New Ward 3 Homeless Families Shelter Site

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Giant is just a giant warehouse for spoiled fish and lots of junk food. Wish we had a Trader Joe's! Giant and it's development partners ripping off the Chanel logo is a real hoot -- like putting a Mercedes medallion on a double-wide trailer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Giant won't be too happy when homeless people start hanging out in the entrance tunnel to their store.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I've been paying property taxes for years, actually, but I don't feel as though the District government has a duty to make sure my home value increases. That was the same theory under which some people on DCUM were talking about trying to sue the city over school redistricting -- that it was an unconstitutional taking because it reduced the value of their homes to move from one DCPS zone to another. If D.C. has some legal obligation never to reduce anyone's property value, how could they ever put anything anyone objected to anywhere in the city? Or does the city only have an obligation to make sure wealthy people's home values don't decline?

[Anonymous]

Yes I think they have a responsibility to work towards people home value not declining, wealthy, middle or poor. For people to move in and put the skin in the game the city talks about, any material move that lowers existing property values should be exercised very cautiously. Same with eminent domain.

As to where DC General is currently situated, that was a known quantity when people bought. An additional shelter on Wisconsin Ave, that calls for a great deal of zoning exceptions was not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

So did you protest all of the other shelter plans? Have you been working to come up with solutions for DC General before this? Or do you only care because it's in Ward 3? Yeah...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

And how are you assisting with this chronic homeless problem (besides protesting the shelter?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

So did you protest all of the other shelter plans? Have you been working to come up with solutions for DC General before this? Or do you only care because it's in Ward 3? Yeah...

Yes, I think the 8 shelter plan is hokey. I am not just "protesting" the one planned for Ward 3. Have I been working to come up with solutions? No, I am not an elected official. However like most I thought the conditions of Dc General were unsat. And it should be renovated and the service provision reformed. Last, I also disapprove of Bowsers recent guarantee of year round shelter. Any more questions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

And how are you assisting with this chronic homeless problem (besides protesting the shelter?)

By paying taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

So did you protest all of the other shelter plans? Have you been working to come up with solutions for DC General before this? Or do you only care because it's in Ward 3? Yeah...

All this talk about how every ward will "share the burden" is bullshit. The people on Idaho Avenue near Macomb and environs are bearing basically the entire burden and getting the shaft, leaving others free to saddle up their moral high horse without having to worry about any of the impacts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes I think they have a responsibility to work towards people home value not declining, wealthy, middle or poor. For people to move in and put the skin in the game the city talks about, any material move that lowers existing property values should be exercised very cautiously. Same with eminent domain.

As to where DC General is currently situated, that was a known quantity when people bought. An additional shelter on Wisconsin Ave, that calls for a great deal of zoning exceptions was not.

That's not remotely true -- that family shelter has only been operating at D.C. General for about the last decade or so. You think everyone who owns a home there bought it since then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes I think they have a responsibility to work towards people home value not declining, wealthy, middle or poor. For people to move in and put the skin in the game the city talks about, any material move that lowers existing property values should be exercised very cautiously. Same with eminent domain.

As to where DC General is currently situated, that was a known quantity when people bought. An additional shelter on Wisconsin Ave, that calls for a great deal of zoning exceptions was not.

That's not remotely true -- that family shelter has only been operating at D.C. General for about the last decade or so. You think everyone who owns a home there bought it since then?

Before that it was a massive hospital and emergency room. People have had notice that it's a city services property. That should not be a surprise to any property owner. Sorry if you didn't know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

So did you protest all of the other shelter plans? Have you been working to come up with solutions for DC General before this? Or do you only care because it's in Ward 3? Yeah...

All this talk about how every ward will "share the burden" is bullshit. The people on Idaho Avenue near Macomb and environs are bearing basically the entire burden and getting the shaft, leaving others free to saddle up their moral high horse without having to worry about any of the impacts.

True. The burden, in fact, is being carried by one neighborhood and one elementary school in Ward 3. The only thing being widely 'shared' in Ward 3 is moral posturing.

[Anonymous]

Totally. Led by Mary Cheh who I'm guessing planted it far from her house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Totally. Led by Mary Cheh who I'm guessing planted it far from her house.

There's an idea. Let's eminent domain her property and put it there. Since she enjoys making declarations for everyone else without any process or consideration.

[Anonymous]

Relax people. Property values will be just fine. People will still want to buy in Cleveland Park. You are not being overrun by the Poors.
The only difference is that you just can't feel all uppity about Tenley Town now.