Bowser Spreads the Wealth opens homeless shelters in each DC ward

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who are the council members immediately affected? Mary Cheh and?

It's all of them, really

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who are the council members immediately affected? Mary Cheh and?

Charles Allen? Ward 6 already has gotten a disproportionate share of homeless shelters and low income housing as compared to the other wards - and now this on top of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who are the council members immediately affected? Mary Cheh and?

Ward 3 immediately affected? More like barely affected. Their proposed shelter is jammed so far to the south in Ward 3 it's barely even in Ward 3. It'll be miles from where the rich folk in Ward 3 live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who are the council members immediately affected? Mary Cheh and?

Charles Allen? Ward 6 already has gotten a disproportionate share of homeless shelters and low income housing as compared to the other wards - and now this on top of it.

Take a breath. The goal is to move 1,000 men, women and children out of DC General. While it is fair to ask whether the planned location of the new award 6 family shelter is the most appropriate and demand assurances from the Mayor, it's clearly a net positive for the Ward. The issue of affordable housing isn't going away and we need to have adult conversations about the most appropriate and effective way to prevent homelessness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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

I don't know if it is true, but it's certainly the case that, if your city has the most/best free housing in the greater area, more people who want or need free housing will find their way to your city.

You mean, homeless people have brains ????????

A few years back, in a different town, when I lived in a poor section of town, a lady who lived next door on Section 8 subsidy was sitting out on her porch drinking one night, and she told me all about her deal in quite a bit of detail - it was her, two boyfriends (though one was in jail on assault charges), her 3 kids, and her sister - they were all involved in doing residency fraud and false identities in multiple jurisdictions, collecting every benefit they could, lying to social workers about living arrangements and support, bartering away benefits so that they could get beer money, misrepresenting their situation, all kinds of stuff. They were all in their 20s, none of them had worked a real job in years, other than the other boyfriend selling weed and other hustles on the side. They did nothing but party. I'm not saying all folks are like that and in fact most of them aren't, but there are definitely some grifters out there who would think nothing of lying, cheating and deceiving in order to get a free apartment. It was also common practice for cops to pick up homeless folks and put them on a bus with a one-way ticket to a town that was "more amenable to the homeless." This stuff happens.

I have known folks like this from when I was growing up. I also know it going the other direction (in this case, not homeless housing but subsidized housing). I was living in one of what I thought was one of the nicest complexes in downtown Bethesda, and my neighbor who came from way more money than my family has ever seen explained that, since she was starting her own business and consequently had little income, her rent was subsidized by the government. (Her dad had worked it out for her.).

The system can so easily be gamed. (Especially on a larger level with the mayor's buddies.) Without some reasonable level of transparency, there's no chance. And I absolutely don't trust DC government.

Yes, when I lived in NYC, knew folks in arts and publishing. Loaded parents who arranged for them to live in affordable housing based on their salaries, then paid for their credit card bills every month.

Gaming the rent control system in NYC is an art form.

these are not rent control buildings. these are affordable housing buildings where only residents with certain incomes can live. wholly different

What rational is there to support putting low income housing and shelters in expensive areas except that she thinks we all need to share the burden? That is not enough rationale. I think she will eventually turn the Ward 3 shelter into permanent low income housing.

A Ward 3 resident here. Actually, it is "enough" rationale from a political perspective. Other Wards want all Wards to share in the "solution" to this problem - and these other Wards (who had more to do with her being elected than Ward 3) are making noise that they are unfairly shouldering the burden. They are not entirely wrong and if I lived in those Wards, I would be saying the same thing. Sure, it makes very little financial sense, but that is not the issue here. And truth be told, Ward 3 is stable, affluent and in demand (and that will remain the case). Certain neighborhoods in other Wards are on the cusp or are in the infancy of gentrification and contuining to concetrate these projects in those places can have a chiling impact on a neighborhood turning around. I have my concerns like the rest of you but we live in an urban area and we cannot always insulate ourselves from urban issues.

It's like when a couple of small Ward 3 schools were kicked out of their longtime feeder rights to Deal, largely for symbolic purposes. The numbers will have virtually no impact on Deal overcrowding, but DPCS felt politically that someone in Ward 3 had to be the sacrificial lamb ("collateral damage, in the words of one redistricting committee member), to show that all wards were feeling some pain.

What a liberal thing for them to do! Classic redistribution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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

I don't know if it is true, but it's certainly the case that, if your city has the most/best free housing in the greater area, more people who want or need free housing will find their way to your city.

You mean, homeless people have brains ????????

A few years back, in a different town, when I lived in a poor section of town, a lady who lived next door on Section 8 subsidy was sitting out on her porch drinking one night, and she told me all about her deal in quite a bit of detail - it was her, two boyfriends (though one was in jail on assault charges), her 3 kids, and her sister - they were all involved in doing residency fraud and false identities in multiple jurisdictions, collecting every benefit they could, lying to social workers about living arrangements and support, bartering away benefits so that they could get beer money, misrepresenting their situation, all kinds of stuff. They were all in their 20s, none of them had worked a real job in years, other than the other boyfriend selling weed and other hustles on the side. They did nothing but party. I'm not saying all folks are like that and in fact most of them aren't, but there are definitely some grifters out there who would think nothing of lying, cheating and deceiving in order to get a free apartment. It was also common practice for cops to pick up homeless folks and put them on a bus with a one-way ticket to a town that was "more amenable to the homeless." This stuff happens.

I have known folks like this from when I was growing up. I also know it going the other direction (in this case, not homeless housing but subsidized housing). I was living in one of what I thought was one of the nicest complexes in downtown Bethesda, and my neighbor who came from way more money than my family has ever seen explained that, since she was starting her own business and consequently had little income, her rent was subsidized by the government. (Her dad had worked it out for her.).

The system can so easily be gamed. (Especially on a larger level with the mayor's buddies.) Without some reasonable level of transparency, there's no chance. And I absolutely don't trust DC government.

Yes, when I lived in NYC, knew folks in arts and publishing. Loaded parents who arranged for them to live in affordable housing based on their salaries, then paid for their credit card bills every month.

Gaming the rent control system in NYC is an art form.

these are not rent control buildings. these are affordable housing buildings where only residents with certain incomes can live. wholly different

What rational is there to support putting low income housing and shelters in expensive areas except that she thinks we all need to share the burden? That is not enough rationale. I think she will eventually turn the Ward 3 shelter into permanent low income housing.

A Ward 3 resident here. Actually, it is "enough" rationale from a political perspective. Other Wards want all Wards to share in the "solution" to this problem - and these other Wards (who had more to do with her being elected than Ward 3) are making noise that they are unfairly shouldering the burden. They are not entirely wrong and if I lived in those Wards, I would be saying the same thing. Sure, it makes very little financial sense, but that is not the issue here. And truth be told, Ward 3 is stable, affluent and in demand (and that will remain the case). Certain neighborhoods in other Wards are on the cusp or are in the infancy of gentrification and contuining to concetrate these projects in those places can have a chiling impact on a neighborhood turning around. I have my concerns like the rest of you but we live in an urban area and we cannot always insulate ourselves from urban issues.

It's like when a couple of small Ward 3 schools were kicked out of their longtime feeder rights to Deal, largely for symbolic purposes. The numbers will have virtually no impact on Deal overcrowding, but DPCS felt politically that someone in Ward 3 had to be the sacrificial lamb ("collateral damage, in the words of one redistricting committee member), to show that all wards were feeling some pain.

What a liberal thing for them to do! Classic redistribution.

How would a Trump handle overcrowding at Deal?

[Anonymous]

^ build a wall on the west side of rock creek park?

[Anonymous]

Deport them to other side of the tracks because he wouldn't rent to "the blacks" -- who he claims love him -- in any event?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ build a wall on the west side of rock creek park?

No need to. Simply enforce the boundaries schools actually have. And use lotteries to allocate any extra slots that may be available, but obviously not when schools are overcrowded.

It's common sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who are the council members immediately affected? Mary Cheh and?

Charles Allen? Ward 6 already has gotten a disproportionate share of homeless shelters and low income housing as compared to the other wards - and now this on top of it.

Take a breath. The goal is to move 1,000 men, women and children out of DC General. While it is fair to ask whether the planned location of the new award 6 family shelter is the most appropriate and demand assurances from the Mayor, it's clearly a net positive for the Ward. The issue of affordable housing isn't going away and we need to have adult conversations about the most appropriate and effective way to prevent homelessness.

Nobody disagrees with the need to shut down DC General. And I don't think many disagree with the notion of trying to break up geographically concentrated poverty. And nobody disagrees with the notion of trying to locate the poor in areas where there is access to jobs, grocery stores, transportation, and affordable housing.

But from there on out, like it or not, we do still need to have adult conversations about locations and process. For one, why the focus primarily on privately held properties as opposed to city owned properties? Why an apparent lack of attention to access to transportation as has been shown in several wards? Why an apparent lack of attention to whether there may already be concentrated poverty in proximity to some of the proposed locations as has also been shown in several wards? It seems their selection criteria left a lot of key considerations out. Why 15 and 30 year leases? Why agree to rental rates that in some cases are $1000-$1500 more a month than comparable nearby advertised apartment rental rates? And shouldn't the city be able to negotiate a discount beyond what the average renter on the market would pay? Those are very legitimate questions that deserve answers.

Telling people "calm down, the grownups are making decisions here" is not "having an adult conversation."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who are the council members immediately affected? Mary Cheh and?

Charles Allen? Ward 6 already has gotten a disproportionate share of homeless shelters and low income housing as compared to the other wards - and now this on top of it.

Take a breath. The goal is to move 1,000 men, women and children out of DC General. While it is fair to ask whether the planned location of the new award 6 family shelter is the most appropriate and demand assurances from the Mayor, it's clearly a net positive for the Ward. The issue of affordable housing isn't going away and we need to have adult conversations about the most appropriate and effective way to prevent homelessness.

Nobody disagrees with the need to shut down DC General. And I don't think many disagree with the notion of trying to break up geographically concentrated poverty. And nobody disagrees with the notion of trying to locate the poor in areas where there is access to jobs, grocery stores, transportation, and affordable housing.

But from there on out, like it or not, we do still need to have adult conversations about locations and process. For one, why the focus primarily on privately held properties as opposed to city owned properties? Why an apparent lack of attention to access to transportation as has been shown in several wards? Why an apparent lack of attention to whether there may already be concentrated poverty in proximity to some of the proposed locations as has also been shown in several wards? It seems their selection criteria left a lot of key considerations out. Why 15 and 30 year leases? Why agree to rental rates that in some cases are $1000-$1500 more a month than comparable nearby advertised apartment rental rates? And shouldn't the city be able to negotiate a discount beyond what the average renter on the market would pay? Those are very legitimate questions that deserve answers.

Telling people "calm down, the grownups are making decisions here" is not "having an adult conversation."

Exactly. "Take a breath" person sounds like a genuine asshole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Lex is a great building and is the $1000 less just the lease excluding the construction costs?
http://www.lexatwaterfrontstation.com/lex-at-waterfront-station-washington-dc/floorplans

wifi lounge, party room, near metro, dog-washing boutique, infinity edge pool on roof, new kitchens V DC paying $1000 more just in the lease?

Yes! Why not just put them in the Lex?

[Anonymous]

I'm in real estate. How can I get a piece of this juicy action? I'm going to make a few calls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Lex is a great building and is the $1000 less just the lease excluding the construction costs?
http://www.lexatwaterfrontstation.com/lex-at-waterfront-station-washington-dc/floorplans

wifi lounge, party room, near metro, dog-washing boutique, infinity edge pool on roof, new kitchens V DC paying $1000 more just in the lease?

Yes! Why not just put them in the Lex?

Maybe Bowser doesn't think homeless people deserve their own bathrooms, kitchens, etc.

[Anonymous]

Even under the best of circumstances, shared bathrooms and kitchens get trashed.