New Ward 3 Homeless Families Shelter Site

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I
Can
Not
Wait...
For these shelters to open.
All this presumption about how neighborhoods will suddenly turn into post-apocalyptic Mad Max war zones with widespread anarchy and chaos is outrageous.
I hope people are as open in admitting how idiotic their paranoid delusions were as they are forthcoming in declaring The End Is Near!!

Screw off. You are the only one being hyperbolic. The shelters are going to waste a lot of money, they’re going to do nothing to help homeless that a similar shelter in a more logical location wouldn’t do, and they’re going to make the immediate neighborhood slightly worse. It’s stupid and it sucks, but it’s not the end of the world, and no one is suggesting it will end the world. It is however an entirely avoidable error that Bowser will refuse to change or acknowledge.

What's a more logical location, besides somewhere different than your neighborhood?

Or should the shelter be in a more "diverse" part of town?

Or a more "urban" part of town?

You don’t have to put urban in quotes because we get your point. And by diverse I take it you mean black although you’re obviously using the wrong descriptor because you’re an imbecile. But I’ll bite.......yes, house the homeless near where they are likely to get work and where they are likely to be near family and the social services they require.....e.g., the 95% of DC that you’d describe as black neighborhoods.

And where they are likely to live after. Seems really odd to me to put kids in all these schools they will be yanked out when their families find affordable housing (which will most likely not be in ward 3) unless there is some right to continue at Eaton, deal/hardy, Wilson?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Based on this thread I’m convinced the Ward 3 shelter will be a complete disaster for the occupants because they are going to be ostracized and vilified and the community is going to shun them shame them and shit all over them it won’t be pretty.

I wouldn’t be surprised at all if 10-20% of the families say “To hell with this” and opt to go back to being homeless on the street far away from Ward 3 rather than live at that shelter because the locals are going to give them hell. The snooty looks and snarky comments and overall antipathy is going to make it a hellish place to live so I agree with the “Its Not Fair Why Our Neighborhood” whiners 100% this is NOT a good idea because the atmosphere/environment will be way too toxic for these people to get back on their feet.

[Anonymous]

Yes Im guessing that's what a protest of a poorly chosen shelter site would look like. Your point?

[Anonymous]

Where are the homeless on the street families in DC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I
Can
Not
Wait...
For these shelters to open.
All this presumption about how neighborhoods will suddenly turn into post-apocalyptic Mad Max war zones with widespread anarchy and chaos is outrageous.
I hope people are as open in admitting how idiotic their paranoid delusions were as they are forthcoming in declaring The End Is Near!!

Screw off. You are the only one being hyperbolic. The shelters are going to waste a lot of money, they’re going to do nothing to help homeless that a similar shelter in a more logical location wouldn’t do, and they’re going to make the immediate neighborhood slightly worse. It’s stupid and it sucks, but it’s not the end of the world, and no one is suggesting it will end the world. It is however an entirely avoidable error that Bowser will refuse to change or acknowledge.

What's a more logical location, besides somewhere different than your neighborhood?

Or should the shelter be in a more "diverse" part of town?

Or a more "urban" part of town?

You don’t have to put urban in quotes because we get your point. And by diverse I take it you mean black although you’re obviously using the wrong descriptor because you’re an imbecile. But I’ll bite.......yes, house the homeless near where they are likely to get work and where they are likely to be near family and the social services they require.....e.g., the 95% of DC that you’d describe as black neighborhoods.

And where they are likely to live after. Seems really odd to me to put kids in all these schools they will be yanked out when their families find affordable housing (which will most likely not be in ward 3) unless there is some right to continue at Eaton, deal/hardy, Wilson?

+1.

Corrupt or not, the whole "plan" is idiotic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I
Can
Not
Wait...
For these shelters to open.
All this presumption about how neighborhoods will suddenly turn into post-apocalyptic Mad Max war zones with widespread anarchy and chaos is outrageous.
I hope people are as open in admitting how idiotic their paranoid delusions were as they are forthcoming in declaring The End Is Near!!

Screw off. You are the only one being hyperbolic. The shelters are going to waste a lot of money, they’re going to do nothing to help homeless that a similar shelter in a more logical location wouldn’t do, and they’re going to make the immediate neighborhood slightly worse. It’s stupid and it sucks, but it’s not the end of the world, and no one is suggesting it will end the world. It is however an entirely avoidable error that Bowser will refuse to change or acknowledge.

What's a more logical location, besides somewhere different than your neighborhood?

Or should the shelter be in a more "diverse" part of town?

Or a more "urban" part of town?

You don’t have to put urban in quotes because we get your point. And by diverse I take it you mean black although you’re obviously using the wrong descriptor because you’re an imbecile. But I’ll bite.......yes, house the homeless near where they are likely to get work and where they are likely to be near family and the social services they require.....e.g., the 95% of DC that you’d describe as black neighborhoods.

And where they are likely to live after. Seems really odd to me to put kids in all these schools they will be yanked out when their families find affordable housing (which will most likely not be in ward 3) unless there is some right to continue at Eaton, deal/hardy, Wilson?

Because the children are likely to be considered "at risk," they will be able to continue at Eaton, Hardy/Deal and Wilson even as families move out of the shelter within these schools' boundary area. So over time, the cohort of "at risk" children with specialized needs will continue to grow, as more families cycle through the shelter. I'm sure that DCPS will be on top of the situation, providing appropriate additional learning specialists and other resources ... not.

[Anonymous]

If they have the right will they have a bus to pick them up? As a single mom earning little in DC it took a whole lot of wherewithal to take child across town to oob school. We are tossing that on working transitioning from homelessness family's plates? Or do they get some sort of lifetime special school transport support service?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I
Can
Not
Wait...
For these shelters to open.
All this presumption about how neighborhoods will suddenly turn into post-apocalyptic Mad Max war zones with widespread anarchy and chaos is outrageous.
I hope people are as open in admitting how idiotic their paranoid delusions were as they are forthcoming in declaring The End Is Near!!

Screw off. You are the only one being hyperbolic. The shelters are going to waste a lot of money, they’re going to do nothing to help homeless that a similar shelter in a more logical location wouldn’t do, and they’re going to make the immediate neighborhood slightly worse. It’s stupid and it sucks, but it’s not the end of the world, and no one is suggesting it will end the world. It is however an entirely avoidable error that Bowser will refuse to change or acknowledge.

What's a more logical location, besides somewhere different than your neighborhood?

Or should the shelter be in a more "diverse" part of town?

Or a more "urban" part of town?

Screw off again. It's not being put in my neighborhood. I think it should go in an existing building in a less expensive location. DC owns plenty of unused buildings and lots that could be converted to shelter space more cheaply than this one is to build. But we're jamming a brand new building into an expensive area because Bowser wants to put a shelter into every ward for purely political reasons ... practicality be damned.

Take your veiled accusations of racism and shove them up your ass. It's just a stupid plan. And quite frankly, Bowser's determination to put a shelter in every ward - rather than in spaces that make the most sense - smacks of a race-based calculation itself.

I work for the city, please tell me where all these cheap DC owned buildings are located that aren’t being used for other things. And for the folks arguing that the homeless should live elsewhere since they will never be able to afford ward 4... well you just made the argument for why we need more subsidized housing in ward 3!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I
Can
Not
Wait...
For these shelters to open.
All this presumption about how neighborhoods will suddenly turn into post-apocalyptic Mad Max war zones with widespread anarchy and chaos is outrageous.
I hope people are as open in admitting how idiotic their paranoid delusions were as they are forthcoming in declaring The End Is Near!!

Screw off. You are the only one being hyperbolic. The shelters are going to waste a lot of money, they’re going to do nothing to help homeless that a similar shelter in a more logical location wouldn’t do, and they’re going to make the immediate neighborhood slightly worse. It’s stupid and it sucks, but it’s not the end of the world, and no one is suggesting it will end the world. It is however an entirely avoidable error that Bowser will refuse to change or acknowledge.

What's a more logical location, besides somewhere different than your neighborhood?

Or should the shelter be in a more "diverse" part of town?

Or a more "urban" part of town?

Screw off again. It's not being put in my neighborhood. I think it should go in an existing building in a less expensive location. DC owns plenty of unused buildings and lots that could be converted to shelter space more cheaply than this one is to build. But we're jamming a brand new building into an expensive area because Bowser wants to put a shelter into every ward for purely political reasons ... practicality be damned.

Take your veiled accusations of racism and shove them up your ass. It's just a stupid plan. And quite frankly, Bowser's determination to put a shelter in every ward - rather than in spaces that make the most sense - smacks of a race-based calculation itself.

I work for the city, please tell me where all these cheap DC owned buildings are located that aren’t being used for other things. And for the folks arguing that the homeless should live elsewhere since they will never be able to afford ward 4... well you just made the argument for why we need more subsidized housing in ward 3!

Oxymoron.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they have the right will they have a bus to pick them up? As a single mom earning little in DC it took a whole lot of wherewithal to take child across town to oob school. We are tossing that on working transitioning from homelessness family's plates? Or do they get some sort of lifetime special school transport support service?

All DC public school students and charter students get completely free Metrorail and bus transportation to and from school and school activities. There's an article in the Post today that shows its about the most generous school public transit benefit in the country.

[Anonymous]

In some ways the Cathedral Commons site makes more sense than the original site in Mass. Avenue Heights. The closest grocery to the original site was a Whole Foods (temporarily closed), which is not an appropriate match. The homeless shelter at Cathedral Commons is steps from a Giant, which is not as upscale and is more affordable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... DC owns plenty of unused buildings and lots that could be converted to shelter space more cheaply than this one is to build. But we're jamming a brand new building into an expensive area because Bowser wants to put a shelter into every ward for purely political reasons ... practicality be damned. ...

I work for the city, please tell me where all these cheap DC owned buildings are located that aren’t being used for other things. And for the folks arguing that the homeless should live elsewhere since they will never be able to afford ward 4... well you just made the argument for why we need more subsidized housing in ward 3!

Really? What part of the City do you work for? It's clearly not anything to do with the City's real estate holdings, or else you'd realize how many vacant properties DC owns.

Here's the DC Government's own list of many dozen vacant properties in DC, https://dcra.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dcra/publication/attachments/vacant-building-fiscal-Y17-v2_0.pdf . This article from on of DC's own ANC reps estimates there are about 1200 vacant properties in DC, https://ggwash.org/view/41741/dc-has-way-more-vacant-properties-than-it-thinks . And here's a nice map of many of those vacant properties, https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/housing-complex/blog/20976516/dc-auditor-slams-city-agency-responsible-for-vacant-property-enforcement and here too http://dcist.com/2013/05/map_shows_every_vacant_and_blighted.php .

But you're probably going to complain: "Ha ha! Some vacant properties aren't owned by DC Government, so there's absolutely no way they can be used as homeless shelters!" Well, you're wrong again. DC has several programs in place that are designed specifically to seize vacant properties and convert them into affordable housing! Here are just a few examples of websites describing those programs -

In January 2002, Mayor Anthony A. Williams introduced his Home Again Initiative to transform vacant and abandoned residential properties into single-family homeownership opportunities for residents. By increasing homeownership and eliminating blight, Home Again helps to stabilize neighborhoods and contribute to local economic sustainability. Currently, Home Again focuses on neighborhoods with high concentrations of vacant and abandoned residential property: Columbia Heights, Ivy City/Trinidad, Near Northeast, Shaw/Ledroit Park, and Rosedale. The residents in these communities also identified rehabilitating vacant and abandoned properties as a high priority in their Strategic Neighborhood Action Plans (SNAPs). http://opendata.dc.gov/datasets/home-again-initiative

Through its Property Acquisition and Disposition Division (PADD), the DC Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) stabilizes neighborhoods by decreasing the number of vacant and abandoned residential properties in the District, and transforming vacant and/or abandoned residential properties into homeownership opportunities or District residents at all income levels. https://dhcd.dc.gov/service/transforming-vacant-and-blighted-properties

And even if we limit the discussion to properties DC Govt actually currently owns and could use, there are many of those too, https://dcgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=31cb84a467df4fa4a1515cd2134a0eb3 , https://dgs.dc.gov/node/197972 . Here is a data set that shows at least 1201 vacant properties actually owned by the District of Columbia, http://opendata.dc.gov/datasets/integrated-tax-system-public-extract-vacant-property?where=UPPER(OWNER_NAME_PRIMARY)%20like%20%27%25DISTRICT%25%27 . Indeed, here is a discussion from as recently as January 2018 of 35 city-owned properties being auctioned off. It even notes that many of them have affordable housing covenants, so they can surely be renovated as homeless shelters. http://dcvacantproperties.blogspot.com/ . Here too - https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/dhcd-to-auction-35-vacant-properties-for-workforce-housing/13414 .

One obvious place to consider might be the Walter Reed site, which is huge and vacant and owned/managed by the City. It's also in Mayor Bowser's old ward and not far from her house, so I'm sure she and her constituents would be happy to help out by putting a homeless shelter there. Some people posting here even like to claim that homeless shelters increase property values, so it's a great opportunity to boost property values in Shepherd Park. Since you work for the City, can you tell us why the Walter Reed site wasn't considered?!!

Given all these options for developing homeless shelters and other housing options in existing building that DC already owns, especially since DC already has programs in place to do exactly that, why on earth are we spending tens of millions of dollars to cram a brand new shelter into the police department's yard in Ward 3 ?!?!?!? It's a poorly planned project that's more about political optics ("a shelter in every ward!") than about actually helping people. Instead of wasting untold millions of dollars, and years of construction time, why wouldn't the City just use that same amount of money to put existing vacant properties to better use? The City could help more people for less money, and do it far faster. But I don't think Bowser's real goal is even helping house the homeless population; it's more about politics and commercial development of the DC General site.

[Anonymous]

The advantage of the Ward 3 shelter site is that there is land behind the police station, which DC also owns, to build additional shelter pavilions to the west and expand capacity.

[Anonymous]

To the poster going out of her way to show all the city owned properties:Most of those propped ties are too small or space for only one or two families. These shelters need to provide wrap around services so more space is needed. And for the sake of equity it was decided that all eight wards will take their fair share. To be fully equitable ward 3 should take all of the homeless honestly since you all don’t seem to think your ward should shoulder any burden for those less fortunate. That’s cool just keep putting up your yards signs “all are welcome here” on multiple languages and keep fighting to keep poor people out. The rest of city see right through your BAs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the poster going out of her way to show all the city owned properties:Most of those propped ties are too small or space for only one or two families. These shelters need to provide wrap around services so more space is needed. And for the sake of equity it was decided that all eight wards will take their fair share. To be fully equitable ward 3 should take all of the homeless honestly since you all don’t seem to think your ward should shoulder any burden for those less fortunate. That’s cool just keep putting up your yards signs “all are welcome here” on multiple languages and keep fighting to keep poor people out. The rest of city see right through your BAs.

Yes, your post reveals the big lie of “equitable.” What’s really going on is you want to push a portion of the problems of other wards into ward 3, and you’d absolutely love to jam all of them into ward 3. You use “equitable” as just a code word for putting the problems in someone else’s backyard.

At least you’re not pushing the bullshit claim that shelters somehow will increase surrounding property values.