Blide
Blide t1_j6o3y6y wrote
Reply to comment by mistersmiley318 in DC is a leader in building new apartments, but they tend to be on the small side by Maxcactus
The other unique thing about that apartment is its completely modular construction. It's the first of its kind in DC.
I definitely wonder what, if any, cost savings there were for going with modular construction.
Blide t1_j5c3km1 wrote
Reply to comment by tunicsandleggimgs15 in In Washington, DC (the city itself) seven theaters offer open captions (on-screen subtitles). by tunicsandleggimgs15
NYC recently made it so at least 25% of movies had to be open caption. Wouldn't be surprised if DC followed suit, especially with Gallaudet being here.
Blide t1_j59n1jf wrote
Reply to In Washington, DC (the city itself) seven theaters offer open captions (on-screen subtitles). by tunicsandleggimgs15
I feel it's a bit disingenuous to say they offer open captions but then make it so hard to find and then actually go to the movie. Like how does the only showing being at 2pm on Wednesdays actually increase accessibility? Seems like it's pretty much lip service.
Blide t1_irtzru1 wrote
Reply to comment by OneMadChihuahua in Arlington moves forward with plan to build pedestrian bridge from Crystal City to Reagan National by lylyls
If I were to guess, it'd be to discourage people from camping up there. It also reduces costs.
Blide t1_j74cl6q wrote
Reply to comment by GinGimlet in Take action and tell DC and NPS to stop the sweeps by tenfortytwopm
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.