more difficult for people to be involuntarily committed. We don't need tent cities and we don't need to overpay commercial apartment and hotel owners to provide unsupervised shelter to those who cannot take care of themselves. Instead, we need to completely rehaul St. Elizabeth's to make it safe (which it isn't now) and humane, and revamp the involuntary commitment laws.

It was the point at which you voted for politicians who embrace this approach to homeless. Vote in different people and you get different solutions.

Muriel Bowser has been clearing encampments. I'm not a super fan, but she is doing that..I can't think of a single politician except the senator whose son committed suicide who is advocating for mental health,.more beds for mental health etc. Involuntary commitment is a travesty in that it's impossible for family to get their loved ones help. the only way to get a mentally ill person "care" is to hope they commit a criminal act and are held for a while. Is that good - of course not - but it's literally the only contact they have with institutions if they are unwilling to seek help... And even then so many obstacles.

She's just pushing them around. If she really wanted to she could bust down some barriers to getting them housing, but it's all just optics.

What barriers would she able to bust down to get stable housing for mentally ill people who either can’t or won’t follow rules, are unwilling to take medication for their illness, are potentially addicted to drugs, etc.? Come on, the idea that all the people you see in encampments are just a little down on their luck and just need to get be able to get on their feet is patently false. Many of these people have significant mental health issues that are a huge impediment to getting them into housing.

That's a spectrum and you're binning everyone as needing to be restrained at St. Es or something. Many people could function on their own, especially with a little help / guidance.

One example would be IDs / documents. Have a team that can pull together birth certificates, social security cards, ID cards on the spot. People languish for months trying to recover documents.

Many people currently living on the streets or in encampments are not capable of functioning on their own with a little support. DC provides a ton of services to those willing to avail themselves of it and abide by the rules. The city has sent outreach teams to encampments to offer assistance and housing, those that are left are the people that have refused. I’m not saying everyone needs to be at St Es, but the answer cannot be people permitted to pitch tents in public and create public health and public safety concerns. I’ve lived in the DC area since 2000, working downtown since 2007, and to see what has become of places like Union Station is horrifying.

This may be where we disagree. There are *a lot* of rules at the places that are available that are unnecessary and cruel to try to force people to abide by.

For example, you have to be in/out of shelters by specified times. People trying to work shifts at irregular hours struggle with that. It's intantilizing and counterproductive.

What about people who have pets who lost their housing? It's really easy to sit from the comfort of your home and judge people because you don't like that they are visible there. Or you can have compassion and push for a real housing-first approach.

How much of people's mental issues are driven by the hardships of living on the street or in shelters? Don't tell me it wouldn't affect you if you haven't been there yourself.

I find it hard to believe that a person living in a shelter who is gainfully employed and has proof of their employment and their shifts would not be allowed to go to and from work. While I also see the occasional person in an encampment that has a pet, that is not the vast majority of people. Moreover, the city does have the resources to assist people in that situation. What is most commonly seen in the homeless population throughout the city is rampant, untreated mental illness and drug addiction. I have seen no data that suggests people without mental illness are finding themselves homeless and then during the time they are living on the streets they develop severe mental illness attributable to being homeless. A “housing first” approach doesn’t work with people who are unwilling or unable to accept the services and assistance needed for them to maintain stable housing.

What about someone who gets off work late? That's not a well documented / planned thing. But in low end jobs can be quite an issue if you don't want to get fired.

By the way, this isn't a hypothetical. Someone in a group that helps people in this situation is dealing with exactly that tonight. So what should they do?

Ah, the progressive "shelters are worse than the streets" poster. Work can be verified and hours ironed out with the shelter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I am not the about PP "Paris Hilton" poster, but there is truth in the statements. At what point did we as a society decide that it was acceptable for people to just pitch a tent on public property and live there? The park at McPherson Square is literally full of tents. What advocates SHOULD be pushing is humane and safe mental health treatment facilities. In the early 80s, the unholy alliance of Reaganite conservatives (who didn't want to spent $$) and ACLU civil libertarians emptied the mental hospitals (which were indeed horrific) and made it much, much more difficult for people to be involuntarily committed. We don't need tent cities and we don't need to overpay commercial apartment and hotel owners to provide unsupervised shelter to those who cannot take care of themselves. Instead, we need to completely rehaul St. Elizabeth's to make it safe (which it isn't now) and humane, and revamp the involuntary commitment laws.

It was the point at which you voted for politicians who embrace this approach to homeless. Vote in different people and you get different solutions.

Muriel Bowser has been clearing encampments. I'm not a super fan, but she is doing that..I can't think of a single politician except the senator whose son committed suicide who is advocating for mental health,.more beds for mental health etc. Involuntary commitment is a travesty in that it's impossible for family to get their loved ones help. the only way to get a mentally ill person "care" is to hope they commit a criminal act and are held for a while. Is that good - of course not - but it's literally the only contact they have with institutions if they are unwilling to seek help... And even then so many obstacles.

She's just pushing them around. If she really wanted to she could bust down some barriers to getting them housing, but it's all just optics.

What barriers would she able to bust down to get stable housing for mentally ill people who either can’t or won’t follow rules, are unwilling to take medication for their illness, are potentially addicted to drugs, etc.? Come on, the idea that all the people you see in encampments are just a little down on their luck and just need to get be able to get on their feet is patently false. Many of these people have significant mental health issues that are a huge impediment to getting them into housing.

That's a spectrum and you're binning everyone as needing to be restrained at St. Es or something. Many people could function on their own, especially with a little help / guidance.

One example would be IDs / documents. Have a team that can pull together birth certificates, social security cards, ID cards on the spot. People languish for months trying to recover documents.

Many people currently living on the streets or in encampments are not capable of functioning on their own with a little support. DC provides a ton of services to those willing to avail themselves of it and abide by the rules. The city has sent outreach teams to encampments to offer assistance and housing, those that are left are the people that have refused. I’m not saying everyone needs to be at St Es, but the answer cannot be people permitted to pitch tents in public and create public health and public safety concerns. I’ve lived in the DC area since 2000, working downtown since 2007, and to see what has become of places like Union Station is horrifying.

This may be where we disagree. There are *a lot* of rules at the places that are available that are unnecessary and cruel to try to force people to abide by.

For example, you have to be in/out of shelters by specified times. People trying to work shifts at irregular hours struggle with that. It's intantilizing and counterproductive.

What about people who have pets who lost their housing? It's really easy to sit from the comfort of your home and judge people because you don't like that they are visible there. Or you can have compassion and push for a real housing-first approach.

How much of people's mental issues are driven by the hardships of living on the street or in shelters? Don't tell me it wouldn't affect you if you haven't been there yourself.

I find it hard to believe that a person living in a shelter who is gainfully employed and has proof of their employment and their shifts would not be allowed to go to and from work. While I also see the occasional person in an encampment that has a pet, that is not the vast majority of people. Moreover, the city does have the resources to assist people in that situation. What is most commonly seen in the homeless population throughout the city is rampant, untreated mental illness and drug addiction. I have seen no data that suggests people without mental illness are finding themselves homeless and then during the time they are living on the streets they develop severe mental illness attributable to being homeless. A “housing first” approach doesn’t work with people who are unwilling or unable to accept the services and assistance needed for them to maintain stable housing.

What about someone who gets off work late? That's not a well documented / planned thing. But in low end jobs can be quite an issue if you don't want to get fired.

By the way, this isn't a hypothetical. Someone in a group that helps people in this situation is dealing with exactly that tonight. So what should they do?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I am not the about PP "Paris Hilton" poster, but there is truth in the statements. At what point did we as a society decide that it was acceptable for people to just pitch a tent on public property and live there? The park at McPherson Square is literally full of tents. What advocates SHOULD be pushing is humane and safe mental health treatment facilities. In the early 80s, the unholy alliance of Reaganite conservatives (who didn't want to spent $$) and ACLU civil libertarians emptied the mental hospitals (which were indeed horrific) and made it much, much more difficult for people to be involuntarily committed. We don't need tent cities and we don't need to overpay commercial apartment and hotel owners to provide unsupervised shelter to those who cannot take care of themselves. Instead, we need to completely rehaul St. Elizabeth's to make it safe (which it isn't now) and humane, and revamp the involuntary commitment laws.

It was the point at which you voted for politicians who embrace this approach to homeless. Vote in different people and you get different solutions.

Muriel Bowser has been clearing encampments. I'm not a super fan, but she is doing that..I can't think of a single politician except the senator whose son committed suicide who is advocating for mental health,.more beds for mental health etc. Involuntary commitment is a travesty in that it's impossible for family to get their loved ones help. the only way to get a mentally ill person "care" is to hope they commit a criminal act and are held for a while. Is that good - of course not - but it's literally the only contact they have with institutions if they are unwilling to seek help... And even then so many obstacles.

She's just pushing them around. If she really wanted to she could bust down some barriers to getting them housing, but it's all just optics.

What barriers would she able to bust down to get stable housing for mentally ill people who either can’t or won’t follow rules, are unwilling to take medication for their illness, are potentially addicted to drugs, etc.? Come on, the idea that all the people you see in encampments are just a little down on their luck and just need to get be able to get on their feet is patently false. Many of these people have significant mental health issues that are a huge impediment to getting them into housing.

That's a spectrum and you're binning everyone as needing to be restrained at St. Es or something. Many people could function on their own, especially with a little help / guidance.

One example would be IDs / documents. Have a team that can pull together birth certificates, social security cards, ID cards on the spot. People languish for months trying to recover documents.

Many people currently living on the streets or in encampments are not capable of functioning on their own with a little support. DC provides a ton of services to those willing to avail themselves of it and abide by the rules. The city has sent outreach teams to encampments to offer assistance and housing, those that are left are the people that have refused. I’m not saying everyone needs to be at St Es, but the answer cannot be people permitted to pitch tents in public and create public health and public safety concerns. I’ve lived in the DC area since 2000, working downtown since 2007, and to see what has become of places like Union Station is horrifying.

This may be where we disagree. There are *a lot* of rules at the places that are available that are unnecessary and cruel to try to force people to abide by.

For example, you have to be in/out of shelters by specified times. People trying to work shifts at irregular hours struggle with that. It's intantilizing and counterproductive.

What about people who have pets who lost their housing? It's really easy to sit from the comfort of your home and judge people because you don't like that they are visible there. Or you can have compassion and push for a real housing-first approach.

How much of people's mental issues are driven by the hardships of living on the street or in shelters? Don't tell me it wouldn't affect you if you haven't been there yourself.

I find it hard to believe that a person living in a shelter who is gainfully employed and has proof of their employment and their shifts would not be allowed to go to and from work. While I also see the occasional person in an encampment that has a pet, that is not the vast majority of people. Moreover, the city does have the resources to assist people in that situation. What is most commonly seen in the homeless population throughout the city is rampant, untreated mental illness and drug addiction. I have seen no data that suggests people without mental illness are finding themselves homeless and then during the time they are living on the streets they develop severe mental illness attributable to being homeless. A “housing first” approach doesn’t work with people who are unwilling or unable to accept the services and assistance needed for them to maintain stable housing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I am not the about PP "Paris Hilton" poster, but there is truth in the statements. At what point did we as a society decide that it was acceptable for people to just pitch a tent on public property and live there? The park at McPherson Square is literally full of tents. What advocates SHOULD be pushing is humane and safe mental health treatment facilities. In the early 80s, the unholy alliance of Reaganite conservatives (who didn't want to spent $$) and ACLU civil libertarians emptied the mental hospitals (which were indeed horrific) and made it much, much more difficult for people to be involuntarily committed. We don't need tent cities and we don't need to overpay commercial apartment and hotel owners to provide unsupervised shelter to those who cannot take care of themselves. Instead, we need to completely rehaul St. Elizabeth's to make it safe (which it isn't now) and humane, and revamp the involuntary commitment laws.

What about someone who gets off work late? That's not a well documented / planned thing. But in low end jobs can be quite an issue if you don't want to get fired.

By the way, this isn't a hypothetical. Someone in a group that helps people in this situation is dealing with exactly that tonight. So what should they do?

It was the point at which you voted for politicians who embrace this approach to homeless. Vote in different people and you get different solutions.

Muriel Bowser has been clearing encampments. I'm not a super fan, but she is doing that..I can't think of a single politician except the senator whose son committed suicide who is advocating for mental health,.more beds for mental health etc. Involuntary commitment is a travesty in that it's impossible for family to get their loved ones help. the only way to get a mentally ill person "care" is to hope they commit a criminal act and are held for a while. Is that good - of course not - but it's literally the only contact they have with institutions if they are unwilling to seek help... And even then so many obstacles.

She's just pushing them around. If she really wanted to she could bust down some barriers to getting them housing, but it's all just optics.

What barriers would she able to bust down to get stable housing for mentally ill people who either can’t or won’t follow rules, are unwilling to take medication for their illness, are potentially addicted to drugs, etc.? Come on, the idea that all the people you see in encampments are just a little down on their luck and just need to get be able to get on their feet is patently false. Many of these people have significant mental health issues that are a huge impediment to getting them into housing.

That's a spectrum and you're binning everyone as needing to be restrained at St. Es or something. Many people could function on their own, especially with a little help / guidance.

One example would be IDs / documents. Have a team that can pull together birth certificates, social security cards, ID cards on the spot. People languish for months trying to recover documents.

Many people currently living on the streets or in encampments are not capable of functioning on their own with a little support. DC provides a ton of services to those willing to avail themselves of it and abide by the rules. The city has sent outreach teams to encampments to offer assistance and housing, those that are left are the people that have refused. I’m not saying everyone needs to be at St Es, but the answer cannot be people permitted to pitch tents in public and create public health and public safety concerns. I’ve lived in the DC area since 2000, working downtown since 2007, and to see what has become of places like Union Station is horrifying.

This may be where we disagree. There are *a lot* of rules at the places that are available that are unnecessary and cruel to try to force people to abide by.

For example, you have to be in/out of shelters by specified times. People trying to work shifts at irregular hours struggle with that. It's intantilizing and counterproductive.

What about people who have pets who lost their housing? It's really easy to sit from the comfort of your home and judge people because you don't like that they are visible there. Or you can have compassion and push for a real housing-first approach.

How much of people's mental issues are driven by the hardships of living on the street or in shelters? Don't tell me it wouldn't affect you if you haven't been there yourself.

I find it hard to believe that a person living in a shelter who is gainfully employed and has proof of their employment and their shifts would not be allowed to go to and from work. While I also see the occasional person in an encampment that has a pet, that is not the vast majority of people. Moreover, the city does have the resources to assist people in that situation. What is most commonly seen in the homeless population throughout the city is rampant, untreated mental illness and drug addiction. I have seen no data that suggests people without mental illness are finding themselves homeless and then during the time they are living on the streets they develop severe mental illness attributable to being homeless. A “housing first” approach doesn’t work with people who are unwilling or unable to accept the services and assistance needed for them to maintain stable housing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I am not the about PP "Paris Hilton" poster, but there is truth in the statements. At what point did we as a society decide that it was acceptable for people to just pitch a tent on public property and live there? The park at McPherson Square is literally full of tents. What advocates SHOULD be pushing is humane and safe mental health treatment facilities. In the early 80s, the unholy alliance of Reaganite conservatives (who didn't want to spent $$) and ACLU civil libertarians emptied the mental hospitals (which were indeed horrific) and made it much, much more difficult for people to be involuntarily committed. We don't need tent cities and we don't need to overpay commercial apartment and hotel owners to provide unsupervised shelter to those who cannot take care of themselves. Instead, we need to completely rehaul St. Elizabeth's to make it safe (which it isn't now) and humane, and revamp the involuntary commitment laws.

It was the point at which you voted for politicians who embrace this approach to homeless. Vote in different people and you get different solutions.

Muriel Bowser has been clearing encampments. I'm not a super fan, but she is doing that..I can't think of a single politician except the senator whose son committed suicide who is advocating for mental health,.more beds for mental health etc. Involuntary commitment is a travesty in that it's impossible for family to get their loved ones help. the only way to get a mentally ill person "care" is to hope they commit a criminal act and are held for a while. Is that good - of course not - but it's literally the only contact they have with institutions if they are unwilling to seek help... And even then so many obstacles.

She's just pushing them around. If she really wanted to she could bust down some barriers to getting them housing, but it's all just optics.

What barriers would she able to bust down to get stable housing for mentally ill people who either can’t or won’t follow rules, are unwilling to take medication for their illness, are potentially addicted to drugs, etc.? Come on, the idea that all the people you see in encampments are just a little down on their luck and just need to get be able to get on their feet is patently false. Many of these people have significant mental health issues that are a huge impediment to getting them into housing.

That's a spectrum and you're binning everyone as needing to be restrained at St. Es or something. Many people could function on their own, especially with a little help / guidance.

One example would be IDs / documents. Have a team that can pull together birth certificates, social security cards, ID cards on the spot. People languish for months trying to recover documents.

Many people currently living on the streets or in encampments are not capable of functioning on their own with a little support. DC provides a ton of services to those willing to avail themselves of it and abide by the rules. The city has sent outreach teams to encampments to offer assistance and housing, those that are left are the people that have refused. I’m not saying everyone needs to be at St Es, but the answer cannot be people permitted to pitch tents in public and create public health and public safety concerns. I’ve lived in the DC area since 2000, working downtown since 2007, and to see what has become of places like Union Station is horrifying.

This may be where we disagree. There are *a lot* of rules at the places that are available that are unnecessary and cruel to try to force people to abide by.

For example, you have to be in/out of shelters by specified times. People trying to work shifts at irregular hours struggle with that. It's intantilizing and counterproductive.

What about people who have pets who lost their housing? It's really easy to sit from the comfort of your home and judge people because you don't like that they are visible there. Or you can have compassion and push for a real housing-first approach.

How much of people's mental issues are driven by the hardships of living on the street or in shelters? Don't tell me it wouldn't affect you if you haven't been there yourself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tents outside, relentless panhandling inside and out. Maybe it’s ok for those who can scurry into the locked acela lounge. Plenty of law enforcement around. Semi post-apocalyptic seeming. Just plain sad.

There's an Acela lounge? Wish I'd known.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tents outside, relentless panhandling inside and out. Maybe it’s ok for those who can scurry into the locked acela lounge. Plenty of law enforcement around. Semi post-apocalyptic seeming. Just plain sad.

There's an Acela lounge? Wish I'd known.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I am not the about PP "Paris Hilton" poster, but there is truth in the statements. At what point did we as a society decide that it was acceptable for people to just pitch a tent on public property and live there? The park at McPherson Square is literally full of tents. What advocates SHOULD be pushing is humane and safe mental health treatment facilities. In the early 80s, the unholy alliance of Reaganite conservatives (who didn't want to spent $$) and ACLU civil libertarians emptied the mental hospitals (which were indeed horrific) and made it much, much more difficult for people to be involuntarily committed. We don't need tent cities and we don't need to overpay commercial apartment and hotel owners to provide unsupervised shelter to those who cannot take care of themselves. Instead, we need to completely rehaul St. Elizabeth's to make it safe (which it isn't now) and humane, and revamp the involuntary commitment laws.

It was the point at which you voted for politicians who embrace this approach to homeless. Vote in different people and you get different solutions.

Muriel Bowser has been clearing encampments. I'm not a super fan, but she is doing that..I can't think of a single politician except the senator whose son committed suicide who is advocating for mental health,.more beds for mental health etc. Involuntary commitment is a travesty in that it's impossible for family to get their loved ones help. the only way to get a mentally ill person "care" is to hope they commit a criminal act and are held for a while. Is that good - of course not - but it's literally the only contact they have with institutions if they are unwilling to seek help... And even then so many obstacles.

She's just pushing them around. If she really wanted to she could bust down some barriers to getting them housing, but it's all just optics.

What barriers would she able to bust down to get stable housing for mentally ill people who either can’t or won’t follow rules, are unwilling to take medication for their illness, are potentially addicted to drugs, etc.? Come on, the idea that all the people you see in encampments are just a little down on their luck and just need to get be able to get on their feet is patently false. Many of these people have significant mental health issues that are a huge impediment to getting them into housing.

That's a spectrum and you're binning everyone as needing to be restrained at St. Es or something. Many people could function on their own, especially with a little help / guidance.

One example would be IDs / documents. Have a team that can pull together birth certificates, social security cards, ID cards on the spot. People languish for months trying to recover documents.

Many people currently living on the streets or in encampments are not capable of functioning on their own with a little support. DC provides a ton of services to those willing to avail themselves of it and abide by the rules. The city has sent outreach teams to encampments to offer assistance and housing, those that are left are the people that have refused. I’m not saying everyone needs to be at St Es, but the answer cannot be people permitted to pitch tents in public and create public health and public safety concerns. I’ve lived in the DC area since 2000, working downtown since 2007, and to see what has become of places like Union Station is horrifying.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I am not the about PP "Paris Hilton" poster, but there is truth in the statements. At what point did we as a society decide that it was acceptable for people to just pitch a tent on public property and live there? The park at McPherson Square is literally full of tents. What advocates SHOULD be pushing is humane and safe mental health treatment facilities. In the early 80s, the unholy alliance of Reaganite conservatives (who didn't want to spent $$) and ACLU civil libertarians emptied the mental hospitals (which were indeed horrific) and made it much, much more difficult for people to be involuntarily committed. We don't need tent cities and we don't need to overpay commercial apartment and hotel owners to provide unsupervised shelter to those who cannot take care of themselves. Instead, we need to completely rehaul St. Elizabeth's to make it safe (which it isn't now) and humane, and revamp the involuntary commitment laws.

It was the point at which you voted for politicians who embrace this approach to homeless. Vote in different people and you get different solutions.

Muriel Bowser has been clearing encampments. I'm not a super fan, but she is doing that..I can't think of a single politician except the senator whose son committed suicide who is advocating for mental health,.more beds for mental health etc. Involuntary commitment is a travesty in that it's impossible for family to get their loved ones help. the only way to get a mentally ill person "care" is to hope they commit a criminal act and are held for a while. Is that good - of course not - but it's literally the only contact they have with institutions if they are unwilling to seek help... And even then so many obstacles.

She's just pushing them around. If she really wanted to she could bust down some barriers to getting them housing, but it's all just optics.

What barriers would she able to bust down to get stable housing for mentally ill people who either can’t or won’t follow rules, are unwilling to take medication for their illness, are potentially addicted to drugs, etc.? Come on, the idea that all the people you see in encampments are just a little down on their luck and just need to get be able to get on their feet is patently false. Many of these people have significant mental health issues that are a huge impediment to getting them into housing.

That's a spectrum and you're binning everyone as needing to be restrained at St. Es or something. Many people could function on their own, especially with a little help / guidance.

One example would be IDs / documents. Have a team that can pull together birth certificates, social security cards, ID cards on the spot. People languish for months trying to recover documents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I am not the about PP "Paris Hilton" poster, but there is truth in the statements. At what point did we as a society decide that it was acceptable for people to just pitch a tent on public property and live there? The park at McPherson Square is literally full of tents. What advocates SHOULD be pushing is humane and safe mental health treatment facilities. In the early 80s, the unholy alliance of Reaganite conservatives (who didn't want to spent $$) and ACLU civil libertarians emptied the mental hospitals (which were indeed horrific) and made it much, much more difficult for people to be involuntarily committed. We don't need tent cities and we don't need to overpay commercial apartment and hotel owners to provide unsupervised shelter to those who cannot take care of themselves. Instead, we need to completely rehaul St. Elizabeth's to make it safe (which it isn't now) and humane, and revamp the involuntary commitment laws.

It was the point at which you voted for politicians who embrace this approach to homeless. Vote in different people and you get different solutions.

Muriel Bowser has been clearing encampments. I'm not a super fan, but she is doing that..I can't think of a single politician except the senator whose son committed suicide who is advocating for mental health,.more beds for mental health etc. Involuntary commitment is a travesty in that it's impossible for family to get their loved ones help. the only way to get a mentally ill person "care" is to hope they commit a criminal act and are held for a while. Is that good - of course not - but it's literally the only contact they have with institutions if they are unwilling to seek help... And even then so many obstacles.

She's just pushing them around. If she really wanted to she could bust down some barriers to getting them housing, but it's all just optics.

What barriers would she able to bust down to get stable housing for mentally ill people who either can’t or won’t follow rules, are unwilling to take medication for their illness, are potentially addicted to drugs, etc.? Come on, the idea that all the people you see in encampments are just a little down on their luck and just need to get be able to get on their feet is patently false. Many of these people have significant mental health issues that are a huge impediment to getting them into housing.

Anonymous wrote:Tents outside, relentless panhandling inside and out. Maybe it’s ok for those who can scurry into the locked acela lounge. Plenty of law enforcement around. Semi post-apocalyptic seeming. Just plain sad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I am not the about PP "Paris Hilton" poster, but there is truth in the statements. At what point did we as a society decide that it was acceptable for people to just pitch a tent on public property and live there? The park at McPherson Square is literally full of tents. What advocates SHOULD be pushing is humane and safe mental health treatment facilities. In the early 80s, the unholy alliance of Reaganite conservatives (who didn't want to spent $$) and ACLU civil libertarians emptied the mental hospitals (which were indeed horrific) and made it much, much more difficult for people to be involuntarily committed. We don't need tent cities and we don't need to overpay commercial apartment and hotel owners to provide unsupervised shelter to those who cannot take care of themselves. Instead, we need to completely rehaul St. Elizabeth's to make it safe (which it isn't now) and humane, and revamp the involuntary commitment laws.

It was the point at which you voted for politicians who embrace this approach to homeless. Vote in different people and you get different solutions.

Muriel Bowser has been clearing encampments. I'm not a super fan, but she is doing that..I can't think of a single politician except the senator whose son committed suicide who is advocating for mental health,.more beds for mental health etc. Involuntary commitment is a travesty in that it's impossible for family to get their loved ones help. the only way to get a mentally ill person "care" is to hope they commit a criminal act and are held for a while. Is that good - of course not - but it's literally the only contact they have with institutions if they are unwilling to seek help... And even then so many obstacles.

She's just pushing them around. If she really wanted to she could bust down some barriers to getting them housing, but it's all just optics.