Van Ness Public Housing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“Housing first” is an abject failure. It should be “services first.” There’s a fundamental disconnect between reality and the people driving homelessness policy. The vast majority of people living on the street have mental health issues or drug issues or both. That’s the reality. But the “housing first” people want you to believe that it’s just a rough patch or a little bad luck.

Literally every reputable study on reducing homelessness has definitively proven housing first is by far the most effective strategy.

Just because you're a horrible person and can't stand the idea of someone less fortunate than you getting something you're not getting doesn't change reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Housing first” is an abject failure. It should be “services first.” There’s a fundamental disconnect between reality and the people driving homelessness policy. The vast majority of people living on the street have mental health issues or drug issues or both. That’s the reality. But the “housing first” people want you to believe that it’s just a rough patch or a little bad luck.

Literally every reputable study on reducing homelessness has definitively proven housing first is by far the most effective strategy.

Just because you're a horrible person and can't stand the idea of someone less fortunate than you getting something you're not getting doesn't change reality.

Not the way it’s done in DC …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Housing first” is an abject failure. It should be “services first.” There’s a fundamental disconnect between reality and the people driving homelessness policy. The vast majority of people living on the street have mental health issues or drug issues or both. That’s the reality. But the “housing first” people want you to believe that it’s just a rough patch or a little bad luck.

Literally every reputable study on reducing homelessness has definitively proven housing first is by far the most effective strategy.

Just because you're a horrible person and can't stand the idea of someone less fortunate than you getting something you're not getting doesn't change reality.

But studies need to consider multiple dependent variables, not only reducing homelessness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honest question, not trying to be snarky, but why can’t these people just get jobs? There is s labor shortage.

You should volunteer somewhere for a while.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Housing first” is an abject failure. It should be “services first.” There’s a fundamental disconnect between reality and the people driving homelessness policy. The vast majority of people living on the street have mental health issues or drug issues or both. That’s the reality. But the “housing first” people want you to believe that it’s just a rough patch or a little bad luck.

Literally every reputable study on reducing homelessness has definitively proven housing first is by far the most effective strategy.

Just because you're a horrible person and can't stand the idea of someone less fortunate than you getting something you're not getting doesn't change reality.

Thanks for the personal attack but I’m not concerned about someone getting something I’m not getting (I guess you’re talking about free or subsidized housing? Not sure but I don’t want that anyway). What I am concerned about is people not getting something they need (services, ideally in an institutional setting where they can’t be declined) but instead getting something that someone in an ivory tower thinks they need (an apartment on Connecticut Ave).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love the histrionics from the people who are conflating "affordable housing" with "homeless shelters"

The proposal here is for affordable housing, not a homeless shelter.

You must have no clue what has taken place in apartments throughout the city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope they make a mental health screening before accepting possible tenants.

The Housing First policy applied by the DCHA has been a disaster. It has destroyed the peaceful living of so many communities around DC because they populated those communities with people with severe mental issues.

Destroyed? Highly doubtful. I'd much rather see them housed than living in tents on the street.

I guess you has been living in a bubble. There are so many cases of people with mental issues assaulting condo's staff or residents. There other cases with people with criminal records (sexual offenders, pedophiles, etc.) living in condos where there are children. Nobody wants to have a sexual offender neighbor specially if you have children. There are mental facilities for those kind of people.

What is the problem with screening people for mental health issues or criminal record before inserting them in a community?

I have no problem with Affordable housing, but the way that is has been implemented by the DCHA is a disaster.

Here are some examples of many:

"D.C. housed the homeless in upscale apartments. It hasn’t gone as planned."
https://www.reddit.com/r/washingtondc/comments/be19wp/dc_housed_the_homeless_in_upscale_apartments_it/?rdt=50224

"Apartment updates: Police calls rise, case managers remain absent, and tenant leaders continue to press for change"
https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/home-front/apartment-updates-police-calls-rise-case-managers-remain-absent-and-tenant-leaders-continue-to-press-for-change/

"MPD referred three Van Ness apartment buildings to DC AG’s “nuisance” property office"
"https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/news/mpd-referred-three-van-ness-apartment-buildings-to-dc-ags-nuisance-property-office/

"Residents and landlords speak at an apartment-focused Council hearing on crime"
https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/home-front/residents-and-landlords-speak-at-an-apartment-focused-council-hearing-on-crime/

This. My elderly aunt moved out of one of those buildings because life became unbearable with constant noise and pot smoking in public places from the people who do not behave in civil ways and violate the rules of the community. She moved to a garden apartment in a suburban area outside of Beltway, not ideal, but they have respectful people around and don't have to deal with degeneracy. People with addictions and mental health issues do not belong in the residential communities with children, elderly and anyone who just wants safety and peaceful living. They shouldn't be dumping degenerates in the midst of the nice residential communities. People who need rehabilitation are not going to get it this way either, they need to be sent to other facilities where it can happen.

The way it's been done in DC is another example of suicidal empathy. Help for lower income people who do work or live off SS/disability and just want the same thing (Peace and safety) and access to better amenities but cannot afford it is different than dumping a bunch of tent inhabitants (with addictions and mental illness needing treatment) or drug/criminal element from the hood (acting out their thug fantasies and smoking weed everywhere) into the buildings and in the midst of the residential areas full of people who have a different set of rules.

No, it's pushed by idiots like Frumin and the poster above who don;t have to suffer under these policies. They get to feel good about themselves while others take the brunt of the results.

The irony is that the people who take the brunt of these results are the low income people, or fixed income people living in rent control units. These people are pushed out because of degenerate behavior of some of the new neighbors, and they don't have many housing options. They have to move to less convenient or lower quality housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
“Housing first” is an abject failure. It should be “services first.” There’s a fundamental disconnect between reality and the people driving homelessness policy. The vast majority of people living on the street have mental health issues or drug issues or both. That’s the reality. But the “housing first” people want you to believe that it’s just a rough patch or a little bad luck.


Literally every reputable study on reducing homelessness has definitively proven housing first is by far the most effective strategy.

Just because you're a horrible person and can't stand the idea of someone less fortunate than you getting something you're not getting doesn't change reality.

Housing First in DC is a disaster---there is no requirement for recipients to avail themselves of services, even if enough services were available, which they aren't. DC's landlord tenant laws are so one-sided that a landlord has no recourse against tenants exhibiting anti-social and dangerous behaviors---so long as the rent is being paid (which it is, with a voucher) then a landlord cannot evict, no matter the egregiousness of the behavior. Nor can landlords limit the number of voucher tenants they accept---to do so violates the current language of DC's Human Rights law, which precludes discrimination on source of income. So private building owners are forced by Housing First into becoming unregulated, unsupervised mental institutions. The staff in these buildings is regularly screamed at, spat on, and forced to endure behaviors that should not have to be tolerated, including physical assault. I wish every do-gooder who has posted in support of Housing First in this thread had to spend a week living in one of these troubled buildings and then report back on how they felt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Housing first” is an abject failure. It should be “services first.” There’s a fundamental disconnect between reality and the people driving homelessness policy. The vast majority of people living on the street have mental health issues or drug issues or both. That’s the reality. But the “housing first” people want you to believe that it’s just a rough patch or a little bad luck.

Literally every reputable study on reducing homelessness has definitively proven housing first is by far the most effective strategy.

Just because you're a horrible person and can't stand the idea of someone less fortunate than you getting something you're not getting doesn't change reality.

Thanks for the personal attack but I’m not concerned about someone getting something I’m not getting (I guess you’re talking about free or subsidized housing? Not sure but I don’t want that anyway). What I am concerned about is people not getting something they need (services, ideally in an institutional setting where they can’t be declined) but instead getting something that someone in an ivory tower thinks they need (an apartment on Connecticut Ave).

The Ward 3 councilman has refused to request a moratorium on new voucher residents. Until he changes his position or is unseated we will get more of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks for the personal attack but I’m not concerned about someone getting something I’m not getting (I guess you’re talking about free or subsidized housing? Not sure but I don’t want that anyway). What I am concerned about is people not getting something they need (services, ideally in an institutional setting where they can’t be declined) but instead getting something that someone in an ivory tower thinks they need (an apartment on Connecticut Ave).


The Ward 3 councilman has refused to request a moratorium on new voucher residents. Until he changes his position or is unseated we will get more of this.

There doesn't need to be a moratorium as much as a carveout in the DC Human Rights law (with cross reference in the Landlord tenant laws) providing that no private building owner has to accept vouchers for more than 10% of their units, with buildings consisting of 10 units or less being exempt from having to accept vouchers altogether. That's a reasonable compromise and much more manageable for building owners. The eviction laws also need to be tightened up to permit rapid evictions for residents who are physically violent or verbally threatening to other tenants or building management.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Housing first” is an abject failure. It should be “services first.” There’s a fundamental disconnect between reality and the people driving homelessness policy. The vast majority of people living on the street have mental health issues or drug issues or both. That’s the reality. But the “housing first” people want you to believe that it’s just a rough patch or a little bad luck.

Literally every reputable study on reducing homelessness has definitively proven housing first is by far the most effective strategy.

Just because you're a horrible person and can't stand the idea of someone less fortunate than you getting something you're not getting doesn't change reality.

But studies need to consider multiple dependent variables, not only reducing homelessness.

LOL this is dog whistle for "but why didn't they consider the fact that I hate seeing homeless people in my neighborhood!?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good.

Public housing should be spread equally across all wards. Glad to see Ward 3 is finally making baby steps towards carrying its fair share.

I won't even go to the zoo anymore because of the shady people who live in the public housing along Conn Ave and hang out on the street. It used to be such a nice area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Housing first” is an abject failure. It should be “services first.” There’s a fundamental disconnect between reality and the people driving homelessness policy. The vast majority of people living on the street have mental health issues or drug issues or both. That’s the reality. But the “housing first” people want you to believe that it’s just a rough patch or a little bad luck.

The idea is that the services would be more effective if people weren’t living on the street, though. But both should go hand in hand.

But it is also unfair to not consider the needs of the other residents in the building. You work your way out of poverty to finally afford a decent apartment in a decent school zone to raise your kids in a better area than where you were raised, only to have the city fill your hallway with drug addicts and violent offenders, leaving you with no recourse and nowhere else to live in safety.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Housing first” is an abject failure. It should be “services first.” There’s a fundamental disconnect between reality and the people driving homelessness policy. The vast majority of people living on the street have mental health issues or drug issues or both. That’s the reality. But the “housing first” people want you to believe that it’s just a rough patch or a little bad luck.

Literally every reputable study on reducing homelessness has definitively proven housing first is by far the most effective strategy.

Just because you're a horrible person and can't stand the idea of someone less fortunate than you getting something you're not getting doesn't change reality.

But studies need to consider multiple dependent variables, not only reducing homelessness.

LOL this is dog whistle for "but why didn't they consider the fact that I hate seeing homeless people in my neighborhood!?"

Is there anyone who loves homelessness?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
“Housing first” is an abject failure. It should be “services first.” There’s a fundamental disconnect between reality and the people driving homelessness policy. The vast majority of people living on the street have mental health issues or drug issues or both. That’s the reality. But the “housing first” people want you to believe that it’s just a rough patch or a little bad luck.


Literally every reputable study on reducing homelessness has definitively proven housing first is by far the most effective strategy.

Just because you're a horrible person and can't stand the idea of someone less fortunate than you getting something you're not getting doesn't change reality.

Housing First in DC is a disaster---there is no requirement for recipients to avail themselves of services, even if enough services were available, which they aren't. DC's landlord tenant laws are so one-sided that a landlord has no recourse against tenants exhibiting anti-social and dangerous behaviors---so long as the rent is being paid (which it is, with a voucher) then a landlord cannot evict, no matter the egregiousness of the behavior. Nor can landlords limit the number of voucher tenants they accept---to do so violates the current language of DC's Human Rights law, which precludes discrimination on source of income. So private building owners are forced by Housing First into becoming unregulated, unsupervised mental institutions. The staff in these buildings is regularly screamed at, spat on, and forced to endure behaviors that should not have to be tolerated, including physical assault. I wish every do-gooder who has posted in support of Housing First in this thread had to spend a week living in one of these troubled buildings and then report back on how they felt.

Housing First sucks
-longtime DC homeless service provider