Let's join forces to scrap the current homeless shelter plan and start over

[Anonymous]

Again, fight the rezoning that will be required for this crazy plan to take effect.

[Anonymous]

Let's not forget that the real driver of the deadline to close DC General is that the mayor wants to sell the property for development, most likely to her crony supporters. DC General is a lousy shelter, but the tail wagging the dog here is that development interests covet the site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again, fight the rezoning that will be required for this crazy plan to take effect.

This is likely to be greased at the BZA, sorry to say.

[Anonymous]

What I don't understand is that, if DC did such a poor job of providing various social services to the homeless at a centralized site, DC General, what evidence is there that DC will actually do a better job spreading resources and trying to duplicate services at 7 or 8 new locations city-wide??

[Anonymous]

Yes indeed, what evidence? Can Congress intervene? Should we contact them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes indeed, what evidence? Can Congress intervene? Should we contact them?

Have you lost your minds?? I can't believe a DC resident would actually ask for this level of interference into their local affairs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's idiotic to say that homeless shelters don't have a negative effect on property values. Maybe it is slim but of course it is negative.

The property value argument is a strawman. The vast majority of homeowners in ward 3 (and let's be honest, the majority is the nimby folks in this thread are ward 3) have likey seen property values skyrocket in the last decade. You can take a $20k hit, even though I don't believe it will happen. It will share the area with a police station for goodness sake.

This is typical progressive liberalism. WE decide how much money of yours you can keep and WE decide what's best.

The point is that your property valuation is not actually your money. Your property is worth what the market will pay for it. Deciding that government services should be allocated as to preserve or inflate your particular home's value on the market is the opposite of conservatism.

Not true. When government interferes with the free market by forcing social justice on the people in the form of homeless shelters, etc in their neighborhoods, you have the opposite of conservatism.

Do yourself a favor, and read "Economics in one Lesson" by Hazlitt. It's free from a number of sources:

https://www.google.com/#q=economics+in+one+lesson+pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's idiotic to say that homeless shelters don't have a negative effect on property values. Maybe it is slim but of course it is negative.

The property value argument is a strawman. The vast majority of homeowners in ward 3 (and let's be honest, the majority is the nimby folks in this thread are ward 3) have likey seen property values skyrocket in the last decade. You can take a $20k hit, even though I don't believe it will happen. It will share the area with a police station for goodness sake.

This is typical progressive liberalism. WE decide how much money of yours you can keep and WE decide what's best.

The point is that your property valuation is not actually your money. Your property is worth what the market will pay for it. Deciding that government services should be allocated as to preserve or inflate your particular home's value on the market is the opposite of conservatism.

Not true. When government interferes with the free market by forcing social justice on the people in the form of homeless shelters, etc in their neighborhoods, you have the opposite of conservatism.

Do yourself a favor, and read "Economics in one Lesson" by Hazlitt. It's free from a number of sources:

https://www.google.com/#q=economics+in+one+lesson+pdf

The government is not interfering with the free market by buying property and using it for government purposes. You are basically arguing that government itself is incompatible with the free market.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's idiotic to say that homeless shelters don't have a negative effect on property values. Maybe it is slim but of course it is negative.

The property value argument is a strawman. The vast majority of homeowners in ward 3 (and let's be honest, the majority is the nimby folks in this thread are ward 3) have likey seen property values skyrocket in the last decade. You can take a $20k hit, even though I don't believe it will happen. It will share the area with a police station for goodness sake.

This is typical progressive liberalism. WE decide how much money of yours you can keep and WE decide what's best.

The point is that your property valuation is not actually your money. Your property is worth what the market will pay for it. Deciding that government services should be allocated as to preserve or inflate your particular home's value on the market is the opposite of conservatism.

Not true. When government interferes with the free market by forcing social justice on the people in the form of homeless shelters, etc in their neighborhoods, you have the opposite of conservatism.

Do yourself a favor, and read "Economics in one Lesson" by Hazlitt. It's free from a number of sources:

https://www.google.com/#q=economics+in+one+lesson+pdf

I think you need Economics in Two Lessons. Hazlitt's lesson did not have a problem with public housing, except as a public works project to create employment or wealth.

"I do not intend to enter here into all the pros and cons of public housing. I am concerned only to point out the error in two of the arguments most frequently put forward in favor of public housing. One is the argument that it “creates employment”; the other that it creates wealth which would not otherwise have been produced. "

Neither of these is a proposed reason for relocating homeless shelters. It is not a program designed to create construction jobs, nor is it making homeless people wealthier by any stretch of the imagination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's idiotic to say that homeless shelters don't have a negative effect on property values. Maybe it is slim but of course it is negative.

The property value argument is a strawman. The vast majority of homeowners in ward 3 (and let's be honest, the majority is the nimby folks in this thread are ward 3) have likey seen property values skyrocket in the last decade. You can take a $20k hit, even though I don't believe it will happen. It will share the area with a police station for goodness sake.

This is typical progressive liberalism. WE decide how much money of yours you can keep and WE decide what's best.

The point is that your property valuation is not actually your money. Your property is worth what the market will pay for it. Deciding that government services should be allocated as to preserve or inflate your particular home's value on the market is the opposite of conservatism.

Not true. When government interferes with the free market by forcing social justice on the people in the form of homeless shelters, etc in their neighborhoods, you have the opposite of conservatism.

Do yourself a favor, and read "Economics in one Lesson" by Hazlitt. It's free from a number of sources:

https://www.google.com/#q=economics+in+one+lesson+pdf

I think you need Economics in Two Lessons. Hazlitt's lesson did not have a problem with public housing, except as a public works project to create employment or wealth.

"I do not intend to enter here into all the pros and cons of public housing. I am concerned only to point out the error in two of the arguments most frequently put forward in favor of public housing. One is the argument that it “creates employment”; the other that it creates wealth which would not otherwise have been produced. "

Neither of these is a proposed reason for relocating homeless shelters. It is not a program designed to create construction jobs, nor is it making homeless people wealthier by any stretch of the imagination.

You really need his point. Wow!

[Anonymous]

I wonder if the Mayor's proposal of year round shelter as a right will also affect landlord-tenant law in DC? Currently you cannot evict someone with cause into extreme cold or heat. I wonder if it will become you simply cannot evict someone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's idiotic to say that homeless shelters don't have a negative effect on property values. Maybe it is slim but of course it is negative.

The property value argument is a strawman. The vast majority of homeowners in ward 3 (and let's be honest, the majority is the nimby folks in this thread are ward 3) have likey seen property values skyrocket in the last decade. You can take a $20k hit, even though I don't believe it will happen. It will share the area with a police station for goodness sake.

This is typical progressive liberalism. WE decide how much money of yours you can keep and WE decide what's best.

The point is that your property valuation is not actually your money. Your property is worth what the market will pay for it. Deciding that government services should be allocated as to preserve or inflate your particular home's value on the market is the opposite of conservatism.

Not true. When government interferes with the free market by forcing social justice on the people in the form of homeless shelters, etc in their neighborhoods, you have the opposite of conservatism.

Do yourself a favor, and read "Economics in one Lesson" by Hazlitt. It's free from a number of sources:

https://www.google.com/#q=economics+in+one+lesson+pdf

I think you need Economics in Two Lessons. Hazlitt's lesson did not have a problem with public housing, except as a public works project to create employment or wealth.

"I do not intend to enter here into all the pros and cons of public housing. I am concerned only to point out the error in two of the arguments most frequently put forward in favor of public housing. One is the argument that it “creates employment”; the other that it creates wealth which would not otherwise have been produced. "

Neither of these is a proposed reason for relocating homeless shelters. It is not a program designed to create construction jobs, nor is it making homeless people wealthier by any stretch of the imagination.

You really need his point. Wow!

I just quoted him, verbatim. I think you are one of those fools who cites things that they think will make them sound smart, when they don't really understand them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's idiotic to say that homeless shelters don't have a negative effect on property values. Maybe it is slim but of course it is negative.

The property value argument is a strawman. The vast majority of homeowners in ward 3 (and let's be honest, the majority is the nimby folks in this thread are ward 3) have likey seen property values skyrocket in the last decade. You can take a $20k hit, even though I don't believe it will happen. It will share the area with a police station for goodness sake.

This is typical progressive liberalism. WE decide how much money of yours you can keep and WE decide what's best.

The point is that your property valuation is not actually your money. Your property is worth what the market will pay for it. Deciding that government services should be allocated as to preserve or inflate your particular home's value on the market is the opposite of conservatism.

Not true. When government interferes with the free market by forcing social justice on the people in the form of homeless shelters, etc in their neighborhoods, you have the opposite of conservatism.

Do yourself a favor, and read "Economics in one Lesson" by Hazlitt. It's free from a number of sources:

https://www.google.com/#q=economics+in+one+lesson+pdf

I think you need Economics in Two Lessons. Hazlitt's lesson did not have a problem with public housing, except as a public works project to create employment or wealth.

"I do not intend to enter here into all the pros and cons of public housing. I am concerned only to point out the error in two of the arguments most frequently put forward in favor of public housing. One is the argument that it “creates employment”; the other that it creates wealth which would not otherwise have been produced. "

Neither of these is a proposed reason for relocating homeless shelters. It is not a program designed to create construction jobs, nor is it making homeless people wealthier by any stretch of the imagination.

You really need his point. Wow!

I just quoted him, verbatim. I think you are one of those fools who cites things that they think will make them sound smart, when they don't really understand them.

You do not understand what you read. Probably because you cherry-picked his statement without reading the whole (short) book. Look at the line I bolded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's idiotic to say that homeless shelters don't have a negative effect on property values. Maybe it is slim but of course it is negative.

The property value argument is a strawman. The vast majority of homeowners in ward 3 (and let's be honest, the majority is the nimby folks in this thread are ward 3) have likey seen property values skyrocket in the last decade. You can take a $20k hit, even though I don't believe it will happen. It will share the area with a police station for goodness sake.

This is typical progressive liberalism. WE decide how much money of yours you can keep and WE decide what's best.

The point is that your property valuation is not actually your money. Your property is worth what the market will pay for it. Deciding that government services should be allocated as to preserve or inflate your particular home's value on the market is the opposite of conservatism.

Not true. When government interferes with the free market by forcing social justice on the people in the form of homeless shelters, etc in their neighborhoods, you have the opposite of conservatism.

Do yourself a favor, and read "Economics in one Lesson" by Hazlitt. It's free from a number of sources:

https://www.google.com/#q=economics+in+one+lesson+pdf

I think you need Economics in Two Lessons. Hazlitt's lesson did not have a problem with public housing, except as a public works project to create employment or wealth.

"I do not intend to enter here into all the pros and cons of public housing. I am concerned only to point out the error in two of the arguments most frequently put forward in favor of public housing. One is the argument that it “creates employment”; the other that it creates wealth which would not otherwise have been produced. "

Neither of these is a proposed reason for relocating homeless shelters. It is not a program designed to create construction jobs, nor is it making homeless people wealthier by any stretch of the imagination.

You really need his point. Wow!

I just quoted him, verbatim. I think you are one of those fools who cites things that they think will make them sound smart, when they don't really understand them.

You do not understand what you read. Probably because you cherry-picked his statement without reading the whole (short) book. Look at the line I bolded.

I am well versed in libertarian economic literature. You are going to have to make a more specific point that shows you understand Hazlitt if you want to avoid embarrassing yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's idiotic to say that homeless shelters don't have a negative effect on property values. Maybe it is slim but of course it is negative.

The property value argument is a strawman. The vast majority of homeowners in ward 3 (and let's be honest, the majority is the nimby folks in this thread are ward 3) have likey seen property values skyrocket in the last decade. You can take a $20k hit, even though I don't believe it will happen. It will share the area with a police station for goodness sake.

This is typical progressive liberalism. WE decide how much money of yours you can keep and WE decide what's best.

The point is that your property valuation is not actually your money. Your property is worth what the market will pay for it. Deciding that government services should be allocated as to preserve or inflate your particular home's value on the market is the opposite of conservatism.

Not true. When government interferes with the free market by forcing social justice on the people in the form of homeless shelters, etc in their neighborhoods, you have the opposite of conservatism.

Do yourself a favor, and read "Economics in one Lesson" by Hazlitt. It's free from a number of sources:

https://www.google.com/#q=economics+in+one+lesson+pdf

The government is not interfering with the free market by buying property and using it for government purposes. You are basically arguing that government itself is incompatible with the free market.

DING DING DING! When government tries to pick winners in the marketplace (Solyndra being a good example), they are artificially manipulating the free market. And in the case of Solyndra, lost the millions in taxpayer dollars.

Limited government has a role in the free market. When government becomes too large, and/or creates policies in the interest of 'fairness', they are deliberately causing some to lose for the benefit of others.