Trump orders homeless evictions in DC

[Darkwind]

What is the solution? Nobody in this nation knows.

The solution has several steps.

The first one is don't be such a ******* pansy and give in to false compassion. Allowing these people to continue on is the most morally bankrupt position that exists on this planet.

IT IS NOT COMPASSION TO ALLOW THEM TO CONTINUE THE WAY THEY ARE GOING!

The lefts compassion is giving free whiskey to alcoholics.

You move them out of public spaces and offer them 1 of three choices.

Go where we can't see you and die there.
Go to a facility that will help you with your addiction.
Go to jail for vagrancy.

Time to stop being pussies about this.

 

[Marener]

We throw plenty of money at the problem already, most going to NGO's of "Advocates" and government employees running "homeless services" type departments.

The homeless industry is designed to perpetuate the problem, not solve it.

Here’s Marty. Just saying shit because he wants to believe it.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Franklin D. Roosevelt did not clear homeless people from Washington D.C. in a single event or year. The "Bonus Army" incident, which involved World War I veterans protesting for early payment of bonuses and was cleared by police under President Hoover, occurred in 1932, before FDR's presidency. While FDR's New Deal programs did aim to address unemployment and poverty, there is no historical record of a specific action to clear the homeless from Washington D.C. during his time in office, according to Wikipedia.

Not so fast eh?

Yes, President Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration did take actions that effectively removed homeless people — particularly those living in so-called "Hoovervilles" — from areas of Washington, D.C., but the full picture is more complex.

During the Great Depression, thousands of homeless people across the U.S. lived in shantytowns known as Hoovervilles, named derisively after President Herbert Hoover, who was blamed for the economic crisis. Washington, D.C., like many cities, had these encampments, including some near the Capitol and the Anacostia River.

When FDR took office in 1933, he launched the New Deal, a series of programs designed to provide relief, recovery, and reform. As part of this effort:

Removal of Hoovervilles: Some homeless encampments in D.C. were cleared out under Roosevelt’s administration — often by police or federal orders. This was partly for public health and aesthetic reasons, and partly to assert a sense of order during the economic crisis.
Alternative Support Offered:

Unlike previous administrations, FDR didn’t just remove people — the New Deal created federal programs to provide work and shelter.
Programs like the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and Works Progress Administration (WPA) offered jobs, while the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) and Public Works Administration (PWA) helped fund shelters and housing projects.

However:
The administration preferred offering work and relief over tolerating shantytowns. So, clearing Hoovervilles in D.C. was part of a broader effort to create a more structured, federally supported social safety net.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Funny how no one has answered my question about the action Gavin Newsom took in 2023 when he swept the streets of San Francisco of the homeless.

 

[Delldude]

What do you think happens to them.

And it's temporary and they can walk out the door.

You can't order them into a rehab unless it's an alternative to incarceration.

 

[Hafar1014]

The solution has several steps.

The first one is don't be such a ******* pansy and give into false compasion. Allowing these people to continue on is the most morally bankrupt position that exists on this planet.

IT IS NOT COMPASSION TO ALLOW THEM TO CONTINUE THE WAY THEY ARE GOING!

The lefts compassion is giving free whiskey to alcoholics.

You move them out of public spaces and offer them 1 of three choices.

Go where we can't see you and die there.
Go to a facility that will help you with your addiction.
Go to jail for vagrancy.

Time to stop being pussies about this.

An involuntary commitment is the best solution
Here's a more detailed breakdown:

• Purpose:
  The primary purpose of a 302 is to ensure the safety of individuals experiencing a mental health crisis and those around them.
  
  
• • Initiation:
    A 302 can be initiated by a "petitioner" who believes the individual meets the criteria for involuntary commitment. This petitioner can be a family member, friend, or even a professional who has witnessed the individual's behavior.
  • Criteria:
    To be subject to a 302, an individual must be deemed to be a danger to themselves or others due to a mental illness. This may involve threats of self-harm, harm to others, or an inability to care for themselves.
  • Duration:
    A 302 commitment typically lasts for a maximum of 120 hours (5 days).
  • 303 Hearing:
    If further treatment is deemed necessary beyond the initial 120 hours, a 303 hearing is held to determine if an extension is warranted. The original petitioner may be required to attend this hearing.
  • Potential Outcomes:
    After the 302 period, the individual may be released, continue treatment voluntarily, or potentially be subject to further involuntary commitment under Section 303 or 304.
  • Record Keeping:
    While a 302 may be part of an individual's medical record, it generally does not appear on standard background checks, according to JustAnswer.
  • Expungement:
    In some cases, individuals may be able to have a 302 commitment expunged from their record through a court process.

And it's temporary and they can walk out the door.

You can't order them into a rehab unless it's an alternative to incarceration.

No all I need is a credible threat of self harm or harm to others.

 

[Delldude]

No all I need is a credible threat of self harm or harm to others.

Yeah and at best, you're getting 90 maybe 180 days. And courts are very reluctant taking someone's liberty away.

 

[MayorQuimby]

This is a sensitive subject. Some might be addicts, what about those who just lost the roof over the heads due to costs or circumstances beyond their control?

My opinion, this policy hurts him more than it helps him. No one likes seeing bullying of those with the least power in society. Build affordable housing or as far as I am concern it is a failure of government.

I mostly agree, however, I just want to add something. There are actually homeless people who are neither drug addicts or mentally ill, nor are they pushed out of their homes due to prices. Their number is quite small, and they are what the olden-day people would call, "feckless". They have the capacity to work, to hold down a job (well, sort-of), they don't have any addiction, and they don't have any mental illness. But for whatever reason, they end up on the streets. With these people, it doesn't matter how much affordable housing we build for them, they will always go back on the streets.

The solution is obvious

Confine them to drug rehab centers or mental institutions

This is a very narrow way of looking at the problem. The homeless aren't all drug-addicts or people who suffer from mental illnesses.

The worst, are the finger wagging "religious people". The hypocrisy to me ensures that one day G-d will cut them down when their souls most need his support.

I am pretty sure you're lying again. I don't know where you live, but I mean if it's actually Toronto, I know for a fact that a lot of soup-kitchens there were operated by Christians. I visited a few of them, and there were lots of other services, too, such as hair-cutting, they also gave out toiletries, socks....etc. Before you say that the government also hands out stuff, such as welfare, disability and the like, you need to realize that those things aren't paid for by the government itself. They all come from the taxes, which other people pay, the government doesn't have to do anything for it, they just collect it. But with these Christians, they take money out of their own pockets. All to help complete strangers. Which is a major reason why I have so much respect for Christians, and I absolutely cannot comprehend why anybody could hate Christians so much.

Hiring 1000 new cops doesn't solve crime nor the underlying contributors to crime. It's a very complex situation but I know this for sure, whatever approach we have tried for the last 40 years has not worked, anywhere.

There was a former cop in Ontario who wrote a book and he was honest and insightful having seen the worst of the worst his entire career. He said something profound that always stuck with me, to paraphrase, "there isn't any criminal I've ever met who didn't come from a broken home".

This is only true for about 95 to 98% of the cases. I believe there exist people who are so fundamentally broken, that we could give them the healthiest, most loving home environments to grow up in, they would still turn out to be monsters. Think Ted Bundy. We don't want to believe it's true, we don't want to believe that people can be born evil, but it is the truth. We need to have the mental fortitude and courage to realize this. Otherwise, we will only be able to prevent a majority of crimes, rather than all of the crimes.

 

[Care4all]

Leaving them on the streets is better?

I dont think so

Where do you plan on putting them in the meantime? Where are you going to move them all to, right now? Surely the administration has a plan, for the immediate?

 

[Delldude]

Where do you plan on putting them in the meantime? Where are you going to move them all to, right now? Surely the administration has a plan, for the immediate?

Martha's vineyard is always an option.

'Scotty, set the transporter on wide spread'

 

[Hafar1014]

I mostly agree, however, I just want to add something. There are actually homeless people who are neither drug addicts or mentally ill, nor are they pushed out of their homes due to prices. Their number is quite small, and they are what the olden-day people would call, "feckless". They have the capacity to work, to hold down a job (well, sort-of), they don't have any addiction, and they don't have any mental illness. But for whatever reason, they end up on the streets. With these people, it doesn't matter how much affordable housing we build for them, they will always go back on the streets.





This is a very narrow way of looking at the problem. The homeless aren't all drug-addicts or people who suffer from mental illnesses.



I am pretty sure you're lying again. I don't know where you live, but I mean if it's actually Toronto, I know for a fact that a lot of soup-kitchens there were operated by Christians. I visited a few of them, and there were lots of other services, too, such as hair-cutting, they also gave out toiletries, socks....etc. Before you say that the government also hands out stuff, such as welfare, disability and the like, you need to realize that those things aren't paid for by the government itself. They all come from the taxes, which other people pay, the government doesn't have to do anything for it, they just collect it. But with these Christians, they take money out of their own pockets. All to help complete strangers. Which is a major reason why I have so much respect for Christians, and I absolutely cannot comprehend why anybody could hate Christians so much.




This is only true for about 95 to 98% of the cases. I believe there exist people who are so fundamentally broken, that we could give them the healthiest, most loving home environments to grow up in, they would still turn out to be monsters. Think Ted Bundy. We don't want to believe it's true, we don't want to believe that people can be born evil, but it is the truth. We need to have the mental fortitude and courage to realize this. Otherwise, we will only be able to prevent a majority of crimes, rather than all of the crimes.

All the homeless have mental illness and even the examples you stated are a criteria for a mental disorder.
Ted Bundy had anti social personality which is genetic. In most cases experiences during development determine the personality much more than genes.

 

[MayorQuimby]

Here’s Marty. Just saying shit because he wants to believe it.

Except he actually made some sort of a point, whereas all you have is shit-talk.

 

[MayorQuimby]

All the homeless have mental illness and even the examples you stated are a criteria for a mental disorder.

I am not saying you're wrong, just that it really comes down to how we define mental disorder. Is being "feckless" a mental disorder?

Ted Bundy had anti social personality which is genetic. In most cases experiences during development determine the personality much more than genes.

I don't want to hijack this thread, but, my honest belief is that genes are much much more dominant than environment, in the development and expression of a lot of traits.

 

[Hafar1014]

I am not saying you're wrong, just that it really comes down to how we define mental disorder. Is being "feckless" a mental disorder?


I don't want to hijack this thread, but, my honest belief is that genes are much much more dominant than environment, in the development and expression of a lot of traits.

If any behavior causes serious instability in work emotions or attachments(relationships) its a disorder. If one finds himself living on the street that qualifies. It may be acute not chronic.
All the models of development support experiences not genes as playing a major role. Then we have epigenetics when a gene is triggered by experiences. Both are in play but the ability to adapt is based on experiences during childhood.

 

[Delldude]

All the models of development support experiences not genes as playing a major role.

Why is there a gene known for addictive tendencies then that are passed on?
It can skip a generation too and reappear down the road.

 

[MayorQuimby]

If any behavior causes serious instability in work emotions or attachments(relationships) its a disorder. If one finds himself living on the street that qualifies. It may be acute not chronic.

But here you are judging other people's behavior, by the standards that you set, that are based on what you personally think is normal or abnormal, which might not apply that well to others. I will give you an example. You mentioned "instability". But what if there is a person, who is kind of unstable, but not unstable enough to be homeless, however, he likes to change abode once very 2 months or so? This is "instability", I am sure, according to a lot of people. But this person is otherwise normal and he can hold down a job. And what about people who lead an itinerant life-style? I am sure we have all heard of people who literally live out of their cars or vans. This can also be considered a form of instability by a lot of people, but some of these people honestly appear completely normal to me.

 

[Care4all]

13% of the Nation homeless are veterans....about 32,000.

Homelessness way up north is a real problem in the winter! Where I am there is no visible homelessness, but it can be hidden here in the summer....lots of places to camp, living in cars or van living....

BUT IN THE WINTER, the homeless get drawn to cities, looking for shelters to live in....otherwise they will die, in the cold. It's a problem we don't see on the streets with areas of street living....they simply can't survive the cold on the street in camps. So, the cost of the homeless is in shelter costs up here....from what I have read and heard on the news....I still have not witnessed it, in the 19 years living here....just read about it....and the affordable housing shortage we have in cities.

 

[MayorQuimby]

13% of the Nation homeless are veterans....about 32,000.

Homelessness way up north is a real problem in the winter! Where I am there is no visible homelessness, but it can be hidden here in the summer....lots of places to camp, living in cars or van living....

BUT IN THE WINTER, the homeless get drawn to cities, looking for shelters to live in....otherwise they will die, in the cold. It's a problem we don't see on the streets with areas of street living....they simply can't survive the cold on the street in camps. So, the cost of the homeless is in shelter costs up here....from what I have read and heard on the news....I still have not witnessed it, in the 19 years living here....just read about it....and the affordable housing shortage we have in cities.

Here we also have a homeless problem. The government says it's doing something about it, but I don't see anything concrete being done. I really feel that the government is secretly hoping that the homeless will just die off, it (the government) doesn't care, these people do not work, nor do they pay taxes, I bet the government must really think that these people are dead-weights, or, "useless eaters". Of course, they are not gonna come right out and say, "we are doing as little as we can, to make sure that all you bums die off eventually", so, they just pay lip-service in the mean-time, saying things like how much they care and what steps they are taking and such, when in reality, absolutely nothing that's actually helpful, is being done. I have noticed this about the government, and not just in the homeless area, but in a lot of other areas, too.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

These are almost exclusively drug addicts. I work in DC and live next door. The pot stench is incessant. Imagine being a tourist and this is what your kids are subjected to. No excuse. These homeless drug addicts should have been removed long ago.

 

[Delldude]

Where do you plan on putting them in the meantime?

Give them a ticket to California and put them on a train or bus.

It was done before.