Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up the same way, OP, but in NYC. Few on dcum care or relate to the exhausted, working poor commuting families who have to experience more exhaustion, discomfort and inconvenience because of a few people who should be in shelters. Some of my worst childhood memories are of commuting with my single mom, knowing how little protection we had.

I'm a staunch Democrat but hate this side of liberal politics. And no one cares if you say unhoused or homeless! It's a nonsense signifier designed to deflect and soothe academic egos.

I am so, so, so sorry that you had to ENDURE the homelss when you were young. That must have been so very hard.

I also hate that we are not taking care of these people. As a society, we shouldn't be pushing them around out of your very sensitive space. We should invest a hell of a lot more into programs that actually help the unhoused. And yes, how we refer to these people matters. They are human beings worthy of decency even if you can't see it.

Tell us all about these "programs" that are going to help the homeless, over and above the billions already spent on this issue?

Tell us how you want to police to kick them 20 yards down the street so you don't have to be reminded that these people exist.

I asked you first, and of course you can't answer, because you as well as anyone can see that throwing more dollars (e.g. "programs") at the homeless issue is not the solution. You just don't have a solution, so it's always more "programs." Very vague, generic term that means nothing, but I'm sure it makes you feel virtuous to support.

I never said that I want the police to kick them 20 yards down the street.

I do support the concept of mandatory day and night shelters. People do not have a right to live on city streets. If they don't have somewhere else to go, they are taken to a shelter for sleeping and another location to spend their days.

No you didn't, but that's what they do. You can't make people go to shelters if they don't want to. They aren't committing any crimes. Yes, people have a right to be on the street the same way you do.

Of course more funding would solve a lot of these problems. Currently we do not have enough shelters or programs that allow these people to get off the street.

Your cynicism and hate does nothing to solve the problem and help these people.

They do not have a right to loiter in public places. They do not (should not) have a right to sleep, or set up camp, on the street or in any public place. Yes, these things should be petty crimes and there should be enforcement. Yes, people should be forced into shelters if they have no where else to go.

Actually, THEY DO have a right to sleep on a public bench. It's not against the law. Just like it's not against the law to take a nap on the bus, train, metro or the park.

Buses, trains and Metros are not public space. You pay for the privilege of being there. If you want to zine out and take a nap on your train ride home, go for it.

Completely different from loitering on public sidewalks.

If they are on the train, they paid to be there, just like everyone else.

For the price of one ticket, you can stay on a train all day?

Do you even know how Metro works?

It's a transit, not transitory, system. It's purpose is to move people from A to B efficiently.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up the same way, OP, but in NYC. Few on dcum care or relate to the exhausted, working poor commuting families who have to experience more exhaustion, discomfort and inconvenience because of a few people who should be in shelters. Some of my worst childhood memories are of commuting with my single mom, knowing how little protection we had.

I'm a staunch Democrat but hate this side of liberal politics. And no one cares if you say unhoused or homeless! It's a nonsense signifier designed to deflect and soothe academic egos.

I am so, so, so sorry that you had to ENDURE the homelss when you were young. That must have been so very hard.

I also hate that we are not taking care of these people. As a society, we shouldn't be pushing them around out of your very sensitive space. We should invest a hell of a lot more into programs that actually help the unhoused. And yes, how we refer to these people matters. They are human beings worthy of decency even if you can't see it.

Tell us all about these "programs" that are going to help the homeless, over and above the billions already spent on this issue?

Tell us how you want to police to kick them 20 yards down the street so you don't have to be reminded that these people exist.

I asked you first, and of course you can't answer, because you as well as anyone can see that throwing more dollars (e.g. "programs") at the homeless issue is not the solution. You just don't have a solution, so it's always more "programs." Very vague, generic term that means nothing, but I'm sure it makes you feel virtuous to support.

I never said that I want the police to kick them 20 yards down the street.

I do support the concept of mandatory day and night shelters. People do not have a right to live on city streets. If they don't have somewhere else to go, they are taken to a shelter for sleeping and another location to spend their days.

No you didn't, but that's what they do. You can't make people go to shelters if they don't want to. They aren't committing any crimes. Yes, people have a right to be on the street the same way you do.

Of course more funding would solve a lot of these problems. Currently we do not have enough shelters or programs that allow these people to get off the street.

Your cynicism and hate does nothing to solve the problem and help these people.

They do not have a right to loiter in public places. They do not (should not) have a right to sleep, or set up camp, on the street or in any public place. Yes, these things should be petty crimes and there should be enforcement. Yes, people should be forced into shelters if they have no where else to go.

Actually, THEY DO have a right to sleep on a public bench. It's not against the law. Just like it's not against the law to take a nap on the bus, train, metro or the park.

Buses, trains and Metros are not public space. You pay for the privilege of being there. If you want to zine out and take a nap on your train ride home, go for it.

Completely different from loitering on public sidewalks.

If they are on the train, they paid to be there, just like everyone else.

For the price of one ticket, you can stay on a train all day?

Do you even know how Metro works?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up the same way, OP, but in NYC. Few on dcum care or relate to the exhausted, working poor commuting families who have to experience more exhaustion, discomfort and inconvenience because of a few people who should be in shelters. Some of my worst childhood memories are of commuting with my single mom, knowing how little protection we had.

I'm a staunch Democrat but hate this side of liberal politics. And no one cares if you say unhoused or homeless! It's a nonsense signifier designed to deflect and soothe academic egos.

I am so, so, so sorry that you had to ENDURE the homelss when you were young. That must have been so very hard.

I also hate that we are not taking care of these people. As a society, we shouldn't be pushing them around out of your very sensitive space. We should invest a hell of a lot more into programs that actually help the unhoused. And yes, how we refer to these people matters. They are human beings worthy of decency even if you can't see it.

Tell us all about these "programs" that are going to help the homeless, over and above the billions already spent on this issue?

Tell us how you want to police to kick them 20 yards down the street so you don't have to be reminded that these people exist.

I asked you first, and of course you can't answer, because you as well as anyone can see that throwing more dollars (e.g. "programs") at the homeless issue is not the solution. You just don't have a solution, so it's always more "programs." Very vague, generic term that means nothing, but I'm sure it makes you feel virtuous to support.

I never said that I want the police to kick them 20 yards down the street.

I do support the concept of mandatory day and night shelters. People do not have a right to live on city streets. If they don't have somewhere else to go, they are taken to a shelter for sleeping and another location to spend their days.

No you didn't, but that's what they do. You can't make people go to shelters if they don't want to. They aren't committing any crimes. Yes, people have a right to be on the street the same way you do.

Of course more funding would solve a lot of these problems. Currently we do not have enough shelters or programs that allow these people to get off the street.

Your cynicism and hate does nothing to solve the problem and help these people.

They do not have a right to loiter in public places. They do not (should not) have a right to sleep, or set up camp, on the street or in any public place. Yes, these things should be petty crimes and there should be enforcement. Yes, people should be forced into shelters if they have no where else to go.

Actually, THEY DO have a right to sleep on a public bench. It's not against the law. Just like it's not against the law to take a nap on the bus, train, metro or the park.

Buses, trains and Metros are not public space. You pay for the privilege of being there. If you want to zine out and take a nap on your train ride home, go for it.

Completely different from loitering on public sidewalks.

If they are on the train, they paid to be there, just like everyone else.

For the price of one ticket, you can stay on a train all day?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up the same way, OP, but in NYC. Few on dcum care or relate to the exhausted, working poor commuting families who have to experience more exhaustion, discomfort and inconvenience because of a few people who should be in shelters. Some of my worst childhood memories are of commuting with my single mom, knowing how little protection we had.

I'm a staunch Democrat but hate this side of liberal politics. And no one cares if you say unhoused or homeless! It's a nonsense signifier designed to deflect and soothe academic egos.

I am so, so, so sorry that you had to ENDURE the homelss when you were young. That must have been so very hard.

I also hate that we are not taking care of these people. As a society, we shouldn't be pushing them around out of your very sensitive space. We should invest a hell of a lot more into programs that actually help the unhoused. And yes, how we refer to these people matters. They are human beings worthy of decency even if you can't see it.

Tell us all about these "programs" that are going to help the homeless, over and above the billions already spent on this issue?

Tell us how you want to police to kick them 20 yards down the street so you don't have to be reminded that these people exist.

I asked you first, and of course you can't answer, because you as well as anyone can see that throwing more dollars (e.g. "programs") at the homeless issue is not the solution. You just don't have a solution, so it's always more "programs." Very vague, generic term that means nothing, but I'm sure it makes you feel virtuous to support.

I never said that I want the police to kick them 20 yards down the street.

I do support the concept of mandatory day and night shelters. People do not have a right to live on city streets. If they don't have somewhere else to go, they are taken to a shelter for sleeping and another location to spend their days.

No you didn't, but that's what they do. You can't make people go to shelters if they don't want to. They aren't committing any crimes. Yes, people have a right to be on the street the same way you do.

Of course more funding would solve a lot of these problems. Currently we do not have enough shelters or programs that allow these people to get off the street.

Your cynicism and hate does nothing to solve the problem and help these people.

They do not have a right to loiter in public places. They do not (should not) have a right to sleep, or set up camp, on the street or in any public place. Yes, these things should be petty crimes and there should be enforcement. Yes, people should be forced into shelters if they have no where else to go.

Actually, THEY DO have a right to sleep on a public bench. It's not against the law. Just like it's not against the law to take a nap on the bus, train, metro or the park.

Buses, trains and Metros are not public space. You pay for the privilege of being there. If you want to zine out and take a nap on your train ride home, go for it.

Completely different from loitering on public sidewalks.

If they are on the train, they paid to be there, just like everyone else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of the people you are bit7hing about are also disabled and elderly.

Are you also the poster who wants to protect the children from the homeless at the Tennleytown library?

NP. I'm not the poster you're referring to but why do you continue to insist the homeless - often mentally ill men - should be able to masturbate, expose themselves, and leer at women and children in public spaces? I think that's a better question.

Never suggested that nor did OP reference any of it. Criminal behavior is just that, whether committed by a homeless person or anyone else. If that happens, call the police.

However, sitting in a bus shelter or the library is perfectly legal and acceptable behavior.

Lastly, leering is not against the law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Police dispatcher here:
Couple different perspectives. We get calls about this all the time, probably daily/several times a week. Legally we can’t cite someone for trespassing or laying in a bus shelter because there is no “ victim” per se and they’re not breaking the law either. Also, the bus shelter falls under metro bus or ride on, not the local police.
Also, everyone films the police now, so if they go out and ask someone to move along, next thing the police are being accused of “ harassing the homeless” and it’s all over everywhere how awful the police are for harassing people.
We do go out and check on the person, they say they’re ok, they refuse services and we carry on our way.

Interesting. This "no victim" interpretation implies that I can build a house on public land and live there.

Interesting that you equate sitting on a public bus bench with building a house on public land. Are you really this stupid or is it a temporary lapse?

DP. Are you that stupid to not understand that these homeless people are "building their home" in the bus shelter, taking it over.

You say that I like I don’t take the bus almost daily. You’re full of shit.

I just passed a shelter on the way to the metro. It’s on Mass Ave in case you are wondering. Men line up at 4:30 to be able to get in for the night. Many of them don’t get in because when the shelter fills up that’s it. Can’t get in. I hope they are able to go to a public space tonight and not freeze to death.

DC spent $500 million on homeless outreach. That's meant to cover services for approximately 5,000 homeless. That's $100,000/person. Where is all the money going?

I'm not going to say that DC is doing a good job or spending money well. But yes, $100K/year is probably a conservative estimate of what it takes to try to take one chronically homeless person living on the streets and successfully transition them into some sort of stable living arrangement. That number would include detox, rehab, and/or intensive mental health treatment; basic health and hygiene needs; location of and outreach to any next of kin for legal assistance; search for and placement in housing; and daily welfare/med checks + follow-up support. Clearly we as a society are not willing to pay for this, which leaves us the alternatives of people living on the street, or people rounded up and jailed. Internationally, the housing-first model works best, but domestically, I have never seen a program with sufficient resources to make it successful and not end up putting program participants at further risk.

To the people comparing DC parks and streets to any other country - it's our health care system, stupid. In pretty much any other Westernized nation, there is national health care access and a high standard of care that would prevent the severely mentally ill from ending up on the streets. The homeless you *don't* see (which is where I think the term 'unhoused' is more accurate) because they're in shelters or subsidized housing or couch-surfing would be better served by stronger social safety nets, which again exist pretty much everywhere except the US.

It's so reductionist to say, "oh, you just want to throw more money at the problem?!" because obviously in our current American society, almost no amount of money in an individual city will move the needle. But yes, overall, our pathetic spending on domestic, social welfare programs (compared to defense, international interference, and billionaire tax relief) is why we can't effectively address this issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up the same way, OP, but in NYC. Few on dcum care or relate to the exhausted, working poor commuting families who have to experience more exhaustion, discomfort and inconvenience because of a few people who should be in shelters. Some of my worst childhood memories are of commuting with my single mom, knowing how little protection we had.

I'm a staunch Democrat but hate this side of liberal politics. And no one cares if you say unhoused or homeless! It's a nonsense signifier designed to deflect and soothe academic egos.

I'm not a Democrat (I'm an Independent) and this is precisely the type of nonsense that drives middle-class or lower middle-class families away from the Democratic party.

I'm a kid of immigrants and my mom didn't have a driver's license so we took the bus everywhere. Have the same sentiment as the OP. But, rich, white liberals can only see things from one point of view and have zero sympathy for those who this affects on a daily basis.

+1 Definitely

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up the same way, OP, but in NYC. Few on dcum care or relate to the exhausted, working poor commuting families who have to experience more exhaustion, discomfort and inconvenience because of a few people who should be in shelters. Some of my worst childhood memories are of commuting with my single mom, knowing how little protection we had.

I'm a staunch Democrat but hate this side of liberal politics. And no one cares if you say unhoused or homeless! It's a nonsense signifier designed to deflect and soothe academic egos.

+1

+1 million

Anonymous wrote:I grew up the same way, OP, but in NYC. Few on dcum care or relate to the exhausted, working poor commuting families who have to experience more exhaustion, discomfort and inconvenience because of a few people who should be in shelters. Some of my worst childhood memories are of commuting with my single mom, knowing how little protection we had.

I'm a staunch Democrat but hate this side of liberal politics. And no one cares if you say unhoused or homeless! It's a nonsense signifier designed to deflect and soothe academic egos.

I'm not a Democrat (I'm an Independent) and this is precisely the type of nonsense that drives middle-class or lower middle-class families away from the Democratic party.

I'm a kid of immigrants and my mom didn't have a driver's license so we took the bus everywhere. Have the same sentiment as the OP. But, rich, white liberals can only see things from one point of view and have zero sympathy for those who this affects on a daily basis.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up the same way, OP, but in NYC. Few on dcum care or relate to the exhausted, working poor commuting families who have to experience more exhaustion, discomfort and inconvenience because of a few people who should be in shelters. Some of my worst childhood memories are of commuting with my single mom, knowing how little protection we had.

I'm a staunch Democrat but hate this side of liberal politics. And no one cares if you say unhoused or homeless! It's a nonsense signifier designed to deflect and soothe academic egos.

I am so, so, so sorry that you had to ENDURE the homelss when you were young. That must have been so very hard.

I also hate that we are not taking care of these people. As a society, we shouldn't be pushing them around out of your very sensitive space. We should invest a hell of a lot more into programs that actually help the unhoused. And yes, how we refer to these people matters. They are human beings worthy of decency even if you can't see it.

Tell us all about these "programs" that are going to help the homeless, over and above the billions already spent on this issue?

Tell us how you want to police to kick them 20 yards down the street so you don't have to be reminded that these people exist.

I asked you first, and of course you can't answer, because you as well as anyone can see that throwing more dollars (e.g. "programs") at the homeless issue is not the solution. You just don't have a solution, so it's always more "programs." Very vague, generic term that means nothing, but I'm sure it makes you feel virtuous to support.

I never said that I want the police to kick them 20 yards down the street.

I do support the concept of mandatory day and night shelters. People do not have a right to live on city streets. If they don't have somewhere else to go, they are taken to a shelter for sleeping and another location to spend their days.

No you didn't, but that's what they do. You can't make people go to shelters if they don't want to. They aren't committing any crimes. Yes, people have a right to be on the street the same way you do.

Of course more funding would solve a lot of these problems. Currently we do not have enough shelters or programs that allow these people to get off the street.

Your cynicism and hate does nothing to solve the problem and help these people.

They do not have a right to loiter in public places. They do not (should not) have a right to sleep, or set up camp, on the street or in any public place. Yes, these things should be petty crimes and there should be enforcement. Yes, people should be forced into shelters if they have no where else to go.

Actually, THEY DO have a right to sleep on a public bench. It's not against the law. Just like it's not against the law to take a nap on the bus, train, metro or the park.

Buses, trains and Metros are not public space. You pay for the privilege of being there. If you want to zine out and take a nap on your train ride home, go for it.

Completely different from loitering on public sidewalks.

NP and a few thoughts on this:

The homeless situation burdens people differently. If you are a young male, it probably matters less to you and you have the privilege of being all magnanimous. But for smaller women or children, it truly inhibits their sense of safety moving about the city.

I think people who argue that all the homeless are just harmless people loitering around are all full of baloney. Many of these people are mentally ill and/or high on drugs that are increasingly tainted with dangerous substances. It is objectively more dangerous for someone to have to walk by a lot of homeless people today.

Anonymous wrote:A lot of the people you are bit7hing about are also disabled and elderly.

Are you also the poster who wants to protect the children from the homeless at the Tennleytown library?

NP. I'm not the poster you're referring to but why do you continue to insist the homeless - often mentally ill men - should be able to masturbate, expose themselves, and leer at women and children in public spaces? I think that's a better question.

Anonymous wrote:I grew up the same way, OP, but in NYC. Few on dcum care or relate to the exhausted, working poor commuting families who have to experience more exhaustion, discomfort and inconvenience because of a few people who should be in shelters. Some of my worst childhood memories are of commuting with my single mom, knowing how little protection we had.

I'm a staunch Democrat but hate this side of liberal politics. And no one cares if you say unhoused or homeless! It's a nonsense signifier designed to deflect and soothe academic egos.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly if people don’t want to go to a shelter because they aren’t clean and continuously drain resources by forcing the city to clean out their encampment l, maybe prison is the solution

A true fascist in our midst!

Clean as in clean of drugs.

Is your solution to allow them to build defacto villages anywhere? Do you think they should have to get permits to make sure their structures are inhabitable?

What is your solution?

Oh, so you have a problem with paying for a permit and going through a review process to build a shed in your yard when someone can just set up shop in a bus shelter? What are you, a fascist?!!!

You are both fascists if you think you can put people in prison because “they aren’t clean.”

Just once I would like to see a thread started that expresses concern for these people instead of these selfish, tone deaf, idiotic rants about their smell and them simply occupying a public space. You are not good people.

You could start one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly if people don’t want to go to a shelter because they aren’t clean and continuously drain resources by forcing the city to clean out their encampment l, maybe prison is the solution

A true fascist in our midst!

Clean as in clean of drugs.

Is your solution to allow them to build defacto villages anywhere? Do you think they should have to get permits to make sure their structures are inhabitable?

What is your solution?

Oh, so you have a problem with paying for a permit and going through a review process to build a shed in your yard when someone can just set up shop in a bus shelter? What are you, a fascist?!!!

You only need a permit on your own land. If you build on public land, it's a free for all.