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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You area all now seeing the problems with 'fairness'. Fairness actually means bringing those who did everything right, down, to equalize those who haven't. That's not actually fair, now is it?

There is an individual who did everything right - who worked hard, scrapped, saved - to ensure he/she would not continue the poverty cycle. Instead of lifting that person up as an example, the 'fairness advocates' did their best to demean that individual's accomplishments.

This type of progressive liberalism only works when the group buys into it or when it's forced on them. The pushback you see is not due to 'racism', 'bias', etc. It's due to INDIVIDUALS who do not want to participate in their own demise. This is not selfish or racist, or whatever other names you want to throw out there. It's due to the basic UNfairness of the program overall - the stripping away of individual rights for the 'common good'. If that sounds a bit like Communism? Well....it is....

Love this line- "it's due to individuals who don't want to participate in their on demise." God bless you, sir

Thank you See what a cup of coffee can do? LOL.

I'm tired of success being demeaned, and even worse, success that comes from one's own efforts.

I don't understand. How do you see a desire to help the homeless as demeaning your success?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You area all now seeing the problems with 'fairness'. Fairness actually means bringing those who did everything right, down, to equalize those who haven't. That's not actually fair, now is it?

There is an individual who did everything right - who worked hard, scrapped, saved - to ensure he/she would not continue the poverty cycle. Instead of lifting that person up as an example, the 'fairness advocates' did their best to demean that individual's accomplishments.

This type of progressive liberalism only works when the group buys into it or when it's forced on them. The pushback you see is not due to 'racism', 'bias', etc. It's due to INDIVIDUALS who do not want to participate in their own demise. This is not selfish or racist, or whatever other names you want to throw out there. It's due to the basic UNfairness of the program overall - the stripping away of individual rights for the 'common good'. If that sounds a bit like Communism? Well....it is....

Love this line- "it's due to individuals who don't want to participate in their on demise." God bless you, sir

Thank you See what a cup of coffee can do? LOL.

I'm tired of success being demeaned, and even worse, success that comes from one's own efforts.

I don't understand. How do you see a desire to help the homeless as demeaning your success?

The placing of homeless shelters in wealthy areas in the name of 'diversity' will affect property values.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You area all now seeing the problems with 'fairness'. Fairness actually means bringing those who did everything right, down, to equalize those who haven't. That's not actually fair, now is it?

There is an individual who did everything right - who worked hard, scrapped, saved - to ensure he/she would not continue the poverty cycle. Instead of lifting that person up as an example, the 'fairness advocates' did their best to demean that individual's accomplishments.

This type of progressive liberalism only works when the group buys into it or when it's forced on them. The pushback you see is not due to 'racism', 'bias', etc. It's due to INDIVIDUALS who do not want to participate in their own demise. This is not selfish or racist, or whatever other names you want to throw out there. It's due to the basic UNfairness of the program overall - the stripping away of individual rights for the 'common good'. If that sounds a bit like Communism? Well....it is....

Love this line- "it's due to individuals who don't want to participate in their on demise." God bless you, sir

Thank you See what a cup of coffee can do? LOL.

I'm tired of success being demeaned, and even worse, success that comes from one's own efforts.

I don't understand. How do you see a desire to help the homeless as demeaning your success?

The placing of homeless shelters in wealthy areas in the name of 'diversity' will affect property values.

OK, let's accept that this is true. How does it "demean" your success?

The definition of "demean" is to "cause a severe loss in the dignity of and respect for (someone or something)."

When you say that a homeless shelter demeans your success, are you just saying that it diminish your financial well-being? or are you trying to say something else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You area all now seeing the problems with 'fairness'. Fairness actually means bringing those who did everything right, down, to equalize those who haven't. That's not actually fair, now is it?

There is an individual who did everything right - who worked hard, scrapped, saved - to ensure he/she would not continue the poverty cycle. Instead of lifting that person up as an example, the 'fairness advocates' did their best to demean that individual's accomplishments.

This type of progressive liberalism only works when the group buys into it or when it's forced on them. The pushback you see is not due to 'racism', 'bias', etc. It's due to INDIVIDUALS who do not want to participate in their own demise. This is not selfish or racist, or whatever other names you want to throw out there. It's due to the basic UNfairness of the program overall - the stripping away of individual rights for the 'common good'. If that sounds a bit like Communism? Well....it is....

Love this line- "it's due to individuals who don't want to participate in their on demise." God bless you, sir

Thank you See what a cup of coffee can do? LOL.

I'm tired of success being demeaned, and even worse, success that comes from one's own efforts.

I don't understand. How do you see a desire to help the homeless as demeaning your success?

The placing of homeless shelters in wealthy areas in the name of 'diversity' will affect property values.

OK, let's accept that this is true. How does it "demean" your success?

The definition of "demean" is to "cause a severe loss in the dignity of and respect for (someone or something)."

When you say that a homeless shelter demeans your success, are you just saying that it diminish your financial well-being? or are you trying to say something else?

It diminishes the importance of hard work as a factor in one's success. Note the way others in this thread treated the individual who worked his/her ass off to get out of poverty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You area all now seeing the problems with 'fairness'. Fairness actually means bringing those who did everything right, down, to equalize those who haven't. That's not actually fair, now is it?

There is an individual who did everything right - who worked hard, scrapped, saved - to ensure he/she would not continue the poverty cycle. Instead of lifting that person up as an example, the 'fairness advocates' did their best to demean that individual's accomplishments.

This type of progressive liberalism only works when the group buys into it or when it's forced on them. The pushback you see is not due to 'racism', 'bias', etc. It's due to INDIVIDUALS who do not want to participate in their own demise. This is not selfish or racist, or whatever other names you want to throw out there. It's due to the basic UNfairness of the program overall - the stripping away of individual rights for the 'common good'. If that sounds a bit like Communism? Well....it is....

Love this line- "it's due to individuals who don't want to participate in their on demise." God bless you, sir

Thank you See what a cup of coffee can do? LOL.

I'm tired of success being demeaned, and even worse, success that comes from one's own efforts.

I don't understand. How do you see a desire to help the homeless as demeaning your success?

The placing of homeless shelters in wealthy areas in the name of 'diversity' will affect property values.

OK, let's accept that this is true. How does it "demean" your success?

The definition of "demean" is to "cause a severe loss in the dignity of and respect for (someone or something)."

When you say that a homeless shelter demeans your success, are you just saying that it diminish your financial well-being? or are you trying to say something else?

It diminishes the importance of hard work as a factor in one's success. Note the way others in this thread treated the individual who worked his/her ass off to get out of poverty.

I missed that part of the thread. What did people say?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You area all now seeing the problems with 'fairness'. Fairness actually means bringing those who did everything right, down, to equalize those who haven't. That's not actually fair, now is it?

There is an individual who did everything right - who worked hard, scrapped, saved - to ensure he/she would not continue the poverty cycle. Instead of lifting that person up as an example, the 'fairness advocates' did their best to demean that individual's accomplishments.

This type of progressive liberalism only works when the group buys into it or when it's forced on them. The pushback you see is not due to 'racism', 'bias', etc. It's due to INDIVIDUALS who do not want to participate in their own demise. This is not selfish or racist, or whatever other names you want to throw out there. It's due to the basic UNfairness of the program overall - the stripping away of individual rights for the 'common good'. If that sounds a bit like Communism? Well....it is....

Love this line- "it's due to individuals who don't want to participate in their on demise." God bless you, sir

Thank you See what a cup of coffee can do? LOL.

I'm tired of success being demeaned, and even worse, success that comes from one's own efforts.

I don't understand. How do you see a desire to help the homeless as demeaning your success?

The placing of homeless shelters in wealthy areas in the name of 'diversity' will affect property values.

OK, let's accept that this is true. How does it "demean" your success?

The definition of "demean" is to "cause a severe loss in the dignity of and respect for (someone or something)."

When you say that a homeless shelter demeans your success, are you just saying that it diminish your financial well-being? or are you trying to say something else?

It diminishes the importance of hard work as a factor in one's success. Note the way others in this thread treated the individual who worked his/her ass off to get out of poverty.

I missed that part of the thread. What did people say?

Demeaned him/her. Basic sarcastic, mean shit people here say when they know they have no real retort. Implications that his/her hard work was not a factor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again, all this discussion about what Bowser's plan is for making sure the 8 shelters don't just become 8 mini-DC Generals, with all the attendant problems, is exactly the sort of thing that she should have put forth at the *beginning* of this process. If she had explained the steps she'd be taking to ensure the 8 shelters will be run well and won't negatively impact the neighborhoods, there would be a lot less opposition. But since she has just been strong-arming the neighborhoods into taking the shelters, and seemingly has given no thought to how the shelters will be integrated as functioning members of the communities, there is pushback.

Terrible plan - poorly executed.

Some of this stuff was in the plan. More to the point though, let's not kid ourselves. People are not opposed to the shelters because they are experts in providing temporary shelters for homeless families and disagree with the nuts and bolts of the Mayor's proposal for how the shelters will be run. The opposition is due to the fact that the shelters will be located near Ward 3 homeowners, and they don't like it. No plan would satisfy them except for changing the location of the shelters.

I disagree. When this issue first appeared, I read the plans. I'm certainly no expert on the design and management of homeless shelters, nor did I ever claim to be. But it's not hard to see that Bowser's plan made no effort to integrate the shelters into the neighborhoods, or to ensure they will be operated efficiently. The plan makes a passing reference to "Good Neighbor Agreements" that will be discussed later when the shelters are ready to open, so the neighbors will see that the shelters will be good neighbors. But that's it. There's no indication what will be in those Good Neighbor Agreements, or whether they will have any effect. There also was clearly no effort to engage the communities before Bowser issued her ultimatum about where the shelters would be located.

You keep claiming that the sole reason for opposition is that the shelters are located near Ward 3 homeowners who don't want them. You're simply wrong. First, you're wrong to single out Ward 3, because other homeowners in other Wards have raised the same concerns. Second, you're simply wrong about my reasons for opposition. I live about as far away from the closest planned shelter as Mayor Bowser herself does (which is pretty damn far!). My life experience in Ward 3 won't be hampered one bit by the shelter. My reason for opposing Bowser's plan is that it's a half-baked scheme which will just spend money inefficiently without any real chance of reducing homelessness or its problems. It's just a political maneuver that Bowser is using to help her next election.

Indeed, I'm betting that you don't live anywhere near any of the planned shelters either, and the real reason you support the current plan is that it puts them in someone else's backyard, which keeps them far away from you. Sounds to me like you're the real NIMBY here.

Amen. Will the real NIMBY please stand up, please stand up...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You area all now seeing the problems with 'fairness'. Fairness actually means bringing those who did everything right, down, to equalize those who haven't. That's not actually fair, now is it?

There is an individual who did everything right - who worked hard, scrapped, saved - to ensure he/she would not continue the poverty cycle. Instead of lifting that person up as an example, the 'fairness advocates' did their best to demean that individual's accomplishments.

This type of progressive liberalism only works when the group buys into it or when it's forced on them. The pushback you see is not due to 'racism', 'bias', etc. It's due to INDIVIDUALS who do not want to participate in their own demise. This is not selfish or racist, or whatever other names you want to throw out there. It's due to the basic UNfairness of the program overall - the stripping away of individual rights for the 'common good'. If that sounds a bit like Communism? Well....it is....

Love this line- "it's due to individuals who don't want to participate in their on demise." God bless you, sir

Thank you See what a cup of coffee can do? LOL.

I'm tired of success being demeaned, and even worse, success that comes from one's own efforts.

I don't understand. How do you see a desire to help the homeless as demeaning your success?

The placing of homeless shelters in wealthy areas in the name of 'diversity' will affect property values.

OK, let's accept that this is true. How does it "demean" your success?

The definition of "demean" is to "cause a severe loss in the dignity of and respect for (someone or something)."

When you say that a homeless shelter demeans your success, are you just saying that it diminish your financial well-being? or are you trying to say something else?

It diminishes the importance of hard work as a factor in one's success. Note the way others in this thread treated the individual who worked his/her ass off to get out of poverty.

I missed that part of the thread. What did people say?

Demeaned him/her. Basic sarcastic, mean shit people here say when they know they have no real retort. Implications that his/her hard work was not a factor.

OK, that wasn't right. But I still don't understand how helping the homeless demeans your hard work. I've worked hard (and I've also been very lucky). I'm fiscally comfortable. I don't find that helping people in need demeans my hard work - the opposite - I feel that it glorifies my hard work. My hard work means that I can live a comfortable life myself, and still be able to pay taxes and be charitable toward those in need.

And if people are mean and sarcastic, so what? It won't hurt me, I'm secure about how I got to where I am, and I know there are people that are going through a lot worse than anonymous mean sarcastic people saying things to them.

[Anonymous]

Is there any person who lives near the shelter in Ward 3, makes an income of over250k, and supports the shelter? Hell no. ( And I'm talking about people who work- not limo lib Sahs who fritter about as their dh' work).

[Anonymous]

I live in Kalorama Heights and I am supporting the shelter plan for one reason: it's not near me. If I oppose it, it may come into my neck of the woods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason to rush this plan is to do as much as possible as quickly as possible to get families out of the hellish conditions at DC General.

But again, for the 100th time, what's to prevent the 8 new shelters from degenerating to the exact same hellish conditions?

Again, the program and services are not changing. And that's the reason DC General degenerated.

We didn't out the people in those conditions, so why not wait to get this thing rights

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live near the proposed location on Idaho and we and are neighbors are all on the phones with our realtors. It's great to talk about the theory of why this is good for diversity purposes and to aid the homeless, but when you have a front row seat, it's not so great. Promise property values down by 10% in immediately surrounding areas.

The best part about watching real estate values skyrocket all over town is reading petulant homeowners threaten to "take their ball and go home" over one issue or another. School boundaries, Ward redistricting, and now this.

Please go! And post your MRIS number, I'm always looking to pick up homes at a discount.

You wouldn't want to buy it. It's next to a homeless shelter.

[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.

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.

People keep ignoring the diversity argument. Having diverse communities makes us as a city stronger. Even if it becomes as bad as DC general, which I hope it doesn't, the impact from the diversity could justify it if for nothing else that the restorative justice and addressing the institutional racism in the system. Our political institutions keep the poor and people of color out of places like Ward 3 and its long overdue to let others in.

[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.

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.

People keep ignoring the diversity argument. Having diverse communities makes us as a city stronger. Even if it becomes as bad as DC general, which I hope it doesn't, the impact from the diversity could justify it if for nothing else that the restorative justice and addressing the institutional racism in the system. Our political institutions keep the poor and people of color out of places like Ward 3 and its long overdue to let others in.

You're kidding, right?

[Anonymous]

In the end, smaller shelters are safer for these vulnerable families. That's really it. Would you send your kid to a 2,000 student elementary school? No. You would say it is too big. A very large homeless shelter is 100x worse.