Let's join forces to scrap the current homeless shelter plan and start over

[Anonymous]

Subsidized????? No pitching in from MD or Va? The majority of drivers are from.MD according to the article so its not employing people DC wants to pull out of poverty, homelessness or hopelessness. Hey! Maybe it should be the jobs program? The circulator goes up and down Wisconsin. That I could get behind if the homeless were given jobs driving the circulator which Cheh advocated the drivers should get the same pay as wmata. That would quickly pull these folks from poverty and this conversation would be moot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's an easy test: Go to the real estate forum and ask people how they'd pick. If they are looking at two essentially identical houses but one is within 2 blocks of a homeless shelter, which do they choose? How many wil pick the one close to the shelter because they expect property values to rise there? I'm betting no one.

That's not much of a test. If you asked people to pick between two identical houses and gave them a set of steak knives to pick one of them, they would pick it every time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's an easy test: Go to the real estate forum and ask people how they'd pick. If they are looking at two essentially identical houses but one is within 2 blocks of a homeless shelter, which do they choose? How many wil pick the one close to the shelter because they expect property values to rise there? I'm betting no one.

That's not much of a test. If you asked people to pick between two identical houses and gave them a set of steak knives to pick one of them, they would pick it every time.

I don't follow. You are confirming its a good test. No shelter next door equals steak knives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The irony- the city is so wealthy that now the rich pay for the poor to move into their neighborhood.

Liberals don't wealth of the masses - only of their own elite. They will not pay - the 'ordinary people' will

[Anonymous]

FFS you live in a city right next to a police station and grocery store a block from Wisconsin Avenue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's an easy test: Go to the real estate forum and ask people how they'd pick. If they are looking at two essentially identical houses but one is within 2 blocks of a homeless shelter, which do they choose? How many wil pick the one close to the shelter because they expect property values to rise there? I'm betting no one.

That's not much of a test. If you asked people to pick between two identical houses and gave them a set of steak knives to pick one of them, they would pick it every time.

I don't follow. You are confirming its a good test. No shelter next door equals steak knives.

My point is that all things being equal, people would tip toward whatever incentive there is, no matter how minimal the difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's idiotic to say that homeless shelters don't have a negative effect on property values. Maybe it is slim but of course it is negative.

The property value argument is a strawman. The vast majority of homeowners in ward 3 (and let's be honest, the majority is the nimby folks in this thread are ward 3) have likey seen property values skyrocket in the last decade. You can take a $20k hit, even though I don't believe it will happen. It will share the area with a police station for goodness sake.

This is typical progressive liberalism. WE decide how much money of yours you can keep and WE decide what's best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's idiotic to say that homeless shelters don't have a negative effect on property values. Maybe it is slim but of course it is negative.

The property value argument is a strawman. The vast majority of homeowners in ward 3 (and let's be honest, the majority is the nimby folks in this thread are ward 3) have likey seen property values skyrocket in the last decade. You can take a $20k hit, even though I don't believe it will happen. It will share the area with a police station for goodness sake.

Wow. This actually does sound like a Chavez land grab, if you pooh pooh a 20,000 'hit' on behalf of others. Why not redo DC general, where no new neighborhood will be impacted. Interesting what you say about the police. Hardened homeless are called out in front of the Giant there, sleeping under tree and bushes all the way up wisconsin ave. (you may not know it but we have homeless service stations in Ward 3), the from of the library in Tenleytown looks like a homeless celebration on the benches in the summer. We also have rising swoop in crimes and teen crime. Lets have the police, who haven't gotten a grip on that, babysit a shelter thats gone from 30 to 50 of uncertain population? How is this good for any neighborhood in D.C.? We have a sure which the local government has chosen not to renovate, it sounds like for financial and political gain.
WH has a script? Who to call? How to organize? This is the tip of the iceberg of D.C. Wealth redistribution which will help the poor about as much as it worked in Venezuela.

This pp is probably the most savvy person on this thread. Read and learn, people!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The irony- the city is so wealthy that now the rich pay for the poor to move into their neighborhood.

Liberals don't wealth of the masses - only of their own elite. They will not pay - the 'ordinary people' will

That's liberals don't protect the wealth of the masses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The irony- the city is so wealthy that now the rich pay for the poor to move into their neighborhood.

Liberals don't wealth of the masses - only of their own elite. They will not pay - the 'ordinary people' will

That's liberals don't protect the wealth of the masses.

The masses don't have wealth. Conservatives see to that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's idiotic to say that homeless shelters don't have a negative effect on property values. Maybe it is slim but of course it is negative.

The property value argument is a strawman. The vast majority of homeowners in ward 3 (and let's be honest, the majority is the nimby folks in this thread are ward 3) have likey seen property values skyrocket in the last decade. You can take a $20k hit, even though I don't believe it will happen. It will share the area with a police station for goodness sake.

This is typical progressive liberalism. WE decide how much money of yours you can keep and WE decide what's best.

The point is that your property valuation is not actually your money. Your property is worth what the market will pay for it. Deciding that government services should be allocated as to preserve or inflate your particular home's value on the market is the opposite of conservatism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's idiotic to say that homeless shelters don't have a negative effect on property values. Maybe it is slim but of course it is negative.

The property value argument is a strawman. The vast majority of homeowners in ward 3 (and let's be honest, the majority is the nimby folks in this thread are ward 3) have likey seen property values skyrocket in the last decade. You can take a $20k hit, even though I don't believe it will happen. It will share the area with a police station for goodness sake.

This is typical progressive liberalism. WE decide how much money of yours you can keep and WE decide what's best.

The point is that your property valuation is not actually your money. Your property is worth what the market will pay for it. Deciding that government services should be allocated as to preserve or inflate your particular home's value on the market is the opposite of conservatism.

If you bought the property, any monies that are earned as the property goes up is yours, outside of taxes - which is why tax law in regard to property is always in political play.

Your property IS worth what the market will pay for it. So when liberal progressive government decides that a neighborhood is "too white" or "too wealthy", and does something to deliberately change that, it affects market prices.

Conservatives believe in LIMITED government, and therefore doesn't believe the government should play God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The irony- the city is so wealthy that now the rich pay for the poor to move into their neighborhood.

Liberals don't wealth of the masses - only of their own elite. They will not pay - the 'ordinary people' will

That's liberals don't protect the wealth of the masses.

The masses don't have wealth. Conservatives see to that.

Tell Hillary that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's an easy test: Go to the real estate forum and ask people how they'd pick. If they are looking at two essentially identical houses but one is within 2 blocks of a homeless shelter, which do they choose? How many wil pick the one close to the shelter because they expect property values to rise there? I'm betting no one.

That's not much of a test. If you asked people to pick between two identical houses and gave them a set of steak knives to pick one of them, they would pick it every time.

No, no. If you believe some people posting here, it's BETTER to be close to the shelter, because (they claim) some studies say property values rise faster near the shelters. If that's true, then we should see lots of people clamoring to buy near shelters, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The irony- the city is so wealthy that now the rich pay for the poor to move into their neighborhood.

Liberals don't wealth of the masses - only of their own elite. They will not pay - the 'ordinary people' will

That's liberals don't protect the wealth of the masses.

It was conservatives who put "trickle down" in place to ensure that the masses don't have any wealth to protect in the first place.