Petar?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The bigger issue is why does ward 3 have to be burdened with a dreadful facility like this? Ward 3 pays more in personal income taxes than all of the other wards combined - that shoud buy freedom from a facility housing poors prone to violence and criminality. I never understood why the ward whose culture spawned the shelter residents in the first instance (chiefly wards 7 and 8) should not get to “enjoy” the fruits of their labor.

This is the worst of the worst of Ward 3 tripe. We are a city. If you want to live on an island, move. Most of us understand that, while there are wealthier and less wealthy areas, it is better to distribute and not focus "all the poors" in one place. And, this is a TEMPORARY shelter for FAMILIES. You are a truly deplorable person and likely consider yourself to be an anti-Trump liberal. Look in the mirror. And if you are actually a pro-Trump conservative, then the shoe fits.

[Anonymous]

You really haven't spoken to my point. If the goal is continuity and stability, why would you not locate a family near to where they would secure low income housing after their stay in the shelter? They could establish transport and shopping habits, stay in same school etc. I'm just not sure the goal is the longterm welfare of these families, combines with safety (that's important - I'm not saying house them somewhere dodgy) and efficiency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You really haven't spoken to my point. If the goal is continuity and stability, why would you not locate a family near to where they would secure low income housing after their stay in the shelter? They could establish transport and shopping habits, stay in same school etc. I'm just not sure the goal is the longterm welfare of these families, combines with safety (that's important - I'm not saying house them somewhere dodgy) and efficiency.

Because there are never Ward 3 residents who become homeless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You really haven't spoken to my point. If the goal is continuity and stability, why would you not locate a family near to where they would secure low income housing after their stay in the shelter? They could establish transport and shopping habits, stay in same school etc. I'm just not sure the goal is the longterm welfare of these families, combines with safety (that's important - I'm not saying house them somewhere dodgy) and efficiency.

And where would that be? Do you think the homeless are all coming from one intersection or neighborhood? Or that low income housing is only in one area? Do you never get out of Cleveland Park? Do you know that there is city owned subsidized housing in Ward 3? (Betcha didn't know that)

There is no perfect location. There is probably not even a central location since relatively few people live downtown which is sort of the middle of the city though geographically somewhere around Bloomingdale is probably about as central as you can get.

The homeless come from all corners of the city so it makes sense to similarly distribute the shelters so long as they are accessible to public transit which this one is.

You do get that Ward 3 got probably the least threatening cohort of people requiring housing and you are still complaining about it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bigger issue is why does ward 3 have to be burdened with a dreadful facility like this? Ward 3 pays more in personal income taxes than all of the other wards combined - that shoud buy freedom from a facility housing poors prone to violence and criminality. I never understood why the ward whose culture spawned the shelter residents in the first instance (chiefly wards 7 and 8) should not get to “enjoy” the fruits of their labor.

This is the worst of the worst of Ward 3 tripe. We are a city. If you want to live on an island, move. Most of us understand that, while there are wealthier and less wealthy areas, it is better to distribute and not focus "all the poors" in one place. And, this is a TEMPORARY shelter for FAMILIES. You are a truly deplorable person and likely consider yourself to be an anti-Trump liberal. Look in the mirror. And if you are actually a pro-Trump conservative, then the shoe fits.

Thank You.

This has been such a silly discussion from the beginning - its not like there is some magical thing that keeps the "poors" from coming to Cleveland Park if they want to come but maybe the prospect that the kids of the protected elite rubbing shoulder with the "poors" in their public schools has been the trigger for these bizarre freak outs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bigger issue is why does ward 3 have to be burdened with a dreadful facility like this? Ward 3 pays more in personal income taxes than all of the other wards combined - that shoud buy freedom from a facility housing poors prone to violence and criminality. I never understood why the ward whose culture spawned the shelter residents in the first instance (chiefly wards 7 and 8) should not get to “enjoy” the fruits of their labor.

This is the worst of the worst of Ward 3 tripe. We are a city. If you want to live on an island, move. Most of us understand that, while there are wealthier and less wealthy areas, it is better to distribute and not focus "all the poors" in one place. And, this is a TEMPORARY shelter for FAMILIES. You are a truly deplorable person and likely consider yourself to be an anti-Trump liberal. Look in the mirror. And if you are actually a pro-Trump conservative, then the shoe fits.

Ward 3 must house poors bc “we are a city”? That does not follow. There are many ways to assist and Ward 3 has gone above and beyond helping the less desireable wards in terms of tax dollars— more than every other ward put together. But there is no recognition of that when forcing a housing facility on us. And why do you think it is a good idea to export the poors to wards that did not spawn them? That harms ward 3 and its property values and increases the crime rates in ward 3. Maybe its not ideal for all the facilities to be in ward 7 and 8, but there is a real cost of putting one in ward 3 to the community in ward 3 that is not being taken into account at all, which is annoying. Why not just have more shelters in wards 6 or 5 if you want to sprinkle them around? All you are accomplishing by putting a shelter in ward 3 is biting the hand that feeds wards 7 and 8. Stupid social policy and yes I am a liberal. But this is a stupid liberal idea. Looking at it honestly, none of my friends think it makes any sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bigger issue is why does ward 3 have to be burdened with a dreadful facility like this? Ward 3 pays more in personal income taxes than all of the other wards combined - that shoud buy freedom from a facility housing poors prone to violence and criminality. I never understood why the ward whose culture spawned the shelter residents in the first instance (chiefly wards 7 and 8) should not get to “enjoy” the fruits of their labor.

This is the worst of the worst of Ward 3 tripe. We are a city. If you want to live on an island, move. Most of us understand that, while there are wealthier and less wealthy areas, it is better to distribute and not focus "all the poors" in one place. And, this is a TEMPORARY shelter for FAMILIES. You are a truly deplorable person and likely consider yourself to be an anti-Trump liberal. Look in the mirror. And if you are actually a pro-Trump conservative, then the shoe fits.

Ward 3 must house poors bc “we are a city”? That does not follow. There are many ways to assist and Ward 3 has gone above and beyond helping the less desireable wards in terms of tax dollars— more than every other ward put together. But there is no recognition of that when forcing a housing facility on us. And why do you think it is a good idea to export the poors to wards that did not spawn them? That harms ward 3 and its property values and increases the crime rates in ward 3. Maybe its not ideal for all the facilities to be in ward 7 and 8, but there is a real cost of putting one in ward 3 to the community in ward 3 that is not being taken into account at all, which is annoying. Why not just have more shelters in wards 6 or 5 if you want to sprinkle them around? All you are accomplishing by putting a shelter in ward 3 is biting the hand that feeds wards 7 and 8. Stupid social policy and yes I am a liberal. But this is a stupid liberal idea. Looking at it honestly, none of my friends think it makes any sense.

Looking at it honestly you and all your friends are not liberals - you are elitist, insecure hypocrites.

-another Ward 3 resident who practices what he preaches and would welcome the shelter even if it reduces home values which it will not

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bigger issue is why does ward 3 have to be burdened with a dreadful facility like this? Ward 3 pays more in personal income taxes than all of the other wards combined - that shoud buy freedom from a facility housing poors prone to violence and criminality. I never understood why the ward whose culture spawned the shelter residents in the first instance (chiefly wards 7 and 8) should not get to “enjoy” the fruits of their labor.

This is the worst of the worst of Ward 3 tripe. We are a city. If you want to live on an island, move. Most of us understand that, while there are wealthier and less wealthy areas, it is better to distribute and not focus "all the poors" in one place. And, this is a TEMPORARY shelter for FAMILIES. You are a truly deplorable person and likely consider yourself to be an anti-Trump liberal. Look in the mirror. And if you are actually a pro-Trump conservative, then the shoe fits.

Ward 3 must house poors bc “we are a city”? That does not follow. There are many ways to assist and Ward 3 has gone above and beyond helping the less desireable wards in terms of tax dollars— more than every other ward put together. But there is no recognition of that when forcing a housing facility on us. And why do you think it is a good idea to export the poors to wards that did not spawn them? That harms ward 3 and its property values and increases the crime rates in ward 3. Maybe its not ideal for all the facilities to be in ward 7 and 8, but there is a real cost of putting one in ward 3 to the community in ward 3 that is not being taken into account at all, which is annoying. Why not just have more shelters in wards 6 or 5 if you want to sprinkle them around? All you are accomplishing by putting a shelter in ward 3 is biting the hand that feeds wards 7 and 8. Stupid social policy and yes I am a liberal. But this is a stupid liberal idea. Looking at it honestly, none of my friends think it makes any sense.

Just embrace that you are a selfish person and live with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bigger issue is why does ward 3 have to be burdened with a dreadful facility like this? Ward 3 pays more in personal income taxes than all of the other wards combined - that shoud buy freedom from a facility housing poors prone to violence and criminality. I never understood why the ward whose culture spawned the shelter residents in the first instance (chiefly wards 7 and 8) should not get to “enjoy” the fruits of their labor.

This is the worst of the worst of Ward 3 tripe. We are a city. If you want to live on an island, move. Most of us understand that, while there are wealthier and less wealthy areas, it is better to distribute and not focus "all the poors" in one place. And, this is a TEMPORARY shelter for FAMILIES. You are a truly deplorable person and likely consider yourself to be an anti-Trump liberal. Look in the mirror. And if you are actually a pro-Trump conservative, then the shoe fits.

Ward 3 must house poors bc “we are a city”? That does not follow. There are many ways to assist and Ward 3 has gone above and beyond helping the less desireable wards in terms of tax dollars— more than every other ward put together. But there is no recognition of that when forcing a housing facility on us. And why do you think it is a good idea to export the poors to wards that did not spawn them? That harms ward 3 and its property values and increases the crime rates in ward 3. Maybe its not ideal for all the facilities to be in ward 7 and 8, but there is a real cost of putting one in ward 3 to the community in ward 3 that is not being taken into account at all, which is annoying. Why not just have more shelters in wards 6 or 5 if you want to sprinkle them around? All you are accomplishing by putting a shelter in ward 3 is biting the hand that feeds wards 7 and 8. Stupid social policy and yes I am a liberal. But this is a stupid liberal idea. Looking at it honestly, none of my friends think it makes any sense.

You make this presumption that there aren't significant social services in Wards 5 and 6 (as well as 7 and 8) - I am not sure why you assume that a family shelter will have ANY impact on you or your property values. I would argue that you wouldn't even know it was there if it had just popped up innocuously overnight. As others have mentioned, there are homeless and other shelters in Ward 3 and yu probably have never noticed them.

[Anonymous]

People who say that a shelter does not negatively affect property values either don’t actually own property in Ward 3 or own property in ward 3 but far away from the shelter. Its not credible to say that a shelter housing people who have “poor” habits, eg, prone to criminality, will not negatively affect the surrounding neighborhood and amenities. I cant wait for the reactions when the first shelter resident or one of their friends assaults someone minding their own business at the shopping center or robs someone walking home from work at night.This is a stupid, feel-good policy that is going to cause actual physical damage to some unlucky ward 3 residents not to mention the lower property values.

[Anonymous]

I am not sure why it makes fiscal sense to have so many mini shelters, or how they will possibly be anything more than a drop in the bucket to the overwhelming need and attraction in a city whose mayor has promised year round right to housing. I'm not sure why the goal would not be efficient and effective service delivery. As to getting "the best of the bunch " or whatnot, who knows who is coming? I mean, really? Do you have any idea - is it written anywhere. I'd love to see who the shelter is designed for, what services will be provided (and how, and at what expense) and what the conditions are for shelter residency. Anyone have that info?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People who say that a shelter does not negatively affect property values either don’t actually own property in Ward 3 or own property in ward 3 but far away from the shelter. Its not credible to say that a shelter housing people who have “poor” habits, eg, prone to criminality, will not negatively affect the surrounding neighborhood and amenities. I cant wait for the reactions when the first shelter resident or one of their friends assaults someone minding their own business at the shopping center or robs someone walking home from work at night.This is a stupid, feel-good policy that is going to cause actual physical damage to some unlucky ward 3 residents not to mention the lower property values.

This is a family shelter, not like the shelter at Second and D ST NW. There are other shelters in Ward 3 and you don't even notice them. This one will be like those. You are stereotyping in the worst way. Like was said before, look in the mirror and just admit, you are a horrible person.

[Anonymous]

what does this discussion have to do with Petar?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who say that a shelter does not negatively affect property values either don’t actually own property in Ward 3 or own property in ward 3 but far away from the shelter. Its not credible to say that a shelter housing people who have “poor” habits, eg, prone to criminality, will not negatively affect the surrounding neighborhood and amenities. I cant wait for the reactions when the first shelter resident or one of their friends assaults someone minding their own business nat the shopping center or robs someone walking home from work at night.This is a stupid, feel-good policy that is going to cause actual physical damage to some unlucky ward 3 residents not to mention the lower property values.

This is a family shelter, not like the shelter at Second and D ST NW. There are other shelters in Ward 3 and you don't even notice them. This one will be like those. You are stereotyping in the worst way. Like was said before, look in the mirror and just admit, you are a horrible person.

You own no property in Ward 3- just admit it. And you probably work in these shelters or have family that does. The 2d and D shelter, as you tacitly acknowledge, is among the most dangerous places in DC. Poors strewn everywhere in the surrounding streets, urinating and defacating in public, aggressive pan handlers, wild-eyed, strung out on drugs. Family shelter means highly irresponsible, single moms and fatherless children wilding in the streets. And boyfriends and baby daddies stopping by from time to time. Its like the 2d & D shelter, only with a younger, more energized population to prey on the ward 3 residents. Once you own valuable property, your views will change. Its easy to condemn neighborhoods where you dont live to with facilities like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who say that a shelter does not negatively affect property values either don’t actually own property in Ward 3 or own property in ward 3 but far away from the shelter. Its not credible to say that a shelter housing people who have “poor” habits, eg, prone to criminality, will not negatively affect the surrounding neighborhood and amenities. I cant wait for the reactions when the first shelter resident or one of their friends assaults someone minding their own business nat the shopping center or robs someone walking home from work at night.This is a stupid, feel-good policy that is going to cause actual physical damage to some unlucky ward 3 residents not to mention the lower property values.

This is a family shelter, not like the shelter at Second and D ST NW. There are other shelters in Ward 3 and you don't even notice them. This one will be like those. You are stereotyping in the worst way. Like was said before, look in the mirror and just admit, you are a horrible person.

You own no property in Ward 3- just admit it. And you probably work in these shelters or have family that does. The 2d and D shelter, as you tacitly acknowledge, is among the most dangerous places in DC. Poors strewn everywhere in the surrounding streets, urinating and defacating in public, aggressive pan handlers, wild-eyed, strung out on drugs. Family shelter means highly irresponsible, single moms and fatherless children wilding in the streets. And boyfriends and baby daddies stopping by from time to time. Its like the 2d & D shelter, only with a younger, more energized population to prey on the ward 3 residents. Once you own valuable property, your views will change. Its easy to condemn neighborhoods where you dont live to with facilities like this.

Not the previous poster but I live a couple of blocks from Friendship Place in Tenleytown which has served the long term homeless (the type of homeless the paranoid McLean Garden poster on here is terrified of) and walk by Friendship Place every day with my kids and have never had an issue with it and the facility has had zero impact on housing values. In fact the condo building that is literally next door to the facility (and yes it is literally next door) routinely sells its units for over a million. In fact here is the most recent sale I can find - $875K for a 2 bedroom condo:

https://www.redfin.com/DC/Washington/4750-41st-St-NW-20016/unit-401/home/10183639

So you are provably wrong. And for good measure you are probably a racist too.

Also I do own a property in Ward 3 - and it is walking distance to an organization that serves the people you are terrified of. I also, without fear, regularly ride the bus with people going to and from Friendship Place.