These particular people are REALLY trying to start s hit with this newest tent. After spending forever in the encampment on the street and feuding with neighbors (who did probably steal their stuff to clear the encampment in the middle of the night...) they are NOT currently unhoused. Housing was obtained for them through city vouchers and they are not living on the street.

So why the tent? They like to come back during the day to hang out and sell their wares/do drugs and panhandle there. That's it. I have no sympathy at this point, they have adequate housing and just want to use a small tent as a drug den and hangout spot. Knowing how fed up everyone was with the situation I think they're being intentionally provocative. I'm not going to do it, but I bet that tent "goes missing" at some point when they're at their new home

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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]?

Well, some variation on, "you don't have to go home but you can't stay here." You don't have to go to a shelter, but we're not going to let you plop down a tent on a busy sidewalk permanently.

Ah, your solution is "Move along somewhere else where I don't have to see you."

My thoughts exactly.

I also think SROs are probably a necessary part of the solution. It would probably also require some amendment to the current landlord-tenant laws. One reason they worked in the distant past is that they had fairly strict rules for occupants. If you are going to be sharing a bathroom with a bunch of people on the hall, it's important that people not be leaving literal crap on the floor, shooting up there, plus you don't want people renting it just to use for prostitution, etc. So for them to work, it has to be fairly easy to evict people. Interestingly, right now, homeless shelters have VERY strict rules for occupants -- which is one reason why many people try to avoid going into shelters. For SROs to be a successful part of the solution, they need to fall somewhere between shelters and current landlord-tenant laws. My guess is that maybe 30-50% of the long-term homeless could be helped by a solution like SROs, particularly if there were social service agencies working in tandem with the SROs to make sure people had appropriate supports and if the rates could be low enough to be affordable to people currently on SSI (currently $771/month, so something under $600 would be ideal). So I guess the question is whether there's any private market for a SRO apartment that would be relatively small (under 50 units), renting for $600/month with no or limited requirement for a deposit/advance rent).

This. As it is now, Georgetown lets its baby lawyers cut their teeth on defending tenants in landlord/tenant court. So no sane landlord would operate an SRO in this city because crusading law students would make it impossible for them to efficiently evict residents who are making life hell for their fellow tenants. So no, there's not a private market for this type of housing without significant protections being created for landlords.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

None of those words was ever okay (except for "negro" which was the community preferred noun until the mid-twentieth century).
I'm not going to insist on using homeless over unhoused, and I'm generally in agreement that we should use whatever term a community prefers to refer to them, as it's considerate and kind to do so. But I'd note that the difference between the two is not merely semantic -- the objection to the word homeless is that these people have a "home" even if they don't have a "house," so it's premised on the conclusion that their "home" is the sidewalk outside of safeway, or at the corner of 16th and K, or whever they set up their stuff. And, if it's their 'home", they have some moral right to maintain their presence there or return to that location. I don't agree with those premises or conclusions, so I continue to think that "homeless" is a more accurate description. Using unhoused implies that you believe that their home is the public space that they have chosen to inhabit and if you ask them to move from there, you are essentially kicking them out of their home. I can't just declare that my home is the Vice President's residence, even though it looks like a nice play to live. Similarly, I don't think they can just declare that their home is a particular park or sidewalk, even if it is their preferred place to live.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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]?

Well, some variation on, "you don't have to go home but you can't stay here." You don't have to go to a shelter, but we're not going to let you plop down a tent on a busy sidewalk permanently.

Ah, your solution is "Move along somewhere else where I don't have to see you."

Anonymous wrote:

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!

I also think SROs are probably a necessary part of the solution. It would probably also require some amendment to the current landlord-tenant laws. One reason they worked in the distant past is that they had fairly strict rules for occupants. If you are going to be sharing a bathroom with a bunch of people on the hall, it's important that people not be leaving literal crap on the floor, shooting up there, plus you don't want people renting it just to use for prostitution, etc. So for them to work, it has to be fairly easy to evict people. Interestingly, right now, homeless shelters have VERY strict rules for occupants -- which is one reason why many people try to avoid going into shelters. For SROs to be a successful part of the solution, they need to fall somewhere between shelters and current landlord-tenant laws. My guess is that maybe 30-50% of the long-term homeless could be helped by a solution like SROs, particularly if there were social service agencies working in tandem with the SROs to make sure people had appropriate supports and if the rates could be low enough to be affordable to people currently on SSI (currently $771/month, so something under $600 would be ideal). So I guess the question is whether there's any private market for a SRO apartment that would be relatively small (under 50 units), renting for $600/month with no or limited requirement for a deposit/advance rent).

Most of them are addicts or mentally disturbed. They need treatment and help and that isn't happening on the street. I think there should be a "pen" or shelter of sorts where social service folks could hold them for observation/assistance instead of this becoming yet another problem the police aren't equipped to handle.

And that ANC person is stupid if she thinks this is racism. The homeless population on the Hill is very diverse, both in race and age.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Look at the frantic, fatalistic, sensationalism with this post. Yeah, “homeless” is really right up the there with the n-word. Oy vey.

At the end of the day, liberal speech police are no better than the hard right wing folks they loath. There is a sharing of the authoritarian mind set. Only liberals enjoy using social media shame to bash others into forcefully accepting the newest lexicon.

Like all the fking pronouns. If you don’t say “They” if a man or woman announces they are non-binary or whatever. It’s like a monty python sketch come to life.

Anyway,, I’m sorry these folks are “experiencing homelessness”, but I’m also mad they sht all over the basement level of the rental building I own in dc. I hope moderates win in the next elections and actually start caring about the tax paying base this city needs to open up more dog parks and sht.

Spoken like a true slumlord.

Not really, comrade. Unlike a slum lord I care about my tenants not having to walk in human excrement when they arrive to work.

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how Britney Spears can be kept under conservatorship but we can't do anything about people who choose to live in tents vs getting help because of mental illness and/or addiction.

Her conservatorship is a grift. It’s to control her money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Look at the frantic, fatalistic, sensationalism with this post. Yeah, “homeless” is really right up the there with the n-word. Oy vey.

At the end of the day, liberal speech police are no better than the hard right wing folks they loath. There is a sharing of the authoritarian mind set. Only liberals enjoy using social media shame to bash others into forcefully accepting the newest lexicon.

Like all the fking pronouns. If you don’t say “They” if a man or woman announces they are non-binary or whatever. It’s like a monty python sketch come to life.

Anyway,, I’m sorry these folks are “experiencing homelessness”, but I’m also mad they sht all over the basement level of the rental building I own in dc. I hope moderates win in the next elections and actually start caring about the tax paying base this city needs to open up more dog parks and sht.

Spoken like a true slumlord.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Look at the frantic, fatalistic, sensationalism with this post. Yeah, “homeless” is really right up the there with the n-word. Oy vey.

At the end of the day, liberal speech police are no better than the hard right wing folks they loath. There is a sharing of the authoritarian mind set. Only liberals enjoy using social media shame to bash others into forcefully accepting the newest lexicon.

Like all the fking pronouns. If you don’t say “They” if a man or woman announces they are non-binary or whatever. It’s like a monty python sketch come to life.

Anyway,, I’m sorry these folks are “experiencing homelessness”, but I’m also mad they sht all over the basement level of the rental building I own in dc. I hope moderates win in the next elections and actually start caring about the tax paying base this city needs to open up more dog parks and sht.

Anonymous wrote:

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]?

Well, some variation on, "you don't have to go home but you can't stay here." You don't have to go to a shelter, but we're not going to let you plop down a tent on a busy sidewalk permanently.

Anonymous wrote:

I honestly don't care where you put them. I'm tired of going downtown and seeing tents.

"Put them somewhere where I don't have to see them!" is a personal desire, not a government policy.

I don't understand how Britney Spears can be kept under conservatorship but we can't do anything about people who choose to live in tents vs getting help because of mental illness and/or addiction.

Anonymous wrote:

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]?

I honestly don't care where you put them. I'm tired of going downtown and seeing tents.