Bowser Spreads the Wealth opens homeless shelters in each DC ward

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Normally I would be the among the first to cry for public comments on issues and plans that affect neighborhoods. However, given the mean-spirited comments made during the DCPS boundary revision process about at-risk set asides and low income students on this board, I'm glad that the mayor didn't open this up for people to weigh in.

It's a crisis, and I strongly suspect that many of the people in upper NW who are up in arms about this shelter are having their first experience with the crisis. I live in a part of the city with multiple shelters, public housing, and social services, plus I work in social services, so none of this is news to me. It's insulting when people like the PP who described the problem in pretty accurate detail is told by other posters that he/she doesn't know what he/she is talking about. I also think it's ridiculous that the criticism of that poster is basically "You must not know what you're talking about vis-a-vis the homeless crisis because you did not also mention corruption, cronyism, etc., and therefore you must be a party hack."

I don't know about the PP, but personally, I think that the human rights crisis facing thousands of DC citizens of all ages is more important. I choose to focus on that. If you'd like to focus on political corruption and a lack of democratic process, that's up to you, but when I see children living in unsafe and unhealthy living conditions, I'm more interested in getting those children and their parents into a safe environment and getting them started down the road to self-sufficiency. The other stuff is important, but those are process discussions, not immediate crisis discussions.

If I was her, I wouldn't hold public hearings on this subject either, since the 38 pages of this thread and however many protracted arguments about at-risk set asides have demonstrated that the segment of the population who comes to this website were not going to be supportive of the Ward 3 shelter no matter where it is. You can say whatever you want about zoning, but I have no doubt that the goal posts will move if the shelter plan gets revised.

Note: I didn't vote for Bowser or work for her. I don't work for any part of the DC government. So any accusations of being a party hack or in the tank are patently incorrect.

You eloquently describe the crisis facing the city as well as the insulation many have had from seeing it. It pains me that so many PPs are unaware of how luck and circumstances play such an integral role in who is/not homeless. I am not sure, however, that the zoning claims are meant to be a red herring. Two small shelters have operated in the neighborhood of the Ward 3 site proposed by the Bowser admin, probably unbeknownst to even those living immediately adjacent to that community. The Bowser proposal may have been more readily embraced if the numbers were in keeping with the current zoning regs and did not appear to be a way for a developer to change those rules through a back door maneuver. The City Paper undertook an extensive investigation of the how DC developers grease the political wheels of the city's mayors and council members. It would be foolish, therefore, to believe that the developer is acting out of noblesse oblige.

Oh, I don't believe for a single second that there's any noblesse oblige going on with any of the developers in DC. I'd strongly prefer that the city own the land and the building, because I don't disagree at all that it's probably an end-run around the appropriate process. If the PPs are invested in reforming the process, that's great, and I hope they take their outrage at this abuse of process and direct it at other abuses of process, which doubtless exist in many incarnations citywide. I am frustrated with the things I see my clients experiencing every day - partially because the process never seems to work in their favor. I was excited for the Bowser "All 8 Wards" plan on the face of it, even with the uncertainty about how people get placed in what shelter and what services are actually provided to transition people out of the shelters, because silo-ing these families in squalor in SE and SW is clearly NOT working. It's time to try a different plan.

I guess my point was that while the zoning concern is legitimate and should be address, I don't for a second believe that if the zoning issue gets resolved that the PPs will suddenly be supportive of a shelter located in Ward 3. I think that the bottom line is that there is a vocal group who believe that paying lot of money to be insulated from the problems of urban poverty is a permanent inoculation against it - that because they paid a lot of money whenever to buy a house in upper NW, things must remain as they have ever been.

If people start feeling unsafe in their neighborhoods and flee the city and take their tax revenues with them, how will bowser pay for her programs?

When you "flee" the city do you abandon your residence or sell it? If it's the latter, then the purchaser pays the property taxes and income taxes. See how that works?

You don't know what happened in DC in the 60s and 70s, correct?

Hint: think Detroit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Normally I would be the among the first to cry for public comments on issues and plans that affect neighborhoods. However, given the mean-spirited comments made during the DCPS boundary revision process about at-risk set asides and low income students on this board, I'm glad that the mayor didn't open this up for people to weigh in.

It's a crisis, and I strongly suspect that many of the people in upper NW who are up in arms about this shelter are having their first experience with the crisis. I live in a part of the city with multiple shelters, public housing, and social services, plus I work in social services, so none of this is news to me. It's insulting when people like the PP who described the problem in pretty accurate detail is told by other posters that he/she doesn't know what he/she is talking about. I also think it's ridiculous that the criticism of that poster is basically "You must not know what you're talking about vis-a-vis the homeless crisis because you did not also mention corruption, cronyism, etc., and therefore you must be a party hack."

I don't know about the PP, but personally, I think that the human rights crisis facing thousands of DC citizens of all ages is more important. I choose to focus on that. If you'd like to focus on political corruption and a lack of democratic process, that's up to you, but when I see children living in unsafe and unhealthy living conditions, I'm more interested in getting those children and their parents into a safe environment and getting them started down the road to self-sufficiency. The other stuff is important, but those are process discussions, not immediate crisis discussions.

If I was her, I wouldn't hold public hearings on this subject either, since the 38 pages of this thread and however many protracted arguments about at-risk set asides have demonstrated that the segment of the population who comes to this website were not going to be supportive of the Ward 3 shelter no matter where it is. You can say whatever you want about zoning, but I have no doubt that the goal posts will move if the shelter plan gets revised.

Note: I didn't vote for Bowser or work for her. I don't work for any part of the DC government. So any accusations of being a party hack or in the tank are patently incorrect.

You eloquently describe the crisis facing the city as well as the insulation many have had from seeing it. It pains me that so many PPs are unaware of how luck and circumstances play such an integral role in who is/not homeless. I am not sure, however, that the zoning claims are meant to be a red herring. Two small shelters have operated in the neighborhood of the Ward 3 site proposed by the Bowser admin, probably unbeknownst to even those living immediately adjacent to that community. The Bowser proposal may have been more readily embraced if the numbers were in keeping with the current zoning regs and did not appear to be a way for a developer to change those rules through a back door maneuver. The City Paper undertook an extensive investigation of the how DC developers grease the political wheels of the city's mayors and council members. It would be foolish, therefore, to believe that the developer is acting out of noblesse oblige.

Oh, I don't believe for a single second that there's any noblesse oblige going on with any of the developers in DC. I'd strongly prefer that the city own the land and the building, because I don't disagree at all that it's probably an end-run around the appropriate process. If the PPs are invested in reforming the process, that's great, and I hope they take their outrage at this abuse of process and direct it at other abuses of process, which doubtless exist in many incarnations citywide. I am frustrated with the things I see my clients experiencing every day - partially because the process never seems to work in their favor. I was excited for the Bowser "All 8 Wards" plan on the face of it, even with the uncertainty about how people get placed in what shelter and what services are actually provided to transition people out of the shelters, because silo-ing these families in squalor in SE and SW is clearly NOT working. It's time to try a different plan.

I guess my point was that while the zoning concern is legitimate and should be address, I don't for a second believe that if the zoning issue gets resolved that the PPs will suddenly be supportive of a shelter located in Ward 3. I think that the bottom line is that there is a vocal group who believe that paying lot of money to be insulated from the problems of urban poverty is a permanent inoculation against it - that because they paid a lot of money whenever to buy a house in upper NW, things must remain as they have ever been.

If people start feeling unsafe in their neighborhoods and flee the city and take their tax revenues with them, how will bowser pay for her programs?

When you "flee" the city do you abandon your residence or sell it? If it's the latter, then the purchaser pays the property taxes and income taxes. See how that works?

You don't know what happened in DC in the 60s and 70s, correct?

Hint: think Detroit

Another PP here. I am from Detroit and I currently live in Ward 3. So what is your point. Detroit did not spiral downwards because a 40 family shelter was built in a neighborhood. Detroit's issues were a lot more complicated than that and were 5 decades in the making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm aware of the opposition in Wards 5 and 6. It comes from a different place than the Ward 3 issues. I am not a fan of Ward 3, it's true. Don't live there. Don't want to live there. But it's not "an obsession or vendetta" because I was speaking about the specific concerns being raised on this thread about that location. If you'd like to talk about the concerns with the shelters in Wards 1, 5 or 6, I'm happy to talk about those concerns, though what I have observed is that the concerns are not "don't want those people in our neighborhood" but "we have 3 shelters already in our neighborhood" and/or "that site is not a safe place for children either." Different conversation. Happy to have it.

Yep, it shows. I suggest you drop some of your prejudices and spend more time with people living there. Your choice, of course, but may come handy both for professional and personal reasons (many people, including us, move from Ward 1 to Ward 3 once we have kids)

Thanks for the suggestion, PP. I know plenty of people who live in your area, some who moved there once they had kids and some who moved there without kids. I don't see how that is relevant to any of this. There is a lot of vitriol on this thread from people in the area near where the Ward 3 shelter is proposed to be located. Maybe the people expressing that vitriol should also drop some of their prejudices and spend more time with people experiencing homelessness. It may come in handy for personal and professional reasons.

Different PP here who appreciates your comments and insights. I am not sure all the vitriolic posters live near the site - am familiar with many there and I am hearing concern as well as compassion in conversations. My guess is that some PPs simply do not like the city paying $3000+ for non-luxury housing excluding services while others are bigoted and hostile to helping poor and struggling families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Normally I would be the among the first to cry for public comments on issues and plans that affect neighborhoods. However, given the mean-spirited comments made during the DCPS boundary revision process about at-risk set asides and low income students on this board, I'm glad that the mayor didn't open this up for people to weigh in.

It's a crisis, and I strongly suspect that many of the people in upper NW who are up in arms about this shelter are having their first experience with the crisis. I live in a part of the city with multiple shelters, public housing, and social services, plus I work in social services, so none of this is news to me. It's insulting when people like the PP who described the problem in pretty accurate detail is told by other posters that he/she doesn't know what he/she is talking about. I also think it's ridiculous that the criticism of that poster is basically "You must not know what you're talking about vis-a-vis the homeless crisis because you did not also mention corruption, cronyism, etc., and therefore you must be a party hack."

I don't know about the PP, but personally, I think that the human rights crisis facing thousands of DC citizens of all ages is more important. I choose to focus on that. If you'd like to focus on political corruption and a lack of democratic process, that's up to you, but when I see children living in unsafe and unhealthy living conditions, I'm more interested in getting those children and their parents into a safe environment and getting them started down the road to self-sufficiency. The other stuff is important, but those are process discussions, not immediate crisis discussions.

If I was her, I wouldn't hold public hearings on this subject either, since the 38 pages of this thread and however many protracted arguments about at-risk set asides have demonstrated that the segment of the population who comes to this website were not going to be supportive of the Ward 3 shelter no matter where it is. You can say whatever you want about zoning, but I have no doubt that the goal posts will move if the shelter plan gets revised.

Note: I didn't vote for Bowser or work for her. I don't work for any part of the DC government. So any accusations of being a party hack or in the tank are patently incorrect.

You eloquently describe the crisis facing the city as well as the insulation many have had from seeing it. It pains me that so many PPs are unaware of how luck and circumstances play such an integral role in who is/not homeless. I am not sure, however, that the zoning claims are meant to be a red herring. Two small shelters have operated in the neighborhood of the Ward 3 site proposed by the Bowser admin, probably unbeknownst to even those living immediately adjacent to that community. The Bowser proposal may have been more readily embraced if the numbers were in keeping with the current zoning regs and did not appear to be a way for a developer to change those rules through a back door maneuver. The City Paper undertook an extensive investigation of the how DC developers grease the political wheels of the city's mayors and council members. It would be foolish, therefore, to believe that the developer is acting out of noblesse oblige.

Oh, I don't believe for a single second that there's any noblesse oblige going on with any of the developers in DC. I'd strongly prefer that the city own the land and the building, because I don't disagree at all that it's probably an end-run around the appropriate process. If the PPs are invested in reforming the process, that's great, and I hope they take their outrage at this abuse of process and direct it at other abuses of process, which doubtless exist in many incarnations citywide. I am frustrated with the things I see my clients experiencing every day - partially because the process never seems to work in their favor. I was excited for the Bowser "All 8 Wards" plan on the face of it, even with the uncertainty about how people get placed in what shelter and what services are actually provided to transition people out of the shelters, because silo-ing these families in squalor in SE and SW is clearly NOT working. It's time to try a different plan.

I guess my point was that while the zoning concern is legitimate and should be address, I don't for a second believe that if the zoning issue gets resolved that the PPs will suddenly be supportive of a shelter located in Ward 3. I think that the bottom line is that there is a vocal group who believe that paying lot of money to be insulated from the problems of urban poverty is a permanent inoculation against it - that because they paid a lot of money whenever to buy a house in upper NW, things must remain as they have ever been.

If people start feeling unsafe in their neighborhoods and flee the city and take their tax revenues with them, how will bowser pay for her programs?

When you "flee" the city do you abandon your residence or sell it? If it's the latter, then the purchaser pays the property taxes and income taxes. See how that works?

Well lower property values mean lower property taxes and lower house values mean people with lower incomes are buying those homes that were previously more expensive so income taxes will also lower. See how that works?

I'm sorry, but this is delusional. Your premise is that people are going to sell their $1MM+ homes for at a substantial discount in spite of mortgage obligations? Doubtful. However, even if that was the case, you need to inform yourself about the OTR appraisal methodology. You're howling at the moon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Normally I would be the among the first to cry for public comments on issues and plans that affect neighborhoods. However, given the mean-spirited comments made during the DCPS boundary revision process about at-risk set asides and low income students on this board, I'm glad that the mayor didn't open this up for people to weigh in.

It's a crisis, and I strongly suspect that many of the people in upper NW who are up in arms about this shelter are having their first experience with the crisis. I live in a part of the city with multiple shelters, public housing, and social services, plus I work in social services, so none of this is news to me. It's insulting when people like the PP who described the problem in pretty accurate detail is told by other posters that he/she doesn't know what he/she is talking about. I also think it's ridiculous that the criticism of that poster is basically "You must not know what you're talking about vis-a-vis the homeless crisis because you did not also mention corruption, cronyism, etc., and therefore you must be a party hack."

I don't know about the PP, but personally, I think that the human rights crisis facing thousands of DC citizens of all ages is more important. I choose to focus on that. If you'd like to focus on political corruption and a lack of democratic process, that's up to you, but when I see children living in unsafe and unhealthy living conditions, I'm more interested in getting those children and their parents into a safe environment and getting them started down the road to self-sufficiency. The other stuff is important, but those are process discussions, not immediate crisis discussions.

If I was her, I wouldn't hold public hearings on this subject either, since the 38 pages of this thread and however many protracted arguments about at-risk set asides have demonstrated that the segment of the population who comes to this website were not going to be supportive of the Ward 3 shelter no matter where it is. You can say whatever you want about zoning, but I have no doubt that the goal posts will move if the shelter plan gets revised.

Note: I didn't vote for Bowser or work for her. I don't work for any part of the DC government. So any accusations of being a party hack or in the tank are patently incorrect.

You eloquently describe the crisis facing the city as well as the insulation many have had from seeing it. It pains me that so many PPs are unaware of how luck and circumstances play such an integral role in who is/not homeless. I am not sure, however, that the zoning claims are meant to be a red herring. Two small shelters have operated in the neighborhood of the Ward 3 site proposed by the Bowser admin, probably unbeknownst to even those living immediately adjacent to that community. The Bowser proposal may have been more readily embraced if the numbers were in keeping with the current zoning regs and did not appear to be a way for a developer to change those rules through a back door maneuver. The City Paper undertook an extensive investigation of the how DC developers grease the political wheels of the city's mayors and council members. It would be foolish, therefore, to believe that the developer is acting out of noblesse oblige.

Oh, I don't believe for a single second that there's any noblesse oblige going on with any of the developers in DC. I'd strongly prefer that the city own the land and the building, because I don't disagree at all that it's probably an end-run around the appropriate process. If the PPs are invested in reforming the process, that's great, and I hope they take their outrage at this abuse of process and direct it at other abuses of process, which doubtless exist in many incarnations citywide. I am frustrated with the things I see my clients experiencing every day - partially because the process never seems to work in their favor. I was excited for the Bowser "All 8 Wards" plan on the face of it, even with the uncertainty about how people get placed in what shelter and what services are actually provided to transition people out of the shelters, because silo-ing these families in squalor in SE and SW is clearly NOT working. It's time to try a different plan.

I guess my point was that while the zoning concern is legitimate and should be address, I don't for a second believe that if the zoning issue gets resolved that the PPs will suddenly be supportive of a shelter located in Ward 3. I think that the bottom line is that there is a vocal group who believe that paying lot of money to be insulated from the problems of urban poverty is a permanent inoculation against it - that because they paid a lot of money whenever to buy a house in upper NW, things must remain as they have ever been.

If people start feeling unsafe in their neighborhoods and flee the city and take their tax revenues with them, how will bowser pay for her programs?

When you "flee" the city do you abandon your residence or sell it? If it's the latter, then the purchaser pays the property taxes and income taxes. See how that works?

You don't know what happened in DC in the 60s and 70s, correct?

Hint: think Detroit

Another PP here. I am from Detroit and I currently live in Ward 3. So what is your point. Detroit did not spiral downwards because a 40 family shelter was built in a neighborhood. Detroit's issues were a lot more complicated than that and were 5 decades in the making.

Super. Perhaps you can read the previous exchange and explain the broken logic in

"When you "flee" the city do you abandon your residence or sell it? If it's the latter, then the purchaser pays the property taxes and income taxes. See how that works?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm aware of the opposition in Wards 5 and 6. It comes from a different place than the Ward 3 issues. I am not a fan of Ward 3, it's true. Don't live there. Don't want to live there. But it's not "an obsession or vendetta" because I was speaking about the specific concerns being raised on this thread about that location. If you'd like to talk about the concerns with the shelters in Wards 1, 5 or 6, I'm happy to talk about those concerns, though what I have observed is that the concerns are not "don't want those people in our neighborhood" but "we have 3 shelters already in our neighborhood" and/or "that site is not a safe place for children either." Different conversation. Happy to have it.

Ward 3 sounds like pure NIMBY, whereas it's a different situation in Ward 6, where residents have already borne the brunt of several decades of planning and policy that specifically CONCENTRATED poverty there. And the proposed shelter in Ward 6 concentrates even more poverty there. The shelter is being proposed within a few blocks of Greenleaf Gardens, James River and other public housing units, there are already hundreds of poverty-level people concentrated there thanks to city policies. Ward 6 already has more homeless shelters and already has almost double the amount of public housing, and is already constructing far more affordable housing, as compared to just about every other ward in the city. If Bowser's intent was to DE-concentrate poverty then she kind of missed the mark where it comes to Ward 6. Poverty has, by policy, ALREADY been spread to Ward 6, before the DC General plan even came along.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm aware of the opposition in Wards 5 and 6. It comes from a different place than the Ward 3 issues. I am not a fan of Ward 3, it's true. Don't live there. Don't want to live there. But it's not "an obsession or vendetta" because I was speaking about the specific concerns being raised on this thread about that location. If you'd like to talk about the concerns with the shelters in Wards 1, 5 or 6, I'm happy to talk about those concerns, though what I have observed is that the concerns are not "don't want those people in our neighborhood" but "we have 3 shelters already in our neighborhood" and/or "that site is not a safe place for children either." Different conversation. Happy to have it.

Yep, it shows. I suggest you drop some of your prejudices and spend more time with people living there. Your choice, of course, but may come handy both for professional and personal reasons (many people, including us, move from Ward 1 to Ward 3 once we have kids)

Thanks for the suggestion, PP. I know plenty of people who live in your area, some who moved there once they had kids and some who moved there without kids. I don't see how that is relevant to any of this. There is a lot of vitriol on this thread from people in the area near where the Ward 3 shelter is proposed to be located. Maybe the people expressing that vitriol should also drop some of their prejudices and spend more time with people experiencing homelessness. It may come in handy for personal and professional reasons.

Different PP here who appreciates your comments and insights. I am not sure all the vitriolic posters live near the site - am familiar with many there and I am hearing concern as well as compassion in conversations. My guess is that some PPs simply do not like the city paying $3000+ for non-luxury housing excluding services while others are bigoted and hostile to helping poor and struggling families.

+1. In fact some of the nastiest comments here have come from folks NOT living in good areas and asking, hey, why do THOSE folks get such a great deal while I'm struggling here?

It's not a bad question

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm aware of the opposition in Wards 5 and 6. It comes from a different place than the Ward 3 issues. I am not a fan of Ward 3, it's true. Don't live there. Don't want to live there. But it's not "an obsession or vendetta" because I was speaking about the specific concerns being raised on this thread about that location. If you'd like to talk about the concerns with the shelters in Wards 1, 5 or 6, I'm happy to talk about those concerns, though what I have observed is that the concerns are not "don't want those people in our neighborhood" but "we have 3 shelters already in our neighborhood" and/or "that site is not a safe place for children either." Different conversation. Happy to have it.

You sound mad at ward 3 not sure why? Maybe because it is expensive and maybe because you can't afford to live there? I am not sure what the hostility toward ward 3 is but there seems to be a lot of wealth shaming going on in this thread.

Interesting. I am a homeowner in Ward 3 who just so happened to grow up poor (even being homesless as a child for a time) and I do not see the PP as wealth shaming at all. And the PP is right - in comparison to the plan's detractors in other Wards, the Ward 3 commenters seem very elitist and shallow. If anything, they are poverty shaming. The implication FROM SOME is that Ward 3 is above shouldering the same burden under this plan that the other Wards will shoulder - without considering that the other Wards have shouldered most of the burden to this point. And then you have folks implying that folks are poor and homeless by choice/stupidity. Never mind that a lot of us are another 2008-2010 recession away from being in dire straits ourselves. Even if we have to take on these 40 familes, we are still better off than the other Wards where these sorts of projects have been concentrated. So the PP may be biased against Ward 3 - but the lack of compassion and "we are better than the poors" attitude feeds that bias.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Normally I would be the among the first to cry for public comments on issues and plans that affect neighborhoods. However, given the mean-spirited comments made during the DCPS boundary revision process about at-risk set asides and low income students on this board, I'm glad that the mayor didn't open this up for people to weigh in.

It's a crisis, and I strongly suspect that many of the people in upper NW who are up in arms about this shelter are having their first experience with the crisis. I live in a part of the city with multiple shelters, public housing, and social services, plus I work in social services, so none of this is news to me. It's insulting when people like the PP who described the problem in pretty accurate detail is told by other posters that he/she doesn't know what he/she is talking about. I also think it's ridiculous that the criticism of that poster is basically "You must not know what you're talking about vis-a-vis the homeless crisis because you did not also mention corruption, cronyism, etc., and therefore you must be a party hack."

I don't know about the PP, but personally, I think that the human rights crisis facing thousands of DC citizens of all ages is more important. I choose to focus on that. If you'd like to focus on political corruption and a lack of democratic process, that's up to you, but when I see children living in unsafe and unhealthy living conditions, I'm more interested in getting those children and their parents into a safe environment and getting them started down the road to self-sufficiency. The other stuff is important, but those are process discussions, not immediate crisis discussions.

If I was her, I wouldn't hold public hearings on this subject either, since the 38 pages of this thread and however many protracted arguments about at-risk set asides have demonstrated that the segment of the population who comes to this website were not going to be supportive of the Ward 3 shelter no matter where it is. You can say whatever you want about zoning, but I have no doubt that the goal posts will move if the shelter plan gets revised.

Note: I didn't vote for Bowser or work for her. I don't work for any part of the DC government. So any accusations of being a party hack or in the tank are patently incorrect.

You eloquently describe the crisis facing the city as well as the insulation many have had from seeing it. It pains me that so many PPs are unaware of how luck and circumstances play such an integral role in who is/not homeless. I am not sure, however, that the zoning claims are meant to be a red herring. Two small shelters have operated in the neighborhood of the Ward 3 site proposed by the Bowser admin, probably unbeknownst to even those living immediately adjacent to that community. The Bowser proposal may have been more readily embraced if the numbers were in keeping with the current zoning regs and did not appear to be a way for a developer to change those rules through a back door maneuver. The City Paper undertook an extensive investigation of the how DC developers grease the political wheels of the city's mayors and council members. It would be foolish, therefore, to believe that the developer is acting out of noblesse oblige.

Oh, I don't believe for a single second that there's any noblesse oblige going on with any of the developers in DC. I'd strongly prefer that the city own the land and the building, because I don't disagree at all that it's probably an end-run around the appropriate process. If the PPs are invested in reforming the process, that's great, and I hope they take their outrage at this abuse of process and direct it at other abuses of process, which doubtless exist in many incarnations citywide. I am frustrated with the things I see my clients experiencing every day - partially because the process never seems to work in their favor. I was excited for the Bowser "All 8 Wards" plan on the face of it, even with the uncertainty about how people get placed in what shelter and what services are actually provided to transition people out of the shelters, because silo-ing these families in squalor in SE and SW is clearly NOT working. It's time to try a different plan.

I guess my point was that while the zoning concern is legitimate and should be address, I don't for a second believe that if the zoning issue gets resolved that the PPs will suddenly be supportive of a shelter located in Ward 3. I think that the bottom line is that there is a vocal group who believe that paying lot of money to be insulated from the problems of urban poverty is a permanent inoculation against it - that because they paid a lot of money whenever to buy a house in upper NW, things must remain as they have ever been.

If people start feeling unsafe in their neighborhoods and flee the city and take their tax revenues with them, how will bowser pay for her programs?

When you "flee" the city do you abandon your residence or sell it? If it's the latter, then the purchaser pays the property taxes and income taxes. See how that works?

You don't know what happened in DC in the 60s and 70s, correct?

Hint: think Detroit

And you apparently don't know much about DC or Detroit. Hint: white flight started in 1954 in many cities with school desegregation and jumped to hyper-speed in the wake of the riots of 1967 and 1968. Of course, Ward 3 was largely immune from this phenomenon. In other words, it had nothing to do with a transient shelter for 40 families. #Unhinged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm aware of the opposition in Wards 5 and 6. It comes from a different place than the Ward 3 issues. I am not a fan of Ward 3, it's true. Don't live there. Don't want to live there. But it's not "an obsession or vendetta" because I was speaking about the specific concerns being raised on this thread about that location. If you'd like to talk about the concerns with the shelters in Wards 1, 5 or 6, I'm happy to talk about those concerns, though what I have observed is that the concerns are not "don't want those people in our neighborhood" but "we have 3 shelters already in our neighborhood" and/or "that site is not a safe place for children either." Different conversation. Happy to have it.

Yep, it shows. I suggest you drop some of your prejudices and spend more time with people living there. Your choice, of course, but may come handy both for professional and personal reasons (many people, including us, move from Ward 1 to Ward 3 once we have kids)

Thanks for the suggestion, PP. I know plenty of people who live in your area, some who moved there once they had kids and some who moved there without kids. I don't see how that is relevant to any of this. There is a lot of vitriol on this thread from people in the area near where the Ward 3 shelter is proposed to be located. Maybe the people expressing that vitriol should also drop some of their prejudices and spend more time with people experiencing homelessness. It may come in handy for personal and professional reasons.

Different PP here who appreciates your comments and insights. I am not sure all the vitriolic posters live near the site - am familiar with many there and I am hearing concern as well as compassion in conversations. My guess is that some PPs simply do not like the city paying $3000+ for non-luxury housing excluding services while others are bigoted and hostile to helping poor and struggling families.

+1. In fact some of the nastiest comments here have come from folks NOT living in good areas and asking, hey, why do THOSE folks get such a great deal while I'm struggling here?

It's not a bad question

It's a ridiculous question. The homeless families aren't getting "a great deal" to be able to live in an expensive apartment for a couple months before transitioning to non-emergency shelter. I agree that the price tag is hefty, and a good question would be "How can we reduce the costs without reducing services?" There are a lot of non-ridiculous questions to ask about this plan, but this is not one of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm aware of the opposition in Wards 5 and 6. It comes from a different place than the Ward 3 issues. I am not a fan of Ward 3, it's true. Don't live there. Don't want to live there. But it's not "an obsession or vendetta" because I was speaking about the specific concerns being raised on this thread about that location. If you'd like to talk about the concerns with the shelters in Wards 1, 5 or 6, I'm happy to talk about those concerns, though what I have observed is that the concerns are not "don't want those people in our neighborhood" but "we have 3 shelters already in our neighborhood" and/or "that site is not a safe place for children either." Different conversation. Happy to have it.

Ward 3 sounds like pure NIMBY, whereas it's a different situation in Ward 6, where residents have already borne the brunt of several decades of planning and policy that specifically CONCENTRATED poverty there. And the proposed shelter in Ward 6 concentrates even more poverty there. The shelter is being proposed within a few blocks of Greenleaf Gardens, James River and other public housing units, there are already hundreds of poverty-level people concentrated there thanks to city policies. Ward 6 already has more homeless shelters and already has almost double the amount of public housing, and is already constructing far more affordable housing, as compared to just about every other ward in the city. If Bowser's intent was to DE-concentrate poverty then she kind of missed the mark where it comes to Ward 6. Poverty has, by policy, ALREADY been spread to Ward 6, before the DC General plan even came along.

I get that the nearby Ward 3 residents think that this is a back-door scheme for a well-connected insider to get upzoning on parcel (and thereby increase its value substantially). While Ward 3 may not have a lot of homeless shelters, where do you think that DC has been green lighting just about any development project to chase ever more and more tax revenue? That's right. Ward 3, which bears the brunt of impacts from such projects because that's where developers think they can make the highest buck So in effect, Ward 3 as been the tax piggy bank and development field to fund a variety of expanding social services around the city. So it's not as simple as you suggest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Normally I would be the among the first to cry for public comments on issues and plans that affect neighborhoods. However, given the mean-spirited comments made during the DCPS boundary revision process about at-risk set asides and low income students on this board, I'm glad that the mayor didn't open this up for people to weigh in.

It's a crisis, and I strongly suspect that many of the people in upper NW who are up in arms about this shelter are having their first experience with the crisis. I live in a part of the city with multiple shelters, public housing, and social services, plus I work in social services, so none of this is news to me. It's insulting when people like the PP who described the problem in pretty accurate detail is told by other posters that he/she doesn't know what he/she is talking about. I also think it's ridiculous that the criticism of that poster is basically "You must not know what you're talking about vis-a-vis the homeless crisis because you did not also mention corruption, cronyism, etc., and therefore you must be a party hack."

I don't know about the PP, but personally, I think that the human rights crisis facing thousands of DC citizens of all ages is more important. I choose to focus on that. If you'd like to focus on political corruption and a lack of democratic process, that's up to you, but when I see children living in unsafe and unhealthy living conditions, I'm more interested in getting those children and their parents into a safe environment and getting them started down the road to self-sufficiency. The other stuff is important, but those are process discussions, not immediate crisis discussions.

If I was her, I wouldn't hold public hearings on this subject either, since the 38 pages of this thread and however many protracted arguments about at-risk set asides have demonstrated that the segment of the population who comes to this website were not going to be supportive of the Ward 3 shelter no matter where it is. You can say whatever you want about zoning, but I have no doubt that the goal posts will move if the shelter plan gets revised.

Note: I didn't vote for Bowser or work for her. I don't work for any part of the DC government. So any accusations of being a party hack or in the tank are patently incorrect.

You eloquently describe the crisis facing the city as well as the insulation many have had from seeing it. It pains me that so many PPs are unaware of how luck and circumstances play such an integral role in who is/not homeless. I am not sure, however, that the zoning claims are meant to be a red herring. Two small shelters have operated in the neighborhood of the Ward 3 site proposed by the Bowser admin, probably unbeknownst to even those living immediately adjacent to that community. The Bowser proposal may have been more readily embraced if the numbers were in keeping with the current zoning regs and did not appear to be a way for a developer to change those rules through a back door maneuver. The City Paper undertook an extensive investigation of the how DC developers grease the political wheels of the city's mayors and council members. It would be foolish, therefore, to believe that the developer is acting out of noblesse oblige.

Oh, I don't believe for a single second that there's any noblesse oblige going on with any of the developers in DC. I'd strongly prefer that the city own the land and the building, because I don't disagree at all that it's probably an end-run around the appropriate process. If the PPs are invested in reforming the process, that's great, and I hope they take their outrage at this abuse of process and direct it at other abuses of process, which doubtless exist in many incarnations citywide. I am frustrated with the things I see my clients experiencing every day - partially because the process never seems to work in their favor. I was excited for the Bowser "All 8 Wards" plan on the face of it, even with the uncertainty about how people get placed in what shelter and what services are actually provided to transition people out of the shelters, because silo-ing these families in squalor in SE and SW is clearly NOT working. It's time to try a different plan.

I guess my point was that while the zoning concern is legitimate and should be address, I don't for a second believe that if the zoning issue gets resolved that the PPs will suddenly be supportive of a shelter located in Ward 3. I think that the bottom line is that there is a vocal group who believe that paying lot of money to be insulated from the problems of urban poverty is a permanent inoculation against it - that because they paid a lot of money whenever to buy a house in upper NW, things must remain as they have ever been.

If people start feeling unsafe in their neighborhoods and flee the city and take their tax revenues with them, how will bowser pay for her programs?

When you "flee" the city do you abandon your residence or sell it? If it's the latter, then the purchaser pays the property taxes and income taxes. See how that works?

You don't know what happened in DC in the 60s and 70s, correct?

Hint: think Detroit

And you apparently don't know much about DC or Detroit. Hint: white flight started in 1954 in many cities with school desegregation and jumped to hyper-speed in the wake of the riots of 1967 and 1968. Of course, Ward 3 was largely immune from this phenomenon. In other words, it had nothing to do with a transient shelter for 40 families. #Unhinged.

Wow, you're dense. Those two were quick examples to show why it's wrong to believe that "When you "flee" the city do you abandon your residence or sell it? If it's the latter, then the purchaser pays the property taxes and income taxes."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm aware of the opposition in Wards 5 and 6. It comes from a different place than the Ward 3 issues. I am not a fan of Ward 3, it's true. Don't live there. Don't want to live there. But it's not "an obsession or vendetta" because I was speaking about the specific concerns being raised on this thread about that location. If you'd like to talk about the concerns with the shelters in Wards 1, 5 or 6, I'm happy to talk about those concerns, though what I have observed is that the concerns are not "don't want those people in our neighborhood" but "we have 3 shelters already in our neighborhood" and/or "that site is not a safe place for children either." Different conversation. Happy to have it.

Yep, it shows. I suggest you drop some of your prejudices and spend more time with people living there. Your choice, of course, but may come handy both for professional and personal reasons (many people, including us, move from Ward 1 to Ward 3 once we have kids)

Thanks for the suggestion, PP. I know plenty of people who live in your area, some who moved there once they had kids and some who moved there without kids. I don't see how that is relevant to any of this. There is a lot of vitriol on this thread from people in the area near where the Ward 3 shelter is proposed to be located. Maybe the people expressing that vitriol should also drop some of their prejudices and spend more time with people experiencing homelessness. It may come in handy for personal and professional reasons.

Different PP here who appreciates your comments and insights. I am not sure all the vitriolic posters live near the site - am familiar with many there and I am hearing concern as well as compassion in conversations. My guess is that some PPs simply do not like the city paying $3000+ for non-luxury housing excluding services while others are bigoted and hostile to helping poor and struggling families.

+1. In fact some of the nastiest comments here have come from folks NOT living in good areas and asking, hey, why do THOSE folks get such a great deal while I'm struggling here?

It's not a bad question

Well, it may not be a bad question but it certainly is not logical. These are homeless people living in temporary shelters. Sorry, but only a "misguided" person thinks that living in a homless shelter in Ward 3 and being dependent on public assitance is a "better lifestyle" than owning your own home in Ward 5 and being self sufficent. It is not a "great deal" compared to any of us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm aware of the opposition in Wards 5 and 6. It comes from a different place than the Ward 3 issues. I am not a fan of Ward 3, it's true. Don't live there. Don't want to live there. But it's not "an obsession or vendetta" because I was speaking about the specific concerns being raised on this thread about that location. If you'd like to talk about the concerns with the shelters in Wards 1, 5 or 6, I'm happy to talk about those concerns, though what I have observed is that the concerns are not "don't want those people in our neighborhood" but "we have 3 shelters already in our neighborhood" and/or "that site is not a safe place for children either." Different conversation. Happy to have it.

Yep, it shows. I suggest you drop some of your prejudices and spend more time with people living there. Your choice, of course, but may come handy both for professional and personal reasons (many people, including us, move from Ward 1 to Ward 3 once we have kids)

Thanks for the suggestion, PP. I know plenty of people who live in your area, some who moved there once they had kids and some who moved there without kids. I don't see how that is relevant to any of this. There is a lot of vitriol on this thread from people in the area near where the Ward 3 shelter is proposed to be located. Maybe the people expressing that vitriol should also drop some of their prejudices and spend more time with people experiencing homelessness. It may come in handy for personal and professional reasons.

Different PP here who appreciates your comments and insights. I am not sure all the vitriolic posters live near the site - am familiar with many there and I am hearing concern as well as compassion in conversations. My guess is that some PPs simply do not like the city paying $3000+ for non-luxury housing excluding services while others are bigoted and hostile to helping poor and struggling families.

+1. In fact some of the nastiest comments here have come from folks NOT living in good areas and asking, hey, why do THOSE folks get such a great deal while I'm struggling here?

It's not a bad question

It's an asinine question as it presumes that homeless families aren't struggling simply because they are housed in a temporary shelter that happens to be in Upper Caucasia. The City isnt buying the Patterson Mansion and providing a doorman, concierge and chauffeured Tesla.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Normally I would be the among the first to cry for public comments on issues and plans that affect neighborhoods. However, given the mean-spirited comments made during the DCPS boundary revision process about at-risk set asides and low income students on this board, I'm glad that the mayor didn't open this up for people to weigh in.

It's a crisis, and I strongly suspect that many of the people in upper NW who are up in arms about this shelter are having their first experience with the crisis. I live in a part of the city with multiple shelters, public housing, and social services, plus I work in social services, so none of this is news to me. It's insulting when people like the PP who described the problem in pretty accurate detail is told by other posters that he/she doesn't know what he/she is talking about. I also think it's ridiculous that the criticism of that poster is basically "You must not know what you're talking about vis-a-vis the homeless crisis because you did not also mention corruption, cronyism, etc., and therefore you must be a party hack."

I don't know about the PP, but personally, I think that the human rights crisis facing thousands of DC citizens of all ages is more important. I choose to focus on that. If you'd like to focus on political corruption and a lack of democratic process, that's up to you, but when I see children living in unsafe and unhealthy living conditions, I'm more interested in getting those children and their parents into a safe environment and getting them started down the road to self-sufficiency. The other stuff is important, but those are process discussions, not immediate crisis discussions.

If I was her, I wouldn't hold public hearings on this subject either, since the 38 pages of this thread and however many protracted arguments about at-risk set asides have demonstrated that the segment of the population who comes to this website were not going to be supportive of the Ward 3 shelter no matter where it is. You can say whatever you want about zoning, but I have no doubt that the goal posts will move if the shelter plan gets revised.

Note: I didn't vote for Bowser or work for her. I don't work for any part of the DC government. So any accusations of being a party hack or in the tank are patently incorrect.

You eloquently describe the crisis facing the city as well as the insulation many have had from seeing it. It pains me that so many PPs are unaware of how luck and circumstances play such an integral role in who is/not homeless. I am not sure, however, that the zoning claims are meant to be a red herring. Two small shelters have operated in the neighborhood of the Ward 3 site proposed by the Bowser admin, probably unbeknownst to even those living immediately adjacent to that community. The Bowser proposal may have been more readily embraced if the numbers were in keeping with the current zoning regs and did not appear to be a way for a developer to change those rules through a back door maneuver. The City Paper undertook an extensive investigation of the how DC developers grease the political wheels of the city's mayors and council members. It would be foolish, therefore, to believe that the developer is acting out of noblesse oblige.

Oh, I don't believe for a single second that there's any noblesse oblige going on with any of the developers in DC. I'd strongly prefer that the city own the land and the building, because I don't disagree at all that it's probably an end-run around the appropriate process. If the PPs are invested in reforming the process, that's great, and I hope they take their outrage at this abuse of process and direct it at other abuses of process, which doubtless exist in many incarnations citywide. I am frustrated with the things I see my clients experiencing every day - partially because the process never seems to work in their favor. I was excited for the Bowser "All 8 Wards" plan on the face of it, even with the uncertainty about how people get placed in what shelter and what services are actually provided to transition people out of the shelters, because silo-ing these families in squalor in SE and SW is clearly NOT working. It's time to try a different plan.

I guess my point was that while the zoning concern is legitimate and should be address, I don't for a second believe that if the zoning issue gets resolved that the PPs will suddenly be supportive of a shelter located in Ward 3. I think that the bottom line is that there is a vocal group who believe that paying lot of money to be insulated from the problems of urban poverty is a permanent inoculation against it - that because they paid a lot of money whenever to buy a house in upper NW, things must remain as they have ever been.

If people start feeling unsafe in their neighborhoods and flee the city and take their tax revenues with them, how will bowser pay for her programs?

When you "flee" the city do you abandon your residence or sell it? If it's the latter, then the purchaser pays the property taxes and income taxes. See how that works?

You don't know what happened in DC in the 60s and 70s, correct?

Hint: think Detroit

And you apparently don't know much about DC or Detroit. Hint: white flight started in 1954 in many cities with school desegregation and jumped to hyper-speed in the wake of the riots of 1967 and 1968. Of course, Ward 3 was largely immune from this phenomenon. In other words, it had nothing to do with a transient shelter for 40 families. #Unhinged.

Wow, you're dense. Those two were quick examples to show why it's wrong to believe that "When you "flee" the city do you abandon your residence or sell it? If it's the latter, then the purchaser pays the property taxes and income taxes."

If it helps you deal with your anxiety, then feel free to believe that this shelter will cause UMC families to abandon homes en masse and flee to the exurbs, thereby causing the collapse of the DC tax base. DC isn't Chocolate City any more and we aren't living in the 1960s. Hurling gratuitous insults doesn't make your dystopian vision any more rational.