New Ward 3 Homeless Families Shelter Site

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There should be affordable housing built near the shelters so that people can stay in the neighborhoods they are placed in. Otherwise it doesn't make sense to displace families after they've stabilized.

FWIW, there was a post of PoPville about how the Columbia Heights residents are opposed to the new shelter that's going up there so this isn't just a ward 3 thing.

are you dense? Columbia Heights has the highest concentration of subsidized housing in the city. Public Housing, Section 8, including a homeless shelter and medical facility, permanent "supportive" housing for recovering addicts. Please tell me why Ward 3 thinks they are exempt from sharing a city wide burden. How many of you have signs in your yard stating that "all are welcome here" in multiple languages? Just as long as they aren't homeless. And to the poster who thinks its wrong to let poor folks live in Ward 3 for a few months since they won't be able to stay long term? What you are saying is "why let them see how nice our life is, it will only make them sad"- insert sad face emoji. WTF is wrong with you?

I'm confused. What I'm saying is that there should be affordable housing near the new ward 3 shelter so that there is a path for people who stay at the shelter to permanently transition into the neighborhood.

And how, pray tell, will you do that? Use eminent domain and tear down the SFHs in Cleveland Park historic district? Bulldoze McLean Gardens and build high rises? Cathedral Commons is already built out, and the minimal 'affordable' units there are being rented by AU students. The fancy Wegman's town center will include the minimal number of 'affordable' units also, but the developer intends that to be more upscale than Cathedral Commons.

Do you have evidence of this? Most AU students are too wealthy to waste time gaming the IZ system and it makes even less sense with all the new on-campus housing AU has built. Do do you know that this has happened or does it just fit your ignorant narrative of what is going on around you?

Check it out. It's the sad reality.

This is such a bizarre allegation though it is hardly sad though it might be fraudulent.

But how in the world do you even know this? Did you follow an AU student up to their floor then come back later and break-in when they weren't home to review their lease?

It makes almost no sense that an AU student would bother with this - the waitlist to get a unit is very long (and managed by DC not the building) and students have very little flexibility on move-in dates. And the rates under the current law for an 80% AMI unit aren't any better than student housing or living in the Berks - I happen to know a bit about both AU students and their off campus housing costs and would be shocked if your allegation is true. People of course cheat and lie all the time but the savings/reward in this case for an inconvenient unit for a population that generally isn't cost conscious makes for a really illogical series of events.

Here is what is not illogical - every single development proposal that comes up along Wisconsin Avenue inevitably yields some cantankerous senior at a public meeting bitching that the units will just be occupied by AU students. Of course that never turns out to be true (and what the harm of that would be is never clear) but I'm guessing this poster was shopping at the Giant and saw someone with in AU sweatshirt and something went off in their brain where they connected some dots and come up with this haphazard and inaccurate photo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There should be affordable housing built near the shelters so that people can stay in the neighborhoods they are placed in. Otherwise it doesn't make sense to displace families after they've stabilized.

FWIW, there was a post of PoPville about how the Columbia Heights residents are opposed to the new shelter that's going up there so this isn't just a ward 3 thing.

are you dense? Columbia Heights has the highest concentration of subsidized housing in the city. Public Housing, Section 8, including a homeless shelter and medical facility, permanent "supportive" housing for recovering addicts. Please tell me why Ward 3 thinks they are exempt from sharing a city wide burden. How many of you have signs in your yard stating that "all are welcome here" in multiple languages? Just as long as they aren't homeless. And to the poster who thinks its wrong to let poor folks live in Ward 3 for a few months since they won't be able to stay long term? What you are saying is "why let them see how nice our life is, it will only make them sad"- insert sad face emoji. WTF is wrong with you?

I'm confused. What I'm saying is that there should be affordable housing near the new ward 3 shelter so that there is a path for people who stay at the shelter to permanently transition into the neighborhood.

And how, pray tell, will you do that? Use eminent domain and tear down the SFHs in Cleveland Park historic district? Bulldoze McLean Gardens and build high rises? Cathedral Commons is already built out, and the minimal 'affordable' units there are being rented by AU students. The fancy Wegman's town center will include the minimal number of 'affordable' units also, but the developer intends that to be more upscale than Cathedral Commons.

Do you have evidence of this? Most AU students are too wealthy to waste time gaming the IZ system and it makes even less sense with all the new on-campus housing AU has built. Do do you know that this has happened or does it just fit your ignorant narrative of what is going on around you?

Check it out. It's the sad reality.

This is such a bizarre allegation though it is hardly sad though it might be fraudulent.

But how in the world do you even know this? Did you follow an AU student up to their floor then come back later and break-in when they weren't home to review their lease?

It makes almost no sense that an AU student would bother with this - the waitlist to get a unit is very long (and managed by DC not the building) and students have very little flexibility on move-in dates. And the rates under the current law for an 80% AMI unit aren't any better than student housing or living in the Berks - I happen to know a bit about both AU students and their off campus housing costs and would be shocked if your allegation is true. People of course cheat and lie all the time but the savings/reward in this case for an inconvenient unit for a population that generally isn't cost conscious makes for a really illogical series of events.

Here is what is not illogical - every single development proposal that comes up along Wisconsin Avenue inevitably yields some cantankerous senior at a public meeting bitching that the units will just be occupied by AU students. Of course that never turns out to be true (and what the harm of that would be is never clear) but I'm guessing this poster was shopping at the Giant and saw someone with in AU sweatshirt and something went off in their brain where they connected some dots and come up with this haphazard and inaccurate photo.

"Fraudulent"?! Hey, Sherlock, maybe you should go to work for Devin Nunes!

[Anonymous]

I think there are probably Au students living there who pay market rate, and no-there's nothing wrong with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing about the Homeless Shelter at Cathedral Commons in this super-cloying video that speaks of Cathedral Commons' "Ahh-fluent" "rich" and "Prom-inent" setting, and that it's "Washington's premier residential and retail address."

https://vimeo.com/13018930

Yuck. The video is pretentious, grasping and treacly. I think I need to take a shower.

Clueless and tacky, actually. They seem to forget that the anchor tenant isn't Whole Foods or Wegmans, but a Giant.

And did Cathedral Commons rip off the Chanel logo?! It sure appears that way.

Chanel should sue the Cathedral Commons developers for trademark infringement and sullying their brand!

[Anonymous]

There were two panhandlers at the Giant entrance this week. I feel awful for saying this, but I decided that I will avoid shopping there once the shelter opens because it will only get worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There were two panhandlers at the Giant entrance this week. I feel awful for saying this, but I decided that I will avoid shopping there once the shelter opens because it will only get worse.

Don’t feel bad it’s doubtful your decision will be impactful not your absence noticeable so drop the martyrdom routine it’s okay you can smile and shop elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were two panhandlers at the Giant entrance this week. I feel awful for saying this, but I decided that I will avoid shopping there once the shelter opens because it will only get worse.

Don’t feel bad it’s doubtful your decision will be impactful not your absence noticeable so drop the martyrdom routine it’s okay you can smile and shop elsewhere.

I am so annoyed by well intentioned people who give. $ to panhandling. Donate straight to the charity instead!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing about the Homeless Shelter at Cathedral Commons in this super-cloying video that speaks of Cathedral Commons' "Ahh-fluent" "rich" and "Prom-inent" setting, and that it's "Washington's premier residential and retail address."

https://vimeo.com/13018930

Yuck. The video is pretentious, grasping and treacly. I think I need to take a shower.

Clueless and tacky, actually. They seem to forget that the anchor tenant isn't Whole Foods or Wegmans, but a Giant.

And did Cathedral Commons rip off the Chanel logo?! It sure appears that way.

Chanel should sue the Cathedral Commons developers for trademark infringement and sullying their brand!

The woman's voice reminds me of some of the NPR staff when they're being dramatic as they deliver their opinions.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were two panhandlers at the Giant entrance this week. I feel awful for saying this, but I decided that I will avoid shopping there once the shelter opens because it will only get worse.

Don’t feel bad it’s doubtful your decision will be impactful not your absence noticeable so drop the martyrdom routine it’s okay you can smile and shop elsewhere.

I am so annoyed by well intentioned people who give. $ to panhandling. Donate straight to the charity instead!

It’s a fricken Giant. Just buy them some food and eliminate all middle men.

[Anonymous]

Like most grocery stores don't have panhandlers around them, in MoCo, Fairfax, DC and many other places

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were two panhandlers at the Giant entrance this week. I feel awful for saying this, but I decided that I will avoid shopping there once the shelter opens because it will only get worse.

Don’t feel bad it’s doubtful your decision will be impactful not your absence noticeable so drop the martyrdom routine it’s okay you can smile and shop elsewhere.

I am so annoyed by well intentioned people who give. $ to panhandling. Donate straight to the charity instead!

It’s a fricken Giant. Just buy them some food and eliminate all middle men.

Try it - it is usually refused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Like most grocery stores don't have panhandlers around them, in MoCo, Fairfax, DC and many other places

Most stores don't. It's more of an urban thing. Cathedral Heights will just have to get used to it.

[Anonymous]

If you don't give them money they cant panhandle.

[Anonymous]

Are all of these inane posts coming from the same insecure McLean Gardens resident?

This shelter will be temporarily housing homeless families.

Not the long-term mentally ill homeless.

I hope the folks who are posting about pan-handling realize that most homeless are actually employed full time?

And the point of quickly getting them into transitional housing is to keep them employed and thus capable of paying their own way so they don't become part of the long term homeless crowd and so that their children's educations aren't interrupted.

But McLean Gardens go ahead and keep it classy and paranoid on here!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are all of these inane posts coming from the same insecure McLean Gardens resident?

This shelter will be temporarily housing homeless families.

Not the long-term mentally ill homeless.

I hope the folks who are posting about pan-handling realize that most homeless are actually employed full time?

And the point of quickly getting them into transitional housing is to keep them employed and thus capable of paying their own way so they don't become part of the long term homeless crowd and so that their children's educations aren't interrupted.

But McLean Gardens go ahead and keep it classy and paranoid on here!

+1

Nobody sees the homeless people who don't look it but are actually living out of their cars and even though they have a job its low-paying and they simply can't afford an apartment in this area.
Nobody sees the homeless families who don't seem it but are actually bouncing from one friend/family members place to another every few months relying on generosity until it ultimately runs out.
Nobody sees the nuances of homelessness the only thing society sees are the extremes.
Society sees the dirty, foul-smelling, drug-addicted psychopaths who lay sprawled out on sidewalks or loitering around stores begging for change and assume that's the one and only version of homelessness.