There are lots of people with good homes who are addicts.They don't get picked on, do they? If the addicts who don't have housing were at least indoors they wouldn't be out in the playgrounds, would they? Even if you aren't an addict, yet living in a tent, you probably would like a place to live. Hey, we could solve two problems at once.
They city is also awash in nip bottles and packaging for weed vapes, but weirdly we seem to view that problem differently. Granted, needles are a biohazard, but at the end of the day that's a problem easily solved by having needle boxes, which by the way SEVERAL OF THESE SAME COUNCILORS opposed.
The way to think about how these typically go is that there's an investigation, that investigation generates a report, and then DOJ usually works put some sort of enforcement behind correcting issues raised in the report. The mechanism used is often a consent decree; Newark, Seattle, and Springfield are some examples of places where consent decrees are in some stage of enactment.
With Trump's election, DOJ leadership has pretty openly stated that they have no interest in continuing this work. They don't intend to pursue new consent decrees, or enforce the ones in place.
So, nothing is "closed" per se but is certainly my expectation that we will not be seeing or hearing anything further from DOJ.
There are lots of people with good homes who are addicts.They don't get picked on, do they? If the addicts who don't have housing were at least indoors they wouldn't be out in the playgrounds, would they? Even if you aren't an addict, yet living in a tent, you probably would like a place to live. Hey, we could solve two problems at once.
They city is also awash in nip bottles and packaging for weed vapes, but weirdly we seem to view that problem differently. Granted, needles are a biohazard, but at the end of the day that's a problem easily solved by having needle boxes, which by the way SEVERAL OF THESE SAME COUNCILORS opposed.
Has the DOJ actually closed their report?
The way to think about how these typically go is that there's an investigation, that investigation generates a report, and then DOJ usually works put some sort of enforcement behind correcting issues raised in the report. The mechanism used is often a consent decree; Newark, Seattle, and Springfield are some examples of places where consent decrees are in some stage of enactment.
With Trump's election, DOJ leadership has pretty openly stated that they have no interest in continuing this work. They don't intend to pursue new consent decrees, or enforce the ones in place.
So, nothing is "closed" per se but is certainly my expectation that we will not be seeing or hearing anything further from DOJ.