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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Here's one thing I don't get - that it's mostly AA, and that we also have a disproportionately high unemployement/underemployment rate among AAs in DC, with so many teetering on the brink of homelessness/financial disaster. Yet it seems that on so many construction sites, in so many restaurants, hotels, et cetera you will see a lot of latino workers. In many cases they came 2,000 miles to a city they don't know, barely able to speak the language, an likely not able to produce evidence of a diploma, et cetera. Yet they were able to find work, whereas people who grew up here, who know the city, who speak the language evidently can't seem to manage to find work? Likewise, the latinos manage to find places where they can afford to live - and in most cases aren't even eligible for subsidies, et cetera. Yet the DC-born and raised can't seem to find their own asses with both hands?

What's your best guess?

Culture and the environment you're raised in. Contrast it with AA entrepreneurism happening in PG - different values and culture there.

Isn't pg largely populated by successful aas who move out of poor neighborhoods (including DC) as quickly as possible?

A lot continue to sup at the DC government slop trough. Many shady, well-connected DC crony "consultants" and contractors have turned their spoils into McMansions in Upper Marlboro.

Yep

[Anonymous]

And Mary Cheh responded. Post here or start a new thread?

[Anonymous]

http://marycheh.com/letter-from-councilmember-cheh-on-the-proposed-ward-3-shelter-for-families-experiencing-homelessness/

I do love that she also cites that same NY study on property values, that does not actually evaluate the impact of shelters,and then says well there are no such studies so it will have to do. What a social experiment. Who qualifies for the massive DC total assistance plan she mentions? What's to stop people moving here in droves? I would. And is it fifty people or fifty families? Thats a heck of a lot of people .

[Anonymous]

Ok -it just clicked. 50 families. One parent, 2-3 kids (average, some more, some less) 200 people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok -it just clicked. 50 families. One parent, 2-3 kids (average, some more, some less) 200 people?

She claims only 80 children, but that doesn't make much sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I totally support you on hard work. I totally agree that we need to instill a sense of taking responsibility for ourselves, looking after ourselves and working hard to improve our situation in life. That's totally on us as individuals, I totally agree. It likewise frustrates me to see young, able-bodied individuals moping around underemployed, just looking to scam benefits and coast at the taxpayer's expense rather than working to try and get ahead. But beyond that, you've gone deep into conservative hyperbole and you need to strike a lot of what you said because it's not entirely valid. First, "you didn't build that" isn't at all intended to demean hard work, and you have a totally wrong spin on what's meant by that. It's about getting people to acknowledge that you didn't build it in a vacuum. Nobody in America made it 100% on their own. You can't build a successful business without the infrastructure that so many conservatives want to take for granted, whether roads, bridges, internet, import/export and things that the government helps provide, or stable banks and available, low-interest loans, et cetera - also things that the government helps to ensure. Second, we DO in fact have a serious problem of wealth inequality in America which among other things makes it harder and harder for entrepreneurs to succeed. The mom-and-pop brick and mortar shops get killed off by the big box Walmarts. It's hard to compete against online retailers, et cetera. And yes, many of those who are successful did in fact either get a leg up thanks to big inheritances or a lucky break. It's a lot harder to compete in America today than it was decades ago, yet most conservatives are older and don't realize things have changed over the past several decades. Likewise, since the Reagan era, we have the issue of trickle-down economic policies which favors the wealthy and large corporations, which has caused the middle class to be decimated, allowed small businesses to be undermined, while the rich get richer and big corporations get more powerful. Nothing ever trickles down. That's failed conservative economic policy in action. And along with this is the lack of revenue to keep our roads and bridges from crumbling. Just look at what "low taxes" and "limited government" has done in places like Kansas - utter disaster, put them deep into debt, and everything's falling apart.

Really? I need to strike what I said because you do not agree it's valid? That is the very ESSENCE of entitled thinking. You are assuming that only government can provide us with the tools necessary to build wealth. That is not so. Conservatives do believe in infrastructure - in fact, the infrastructure we need is outlined in the Constitution. But guess what? Walt Disney built the original Disneyland in about 6 months because the cumbersome restrictions of government as it exists today does not exist. I looked into putting a pool on my property. Fairfax County wants 20K in permits. 20K! Go five miles to Loudoun County, that restriction does not exist.

You want to talk wealth inequality? Clinton wore a very expensive Armani blouse while she lectured the rest of us about wealth inequality. How do government elites get that rich? We know how athletes do - they have a skill they've worked hard at, and people are willing to pay money to watch them win. Movie stars? They have a craft they've honed and people are willing to pay money to see their movies. Clinton has been in government all her life. That should give you pause.

Right now we are in a flat economy. Have been for how many years? What did the stimulus stimulate? Where are the shovel-ready jobs? Why on earth should we throw more money at something that already failed?

I suggest you look at Venezuela. That nightmare is the fruit of large progressive government control.

Venezuela didn't happen because of "progressivism" - it happened because of corruption. As for "$20k in permits" for Fairfax, it doesn't "cost" 20k for permitting - they are using it as a revenue stream, pure and simple. But roll back regulation and what do you get? Do you have any fucking clue whatsoever how bad air quality is in China? It's believed that 1.2 million people are dropping dead a year prematurely in China because of the high amounts of particulates and other pollution in the air. 1.2 million. Yet twits like you think regulation is unneccesary.

As for stimulus it was well documented that over 250,000 infrastructure projects were completed - roads, bridges, wastewater treatment plants, et cetera. Virtually every reputable economist out there agrees it was the right thing to do. What did Stimulus do? It stopped us from LOSING 800,000 jobs a month. It stemmed the tide of the 13 TRILLION dollars in personal wealth that evaporated on Wall Street during Bush's watch. That's that detail people like you forget about when you whine about how "awful" Obama's economy is for only having added 200,000 jobs in a month. The main criticism reputable economists have is that there is so much more still left to do - yet conservatives want to put the brakes on, starve infrastructure and let it all just fall apart.

Not tHe pp - I have relatives in Venezuela and yes, Chavez was elected because of corruption - endemic in Latin America and places like New Orleans and Chicago. However, it was a functioning democracy. The nightmare if Venezuela - using democracy to dismantle democracy, decayed infrastructure, land grabs, property grabs, business nationalization, totalitarianism is du le to progressive socialism. The people who were rich before Chavez are by and large doing ok or left the country. The rest ae far poorer, in fact on the brink of starving.

Venezuela had petro dollars coming in - but it was stolen by the elite. That's not progressivism, that's not socialism, that's plain old fashioned corruption.

The type of corruption that comes from large government. Yep.

Follow the money. Who benefited from the corruption? The large government? No. The elites. That's who benefitted. You'll never understand anything as long as you keep muddling everything up and as long as you don't follow the money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this thread has devolved into the expected moralizing. Can't wait to get back to inventing reasons why this plan is worse for the homeless than DC general.

No inventions. Many very legitimate, substantive, serious and non-NIMBY points have been raised about many aspects of the plan. They were not addressed.

If you want to get back on topic and defend your off-base "invented" comment then maybe you ought to think about coming up with some better answers.

NIMBYs always think they have a case. Saying the city needs to figure out the magic answer to homelessness in order to be worthy of putting a shelter in your neighborhood is a red herring.

Still no answers, I see... Just build 8 mini DC Generals without dealing with why DC General was such a horrific mess in the first place. You don't understand anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I totally support you on hard work. I totally agree that we need to instill a sense of taking responsibility for ourselves, looking after ourselves and working hard to improve our situation in life. That's totally on us as individuals, I totally agree. It likewise frustrates me to see young, able-bodied individuals moping around underemployed, just looking to scam benefits and coast at the taxpayer's expense rather than working to try and get ahead. But beyond that, you've gone deep into conservative hyperbole and you need to strike a lot of what you said because it's not entirely valid. First, "you didn't build that" isn't at all intended to demean hard work, and you have a totally wrong spin on what's meant by that. It's about getting people to acknowledge that you didn't build it in a vacuum. Nobody in America made it 100% on their own. You can't build a successful business without the infrastructure that so many conservatives want to take for granted, whether roads, bridges, internet, import/export and things that the government helps provide, or stable banks and available, low-interest loans, et cetera - also things that the government helps to ensure. Second, we DO in fact have a serious problem of wealth inequality in America which among other things makes it harder and harder for entrepreneurs to succeed. The mom-and-pop brick and mortar shops get killed off by the big box Walmarts. It's hard to compete against online retailers, et cetera. And yes, many of those who are successful did in fact either get a leg up thanks to big inheritances or a lucky break. It's a lot harder to compete in America today than it was decades ago, yet most conservatives are older and don't realize things have changed over the past several decades. Likewise, since the Reagan era, we have the issue of trickle-down economic policies which favors the wealthy and large corporations, which has caused the middle class to be decimated, allowed small businesses to be undermined, while the rich get richer and big corporations get more powerful. Nothing ever trickles down. That's failed conservative economic policy in action. And along with this is the lack of revenue to keep our roads and bridges from crumbling. Just look at what "low taxes" and "limited government" has done in places like Kansas - utter disaster, put them deep into debt, and everything's falling apart.

Really? I need to strike what I said because you do not agree it's valid? That is the very ESSENCE of entitled thinking. You are assuming that only government can provide us with the tools necessary to build wealth. That is not so. Conservatives do believe in infrastructure - in fact, the infrastructure we need is outlined in the Constitution. But guess what? Walt Disney built the original Disneyland in about 6 months because the cumbersome restrictions of government as it exists today does not exist. I looked into putting a pool on my property. Fairfax County wants 20K in permits. 20K! Go five miles to Loudoun County, that restriction does not exist.

You want to talk wealth inequality? Clinton wore a very expensive Armani blouse while she lectured the rest of us about wealth inequality. How do government elites get that rich? We know how athletes do - they have a skill they've worked hard at, and people are willing to pay money to watch them win. Movie stars? They have a craft they've honed and people are willing to pay money to see their movies. Clinton has been in government all her life. That should give you pause.

Right now we are in a flat economy. Have been for how many years? What did the stimulus stimulate? Where are the shovel-ready jobs? Why on earth should we throw more money at something that already failed?

I suggest you look at Venezuela. That nightmare is the fruit of large progressive government control.

Venezuela didn't happen because of "progressivism" - it happened because of corruption. As for "$20k in permits" for Fairfax, it doesn't "cost" 20k for permitting - they are using it as a revenue stream, pure and simple. But roll back regulation and what do you get? Do you have any fucking clue whatsoever how bad air quality is in China? It's believed that 1.2 million people are dropping dead a year prematurely in China because of the high amounts of particulates and other pollution in the air. 1.2 million. Yet twits like you think regulation is unneccesary.

As for stimulus it was well documented that over 250,000 infrastructure projects were completed - roads, bridges, wastewater treatment plants, et cetera. Virtually every reputable economist out there agrees it was the right thing to do. What did Stimulus do? It stopped us from LOSING 800,000 jobs a month. It stemmed the tide of the 13 TRILLION dollars in personal wealth that evaporated on Wall Street during Bush's watch. That's that detail people like you forget about when you whine about how "awful" Obama's economy is for only having added 200,000 jobs in a month. The main criticism reputable economists have is that there is so much more still left to do - yet conservatives want to put the brakes on, starve infrastructure and let it all just fall apart.

Not tHe pp - I have relatives in Venezuela and yes, Chavez was elected because of corruption - endemic in Latin America and places like New Orleans and Chicago. However, it was a functioning democracy. The nightmare if Venezuela - using democracy to dismantle democracy, decayed infrastructure, land grabs, property grabs, business nationalization, totalitarianism is du le to progressive socialism. The people who were rich before Chavez are by and large doing ok or left the country. The rest ae far poorer, in fact on the brink of starving.

Venezuela had petro dollars coming in - but it was stolen by the elite. That's not progressivism, that's not socialism, that's plain old fashioned corruption.

The type of corruption that comes from large government. Yep.

Follow the money. Who benefited from the corruption? The large government? No. The elites. That's who benefitted. You'll never understand anything as long as you keep muddling everything up and as long as you don't follow the money.

THE ELITES ARE THE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. How do you think they got away with everything. They own it all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I totally support you on hard work. I totally agree that we need to instill a sense of taking responsibility for ourselves, looking after ourselves and working hard to improve our situation in life. That's totally on us as individuals, I totally agree. It likewise frustrates me to see young, able-bodied individuals moping around underemployed, just looking to scam benefits and coast at the taxpayer's expense rather than working to try and get ahead. But beyond that, you've gone deep into conservative hyperbole and you need to strike a lot of what you said because it's not entirely valid. First, "you didn't build that" isn't at all intended to demean hard work, and you have a totally wrong spin on what's meant by that. It's about getting people to acknowledge that you didn't build it in a vacuum. Nobody in America made it 100% on their own. You can't build a successful business without the infrastructure that so many conservatives want to take for granted, whether roads, bridges, internet, import/export and things that the government helps provide, or stable banks and available, low-interest loans, et cetera - also things that the government helps to ensure. Second, we DO in fact have a serious problem of wealth inequality in America which among other things makes it harder and harder for entrepreneurs to succeed. The mom-and-pop brick and mortar shops get killed off by the big box Walmarts. It's hard to compete against online retailers, et cetera. And yes, many of those who are successful did in fact either get a leg up thanks to big inheritances or a lucky break. It's a lot harder to compete in America today than it was decades ago, yet most conservatives are older and don't realize things have changed over the past several decades. Likewise, since the Reagan era, we have the issue of trickle-down economic policies which favors the wealthy and large corporations, which has caused the middle class to be decimated, allowed small businesses to be undermined, while the rich get richer and big corporations get more powerful. Nothing ever trickles down. That's failed conservative economic policy in action. And along with this is the lack of revenue to keep our roads and bridges from crumbling. Just look at what "low taxes" and "limited government" has done in places like Kansas - utter disaster, put them deep into debt, and everything's falling apart.

Really? I need to strike what I said because you do not agree it's valid? That is the very ESSENCE of entitled thinking. You are assuming that only government can provide us with the tools necessary to build wealth. That is not so. Conservatives do believe in infrastructure - in fact, the infrastructure we need is outlined in the Constitution. But guess what? Walt Disney built the original Disneyland in about 6 months because the cumbersome restrictions of government as it exists today does not exist. I looked into putting a pool on my property. Fairfax County wants 20K in permits. 20K! Go five miles to Loudoun County, that restriction does not exist.

You want to talk wealth inequality? Clinton wore a very expensive Armani blouse while she lectured the rest of us about wealth inequality. How do government elites get that rich? We know how athletes do - they have a skill they've worked hard at, and people are willing to pay money to watch them win. Movie stars? They have a craft they've honed and people are willing to pay money to see their movies. Clinton has been in government all her life. That should give you pause.

Right now we are in a flat economy. Have been for how many years? What did the stimulus stimulate? Where are the shovel-ready jobs? Why on earth should we throw more money at something that already failed?

I suggest you look at Venezuela. That nightmare is the fruit of large progressive government control.

Venezuela didn't happen because of "progressivism" - it happened because of corruption. As for "$20k in permits" for Fairfax, it doesn't "cost" 20k for permitting - they are using it as a revenue stream, pure and simple. But roll back regulation and what do you get? Do you have any fucking clue whatsoever how bad air quality is in China? It's believed that 1.2 million people are dropping dead a year prematurely in China because of the high amounts of particulates and other pollution in the air. 1.2 million. Yet twits like you think regulation is unneccesary.

As for stimulus it was well documented that over 250,000 infrastructure projects were completed - roads, bridges, wastewater treatment plants, et cetera. Virtually every reputable economist out there agrees it was the right thing to do. What did Stimulus do? It stopped us from LOSING 800,000 jobs a month. It stemmed the tide of the 13 TRILLION dollars in personal wealth that evaporated on Wall Street during Bush's watch. That's that detail people like you forget about when you whine about how "awful" Obama's economy is for only having added 200,000 jobs in a month. The main criticism reputable economists have is that there is so much more still left to do - yet conservatives want to put the brakes on, starve infrastructure and let it all just fall apart.

Not tHe pp - I have relatives in Venezuela and yes, Chavez was elected because of corruption - endemic in Latin America and places like New Orleans and Chicago. However, it was a functioning democracy. The nightmare if Venezuela - using democracy to dismantle democracy, decayed infrastructure, land grabs, property grabs, business nationalization, totalitarianism is du le to progressive socialism. The people who were rich before Chavez are by and large doing ok or left the country. The rest ae far poorer, in fact on the brink of starving.

Venezuela had petro dollars coming in - but it was stolen by the elite. That's not progressivism, that's not socialism, that's plain old fashioned corruption.

The type of corruption that comes from large government. Yep.

Follow the money. Who benefited from the corruption? The large government? No. The elites. That's who benefitted. You'll never understand anything as long as you keep muddling everything up and as long as you don't follow the money.

THE ELITES ARE THE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. How do you think they got away with everything. They own it all.

Exactly. But under Chavez/socialism they were able to justify the pillage of unseen proportions as helping the poor. What a loser.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this thread has devolved into the expected moralizing. Can't wait to get back to inventing reasons why this plan is worse for the homeless than DC general.

No inventions. Many very legitimate, substantive, serious and non-NIMBY points have been raised about many aspects of the plan. They were not addressed.

If you want to get back on topic and defend your off-base "invented" comment then maybe you ought to think about coming up with some better answers.

NIMBYs always think they have a case. Saying the city needs to figure out the magic answer to homelessness in order to be worthy of putting a shelter in your neighborhood is a red herring.

Still no answers, I see... Just build 8 mini DC Generals without dealing with why DC General was such a horrific mess in the first place. You don't understand anything.

Nope, no answers. Just a lot of claims. Its really long and eloquent but I think can be reduced to this: There is no ideal spot but in this spot there will be no impact on police, no impact on eaton, no impact on property values. We couldn't run DC general but in this spit a crack team of 15 experts wil, and there will be lots of community/not for profit partnerships to solve everything dc general couldn't (does she know being a not for profit doesn't mean they work for free -sometimes they charge the most).
What I didn't see was how all this happens. Where's that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Here's one thing I don't get - that it's mostly AA, and that we also have a disproportionately high unemployement/underemployment rate among AAs in DC, with so many teetering on the brink of homelessness/financial disaster. Yet it seems that on so many construction sites, in so many restaurants, hotels, et cetera you will see a lot of latino workers. In many cases they came 2,000 miles to a city they don't know, barely able to speak the language, an likely not able to produce evidence of a diploma, et cetera. Yet they were able to find work, whereas people who grew up here, who know the city, who speak the language evidently can't seem to manage to find work? Likewise, the latinos manage to find places where they can afford to live - and in most cases aren't even eligible for subsidies, et cetera. Yet the DC-born and raised can't seem to find their own asses with both hands?

What's your best guess?

Culture and the environment you're raised in. Contrast it with AA entrepreneurism happening in PG - different values and culture there.

Isn't pg largely populated by successful aas who move out of poor neighborhoods (including DC) as quickly as possible?

A lot continue to sup at the DC government slop trough. Many shady, well-connected DC crony "consultants" and contractors have turned their spoils into McMansions in Upper Marlboro.

Speaking of a developer who went through the process honestly, did Bozzuto (Cathedral Commons) offer an opinion? I think of them as the immediate neighbors. They have been given very little time to stabilize their new development (all the shops aren't in - are all the properties even sold?) and it is premised on bringing a new vibrancy to that patch (summer concerts, food tastings). Its as if Bethesda lane were just being unveiled and the city anchored the corner of it with a 200 person shelter.

Yep

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ And by the way, it's not "entitled thinking" - when you're wrong, you're wrong. Sorry, pal but the world is not flat, it's not 6000 years ago, and no, Adam and Eve did not ride around saddled up on dinosaurs. Just plain wrong.

Read Haslitt. Read Bastiat.

That's a nice little slam at Christianity. This is a free country re: religion and liberals don't get to tell others what is right and wrong. If global warming was a settled science for instance, liberal scientists wouldn't need to bugger results, change the name to 'climate change', or try to legislate away dissenting voices.

And by the way? I'm a Jew. So your slam at Christianity isn't being taken personally. It's offensive because it is an affront to the religious liberties gained through the bloodshed of others before us. Have some damn respect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this thread has devolved into the expected moralizing. Can't wait to get back to inventing reasons why this plan is worse for the homeless than DC general.

No inventions. Many very legitimate, substantive, serious and non-NIMBY points have been raised about many aspects of the plan. They were not addressed.

If you want to get back on topic and defend your off-base "invented" comment then maybe you ought to think about coming up with some better answers.

NIMBYs always think they have a case. Saying the city needs to figure out the magic answer to homelessness in order to be worthy of putting a shelter in your neighborhood is a red herring.

Nobody is looking for a magic answer. What residents are looking for is a well-run, well-staffed facility that will benefit the residents by providing the support and skills necessary to break the cycle without doing damage to the surrounding neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Has bozzuto/cathedral commons chimed in? They've done a beautiful development job - have they even sold all the flats though?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has bozzuto/cathedral commons chimed in? They've done a beautiful development job - have they even sold all the flats though?

Good point, any word from Bozzuto? I wonder what they think of the new view that the $8,000 a month rental townhouses will have. First a construction site, then a shelter.
But property values will actually go UP, right, Mary Cheh?