New Ward 3 Homeless Families Shelter Site

[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!

Interesting point. Do you have any kind of citation or source for this statistic as it applies to DC homeless families (the ones under discussion here). Thanks!

[Anonymous]

There are panhandlers and homeless people near every metro station in DC. Literally. A family shelter is not going to change the panhandling situation. We live in a city, everyone. If you're bothered by urban living, it's perfectly acceptable to move to the suburbs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are panhandlers and homeless people near every metro station in DC. Literally. A family shelter is not going to change the panhandling situation. We live in a city, everyone. If you're bothered by urban living, it's perfectly acceptable to move to the suburbs.

Cities have changed a lot. We don't all expect the crime rates of NYC in the 70s for example. You may have one vision of city living that includes panhandlers. It's OK for people to want to redefine city living away from that. Panhandling and chronic homeless are not just a given. These people need medical attention by and large, not a dime or a stale sandwich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are panhandlers and homeless people near every metro station in DC. Literally. A family shelter is not going to change the panhandling situation. We live in a city, everyone. If you're bothered by urban living, it's perfectly acceptable to move to the suburbs.

Cities have changed a lot. We don't all expect the crime rates of NYC in the 70s for example. You may have one vision of city living that includes panhandlers. It's OK for people to want to redefine city living away from that. Panhandling and chronic homeless are not just a given. These people need medical attention by and large, not a dime or a stale sandwich.

I agree with you completely, but that doesn't change the fact that there are panhandlers and homeless people near every metro station in DC. That's the way it is right now in DC. All I'm saying is that if people are bothered by it, those are the kinds of issues that don't happen as much in the suburbs.

[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!

Oh good. I'm a PP from several pages ago who was trying to start a constructive discussion about what requirements for shelter residents, and for community neighbors, ought to appear in the Good Neighbor Agreement that (the City claims) will accompany this shelter. Here are some ideas I tossed out from looking at other Good Neighbor Agreements online, plus a couple others that someone added. It looks like you also have ideas, so I added yours. Anyone else have ideas?

1. No panhandling or begging by shelter residents.
2. Any shelter resident who commits a crime gets booted.
3. All adult shelter residents not enrolled in school must have a job.
4. Any evidence of drugs or alcohol gets you booted.
5. Adults must have regular jobs and provide proof of employment.
6. Children must be enrolled in school, and must attend regularly.
7. Both adults and children must attend shelter-sponsored counseling sessions, aimed at topics like mental health, financial literacy, etc.
8. Shelter residents with indication of mental illness will be transferred to a more appropriate facility.
9. All shelter residents will be families. No single adults.
10. All shelter stays will be temporary - none longer than 60 (90?) days.

These are just examples to get the discussion moving. This post is meant as essentially a challenge for people opposed to the Ward 3 shelter, to name what good neighbor requirements would help you get behind it. Interested in seeing genuine responses.

If we're going to have a spread-out system of small shelters, then it's up to us to propose commonsense and workable requirements. What requirements should there be? I suspect that if Bowser realizes she can get neighbors to actually support the project in exchange for a strong Good Neighbor Agreement, then Bowser may be pretty open to a strong Agreement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Oh good. I'm a PP from several pages ago who was trying to start a constructive discussion about what requirements for shelter residents, and for community neighbors, ought to appear in the Good Neighbor Agreement that (the City claims) will accompany this shelter. Here are some ideas I tossed out from looking at other Good Neighbor Agreements online, plus a couple others that someone added. It looks like you also have ideas, so I added yours. Anyone else have ideas?

1. No panhandling or begging by shelter residents.
2. Any shelter resident who commits a crime gets booted.
3. All adult shelter residents not enrolled in school must have a job.
4. Any evidence of drugs or alcohol gets you booted.
5. Adults must have regular jobs and provide proof of employment.
6. Children must be enrolled in school, and must attend regularly.
7. Both adults and children must attend shelter-sponsored counseling sessions, aimed at topics like mental health, financial literacy, etc.
8. Shelter residents with indication of mental illness will be transferred to a more appropriate facility.
9. All shelter residents will be families. No single adults.
10. All shelter stays will be temporary - none longer than 60 (90?) days.

These are just examples to get the discussion moving. This post is meant as essentially a challenge for people opposed to the Ward 3 shelter, to name what good neighbor requirements would help you get behind it. Interested in seeing genuine responses.

If we're going to have a spread-out system of small shelters, then it's up to us to propose commonsense and workable requirements. What requirements should there be? I suspect that if Bowser realizes she can get neighbors to actually support the project in exchange for a strong Good Neighbor Agreement, then Bowser may be pretty open to a strong Agreement.

When one asks DC government officials responsible for homeless programs what happens if the families in the "temporary shelter" can't find housing after a few months, one doesn't get an answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Interesting point. Do you have any kind of citation or source for this statistic as it applies to DC homeless families (the ones under discussion here). Thanks!

I agree with you PP, and I am still awaiting this statistic that has been cited many times on this thread. If most of the residents are working as asserted, then that would go a long way towards the families moving towards permanent homes. I would add a savings plan and financial literacy classes to the mix. If the city could create a savings matching program that would be very helpful to moving people to independence rather than warehousing them. I am seeking the city's plan on how these small shelters will be any more imaginative or well serviced or have legitimate requirements like you mention than the big poorly ministered one they ran (that was presumably FAR easier to run since it was centralized). Where are the details?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are panhandlers and homeless people near every metro station in DC. Literally. A family shelter is not going to change the panhandling situation. We live in a city, everyone. If you're bothered by urban living, it's perfectly acceptable to move to the suburbs.

Cities have changed a lot. We don't all expect the crime rates of NYC in the 70s for example. You may have one vision of city living that includes panhandlers. It's OK for people to want to redefine city living away from that. Panhandling and chronic homeless are not just a given. These people need medical attention by and large, not a dime or a stale sandwich.

NP. You’re almost sounding paternalistic to me. These are grown humans with their own agency. You can’t just forcibly cart them away for treatment. If you ask them, many will tell you that they don’t want to leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are panhandlers and homeless people near every metro station in DC. Literally. A family shelter is not going to change the panhandling situation. We live in a city, everyone. If you're bothered by urban living, it's perfectly acceptable to move to the suburbs.

Cities have changed a lot. We don't all expect the crime rates of NYC in the 70s for example. You may have one vision of city living that includes panhandlers. It's OK for people to want to redefine city living away from that. Panhandling and chronic homeless are not just a given. These people need medical attention by and large, not a dime or a stale sandwich.

NP. You’re almost sounding paternalistic to me. These are grown humans with their own agency. You can’t just forcibly cart them away for treatment. If you ask them, many will tell you that they don’t want to leave.

Yes, that's exactly what they said in the 70s when they opened the hospitals and set everyone "free". It feels good to not be paternalistic, but there are many desperately ill people on the street who may need caring for whether they tell you they want it or not. I have twice in DC called the non emergency lines for homeless lying in the street or the bush looking like they were dead that people passed by. In the summer they wear so many layers of clothing because their bodies have literally stopped regulating heat. I'll take a little paternalism if I end up like that, thank you. Do you think these are happy British travelers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are panhandlers and homeless people near every metro station in DC. Literally. A family shelter is not going to change the panhandling situation. We live in a city, everyone. If you're bothered by urban living, it's perfectly acceptable to move to the suburbs.

Cities have changed a lot. We don't all expect the crime rates of NYC in the 70s for example. You may have one vision of city living that includes panhandlers. It's OK for people to want to redefine city living away from that. Panhandling and chronic homeless are not just a given. These people need medical attention by and large, not a dime or a stale sandwich.

NP. You’re almost sounding paternalistic to me. These are grown humans with their own agency. You can’t just forcibly cart them away for treatment. If you ask them, many will tell you that they don’t want to leave.

Yes, that's exactly what they said in the 70s when they opened the hospitals and set everyone "free". It feels good to not be paternalistic, but there are many desperately ill people on the street who may need caring for whether they tell you they want it or not. I have twice in DC called the non emergency lines for homeless lying in the street or the bush looking like they were dead that people passed by. In the summer they wear so many layers of clothing because their bodies have literally stopped regulating heat. I'll take a little paternalism if I end up like that, thank you. Do you think these are happy British travelers?

OMG again you are referring to the long term homeless, most of whom are mentally ill and many of whom have substance abuse issues.

Again to reiterate that is just a small portion of the homeless population in DC (and other cities as well) - most homeless folks work and their children go to school and the point of the transitional family shelter going into CP is to keep those folks from losing their jobs and their stability and becoming part of the population who are so terrified about crossing paths with.

There is going to be no siege on the haughty residents of Cleveland Park and McLean Gardens by drunk homeless men as a result of this shelter going in as this shelter isn't going to be serving that population. Part of me sort of wishes the shelter were serving that population so some of this hysteria would actually be justified but that is just not the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Oh good. I'm a PP from several pages ago who was trying to start a constructive discussion about what requirements for shelter residents, and for community neighbors, ought to appear in the Good Neighbor Agreement that (the City claims) will accompany this shelter. Here are some ideas I tossed out from looking at other Good Neighbor Agreements online, plus a couple others that someone added. It looks like you also have ideas, so I added yours. Anyone else have ideas?

1. No panhandling or begging by shelter residents.
2. Any shelter resident who commits a crime gets booted.
3. All adult shelter residents not enrolled in school must have a job.
4. Any evidence of drugs or alcohol gets you booted.
5. Adults must have regular jobs and provide proof of employment.
6. Children must be enrolled in school, and must attend regularly.
7. Both adults and children must attend shelter-sponsored counseling sessions, aimed at topics like mental health, financial literacy, etc.
8. Shelter residents with indication of mental illness will be transferred to a more appropriate facility.
9. All shelter residents will be families. No single adults.
10. All shelter stays will be temporary - none longer than 60 (90?) days.

These are just examples to get the discussion moving. This post is meant as essentially a challenge for people opposed to the Ward 3 shelter, to name what good neighbor requirements would help you get behind it. Interested in seeing genuine responses.

If we're going to have a spread-out system of small shelters, then it's up to us to propose commonsense and workable requirements. What requirements should there be? I suspect that if Bowser realizes she can get neighbors to actually support the project in exchange for a strong Good Neighbor Agreement, then Bowser may be pretty open to a strong Agreement.

Is that you Newt? How are Callista's books selling? Or did you leave her for another younger woman?

[Anonymous]

Is that you Newt? How are Callista's books selling? Or did you leave her for another younger woman?

WTF does that even mean? I posted a list of specific requirements for the GNA, many of which are easy ones that mirror things you yourself seem to say are obvious characteristics of this population (eg, have jobs, families not single men, no drugs or alcohol). And you respond with completely substance-free snark. Try engaging on the actual issues.

[Anonymous]

I would love the statistics on homeless people who work in DC. If that's too hard, major cities? I assume the person who keeps asserting it has some source of info? I'm not contesting it. I just really want to know if the preponderance of homeless in the district work. That is a great foundation to build on and very hopeful. Thanks in advance for sharing where you learned this.

[Anonymous]

We lost a bidding war for a McLean Gardens apartment on Newark Street last year...that's starting to look like a blessing in disguise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Is that you Newt? How are Callista's books selling? Or did you leave her for another younger woman?

WTF does that even mean? I posted a list of specific requirements for the GNA, many of which are easy ones that mirror things you yourself seem to say are obvious characteristics of this population (eg, have jobs, families not single men, no drugs or alcohol). And you respond with completely substance-free snark. Try engaging on the actual issues.

It means you are spouting a bunch of hypocritical & self-righteous conservative talking points about the poor without understanding a thing about them or what would actually help them.

Do as I say not as I do!