Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like the PP, I assumed the push back was because DC would not have control of how the shelter is run, the conditions, etc. and wouldn't want to welcome abuse of children into its city.

These facilities would be regulated by DC. The hypocrisy DC is showing is absurd. The kids don’t magically disappear if DC refuses to oversee a shelter here. If DC really wants to prevent abuse they would make sure these are run like a tight ship and the children are protected. This is a NIMBY issue instead of a real concern for child welfare.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The proposed site is on the corner of Laurel street, across from where they hold the Farmer's market. There's no playground, no parking, nothing!
Surely can't be zoned for that!

WAMU reporter on Twitter cites Board of zoning saying that indeed, the site would need to be rezoned for that kind of purpose. The city council and mayor are all stronlgy against this. I just worry that somehow Congress can bigfoot it and force it there.

The pressure is ramping up on Douglas Development, that owns the building in question to terminate the lease/planned lease.

https://twitter.com/maustermuhle/status/1161808665172688897?s=20

Can someone please explain why there is so much push back against this? What is the issue?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the opposition?

No one wants an influx of poorly educated children concentrating in their neighborhood schools once they are released. No one wants to say it but they take up a lot of resources and it's well known that the sponsors they're going to are concentrated in certain areas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the opposition?

No one wants an influx of poorly educated children concentrating in their neighborhood schools once they are released. No one wants to say it but they take up a lot of resources and it's well known that the sponsors they're going to are concentrated in certain areas.

This is not it. The zoned schools are already Title I, heavily populated with children of low-income immigrants.

IMO, DC doesn’t want to be a part of the abuse of children- and much of what we have learned from these facilities is that they are not well-run and are abusive for the children. We do not trust the Trump administration on treating immigrants humanely.

Exactly the point. The schools are already struggling. Dumping 200+ more kids with high needs into the the same schools for the foreseeable future will not help dig them out of that rut. DC is already known and lambasted for its horrible schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the opposition?

No one wants an influx of poorly educated children concentrating in their neighborhood schools once they are released. No one wants to say it but they take up a lot of resources and it's well known that the sponsors they're going to are concentrated in certain areas.

This is not it. The zoned schools are already Title I, heavily populated with children of low-income immigrants.

IMO, DC doesn’t want to be a part of the abuse of children- and much of what we have learned from these facilities is that they are not well-run and are abusive for the children. We do not trust the Trump administration on treating immigrants humanely.

Anonymous wrote:Like the PP, I assumed the push back was because DC would not have control of how the shelter is run, the conditions, etc. and wouldn't want to welcome abuse of children into its city.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the opposition?

No one wants an influx of poorly educated children concentrating in their neighborhood schools once they are released. No one wants to say it but they take up a lot of resources and it's well known that the sponsors they're going to are concentrated in certain areas.

Anonymous wrote:Is DC a Sanctuary City?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the opposition?

No one wants an influx of poorly educated children concentrating in their neighborhood schools once they are released. No one wants to say it but they take up a lot of resources and it's well known that the sponsors they're going to are concentrated in certain areas.

Where exactly do you expect the kids to go? The US has welcomed them into the country. They need a place to live. What are the other options?

You’re using “welcomed” pretty loosely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The proposed site is on the corner of Laurel street, across from where they hold the Farmer's market. There's no playground, no parking, nothing!
Surely can't be zoned for that!

WAMU reporter on Twitter cites Board of zoning saying that indeed, the site would need to be rezoned for that kind of purpose. The city council and mayor are all stronlgy against this. I just worry that somehow Congress can bigfoot it and force it there.

The pressure is ramping up on Douglas Development, that owns the building in question to terminate the lease/planned lease.

https://twitter.com/maustermuhle/status/1161808665172688897?s=20

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the opposition?

No one wants an influx of poorly educated children concentrating in their neighborhood schools once they are released. No one wants to say it but they take up a lot of resources and it's well known that the sponsors they're going to are concentrated in certain areas.

Where exactly do you expect the kids to go? The US has welcomed them into the country. They need a place to live. What are the other options?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the opposition?

No one wants an influx of poorly educated children concentrating in their neighborhood schools once they are released. No one wants to say it but they take up a lot of resources and it's well known that the sponsors they're going to are concentrated in certain areas.