Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have noticed this, too, specifically about Boston.

Without turning this into the 14th "DC homeless fentanyl Tenley sucks!" thread of the week ...

... does anyone know why Boston seemingly alone among large cities doesn't have the Night of the Living Dead, meth zombie encampments ? I mean, even TEXAS / Gov. Abbott big cities now have this problem (despite their willingness to ship ppl out on a Greyhound and lock up everyone for everything)

Maybe too cold in the winter for them to stay around?

This is my thought. I wonder if climate is a big part of it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s an underlying implication in Boston that any provocation will be responded to swiftly and disproportionately. This is probably necessary to keep certain groups from habitually acting out.

Why doesn't DC have working seasons with Boston to control the crime problem?

Please. DC still pretends it doesn't ever get snow, and shuts down over it. How on earth is DC supposed to handle a real problem?

When is the last time DC shut down over snow? The 'burbs do all the time, but DC kids go to school in the snow.

You didn’t go to the right parts. There are places in Boston where you will see the people shooting drugs into their arms in broad daylight

Anonymous wrote:I have noticed this, too, specifically about Boston.

Without turning this into the 14th "DC homeless fentanyl Tenley sucks!" thread of the week ...

... does anyone know why Boston seemingly alone among large cities doesn't have the Night of the Living Dead, meth zombie encampments ? I mean, even TEXAS / Gov. Abbott big cities now have this problem (despite their willingness to ship ppl out on a Greyhound and lock up everyone for everything)

At the risk of pointing out the obvious: weather.

You literally cannot sleep on the streets of Boston most of the year. Warm weather climates have always had more homeless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were in Boston visiting family last month and fid a tour encountered no homeless no drunks or drugs and felt very safe and it was clean.

We Did a tour in DC today , and it was a night and day difference. Homeless people everywhere many were very aggressive trying to run up to our group and shouting. One pelted us with rocks when we wouldn't give him money. Some were strung out passed out in front of some nice restaurants. We also came across this right next to the police station . Wtf is going on with DC. Someone needs to crack down on the homeless in DC , these aren't nice homeless that mind their own business they are aggressive and scary. We also saw a drug deal right by the white house! Why is Boston so much nicer than DC our capital? Who is holding the mayor accountable, 99% of the problems in DC would go away if vagrancy and drug laws were enforced. We need to clean up the streets of DC like yesterday.

If my family ever starts to get pelted with rocks, I'm going to let loose my son who is a travel ball pitcher with a wicked fast ball to throw those rocks right back.

And then he gets shot. Good job Mom.

If the homeless guy is throwing rocks, he doesn't have a gun does he? Not very bright are you?

Could have both.

Very unlikely if he is throwing rocks.
I can be armed too.
Cower if you want. You do you.

You obviously don’t have much personal experience in public urban environments because in the real world even armed men feel on edge when dealing with other violent men. Your cockiness is a dead giveaway. Here you are thinking that there is some sort of predictable logic or code of honor or personal strength that will protect you when dealing with violent mentally ill men. Anyone with experience would go out of their way to avoid confrontation because of the inherent unpredictable nature of violence. Especially when your family is around and you have the choice to deescalate.

If someone is literally throwing rocks at me, I'm under direct assault.
I may not have the option to "go out of my way" to avoid confrontation.
You most times do not have the option to "deescalate" with a crazy person in proximity attacking you.
I choose to defend myself and I've taught my family the same.
Your cowardice is a dead giveaway you can't defend yourself.
Oh and you are also too dense to pick up the tongue/ cheek nature of my original post.
You can choose to cower in fear under a rock. Your choice.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but Massachusetts conveniently uses centuries-old town and city boundaries to segregate and pen minorities and poverty into specific locations. The schools in those select towns and cities aren't technically segregated; it's the towns and cities themselves. Doesn't take much to look at places like Springfield, Holyoke, Southbridge, Lawrence, and Brockton and recognize the stark demographic differences, huge disparities in wealth, and school performance compared to surrounding towns.

What do you mean by it "conveniently uses" these things? I've spent a lot of time in Brockton over decades; the demographic change happened slowly over a long period of time. Acting like it was an intentional plan by the state to change the demographics of the city is conspiracy theory territory; it sounds like the "great replacement" conspiracy popular in white supremacist circles, only with different motivations for the elites.

People aggregating in certain areas on their own accord isn't segregation ("Koreans choose to move to Annandal, therefore Virginia uses uses centuries-old town and city boundaries to segregate and pen minorities into specific areas!"); pretending it is greatly downplays actual segregation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boston has a long history of segregation going back to the 1690s at least so this would be my guess

Massachusetts outlawed segregation in schools in 1855, which I believe was relatively early. By the time of Brown, more states had outlawed segregation than required it at the state level, but I believe the 1855 Massachusetts desegregation predates most of them.

There was a lot of upheaval over forced busing, but forced busing is a more complex issue (people like Biden opposed it, and it doesn't seem to have much support these days).

Yes, but Massachusetts conveniently uses centuries-old town and city boundaries to segregate and pen minorities and poverty into specific locations. The schools in those select towns and cities aren't technically segregated; it's the towns and cities themselves. Doesn't take much to look at places like Springfield, Holyoke, Southbridge, Lawrence, and Brockton and recognize the stark demographic differences, huge disparities in wealth, and school performance compared to surrounding towns.

Basically all of the.NE uses the twin system. But I’m not sure your examples are good ones. I lived in Brockton and that whole region is depressed — there’s no nice town adjacent to Brockton. And Holyoke isn’t a particularly clear cut example either — it has folks at both end of the spectrum and, again, that whole region or Massachusetts is depressed since the mills closed. There are just a couple of towns (Amherst and Northampton) that are propped up by the colleges that own or owned much of the real estate. Ever since the mills closed in western Mass, it’s been depressed.
PS for folks that are now 100% remote there are some great deals to be had with gorgeous old houses in Western Mass!

But none of this answers the original question — I think the answer is that encampments make little sense in Boston where it is very cold and snowy for much of the year. Massachusetts also has a entitlement to shelter for families so families are all provided shelter,. I think they also still have more disabled /elderly housing projects—I don’t know if DC has any of those left. DC knocked down so many of the projects.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were in Boston visiting family last month and fid a tour encountered no homeless no drunks or drugs and felt very safe and it was clean.

We Did a tour in DC today , and it was a night and day difference. Homeless people everywhere many were very aggressive trying to run up to our group and shouting. One pelted us with rocks when we wouldn't give him money. Some were strung out passed out in front of some nice restaurants. We also came across this right next to the police station . Wtf is going on with DC. Someone needs to crack down on the homeless in DC , these aren't nice homeless that mind their own business they are aggressive and scary. We also saw a drug deal right by the white house! Why is Boston so much nicer than DC our capital? Who is holding the mayor accountable, 99% of the problems in DC would go away if vagrancy and drug laws were enforced. We need to clean up the streets of DC like yesterday.

If my family ever starts to get pelted with rocks, I'm going to let loose my son who is a travel ball pitcher with a wicked fast ball to throw those rocks right back.

And then he gets shot. Good job Mom.

If the homeless guy is throwing rocks, he doesn't have a gun does he? Not very bright are you?

Could have both.

Very unlikely if he is throwing rocks.
I can be armed too.
Cower if you want. You do you.

You obviously don’t have much personal experience in public urban environments because in the real world even armed men feel on edge when dealing with other violent men. Your cockiness is a dead giveaway. Here you are thinking that there is some sort of predictable logic or code of honor or personal strength that will protect you when dealing with violent mentally ill men. Anyone with experience would go out of their way to avoid confrontation because of the inherent unpredictable nature of violence. Especially when your family is around and you have the choice to deescalate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have noticed this, too, specifically about Boston.

Without turning this into the 14th "DC homeless fentanyl Tenley sucks!" thread of the week ...

... does anyone know why Boston seemingly alone among large cities doesn't have the Night of the Living Dead, meth zombie encampments ? I mean, even TEXAS / Gov. Abbott big cities now have this problem (despite their willingness to ship ppl out on a Greyhound and lock up everyone for everything)

My relatives told me Boston forced all the poor people to move out in the 90s

This is probably true, but basically Massachusetts is the best state on almost any measure of social well-being. Across the board in so many categories.

False

No, this is true. Health, education, etc. If you ask someone who looks at state level data a lot (which isn’t that useful in most cases but we do it because of government), you can pretty much count on Alabama and Mississippi to be in the bottom five of everything and Massachusetts to be top five.

The über wealthy who primarily live in and around Boston skew statewide data. There are parts of Massachusetts, especially in the central and western parts of the state, that aren't much better off than the Deep South.

So we should ignore reality and focus on the worst-performing outliers to get the result you want?

The outliers are the few wealthy people skewing the stats away from the vast majority by having such extreme wealth.

Anonymous wrote:One pelted us with rocks when we wouldn't give him money.

You are a liar

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have noticed this, too, specifically about Boston.

Without turning this into the 14th "DC homeless fentanyl Tenley sucks!" thread of the week ...

... does anyone know why Boston seemingly alone among large cities doesn't have the Night of the Living Dead, meth zombie encampments ? I mean, even TEXAS / Gov. Abbott big cities now have this problem (despite their willingness to ship ppl out on a Greyhound and lock up everyone for everything)

My relatives told me Boston forced all the poor people to move out in the 90s

This is probably true, but basically Massachusetts is the best state on almost any measure of social well-being. Across the board in so many categories.

False

No, this is true. Health, education, etc. If you ask someone who looks at state level data a lot (which isn’t that useful in most cases but we do it because of government), you can pretty much count on Alabama and Mississippi to be in the bottom five of everything and Massachusetts to be top five.

The über wealthy who primarily live in and around Boston skew statewide data. There are parts of Massachusetts, especially in the central and western parts of the state, that aren't much better off than the Deep South.

So we should ignore reality and focus on the worst-performing outliers to get the result you want?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have noticed this, too, specifically about Boston.

Without turning this into the 14th "DC homeless fentanyl Tenley sucks!" thread of the week ...

... does anyone know why Boston seemingly alone among large cities doesn't have the Night of the Living Dead, meth zombie encampments ? I mean, even TEXAS / Gov. Abbott big cities now have this problem (despite their willingness to ship ppl out on a Greyhound and lock up everyone for everything)

My relatives told me Boston forced all the poor people to move out in the 90s

This is probably true, but basically Massachusetts is the best state on almost any measure of social well-being. Across the board in so many categories.

False

No, this is true. Health, education, etc. If you ask someone who looks at state level data a lot (which isn’t that useful in most cases but we do it because of government), you can pretty much count on Alabama and Mississippi to be in the bottom five of everything and Massachusetts to be top five.

The über wealthy who primarily live in and around Boston skew statewide data. There are parts of Massachusetts, especially in the central and western parts of the state, that aren't much better off than the Deep South.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boston has a long history of segregation going back to the 1690s at least so this would be my guess

Massachusetts outlawed segregation in schools in 1855, which I believe was relatively early. By the time of Brown, more states had outlawed segregation than required it at the state level, but I believe the 1855 Massachusetts desegregation predates most of them.

There was a lot of upheaval over forced busing, but forced busing is a more complex issue (people like Biden opposed it, and it doesn't seem to have much support these days).

Yes, but Massachusetts conveniently uses centuries-old town and city boundaries to segregate and pen minorities and poverty into specific locations. The schools in those select towns and cities aren't technically segregated; it's the towns and cities themselves. Doesn't take much to look at places like Springfield, Holyoke, Southbridge, Lawrence, and Brockton and recognize the stark demographic differences, huge disparities in wealth, and school performance compared to surrounding towns.

Anonymous wrote:There will be no change in DC, because such changes will disproportionately affect POCs and that does not meet equity goals.

Idk half the homeless I see are white men.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s an underlying implication in Boston that any provocation will be responded to swiftly and disproportionately. This is probably necessary to keep certain groups from habitually acting out.

Why doesn't DC have working seasons with Boston to control the crime problem?

Please. DC still pretends it doesn't ever get snow, and shuts down over it. How on earth is DC supposed to handle a real problem?