Mary Cheh's new suggested locations for the homeless shelter

[Anonymous]

Because a lot of the people who get pregnant multiple times "accidentally" do so because they are judgement-impaired by virtue of being themselves the product of substance abusers. They are not irresponsible as much as FASD-brain damaged. And until the District approaches multi-generational poverty using that rubric--- no number of shelters, no matter how nice-- will help.

[Anonymous]

June 2015 - 11 people at DC homeless shelter overdose on "bizarro" synthetic marijuana - http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/-At-Least-10-People-Overdose-on-Synthetic-Marijuana-in-Downtown-DC-306311941.html

"The drug can cause aggressive behavior and hallucinations, similar to the effects of PCP. ... Police believe the dangerous drugs were sold at an open-air drug market that plagues the shelter and draws customers from across the region."

Just what I want in my neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

"In 1984, after D.C. voters passed Initiative 17, a law guaranteeing overnight shelter to the homeless, the number of families seeking shelter in the city exploded.

"As the wave of homeless families flooded the system, the city began placing families at the Capitol City Inn on New York Avenue, which became a shelter so deplorably filled with drug dealing, crack use and contagious illnesses that a D.C. Superior Court judge called it a “hell hole.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2016/02/06/d-c-has-a-long-history-of-housing-homeless-families-in-motels/

[Anonymous]

"Donald Page is a member of the board of directors for CCNV, the largest homeless shelter in Washington D.C. While they test for synthetic drug use there, Page says the biggest problem is outside the shelter where homeless men and women conjugate and smoke synthetic drugs."

http://legacy.wusa9.com/story/news/local/dc/2015/07/13/synthetic-marijuana-drugs-washington-dc/30112869/

[Anonymous]

"many of them are also too afraid to stay in the city-run shelters because they are chaotic, crime-ridden and often dangerous. The vast majority of those who are staying in these encampments tell horror stories about their experiences in emergency shelter and far prefer the sense of peace, safety and community they have found in encampments like the one described above."

http://streetsense.org/article/displacing-the-displaced/

[Anonymous]

Will this turn Cathedral Commons into "Crack Commons"?

[Anonymous]

People should write Bowser and their reps to offer comments on these plans.

Bowser - [e-mail]
Cheh - [e-mail]
DC Council - http://dccouncil.us/council
twitter- @councilofdc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I wonder if that includes furniture, dishes, linens, cable tv/Internet and other goodies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

Wow. Stereotype much? I used volunteer at a family shelter in another high cost city. Interestingly enough, a lot of the single mothers were running from abusive situations. MOST of them had jobs - they just could not afford suitable housing. This was 2009-2010. A couple of them lost jobs and houses during the recessions. Not every single homeless mother is the type of people that you think they are. I just think that a lot of people do not get that homeless folks in family shelters are not the same type of people you see camping out under bridges. You do not want the shelter near you - fine. But stop painting these people in the worst possible light and talking as if that is the norm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Will this turn Cathedral Commons into "Crack Commons"?

Really?

[Anonymous]

Yea we get it. The point has been driven home MANY times on the is forum.

Residents of Ward 3 are better than the rest of us because they are higher SES and pay more taxes. Thus, they are entitled to more police protection than the rest of us. They are also entitled to not have to deal with the negatives of living in an urban area like the rest of us do. We are not wealthy enough to live in Ward 3. Thus, we should be happy to shoulder the burden for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yea we get it. The point has been driven home MANY times on the is forum.

Residents of Ward 3 are better than the rest of us because they are higher SES and pay more taxes. Thus, they are entitled to more police protection than the rest of us. They are also entitled to not have to deal with the negatives of living in an urban area like the rest of us do. We are not wealthy enough to live in Ward 3. Thus, we should be happy to shoulder the burden for them.

You seem to know a lot about entitlement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yea we get it. The point has been driven home MANY times on the is forum.

Residents of Ward 3 are better than the rest of us because they are higher SES and pay more taxes. Thus, they are entitled to more police protection than the rest of us. They are also entitled to not have to deal with the negatives of living in an urban area like the rest of us do. We are not wealthy enough to live in Ward 3. Thus, we should be happy to shoulder the burden for them.

You seem to know a lot about entitlement.

Maybe - but I certainly know it when I see it.

Sure, express concerns about the shelter. Get the facts - the REAL facts about what type of shelter it will be. But many of you act as if Ward 3 should not have to help deal with any of these problems.

[Anonymous]

I'm not against the "all ward" plan. At all. And DC General must be shut. But, as has been stated several times, the way the Mayor has tried to steamroll this plan is wrong and undemocratic and shady. What DOES she have planned for the spot where DC General now sits? Is she hoping to lure football back into the city and get Dan Snyder to finally meet with her? Why would she give all the contractors sweetheart deals where they get to reclaim the property in a decade or two? Does she think we will have solved homelessness by then and we won't need shelters? Where are the impact studies? (for roads, public schools, parking, etc.). Where is an explanation about how all the wrap-around services will work?

Has she looked at other metropolitan areas to see which cities are doing a good job on sheltering the homeless and helping them graduate out of that category? Has she presented any models where a city's plan is yielding serious success?

This idea is half-baked and being done in the shadows and is being driven by intentions that have nothing to do with serving the homeless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sure, express concerns about the shelter. Get the facts - the REAL facts about what type of shelter it will be.

If you know the "real" facts about the proposed shelters, please provide a link. Everything I can find says that except for the Ward 2 shelter, they're NOT women's shelters, and although the Bowser team likes to emphasize how they will help families, nothing indicates the shelters will be limited to families. Also, I've seen some mention from Bowser about how there will be "good neighbor" agreements, but nothing with any specificity to show how the government will ensure these shelters and their residents will remain good neighbors. From what I've read, many of the existing DC shelter residents do not seem like good neighbors. Happy to be proven wrong, but you need to bring more facts to the table, and less accusations.

But many of you act as if Ward 3 should not have to help deal with any of these problems.

Ward 3 residents pay far more to deal with these problems than most other wards, so that's an unfair criticism.