Anonymous wrote:You area all now seeing the problems with 'fairness'. Fairness actually means bringing those who did everything right, down, to equalize those who haven't. That's not actually fair, now is it?

There is an individual who did everything right - who worked hard, scrapped, saved - to ensure he/she would not continue the poverty cycle. Instead of lifting that person up as an example, the 'fairness advocates' did their best to demean that individual's accomplishments.

This type of progressive liberalism only works when the group buys into it or when it's forced on them. The pushback you see is not due to 'racism', 'bias', etc. It's due to INDIVIDUALS who do not want to participate in their own demise. This is not selfish or racist, or whatever other names you want to throw out there. It's due to the basic UNfairness of the program overall - the stripping away of individual rights for the 'common good'. If that sounds a bit like Communism? Well....it is....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not the PP. However, if you are charging all D.C. Residents with culture change and breaking the cycles of dysfunction (a worthy goal but a little paternalistic to suggest that Ward 3"is responsible for Ward XYZ) my question is where is the money best spent. Yes, I think most homeless families in DC live in deep dysfunction. I think they need basic, well managed services that meet the needs of as many as possible, not lattes. And if we have money left over it should go to the schools (including charters like KIPP) and mixed income housing in new developments (like the waterfront) that will help lift these families out of poverty. The fact that Bowsers original plan was rushed though, 600 million over 30 years, left the city with nothing, and would reach a fraction of people who need it -shows me she is not serious about deploying city resources (my tax dollars) well. Tweaking and revising a ridiculous plan does not satisfy me. The plan should be scrapped and start over.

"Not lattes???"

Sorry but all you want scrapped is the proposed locations. I am quite certain your conversion to advocacy for the homeless is about as recent as the announcement of Bowser's plan. Come to think of it, if putting a homeless shelter in your neighborhood causes you to be concerned about solving the larger problem, then it is a brilliant move. You care when you have to live next to them.

Anonymous wrote:Not the PP. However, if you are charging all D.C. Residents with culture change and breaking the cycles of dysfunction (a worthy goal but a little paternalistic to suggest that Ward 3"is responsible for Ward XYZ) my question is where is the money best spent. Yes, I think most homeless families in DC live in deep dysfunction. I think they need basic, well managed services that meet the needs of as many as possible, not lattes. And if we have money left over it should go to the schools (including charters like KIPP) and mixed income housing in new developments (like the waterfront) that will help lift these families out of poverty. The fact that Bowsers original plan was rushed though, 600 million over 30 years, left the city with nothing, and would reach a fraction of people who need it -shows me she is not serious about deploying city resources (my tax dollars) well. Tweaking and revising a ridiculous plan does not satisfy me. The plan should be scrapped and start over.

Anonymous wrote:Not the PP. However, if you are charging all D.C. Residents with culture change and breaking the cycles of dysfunction (a worthy goal but a little paternalistic to suggest that Ward 3"is responsible for Ward XYZ) my question is where is the money best spent. Yes, I think most homeless families in DC live in deep dysfunction. I think they need basic, well managed services that meet the needs of as many as possible, not lattes. And if we have money left over it should go to the schools (including charters like KIPP) and mixed income housing in new developments (like the waterfront) that will help lift these families out of poverty. The fact that Bowsers original plan was rushed though, 600 million over 30 years, left the city with nothing, and would reach a fraction of people who need it -shows me she is not serious about deploying city resources (my tax dollars) well. Tweaking and revising a ridiculous plan does not satisfy me. The plan should be scrapped and start over.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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...

Kids will be there 120 days. How do any of these statistics apply? Yes, it would apply to long term housing. Is that what this is? A new apartment block off Wisc?

Guess what? They kids can opt to stay in the nice school even after they leave the shelter after 120. It's their legal right.

Google NAEHCY to learn about the education rights of homeless children.

Not if they end up in permanent housing elsewhere.

And again, there isn't that much affordable permanent housing stock in DC, and certainly not many schools with <20% FARMS in DC. They would be far better off being relocated to other locations that can better meet their needs for schools, jobs, and affordable cost of living than staying in DC.

????

Um, Greyhound Therapy isn't an option.

DC residents---even those experiencing homelessness and struggling to secure employment, child care and housing---should not be relocated elsewhere...particularly since they are a product of the city's schools, child welfare and juvenile justice systems, etc.

Being a product of DC's broken system is a big part of why DC has ongoing multigenerational poverty. The cycles need to be broken. As long as those kids are still surrounded by 80-90% FARMS, poor achievement levels in literacy, math, etc and high dropout rates as is the case with most DCPS schools not much will ever change for them.

u

True, but we are not their parents and they are not our responsibility. In what sense is it fair for a single mom to have 5 kids by 5 men and then bring the whole clan over to Ward 3 on our dime so that Ward 3 can get a close up of the deleterious effects of illiterate children having illiterate children. For Chech that is Shanri la, but for her constituents not so much.cheh is every bit as revolting and nearly as clueless as that rocket scientist Yvette Alexander in Ward 7.

Anonymous wrote:

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...

Kids will be there 120 days. How do any of these statistics apply? Yes, it would apply to long term housing. Is that what this is? A new apartment block off Wisc?

Guess what? They kids can opt to stay in the nice school even after they leave the shelter after 120. It's their legal right.

Google NAEHCY to learn about the education rights of homeless children.

Not if they end up in permanent housing elsewhere.

And again, there isn't that much affordable permanent housing stock in DC, and certainly not many schools with <20% FARMS in DC. They would be far better off being relocated to other locations that can better meet their needs for schools, jobs, and affordable cost of living than staying in DC.

????

Um, Greyhound Therapy isn't an option.

DC residents---even those experiencing homelessness and struggling to secure employment, child care and housing---should not be relocated elsewhere...particularly since they are a product of the city's schools, child welfare and juvenile justice systems, etc.

Being a product of DC's broken system is a big part of why DC has ongoing multigenerational poverty. The cycles need to be broken. As long as those kids are still surrounded by 80-90% FARMS, poor achievement levels in literacy, math, etc and high dropout rates as is the case with most DCPS schools not much will ever change for them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, without blaming the homeless here, have you all considered that the reason for putting a shelter in Ward 3 is for basic fairness for people who live in other wards?

Go ahead and acknowledge all the terrible things you want about the homeless.

Then ask yourself: if they are so bad, is it fair that they all go in one area of town - whether it is Ward 7, Ward 5, or Ward 3.

Of course not. If you believe that a homeless shelter will cause problems - crime, drug dealers, school overcrowding, whatever the concern may be - then no taxpaying, homeowning, citizens of the District - regardless of what ward they live in - should be forced to deal with 100% of the negative externalities.

There is no perfect solution here, but given the above, the most equitable solution is to spread out the homeless families in small shelters all over the city.

So reframe your thinking - putting a shelter in Ward 3 is not about what the homeless families want (or arguably about what they need), but it is about basic equity and about what taxpayers and homeowners all over the city want - to not have 100% of the burden of the homeless in their community.

Sorry, but how is it good public policy to take extreme social problems, including drug abuse, street crime, etc., and introduce them into heretofore relatively safe areas that haven't had those problems? It's like saying that since Ward 8 is plagued with a lot of violent crime, DC should provide free Uber rides to street criminals so they can ply their predatory trade in neighborhoods with low crime rates, just to spread crime around in the name of "fairness". (That is, assuming that the Uber drivers aren't robbed on the way across town.) It's really a hare-brained scheme, motivated by DC's version of the politics of resentment, Bowser's way of stoking the base. But not even our former Mayor-for-Life tried anything quite so foolish as this.

You're a real peach. It may come as a shock but there's already crime in Ward 3.

Anonymous wrote:OK, without blaming the homeless here, have you all considered that the reason for putting a shelter in Ward 3 is for basic fairness for people who live in other wards?

Go ahead and acknowledge all the terrible things you want about the homeless.

Then ask yourself: if they are so bad, is it fair that they all go in one area of town - whether it is Ward 7, Ward 5, or Ward 3.

Of course not. If you believe that a homeless shelter will cause problems - crime, drug dealers, school overcrowding, whatever the concern may be - then no taxpaying, homeowning, citizens of the District - regardless of what ward they live in - should be forced to deal with 100% of the negative externalities.

There is no perfect solution here, but given the above, the most equitable solution is to spread out the homeless families in small shelters all over the city.

So reframe your thinking - putting a shelter in Ward 3 is not about what the homeless families want (or arguably about what they need), but it is about basic equity and about what taxpayers and homeowners all over the city want - to not have 100% of the burden of the homeless in their community.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, without blaming the homeless here, have you all considered that the reason for putting a shelter in Ward 3 is for basic fairness for people who live in other wards?

Go ahead and acknowledge all the terrible things you want about the homeless.

Then ask yourself: if they are so bad, is it fair that they all go in one area of town - whether it is Ward 7, Ward 5, or Ward 3.

Of course not. If you believe that a homeless shelter will cause problems - crime, drug dealers, school overcrowding, whatever the concern may be - then no taxpaying, homeowning, citizens of the District - regardless of what ward they live in - should be forced to deal with 100% of the negative externalities.

There is no perfect solution here, but given the above, the most equitable solution is to spread out the homeless families in small shelters all over the city.

So reframe your thinking - putting a shelter in Ward 3 is not about what the homeless families want (or arguably about what they need), but it is about basic equity and about what taxpayers and homeowners all over the city want - to not have 100% of the burden of the homeless in their community.

Sorry, but how is it good public policy to take extreme social problems, including drug abuse, street crime, etc., and introduce them into heretofore relatively safe areas that haven't had those problems? It's like saying that since Ward 8 is plagued with a lot of violent crime, DC should provide free Uber rides to street criminals so they can ply their predatory trade in neighborhoods with low crime rates, just to spread crime around in the name of "fairness". (That is, assuming that the Uber drivers aren't robbed on the way across town.) It's really a hare-brained scheme, motivated by DC's version of the politics of resentment, Bowser's way of stoking the base. But not even our former Mayor-for-Life tried anything quite so foolish as this.