Mount Pleasant DC Forum

[DCCharles]

Considering the effect of one's actions before one acts -- and acting to enhance the larger good -- is hardly paternalistic, though it might be considered adult. On the other hand, pushing one's problem's into another's lap and then walking away from it is certainly juvenile.

[New Neighbor]

[DCCharles]

To be clear, while I disagreed strongly with the course of action you embrace in this matter, and characterized that course in ways that I felt were both accurate and direct (though relatively restrained by the standards of contemporary Internet discourse), I have never attempted to apply these characterizations to you in the larger sense. I am perfectly willing to stipulate that you are a fine human being and (on the whole ) a good neighbor.

Paternalistically yours,

Charles

[Laurie]

Ok, the way I see it is that every ward in the city (except for Ward 3 and maybe two areas in Ward 1) will have single sale moratoriums.

All the drunks will go to Ward 3 for their singles, they will be able to pan handle the more affluent, and like Mt. Pleasant, there are many vacant storefronts in Cleveland Park they can hang out in.

They can drop down to Klingle Road, which can be quite cooling, to piss and defecate and even take a nap under the bridge.

Problem solved.

[zrathore]

[Laurie]

Ah yes, the deer population. Why not push the problem of deer to Virginia?

Or---we can get the DC Council to pass legislation which would allow for residents to get a wildlife damage-control permit, "which means you can call up the man with the bow and arrow and have him come sit in a tree and take out the offending pests."*


*Wash Post Marc Fisher Peace Talks Spare Ravenous Deer

[jack]

[jl]

I understand that banning singles doesn't alleviate the root cause of the problem. But on the other hand, I don't understand how lifting the ban will address those roots of the problem.

Point of fact (as I understand) is that when the single ban went into effect, the problem of public drunkenness was greatly reduced in general. I don't know that us rank and file residents benefit from bringing back public drunkenness based on theory of social justice. Is MtP to suffer in a form of protest: Until the problems of homelessness and substance abuse are addressed in a meaningful way by the city, we will bear our brunt of it?

That's a tough sell, especially by elected officials who aren't in place to promote their beliefs but rather their constituents best interests. Our immediate best interests include pushing problems off our block.

That said, the residents and local commission can push the city to tackle these important issues in real ways for our shared long term best interests. I'd love to support any initiative that addresses the fundamental problems. But realistically speaking, bringing back singles is equally impotent in helping there.

[jack]

[zrathore]

Will you PLEASE give it a god damn rest??!

[jl]

uuhh...okay...

[jack]

[jl]

Jack,
I have no doubt it will be informative and I applaud your concern for the underlining problem. But while informative, I couldn't support something that puts my family at risk but provides no upside - except information.

Unless I'm missing something: the benefit is a *possible* situation where we can *extrapolate* that the ban in fact does nothing. But the downside (again, seemingly assured by empirical evidence) is that we get an influx of public drunkenness.

The true problem is that the city's response to the problem is just cosmetic (singles ban) and that we need real solutions. So couldn't all of this effort have gone to push the city to do something more meaningful, instead of months/years? trying to repeal the ban only to THEN push the city to do something more meaningful because we've showed them the singles ban doesn't work (maybe)?

[jack]

[jl]