Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole plan is bizarre:

For 120 days --

Put children in a school in a neighborhood where their parents are unlikely to afford the rents when they gain independence. What happens to the kids?

For 120 days--

Encourage people to work in the local fast food in said neighborhood. How do the parents keep the job once they move?

For 120 days--

Emphasize closeness to metro which is an expensive way for homeless/near homeless to travel.

Why not put the money towards low income housing/mixed development that offers a more permanent lifetime to these families AFTER homelessness? Why not have everyone consolidated for the 120 days in an efficient facility with buses to schools, jobs and training programs? Why use primo real estate when there is so much more value in not blowing the money on rent/mortgage? We are not talking about your/their dreamhouse. We are talking about a three month stay for families to get stabilized. Put it out on that road by the arboretum. It's on a major causeway, and buses/shuttles could run. Many services could be provided on site.

People are currently in hotels in MD. I would call homeless hotels small, intimate 'satellite locations'. How's that working out for those families? They all moving to independence? There's your case study on how random, scattered 'intimate' locations 'improve' matters.

They couldn't get DC General right, they couldn't get hotels right, but somehow blowing a ton of money on the housing itself with IMPROVE the services provided?

They couldn't get DC General right so their answer is that they are creating 8 mini DC Generals while not at all addressing the underlying issues of why they couldn't get DC General right in the first place. Brilliant.

Anonymous wrote:This whole plan is bizarre:

For 120 days --

Put children in a school in a neighborhood where their parents are unlikely to afford the rents when they gain independence. What happens to the kids?

For 120 days--

Encourage people to work in the local fast food in said neighborhood. How do the parents keep the job once they move?

For 120 days--

Emphasize closeness to metro which is an expensive way for homeless/near homeless to travel.

Why not put the money towards low income housing/mixed development that offers a more permanent lifetime to these families AFTER homelessness? Why not have everyone consolidated for the 120 days in an efficient facility with buses to schools, jobs and training programs? Why use primo real estate when there is so much more value in not blowing the money on rent/mortgage? We are not talking about your/their dreamhouse. We are talking about a three month stay for families to get stabilized. Put it out on that road by the arboretum. It's on a major causeway, and buses/shuttles could run. Many services could be provided on site.

People are currently in hotels in MD. I would call homeless hotels small, intimate 'satellite locations'. How's that working out for those families? They all moving to independence? There's your case study on how random, scattered 'intimate' locations 'improve' matters.

They couldn't get DC General right, they couldn't get hotels right, but somehow blowing a ton of money on the housing itself with IMPROVE the services provided?

Anonymous wrote:Coincidence that the shelter decision is final the same week that Murch gets its funding restored? We'll played Mrs. Cheh!

Anonymous wrote:If the property in Ward 3 is in fact surplus, then it is some of the most valuable property in the city. Which makes it some of the most valuable property in the country. Why not sell it to a private developer and dedicate the proceeds and the future property taxes in perpetuity for homeless services? Instead they are keeping extremely valuable property off the tax roles and depressing the surrounding property values. This rush to political correctness is just bad policy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wrong. Putting one in every ward ensures that everyone has skin in the game and should be committed to addressing homelessness effectively.

PS - It's also a commonly accepted best practice to spread them out rather than cluster them. The more you know ;0)

What a stupid point, honey.

To ensure everyone has skin in the game, let's collect the same exact income and property tax from everyone in the city -- let's divide DC's budget by 8, and demand every Ward to pony up equally.

Even better, give every ward an equal share to spend on how it sees fit. Ward 3, for example, could choose to spend on enrichment programs in the schools, good parks and libraries and decent streets. Ward 8 could spend its money on featherbedding jobs with the DC government and crony contracts for "community" contractors.

Great idea.

CM May (Ward 8) has a very convenient concept of "equity." Certainly equity in terms of tax base application isn't on the table. We need to start a movement where DC west of the Rock Creek joins MD and forms a new county with current inside-the-beltway west of the Rock Creek Montgomery County. Let's see if CM May and all the hipster gentrifiers likes it when their tax revenue stream dries up. It would be a dream county Ward 3 + Georgetown and NO SILVER SPRING!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She has pretty much flown planes accross town saying it will only be families.

Look, I dislike Bowser. Didn't vote for her, don't like her. Think she's an idiot. But, we have a huge homeless problem in DC. When it comes to mothers and children, we all have to help. I have a shelter in my neighborhood (and am about to get a second one) - you need to take one in your neighborhood.

Suck it up and deal with it.

You are arguing with a Trump voter. Nothing you can do here. Maybe pictures?

If either of you want to convince anyone of anything, then you should learn to discuss without insults. It shouldn't be too hard to show me some proof that the proposed shelters will not house single men, if that's really a commitment from Bowser. I agree she's playing up the family angle in all her materials. Surely she's directly answered the question before, right? Maybe something like: "No, they will not house individuals. Access these proposed shelters will be only for families with children under age 16."

I'm all for DC working on its homeless problem, but it needs to be a well-considered plan that gets the most benefit to homeless families for the dollars spent, and that tries to prevent the roots of homelessness. What we've got now seems to be Bowser trying to ram through a half-baked plan that's designed to (1) make her look good by closing DC General, (2) put money in the hands of her political donors, and (3) give her a chance to say she treated all Wards evenly. Those are three great political goals, but they only tangentially benefit DC's homeless population. I want a plan that's good for DC, not for Bowser's reelection campaign.

Show me a plan that gives us the best chance of addressing the roots of homelessness and provides services most efficiently, and you'll get my support. Don't try to bully me with insults and accusations.

Anonymous wrote:I actually need to ask--is there any way to stop this harebrained scheme at this point? If so, how? If not, I will save my breath on arguing its obvious demerits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wrong. Putting one in every ward ensures that everyone has skin in the game and should be committed to addressing homelessness effectively.

PS - It's also a commonly accepted best practice to spread them out rather than cluster them. The more you know ;0)

What a stupid point, honey.

To ensure everyone has skin in the game, let's collect the same exact income and property tax from everyone in the city -- let's divide DC's budget by 8, and demand every Ward to pony up equally.

Even better, give every ward an equal share to spend on how it sees fit. Ward 3, for example, could choose to spend on enrichment programs in the schools, good parks and libraries and decent streets. Ward 8 could spend its money on featherbedding jobs with the DC government and crony contracts for "community" contractors.

Great idea.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What makes you think these will be families who use Eaton? What about mentally ill (who I see wandering Tenlrytown) or drug addicts? Spice, meth, crack? Has anyone specified to you who will be served there?

It's specifically a shelter for families, which by definition means kids. They might not go to Eaton: they might not be elementary-school aged or they might choose to continue to go to wherever they went before (homeless students have certain rights, which include being allowed to stay in a previous school). Their parents might, indeed, be mentally ill, but I do not think they will be active drug users.

Can you cite where there is guarantee that it will only be families? Or no active drug users?

BTW. I'm fine with the location, but lets not be naive.

I'd like to see that source too. I've seen lots of stuff from Bowser's team that promotes the "family" angle, but nothing that says it is only for families. I imagine there will be single men as well.

I suggest you start reading the newspaper or listening to public radio. Hard to fathom you would have these questions if you did either.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Show me a plan that gives us the best chance of addressing the roots of homelessness and provides services most efficiently, and you'll get my support. Don't try to bully me with insults and accusations.

You seem to have ignored my response to you that didn't include insults or accusations. But, as I said, the current plan is clearly aimed at families. That's even in the legislation. Given that the occupants of the new shelters will be resettled from DC General and single men are not placed in DC General, from where do you suspect single men would come?

I did see your reasonable response, Jeff, and I appreciate it. I started looking at the legislation, but did not reach a spot that made the occupancy clear. Do you have a cite to specific language? I'm happy to be convinced that the shelters will be only families and not individuals, but I've yet to see any proof, even though the question has been raised many times.

jsteele wrote:If DC manages to solve its homeless family problem and these shelters find themselves with empty space, I could envision homeless single men being housed there. But, I don't think you need to hold your breath in expectation of the family homeless problem being solved. Moreover, you really can't expect homeless single men to remain on the street simply because you don't want them in your neighborhood.

First, I sadly agree with you that this plan won't solve the homeless problem (and incidentally, I haven't seen anything specific in it that confronts the roots of homelessness, as it seems more of a Band-Aid approach, so I am quite certain DC's homeless population will continue to grow). Second, I agree that if we reach a point where some of these shelters or other ones need to be designated for single me, we cannot simply refuse them shelter. But surely you would agree the considerations are different if the shelter populations change, wouldn't you? Can we agree that a location that might make sense for a family shelter might make lots less sense for a shelter of 50 single men?

In the original legislation, which has been amended but I can't find the amended version, for each location it says something along the following:

"to house a facility for approximately 30 families experiencing homelessness".

The number of families is designated for each location.

http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/35335/B21-0620-Introduction.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wrong. Putting one in every ward ensures that everyone has skin in the game and should be committed to addressing homelessness effectively.

PS - It's also a commonly accepted best practice to spread them out rather than cluster them. The more you know ;0)

What a stupid point, honey.

To ensure everyone has skin in the game, let's collect the same exact income and property tax from everyone in the city -- let's divide DC's budget by 8, and demand every Ward to pony up equally.

Even better, give every ward an equal share to spend on how it sees fit. Ward 3, for example, could choose to spend on enrichment programs in the schools, good parks and libraries and decent streets. Ward 8 could spend its money on featherbedding jobs with the DC government and crony contracts for "community" contractors.