I don't know why I keep reading this site. You bitches make urbanbaby moms look like socialist class warriors. I am actually somewhat conservative. But I'm not a fucking moron who thinks that "bootstraps" and "consequences" are what you do to a single-parent family, because otherwise "she" will keep "popping out" more kids. You know the funny thing? You probably hire someone just like her to scrub your toilets and watch your own little precious darlings.

Nope, I do it all by myself. Clean, cook, and watch my kids. People who advocate no responsibility for one's actions and believe in heavy parental attention from the wealthy and the government are socialist class warriors. It teaches the disadvantaged people nothing of value and does them no long term favors.

Uh huh. And what does your husband do? I'm sure you have one, right? Because women who don't are sluts?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, say good bye to that nice Guy Mason playground. It's going to be fun to see litter and people sleeping all over it at 3pm. I am a firm believer in NIMBY. What next, a methadone clinic?

Oh, and whatever schools these shelters will be inbounds for, prepare for those schools to go downhill fast.

So you are saying that homeless shelters should not be spread throughout the city and should be concentrated in less affluent neighborhoods? Well, the people in Ward 5 and Ward 6, who have shouldered the majority of the burden thus far, want to know what makes your ward so special? This is everyone's burden to bear. Sorry.

What I have not seen in this whole discussion is where those folks are coming from. From outside DC? Mostly from DC itself? If so, from which Ward? Sorry, but if (imagine) all homeless people were raised in Ward 5, and that's what they know best, it makes no particular sense to spread them across all Wards. If they all come from (say) Virginia, why should DC wear the burden?

If Bowser trying to help existing homeless people or to disrupt a number of neighborhoods and potentially bring even more homeless into the city? Those are different objectives

Bowser is trying to close DC General, the existing family shelter that houses ~230 families. These new shelters are for families who are living there, or in the NY Ave motels. I understand that there is the perception that homeless people are flocking to DC for our amazing homeless services, and while there is some truth to that, these families are overwhelmingly DC residents. I met with a man yesterday who is homeless and mentally ill from Ward 3 (born, raised, lived there when he had an address). He's not the target population of these shelters because he is a single adult male, but he is not a poor black man from Ward 8. Many of these young women are from SE, from Brookland, from Trinidad. There is an argument that if you house people in a community with better examples - working people, good schools, easily accessible grocery stores (vs. high unemployment, failing schools, and an overabundance of stripmall 7-Elevens) - they will be better situated to get out of poverty.

These are not shelters to "bring more homeless into the city." They are shelters to rehouse the people living in the toxic human rights violation that is DC General into humane living conditions and help them break the cycle of homelessness.

I wish I wrote for the Washington Post so that I could write that into the first line of every single story, since so many of you seem to think that these are shelters for individual adults from other jurisdictions.

If it is true that many of the homeless are "from SE, from Brookland, from Trinidad," that's where they should be taken care of. That's what community-based services means -- you serve people within their community. You don't just take them and spread them to random places.

This is especially relevant when talking about temporary housing.

I don't disagree, but we're not talking about "random places." We're talking about building shelters in various parts of the city so that not all services are clustered in one neighborhood. We're not talking about sending them away to other cities - we're talking about spreading services around to multiple parts of one city.

There are already plenty of services in those neighborhoods. That's why the Ward 5 council member is objecting. The proposed location for his ward already has a lot of such services clustered around it.

But it is equally uprooting people from their communities, their comfort zones, the places they know, their networks, and placing them in completely new surroundings to them. They are not going to spend the whole day in the shelter, correct?

This is the opposite of community-based work.

Good God Woman or Man. I don't care. Don't you get it. The people are homeless. They don't have a community. They don't have a comfort zone. The don't have networks. What is it that you don't understand. They are HOMELESS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know why I keep reading this site. You bitches make urbanbaby moms look like socialist class warriors. I am actually somewhat conservative. But I'm not a fucking moron who thinks that "bootstraps" and "consequences" are what you do to a single-parent family, because otherwise "she" will keep "popping out" more kids. You know the funny thing? You probably hire someone just like her to scrub your toilets and watch your own little precious darlings.

Nope, I do it all by myself. Clean, cook, and watch my kids. People who advocate no responsibility for one's actions and believe in heavy parental attention from the wealthy and the government are socialist class warriors. It teaches the disadvantaged people nothing of value and does them no long term favors.

Probably you should not be living in a prosperous, East Coast city where it is considered normal and even desirable to provide services to poor people, especially poor children.

Anonymous wrote:I don't know why I keep reading this site. You bitches make urbanbaby moms look like socialist class warriors. I am actually somewhat conservative. But I'm not a fucking moron who thinks that "bootstraps" and "consequences" are what you do to a single-parent family, because otherwise "she" will keep "popping out" more kids. You know the funny thing? You probably hire someone just like her to scrub your toilets and watch your own little precious darlings.

Nope, I do it all by myself. Clean, cook, and watch my kids. People who advocate no responsibility for one's actions and believe in heavy parental attention from the wealthy and the government are socialist class warriors. It teaches the disadvantaged people nothing of value and does them no long term favors.

I don't know why I keep reading this site. You bitches make urbanbaby moms look like socialist class warriors. I am actually somewhat conservative. But I'm not a fucking moron who thinks that "bootstraps" and "consequences" are what you do to a single-parent family, because otherwise "she" will keep "popping out" more kids. You know the funny thing? You probably hire someone just like her to scrub your toilets and watch your own little precious darlings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The housing should come with daycare vouchers and job interviews - there are tons of businesses of Wisconsin ave. These homeless parents could work at while their kids are in school/daycare and start the move to independence.

Independence? Are you sure they want that?
Independence or in their case low paying jobs will bring them a rental in the slums and bad schools they'll have to move to. Once they relocate to Wisconsin Ave they have every incentive to stay jobless and produce more kids.

Please tell us about all these wonderful incentives to "produce" kids. And could you tell me where these "slums" are located? I can't seem to find any of them on Google Maps.

Free daycare, free social services, relative safety, good schools vs life in SE DC.
Take the woman with four kids from a recent WaPo article and imagine she is relocated from her hotel to the shelter on Wisconsin Ave. What would be her motivation to get a job as a cashier at Safeway given that childcare is provided by the city? So she can leave the shelter and go where? And pay for childcare how? But if she pops out couple more kids she can stay at the shelter for the next 10 years. After which uprooting kids would be soo insensitive and she'll end up staying there until the kids get through high school.

Out of curiosity, if your neighbor in your affluent area has a couple of kids, do you say that she "pops out a couple more kids" too? Your language shows me your sensitivity to the humanity of other people.

If you can support your kids---it's called "having them" or "adding/starting family". If not--it's "popping them out".

+1.

Actually, when you have kids, it's called "having kids" regardless of whether you can support them or how many you have.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The housing should come with daycare vouchers and job interviews - there are tons of businesses of Wisconsin ave. These homeless parents could work at while their kids are in school/daycare and start the move to independence.

Independence? Are you sure they want that?
Independence or in their case low paying jobs will bring them a rental in the slums and bad schools they'll have to move to. Once they relocate to Wisconsin Ave they have every incentive to stay jobless and produce more kids.

Please tell us about all these wonderful incentives to "produce" kids. And could you tell me where these "slums" are located? I can't seem to find any of them on Google Maps.

Free daycare, free social services, relative safety, good schools vs life in SE DC.
Take the woman with four kids from a recent WaPo article and imagine she is relocated from her hotel to the shelter on Wisconsin Ave. What would be her motivation to get a job as a cashier at Safeway given that childcare is provided by the city? So she can leave the shelter and go where? And pay for childcare how? But if she pops out couple more kids she can stay at the shelter for the next 10 years. After which uprooting kids would be soo insensitive and she'll end up staying there until the kids get through high school.

Out of curiosity, if your neighbor in your affluent area has a couple of kids, do you say that she "pops out a couple more kids" too? Your language shows me your sensitivity to the humanity of other people.

If you can support your kids---it's called "having them" or "adding/starting family". If not--it's "popping them out".

+1.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The housing should come with daycare vouchers and job interviews - there are tons of businesses of Wisconsin ave. These homeless parents could work at while their kids are in school/daycare and start the move to independence.

Independence? Are you sure they want that?
Independence or in their case low paying jobs will bring them a rental in the slums and bad schools they'll have to move to. Once they relocate to Wisconsin Ave they have every incentive to stay jobless and produce more kids.

Please tell us about all these wonderful incentives to "produce" kids. And could you tell me where these "slums" are located? I can't seem to find any of them on Google Maps.

Free daycare, free social services, relative safety, good schools vs life in SE DC.
Take the woman with four kids from a recent WaPo article and imagine she is relocated from her hotel to the shelter on Wisconsin Ave. What would be her motivation to get a job as a cashier at Safeway given that childcare is provided by the city? So she can leave the shelter and go where? And pay for childcare how? But if she pops out couple more kids she can stay at the shelter for the next 10 years. After which uprooting kids would be soo insensitive and she'll end up staying there until the kids get through high school.

Out of curiosity, if your neighbor in your affluent area has a couple of kids, do you say that she "pops out a couple more kids" too? Your language shows me your sensitivity to the humanity of other people.

If you can support your kids---it's called "having them" or "adding/starting family". If not--it's "popping them out".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thinking about what homeless people will do after the temporary shelter would make too much sense. So no, they haven't thought of that.

What makes you think that?

The model itself doesn't seem to reflect best practices or much planning. You take at-risk people from one neighborhood, and dump them in another--often more expensive than where they were already struggling. You help them for a while. And then? Magically they are able to pay much higher rent in the new neighborhood? If not, they have to move elsewhere, meaning they and their families get uprooted twice in a short period.

Regardless of where they land permanently, they are going to have to move out of the shelter at some point. So they will be "uprooted" twice no matter what. I don't think anyone expects that a significant number of families are going to find permanent housing near ANY of the shelters. Do you seriously think they are looking for permanent housing on New York Avenue near the motels? Do you think they all lived right next door to DC General before they became homeless?

Affordable housing is a problem all over the city. We don't have a magic bullet over here in Ward 5, either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thinking about what homeless people will do after the temporary shelter would make too much sense. So no, they haven't thought of that.

What makes you think that?

The model itself doesn't seem to reflect best practices or much planning. You take at-risk people from one neighborhood, and dump them in another--often more expensive than where they were already struggling. You help them for a while. And then? Magically they are able to pay much higher rent in the new neighborhood? If not, they have to move elsewhere, meaning they and their families get uprooted twice in a short period.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The housing should come with daycare vouchers and job interviews - there are tons of businesses of Wisconsin ave. These homeless parents could work at while their kids are in school/daycare and start the move to independence.

Independence? Are you sure they want that?
Independence or in their case low paying jobs will bring them a rental in the slums and bad schools they'll have to move to. Once they relocate to Wisconsin Ave they have every incentive to stay jobless and produce more kids.

Please tell us about all these wonderful incentives to "produce" kids. And could you tell me where these "slums" are located? I can't seem to find any of them on Google Maps.

Free daycare, free social services, relative safety, good schools vs life in SE DC.
Take the woman with four kids from a recent WaPo article and imagine she is relocated from her hotel to the shelter on Wisconsin Ave. What would be her motivation to get a job as a cashier at Safeway given that childcare is provided by the city? So she can leave the shelter and go where? And pay for childcare how? But if she pops out couple more kids she can stay at the shelter for the next 10 years. After which uprooting kids would be soo insensitive and she'll end up staying there until the kids get through high school.

Out of curiosity, if your neighbor in your affluent area has a couple of kids, do you say that she "pops out a couple more kids" too? Your language shows me your sensitivity to the humanity of other people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The housing should come with daycare vouchers and job interviews - there are tons of businesses of Wisconsin ave. These homeless parents could work at while their kids are in school/daycare and start the move to independence.

Independence? Are you sure they want that?
Independence or in their case low paying jobs will bring them a rental in the slums and bad schools they'll have to move to. Once they relocate to Wisconsin Ave they have every incentive to stay jobless and produce more kids.

Please tell us about all these wonderful incentives to "produce" kids. And could you tell me where these "slums" are located? I can't seem to find any of them on Google Maps.

Free daycare, free social services, relative safety, good schools vs life in SE DC.
Take the woman with four kids from a recent WaPo article and imagine she is relocated from her hotel to the shelter on Wisconsin Ave. What would be her motivation to get a job as a cashier at Safeway given that childcare is provided by the city? So she can leave the shelter and go where? And pay for childcare how? But if she pops out couple more kids she can stay at the shelter for the next 10 years. After which uprooting kids would be soo insensitive and she'll end up staying there until the kids get through high school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thinking about what homeless people will do after the temporary shelter would make too much sense. So no, they haven't thought of that.

What makes you think that?

The initial shallow, lazy and shortsighted plan.
It would make so much more sense to invest in current bad neighborhoods by subsidizing businesses, mortgages for local residents, clean ups etc. but it's hard. Speeding them out and unloading the headache onto other responsible citizens is a lot easier.

Have you read the analysis of the budget? There is some good information here: http://www.dcfpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/FY-2016-Proposed-Overview.pdf

I will point directly to the following.

1) Permanent supportive housing for people who have significant barriers to self-sufficiency - increasing spending by 20% from current levels (250 individuals, 110 families). For homeless families, this includes the wraparound services that many are suggesting to be necessary.
2) Rental assistance - 150 families and 150 individuals, for use after Rapid Re-Housing runs out (I am personally skeptical of RRH as a program in DC because I have heard absolute horror stories from clients and colleagues about how it is administered, so I think there is room for a lot of improvement there).
3) Improvements in the way that TANF is administered/extension of those benefits. One of the main criticisms of DC's TANF program is that the program goals and interventions being executed are often more time consuming than the timeframe laid out by the program allows. People come into TANF with very minimal skills and need to complete education and job training skills before they are able to enter the work force. Also, given that there are a limited number of jobs, in many cases, even if a person is trying to find a job every day per their individual plan created with their case worker, their benefits frequently end before they land something.

I had a really wonderful conversation last week with a young woman who received TANF (and other benefits) when her daughter was born. She was a high school graduate, and she used the TANF program to get certified as a nursing assistant. Her benefits ran out a few weeks before she was able to find a job, and because she has local family who were able to help support her and her daughter, she did not become homeless, but she was pretty quick to point out that her status as a high school graduate and her mom having an extra bedroom in her apartment are things that are not available to a lot of TANF recipients. If you have to get the GED before the CNA certification AND you don't have anywhere to go, it's just not enough time. Money this year is going to start fixing those problems.

To be clear, I don't think any of this is a magic bullet, but I do think that these reforms are necessary and have the potential to be effective. What is certainly NOT effective is a) the way we are doing things now and b) doing nothing at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given the debacle of the Fire / EMS resignation that just happened and the lack of accountability in city departments that it cited, I am highly skeptical that there will be good management and oversight of the shelter facilities. Seems more like wild flailing that will only end up indiscriminately spreading the fire of the mismanaged, poorly run DC General mess to shelters throughout the rest of the city.

Lol. Of course not. Remember what they say about good intentions? Just another "feel good" gesture and a huge waste of money.

Maybe the DC Government can buy some storage facilities and warehouses in Ivy City and let the homeless children fend for themselves. Think of the savings. Or put some scows on the Anacostia. It would make some great reality TV that Would generate some income for the City. Think Dickensian dystopia.

Moving homeless kids to a more "simple" middle class neighborhoods would make a lot more sense. They could witness lifestyle that is actually attainable. Inserting them in areas and schools filled with very wealthy seems almost brutal.

Yeah, brutal for the rich people who can't deal with it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given the debacle of the Fire / EMS resignation that just happened and the lack of accountability in city departments that it cited, I am highly skeptical that there will be good management and oversight of the shelter facilities. Seems more like wild flailing that will only end up indiscriminately spreading the fire of the mismanaged, poorly run DC General mess to shelters throughout the rest of the city.

Lol. Of course not. Remember what they say about good intentions? Just another "feel good" gesture and a huge waste of money.

Maybe the DC Government can buy some storage facilities and warehouses in Ivy City and let the homeless children fend for themselves. Think of the savings. Or put some scows on the Anacostia. It would make some great reality TV that Would generate some income for the City. Think Dickensian dystopia.

Moving homeless kids to a more "simple" middle class neighborhoods would make a lot more sense. They could witness lifestyle that is actually attainable. Inserting them in areas and schools filled with very wealthy seems almost brutal.

First of all, you are an elitist a$$. Second, there actually are "simple middle class neighborhoods in DC"? Stop the presses, I thought is was all rich and poor!