Mary Cheh's new suggested locations for the homeless shelter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMHO it's a kind of a hoot that Mary Cheh is pushing a homeless shelter across the street from the pretentiously "upscale" Cathedral Commons and directly across from new townhomes that rent for $8K-$9K/monthly.

Even more funny, it's next to a liquor store.

Actually there are three stores that sell liquor (one just beer and wine) within a one block radius of the site.

Perhaps they are the ones lobbying for said privileged location...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMHO it's a kind of a hoot that Mary Cheh is pushing a homeless shelter across the street from the pretentiously "upscale" Cathedral Commons and directly across from new townhomes that rent for $8K-$9K/monthly.

Even more funny, it's next to a liquor store.

Actually there are three stores that sell liquor (one just beer and wine) within a one block radius of the site.

Perhaps they are the ones lobbying for said privileged location...

Papa's Liquors on Macomb is known far and wide as a go-to destination for single can sales in paper sacks and customers with fake IDs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please. Let's quit acting as if Cathedral Commons or those tacky new rowhouses across from the police station are anything special. They are connected to a CVS and a Giant for goodness sake.

Very true. If you want to watch someone from Cleveland Park get visibly ill, call it the "Cleveland Park Giant." They'll protest instead that Cathedral Commons is in McLean Gardens or Cathedral Heights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should have used the Idaho Ave. site for a new public school.

Yes. This is an ideal public school site, especially for an elementary school if a new Ward 3 one is needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are the rules for shelter residents when the shelters are within a couple blocks of preschools? Will the shelters be permitted to house convicted sex offenders in that situation?

Holy sh*t, is this satire? We are talking about HOMELESS MOTHERS AND THEIR CHILDREN. This thread sounds full of people who have never interacted with a homeless family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First, you're acting like DC is some expansive, sprawling city and not a city that is only 64 square miles. Second, you make it sound like these shelters won't alleviate any problems. You don't see the problem in concentrated homelessness and concentrated poverty? You could maybe make the argument that when you concentrate these issues you can flood the system with supports, but let's be real and acknowledge that what is happening in DC right now is overwhelming entire wards. It's time for Ward 3 to help out and not act like an island protected by their own wealth and status.

I am struggling to follow what you're saying. You're saying DC is not a large city. But then you say that spreading shelters around DC will somehow solve problems by de-concentrating (i.e., spreading around) the homelessness and poverty. But then you say the problems associated with homelessness and poverty are overwhelming entire wards. It almost sounds like you're saying that there are collateral problems for the surrounding neighborhood associated with homeless shelters, and that you want to shift those collateral problems from the neighborhoods where they are now to spread them out among other neighborhoods. Is that a correct interpretation?

As for everyone helping out and paying their fair share, I suspect most people in Ward 3 would have no problem helping out. Indeed, I suspect the residents of Ward 3 are already paying a whole lot more in taxes to fund the homeless shelters than any other Ward.

But a big problem with this plan (aside from the sweetheart developer deals and cronyism) is that it doesn't spread the burden of the shelters fairly across everyone in the city, or even everyone in each Ward. It imposes huge burdens on the small number of people living within a few blocks of the new shelter sites, and hardly any burden on people who live farther away. For example, the Ward 4 shelter imposes a relatively big burden on a few blocks of East Petworth, and no burden on other parts of Ward 4, like the Mayor's neighborhood of Colonial Village for example.

Yes, I get that each shelter has to go somewhere, so someone's always going to be burdened. But the way in which these shelters are being sited has zero transparency and was announced by ultimatum. And now the sites are apparently being re-adjusted through some backroom negotiation, which makes me very suspicious.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please. Let's quit acting as if Cathedral Commons or those tacky new rowhouses across from the police station are anything special. They are connected to a CVS and a Giant for goodness sake.

Wow. I think they are really nice. They are housing for hardworking people and the whole area is becoming a nice little hub. The residents are not somehow 'beneath' concern. The arrogance...

[Anonymous]

DC General is a terrible shelter, but consider that there may be another reason, also crony-related, why Bowser is in such a hurry to close DCG. A number of developers covet that site. That, as much as anything, may explain her wanting to fast track all this and break precedent by largely dispensing with site-specific zoning reviews.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If you do the math on how much they are spending over the course of these 30 year leases, you could buy every homeless family a $750,000 townhouse. I'm not kidding. That's how far out of kilter the proposal is.

That would actually be a pretty good solution if no other families were ever going to become homeless in DC. Unfortunately, that is not how life/homelessness works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please. Let's quit acting as if Cathedral Commons or those tacky new rowhouses across from the police station are anything special. They are connected to a CVS and a Giant for goodness sake.

Wow. I think they are really nice. They are housing for hardworking people and the whole area is becoming a nice little hub. The residents are not somehow 'beneath' concern. The arrogance...

Ha! One bedroom flats start at around $3,000; two bedrooms start near $5,000 and three bedrooms start over $8,000. Housing for the working class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First, you're acting like DC is some expansive, sprawling city and not a city that is only 64 square miles. Second, you make it sound like these shelters won't alleviate any problems. You don't see the problem in concentrated homelessness and concentrated poverty? You could maybe make the argument that when you concentrate these issues you can flood the system with supports, but let's be real and acknowledge that what is happening in DC right now is overwhelming entire wards. It's time for Ward 3 to help out and not act like an island protected by their own wealth and status.

I am struggling to follow what you're saying. You're saying DC is not a large city. But then you say that spreading shelters around DC will somehow solve problems by de-concentrating (i.e., spreading around) the homelessness and poverty. But then you say the problems associated with homelessness and poverty are overwhelming entire wards. It almost sounds like you're saying that there are collateral problems for the surrounding neighborhood associated with homeless shelters, and that you want to shift those collateral problems from the neighborhoods where they are now to spread them out among other neighborhoods. Is that a correct interpretation?

As for everyone helping out and paying their fair share, I suspect most people in Ward 3 would have no problem helping out. Indeed, I suspect the residents of Ward 3 are already paying a whole lot more in taxes to fund the homeless shelters than any other Ward.

But a big problem with this plan (aside from the sweetheart developer deals and cronyism) is that it doesn't spread the burden of the shelters fairly across everyone in the city, or even everyone in each Ward. It imposes huge burdens on the small number of people living within a few blocks of the new shelter sites, and hardly any burden on people who live farther away. For example, the Ward 4 shelter imposes a relatively big burden on a few blocks of East Petworth, and no burden on other parts of Ward 4, like the Mayor's neighborhood of Colonial Village for example.

Yes, I get that each shelter has to go somewhere, so someone's always going to be burdened. But the way in which these shelters are being sited has zero transparency and was announced by ultimatum. And now the sites are apparently being re-adjusted through some backroom negotiation, which makes me very suspicious.

This is the attitude I find so appalling. I'm so tired of hearing this argument that Ward 3 residents pay so much more than everyone else, so the rest of us in the other 7 wards should be praising you all for your philanthropic hearts. Please. If you want to live in a city, then you should be willing to deal with homelessness. If you want to spend loads of money to avoid problems like poverty and homelessness then there are plenty of suburbs in the area where you can do that. Also, I know this may seem like a shocker, but people in other wards also pay pretty high taxes. Why the fit from Ward 3? I can understand the issues with the Ward 5 site, but I really don't get the very fierce pushback from Ward 3 - it seems to stem from a fear of homeless people and that is really sad.

Also, yes - DC is not a large city, that is what I'm saying. However, that doesn't mean that poverty and homelessness can't be concentrated; you'd be extraordinarily obtuse not to realize that poverty in DC is concentrated in a few wards. This poverty and the problems associated with poverty are not because of homeless shelters (lol!). Of course there is value in getting people out of concentrated poverty. Also, these shelters will not be a "huge burden" on people living near them - you ought to do more research on how family shelters do (or rather, DON'T) have an impact on their surrounding neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First, you're acting like DC is some expansive, sprawling city and not a city that is only 64 square miles. Second, you make it sound like these shelters won't alleviate any problems. You don't see the problem in concentrated homelessness and concentrated poverty? You could maybe make the argument that when you concentrate these issues you can flood the system with supports, but let's be real and acknowledge that what is happening in DC right now is overwhelming entire wards. It's time for Ward 3 to help out and not act like an island protected by their own wealth and status.

I am struggling to follow what you're saying. You're saying DC is not a large city. But then you say that spreading shelters around DC will somehow solve problems by de-concentrating (i.e., spreading around) the homelessness and poverty. But then you say the problems associated with homelessness and poverty are overwhelming entire wards. It almost sounds like you're saying that there are collateral problems for the surrounding neighborhood associated with homeless shelters, and that you want to shift those collateral problems from the neighborhoods where they are now to spread them out among other neighborhoods. Is that a correct interpretation?

As for everyone helping out and paying their fair share, I suspect most people in Ward 3 would have no problem helping out. Indeed, I suspect the residents of Ward 3 are already paying a whole lot more in taxes to fund the homeless shelters than any other Ward.

But a big problem with this plan (aside from the sweetheart developer deals and cronyism) is that it doesn't spread the burden of the shelters fairly across everyone in the city, or even everyone in each Ward. It imposes huge burdens on the small number of people living within a few blocks of the new shelter sites, and hardly any burden on people who live farther away. For example, the Ward 4 shelter imposes a relatively big burden on a few blocks of East Petworth, and no burden on other parts of Ward 4, like the Mayor's neighborhood of Colonial Village for example.

Yes, I get that each shelter has to go somewhere, so someone's always going to be burdened. But the way in which these shelters are being sited has zero transparency and was announced by ultimatum. And now the sites are apparently being re-adjusted through some backroom negotiation, which makes me very suspicious.

This is the attitude I find so appalling. I'm so tired of hearing this argument that Ward 3 residents pay so much more than everyone else, so the rest of us in the other 7 wards should be praising you all for your philanthropic hearts. Please. If you want to live in a city, then you should be willing to deal with homelessness. If you want to spend loads of money to avoid problems like poverty and homelessness then there are plenty of suburbs in the area where you can do that. Also, I know this may seem like a shocker, but people in other wards also pay pretty high taxes. Why the fit from Ward 3? I can understand the issues with the Ward 5 site, but I really don't get the very fierce pushback from Ward 3 - it seems to stem from a fear of homeless people and that is really sad.

Also, yes - DC is not a large city, that is what I'm saying. However, that doesn't mean that poverty and homelessness can't be concentrated; you'd be extraordinarily obtuse not to realize that poverty in DC is concentrated in a few wards. This poverty and the problems associated with poverty are not because of homeless shelters (lol!). Of course there is value in getting people out of concentrated poverty. Also, these shelters will not be a "huge burden" on people living near them - you ought to do more research on how family shelters do (or rather, DON'T) have an impact on their surrounding neighborhoods.

Lady, just saying, perhaps you should buy a brain somewhere before commenting on a public site?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC General is a terrible shelter, but consider that there may be another reason, also crony-related, why Bowser is in such a hurry to close DCG. A number of developers covet that site. That, as much as anything, may explain her wanting to fast track all this and break precedent by largely dispensing with site-specific zoning reviews.

A while back I read a suggestion saying she's already made deals and pretty much gave the DC General land away for nothing. Can anyone confirm?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you do the math on how much they are spending over the course of these 30 year leases, you could buy every homeless family a $750,000 townhouse. I'm not kidding. That's how far out of kilter the proposal is.

That would actually be a pretty good solution if no other families were ever going to become homeless in DC. Unfortunately, that is not how life/homelessness works.

Yes, but that's how much the Mayor's plan has us committing to spending on just these current homeless families alone.

[Anonymous]

I no longer have a dog in this fight since we got out of DC over twenty years ago. We used to own three condos in the city; two were broken into and my husband was mugged once. Then the DC government confiscated some of our property and sold it to a developer. That was enough.

I don't know why people just assume that homeless shelters are a given. As far as I can tell, the homeless are largely comprised of three groups - the mentally ill, drug and alcohol abusers, and single women and their children. I'm all for giving the mentally ill the help that they need, but they don't belong in a residential environment until their mental health issues are under control. Same with substance abusers. I do not judge these people; they have issues that are largely beyond their control. On the other hand, I'm fed up with people who refuse to take any resposibilility for their lives and expect everyone else to pay for their problems and their irresponsible choices. You don't get 'accidentally' pregnant multiple times - with no responsible significant other or source of income. We've been dealing with this issue for at least fifty years now and nothing has changed. Now this dysfunction has been normalized. Instead of asking where we should stick a homeless shelter, why aren't we asking how we can avoid needing shelters in the first place? Why should everyone else have to subsidize the irresponsible?