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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You clearly aren't. otherwise you would be more specific in your own point. Seems to me you want to hurl insults because you realize you are incorrect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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??

Exactly. If they don't fix the services needed, all they are doing is creating 8 mini DC Generals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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??

Exactly. If they don't fix the services needed, all they are doing is creating 8 mini DC Generals.

Correct. And even worse, they are doing it in the interest of "fairness".

[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

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.

Though the right wing loves the Solyndra example, it's a lousy one. The fact is, the government has a far better track record on wins than you like to admit, and it's certainly a better track record than most of the free market. The "losses" have been recovered, many times over.. You also forget about those little things like the government inventing and investing in the Internet (DARPA) which has now created a 14 trillion dollar economy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You clearly aren't. otherwise you would be more specific in your own point. Seems to me you want to hurl insults because you realize you are incorrect.

Um, you bolded two things that have nothing to do with building these shelters. The government is not doing it to create jobs or to create wealth. The government's purpose is not economic stimulus, which is what Hazlitt was objecting to. The purpose of these shelters is to shelter.

[Anonymous]

The people who are largely responsible for people having to go into homeless shelters in the first place reside in wards 7 and 8. Indolence, lack of parenting, unemployed and unemployable, poor decision making. Haven't wards 7 and 8 already imposed enough costs on the rest of the city? How is rewarding failure with a nice apartment in ward 3 fair? Fair would be having the people that created the problem "live" with the consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You clearly aren't. otherwise you would be more specific in your own point. Seems to me you want to hurl insults because you realize you are incorrect.

Um, you bolded two things that have nothing to do with building these shelters. The government is not doing it to create jobs or to create wealth. The government's purpose is not economic stimulus, which is what Hazlitt was objecting to. The purpose of these shelters is to shelter.

The government is building the shelters where they are to increase racial and fiscal diversity. Obama has a specific directive stating just that. Please!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The people who are largely responsible for people having to go into homeless shelters in the first place reside in wards 7 and 8. Indolence, lack of parenting, unemployed and unemployable, poor decision making. Haven't wards 7 and 8 already imposed enough costs on the rest of the city? How is rewarding failure with a nice apartment in ward 3 fair? Fair would be having the people that created the problem "live" with the consequences.

Precisely

[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

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.

Though the right wing loves the Solyndra example, it's a lousy one. The fact is, the government has a far better track record on wins than you like to admit, and it's certainly a better track record than most of the free market. The "losses" have been recovered, many times over.. You also forget about those little things like the government inventing and investing in the Internet (DARPA) which has now created a 14 trillion dollar economy.

The government should not BE in the business of picking winners and losers in a free market. God LORD!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You clearly aren't. otherwise you would be more specific in your own point. Seems to me you want to hurl insults because you realize you are incorrect.

Um, you bolded two things that have nothing to do with building these shelters. The government is not doing it to create jobs or to create wealth. The government's purpose is not economic stimulus, which is what Hazlitt was objecting to. The purpose of these shelters is to shelter.

The government is building the shelters where they are to increase racial and fiscal diversity. Obama has a specific directive stating just that. Please!

Ok now you just sound unhinged.

[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

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.

Though the right wing loves the Solyndra example, it's a lousy one. The fact is, the government has a far better track record on wins than you like to admit, and it's certainly a better track record than most of the free market. The "losses" have been recovered, many times over.. You also forget about those little things like the government inventing and investing in the Internet (DARPA) which has now created a 14 trillion dollar economy.

The government should not BE in the business of picking winners and losers in a free market. God LORD!

In a free market there would be strip clubs all over northwest DC.

[Anonymous]

I guess that's what bothers me--these are being treated as nice apartments. It's one thing for me to want the city to put my tax dollars into subsidized 'nice apartments' in the waterfront development or transforming neighborhoods (new developments where everyone buying understands it's designed as mixed income housing to help hardworking people get a leg up in a very cost prohibitive city). It's another thing for my money to be folded into these pseudo shelters which are supposedly designed for temporary stabilization yet seem to require everything a yuppie might search for: near metro! near many parks and playgrounds! great schools! near Whole Foods! near those red rent a-bikes! It is as if the location, rather than the services the government provides and requirements the government insists upon --will magically transform people's lives.

What will transform people's lives are a safe, cheerful environment , transparency (goodbye crony politics), efficiency in services - on site centers and shuttles/school buses, and strict requirements for people who can help themselves to do so following a schedule. DC General, if money were put into it, or if it were razed and rebuilt--could easily be these things.

Those who cannot take advantage of the above probably need a hospital bed, not Whole Foods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

Though the right wing loves the Solyndra example, it's a lousy one. The fact is, the government has a far better track record on wins than you like to admit, and it's certainly a better track record than most of the free market. The "losses" have been recovered, many times over.. You also forget about those little things like the government inventing and investing in the Internet (DARPA) which has now created a 14 trillion dollar economy.

The government should not BE in the business of picking winners and losers in a free market. God LORD!

In a free market there would be strip clubs all over northwest DC.

There actually are strip clubs all over NW DC. (???????)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess that's what bothers me--these are being treated as nice apartments. It's one thing for me to want the city to put my tax dollars into subsidized 'nice apartments' in the waterfront development or transforming neighborhoods (new developments where everyone buying understands it's designed as mixed income housing to help hardworking people get a leg up in a very cost prohibitive city). It's another thing for my money to be folded into these pseudo shelters which are supposedly designed for temporary stabilization yet seem to require everything a yuppie might search for: near metro! near many parks and playgrounds! great schools! near Whole Foods! near those red rent a-bikes! It is as if the location, rather than the services the government provides and requirements the government insists upon --will magically transform people's lives.

What will transform people's lives are a safe, cheerful environment , transparency (goodbye crony politics), efficiency in services - on site centers and shuttles/school buses, and strict requirements for people who can help themselves to do so following a schedule. DC General, if money were put into it, or if it were razed and rebuilt--could easily be these things.

Those who cannot take advantage of the above probably need a hospital bed, not Whole Foods.

a bit over the top there.

Guess what, poor people need public transportation. To go to work. Which many homeless people do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The people who are largely responsible for people having to go into homeless shelters in the first place reside in wards 7 and 8. Indolence, lack of parenting, unemployed and unemployable, poor decision making. Haven't wards 7 and 8 already imposed enough costs on the rest of the city? How is rewarding failure with a nice apartment in ward 3 fair? Fair would be having the people that created the problem "live" with the consequences.

+1