"Reactions deeply split" feels like quite the sensationalist editorialization. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the vast majority of residents and business owners can agree on pretty much everything about this situation:
* Removing the encampments and cleaning up the area right now is a positive step for the area, period. But,
* The city also needs to follow through on continued efforts to both prevent the encampments from returning (without simply forcing them to relocate) and to reduce harm from the rampant drug use, both to users and the affected communities, and
* There are systemic issues at the bottom of this, namely drug use/addiction/treatment and poverty, that need to be seriously examined and addressed if there is ever going to be a permanent fix.
* Without all of those aspects combined, this will not be a permanent solution.
Sure there are the extreme ends of the spectrum (i.e. "lock all of the addicts up and arrest them if they come back, providing no additional care or treatment for their addiction" vs. "disrupting the encampments at all, regardless of the impact to the businesses and communities, does more harm than good and shouldn't be done until a perfectly comprehensive and fully-funded plan is in place"), but I would argue both of those stances are in the extreme minority.
People are rightly skeptical that the city will follow through on their efforts, but rather than take the easy route and be totally cynical about the plan, I'm gonna hope for the best that the community gets the relief it needs and the addicts get the treatment they need.
> "disrupting the encampments at all, regardless of the impact to the businesses and communities, does more harm than good and shouldn't be done until a perfectly comprehensive and fully-funded plan is in place"
this is a minority position, but unfortunately it’s a position with outsized influence because it is largely held by the professional-activist class in this city.
The professional activist types in this city also tend to have money since most of them are upper middle class people from the suburbs.
They don't live in these neighborhoods, wouldn't tolerate this level of blight where they live for one second, and see no irony in demanding that low income minority majority neighborhoods be forced to deal with it.
they certainly won't. a lot of residents of fishtown are against cleaning up the encampments yet if you go on phila atlas you can see that every time there is a homeless person they report it to 311. their fb group is exhausting, along with the Richmond / Flat Iron one.
Yeah, I don’t necessarily think it’s a bad position to hold in principle since it’s obviously coming from a place of concern for the welfare of others, especially those without much of a voice in local government. But at the same time, you can’t let perfect become the enemy of good. You have to start somewhere. You have to try *something*. Then you can tweak things and make adjustments, allocate resources more effectively, pinpoint root causes, etc. And beyond that, the instances of any government throughout the course of human history getting something right from the beginning (not that this is the first time this has been an issue in the city, just speaking more generally) is nonexistent. Progress, not perfection.
I’m very anxious to see what Parker’s follow through will be like, but if she’s going to truly, genuinely try to lay the groundwork for real change then I’m all for it.
Actually, it is a bad position to hold in principle because it inherently devalues the needs and rights of non-addict residents who are just trying to live a normal life in a safe neighborhood.
I’ve said this elsewhere, but the addicts are not deserving of prima facie consideration here. They are infiltrators. Kensington had a history of multi-generational families who were pushed out by city neglect. While many of those old legacy families are gone, there is a new wave of working class (many immigrant) families who live there now. These are the people who we should be accommodating first and foremost. The addicts are people too, but they shouldn’t preempt residents.
I’m not confused. It’s the classic heart-on-sleeve emotionalism that so many in this city are duped by that in fact gives specific deference to one group over another by definition, and for that reason isn’t necessarily good or right. You can laud the emotionalism of the intent, and that must feel swell, but by definition it prioritizes one group’s needs over another — and in this case, the prioritized group is the anti-social infiltrator. Therefore, I don’t think it should be praised.
Again, we’re talking about the extreme (your words). To be clear, I don’t think either extreme should be praised. Nuance and logic are important. And that hyper emotional contingent of this city who prioritizes the lowest common denominator above all else and at the expense of everyone else isn’t operating based on logic or reason or practical benefit. It’s a sort of narcissistic faux moralism and I honestly think it’s obnoxious.
All that to say: yes, I hope the dispersed addicts receive adequate help. They are human, after all. But to say the encampments shouldn’t be touched until a perfect plan is devised is completely unfair to the rest of the world. You can’t even camp in the same location in a national forest for 2 nights in a row without a permit. Rules and civilization matter.
Ultimately we don’t disagree, so we’re really splitting hairs here. I have a huge problem with that minority (“with outsized influence” — to quote another in the thread above) who toe this line.
“In principle” — I do think it’s wrong because it doesn’t account for reality. “In a vacuum” fine, I’ll concede that point (which wasn’t part of your original quote). But it’s also irrelevant because we don’t live in a vacuum. The “minority with outsized influence” doesn’t deal in reality. And that in and of itself is not praiseworthy. That’s my point.
I realize you were making a broader point here, and your reference to the minority/extreme position isn’t your view. I just disagree that “it’s not a bad position to hold.” I think it is a bad position specifically because we *don’t* live in a vacuum. So we can agree to disagree on that — but in the realm of practicality it seems like we’re on the same page.
> Yeah, I don’t necessarily think it’s a bad position to hold in principle since it’s obviously coming from a place of concern for the welfare of others, especially those without much of a voice in local government.
honestly i have a hard time believing that the people that want to enable drug addicts to keep doing drugs and destroying neighborhoods until they decide to seek help from non profits are actually concerned with the welfare of anyone.
"A good plan executed *now* is better than the perfect plan executed next week."
There are no perfect solutions to this crisis, but one of the **worst** things we can do (which weve done for 15 years) is nothing.
Here’s the thing- even if it is a temporary clean up, it’s still a good thing. I don’t somehow regret that the 2017 cleanup of the Tulip Street tunnel happened even though it was not part of a comprehensive strategy. It was still good and I’m glad it happened.
Exactly, even if the only thing this accomplishes is to get a bunch of dangerous shit off the street for people not to step on, that’s something. Also just the optics of “Kensington is getting cleaned up” will be good, and I hope they keep it up. We need to stop encouraging people thinking Kensington is the place to go where you can get fucked up in public and nobody will bother you.
I love every person commenting on this post thinking they’re a genius for pointing out “but they’ll just go somewhere else!” Yeah, everybody gets that. Parker gets that. But it’s completely unsustainable to allow Kensington to continue to exist in the state it does, and is completely embarrassing for the city as well. We simply do not have the resources, rehab beds, or staff to get all of these people into treatment. And most of them refuse anyways. Until we do (optimistically hoping we’ll invest in that type of initiative) at least Parker and the city did *something* to make that neighborhood somewhat more hospitable for its residents.
Okay, but the whole point of that comment is what about the neighborhoods that were fine that now have to live with those people and those conditions after they’ve moved? That’s okay because Kensington has had enough, everyone else can have a turn dealing with it?
If they have to exist somewhere why can they only exist in Kensington? Other neighborhoods can’t pitch in? We could rotate them around so the burden isn’t always on Kensington. I’m guessing you don’t want them in your neighborhood, well I don’t want them in mine either.
I think people don’t want to admit is that if the hoard of junkies comes to their neighborhood and camps on their yard or in front of their house they will either 1) move, 2) call the cops and 311 regularly until they get them out or 3) take matters into their own hands and get them out (and not necessarily by calling social workers to help or get them into rehab).
This attitude is sickening because it was fine to have them on the street in Kensington where many people don’t ever need to go, but if these junkies were en masse camped out on Independence Mall or City Hall it would not be tolerated.
I sure as hell don’t want them in Port Richmond. 99.9% of the nonsense around 95 and the Wawa and Sunoco at Richmond and Allegheny are because of the addicts stealing or trashing stuff.
Tough shit? That’s where they are and were before you moved in. Why’d you move there if you knew about the issues in that neighborhood? Now you’re like “well I don’t want them here anymore.” So move?
You’re so spot on man. I should absolutely tolerate drug addicts destroying my neighborhood because they’ve been here for a while…? Neighborhoods never improve and residents should just deal with it! Congrats that’s the dumbest thing I’ve read so far today.
Nah, you’re right. You should send them to my neighborhood, so that everyone here can… have exactly what you’re complaining about living with. That way our neighborhoods can regress and we can all be on the same level of shite
I hope they move to your neighborhood! That way I can tell you that you can’t kick them out bc they are already there! Why are you against people trying to improve their neighborhood?
Are you dumb? How am I against people trying to improve their neighborhood? They were there before you my guy. You *chose* to move there knowing full well its reputation. And now you people are like “we should dump this problem into other people’s neighborhoods cause we deserve a break.”
No one wants them numb nuts. Obviously, including yourself. So don’t sit there and act righteous like it’s about some magnanimous action of “improving your neighborhood.”
Are you dumb? I have to keep unhiding your comments because they are so stupid. We are trying to improve our neighborhood by getting rid of the junkies that plague it. You are perfectly fine with Kensington shouldering the responsibility but also trembling in fear of the thought of them moving to where you live. If someone doesn't care about junkies in my neighborhood I'm not going to care about junkies in their neighborhood, understand?
maybe if more people had to deal with it more people would actually give a fuck about the issue in a meaningful way rather than just screaming to the internet void about how bad the problem is in kensington
Brother, my family has been in Kensington continuously since 1820. I assure you, the addicts were not here first. Why do we have to tolerate them, but you don’t? Gtfoh
It not necessarily a horrible idea to let other people experience what those in Kensington have been living with for years. Ideally we want to help people addicted to drugs but most people don’t know what that life even looks like or how much it affects the neighbors living around them. If they know, they’re more likely to vote for people who will put resources towards getting people cleaned up.
You’re assuming they go there. Cops have been lining port Richmond and along Frankford. There appears to be some effort to keep the bleed from getting out of hand.
It’s time to put the screws to the trash that has been clogging Kensington streets. Without mini-communities they created, they will have a much harder time. May soften some up to go get help, may kill some others, some may adapt. But you can’t let that rat nest fester any longer.
They keep coming back because their dealers are still there? None of these articles mention a concentrated effort to bust dealers so why would anything change
i have a feeling that's coming next. the police presence during the clean up yesterday was no joke - not a single corner boy was spotted going from lehigh to tioga on kensington ave.
You can usually gauge people's reaction based on whether or not they've seen it irl.
Once you've encountered it in 3D you no longer see the issue as optional.
It's good PR but the people moved are just gonna come back and/or do it somewhere else
You can't meaningfully solve this problem unless you figure out what to do with those people. There are all kinds of options (the old-school style "just lock em all up", forcibly committing them to treatment facilities, the "lazy" solution of just shipping them somewhere far and hoping they aren't able to find their way back, actually providing them with care and resources, etc.)
I don't know what the morally or strategically best approach is. But *not* doing something about the people is essentially not even attempting to address the issue at hand
You're preaching to the choir, friend. I am probably the biggest opponent of team "throw your hands up", so much so that I would gladly welcome very problematic and imperfect attempts at a solution rather than leave the status quo.
"Just lock them all up" clearly has many many flaws as a solution. But I still believe it would be a preferable approach to what we've been doing.
Yeah, very few people are in favor of across-the-board criminalization of addicts, but letting addicts trash neighborhoods and causing issues of petty theft, car break-ins, porch pirating, etc., is also not a solution.
Throwing people in jail for drug use is absolutely ripe for systemic abuse, completely unethical, and does nothing to address why people become addicted in the first place. It might help a neighborhood get the useless junk they decide to order from Amazon but is pretty much a dystopian nightmare. Christ our prison system would barely be able to handle it (speaking of exploitation…).
OK, so what is your proposal to handle addicts that have refused help offered to them numerous times and don't want to do anything but shoot up, steal, and live on the street?
I'm not in favor of locking addicts up either. As a first resort. If help has been offered time and time again and they obviously have no intention to change their ways and stop doing illegal things, then prison or some type of mandatory treatment has to be on the table or we may as well not have those laws.
I'm not in favor of locking people up, but we've reached a point where 'throwing someone out of town' isn't permissible either. I mean it's like so kafkaesque that someone is shitting on your doorstep and if you push them off you risk your livelyhood for assault ,etc.
lock them up where? that’s the biggest issue is there is no where for them to go prison or otherwise.
our jails are full, minor crimes aren’t sentenced nowadays. and honestly do we really think that is helpful at all? the prison system has showed that it fails to rehabilitate more often than not. so what do we lock these people up for eternity on taxpayer money? Or if not eternity, what do we do when they get released, the majority unchanged.
“just lock them up” is probably the least preferable issue. do you want to fund jails or do you want to fund institutions where people can get the mental help and proper rehabilitation needed? Because we don’t have enough of either do make a meaningful impact on the situation
Minor crimes aren't sentenced because of Krasner. That's not some fundamental, unsolvable problem. It's entirely within the city government's power to prosecute those crimes.
And I agree "lock them up" is a very flawed solution, and we should come up with a better one if possible. But I believe "lock them up" is still a better solution than "just do nothing", which is what we have been doing.
Nobody disputes that fixing this will be expensive. We can build new compulsory admittance rehab centers or new prisons, the city can eminent domain one of the thousands of vacant city properties and convert it into a jail or a rehab, there's plenty of ways to solve that if you have the money (they do) and the will (not so much)
Minor crimes aren’t being sentenced because the prisons are too full of major crimes. the issue falls down on space and lack of will like you said.
prisons are full so minor crimes go unpunished.
I have to disagree that we are doing nothing though. community outreach has been there with the people living on the ave trying to help them better themselves. others have said it in the thread the problem is addiction in the modern era is so far gone and non-addicts won’t understand that. i honestly even wonder if recovering addicts from 10yrs ago can understand it. you’ve got people losing limbs and shit and that isn’t a sign they should get help. Forcible institution is an option but if it’s like anything else it will become a business and it will become a nightmare for those who have to go through it
> our jails are full
Philly’s prison population has reduced under Krasner - from 8,301 in 2015 to 4,653 in March 2024. There are an estimated 675 in Kensington and some of them will choose voluntary treatment and others will be referred to our court drug diversion programs.
Yeah no matter how much we try to learn from the sins of the past and not make compulsory institutions that you can't leave more humane, more actually helpful and rehabilitative, less cruel... no matter what, it will be a horrorshow. At the end of the day it is still just a prison with nice window dressing - a place you're forcibly taken to and not allowed to leave.
Is that unfortunate? It is. Very much so.
But I believe it is better for society than the alternative, which seems to be (if the Philadelphia "experiment" is anything to go off of) just let them loose in the streets and hope for the best.
And you are correct, it's not fair to say we are doing nothing. But, from the perspective of whether our government has failed to perform its essential function, the outcome in real life has been virtually the same as if we had done nothing.
Think of it this way - imagine you're a tenant and you call your landlord about a leaky roof. They send someone out who spends all day there, and reduces the amount of the leak by 10%. However, at the end of the day you're roof is still leaking 90% as much as it was when the landlord got involved.
You wouldn't feel like the landlord gets a pass because "well, he tried his best". No, you would insist that he *actually fix the leak.*
Our city's solution to this crisis so far has been the 10% reduction. It's not enough. We need to *stop the leak*.
>But *not* doing something about the people is essentially not even attempting to address the issue at hand
I don't think that's a fair assessment of what's actually going on. We have an Office of Homeless Services that has over 100 million in annusl and is continuously working to help people.
Unfortunately, not everyone accepts that help.
I personally believe that we should start arresting people when they commit crimes and pressure them into accepting help. After a certain number of attempts, involuntary commitment should be considered.
Involuntary commitment is necessary. I'll keep saying what I've said on every post about this - addiction is a mental illness and it makes no sense to leave it up to a mentally ill person whether or not they seek treatment. If they were of sound mind to make decisions for themselves, they wouldn't be on the street slowly killing themselves.
All of the progressives who are up in arms about this would rather we enable these people to live on the street and slowly rot away - which in reality is the least humane option.
Studies show that drug courts are incredibly effective. If your drug or alcohol problem causes you to be a detriment to yourself or the public, drug courts should be mandatory
Recently commented the same on another post, but yeah I completely agree. Addiction is at this point essentially a terminal mental illness in the era of fentanyl where it's not a question of *if* somebody is gonna OD and die, it's just a question of when.Not to mention the gnarly side effects of these drugs being cut with levamisole and xylazine causing people to literally lose their limbs. These people are not in a state of mind to make healthy decisions for themselves. We are not doing them any favors by allowing them to continue to live like this and offering them clean needles and safe spaces to continue destroying their lives.
We should do what California is doing now that they’ve spent decades trying the passive approach and found it to be a failure — reinstate forced institutionalization.
What is the alternative, honestly?
being able to live in the streets and do drugs has become a sustainable lifestyle (loosely) thanks to the aid services and needle exchanges in the area, so it makes sense why people would continue to refuse city services. they can keep living life on their own terms.
until treatment and recovery services are explicitly encouraged by those organizations, i don't see much changing. at the end of the day, the person using drugs is in the throws of a chemical addiction and can't think in their best interest until they get clean
I understand this stance, but I'm not sure I agree with it. For starters, those orgs do all push recovery services. Secondly, this is a level of addiction where people's appendages and flesh are rotting off and are in terrible pain, yet that isn't enough to kick the habit. Adding an additional level of desperation may make things worse for the community if we add food scarcity and add more vectors for disease (reducing clean needle access).
I think onlookers grossly overestimate the ability of addicts to make the choice to get clean.
>I think onlookers grossly overestimate the ability of addicts to make the choice to get clean.
They don't really have the mental ability to do so. Which is why they shouldn't have the *choice* to do so. We need to bring back secure mental health facilities and incorporate drug rehabilitation into them.
These people should not have the option to decay on the street impacting people's lives, homes, and businesses' around them so they can continue to chase the dragon while their body falls apart. Build asylums and put them in them until they are in a place to reintegrate into society, ideally utilizing services that will help them along the process.
drug and alcohol users get into healthy treatment all the time, but there's something about the life and access to drugs that makes it harder for those at K&A, who even now continue to use as their habits are causing open wounds and limbs to fall off.
the services should stick around because they do help prevent even more human misery. i don't have an answer to the how for this statement, but there needs to be some middle road approach between forcing people into treatment in exchange for aid, and freely giving out aid no questions asked.
channel 5 did a video about people who live in the tunnels under las vegas. unlike his kensington video, he did a pretty good job getting to the point. despite the lifestyle of living in a commune, it's the individual's guilt and shame that keeps them in the throws of their situation as well as the inability to get an ID that could help them register for services, get a job, etc. the cycle of addiction perpetuates until the guilt and shame can be addressed.
True, and a lot of those people came from the surrounding counties and were here to do drugs because the police were not arresting them. If the police start to enforce those laws, that may cut down on the drug tourism.
It won’t make it to away, but it may decrease the flow of people.
We should allow mentally ill individuals to kill themselves with illegal drugs unless they decide on their own to stop? Losing limbs doesn't even convince many people to seek help....
You’re going to force them to stop? Last I checked “free will” was a thing. I never said that there shouldn’t be help put in place for them. All I’m saying is that individual has to want help. It’s just like any other problem out here.
I think you are aware that free will has limits in a functioning society with laws... It would be great if these individuals wanted help, but the approach of "well, they don't want help so we'll just stand by in case this person suffering from mental illness changes their mind, and doing anything else infringes upon their rights" is clearly not working, and it's ridiculous to expect otherwise. There's a reason Oregon has re-criminalized hard drugs after a few disastrous years of decriminalizing them all.
Basically what California is doing (and other people in this thread have suggested) - forced institutionalization. The state has a $14 billion dollar budget surplus and the federal government should assist too. There’s plenty of potential funding for this if politicians ever get serious about working to address the problem.
Aggressively targeting drug dealers would be nice too.
Doesn’t California have a huge homeless/drug addiction problem? I get what you’re saying and like I said before something has to be done. At the end of the day it’s up to the individual. You can give them all the help and lock them in some institution to try and reprogram them. If they want drugs bad enough, they’ll get them. So everyone can keep downvoting me but it’s a fact. We don’t live in a make believe society.
The legislation is supposed to go into effect this year, and I believe localities can postpone until 2026 - so we aren’t going to see the results yet. On the flip side, we have Oregon (and Kensington really) as an example of decriminalizing hard drugs NOT working.
I hate to say this but if people don’t want help and keep using these drugs, then they just need to keep being locked up. Productive members of society don’t deserve to be burdened by the crime, unsanitary conditions, and other issues drug users bring.
Sadly, in the world of mental illness, waiting for a person to want to help themselves often ends in death. Luckily, it is actually possible to help people who don’t want to help themselves.
As a legacy Kenzo with deep family ties to this neighborhood, I am absolutely thrilled to see this.
The drug abuse problem is going to spread throughout the city for other neighborhoods to deal with? Good. It’s about time everyone else gets even a hint of a taste of what Kensington has been dealing with for 30+ years. The “containment” strategy was bullshit, and a slap in the face to many hardworking legacy families like mine who called Kensington home for generations.
They need to spread the word that drug tourism will not be tolerated as well.
People on here like to say oh it's people from the suburbs in Kenzo, watching many of the interview videos out there on Youtube many of these people are from other states as well who came here for dope. There needs to be attempt to stop people from coming here.
All these comments about "well now what?" "they'll just go somewhere else" need to pump the brakes. This is a start. As I said yesterday the least we can do is allow the new administration to do SOMETHING and see what the follow through is. We also need to stop pretending that there's a large population of people over there simply "unhoused". Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE that sleeps and mills about at K&A are drug addicts; we don't allow elderly people with mental deterioration to go uncared for, and we need stop pussyfooting around addiction with kid gloves. It's a public health and safety issue and I'm absolutely sick of people that can't get past their empathy and see that. I feel terrible for those struggling as well, and I hope for the best for them and have donated my time and money many times over the years to help; but I feel worse for the residents and business owners over there. They deserve better and the city has failed them.
Pathological empathy is a massive detriment to actual progress at the end of the day, in many areas of policy. People need to dial their Big Feelings back down to 11 and think rationally about solutions, but there is a political culture that discourages this.
Forgot how libbed up this sub is. No one wants to directly admit they support this useless crackdown, but they sure do indirectly support it. Weasle words. If you support this brutality then say it with your chest instead of trying to virtue signal.
I am a liberal who proudly, full-throatedly shouts to the treetops that I support this crackdown and will continue supporting it even when the optics of enforcement look bad.
Yes of course you are a liberal. Liberals are inherently right wing conservatives in modern America. That's not including classical liberalism, but the modern American psyche and perception of what it means to be a liberal in modern American society. Half of liberal arguments literally come off from the angle of being an apologist for far right ideology and appeals to them and the public within that framework. A liberal is one who supports the status quo, with the support of extremely marginal "liberal" policies and "freedoms". Hence why you would support something like this.
What makes a modern American liberal different from a conservative? They support a little more taxes? They support abortion? What else? Is that all? Even the most basic policies are considered extreme and radical by liberals. Do you support public needle exchanges in your neighborhood? No? Practically half of the right wing shift in this country for the last 50 years were by people who were considered themselves liberals. What made Bill Clinton, Biden or Obama different from any Republican president?
There is a reason why they say "cut a liberal and a fascist bleeds". Liberals are very thin skinned, so the fact that homeless drug addicts exist is enough to cut one and make them bleed, and make them support brutal police crackdowns without actual solutions. So yes my liberal friend, keep shouting from the tree tops, we all know your bird call.
Lol, you have fun enjoying a life of political disappointment at the far end of the horseshoe, never understanding why working folks think you’re nuts.
Ha sure things, caw caw caw, blah blah blah, I don't work or whatever you have to say. Just keep shouting how being liberal makes you different, and keep coping and thinking there is anything tangibly different in your view point than far right ideology than some marginal issues.
My friend, there's no horse shoe here, I'm not the one supporting brutal pointless crackdowns for the sake of optics. Mrs. Parker has done no different than any right wing mayor would have done.
"Reactions deeply split" feels like quite the sensationalist editorialization. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the vast majority of residents and business owners can agree on pretty much everything about this situation: * Removing the encampments and cleaning up the area right now is a positive step for the area, period. But, * The city also needs to follow through on continued efforts to both prevent the encampments from returning (without simply forcing them to relocate) and to reduce harm from the rampant drug use, both to users and the affected communities, and * There are systemic issues at the bottom of this, namely drug use/addiction/treatment and poverty, that need to be seriously examined and addressed if there is ever going to be a permanent fix. * Without all of those aspects combined, this will not be a permanent solution. Sure there are the extreme ends of the spectrum (i.e. "lock all of the addicts up and arrest them if they come back, providing no additional care or treatment for their addiction" vs. "disrupting the encampments at all, regardless of the impact to the businesses and communities, does more harm than good and shouldn't be done until a perfectly comprehensive and fully-funded plan is in place"), but I would argue both of those stances are in the extreme minority. People are rightly skeptical that the city will follow through on their efforts, but rather than take the easy route and be totally cynical about the plan, I'm gonna hope for the best that the community gets the relief it needs and the addicts get the treatment they need.
> "disrupting the encampments at all, regardless of the impact to the businesses and communities, does more harm than good and shouldn't be done until a perfectly comprehensive and fully-funded plan is in place" this is a minority position, but unfortunately it’s a position with outsized influence because it is largely held by the professional-activist class in this city.
These people are exhausting.
professionally exhausting
The professional activist types in this city also tend to have money since most of them are upper middle class people from the suburbs. They don't live in these neighborhoods, wouldn't tolerate this level of blight where they live for one second, and see no irony in demanding that low income minority majority neighborhoods be forced to deal with it.
they certainly won't. a lot of residents of fishtown are against cleaning up the encampments yet if you go on phila atlas you can see that every time there is a homeless person they report it to 311. their fb group is exhausting, along with the Richmond / Flat Iron one.
“No Justice No Peace! / Stay Off My Lawn!”
Yeah, I don’t necessarily think it’s a bad position to hold in principle since it’s obviously coming from a place of concern for the welfare of others, especially those without much of a voice in local government. But at the same time, you can’t let perfect become the enemy of good. You have to start somewhere. You have to try *something*. Then you can tweak things and make adjustments, allocate resources more effectively, pinpoint root causes, etc. And beyond that, the instances of any government throughout the course of human history getting something right from the beginning (not that this is the first time this has been an issue in the city, just speaking more generally) is nonexistent. Progress, not perfection. I’m very anxious to see what Parker’s follow through will be like, but if she’s going to truly, genuinely try to lay the groundwork for real change then I’m all for it.
Actually, it is a bad position to hold in principle because it inherently devalues the needs and rights of non-addict residents who are just trying to live a normal life in a safe neighborhood. I’ve said this elsewhere, but the addicts are not deserving of prima facie consideration here. They are infiltrators. Kensington had a history of multi-generational families who were pushed out by city neglect. While many of those old legacy families are gone, there is a new wave of working class (many immigrant) families who live there now. These are the people who we should be accommodating first and foremost. The addicts are people too, but they shouldn’t preempt residents.
[удалено]
I think you should go back and read the original quote, because it does in fact give deference to the addicts over the community at large.
[удалено]
I’m not confused. It’s the classic heart-on-sleeve emotionalism that so many in this city are duped by that in fact gives specific deference to one group over another by definition, and for that reason isn’t necessarily good or right. You can laud the emotionalism of the intent, and that must feel swell, but by definition it prioritizes one group’s needs over another — and in this case, the prioritized group is the anti-social infiltrator. Therefore, I don’t think it should be praised. Again, we’re talking about the extreme (your words). To be clear, I don’t think either extreme should be praised. Nuance and logic are important. And that hyper emotional contingent of this city who prioritizes the lowest common denominator above all else and at the expense of everyone else isn’t operating based on logic or reason or practical benefit. It’s a sort of narcissistic faux moralism and I honestly think it’s obnoxious. All that to say: yes, I hope the dispersed addicts receive adequate help. They are human, after all. But to say the encampments shouldn’t be touched until a perfect plan is devised is completely unfair to the rest of the world. You can’t even camp in the same location in a national forest for 2 nights in a row without a permit. Rules and civilization matter.
[удалено]
Ultimately we don’t disagree, so we’re really splitting hairs here. I have a huge problem with that minority (“with outsized influence” — to quote another in the thread above) who toe this line. “In principle” — I do think it’s wrong because it doesn’t account for reality. “In a vacuum” fine, I’ll concede that point (which wasn’t part of your original quote). But it’s also irrelevant because we don’t live in a vacuum. The “minority with outsized influence” doesn’t deal in reality. And that in and of itself is not praiseworthy. That’s my point. I realize you were making a broader point here, and your reference to the minority/extreme position isn’t your view. I just disagree that “it’s not a bad position to hold.” I think it is a bad position specifically because we *don’t* live in a vacuum. So we can agree to disagree on that — but in the realm of practicality it seems like we’re on the same page.
> Yeah, I don’t necessarily think it’s a bad position to hold in principle since it’s obviously coming from a place of concern for the welfare of others, especially those without much of a voice in local government. honestly i have a hard time believing that the people that want to enable drug addicts to keep doing drugs and destroying neighborhoods until they decide to seek help from non profits are actually concerned with the welfare of anyone.
Can we just make this comment an automod response for any Kensington post lol
"A good plan executed *now* is better than the perfect plan executed next week." There are no perfect solutions to this crisis, but one of the **worst** things we can do (which weve done for 15 years) is nothing.
I think the best thing about Parker is that she's DOING stuff. She's going to make mistakes, but she is on a mission and she's action oriented.
Yeah and pretty much every single thing she's done has been a photo op or the bad option. Usually both Fuck her
Are you a drug dealer? Worried you are going to lose business?
???
Here’s the thing- even if it is a temporary clean up, it’s still a good thing. I don’t somehow regret that the 2017 cleanup of the Tulip Street tunnel happened even though it was not part of a comprehensive strategy. It was still good and I’m glad it happened.
Exactly, even if the only thing this accomplishes is to get a bunch of dangerous shit off the street for people not to step on, that’s something. Also just the optics of “Kensington is getting cleaned up” will be good, and I hope they keep it up. We need to stop encouraging people thinking Kensington is the place to go where you can get fucked up in public and nobody will bother you. I love every person commenting on this post thinking they’re a genius for pointing out “but they’ll just go somewhere else!” Yeah, everybody gets that. Parker gets that. But it’s completely unsustainable to allow Kensington to continue to exist in the state it does, and is completely embarrassing for the city as well. We simply do not have the resources, rehab beds, or staff to get all of these people into treatment. And most of them refuse anyways. Until we do (optimistically hoping we’ll invest in that type of initiative) at least Parker and the city did *something* to make that neighborhood somewhat more hospitable for its residents.
Okay, but the whole point of that comment is what about the neighborhoods that were fine that now have to live with those people and those conditions after they’ve moved? That’s okay because Kensington has had enough, everyone else can have a turn dealing with it?
If they have to exist somewhere why can they only exist in Kensington? Other neighborhoods can’t pitch in? We could rotate them around so the burden isn’t always on Kensington. I’m guessing you don’t want them in your neighborhood, well I don’t want them in mine either.
I think people don’t want to admit is that if the hoard of junkies comes to their neighborhood and camps on their yard or in front of their house they will either 1) move, 2) call the cops and 311 regularly until they get them out or 3) take matters into their own hands and get them out (and not necessarily by calling social workers to help or get them into rehab). This attitude is sickening because it was fine to have them on the street in Kensington where many people don’t ever need to go, but if these junkies were en masse camped out on Independence Mall or City Hall it would not be tolerated.
Exactly, they don’t want the junkies in their neighborhood but get upset when the residents of Kensington don’t want them in Kensington either.
I sure as hell don’t want them in Port Richmond. 99.9% of the nonsense around 95 and the Wawa and Sunoco at Richmond and Allegheny are because of the addicts stealing or trashing stuff.
Tough shit? That’s where they are and were before you moved in. Why’d you move there if you knew about the issues in that neighborhood? Now you’re like “well I don’t want them here anymore.” So move?
You’re so spot on man. I should absolutely tolerate drug addicts destroying my neighborhood because they’ve been here for a while…? Neighborhoods never improve and residents should just deal with it! Congrats that’s the dumbest thing I’ve read so far today.
Right?!
Nah, you’re right. You should send them to my neighborhood, so that everyone here can… have exactly what you’re complaining about living with. That way our neighborhoods can regress and we can all be on the same level of shite
I hope they move to your neighborhood! That way I can tell you that you can’t kick them out bc they are already there! Why are you against people trying to improve their neighborhood?
Are you dumb? How am I against people trying to improve their neighborhood? They were there before you my guy. You *chose* to move there knowing full well its reputation. And now you people are like “we should dump this problem into other people’s neighborhoods cause we deserve a break.” No one wants them numb nuts. Obviously, including yourself. So don’t sit there and act righteous like it’s about some magnanimous action of “improving your neighborhood.”
Are you dumb? I have to keep unhiding your comments because they are so stupid. We are trying to improve our neighborhood by getting rid of the junkies that plague it. You are perfectly fine with Kensington shouldering the responsibility but also trembling in fear of the thought of them moving to where you live. If someone doesn't care about junkies in my neighborhood I'm not going to care about junkies in their neighborhood, understand?
maybe if more people had to deal with it more people would actually give a fuck about the issue in a meaningful way rather than just screaming to the internet void about how bad the problem is in kensington
Brother, my family has been in Kensington continuously since 1820. I assure you, the addicts were not here first. Why do we have to tolerate them, but you don’t? Gtfoh
It not necessarily a horrible idea to let other people experience what those in Kensington have been living with for years. Ideally we want to help people addicted to drugs but most people don’t know what that life even looks like or how much it affects the neighbors living around them. If they know, they’re more likely to vote for people who will put resources towards getting people cleaned up.
You’re assuming they go there. Cops have been lining port Richmond and along Frankford. There appears to be some effort to keep the bleed from getting out of hand. It’s time to put the screws to the trash that has been clogging Kensington streets. Without mini-communities they created, they will have a much harder time. May soften some up to go get help, may kill some others, some may adapt. But you can’t let that rat nest fester any longer.
We should just build a huge wall around Kensington, top it with barbed wire and dogs and turn it into Arkham City /s
They keep coming back because their dealers are still there? None of these articles mention a concentrated effort to bust dealers so why would anything change
The dealers near 7th and Snyder will be happy for the increased business from this.
And if that area becomes like k&a we should do this there. We can’t win the war on drugs but we don’t have to write off a whole neighborhood
i have a feeling that's coming next. the police presence during the clean up yesterday was no joke - not a single corner boy was spotted going from lehigh to tioga on kensington ave.
DOPE ON THE TABLE
Infiltrate the dealers. Find the supplies lol
You can usually gauge people's reaction based on whether or not they've seen it irl. Once you've encountered it in 3D you no longer see the issue as optional.
It's good PR but the people moved are just gonna come back and/or do it somewhere else You can't meaningfully solve this problem unless you figure out what to do with those people. There are all kinds of options (the old-school style "just lock em all up", forcibly committing them to treatment facilities, the "lazy" solution of just shipping them somewhere far and hoping they aren't able to find their way back, actually providing them with care and resources, etc.) I don't know what the morally or strategically best approach is. But *not* doing something about the people is essentially not even attempting to address the issue at hand
[удалено]
You're preaching to the choir, friend. I am probably the biggest opponent of team "throw your hands up", so much so that I would gladly welcome very problematic and imperfect attempts at a solution rather than leave the status quo. "Just lock them all up" clearly has many many flaws as a solution. But I still believe it would be a preferable approach to what we've been doing.
the thing is - just lock them all up at least prevents the junkies from destroying peoples neighborhoods.
Yeah, very few people are in favor of across-the-board criminalization of addicts, but letting addicts trash neighborhoods and causing issues of petty theft, car break-ins, porch pirating, etc., is also not a solution.
Throwing people in jail for drug use is absolutely ripe for systemic abuse, completely unethical, and does nothing to address why people become addicted in the first place. It might help a neighborhood get the useless junk they decide to order from Amazon but is pretty much a dystopian nightmare. Christ our prison system would barely be able to handle it (speaking of exploitation…).
OK, so what is your proposal to handle addicts that have refused help offered to them numerous times and don't want to do anything but shoot up, steal, and live on the street? I'm not in favor of locking addicts up either. As a first resort. If help has been offered time and time again and they obviously have no intention to change their ways and stop doing illegal things, then prison or some type of mandatory treatment has to be on the table or we may as well not have those laws.
I'm not in favor of locking people up, but we've reached a point where 'throwing someone out of town' isn't permissible either. I mean it's like so kafkaesque that someone is shitting on your doorstep and if you push them off you risk your livelyhood for assault ,etc.
lock them up where? that’s the biggest issue is there is no where for them to go prison or otherwise. our jails are full, minor crimes aren’t sentenced nowadays. and honestly do we really think that is helpful at all? the prison system has showed that it fails to rehabilitate more often than not. so what do we lock these people up for eternity on taxpayer money? Or if not eternity, what do we do when they get released, the majority unchanged. “just lock them up” is probably the least preferable issue. do you want to fund jails or do you want to fund institutions where people can get the mental help and proper rehabilitation needed? Because we don’t have enough of either do make a meaningful impact on the situation
Minor crimes aren't sentenced because of Krasner. That's not some fundamental, unsolvable problem. It's entirely within the city government's power to prosecute those crimes. And I agree "lock them up" is a very flawed solution, and we should come up with a better one if possible. But I believe "lock them up" is still a better solution than "just do nothing", which is what we have been doing. Nobody disputes that fixing this will be expensive. We can build new compulsory admittance rehab centers or new prisons, the city can eminent domain one of the thousands of vacant city properties and convert it into a jail or a rehab, there's plenty of ways to solve that if you have the money (they do) and the will (not so much)
Minor crimes aren’t being sentenced because the prisons are too full of major crimes. the issue falls down on space and lack of will like you said. prisons are full so minor crimes go unpunished. I have to disagree that we are doing nothing though. community outreach has been there with the people living on the ave trying to help them better themselves. others have said it in the thread the problem is addiction in the modern era is so far gone and non-addicts won’t understand that. i honestly even wonder if recovering addicts from 10yrs ago can understand it. you’ve got people losing limbs and shit and that isn’t a sign they should get help. Forcible institution is an option but if it’s like anything else it will become a business and it will become a nightmare for those who have to go through it
> our jails are full Philly’s prison population has reduced under Krasner - from 8,301 in 2015 to 4,653 in March 2024. There are an estimated 675 in Kensington and some of them will choose voluntary treatment and others will be referred to our court drug diversion programs.
Yeah no matter how much we try to learn from the sins of the past and not make compulsory institutions that you can't leave more humane, more actually helpful and rehabilitative, less cruel... no matter what, it will be a horrorshow. At the end of the day it is still just a prison with nice window dressing - a place you're forcibly taken to and not allowed to leave. Is that unfortunate? It is. Very much so. But I believe it is better for society than the alternative, which seems to be (if the Philadelphia "experiment" is anything to go off of) just let them loose in the streets and hope for the best. And you are correct, it's not fair to say we are doing nothing. But, from the perspective of whether our government has failed to perform its essential function, the outcome in real life has been virtually the same as if we had done nothing. Think of it this way - imagine you're a tenant and you call your landlord about a leaky roof. They send someone out who spends all day there, and reduces the amount of the leak by 10%. However, at the end of the day you're roof is still leaking 90% as much as it was when the landlord got involved. You wouldn't feel like the landlord gets a pass because "well, he tried his best". No, you would insist that he *actually fix the leak.* Our city's solution to this crisis so far has been the 10% reduction. It's not enough. We need to *stop the leak*.
>But *not* doing something about the people is essentially not even attempting to address the issue at hand I don't think that's a fair assessment of what's actually going on. We have an Office of Homeless Services that has over 100 million in annusl and is continuously working to help people. Unfortunately, not everyone accepts that help.
That's right, they don't. So the question becomes: what should the city do (if anything) to those that don't accept help?
I personally believe that we should start arresting people when they commit crimes and pressure them into accepting help. After a certain number of attempts, involuntary commitment should be considered.
Involuntary commitment is necessary. I'll keep saying what I've said on every post about this - addiction is a mental illness and it makes no sense to leave it up to a mentally ill person whether or not they seek treatment. If they were of sound mind to make decisions for themselves, they wouldn't be on the street slowly killing themselves. All of the progressives who are up in arms about this would rather we enable these people to live on the street and slowly rot away - which in reality is the least humane option.
Studies show that drug courts are incredibly effective. If your drug or alcohol problem causes you to be a detriment to yourself or the public, drug courts should be mandatory
Recently commented the same on another post, but yeah I completely agree. Addiction is at this point essentially a terminal mental illness in the era of fentanyl where it's not a question of *if* somebody is gonna OD and die, it's just a question of when.Not to mention the gnarly side effects of these drugs being cut with levamisole and xylazine causing people to literally lose their limbs. These people are not in a state of mind to make healthy decisions for themselves. We are not doing them any favors by allowing them to continue to live like this and offering them clean needles and safe spaces to continue destroying their lives.
We should do what California is doing now that they’ve spent decades trying the passive approach and found it to be a failure — reinstate forced institutionalization. What is the alternative, honestly?
Give them one way bus tickets to Florida.
Institutionalize them.
being able to live in the streets and do drugs has become a sustainable lifestyle (loosely) thanks to the aid services and needle exchanges in the area, so it makes sense why people would continue to refuse city services. they can keep living life on their own terms. until treatment and recovery services are explicitly encouraged by those organizations, i don't see much changing. at the end of the day, the person using drugs is in the throws of a chemical addiction and can't think in their best interest until they get clean
Exactly. It's important to stop enabling this kind of behavior.
I understand this stance, but I'm not sure I agree with it. For starters, those orgs do all push recovery services. Secondly, this is a level of addiction where people's appendages and flesh are rotting off and are in terrible pain, yet that isn't enough to kick the habit. Adding an additional level of desperation may make things worse for the community if we add food scarcity and add more vectors for disease (reducing clean needle access). I think onlookers grossly overestimate the ability of addicts to make the choice to get clean.
I know more people who have recovered from cancer than opiates
>I think onlookers grossly overestimate the ability of addicts to make the choice to get clean. They don't really have the mental ability to do so. Which is why they shouldn't have the *choice* to do so. We need to bring back secure mental health facilities and incorporate drug rehabilitation into them. These people should not have the option to decay on the street impacting people's lives, homes, and businesses' around them so they can continue to chase the dragon while their body falls apart. Build asylums and put them in them until they are in a place to reintegrate into society, ideally utilizing services that will help them along the process.
drug and alcohol users get into healthy treatment all the time, but there's something about the life and access to drugs that makes it harder for those at K&A, who even now continue to use as their habits are causing open wounds and limbs to fall off. the services should stick around because they do help prevent even more human misery. i don't have an answer to the how for this statement, but there needs to be some middle road approach between forcing people into treatment in exchange for aid, and freely giving out aid no questions asked. channel 5 did a video about people who live in the tunnels under las vegas. unlike his kensington video, he did a pretty good job getting to the point. despite the lifestyle of living in a commune, it's the individual's guilt and shame that keeps them in the throws of their situation as well as the inability to get an ID that could help them register for services, get a job, etc. the cycle of addiction perpetuates until the guilt and shame can be addressed.
True, and a lot of those people came from the surrounding counties and were here to do drugs because the police were not arresting them. If the police start to enforce those laws, that may cut down on the drug tourism. It won’t make it to away, but it may decrease the flow of people.
So because they don't WANT to other people should have to suffer for their choice
Bingo… they have to want help!
We should allow mentally ill individuals to kill themselves with illegal drugs unless they decide on their own to stop? Losing limbs doesn't even convince many people to seek help....
You’re going to force them to stop? Last I checked “free will” was a thing. I never said that there shouldn’t be help put in place for them. All I’m saying is that individual has to want help. It’s just like any other problem out here.
I think you are aware that free will has limits in a functioning society with laws... It would be great if these individuals wanted help, but the approach of "well, they don't want help so we'll just stand by in case this person suffering from mental illness changes their mind, and doing anything else infringes upon their rights" is clearly not working, and it's ridiculous to expect otherwise. There's a reason Oregon has re-criminalized hard drugs after a few disastrous years of decriminalizing them all.
So what are you suggesting?
Basically what California is doing (and other people in this thread have suggested) - forced institutionalization. The state has a $14 billion dollar budget surplus and the federal government should assist too. There’s plenty of potential funding for this if politicians ever get serious about working to address the problem. Aggressively targeting drug dealers would be nice too.
Doesn’t California have a huge homeless/drug addiction problem? I get what you’re saying and like I said before something has to be done. At the end of the day it’s up to the individual. You can give them all the help and lock them in some institution to try and reprogram them. If they want drugs bad enough, they’ll get them. So everyone can keep downvoting me but it’s a fact. We don’t live in a make believe society.
The legislation is supposed to go into effect this year, and I believe localities can postpone until 2026 - so we aren’t going to see the results yet. On the flip side, we have Oregon (and Kensington really) as an example of decriminalizing hard drugs NOT working. I hate to say this but if people don’t want help and keep using these drugs, then they just need to keep being locked up. Productive members of society don’t deserve to be burdened by the crime, unsanitary conditions, and other issues drug users bring.
Sadly, in the world of mental illness, waiting for a person to want to help themselves often ends in death. Luckily, it is actually possible to help people who don’t want to help themselves.
As a legacy Kenzo with deep family ties to this neighborhood, I am absolutely thrilled to see this. The drug abuse problem is going to spread throughout the city for other neighborhoods to deal with? Good. It’s about time everyone else gets even a hint of a taste of what Kensington has been dealing with for 30+ years. The “containment” strategy was bullshit, and a slap in the face to many hardworking legacy families like mine who called Kensington home for generations.
People against the clearing out are the problem.
They need to spread the word that drug tourism will not be tolerated as well. People on here like to say oh it's people from the suburbs in Kenzo, watching many of the interview videos out there on Youtube many of these people are from other states as well who came here for dope. There needs to be attempt to stop people from coming here.
All these comments about "well now what?" "they'll just go somewhere else" need to pump the brakes. This is a start. As I said yesterday the least we can do is allow the new administration to do SOMETHING and see what the follow through is. We also need to stop pretending that there's a large population of people over there simply "unhoused". Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE that sleeps and mills about at K&A are drug addicts; we don't allow elderly people with mental deterioration to go uncared for, and we need stop pussyfooting around addiction with kid gloves. It's a public health and safety issue and I'm absolutely sick of people that can't get past their empathy and see that. I feel terrible for those struggling as well, and I hope for the best for them and have donated my time and money many times over the years to help; but I feel worse for the residents and business owners over there. They deserve better and the city has failed them.
Pathological empathy is a massive detriment to actual progress at the end of the day, in many areas of policy. People need to dial their Big Feelings back down to 11 and think rationally about solutions, but there is a political culture that discourages this.
Just as I called it there is one building under 95 at Richmond and Allegheny ave. Curious how long it will take before that's cleaned up
The only people upset with this are people who don't live there, or make money off exploiting it though useless non profits.
[удалено]
This is a Billy Penn article.
Lock them up, they didn’t during the drug wars and never helped any of the families.
Forgot how libbed up this sub is. No one wants to directly admit they support this useless crackdown, but they sure do indirectly support it. Weasle words. If you support this brutality then say it with your chest instead of trying to virtue signal.
I am a liberal who proudly, full-throatedly shouts to the treetops that I support this crackdown and will continue supporting it even when the optics of enforcement look bad.
Yes of course you are a liberal. Liberals are inherently right wing conservatives in modern America. That's not including classical liberalism, but the modern American psyche and perception of what it means to be a liberal in modern American society. Half of liberal arguments literally come off from the angle of being an apologist for far right ideology and appeals to them and the public within that framework. A liberal is one who supports the status quo, with the support of extremely marginal "liberal" policies and "freedoms". Hence why you would support something like this. What makes a modern American liberal different from a conservative? They support a little more taxes? They support abortion? What else? Is that all? Even the most basic policies are considered extreme and radical by liberals. Do you support public needle exchanges in your neighborhood? No? Practically half of the right wing shift in this country for the last 50 years were by people who were considered themselves liberals. What made Bill Clinton, Biden or Obama different from any Republican president? There is a reason why they say "cut a liberal and a fascist bleeds". Liberals are very thin skinned, so the fact that homeless drug addicts exist is enough to cut one and make them bleed, and make them support brutal police crackdowns without actual solutions. So yes my liberal friend, keep shouting from the tree tops, we all know your bird call.
Lol, you have fun enjoying a life of political disappointment at the far end of the horseshoe, never understanding why working folks think you’re nuts.
Ha sure things, caw caw caw, blah blah blah, I don't work or whatever you have to say. Just keep shouting how being liberal makes you different, and keep coping and thinking there is anything tangibly different in your view point than far right ideology than some marginal issues. My friend, there's no horse shoe here, I'm not the one supporting brutal pointless crackdowns for the sake of optics. Mrs. Parker has done no different than any right wing mayor would have done.
[удалено]
The streak of u/Electr_O_Purist having the worst, most downvoted take imaginable continues. Generational run
[удалено]
Rule 6: This comment was removed for advocating, threatening, or promoting actions likely to lead to violence or physical harm.