New Ward 3 Homeless Families Shelter Site

[Anonymous]

Lost in the whole shelter-in-every ward plan is that Bowser's supposed "moral imperative" to close D.C. General is more like a crony imperative. Well-connected developers covet getting the site at a very nice price.

[Anonymous]

F dc general is so covetable we should hang on to it. There are so many clearly mentally ill homeless camped out in bushes, bus stops, metro entrances. Why not soup DC General up for truly specialized lng term care? Through in books computer stations newspapers and coffee .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lost in the whole shelter-in-every ward plan is that Bowser's supposed "moral imperative" to close D.C. General is more like a crony imperative. Well-connected developers covet getting the site at a very nice price.

This is definitely much of the mayors motive behind her shelter dispersal plan

[Anonymous]

Its a travesty.

[Anonymous]

I just that book "Not in my Neighborhood". Anyone else?

[Anonymous]

The only good reason I would ever live in DC is so we could grow our own pot. Otherwise it's a cesspool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just that book "Not in my Neighborhood". Anyone else?

Why should shelters be in peoples neighborhoods if there is a perfectly good spot that could be remodeled and run efficiently, with buses to school and work. The goal is this living arrangement is temporary. When families are stabilized then they will have the means to choose a neighborhood, especially if the District focuses resources on low income and mixed income housing and not this nonsense. Have you seen their expose of how they are administering subsidized housing vouchers? Thats a good indicator of how they will contract out these neighborhood shelters. Expect these shiny new facilities to be in ruins in a few years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are they naming it the "Mary Cheh Center for Devaluing Your Constituents' Property"? What an awful, awful representative she has been. Ward 3 basically pays for the city and in response, it gets a shelter filled with dangerous and unproductive people who have still more dangerous and unproductive friends and family.

I am guessing that is a tad anachronistic. Between downtown commercial property, the large scale new development EOTP, and, BTW, in Ward 6 (where DC General is located) I think W3 may no longer "pay for the City"

And it really sounds like you think shelters belong in places that are already challenged. Not sure why that is a good idea.

Or since you think they are filled with "dangerous and unproductive people" perhaps you don't want any shelters at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just that book "Not in my Neighborhood". Anyone else?

Why should shelters be in peoples neighborhoods if there is a perfectly good spot that could be remodeled and run efficiently, with buses to school and work. The goal is this living arrangement is temporary. When families are stabilized then they will have the means to choose a neighborhood, especially if the District focuses resources on low income and mixed income housing and not this nonsense. Have you seen their expose of how they are administering subsidized housing vouchers? Thats a good indicator of how they will contract out these neighborhood shelters. Expect these shiny new facilities to be in ruins in a few years.

Are you somehow thinking that DC General is not in anyone's neighborhood?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just that book "Not in my Neighborhood". Anyone else?

Why should shelters be in peoples neighborhoods if there is a perfectly good spot that could be remodeled and run efficiently, with buses to school and work. The goal is this living arrangement is temporary. When families are stabilized then they will have the means to choose a neighborhood, especially if the District focuses resources on low income and mixed income housing and not this nonsense. Have you seen their expose of how they are administering subsidized housing vouchers? Thats a good indicator of how they will contract out these neighborhood shelters. Expect these shiny new facilities to be in ruins in a few years.

Are you somehow thinking that DC General is not in anyone's neighborhood?

They meant its not in a white neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Wow, I can't believe this thread is still going on and some of the crazy and wrong things being said. We live close to the site in Cleveland Park and my husband is involved in supporting the construction of the shelter. WIN is a charitable organization and most of my husband's dealings with them have been through clergy in the local area. This issue is very similar to the craziness that happened around the Giant development. The NIMBYs complained for years that all kinds of bad things would happen and instead the area has improved substantially as a result of the Giant development.

The shelter needs to go somewhere and it is pure fairness that Ward 3 have at least one shelter for goodness sake. The land is already public land adjacent to the police station. It is just off of Wisconsin Avenue in an area that has tall, medium and low buildings. The area is lovely (I live there remember) and is one of the most stable and expensive areas of DC. The addition of one building with poor people in it is not going to change that (especially given that it is literally going to be next door to the police station for goodness sakes). Once this shelter is built, we probably will not even know the difference between it and another apartment building (except perhaps for the racial and age makeup of the people who come and go and I'm sure no one would admit to that being an issue for them).

Finally, for those who keep harping on the "process" I say two things. First, the reason that the decisions on sites were made as they were is because the Council knew that any area in Ward 3 would be plagued by opposition so if they had kept multiple sites in play they would just create a war over which site was best and never get anything done. Second, the process about how to proceed is being subjected to lots of process now. Of course, the NIMBYs cannot be satisfied. They identified parking as a major complaint for months. So the city finally came back and said that it would expand the parking garage to meet the community concern over parking. You guessed it--now the opponents think the parking structure is too big. At least I respect the people who say honestly that they just don't want those people in the neighborhood or worry about property values. The opponents who make up reasons (like parking) are the worst. Fortunately there are lots of neighbors who do support the shelter and I think it will make it through the process at last.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just that book "Not in my Neighborhood". Anyone else?

Why should shelters be in peoples neighborhoods if there is a perfectly good spot that could be remodeled and run efficiently, with buses to school and work. The goal is this living arrangement is temporary. When families are stabilized then they will have the means to choose a neighborhood, especially if the District focuses resources on low income and mixed income housing and not this nonsense. Have you seen their expose of how they are administering subsidized housing vouchers? Thats a good indicator of how they will contract out these neighborhood shelters. Expect these shiny new facilities to be in ruins in a few years.

Are you somehow thinking that DC General is not in anyone's neighborhood?

They meant its not in a white neighborhood.

Well then not only are they racist, but they haven't been to Hill East lately.

[Anonymous]

http://wamu.org/story/17/03/02/advocates-critics-d-c-s-planned-new-homeless-shelters-go-head-head-zoning-marathon/

Recap of yesterday's zoning board meeting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just that book "Not in my Neighborhood". Anyone else?

Why should shelters be in peoples neighborhoods if there is a perfectly good spot that could be remodeled and run efficiently, with buses to school and work. The goal is this living arrangement is temporary. When families are stabilized then they will have the means to choose a neighborhood, especially if the District focuses resources on low income and mixed income housing and not this nonsense. Have you seen their expose of how they are administering subsidized housing vouchers? Thats a good indicator of how they will contract out these neighborhood shelters. Expect these shiny new facilities to be in ruins in a few years.

Are you somehow thinking that DC General is not in anyone's neighborhood?

Curious... has there not been a large scale human services facility there for a long, long time? Is it a surprise to the neighbors? Is it an incredibly valuable property the city already owns? Could it be remodeled and run efficiently?
Here is the oversight DC is providing to its subsidized section 8 voucher program. Title of current series in Post " Tax dollars keep flowing to landlord DC is suing over housing conditions". There is a FAR better chance that DC General could be remodeled and run properly than that 8 separate shelters that will be bursting at capactity will receive proper "contracted out" administration and oversight. You're dreaming.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/tax-dollars-keep-flowing-to-landlord-dc-is-suing-over-housing-conditions/2017/02/26/541bb0b2-b8af-11e6-959c-172c82123976_story.html?utm_term=.fa2cd02c7776

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, I can't believe this thread is still going on and some of the crazy and wrong things being said. We live close to the site in Cleveland Park and my husband is involved in supporting the construction of the shelter. WIN is a charitable organization and most of my husband's dealings with them have been through clergy in the local area. This issue is very similar to the craziness that happened around the Giant development. The NIMBYs complained for years that all kinds of bad things would happen and instead the area has improved substantially as a result of the Giant development.

The shelter needs to go somewhere and it is pure fairness that Ward 3 have at least one shelter for goodness sake. The land is already public land adjacent to the police station. It is just off of Wisconsin Avenue in an area that has tall, medium and low buildings. The area is lovely (I live there remember) and is one of the most stable and expensive areas of DC. The addition of one building with poor people in it is not going to change that (especially given that it is literally going to be next door to the police station for goodness sakes). Once this shelter is built, we probably will not even know the difference between it and another apartment building (except perhaps for the racial and age makeup of the people who come and go and I'm sure no one would admit to that being an issue for them).

Finally, for those who keep harping on the "process" I say two things. First, the reason that the decisions on sites were made as they were is because the Council knew that any area in Ward 3 would be plagued by opposition so if they had kept multiple sites in play they would just create a war over which site was best and never get anything done. Second, the process about how to proceed is being subjected to lots of process now. Of course, the NIMBYs cannot be satisfied. They identified parking as a major complaint for months. So the city finally came back and said that it would expand the parking garage to meet the community concern over parking. You guessed it--now the opponents think the parking structure is too big. At least I respect the people who say honestly that they just don't want those people in the neighborhood or worry about property values. The opponents who make up reasons (like parking) are the worst. Fortunately there are lots of neighbors who do support the shelter and I think it will make it through the process at last.

There are two reasons why this is laughably bad public policy.

At the macro level, for the mayor/council to say "we're going to forge ahead without getting public input simply to avoid the push-back" sets an awful precedent because now they're going to think they can do that for any old reason (cough cough Lab School cough cough). At some point in the future, the Council is going to unilaterally push through something that the shelter supporters think is awful and they're going to howl, unironically. I will bet my life savings on that. Can't wait for it to happen, actually.

At the micro level, the real reason Bowser submitted her initial plan without consulting anyone was to hide the fact that the true beneficiaries of the plan were to be the developers who also happened to be her big-time campaign donors. It blew up in her face once WaPo caught wind of that, and now implementation of her plan will be delayed for years because she tried to be shady and got caught.