Take action and tell DC and NPS to stop the sweeps

Submitted by tenfortytwopm t3_10sk77m in washingtondc

The National Park Service is evicting the encampment in McPherson Square on February 15. This is months earlier than planned, in the middle of hypothermia season, with little notice to the residents. The government has promised “social services” to the residents but has offered none. Waiting lists for housing are years long, and the homeless shelters are inadequate.

McPherson Square is not just a homeless encampment, it’s a community. The government continues to treat these people as if they aren’t human beings. Please help take action and tell DC Government and NPS to stop preying on the vulnerable.

Sign this petition

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

CandlesAnonymous t1_j7212us wrote

Counterpoint: No, we shouldn’t just let people take over public parks for their own personal use.

262

Sufficient-Job-1013 t1_j72okmm wrote

Hard agree. This is just wild. People defending the right to live in parks are only virtue signaling, pretending to be helping. Living in a tent in the middle of a city is a problem, letting it continue is complaisance and tacitly giving up on addressing it.

We need to fix the root cause but in the meantime you can’t live in public spaces.

105

sharpwqt232 t1_j73qi11 wrote

Counterpoint why are we okay with restaurants having permanent parklets taking up parking space? I'm talking about the shitty covid ones built in a rush.

−35

under_psychoanalyzer t1_j740lay wrote

I'm not sure wtf this has to do with the homelessness issue but if you want to start a completely separate discussion about it:

  • Yes absolutely those should be brought up to some sort of code and all the ones I've seen lately (I live near a lot) have been reinforced to be safe, heated structures protected behind concrete barricades
  • Many people are in favor of moving away from the uniquely American concept of letting car use take over such significant portions of our cities. Letting restaurants expand patios brings us in line with the rest of the developed world.
  • There's real economic benefit to it (increased restaurant capacity, pandemic safe seating for local businesses) and the amount of parking spaces they take away is negligible
  • I could keep going but its not really worth it, since your red herring of a comment barely deserved this much effort and you've probably stopped reading anyways.
22

HussarMurat t1_j7457f0 wrote

Because they are a far more efficient and pleasant use of land than more on-street parking (which there is already far too much of).

7

CriticalStrawberry t1_j74ry9u wrote

Becuase restaurants are businesses and businesses pay taxes. It's a much better use of land than the net cost drain street parking is on the city.

5

AzarathineMonk t1_j725er1 wrote

We shouldn’t have to let them, but until there’s actual buildings for them to move into, we’re just sliding them around until they’re out of sight.

−36

takiniteasy88 t1_j720yqs wrote

Is there also a petition to get the people in these encampments to stop harassing and assaulting people? I'm sure it would have the same effect as your petition.

254

throwaway6308 t1_j72etat wrote

This. I work by McPherson Square and even getting in/out of the metro station is scary, let alone the park itself.

102

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

Twio t1_j725liy wrote

Letting people live in squalor in a public park isn't progressivism nor is it acceptable, what is wrong with you?

107

SchokoKipferl t1_j72l2lr wrote

“The government continues to treat these people as if they aren’t human beings”, indeed.

(I’m saying that allowing people to live like this is treating them in a way that humans shouldn’t be treated. I’m agreeing with the person I replied to)

−10

ekkidee t1_j73m1oo wrote

>McPherson Square is not just a homeless encampment, it’s a community.

It's a public park. Calling it a "community" merely institutionalizes homelessness. This is not what I expect in a wealthy, civilized society. It doesn't matter if it's "hypothermia season" because they are already outside, and maybe this will cause some of them to come inside to one of the many empty beds in the shelters.

103

ganggnag t1_j769p6t wrote

Yooo this comment is crazy. Brother homelessness is already an institution, everywhere in the US.

−24

BPCGuy1845 t1_j723l4x wrote

The encampment should never have been allowed to form. A humane, ordered clearing of the encampment is needed. It appears that DC is offering help to everyone, but uptake is slow.

74

IndependentYoung3027 t1_j71tvyg wrote

I mean hypothermia conditionals means you should want people in the “inadequate shelters” over the streets. The shelters have heat.

Parks are not meant for small communities to live, they are meant for everyone to join. Maybe they can try to put everyone in the same shelter so they can stay with the people they know.

70

tenfortytwopm OP t1_j71ulax wrote

That would be good in theory - but that’s really not how DC shelters work. Many are closed on weekends - as if homelessness is somehow only a weekday problem - and many people do not feel safe in shelters.

−77

IndependentYoung3027 t1_j71xs6p wrote

This appears incorrect. Please provide any proof that many are closed on weekends. In the winter, DC will transport someone 24 hours a day to a shelter if they are in need.

53

SSSS_car_go t1_j722nnr wrote

>Many are closed on weekends

Can you provide a source for that statement? I don’t find that restriction on this long list of DC shelters. Admittedly I only skimmed, but other than Casa Ruby, which appears to be closed on Sundays, they look like they are open either every day or every night.

36

blind__panic t1_j71vx3i wrote

I’ve never heard about this issue of many shelters closing on weekends before and it is very surprising to me, I would have expected it to be a larger topic of conversation given how many issues this must cause. Where can I read more about this?

24

[deleted] t1_j74bcak wrote

You haven’t heard it because it isn’t true.

14

Formergr t1_j72moxv wrote

>Many are closed on weekends

Citation requested.

20

Shamepai t1_j75sgnp wrote

Not signing your sorry ass petition op

4

NefariousnessDue1017 t1_j722x3n wrote

Unless you live and work near that square shut up and sit this one out. This area is dangerous due to this encampment and it shouldn’t have been allowed to run this long. Your voice isn’t valid when you have the luxury of not having to be in this area. Crackheads and criminals is all that reside here.

58

goodeats93 t1_j72owhk wrote

Why don’t you let them live with you?

55

EternalMoonChild t1_j754xls wrote

This is reductive and unhelpful rhetoric. Ultimately, these people are going to make a new encampment somewhere else. We should expect our government to both allow public space to be enjoyed and have viable solutions to homelessness.

−7

pomegranatecloud t1_j72f0bs wrote

No. Is there a counter petition? Because I’d be happy to sign that.

54

PenisTriumvirate t1_j744anp wrote

Is there a way to do the opposite of sign this petition?

48

preppysurf t1_j7k96ge wrote

Agreed. They should clear is ASAP. February 15 is waiting too long

2

roadnotaken t1_j71sxc0 wrote

I head about this several weeks ago, so what you’re saying about “little notice” is flat out untrue.

46

tenfortytwopm OP t1_j71to4q wrote

Residents received notice that it was moved from April to February last week. That’s little notice. Please read the post more clearly

−12

roadnotaken t1_j71tvqh wrote

That’s three weeks. You’re making it sound like it’s tomorrow.

48

tenfortytwopm OP t1_j71udts wrote

Three weeks notice to somehow try and move everything you own and find a new place to stay? In what world is that not little notice?

−15

roadnotaken t1_j71uirc wrote

It is under 30 days but not by much. Almost all of us could be told to move from our residences in 30 days unless we own them.

39

tenfortytwopm OP t1_j71vbe5 wrote

1/3 shorter - that’s a significant amount. “Almost all of us” (whatever that means) probably also have much more access to resources and options for places to go. where do you propose these people go?

−4

Zwicker101 t1_j71zepz wrote

Assuming that housing services are slower on weekends, that's only 17 business days compared to the 60 business days originally in place.

I agree the homeless should be moved from public spaces for reasons such as public health and what not, but moving the date up was very short notice.

−7

DUNGAROO t1_j730rba wrote

Anyone who has read up on why the timeline for clearing the park was moved up knows this isn’t about punishing the homeless or reclaiming public spaces. It’s because the drug use and violent crime in the encampment has literally become so pronounced that social services workers can’t safely access those who need assistance anymore.

The city doesn’t have an unlimited budget. It’s about doing the most amount of good for the most amount of people, and the extent of the encampment has become unmanageable and is preventing those who are desperately in need of services from getting them.

39

[deleted] t1_j731wjd wrote

[removed]

0

PanAmargo t1_j732v2y wrote

It’s always edgy white college kids from suburban Maryland that make these profound announcements 😂

5

swampoodler t1_j71u7ds wrote

Petition the DC government to guarantee housing for them, and forcibly remove folk who won’t comply.

If there’s housing available, get out the park.

37

tenfortytwopm OP t1_j71up64 wrote

That would be a great idea if there was housing available. Waiting lists for housing are years long.

−18

varmau t1_j73cf3v wrote

DC has a right to shelter law when it's freezing. If the regular shelters, low barrier shelters, and overflow shelters are full then they will literally open up government buildings like libraries and rec centers. They will also provide free transportation to those shelters.

So, if you're worried about hypothermia, there are resources and alternatives to the use of McPherson Square as an encampment. Info on the resources:

https://www.streetsensemedia.org/article/find-shelter-winter-hypothermia/#.Y91fdivMJEY

35

PanAmargo t1_j71tilw wrote

Leave that shit to the west coast

31

lifeiscompleteshit t1_j7216fu wrote

How about we don't do that and just move the problem somewhere where we don't see it.

21

carte3bm t1_j74l6ad wrote

Best satire post I’ve seen this week

21

Trash_Scientist t1_j726jgn wrote

Bus them down to Florida. Weather’s better.

18

Savageride t1_j73q0fe wrote

But most of those people don’t want the help offered to them. So we should just let them stay?

13

brewham411 t1_j76pqpf wrote

Enjoying the common sense in this subreddit, gives me hope

10

Strawbrawry t1_j7289of wrote

How about we fix the shelters and stop allowing politicians to ignore their conditions. A report just came out about a city surplus that we're just gonna sit on for a rainy day.

Fellas, it's been raining for a while now and these people need real solutions not these nonsense petitions that get picked apart by a comments section, forget about showing it to someone in policy.

6

Turbulent-Feedback46 t1_j75kuzx wrote

Were you around when Occupy was in McPherson? There were Hep and TB outbreaks, theft from local businesses was an ongoing problem, and it got to the point where rats were dying off from drinking the cuddle puddle water. That isn't in the interest of public health.

6

TheElusiveGnome t1_j77jwjn wrote

This side of "progressivism" is so bizarre. OP does not understand how DC shelters work or what adequate notice is.

5

ganggnag t1_j769sbz wrote

Hahaha look at this thread; this has got to be bait.

3

NoxDust t1_j76o9vf wrote

Wouldn’t a petition to tell the city to build homeless shelters and support systems be more productive than a petition to allow people who are typically drug-addicted and mentally ill and need serious help to continue to live in their own filth?

You’re more concerned about alleviating the symptoms than finding a cure. This ain’t progressive.

3

pttdreamland t1_j7eaylu wrote

Nope, I’m good. Please make DC parks available to EVERYONE again.

2

Embarrassed_Bid_4970 t1_j7o78jg wrote

As a former DC government employee who worked on this kind of thing in the mayors office, the NPS will do whatever the fuck it pleases with or without input from the DC government.

1

ProvenceNatural65 t1_j72fa66 wrote

Can you expand on how they’re treating them as if they aren’t human beings? I’m not doubting you but want to know more about their treatment.

−1

[deleted] t1_j731ajr wrote

[removed]

−5

DUNGAROO t1_j732744 wrote

We all shit eventually. It’s okay, really.

5

GinGimlet t1_j73981c wrote

So you get them out of McPherson, and they just go elsewhere. It's literally not a solution. Not to mention that they'll just move elsewhere, aka another park. And these raids will often result in them losing their possessions and relevant documents (IDs, paperwork, etc).

I get what everyone else is saying but other than ensuring these folks set up camp elsewhere in the city + literally not addressing the root causes of why they are there in the first place , what exactly is everyone here hoping this will accomplish??

−8

Blide t1_j74cl6q wrote

Just from a sanitation point of the view, the camps do need to be periodically cleared. Otherwise, they fill up with garbage and human waste, which is a health and safety hazard.

I think the argument could also be made that having many smaller encampments is preferable to one large one, both from a crime and sanitation perspective. Having that many unhoused people together just exacerbates any potential safety concerns.

I do agree that permanent camp clearance doesn't solve the root of the problem though. Unfortunately, this isn't a problem that you can just throw money at to have it go away. There's really no good way to handle the mentally ill and drug users, who make up a disproportionate amount of a camp's longterm population. Even if you provided them an apartment, just keeping them in it would be a challenge without treating the underlying condition. NYC is looking to try to involuntarily hospitalize these people but what happens when they inevitably get out? You can't force people to take their meds or continue rehab. There's also not enough social workers to ever hope to keep up with a population of that size.

I honestly don't know what the answer is here. Even with sufficient resources, I don't think it's realistic that they'll be able to house all of them due to the above. Ceding parks to them doesn't seem a like a solution either.

8

booaslan t1_j72tytz wrote

This is a great initiative. Can you please share more about the drafters of the open letter and what coordination/organization is happening with the people living in McPherson? Also maybe share in DMs since there's a lot of cowards on here, warm in their homes, who are so scared of the homeless trying to survive in "their" parks that they are willing to call for violence against them.

−26

TheRealJFro t1_j737q0e wrote

I don’t think people are calling for violence. It’s quite the opposite. They are sick and tired of the violence these camps are causing in their communities. I agree there is no easy solution here, buttering people take over public parks and terrorize the local community isn’t it.

15

booaslan t1_j73c3xw wrote

How do you move people from where they are living when they say "no"? With violence. "Terrorize" really? Don't you think it's far more terrifying for them to be living without a roof over their heads, or heating, with little security, croweded by people who have mental health issues? We're terrorizing them by casting them out of society and then calling on armed police to evict them.

−10

TheRealJFro t1_j73e9k1 wrote

Well when someone is breaking the law, gets an order from law enforcement, and say no then…yea they are generally forced to comply. Police are far from perfect, but that is why they are called law ENFORCEMENT.

A solution to the problem as a whole is much more complicated and nuanced. If you have children, are disabled, or actively want to be a contributing member of society - housing. If you are severely drug addicted or mentally ill to where you cant be treated + violent - forced institutionalization. If you just want to live with no accountability, don’t want a job, or just just want to use drugs all day with no desire for treatment - go live in the woods where you don’t bother people. There is a lot more nuance & funding constraints here, but that’s my oversimplified 2c.

7

SchokoKipferl t1_j74ry9q wrote

Isn’t that the point? How is it helpful to just let them continue to live like that? Ignoring the problem by not doing anything is just going to make the conditions worsen further and further.

−2

booaslan t1_j75jj9m wrote

Btw, can't express how happy I am that so many people were bothered by this enough to downvote it. Let it weigh heavy on what little conscience you have.

−5