Bowser Spreads the Wealth opens homeless shelters in each DC ward

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Before we open more shelter doors I hope they first look at whether those to whom we open doors are even from DC in the first place.

I'm fine with taking care of DC's existing homeless, but do we need to take care of the homeless for the entire eastern seaboard?

It's enough of an issue that we have well meaning but underfunded organizations that want to bring people here in order to take care of them.

It's enough of an issue that we fall victim to some other communities that bus their homeless here (and yes, it's common practice for police to round up homeless and put them on a bus with a one way ticket to the next biggest city).

Existing DC homeless families should have first crack.

I also think that the city needs to work on finding more ways to get people self sufficient and functional.

With the gentrification that's happened in DC over the past 20 years, with low income and home-unstable DC residents getting pushed out to the mostly-Maryland 'burbs, with spikes in incarceration and drug busts, yeah, I think DC can bring people back and do something good.

I live in a city (not DC) that has (finally) declared a homelessness crisis. 4,500 unsheltered (meaning homeless AND NOT IN A HOME WITH A ROOF). So we're not including people couch surfing just to stay out of the elements. Can you imagine? "Solution" is tent shelters. And, yes, every community gets one. And it's still not enough. Our very wealthy enclave has residents who organize food, clothing, and supplies runs to the tent city that's right up against our border. I'm ashamed that a tent shelter is the best our city can do, our fancy, expensive city with HUGE $$$ tech companies that--like all other corporations--don't pay appropriate taxes. It makes you angry. Very angry.

Ah yes, the big "Evil Gentrification" bogeyman. Let's flip that around a little - how do you figure it's somehow "more fair" to force people who work in DC to have to live outside of DC in order to keep the poorer folks in? If for example you're a young federal GS-9 employee you are looking at slim pickings where it comes to being able to find an affordable place in DC. So instead you are forced out into the VA/MD burbs, to take a 40 or 50 minute commute, nearly 2 hours out of each day. All that just so that we can keep the homeless and low income, many of whom don't even have jobs in the first place in DC. I fail to see how that makes sense, I fail to see how that's equitable.

Also, the pros to gentrification BY FAR outweigh the cons. Gentrification brings tax base, it brings economic improvement, it brings new businesses and investments, and in turn all of that brings better infrastructure, it brings better schools, it brings job opportunities, et cetera.

What does the non-gentrified status quo bring? Non-diverse, monolithic neighborhoods that are only 10% white instead of 40% white? Neighborhoods with more crime and drugs? Neighborhoods that nobody wants to open a new business in? Neighborhoods where the only place to buy groceries is a tiny hole-in-the-wall Korean owned bodega with bars on the doors and windows, where you'd be hard pressed to find fresh fruit or produce? Neighborhoods that city council, roads department and city emergency services ignore? That's pretty much the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, say good bye to that nice Guy Mason playground. It's going to be fun to see litter and people sleeping all over it at 3pm. I am a firm believer in NIMBY. What next, a methadone clinic?

Oh, and whatever schools these shelters will be inbounds for, prepare for those schools to go downhill fast.

So you are saying that homeless shelters should not be spread throughout the city and should be concentrated in less affluent neighborhoods? Well, the people in Ward 5 and Ward 6, who have shouldered the majority of the burden thus far, want to know what makes your ward so special? This is everyone's burden to bear. Sorry.

What I have not seen in this whole discussion is where those folks are coming from. From outside DC? Mostly from DC itself? If so, from which Ward? Sorry, but if (imagine) all homeless people were raised in Ward 5, and that's what they know best, it makes no particular sense to spread them across all Wards. If they all come from (say) Virginia, why should DC wear the burden?

If Bowser trying to help existing homeless people or to disrupt a number of neighborhoods and potentially bring even more homeless into the city? Those are different objectives

Bowser is trying to close DC General, the existing family shelter that houses ~230 families. These new shelters are for families who are living there, or in the NY Ave motels. I understand that there is the perception that homeless people are flocking to DC for our amazing homeless services, and while there is some truth to that, these families are overwhelmingly DC residents. I met with a man yesterday who is homeless and mentally ill from Ward 3 (born, raised, lived there when he had an address). He's not the target population of these shelters because he is a single adult male, but he is not a poor black man from Ward 8. Many of these young women are from SE, from Brookland, from Trinidad. There is an argument that if you house people in a community with better examples - working people, good schools, easily accessible grocery stores (vs. high unemployment, failing schools, and an overabundance of stripmall 7-Elevens) - they will be better situated to get out of poverty.

These are not shelters to "bring more homeless into the city." They are shelters to rehouse the people living in the toxic human rights violation that is DC General into humane living conditions and help them break the cycle of homelessness.

I wish I wrote for the Washington Post so that I could write that into the first line of every single story, since so many of you seem to think that these are shelters for individual adults from other jurisdictions.

Thank you for the thoughtful response. That argument may be a good one, but would require the buy-in from those communities asked to serve as "better examples," since they are working hard precisely to create safe and nurturing environments for the people actually living there. Did Bowser lead a process to engage relevant neighbors, or was this more of a Stalinist top-down decision?

I actually don't think that it does "require" buy-in from neighbors.

Let me put it to you this way. Up in Ward 3, you guys have amazing schools filled with children who are motivated to learn and families who support that learning. You have libraries with storytelling for young children. You have new playgrounds that are safe and nice to look at. You have multiple grocery stores with fresh produce. You have extensive public transit that (despite the previous remarks about the 30 buses) is reliable. I'm sure many of us read the article about the woman living in the motel on NY Ave with her kids, how long it takes to get her daughter to school, her concerns about safety for her kids, etc.? Those are the families that these shelters are being designed for. That woman, if she moved into the Wisconsin Avenue shelter, could send her daughter to Stoddert, perhaps get a job at one of the retail establishments in the area. There are options available to get high quality food because you have several actual grocery stores, rather than several bodegas with the week's shipment of bananas browning next to the bullet proof glass.

It would be great if the neighbors did buy in and welcome these families into the community. As a parent, I want my children hanging out with friends who set good examples so that everyone motivates everyone else to do better. The likelihood of that happening at a failing school is very low compared with a school like Stoddert where there are many opportunities and examples to excel. Please, please, please, Ward 3, welcome these women and give this a chance to work.

Well, thank you for that clarification. So, this was a Stalinist top-down decision. Don't be surprised then if the neighbors push back.

Serious question, why would you push back? What are you afraid of? Do you think you have the right to control who gets to live in your neighborhood?

Many of us don't have control over where we ourselves live. My family can't afford to live in some of the other wards. If the place I'm in now were to get any more expensive we'd probably have to move out of the city altogether. But evidently those less fortunate than ourselves can live wherever they want?

Good point. I wonder how many of them WANT to live in a homeless shelter.

One could be the victim and end up in a homeless shelter, or one could work to change that. If people grew up in an environment where all they know is homelessness and a lack of economic means then it's pretty hard to change or get out because you don't know anything different. But on the other hand if it's someone who merely fell on rough times or circumstances beyond their control, they are more likely to try and change their situation.

This is why the city should probably make wraparound social services mandatory for families that have not been able to get back on their feet - to break some of the cycles of homelessness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Before we open more shelter doors I hope they first look at whether those to whom we open doors are even from DC in the first place.

I'm fine with taking care of DC's existing homeless, but do we need to take care of the homeless for the entire eastern seaboard?

It's enough of an issue that we have well meaning but underfunded organizations that want to bring people here in order to take care of them.

It's enough of an issue that we fall victim to some other communities that bus their homeless here (and yes, it's common practice for police to round up homeless and put them on a bus with a one way ticket to the next biggest city).

Existing DC homeless families should have first crack.

I also think that the city needs to work on finding more ways to get people self sufficient and functional.

With the gentrification that's happened in DC over the past 20 years, with low income and home-unstable DC residents getting pushed out to the mostly-Maryland 'burbs, with spikes in incarceration and drug busts, yeah, I think DC can bring people back and do something good.

I live in a city (not DC) that has (finally) declared a homelessness crisis. 4,500 unsheltered (meaning homeless AND NOT IN A HOME WITH A ROOF). So we're not including people couch surfing just to stay out of the elements. Can you imagine? "Solution" is tent shelters. And, yes, every community gets one. And it's still not enough. Our very wealthy enclave has residents who organize food, clothing, and supplies runs to the tent city that's right up against our border. I'm ashamed that a tent shelter is the best our city can do, our fancy, expensive city with HUGE $$$ tech companies that--like all other corporations--don't pay appropriate taxes. It makes you angry. Very angry.

Ah yes, the big "Evil Gentrification" bogeyman. Let's flip that around a little - how do you figure it's somehow "more fair" to force people who work in DC to have to live outside of DC in order to keep the poorer folks in? If for example you're a young federal GS-9 employee you are looking at slim pickings where it comes to being able to find an affordable place in DC. So instead you are forced out into the VA/MD burbs, to take a 40 or 50 minute commute, nearly 2 hours out of each day. All that just so that we can keep the homeless and low income, many of whom don't even have jobs in the first place in DC. I fail to see how that makes sense, I fail to see how that's equitable.

Also, the pros to gentrification BY FAR outweigh the cons. Gentrification brings tax base, it brings economic improvement, it brings new businesses and investments, and in turn all of that brings better infrastructure, it brings better schools, it brings job opportunities, et cetera.

What does the non-gentrified status quo bring? Non-diverse, monolithic neighborhoods that are only 10% white instead of 40% white? Neighborhoods with more crime and drugs? Neighborhoods that nobody wants to open a new business in? Neighborhoods where the only place to buy groceries is a tiny hole-in-the-wall Korean owned bodega with bars on the doors and windows, where you'd be hard pressed to find fresh fruit or produce? Neighborhoods that city council, roads department and city emergency services ignore? That's pretty much the case.

How do you figure it's fair to jack up housing costs so that people who have lived in DC their whole lives become homeless or have to move to the suburbs in order to accommodate endless developments of luxury condos for 25-year-old lobbyists?

Let's not confusing things, PP. Your GS-9 who has to move to Rockville is not the one who is losing in this situation.

[Anonymous]

Y'all making way too much of this.
Some of y'all talking like thousands of homeless vagrants from all over the eastern seaboard and the midwest are going to come flocking to DC like, "Hey everybody, Muriel's opening shelters!!! C'mon let's go to the District!!!"
No.
Just...no.
Calm the hell down.

Y'all are making way too much of this.
Some of y'all talking like hundreds of people who work in DC are going to be forced to live way out in Harford County or Fauquier County somewhere because the homeless shelters are going to make affordable housing in the city absolutely impossible.
No.
Just...no.
Calm the hell down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PPs, let me ask you this. When Cathedral Commons came in, was there a community meeting to discuss that? What are your real concerns with creating a family shelter to provide temporary housing to 40 families? Set aside your concerns about droves of adults loitering at all hours of the day and night, since that's not the population that is being discussed.

If your concern is "how will this affect our schools" then that is valid. If your concern is "how will the construction of this building affect the traffic?" then that is valid too. But your other concerns, so far, seem to be that people are coming in from other jurisdictions, that these shelters will be serving individual adults, that there is some kind of a safety issue, etc. I am just having trouble understanding what you're worried about.

Is that so? Wasn't that the original premise for DC General too, before it became permanent housing and went from bad to worse till the current disaster?

Won't it be much more complex and costly to build and manage eight facilities than one?

Costly, yes. But much more effective in getting people back on their feet, which is what we all want.

Where is the data supporting that? Has the city run a pilot program already to prove it? That should be the obvious starting point to this conversation.

Google is your friend.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/22/home-free

Very interesting, and quite irrelevant to the Mayor's latest brilliant idea. DC is not Utah, temporary is not permanent, and having 8 mini-centers is different from having one major central facility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Before we open more shelter doors I hope they first look at whether those to whom we open doors are even from DC in the first place.

I'm fine with taking care of DC's existing homeless, but do we need to take care of the homeless for the entire eastern seaboard?

It's enough of an issue that we have well meaning but underfunded organizations that want to bring people here in order to take care of them.

It's enough of an issue that we fall victim to some other communities that bus their homeless here (and yes, it's common practice for police to round up homeless and put them on a bus with a one way ticket to the next biggest city).

Existing DC homeless families should have first crack.

I also think that the city needs to work on finding more ways to get people self sufficient and functional.

With the gentrification that's happened in DC over the past 20 years, with low income and home-unstable DC residents getting pushed out to the mostly-Maryland 'burbs, with spikes in incarceration and drug busts, yeah, I think DC can bring people back and do something good.

I live in a city (not DC) that has (finally) declared a homelessness crisis. 4,500 unsheltered (meaning homeless AND NOT IN A HOME WITH A ROOF). So we're not including people couch surfing just to stay out of the elements. Can you imagine? "Solution" is tent shelters. And, yes, every community gets one. And it's still not enough. Our very wealthy enclave has residents who organize food, clothing, and supplies runs to the tent city that's right up against our border. I'm ashamed that a tent shelter is the best our city can do, our fancy, expensive city with HUGE $$$ tech companies that--like all other corporations--don't pay appropriate taxes. It makes you angry. Very angry.

Ah yes, the big "Evil Gentrification" bogeyman. Let's flip that around a little - how do you figure it's somehow "more fair" to force people who work in DC to have to live outside of DC in order to keep the poorer folks in? If for example you're a young federal GS-9 employee you are looking at slim pickings where it comes to being able to find an affordable place in DC. So instead you are forced out into the VA/MD burbs, to take a 40 or 50 minute commute, nearly 2 hours out of each day. All that just so that we can keep the homeless and low income, many of whom don't even have jobs in the first place in DC. I fail to see how that makes sense, I fail to see how that's equitable.

Also, the pros to gentrification BY FAR outweigh the cons. Gentrification brings tax base, it brings economic improvement, it brings new businesses and investments, and in turn all of that brings better infrastructure, it brings better schools, it brings job opportunities, et cetera.

What does the non-gentrified status quo bring? Non-diverse, monolithic neighborhoods that are only 10% white instead of 40% white? Neighborhoods with more crime and drugs? Neighborhoods that nobody wants to open a new business in? Neighborhoods where the only place to buy groceries is a tiny hole-in-the-wall Korean owned bodega with bars on the doors and windows, where you'd be hard pressed to find fresh fruit or produce? Neighborhoods that city council, roads department and city emergency services ignore? That's pretty much the case.

[phone].

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PPs, let me ask you this. When Cathedral Commons came in, was there a community meeting to discuss that? What are your real concerns with creating a family shelter to provide temporary housing to 40 families? Set aside your concerns about droves of adults loitering at all hours of the day and night, since that's not the population that is being discussed.

If your concern is "how will this affect our schools" then that is valid. If your concern is "how will the construction of this building affect the traffic?" then that is valid too. But your other concerns, so far, seem to be that people are coming in from other jurisdictions, that these shelters will be serving individual adults, that there is some kind of a safety issue, etc. I am just having trouble understanding what you're worried about.

Is that so? Wasn't that the original premise for DC General too, before it became permanent housing and went from bad to worse till the current disaster?

Won't it be much more complex and costly to build and manage eight facilities than one?

Costly, yes. But much more effective in getting people back on their feet, which is what we all want.

Where is the data supporting that? Has the city run a pilot program already to prove it? That should be the obvious starting point to this conversation.

Google is your friend.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/22/home-free

Very interesting, and quite irrelevant to the Mayor's latest brilliant idea. DC is not Utah, temporary is not permanent, and having 8 mini-centers is different from having one major central facility.

How profound. There is a long history of providing community-based services. I would question whether the facilities proposed by the Mayor are too large but there has to be an alternative to DC General and crappy motel rooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Before we open more shelter doors I hope they first look at whether those to whom we open doors are even from DC in the first place.

I'm fine with taking care of DC's existing homeless, but do we need to take care of the homeless for the entire eastern seaboard?

It's enough of an issue that we have well meaning but underfunded organizations that want to bring people here in order to take care of them.

It's enough of an issue that we fall victim to some other communities that bus their homeless here (and yes, it's common practice for police to round up homeless and put them on a bus with a one way ticket to the next biggest city).

Existing DC homeless families should have first crack.

I also think that the city needs to work on finding more ways to get people self sufficient and functional.

With the gentrification that's happened in DC over the past 20 years, with low income and home-unstable DC residents getting pushed out to the mostly-Maryland 'burbs, with spikes in incarceration and drug busts, yeah, I think DC can bring people back and do something good.

I live in a city (not DC) that has (finally) declared a homelessness crisis. 4,500 unsheltered (meaning homeless AND NOT IN A HOME WITH A ROOF). So we're not including people couch surfing just to stay out of the elements. Can you imagine? "Solution" is tent shelters. And, yes, every community gets one. And it's still not enough. Our very wealthy enclave has residents who organize food, clothing, and supplies runs to the tent city that's right up against our border. I'm ashamed that a tent shelter is the best our city can do, our fancy, expensive city with HUGE $$$ tech companies that--like all other corporations--don't pay appropriate taxes. It makes you angry. Very angry.

Ah yes, the big "Evil Gentrification" bogeyman. Let's flip that around a little - how do you figure it's somehow "more fair" to force people who work in DC to have to live outside of DC in order to keep the poorer folks in? If for example you're a young federal GS-9 employee you are looking at slim pickings where it comes to being able to find an affordable place in DC. So instead you are forced out into the VA/MD burbs, to take a 40 or 50 minute commute, nearly 2 hours out of each day. All that just so that we can keep the homeless and low income, many of whom don't even have jobs in the first place in DC. I fail to see how that makes sense, I fail to see how that's equitable.

Also, the pros to gentrification BY FAR outweigh the cons. Gentrification brings tax base, it brings economic improvement, it brings new businesses and investments, and in turn all of that brings better infrastructure, it brings better schools, it brings job opportunities, et cetera.

What does the non-gentrified status quo bring? Non-diverse, monolithic neighborhoods that are only 10% white instead of 40% white? Neighborhoods with more crime and drugs? Neighborhoods that nobody wants to open a new business in? Neighborhoods where the only place to buy groceries is a tiny hole-in-the-wall Korean owned bodega with bars on the doors and windows, where you'd be hard pressed to find fresh fruit or produce? Neighborhoods that city council, roads department and city emergency services ignore? That's pretty much the case.

[phone].

And gentrification brings the $$ that allows cities like DC to do the right things for its needy children and families. This plan also brings a tiny bit income diversity to parts of the city that are becoming increasingly wealthy and homogeneous.

[Anonymous]

If this is a temporary shelter, where will they go once their time to stay there expires? Back on the street? Because that doesn't sound good for anyone. Or is a permanent "you stay there until you find a job that pays more than X" situation (which at least creates certainty for the families, if not much incentive to look for work because they'd have to be making a lot to make it worth their while to give up free housing).

In any event, I can see the benefit of putting homeless in a nice environment, but (a) how do they pick who gets to stay in the nice Glover Park area and who gets to stay in food desert mess that is Ward 8? and (b) there should be a happy medium between DC General and a really expensive real estate. I am sure the city could find cheaper real estate than in upper Georgetown that is still in a decent location.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hawaii actually is having a major crisis with all of the homeless people that were sent there. Yes, people actually bought homeless folks a one way ticket to Hawaii to get rid of them.

Guiliani (sic) cleaned up NYC by giving them one-way tickets on Greyhound.

Yes. That's been mentioned already in this thread. It was a failure.

NYC has its own homeless crisis with families. They have a costly right to shelter law which seemed like a good idea, but resulted in the need to pay for shelter instead of investing in affordable housing or other temporary assistance options which are more effective for families. Then the homeless advocates and the city got into a pissing match with the state resulting in defunding of a big program.

In short: nobody holds up NYC as a model for ending homelessness.

If Bowser stays on track, DC just might be the model other communities follow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Before we open more shelter doors I hope they first look at whether those to whom we open doors are even from DC in the first place.

I'm fine with taking care of DC's existing homeless, but do we need to take care of the homeless for the entire eastern seaboard?

It's enough of an issue that we have well meaning but underfunded organizations that want to bring people here in order to take care of them.

It's enough of an issue that we fall victim to some other communities that bus their homeless here (and yes, it's common practice for police to round up homeless and put them on a bus with a one way ticket to the next biggest city).

Existing DC homeless families should have first crack.

I also think that the city needs to work on finding more ways to get people self sufficient and functional.

With the gentrification that's happened in DC over the past 20 years, with low income and home-unstable DC residents getting pushed out to the mostly-Maryland 'burbs, with spikes in incarceration and drug busts, yeah, I think DC can bring people back and do something good.

I live in a city (not DC) that has (finally) declared a homelessness crisis. 4,500 unsheltered (meaning homeless AND NOT IN A HOME WITH A ROOF). So we're not including people couch surfing just to stay out of the elements. Can you imagine? "Solution" is tent shelters. And, yes, every community gets one. And it's still not enough. Our very wealthy enclave has residents who organize food, clothing, and supplies runs to the tent city that's right up against our border. I'm ashamed that a tent shelter is the best our city can do, our fancy, expensive city with HUGE $$$ tech companies that--like all other corporations--don't pay appropriate taxes. It makes you angry. Very angry.

Ah yes, the big "Evil Gentrification" bogeyman. Let's flip that around a little - how do you figure it's somehow "more fair" to force people who work in DC to have to live outside of DC in order to keep the poorer folks in? If for example you're a young federal GS-9 employee you are looking at slim pickings where it comes to being able to find an affordable place in DC. So instead you are forced out into the VA/MD burbs, to take a 40 or 50 minute commute, nearly 2 hours out of each day. All that just so that we can keep the homeless and low income, many of whom don't even have jobs in the first place in DC. I fail to see how that makes sense, I fail to see how that's equitable.

Also, the pros to gentrification BY FAR outweigh the cons. Gentrification brings tax base, it brings economic improvement, it brings new businesses and investments, and in turn all of that brings better infrastructure, it brings better schools, it brings job opportunities, et cetera.

What does the non-gentrified status quo bring? Non-diverse, monolithic neighborhoods that are only 10% white instead of 40% white? Neighborhoods with more crime and drugs? Neighborhoods that nobody wants to open a new business in? Neighborhoods where the only place to buy groceries is a tiny hole-in-the-wall Korean owned bodega with bars on the doors and windows, where you'd be hard pressed to find fresh fruit or produce? Neighborhoods that city council, roads department and city emergency services ignore? That's pretty much the case.

How do you figure it's fair to jack up housing costs so that people who have lived in DC their whole lives become homeless or have to move to the suburbs in order to accommodate endless developments of luxury condos for 25-year-old lobbyists?

Let's not confusing things, PP. Your GS-9 who has to move to Rockville is not the one who is losing in this situation.

Blame greedy developers and landlords. Don't blame families who are trying to move into the city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If this is a temporary shelter, where will they go once their time to stay there expires? Back on the street? Because that doesn't sound good for anyone. Or is a permanent "you stay there until you find a job that pays more than X" situation (which at least creates certainty for the families, if not much incentive to look for work because they'd have to be making a lot to make it worth their while to give up free housing).

In any event, I can see the benefit of putting homeless in a nice environment, but (a) how do they pick who gets to stay in the nice Glover Park area and who gets to stay in food desert mess that is Ward 8? and (b) there should be a happy medium between DC General and a really expensive real estate. I am sure the city could find cheaper real estate than in upper Georgetown that is still in a decent location.

Very good questions. MY ANSWERS

If this is a temporary shelter, where will they go once their time to stay there expires? AS WITH DC GENERAL, WHAT STARTS AS "TEMPORARY" WILL PROBABLY EVOLVE INTO "PERMANENT." IT'S JUST AN EASY WAY TO MISLEAD NEIGHBORS AND TRY TO PREEMPT POTENTIAL OPPOSITION

how do they pick who gets to stay in the nice Glover Park area and who gets to stay in food desert mess that is Ward 8? PATRONAGE 101. YOU SUPPORT THE MAYOR IN XYZ, SHE CAN GET YOUR RELATIVE OR CONSTITUENT A SPOT IN GLOVER PARK

there should be a happy medium between DC General and a really expensive real estate? OF COURSE THERE ARE. BUT THEN SHE CAN NOT WIN VOTES BY SHOWING HOW TOUGH SHE IS ON THOSE WEALTHY WHITES

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is a temporary shelter, where will they go once their time to stay there expires? Back on the street? Because that doesn't sound good for anyone. Or is a permanent "you stay there until you find a job that pays more than X" situation (which at least creates certainty for the families, if not much incentive to look for work because they'd have to be making a lot to make it worth their while to give up free housing).

In any event, I can see the benefit of putting homeless in a nice environment, but (a) how do they pick who gets to stay in the nice Glover Park area and who gets to stay in food desert mess that is Ward 8? and (b) there should be a happy medium between DC General and a really expensive real estate. I am sure the city could find cheaper real estate than in upper Georgetown that is still in a decent location.

Very good questions. MY ANSWERS

If this is a temporary shelter, where will they go once their time to stay there expires? AS WITH DC GENERAL, WHAT STARTS AS "TEMPORARY" WILL PROBABLY EVOLVE INTO "PERMANENT." IT'S JUST AN EASY WAY TO MISLEAD NEIGHBORS AND TRY TO PREEMPT POTENTIAL OPPOSITION

how do they pick who gets to stay in the nice Glover Park area and who gets to stay in food desert mess that is Ward 8? PATRONAGE 101. YOU SUPPORT THE MAYOR IN XYZ, SHE CAN GET YOUR RELATIVE OR CONSTITUENT A SPOT IN GLOVER PARK

there should be a happy medium between DC General and a really expensive real estate? OF COURSE THERE ARE. BUT THEN SHE CAN NOT WIN VOTES BY SHOWING HOW TOUGH SHE IS ON THOSE WEALTHY WHITES

I'm no Bowser fan, but boy are you an ass.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is a temporary shelter, where will they go once their time to stay there expires? Back on the street? Because that doesn't sound good for anyone. Or is a permanent "you stay there until you find a job that pays more than X" situation (which at least creates certainty for the families, if not much incentive to look for work because they'd have to be making a lot to make it worth their while to give up free housing).

In any event, I can see the benefit of putting homeless in a nice environment, but (a) how do they pick who gets to stay in the nice Glover Park area and who gets to stay in food desert mess that is Ward 8? and (b) there should be a happy medium between DC General and a really expensive real estate. I am sure the city could find cheaper real estate than in upper Georgetown that is still in a decent location.

Very good questions. MY ANSWERS

If this is a temporary shelter, where will they go once their time to stay there expires? AS WITH DC GENERAL, WHAT STARTS AS "TEMPORARY" WILL PROBABLY EVOLVE INTO "PERMANENT." IT'S JUST AN EASY WAY TO MISLEAD NEIGHBORS AND TRY TO PREEMPT POTENTIAL OPPOSITION

how do they pick who gets to stay in the nice Glover Park area and who gets to stay in food desert mess that is Ward 8? PATRONAGE 101. YOU SUPPORT THE MAYOR IN XYZ, SHE CAN GET YOUR RELATIVE OR CONSTITUENT A SPOT IN GLOVER PARK

there should be a happy medium between DC General and a really expensive real estate? OF COURSE THERE ARE. BUT THEN SHE CAN NOT WIN VOTES BY SHOWING HOW TOUGH SHE IS ON THOSE WEALTHY WHITES

Can you please specify the source of your information? That is as long as it is not a bodily orifice better discussed in the Explicit Forum. In that case, you can just said that you made your answers up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is a temporary shelter, where will they go once their time to stay there expires? Back on the street? Because that doesn't sound good for anyone. Or is a permanent "you stay there until you find a job that pays more than X" situation (which at least creates certainty for the families, if not much incentive to look for work because they'd have to be making a lot to make it worth their while to give up free housing).

In any event, I can see the benefit of putting homeless in a nice environment, but (a) how do they pick who gets to stay in the nice Glover Park area and who gets to stay in food desert mess that is Ward 8? and (b) there should be a happy medium between DC General and a really expensive real estate. I am sure the city could find cheaper real estate than in upper Georgetown that is still in a decent location.

Very good questions. MY ANSWERS

If this is a temporary shelter, where will they go once their time to stay there expires? AS WITH DC GENERAL, WHAT STARTS AS "TEMPORARY" WILL PROBABLY EVOLVE INTO "PERMANENT." IT'S JUST AN EASY WAY TO MISLEAD NEIGHBORS AND TRY TO PREEMPT POTENTIAL OPPOSITION

how do they pick who gets to stay in the nice Glover Park area and who gets to stay in food desert mess that is Ward 8? PATRONAGE 101. YOU SUPPORT THE MAYOR IN XYZ, SHE CAN GET YOUR RELATIVE OR CONSTITUENT A SPOT IN GLOVER PARK

there should be a happy medium between DC General and a really expensive real estate? OF COURSE THERE ARE. BUT THEN SHE CAN NOT WIN VOTES BY SHOWING HOW TOUGH SHE IS ON THOSE WEALTHY WHITES

Wealthy Glover Park white person here. I know you are enjoying being snarky, but I don't care. I fully support this effort and the handful neighbors I've talked to do as well. I plan to go to the meeting Thursday to learn more.