Mary Cheh's new suggested locations for the homeless shelter

[Anonymous]

I've lived very near a shelter in another east coast city, and I know very well the sort of neighborhood problems that occurred around the shelter. Even a little bit of research indicates those same problems, and worse, are common at DC shelters. I'm simply not interested in exposing my young children to those problems. To be blunt, I am firmly NIMBY on this, because a homeless shelter is one piece of city infrastructure I do not want in my back yard. I am happy to do my part to help address the homeless issue in DC, and I think there are smart ways to confront the problem. But unilaterally picking shelter sites in a smoke-filled back room, and then overspending on them to funnel money to campaign supporters, is not a smart approach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've lived very near a shelter in another east coast city, and I know very well the sort of neighborhood problems that occurred around the shelter. Even a little bit of research indicates those same problems, and worse, are common at DC shelters. I'm simply not interested in exposing my young children to those problems. To be blunt, I am firmly NIMBY on this, because a homeless shelter is one piece of city infrastructure I do not want in my back yard. I am happy to do my part to help address the homeless issue in DC, and I think there are smart ways to confront the problem. But unilaterally picking shelter sites in a smoke-filled back room, and then overspending on them to funnel money to campaign supporters, is not a smart approach.

Totally agree. I lived right next door to one in Chicago and we didn't have kids then. Wouldn't want it, sorry. Go ahead and call me a NIMBY.

[Anonymous]

12:09 again. If Mayor Bowser wants support from people like me on this issue, she'll go back to the drawing board. Instead of starting with a list of secretly chosen sites and vague comments about some "good neighbor" policy, she'll give equal voice to the communities she's roping into this plan. Here are a few things I'd like to see -

1. An open discussion about siting, conducted by an independent broker, and not by Bowser and her political cronies in a back room.

2. A discussion about sites that make sense, which starts with a logical plan for what the city is trying to accomplish. The current plan seems driven more by politics and less by a good-faith desire to help the homeless community.

3. A discussion that includes the neighborhoods under consideration for the sites, because the shelters impact the people in those neighborhoods, and it's unfair not to give them a voice in the process.

4. Proof of some long-term plan to reduce homelessness. Are these shelters just a black hole into which we're going to throw city money for the next 20 years? Or are they a stepping stone on the path to real progress? I've seen no indication of any long-term plan that these fit into. To me, it looks like these shelters are just a knee-jerk reaction to Relisha Rudd and the many other problems at DC General; Bowser seems to believe that if she just breaks up DC General and redistributes those problems around the District, people will ignore them for another decade. Well, I don't want those problems simply shuffled around. I want to see that there's some plan to reduce them.

5. A "good neighbor" plan that makes the surrounding communities feel safe. Most evidence I've seen indicates that homeless shelters are linked to a variety of social problems in the surrounding community. Some studies suggest the shelters don't cause the problems, but the social problems are attracted to the shelters. The exact mechanism doesn't interest me. I just think there needs to be a plan in place to ensure the shelters don't lead to problems in the surrounding community. Shelters have codes of conduct, so let's see those codes of conduct extended to the surrounding community. If a shelter resident feels the need to steal, sell drugs, or carry a gun in the neighborhood, then the shelter resident can find another living situation that's not costing DC $5,000/month. How hard it that? If she wants community support, Bowser should START with the good neighbor plan, and not mention that it's something she will think about later.

6. Some proof of good faith. I notice that the Ward 4 shelter is way on the eastern edge of Ward 4, so that it's actual impact on Mayor Bowser's constituents is pretty small. Let's see her consider a site at Walter Reed, so it's square in the middle of Ward 4, and closer to her own home. Maybe that site will make sense, or maybe it won't, but even considering it will give me some confidence she's looking at these issues fairly and not just gaming the system to shield her constituents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not against the "all ward" plan. At all. And DC General must be shut. But, as has been stated several times, the way the Mayor has tried to steamroll this plan is wrong and undemocratic and shady. What DOES she have planned for the spot where DC General now sits? Is she hoping to lure football back into the city and get Dan Snyder to finally meet with her? Why would she give all the contractors sweetheart deals where they get to reclaim the property in a decade or two? Does she think we will have solved homelessness by then and we won't need shelters? Where are the impact studies? (for roads, public schools, parking, etc.). Where is an explanation about how all the wrap-around services will work?

Has she looked at other metropolitan areas to see which cities are doing a good job on sheltering the homeless and helping them graduate out of that category? Has she presented any models where a city's plan is yielding serious success?

This idea is half-baked and being done in the shadows and is being driven by intentions that have nothing to do with serving the homeless.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:12:09 again. If Mayor Bowser wants support from people like me on this issue, she'll go back to the drawing board. Instead of starting with a list of secretly chosen sites and vague comments about some "good neighbor" policy, she'll give equal voice to the communities she's roping into this plan. Here are a few things I'd like to see -

1. An open discussion about siting, conducted by an independent broker, and not by Bowser and her political cronies in a back room.

2. A discussion about sites that make sense, which starts with a logical plan for what the city is trying to accomplish. The current plan seems driven more by politics and less by a good-faith desire to help the homeless community.

3. A discussion that includes the neighborhoods under consideration for the sites, because the shelters impact the people in those neighborhoods, and it's unfair not to give them a voice in the process.

4. Proof of some long-term plan to reduce homelessness. Are these shelters just a black hole into which we're going to throw city money for the next 20 years? Or are they a stepping stone on the path to real progress? I've seen no indication of any long-term plan that these fit into. To me, it looks like these shelters are just a knee-jerk reaction to Relisha Rudd and the many other problems at DC General; Bowser seems to believe that if she just breaks up DC General and redistributes those problems around the District, people will ignore them for another decade. Well, I don't want those problems simply shuffled around. I want to see that there's some plan to reduce them.

5. A "good neighbor" plan that makes the surrounding communities feel safe. Most evidence I've seen indicates that homeless shelters are linked to a variety of social problems in the surrounding community. Some studies suggest the shelters don't cause the problems, but the social problems are attracted to the shelters. The exact mechanism doesn't interest me. I just think there needs to be a plan in place to ensure the shelters don't lead to problems in the surrounding community. Shelters have codes of conduct, so let's see those codes of conduct extended to the surrounding community. If a shelter resident feels the need to steal, sell drugs, or carry a gun in the neighborhood, then the shelter resident can find another living situation that's not costing DC $5,000/month. How hard it that? If she wants community support, Bowser should START with the good neighbor plan, and not mention that it's something she will think about later.

6. Some proof of good faith. I notice that the Ward 4 shelter is way on the eastern edge of Ward 4, so that it's actual impact on Mayor Bowser's constituents is pretty small. Let's see her consider a site at Walter Reed, so it's square in the middle of Ward 4, and closer to her own home. Maybe that site will make sense, or maybe it won't, but even considering it will give me some confidence she's looking at these issues fairly and not just gaming the system to shield her constituents.

This should culminate in a decision a decade from now that nobody supports anyway.

[Anonymous]

Former Ward 6 and 3 resident here. Still lurk on DCUM and a lot of old friends keep me in loop. Remains to be seen what will happen but if this does go south, the lack of transparency and perceived crony corruption, coupled with Bowser's team espousing the exact opposite of "good neighbor" policy, will be factors in the failure. FWIW, Bowser et al may not be taking so many hits on the shadowy site selection (save Ward 5) if the rest of the package was tight. But the proposal to date smacks of blank checks to her developer donors (and 2018 reelex backers) with minimal regard to the needs of the families supposedly served in these sites. Her team can't defend the exorbitant monthly per room costs for these sites; their rationales - "we need computer rooms" - are simply not plausible when compared to amenities offered in less expensive luxury apartment buildings around the city. Come on, for $5000+ month, provide a dang bathtub for each family. Alas, a lot of the reasons why Bowser is not providing such needs (forgot amenities!) is to enable devlopers to evade zoning rules (and bust up neighborhoods that have fought off such efforts to date).

Yes, there would be plenty of folks fighting but Bowser's team prioritizing paybacks to campaign contributors over the health and welfare of homeless families has brought us to today.

[Anonymous]

Here are 2500 apartments in DC which are all less than $2000/month to rent. If the goal is finding housing, why wouldn't DC just rent some of these? They're all a damn sight better than some of the ridiculous dorm style housing without bathrooms or kitchens that's being proposed by Bowser. https://washingtondc.craigslist.org/search/doc/apa?min_price=500&max_price=2000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will this turn Cathedral Commons into "Crack Commons"?

Really?

Giant at Cathedral Commons recently added armed security because they've already had several "incidents" in the store in which people were acting in a threatening manner. This is no longer the old sleepy neighborhood Giant. What will they do when the shelter opens across the street?

[Anonymous]

Mary Cheh herself may have stepped in a big, stinky cow patty on this one. From the frying pan into the fire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Former Ward 6 and 3 resident here. Still lurk on DCUM and a lot of old friends keep me in loop. Remains to be seen what will happen but if this does go south, the lack of transparency and perceived crony corruption, coupled with Bowser's team espousing the exact opposite of "good neighbor" policy, will be factors in the failure. FWIW, Bowser et al may not be taking so many hits on the shadowy site selection (save Ward 5) if the rest of the package was tight. But the proposal to date smacks of blank checks to her developer donors (and 2018 reelex backers) with minimal regard to the needs of the families supposedly served in these sites. Her team can't defend the exorbitant monthly per room costs for these sites; their rationales - "we need computer rooms" - are simply not plausible when compared to amenities offered in less expensive luxury apartment buildings around the city. Come on, for $5000+ month, provide a dang bathtub for each family. Alas, a lot of the reasons why Bowser is not providing such needs (forgot amenities!) is to enable devlopers to evade zoning rules (and bust up neighborhoods that have fought off such efforts to date).

Yes, there would be plenty of folks fighting but Bowser's team prioritizing paybacks to campaign contributors over the health and welfare of homeless families has brought us to today.

Sadly, +10000000000000000000000000000000000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please. Let's quit acting as if Cathedral Commons or those tacky new rowhouses across from the police station are anything special. They are connected to a CVS and a Giant for goodness sake.

Wow. I think they are really nice. They are housing for hardworking people and the whole area is becoming a nice little hub. The residents are not somehow 'beneath' concern. The arrogance...

Ha! One bedroom flats start at around $3,000; two bedrooms start near $5,000 and three bedrooms start over $8,000. Housing for the working class.

I'm sorry - I'm talking about the roe of single family townhouses being derided. You think the owners are all downtown abbey inherited wealth or possibly hardworking people? I did not say working class. I am guessing they are workers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please. Let's quit acting as if Cathedral Commons or those tacky new rowhouses across from the police station are anything special. They are connected to a CVS and a Giant for goodness sake.

Wow. I think they are really nice. They are housing for hardworking people and the whole area is becoming a nice little hub. The residents are not somehow 'beneath' concern. The arrogance...

Ha! One bedroom flats start at around $3,000; two bedrooms start near $5,000 and three bedrooms start over $8,000. Housing for the working class.

I'm sorry - I'm talking about the roe of single family townhouses being derided. You think the owners are all downtown abbey inherited wealth or possibly hardworking people? I did not say working class. I am guessing they are workers.

Cathedral Commons is not quite as upscale as its promoters claim. Those fancy townhouses and flats back up to a Giant....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, we live near one of the new proposed cites. Hooray for my property values and my kids' safety going down the drain.

There is no evidence that family homeless shelters lead to a rise in crime.

I just did some research, and the answer seems to be unclear. There are studies suggesting shelters increase area crime, but those studies hypothesize that increased crime occurs because shelters full of low-risk homeless families are placed in high crime neighborhoods, so they become a pool of victims for neighborhood criminals. That doesn't seem likely in NWDC. But on the other hand, I find no studies addressing impacts of shelters in wealthy neighborhoods like NWDC, so there's simply not much data.

Do you have studies that are on point?

There are likely few examples of building a homeless shelter in a million dollar neighborhood. But those who say it won't increase crime are being disingenuous because adding people by definition increases crime regardless of the type of people in question. Folks who also say it won't decrease propetty value are also not credible. Would you ever buy a $2.5 million house that backs up to a homeless shelter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The space currently tapped for this is right on Wisconsin which is high traffic and very dense. The Idaho Ave spot is nestled in a neighborhood. Much better.

My thought is that the Wisconsin space will be fought over tooth and nail by developers.

Someone told me part of the push behind Wisconsin Avenue site is that it allows the developers to circumvent the current SFH zoning for that parcel.

Currently proposed site could very easily be a loser at zoning. Bowser is trying to up zone R-1-B (single family) to R-5 (apartment). At the very least they are looking at a construction injunction, Bowser didn't do homework.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The space currently tapped for this is right on Wisconsin which is high traffic and very dense. The Idaho Ave spot is nestled in a neighborhood. Much better.

My thought is that the Wisconsin space will be fought over tooth and nail by developers.

Someone told me part of the push behind Wisconsin Avenue site is that it allows the developers to circumvent the current SFH zoning for that parcel.

Currently proposed site could very easily be a loser at zoning. Bowser is trying to up zone R-1-B (single family) to R-5 (apartment). At the very least they are looking at a construction injunction, Bowser didn't do homework.

This is part of the proposal trickery I don't quite understand. From the earlier thread, it seems that the reason the shelters will be built without bathrooms or kitchens in the apartments is to evade the single family housing requirements by qualifying for a currently existing exception to single family housing for dorms and boarding houses. But to make this work for the financial benefit of the developers, the zoning will be changed from single to mult-family at some point. What I understood is that the zoning will change at the end of the twenty or thirty year lease, at which point the shelters could be razed and replaced with apartments.

This is just what I gathered earlier, but would love someone more knowledgeable to spell this out in more detail.