New Ward 3 Homeless Families Shelter Site

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Huh? You're confusing me with someone else. I am just asking what points should be in the Good Neighbor Agreement that DC govt has said will be negotiated for each one of these facilities. Ideally, that GNA would form a bridge of common goals for both the people in the shelter and the surrounding community, and it might even lead to each group accepting the other. Have you got any actual ideas? Or are you just here trying to stir up a fight?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Huh? You're confusing me with someone else. I am just asking what points should be in the Good Neighbor Agreement that DC govt has said will be negotiated for each one of these facilities. Ideally, that GNA would form a bridge of common goals for both the people in the shelter and the surrounding community, and it might even lead to each group accepting the other. Have you got any actual ideas? Or are you just here trying to stir up a fight?

Or they don't feel the shelter should be a good neighbor.

[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.

What probably bothers many residents in Cathedral Heights and McLean Gardens, whose area is semi-suburban more than urban, is that these aspects of "urban living" and the problems associated with it, are being introduced into the neighborhood by Mary Cheh and DC bureaucrats without benefit of a robust public process.

[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.

What probably bothers many residents in Cathedral Heights and McLean Gardens, whose area is semi-suburban more than urban, is that these aspects of "urban living" and the problems associated with it, are being introduced into the neighborhood by Mary Cheh and DC bureaucrats without benefit of a robust public process.

By most definitions NW DC is urban, certainly the parts of it near Wisconsin Avenue are. But I suspect by urban what you mean is black and that is what you don't want in your neighborhood.

And precisely what are the problems anyhow - besides having to decline the occasional pan handler it is unclear to me what exactly it is you are fearful of?

Also there were numerous public meetings about the shelter plan - both in the neighborhood and at the City Council.

Again for the thousanth time on this thread the shelter is going to be serving families not the long term homeless and FWIW there are long term homeless in the neighborhood already.

[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.

What probably bothers many residents in Cathedral Heights and McLean Gardens, whose area is semi-suburban more than urban, is that these aspects of "urban living" and the problems associated with it, are being introduced into the neighborhood by Mary Cheh and DC bureaucrats without benefit of a robust public process.

What do you mean "without the benefit of a robust public process"?
You do know almost all of the DC Council hearings are public and they invite the public to testify or to submit written testimony.
Whining about stuff on social media (which is all people seem willing to do) isn't exactly an effective way to alert councilmembers of ones thoughts/sentiments.

[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.

What probably bothers many residents in Cathedral Heights and McLean Gardens, whose area is semi-suburban more than urban, is that these aspects of "urban living" and the problems associated with it, are being introduced into the neighborhood by Mary Cheh and DC bureaucrats without benefit of a robust public process.

By most definitions NW DC is urban, certainly the parts of it near Wisconsin Avenue are. But I suspect by urban what you mean is black and that is what you don't want in your neighborhood.

And precisely what are the problems anyhow - besides having to decline the occasional pan handler it is unclear to me what exactly it is you are fearful of?

Also there were numerous public meetings about the shelter plan - both in the neighborhood and at the City Council.

Again for the thousanth time on this thread the shelter is going to be serving families not the long term homeless and FWIW there are long term homeless in the neighborhood already.

What an odd thing to say. Move on from this kind of stuff please. - black and white family (if you want to be reductionist)

[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.

All very nice, PP, and I think it's something we can all get behind. However, I don't think I'll see the execution of the items on this list in my lifetime, which is extremely unfortunate.

[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.

What probably bothers many residents in Cathedral Heights and McLean Gardens, whose area is semi-suburban more than urban, is that these aspects of "urban living" and the problems associated with it, are being introduced into the neighborhood by Mary Cheh and DC bureaucrats without benefit of a robust public process.

What do you mean "without the benefit of a robust public process"?
You do know almost all of the DC Council hearings are public and they invite the public to testify or to submit written testimony.
Whining about stuff on social media (which is all people seem willing to do) isn't exactly an effective way to alert councilmembers of ones thoughts/sentiments.

Even most advocates for the shelter would say it was rushed. There was one "unofficial" stage managed meeting by Mary Cheh about the Idaho Ave site and one DC council hearing at which all of the sites were voted up or down as a package. That was not at all a usual public process with meetings and hearings in which impacts and alternatives are considered.

[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.

What probably bothers many residents in Cathedral Heights and McLean Gardens, whose area is semi-suburban more than urban, is that these aspects of "urban living" and the problems associated with it, are being introduced into the neighborhood by Mary Cheh and DC bureaucrats without benefit of a robust public process.

What do you mean "without the benefit of a robust public process"?
You do know almost all of the DC Council hearings are public and they invite the public to testify or to submit written testimony.
Whining about stuff on social media (which is all people seem willing to do) isn't exactly an effective way to alert councilmembers of ones thoughts/sentiments.

Even most advocates for the shelter would say it was rushed. There was one "unofficial" stage managed meeting by Mary Cheh about the Idaho Ave site and one DC council hearing at which all of the sites were voted up or down as a package. That was not at all a usual public process with meetings and hearings in which impacts and alternatives are considered.

Not true - this was discussed at multiple ANC meetings where city officials were present. There were also multiple Council Hearings.

Also please find me an advocate who thinks the process was rushed?

Being unhappy with the outcome does not mean the process was flawed. It just means you are unhappy with the outcome.

[Anonymous]

I thought it was odd and rushed how the ward 3 site kept changing. If they thought the first one was fine, and then changed their mind, why not the 2nd? Apparently they are capable of choosing poorly. The site should be thoroughly vetted. It's better to take time examine everything and have a detailed plan than ram it through, or it'll be as much a failure as the apparent hell hole DC general that was city managed. What will be different?????? Details please. Compare /contrast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought it was odd and rushed how the ward 3 site kept changing. If they thought the first one was fine, and then changed their mind, why not the 2nd? Apparently they are capable of choosing poorly. The site should be thoroughly vetted. It's better to take time examine everything and have a detailed plan than ram it through, or it'll be as much a failure as the apparent hell hole DC general that was city managed. What will be different?????? Details please. Compare /contrast.

Are you late to the process or were you just not paying attention?

The site changed because there was process not because of a lack of process.

I believe at this point it will be more than 3 years from the original proposal to the opening of the Ward 3 shelter so that is hardly rushed.

And you have no idea if they chose poorly and didn't offer any reasons why you think they did.

Personally I think locating the shelter on city owned land adjacent to a major bus corridor and grocery store in a busy area makes a lot of sense.

[Anonymous]

So people who disagree may want more process. Like the first site got when people disagreed. Seems like The 1st site got an abundance of process and the 2nd was rammed through.
As to across from a grocery store...do the living units have kitchens? Where are the details?????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So people who disagree may want more process. Like the first site got when people disagreed. Seems like The 1st site got an abundance of process and the 2nd was rammed through.
As to across from a grocery store...do the living units have kitchens? Where are the details?????

Looking for a place to stay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even most advocates for the shelter would say it was rushed. There was one "unofficial" stage managed meeting by Mary Cheh about the Idaho Ave site and one DC council hearing at which all of the sites were voted up or down as a package. That was not at all a usual public process with meetings and hearings in which impacts and alternatives are considered.

Not true - this was discussed at multiple ANC meetings where city officials were present. There were also multiple Council Hearings.
Also please find me an advocate who thinks the process was rushed?
Being unhappy with the outcome does not mean the process was flawed. It just means you are unhappy with the outcome.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought it was odd and rushed how the ward 3 site kept changing. If they thought the first one was fine, and then changed their mind, why not the 2nd? Apparently they are capable of choosing poorly. The site should be thoroughly vetted. It's better to take time examine everything and have a detailed plan than ram it through, or it'll be as much a failure as the apparent hell hole DC general that was city managed. What will be different?????? Details please. Compare /contrast.

Are you late to the process or were you just not paying attention?
The site changed because there was process not because of a lack of process.
I believe at this point it will be more than 3 years from the original proposal to the opening of the Ward 3 shelter so that is hardly rushed.
And you have no idea if they chose poorly and didn't offer any reasons why you think they did.
Personally I think locating the shelter on city owned land adjacent to a major bus corridor and grocery store in a busy area makes a lot of sense.

I'm a DP responding to the PP who falsely claims this process wasn't rushed. It absolutely was rushed and bullied through. All Bowser would tell people was that she was working on a plan to close DC General, and then in March 2016 she sprung a fully-formed plan for "a shelter in every ward" with sites already selected. There was no opportunity for public comment on either the plan itself or the location of the sites, and Bowser actively tried to block any opportunity to challenge her master plan. Ultimately, enough people from a few wards raised enough stink about Bowser's pre-selected sites that some of them got moved despite her pressure not to allow any changes, but those changes were only shifts in location, and not challenges to the essential structure of Bowser's plan.

Here are articles from when Bowser first unveiled the plan, which point out that she wasn't allowing any changes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/homeless-shelters-to-be-spread-across-capital-under-plan-by-mayor-bowser/2016/02/09/318bc360-cf31-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html?utm_term=.acd2223e77b1
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/DC-Mayor-Bowser-Announces-New-Homeless-Family-Shelter-Locations-368117741.html
https://wamu.org/story/16/02/09/dc_general_homeless_shelter_could_close_by_2018_says_bowser/

I can understand why Bowser wouldn't want to allow any changes, because it's much easier to be an authoritarian and force your plan on people rather than negotiate with them. Reasonable people can debate whether or not this was a dire situation that called for a strong move by the Mayor to push past all the individual issues and force a master plan on everyone. But make no mistake, this plan was absolutely railroaded into place with no opportunity for community voice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even most advocates for the shelter would say it was rushed. There was one "unofficial" stage managed meeting by Mary Cheh about the Idaho Ave site and one DC council hearing at which all of the sites were voted up or down as a package. That was not at all a usual public process with meetings and hearings in which impacts and alternatives are considered.

Not true - this was discussed at multiple ANC meetings where city officials were present. There were also multiple Council Hearings.
Also please find me an advocate who thinks the process was rushed?
Being unhappy with the outcome does not mean the process was flawed. It just means you are unhappy with the outcome.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought it was odd and rushed how the ward 3 site kept changing. If they thought the first one was fine, and then changed their mind, why not the 2nd? Apparently they are capable of choosing poorly. The site should be thoroughly vetted. It's better to take time examine everything and have a detailed plan than ram it through, or it'll be as much a failure as the apparent hell hole DC general that was city managed. What will be different?????? Details please. Compare /contrast.

Are you late to the process or were you just not paying attention?
The site changed because there was process not because of a lack of process.
I believe at this point it will be more than 3 years from the original proposal to the opening of the Ward 3 shelter so that is hardly rushed.
And you have no idea if they chose poorly and didn't offer any reasons why you think they did.
Personally I think locating the shelter on city owned land adjacent to a major bus corridor and grocery store in a busy area makes a lot of sense.

I'm a DP responding to the PP who falsely claims this process wasn't rushed. It absolutely was rushed and bullied through. All Bowser would tell people was that she was working on a plan to close DC General, and then in March 2016 she sprung a fully-formed plan for "a shelter in every ward" with sites already selected. There was no opportunity for public comment on either the plan itself or the location of the sites, and Bowser actively tried to block any opportunity to challenge her master plan. Ultimately, enough people from a few wards raised enough stink about Bowser's pre-selected sites that some of them got moved despite her pressure not to allow any changes, but those changes were only shifts in location, and not challenges to the essential structure of Bowser's plan.

Here are articles from when Bowser first unveiled the plan, which point out that she wasn't allowing any changes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/homeless-shelters-to-be-spread-across-capital-under-plan-by-mayor-bowser/2016/02/09/318bc360-cf31-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html?utm_term=.acd2223e77b1
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/DC-Mayor-Bowser-Announces-New-Homeless-Family-Shelter-Locations-368117741.html
https://wamu.org/story/16/02/09/dc_general_homeless_shelter_could_close_by_2018_says_bowser/

I can understand why Bowser wouldn't want to allow any changes, because it's much easier to be an authoritarian and force your plan on people rather than negotiate with them. Reasonable people can debate whether or not this was a dire situation that called for a strong move by the Mayor to push past all the individual issues and force a master plan on everyone. But make no mistake, this plan was absolutely railroaded into place with no opportunity for community voice.

Guess Ward 3 didn't realize raising a stink on social media wasn't gonna cut it.