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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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 .

This shows how little you know.

Last year, mayor bowser and county execs Leggett and baker (of MoCo and pg) signed a regional commitment to coordinate efforts to end homelessness. They are sharing info and data and can immediately determine residency and systems being used. People won't flock to dc because dc only serves dc residents. Anyone from pg or MoCo will be quickly redirected. People from other jurisdictions will be brushed off.

The dc homeless czar used to lead the flipping USICH...she's not a clueless newbie. They won't make any of the ridiculous mistakes you posters fear.

I work with people experiencing homelessness and to receive services in DC, one must either be a DC resident or state that they intend to become a DC resident.

The second part is problematic. I could see someone fleeing a bad situation elsewhere and coming to DC without any money IF they have a job lined up or IF they have family to come and stay with et cetera. But coming to DC just because you want to, or coming to DC because they provide shelter doesn't cut it in my book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how long it will take for you to realize you can't end homelessness in D.C.? Always been a dump, always will be a dump.

Homelessness in a regional issue. It is very hard to end homelessness when surrounding jurisdictions aren't doing their part. In effect, Virginia is saying "Yes DC build those great homeless facilities and we are happy to send you people to fill them up!" Their will never be enough beds.

With that said we can do a better job than DC General. I don't support the current plan but we can certainly do better......

The services need to be fixed and we need to stop opening the floodgates. Over half of DC's homeless originally came from elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How many days or nights have you spent working in a homeless facility? I have done hundreds.

I have spent enough time working in homeless shelters to know that smaller ones are less prone to problems. It is the same phenomenon that you see in large housing complexes and large schools. The bigger the institution, the more dramatic the effect of the bad apples. Do you not recall Relisha Rudd? She's dead now. And it is plainly obvious that the size and scale of the DC General Family Shelter had something to do with a janitor being able to walk off with a child.

I also know that some of DC general's problems are that the facilities are a total mess. Seriously, the place needs to be torn down. Raccoons roaming the halls would cause any other facility to be declared uninhabitable. Insect bites? Heating out for weeks at a time. Overflowing showers.

And families with children should not be housed adjacent to a meth rehab clinic or a jail.

Lastly, the facility was built as a hospital. It is not structured to provide housing. That is why there are lots of places for vulnerable children to be preyed upon.

Each of these things can be addressed by smaller and properly designed shelters.

That's the "solution to pollution is dilution" attitude - except it doesn't actually solve anything. The bad apples don't magically disappear on their own.

If we weren't dealing with the bad apples before, why should I think we'll deal with them after?

Also, the proposed facilities aren't designed for families either. They are dorm-style, with shared, communal bathrooms. I don't see it as being that much different from the inappropriate design DC General had.

[Anonymous]

Yes how is it different and who are these crack teams of Para professionals who will move most of them to independence in 90 days according to CHeh?

[Anonymous]

Does the Cheh plan seem very nonchalant/matter of fact about other OOB kids getting their slots filled by the children in the shelter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How many days or nights have you spent working in a homeless facility? I have done hundreds.

I have spent enough time working in homeless shelters to know that smaller ones are less prone to problems. It is the same phenomenon that you see in large housing complexes and large schools. The bigger the institution, the more dramatic the effect of the bad apples. Do you not recall Relisha Rudd? She's dead now. And it is plainly obvious that the size and scale of the DC General Family Shelter had something to do with a janitor being able to walk off with a child.

I also know that some of DC general's problems are that the facilities are a total mess. Seriously, the place needs to be torn down. Raccoons roaming the halls would cause any other facility to be declared uninhabitable. Insect bites? Heating out for weeks at a time. Overflowing showers.

And families with children should not be housed adjacent to a meth rehab clinic or a jail.

Lastly, the facility was built as a hospital. It is not structured to provide housing. That is why there are lots of places for vulnerable children to be preyed upon.

Each of these things can be addressed by smaller and properly designed shelters.

That's the "solution to pollution is dilution" attitude - except it doesn't actually solve anything. The bad apples don't magically disappear on their own.

If we weren't dealing with the bad apples before, why should I think we'll deal with them after?

Also, the proposed facilities aren't designed for families either. They are dorm-style, with shared, communal bathrooms. I don't see it as being that much different from the inappropriate design DC General had.

We have known for decades that reducing the scale of facilities like this creates a safer environment. If you don't believe it, that's because you have never spent much time in any. Homeless advocacy groups aren't asking for smaller facilities just for fun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How many days or nights have you spent working in a homeless facility? I have done hundreds.

I have spent enough time working in homeless shelters to know that smaller ones are less prone to problems. It is the same phenomenon that you see in large housing complexes and large schools. The bigger the institution, the more dramatic the effect of the bad apples. Do you not recall Relisha Rudd? She's dead now. And it is plainly obvious that the size and scale of the DC General Family Shelter had something to do with a janitor being able to walk off with a child.

I also know that some of DC general's problems are that the facilities are a total mess. Seriously, the place needs to be torn down. Raccoons roaming the halls would cause any other facility to be declared uninhabitable. Insect bites? Heating out for weeks at a time. Overflowing showers.

And families with children should not be housed adjacent to a meth rehab clinic or a jail.

Lastly, the facility was built as a hospital. It is not structured to provide housing. That is why there are lots of places for vulnerable children to be preyed upon.

Each of these things can be addressed by smaller and properly designed shelters.

That's the "solution to pollution is dilution" attitude - except it doesn't actually solve anything. The bad apples don't magically disappear on their own.

If we weren't dealing with the bad apples before, why should I think we'll deal with them after?

Also, the proposed facilities aren't designed for families either. They are dorm-style, with shared, communal bathrooms. I don't see it as being that much different from the inappropriate design DC General had.

We have known for decades that reducing the scale of facilities like this creates a safer environment. If you don't believe it, that's because you have never spent much time in any. Homeless advocacy groups aren't asking for smaller facilities just for fun.

But even Street Sense ran several articles blasting Bowsers plan for many of the reasons cited here.

[Anonymous]

I almost feel like they are asking just for fun. This seems very much based in the skin in the game, lets be equitable pt. Of view more so than what's actually good for the homeless in D.C. Long term, or the homeless problem. I also don't like Bowsers year round housing offer to everyone. I think D.C. and dc taxpayers will get crushed with an influx of homeless. I'm pretty sure word will get to Sf o f how awesome we are

[Anonymous]

Did Cheh's post address the "skin in the game" point? I don't recall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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 .

This shows how little you know.

Last year, mayor bowser and county execs Leggett and baker (of MoCo and pg) signed a regional commitment to coordinate efforts to end homelessness. They are sharing info and data and can immediately determine residency and systems being used. People won't flock to dc because dc only serves dc residents. Anyone from pg or MoCo will be quickly redirected. People from other jurisdictions will be brushed off.

The dc homeless czar used to lead the flipping USICH...she's not a clueless newbie. They won't make any of the ridiculous mistakes you posters fear.

I work with people experiencing homelessness and to receive services in DC, one must either be a DC resident or state that they intend to become a DC resident.

The second part is problematic. I could see someone fleeing a bad situation elsewhere and coming to DC without any money IF they have a job lined up or IF they have family to come and stay with et cetera. But coming to DC just because you want to, or coming to DC because they provide shelter doesn't cut it in my book.

+1. That second element is a very funny joke on DC taxpayers.

[Anonymous]

So again, 28 pages in and none of the real concerns addressed.

Yes, we all agree something has to be done about DC General. Yes, some of us agree that concentrating poverty and social issues all in one facility could be problematic.

But beyond that, none of the serious questions and concerns raised:

- the lousy and uncoordinated services that led to DC General's deterioration, which as such will also lead to the 8 new facilities' eventual deterioration

- whether homeless families can actually be turned around in 90 or 120 days as claimed (we don't currently have that track record so how will it magically change)

- the fact that the proposed facilities aren't optimal for families either, given dorm-style accommodations and shared bathrooms

- the exorbitant costs (for what Bowser's plan would cost over 30 years, the city could buy a $650,000 townhouse for ever homeless family)

- the crony developer element

- whether the proposed locations actually make sense (several of them weren't any more accessible to transportation or amenities than DC General)

- if anyone had bothered to look at which wards and neighborhoods already had skin in the game, i.e. ward 6 which is already a dumping grounds for the poor given that within a several-block radius of the proposed shelter there are already 800 units of DCHA public housing, there have already been facilities and services for the homeless (one of which was half a block away at Randall School), and they are also about to get a halfway house for released inmates on School Street 4 blocks from the proposed family shelter, along with many more low-income apartments coming online with new and ongoing construction which have 20-30% set aside.

There are many many other questions and concerns that have absolutely not been addressed. Merely saying "yes we need to shut down DC General" is not enough. We need a REAL PLAN for how to deal with this and what Bowser and Council have proposed falls very very short of being a legitimate plan that addresses any of the concerns.

[Anonymous]

Good summation. Can we impeach these people for por governance? Recall? What's the process?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So again, 28 pages in and none of the real concerns addressed.

Yes, we all agree something has to be done about DC General. Yes, some of us agree that concentrating poverty and social issues all in one facility could be problematic.

But beyond that, none of the serious questions and concerns raised:

- the lousy and uncoordinated services that led to DC General's deterioration, which as such will also lead to the 8 new facilities' eventual deterioration

- whether homeless families can actually be turned around in 90 or 120 days as claimed (we don't currently have that track record so how will it magically change)

- the fact that the proposed facilities aren't optimal for families either, given dorm-style accommodations and shared bathrooms

- the exorbitant costs (for what Bowser's plan would cost over 30 years, the city could buy a $650,000 townhouse for ever homeless family)

- the crony developer element

- whether the proposed locations actually make sense (several of them weren't any more accessible to transportation or amenities than DC General)

- if anyone had bothered to look at which wards and neighborhoods already had skin in the game, i.e. ward 6 which is already a dumping grounds for the poor given that within a several-block radius of the proposed shelter there are already 800 units of DCHA public housing, there have already been facilities and services for the homeless (one of which was half a block away at Randall School), and they are also about to get a halfway house for released inmates on School Street 4 blocks from the proposed family shelter, along with many more low-income apartments coming online with new and ongoing construction which have 20-30% set aside.

There are many many other questions and concerns that have absolutely not been addressed. Merely saying "yes we need to shut down DC General" is not enough. We need a REAL PLAN for how to deal with this and what Bowser and Council have proposed falls very very short of being a legitimate plan that addresses any of the concerns.

That's not true. Some of the concerns are not addressed. But the homeless advocates are pushing for better facilities, so that will probably be fixed too.

The rest is just FUD. You can't build in my neighborhood until you find the magic answer, because there is no magic answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So again, 28 pages in and none of the real concerns addressed.

Yes, we all agree something has to be done about DC General. Yes, some of us agree that concentrating poverty and social issues all in one facility could be problematic.

But beyond that, none of the serious questions and concerns raised:

- the lousy and uncoordinated services that led to DC General's deterioration, which as such will also lead to the 8 new facilities' eventual deterioration

- whether homeless families can actually be turned around in 90 or 120 days as claimed (we don't currently have that track record so how will it magically change)

- the fact that the proposed facilities aren't optimal for families either, given dorm-style accommodations and shared bathrooms

- the exorbitant costs (for what Bowser's plan would cost over 30 years, the city could buy a $650,000 townhouse for ever homeless family)

- the crony developer element

- whether the proposed locations actually make sense (several of them weren't any more accessible to transportation or amenities than DC General)

- if anyone had bothered to look at which wards and neighborhoods already had skin in the game, i.e. ward 6 which is already a dumping grounds for the poor given that within a several-block radius of the proposed shelter there are already 800 units of DCHA public housing, there have already been facilities and services for the homeless (one of which was half a block away at Randall School), and they are also about to get a halfway house for released inmates on School Street 4 blocks from the proposed family shelter, along with many more low-income apartments coming online with new and ongoing construction which have 20-30% set aside.

There are many many other questions and concerns that have absolutely not been addressed. Merely saying "yes we need to shut down DC General" is not enough. We need a REAL PLAN for how to deal with this and what Bowser and Council have proposed falls very very short of being a legitimate plan that addresses any of the concerns.

That's not true. Some of the concerns are not addressed. But the homeless advocates are pushing for better facilities, so that will probably be fixed too.

The rest is just FUD. You can't build in my neighborhood until you find the magic answer, because there is no magic answer.

Sure, homeless advocates are pushing for better facilities yet they are still ending up with dorm style accomodations with 2 shared baths to serve 30-50 families. I'm sure lots of homeless advocates are involved, but they aren't getting what they want either.

Goes to show it's not FUD. These questions should be answerable in some form or another. The uncertainty and doubt comes from the city's inability to do so. These plans are half-baked. Many many things were not evaluated or considered. There may not be "magic" but the least we can do is hold the city accountable until they get the plan more fully baked.

[Anonymous]

We were told that shelter residents would stay 120 days. Not that there is any reason to believe that; no one has released data on how long residents stay in DC General.

Now Mary Cheh has reduced this down to 60 to 90 days. And does so in way that seems to imply that services will be so superior from the 15 hardworking case people.

And somehow the nonprofits will be chipping in their services as well--implication that's free for taxpayers rather than the truth, which is that they will be paid service providers.

And we are to be comforted by the fact that food will be brought into the site--getting families on their feet apparently does not involve having them do any cooking. Presumably, the food will all be catered in. Wonder who gets the contract for that.