Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

norezervations t1_j71rw96 wrote

I do appreciate the sentiment here in your post. But a few things that dont make sense to me at all:

  • Why would “hypothermia season” have any bearing on evicting the encampment (or not)? An encampment, by its very nature, is still outside, and presumably (amongst folks not getting housing), they would still be outside also
  • McPherson Square is neither an encampment nor a community, it is a park meant for the enjoyment of residents and visitors alike. Lets just be clear on that.

No easy resolutions here. But just was confused/disagreed with some of the premises of your post

192

[deleted] t1_j71tisg wrote

[deleted]

18

OctoberCaddis t1_j720e6z wrote

The city has something like 6,000 shelter beds, and surges that number in winter. That’s all the housing solution anyone is entitled to.

45

[deleted] t1_j721r3y wrote

[deleted]

8

PanAmargo t1_j722i68 wrote

These people aren’t entitled to occupy downtown park space to for a long term camp out.

The city must enforce the laws on the books to guarantee public space to the public.

Not clearing encampments just makes the problem worse over time. LA and SF are perfect examples.

It’s like highway building: you do it to ease traffic but more people end up using the highway.

You don’t clear encampments out of “compassion” and more people think living in tents downtown is a viable alternative vs. going to homeless shelters or taking advantage of hundreds of millions of social service spending to get back on their feet long term.

65

[deleted] t1_j723y2s wrote

[deleted]

1

PanAmargo t1_j725gy2 wrote

People don’t go to the shelter because they can’t do drugs and get drunk and fuck and sell drugs.

Wake up.

DC spends hundreds of millions on homeless. People with severe mental illness and drug addiction don’t want to follow rules to go to a shelter.

Fine.

But you can’t occupy downtown parks for your long term camp out panhandling K2 harassing regular citizens party.

49

[deleted] t1_j726jgf wrote

[deleted]

9

PanAmargo t1_j72c2or wrote

They set up shop somewhere else. Then you clear that park.

You do not let the city to accept long term tent encampments. You just enforce the laws to ensure a safe and clean city for everyone (including those living in unsafe conditions in tents in downtown.)

The city must be strategic with a looming fiscal crisis due to little downtown commuter real estate and restaurant and tax revenue.

If the city continues to scare away sources of income but encouraging a lawless downtown (now that they don’t have a captive suburban commuter class) then there will not be the generous surplus to spend hundreds of millions a year on social services, to help people that want to be helped.

The city should make setting up downtown tent cities impossible or very difficult, so that people are incentivized to seek help through the existing abundant channels of social services, move to a place where they will not be monopolizing public space (in the woods somewhere, where homeless used to stay before tent cities were allowed by municipal agencies) or move to a city that allows long-term homeless encampments to thrive unchecked. I believe there is a lot of current space for tents to be pitched in Seattle and Los Angeles, with a municipal government that sanctions that behavior.

32

GregoirPicard t1_j73z4cv wrote

You don't actually live in D.C., right? Guessing you commute from NoVA. Also, "looming fiscal crisis, LOLOLOLOL.

−15

PanAmargo t1_j748sgw wrote

In case you haven’t been paying attention, which clearly you haven’t, the mayor has been lobbying the president to force suburban commuters to return to the office. And I live in northwest and your muthas house.

“Being a person who residents blame when they have to start commuting again — let alone being a blue-city Democrat who makes strange bedfellows with GOP ultras — is the sort of thing usually avoided by a pol skilled enough to win a landslide third term as mayor, as Bowser just did.

But the way the local government sees it, something has to give or else the city is in deep trouble.

There are days when downtowns in other American towns can almost look like they did before 2020. In the 9-to-5 core of Washington, though, there’s no mistaking the 2023 reality with the pre-Covid world. Streets are noticeably emptier and businesses scarcer. Crime has ticked up. The city’s remarkable quarter-century run of population growth and economic dynamism and robust tax revenues seems in danger.

Officials now privately worry about a return to the bad old days when the District, unable to pay its bills, was forced to throw itself on the mercy of Newt Gingrich’s Congress. And while some of the broad factors that caused the whipsaw change from municipal optimism to civic anxiety are beyond any local pol’s control, bringing Uncle Sam’s workers back is something denizens of D.C.’s government think mayoral cajoling might affect.

According to census data, Washington has the highest work-from-home rate in the country. Week-to-week numbers from the security firm Kastle Systems back this up: The company, whose key fobs are used in office buildings around the country (including the one that houses POLITICO), compiles real-time occupancy data based on card swipes in its 10 largest markets. D.C. is perennially dead last.

“It is a challenge to have a quarter of the economy sitting on the sidelines,” Falcicchio says. The total number of jobs has dropped significantly, notably in hospitality. “We think that’s because those jobs are really kind of indirect jobs that are somewhat dependent on the vibrancy that the federal government being in the office offers.”

“Or another way to look at it is Metro,” the regional transit system, he says. “It’s about a third of what it used to be.” When rider revenue plunges, the local jurisdictions have to make up for it out of their general funds — money that could otherwise go to schools or public safety. It’s a dangerous cycle for any municipality.

In the local nightmare scenario, a downtown that’s perpetually short of workers has disastrous knock-on effects: Taxes on retail sales and commercial real estate don’t come in, public services get cut back, transit gets slower, empty streets feel increasingly scary, and the capital regains its 1980s-era image as a place people flee.”

9

Sufficient-Job-1013 t1_j72p2nt wrote

They are allowed to use drugs in their tents but not in shelters. This isn’t a judgement, I love drugs, but the fact is an overwhelming majority of unhoused people have substance abuse issues and shelters do not allow it. I agree the shelters need to do something to accommodate people and meet them where they are. People also need to be willing to get treatment if substance abuse is a problem that interferes with their ability to participate in society.

35

[deleted] t1_j72qqoz wrote

[deleted]

11

FiveDaysLate t1_j750zpb wrote

Commenting to say that I appreciate the discourse between you and those you responded to. Good civic discussion.

9

Sufficient-Job-1013 t1_j769awc wrote

I don’t think we disagree about much. We both agree unhoused people need more support from governments. I agree it’s problematic to clear the camp away without some kind of alternative placement. But I’d imagine some of those people have declined some services, declined shelters, declined help.

Saying that I want them to die out of sight is very uncharitable and untrue. They are already dying because they live in tents and are often using drugs/alcohol. It’s not safe to live like that and they are less accessible to support services. Pretending that you have the most humane take by letting people live outside year round, well, that’s kinda crazy.

We need to beef up shelter services and make sure they are allowed to get treatment there.

But you can’t live outside in the middle of a city. You are doing so much mental acrobatics to rationalize such. Go to SF and see if you think that’s a sustainable path. It’s not.

6

BBASPN69 t1_j75ilmh wrote

>Isn't it an enormous struggle to access even for relatively well-off people with support systems?

People forget this.

3

Semacosm t1_j7ool2a wrote

Yes drugs are easier for homeless people because some of those drugs stop them from being hungry.

1

J-Team07 t1_j78qjjk wrote

It is better, but shelters have rules like no doing hard drugs.

2

202markb t1_j74mu1z wrote

So they should take one of those vacant shelter beds, right? There is a whole pathways to housing track available for the temporarily unhoused that is completely separate from the waiting list for affordable housing.

8

[deleted] t1_j74nn38 wrote

[deleted]

4

EternalMoonChild t1_j754i2c wrote

Shelter systems are often very unsafe, especially for women and families. I agree that better services need to be offered.

3

poobly t1_j798sjl wrote

Can’t do drugs in a shelter.

3

tenfortytwopm OP t1_j71tkk1 wrote

  1. Most people who live there have tents with their possessions inside. Tents provide shelter and warmth, and people’s clothes, blankets, etc are inside. When encampments are swept, their stuff is bulldozed (at worst) and just thrown away (at best). “Why don’t people take their stuff with them before they sweep the encampment?” How do you feasibly transport all of your belongings like that? And where would they go? Additionally, McPherson is a place where a ton of non profits distribute supplies, including warm clothes, hot meals, and hand warmers. People who don’t even live in McPherson will come there for services. Removal of the encampment will disrupt this crucial supply of resources.

  2. That’s true, yeah. Don’t get me wrong, I love parks. But if that’s people’s only - or best - option as a place to live, that’s significantly more important than DC residents or visitors enjoyment of a park.

−39

norezervations t1_j71upzr wrote

Your point about McPherson Square’s concentration of unhoused folks, such that it makes it more efficient for nonprofits to distributed aid/supplies, actually makes a lot of sense — appreciate the reaponse here.

In terms of the timeline, if they moved the “sweep” back by 3 days (will be 50+ degrees for at least the next week), would that solve the largest problem here? (Assuming that the weather this weekends presents the most pressing danger concerning the sweep)

And idk, I absolutely still disagree that residents should be denied public spaces due to homelessness. I understand the issues with shelters (though…during hypothermia season, i think the city has a compelling interest to force unhoused folks to temporarily go to shelters, honestly), but think there needs to be a better solution.

^ Perhaps a dedicated plot of land somewhere in the district thats not currently being used as a park/public space where homeless folks are allowed to set up tents subject to common sense rules?

16

lady_marmalade24 t1_j73qprf wrote

I gently urge you to consider a counterpoint as to why it is against public interest to have unhoused folks concentrated in one area: it's a public health hazard. I remember NoMa during the height of the pandemic and there were concentrated tent populations during the various underpasses. The (1) close contact between folks and (2) the fact that these underpasses had no running water or garbage collection functions made for very unsanitary conditions. I would purposefully walk around these underpasses, versus going straight through, because of how unsanitary they were AND because I feared for my own safety. I am not without sympathy for these folks. But beyond public safety, we have to weigh the public health risks that come with allowing this concentrated population to stay in place.

12

tenfortytwopm OP t1_j71w6sr wrote

Thank you for being willing to have an open mind and intelligent conversation about this! Apparently that’s uncommon around here.

You’re right - Moving the sweep back wouldn’t resolve the issue at all. There’s been protests and petitioning for them to stop the sweep altogether since it was announced, but now the focus has shifted to at least giving them the original timeline promised.

I can’t imagine the DC govt, businesses, or residents would ever go for a solution like that. The cost of land is so high, and I imagine there would be a lot of businesses/residents upset that people are being “unfairly given” a place like that. I’d love to be wrong about that!

What this petition is for is by no means a perfect solution. It’s just asking for bare minimum fairness.

−17

SchokoKipferl t1_j72m50g wrote

“Unfairly given”? As of now the homeless are being “unfairly given” complete use of public parks, with the privilege to harrass and assault passersby as much as they like. I think most people would be thrilled to have their community park back in exchange, and it’s honestly not a bad solution seeing as it could keep the people together and provide a distribution point for food/supplies. Maybe somewhere further out where there is more space for them and isn’t so cramped. Obviously providing them with housing is the better option but if some people refuse it then it’s better than the exisiting approach.

19