New Ward 3 Homeless Families Shelter Site

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't the city council blocking an underground parking lot for the fannie mae redevelopment project in their misguided war on driving? This would simply force the developer to enlarge the projects footprint and knock down trees for an above ground parking area. Meanwhile, they give all kinds of variances for this shelter project. It seems like our council just wants to spread architectural blight up and down Wisconsin avenue, so it can be as ugly and congested as other recently "developed" areas. I guess that's their idea of equity.

Where did you hear this? First of all the Council doesn't get involved in individual zoning cases. Second, the developer has indicated that he's got the city agencies at his back. An underground garage there is a good, needed thing, although not the developer's proposed new Wisconsin access for trucks and cars. It would put another light about 100 feet from an existing one at Rodman and 250 feet from the other light at Fannie/Post Office. This will create even more gridlock in an already congested area. The developer should use the existing Wisconsin access, but it clearly wants to put trucks on the periphery of its site (next to existig McLean Gardens residences on Rodman) rather than create noise for the on-site residences that the developer wants to sell.

Neither of these posts are true. Either use links and supporting evidence or stop spreading false information.

With large tract review, the city has very little to say or weigh in on with this project with respect to parking or anything else. And the plans show using the existing light between the site and Cafe Ole.

Has the developer requested underground parking and has that been approved ?

A third access to the site, direct to Wisconsin Avenue next to existing lights, absolutely requires regulatory review, starting with DDOT. It's crazy to put a new access at the south part of that site, which is very much part of the plans. Are you a flack for the developer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So are they ever going to start construction or they did just close that parking lot for ****s and giggles?

The first step is to build a multistory parking garage next to the police station. Unfortunately for the folks who live nearby in McLean Gardens, the parking garage will be open, concrete beam construction, and there will be no screening or greening of the garage.

I heard the garage was supposed to be completed in six months so that parking in the neighborhood won't be so screwed up, they haven't even broke ground yet on the site yet....I suppose six months really means a year and a half...

It's running on DC time.

This. I suspect this entire project won't be finished until a least 2020. The originally said 2019.

The Washington Post reports that the next phase of DC's plans on homelessness will be to close larger shelters for single men in favor of new, "neighborhood-based" smaller shelters. Guess where a second shelter for homeless men is likely to be co- located? Well, why not on DC-owned land next to the new shelter for families?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So are they ever going to start construction or they did just close that parking lot for ****s and giggles?

The first step is to build a multistory parking garage next to the police station. Unfortunately for the folks who live nearby in McLean Gardens, the parking garage will be open, concrete beam construction, and there will be no screening or greening of the garage.

I heard the garage was supposed to be completed in six months so that parking in the neighborhood won't be so screwed up, they haven't even broke ground yet on the site yet....I suppose six months really means a year and a half...

It's running on DC time.

This. I suspect this entire project won't be finished until a least 2020. The originally said 2019.

The Washington Post reports that the next phase of DC's plans on homelessness will be to close larger shelters for single men in favor of new, "neighborhood-based" smaller shelters. Guess where a second shelter for homeless men is likely to be co- located? Well, why not on DC-owned land next to the new shelter for families?

Coming soon: The ShelterS at Cathedral Commons.

[Anonymous]

Why do single homeless men need small "neighborhood" based shelters?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do single homeless men need small "neighborhood" based shelters?

They feel safer and it disperses the panhandling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do single homeless men need small "neighborhood" based shelters?

Spit it out just say what you are afraid of...
The idea of 20-30 junkies nutjobs and criminals all housed in a shelter just hanging around all day congregating on the corners and walking around the neighborhood is frightening and you’re all for helping the homeless but not at the expense of them impeding on your comfortable community and invading your safe space. You’d rather they be hoarded off and housed in some other part of the city among “their kind” i.e. other low-income undesirables that you similarly would prefer to avoid at all costs.
I totally get it - not judging at all cause it’s an understandable attitude to have but it’s an anonymous forum - so just say it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do single homeless men need small "neighborhood" based shelters?

Spit it out just say what you are afraid of...
The idea of 20-30 junkies nutjobs and criminals all housed in a shelter just hanging around all day congregating on the corners and walking around the neighborhood is frightening and you’re all for helping the homeless but not at the expense of them impeding on your comfortable community and invading your safe space. You’d rather they be hoarded off and housed in some other part of the city among “their kind” i.e. other low-income undesirables that you similarly would prefer to avoid at all costs.
I totally get it - not judging at all cause it’s an understandable attitude to have but it’s an anonymous forum - so just say it.

Who wants to have people dropping needles and shit in their shrubery, in a previously safe and secure neighborhood? That's not what people signed up for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do single homeless men need small "neighborhood" based shelters?

Spit it out just say what you are afraid of...
The idea of 20-30 junkies nutjobs and criminals all housed in a shelter just hanging around all day congregating on the corners and walking around the neighborhood is frightening and you’re all for helping the homeless but not at the expense of them impeding on your comfortable community and invading your safe space. You’d rather they be hoarded off and housed in some other part of the city among “their kind” i.e. other low-income undesirables that you similarly would prefer to avoid at all costs.
I totally get it - not judging at all cause it’s an understandable attitude to have but it’s an anonymous forum - so just say it.

Who wants to have people dropping needles and shit in their shrubery, in a previously safe and secure neighborhood? That's not what people signed up for.

Exactly so just say it. No need to worry about being perceived as presumptuous I mean, no not every homeless person is an addict, but perfectly understandable for folks to hold that opinion cause few people take into consideration the fact that “good” people fall on hard times it’s normal to assume it’s only derelicts are homeless.

[Anonymous]

Addiction and mental illness. Yes I see no need for being ensconced in neighborhoods. How weird to think that appropriate. And don't see how it discourages panhandling since most neighborhoods in DC are walkable to a major artery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do single homeless men need small "neighborhood" based shelters?

Spit it out just say what you are afraid of...
The idea of 20-30 junkies nutjobs and criminals all housed in a shelter just hanging around all day congregating on the corners and walking around the neighborhood is frightening and you’re all for helping the homeless but not at the expense of them impeding on your comfortable community and invading your safe space. You’d rather they be hoarded off and housed in some other part of the city among “their kind” i.e. other low-income undesirables that you similarly would prefer to avoid at all costs.
I totally get it - not judging at all cause it’s an understandable attitude to have but it’s an anonymous forum - so just say it.

Who wants to have people dropping needles and shit in their shrubery, in a previously safe and secure neighborhood? That's not what people signed up for.

Remember that when election day comes.

And the months before, as you donate money to candidates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do single homeless men need small "neighborhood" based shelters?

Spit it out just say what you are afraid of...
The idea of 20-30 junkies nutjobs and criminals all housed in a shelter just hanging around all day congregating on the corners and walking around the neighborhood is frightening and you’re all for helping the homeless but not at the expense of them impeding on your comfortable community and invading your safe space. You’d rather they be hoarded off and housed in some other part of the city among “their kind” i.e. other low-income undesirables that you similarly would prefer to avoid at all costs.
I totally get it - not judging at all cause it’s an understandable attitude to have but it’s an anonymous forum - so just say it.

Who wants to have people dropping needles and shit in their shrubery, in a previously safe and secure neighborhood? That's not what people signed up for.

Exactly so just say it. No need to worry about being perceived as presumptuous I mean, no not every homeless person is an addict, but perfectly understandable for folks to hold that opinion cause few people take into consideration the fact that “good” people fall on hard times it’s normal to assume it’s only derelicts are homeless.

I don't think addicts or schizoid are bad people, (your words), but don't think they're compatible with family neighborhoods. I think they need medical care and a large facility is appropriate for that. When I go to the hospital it's not a quaint cottage in a family neighborhood. For the non mentally ill or addicted, don't they simply need a roof bed and shower near transport and job services? Up to them to get on their feet, just as you or I do every day. Yes they should be safe and needs looked after, but again-why do single men need a family neighborhood?

[Anonymous]

There’s this idea that they’re all really dirty, they’re drinking and using drugs all the time, they’re urinating in the street. There are almost 12,000 homeless people in our city. If that were the case, our city would be a disaster. It would be falling apart at the seams. But it’s not, because the majority of homeless people are just ordinary people who are down and out on their luck or circumstance and are trying to find their way back to normalcy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't the city council blocking an underground parking lot for the fannie mae redevelopment project in their misguided war on driving? This would simply force the developer to enlarge the projects footprint and knock down trees for an above ground parking area. Meanwhile, they give all kinds of variances for this shelter project. It seems like our council just wants to spread architectural blight up and down Wisconsin avenue, so it can be as ugly and congested as other recently "developed" areas. I guess that's their idea of equity.

Where did you hear this? First of all the Council doesn't get involved in individual zoning cases. Second, the developer has indicated that he's got the city agencies at his back. An underground garage there is a good, needed thing, although not the developer's proposed new Wisconsin access for trucks and cars. It would put another light about 100 feet from an existing one at Rodman and 250 feet from the other light at Fannie/Post Office. This will create even more gridlock in an already congested area. The developer should use the existing Wisconsin access, but it clearly wants to put trucks on the periphery of its site (next to existig McLean Gardens residences on Rodman) rather than create noise for the on-site residences that the developer wants to sell.

Neither of these posts are true. Either use links and supporting evidence or stop spreading false information.

With large tract review, the city has very little to say or weigh in on with this project with respect to parking or anything else. And the plans show using the existing light between the site and Cafe Ole.

Has the developer requested underground parking and has that been approved ?

A third access to the site, direct to Wisconsin Avenue next to existing lights, absolutely requires regulatory review, starting with DDOT. It's crazy to put a new access at the south part of that site, which is very much part of the plans. Are you a flack for the developer?

A third access used only by delivery trucks at off hours - ya, that will have tremendous impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There’s this idea that they’re all really dirty, they’re drinking and using drugs all the time, they’re urinating in the street. There are almost 12,000 homeless people in our city. If that were the case, our city would be a disaster. It would be falling apart at the seams. But it’s not, because the majority of homeless people are just ordinary people who are down and out on their luck or circumstance and are trying to find their way back to normalcy

You answered nothing that I asked about why single men would need a small family neighborhood setting for a shelter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s this idea that they’re all really dirty, they’re drinking and using drugs all the time, they’re urinating in the street. There are almost 12,000 homeless people in our city. If that were the case, our city would be a disaster. It would be falling apart at the seams. But it’s not, because the majority of homeless people are just ordinary people who are down and out on their luck or circumstance and are trying to find their way back to normalcy

You answered nothing that I asked about why single men would need a small family neighborhood setting for a shelter.

Is there a zoned-off section of the city where they can go that doesn’t have families?