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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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...

You have the same entitlements. And if you are not receiving them where you live, you have the freedom to vote out your elected officials or move.

Alternatively, if you think poor people have it so great, I'm sure there is a family in DC General that will trade places with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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...

You have the same entitlements. And if you are not receiving them where you live, you have the freedom to vote out your elected officials or move.

Alternatively, if you think poor people have it so great, I'm sure there is a family in DC General that will trade places with you.

There - you just said it. I "have to move" but the poor and the rich don't. There's the problem. That's the entitlement we don't all have. I can't afford to live wherever I want. So why should the poor be given the right and the ability to live in a city or neighborhood that the rest of us can't afford?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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...

You have the same entitlements. And if you are not receiving them where you live, you have the freedom to vote out your elected officials or move.

Alternatively, if you think poor people have it so great, I'm sure there is a family in DC General that will trade places with you.

There - you just said it. I "have to move" but the poor and the rich don't. There's the problem. That's the entitlement we don't all have. I can't afford to live wherever I want. So why should the poor be given the right and the ability to live in a city or neighborhood that the rest of us can't afford?

If you impoverish yourself and your family or commit a violent felony, then you may get an apartment in ward 3.

[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.

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.

Can't you just picture the Sah quickly banging this out from.the back of her limousine?

[Anonymous]

https://tcf.org/assets/downloads/tcf-Schwartz.pdf

Read this. It's merely one study, but it focuses on nearby MoCo which doesn't have the issues that DC currently has thanks to inclusionary zoning mandated by law starting in the 1970s.

Because of this, the fine citizens of Bethesda didn't go bananas when low income housing and shelters were developed in their Fancypants zip code.

Oh, and by the way, the study indicates that low income/formerly homeless families thrive when housed in the nicer areas.

[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

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.

Again, you are confusing limited government, i.e., a Constitutional Republic, with an anarchistic government

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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...

You have the same entitlements. And if you are not receiving them where you live, you have the freedom to vote out your elected officials or move.

Alternatively, if you think poor people have it so great, I'm sure there is a family in DC General that will trade places with you.

So go trade places with one of these families. Give them your home, and move to DC General with your family. Then you will have the perfect life that you think these poor and homeless families have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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...

You have the same entitlements. And if you are not receiving them where you live, you have the freedom to vote out your elected officials or move.

Alternatively, if you think poor people have it so great, I'm sure there is a family in DC General that will trade places with you.

There - you just said it. I "have to move" but the poor and the rich don't. There's the problem. That's the entitlement we don't all have. I can't afford to live wherever I want. So why should the poor be given the right and the ability to live in a city or neighborhood that the rest of us can't afford?

If you impoverish yourself and your family or commit a violent felony, then you may get an apartment in ward 3.

See how much that DOESN'T make sense? Why should a felon or someone impoverished be able to get an apartment in Ward 3 at all?

[Anonymous]

The rich don't want to live near the poor. They have worked all of their lives not to be poor and it's a slap in the face to "make it" only to have your tax $$ used to pay for the poor to move in next door.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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...

You have the same entitlements. And if you are not receiving them where you live, you have the freedom to vote out your elected officials or move.

Alternatively, if you think poor people have it so great, I'm sure there is a family in DC General that will trade places with you.

There - you just said it. I "have to move" but the poor and the rich don't. There's the problem. That's the entitlement we don't all have. I can't afford to live wherever I want. So why should the poor be given the right and the ability to live in a city or neighborhood that the rest of us can't afford?

If you impoverish yourself and your family or commit a violent felony, then you may get an apartment in ward 3.

See how much that DOESN'T make sense? Why should a felon or someone impoverished be able to get an apartment in Ward 3 at all?

Ah, white guilt.

[Anonymous]

We live in Forest Hills next to Rock Creek. If you don't want to live near a homeless shelter, then don't live in a mixed use area. We chose our house to be far away from mixed use. Anyone else can do the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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...

You have the same entitlements. And if you are not receiving them where you live, you have the freedom to vote out your elected officials or move.

Alternatively, if you think poor people have it so great, I'm sure there is a family in DC General that will trade places with you.

There - you just said it. I "have to move" but the poor and the rich don't. There's the problem. That's the entitlement we don't all have. I can't afford to live wherever I want. So why should the poor be given the right and the ability to live in a city or neighborhood that the rest of us can't afford?

If you impoverish yourself and your family or commit a violent felony, then you may get an apartment in ward 3.

See how much that DOESN'T make sense? Why should a felon or someone impoverished be able to get an apartment in Ward 3 at all?

Ah, white guilt.

Maybe for some people. But I feel no such guilt. Grew up poor and had to bust my ass rather than having a nice high-demand zip code and convenient access to amenities just handed to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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...

You have the same entitlements. And if you are not receiving them where you live, you have the freedom to vote out your elected officials or move.

Alternatively, if you think poor people have it so great, I'm sure there is a family in DC General that will trade places with you.

There - you just said it. I "have to move" but the poor and the rich don't. There's the problem. That's the entitlement we don't all have. I can't afford to live wherever I want. So why should the poor be given the right and the ability to live in a city or neighborhood that the rest of us can't afford?

If you impoverish yourself and your family or commit a violent felony, then you may get an apartment in ward 3.

See how much that DOESN'T make sense? Why should a felon or someone impoverished be able to get an apartment in Ward 3 at all?

Ah, white guilt.

Why are we talking about violent felony? Homelessness is not a violent felony.

[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.

Well I'm sure that's a load of laughs, but homeless people get preyed upon a lot and safety is a big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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...

You have the same entitlements. And if you are not receiving them where you live, you have the freedom to vote out your elected officials or move.

Alternatively, if you think poor people have it so great, I'm sure there is a family in DC General that will trade places with you.

There - you just said it. I "have to move" but the poor and the rich don't. There's the problem. That's the entitlement we don't all have. I can't afford to live wherever I want. So why should the poor be given the right and the ability to live in a city or neighborhood that the rest of us can't afford?

If you impoverish yourself and your family or commit a violent felony, then you may get an apartment in ward 3.

"violent felony"? You know these are homeless families with children, right? That many of them have jobs, right? That they are being given temporary housing while they work towards a permanent place to live?

Being homeless doesn't mean someone is a violent felon. It doesn't mean they are lazy. It sure as hell does not mean they are any less of a human being then me, or you, or any of the people around us. For pete's sake, have this many of you lost this much control over your humanity and your sense of decency towards your common man?