Rumor What's going on in Portland?

[Chris Craig]

see above

and for thecrecord thst demeaning comment about must be nicecin my home???

ive lived on the streets more than once.
Maybe dude should stop judging so much and ask questions. But then i see the people who liked that posts and it makes me realize how ridiculous this place is.
Seriously. The oens who push thier opinion the most agressively are the same ones who simply cannot have a mature discussion without belittling the opposition.
And i remember a mod getting on me here because” weee all grownups”



riiighhht.
Im out of this discussion. Il have it in private with anyone who can be mature enough to not assert thier differing opinions without being insulting.

smfh.....

Not a personal insult. The other one Sly tagged was. @Stevenson was disagreeing with you and he could have used nicer words. I can understand how it would feel insulting to be told you don't know what your talking about. I think there are better ways to refute what someone is saying. Better ways to have the conversation.

As for the nice in your house comment, not really a personal insult either. I'll tell you what I tell my preschoolers when they come up to me and tell me another kid called them a name. To tell that kid that's not nice and not to do that. To stand up for themselves.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I’m gonna be sorry for wading in but……..there is NO easy solution to the homeless problem, if there is any solution at all. “Homeless” takes in all kinds of factors; mental health issues, lost jobs, lack of education, lifestyle preferences, etc, etc, etc. Having volunteered at my local food bank, along with dealing with a family member with mental health issues I’ve met all kinds of homeless people, community activists, recovering substance abusers, assorted volunteers and counselors and so on. One thing I learned for certain is that one size does NOT fit all.

First, for those struggling with mental health issues, society provides little if any real assistance to the individuals or their families. When it comes to nut cutting time, social services ALWAYS take the first and biggest hit. And it’s only going to get worse as long as the Republican Party exists. It’s always going to be “someone else’s” problem. So it’s hard to get mentally ill individuals off the street unless and until they can get mental health assistance. Good luck with that…….unless you have a great deal of money and an individual suddenly wakes up and decides to seek help on their own. About the only “easy” resource is food (at least in Oregon).

Second, you can’t force a mentally ill person to do anything unless and until they are a danger to themselves or others. Until then, they pretty much have free rein, and families just have to stand back and watch. And pray they won’t be held liable if the mentally ill individual ends up wreaking havoc.

Third, it’s actually shocking how many homeless, mentally ill or not(?) do NOT want to get off the street and refuse housing assistance. This isn’t just some urban legend. Some people are fine with the “carefree” lifestyle. They don’t have to pay rent, taxes, utility bills and so on. Or if someone is going to help them off the street, they’ll only participate if it meets their own criteria (usually unreasonable expectations versus what assistance is actually available). More disturbing than the number of mentally ill homeless is the actual number of individuals who are homeless specifically because they ARE “lazy” and aren’t interested working an actual job. They want society to give them a living.

So anyone looking for easy solutions is pissing into the wind. Personally, I think the very first step is a seriously beefed up mental health care system that provides mental health care to individuals and families who can’t afford it on their own. That HAS to be the first step. But until society decides to care about those who truly can’t care for themselves the problem is not only going nowhere, it’s going to get worse.

Let's get the people who want housing housed, then we'll know how many don't want housing. Almost nobody would rather sleep under a under a Portland bridge in December for free when they could be sleeping in a warm apartment for free, with no additional rules. If we get most people in homes now, they can wait the 6 months or a year to get into the programs we currently have available.

Those who would prefer the bridge in December will not be as much of a problem without the huge homeless population.

I think you'll find (as every other city who has done this has found) that the people who resist housing are resisting the hoops they have to jump through to keep that housing. Housing first has no additional hoops. Just a better quality of life than homeless, as well as opportunities for those who want them.

 

[Phatguysrule]

id say its not all the evidence, its all the reports that omit certain things from the equation, skewing the costs.
Weve been through this. I do not believe the reports to be accurate for a few basic reasons the reports dont address. Not the ones ive seen anyhow.

Do you have any evidence to support that disbelief? You've not showed anything which would refute my claims housing people saves the municipality money, keeps public spaces cleaner and safer, and is better for the individual than being homeless.

Those are my only claims, and I've posted evidence to support them.

Do you have any evidence which disputes these claims?

 

[Phatguysrule]

Tiny Homes, Mobile homes and/or travel trailers on acreage would work but there would have to be basic rules and amenities available. There could actually be different categories of villages where people could spring board back to society, if they wanted.
You cant have these inter city encampments popping up near schools or on roadways or even in front of business's.

Absolutely agree. However, we don't need tiny homes or mobile homes (though, I'd welcome them as opposed to what we have now). We can just offer them apartments and hotels. There are more than enough vacancies in Portland metro area for all of our homeless. That's the simplest solution IMO.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Not a personal insult. The other one Sly tagged was. @Stevenson was disagreeing with you and he could have used nicer words. I can understand how it would feel insulting to be told you don't know what your talking about. I think there are better ways to refute what someone is saying. Better ways to have the conversation.

As for the nice in your house comment, not really a personal insult either. I'll tell you what I tell my preschoolers when they come up to me and tell me another kid called them a name. To tell that kid that's not nice and not to do that. To stand up for themselves.

i didnt say it was against the rules insult but when you tell someone to get a clue its saying they are clueless, its belittling and insulting.
Especially how it was out at me like im some privileged dude.
But you can certainly defend that type of communication if you like. Im telling ya its ridiculous. whether you agree or not is irrelevant to my opinion of how i was addressed in his post.

Now. If i sat here and told you to get a clue and your priviliged mod statis has you sitting up on some pedistal blah blah blah, im prettyy sire you wouldnt take it kindly either.

my point is ive long been labeled and accused of being full of drama.
Yet time and again i point out how others are the ones who degrade a conversation and no one has my back.
If i were to tell people to get a clue and ridicule thier peivileged lifestyle this place would come down sooo hard on me....

such glaring double standards and hypocritical behavior.
I mean this guy told me he doesnt like confrontations!! But comes at me like that and then...

yeah. If people dont see whats going on in here ya never will...

 

[calvin natt]

I don't think there is anything "fun" about it, but it can't just be anything goes. I work in the Pearl. There were 3 homeless people sleeping on the street and two new tents here this morning. WTF Portland?

“Fun” meaning it sure looks like they do whatever they want. They have free reign, no rules, just hang out and plop down where they want. They are Fucking BAR B Q’ing like they are camping in Lake Tahoe with friends in some cases. No more. The people who are flat out “choosing” this “lifestyle” need to feel like it’s not going to be as free reign anymore. They have to do both - solve the underlying issue, which is massively complex, and the short term shit that 99% of the city has to see and smell and hear just living in our city/metro area. It’s simply not fair to the 99%. Sorry. The ones who are homeless, they need help. But they don’t get to destroy the city along the way.

 

[calvin natt]

I don't care if they want to be addicted, as long as they have a secure home with heat and water, help available (for addiction, mental illness, etc), and aren't living on our streets and in our parks. They can stay in that apartment addicted for their whole life if they want to refuse the best help we can offer. That's their choice, IMO.

Yeah....not ok with me. Free apartments for anyone who wants to not work and be addicted to drugs seems like maybe it’s not fair or going to fly with the neighbor who works and pays rent each month? How does that work?

 

[Chris Craig]

i didnt say it was against the rules insult but when you tell someone to get a clue its saying they are clueless, its belittling and insulting.
Especially how it was out at me like im some privileged dude.
But you can certainly defend that type of communication if you like. Im telling ya its ridiculous. whether you agree or not is irrelevant to my opinion of how i was addressed in his post.

Now. If i sat here and told you to get a clue and your priviliged mod statis has you sitting up on some pedistal blah blah blah, im prettyy sire you wouldnt take it kindly either.

my point is ive long been labeled and accused of being full of drama.
Yet time and again i point out how others are the ones who degrade a conversation and no one has my back.
If i were to tell people to get a clue and ridicule thier peivileged lifestyle this place would come down sooo hard on me....

such glaring double standards and hypocritical behavior.
I mean this guy told me he doesnt like confrontations!! But comes at me like that and then...

yeah. If people dont see whats going on in here ya never will...

I didn't defend anything. I said that I could see how you would be insulted by that. It's not a personal insult. There is nothing for me to do about it.

If I felt insulted everytime someone questioned my modding I'd be in trouble. I have learned not to take it seriously. I have learned to stand up for myself.

If someone throws out a personal insult the mods jump in and yes have your back. Otherwise we try to let people be adults around here. Some have a hard time doing that. Gotta not take it so seriously.

I also said Stevenson could have used better words. Your wrong doesn't really work to keep a conversation going or to get a counter point across. He was called out for the personal insult.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Yeah....not ok with me. Free apartments for anyone who wants to not work and be addicted to drugs seems like maybe it’s not fair or going to fly with the neighbor who works and pays rent each month? How does that work?

So you would rather spend double or more to have a higher number of them homeless and making our public spaces the way they are now? This is the choice we have. The courts say we are not allowed to prosecute them for being homeless. What is the alternative?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...barring-prosecution-of-homeless-idUSKBN1YK1EA

 

[Phatguysrule]

From my personal very non-scientific observations of individual homeless camps I see the following patterns...

1. Massive hoarding of crap. Messy camp of stuff either stolen from the neighborhood or taken out of dumpsters.

2. Chaos. Just a dirty rorschach test.

3. Very neat, very tidy, very portable.


I would say type 1s are drug addicts.

Type 2s have mental problems.

Type 3s are the working homeless. You might work with a 3 and not know it.


I would find ways to classify the homeless you are working with.

Type 3s need immediate housing. These have the highest return on public help and investment.

Type 2s need medical assessment. A controlled group home environment with medication and counselling.

Type 1s are the hardest and biggest problem. Drug addiction so severe they have de-evolved into a hunter gatherer existence. They need something similar to jail until they are clean of their addiction. Then they need counselling in a group home environment.

Yes. This is it. Obviously you don't move a violent felon next to a grade school. These people have identities. The police know about their history. The best place for them can be determined during the housing process.

 

[stampedehero]

But they arent having to pay for a roof over thier head. Id turn my nose up to it as well.
The homeless is a multi faceted issue.
Housing them will only enable them.
They need other help first before we think they can jsut have a roof and turn productive.

Have them work on a farm, contribute to team effort with others like themselves and therefore produce a commune of healed humans .

 

[Phatguysrule]

Have them work on a farm, contribute to team effort with others like themselves and therefore produce a commune of healed humans .

You can't force them to be there and most will definitely not want to be there.

 

[barfo]

Yeah....not ok with me. Free apartments for anyone who wants to not work and be addicted to drugs seems like maybe it’s not fair or going to fly with the neighbor who works and pays rent each month? How does that work?

What if we provided free 'standard' housing to everyone who wanted it? Those who felt like they needed more and could afford it could buy more.

barfo

 

[Orion Bailey]

I didn't defend anything. I said that I could see how you would be insulted by that. It's not a personal insult. There is nothing for me to do about it.

If I felt insulted everytime someone questioned my modding I'd be in trouble. I have learned not to take it seriously. I have learned to stand up for myself.

If someone throws out a personal insult the mods jump in and yes have your back. Otherwise we try to let people be adults around here. Some have a hard time doing that. Gotta not take it so seriously.

I also said Stevenson could have used better words. Your wrong doesn't really work to keep a conversation going or to get a counter point across. He was called out for the personal insult.

sigh.. you are completely missing the point and the bigger picture....

 

[Orion Bailey]

Have them work on a farm, contribute to team effort with others like themselves and therefore produce a commune of healed humans .

very close to my opinion. Its like a work release program of sorts.

Not that I'm disagreeing with this approach, but how do you propose we do that? Keep in mind these are the people that are already getting their asses kicked on the regular by life. They've basically hit rock bottom. I doubt punishing them more helps, unless we're talking of just wiping them out. Out of sight, out of mind works, I guess.

no way man. Not wiping them out. I totally have empathy. Just not sympathy.

Im talking tough love. Work it off. There are for hire signs everywhere.

if they arent willing to go to work to be a contributing member when the government puts a roof over thier head, finds the work for them and provides transportation(bus fare compensation, etc) then they should be confined to the roof over thier heads and not allowed to travel around the city destroying it.

now of course, like ive said (and rarely acknowledged) that its not a simple issue. its a complex, multifaceted issue.
I just read in this report:
https://www.streetroots.org/news/20...p-addiction-homelessness-housing-and-recovery

this:

“More than 90 people died homeless on the streets of Multnomah County in 2019 alone. In more than half of the cases, drug or alcohol toxicity caused or contributed to their death.

Nearly half of the people living unsheltered on Portland’s streets last year reported living with substance abuse issues, either alcohol or drugs. One in four people sleeping outside reported having both a mental illness and substance use disorder.”

Giving them a roof isnt going to solve shit if the root of the problem isnt first addressed.
The roofs over thier heads should be mental help/recovery institutions and drug rehab facilities. they should not just get free rent in apartments and hotels.

And so @Phatguysrule when you ask how it would enable, this is what i speak of.

Just giving them a roof would enable them to continue thier self destructive habits and addictions.

And these people cant be helped until they decide they have a problem and genuinely need help. until they come to that step in recovery, no amount of giving is going to do anything but enable. I know this. I live with an alcoholic and im seriously struggling with his repetitively bad behavior and how ive enabled him.

To give them free rent, to me, is putting the cart before the horse.

and we arent even touching upon the percent of homeless that are basically anarchists and want no part of our current society and sleep during the day and set fires at night.

Unfortunately( and i do think portland is a bit more of an anomaly and not all cities’ homeless are like the ones here) there is a decent percent of people here who do not want to participate or contribute and they are here because this is one of a few ground zero points for anarchists and extremists who will push for change through force and destruction.

@UncleCliffy'sDaddy and @Hoopguru nailed it when they said unfortunately there is a percent of people that will not participate in a productive, society contributing, life.

For the percent of the homeless that are mentally stable and truly stricken with a financial dilemma forcing them on the streets,
Im all housing them, finding work for them that will meet a modest but livable lifestyle and having them start paying rent as a rent to own type deal.

But they have to work.

Part of our increasing inflAtion issues are because people wont work. People are making more on unemployment and stimulus payments that they wont work.

If that isn't a sign that when given a choice these people will be lazy, i don't know what is, but its clearly an enabling problem.

in conclusion, like a few others have said, there is no easy answer and thats why i push back at the narrative that it is simple to house them and the problem will go away or whatever symantics want to be used here.

The reality is, until they want help, they will just continue to destroy the housing given to them And in short time it will be a condemned type of building and they will be on the streets again. Or complaining that the city neglects them because their place is run down.

Ive lived too close to addicts to think that one can just give them things and they will turn things around. No. They will use it up and ask for more. And more and more.

im tired of paying for it in my personal life and im damn sure not gonna vote to pay for it for strangers through taxes. Not without a clear agenda and end game lined out that they agree to contractually that includes them not sitting aRound under that roof, but getting out and working to help our economy get back on track, or get the help needed to get back on track themselves.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Do you have any evidence to support that disbelief? You've not showed anything which would refute my claims housing people saves the municipality money, keeps public spaces cleaner and safer, and is better for the individual than being homeless.

Those are my only claims, and I've posted evidence to support them.

Do you have any evidence which disputes these claims?

I have not seen one report that addresses and equates the addiction problem of many of the homeless in Portland and the odds of them destroying what is given to them and the costs of cLeaning that destruction up and rebuilding again.

Until i see that factored into the costs of the surveys, i have nothing to prove.

Show me a report that factors the behaviors of addicts into the equation and ill gladly reevaluate my stance.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I have not seen one report that addresses and equates the addiction problem of many of the homeless in Portland and the odds of them destroying what is given to them and the costs of cLeaning that destruction up and rebuilding again.

Until i see that factored into the costs of the surveys, i have nothing to prove.

Show me a report that factors the behaviors of addicts into the equation and ill gladly reevaluate my stance.

Every report I sent you the last time we discussed this showed that it was cheaper to house them then allow them to be homeless (including addicts). That's including damage caused while homeless and while homed.

You are choosing to pay more to keep them homeless. You are choosing to have damaged cities and parks by keeping them homeless.

They are certainly going to keep doing drugs if they stay homeless.

You can't put them somewhere they don't want to be just because they are homeless. That's the law.

So forcing them to work is not an option.

 

[calvin natt]

What if we provided free 'standard' housing to everyone who wanted it? Those who felt like they needed more and could afford it could buy more.

barfo

I think it would be impossible to provide enough or build enough because so many would want it. I mean, if it was a basic studio, small, people would grab it. Who wouldn’t?

 

[Stevenson]

I apologize for getting too aggravated and going personal.

This reminds me of a friend of mine who is an emotional terrorist. He loves to say things/ pick old wounds/ have a take etc that he knows will illicit an intense reaction from friends or family. He gets attention that way. And then when people do react, he gets to play the victim and say “why is everyone always mad at me?”

I should know better.

 

[barfo]

I think it would be impossible to provide enough or build enough because so many would want it. I mean, if it was a basic studio, small, people would grab it. Who wouldn’t?

I'd guess that most people who have housing now wouldn't want to downsize to that. I imagine that people who currently live in such apartments would rather have a free version. But that doesn't create additional demand for space.

Maybe I'm wrong? Maybe everyone would abandon their McMansion in the suburbs and move the family and dogs and in-laws into the free apartment. If so, we can turn the McMansions into more free housing. 5 bathrooms? Five families.

barfo

 

[barfo]

illicit an intense reaction

I should know better.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

I think it would be impossible to provide enough or build enough because so many would want it. I mean, if it was a basic studio, small, people would grab it. Who wouldn’t?

If you have a certain level of income you would pay 30% of your income in rent. If you didn't pay you would be garnished.

Nobody would choose to live that way unless they needed it. Anybody with the wherewithal to earn enough money would want better living arrangements.

 

[calvin natt]

I'd guess that most people who have housing now wouldn't want to downsize to that. I imagine that people who currently live in such apartments would rather have a free version. But that doesn't create additional demand for space.

Maybe I'm wrong? Maybe everyone would abandon their McMansion in the suburbs and move the family and dogs and in-laws into the free apartment. If so, we can turn the McMansions into more free housing. 5 bathrooms? Five families.

barfo

I would think everyone who currently pays for a small place would take the free one. Then all the younger people who move out on their own every year would take one. Just seems too good of a deal to pass up.

 

[Orion Bailey]

I have somewhat of a unique perspective when it comes to the issue of homelessness. I’ve met and talked to homeless people here in America (one of the dudes I used to know well is homeless and always roam the area near Hong Phat) as well as homeless people in VN. The homeless people here that I’ve encountered are mostly drug addicts and mentally ill people. Rarely have I met a person that’s just out on his luck.

Vietnam has no social safety nets whatsoever. There are homeless people, but most always try to work in any capacity they can just to survive. You see them out on the streets selling lottery tickets, knickknacks, cleaning the streets for shop owners, collecting plastics to sell, etc. I’ve talked to quite a few of them and they’re very much motivated to better themselves given the opportunity. Most importantly, a lot of them might be uneducated, but they’re sound of mind. They have social skills and work ethics. I just don’t see the same in homeless people here, and I can't pinpoint a reason as to why. I suspect it's alcohol/drug addictions.

Whatever it is, homeless people need help, be it mental health or drug addiction treatment. Now the lazy ones, I don’t know what to do with them. But I’d rather take care of them too if it means we don't have to spend precious resources to weed them out.

thats not as unique as you think. Its pretty much what i said in my post as well. And the report i linked verified it.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Every report I sent you the last time we discussed this showed that it was cheaper to house them then allow them to be homeless (including addicts). That's including damage caused while homeless and while homed.

You are choosing to pay more to keep them homeless. You are choosing to have damaged cities and parks by keeping them homeless.

They are certainly going to keep doing drugs if they stay homeless.

You can't put them somewhere they don't want to be just because they are homeless. That's the law.

So forcing them to work is not an option.

can you specifically point it out? I do not recall one portion discussing and putting sctual costs, a number to all the side costs entailed when the person doesn't change thier habits? Everyone i read i dod not see an actual number detailing out the costs of all the extras like still having 911 called because thye are still addicts. Still destroying the property and rebuilding it... how often? The quicker they destroy it the quicker it needs rebuilding, increasing the annual costs.

point me specifixally to an article thst detaisl that out. Nothing you have posted has broken that down and acknowledged the same costs now will still be there but then rhe additional costs of the housing will also be there.
Without fixing their addition, the 911 calls will still happen. The destruction will still happen.
So please point me specifically to a report and point to where in that report it acknowledges this and breaks it all down.

 

[Orion Bailey]

I apologize for getting too aggravated and going personal.

This reminds me of a friend of mine who is an emotional terrorist. He loves to say things/ pick old wounds/ have a take etc that he knows will illicit an intense reaction from friends or family. He gets attention that way. And then when people do react, he gets to play the victim and say “why is everyone always mad at me?”

I should know better.

nice. So even though i was responding to someone specific, you couldn't control yourself and went off on me, then blame me for your lack of self control?
And a mod liked that shit???
Lmao.
Thansk for the direct apology there. Shows how sincere you were when you told me you dont like confrontation....

I can see why the two people who like your post liked it though.

can we say biased?
Anyhow thanks for the typical...


“I apologize for ranting... but.... he made me do it....”

gtfo and take real ownership like i have when ive fucked up. Stop blaming someone else...

 

[Orion Bailey]

can you specifically point it out? I do not recall one portion discussing and putting sctual costs, a number to all the side costs entailed when the person doesn't change thier habits? Everyone i read i dod not see an actual number detailing out the costs of all the extras like still having 911 called because thye are still addicts. Still destroying the property and rebuilding it... how often? The quicker they destroy it the quicker it needs rebuilding, increasing the annual costs.

point me specifixally to an article thst detaisl that out. Nothing you have posted has broken that down and acknowledged the same costs now will still be there but then rhe additional costs of the housing will also be there.
Without fixing their addition, the 911 calls will still happen. The destruction will still happen.
So please point me specifically to a report and point to where in that report it acknowledges this and breaks it all down.

id also like to point out, if the ecreport was that accurate, why arent cities across the nation homeless free? wouldnt they all have done this and rid themselves of the homeless with free housing everywhere?

i just did a search and didn't find one city that provides free housing for the homeless without any incentive or requirements to work and contribute.
So if its really half the costs why hasn't this been an answer long long ago and why is the homeless increasing in numbers?

is it because the government knows it will cost more? Is it because majority votes to down and if so, why? If this is truly half the cost, the majority cant really turn their backs on that can they?

Nothing in the reports broke costs down to the dollar and addressed the addiction factor of recovery time or the behaviors of addicts.

they wil still leave their homes and shit on the streets, vandalize, steal... all the things that cost now. Plus then the costs of the proposal.

no amount of money tossed st them will help solve anything until their addiction is first solved.

No free rent.

Work for rent. Rehab for rent.

 

[Phatguysrule]

id also like to point out, if the ecreport was that accurate, why arent cities across the nation homeless free? wouldnt they all have done this and rid themselves of the homeless with free housing everywhere?

i just did a search and didn't find one city that provides free housing for the homeless without any incentive or requirements to work and contribute.
So if its really half the costs why hasn't this been an answer long long ago and why is the homeless increasing in numbers?

is it because the government knows it will cost more? Is it because majority votes to down and if so, why? If this is truly half the cost, the majority cant really turn their backs on that can they?

Nothing in the reports broke costs down to the dollar and addressed the addiction factor of recovery time or the behaviors of addicts.

they wil still leave their homes and shit on the streets, vandalize, steal... all the things that cost now. Plus then the costs of the proposal.

no amount of money tossed st them will help solve anything until their addiction is first solved.

No free rent.

Work for rent. Rehab for rent.

Just read up the thread. Salt lake city went from spending $20k per year per person to $8k per year per person over the 10 year program (the program only cost $3k per person). They had cleaned up their streets. Reporters looking for homelessness couldn't find it.

But it was a 10 Year program which wasn't re-upped because the people in charge had changed and the new people didn't have the same support for it.

Now there are homeless people everywhere, just like Portland.

What you're advocating is against the law and is proven not too work. They could work for slave wages and a roof now. They aren't interested in that and by law you can't make them. That's not going to change.

You are choosing to keep things this way. Just like Utah. The evidence is there.

Think about that next time you're complaining about it.

Finland has eliminated homelessness this way as well. New York City has shown savings of $10,000 a year for each homeless person housed. Seattle and Boston have also both shown that a Housing First policy reduces homelessness and save money as well.

https://lacrosseindependent.com/2020/12/27/homelessness-housing-first-saves-money/

Here is some data showing outcomes in Canada. HF wins...
https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-019-7492-8

Here's 60 minutes... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/housin...e-chronically-homeless-60-minutes-2019-12-03/

 

[Stevenson]

nice. So even though i was responding to someone specific, you couldn't control yourself and went off on me, then blame me for your lack of self control?
And a mod liked that shit???
Lmao.
Thansk for the direct apology there. Shows how sincere you were when you told me you dont like confrontation....

I can see why the two people who like your post liked it though.

can we say biased?
Anyhow thanks for the typical...


“I apologize for ranting... but.... he made me do it....”

gtfo and take real ownership like i have when ive fucked up. Stop blaming someone else...

 

[Stevenson]

nice. So even though i was responding to someone specific, you couldn't control yourself and went off on me, then blame me for your lack of self control?
And a mod liked that shit???
Lmao.
Thansk for the direct apology there. Shows how sincere you were when you told me you dont like confrontation....

I can see why the two people who like your post liked it though.

can we say biased?
Anyhow thanks for the typical...


“I apologize for ranting... but.... he made me do it....”

gtfo and take real ownership like i have when ive fucked up. Stop blaming someone else...