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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Quite common, eh? Then that must mean multigenerational poverty is a thing of the past.

[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.

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.

Oh hell no. No more free Metro passes for students.

[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.

After all, it would be wrong to send them to a place that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with their plight like Maryland, for example, or . . . Ward 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Says the SAH with nothing more productive to do with her time in the middle of the work day than falsely accuse others of being racist. Get off your Ipad and into the gym.

[Anonymous]

OK, without blaming the homeless here, have you all considered that the reason for putting a shelter in Ward 3 is for basic fairness for people who live in other wards?

Go ahead and acknowledge all the terrible things you want about the homeless.

Then ask yourself: if they are so bad, is it fair that they all go in one area of town - whether it is Ward 7, Ward 5, or Ward 3.

Of course not. If you believe that a homeless shelter will cause problems - crime, drug dealers, school overcrowding, whatever the concern may be - then no taxpaying, homeowning, citizens of the District - regardless of what ward they live in - should be forced to deal with 100% of the negative externalities.

There is no perfect solution here, but given the above, the most equitable solution is to spread out the homeless families in small shelters all over the city.

So reframe your thinking - putting a shelter in Ward 3 is not about what the homeless families want (or arguably about what they need), but it is about basic equity and about what taxpayers and homeowners all over the city want - to not have 100% of the burden of the homeless in their community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Says the SAH with nothing more productive to do with her time in the middle of the work day than falsely accuse others of being racist. Get off your Ipad and into the gym.

Ha! Well skewered!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, without blaming the homeless here, have you all considered that the reason for putting a shelter in Ward 3 is for basic fairness for people who live in other wards?

Go ahead and acknowledge all the terrible things you want about the homeless.

Then ask yourself: if they are so bad, is it fair that they all go in one area of town - whether it is Ward 7, Ward 5, or Ward 3.

Of course not. If you believe that a homeless shelter will cause problems - crime, drug dealers, school overcrowding, whatever the concern may be - then no taxpaying, homeowning, citizens of the District - regardless of what ward they live in - should be forced to deal with 100% of the negative externalities.

There is no perfect solution here, but given the above, the most equitable solution is to spread out the homeless families in small shelters all over the city.

So reframe your thinking - putting a shelter in Ward 3 is not about what the homeless families want (or arguably about what they need), but it is about basic equity and about what taxpayers and homeowners all over the city want - to not have 100% of the burden of the homeless in their community.

Sorry, but how is it good public policy to take extreme social problems, including drug abuse, street crime, etc., and introduce them into heretofore relatively safe areas that haven't had those problems? It's like saying that since Ward 8 is plagued with a lot of violent crime, DC should provide free Uber rides to street criminals so they can ply their predatory trade in neighborhoods with low crime rates, just to spread crime around in the name of "fairness". (That is, assuming that the Uber drivers aren't robbed on the way across town.) It's really a hare-brained scheme, motivated by DC's version of the politics of resentment, Bowser's way of stoking the base. But not even our former Mayor-for-Life tried anything quite so foolish as this.

[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.

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.

If your child is below a certain age, you are not going to pop them on metro or bus alone. You would go with them which could be really inefficient if you are also trying to hold down a job in a different part of towm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, without blaming the homeless here, have you all considered that the reason for putting a shelter in Ward 3 is for basic fairness for people who live in other wards?

Go ahead and acknowledge all the terrible things you want about the homeless.

Then ask yourself: if they are so bad, is it fair that they all go in one area of town - whether it is Ward 7, Ward 5, or Ward 3.

Of course not. If you believe that a homeless shelter will cause problems - crime, drug dealers, school overcrowding, whatever the concern may be - then no taxpaying, homeowning, citizens of the District - regardless of what ward they live in - should be forced to deal with 100% of the negative externalities.

There is no perfect solution here, but given the above, the most equitable solution is to spread out the homeless families in small shelters all over the city.

So reframe your thinking - putting a shelter in Ward 3 is not about what the homeless families want (or arguably about what they need), but it is about basic equity and about what taxpayers and homeowners all over the city want - to not have 100% of the burden of the homeless in their community.

OK--so since it's a homeless shelter, not permanent apartments, why not put it in a place where it does not impact many permanent residents and have services on site and shuttles, or have it at DC General which is a fairly good location, and for many years before it became a shelter was the ER/medical services of last recourse--so it is not a shocker to any neighbors. I'm in agreement-- I don't think any of these 8 mini shelters make sense. It's just the ward 3 people who happen to be talking about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, without blaming the homeless here, have you all considered that the reason for putting a shelter in Ward 3 is for basic fairness for people who live in other wards?

Go ahead and acknowledge all the terrible things you want about the homeless.

Then ask yourself: if they are so bad, is it fair that they all go in one area of town - whether it is Ward 7, Ward 5, or Ward 3.

Of course not. If you believe that a homeless shelter will cause problems - crime, drug dealers, school overcrowding, whatever the concern may be - then no taxpaying, homeowning, citizens of the District - regardless of what ward they live in - should be forced to deal with 100% of the negative externalities.

There is no perfect solution here, but given the above, the most equitable solution is to spread out the homeless families in small shelters all over the city.

So reframe your thinking - putting a shelter in Ward 3 is not about what the homeless families want (or arguably about what they need), but it is about basic equity and about what taxpayers and homeowners all over the city want - to not have 100% of the burden of the homeless in their community.

Except, some wards, like 6, 7, 8 already bear a disproportionate share of low income, subsidized housing, FARMS and homeless. So how is placing even more poor and homeless people there "fair?"

[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.

That's a very rich white liberal thing to say. Many of the families in shelters are headed by a parent with one or more of those issues. There seems to be a mistaken belief that if it's a homeless family, that they will not be plagues by issues such as substance abuse, severe depression, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, without blaming the homeless here, have you all considered that the reason for putting a shelter in Ward 3 is for basic fairness for people who live in other wards?

Go ahead and acknowledge all the terrible things you want about the homeless.

Then ask yourself: if they are so bad, is it fair that they all go in one area of town - whether it is Ward 7, Ward 5, or Ward 3.

Of course not. If you believe that a homeless shelter will cause problems - crime, drug dealers, school overcrowding, whatever the concern may be - then no taxpaying, homeowning, citizens of the District - regardless of what ward they live in - should be forced to deal with 100% of the negative externalities.

There is no perfect solution here, but given the above, the most equitable solution is to spread out the homeless families in small shelters all over the city.

So reframe your thinking - putting a shelter in Ward 3 is not about what the homeless families want (or arguably about what they need), but it is about basic equity and about what taxpayers and homeowners all over the city want - to not have 100% of the burden of the homeless in their community.

OK--so since it's a homeless shelter, not permanent apartments, why not put it in a place where it does not impact many permanent residents and have services on site and shuttles, or have it at DC General which is a fairly good location, and for many years before it became a shelter was the ER/medical services of last recourse--so it is not a shocker to any neighbors. I'm in agreement-- I don't think any of these 8 mini shelters make sense. It's just the ward 3 people who happen to be talking about it.

Mayor Barr.y-Bowser doesn't think DC General is a good location because she wants to flip it to some developer cronies. This is still the basic element of her plan, which originally favored her cronies with sweeheart lease deals for the new shelters as well,

[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.

After all, it would be wrong to send them to a place that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with their plight like Maryland, for example, or . . . Ward 3.

Or the White House.

Maybe they could help the Secret Service?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, without blaming the homeless here, have you all considered that the reason for putting a shelter in Ward 3 is for basic fairness for people who live in other wards?

Go ahead and acknowledge all the terrible things you want about the homeless.

Then ask yourself: if they are so bad, is it fair that they all go in one area of town - whether it is Ward 7, Ward 5, or Ward 3.

Of course not. If you believe that a homeless shelter will cause problems - crime, drug dealers, school overcrowding, whatever the concern may be - then no taxpaying, homeowning, citizens of the District - regardless of what ward they live in - should be forced to deal with 100% of the negative externalities.

There is no perfect solution here, but given the above, the most equitable solution is to spread out the homeless families in small shelters all over the city.

So reframe your thinking - putting a shelter in Ward 3 is not about what the homeless families want (or arguably about what they need), but it is about basic equity and about what taxpayers and homeowners all over the city want - to not have 100% of the burden of the homeless in their community.

Except, some wards, like 6, 7, 8 already bear a disproportionate share of low income, subsidized housing, FARMS and homeless. So how is placing even more poor and homeless people there "fair?"

It's not disproportionate at all, it simply reflects the reality there. Where do you think DC homeless were likely born and raised?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, without blaming the homeless here, have you all considered that the reason for putting a shelter in Ward 3 is for basic fairness for people who live in other wards?

Go ahead and acknowledge all the terrible things you want about the homeless.

Then ask yourself: if they are so bad, is it fair that they all go in one area of town - whether it is Ward 7, Ward 5, or Ward 3.

Of course not. If you believe that a homeless shelter will cause problems - crime, drug dealers, school overcrowding, whatever the concern may be - then no taxpaying, homeowning, citizens of the District - regardless of what ward they live in - should be forced to deal with 100% of the negative externalities.

There is no perfect solution here, but given the above, the most equitable solution is to spread out the homeless families in small shelters all over the city.

So reframe your thinking - putting a shelter in Ward 3 is not about what the homeless families want (or arguably about what they need), but it is about basic equity and about what taxpayers and homeowners all over the city want - to not have 100% of the burden of the homeless in their community.

Except, some wards, like 6, 7, 8 already bear a disproportionate share of low income, subsidized housing, FARMS and homeless. So how is placing even more poor and homeless people there "fair?"

It's not disproportionate at all, it simply reflects the reality there. Where do you think DC homeless were likely born and raised?

Half of DC's homeless came from elsewhere.