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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Bump. Read this, haters.

Meh.

For one iit's mainly about low income families in subsidized public housing, as opposed to homeless.
Study says kids do best in areas where there's <20% FARMS. That rules out most of DC. Several other premises that don't quite work or apply for DC...

And let's not forget about the notorious and disturbing lack of consistency and reproducibility that is endemic to these types of social sciences studies in academia...

Kids will be there 120 days. How do any of these statistics apply? Yes, it would apply to long term housing. Is that what this is? A new apartment block off Wisc?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey, I wanna build a big toxic factory in your neighborhood. We gonna bang and clank and spew toxic ash and gases into the air and pollute your water.

Since it's new and different, it's diversity and that's good, right?

Again, what about diversity is beneficial? Diversity in and of itself isn't beneficial. Having the Crips move into your neighborhood to start selling drugs brings ethnic diversity but isn't beneficial. Then having some MS-13 bangers move in to start a turf war with the Crips brings even more ethnic diversity. But that isn't beneficial either.

Mere fact of diversity isn't beneficial. Again, what specifically about having homeless people is beneficial? That there will now be black people in my Ward 6 neighborhood? Sorry, I already live in a 70% black neighborhood. Black? So what. Try again. That there will be poor people in my neighborhood? I already have Greenleaf Gardens and other DCHA public housing full of poor people in my neighborhood. Sorry, try again. That I will see homeless people regardless of race in my neighborhood? Sorry, I already see plenty of homeless people, panhandlers et cetera every day. And, by the way, before you write me off as some callous and heartless bastard I give a good bit of money to the food bank and other charities for the homeless. I've also volunteered hours at food kitchens, donated supplies and have done a lot of other things for the homeless. Yeah, I agree we need to look after the homeless, and I certainly do my part - and having lived in far more diverse places than most people, don't presume to blow some smoke up my ass about "diversity" and how I "benefit" from having "diversity" and in particular how it's somehow beneficial to have even more concentrated poverty nearby than we already currently do.

Oh my God, you are so profoundly stupid.

What an enlightened answer! PP Is 100% correct and it's clear since this is all you could respond. You're either still in your teens or twenties, or have simply never matured.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ PP managed to call someone "profoundly stupid" but then the answer to the totally wrong question is given.

Mastery of the obvious about how the poor are being helped. Mastery of the obvious about how some people live sheltered lives could stand from different perspectives.

Now how about telling us something we didn't already know?

How about answering the question that was actually asked?

I did tell you but you pretend not to understand. Diversity makes us all stronger and promotes different views. We are stronger when we take into account t all races and nationalities. Some CP residents will be exposed to different ways of thinking and acting and communicating. And that we all have different points of view and that there is right way and wrong way to approach a situation. I think many CP residents are looking forward to divergent views. If you would have listened to Cheh talk about this at the hearing, you wouldn't be so upset. I

Let me guess - you just finished your 'world studies in homeless' class at the local college and need to spew theory rather than experience reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Bump. Read this, haters.

Meh.

For one iit's mainly about low income families in subsidized public housing, as opposed to homeless.
Study says kids do best in areas where there's <20% FARMS. That rules out most of DC. Several other premises that don't quite work or apply for DC...

And let's not forget about the notorious and disturbing lack of consistency and reproducibility that is endemic to these types of social sciences studies in academia...

Um, they were formerly homeless families...that's how you get subsidized housing.

No, you can qualify for subsidized housing based on income without ever having been homeless.

It's not that easy. Technically you can, but the reality is that they prioritize certain groups. Not to mention the list.

This just goes to show you that people are fearful of the stereotype of homeless people. For whatever reason the pp feels more comfortable with low income families...and doesn't realize that they are the same: the family was homeless prior to being placed in that housing, and now they are just a low income family in subsidized housing. Same people, pp. Same people.

Iced income housing and subsidized housing are different. I personally would not want to be a section 8 landlord in DC or live next to a block or section 8 apartment. Why? Because of the responsibility required (little) and the visitors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But you will at CP and that's the point I'm focusing on. A lot of people - not just residents, but their families- are going to have access to things they have not had before which will help them develop and improve society. I'm not saying there will not be some rough patches but we are strongest when our communities are diverse and reflect everyone's values.

Actually, you have no idea if that will happen. It's simply hope. So what are you going to do if these people don't develop and improve? What services on premise does DC plan to provide to make sure that residents - in and around the shelter - aren't affected negatively? Those rough patches you speak of? What if those 'rough patches' means the death of a child? The death of a resident? Theft? Assault? Sexual assault? Are those 'prices we must pay for diversity'?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Bump. Read this, haters.

Meh.

For one iit's mainly about low income families in subsidized public housing, as opposed to homeless.
Study says kids do best in areas where there's <20% FARMS. That rules out most of DC. Several other premises that don't quite work or apply for DC...

And let's not forget about the notorious and disturbing lack of consistency and reproducibility that is endemic to these types of social sciences studies in academia...

Um, they were formerly homeless families...that's how you get subsidized housing.

No, you can qualify for subsidized housing based on income without ever having been homeless.

It's not that easy. Technically you can, but the reality is that they prioritize certain groups. Not to mention the list.

This just goes to show you that people are fearful of the stereotype of homeless people. For whatever reason the pp feels more comfortable with low income families...and doesn't realize that they are the same: the family was homeless prior to being placed in that housing, and now they are just a low income family in subsidized housing. Same people, pp. Same people.

Iced income housing and subsidized housing are different. I personally would not want to be a section 8 landlord in DC or live next to a block or section 8 apartment. Why? Because of the responsibility required (little) and the visitors.

Along with it being extremely difficult to evict even the worst tenants.

[Anonymous]

* As to "stereotypes of the homeless" a significant percentage of homelessness stems from mental illness, substance abuse and other substantive and difficult to surmount dysfunctionalities which are also associated with substantially increased risk of violence and crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:* As to "stereotypes of the homeless" a significant percentage of homelessness stems from mental illness, substance abuse and other substantive and difficult to surmount dysfunctionalities which are also associated with substantially increased risk of violence and crime.

That's a subset of chronically homeless street people. Not the temporary family shelter people we are talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Bump. Read this, haters.

Meh.

For one iit's mainly about low income families in subsidized public housing, as opposed to homeless.
Study says kids do best in areas where there's <20% FARMS. That rules out most of DC. Several other premises that don't quite work or apply for DC...

And let's not forget about the notorious and disturbing lack of consistency and reproducibility that is endemic to these types of social sciences studies in academia...

Kids will be there 120 days. How do any of these statistics apply? Yes, it would apply to long term housing. Is that what this is? A new apartment block off Wisc?

Guess what? They kids can opt to stay in the nice school even after they leave the shelter after 120. It's their legal right.

Google NAEHCY to learn about the education rights of homeless children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Bump. Read this, haters.

Meh.

For one iit's mainly about low income families in subsidized public housing, as opposed to homeless.
Study says kids do best in areas where there's <20% FARMS. That rules out most of DC. Several other premises that don't quite work or apply for DC...

And let's not forget about the notorious and disturbing lack of consistency and reproducibility that is endemic to these types of social sciences studies in academia...

Kids will be there 120 days. How do any of these statistics apply? Yes, it would apply to long term housing. Is that what this is? A new apartment block off Wisc?

Guess what? They kids can opt to stay in the nice school even after they leave the shelter after 120. It's their legal right.

Google NAEHCY to learn about the education rights of homeless children.

Not if they end up in permanent housing elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:* As to "stereotypes of the homeless" a significant percentage of homelessness stems from mental illness, substance abuse and other substantive and difficult to surmount dysfunctionalities which are also associated with substantially increased risk of violence and crime.

That's a subset of chronically homeless street people. Not the temporary family shelter people we are talking about.

I'll note that none of the proposals, and none of the plan's supporters have ever provided data or answered the question about how many of the temporary family shelter people have actually been able to get back on their feet or placed in better housing within the 120 days that the proposal touts. The DC General experience is the one that should be informing this. That data should actually exist. So why aren't they sharing it? Perhaps because it's not 120 days but longer/indefinite?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Bump. Read this, haters.

Meh.

For one iit's mainly about low income families in subsidized public housing, as opposed to homeless.
Study says kids do best in areas where there's <20% FARMS. That rules out most of DC. Several other premises that don't quite work or apply for DC...

And let's not forget about the notorious and disturbing lack of consistency and reproducibility that is endemic to these types of social sciences studies in academia...

Kids will be there 120 days. How do any of these statistics apply? Yes, it would apply to long term housing. Is that what this is? A new apartment block off Wisc?

Guess what? They kids can opt to stay in the nice school even after they leave the shelter after 120. It's their legal right.

Google NAEHCY to learn about the education rights of homeless children.

Not if they end up in permanent housing elsewhere.

And again, there isn't that much affordable permanent housing stock in DC, and certainly not many schools with <20% FARMS in DC. They would be far better off being relocated to other locations that can better meet their needs for schools, jobs, and affordable cost of living than staying in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are myriad reasons a family with children might become homeless other than bad decisionmaking. The fact is that there is a severe affordable housing crisis in DC and until solutions to this are found, and a significant number of transitional housing units constructed, the City will need to find solutions other than DC General and remotely-located hotels. The fact a few privileged families living in NW are pissed off and irrationally fearful isn't a reason to derail an otherwise rational approach. It is fair to question whether the size of the facility is in accordance with best practices and hold feet to the fire in terms of accountability when it comes to.maintaining and operating the shelter but let's not pretend this motivated is anything other than good old fashioned NIMBYism.

So the people paying have no say?

What you call "irrational fear" is what others call "decades of experience living in DC and seeing how the DC government is willing to screw up pretty much anything for temporary political gain."

[Anonymous]

I would never let a job that pays me so little that I can't afford rent to hold me down. Can't be all that good of a job if that's the case. And what good are friends and family if they let you end up homeless on the street? I would do whatever it takes to get the hell out of that situation, without a thought.

To summarize this thread --- "Let them eat cake!"

You think that everyone has the same opportunities that you did?
if everyone had a good paying job, who would work at CVS, at Target, at the gas station, at your local day care center?

[Anonymous]

Can someone contact Cheh and tell her that while she may be struggling with being white, her constituents have no such guilt but instead are struggling with real problems, eg, the impact on the safety of the community caused by this idiotic shelter plan.Cheh should give her house to the homeless if that will help her to sleep. She has no business opening up everyone else's houses to the homeless.