Mary Cheh's new suggested locations for the homeless shelter

[Anonymous]

IMHO it's a kind of a hoot that Mary Cheh is pushing a homeless shelter across the street from the pretentiously "upscale" Cathedral Commons and directly across from new townhomes that rent for $8K-$9K/monthly.

[Anonymous]

Why wouldn't DC focus on the Walter Reed site on 16th Street NW as a location for a shelter? It's got easy access to 16th Street bus lines, and it's a blank slate because of the Walter Reed development plans. DC is already buying a big piece of that site, and it's a big site, so it's in a perfect position to add a couple sizeable shelters to the site. Maybe one on the 16th Street side and another on the Georgia Avenue side. Because Mayor Bowser has strong relations in Ward 4, she could ensure these two shelters are welcomed by her neighborhood.

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2016/02/16/d-c-council-moves-forward-on-walter-reed-development/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IMHO it's a kind of a hoot that Mary Cheh is pushing a homeless shelter across the street from the pretentiously "upscale" Cathedral Commons and directly across from new townhomes that rent for $8K-$9K/monthly.

What part of Ward 3 doesn't have the same argument?

[Anonymous]

They should have used the Idaho Ave. site for a new public school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two thoughts. Not really related to one another.

1. It seems wasteful for the city to spend lots of money to buy/lease expensive NWDC property to create a shelter for a homeless population that doesn't seem very high in NWDC. I am pretty sure that Polish embassy site will cost $3-4 million just for the property, and it needs tons of renovations. I suppose it's just a politics thing, where the city has to waste that money so Bowser can show she is equally burdening all neighborhoods. Seems silly though. Number of shelters should be tied to the number of homeless in the neighborhood, in a logical and non-political world.

2. To ease neighbors fears, it seems the city could make a clear policy that removes permanently any shelter resident identified as engaged in misdeeds, and also has a clear trigger for the removal of the shelter entirely if it is associated with an increase in crime or other bad activity. Is the city willing to commit to complete removal of the shelter if the shelter becomes a drag on the neighborhood?

Why do so many people in Ward 3 seem to think they should be immune from city life problems? Homelessness is an issue that cities will always be dealing with, and if you don't want to deal with homelessness you might not want to live in a city.

Also, are you serious about removing a shelter for "bad activity"? These are HOMELESS CHILDREN - MOSTLY TODDLERS. If their mom gets into some sort of "bad activity" you want to throw them out onto the street?

No one's saying anyone gets to be "immune from city life problems," but that doesn't mean anyone wants to create new problems. I recognize that homelessness is an issue DC and other cities deal with, and I agree DC should deal with it productively. Creating a shelter in a part of town that doesn't have much of a homeless population, and intentionally moving shelter residents across town into that shelter, doesn't make much sense to me. If those shelter residents cause problems (big IF, because I'm not assuming they will), then you've basically created a problem.

I'm very serious about removing people from the shelter for bad activity. Take a look at DC's current regulations for shelters - http://dccouncil.us/files/performance_oversight/Attachment323_DCGFamilySevereWeather2013_14.pdf . Look at item 5 on page 6, which describes a whole list of offenses that can lead to termination of shelter services, such as possessing a firearm on shelter premises, selling drugs on shelter premises, assault on shelter premises, or stealing on shelter premises. It seems pretty reasonable to deny shelter access to someone who's engaged in that sort of bad activity, doesn't it? Of course, DC and most other cities don't have a great history at enforcing such rules - https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/2014/03/27/a4711a1c-b5e1-11e3-b899-20667de76985_story.html - which describes people using drugs right in front of the shelter without any discipline. If you've ever spent any time around any shelter in any city, you know full well what sort of activities happen in the nearby alleys and bushes. And yeah, since this particular shelter (wherever it ends up getting sited) represents DC government creating a new shelter in a neighborhood and essentially importing a homeless population into that neighborhood, I do think it's reasonable to extend some of DC's existing "shelter rules" to cover the surrounding neighborhood. If a shelter resident gets caught with a gun at the shelter, or she assaults someone at the shelter, she gets kicked out. The shelter doesn't want her around if she's engaged in that sort of bad behavior. Well, if she's caught wandering the streets of a nearby neighborhood with a gun, or assaulting someone on a nearby street, I don't want her around my neighborhood either. So, yes, I do think that if Bowser is serious about gaining any small measure of community support for her plan to force shelters into new neighborhoods, then she ought to consider proving she's willing to ensure the shelter and its residents will be good neighbors by extending and enforcing the shelter rules.

First, you're acting like DC is some expansive, sprawling city and not a city that is only 64 square miles. Second, you make it sound like these shelters won't alleviate any problems. You don't see the problem in concentrated homelessness and concentrated poverty? You could maybe make the argument that when you concentrate these issues you can flood the system with supports, but let's be real and acknowledge that what is happening in DC right now is overwhelming entire wards. It's time for Ward 3 to help out and not act like an island protected by their own wealth and status.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two thoughts. Not really related to one another.

1. It seems wasteful for the city to spend lots of money to buy/lease expensive NWDC property to create a shelter for a homeless population that doesn't seem very high in NWDC. I am pretty sure that Polish embassy site will cost $3-4 million just for the property, and it needs tons of renovations. I suppose it's just a politics thing, where the city has to waste that money so Bowser can show she is equally burdening all neighborhoods. Seems silly though. Number of shelters should be tied to the number of homeless in the neighborhood, in a logical and non-political world.

2. To ease neighbors fears, it seems the city could make a clear policy that removes permanently any shelter resident identified as engaged in misdeeds, and also has a clear trigger for the removal of the shelter entirely if it is associated with an increase in crime or other bad activity. Is the city willing to commit to complete removal of the shelter if the shelter becomes a drag on the neighborhood?

Why do so many people in Ward 3 seem to think they should be immune from city life problems? Homelessness is an issue that cities will always be dealing with, and if you don't want to deal with homelessness you might not want to live in a city.

Also, are you serious about removing a shelter for "bad activity"? These are HOMELESS CHILDREN - MOSTLY TODDLERS. If their mom gets into some sort of "bad activity" you want to throw them out onto the street?

No one's saying anyone gets to be "immune from city life problems," but that doesn't mean anyone wants to create new problems. I recognize that homelessness is an issue DC and other cities deal with, and I agree DC should deal with it productively. Creating a shelter in a part of town that doesn't have much of a homeless population, and intentionally moving shelter residents across town into that shelter, doesn't make much sense to me. If those shelter residents cause problems (big IF, because I'm not assuming they will), then you've basically created a problem.

I'm very serious about removing people from the shelter for bad activity. Take a look at DC's current regulations for shelters - http://dccouncil.us/files/performance_oversight/Attachment323_DCGFamilySevereWeather2013_14.pdf . Look at item 5 on page 6, which describes a whole list of offenses that can lead to termination of shelter services, such as possessing a firearm on shelter premises, selling drugs on shelter premises, assault on shelter premises, or stealing on shelter premises. It seems pretty reasonable to deny shelter access to someone who's engaged in that sort of bad activity, doesn't it? Of course, DC and most other cities don't have a great history at enforcing such rules - https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/2014/03/27/a4711a1c-b5e1-11e3-b899-20667de76985_story.html - which describes people using drugs right in front of the shelter without any discipline. If you've ever spent any time around any shelter in any city, you know full well what sort of activities happen in the nearby alleys and bushes. And yeah, since this particular shelter (wherever it ends up getting sited) represents DC government creating a new shelter in a neighborhood and essentially importing a homeless population into that neighborhood, I do think it's reasonable to extend some of DC's existing "shelter rules" to cover the surrounding neighborhood. If a shelter resident gets caught with a gun at the shelter, or she assaults someone at the shelter, she gets kicked out. The shelter doesn't want her around if she's engaged in that sort of bad behavior. Well, if she's caught wandering the streets of a nearby neighborhood with a gun, or assaulting someone on a nearby street, I don't want her around my neighborhood either. So, yes, I do think that if Bowser is serious about gaining any small measure of community support for her plan to force shelters into new neighborhoods, then she ought to consider proving she's willing to ensure the shelter and its residents will be good neighbors by extending and enforcing the shelter rules.

First, you're acting like DC is some expansive, sprawling city and not a city that is only 64 square miles. Second, you make it sound like these shelters won't alleviate any problems. You don't see the problem in concentrated homelessness and concentrated poverty? You could maybe make the argument that when you concentrate these issues you can flood the system with supports, but let's be real and acknowledge that what is happening in DC right now is overwhelming entire wards. It's time for Ward 3 to help out and not act like an island protected by their own wealth and status.

While there may be a sound moral argument that every ward in the city ought to pitch in, to me any moral argument is overcome by the fact that it makes zero economic sense to stick a shelter into some of the most expensive land in the city. DC, like any other jurisdiction, does not have an infinite supply of money. Any money they spend on the shelter program is money that is not getting spent on some other city service. For the amount of money it's going to cost the city to build a shelter on any of the four proposed ward 3 locations, they could probably build five shelters elsewhere. Which means that the city plans to waste a lot of money to make a point when instead, it could have either built more shelters and housed more people for the same amount of cash or, in the unlikely event more shelters weren't needed, it could have used all the money it saved from not building in an expensive location and used it productively elsewhere.

But then it's DC. Fiscal responsibility has never been this city's strength.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two thoughts. Not really related to one another.

1. It seems wasteful for the city to spend lots of money to buy/lease expensive NWDC property to create a shelter for a homeless population that doesn't seem very high in NWDC. I am pretty sure that Polish embassy site will cost $3-4 million just for the property, and it needs tons of renovations. I suppose it's just a politics thing, where the city has to waste that money so Bowser can show she is equally burdening all neighborhoods. Seems silly though. Number of shelters should be tied to the number of homeless in the neighborhood, in a logical and non-political world.

2. To ease neighbors fears, it seems the city could make a clear policy that removes permanently any shelter resident identified as engaged in misdeeds, and also has a clear trigger for the removal of the shelter entirely if it is associated with an increase in crime or other bad activity. Is the city willing to commit to complete removal of the shelter if the shelter becomes a drag on the neighborhood?

Why do so many people in Ward 3 seem to think they should be immune from city life problems? Homelessness is an issue that cities will always be dealing with, and if you don't want to deal with homelessness you might not want to live in a city.

Also, are you serious about removing a shelter for "bad activity"? These are HOMELESS CHILDREN - MOSTLY TODDLERS. If their mom gets into some sort of "bad activity" you want to throw them out onto the street?

No one's saying anyone gets to be "immune from city life problems," but that doesn't mean anyone wants to create new problems. I recognize that homelessness is an issue DC and other cities deal with, and I agree DC should deal with it productively. Creating a shelter in a part of town that doesn't have much of a homeless population, and intentionally moving shelter residents across town into that shelter, doesn't make much sense to me. If those shelter residents cause problems (big IF, because I'm not assuming they will), then you've basically created a problem.

I'm very serious about removing people from the shelter for bad activity. Take a look at DC's current regulations for shelters - http://dccouncil.us/files/performance_oversight/Attachment323_DCGFamilySevereWeather2013_14.pdf . Look at item 5 on page 6, which describes a whole list of offenses that can lead to termination of shelter services, such as possessing a firearm on shelter premises, selling drugs on shelter premises, assault on shelter premises, or stealing on shelter premises. It seems pretty reasonable to deny shelter access to someone who's engaged in that sort of bad activity, doesn't it? Of course, DC and most other cities don't have a great history at enforcing such rules - https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/2014/03/27/a4711a1c-b5e1-11e3-b899-20667de76985_story.html - which describes people using drugs right in front of the shelter without any discipline. If you've ever spent any time around any shelter in any city, you know full well what sort of activities happen in the nearby alleys and bushes. And yeah, since this particular shelter (wherever it ends up getting sited) represents DC government creating a new shelter in a neighborhood and essentially importing a homeless population into that neighborhood, I do think it's reasonable to extend some of DC's existing "shelter rules" to cover the surrounding neighborhood. If a shelter resident gets caught with a gun at the shelter, or she assaults someone at the shelter, she gets kicked out. The shelter doesn't want her around if she's engaged in that sort of bad behavior. Well, if she's caught wandering the streets of a nearby neighborhood with a gun, or assaulting someone on a nearby street, I don't want her around my neighborhood either. So, yes, I do think that if Bowser is serious about gaining any small measure of community support for her plan to force shelters into new neighborhoods, then she ought to consider proving she's willing to ensure the shelter and its residents will be good neighbors by extending and enforcing the shelter rules.

First, you're acting like DC is some expansive, sprawling city and not a city that is only 64 square miles. Second, you make it sound like these shelters won't alleviate any problems. You don't see the problem in concentrated homelessness and concentrated poverty? You could maybe make the argument that when you concentrate these issues you can flood the system with supports, but let's be real and acknowledge that what is happening in DC right now is overwhelming entire wards. It's time for Ward 3 to help out and not act like an island protected by their own wealth and status.

While there may be a sound moral argument that every ward in the city ought to pitch in, to me any moral argument is overcome by the fact that it makes zero economic sense to stick a shelter into some of the most expensive land in the city. DC, like any other jurisdiction, does not have an infinite supply of money. Any money they spend on the shelter program is money that is not getting spent on some other city service. For the amount of money it's going to cost the city to build a shelter on any of the four proposed ward 3 locations, they could probably build five shelters elsewhere. Which means that the city plans to waste a lot of money to make a point when instead, it could have either built more shelters and housed more people for the same amount of cash or, in the unlikely event more shelters weren't needed, it could have used all the money it saved from not building in an expensive location and used it productively elsewhere.

But then it's DC. Fiscal responsibility has never been this city's strength.

Agree. They are buying prime real estate and helping less people than purchasing less expensive real estate and helping more. In fact instead of trying to prove a point in spending money on expensive real estate, they could actually afford to put some of this money into helping the homeless by actually purchasing homes and apartments. Then they would have a long-term solution for some of these people, instead of just a short-term place to stay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should have used the Idaho Ave. site for a new public school.

I've been waiting for you to chime in...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:First, you're acting like DC is some expansive, sprawling city and not a city that is only 64 square miles. Second, you make it sound like these shelters won't alleviate any problems. You don't see the problem in concentrated homelessness and concentrated poverty? You could maybe make the argument that when you concentrate these issues you can flood the system with supports, but let's be real and acknowledge that what is happening in DC right now is overwhelming entire wards. It's time for Ward 3 to help out and not act like an island protected by their own wealth and status.

I am struggling to follow what you're saying. You're saying DC is not a large city. But then you say that spreading shelters around DC will somehow solve problems by de-concentrating (i.e., spreading around) the homelessness and poverty. But then you say the problems associated with homelessness and poverty are overwhelming entire wards. It almost sounds like you're saying that there are collateral problems for the surrounding neighborhood associated with homeless shelters, and that you want to shift those collateral problems from the neighborhoods where they are now to spread them out among other neighborhoods. Is that a correct interpretation?

As for everyone helping out and paying their fair share, I suspect most people in Ward 3 would have no problem helping out. Indeed, I suspect the residents of Ward 3 are already paying a whole lot more in taxes to fund the homeless shelters than any other Ward.

But a big problem with this plan (aside from the sweetheart developer deals and cronyism) is that it doesn't spread the burden of the shelters fairly across everyone in the city, or even everyone in each Ward. It imposes huge burdens on the small number of people living within a few blocks of the new shelter sites, and hardly any burden on people who live farther away. For example, the Ward 4 shelter imposes a relatively big burden on a few blocks of East Petworth, and no burden on other parts of Ward 4, like the Mayor's neighborhood of Colonial Village for example.

Yes, I get that each shelter has to go somewhere, so someone's always going to be burdened. But the way in which these shelters are being sited has zero transparency and was announced by ultimatum. And now the sites are apparently being re-adjusted through some backroom negotiation, which makes me very suspicious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two thoughts. Not really related to one another.

1. It seems wasteful for the city to spend lots of money to buy/lease expensive NWDC property to create a shelter for a homeless population that doesn't seem very high in NWDC. I am pretty sure that Polish embassy site will cost $3-4 million just for the property, and it needs tons of renovations. I suppose it's just a politics thing, where the city has to waste that money so Bowser can show she is equally burdening all neighborhoods. Seems silly though. Number of shelters should be tied to the number of homeless in the neighborhood, in a logical and non-political world.

2. To ease neighbors fears, it seems the city could make a clear policy that removes permanently any shelter resident identified as engaged in misdeeds, and also has a clear trigger for the removal of the shelter entirely if it is associated with an increase in crime or other bad activity. Is the city willing to commit to complete removal of the shelter if the shelter becomes a drag on the neighborhood?

Why do so many people in Ward 3 seem to think they should be immune from city life problems? Homelessness is an issue that cities will always be dealing with, and if you don't want to deal with homelessness you might not want to live in a city.

Also, are you serious about removing a shelter for "bad activity"? These are HOMELESS CHILDREN - MOSTLY TODDLERS. If their mom gets into some sort of "bad activity" you want to throw them out onto the street?

No one's saying anyone gets to be "immune from city life problems," but that doesn't mean anyone wants to create new problems. I recognize that homelessness is an issue DC and other cities deal with, and I agree DC should deal with it productively. Creating a shelter in a part of town that doesn't have much of a homeless population, and intentionally moving shelter residents across town into that shelter, doesn't make much sense to me. If those shelter residents cause problems (big IF, because I'm not assuming they will), then you've basically created a problem.

I'm very serious about removing people from the shelter for bad activity. Take a look at DC's current regulations for shelters - http://dccouncil.us/files/performance_oversight/Attachment323_DCGFamilySevereWeather2013_14.pdf . Look at item 5 on page 6, which describes a whole list of offenses that can lead to termination of shelter services, such as possessing a firearm on shelter premises, selling drugs on shelter premises, assault on shelter premises, or stealing on shelter premises. It seems pretty reasonable to deny shelter access to someone who's engaged in that sort of bad activity, doesn't it? Of course, DC and most other cities don't have a great history at enforcing such rules - https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/2014/03/27/a4711a1c-b5e1-11e3-b899-20667de76985_story.html - which describes people using drugs right in front of the shelter without any discipline. If you've ever spent any time around any shelter in any city, you know full well what sort of activities happen in the nearby alleys and bushes. And yeah, since this particular shelter (wherever it ends up getting sited) represents DC government creating a new shelter in a neighborhood and essentially importing a homeless population into that neighborhood, I do think it's reasonable to extend some of DC's existing "shelter rules" to cover the surrounding neighborhood. If a shelter resident gets caught with a gun at the shelter, or she assaults someone at the shelter, she gets kicked out. The shelter doesn't want her around if she's engaged in that sort of bad behavior. Well, if she's caught wandering the streets of a nearby neighborhood with a gun, or assaulting someone on a nearby street, I don't want her around my neighborhood either. So, yes, I do think that if Bowser is serious about gaining any small measure of community support for her plan to force shelters into new neighborhoods, then she ought to consider proving she's willing to ensure the shelter and its residents will be good neighbors by extending and enforcing the shelter rules.

First, you're acting like DC is some expansive, sprawling city and not a city that is only 64 square miles. Second, you make it sound like these shelters won't alleviate any problems. You don't see the problem in concentrated homelessness and concentrated poverty? You could maybe make the argument that when you concentrate these issues you can flood the system with supports, but let's be real and acknowledge that what is happening in DC right now is overwhelming entire wards. It's time for Ward 3 to help out and not act like an island protected by their own wealth and status.

While there may be a sound moral argument that every ward in the city ought to pitch in, to me any moral argument is overcome by the fact that it makes zero economic sense to stick a shelter into some of the most expensive land in the city. DC, like any other jurisdiction, does not have an infinite supply of money. Any money they spend on the shelter program is money that is not getting spent on some other city service. For the amount of money it's going to cost the city to build a shelter on any of the four proposed ward 3 locations, they could probably build five shelters elsewhere. Which means that the city plans to waste a lot of money to make a point when instead, it could have either built more shelters and housed more people for the same amount of cash or, in the unlikely event more shelters weren't needed, it could have used all the money it saved from not building in an expensive location and used it productively elsewhere.

But then it's DC. Fiscal responsibility has never been this city's strength.

Agree. They are buying prime real estate and helping less people than purchasing less expensive real estate and helping more. In fact instead of trying to prove a point in spending money on expensive real estate, they could actually afford to put some of this money into helping the homeless by actually purchasing homes and apartments. Then they would have a long-term solution for some of these people, instead of just a short-term place to stay.

If you do the math on how much they are spending over the course of these 30 year leases, you could buy every homeless family a $750,000 townhouse. I'm not kidding. That's how far out of kilter the proposal is.

[Anonymous]

OP: this all came from an email from Mary Cheh? What other info did the email contain? Can you pls post?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP: this all came from an email from Mary Cheh? What other info did the email contain? Can you pls post?

http://www.icontact-archive.com/4BfFk84VdJt9WP6Z8sHCk62Z0nP0YipY?w=3

Enjoy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two thoughts. Not really related to one another.

1. It seems wasteful for the city to spend lots of money to buy/lease expensive NWDC property to create a shelter for a homeless population that doesn't seem very high in NWDC. I am pretty sure that Polish embassy site will cost $3-4 million just for the property, and it needs tons of renovations. I suppose it's just a politics thing, where the city has to waste that money so Bowser can show she is equally burdening all neighborhoods. Seems silly though. Number of shelters should be tied to the number of homeless in the neighborhood, in a logical and non-political world.

2. To ease neighbors fears, it seems the city could make a clear policy that removes permanently any shelter resident identified as engaged in misdeeds, and also has a clear trigger for the removal of the shelter entirely if it is associated with an increase in crime or other bad activity. Is the city willing to commit to complete removal of the shelter if the shelter becomes a drag on the neighborhood?

Why do so many people in Ward 3 seem to think they should be immune from city life problems? Homelessness is an issue that cities will always be dealing with, and if you don't want to deal with homelessness you might not want to live in a city.

Also, are you serious about removing a shelter for "bad activity"? These are HOMELESS CHILDREN - MOSTLY TODDLERS. If their mom gets into some sort of "bad activity" you want to throw them out onto the street?

No one's saying anyone gets to be "immune from city life problems," but that doesn't mean anyone wants to create new problems. I recognize that homelessness is an issue DC and other cities deal with, and I agree DC should deal with it productively. Creating a shelter in a part of town that doesn't have much of a homeless population, and intentionally moving shelter residents across town into that shelter, doesn't make much sense to me. If those shelter residents cause problems (big IF, because I'm not assuming they will), then you've basically created a problem.

I'm very serious about removing people from the shelter for bad activity. Take a look at DC's current regulations for shelters - http://dccouncil.us/files/performance_oversight/Attachment323_DCGFamilySevereWeather2013_14.pdf . Look at item 5 on page 6, which describes a whole list of offenses that can lead to termination of shelter services, such as possessing a firearm on shelter premises, selling drugs on shelter premises, assault on shelter premises, or stealing on shelter premises. It seems pretty reasonable to deny shelter access to someone who's engaged in that sort of bad activity, doesn't it? Of course, DC and most other cities don't have a great history at enforcing such rules - https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/2014/03/27/a4711a1c-b5e1-11e3-b899-20667de76985_story.html - which describes people using drugs right in front of the shelter without any discipline. If you've ever spent any time around any shelter in any city, you know full well what sort of activities happen in the nearby alleys and bushes. And yeah, since this particular shelter (wherever it ends up getting sited) represents DC government creating a new shelter in a neighborhood and essentially importing a homeless population into that neighborhood, I do think it's reasonable to extend some of DC's existing "shelter rules" to cover the surrounding neighborhood. If a shelter resident gets caught with a gun at the shelter, or she assaults someone at the shelter, she gets kicked out. The shelter doesn't want her around if she's engaged in that sort of bad behavior. Well, if she's caught wandering the streets of a nearby neighborhood with a gun, or assaulting someone on a nearby street, I don't want her around my neighborhood either. So, yes, I do think that if Bowser is serious about gaining any small measure of community support for her plan to force shelters into new neighborhoods, then she ought to consider proving she's willing to ensure the shelter and its residents will be good neighbors by extending and enforcing the shelter rules.

First, you're acting like DC is some expansive, sprawling city and not a city that is only 64 square miles. Second, you make it sound like these shelters won't alleviate any problems. You don't see the problem in concentrated homelessness and concentrated poverty? You could maybe make the argument that when you concentrate these issues you can flood the system with supports, but let's be real and acknowledge that what is happening in DC right now is overwhelming entire wards. It's time for Ward 3 to help out and not act like an island protected by their own wealth and status.

Some of the proposed locations make the concentrated poverty problems even worse. Ward 5's shelter is in a hostile location isolated from any amenities, surrounded by a strip club, liquor store and bus maintenance yard; the Ward 6 location is flanked on three sides by 800 units of public housing; the Ward 7 location is next to 2 liquor stores...

And again, the proposal doesn't talk about the services, which are what are really needed for dealing with the issue. The reason DC General is such an atrocious mess? Poor services. They have roaches, bedbugs, lice... horrible conditions, yes - and so they want to move the people out, but the issue is that unless there can be support, counseling and services to help people be better able to take care of themselves and their unit better, those problems of roaches, bedbugs and lice will just follow them to the new apartments. And don't think it won't happen because that's precisely why they have the problems in the first place. Worse yet, putting a huge amount of money into apartments takes away money for the services that the homeless need to help them get back on their feet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IMHO it's a kind of a hoot that Mary Cheh is pushing a homeless shelter across the street from the pretentiously "upscale" Cathedral Commons and directly across from new townhomes that rent for $8K-$9K/monthly.

Even more funny, it's next to a liquor store.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which site is best from a public transportation perspective?

River Road because it's practically on top of the Tenley Metro station.

As a Maryland resident, I would much prefer DC problems stay as far away from Bethesda as possible. RR is a bit too close for me.

As a DC resident, I would much prefer Maryland drivers stay the f*ck off our roads. I'm going to email Trump about the feasibility of building a yuuuuge, terrific wall along Eastern and Western Avenues.

Please do. What little crime there is in Bethesda will all but dry up after your wall is built.

And so will your property values