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?

In some kind of dwelling where they follow social norms and contribute to society.

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, that way they can defecate somewhere else!

But let's definitely not get them housing, or at least a decent toilet so they have somewhere to sh!t.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a system to provide services to the homeless. You won’t have grifters and criminals on the street in tents if we ban camping on public property and require the unhoused to use the social services provided for them.

Yes, thank you! And the council just voted to raise taxes on the "wealthy" which advocates claim will "end homelessness." HOW will throwing more money at the problem end homelessness if the city isn't even allowed to require people to use the available services? The advocates on twitter who were championing the tax increase (and basically saying that anyone who voted against it doesn't want the end homelessness) are the same ones criticizing Pinto for not fighting the Park Service on cleaning the encampment downtown (and also criticizing her for being on vacation when the happened, also a ridiculous position). WHAT exactly do these advocates want? Increased taxes that pay for services that aren't used?

This.

Here's what's going to happen. The money will be used for stuff like universal basic income and housing vouchers for the under-employed, and street side services for those who choose to live on the sidewalk or park. Perhaps comfier chairs at the library, faster internet or porta potties. This is DC, baby SF.

By the way, a family member recently traveled through Northern CA and could not stop talking about how trashy and dirty it is.

Sorry, but your relative is probably watching too much Fox News where they bash CA non-stop. Yes there are homeless people but for the most part the Bay Area is pretty lovely.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, Stevie put up another tent. I walked by this evening and it looked...deflated? But it is there. Stevie and Savon of the former encampment are now in housing but holding down the fort in their former space for daytime related activity and handouts. I'm a liberal who has a lot of sympathy for the unhoused and most of my neighbors feel the same, but this is honestly an aggressive move on their part. The "unhoused" argument doesn't stand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a system to provide services to the homeless. You won’t have grifters and criminals on the street in tents if we ban camping on public property and require the unhoused to use the social services provided for them.

Yes, thank you! And the council just voted to raise taxes on the "wealthy" which advocates claim will "end homelessness." HOW will throwing more money at the problem end homelessness if the city isn't even allowed to require people to use the available services? The advocates on twitter who were championing the tax increase (and basically saying that anyone who voted against it doesn't want the end homelessness) are the same ones criticizing Pinto for not fighting the Park Service on cleaning the encampment downtown (and also criticizing her for being on vacation when the happened, also a ridiculous position). WHAT exactly do these advocates want? Increased taxes that pay for services that aren't used?

This.

Here's what's going to happen. The money will be used for stuff like universal basic income and housing vouchers for the under-employed, and street side services for those who choose to live on the sidewalk or park. Perhaps comfier chairs at the library, faster internet or porta potties. This is DC, baby SF.

By the way, a family member recently traveled through Northern CA and could not stop talking about how trashy and dirty it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a system to provide services to the homeless. You won’t have grifters and criminals on the street in tents if we ban camping on public property and require the unhoused to use the social services provided for them.

Yes, thank you! And the council just voted to raise taxes on the "wealthy" which advocates claim will "end homelessness." HOW will throwing more money at the problem end homelessness if the city isn't even allowed to require people to use the available services? The advocates on twitter who were championing the tax increase (and basically saying that anyone who voted against it doesn't want the end homelessness) are the same ones criticizing Pinto for not fighting the Park Service on cleaning the encampment downtown (and also criticizing her for being on vacation when the happened, also a ridiculous position). WHAT exactly do these advocates want? Increased taxes that pay for services that aren't used?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a system to provide services to the homeless. You won’t have grifters and criminals on the street in tents if we ban camping on public property and require the unhoused to use the social services provided for them.

Yes, thank you! And the council just voted to raise taxes on the "wealthy" which advocates claim will "end homelessness." HOW will throwing more money at the problem end homelessness if the city isn't even allowed to require people to use the available services? The advocates on twitter who were championing the tax increase (and basically saying that anyone who voted against it doesn't want the end homelessness) are the same ones criticizing Pinto for not fighting the Park Service on cleaning the encampment downtown (and also criticizing her for being on vacation when the happened, also a ridiculous position). WHAT exactly do these advocates want? Increased taxes that pay for services that aren't used?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

… and that lunatic was credited (not entirely without reason) with the Renaissance of NY.

DC, SF, Portland are already at or exceeding 70s era NY. None of y’all want to actually experience that.

Anonymous wrote:We have a system to provide services to the homeless. You won’t have grifters and criminals on the street in tents if we ban camping on public property and require the unhoused to use the social services provided for them.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It’s so very, very clear that you have never set foot in a city in California, Oregon or Washington. Venice Beach, Santa Barbara, Portland, Seattle, and a lot of LA are packed with white homeless-esque addicts. Judging from some of their surfboards and jeeps (SoCal), it’s pretty clear there was good money coming into their lives at one point.

When I lived in Seattle, I often noted the beautiful, perfect straightened teeth of the young dirty jonesing “homelessness” living in sidewalk tents.

The country, if not necessarily the District, is full of white addicts living on the streets. Some of them with spendy longboards