New Ward 3 Homeless Families Shelter Site

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's stupid for the City to pay inflated Ward 3 prices (or inflated prices in other Wards) for homeless shelters. Better to locate those shelters in less expensive neighborhoods where the space is cheaper, and collect tax dollars from whatever businesses or people will pay to be in the more expensive Wards. To make matters worse, the City is now paying extra to build this new shelter in Ward 3.

The only reason we're dealing with this mess is because Bowser wants to score political points by "spreading the homeless" across all Wards. That's a really dumb basis for public policy decisions.

The city owns the land where the Ward 3 shelter is being built so they didn't pay inflated prices for it.

Nice try though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's stupid for the City to pay inflated Ward 3 prices (or inflated prices in other Wards) for homeless shelters. Better to locate those shelters in less expensive neighborhoods where the space is cheaper, and collect tax dollars from whatever businesses or people will pay to be in the more expensive Wards. To make matters worse, the City is now paying extra to build this new shelter in Ward 3.

The only reason we're dealing with this mess is because Bowser wants to score political points by "spreading the homeless" across all Wards. That's a really dumb basis for public policy decisions.

The city owns the land where the Ward 3 shelter is being built so they didn't pay inflated prices for it.

Nice try though.

First, the City is paying lots to build shelters at that site and others in expensive Wards. Second, if the City weren't using that land to build a brand new shelter, they could sell it for lots of money to some developer, and also collect annual property taxes on the value of whatever is build there. So instead of a substantial economic benefit for the City, that site is a huge expense to build a shelter that none of the neighbors want. Poor planning. The shelter doesn't even need to be there; the only reason it's being built there is so Bowser can score political points. Is that really how our City should spend its limited resources?

I wonder if anyone did a CBO-style cost-benefit analysis on that Ward 3 site. I'm betting that for the cost of that one Ward 3 shelter (value of land + potential property taxes + construction costs for shelter), the City could afford to renovate and maintain at least two equivalent shelters in less expensive parts of the City. So we're choosing to house only 50 homeless families when we could otherwise afford to house 100 families if we just made wiser choices. But we're making the more expensive choice to help fewer people because it scores political points for Bowser. Dumb.

[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.

NP - Well, I'll say it. Most of them would be better off in a long term residential mental health facility. It is cruel to ill people to leave them sleeping outside, living in their filth and self-medicating their mental illnesses with drugs and alcohol. It WOULD be better for the community as well. Too bad that false compassion for civil liberties has overruled common sense. People who are just down on their luck financially can be housed much cheaper by giving grants of a security deposit and first month's rent for an apartment in a low cost area. - MSW

[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.

NP - Well, I'll say it. Most of them would be better off in a long term residential mental health facility. It is cruel to ill people to leave them sleeping outside, living in their filth and self-medicating their mental illnesses with drugs and alcohol. It WOULD be better for the community as well. Too bad that false compassion for civil liberties has overruled common sense. People who are just down on their luck financially can be housed much cheaper by giving grants of a security deposit and first month's rent for an apartment in a low cost area. - MSW

Liberals want them to have all the amenities. Otherwise not compassionate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's stupid for the City to pay inflated Ward 3 prices (or inflated prices in other Wards) for homeless shelters. Better to locate those shelters in less expensive neighborhoods where the space is cheaper, and collect tax dollars from whatever businesses or people will pay to be in the more expensive Wards. To make matters worse, the City is now paying extra to build this new shelter in Ward 3.

The only reason we're dealing with this mess is because Bowser wants to score political points by "spreading the homeless" across all Wards. That's a really dumb basis for public policy decisions.

The city owns the land where the Ward 3 shelter is being built so they didn't pay inflated prices for it.

Nice try though.

First, the City is paying lots to build shelters at that site and others in expensive Wards. Second, if the City weren't using that land to build a brand new shelter, they could sell it for lots of money to some developer, and also collect annual property taxes on the value of whatever is build there. So instead of a substantial economic benefit for the City, that site is a huge expense to build a shelter that none of the neighbors want. Poor planning. The shelter doesn't even need to be there; the only reason it's being built there is so Bowser can score political points. Is that really how our City should spend its limited resources?

I wonder if anyone did a CBO-style cost-benefit analysis on that Ward 3 site. I'm betting that for the cost of that one Ward 3 shelter (value of land + potential property taxes + construction costs for shelter), the City could afford to renovate and maintain at least two equivalent shelters in less expensive parts of the City. So we're choosing to house only 50 homeless families when we could otherwise afford to house 100 families if we just made wiser choices. But we're making the more expensive choice to help fewer people because it scores political points for Bowser. Dumb.

Well at least you've boiled this down to the typical NIMBY arguments - shelters are good! Just not near me!

And the rest of your post is purely speculative.

The neighbors (or neighbor) posting about this are so insufferable I'm starting to hope that their property values actually do go down. For most of these folks it would be the first time in their life they've ever suffered or sacrificed something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's stupid for the City to pay inflated Ward 3 prices (or inflated prices in other Wards) for homeless shelters. Better to locate those shelters in less expensive neighborhoods where the space is cheaper, and collect tax dollars from whatever businesses or people will pay to be in the more expensive Wards. To make matters worse, the City is now paying extra to build this new shelter in Ward 3.

The only reason we're dealing with this mess is because Bowser wants to score political points by "spreading the homeless" across all Wards. That's a really dumb basis for public policy decisions.

The city owns the land where the Ward 3 shelter is being built so they didn't pay inflated prices for it.

Nice try though.

First, the City is paying lots to build shelters at that site and others in expensive Wards. Second, if the City weren't using that land to build a brand new shelter, they could sell it for lots of money to some developer, and also collect annual property taxes on the value of whatever is build there. So instead of a substantial economic benefit for the City, that site is a huge expense to build a shelter that none of the neighbors want. Poor planning. The shelter doesn't even need to be there; the only reason it's being built there is so Bowser can score political points. Is that really how our City should spend its limited resources?

I wonder if anyone did a CBO-style cost-benefit analysis on that Ward 3 site. I'm betting that for the cost of that one Ward 3 shelter (value of land + potential property taxes + construction costs for shelter), the City could afford to renovate and maintain at least two equivalent shelters in less expensive parts of the City. So we're choosing to house only 50 homeless families when we could otherwise afford to house 100 families if we just made wiser choices. But we're making the more expensive choice to help fewer people because it scores political points for Bowser. Dumb.

Well at least you've boiled this down to the typical NIMBY arguments - shelters are good! Just not near me!

And the rest of your post is purely speculative.

The neighbors (or neighbor) posting about this are so insufferable I'm starting to hope that their property values actually do go down. For most of these folks it would be the first time in their life they've ever suffered or sacrificed something.

What a terrible thing to say. Do you really think suffering has zip codes? Why not reboot for the new year and be a little more compassionate/less judgmental.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's stupid for the City to pay inflated Ward 3 prices (or inflated prices in other Wards) for homeless shelters. Better to locate those shelters in less expensive neighborhoods where the space is cheaper, and collect tax dollars from whatever businesses or people will pay to be in the more expensive Wards. To make matters worse, the City is now paying extra to build this new shelter in Ward 3.

The only reason we're dealing with this mess is because Bowser wants to score political points by "spreading the homeless" across all Wards. That's a really dumb basis for public policy decisions.

The city owns the land where the Ward 3 shelter is being built so they didn't pay inflated prices for it.

Nice try though.

No, but they are paying inflated prices to build a simple above-ground parking garage -- $10 Million -- because Mary Cheh forgot to check with the police department when She decreed the poiice parking lot as the site for the shelter. #NotasSmartasSheThinks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's stupid for the City to pay inflated Ward 3 prices (or inflated prices in other Wards) for homeless shelters. Better to locate those shelters in less expensive neighborhoods where the space is cheaper, and collect tax dollars from whatever businesses or people will pay to be in the more expensive Wards. To make matters worse, the City is now paying extra to build this new shelter in Ward 3.

The only reason we're dealing with this mess is because Bowser wants to score political points by "spreading the homeless" across all Wards. That's a really dumb basis for public policy decisions.

The city owns the land where the Ward 3 shelter is being built so they didn't pay inflated prices for it.

Nice try though.

First, the City is paying lots to build shelters at that site and others in expensive Wards. Second, if the City weren't using that land to build a brand new shelter, they could sell it for lots of money to some developer, and also collect annual property taxes on the value of whatever is build there. So instead of a substantial economic benefit for the City, that site is a huge expense to build a shelter that none of the neighbors want. Poor planning. The shelter doesn't even need to be there; the only reason it's being built there is so Bowser can score political points. Is that really how our City should spend its limited resources?

I wonder if anyone did a CBO-style cost-benefit analysis on that Ward 3 site. I'm betting that for the cost of that one Ward 3 shelter (value of land + potential property taxes + construction costs for shelter), the City could afford to renovate and maintain at least two equivalent shelters in less expensive parts of the City. So we're choosing to house only 50 homeless families when we could otherwise afford to house 100 families if we just made wiser choices. But we're making the more expensive choice to help fewer people because it scores political points for Bowser. Dumb.

Well at least you've boiled this down to the typical NIMBY arguments - shelters are good! Just not near me!

And the rest of your post is purely speculative.

The neighbors (or neighbor) posting about this are so insufferable I'm starting to hope that their property values actually do go down. For most of these folks it would be the first time in their life they've ever suffered or sacrificed something.

Ha! In 10 years the Cathedral Commons Giant likely will be a Dollar General store surrounded by nail salons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 NIMBYs gonna NIMBY

Many Ward 3 voters are staunchly YIYBY! That is, they can get on their soap box with furrowed brow and talk about how important it is to "share the burden" of homelessness across the city. They know full well that only a small number of residents in the ward will be faced with the impact of the shelter, while they can moralize knowing full well that they and their neighborhoods will not be affected in the least.

YIYBY! "Yes, but in your backyard!"

I don't know anyone who wants to share the burden by co-homing. Homelessness is pretty wretched. no one--in the COUNTRY--has got a bead on it. Mental health laws and lack of substance treatment complicate it all greatly. I think the plan a few PPS ago is a fine one and about being efficient with tax dollars, which ward 3 pay plenty of. How many of these homeless are originally from DC btw? Why aren't they with their families? Is there something there that could be addressed, ie changing housing codes so they could stay temporarily or giving their families a bonus to house them? If they alienated their families through some kind of toxic behavior then they definintely need to be in more controlled environs on the other hand. if they are not from DC and are just normal striving people looking to get ahead as one PP claimed, then they should be rational enough to take advantage of the shelters on offer or move to a place where the cost of living is lower. Have you seen what is happening in CA with homeless? DC is not nearly as smart, efficient or effective with its systems to take on CA size problems in the snazzy, sexy way they wish. Keep it simple and humane. To me, if we could not administer DC General properly we certainly haven't proved we can administer a satellite system. Let's administer the shelters we have properly, then branch out.

\

Lost in the whole debate is the true imperative to close DC General: Crony developer friends of Mayor Bowser covet the site, and the mayor is happy to ensure that it becomes available to them.

If one of the results of this efforts is the redevelopment of DC General that will be a huge win for both the city and the neighborhood around the former hospital - tell me why that would be a bad thing?

Thus spake Greater Greater Washington

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The right place for a shelter should have been one of the redeveloping buildings in Tenleytown, but since the Mayor didn't vet any of the options and had the original Ward 3 site shot down by other NIMBYs, then it is what it is.

Which one of those buildings are owned by the city?

And you probably aren't aware of this but TT already has a couple of significant homeless services there - which is why I would not have opposed locating the shelter in TT and think the people from CP and McLean gardens who are outraged about this are a bunch of snowflakes.

The biggest losers (and whiners) with Helter-Shelter are the anchor investors in the Cathedral Commons town center. Although they had a lot of political connections in the last administration that allowed them to get their building approvals easily, they apparently don't have the same connections to Bowser and the current council. So now they watch as their development investment (where they try to charge $9000 monthly to rent a townhouse) loses value as the high-rise homeless shelter rises directly across the street. And once the really upscale Wegmans center planned at Fannie Mae opens, and with the homeless shelter next door, Cathedral Commons will seem shabby by comparison.

As far as I know being from DC, cathedral Commons development took. Years to complete, followed correct processes and has created a really. Nice mixed retail, dining and living space. Their sidewalks are pristine and they have worked to throw street fests and alike. The communist attitude towards investors (sneering at their effort and hoping their dreams of profit crumble) is shocking to me. - TT resident who think CC was a well planned, nice addition to the neighborhood

The Homeless Shelter at Cathedral Commons will be amazing!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's stupid for the City to pay inflated Ward 3 prices (or inflated prices in other Wards) for homeless shelters. Better to locate those shelters in less expensive neighborhoods where the space is cheaper, and collect tax dollars from whatever businesses or people will pay to be in the more expensive Wards. To make matters worse, the City is now paying extra to build this new shelter in Ward 3.

The only reason we're dealing with this mess is because Bowser wants to score political points by "spreading the homeless" across all Wards. That's a really dumb basis for public policy decisions.

The city owns the land where the Ward 3 shelter is being built so they didn't pay inflated prices for it.

Nice try though.

No, but they are paying inflated prices to build a simple above-ground parking garage -- $10 Million -- because Mary Cheh forgot to check with the police department when She decreed the poiice parking lot as the site for the shelter. #NotasSmartasSheThinks

No she's not. There's also the bigger picture or sidwell and Fannie Mae development changing the footprint of the neighborhood. Along with AU landlord practices that are driving out all businesses except fast express dining (see Johnsons nursery closing due to AU rent hike). Cathedral commons with wide sidewalk, attractive retail and sit down restaurants was a boon. To jam in changes that might impact them without looking at the big picture is really saying that she does not care about the long term of the neighborhood and does want Wisconsin to be all burger joints big box and litter.

[Anonymous]

I would also like to know if members of the shelter will be gainfully occupied during the day? Has Cheh visited the area retail such as CC and sought win win employment contracts for these striving shelter occupants so they can save $ and move to independence? If she (and all the people crowing here) were smart instead of alienating local retail and wishing them utmost I'll as many PPs have done they would seek win-win partnerships. Except it's not about that is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 NIMBYs gonna NIMBY

Many Ward 3 voters are staunchly YIYBY! That is, they can get on their soap box with furrowed brow and talk about how important it is to "share the burden" of homelessness across the city. They know full well that only a small number of residents in the ward will be faced with the impact of the shelter, while they can moralize knowing full well that they and their neighborhoods will not be affected in the least.

YIYBY! "Yes, but in your backyard!"

I don't know anyone who wants to share the burden by co-homing. Homelessness is pretty wretched. no one--in the COUNTRY--has got a bead on it. Mental health laws and lack of substance treatment complicate it all greatly. I think the plan a few PPS ago is a fine one and about being efficient with tax dollars, which ward 3 pay plenty of. How many of these homeless are originally from DC btw? Why aren't they with their families? Is there something there that could be addressed, ie changing housing codes so they could stay temporarily or giving their families a bonus to house them? If they alienated their families through some kind of toxic behavior then they definintely need to be in more controlled environs on the other hand. if they are not from DC and are just normal striving people looking to get ahead as one PP claimed, then they should be rational enough to take advantage of the shelters on offer or move to a place where the cost of living is lower. Have you seen what is happening in CA with homeless? DC is not nearly as smart, efficient or effective with its systems to take on CA size problems in the snazzy, sexy way they wish. Keep it simple and humane. To me, if we could not administer DC General properly we certainly haven't proved we can administer a satellite system. Let's administer the shelters we have properly, then branch out.

\

Lost in the whole debate is the true imperative to close DC General: Crony developer friends of Mayor Bowser covet the site, and the mayor is happy to ensure that it becomes available to them.

If one of the results of this efforts is the redevelopment of DC General that will be a huge win for both the city and the neighborhood around the former hospital - tell me why that would be a bad thing?

Thus spake Greater Greater Washington

Cute.

Can you offer any compelling arguments for why it would be bad for the city, or the neighborhood around it, if DC General is redeveloped?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's stupid for the City to pay inflated Ward 3 prices (or inflated prices in other Wards) for homeless shelters. Better to locate those shelters in less expensive neighborhoods where the space is cheaper, and collect tax dollars from whatever businesses or people will pay to be in the more expensive Wards. To make matters worse, the City is now paying extra to build this new shelter in Ward 3.

The only reason we're dealing with this mess is because Bowser wants to score political points by "spreading the homeless" across all Wards. That's a really dumb basis for public policy decisions.

The city owns the land where the Ward 3 shelter is being built so they didn't pay inflated prices for it.

Nice try though.

First, the City is paying lots to build shelters at that site and others in expensive Wards. Second, if the City weren't using that land to build a brand new shelter, they could sell it for lots of money to some developer, and also collect annual property taxes on the value of whatever is build there. So instead of a substantial economic benefit for the City, that site is a huge expense to build a shelter that none of the neighbors want. Poor planning. The shelter doesn't even need to be there; the only reason it's being built there is so Bowser can score political points. Is that really how our City should spend its limited resources?

I wonder if anyone did a CBO-style cost-benefit analysis on that Ward 3 site. I'm betting that for the cost of that one Ward 3 shelter (value of land + potential property taxes + construction costs for shelter), the City could afford to renovate and maintain at least two equivalent shelters in less expensive parts of the City. So we're choosing to house only 50 homeless families when we could otherwise afford to house 100 families if we just made wiser choices. But we're making the more expensive choice to help fewer people because it scores political points for Bowser. Dumb.

Well at least you've boiled this down to the typical NIMBY arguments - shelters are good! Just not near me!

And the rest of your post is purely speculative.

The neighbors (or neighbor) posting about this are so insufferable I'm starting to hope that their property values actually do go down. For most of these folks it would be the first time in their life they've ever suffered or sacrificed something.

Ha! In 10 years the Cathedral Commons Giant likely will be a Dollar General store surrounded by nail salons.

Sure - a small number of people rotating through a family homeless shelter will somehow otherwise overwhelm the demographics of the neighborhood and cause such a transformation.

But I thought all these folks were smelly drunks who linger on the sidewalk all day harassing people - now you are saying they are going to create the demand for nail salons and a dollar store?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would also like to know if members of the shelter will be gainfully occupied during the day? Has Cheh visited the area retail such as CC and sought win win employment contracts for these striving shelter occupants so they can save $ and move to independence? If she (and all the people crowing here) were smart instead of alienating local retail and wishing them utmost I'll as many PPs have done they would seek win-win partnerships. Except it's not about that is it?

Are you gainfully occupied during the day? If yes why do you care what these folks are doing? If no who are you to preach?

Are the people in Ward 3 this ignorant or just those who come to post on DCUM? Most homeless people are employed.

Also most of the jobs in the immediate area around the shelter are in the service industry so to the extent that your stereotypes about the homeless are true there are plenty of jobs in the immediate area that would seem to be well suited for the low skilled people you assume the homeless are.

Again this is a transitional shelter for homeless families - not sure I understand why anyone needs to set up "partnerships" for short term residents and the entire point of a transitional shelter is quickly get these folks back on their feet so they don't become part of the permanent homeless population.