Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

glopmod t1_j9h27ik wrote

Reply to comment by WontStopAtSigns in Two-thirds of McPherson Square homeless remain on street, D.C. says by SnortingCoffee

Why would someone who isn't homeless choose to live in a tent on public land without electricity or water

4

WontStopAtSigns t1_j9h412g wrote

They aren't living on "public land" this isn't fucking Montana. They built a shanty town in a park 2 blocks from the White House. Everyone in that park knew this would happen and they laughed and saw how long they could play it out.

We aren't going to let McPherson SQ be a shanty town because a dozen people put their tents up.

"Without electricity or water" bullshit.. they are sleeping a few hundred yards from the president of the United States of America. Stop it.

23

glopmod t1_j9h47nr wrote

You did not even attempt to answer that question.

−2

WontStopAtSigns t1_j9h4cvv wrote

What was the question? They have electric and water in McPherson SQ.

5

glopmod t1_j9h4np9 wrote

It's right fucking there. I'm not going to repeat it because you're not gonna answer it.

​

No, those tents don't have electric and running water.

3

WontStopAtSigns t1_j9h59n2 wrote

Moving the goal posts again? They chose that park to be closer to those things. We still can't let them live there in a shanty town. Even a progressive warrior should understand that.

11

glopmod t1_j9h5lcu wrote

The homeless are fucking everywhere in this city. They're there because it's where people who may give them money and food are and they had yet to be pushed out of somewhere else that will be closed for months to train them to be elsewhere. We are pushing a problem on top of, not under, a different rug, deciding to clean that run, and pushing it to another.

4

WontStopAtSigns t1_j9h6oa1 wrote

No.

This is not "ignoring the problem" or fixing homeless. They are a dozen vagrants removed from a central park.

We have neither added to or subtracted from the homeless population. They are where they would have been anyway, today.

10

glopmod t1_j9h71a1 wrote

Correct. If they leave this park, they go to a different place in the city. Very good. Your insistence that this park be clean for you does not resolve it.

8

WontStopAtSigns t1_j9h7ley wrote

Well the park is clean now, so while you work on that other business, my issue is in fact resolved.

4

glopmod t1_j9h8jt6 wrote

And a different park is not. In a year, they will come back to this park when the current dirty park is cleaned.

​

If your issue is resolved, you lack object permanence.

3

dynospectrum7 t1_j9his10 wrote

Many have denied the temporary housing available.

13

glopmod t1_j9hjojm wrote

You're getting that information from?

−1

dynospectrum7 t1_j9hlsz2 wrote

Please don’t make me do this. A wapo article came out a week ago staying that of the individuals offered housing. Half didn’t take it. And when the camp was being surveyed half didn’t take it. So take that “concern” elsewhere.

13

glopmod t1_j9hm1ob wrote

Did they deny it, or did they not take it? Different things.

​

My apologies for expecting you to know what you're saying and have it be true, I won't do that again, seems to put you in a rough mood

−2

dynospectrum7 t1_j9hthhq wrote

Oh. You probably just can’t help it. And I’m trying to be respectful here. But there is no difference between someone denying housing and just not taking it. Then again, you sound like someone that would walk into a clearly condemned establishment and ask for pizza.

12

glopmod t1_j9hu2lq wrote

"I'm trying to be respectful but I am going to dig through your shit to find a way to insult you." Gimme a fucking break.

​

There is a difference between denying a service that is directly offering to you and being counted as "not taking" something you were unaware of or not offered specifically; these programs are often seen as being not utilized by those who need them while in reality getting them, or having them offered at all, is more difficult or unlikely than you imply, and the numbers are offered publicly to appear as if people simply refuse. I am sorry you can't grasp that difference and believe the city's statement without question.

−1

dynospectrum7 t1_j9hwiju wrote

Oh god. Your emotions are yours to deal with. I’ll give you some stats. Half of the 55~ in the camp were not surveyed. It was because they weren’t able to be found, or declined to even go through the process.

You mean to tell me that these people have been trying to get housing for the several months they set up shop in the square?

And no, I didn’t have to dig through your posts. I just remember how ridiculous it was when I saw it.

7

glopmod t1_j9hx4md wrote

So... you understand that's not denied, right? Half aren't even counted in this data.

I don't know how you can smugly "give me some stats" and not understand they oppose your entire point.

​

I think that's enough time for your man. You should take the time you would give to being smug to a stranger to think about what little information you have and how it counters your own position.

2

dynospectrum7 t1_j9i2pqe wrote

What. Half of those offered housing denied it. What is so hard to understand here?

As someone that works with this population, my position is the same.

When it comes to these camps, the only way to get these people off their ass is to force them to take action. A camp shouldn’t be around indefinitely because people won’t take it seriously. Same with the eviction moratorium and people just saying fuck it when it comes to paying their rent. And if you don’t have experience in the matter, I’m not trying to hear it.

3

glopmod t1_j9i32dn wrote

Half of those there were not reached. That means a quarter denied it. What is so hard to understand here?

0

dynospectrum7 t1_j9i51ui wrote

Lmao. I’m going to assume you are a middle school aged person or are something else. They weren’t reached because they didn’t want to be reached. Many declined the survey. How the fuck you live in the park but somehow miss canvassing for two weeks.

Layman’s (your) terms.

If, over the course of two weeks, someone is taking a an assessment of the clothes washing ability of the people who live in your home, and even though the three other occupants actually wash clothes, yet you refuse to wash clothes, can they give you a score? Or were you simply not reached?

3

glopmod t1_j9i5kqo wrote

"They weren't reached because (makes something up with no information)"

Keep the insults to yourself. I apologize for suggesting you might not have all the answers. Obviously whatever you have decided is correct is.

1

dynospectrum7 t1_j9i6gdc wrote

Haaaaa. Well let’s get to it. I work with this population on the daily. Do you?

3

dynospectrum7 t1_j9i5jd3 wrote

And while we’re at it. Why the f are peoples denying housing?

2