You are asking us to pay to house hard drug addicts in regular housing (because shelters won't do). You are not considering the nuisance they will bring to their new living situation, the friends they will bring round, or the disturbance, unkemptness or danger they may cause. I am fine with paying for a shelter, treatment facility or mental health facility. I have zero obligation to provide "housing first" for someone who doesn't like shelters because they have rules.

I agree with you. I think "Housing First" policies are naive and unrealistic precisely for those reasons, as well as the fact that in addition to drugs, mental illness is also extremely prevalent among the homeless---probably even more so than drugs, though often they go together. Several years there was an article regarding a recipient of a "housing first" apartment who decided it was a bright idea to dry his shoes by putting them in the oven . . . I believe though, that there needs to be more treatment programs available so that people in shelters can get the support they need to get off the drugs, get medication for their mental illness. This is tough work---every case is different and requires a lot of individualized case management. But just hand people "housing first" with little support?----they will just cycle back to the street.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

What's the best way to get there? Kick them and trash their stuff? Or offer them a hand up?

But DC is already quite generous in offering them a hand up. Many just refuse those services because shelters for example come with rules like no drugs.

I don't mean this to be rude or mean, but that's a pretty superficial understanding of what is offered and what that means for someone.

But let's take that example anyway: why is it the right policy to say 'no drugs' as a condition for an addict? Do you think many addicts are going to say 'ok then no more drugs for me'? It's why 'housing first' approaches are so much more successful.

Now consider all the other barriers there are to DC's 'great services'. Do you have ID/documents? Many don't. How about the risk of COVID in a congregate setting? The risk of getting your things stolen?

If you actually spent time with people in that situation and really cared about them then you'd see we aren't providing such great services. Some things are good and getting better, but it's not enough.

So you'd like us to pay for regular housing, (not a shelter with conditions) next to families and neighbors'rs, so people can do drugs? Do you know any addicts and what they are like? Treatment first yes, housing first no.

I hope this isn't a surprise to you, but people in houses also do drugs. You just don't see it as much. Treatment first just doesn't work.

DP. If you live in your own home and pay your own bills, I don’t care much what you do. How is this difference maker not obvious?

Well, as a homeowner you are on the government dole, through tax breaks that aren't available to others. Maybe you should stop taking the mortgage interest deduction before your next hit.

Dear lord, some of you are stupid. I pay way more to this city than they spend on me. If people like my family and me leave, who do you think will be paying for all the crazy and/or addicted homeless people?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

What's the best way to get there? Kick them and trash their stuff? Or offer them a hand up?

But DC is already quite generous in offering them a hand up. Many just refuse those services because shelters for example come with rules like no drugs.

I don't mean this to be rude or mean, but that's a pretty superficial understanding of what is offered and what that means for someone.

But let's take that example anyway: why is it the right policy to say 'no drugs' as a condition for an addict? Do you think many addicts are going to say 'ok then no more drugs for me'? It's why 'housing first' approaches are so much more successful.

Now consider all the other barriers there are to DC's 'great services'. Do you have ID/documents? Many don't. How about the risk of COVID in a congregate setting? The risk of getting your things stolen?

If you actually spent time with people in that situation and really cared about them then you'd see we aren't providing such great services. Some things are good and getting better, but it's not enough.

So you'd like us to pay for regular housing, (not a shelter with conditions) next to families and neighbors'rs, so people can do drugs? Do you know any addicts and what they are like? Treatment first yes, housing first no.

I hope this isn't a surprise to you, but people in houses also do drugs. You just don't see it as much. Treatment first just doesn't work.

DP. If you live in your own home and pay your own bills, I don’t care much what you do. How is this difference maker not obvious?

Well, as a homeowner you are on the government dole, through tax breaks that aren't available to others. Maybe you should stop taking the mortgage interest deduction before your next hit.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

What's the best way to get there? Kick them and trash their stuff? Or offer them a hand up?

But DC is already quite generous in offering them a hand up. Many just refuse those services because shelters for example come with rules like no drugs.

I don't mean this to be rude or mean, but that's a pretty superficial understanding of what is offered and what that means for someone.

But let's take that example anyway: why is it the right policy to say 'no drugs' as a condition for an addict? Do you think many addicts are going to say 'ok then no more drugs for me'? It's why 'housing first' approaches are so much more successful.

Now consider all the other barriers there are to DC's 'great services'. Do you have ID/documents? Many don't. How about the risk of COVID in a congregate setting? The risk of getting your things stolen?

If you actually spent time with people in that situation and really cared about them then you'd see we aren't providing such great services. Some things are good and getting better, but it's not enough.

So you'd like us to pay for regular housing, (not a shelter with conditions) next to families and neighbors'rs, so people can do drugs? Do you know any addicts and what they are like? Treatment first yes, housing first no.

I hope this isn't a surprise to you, but people in houses also do drugs. You just don't see it as much. Treatment first just doesn't work.

DP. If you live in your own home and pay your own bills, I don’t care much what you do. How is this difference maker not obvious?

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?

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

What's the best way to get there? Kick them and trash their stuff? Or offer them a hand up?

But DC is already quite generous in offering them a hand up. Many just refuse those services because shelters for example come with rules like no drugs.

I don't mean this to be rude or mean, but that's a pretty superficial understanding of what is offered and what that means for someone.

But let's take that example anyway: why is it the right policy to say 'no drugs' as a condition for an addict? Do you think many addicts are going to say 'ok then no more drugs for me'? It's why 'housing first' approaches are so much more successful.

Now consider all the other barriers there are to DC's 'great services'. Do you have ID/documents? Many don't. How about the risk of COVID in a congregate setting? The risk of getting your things stolen?

If you actually spent time with people in that situation and really cared about them then you'd see we aren't providing such great services. Some things are good and getting better, but it's not enough.

So you'd like us to pay for regular housing, (not a shelter with conditions) next to families and neighbors'rs, so people can do drugs? Do you know any addicts and what they are like? Treatment first yes, housing first no.

+1. Absolutely.

Dear lord. How can PP possibly be so naive?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

What's the best way to get there? Kick them and trash their stuff? Or offer them a hand up?

But DC is already quite generous in offering them a hand up. Many just refuse those services because shelters for example come with rules like no drugs.

I don't mean this to be rude or mean, but that's a pretty superficial understanding of what is offered and what that means for someone.

But let's take that example anyway: why is it the right policy to say 'no drugs' as a condition for an addict? Do you think many addicts are going to say 'ok then no more drugs for me'? It's why 'housing first' approaches are so much more successful.

Now consider all the other barriers there are to DC's 'great services'. Do you have ID/documents? Many don't. How about the risk of COVID in a congregate setting? The risk of getting your things stolen?

If you actually spent time with people in that situation and really cared about them then you'd see we aren't providing such great services. Some things are good and getting better, but it's not enough.

So you'd like us to pay for regular housing, (not a shelter with conditions) next to families and neighbors'rs, so people can do drugs? Do you know any addicts and what they are like? Treatment first yes, housing first no.

I hope this isn't a surprise to you, but people in houses also do drugs. You just don't see it as much. Treatment first just doesn't work.

Apparently, those people can keep it together enough to pay rent or a mortgage and not get kicked out by family or housemates. Drug addled street urchins do not *deserve* housing paid for with my very hard-earned income.

+1

You are asking us to pay to house hard drug addicts in regular housing (because shelters won't do). You are not considering the nuisance they will bring to their new living situation, the friends they will bring round, or the disturbance, unkemptness or danger they may cause. I am fine with paying for a shelter, treatment facility or mental health facility. I have zero obligation to provide "housing first" for someone who doesn't like shelters because they have rules.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

What's the best way to get there? Kick them and trash their stuff? Or offer them a hand up?

But DC is already quite generous in offering them a hand up. Many just refuse those services because shelters for example come with rules like no drugs.

I don't mean this to be rude or mean, but that's a pretty superficial understanding of what is offered and what that means for someone.

But let's take that example anyway: why is it the right policy to say 'no drugs' as a condition for an addict? Do you think many addicts are going to say 'ok then no more drugs for me'? It's why 'housing first' approaches are so much more successful.

Now consider all the other barriers there are to DC's 'great services'. Do you have ID/documents? Many don't. How about the risk of COVID in a congregate setting? The risk of getting your things stolen?

If you actually spent time with people in that situation and really cared about them then you'd see we aren't providing such great services. Some things are good and getting better, but it's not enough.

So you'd like us to pay for regular housing, (not a shelter with conditions) next to families and neighbors'rs, so people can do drugs? Do you know any addicts and what they are like? Treatment first yes, housing first no.

I hope this isn't a surprise to you, but people in houses also do drugs. You just don't see it as much. Treatment first just doesn't work.

Apparently, those people can keep it together enough to pay rent or a mortgage and not get kicked out by family or housemates. Drug addled street urchins do not *deserve* housing paid for with my very hard-earned income.

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?

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

What's the best way to get there? Kick them and trash their stuff? Or offer them a hand up?

But DC is already quite generous in offering them a hand up. Many just refuse those services because shelters for example come with rules like no drugs.

I don't mean this to be rude or mean, but that's a pretty superficial understanding of what is offered and what that means for someone.

But let's take that example anyway: why is it the right policy to say 'no drugs' as a condition for an addict? Do you think many addicts are going to say 'ok then no more drugs for me'? It's why 'housing first' approaches are so much more successful.

Now consider all the other barriers there are to DC's 'great services'. Do you have ID/documents? Many don't. How about the risk of COVID in a congregate setting? The risk of getting your things stolen?

If you actually spent time with people in that situation and really cared about them then you'd see we aren't providing such great services. Some things are good and getting better, but it's not enough.

So you'd like us to pay for regular housing, (not a shelter with conditions) next to families and neighbors'rs, so people can do drugs? Do you know any addicts and what they are like? Treatment first yes, housing first no.

I hope this isn't a surprise to you, but people in houses also do drugs. You just don't see it as much. Treatment first just doesn't work.

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?

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

What's the best way to get there? Kick them and trash their stuff? Or offer them a hand up?

But DC is already quite generous in offering them a hand up. Many just refuse those services because shelters for example come with rules like no drugs.

I don't mean this to be rude or mean, but that's a pretty superficial understanding of what is offered and what that means for someone.

But let's take that example anyway: why is it the right policy to say 'no drugs' as a condition for an addict? Do you think many addicts are going to say 'ok then no more drugs for me'? It's why 'housing first' approaches are so much more successful.

Now consider all the other barriers there are to DC's 'great services'. Do you have ID/documents? Many don't. How about the risk of COVID in a congregate setting? The risk of getting your things stolen?

If you actually spent time with people in that situation and really cared about them then you'd see we aren't providing such great services. Some things are good and getting better, but it's not enough.

OK, but is letting them live in tents in public doing them a service? Why is that better? And what is wrong with balancing the competing interests of different people here- I get that many of them may not want to go to shelters but there are several posters on this thread that don't feel comfortable walking next to these encampments or feel that they can't use park space because it is being taken up by tents. Not everyone gets everything that they want. Are all of these residents drug addicts? If not then send those who aren't to shelters and those who are to drug treatment centers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Anyone who goes by this Safeway and their tent: DO NOT GIVE THEM MONEY OR FOOD OR ANYTHING. You all are there reason they have been using and defecating in the streets. Let them know they will not get free food and drug money. Please for the love of god.

+1 please please please stop giving them a reason to stay there. Some of us live near there and these people harrass us and our kids by the end of the day when they’ve been drinking and doing whatever else all day. Don’t give them a reason to stay. I pay taxes there & this is our closest grocery store.

throw the tent away. or call 311 to pick it up for dumping.

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?

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

What's the best way to get there? Kick them and trash their stuff? Or offer them a hand up?

But DC is already quite generous in offering them a hand up. Many just refuse those services because shelters for example come with rules like no drugs.

I don't mean this to be rude or mean, but that's a pretty superficial understanding of what is offered and what that means for someone.

But let's take that example anyway: why is it the right policy to say 'no drugs' as a condition for an addict? Do you think many addicts are going to say 'ok then no more drugs for me'? It's why 'housing first' approaches are so much more successful.

Now consider all the other barriers there are to DC's 'great services'. Do you have ID/documents? Many don't. How about the risk of COVID in a congregate setting? The risk of getting your things stolen?

If you actually spent time with people in that situation and really cared about them then you'd see we aren't providing such great services. Some things are good and getting better, but it's not enough.

So you'd like us to pay for regular housing, (not a shelter with conditions) next to families and neighbors'rs, so people can do drugs? Do you know any addicts and what they are like? Treatment first yes, housing first no.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Anyone who goes by this Safeway and their tent: DO NOT GIVE THEM MONEY OR FOOD OR ANYTHING. You all are there reason they have been using and defecating in the streets. Let them know they will not get free food and drug money. Please for the love of god.

+1 please please please stop giving them a reason to stay there. Some of us live near there and these people harrass us and our kids by the end of the day when they’ve been drinking and doing whatever else all day. Don’t give them a reason to stay. I pay taxes there & this is our closest grocery store.

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?

1. The tax hasn't kicked in yet
2. The funding for additional services hasn't become available
3. Read the messages more carefully. No one said it will "end homelessness". They were very clear that it would end homelessness for a couple of thousands people.

The funding isn't available but the people who championed the tax are the same ones that are against these encampments being cleared. So what are the services supposed to do? Is the tax money going to go to port-a-potties in public parks since the people that this money is supposed to help want to live in public parks? How is that ending homelessness? Are the people in favor of letting people live in public parks saying that if they had more money right now that they wouldn't want those people going back to those parks? Are they saying that there is no shelter space for these people right now?

I honestly can't trust the judgement of anyone who tweets something like this:

https://twitter.com/jesserbnwtz/status/1422654487660048384

You didn't DO anything. You didn't END anything. You are only raising revenue. Advocating for people to live in tents in a public space is NOT an accomplishment.

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?

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

What's the best way to get there? Kick them and trash their stuff? Or offer them a hand up?

But DC is already quite generous in offering them a hand up. Many just refuse those services because shelters for example come with rules like no drugs.

I don't mean this to be rude or mean, but that's a pretty superficial understanding of what is offered and what that means for someone.

But let's take that example anyway: why is it the right policy to say 'no drugs' as a condition for an addict? Do you think many addicts are going to say 'ok then no more drugs for me'? It's why 'housing first' approaches are so much more successful.

Now consider all the other barriers there are to DC's 'great services'. Do you have ID/documents? Many don't. How about the risk of COVID in a congregate setting? The risk of getting your things stolen?

If you actually spent time with people in that situation and really cared about them then you'd see we aren't providing such great services. Some things are good and getting better, but it's not enough.

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?

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

What's the best way to get there? Kick them and trash their stuff? Or offer them a hand up?

But DC is already quite generous in offering them a hand up. Many just refuse those services because shelters for example come with rules like no drugs.