Bowser Spreads the Wealth opens homeless shelters in each DC ward

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

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

-- EXHIBIT A: LOOK UP THE HISTORY OF DC GENERAL.

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

-- EXHIBIT B: DECADES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT PRACTICES. WELL-EXPLAINED IN THIS WAPO'S ARTICLE "Patronage Persists in D.C."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/10/AR2009081002841.html

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

-- EXHIBIT C: USE REDFIN TO LOOK UP SIMILAR LOCATIONS AT HALF THE PRICE


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]

Sorry, forgot EXHIBIT D:

The scary resignation letter of Jullette M. Saussy, medical director for D.C. Fire and EMS:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/local/dc-ems-resignation-letter/1955/?tid=a_inl

And this is the Mayor and team we trust to open and run eight new "temporary" centers with little (if any) community input and independent supervision?

[Anonymous]

While the plan is firm to house the homeless in each ward, the final locations are not set. In Ward 3 Tenelytown is still under active consideration, particularly because of good transportation access and the fact that many homeless in the Ward seem to be concentrated there already. DC owns the Tenley library site of course, which was built with reinforced supports to accommodate several additional floors for housing. The old St Ann's school is another possible locatition. Given that the intention is to house homeless families, locations adjacent to Janney make the most sense.

[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.

But such concentrations of low income people reliably vote for local politicians who tell them that their problems are all due to the Man, racism, "the Plan", gentrification, etc. Marion Barry banked a lifetime in politics on peddling this stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone looked at the current distribution of homeless shelters, homeless families and schools with homeless kids? Charles Allen said Ward 6 already has more homeless shelters than the other Wards. http://www.nbcwashington.com/blogs/first-read-dmv/Homeless-Shelters-to-Open-in-Each-Ward-of-DC-353215441.html

And, they already have several new housing projects in planning and already under construction which will have significant accomodations for low income. There's far more of that kind of housing coming online in Ward 6 than anywhere else in the city.

It sounds like the proposal just figures on distributing DC General's homeless more or less evenly across all Wards without consideration of what's already going on in many Wards.

It seems to me that the other Wards should be stepping up to the plate. Ward 6 has already absorbed a huge brunt where it comes to accommodating the homeless and low income.

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

The crickets chirping here despite having posters who claim to be in the know on issues affecting the homeless in DC tells me that no, there isn't a more robust, equitable or well thought out plan. Sigh. Not surprised.

I don't have the information you are seeking. However, I saw a tweet from Kenyan McDuffie earlier tonight describing the number of homeless facilities in Ward 5. I would suspect that they would rival, if not exceed, the number in Ward 6.

Basically, the city has gone from concentrating homeless and other similar shelters in certain geographic areas to spreading them out. I understand there is some opposition to those who feel they are starting in a sort of hole already. But, any plan designed to concentrate these facilities in other geographic areas would probably be dead on arrival. At least this one has some chance of success. Consider it a good start.

I leave in Ward 5. Not only do we have a heavy concentration of homeless shelters, but we also have a heavy concentration of half-way houses for the recently released incarcerated. I would like for them to spread the wealth of those facilities as well. But this is a nice start.

No thanks. We have enough robberies and breakins committed by recidivist criminals already.

Instead of paying DC's fine crooks not to commit crimes, let's give them a one way bus ticket to the tough on crime state of their choice! They can pick up some cash at Western Union once they arrive there.

[Anonymous]

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.

I live in Glover Park, very close to Guy Mason, and I suspect that you don't.

This is a shelter for homeless families. Providing temporary safe housing for 40 homeless families won't destroy our neighborhood, our schools, or our parks and playgrounds.

Can Stoddert handle this?

Panties bunching and pearls clutching. Too funny.

Stoddert is very OOB already so it probably won't make much of a difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all get one !

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2016/02/09/d-c-general-closure-mayor-announces-locations-of-proposed-shelters/

The Wisconsin Avenue location won't get approved. Terrible location for a homeless shelter. Expensive area - expensive stores etc... I think they will feel very out of place here.

There's a ginormous Giant just up the road, where they will feel at home.

[Anonymous]

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.

I live in Glover Park, very close to Guy Mason, and I suspect that you don't.

This is a shelter for homeless families. Providing temporary safe housing for 40 homeless families won't destroy our neighborhood, our schools, or our parks and playgrounds.

Can Stoddert handle this?

Panties bunching and pearls clutching. Too funny.

Stoddert is very OOB already so it probably won't make much of a difference.

And Hardy is close by.

[Anonymous]

I'm a resident of the ward 3 neighborhood in question, and the placement of this shelter concerns me. The fact is, there is a vast cultural gulf between ward 3 families, and the families that will reside in this shelter. I grew-up in a neighborhood that went from middle-class to lower middle-class/immigrant (I am an immigrant myself) as I was growing-up. Many of the boys who I knew as a teenager ended-up doing time in jail on drug charges. I still remember a conversation I had with a teen boy in my neighborhood...he wanted to have 10 kids when he grew-up. I was shocked and asked how he was going to afford that many and his response was "who cares?"-This is the type of culture that these families will be coming from.

I have worked my behind off (as has my dh) to be able to afford to live in my neighborhood, and to send my kids to private school so that they don't have the experiences that I had growing-up. When people are struggling to survive, they're not worried about whether their kids are throwing sand in the sand box, or littering, or playing obscene music, or using obscene language, or pointing pretend guns at others...however, I am worried about that. So yeah, I am clutching my non-existent pearls and worrying about how these kids will interact with mine, because I have worked hard and sacrificed to create a particular environment for my very sheltered kids and I want to continue to maintain that. The sheltered environment is something that I didn't have growing-up, and I value that my kids do have it...and I feel that I have a right to that.

These families have a right to raise their children in a safe environment, which is not currently happening. However, if this shelter is not being coupled with some kind of job training and child care and special funding for tutoring their kids, who are probably academically behind their Ward 3 peers, then this is a bad idea. This will affect those living around this shelter and using the same public facilities, because without special arrangements for childcare (for example), who is going to be supervising these kids while their moms work (or look for work)? How will this affect the children going to public school with these kids..will they end-up with less attention from their teachers who will have to spend extra time helping the kids from these homeless families? People choose to live in Ward 3 and pay for the more expensive real estate so that their kids have good public schools - so will this be fair to them? If properly funded and implemented this plan could work well, however, I don't really trust the dc gov. to properly maintain these facilities with the requisite extra help these families will need. Without the extra help (childcare, job training, ect.) this will eventually become a problem for the surrounding neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a resident of the ward 3 neighborhood in question, and the placement of this shelter concerns me. The fact is, there is a vast cultural gulf between ward 3 families, and the families that will reside in this shelter. I grew-up in a neighborhood that went from middle-class to lower middle-class/immigrant (I am an immigrant myself) as I was growing-up. Many of the boys who I knew as a teenager ended-up doing time in jail on drug charges. I still remember a conversation I had with a teen boy in my neighborhood...he wanted to have 10 kids when he grew-up. I was shocked and asked how he was going to afford that many and his response was "who cares?"-This is the type of culture that these families will be coming from.

I have worked my behind off (as has my dh) to be able to afford to live in my neighborhood, and to send my kids to private school so that they don't have the experiences that I had growing-up. When people are struggling to survive, they're not worried about whether their kids are throwing sand in the sand box, or littering, or playing obscene music, or using obscene language, or pointing pretend guns at others...however, I am worried about that. So yeah, I am clutching my non-existent pearls and worrying about how these kids will interact with mine, because I have worked hard and sacrificed to create a particular environment for my very sheltered kids and I want to continue to maintain that. The sheltered environment is something that I didn't have growing-up, and I value that my kids do have it...and I feel that I have a right to that.

These families have a right to raise their children in a safe environment, which is not currently happening. However, if this shelter is not being coupled with some kind of job training and child care and special funding for tutoring their kids, who are probably academically behind their Ward 3 peers, then this is a bad idea. This will affect those living around this shelter and using the same public facilities, because without special arrangements for childcare (for example), who is going to be supervising these kids while their moms work (or look for work)? How will this affect the children going to public school with these kids..will they end-up with less attention from their teachers who will have to spend extra time helping the kids from these homeless families? People choose to live in Ward 3 and pay for the more expensive real estate so that their kids have good public schools - so will this be fair to them? If properly funded and implemented this plan could work well, however, I don't really trust the dc gov. to properly maintain these facilities with the requisite extra help these families will need. Without the extra help (childcare, job training, ect.) this will eventually become a problem for the surrounding neighborhood.

+1.

I hope posters take the time to read and process what you are saying.

[Anonymous]

^^^OMFG. you do not get to be guaranteed never to encounter poor people because you bought in ward 3. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Anonymous]

I have had plenty of experience with poor people, thank you very much. I have had the wonderful experience (actually several times) of having poor, drunk men fall on me on the bus, which I used to ride for two hours, each way, every day, while commuting to college. I once had a boy in my neighborhood put a knife to my throat and say he wanted money as a joke. Have you had those experiences? If not, then don't talk to me about avoiding poor people. As I stated...I worked hard so that my children do not have the experiences that I had.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have had plenty of experience with poor people, thank you very much. I have had the wonderful experience (actually several times) of having poor, drunk men fall on me on the bus, which I used to ride for two hours, each way, every day, while commuting to college. I once had a boy in my neighborhood put a knife to my throat and say he wanted money as a joke. Have you had those experiences? If not, then don't talk to me about avoiding poor people. As I stated...I worked hard so that my children do not have the experiences that I had.

well then I guess you are shit out of luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a resident of the ward 3 neighborhood in question, and the placement of this shelter concerns me. The fact is, there is a vast cultural gulf between ward 3 families, and the families that will reside in this shelter. I grew-up in a neighborhood that went from middle-class to lower middle-class/immigrant (I am an immigrant myself) as I was growing-up. Many of the boys who I knew as a teenager ended-up doing time in jail on drug charges. I still remember a conversation I had with a teen boy in my neighborhood...he wanted to have 10 kids when he grew-up. I was shocked and asked how he was going to afford that many and his response was "who cares?"-This is the type of culture that these families will be coming from.

I have worked my behind off (as has my dh) to be able to afford to live in my neighborhood, and to send my kids to private school so that they don't have the experiences that I had growing-up. When people are struggling to survive, they're not worried about whether their kids are throwing sand in the sand box, or littering, or playing obscene music, or using obscene language, or pointing pretend guns at others...however, I am worried about that. So yeah, I am clutching my non-existent pearls and worrying about how these kids will interact with mine, because I have worked hard and sacrificed to create a particular environment for my very sheltered kids and I want to continue to maintain that. The sheltered environment is something that I didn't have growing-up, and I value that my kids do have it...and I feel that I have a right to that.

These families have a right to raise their children in a safe environment, which is not currently happening. However, if this shelter is not being coupled with some kind of job training and child care and special funding for tutoring their kids, who are probably academically behind their Ward 3 peers, then this is a bad idea. This will affect those living around this shelter and using the same public facilities, because without special arrangements for childcare (for example), who is going to be supervising these kids while their moms work (or look for work)? How will this affect the children going to public school with these kids..will they end-up with less attention from their teachers who will have to spend extra time helping the kids from these homeless families? People choose to live in Ward 3 and pay for the more expensive real estate so that their kids have good public schools - so will this be fair to them? If properly funded and implemented this plan could work well, however, I don't really trust the dc gov. to properly maintain these facilities with the requisite extra help these families will need. Without the extra help (childcare, job training, ect.) this will eventually become a problem for the surrounding neighborhood.

Really! Really woman! You and your family are no better than any of the other hard working families in the city where these homels will be placed. What makes you think that yore special because you live in award 3?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have had plenty of experience with poor people, thank you very much. I have had the wonderful experience (actually several times) of having poor, drunk men fall on me on the bus, which I used to ride for two hours, each way, every day, while commuting to college. I once had a boy in my neighborhood put a knife to my throat and say he wanted money as a joke. Have you had those experiences? If not, then don't talk to me about avoiding poor people. As I stated...I worked hard so that my children do not have the experiences that I had.

Better work harder so you can move to Great Falls to find a better class of POORS.