Bowser Spreads the Wealth opens homeless shelters in each DC ward

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Affordable is different than public housing or low income housing. Which do you support?

Affordable housing, public housing and low income housing are all subsidized in some form or another. Mechanisms vary but that's about it...

Different levels. Are you saying the govt should pay to have low income people living in million dollar homes? Sounds like socialism or income redistribution to me. I support affordable housing but not income redistribution.

I don't think anyone here said anything about low income people living in million dollar homes but it seems that's practically what Bowser is doing - I don't get why low income people should be living in a more expensive neighborhood than me, in an apartment where the rent alone will be a lot more than my mortgage payment. Bowser's plan has rents (JUST rents, not even including meals or anything else) costing taxpayers upwards of $3,300 a month (one site involves a $2 million dollar a year lease to house 50 families, per WaPo). For that kind of money we could be basically buying every homeless family in DC General a $750,000 home.

Well the pro bowser poster said they will or may buy housing in Ward three so the people at the shelter can stay in that ward. Even the cheapest apartment or homes in Ward three are $750k plus.

Why pick the most expensive areas of the city? Why pick privately owned properties? Why not leverage land that the city already owns? Why not rehab existing buildings that the city already owns?

Exactly. The reply to that at the ward 3 meeting was "you think they should only live in poor areas?"

Yes because they are poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Affordable is different than public housing or low income housing. Which do you support?

Affordable housing, public housing and low income housing are all subsidized in some form or another. Mechanisms vary but that's about it...

Different levels. Are you saying the govt should pay to have low income people living in million dollar homes? Sounds like socialism or income redistribution to me. I support affordable housing but not income redistribution.

I don't think anyone here said anything about low income people living in million dollar homes but it seems that's practically what Bowser is doing - I don't get why low income people should be living in a more expensive neighborhood than me, in an apartment where the rent alone will be a lot more than my mortgage payment. Bowser's plan has rents (JUST rents, not even including meals or anything else) costing taxpayers upwards of $3,300 a month (one site involves a $2 million dollar a year lease to house 50 families, per WaPo). For that kind of money we could be basically buying every homeless family in DC General a $750,000 home.

Well the pro bowser poster said they will or may buy housing in Ward three so the people at the shelter can stay in that ward. Even the cheapest apartment or homes in Ward three are $750k plus.

Why pick the most expensive areas of the city? Why pick privately owned properties? Why not leverage land that the city already owns? Why not rehab existing buildings that the city already owns?

Exactly. The reply to that at the ward 3 meeting was "you think they should only live in poor areas?"

That's a flaky answer. What about everyone else living in poor areas? Should they also be subsidized to go live in Ward 3?

+100.

They should close down several Wards, perhaps do an amazing park or something, and everyone gets free housing in Ward 3!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The kids don't stay under 5 forever. And the women don't generally go through the rest of life without men either.

Or additional babies Rinse, repeat

[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?

No to protect her from her constituents

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Or additional babies Rinse, repeat

Could I suggest that you guys not take your anger out on the homeless? You are making a pretty ugly scene. I have no idea what was going through the minds of these folks when they found themselves homeless, but I'm pretty sure that it wasn't, "Great! Now I get to move into a neighborhood where everyone hates us.". They aren't the ones who decided where to locate these shelters and I'm sure they have enough problems without you blaming them for a plan they may not even know about and certainly didn't influence.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or additional babies Rinse, repeat

Could I suggest that you guys not take your anger out on the homeless? You are making a pretty ugly scene. I have no idea what was going through the minds of these folks when they found themselves homeless, but I'm pretty sure that it wasn't, "Great! Now I get to move into a neighborhood where everyone hates us.". They aren't the ones who decided where to locate these shelters and I'm sure they have enough problems without you blaming them for a plan they may not even know about and certainly didn't influence.

I am not angry at the homeless and I have not attacked them, except concerns with safety, which based on statistics there is higher crime and behavioral issues with teens and children from these homes. Ask wards 5 and 6 if you don't believe it. I have said repeatedly I want to help them and think they should get housing, but I don't like the idea and concept of parts of this plan. Some of the comments from supporters of the plan sound as if they think housing redistribution should be part of the plan and that everyone should be able to live in expensive neighborhoods. I wish everyone could live in expensive neighborhoods but they can't unless we become a socialist country or unless the middle man that doesn't qualify for subsidies but is not wealthy enough, will be penalized as always. There are other options than placing shelters in expensive locations just to prove that the whole city is taking on the issue.

[Anonymous]

This thread right here, is what's wrong with the world and DC. Disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or additional babies Rinse, repeat

Could I suggest that you guys not take your anger out on the homeless? You are making a pretty ugly scene. I have no idea what was going through the minds of these folks when they found themselves homeless, but I'm pretty sure that it wasn't, "Great! Now I get to move into a neighborhood where everyone hates us.". They aren't the ones who decided where to locate these shelters and I'm sure they have enough problems without you blaming them for a plan they may not even know about and certainly didn't influence.

I am not angry at the homeless and I have not attacked them, except concerns with safety, which based on statistics there is higher crime and behavioral issues with teens and children from these homes. Ask wards 5 and 6 if you don't believe it. I have said repeatedly I want to help them and think they should get housing, but I don't like the idea and concept of parts of this plan. Some of the comments from supporters of the plan sound as if they think housing redistribution should be part of the plan and that everyone should be able to live in expensive neighborhoods. I wish everyone could live in expensive neighborhoods but they can't unless we become a socialist country or unless the middle man that doesn't qualify for subsidies but is not wealthy enough, will be penalized as always. There are other options than placing shelters in expensive locations just to prove that the whole city is taking on the issue.

Please tell us about these wonderful options because Wards 5 and 6 are tired of carrying more than their fair share. Also, could you direct us to these crime statistics? Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread right here, is what's wrong with the world and DC. Disgusting.

How much $ have you given to homeless causes? I bet I have given much more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread right here, is what's wrong with the world and DC. Disgusting.

How much $ have you given to homeless causes? I bet I have given much more.

I don't work as an advocate and get paid - I have volunteered, raised money, and donated money. Can you say the same?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread right here, is what's wrong with the world and DC. Disgusting.

How much $ have you given to homeless causes? I bet I have given much more.

I don't work as an advocate and get paid - I have volunteered, raised money, and donated money. Can you say the same?

I meant to post the two above together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or additional babies Rinse, repeat

Could I suggest that you guys not take your anger out on the homeless? You are making a pretty ugly scene. I have no idea what was going through the minds of these folks when they found themselves homeless, but I'm pretty sure that it wasn't, "Great! Now I get to move into a neighborhood where everyone hates us.". They aren't the ones who decided where to locate these shelters and I'm sure they have enough problems without you blaming them for a plan they may not even know about and certainly didn't influence.

I am not angry at the homeless and I have not attacked them, except concerns with safety, which based on statistics there is higher crime and behavioral issues with teens and children from these homes. Ask wards 5 and 6 if you don't believe it. I have said repeatedly I want to help them and think they should get housing, but I don't like the idea and concept of parts of this plan. Some of the comments from supporters of the plan sound as if they think housing redistribution should be part of the plan and that everyone should be able to live in expensive neighborhoods. I wish everyone could live in expensive neighborhoods but they can't unless we become a socialist country or unless the middle man that doesn't qualify for subsidies but is not wealthy enough, will be penalized as always. There are other options than placing shelters in expensive locations just to prove that the whole city is taking on the issue.

Agree. I also have not attacked the homeless - I've called Bowser's plan out as at best being half-baked, poorly planned, and poorly thought out, and at worst, corrupt and wired to make her cronies in real estate rich. And thus far, nobody has refuted either of those.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or additional babies Rinse, repeat

Could I suggest that you guys not take your anger out on the homeless? You are making a pretty ugly scene. I have no idea what was going through the minds of these folks when they found themselves homeless, but I'm pretty sure that it wasn't, "Great! Now I get to move into a neighborhood where everyone hates us.". They aren't the ones who decided where to locate these shelters and I'm sure they have enough problems without you blaming them for a plan they may not even know about and certainly didn't influence.

Thanks for saying this. My sister lost her job, has no savings (yes, probably her fault, but there are plenty of better-off people who have money management issues), and has health issues. Thank goodness she has family to help her out, or she'd be on the streets. Many people in this city live paycheck to paycheck, and they're just one fender-bender, medical issue, or layoff away from eviction. Domestic abuse is also an issue that many, many homeless women in this city have faced, and some of them leave these situations for the good of themselves and their children, only to find that they have no safe place to land. If you and your loved ones have never faced these awful situations, count yourself among the fortunate.

BTW, I learned at the ward 3 meeting on the family shelters that the riskiest time for homelessness in DC is between birth and age 1. That's right: you are more likely to end up homeless between birth and age 1 than at any other time in your life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or additional babies Rinse, repeat

Could I suggest that you guys not take your anger out on the homeless? You are making a pretty ugly scene. I have no idea what was going through the minds of these folks when they found themselves homeless, but I'm pretty sure that it wasn't, "Great! Now I get to move into a neighborhood where everyone hates us.". They aren't the ones who decided where to locate these shelters and I'm sure they have enough problems without you blaming them for a plan they may not even know about and certainly didn't influence.

I am not angry at the homeless and I have not attacked them, except concerns with safety, which based on statistics there is higher crime and behavioral issues with teens and children from these homes. Ask wards 5 and 6 if you don't believe it. I have said repeatedly I want to help them and think they should get housing, but I don't like the idea and concept of parts of this plan. Some of the comments from supporters of the plan sound as if they think housing redistribution should be part of the plan and that everyone should be able to live in expensive neighborhoods. I wish everyone could live in expensive neighborhoods but they can't unless we become a socialist country or unless the middle man that doesn't qualify for subsidies but is not wealthy enough, will be penalized as always. There are other options than placing shelters in expensive locations just to prove that the whole city is taking on the issue.

Agree. I also have not attacked the homeless - I've called Bowser's plan out as at best being half-baked, poorly planned, and poorly thought out, and at worst, corrupt and wired to make her cronies in real estate rich. And thus far, nobody has refuted either of those.

+1.

Jeff, when you have a second, could you please forward the comprehensive policy plan, plus the scientific review of the existing literature, that makes you so aggressively attack anyone daring to challenge obviously questionable aspects?

Look! Even WaPo has something to say: DC mayor refuses to say how she picked sites for new homeless shelters
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-mayor-refuses-to-say-how-she-picked-sites-for-new-homeless-shelters/2016/02/15/8a6817c6-d199-11e5-b2bc-988409ee911b_story.html

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Jeff, when you have a second, could you please forward the comprehensive policy plan, plus the scientific review of the existing literature, that makes you so aggressively attack anyone daring to challenge obviously questionable aspects?

Look! Even WaPo has something to say: DC mayor refuses to say how she picked sites for new homeless shelters
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-mayor-refuses-to-say-how-she-picked-sites-for-new-homeless-shelters/2016/02/15/8a6817c6-d199-11e5-b2bc-988409ee911b_story.html

Hey, I'll make a deal with you. I only post under my username so all of my posts are identifiable. You find a post where I "aggressively attack anyone daring to challenge obviously questionable aspects" and then I'll get right on that comprehensive policy plan request of yours.

If, on the other hand, you prefer to argue with some "Jeff" that exists only in your imagination, let me know and imaginary Jeff can get the plan for you.