Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s going to go into Capitol One arena??

Mixed use. DC can use the business taxes to subsidize housing. Win win.

But the immediate and overwhelming need in DC is to provide homes for the unhoused, which is what should be built where the Capitol One arena now stands.

You know someone has to pay for all this free stuff.

It never occurs to proponents of subsidized housing. And the cycle will continue - nobody wants to invest in downtown because of the crime and the homeless. Hence, no tax revenue to fund these wonderful, “look at me, I care” ideas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The amount of time and money this city has spent on housing drug addicts in luxury apartments and building unused bike lanes and generally making the quality of life of taxpayers worse is unprecedented. Everything this Mayor and Council touches comes out worse. I can’t believe my neighbors keep voting for these clowns.

The lack of adequate wraparound services has made the problem worse.

The lack of the realization that wraparound services are not going to be the answer has made the problem worse.

What is your answer, exactly WRT homelessness in DC? No services, no tents, no putting them in apartments.

Fine, what's your magic bullet? Shoot them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s going to go into Capitol One arena??

Mixed use. DC can use the business taxes to subsidize housing. Win win.

But the immediate and overwhelming need in DC is to provide homes for the unhoused, which is what should be built where the Capitol One arena now stands.

DC currently houses more people than were homeless when the program started. As CA begins to test for drug use before benefits and has made involuntary commitment easier, what is to keep the vagrants from all over the country from flocking here? More so than is ALREADY the case? Most jurisdictions will transport one way for free to shrink their numbers. What is to be done to stabilize people and get them on a path to being self supporting? Housing First is not that.

Write your council members today and demand that Washington, DC follow San Francisco's lead and start drug testing for certain benefits. If the SF People's Republic can do it, what's the reason to hesitate here?

Why test for legal substances?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The amount of time and money this city has spent on housing drug addicts in luxury apartments and building unused bike lanes and generally making the quality of life of taxpayers worse is unprecedented. Everything this Mayor and Council touches comes out worse. I can’t believe my neighbors keep voting for these clowns.

Yep, bike lanes and drug addicts are totally the same thing.

They really are. There’s not much daylight between the bike lane crowd and the drug legalization crowd.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The amount of time and money this city has spent on housing drug addicts in luxury apartments and building unused bike lanes and generally making the quality of life of taxpayers worse is unprecedented. Everything this Mayor and Council touches comes out worse. I can’t believe my neighbors keep voting for these clowns.

Yep, bike lanes and drug addicts are totally the same thing.

May as well be, nobody wants either

80s DC, the good old days. Only way DC improves is if a Republican or Independent led federal government takeover occurs.

Anonymous wrote:Folks, when you talk about building housing for the unhoused, what are you talking about? Homeless shelters free housing? Who is going to pay for all this? If you become a mecca for free housing, it will just attract more people who want free housing. But who pays for it. Taxpayers will only stay in a jurisdiction so long if their taxes are going to house the unhoused rather than paying for excellent schools, police protection, etc. There is a balance that needs to be struck. I think our goal should be getting the unhoused into jobs so they can pay rent and taxes.

Agree with you, but your last sentence is not going to be possible, except for the smallest percentage of people, because a very large number of “unhoused” have moderate to severe preexisting mental health challenges, and various substance dependences, that they simply cannot get themselves out of, even if they had the clarity and determination to do so, which many don’t, without significant investment and time - by them and by those who will pay for it. And even then, for many it will not be possible. Building housing won’t work, it doesn’t solve the real challenge.

Yes, good point. I will write today!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s going to go into Capitol One arena??

Mixed use. DC can use the business taxes to subsidize housing. Win win.

But the immediate and overwhelming need in DC is to provide homes for the unhoused, which is what should be built where the Capitol One arena now stands.

DC currently houses more people than were homeless when the program started. As CA begins to test for drug use before benefits and has made involuntary commitment easier, what is to keep the vagrants from all over the country from flocking here? More so than is ALREADY the case? Most jurisdictions will transport one way for free to shrink their numbers. What is to be done to stabilize people and get them on a path to being self supporting? Housing First is not that.

Write your council members today and demand that Washington, DC follow San Francisco's lead and start drug testing for certain benefits. If the SF People's Republic can do it, what's the reason to hesitate here?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s going to go into Capitol One arena??

Mixed use. DC can use the business taxes to subsidize housing. Win win.

But the immediate and overwhelming need in DC is to provide homes for the unhoused, which is what should be built where the Capitol One arena now stands.

DC currently houses more people than were homeless when the program started. As CA begins to test for drug use before benefits and has made involuntary commitment easier, what is to keep the vagrants from all over the country from flocking here? More so than is ALREADY the case? Most jurisdictions will transport one way for free to shrink their numbers. What is to be done to stabilize people and get them on a path to being self supporting? Housing First is not that.

Anonymous wrote:Folks, when you talk about building housing for the unhoused, what are you talking about? Homeless shelters free housing? Who is going to pay for all this? If you become a mecca for free housing, it will just attract more people who want free housing. But who pays for it. Taxpayers will only stay in a jurisdiction so long if their taxes are going to house the unhoused rather than paying for excellent schools, police protection, etc. There is a balance that needs to be struck. I think our goal should be getting the unhoused into jobs so they can pay rent and taxes.

The plan as I see it is to destroy the city so much that anyone with options and money will live and rents will plummet for the poor people who can’t afford to get out of the crime ridden cesspool.

Folks, when you talk about building housing for the unhoused, what are you talking about? Homeless shelters free housing? Who is going to pay for all this? If you become a mecca for free housing, it will just attract more people who want free housing. But who pays for it. Taxpayers will only stay in a jurisdiction so long if their taxes are going to house the unhoused rather than paying for excellent schools, police protection, etc. There is a balance that needs to be struck. I think our goal should be getting the unhoused into jobs so they can pay rent and taxes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The amount of time and money this city has spent on housing drug addicts in luxury apartments and building unused bike lanes and generally making the quality of life of taxpayers worse is unprecedented. Everything this Mayor and Council touches comes out worse. I can’t believe my neighbors keep voting for these clowns.

The lack of adequate wraparound services has made the problem worse.

The lack of the realization that wraparound services are not going to be the answer has made the problem worse.

The Secure DC bill, what is left of it, will be voted on next week on 3/5, reach out to your 6 reps, your CM, Mendelson and the 4 at large reps.

I like the bike lanes. Less keen on the homeless, carjacking and revolving doors for criminals though.