Anonymous wrote:

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.

For starters, here is the original press release: http://mayor.dc.gov/release/mayor-bowser-details-plan-close-dc-general The word "family" or "families" appears 16x. These shelters are intended to replace DC General, which is... wait for it... A FAMILY SHELTER. It's not a shelter for single adults, period. There are other shelters that serve those populations, but DC General is not one of them and neither are 7/8 of the new proposed shelters (the one in Ward 2 is supposed to be a women's shelter, which has never made sense to me but whatever).

Secondly, being a mom with children is not a guarantee that there will not be some drug users among the shelter population. It is also not a guarantee that there will not be mentally ill adults. They will just be mentally ill or drug addicted PARENTS with small children. Not sure that will make PP feel any better, but there it is.

A woman's shelter doesn't make sense to you? Doesn't make sense keeping homeless women seperate from men?

I won't bother, you are just too stupid for this planet.

Hi. I actually work in homeless services. It makes all the sense in the world to have a women's shelter - we have several in DC including one on the campus of DC General. I meant that in the context of replacing DC General and targeting FAMILY homelessness, using one site for women who DON'T have children does not make sense. I think it's a great idea to have another shelter for women downtown. I just don't understand why it's included in THIS plan, particularly in light of the reality that there are many more homeless families than can be accommodated by the 8 replacement shelters even without the women's shelter.

Because these decisions are being made by people with no understanding of homeless and need.

So this plan does not actually address the scope of homelessness in DC. Keep the DC general site and build a nice, multi purpose center. It is near metro and a school bus could take all the kids to school. Counseling and job placement and computer lab centralized. These shelters are meant to be a transition, not permanent living. I'm super confused by all the concern for location and amenities. These are not mixed income housing which is where the real money should go..isn't the plan for people to move out and up? Ludicrous waste and so far not backed up by any research anyone has shown. I mean, look at the youth facilities scattered through the city. Mismanaged and youth are constantly fleeing -and they are in 'nice neighborhoods'. Can't see it makes a difference. The focus here should be on management and efficiency. I hate seeing $ that could actually help people being flushed down the toilet.

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.

For starters, here is the original press release: http://mayor.dc.gov/release/mayor-bowser-details-plan-close-dc-general The word "family" or "families" appears 16x. These shelters are intended to replace DC General, which is... wait for it... A FAMILY SHELTER. It's not a shelter for single adults, period. There are other shelters that serve those populations, but DC General is not one of them and neither are 7/8 of the new proposed shelters (the one in Ward 2 is supposed to be a women's shelter, which has never made sense to me but whatever).

Secondly, being a mom with children is not a guarantee that there will not be some drug users among the shelter population. It is also not a guarantee that there will not be mentally ill adults. They will just be mentally ill or drug addicted PARENTS with small children. Not sure that will make PP feel any better, but there it is.

A woman's shelter doesn't make sense to you? Doesn't make sense keeping homeless women seperate from men?

I won't bother, you are just too stupid for this planet.

Hi. I actually work in homeless services. It makes all the sense in the world to have a women's shelter - we have several in DC including one on the campus of DC General. I meant that in the context of replacing DC General and targeting FAMILY homelessness, using one site for women who DON'T have children does not make sense. I think it's a great idea to have another shelter for women downtown. I just don't understand why it's included in THIS plan, particularly in light of the reality that there are many more homeless families than can be accommodated by the 8 replacement shelters even without the women's shelter.

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.

For starters, here is the original press release: http://mayor.dc.gov/release/mayor-bowser-details-plan-close-dc-general The word "family" or "families" appears 16x. These shelters are intended to replace DC General, which is... wait for it... A FAMILY SHELTER. It's not a shelter for single adults, period. There are other shelters that serve those populations, but DC General is not one of them and neither are 7/8 of the new proposed shelters (the one in Ward 2 is supposed to be a women's shelter, which has never made sense to me but whatever).

Secondly, being a mom with children is not a guarantee that there will not be some drug users among the shelter population. It is also not a guarantee that there will not be mentally ill adults. They will just be mentally ill or drug addicted PARENTS with small children. Not sure that will make PP feel any better, but there it is.

A woman's shelter doesn't make sense to you? Doesn't make sense keeping homeless women seperate from men?

I won't bother, you are just too stupid for this planet.

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.

For starters, here is the original press release: http://mayor.dc.gov/release/mayor-bowser-details-plan-close-dc-general The word "family" or "families" appears 16x. These shelters are intended to replace DC General, which is... wait for it... A FAMILY SHELTER. It's not a shelter for single adults, period. There are other shelters that serve those populations, but DC General is not one of them and neither are 7/8 of the new proposed shelters (the one in Ward 2 is supposed to be a women's shelter, which has never made sense to me but whatever).

Secondly, being a mom with children is not a guarantee that there will not be some drug users among the shelter population. It is also not a guarantee that there will not be mentally ill adults. They will just be mentally ill or drug addicted PARENTS with small children. Not sure that will make PP feel any better, but there it is.

Take a look at the population served by DC General, Madam NIMBY Chickrn Little. Most kids are under age two. Maybe you need to move to someplace like Chsntilly or Reston.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should have been Eaton from the beginning, as it is the only Ward 3 elementary that's not already horribly overcrowded. As a Ward 3 resident, I think the shelter makes sense in the new location.

Relatedly, how revealing that Bowser told Mendelson to "F_k off," because the Council's plan to use city-owned property doesn't allow her campaign contributors to make millions. Apparently the Council's new plan will save the City well over $100 million -- kudos to responsible politicians. Thank got her stinky plan is back on a responsible track.

I didn't think she had it in her.

Why not? Somebody's threatening her vice-grip on graft and corruption at the expense of taxpayers. OF COURSE she is going to swear!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should have been Eaton from the beginning, as it is the only Ward 3 elementary that's not already horribly overcrowded. As a Ward 3 resident, I think the shelter makes sense in the new location.

Relatedly, how revealing that Bowser told Mendelson to "F_k off," because the Council's plan to use city-owned property doesn't allow her campaign contributors to make millions. Apparently the Council's new plan will save the City well over $100 million -- kudos to responsible politicians. Thank got her stinky plan is back on a responsible track.

If you read the information on the Mount Vernon Triangle location, it is almost 4x what CM Mendalson thought (as he has no familiarity with downtown and didn't consult the neighborhood that had the air rights and development in place). It will also take 8 years to complete meaning the other shelters (like Ward 3) will have to take additional families until it is built.

How in the world would it take 8 years to complete? Are D.C. government employees building it?

Perhaps you don't go downtown. Or are not from DC. Maybe you are not familiar with Capital Crossing, 395 air rights and what is going on in that neighborhood. Do you even know where that neighborhood is?

Neither of those issues are remotely close to the 2nd District Police station. Do YOU know what you're talking about? Bottom line, a shelter next to the 2d District station, which is property already owned by DC and therefore less paperwork, should take no longer to build than the original plans for the shelter on Wisconsin avenue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should have been Eaton from the beginning, as it is the only Ward 3 elementary that's not already horribly overcrowded. As a Ward 3 resident, I think the shelter makes sense in the new location.

Relatedly, how revealing that Bowser told Mendelson to "F_k off," because the Council's plan to use city-owned property doesn't allow her campaign contributors to make millions. Apparently the Council's new plan will save the City well over $100 million -- kudos to responsible politicians. Thank got her stinky plan is back on a responsible track.

If you read the information on the Mount Vernon Triangle location, it is almost 4x what CM Mendalson thought (as he has no familiarity with downtown and didn't consult the neighborhood that had the air rights and development in place). It will also take 8 years to complete meaning the other shelters (like Ward 3) will have to take additional families until it is built.

How in the world would it take 8 years to complete? Are D.C. government employees building it?

Hopefully not the same company that built the UDC Student Center. It would take 10 years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should have been Eaton from the beginning, as it is the only Ward 3 elementary that's not already horribly overcrowded. As a Ward 3 resident, I think the shelter makes sense in the new location.

Relatedly, how revealing that Bowser told Mendelson to "F_k off," because the Council's plan to use city-owned property doesn't allow her campaign contributors to make millions. Apparently the Council's new plan will save the City well over $100 million -- kudos to responsible politicians. Thank got her stinky plan is back on a responsible track.

If you read the information on the Mount Vernon Triangle location, it is almost 4x what CM Mendalson thought (as he has no familiarity with downtown and didn't consult the neighborhood that had the air rights and development in place). It will also take 8 years to complete meaning the other shelters (like Ward 3) will have to take additional families until it is built.

How in the world would it take 8 years to complete? Are D.C. government employees building it?

Perhaps you don't go downtown. Or are not from DC. Maybe you are not familiar with Capital Crossing, 395 air rights and what is going on in that neighborhood. Do you even know where that neighborhood is?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should have been Eaton from the beginning, as it is the only Ward 3 elementary that's not already horribly overcrowded. As a Ward 3 resident, I think the shelter makes sense in the new location.

Relatedly, how revealing that Bowser told Mendelson to "F_k off," because the Council's plan to use city-owned property doesn't allow her campaign contributors to make millions. Apparently the Council's new plan will save the City well over $100 million -- kudos to responsible politicians. Thank got her stinky plan is back on a responsible track.

If you read the information on the Mount Vernon Triangle location, it is almost 4x what CM Mendalson thought (as he has no familiarity with downtown and didn't consult the neighborhood that had the air rights and development in place). It will also take 8 years to complete meaning the other shelters (like Ward 3) will have to take additional families until it is built.

How in the world would it take 8 years to complete? Are D.C. government employees building it?

Anonymous wrote:It should have been Eaton from the beginning, as it is the only Ward 3 elementary that's not already horribly overcrowded. As a Ward 3 resident, I think the shelter makes sense in the new location.

Relatedly, how revealing that Bowser told Mendelson to "F_k off," because the Council's plan to use city-owned property doesn't allow her campaign contributors to make millions. Apparently the Council's new plan will save the City well over $100 million -- kudos to responsible politicians. Thank got her stinky plan is back on a responsible track.

I didn't think she had it in her.

Anonymous wrote:It should have been Eaton from the beginning, as it is the only Ward 3 elementary that's not already horribly overcrowded. As a Ward 3 resident, I think the shelter makes sense in the new location.

Relatedly, how revealing that Bowser told Mendelson to "F_k off," because the Council's plan to use city-owned property doesn't allow her campaign contributors to make millions. Apparently the Council's new plan will save the City well over $100 million -- kudos to responsible politicians. Thank got her stinky plan is back on a responsible track.

If you read the information on the Mount Vernon Triangle location, it is almost 4x what CM Mendalson thought (as he has no familiarity with downtown and didn't consult the neighborhood that had the air rights and development in place). It will also take 8 years to complete meaning the other shelters (like Ward 3) will have to take additional families until it is built.