Let's join forces to scrap the current homeless shelter plan and start over

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently this was an easy decision for Mary Cheh to make. It should abut her home. #skininthegame

I assume you don't live near Councilmember Cheh?

I have no idea where she lives. Pretty sure she is not an immediate neighbor as I know them. I am following through on our city council encouraging us to all have skin in the game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Apparently this was an easy decision for Mary Cheh to make. It should abut her home. #skininthegame

I assume you don't live near Councilmember Cheh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Aren't they supposed to be there 120 days? I've suggested by the arboretum. I'm sure there are other sites. Currently many are at random hotels in MD. Surely an improvement.

Any place in particular by the Arboretum or just camped out by the roadside? DC is already housing families at the motels by Bladensburg Road. Not really kid- or family-friendly. No playgrounds or grocery stores. Plenty of industrial sites and nightclubs. Snd a Metrobus storage and service fscility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The people in Ward 3 who pay the most for the City get rewarded with a homeless shelter, a big middle-finger from the DC gov. Why not put the homeless shelter in the prison?

This sounds suspiciously like "some people are more equal than others"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's clear to me that the discontent with the Mayors plan is the tip of the ice berg in DC. How did we become a year round shelter city? How will these eight sites address that? What to do with the homeless who refuse shelter or treatment? How to avoid having the streets of SanFrancisco with the hardened homeless? How to encourage affordable housing and people.moving to independence?

I think the cart was put before the horse with the mayors plan and the interconnected issues should be carefully studies, taking into account what the taxpayers of DC actually want. The homeless advocates and developers together form a powerful lobby. Those of us opposed to these precipitous plans are individual voices. How do we mobilize, stop this plan in its tracks, and encourage the city entities to go back to the drawing board and create a long term plan good for the wellbeing and growth of all members if DC, not just vocal lobbies?

Step A is scrap this plan so it does nit create more unintended consequences that have to be addressed down the road. Thoughts on uniting to do this? Where's our lobby?

Maybe you want to go back to school for social work and immerse yourself in the work. You will start to see that most of DC's "homeless advocates" are extremely hard-working people who get paid a pittance, and that they are not anything close to being a powerful lobby.

I know right? That powerful homeless advocacy lobby, with their offices on K st!

[Anonymous]

Now the smell of pee coming from Glover Park-Wisconsin avenue will not be limited to the weekdays.?

[Anonymous]

Weekends

[Anonymous]

The irony- the city is so wealthy that now the rich pay for the poor to move into their neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren't they supposed to be there 120 days? I've suggested by the arboretum. I'm sure there are other sites. Currently many are at random hotels in MD. Surely an improvement.

Any place in particular by the Arboretum or just camped out by the roadside? DC is already housing families at the motels by Bladensburg Road. Not really kid- or family-friendly. No playgrounds or grocery stores. Plenty of industrial sites and nightclubs. Snd a Metrobus storage and service fscility.

Bro, don't screw up the Arboetum I

[Anonymous]

There are already homeless day centers and winter shelters run by churches in NW, including Georgetown. It never affected property values. And those tend to serve single men which is the toughest population.

[Anonymous]

It's idiotic to say that homeless shelters don't have a negative effect on property values. Maybe it is slim but of course it is negative.

[Anonymous]

Isn't the arboretum the world's biggest free playground? I played there as a kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people in Ward 3 who pay the most for the City get rewarded with a homeless shelter, a big middle-finger from the DC gov. Why not put the homeless shelter in the prison?

This sounds suspiciously like "some people are more equal than others"

Not the PP you are responding to, and I don't live in Ward 3 either... but we aren't all equal. We are all born into different circumstances. Some of us are born into wealth, some born into poverty, some into mental health problems or disability, we're all raised a little differently, we pursue different things, value different things, some of us are better able to take care of ourselves than others. But, I guess we shouldn't admit to ourselves that this is the case....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you say about the people who's home value will decrease due to proximity to the shelters?

I say (1) provide proof of this phenomenon and (2) spell whose properly.

Different poster (who hopefully will pass the grammar test! ).

HUD research paper addressing property values and crime associated with homeless shelters.
https://www.huduser.gov/Publications/pdf/support_1.pdf

Quantitative Analysis of Property Value Impacts

Overall, we found that the set of eleven supportive housing facilities we analyzed for the
price impact analysis was associated with a positive impact on house prices in the surrounding
neighborhood. ... While the average relationship between this set of supportive housing facilities and
proximate house prices was positive, not all site/neighborhood combinations in Denver
experienced the same relationship. When we disaggregated our analysis to measure impacts for
different common clusters of sites/neighborhoods, we found that the set of five supportive housing
sites located in low-valued, heavily minority-occupied (typically majority Black-occupied)
neighborhoods consistently evinced the positive price impacts noted above. By contrast, the site
in the highest-value, overwhelmingly white-occupied neighborhood apparently had a negative
effect on house prices, as did another (poorly maintained) site in a modestly valued, high-density
core neighborhood having 24 percent of its population classified as Hispanic.
(page xii)

Had you bothered to read the study you would have known that it focused on supported living facilities for the mentally ill and developmentally disabled and explicitly excluded homeless shelters and transitional quarters. Fn. 1 at 1-2. Moreover of the total of 11 facilities examined, for which there were two home sales within designated distances from the facility, there was only one located in a predominately-white neighborhood which had the highest median home sales price: $195,000. By the way, this happened to be a group home for individuals with cerebral palsy. I'll leave it to others to judge whether you are being deceitful or just lazy.

Do you really want to dance on this? If you read the study, you'd know it was commissioned to study the exact problem at issue here: the impact of "supportive housing" on property values. The study looks at a variety of different types of supportive housing, and for what it's worth, suggests pretty strongly that the effects of homeless shelters are further down the list of desirability than developmental disability cases.

People asked for actual data on point, and I provided it. I'm sorry you're sad that actual studies don't support your (ridiculous) claim that shelters don't impact property values, but that is what this very clear and complete study shows.

If you'd like, I also can start quoting what it says about crime rates near shelters, but we both know that doesn't help your preconceived position either.

Follow the data and deal with it honestly. You're taking a predetermined position and discounting the research that refutes you.

Disappointing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's idiotic to say that homeless shelters don't have a negative effect on property values. Maybe it is slim but of course it is negative.

The property value argument is a strawman. The vast majority of homeowners in ward 3 (and let's be honest, the majority is the nimby folks in this thread are ward 3) have likey seen property values skyrocket in the last decade. You can take a $20k hit, even though I don't believe it will happen. It will share the area with a police station for goodness sake.