Bowser Spreads the Wealth opens homeless shelters in each DC ward

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much hatred for the holmeless for such a "so called" liberal city.

You guys are full of shit.

If you are talking to the Mayor, you should know it's a She.

Oh, and her NEW house is apparently 3 miles from the closest new shelter.

Shocking, I know.

That's for security reasons. Now move along.

???

What security reasons? To avoid toddler crime, as some pro-Bowser PP was making fun earlier?

[Anonymous]

Surprise surprise: Mayor refusing to say how she picked locations for 7 new homeless shelters

"D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser is declining to say how she picked the sites for seven new family shelters in the District and declining to consider changes"

http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/morning_call/2016/02/mayor-refusing-to-say-how-she-picked-locations-for.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. Apparently one of the shelters is going to be leased at a cost of $2m per year, to house 50 families.

That works out to be a rental cost of $3,333 per month per family.

What. The. FUCK.

Holy shit, that's a lot of money for an apartment for a homeless family. Bet you it's a crony deal with one of Bowser's friends.

In DC "serving the people" means one can do very well while pretending to do good.

Ding ding ding. This is going to make some folks very rich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. Apparently one of the shelters is going to be leased at a cost of $2m per year, to house 50 families.

That works out to be a rental cost of $3,333 per month per family.

What. The. FUCK.

Holy shit, that's a lot of money for an apartment for a homeless family. Bet you it's a crony deal with one of Bowser's friends.

In DC "serving the people" means one can do very well while pretending to do good.

Ding ding ding. This is going to make some folks very rich.

I'm not sure if "very rich..."...but this process does smell "secretive" and "patronage 101"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow. Apparently one of the shelters is going to be leased at a cost of $2m per year, to house 50 families.

That works out to be a rental cost of $3,333 per month per family.

What. The. FUCK.

Holy shit, that's a lot of money for an apartment for a homeless family. Bet you it's a crony deal with one of Bowser's friends.

Wow. That's just for the physical space, not the services? That is eye-opening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are the schools that will get the majority of homeless kids from the shelters:

Ward 1 Garrison ES and Cardozo
Ward 2 Walker Jones and Dunbar
Ward 3 Stoddert, Hardy and Wilson
Ward 4 Whittier, Truesdell and Roosevelt
Ward 5 Langdon, McKinley and Dunbar
Ward 6 Amidon, Jefferson and Eastern
Ward 7 Nalle, Kelly Miller and Woodson
Ward 8 Hendley, Hart and Ballou

All of these schools have abysmal rankings on Great Schools

I don't think Stoddert, Hardy, and Wilson have abysmal rankings anywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. Apparently one of the shelters is going to be leased at a cost of $2m per year, to house 50 families.

That works out to be a rental cost of $3,333 per month per family.

What. The. FUCK.

Holy shit, that's a lot of money for an apartment for a homeless family. Bet you it's a crony deal with one of Bowser's friends.

Wow. That's just for the physical space, not the services? That is eye-opening.

Which location is it? It may not even be apartments but just "units" without individual bathrooms. We should find affordable housing for the homeless for sure but why do they need to pay for them to live in expensive real estate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. Apparently one of the shelters is going to be leased at a cost of $2m per year, to house 50 families.

That works out to be a rental cost of $3,333 per month per family.

What. The. FUCK.

Holy shit, that's a lot of money for an apartment for a homeless family. Bet you it's a crony deal with one of Bowser's friends.

Wow. That's just for the physical space, not the services? That is eye-opening.

Which location is it? It may not even be apartments but just "units" without individual bathrooms. We should find affordable housing for the homeless for sure but why do they need to pay for them to live in expensive real estate?

And why lease from private parties when the city owns a lot of land and buildings that it could use for far cheaper?

It makes it look like the reason is political patronage, helping her friends and associates get rich at the taxpayers' expense.

Stinks to high heaven.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much hatred for the holmeless for such a "so called" liberal city.

You guys are full of shit.

If you are talking to the Mayor, you should know it's a She.

Oh, and her NEW house is apparently 3 miles from the closest new shelter.

Shocking, I know.

That's for security reasons. Now move along.

???

What security reasons? To avoid toddler crime, as some pro-Bowser PP was making fun earlier?

They fail to mention that 7 out of the 8 shelters will also house men, so it's not just single women with toddlers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are the schools that will get the majority of homeless kids from the shelters:

Ward 1 Garrison ES and Cardozo
Ward 2 Walker Jones and Dunbar
Ward 3 Stoddert, Hardy and Wilson
Ward 4 Whittier, Truesdell and Roosevelt
Ward 5 Langdon, McKinley and Dunbar
Ward 6 Amidon, Jefferson and Eastern
Ward 7 Nalle, Kelly Miller and Woodson
Ward 8 Hendley, Hart and Ballou

All of these schools have abysmal rankings on Great Schools

I don't think Stoddert, Hardy, and Wilson have abysmal rankings anywhere.

Hardy certainly struggles, as least compared to Deal. This won't make it any easier for Hardy, which is at an inflection point and otherwise finally poised to attract IB kids (who have tended to avoid the school).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow. Apparently one of the shelters is going to be leased at a cost of $2m per year, to house 50 families.

That works out to be a rental cost of $3,333 per month per family.

What. The. FUCK.

Holy shit, that's a lot of money for an apartment for a homeless family. Bet you it's a crony deal with one of Bowser's friends.

Source?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much hatred for the holmeless for such a "so called" liberal city.

You guys are full of shit.

If you are talking to the Mayor, you should know it's a She.

Oh, and her NEW house is apparently 3 miles from the closest new shelter.

Shocking, I know.

That's for security reasons. Now move along.

???

What security reasons? To avoid toddler crime, as some pro-Bowser PP was making fun earlier?

They fail to mention that 7 out of the 8 shelters will also house men, so it's not just single women with toddlers.

They are FAMILY shelters. Fathers/husbands are considered part of a family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much hatred for the holmeless for such a "so called" liberal city.

You guys are full of shit.

If you are talking to the Mayor, you should know it's a She.

Oh, and her NEW house is apparently 3 miles from the closest new shelter.

Shocking, I know.

That's for security reasons. Now move along.

???

What security reasons? To avoid toddler crime, as some pro-Bowser PP was making fun earlier?

They fail to mention that 7 out of the 8 shelters will also house men, so it's not just single women with toddlers.

They are FAMILY shelters. Fathers/husbands are considered part of a family.

Exactly so why do you keep saying only women and toddlers will be in the shelters?

[Anonymous]

I know this will be viewed as black heresy by the $300,000-a-year-but-totally-middle-class citizens of DCUM, but I would personally prefer the city arrange as many backroom crony deals as they need to to build shelters that get children out of the hell holes they've living in right now instead of more developments of luxury condo buildings for 20-something Hill staffers and lobbyists. I would vote for whatever candidate forces those developers to allocate 25% of those new buildings towards actual affordable housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much hatred for the holmeless for such a "so called" liberal city.

You guys are full of shit.

If you are talking to the Mayor, you should know it's a She.

Oh, and her NEW house is apparently 3 miles from the closest new shelter.

Shocking, I know.

That's for security reasons. Now move along.

???

What security reasons? To avoid toddler crime, as some pro-Bowser PP was making fun earlier?

They fail to mention that 7 out of the 8 shelters will also house men, so it's not just single women with toddlers.

They are FAMILY shelters. Fathers/husbands are considered part of a family.

Exactly so why do you keep saying only women and toddlers will be in the shelters?

I wasn't the one who said that, but for what it's worth, in my experience, the majority are single moms with kids. Sometimes there are two-parent families, but single mom with 1-2 kids under age 5 is most common.