New Ward 3 Homeless Families Shelter Site

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Not np, but I don't think, I know how unproductive people are in these shelters. Drive past the little gem of a townhouse (which I walk by on the daily going to the Metro for WORK) on Wisconsin in Tenleytown that is a "shelter." Ten to twelve capable adults smoking and swearing on the front porch and lawn, throughout the day. GET A DAMN JOB, why aren't these people working? If they are mentally ill they don't belong on the "loose" in anyone's neighborhood. They need a FULL TIME job, just like I and and my husband have, so stop with your trying to shove a shelter down people's throats because the happen to live in a different neighborhood then yours. If you don't like your neighborhood, work harder and move! Leave my hard work alone, please. And posters, this is what you got when you voted for Bowser, she was always this kind of person, corrupt, you should have voted more wisely. At least then you could have been part of the process.

[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.

Family employed by Bowser? I would say so.

[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.

This process was not fair and open, sweety, that's not how this should have been done. When a life changing and property value changing event is going to happen in a neighborhood the dictator in chief does not get to waive her magic wand and get what she wants. There should have been more transparency and this alone will cost her any re election. I have an idea, let's put the shelter in yours and her backyard. They can have family dinners with you.

[Anonymous]

I am the PP you quoted above. No need for the snide comments. First, to be clear my husband and I have no relationship whatsoever to Bowser or developers or anything like that. Just regular Cleveland Park residents, thanks. And we live pretty darn close to the shelter, so although not one of the houses right next door very close. To say that this is a "life changing" event for any homeowner in CP is ludicrous and just another of the parade of horribles that we hear about every time something is potentially going to happen in CP. Anywhere that the shelter is put will be less than ideal for the people who live next door (although I would point out that they already chose to live next to the police station and across from the Giant, so they obviously were not valuing a quiet residential location over other factors). No matter where the shelter is in Ward 3, there is someone who will make these arguments so I don't see why using a piece of land the city already owns is such a bad idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This process was not fair and open, sweety, that's not how this should have been done. When a life changing and property value changing event is going to happen in a neighborhood the dictator in chief does not get to waive her magic wand and get what she wants. There should have been more transparency and this alone will cost her any re election. I have an idea, let's put the shelter in yours and her backyard. They can have family dinners with you.

How is having a family homeless shelter in your neighborhood "life changing" for you? (Also, it's not the city government's responsibility to care about your property values.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This process was not fair and open, sweety, that's not how this should have been done. When a life changing and property value changing event is going to happen in a neighborhood the dictator in chief does not get to waive her magic wand and get what she wants. There should have been more transparency and this alone will cost her any re election. I have an idea, let's put the shelter in yours and her backyard. They can have family dinners with you.

How is having a family homeless shelter in your neighborhood "life changing" for you? (Also, it's not the city government's responsibility to care about your property values.)

Why not? Don't they get taxes based on property value? Haven't they made a ton in the DC Renaissance and new families moving in--money which can be spent one way or other on homeless? I am guessing you have never paid a property tax?

[Anonymous]

And to add on to the people who don't want DC General/central homeless shelter in their backyard and think the 'burden should be shared'--I'm guessing they got a better deal on their homes when they bought precisely because it was? This is an existing site/facility that could be renovated and rethought and make a big impact on the city's homes services. If we then need more sites, it could be addressed thoughtfully.

[Anonymous]

This thread has been "life changing" for me. I always knew the people of ward 3 were heartless and racist. But to see it in type- wow.

And so you know, I have two shelters and a 1/2 way house walking distance from me. Get over it. It's city living.

[Anonymous]

Live in Ward 3, multi racial family, work service for otherstype jobs. We oppose the 8 shelter plan. Literally have zero idea what you're talking about pp.

[Anonymous]

And by the way we also have several homeless shelters or service centers in walking distance from our home and chronic homeless camped out in the bus shelters metro entrance and libraries in our neighborhood. You are allowed to disagree with nee policy proposals PP without being "heartless and racist"- but if you are comforted by thinking you have confirmed your preexisting prejudices so be it.

[Anonymous]

I love the fact that the shelter will be across the street from the Ginormous Giant and the Cathedral Commons with its treacly upscale pretentiousness. "The Homeless Shelter at Cathedral Commons." LOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love the fact that the shelter will be across the street from the Ginormous Giant and the Cathedral Commons with its treacly upscale pretentiousness. "The Homeless Shelter at Cathedral Commons." LOL.

They did a nice job with it. Mixed apartments and shops and a couple of excellent restaurants. There is one nail salon that seems to be struggling a little. I'd like to see it succeed as I'm guessing some life savings have gone into it.
Why do you feel a shelter is some sort of poetic justice? Do you think the Commons somehow hurt the poor? It seems to provide plenty of employment as well as an entrance for 2-3 street sense people to do their thing. I don't get the treacly upscale pretentiousness. Seems much like any other shopping/living development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the fact that the shelter will be across the street from the Ginormous Giant and the Cathedral Commons with its treacly upscale pretentiousness. "The Homeless Shelter at Cathedral Commons." LOL.

They did a nice job with it. Mixed apartments and shops and a couple of excellent restaurants. There is one nail salon that seems to be struggling a little. I'd like to see it succeed as I'm guessing some life savings have gone into it.
Why do you feel a shelter is some sort of poetic justice? Do you think the Commons somehow hurt the poor? It seems to provide plenty of employment as well as an entrance for 2-3 street sense people to do their thing. I don't get the treacly upscale pretentiousness. Seems much like any other shopping/living development.

Treacly upscale pretentiousness indeed. Listen to the marketing video:

https://vimeo.com/13018930

Using the Chanel brand logo for Cathedral Commons was laughably tacky. Wonder if they'll update the video for the Homelss Shelter at Cathedral Commons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the fact that the shelter will be across the street from the Ginormous Giant and the Cathedral Commons with its treacly upscale pretentiousness. "The Homeless Shelter at Cathedral Commons." LOL.

They did a nice job with it. Mixed apartments and shops and a couple of excellent restaurants. There is one nail salon that seems to be struggling a little. I'd like to see it succeed as I'm guessing some life savings have gone into it.
Why do you feel a shelter is some sort of poetic justice? Do you think the Commons somehow hurt the poor? It seems to provide plenty of employment as well as an entrance for 2-3 street sense people to do their thing. I don't get the treacly upscale pretentiousness. Seems much like any other shopping/living development.

Treacly upscale pretentiousness indeed. Listen to the marketing video:

https://vimeo.com/13018930

Using the Chanel brand logo for Cathedral Commons was laughably tacky. Wonder if they'll update the video for the Homelss Shelter at Cathedral Commons.

Love the plug for giant, it brings families together, WTF is this crap hahahahaha

[Anonymous]

You all have nothing better to do? Its marketing. Cathedral commons is really pleasant.