New Ward 3 Homeless Families Shelter Site

[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.

And you are continuing to show your ignorance.

The Ward 3 shelter is not being built where Bowser proposed it and the site was essentially proposed by the Council.

So your argument that Bowser wouldn't allow any changes is false on its premise.

We are going on 3 years since this process began which hardly strikes me as a rush and there were multiple public meetings at the neighborhood level and multiple hearings at the Council. You can continue to disagree with the outcome but you are wrong that this happened quickly or without public meetings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Ha ha why not?

In seriousness I had some questions about the lack of kitchens and plan for shared bathrooms for families. I'm not sure what improvement that is from. DC general and seems worse than your own hotel room. Details and an accompanying rationale would be nice....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And you are continuing to show your ignorance.

The Ward 3 shelter is not being built where Bowser proposed it and the site was essentially proposed by the Council.

So your argument that Bowser wouldn't allow any changes is false on its premise.

We are going on 3 years since this process began which hardly strikes me as a rush and there were multiple public meetings at the neighborhood level and multiple hearings at the Council. You can continue to disagree with the outcome but you are wrong that this happened quickly or without public meetings.

The 3 years you keep mentioning is pretty disingenuous...
The selection process of the current site certainly did NOT take 3 years.
In the time since then you are right, they've failed to flesh out how they will achieve the lofty goals beyond plonking a building by the police station in ward 3. The more time that passes, the more a black eye actually so I would quit touting it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And you are continuing to show your ignorance.

The Ward 3 shelter is not being built where Bowser proposed it and the site was essentially proposed by the Council.

So your argument that Bowser wouldn't allow any changes is false on its premise.

We are going on 3 years since this process began which hardly strikes me as a rush and there were multiple public meetings at the neighborhood level and multiple hearings at the Council. You can continue to disagree with the outcome but you are wrong that this happened quickly or without public meetings.

With all due respect, you are showing your ignorance. The Idaho Ave. site was substituted very late for a site that had been proposed on Wisconsin Ave. across from the Russian embassy. There was no process of public meetings involving the ANC, the Office of Planning, DDOT and hearings before the Council to consider operations and impacts. It was a rushed, up or down on the whole package to minimize the opportunity for public opposition, particularly for the rushed choice of the Idaho site. If there was a 'process' as you suggest, it turned out to be a very Soviet-style one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And you are continuing to show your ignorance.

The Ward 3 shelter is not being built where Bowser proposed it and the site was essentially proposed by the Council.

So your argument that Bowser wouldn't allow any changes is false on its premise.

We are going on 3 years since this process began which hardly strikes me as a rush and there were multiple public meetings at the neighborhood level and multiple hearings at the Council. You can continue to disagree with the outcome but you are wrong that this happened quickly or without public meetings.

The 3 years you keep mentioning is pretty disingenuous...
The selection process of the current site certainly did NOT take 3 years.
In the time since then you are right, they've failed to flesh out how they will achieve the lofty goals beyond plonking a building by the police station in ward 3. The more time that passes, the more a black eye actually so I would quit touting it.

The McLean Gardens site was decreed by Cheh and passed by the Council even before anyone discussed it with the leadership of the MPD Second District. No one told the police that they were going to lose their parking and staging area. That's why DC after the fact has gerry-rigged a $9M parking deck structure which, despite the high price tag, is a very cheap design with no screening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Cheh took care of her constituents in Mass. Ave. Heights and killed that proposed shelter location. Then she decided that 2-D was the place and declared it done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Cheh took care of her constituents in Mass. Ave. Heights and killed that proposed shelter location. Then she decided that 2-D was the place and declared it done.

Lol - okay well what's done is done. Ranting about it now isn't going to do anything nor is arguing back and forth about whether the process was rushed or not. So basically at this point you can either grab your crayolas and start making picket signs for your protests outside Councilmember Cheh's office or the shelter itself when it opens or...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And you are continuing to show your ignorance.

The Ward 3 shelter is not being built where Bowser proposed it and the site was essentially proposed by the Council.

So your argument that Bowser wouldn't allow any changes is false on its premise.

We are going on 3 years since this process began which hardly strikes me as a rush and there were multiple public meetings at the neighborhood level and multiple hearings at the Council. You can continue to disagree with the outcome but you are wrong that this happened quickly or without public meetings.

With all due respect, you are showing your ignorance. The Idaho Ave. site was substituted very late for a site that had been proposed on Wisconsin Ave. across from the Russian embassy. There was no process of public meetings involving the ANC, the Office of Planning, DDOT and hearings before the Council to consider operations and impacts. It was a rushed, up or down on the whole package to minimize the opportunity for public opposition, particularly for the rushed choice of the Idaho site. If there was a 'process' as you suggest, it turned out to be a very Soviet-style one.

Again you are wrong.

The original shelter proposals were made in February 2016. The zoning hearing for the shelter that is to be built was held in September of 2017. 18 months from proposal to zoning hearing is pretty typical for a private development in DC.

But wait - here is the thing - since it required a zoning hearing that means there was a public zoning process. Which means notice to the ANC and the immediate neighbors. It means both DCOP and DDOT were required by law to issue reports to the BZA which in fact did happen.

It means that opposing neighbors had the option to appeal, which did happen.

Here is a link to an article about the zoning hearing:

https://dc.curbed.com/2017/9/28/16378816/homeless-shelter-ward-3-zoning-appeal

And if you go to the ANC 3C website it appears they had it on the agenda at least 3 times and that excludes additional public meetings initiated by Mary Cheh and the meetings held at the City Council:

http://anc3c.org/issues/homeward-dc-omnibus-facilities-plan/

This is a cliche but it really applies to you here - you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts - and the facts show that you are wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Cheh took care of her constituents in Mass. Ave. Heights and killed that proposed shelter location. Then she decided that 2-D was the place and declared it done.

Your paranoia is coming out again.

The Mass Ave Heights location was nixed because it cost tens of millions of dollars more though the neighbors of that site were as hysterical in their opposition as you are - according to Cheh the Idaho Ave site saved the city about 38 million.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And you are continuing to show your ignorance.

The Ward 3 shelter is not being built where Bowser proposed it and the site was essentially proposed by the Council.

So your argument that Bowser wouldn't allow any changes is false on its premise.

We are going on 3 years since this process began which hardly strikes me as a rush and there were multiple public meetings at the neighborhood level and multiple hearings at the Council. You can continue to disagree with the outcome but you are wrong that this happened quickly or without public meetings.

With all due respect, you are showing your ignorance. The Idaho Ave. site was substituted very late for a site that had been proposed on Wisconsin Ave. across from the Russian embassy. There was no process of public meetings involving the ANC, the Office of Planning, DDOT and hearings before the Council to consider operations and impacts. It was a rushed, up or down on the whole package to minimize the opportunity for public opposition, particularly for the rushed choice of the Idaho site. If there was a 'process' as you suggest, it turned out to be a very Soviet-style one.

Again you are wrong.

The original shelter proposals were made in February 2016. The zoning hearing for the shelter that is to be built was held in September of 2017. 18 months from proposal to zoning hearing is pretty typical for a private development in DC.

But wait - here is the thing - since it required a zoning hearing that means there was a public zoning process. Which means notice to the ANC and the immediate neighbors. It means both DCOP and DDOT were required by law to issue reports to the BZA which in fact did happen.

It means that opposing neighbors had the option to appeal, which did happen.

Here is a link to an article about the zoning hearing:

https://dc.curbed.com/2017/9/28/16378816/homeless-shelter-ward-3-zoning-appeal

And if you go to the ANC 3C website it appears they had it on the agenda at least 3 times and that excludes additional public meetings initiated by Mary Cheh and the meetings held at the City Council:

http://anc3c.org/issues/homeward-dc-omnibus-facilities-plan/

This is a cliche but it really applies to you here - you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts - and the facts show that you are wrong.

Let Mary Cheh walk you through the chronology, in her own words.

"On February 11, 2016, the Mayor transmitted the Homeward DC plan to the Council and presented the Ward 3 shelter site and plan before the community. The legislation was referred to the Committee of the Whole and a public hearing was held on March 17th. At the public meeting in February and the public hearing on all of the shelters held on March 17th, residents expressed concerns about the cost of leasing the Wisconsin Avenue site and the feasibility of providing adequate services at that location. [She omits to state that Massachusetts Ave Heights residents expressed very vocal opposition to the original Wisconsin Avenue proposed site.] Residents suggested the possibility of relocating the site to benefit the District and those experiencing homelessness; on a number of occasions, the Second District site was mentioned as an alternative." (

Of course, the Mass. Ave. Heights neighbors wanted any other site. Cheh goes on to say that on April 6, 2016 she sent a letter to the Department of General Services asking them to examine the Idaho site and several others. The response from the DGS director, Dr. Weaver, to Cheh defended the Mayor's original plan and stated that the Second District site on Idaho was infeasible. Cheh then states that:

"Despite Dir. Weaver’s response, the 2nd District location rose to favor in the face of the enormous cost to lease the Wisconsin Avenue shelter site over 15-25 years." This means that Cheh decided that she know best, despite the opposition of DGS. So she did the following: "On May 17st, 2016, the Council recommended moving the Ward 3 site to the Idaho Avenue location. The sites in Wards 5 and 6 were also recommended to be moved due to the high cost of leasing the sites. I held a community meeting on Thursday, May 26th, to discuss the 2D site. And on May 31, the Council passed the Homeless Shelter Replacement Act of 2016 as amended."

So, in other words, despite the opposition of DGS to the Second District site as not suitable, Cheh rushed the site selection through the DC Council in less than two weeks, with one charade community meeting and one omnibus Council hearing on all of the sites, where individualized impacts were never considered.

The zoning case that you cite was to deal with height issues at the site. However, the result was never in doubt, because the DC government was a party to the zoning proceeding involving a property that it owned and THE COUNCIL HAD ALREADY PASSED A LAW MANDATING THE IDAHO AVENUE LOCATION FOR THE WARD 3 HOMELESS SHELTER.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Cheh took care of her constituents in Mass. Ave. Heights and killed that proposed shelter location. Then she decided that 2-D was the place and declared it done.

Your paranoia is coming out again.

The Mass Ave Heights location was nixed because it cost tens of millions of dollars more though the neighbors of that site were as hysterical in their opposition as you are - according to Cheh the Idaho Ave site saved the city about 38 million.

Has anyone made the claim that closing DC General and building 8 shelters (and no doubt they'll be more) is about saving the city money? I thought it was about everyone having skin in the game. Therefore saving 38 million (which it sounds like needing to add a parking lot, the new site will come close to) has zero bearing. Nothing about this plan has to do with saving $. If it did, they would have renovated the DC general campus and delivered efficient, centralized services. Let's think on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Cheh took care of her constituents in Mass. Ave. Heights and killed that proposed shelter location. Then she decided that 2-D was the place and declared it done.

Your paranoia is coming out again.

The Mass Ave Heights location was nixed because it cost tens of millions of dollars more though the neighbors of that site were as hysterical in their opposition as you are - according to Cheh the Idaho Ave site saved the city about 38 million.

Has anyone made the claim that closing DC General and building 8 shelters (and no doubt they'll be more) is about saving the city money? I thought it was about everyone having skin in the game. Therefore saving 38 million (which it sounds like needing to add a parking lot, the new site will come close to) has zero bearing. Nothing about this plan has to do with saving $. If it did, they would have renovated the DC general campus and delivered efficient, centralized services. Let's think on that.

That was her wild card guess more than a year before the Idaho shelter was even designed. And we know that it didn't include the $9M-$10M cost of the new parking garage for the MPD, because no one thought to talk to the Second District before the DC Council rushed to codify Cheh's location diktat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And you are continuing to show your ignorance.

The Ward 3 shelter is not being built where Bowser proposed it and the site was essentially proposed by the Council.

So your argument that Bowser wouldn't allow any changes is false on its premise.

We are going on 3 years since this process began which hardly strikes me as a rush and there were multiple public meetings at the neighborhood level and multiple hearings at the Council. You can continue to disagree with the outcome but you are wrong that this happened quickly or without public meetings.

The 3 years you keep mentioning is pretty disingenuous...
The selection process of the current site certainly did NOT take 3 years.
In the time since then you are right, they've failed to flesh out how they will achieve the lofty goals beyond plonking a building by the police station in ward 3. The more time that passes, the more a black eye actually so I would quit touting it.

The McLean Gardens site was decreed by Cheh and passed by the Council even before anyone discussed it with the leadership of the MPD Second District. No one told the police that they were going to lose their parking and staging area. That's why DC after the fact has gerry-rigged a $9M parking deck structure which, despite the high price tag, is a very cheap design with no screening.

Despite all this "thorough" planning initially, where was Cheh an Co expecting the Police to park all their vehicles before someone got smart and threw in a garage into the plans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And you are continuing to show your ignorance.

The Ward 3 shelter is not being built where Bowser proposed it and the site was essentially proposed by the Council.

So your argument that Bowser wouldn't allow any changes is false on its premise.

We are going on 3 years since this process began which hardly strikes me as a rush and there were multiple public meetings at the neighborhood level and multiple hearings at the Council. You can continue to disagree with the outcome but you are wrong that this happened quickly or without public meetings.

The 3 years you keep mentioning is pretty disingenuous...
The selection process of the current site certainly did NOT take 3 years.
In the time since then you are right, they've failed to flesh out how they will achieve the lofty goals beyond plonking a building by the police station in ward 3. The more time that passes, the more a black eye actually so I would quit touting it.

The McLean Gardens site was decreed by Cheh and passed by the Council even before anyone discussed it with the leadership of the MPD Second District. No one told the police that they were going to lose their parking and staging area. That's why DC after the fact has gerry-rigged a $9M parking deck structure which, despite the high price tag, is a very cheap design with no screening.

Despite all this "thorough" planning initially, where was Cheh an Co expecting the Police to park all their vehicles before someone got smart and threw in a garage into the plans?

You don't expect She Who Knows Best to bother with trifling details, do you?

[Anonymous]

I'm curious why they didn't put it in the Lab School instead of giving them a sweetheart deal? Or charge the Lab School what the property is worth and use that $ for these sites and services? Nothing in this city's real estate dealings and expenditures makes sense for the actual citizens represented, many of whom are funding these initiatives with their hard labor and taxes.