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

[Anonymous]

Not surprisingly, Cheh's kids are grown and so will not feel the impact of her mother's existential guilt.

[Anonymous]

The poor are like the tar baby in uncle Remus' Brer Rabbit story. The more you struggle to get away from them and their "poor" habits, the more you get entangled and can't get away. Now we must host to them in our communities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

My god, you are stupid.

[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...

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.

????

Um, Greyhound Therapy isn't an option.

DC residents---even those experiencing homelessness and struggling to secure employment, child care and housing---should not be relocated elsewhere...particularly since they are a product of the city's schools, child welfare and juvenile justice systems, etc.

[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.

Wrong, pp. The law says they can remain in that school for the rest of the school year.

[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.

So how would their parents get them there? Once they move from the shelter probably not into $3,000 Cathedral Commons apts. The city would pay fr a school bus? Doesn't mom or dad need to get to work or school, not spend valuable hours shuttling kids to a far off school location. Or after 120 days they suddenly have support, a car, flex job etc?

[Anonymous]

No, if they get a permanent address in another school boundary, they are just like any other kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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...

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.

????

Um, Greyhound Therapy isn't an option.

DC residents---even those experiencing homelessness and struggling to secure employment, child care and housing---should not be relocated elsewhere...particularly since they are a product of the city's schools, child welfare and juvenile justice systems, etc.

Being a product of DC's broken system is a big part of why DC has ongoing multigenerational poverty. The cycles need to be broken. As long as those kids are still surrounded by 80-90% FARMS, poor achievement levels in literacy, math, etc and high dropout rates as is the case with most DCPS schools not much will ever change for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Let them eat cake? Opportunities? Woah. No. Sorry. Totally off base.

I was working 2 and 3 jobs, painting houses, restaurant kitchen help, framing, roofing and construction, garage, landscaping, you name it, while living out of my car, living on couches, in a tent, whatever. Worked my ass off to get out of poverty and financially stable. Eventually paid for college too. What "opportunities?" Nobody handed me anything. Sitting around being a victim and expecting everyone else to bail you out doesn't cut it in my book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The poor are like the tar baby in uncle Remus' Brer Rabbit story. The more you struggle to get away from them and their "poor" habits, the more you get entangled and can't get away. Now we must host to them in our communities.

Are you that kid who got expelled from Bullis for your racism? You should be doing something more productive with your time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Let them eat cake? Opportunities? Woah. No. Sorry. Totally off base.

I was working 2 and 3 jobs, painting houses, restaurant kitchen help, framing, roofing and construction, garage, landscaping, you name it, while living out of my car, living on couches, in a tent, whatever. Worked my ass off to get out of poverty and financially stable. Eventually paid for college too. What "opportunities?" Nobody handed me anything. Sitting around being a victim and expecting everyone else to bail you out doesn't cut it in my book.

Wow, you make it sound like you are exceptional. You are quite common among the poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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...

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.

????

Um, Greyhound Therapy isn't an option.

DC residents---even those experiencing homelessness and struggling to secure employment, child care and housing---should not be relocated elsewhere...particularly since they are a product of the city's schools, child welfare and juvenile justice systems, etc.

Being a product of DC's broken system is a big part of why DC has ongoing multigenerational poverty. The cycles need to be broken. As long as those kids are still surrounded by 80-90% FARMS, poor achievement levels in literacy, math, etc and high dropout rates as is the case with most DCPS schools not much will ever change for them.

[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.

So how would their parents get them there? Once they move from the shelter probably not into $3,000 Cathedral Commons apts. The city would pay fr a school bus? Doesn't mom or dad need to get to work or school, not spend valuable hours shuttling kids to a far off school location. Or after 120 days they suddenly have support, a car, flex job etc?

City required to provide transportation. It's the law. Federal law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, if they get a permanent address in another school boundary, they are just like any other kids.

Not true, pp. Federal law has special provisions related to the education rights of homeless children. Federal law mandates the option for the child to remain in the school for the rest of the school year. Fact.

[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...

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.

So how would their parents get them there? Once they move from the shelter probably not into $3,000 Cathedral Commons apts. The city would pay fr a school bus? Doesn't mom or dad need to get to work or school, not spend valuable hours shuttling kids to a far off school location. Or after 120 days they suddenly have support, a car, flex job etc?

City required to provide transportation. It's the law. Federal law.

DCPS students get Metrobus passes. Same would go for them. No need for anything else.