Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve worked at the same downtown office for 20 years. The visible homeless in the parks downtown have definitely increased. I personally think the invisible homeless are more tied to the dearth of affordable housing. The visible homeless (the ones you see in tents on a busy sidewalk or sleeping on a bench) have different problems. The opioid epidemic is definitely part of it. I think the closure of some large DD institutions such as diversion of most of st Elizabeth to other uses, closure of DC general shelter, etc. how many people remember the enormous housing projects that surrounded the whole area that is now nationals park? Those were all closed in the 2003–05 time frame. They were pretty awful looking and I think basically an open air drug market but obviously provided housing for a LOT of people at least some of which probably did not have the capacity to maneuver the housing market even if they got the housing subsidies they were promised.

Today there was a guy strolling down the middle of 15th street entirely naked except for a diaper. Affordable housing is not his biggest problem, I think.

We need a complement of different kinds of solutions.

+1

This is very well stated. And DC has a lot of supports and programs for the invisible homeless. The visible we do not have good supports or solutions for.

Legalize panhandling and trespassing, problem solved.

Provide funding to hire cleaning crews to pick up trash and human waste from 6 am to 8 pm every day. Bring a truck with water to power-wash urine on solid surface. Or organize high school student volunteers to do the job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve worked at the same downtown office for 20 years. The visible homeless in the parks downtown have definitely increased. I personally think the invisible homeless are more tied to the dearth of affordable housing. The visible homeless (the ones you see in tents on a busy sidewalk or sleeping on a bench) have different problems. The opioid epidemic is definitely part of it. I think the closure of some large DD institutions such as diversion of most of st Elizabeth to other uses, closure of DC general shelter, etc. how many people remember the enormous housing projects that surrounded the whole area that is now nationals park? Those were all closed in the 2003–05 time frame. They were pretty awful looking and I think basically an open air drug market but obviously provided housing for a LOT of people at least some of which probably did not have the capacity to maneuver the housing market even if they got the housing subsidies they were promised.

Today there was a guy strolling down the middle of 15th street entirely naked except for a diaper. Affordable housing is not his biggest problem, I think.

We need a complement of different kinds of solutions.

+1

This is very well stated. And DC has a lot of supports and programs for the invisible homeless. The visible we do not have good supports or solutions for.

Legalize panhandling and trespassing, problem solved.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to make it illegal and enforcement

They need to make what illegal? Being homeless?

setting up a tent in public land - you shouldn't be allowed to take over public space permanently.

The government may not criminalize sleeping on public property unless the government provides adequate alternatives.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-homelessness/u-s-supreme-court-leaves-in-place-ruling-barring-prosecution-of-homeless-idUSKBN1YK1EA

The NPS certainly can - and should - remove the “campers” from Rock Creek Park and Parkway.

You're saying the NPS can do this, based on what?

Unregulated camping in the national parks is illegal and not compatible with the NPS’ mission of maintaining and preserving the parks.

Maybe the best short term solution is to allow short term homeless camping in a designated, patrolled compound if exchange forces free day labor to clean up the litter and graffiti that seems to plague the park especially this year (perhaps exacerbated by the aforementioned “campers”).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. NIMBYs oppose housing.
2. Housing becomes more expensive as more people want to live in DC
3. Low-income folks are evicted onto the street.

Simple as that.

.

Hey GGW summer intern! 👋 Your talking points are irrelevant to the underlying causes of street living in DC.

We need to have the courage as a society to admit we were wrong when we upended policy in the Reagan 80s and shut down the involuntary psych residential facilities. We need to have the balls to reinstate the regulatory structure that facilitated long-term — even permanent— institutionalization of some segments of society. Then spend everything it takes to staff these hospitals and mandate evidence-based care for these men and women. I know - ha.

The people under the bridge living with incurable schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder and lifelong poly substance use disorder that has permanently remodeled their brains (aka, self medicating for the schizophrenia) can. never. live. independent. lives.

This is the population in the tents and stumbling in the middle of Connecticut Ave. Overwhelmingly so. The striving single mom who just needs a housing voucher for the GGW-endorsed new apartments is an intentional red herring to trigger your guilt. She has zero to do with tent cities and the public health emergency

This isn't even remotely true. Like you, I was skeptical of the claim that homelessness was tied to affordability, but after reading up on the literature, it's true. High housing prices and homelessness are undeniably tied together.

Here are some papers if you're interested in learning more:
https://wp-tid.zillowstatic.com/3/Homelessness_InflectionPoints-27eb88.pdf
https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.09380
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9906.00168?journalCode=ujua20
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2012.00643.x

Debate Club Guy is back at it. The Google expert on every topic. LOL.

Step 1: Make sweeping, yet untrue, generalization on any topic
Step 2: People point out that it is incorrect
Step 3: Search Google for "studies" and post links without reading them
Step 4: Claim those links "prove" your point

It's a dumb game. If you cannot synthesize the evidence without posting links, then you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

The only dumb game here is the one that you're playing by pretending to ignore all of the evidence that runs contrary to your priors. You have the evidence in front of you if you actually want to learn something instead of trying to win an Internet argument by insulting people who disagree with you. Read it, or not. I suspect I already know which one you'll choose.

Does all of your knowledge of "evidence" come from those links that you just posted that your just Googled? Have you bothered to even read what you posted? Can you synthesize that information and re-present it accurately?

The technical term for what is happening here is what the experts call, "pulling stuff out of your butt." Just making it up as you go along, furiously Googling for post-hoc justifications to support whatever it is that you say.

You're like a conspiracy theorist screaming about everyone "ignoring the evidence" or not understanding the "truth", when you cannot even explain it yourself. My gosh. You're transparently ridiculous.

Hey man, listen. I get it. If my heels were so dug in to an obviously wrong position, in the face of overwhelming evidence supporting the contrary position, I'd attack the messenger and do everything I could to avoid confronting the evidence too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve worked at the same downtown office for 20 years. The visible homeless in the parks downtown have definitely increased. I personally think the invisible homeless are more tied to the dearth of affordable housing. The visible homeless (the ones you see in tents on a busy sidewalk or sleeping on a bench) have different problems. The opioid epidemic is definitely part of it. I think the closure of some large DD institutions such as diversion of most of st Elizabeth to other uses, closure of DC general shelter, etc. how many people remember the enormous housing projects that surrounded the whole area that is now nationals park? Those were all closed in the 2003–05 time frame. They were pretty awful looking and I think basically an open air drug market but obviously provided housing for a LOT of people at least some of which probably did not have the capacity to maneuver the housing market even if they got the housing subsidies they were promised.

Today there was a guy strolling down the middle of 15th street entirely naked except for a diaper. Affordable housing is not his biggest problem, I think.

We need a complement of different kinds of solutions.

+1

This is very well stated. And DC has a lot of supports and programs for the invisible homeless. The visible we do not have good supports or solutions for.

Legalize panhandling and trespassing, problem solved.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve worked at the same downtown office for 20 years. The visible homeless in the parks downtown have definitely increased. I personally think the invisible homeless are more tied to the dearth of affordable housing. The visible homeless (the ones you see in tents on a busy sidewalk or sleeping on a bench) have different problems. The opioid epidemic is definitely part of it. I think the closure of some large DD institutions such as diversion of most of st Elizabeth to other uses, closure of DC general shelter, etc. how many people remember the enormous housing projects that surrounded the whole area that is now nationals park? Those were all closed in the 2003–05 time frame. They were pretty awful looking and I think basically an open air drug market but obviously provided housing for a LOT of people at least some of which probably did not have the capacity to maneuver the housing market even if they got the housing subsidies they were promised.

Today there was a guy strolling down the middle of 15th street entirely naked except for a diaper. Affordable housing is not his biggest problem, I think.

We need a complement of different kinds of solutions.

+1

This is very well stated. And DC has a lot of supports and programs for the invisible homeless. The visible we do not have good supports or solutions for.

Anonymous wrote:I’ve worked at the same downtown office for 20 years. The visible homeless in the parks downtown have definitely increased. I personally think the invisible homeless are more tied to the dearth of affordable housing. The visible homeless (the ones you see in tents on a busy sidewalk or sleeping on a bench) have different problems. The opioid epidemic is definitely part of it. I think the closure of some large DD institutions such as diversion of most of st Elizabeth to other uses, closure of DC general shelter, etc. how many people remember the enormous housing projects that surrounded the whole area that is now nationals park? Those were all closed in the 2003–05 time frame. They were pretty awful looking and I think basically an open air drug market but obviously provided housing for a LOT of people at least some of which probably did not have the capacity to maneuver the housing market even if they got the housing subsidies they were promised.

Today there was a guy strolling down the middle of 15th street entirely naked except for a diaper. Affordable housing is not his biggest problem, I think.

We need a complement of different kinds of solutions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to make it illegal and enforcement

They need to make what illegal? Being homeless?

setting up a tent in public land - you shouldn't be allowed to take over public space permanently.

The government may not criminalize sleeping on public property unless the government provides adequate alternatives.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-homelessness/u-s-supreme-court-leaves-in-place-ruling-barring-prosecution-of-homeless-idUSKBN1YK1EA

The NPS certainly can - and should - remove the “campers” from Rock Creek Park and Parkway.

You're saying the NPS can do this, based on what?

Unregulated camping in the national parks is illegal and not compatible with the NPS’ mission of maintaining and preserving the parks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC has to be careful. It is a magnet for folks whose mental illness is triggered by the industrio-political-military complex. They are attractefld.to DC to lodge their complaints. It also risks being overly generous with the social responsibilities of our neighbors (MD and VA), much like the early days of Covid vaccines. DC should take care of DC residents, and by take care of I mean shelter or hospitalize (including involuntarily). If someone is recently arrived from somewhere else and plops on the sidewalk, bus tickets home.

Everyone I know in DC got their vaccine in MD.

Yep. Until about May, Bowser couldn’t get DC’s act together. We know Washingtonians who drove to Winchester, Norfolk, Roanoke, even NC.

Umm don't be obtuse.

The largest federal vaccination center was on the WMATA train line at the Greenbelt station.

https://www.wmata.com/about/news/Greenbelt-vaccination-site.cfm?alerts-widget-next-train-all=F11

It was provided by the U.S. Federal government not the government of Maryland - state lines in this case being immaterial. And don't act like all of you weren't pouring into our city for free Covid tests.

Do you think Greenbelt is in DC? But also, they had JnJ there and no one wanted it. Literally everyone I know in DC got their shots at Six Flags, which was run by the state of MD.

The statistics were that about half of DC shots went to folks from outside of DC the first 3 months. I hope their will be an inquiry into how the whole system was.managed, and then again, state by state (or city in DCs case)

You realize of course that shots were prioritized based on workplace for many of the phases? I live in VA and got my shots in MD because my workplace is there and it was time for those workers to get vaxed. I know people who live in MD and work in VA so they got vaxed in VA. It shouldn't be surprising that many essential employees in DC do not live in DC, because few people want to live in DC. If you are merely a "resident" but not fulfilling a critical workplace role, why should you get vaccinated before someone who lives in MD but fulfills a critical role in DC? Makes no sense.

I'm staying facts. Half went outside the city.

Because the only people that could get a shot in DC were VIPs and half of them live outside the city. Ordinary people had to go to MD or VA.

Exactly. half the shots went to people outside the city. The connection to homelessness, is that DC needs to coordinate with MD and VA--better than it did with Covid shots--to make sure it is taking up its fair part, but no more-certainly not theirs. They have the economic engines to take care of their homeless.

a.) initially a lot of DC's vaccinations were prioritized for front-line workers, like MPD, Fire/EMS etc, the majority of whom live outside of the city. Though I wish they DID live inside the city so that they would be more invested in and connected with the communities they are supposed to serve and protect and I think Council needs to work on that.

b.) DC did not get equal allocation and prioritization of vaccines as states did, was instead lumped in with territories like Guam and US VI and had lower prioritization.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to make it illegal and enforcement

They need to make what illegal? Being homeless?

setting up a tent in public land - you shouldn't be allowed to take over public space permanently.

The government may not criminalize sleeping on public property unless the government provides adequate alternatives.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-homelessness/u-s-supreme-court-leaves-in-place-ruling-barring-prosecution-of-homeless-idUSKBN1YK1EA

The NPS certainly can - and should - remove the “campers” from Rock Creek Park and Parkway.

You're saying the NPS can do this, based on what?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to make it illegal and enforcement

They need to make what illegal? Being homeless?

setting up a tent in public land - you shouldn't be allowed to take over public space permanently.

The government may not criminalize sleeping on public property unless the government provides adequate alternatives.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-homelessness/u-s-supreme-court-leaves-in-place-ruling-barring-prosecution-of-homeless-idUSKBN1YK1EA

The NPS certainly can - and should - remove the “campers” from Rock Creek Park and Parkway.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to make it illegal and enforcement

They need to make what illegal? Being homeless?

setting up a tent in public land - you shouldn't be allowed to take over public space permanently.

The government may not criminalize sleeping on public property unless the government provides adequate alternatives.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-homelessness/u-s-supreme-court-leaves-in-place-ruling-barring-prosecution-of-homeless-idUSKBN1YK1EA

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to make it illegal and enforcement

They need to make what illegal? Being homeless?

setting up a tent in public land - you shouldn't be allowed to take over public space permanently.