Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks, when you talk about building housing for the unhoused, what are you talking about? Homeless shelters free housing? Who is going to pay for all this? If you become a mecca for free housing, it will just attract more people who want free housing. But who pays for it. Taxpayers will only stay in a jurisdiction so long if their taxes are going to house the unhoused rather than paying for excellent schools, police protection, etc. There is a balance that needs to be struck. I think our goal should be getting the unhoused into jobs so they can pay rent and taxes.

Agree with you, but your last sentence is not going to be possible, except for the smallest percentage of people, because a very large number of “unhoused” have moderate to severe preexisting mental health challenges, and various substance dependences, that they simply cannot get themselves out of, even if they had the clarity and determination to do so, which many don’t, without significant investment and time - by them and by those who will pay for it. And even then, for many it will not be possible. Building housing won’t work, it doesn’t solve the real challenge.

Then they should be in a shelter or halfway house where services can be provided -- not in private apartments.

It's not a question of deserving. If they are unable to care for themselves due to drugs or mental health, if they are unable to get some job to pay some portion of the rent. Yes, I think they need to be in some sort of communal setting so they can get the services they need to become functioning members of society. Isn't that the goal, even if it takes some time?

People could steal their possessions. You have a private dwelling, do they deserve less than you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks, when you talk about building housing for the unhoused, what are you talking about? Homeless shelters free housing? Who is going to pay for all this? If you become a mecca for free housing, it will just attract more people who want free housing. But who pays for it. Taxpayers will only stay in a jurisdiction so long if their taxes are going to house the unhoused rather than paying for excellent schools, police protection, etc. There is a balance that needs to be struck. I think our goal should be getting the unhoused into jobs so they can pay rent and taxes.

Agree with you, but your last sentence is not going to be possible, except for the smallest percentage of people, because a very large number of “unhoused” have moderate to severe preexisting mental health challenges, and various substance dependences, that they simply cannot get themselves out of, even if they had the clarity and determination to do so, which many don’t, without significant investment and time - by them and by those who will pay for it. And even then, for many it will not be possible. Building housing won’t work, it doesn’t solve the real challenge.

Then they should be in a shelter or halfway house where services can be provided -- not in private apartments.

People could steal their possessions. You have a private dwelling, do they deserve less than you?

People are currently stealing our possessions in our private dwellings. Is that the goal? Make it all equally bad?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks, when you talk about building housing for the unhoused, what are you talking about? Homeless shelters free housing? Who is going to pay for all this? If you become a mecca for free housing, it will just attract more people who want free housing. But who pays for it. Taxpayers will only stay in a jurisdiction so long if their taxes are going to house the unhoused rather than paying for excellent schools, police protection, etc. There is a balance that needs to be struck. I think our goal should be getting the unhoused into jobs so they can pay rent and taxes.

Agree with you, but your last sentence is not going to be possible, except for the smallest percentage of people, because a very large number of “unhoused” have moderate to severe preexisting mental health challenges, and various substance dependences, that they simply cannot get themselves out of, even if they had the clarity and determination to do so, which many don’t, without significant investment and time - by them and by those who will pay for it. And even then, for many it will not be possible. Building housing won’t work, it doesn’t solve the real challenge.

Then they should be in a shelter or halfway house where services can be provided -- not in private apartments.

People could steal their possessions. You have a private dwelling, do they deserve less than you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks, when you talk about building housing for the unhoused, what are you talking about? Homeless shelters free housing? Who is going to pay for all this? If you become a mecca for free housing, it will just attract more people who want free housing. But who pays for it. Taxpayers will only stay in a jurisdiction so long if their taxes are going to house the unhoused rather than paying for excellent schools, police protection, etc. There is a balance that needs to be struck. I think our goal should be getting the unhoused into jobs so they can pay rent and taxes.

Agree with you, but your last sentence is not going to be possible, except for the smallest percentage of people, because a very large number of “unhoused” have moderate to severe preexisting mental health challenges, and various substance dependences, that they simply cannot get themselves out of, even if they had the clarity and determination to do so, which many don’t, without significant investment and time - by them and by those who will pay for it. And even then, for many it will not be possible. Building housing won’t work, it doesn’t solve the real challenge.

Then they should be in a shelter or halfway house where services can be provided -- not in private apartments.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks, when you talk about building housing for the unhoused, what are you talking about? Homeless shelters free housing? Who is going to pay for all this? If you become a mecca for free housing, it will just attract more people who want free housing. But who pays for it. Taxpayers will only stay in a jurisdiction so long if their taxes are going to house the unhoused rather than paying for excellent schools, police protection, etc. There is a balance that needs to be struck. I think our goal should be getting the unhoused into jobs so they can pay rent and taxes.

Agree with you, but your last sentence is not going to be possible, except for the smallest percentage of people, because a very large number of “unhoused” have moderate to severe preexisting mental health challenges, and various substance dependences, that they simply cannot get themselves out of, even if they had the clarity and determination to do so, which many don’t, without significant investment and time - by them and by those who will pay for it. And even then, for many it will not be possible. Building housing won’t work, it doesn’t solve the real challenge.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The amount of time and money this city has spent on housing drug addicts in luxury apartments and building unused bike lanes and generally making the quality of life of taxpayers worse is unprecedented. Everything this Mayor and Council touches comes out worse. I can’t believe my neighbors keep voting for these clowns.

The lack of adequate wraparound services has made the problem worse.

The lack of the realization that wraparound services are not going to be the answer has made the problem worse.

What is your answer, exactly WRT homelessness in DC? No services, no tents, no putting them in apartments.

Fine, what's your magic bullet? Shoot them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s going to go into Capitol One arena??

Mixed use. DC can use the business taxes to subsidize housing. Win win.

But the immediate and overwhelming need in DC is to provide homes for the unhoused, which is what should be built where the Capitol One arena now stands.

Anonymous wrote:What’s going to go into Capitol One arena??

Anonymous wrote:I actually think this is a decent plan, and I think the comparisons to the 80s are a bit premature. I go downtown often and while there are more closed store fronts and fewer people than 2017 (the last time I worked there daily), it's not like some hellscape. In fact I also see improvements-- I used to work near Franklin Square, and it's much nicer there now with the renovation to the square and the changes to the bus system around the square. There are actually fewer homeless people in the square now than there used to be, believe it or not.

I see two flaws with the current plan:

1) It underestimates the challenge of chapter inverting a lot of downtown buildings to housing. I think people recognize it's going to be more than retrofitting these buildings, but I've yet to see plans that explain what exactly will be done. I guess you need developers involved in that step, but I wonder if the city can offer incentives or assistance with the process, because it isn't going to be cheap or easy.

2) The plan does not incorporate enough tourism. I think this is a missed opportunity. The proximity of downtown to the museums and the mall, as well as tourist attractions like the White House, make it prime real estate for hotels and other tourist-focused businesses. I know there are a lot of hotels there now, but most are high end. I'd love to see the city encouraging hotel concepts that might cater to families and tour groups. Micro rooms or the family-style rooms you find in some European cities (some have bunk beds, or three twins, or other set ups that more convenient for group travel). They wouldn't be budget priced, but by offering ways for groups or families to stay downtown more affordable, you could attract some of the tourism that currently stays in NoVa suburbs, comes in on buses, and leaves on them too. And that would bring in not only more revenue from hotels but also capture more of the tourist spending that currently leaves the city.

I also think many of the existing plans to create more green space, walkable shipping districts, and dining centers, will be a major draw for tourists.

If the goal is tax revenue, hotels offer higher ROI than housing, so mixing more of that into the plan can help make up for the loss in revenue from commercial real estate as the office buildings empty out.

Anonymous wrote:I actually think this is a decent plan, and I think the comparisons to the 80s are a bit premature. I go downtown often and while there are more closed store fronts and fewer people than 2017 (the last time I worked there daily), it's not like some hellscape. In fact I also see improvements-- I used to work near Franklin Square, and it's much nicer there now with the renovation to the square and the changes to the bus system around the square. There are actually fewer homeless people in the square now than there used to be, believe it or not.

I see two flaws with the current plan:

1) It underestimates the challenge of chapter inverting a lot of downtown buildings to housing. I think people recognize it's going to be more than retrofitting these buildings, but I've yet to see plans that explain what exactly will be done. I guess you need developers involved in that step, but I wonder if the city can offer incentives or assistance with the process, because it isn't going to be cheap or easy.

2) The plan does not incorporate enough tourism. I think this is a missed opportunity. The proximity of downtown to the museums and the mall, as well as tourist attractions like the White House, make it prime real estate for hotels and other tourist-focused businesses. I know there are a lot of hotels there now, but most are high end. I'd love to see the city encouraging hotel concepts that might cater to families and tour groups. Micro rooms or the family-style rooms you find in some European cities (some have bunk beds, or three twins, or other set ups that more convenient for group travel). They wouldn't be budget priced, but by offering ways for groups or families to stay downtown more affordable, you could attract some of the tourism that currently stays in NoVa suburbs, comes in on buses, and leaves on them too. And that would bring in not only more revenue from hotels but also capture more of the tourist spending that currently leaves the city.

I also think many of the existing plans to create more green space, walkable shipping districts, and dining centers, will be a major draw for tourists.

If the goal is tax revenue, hotels offer higher ROI than housing, so mixing more of that into the plan can help make up for the loss in revenue from commercial real estate as the office buildings empty out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s going to go into Capitol One arena??

Mixed use. DC can use the business taxes to subsidize housing. Win win.

But the immediate and overwhelming need in DC is to provide homes for the unhoused, which is what should be built where the Capitol One arena now stands.

You know someone has to pay for all this free stuff.

It never occurs to proponents of subsidized housing. And the cycle will continue - nobody wants to invest in downtown because of the crime and the homeless. Hence, no tax revenue to fund these wonderful, “look at me, I care” ideas.

Anonymous wrote:80s DC, the good old days. Only way DC improves is if a Republican or Independent led federal government takeover occurs.