Bowser Spreads the Wealth opens homeless shelters in each DC ward

[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."

The first PP who responded. Honestly, I think you got the two responses you did because you chose to use a "quick" example that, in fact, has a long and complicated backstory. IMO, Detroit was a bad example to use to make the point you are making.

Now to your point - I understand your point although I think it is far fetched and melodramatic. People are not going to abandon Ward 3 in droves because a 40 family shelter is being put there. And what the PP is saying is that the Ward is so stable and established that those who choose to leave will be able to find buyers in short order at or near the prices they are asking. So the loss of revenue that you predict is unlikely. This is not Columbia Heights in the 1970s - nowhere close to that.

[Anonymous]

In related news...is this true?

"The city estimates there were 1,311 homeless families in 2015, a sharp rise from 800 six years ago."
http://www.thegeorgetowndish.com/thedish/planned-shelter-sites-spark-initial-debate

[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.

Question - if I donate a million dollars to homeless causes but I don't want to live next to a homeless shelter or next to public housing, do you still consider me as supporting homeless families and causes?

[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.

Question - if I donate a million dollars to homeless causes but I don't want to live next to a homeless shelter or next to public housing, do you still consider me as supporting homeless families and causes?

I would wonder why you donate that kind of money given that you are not interested in being around the people it is intended to benefit. If your $1M donation is contingent on the shelter not being located near your house, I would not consider you supportive, no. I would consider you to be someone who is attempting to use wealth and power to make something go away.

[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.

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.

You don't seem to get out of Upper NW very much. Are you aware of the massive scale of the development ongoing and slated for Ward 6 along the Wharf fronting Maine Avenue? What about Near Southeast (Navy Yard), which is getting Class "A" commercial office space, hotels, a Whole Foods, a movie theater and marina at Yards Park, or H Street/Atlas District with its streetcar service and another Whole Foods, and appears to be a catalyst for projects on Bladensburg Fisd? Soccer stadium and related development at Buzzards Point? The Eastbanc project at the Hine MS site, which includes a Trader Joes? The Fragers Hardware site? The redevelopment of IGU and nearby industrial sites adjacent to Watkins ES. Then there's nearby large-scale projects such as Union Market, Capitol Crossing and Ivy City. Don't embarrass yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this will be viewed as black heresy by the $300,000-a-year-but-totally-middle-class citizens of DCUM, but I would personally prefer the city arrange as many backroom crony deals as they need to to build shelters that get children out of the hell holes they've living in right now instead of more developments of luxury condo buildings for 20-something Hill staffers and lobbyists. I would vote for whatever candidate forces those developers to allocate 25% of those new buildings towards actual affordable housing.

Affordable is different than public housing or low income housing. Which do you support?

Affordable housing, public housing and low income housing are all subsidized in some form or another. Mechanisms vary but that's about it...

Different levels. Are you saying the govt should pay to have low income people living in million dollar homes? Sounds like socialism or income redistribution to me. I support affordable housing but not income redistribution.

I don't think anyone here said anything about low income people living in million dollar homes but it seems that's practically what Bowser is doing - I don't get why low income people should be living in a more expensive neighborhood than me, in an apartment where the rent alone will be a lot more than my mortgage payment. Bowser's plan has rents (JUST rents, not even including meals or anything else) costing taxpayers upwards of $3,300 a month (one site involves a $2 million dollar a year lease to house 50 families, per WaPo). For that kind of money we could be basically buying every homeless family in DC General a $750,000 home.

2m annual lease / 50 units or families/12 mos = 3,333 per month. 2 bed on connecticut ave-building has 4 units open and max is 2415/month. http://www.equityapartments.com/washington-dc/washington-dc-apartments/van-ness/connecticut-heights-apartments.aspx

Just from that management company here's some more at less than 3k/month:
http://www.equityapartments.com/washington-dc/washington-dc-apartments/cleveland-park/2501-porter-apartments.aspx

So what is going on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Question - if I donate a million dollars to homeless causes but I don't want to live next to a homeless shelter or next to public housing, do you still consider me as supporting homeless families and causes?

I would wonder why you donate that kind of money given that you are not interested in being around the people it is intended to benefit. If your $1M donation is contingent on the shelter not being located near your house, I would not consider you supportive, no. I would consider you to be someone who is attempting to use wealth and power to make something go away.

It wasn't about these shelters in particular. It is a more general question. I think you need to be less judgmental and open minded because your mind set of attacking the wealthy as this is their fault and judging them may backfire. Do your research and see who is funding 90% of the homeless causes and foundations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Question - if I donate a million dollars to homeless causes but I don't want to live next to a homeless shelter or next to public housing, do you still consider me as supporting homeless families and causes?

I would wonder why you donate that kind of money given that you are not interested in being around the people it is intended to benefit. If your $1M donation is contingent on the shelter not being located near your house, I would not consider you supportive, no. I would consider you to be someone who is attempting to use wealth and power to make something go away.

It wasn't about these shelters in particular. It is a more general question. I think you need to be less judgmental and open minded because your mind set of attacking the wealthy as this is their fault and judging them may backfire. Do your research and see who is funding 90% of the homeless causes and foundations.

If you have research to share that would indicate that individual donors are funding 90% of homelessness relief (via direct donations, not taxes), I would love to see it.

The conversation about whether financial support is as meaningful as other kinds of support. I assumed that your question was a slightly more specific version of that. If you donated a million dollars to have a shelter built anywhere but in your neighborhood, I would not consider that to be supportive of "homeless causes" (what does that mean, anyway?). As I said before, I would consider it to be using wealth to insulate you from the effects of it while also patting yourself on the back for being a supporter. I understand that you feel that that makes me judgmental, but nothing on this thread that I have read so far as convinced me that the "Not on my Wisconsin Avenue!" supporters are actually compassionate people who care about this issue and just want to make sure things are done ethically. I think that those people really just don't want this shelter to open there because they don't want more homeless people in their neighborhood and would prefer homeless people to be housed elsewhere.

[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

Yes and those taxes go down considerably so that no one can be paid to monitor the taxes. In the Barry administration many people stopped paying taxes and no one bothered to collect them. Taxes equal people to collect taxes. Low taxes equal can't afford to pay to collect taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Question - if I donate a million dollars to homeless causes but I don't want to live next to a homeless shelter or next to public housing, do you still consider me as supporting homeless families and causes?

I would wonder why you donate that kind of money given that you are not interested in being around the people it is intended to benefit. If your $1M donation is contingent on the shelter not being located near your house, I would not consider you supportive, no. I would consider you to be someone who is attempting to use wealth and power to make something go away.

It wasn't about these shelters in particular. It is a more general question. I think you need to be less judgmental and open minded because your mind set of attacking the wealthy as this is their fault and judging them may backfire. Do your research and see who is funding 90% of the homeless causes and foundations.

People who announce that they paid a lot of money for their homes and therefore shouldn't have to live near a homeless shelter or have their kids exposed to the homeless st school because of generalized fears and prejudices deserve to be judged regardless of how much money they have donated to a particular cause.

[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

Yes and those taxes go down considerably so that no one can be paid to monitor the taxes. In the Barry administration many people stopped paying taxes and no one bothered to collect them. Taxes equal people to collect taxes. Low taxes equal can't afford to pay to collect taxes.

Okay, you're right. Feel better now? Sigh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Question - if I donate a million dollars to homeless causes but I don't want to live next to a homeless shelter or next to public housing, do you still consider me as supporting homeless families and causes?

I would wonder why you donate that kind of money given that you are not interested in being around the people it is intended to benefit. If your $1M donation is contingent on the shelter not being located near your house, I would not consider you supportive, no. I would consider you to be someone who is attempting to use wealth and power to make something go away.

It wasn't about these shelters in particular. It is a more general question. I think you need to be less judgmental and open minded because your mind set of attacking the wealthy as this is their fault and judging them may backfire. Do your research and see who is funding 90% of the homeless causes and foundations.

People who announce that they paid a lot of money for their homes and therefore shouldn't have to live near a homeless shelter or have their kids exposed to the homeless st school because of generalized fears and prejudices deserve to be judged regardless of how much money they have donated to a particular cause.

You sound very angry. What exactly are you doing to help the homeless?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

My children don't attend any of the schools in question so that is not a factor. It was a question and your answer demonstrates how your anger at wealthy people is doing no one any good. At least I can say I have donated a lot of money to help feed, shelter, and clothe the homeless and indigent people in DC. Can you say the same?

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.

Question - if I donate a million dollars to homeless causes but I don't want to live next to a homeless shelter or next to public housing, do you still consider me as supporting homeless families and causes?

I would wonder why you donate that kind of money given that you are not interested in being around the people it is intended to benefit. If your $1M donation is contingent on the shelter not being located near your house, I would not consider you supportive, no. I would consider you to be someone who is attempting to use wealth and power to make something go away.

It wasn't about these shelters in particular. It is a more general question. I think you need to be less judgmental and open minded because your mind set of attacking the wealthy as this is their fault and judging them may backfire. Do your research and see who is funding 90% of the homeless causes and foundations.

People who announce that they paid a lot of money for their homes and therefore shouldn't have to live near a homeless shelter or have their kids exposed to the homeless st school because of generalized fears and prejudices deserve to be judged regardless of how much money they have donated to a particular cause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Question - if I donate a million dollars to homeless causes but I don't want to live next to a homeless shelter or next to public housing, do you still consider me as supporting homeless families and causes?

I would wonder why you donate that kind of money given that you are not interested in being around the people it is intended to benefit. If your $1M donation is contingent on the shelter not being located near your house, I would not consider you supportive, no. I would consider you to be someone who is attempting to use wealth and power to make something go away.

It wasn't about these shelters in particular. It is a more general question. I think you need to be less judgmental and open minded because your mind set of attacking the wealthy as this is their fault and judging them may backfire. Do your research and see who is funding 90% of the homeless causes and foundations.

People who announce that they paid a lot of money for their homes and therefore shouldn't have to live near a homeless shelter or have their kids exposed to the homeless st school because of generalized fears and prejudices deserve to be judged regardless of how much money they have donated to a particular cause.

My children don't attend any of the schools in question so that is not a factor. It was a question and your answer demonstrates how your anger at wealthy people is doing no one any good. At least I can say I have donated a lot of money to help feed, shelter, and clothe the homeless and indigent people in DC. Can you say the same?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Question - if I donate a million dollars to homeless causes but I don't want to live next to a homeless shelter or next to public housing, do you still consider me as supporting homeless families and causes?

I would wonder why you donate that kind of money given that you are not interested in being around the people it is intended to benefit. If your $1M donation is contingent on the shelter not being located near your house, I would not consider you supportive, no. I would consider you to be someone who is attempting to use wealth and power to make something go away.

It wasn't about these shelters in particular. It is a more general question. I think you need to be less judgmental and open minded because your mind set of attacking the wealthy as this is their fault and judging them may backfire. Do your research and see who is funding 90% of the homeless causes and foundations.

People who announce that they paid a lot of money for their homes and therefore shouldn't have to live near a homeless shelter or have their kids exposed to the homeless st school because of generalized fears and prejudices deserve to be judged regardless of how much money they have donated to a particular cause.

My children don't attend any of the schools in question so that is not a factor. It was a question and your answer demonstrates how your anger at wealthy people is doing no one any good. At least I can say I have donated a lot of money to help feed, shelter, and clothe the homeless and indigent people in DC. Can you say the same?

Aren't you presumptuous? You have no idea what my HHI is, the percentage of my earnings that are donated to Bread for the City, DC Central Kitchen and other worthy organizations, the hours I have spent volunteering, and other worthy causes, or the neighborhood in which I live. So please don't try to marginalize me by making baseless accusations about harboring anger toward the wealthy. Problems like poverty and homelessness don't disappear because you happen to write a check once a year.