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.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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
They sound like complete a**- hats of the above is true
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I can't believe you all live around this. That article says an example of an injustice against the homeless was a cafe trying to clear an encampment so they could actually have outdoor seating for their customers. What is it you all are trying to achieve? Drug addicts shooting up wherever?
What are you trying to achieve? Where do you think the people should live?
It’s definitely complicated but in this country most people who are homeless are choosing to be (to avoid restrictions placed in them by shelters.)
Absolutely untrue. A passing glance at housing costs in this area should disabuse you of this notion.
The people in question in the article weren't pushed out of housing because it got expensive. They are addicts. They deserve our sympathy and help, but pretending they made no choices to put themselves on the street is disingenuous at best.
Odd, then, that rich addicts, who made the same "choice," are not living on the street. What could the difference be?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If I were running for mayor of a city like SF or DC, I pledge to get all the homeless out of the city. I’d give them a bus ticket and a couple thousand dollars and never let them back.
All the liberal benefits cities offer make it way to easy and comfortable to be homeless. I’d end it all.
Not arguing the pros and cons of this, but this is textbook Giuliani style.
Anonymous wrote:Does unhoused sound better than homeless? Is it less offensive? Is this just changing a term because people just want to do something? Is this a way to shift fault to others?
Unclothed vs clotheless?
Unarmed vs armless?
Anonymous wrote:If I were running for mayor of a city like SF or DC, I pledge to get all the homeless out of the city. I’d give them a bus ticket and a couple thousand dollars and never let them back.
All the liberal benefits cities offer make it way to easy and comfortable to be homeless. I’d end it all.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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
they put up another tent? wow.
Anonymous wrote: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: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.
Anonymous wrote: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