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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I would, if it resulted in a better public policy outcome. We can't sit by and let Bowser & Co. turn DC into some form of high-tax Zimbabwe, where government doles out benefits and assets to crony courtiers, democracy and transparency be damned.

[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.

That's what I don't get either. Why a homeless person is somehow "more entitled" to being a block from a metro station, park and grocery store than say a GS-9 whose job is in DC but who can't afford a place anywhere near those kinds of amenities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The DC General site is planned to be one of the core elements of the Hill East neighborhood, a vibrant, upscale, mixed-use community that DC wants to develop.

But first they get rid of the homeless. Those developer friends of Bowsers' clearly don't want them around either.

[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.

There are very real cultural reasons why poverty is multigenerational. Many homeless people grew up in broken, dysfunctional homes. They don't know what "normal" is. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs - the things we consider essential for independence and self-sufficiency aren't even on their radar. Many of them need serious interventions and life coaching to break the cycles and to get the kick in the ass to get their lives together.

[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!

Oh, puh-leeze. Government has been having to step in and balance the needs of the few versus the needs of the many for as long as America (as we know it) has existed. Even the Iroquois and other tribes had agreed-upon systems in place to keep order in settlements. Even the Massachussetts Bay Colony in the 1620s had to set up early forms of zoning to balance individual "free market" wants and desires versus the needs of the community, otherwise you would have the neighbor's pigs and livestock tearing up your garden. This "good lord, the government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in a free market" Libertarian bullshit is just that - Bullshit. There has never, EVER been even one successful example of your purist Libertarian model to ever succeed in society, despite 6,000 years of modern recorded history.

[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!

Oh, puh-leeze. Government has been having to step in and balance the needs of the few versus the needs of the many for as long as America (as we know it) has existed. Even the Iroquois and other tribes had agreed-upon systems in place to keep order in settlements. Even the Massachussetts Bay Colony in the 1620s had to set up early forms of zoning to balance individual "free market" wants and desires versus the needs of the community, otherwise you would have the neighbor's pigs and livestock tearing up your garden. This "good lord, the government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in a free market" Libertarian bullshit is just that - Bullshit. There has never, EVER been even one successful example of your purist Libertarian model to ever succeed in society, despite 6,000 years of modern recorded history.

On a MUCH more limited basis. You are confusing anarchistic governments with limited governments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There are very real cultural reasons why poverty is multigenerational. Many homeless people grew up in broken, dysfunctional homes. They don't know what "normal" is. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs - the things we consider essential for independence and self-sufficiency aren't even on their radar. Many of them need serious interventions and life coaching to break the cycles and to get the kick in the ass to get their lives together.

Yes there are cultural reasons for multi-generational poverty - pp identified some, eg, indolence, poor decision making. None of the people in Ward 3 cause the people in wards 7 and 8 to make the atrocious decisions that they do on a daily basis. Yet Ward 3, which already pays the most to clean up the mess made by the people in wards 7 and 8 now is forced to house these people too? I guess no good deed goes unpunished.

[Anonymous]

My favorite was the hearings on the bill where homeless testified how they would prefer to be in ward 3 bc of the amenities and safety. They stopped just short of asking for the granite counters, stainless steel appliances and open kitchen concept.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There are very real cultural reasons why poverty is multigenerational. Many homeless people grew up in broken, dysfunctional homes. They don't know what "normal" is. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs - the things we consider essential for independence and self-sufficiency aren't even on their radar. Many of them need serious interventions and life coaching to break the cycles and to get the kick in the ass to get their lives together.

Yes there are cultural reasons for multi-generational poverty - pp identified some, eg, indolence, poor decision making. None of the people in Ward 3 cause the people in wards 7 and 8 to make the atrocious decisions that they do on a daily basis. Yet Ward 3, which already pays the most to clean up the mess made by the people in wards 7 and 8 now is forced to house these people too? I guess no good deed goes unpunished.

Oh God, the sanctimony that someone can derive just from paying taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My favorite was the hearings on the bill where homeless testified how they would prefer to be in ward 3 bc of the amenities and safety. They stopped just short of asking for the granite counters, stainless steel appliances and open kitchen concept.

Please. You sound vile. Poor people are entitled to safety, transit, and a placet O buy groceries and toiletries just like rich people. Surely you can distinguish between those needs and granite counters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

In earlier threads it was posited that these are not nice apartments. These are essentially dorm rooms, which is how they were getting around the zoning laws on the the Ward 3 shelter first proposed (although the developer was to be promised an upzoning to multi-family when the 20 or 30 year lease ran out).

It was said these rooms would have no kitchen facilities, which would be communal, and hallway bathrooms with one bathtub per 40 people in a shelter supposedly full of mothers and their young children.

Is this still the plan? If so, I don't know how you defeat it on zoning grounds if the shelters are able to take advantage of the zoning exception for dorm rooms and boarding houses.

Remaining very confused about this plan.

These sound kind of horrible. And very expensive for kind of horrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My favorite was the hearings on the bill where homeless testified how they would prefer to be in ward 3 bc of the amenities and safety. They stopped just short of asking for the granite counters, stainless steel appliances and open kitchen concept.

Please. You sound vile. Poor people are entitled to safety, transit, and a placet O buy groceries and toiletries just like rich people. Surely you can distinguish between those needs and granite counters.

i can't stand how vile these people are. it's making me really bummed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My favorite was the hearings on the bill where homeless testified how they would prefer to be in ward 3 bc of the amenities and safety. They stopped just short of asking for the granite counters, stainless steel appliances and open kitchen concept.

Please. You sound vile. Poor people are entitled to safety, transit, and a placet O buy groceries and toiletries just like rich people. Surely you can distinguish between those needs and granite counters.

So the poor and the rich are entitled to safety and amenities but those of us in between are shit out of luck...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

In earlier threads it was posited that these are not nice apartments. These are essentially dorm rooms, which is how they were getting around the zoning laws on the the Ward 3 shelter first proposed (although the developer was to be promised an upzoning to multi-family when the 20 or 30 year lease ran out).

It was said these rooms would have no kitchen facilities, which would be communal, and hallway bathrooms with one bathtub per 40 people in a shelter supposedly full of mothers and their young children.

Is this still the plan? If so, I don't know how you defeat it on zoning grounds if the shelters are able to take advantage of the zoning exception for dorm rooms and boarding houses.

Remaining very confused about this plan.

These sound kind of horrible. And very expensive for kind of horrible.

Yep, those logistics still haven't been addressed. Not only was it dorm style units with communal kitchens and baths but at the original price tag and 30 year lease terms that Bowser threw at us, one could have bought every single homeless family a $650,000 townhouse. I'm not kidding. Literally THAT expensive.

[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

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!

Oh, puh-leeze. Government has been having to step in and balance the needs of the few versus the needs of the many for as long as America (as we know it) has existed. Even the Iroquois and other tribes had agreed-upon systems in place to keep order in settlements. Even the Massachussetts Bay Colony in the 1620s had to set up early forms of zoning to balance individual "free market" wants and desires versus the needs of the community, otherwise you would have the neighbor's pigs and livestock tearing up your garden. This "good lord, the government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in a free market" Libertarian bullshit is just that - Bullshit. There has never, EVER been even one successful example of your purist Libertarian model to ever succeed in society, despite 6,000 years of modern recorded history.

On a MUCH more limited basis. You are confusing anarchistic governments with limited governments.

Again, there has never ever been a single example of a country running successfully on a libertarian model in all of the 6,000 years of recorded human history. It's pure fantasy. It relies on trusting that everyone will behave and that nobody will trample on the next guy's liberties. The reality is that this quickly degenerates into the wild west and government is too weak and ineffectual to do anything. Basically libertarianism gets you Somalia. End of story.