Anonymous wrote:There are myriad reasons a family with children might become homeless other than bad decisionmaking. The fact is that there is a severe affordable housing crisis in DC and until solutions to this are found, and a significant number of transitional housing units constructed, the City will need to find solutions other than DC General and remotely-located hotels. The fact a few privileged families living in NW are pissed off and irrationally fearful isn't a reason to derail an otherwise rational approach. It is fair to question whether the size of the facility is in accordance with best practices and hold feet to the fire in terms of accountability when it comes to.maintaining and operating the shelter but let's not pretend this motivated is anything other than good old fashioned NIMBYism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://tcf.org/assets/downloads/tcf-Schwartz.pdf

Read this. It's merely one study, but it focuses on nearby MoCo which doesn't have the issues that DC currently has thanks to inclusionary zoning mandated by law starting in the 1970s.

Because of this, the fine citizens of Bethesda didn't go bananas when low income housing and shelters were developed in their Fancypants zip code.

Oh, and by the way, the study indicates that low income/formerly homeless families thrive when housed in the nicer areas.

Bump. Read this, haters.

Meh.

For one iit's mainly about low income families in subsidized public housing, as opposed to homeless.
Study says kids do best in areas where there's <20% FARMS. That rules out most of DC. Several other premises that don't quite work or apply for DC...

And let's not forget about the notorious and disturbing lack of consistency and reproducibility that is endemic to these types of social sciences studies in academia...

Um, they were formerly homeless families...that's how you get subsidized housing.

No, you can qualify for subsidized housing based on income without ever having been homeless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://tcf.org/assets/downloads/tcf-Schwartz.pdf

Read this. It's merely one study, but it focuses on nearby MoCo which doesn't have the issues that DC currently has thanks to inclusionary zoning mandated by law starting in the 1970s.

Because of this, the fine citizens of Bethesda didn't go bananas when low income housing and shelters were developed in their Fancypants zip code.

Oh, and by the way, the study indicates that low income/formerly homeless families thrive when housed in the nicer areas.

Bump. Read this, haters.

Meh.

For one iit's mainly about low income families in subsidized public housing, as opposed to homeless.
Study says kids do best in areas where there's <20% FARMS. That rules out most of DC. Several other premises that don't quite work or apply for DC...

And let's not forget about the notorious and disturbing lack of consistency and reproducibility that is endemic to these types of social sciences studies in academia...

Most homeless families are not very different from other low income families. It's just that when they run into trouble paying rent, they have no one to borrow from or no place to go to live.

If they can't afford rent and have nobody to turn to for help, why in God's name stay in one of the most expensive cities in the entire nation? I grew up dirt poor including a brief stint homeless, but knew enough to recognize a bad situation and to find the first opportunity possible to get the hell out of it to find something more workable and affordable. Apparently not everyone has that common sense.

Could be a job, or because they have friends and family that they rely on. Maybe not someone who can take them in, but still it's hard to move to a new place with no money, no job, and no family or friends.

I would never let a job that pays me so little that I can't afford rent to hold me down. Can't be all that good of a job if that's the case. And what good are friends and family if they let you end up homeless on the street? I would do whatever it takes to get the hell out of that situation, without a thought.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://tcf.org/assets/downloads/tcf-Schwartz.pdf

Read this. It's merely one study, but it focuses on nearby MoCo which doesn't have the issues that DC currently has thanks to inclusionary zoning mandated by law starting in the 1970s.

Because of this, the fine citizens of Bethesda didn't go bananas when low income housing and shelters were developed in their Fancypants zip code.

Oh, and by the way, the study indicates that low income/formerly homeless families thrive when housed in the nicer areas.

Bump. Read this, haters.

Meh.

For one iit's mainly about low income families in subsidized public housing, as opposed to homeless.
Study says kids do best in areas where there's <20% FARMS. That rules out most of DC. Several other premises that don't quite work or apply for DC...

And let's not forget about the notorious and disturbing lack of consistency and reproducibility that is endemic to these types of social sciences studies in academia...

Most homeless families are not very different from other low income families. It's just that when they run into trouble paying rent, they have no one to borrow from or no place to go to live.

If they can't afford rent and have nobody to turn to for help, why in God's name stay in one of the most expensive cities in the entire nation? I grew up dirt poor including a brief stint homeless, but knew enough to recognize a bad situation and to find the first opportunity possible to get the hell out of it to find something more workable and affordable. Apparently not everyone has that common sense.

Could be a job, or because they have friends and family that they rely on. Maybe not someone who can take them in, but still it's hard to move to a new place with no money, no job, and no family or friends.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://tcf.org/assets/downloads/tcf-Schwartz.pdf

Read this. It's merely one study, but it focuses on nearby MoCo which doesn't have the issues that DC currently has thanks to inclusionary zoning mandated by law starting in the 1970s.

Because of this, the fine citizens of Bethesda didn't go bananas when low income housing and shelters were developed in their Fancypants zip code.

Oh, and by the way, the study indicates that low income/formerly homeless families thrive when housed in the nicer areas.

Bump. Read this, haters.

Meh.

For one iit's mainly about low income families in subsidized public housing, as opposed to homeless.
Study says kids do best in areas where there's <20% FARMS. That rules out most of DC. Several other premises that don't quite work or apply for DC...

And let's not forget about the notorious and disturbing lack of consistency and reproducibility that is endemic to these types of social sciences studies in academia...

Most homeless families are not very different from other low income families. It's just that when they run into trouble paying rent, they have no one to borrow from or no place to go to live.

If they can't afford rent and have nobody to turn to for help, why in God's name stay in one of the most expensive cities in the entire nation? I grew up dirt poor including a brief stint homeless, but knew enough to recognize a bad situation and to find the first opportunity possible to get the hell out of it to find something more workable and affordable. Apparently not everyone has that common sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://tcf.org/assets/downloads/tcf-Schwartz.pdf

Read this. It's merely one study, but it focuses on nearby MoCo which doesn't have the issues that DC currently has thanks to inclusionary zoning mandated by law starting in the 1970s.

Because of this, the fine citizens of Bethesda didn't go bananas when low income housing and shelters were developed in their Fancypants zip code.

Oh, and by the way, the study indicates that low income/formerly homeless families thrive when housed in the nicer areas.

Bump. Read this, haters.

Meh.

For one iit's mainly about low income families in subsidized public housing, as opposed to homeless.
Study says kids do best in areas where there's <20% FARMS. That rules out most of DC. Several other premises that don't quite work or apply for DC...

And let's not forget about the notorious and disturbing lack of consistency and reproducibility that is endemic to these types of social sciences studies in academia...

Most homeless families are not very different from other low income families. It's just that when they run into trouble paying rent, they have no one to borrow from or no place to go to live.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://tcf.org/assets/downloads/tcf-Schwartz.pdf

Read this. It's merely one study, but it focuses on nearby MoCo which doesn't have the issues that DC currently has thanks to inclusionary zoning mandated by law starting in the 1970s.

Because of this, the fine citizens of Bethesda didn't go bananas when low income housing and shelters were developed in their Fancypants zip code.

Oh, and by the way, the study indicates that low income/formerly homeless families thrive when housed in the nicer areas.

Bump. Read this, haters.

Meh.

For one iit's mainly about low income families in subsidized public housing, as opposed to homeless.
Study says kids do best in areas where there's <20% FARMS. That rules out most of DC. Several other premises that don't quite work or apply for DC...

And let's not forget about the notorious and disturbing lack of consistency and reproducibility that is endemic to these types of social sciences studies in academia...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://tcf.org/assets/downloads/tcf-Schwartz.pdf

Read this. It's merely one study, but it focuses on nearby MoCo which doesn't have the issues that DC currently has thanks to inclusionary zoning mandated by law starting in the 1970s.

Because of this, the fine citizens of Bethesda didn't go bananas when low income housing and shelters were developed in their Fancypants zip code.

Oh, and by the way, the study indicates that low income/formerly homeless families thrive when housed in the nicer areas.

Bump. Read this, haters.

Meh.

For one iit's mainly about low income families in subsidized public housing, as opposed to homeless.
Study says kids do best in areas where there's <20% FARMS. That rules out most of DC. Several other premises that don't quite work or apply for DC...

And let's not forget about the notorious and disturbing lack of consistency and reproducibility that is endemic to these types of social sciences studies in academia...

Um, they were formerly homeless families...that's how you get subsidized housing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My favorite was the hearings on the bill where homeless testified how they would prefer to be in ward 3 bc of the amenities and safety. They stopped just short of asking for the granite counters, stainless steel appliances and open kitchen concept.

Please. You sound vile. Poor people are entitled to safety, transit, and a placet O buy groceries and toiletries just like rich people. Surely you can distinguish between those needs and granite counters.

So the poor and the rich are entitled to safety and amenities but those of us in between are shit out of luck...

You have the same entitlements. And if you are not receiving them where you live, you have the freedom to vote out your elected officials or move.

Alternatively, if you think poor people have it so great, I'm sure there is a family in DC General that will trade places with you.

There - you just said it. I "have to move" but the poor and the rich don't. There's the problem. That's the entitlement we don't all have. I can't afford to live wherever I want. So why should the poor be given the right and the ability to live in a city or neighborhood that the rest of us can't afford?

If you impoverish yourself and your family or commit a violent felony, then you may get an apartment in ward 3.

"violent felony"? You know these are homeless families with children, right? That many of them have jobs, right? That they are being given temporary housing while they work towards a permanent place to live?

Being homeless doesn't mean someone is a violent felon. It doesn't mean they are lazy. It sure as hell does not mean they are any less of a human being then me, or you, or any of the people around us. For pete's sake, have this many of you lost this much control over your humanity and your sense of decency towards your common man?

Not the PP. Stop hand-wringing. PP knows that the shelters will not be properly policed. She knows it means that a lot of homeless folk are homeless due to bad decision-making and that doesn't stop once those folk are moved to Ward 3. There is nothing in this provision that helps change the behavior of those moving in - where are the provisions for the counselors of all kinds that should be intensively helping these folk? Where is the extra policing that will keep away undesirables that some of these women might have chosen for a partner, or the drug dealers that will inevitably start trolling? What investment in labor will these people in the shelter have to make, in order to keep the place looking nice?

This tells me that the best thing for homeless people is to live in a shelter right next to you. You seem so intent on setting them straight that if they live next to you, you will vigorously advocate for personnel and services to make sure the shelter is done right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://tcf.org/assets/downloads/tcf-Schwartz.pdf

Read this. It's merely one study, but it focuses on nearby MoCo which doesn't have the issues that DC currently has thanks to inclusionary zoning mandated by law starting in the 1970s.

Because of this, the fine citizens of Bethesda didn't go bananas when low income housing and shelters were developed in their Fancypants zip code.

Oh, and by the way, the study indicates that low income/formerly homeless families thrive when housed in the nicer areas.

Bump. Read this, haters.

Meh.

For one iit's mainly about low income families in subsidized public housing, as opposed to homeless.
Study says kids do best in areas where there's <20% FARMS. That rules out most of DC. Several other premises that don't quite work or apply for DC...

And let's not forget about the notorious and disturbing lack of consistency and reproducibility that is endemic to these types of social sciences studies in academia...

Anonymous wrote:Can you imagine the first time a CP resident sees a homeless person sleeping in Rosedale Conservancy? It's going to sound like a 4 alarm fire.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://tcf.org/assets/downloads/tcf-Schwartz.pdf

Read this. It's merely one study, but it focuses on nearby MoCo which doesn't have the issues that DC currently has thanks to inclusionary zoning mandated by law starting in the 1970s.

Because of this, the fine citizens of Bethesda didn't go bananas when low income housing and shelters were developed in their Fancypants zip code.

Oh, and by the way, the study indicates that low income/formerly homeless families thrive when housed in the nicer areas.

Bump. Read this, haters.

Anonymous wrote:https://tcf.org/assets/downloads/tcf-Schwartz.pdf

Read this. It's merely one study, but it focuses on nearby MoCo which doesn't have the issues that DC currently has thanks to inclusionary zoning mandated by law starting in the 1970s.

Because of this, the fine citizens of Bethesda didn't go bananas when low income housing and shelters were developed in their Fancypants zip code.

Oh, and by the way, the study indicates that low income/formerly homeless families thrive when housed in the nicer areas.

Anonymous wrote:But you will at CP and that's the point I'm focusing on. A lot of people - not just residents, but their families- are going to have access to things they have not had before which will help them develop and improve society. I'm not saying there will not be some rough patches but we are strongest when our communities are diverse and reflect everyone's values.