Mary Cheh's new suggested locations for the homeless shelter

[Anonymous]

Not trying to be an ass here, but do people think these shelters will reduce homlessness. It seems they would be filled to capacity immediately, then a new wave of homeless people would move in from elsewhere hoping to be the next in line to be helped out. Not making a political statement here, just a practical question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not trying to be an ass here, but do people think these shelters will reduce homlessness. It seems they would be filled to capacity immediately, then a new wave of homeless people would move in from elsewhere hoping to be the next in line to be helped out. Not making a political statement here, just a practical question.

I think that we will always have homelessness, at least until mental illness and addiction are properly addressed, which will be never. The proposed shelters are like putting a bandaid on a massive chest wound. Kind of pointless, IMO.

Oh well, at least builders and developers will get richer.

[Anonymous]

Which site is best from a public transportation perspective?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Which site is best from a public transportation perspective?

River Road because it's practically on top of the Tenley Metro station.

[Anonymous]

Moving the NW site does not address many of the shortcomings of the plan discussed in the very long previous thread on this topic. There many questioned why the city should spend money putting up special buildings (and then paying again to lease them back from the developers) to temporarily house homeless families that purposely had features like dorm style living arrangements, communal bathrooms--with two bathtubs for 40 people for a population consisting heavily of children, and only common kitchens.

One PP there made a much more sensible suggestion that the city simply buy existing small multifamily housing units and put six to seven families in them with one or two resident social workers.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

Two thoughts. Not really related to one another.

1. It seems wasteful for the city to spend lots of money to buy/lease expensive NWDC property to create a shelter for a homeless population that doesn't seem very high in NWDC. I am pretty sure that Polish embassy site will cost $3-4 million just for the property, and it needs tons of renovations. I suppose it's just a politics thing, where the city has to waste that money so Bowser can show she is equally burdening all neighborhoods. Seems silly though. Number of shelters should be tied to the number of homeless in the neighborhood, in a logical and non-political world.

2. To ease neighbors fears, it seems the city could make a clear policy that removes permanently any shelter resident identified as engaged in misdeeds, and also has a clear trigger for the removal of the shelter entirely if it is associated with an increase in crime or other bad activity. Is the city willing to commit to complete removal of the shelter if the shelter becomes a drag on the neighborhood?

[Anonymous]

The City Church site is a non-starter. the site is tiny, forcing no other configuration than a narrow high-rise. Such shelter style for govt housing has long since fallen out of favor and they're being -razed- , not built, all over the US. And, the church building itself has a landmark on it

[Anonymous]

Cheh doesn't seem to be addressing any of the bigger picture items that have been raised about costs and private properties vs city owned properties, about leasing vs. purchase, and about whether this really alleviates anything at all because it will still be the same services as the ones that let DC General fall into decline and the same process that has had people staying at DC General indefinitely (as opposed to it supposedly being temporary with placement within 30 days).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think in some ways it's shifting, but in other ways it's not.

I'm not following this closely, but there seems to be something shady and non transparent regarding the site selections for many of the locations. Not to mention they are hideously expensive. Heck, for the price tag they could rent each family a place in any building in DC and have better amenities!

Then, the Ward 3 site does seem problematic. That area is not well served by public transportation. It's also crowded and not great for kids - well, there is a park there, but i't's a pretty busy street.

Either the Albermarle street or Idaho seem like better choices. Though Idaho also suffers from lack of public transportation, which makes it fairly unattractive, the more I think about it. It's probably slightly better swerved than Glover park (only bus) but it's long walks or shuttles to the Metro.

Funny you're listing the pros of each site, but no cons. There are always pros and cons, and not listing cons seems disingenuous.

Just based on driving by it and nothing else, the City Church is harder ti imagine as housing for families. My impression is big concrete. No ids if there is green space, or any ability to turn into housing units.

The Idaho site is over one mile to the nearest Metro.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think in some ways it's shifting, but in other ways it's not.

I'm not following this closely, but there seems to be something shady and non transparent regarding the site selections for many of the locations. Not to mention they are hideously expensive. Heck, for the price tag they could rent each family a place in any building in DC and have better amenities!

Then, the Ward 3 site does seem problematic. That area is not well served by public transportation. It's also crowded and not great for kids - well, there is a park there, but i't's a pretty busy street.

Either the Albermarle street or Idaho seem like better choices. Though Idaho also suffers from lack of public transportation, which makes it fairly unattractive, the more I think about it. It's probably slightly better swerved than Glover park (only bus) but it's long walks or shuttles to the Metro.

Funny you're listing the pros of each site, but no cons. There are always pros and cons, and not listing cons seems disingenuous.

Just based on driving by it and nothing else, the City Church is harder ti imagine as housing for families. My impression is big concrete. No ids if there is green space, or any ability to turn into housing units.

The Idaho site is over one mile to the nearest Metro.

But it is on a bus line that goes lots of places. I'm not sure why homeless shelters need to have metro access as opposed to public transport access. It strikes me that putting a homeless shelter near a police station has a lot going for it. The other proposed sites don't seem to make a lot of sense - both lots will require immense rebuilding at a great cost to the city. Why isn't there a site proposed near Lafayette, where there is also a bus line and land is cheaper (and the school has room for the kids?)

[Anonymous]

The residents in McLean Gardens will go nuts, and the Cathedral Commons management won't be thrilled either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not trying to be an ass here, but do people think these shelters will reduce homlessness. It seems they would be filled to capacity immediately, then a new wave of homeless people would move in from elsewhere hoping to be the next in line to be helped out. Not making a political statement here, just a practical question.

The city needs more affordable housing. Housing costs are not keeping pace with folks' income and many areas where poor and working folks live are rapidly becoming more expensive. That said, folks, especially families, should be in safe places when in shelters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think in some ways it's shifting, but in other ways it's not.

I'm not following this closely, but there seems to be something shady and non transparent regarding the site selections for many of the locations. Not to mention they are hideously expensive. Heck, for the price tag they could rent each family a place in any building in DC and have better amenities!

Then, the Ward 3 site does seem problematic. That area is not well served by public transportation. It's also crowded and not great for kids - well, there is a park there, but i't's a pretty busy street.

Either the Albermarle street or Idaho seem like better choices. Though Idaho also suffers from lack of public transportation, which makes it fairly unattractive, the more I think about it. It's probably slightly better swerved than Glover park (only bus) but it's long walks or shuttles to the Metro.

Funny you're listing the pros of each site, but no cons. There are always pros and cons, and not listing cons seems disingenuous.

Just based on driving by it and nothing else, the City Church is harder ti imagine as housing for families. My impression is big concrete. No ids if there is green space, or any ability to turn into housing units.

The Idaho site is over one mile to the nearest Metro.

Yet closer than the current Ward 3 site and in closer proximity to one of the few crosstown bus lines in Ward 3. Residents would not have to switch lines to get to 14th Street/U Street, etc and beyond.