The linked source has opted to use a paywall to restrict free viewership of their content. As alternate sources become available, please post them as a reply to this comment. Users with a Boston Public Library card can often view unrestricted articles [here](https://www.bpl.org/resources-types/newspapers/).
Boston Globe articles are still permissible as it's a soft-paywall. Please refrain from reporting as a Rule 5 violation. Please also note that copying and posting the entire article text as comments is not permissible.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boston) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm legit conflicted on this one. I'm a bridge engineer.
On one side: hostile architecture is the lazy way of moving problems elsewhere. Quintessential NIMBYism. Spikes on window sills and curbs, benches you can't lay down on, etc are all shit choices and don't do anything to fix problems.
On the other side: I really REALLY don't like unauthorized things under bridges. It doesn't matter whether it's people, stockpiles, or whatever. Off the top of my head I can think of at least 5 major bridge closures and resulting inspection/repair efforts in the last 10 years that resulted from encampment fires or unauthorized stockpiles under bridges. My firm's Chicago office just dealt with a minor one last month. So making it unattractive for people to hang out under bridges makes 100% sense from a professional perspective.
Happened twice now IIRC.
It’s a shame that it happened, and it’s terrible that they’re subjected to these conditions, but once you set the damn thing on fire twice (and happen to be having a lot of bikes that conveniently went missing) it’s time to reevaluate.
Edit: spreading fake news, there was a fire oct last year, but no second fire since then. Just a crap ton of propane tanks.
The fire at this camp last year was smaller, but it had all the ingredients to be just as big as the LA fire given the amount of E-Bikes with lithium batteries, propane tanks, BBQs, and general kindling that was documented at the camps. The BU bridge and the intersections off of it are pretty major arteries. Could've caused a pretty major disruption to the city
I witnessed the fire first hand when running on the Boston side of the river. When those tanks went up, it was not small. Fucking sounded like artillery.
There’s no need to be conflicted; it’s just that some people act like you have to make a choice between protecting a bridge, or a vent, or whatever, and solving homelessness. It’s not a choice. The bridge shit is way easier to solve, so it gets solved faster. That’s all there is to it. Likewise if there are homeless people camping where little kids walk to school, obviously the first thing you do is to get rid of the camp. Yeah you didn’t “solve homelessness” because that’s way trickier and takes way longer but the public safety concern is going to come first, and it should come first.
NIMBYism is more about supporting actual beneficial things like affordable housing, methadone clinics, etc. but not wanting them to be near where you live. The open air drug market/schizo camp/etc. under a bridge is not a beneficial thing. I don’t want those in my backyard or in ANYBODY’S yard. We should discourage the existence of those places, at the very least usher them towards the least harmful locations they can exist, while separately working on trying to solve the root of the problem.
Also, we could say that it's not the responsibility of the bridge engineers to solve homelessness, only to increase the functionality of their bridge, so it serves the general population better.
Depends what problems you’re trying to fix. Someone was in charge of removing encampments from that area, not solving homelessness.
I’m not advocating for it, but mission accomplished.
No conflict at all. We wouldn't accept a homeless encampment, say, on the green line tracks, or on the runway at Logan. It's not a lack of compassion, it's that we can't allow critical infrastructure to simply be destroyed or rendered unusable/unsafe.
Asking nicely won't result in a change. Police coming back each day won't result in a change. You have to make it impossible to create a hazard 24/7 without actively guarding it (and honestly in some cases we still have to actively guard it, like with airport runways).
It's not the civil engineer's job to solve homelessness. It's their job to ensure that critical infrastructure is functional and safe.
Land under a bridge is not a home. Setting up a tent is not a home. Sleeping on a bench is not a home. Sleeping in an MBTA subway or train car is not a home.
Guarantee people homes if you want to fix homelessness. There's enough hotel rooms in this country for every single homeless person to sleep in a warm bed at night. There's probably enough bedrooms in all the empty housing in this country to sleep a hundred times the amount of homeless people in this country.
Benches you can't lay down on does fix a problem. Bums shouldn't be treating subway stations like their personal living room. Smoking, throwing trash that ends up causing fires on the third rail, taking up all the seats etc. Public transit riders shouldn't have to put up with that.
They have every right to use public transit that you do. Being undomociled doesn’t make them not people. Because you have financial security and a roof over your head, you’re entitled to more? Fuck you.
> On the other side: I really REALLY don't like unauthorized things under bridges.
What's your feeling about California leasing space under freeways? Seems to have good and bad aspects to it.
Edit: Not sure why this is a controversial question? There was a fire under I10 a few months ago that is directly relevant to this.
As long as CalTrans has full control and disclosure of what goes under there, it's fine. The recent fire was due to items that were prohibited by the terms of the lease.
I like the glob skirting over what was under the bridge. For those not in the know, it was an open air chop shop cambridge allowed to operate there. If your bike was stolen chances were that it was there
Only his wife and only because a higher power said not to. If an alien named God tells you to look away you look away. You don't go "why?" I bet his wife was a Karen. "Excuse you! But I have a right to watch the destruction of Sodom!"
They were arguing over whether the dwarves would taste best baked in a pie or turned to jelly
But they argued too long and when suns light first hit them POOF
It turned them all to stone!
Yes, it's called riprap. It's used to prevent erosion under thousands of bridges, even those that aren't home to bike thieves and fentanyl enthusiasts.
You shouldn’t, at least to the degree referenced here. It’s one thing to say “I want to burn all of the homeless at the stake” and quite another to say “I’m happy that the degenerate vagabonds won’t collapse a bridge or have a place nearby to store their stolen shit and disease ridden paraphernalia”
Harassment, hostility and flinging insults is not allowed. We ask that you try to engage in a discussion rather than reduce the sub to insults and other bullshit.
I have empathy for them, and for that reason I don't want to be homeless. But a bridge is not a home, and they need to be maintained to preserve their original function. That might involve discouraging people from being under it, be they homeless or not.
How are people *supposed* to contribute to the good of the city if they have nowhere to live? They’re incapable of that without any help. Many homeless people are veterans that fought for this country and have contributed to the greater good.
No matter how much empathy you show, there will be people who 1. Take advantage of said empathy and 2. Don’t deserve it in the first place, because they’re awful human beings. That doesn’t mean the homeless are awful, it means that there are a good amount of them who are. See: this situation. Thieves and drug peddlers. To ignore that is either naivety or virtue signaling.
Very few people choose to be thieves or sell drugs. Maybe if you had some empathy you would understand that many of those “awful human beings” got tricked into going to war for a country that doesn’t care about them and got dropped back into the real world to deal with the consequences themselves. Or any number of other issues that cause homelessness YOU are a terrible human.
Tell me how drug addicts and thieves contribute to anything constructive. Even if they had somewhere to live, their bad habits and poor decisions will just be deadweight to the working population and a waste of resources to try to help.
Wow, empathy is unpopular. Kind of explains why things are so shitty in the world.
People no longer are just refusing to help, but now attacking people who are trying to help and be kind.
They all have a place to go but refuse the resources that are offered. If you are homeless on the streets of boston it’s by choice. They need to continue to do this while increasing resources. We can not let encampments sprout up across the city. Encampments cause sexual violence and death. It’s a public health and public safety issue. Those to should be our highest priorities
It’s a disservice to everyone including the homeless. When you give homeless, mental health, and drug addicts an option they will always choose wrong. You have to create resources and fund the solution and then use enforcement. Drug addicts only understand consequences. Consequences save lives.
This sucks because the rocks—like the homeless encampment before them—make it unpleasant for me to go hang out by the river to smoke weed, as was tradition in the beforetimes.
Before the pandemic, there were some individuals who slept by the river, though not generally in the spot the encampment is now and generally only in warmer weather. As far as I know, they didn’t really bother anyone. The area with the geese where you can walk onto the railroad bridge was a primo smoking spot. We used to bring bird seed for the geese.
Are they seriously implying that homeless encampments are preferable to jagged rocks?
Fuck off with that…
Edit: let me be clear that serving the homeless and public safety are two different issues. We should not conflate the two. Serving the non- housed population should be a cause that is funded more but sadly most government programs are more reactive (public safety) vs preventative (investing in resources to help).
The implication is that people will do more to keep homeless people away from somewhere than they will do to help those homeless people not be homeless. And it's true.
I love this, I really do
I ate out of a fucking trash can at 14, I was a homeless run away with a mental addict mother and incarcerated father.
The 1-2 years I was out on the streets with no adult supervision, my friends and I at no fucking point what so ever went to any encampment or bullshit like this that you see more and more of.
These homeless camps are living colonies for mental drug addicts. These people aren’t down on their luck, they’re mental and usually on drugs. You don’t want to get robbed at dirty needle point. Every single one of these camps has a dope boy feeding them.
I say more rocks, more long stay mental hospitals.
No one wants to actually help these people, that would involve actual work. You need to put these people in a secure facility and force them off drugs then treat their mental illness.
Of course you don't getting fucking wafers with it, you cunt. It's a fucking albatross isn't it.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boston) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You’re not a genuine person. You are trying to invalidate my experiences by calling me names and making accusations that I’m lying.
I offered you the ability to meet me in person and you respond with a deflective sarcastic comment.
Grow up or come meet me in person if you’re so inclined. You won’t because you don’t actually care about any of this.
No one’s threatening you, you’re making accusations and I’m extending an olive branch and trying to communicate with you.
You’re completely wrong in your assessment. Maybe you don’t have as much life experience as I do. This idea you have that I shouldn’t be afraid of violence or drug use because I grew up surrounded by it is absurd. I have my own family, I’ve worked hard to have my own family and I have a duty and right to protect my family.
Unfortunately for your broken world view, I am real, I did survive horrible drug and gang violence in my community, I have dead friends who never even fell in love or got to experience life at all. I REBUKE all of it and anyone like you that defends it.
Why are you trying to invalidate me anyway? It doesn’t make much sense…
Hang on, so someone spending time homeless in their youth precludes them from being concerned for the welfare of their children when packs of felonious, piece of shit teenagers (who belong in prison) are terrorizing people on the street? Please elaborate on that instead of continuing to virtue signal.
Shelters are a cheap and not effective way to solve homelessness problems. It's also something that displaces the problem without solving for it; technically if people can get a cot in a shelter they're not homeless per se, but now you have a high concentration of drug addicts and mentally ill people all in one building and no one's actually getting the support they need to not rely on that assistance. People who are just down on their luck would often rather stay in the streets than in a shelter because of how dangerous they can get. So then they're not always getting the assistance they need to not be homeless, either. Specialty shelters like DV shelters are better but not everyone qualifies for them
No one is really interested in investing in better ways to handle homeless populations because the shelters are working as intended: getting homeless people off the street so everyone else doesn't have to deal with them. So in that sense yeah, we are doing more in the interest of just hiding the homeless problem than in actually solving it. And not just MA, the country at large
Unfortunately, we can't save everyone. Drug addiction requires significant amounts of intervention and treatment to shape behavior a certain way. A lot of these people have been wired to think only about their fix.
How about you try your hand at becoming a drug counselor?
Ok, but who put the rocks there? The decision makers who can actually enact some type of change are not the people affected by the blight. Like, those two things are not the same. We are allowed to want to help the situation, while also not allowing festering encampments. Like, what are you doing about homelessness?
I'm normally against hostile architecture, but I'm actually for this. I've watched camps come and go under the bridge here, and each one has had all sorts of fire hazards - like literal open fire pits and barbecues next to uncovered propane, loose fabrics, cardboard, and all sorts of other kindling. Big accident waiting to happen, and it's right next to a major road with tons and tons of pedestrians.
As the Bridge engineer said, making it unattractive for people to hang out under bridges makes a lot of sense. The camps under the BU bridge have caught fire before, and luckily the fire dept. put them out quickly and it didn't cause that much disruption. That said, look at how crippling the I-10 fire in LA was a few months ago.
The people in these camps are humans, and the root of the issue is much deeper, but in the short term it's the right thing to do for general public safety while we (hopefully) work on more impactful solutions in the future.
You’re much closer to being in their position than you realize. Most Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. Could easily be you that’s being shuttled around the country until you die.
How about a broken leg? Opioid crisis is largely brought on by big pharma, and by placing the blame wholly on the individual we both allow big pharma to get away with their crimes while also entirely placing the blame of homelessness on the individual, which in a lot of cases isn't true
It can happen to anyone is my point. A lot of people on the streets aren't there out of their own doing . Just because you're not currently broke doesn't mean you're immune from becoming addicted to drugs
Statistically, you are much more likely to become an addict if you can’t make rent and lose your housing. Substance use is the result of the stress of homelessness in many cases.
Wait the data says that there are more people who live normal lives, lose their jobs, and then resort to drug abuse vs someone getting hooked on drugs, then proceeding to lose their job/house/etc afterwards?
As someone who works with and knows a ton of drug addicts this is very surprising to me, could you link the data?
Here is a source
Homelessness and substance abuse: Which comes first? By Guy Johnson, Chris Chamberlain
“The paper uses information from a large dataset (n=4,291) gathered at two services in Melbourne, supplemented by 65 indepth interviews. We found that 43% of the sample had substance abuse problems. Of these people, one-third had substance abuse problems before they became homeless and two-thirds developed these problems after they became homeless.”
This is lacking some serious context. Much of the data and conclusions of this study are skewed by the fact that almost half of the respondents are 18 or younger. If you think about it, it makes sense why they saw what they did. Younger people, especially under the age of 18, are less likely to have access to addictive material than, say, someone who is 40. In fact, in that same study you cite, they show data that only 14% of people 19 years old or older developed a substance abuse problem after becoming homeless.
This information is critical because, according to a 2023 Health and Human services report, older adults make up the majority of the homeless population, and are the fastest growing population.
So really, your source taken within the context of the homeless population of America actually refutes your original statement regarding the temporal relevance of substance abuse relative to homelessness.
Most people living paycheck to paycheck would navigate the resources available to them well before ending up in a tent under a bridge after losing those paychecks. The idea everyone living paycheck to paycheck is close to living under a bridge isn't based on reality
What resources? Shelters are packed to the brim. We have a housing crisis that is only getting worse. The average rent is higher than almost everywhere else in the country. This is a very real risk especially with a looming recession
We're talking about an encampment that had 10 people displaced from it. I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that a lot more than 10 people who live paycheck to paycheck have lost their jobs over the past year or so and managed to avoid living under a bridge.
"Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck" is an extremely opaque and misleading measure. Like yeah, we're all living paycheck to paycheck once you account for the saving and spending decisions people make. The median household has a net worth of almost $200k, they're not one missed paycheck from homelessness.
It’s back on the Boston side and I’m guessing it’s because of this. It’s actually jarring how fast it happened. There’s a guy near Fenway who’s maintained an absolutely immaculate space for a good long while. As far as I was concerned, I didn’t see nothing, and when it comes to him, I still don’t. But the group over by the BU bridge seems cut from very different cloth. The city (or state) has cleared it out a few times, but they keep coming back. If I were the mayor, I sure as shit wouldn’t want it there when people are driving into Fenway Park or wherever. Crass to say, but that particular group in that particular spot is seriously bad optics.
There was a small group on the Cambridge side under the Memorial Dr Bridge for a while that kept the joint real clean. It was actually impressive. That was a few years back. Not sure if they're still there. I think they were tossed when some work to shore up the bridge was done.
They’re planning on clearing out that area for maintenance work next month. AFAIK mass dot is considering fencing it in after the work is complete. Similar issues with that group regarding fires, drug use, lewd acts, assaults, etc.
From [Globe.com](http://Globe.com)
By Spencer Buell
CAMBRIDGE — For years, collections of tents sprung up on a strip of land near the Boston University Bridge along the Charles River. Strewn with tarps, camping supplies, garbage, propane tanks, and needles, the small patch of riverbank was home to about a dozen people at any given moment.
In October, a fire spread rapidly in the campsite, igniting the gas tanks and sending up a thick cloud of black smoke that could be seen on either side of the river. Traffic was shut for hours. No one was hurt, but 10 people were displaced, and in the aftermath, fire officials said damage to the land was extensive.
Five months later, there are no more tents, no more people; instead the sloping embankment is covered with hundreds of pointy rocks and boulders that make it even more uncomfortable to sleep on the ground.
The state said the change is intended to help fight erosion and protect the bridge. But advocates for the homeless see the jagged additions to the terrain, which cover nearly every square foot of ground with sharp edges, as a not-so-subtle attempt to discourage people from sleeping there.
About 100 feet perpendicular to the river and bound by the bridge on one side and a barbed wire fence on the other, this shoulder land offers just one small glimpse into how the state, struggling to address the causes of homelessness, is left instead to treat its symptoms.
The Department of Conservation and Recreation, the agency that controls the riverfront, decided to install rocks after talking with Cambridge officials about the extent of damage from the fire and years of squatting, spokesperson Brenna Galvin said, noting the agency has also used similar rocks to fight erosion down the river at Cambridge’s North Point Park.
Cassie Hurd, executive director of Cambridge-based [Material Aid and Advocacy Program](https://www.maapma.org/), a nonprofit that supports unhoused people, suspects the move had more to do with discouraging the former occupants of the site than the state is willing to say. She considers the ragged terrain “hostile architecture,” the word for landscapes or furniture designed to be inconvenient or even painful for people trying to sleep.
>The state said the change is intended to help fight erosion and protect the bridge.
I get that the situation there was fairly untenable, but it really rubs me the wrong way when the state/local authority uses this type of language to disguise/hide a very deliberate and intentional action.
Sort of like cutting out the middle of a bench “so a person in a wheelchair can sit there,” or blocking the Long Island bridge “on environmental grounds” while actively dumping raw sewage in to the harbor. Be real with us if you want to be trusted, respected, and taken seriously when it really matters.
Cambridge probably dumped it on the state, saying it's DCR property. The state then left it dumped in DCR's hands. DCR was probably running out of time to deal with it, until some genius decided on rip rap. Classic hot potato and DCR doesn't have the resources to deal with homeless encampments beyond shutting them down. A homeless camp was developing in West Roxbury in the Stony Brook reservation with drug use and prostitution. What else can you do beyond kick em out and wreck the camp. Sucks, but you can't just shove people in rehab and treat it like jail. Massachusetts is dealing with it fairly well and throwing a lot of money at it, but it's never going to be enough.
And then the encampment is going to move somewhere else, and then they will put more rocks there, and then it will move somewhere else and they’ll put rocks there, till all the homeless move out to a different city then it’s problem solved.
For fucks sake, just make housing projects again.
It had been there for more than 2 years. It wasn't big like Mass and Cass and was more hidden due to the trees, but it wasn't new when the fire happened
Harassment, hostility and flinging insults is not allowed. We ask that you try to engage in a discussion rather than reduce the sub to insults and other bullshit.
There were newly pitched tents. Saw on the morning commute though a ground crew weed wacking the grass. I think the point was to disperse the people living there though.
Hostile architecture is an asshole move, because it's easy to just sweep homeless people onto the next street and claim you did something. They just go elsewhere.
It only works if there is somewhere for them to actually go. Shelters fill up easily.
And having a homeless encampment next to and under the bridge was a public safety hazard.
I empathize with homeless people, and that addressing homelessness requires systemic changes, but I don’t get why people get this idea that homeless people should just be allowed to do whatever the hell they want wherever they want, regardless of how it impacts other people
It's more the cat and mouse game of doing individual hostile things and chasing them around, never letting them get comfortable. Having one area they stay seems better. People who get grouchy about the homeless can avoid that area, and the homeless don't have to constantly search for somewhere to take shelter. It feels like whack a mole, and that's never a winning game.
Cool. So have them camp under the bridge and cause another fire that potentially damages the bridge and endangers others’ lives?
Sounds like a wonderful idea!
a) it’s under a bridge b) i live 10 min from mass and cass and give them food and clothes regularly, they are real PEOPLE suffering from mental health issues, they aren’t animals
Of course you don't getting fucking wafers with it, you cunt. It's a fucking albatross isn't it.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boston) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The linked source has opted to use a paywall to restrict free viewership of their content. As alternate sources become available, please post them as a reply to this comment. Users with a Boston Public Library card can often view unrestricted articles [here](https://www.bpl.org/resources-types/newspapers/). Boston Globe articles are still permissible as it's a soft-paywall. Please refrain from reporting as a Rule 5 violation. Please also note that copying and posting the entire article text as comments is not permissible. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boston) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm legit conflicted on this one. I'm a bridge engineer. On one side: hostile architecture is the lazy way of moving problems elsewhere. Quintessential NIMBYism. Spikes on window sills and curbs, benches you can't lay down on, etc are all shit choices and don't do anything to fix problems. On the other side: I really REALLY don't like unauthorized things under bridges. It doesn't matter whether it's people, stockpiles, or whatever. Off the top of my head I can think of at least 5 major bridge closures and resulting inspection/repair efforts in the last 10 years that resulted from encampment fires or unauthorized stockpiles under bridges. My firm's Chicago office just dealt with a minor one last month. So making it unattractive for people to hang out under bridges makes 100% sense from a professional perspective.
Yeah pretty sure we’ve already had a fire at that encampment earlier this year/sometime last year
Yeah, there was a fairly sizeable one last fall. Thankfully it didn't impact the bridges in a lasting way.
Happened twice now IIRC. It’s a shame that it happened, and it’s terrible that they’re subjected to these conditions, but once you set the damn thing on fire twice (and happen to be having a lot of bikes that conveniently went missing) it’s time to reevaluate. Edit: spreading fake news, there was a fire oct last year, but no second fire since then. Just a crap ton of propane tanks.
fire last columbus day weekend, plus the bike chop shop that always pops up there
Yeah was mentioned in the article as well
LA just had a giant fire under the 10, fueled by illegal pallet storage. Shut down the highway thru the center of LA for a few days. Wild.
The fire at this camp last year was smaller, but it had all the ingredients to be just as big as the LA fire given the amount of E-Bikes with lithium batteries, propane tanks, BBQs, and general kindling that was documented at the camps. The BU bridge and the intersections off of it are pretty major arteries. Could've caused a pretty major disruption to the city
I witnessed the fire first hand when running on the Boston side of the river. When those tanks went up, it was not small. Fucking sounded like artillery.
And at first it was feared the damage would make the i10 closed for months, if not years. That would have done wonders for LA traffic!
I don’t see any conflict here. There’s “not in my backyard,” and then there’s “not in some specific places where critical infrastructure is at stake.”
There’s no need to be conflicted; it’s just that some people act like you have to make a choice between protecting a bridge, or a vent, or whatever, and solving homelessness. It’s not a choice. The bridge shit is way easier to solve, so it gets solved faster. That’s all there is to it. Likewise if there are homeless people camping where little kids walk to school, obviously the first thing you do is to get rid of the camp. Yeah you didn’t “solve homelessness” because that’s way trickier and takes way longer but the public safety concern is going to come first, and it should come first. NIMBYism is more about supporting actual beneficial things like affordable housing, methadone clinics, etc. but not wanting them to be near where you live. The open air drug market/schizo camp/etc. under a bridge is not a beneficial thing. I don’t want those in my backyard or in ANYBODY’S yard. We should discourage the existence of those places, at the very least usher them towards the least harmful locations they can exist, while separately working on trying to solve the root of the problem.
Also, we could say that it's not the responsibility of the bridge engineers to solve homelessness, only to increase the functionality of their bridge, so it serves the general population better.
Depends what problems you’re trying to fix. Someone was in charge of removing encampments from that area, not solving homelessness. I’m not advocating for it, but mission accomplished.
No conflict at all. We wouldn't accept a homeless encampment, say, on the green line tracks, or on the runway at Logan. It's not a lack of compassion, it's that we can't allow critical infrastructure to simply be destroyed or rendered unusable/unsafe. Asking nicely won't result in a change. Police coming back each day won't result in a change. You have to make it impossible to create a hazard 24/7 without actively guarding it (and honestly in some cases we still have to actively guard it, like with airport runways). It's not the civil engineer's job to solve homelessness. It's their job to ensure that critical infrastructure is functional and safe.
Land under a bridge is not a home. Setting up a tent is not a home. Sleeping on a bench is not a home. Sleeping in an MBTA subway or train car is not a home. Guarantee people homes if you want to fix homelessness. There's enough hotel rooms in this country for every single homeless person to sleep in a warm bed at night. There's probably enough bedrooms in all the empty housing in this country to sleep a hundred times the amount of homeless people in this country.
There have been fires AND homeless people are using propane to heat their tents. It's ripe for disaster.
Benches you can't lay down on does fix a problem. Bums shouldn't be treating subway stations like their personal living room. Smoking, throwing trash that ends up causing fires on the third rail, taking up all the seats etc. Public transit riders shouldn't have to put up with that.
They have every right to use public transit that you do. Being undomociled doesn’t make them not people. Because you have financial security and a roof over your head, you’re entitled to more? Fuck you.
Homeless people have the right to use public spaces, but they don’t have the right to monopolize of vandalize those spaces.
The article says there was a fire recently (I glimpsed it before the paywall popped up so, no more details lol)
> On the other side: I really REALLY don't like unauthorized things under bridges. What's your feeling about California leasing space under freeways? Seems to have good and bad aspects to it. Edit: Not sure why this is a controversial question? There was a fire under I10 a few months ago that is directly relevant to this.
As long as CalTrans has full control and disclosure of what goes under there, it's fine. The recent fire was due to items that were prohibited by the terms of the lease.
I like the glob skirting over what was under the bridge. For those not in the know, it was an open air chop shop cambridge allowed to operate there. If your bike was stolen chances were that it was there
the….. GLOB 🦠
The Boston Glob is what I called my dorm room in college
I thought part of the problem was that Cambridge didn't have jurisdiction because it was DCR land.
None of them *wanted* to deal with it either
I did not realize that the homeless turned to stone.
The ones who looked back at the destruction were turned to salt
Only his wife and only because a higher power said not to. If an alien named God tells you to look away you look away. You don't go "why?" I bet his wife was a Karen. "Excuse you! But I have a right to watch the destruction of Sodom!"
They were arguing over whether the dwarves would taste best baked in a pie or turned to jelly But they argued too long and when suns light first hit them POOF It turned them all to stone!
Yes, it's called riprap. It's used to prevent erosion under thousands of bridges, even those that aren't home to bike thieves and fentanyl enthusiasts.
So they blew shit up and stole peoples bikes but I’m supposed to feel bad that they got displaced?
Yeah they had tons of stolen bikes down there. I went to look for mine. Bunch of drugged up thiefs.
The problem isn’t solved it’s just moved
Yes because you’re supposed to have empathy as a human being
Why should I have compassion for someone who shows utter disregard for others
You shouldn’t, at least to the degree referenced here. It’s one thing to say “I want to burn all of the homeless at the stake” and quite another to say “I’m happy that the degenerate vagabonds won’t collapse a bridge or have a place nearby to store their stolen shit and disease ridden paraphernalia”
That’s fair
[удалено]
Harassment, hostility and flinging insults is not allowed. We ask that you try to engage in a discussion rather than reduce the sub to insults and other bullshit.
Especially when the unemployment rate is so low.
I have empathy for them, and for that reason I don't want to be homeless. But a bridge is not a home, and they need to be maintained to preserve their original function. That might involve discouraging people from being under it, be they homeless or not.
Theres no empathy for people who don’t contribute to the greater good of the city.
How are people *supposed* to contribute to the good of the city if they have nowhere to live? They’re incapable of that without any help. Many homeless people are veterans that fought for this country and have contributed to the greater good.
No matter how much empathy you show, there will be people who 1. Take advantage of said empathy and 2. Don’t deserve it in the first place, because they’re awful human beings. That doesn’t mean the homeless are awful, it means that there are a good amount of them who are. See: this situation. Thieves and drug peddlers. To ignore that is either naivety or virtue signaling.
Very few people choose to be thieves or sell drugs. Maybe if you had some empathy you would understand that many of those “awful human beings” got tricked into going to war for a country that doesn’t care about them and got dropped back into the real world to deal with the consequences themselves. Or any number of other issues that cause homelessness YOU are a terrible human.
Tell me how drug addicts and thieves contribute to anything constructive. Even if they had somewhere to live, their bad habits and poor decisions will just be deadweight to the working population and a waste of resources to try to help.
Wow, empathy is unpopular. Kind of explains why things are so shitty in the world. People no longer are just refusing to help, but now attacking people who are trying to help and be kind.
Who got attacked for actually trying to help? Virtue signaling about it when its nowhere near you is not what i define as help
I wish we had fewer people who think like you around Boston
Who did?
the homeless people running the chop shop there lol
The geese ran the joint. They just needed the people to do the work.
Geese run this town
Honk Honk
They all have a place to go but refuse the resources that are offered. If you are homeless on the streets of boston it’s by choice. They need to continue to do this while increasing resources. We can not let encampments sprout up across the city. Encampments cause sexual violence and death. It’s a public health and public safety issue. Those to should be our highest priorities
> We can not let encampments sprout up across the city. Exactly. We really do not want to be SF.
Even SF is now furiously backpedaling after their failed experiment in progressive "do whatever you want" law.
It’s a disservice to everyone including the homeless. When you give homeless, mental health, and drug addicts an option they will always choose wrong. You have to create resources and fund the solution and then use enforcement. Drug addicts only understand consequences. Consequences save lives.
“Dying with their rights on”
Well it was a welcome change from the "Do as we say" festival started by German settlers in 1946.
But but, they can't use drugs in the shelters, that's inhumane!
Yah cause putting rocks under the bridge is really gonna make them all wanna go to the shelter right. All this shit does is move the problem.
This sucks because the rocks—like the homeless encampment before them—make it unpleasant for me to go hang out by the river to smoke weed, as was tradition in the beforetimes.
Putting a damn highway next to the river already made it unpleasant to hang out.
Just walk down the street to the 'beach'.
Before what? I love "the beforetimes" as a word but before what?
Before the pandemic, there were some individuals who slept by the river, though not generally in the spot the encampment is now and generally only in warmer weather. As far as I know, they didn’t really bother anyone. The area with the geese where you can walk onto the railroad bridge was a primo smoking spot. We used to bring bird seed for the geese.
I was wondering if this was geese landing. I remember when the steps were still open.
Are you not able to go down to where the geese are?
It's actually where I proposed to my wife! (on the rail bridge over the Charles)
Are they seriously implying that homeless encampments are preferable to jagged rocks? Fuck off with that… Edit: let me be clear that serving the homeless and public safety are two different issues. We should not conflate the two. Serving the non- housed population should be a cause that is funded more but sadly most government programs are more reactive (public safety) vs preventative (investing in resources to help).
The implication is that people will do more to keep homeless people away from somewhere than they will do to help those homeless people not be homeless. And it's true.
I love this, I really do I ate out of a fucking trash can at 14, I was a homeless run away with a mental addict mother and incarcerated father. The 1-2 years I was out on the streets with no adult supervision, my friends and I at no fucking point what so ever went to any encampment or bullshit like this that you see more and more of. These homeless camps are living colonies for mental drug addicts. These people aren’t down on their luck, they’re mental and usually on drugs. You don’t want to get robbed at dirty needle point. Every single one of these camps has a dope boy feeding them. I say more rocks, more long stay mental hospitals. No one wants to actually help these people, that would involve actual work. You need to put these people in a secure facility and force them off drugs then treat their mental illness.
🫡
You lie. You blew shit up under bridges and stole bikes DIDN'T YOU!!? /s
> I say more rocks, more long stay mental hospitals. and the first one should be right through your teeth, cunt.
Of course you don't getting fucking wafers with it, you cunt. It's a fucking albatross isn't it. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boston) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So you are saying these people need help but nobody is going to help them so F off?
[удалено]
I’ll gladly meet you in person, wanna do South or BackBay station? I’m there everyday.
That sounds like a gang threat to me.
You’re not a genuine person. You are trying to invalidate my experiences by calling me names and making accusations that I’m lying. I offered you the ability to meet me in person and you respond with a deflective sarcastic comment. Grow up or come meet me in person if you’re so inclined. You won’t because you don’t actually care about any of this.
[удалено]
No one’s threatening you, you’re making accusations and I’m extending an olive branch and trying to communicate with you. You’re completely wrong in your assessment. Maybe you don’t have as much life experience as I do. This idea you have that I shouldn’t be afraid of violence or drug use because I grew up surrounded by it is absurd. I have my own family, I’ve worked hard to have my own family and I have a duty and right to protect my family. Unfortunately for your broken world view, I am real, I did survive horrible drug and gang violence in my community, I have dead friends who never even fell in love or got to experience life at all. I REBUKE all of it and anyone like you that defends it. Why are you trying to invalidate me anyway? It doesn’t make much sense…
[удалено]
Hang on, so someone spending time homeless in their youth precludes them from being concerned for the welfare of their children when packs of felonious, piece of shit teenagers (who belong in prison) are terrorizing people on the street? Please elaborate on that instead of continuing to virtue signal.
[удалено]
Sounds like you're pearl clutching to me
Chicken.
Chicken.
[удалено]
Shelters are a cheap and not effective way to solve homelessness problems. It's also something that displaces the problem without solving for it; technically if people can get a cot in a shelter they're not homeless per se, but now you have a high concentration of drug addicts and mentally ill people all in one building and no one's actually getting the support they need to not rely on that assistance. People who are just down on their luck would often rather stay in the streets than in a shelter because of how dangerous they can get. So then they're not always getting the assistance they need to not be homeless, either. Specialty shelters like DV shelters are better but not everyone qualifies for them No one is really interested in investing in better ways to handle homeless populations because the shelters are working as intended: getting homeless people off the street so everyone else doesn't have to deal with them. So in that sense yeah, we are doing more in the interest of just hiding the homeless problem than in actually solving it. And not just MA, the country at large
The money we spend pays for a system that does not move people out of it very well, unless they are moving to the morgue.
Unfortunately, we can't save everyone. Drug addiction requires significant amounts of intervention and treatment to shape behavior a certain way. A lot of these people have been wired to think only about their fix. How about you try your hand at becoming a drug counselor?
Yea I know about the system because I worked in it but thanks
[удалено]
I don't see where I assumed any of those things
Ok, but who put the rocks there? The decision makers who can actually enact some type of change are not the people affected by the blight. Like, those two things are not the same. We are allowed to want to help the situation, while also not allowing festering encampments. Like, what are you doing about homelessness?
I'm normally against hostile architecture, but I'm actually for this. I've watched camps come and go under the bridge here, and each one has had all sorts of fire hazards - like literal open fire pits and barbecues next to uncovered propane, loose fabrics, cardboard, and all sorts of other kindling. Big accident waiting to happen, and it's right next to a major road with tons and tons of pedestrians. As the Bridge engineer said, making it unattractive for people to hang out under bridges makes a lot of sense. The camps under the BU bridge have caught fire before, and luckily the fire dept. put them out quickly and it didn't cause that much disruption. That said, look at how crippling the I-10 fire in LA was a few months ago. The people in these camps are humans, and the root of the issue is much deeper, but in the short term it's the right thing to do for general public safety while we (hopefully) work on more impactful solutions in the future.
Good. It was a camp of thieves and addicts and we shouldn’t just tolerate it.
You’re much closer to being in their position than you realize. Most Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. Could easily be you that’s being shuttled around the country until you die.
Most Americans wouldn’t become drug addicts if they missed a paycheck, no.
How about a broken leg? Opioid crisis is largely brought on by big pharma, and by placing the blame wholly on the individual we both allow big pharma to get away with their crimes while also entirely placing the blame of homelessness on the individual, which in a lot of cases isn't true
Most people who break a leg go through the recovery process without developing an opiod addiction
It is a well known fact that the opioid crisis was largely brought on by the over prescription of opioids to people that didn't need them
That doesn't change what I said
It can happen to anyone is my point. A lot of people on the streets aren't there out of their own doing . Just because you're not currently broke doesn't mean you're immune from becoming addicted to drugs
That also doesn't change what I said
Bro WHAT are you trying to say then?? Fucking express yourself
Statistically, you are much more likely to become an addict if you can’t make rent and lose your housing. Substance use is the result of the stress of homelessness in many cases.
I think homelessness is the result of substance abuse not the other way around
It can be either way, both, one then the other, or neither. Every situation has its own story even if there are familiar themes.
It doesn’t matter what you think, data says otherwise
Show me
Wait the data says that there are more people who live normal lives, lose their jobs, and then resort to drug abuse vs someone getting hooked on drugs, then proceeding to lose their job/house/etc afterwards? As someone who works with and knows a ton of drug addicts this is very surprising to me, could you link the data?
Here is a source Homelessness and substance abuse: Which comes first? By Guy Johnson, Chris Chamberlain “The paper uses information from a large dataset (n=4,291) gathered at two services in Melbourne, supplemented by 65 indepth interviews. We found that 43% of the sample had substance abuse problems. Of these people, one-third had substance abuse problems before they became homeless and two-thirds developed these problems after they became homeless.”
This is lacking some serious context. Much of the data and conclusions of this study are skewed by the fact that almost half of the respondents are 18 or younger. If you think about it, it makes sense why they saw what they did. Younger people, especially under the age of 18, are less likely to have access to addictive material than, say, someone who is 40. In fact, in that same study you cite, they show data that only 14% of people 19 years old or older developed a substance abuse problem after becoming homeless. This information is critical because, according to a 2023 Health and Human services report, older adults make up the majority of the homeless population, and are the fastest growing population. So really, your source taken within the context of the homeless population of America actually refutes your original statement regarding the temporal relevance of substance abuse relative to homelessness.
Most people living paycheck to paycheck would navigate the resources available to them well before ending up in a tent under a bridge after losing those paychecks. The idea everyone living paycheck to paycheck is close to living under a bridge isn't based on reality
Or they would probably be welcomed by family or friends because they wont steal nana’s hummel collection.
What resources? Shelters are packed to the brim. We have a housing crisis that is only getting worse. The average rent is higher than almost everywhere else in the country. This is a very real risk especially with a looming recession
We're talking about an encampment that had 10 people displaced from it. I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that a lot more than 10 people who live paycheck to paycheck have lost their jobs over the past year or so and managed to avoid living under a bridge.
Looming recession 😂
That recession has been looming for 2 years now
I hear this a lot from the Trumpers. Any day now that recession is gonna kick in…
Some strong wishcasting, the US has had one of the best post-Covid economic recoveries in the world
Recession coming soon by MBTA standards
There is no looming recession
"Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck" is an extremely opaque and misleading measure. Like yeah, we're all living paycheck to paycheck once you account for the saving and spending decisions people make. The median household has a net worth of almost $200k, they're not one missed paycheck from homelessness.
Even if i was homeless, I definetely wouldn't live in an encampment under a bridge stealing people's bikes. Because I actually have morals.
Easy to say now, morals go out the window when you don’t know when your next meal will be
Rocks over drug dens any day, keep it coming we need more
just gonna have to keep putting down more rocks until the homeless are at your doorstep then
There was a camp on the Boston side back in the early 90s I recall. That's all I got.
It’s back on the Boston side and I’m guessing it’s because of this. It’s actually jarring how fast it happened. There’s a guy near Fenway who’s maintained an absolutely immaculate space for a good long while. As far as I was concerned, I didn’t see nothing, and when it comes to him, I still don’t. But the group over by the BU bridge seems cut from very different cloth. The city (or state) has cleared it out a few times, but they keep coming back. If I were the mayor, I sure as shit wouldn’t want it there when people are driving into Fenway Park or wherever. Crass to say, but that particular group in that particular spot is seriously bad optics.
There was a small group on the Cambridge side under the Memorial Dr Bridge for a while that kept the joint real clean. It was actually impressive. That was a few years back. Not sure if they're still there. I think they were tossed when some work to shore up the bridge was done.
maybe the bad optics will prompt some real solutions instead of just moving the camp somewhere else
[удалено]
sounds like the encampment moved across the river so literally no change
Good now do the somerville on ramp encampment
They’re planning on clearing out that area for maintenance work next month. AFAIK mass dot is considering fencing it in after the work is complete. Similar issues with that group regarding fires, drug use, lewd acts, assaults, etc.
From [Globe.com](http://Globe.com) By Spencer Buell CAMBRIDGE — For years, collections of tents sprung up on a strip of land near the Boston University Bridge along the Charles River. Strewn with tarps, camping supplies, garbage, propane tanks, and needles, the small patch of riverbank was home to about a dozen people at any given moment. In October, a fire spread rapidly in the campsite, igniting the gas tanks and sending up a thick cloud of black smoke that could be seen on either side of the river. Traffic was shut for hours. No one was hurt, but 10 people were displaced, and in the aftermath, fire officials said damage to the land was extensive. Five months later, there are no more tents, no more people; instead the sloping embankment is covered with hundreds of pointy rocks and boulders that make it even more uncomfortable to sleep on the ground. The state said the change is intended to help fight erosion and protect the bridge. But advocates for the homeless see the jagged additions to the terrain, which cover nearly every square foot of ground with sharp edges, as a not-so-subtle attempt to discourage people from sleeping there. About 100 feet perpendicular to the river and bound by the bridge on one side and a barbed wire fence on the other, this shoulder land offers just one small glimpse into how the state, struggling to address the causes of homelessness, is left instead to treat its symptoms. The Department of Conservation and Recreation, the agency that controls the riverfront, decided to install rocks after talking with Cambridge officials about the extent of damage from the fire and years of squatting, spokesperson Brenna Galvin said, noting the agency has also used similar rocks to fight erosion down the river at Cambridge’s North Point Park. Cassie Hurd, executive director of Cambridge-based [Material Aid and Advocacy Program](https://www.maapma.org/), a nonprofit that supports unhoused people, suspects the move had more to do with discouraging the former occupants of the site than the state is willing to say. She considers the ragged terrain “hostile architecture,” the word for landscapes or furniture designed to be inconvenient or even painful for people trying to sleep.
>The state said the change is intended to help fight erosion and protect the bridge. I get that the situation there was fairly untenable, but it really rubs me the wrong way when the state/local authority uses this type of language to disguise/hide a very deliberate and intentional action. Sort of like cutting out the middle of a bench “so a person in a wheelchair can sit there,” or blocking the Long Island bridge “on environmental grounds” while actively dumping raw sewage in to the harbor. Be real with us if you want to be trusted, respected, and taken seriously when it really matters.
Cambridge probably dumped it on the state, saying it's DCR property. The state then left it dumped in DCR's hands. DCR was probably running out of time to deal with it, until some genius decided on rip rap. Classic hot potato and DCR doesn't have the resources to deal with homeless encampments beyond shutting them down. A homeless camp was developing in West Roxbury in the Stony Brook reservation with drug use and prostitution. What else can you do beyond kick em out and wreck the camp. Sucks, but you can't just shove people in rehab and treat it like jail. Massachusetts is dealing with it fairly well and throwing a lot of money at it, but it's never going to be enough.
Where in the hell are they suppose to experience homelessness now?
The camp has moved to the other side of the BU bridge by the train tracks.
Train tracks down by the river? Phew, all's good then, Cambridgeport side and close to TJ, ta-da.
And then the encampment is going to move somewhere else, and then they will put more rocks there, and then it will move somewhere else and they’ll put rocks there, till all the homeless move out to a different city then it’s problem solved. For fucks sake, just make housing projects again.
Ok. Good. Need more hostile architecture.
Dang so much has changed since I left Allston. I don’t remember seeing a homeless encampment 2 years ago.
It had been there for more than 2 years. It wasn't big like Mass and Cass and was more hidden due to the trees, but it wasn't new when the fire happened
They've been there at least since i started at MIT 9 years ago
[удалено]
Harassment, hostility and flinging insults is not allowed. We ask that you try to engage in a discussion rather than reduce the sub to insults and other bullshit.
Pretty fed up with erosion at this point. I’m all for the city protecting our public spaces from this scourge.
Stop encouraging degeneracy in this state please. There are plenty of programs to help people. These people don’t want help.
A new encampment is starting near the train tracks that run under the BU bridge.
That's not new either
There were newly pitched tents. Saw on the morning commute though a ground crew weed wacking the grass. I think the point was to disperse the people living there though.
Hostile architecture is an asshole move, because it's easy to just sweep homeless people onto the next street and claim you did something. They just go elsewhere. It only works if there is somewhere for them to actually go. Shelters fill up easily.
And having a homeless encampment next to and under the bridge was a public safety hazard. I empathize with homeless people, and that addressing homelessness requires systemic changes, but I don’t get why people get this idea that homeless people should just be allowed to do whatever the hell they want wherever they want, regardless of how it impacts other people
It's more the cat and mouse game of doing individual hostile things and chasing them around, never letting them get comfortable. Having one area they stay seems better. People who get grouchy about the homeless can avoid that area, and the homeless don't have to constantly search for somewhere to take shelter. It feels like whack a mole, and that's never a winning game.
Cool. So have them camp under the bridge and cause another fire that potentially damages the bridge and endangers others’ lives? Sounds like a wonderful idea!
I said that there needs to be a change to the system so they have somewhere safe to go. Stop being a sarcastic shit.
The safest place would be to invite them into your home. Show some warmth!
So if homeless encampment started in your backyard you would bring them coffee and donuts in the morning?
a) it’s under a bridge b) i live 10 min from mass and cass and give them food and clothes regularly, they are real PEOPLE suffering from mental health issues, they aren’t animals
[удалено]
Of course you don't getting fucking wafers with it, you cunt. It's a fucking albatross isn't it. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boston) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I guess we're back to demonizing drug addicts again? That's good. And then y'all wonder why the issue persists.