New Ward 3 Homeless Families Shelter Site

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well good news is construction of the shelter isn't anticipated to be complete until summer of 2019 so for all the posters freaking out about the Ward 3 homeless families shelter site you've got plenty of time to buy your guns or get your neighborhood watch militias organized or simply pack your shit and move elsewhere.

Why are you freaking out and accusing everyone of ill intent? No one here - except you - is talking about extreme tactics like buying guns or moving out. Many people think the shelter is a bad idea, but they're resigned to it. All they're asking for are clear standards and procedures to make sure the shelter is well run, and the residents are required to be good neighbors. Is that so complicated? Why does that scare you so much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well good news is construction of the shelter isn't anticipated to be complete until summer of 2019 so for all the posters freaking out about the Ward 3 homeless families shelter site you've got plenty of time to buy your guns or get your neighborhood watch militias organized or simply pack your shit and move elsewhere.

Why are you freaking out and accusing everyone of ill intent? No one here - except you - is talking about extreme tactics like buying guns or moving out. Many people think the shelter is a bad idea, but they're resigned to it. All they're asking for are clear standards and procedures to make sure the shelter is well run, and the residents are required to be good neighbors. Is that so complicated? Why does that scare you so much?

Obvious misinterpretation here - I'm cracking up not freaking out. Thought of people having a damn conniption fit at the idea of their sovereign safe havens being infected by (GASP!!) lesser-than's is hilarious to me. What the hell kind of delusional fantasy land are you living in where you think you that in a country where more than 45 million people live below the poverty line you can magically elude them altogether? And what makes you think you can elude them in the District of all places which has the highest rate of homelessness among cities in the United States, with 124.2 homeless people for every 10,000 residents. Homelessness isn't funny but the undertones of panic by some of these posters is certainly amusing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW you keep asking for evidence of things - how about some evidence that a shelter drags down property values?

I just skimmed a bunch of articles exploring what brings down property values and found not a single one that referenced homeless shelters - lousy schools, vacant properties, too many rentals, crime and even strip clubs show up on the lists but I didn't find a single one that included a homeless shelter.

So the burden is on you at this point - your being fearful of something is not reason enough to oppose it.

No burden on me. You're the one who offered sources, and your own sources suggest that the shelter will drag down property values. So my supporting evidence is the report you yourself posted.

Except the report I linked to and you now cite is, as you pointed out 20 years old. And as I pointed out is about Denver which is a very different jurisdiction and the evidence in that report wasn't very compelling.

I'll also point out you ignored the more recent and analogous Furman report.

You are the one in opposition here - do you have anything more than fear to site?

And even granting the old Denver report is right is it then your position that only less wealthy neighborhoods should house shelters because property values might drop? I'm curious if you'd own that position?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really doubt the MPD has the manpower to assign a permanent 24/7 guard detail over that shelter. In fact that's more the jurisdiction of the Housing Police, but I've never seen those guys outside of the NE and SE.

Seriously? That stretch of Idaho Avenue is crawling with Police 24/7 - the police cars have to go by the shelter and then drive up to Wisconsin Avenue to go just about anywhere when they are on a call. You really think there is going to be a police manpower problem immediately adjacent to a police station?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really doubt the MPD has the manpower to assign a permanent 24/7 guard detail over that shelter. In fact that's more the jurisdiction of the Housing Police, but I've never seen those guys outside of the NE and SE.

Seriously? That stretch of Idaho Avenue is crawling with Police 24/7 - the police cars have to go by the shelter and then drive up to Wisconsin Avenue to go just about anywhere when they are on a call. You really think there is going to be a police manpower problem immediately adjacent to a police station?

Have you ever been inside that station? It's nearly empty except for the handful of officers assigned to the station and upper ranking white shirts, neither group is actively patrolling the area around the station. The only time when that station gets busy is when a shift changeover occurs. The vast majority of officers are out on their beats aka not anywhere near the station.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really doubt the MPD has the manpower to assign a permanent 24/7 guard detail over that shelter. In fact that's more the jurisdiction of the Housing Police, but I've never seen those guys outside of the NE and SE.

Seriously? That stretch of Idaho Avenue is crawling with Police 24/7 - the police cars have to go by the shelter and then drive up to Wisconsin Avenue to go just about anywhere when they are on a call. You really think there is going to be a police manpower problem immediately adjacent to a police station?

Have you ever been inside that station? It's nearly empty except for the handful of officers assigned to the station and upper ranking white shirts, neither group is actively patrolling the area around the station. The only time when that station gets busy is when a shift changeover occurs. The vast majority of officers are out on their beats aka not anywhere near the station.

Yes I have - I'm there every couple of months to get a temporary parking pass and have also been there for some public meetings but also go to the Giant a couple of times a month. And you are right that the lobby is often quiet but there are always police cars going back and forth from the station and usually parked on the street as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW you keep asking for evidence of things - how about some evidence that a shelter drags down property values?

I just skimmed a bunch of articles exploring what brings down property values and found not a single one that referenced homeless shelters - lousy schools, vacant properties, too many rentals, crime and even strip clubs show up on the lists but I didn't find a single one that included a homeless shelter.

So the burden is on you at this point - your being fearful of something is not reason enough to oppose it.

No burden on me. You're the one who offered sources, and your own sources suggest that the shelter will drag down property values. So my supporting evidence is the report you yourself posted.

Except the report I linked to and you now cite is, as you pointed out 20 years old. And as I pointed out is about Denver which is a very different jurisdiction and the evidence in that report wasn't very compelling.

I'll also point out you ignored the more recent and analogous Furman report.

You are the one in opposition here - do you have anything more than fear to site?

And even granting the old Denver report is right is it then your position that only less wealthy neighborhoods should house shelters because property values might drop? I'm curious if you'd own that position?

It's pretty obvious - and funny - that you're now running away from the Denver report you yourself cited. The Furman report doesn't disaggregate its results according to the property values in the different neighborhoods, so it's not clear from Furman how much that difference affects things. But the Furman report also has lots of language emphasizing that its findings of no-decreased-value are likely related to the fact that NYC sited its shelters in dilapidated micro-zones that are surrounded by low-income neighborhoods, so it makes perfect sense that the shelter would increase the value of the dilapidated property it replaced. But that's very different from the Ward 3 situation where a shelter is being jammed into an affluent area. For better or worse, there aren't many studies of that situation. Indeed, one of the Denver reports suggests that Denver might have been one of the only places where that could be studied, because Denver had an ordinance that required placement of some shelters in affluent areas (something most cities don't do).

In short, you sound silly when you try to argue that erecting a shelter in the Ward 3 location won't negatively impact property values around it. If presented with a choice between two equal houses - one within a block of a shelter, and the other not - which would most people choose? Maybe you're among the tiny minority of people who will claim you'd actively seek out the shelter-adjacent house, but surely even you will admit you're part of a tiny minority. From there, it's simply supply-and-demand that causes property values to decline.

There's no question the shelter will have a negative impact. The key question is how that negative impact can be reduced. I'd like to think that strong Good Neighbor agreements could help a lot, but only if DC is willing to enforce them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again the shelter proposed for your neighborhood that you are paranoid about is to serve as transitional short term housing for families recently made homeless.

You keep talking about the mentally ill long term homeless who often also have substance abuse issues and are difficult to employ.

This shelter will be serving people who for whatever reason have hit a stretch of bad luck and need housing to get back on their feet - many of these folks are even employed.

One of the reasons to immediately house these people and get them back on their feet is so that they and their children don't become part of the long term homeless population - get them sheltered and protected and keep them employed or employable and keep their kids in school rather than allowing their situation to deteriorate which is bad for everyone including taxpayers.

I'm not the PP you've been bickering with, but another PP from a few pages back. A few thoughts:

1. I've read all of the Mayor's materials about these 8 new ward shelters, and I understand that she's claiming they will be short-term transitional facilities for families only. But I also know (and I hope you'd admit) that it's not unreasonable to be wary of a bait-and-switch, where these supposed short-term transitional facilities for families only get converted into long-term housing for high-risk singles. Indeed, I've even seen some of the later DC materials that start to water down their promises about how the facilities will be used, for example adding wiggle-room language about how the shelters are primarily designed and intended initially to house mostly families. When I see ambiguous words like those, I get suspicious of the Mayor's true intentions. That suspicion is increased by how the Mayor announced these shelter locations and tried to force them without any public input.

2. I suspect most of the people posting about this topic genuinely do want to help the needy population. You are being unfair to them, and quite frankly discouraging them from wanting to help, when you take a condescending attitude and accuse anyone who raises concerns of parroting right-wing talking points. I know your approach turns me off. Consider whether you might achieve more good by seeking a compromise that works for both (1) the homeless population, (2) the neighborhoods that are expected to absorb the shelters.

Exactly. Why is it so frowned upon to consider the needs of a neighborhood full of hardworking families just like those you seek to house? For it to be win win, everything should be crystal clear and transparent. And the supports for these needy families should be in place. As well as the conditions and requirements for being provided the service of free shelter. I would like to know, if we are transitioning families to independence, if there are kitchens in the living units. How are they eating? Are the bathrooms communal? If so, how is this different from DC General? What are residents doing during the day? What are they doing at night? I think it's fair to stipulate conditions in exchange for free housing and the chance to get on ones feet. When I was a single parent you'd better believe my family (whom I was fortunate to have) stipulated a LOT of conditions as I struggled to get on my feet. They also provided supports and I would very clearly like to know how the city aims to support these worthy families spread in 8 shelters city wide in an efficient, effective, caring and professional manner.

This was all gone over in great detail at the public meetings. And DC has rules and processes for how it deals with the homeless under its care and DC should not change those rules just because it is opening a shelter in Ward 3 and some right wing talking points are creeping into the discussion. If you are as a general matter interested in these processes and believe they are insufficient and need to be changed then immerse yourself in the rules and engage with the agency directly or by attending and testifying at a DC Council hearing about it.

But jumping in and dropping "consider the needs of a neighborhood full of hardworking families" as if the neighborhoods around the shelter are somehow made up of people different than the people who live near any other shelter is condescending, ignorant and elitist.

There are probably more households with just one working adult in them near the shelter than in most DC neighborhoods so I suspect your assumption is actually wrong that this neighborhood is somehow harder working than others.

DC has a process? DC General was abysmally mismanaged to the point of tragedy. And now they are completely changing the paradigm to small localized neighborhood shelters (not just Ward 3), but you assert they should not change the rules? If you THINK you have a new and better way, why on earth would you not change the rules?
the newspaper article which haunts me is of the mother living in a DC paid hotel room in MD, traveling by public bus two hours a day to get her kids to their school, feeding them unhealthy microwaved noodle soup and pop tarts day after day because she didn't trust/like the catered group meal provided at the hotel, holding no job and taking no classes and thus not advancing from homelessnes. This was DCs individualized "family support" just a few years back and so yes, I would like changes and would like to know specifically what will change to make this shelter worth the investment and impact ( a neutral, not negative term as with any change there is an impact) on the police, commerce district and neighbors.

[Anonymous]

DC has rules and regulations that covers pretty much everything, it's just that 99% is never adhered to.

[Anonymous]

Is it true that DC plans to name the homeless shelter for Mayor Marion Barry? That would add insult to injury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again the shelter proposed for your neighborhood that you are paranoid about is to serve as transitional short term housing for families recently made homeless.

You keep talking about the mentally ill long term homeless who often also have substance abuse issues and are difficult to employ.

This shelter will be serving people who for whatever reason have hit a stretch of bad luck and need housing to get back on their feet - many of these folks are even employed.

One of the reasons to immediately house these people and get them back on their feet is so that they and their children don't become part of the long term homeless population - get them sheltered and protected and keep them employed or employable and keep their kids in school rather than allowing their situation to deteriorate which is bad for everyone including taxpayers.

I'm not the PP you've been bickering with, but another PP from a few pages back. A few thoughts:

1. I've read all of the Mayor's materials about these 8 new ward shelters, and I understand that she's claiming they will be short-term transitional facilities for families only. But I also know (and I hope you'd admit) that it's not unreasonable to be wary of a bait-and-switch, where these supposed short-term transitional facilities for families only get converted into long-term housing for high-risk singles. Indeed, I've even seen some of the later DC materials that start to water down their promises about how the facilities will be used, for example adding wiggle-room language about how the shelters are primarily designed and intended initially to house mostly families. When I see ambiguous words like those, I get suspicious of the Mayor's true intentions. That suspicion is increased by how the Mayor announced these shelter locations and tried to force them without any public input.

2. I suspect most of the people posting about this topic genuinely do want to help the needy population. You are being unfair to them, and quite frankly discouraging them from wanting to help, when you take a condescending attitude and accuse anyone who raises concerns of parroting right-wing talking points. I know your approach turns me off. Consider whether you might achieve more good by seeking a compromise that works for both (1) the homeless population, (2) the neighborhoods that are expected to absorb the shelters.

Exactly. Why is it so frowned upon to consider the needs of a neighborhood full of hardworking families just like those you seek to house? For it to be win win, everything should be crystal clear and transparent. And the supports for these needy families should be in place. As well as the conditions and requirements for being provided the service of free shelter. I would like to know, if we are transitioning families to independence, if there are kitchens in the living units. How are they eating? Are the bathrooms communal? If so, how is this different from DC General? What are residents doing during the day? What are they doing at night? I think it's fair to stipulate conditions in exchange for free housing and the chance to get on ones feet. When I was a single parent you'd better believe my family (whom I was fortunate to have) stipulated a LOT of conditions as I struggled to get on my feet. They also provided supports and I would very clearly like to know how the city aims to support these worthy families spread in 8 shelters city wide in an efficient, effective, caring and professional manner.

Likely they will be hangin out in front of the Giant and the CVS during the day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And what about the Furman report which is 9 years old and focuses on NYC which is a lot more similar to DC than very white and suburban Denver is.

http://furmancenter.org/files/FurmanCenterPolicyBriefonSupportiveHousing_LowRes.pdf


Our research finds little evidence to support neighbors’ fears that supportive housing developments will reduce the price of
surrounding properties over time. To thecontrary, we find that the opening of a supportive housing development does not have
a statistically significant impact on the value of the properties within 500 feet of the development.

So you're saying that homeless shelters tend only to lower property values in "while and suburban" neighborhoods? What exactly would you call Cathedral Heights and McLean Gardens? An urban 'hood, they are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BTW you keep asking for evidence of things - how about some evidence that a shelter drags down property values?

I just skimmed a bunch of articles exploring what brings down property values and found not a single one that referenced homeless shelters - lousy schools, vacant properties, too many rentals, crime and even strip clubs show up on the lists but I didn't find a single one that included a homeless shelter.

So the burden is on you at this point - your being fearful of something is not reason enough to oppose it.

The management company that runs Cathedral Commons is pretty upset about the homeless shelter. It's not what they signed up for when they bought in as investors. The shelter iikely will affect future leasing prices and the town houses directly across from the shelter, which C-C is trying to rent for $8000/month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really doubt the MPD has the manpower to assign a permanent 24/7 guard detail over that shelter. In fact that's more the jurisdiction of the Housing Police, but I've never seen those guys outside of the NE and SE.

The only time that I've ever seen a cop from 2D actually walking a beat is when the officer is killing time walking the aisles of Best Buy in Tenleytown! Normally these Krispy Kreme kops never leave their cruisers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again the shelter proposed for your neighborhood that you are paranoid about is to serve as transitional short term housing for families recently made homeless.

You keep talking about the mentally ill long term homeless who often also have substance abuse issues and are difficult to employ.

This shelter will be serving people who for whatever reason have hit a stretch of bad luck and need housing to get back on their feet - many of these folks are even employed.

One of the reasons to immediately house these people and get them back on their feet is so that they and their children don't become part of the long term homeless population - get them sheltered and protected and keep them employed or employable and keep their kids in school rather than allowing their situation to deteriorate which is bad for everyone including taxpayers.

I'm not the PP you've been bickering with, but another PP from a few pages back. A few thoughts:

1. I've read all of the Mayor's materials about these 8 new ward shelters, and I understand that she's claiming they will be short-term transitional facilities for families only. But I also know (and I hope you'd admit) that it's not unreasonable to be wary of a bait-and-switch, where these supposed short-term transitional facilities for families only get converted into long-term housing for high-risk singles. Indeed, I've even seen some of the later DC materials that start to water down their promises about how the facilities will be used, for example adding wiggle-room language about how the shelters are primarily designed and intended initially to house mostly families. When I see ambiguous words like those, I get suspicious of the Mayor's true intentions. That suspicion is increased by how the Mayor announced these shelter locations and tried to force them without any public input.

2. I suspect most of the people posting about this topic genuinely do want to help the needy population. You are being unfair to them, and quite frankly discouraging them from wanting to help, when you take a condescending attitude and accuse anyone who raises concerns of parroting right-wing talking points. I know your approach turns me off. Consider whether you might achieve more good by seeking a compromise that works for both (1) the homeless population, (2) the neighborhoods that are expected to absorb the shelters.

Exactly. Why is it so frowned upon to consider the needs of a neighborhood full of hardworking families just like those you seek to house? For it to be win win, everything should be crystal clear and transparent. And the supports for these needy families should be in place. As well as the conditions and requirements for being provided the service of free shelter. I would like to know, if we are transitioning families to independence, if there are kitchens in the living units. How are they eating? Are the bathrooms communal? If so, how is this different from DC General? What are residents doing during the day? What are they doing at night? I think it's fair to stipulate conditions in exchange for free housing and the chance to get on ones feet. When I was a single parent you'd better believe my family (whom I was fortunate to have) stipulated a LOT of conditions as I struggled to get on my feet. They also provided supports and I would very clearly like to know how the city aims to support these worthy families spread in 8 shelters city wide in an efficient, effective, caring and professional manner.

Likely they will be hangin out in front of the Giant and the CVS during the day.

You'll be fine. They're will be extra security at the doors and a hose out front to clean up urine.