Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
“Housing first” is an abject failure. It should be “services first.” There’s a fundamental disconnect between reality and the people driving homelessness policy. The vast majority of people living on the street have mental health issues or drug issues or both. That’s the reality. But the “housing first” people want you to believe that it’s just a rough patch or a little bad luck.


Literally every reputable study on reducing homelessness has definitively proven housing first is by far the most effective strategy.

Just because you're a horrible person and can't stand the idea of someone less fortunate than you getting something you're not getting doesn't change reality.

Housing First in DC is a disaster---there is no requirement for recipients to avail themselves of services, even if enough services were available, which they aren't. DC's landlord tenant laws are so one-sided that a landlord has no recourse against tenants exhibiting anti-social and dangerous behaviors---so long as the rent is being paid (which it is, with a voucher) then a landlord cannot evict, no matter the egregiousness of the behavior. Nor can landlords limit the number of voucher tenants they accept---to do so violates the current language of DC's Human Rights law, which precludes discrimination on source of income. So private building owners are forced by Housing First into becoming unregulated, unsupervised mental institutions. The staff in these buildings is regularly screamed at, spat on, and forced to endure behaviors that should not have to be tolerated, including physical assault. I wish every do-gooder who has posted in support of Housing First in this thread had to spend a week living in one of these troubled buildings and then report back on how they felt.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Housing first” is an abject failure. It should be “services first.” There’s a fundamental disconnect between reality and the people driving homelessness policy. The vast majority of people living on the street have mental health issues or drug issues or both. That’s the reality. But the “housing first” people want you to believe that it’s just a rough patch or a little bad luck.

Literally every reputable study on reducing homelessness has definitively proven housing first is by far the most effective strategy.

Just because you're a horrible person and can't stand the idea of someone less fortunate than you getting something you're not getting doesn't change reality.

But studies need to consider multiple dependent variables, not only reducing homelessness.

LOL this is dog whistle for "but why didn't they consider the fact that I hate seeing homeless people in my neighborhood!?"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Housing first” is an abject failure. It should be “services first.” There’s a fundamental disconnect between reality and the people driving homelessness policy. The vast majority of people living on the street have mental health issues or drug issues or both. That’s the reality. But the “housing first” people want you to believe that it’s just a rough patch or a little bad luck.

The idea is that the services would be more effective if people weren’t living on the street, though. But both should go hand in hand.

Anonymous wrote:Good.

Public housing should be spread equally across all wards. Glad to see Ward 3 is finally making baby steps towards carrying its fair share.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Housing first” is an abject failure. It should be “services first.” There’s a fundamental disconnect between reality and the people driving homelessness policy. The vast majority of people living on the street have mental health issues or drug issues or both. That’s the reality. But the “housing first” people want you to believe that it’s just a rough patch or a little bad luck.

Literally every reputable study on reducing homelessness has definitively proven housing first is by far the most effective strategy.

Just because you're a horrible person and can't stand the idea of someone less fortunate than you getting something you're not getting doesn't change reality.

But studies need to consider multiple dependent variables, not only reducing homelessness.

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks for the personal attack but I’m not concerned about someone getting something I’m not getting (I guess you’re talking about free or subsidized housing? Not sure but I don’t want that anyway). What I am concerned about is people not getting something they need (services, ideally in an institutional setting where they can’t be declined) but instead getting something that someone in an ivory tower thinks they need (an apartment on Connecticut Ave).


The Ward 3 councilman has refused to request a moratorium on new voucher residents. Until he changes his position or is unseated we will get more of this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Housing first” is an abject failure. It should be “services first.” There’s a fundamental disconnect between reality and the people driving homelessness policy. The vast majority of people living on the street have mental health issues or drug issues or both. That’s the reality. But the “housing first” people want you to believe that it’s just a rough patch or a little bad luck.

Literally every reputable study on reducing homelessness has definitively proven housing first is by far the most effective strategy.

Just because you're a horrible person and can't stand the idea of someone less fortunate than you getting something you're not getting doesn't change reality.

Thanks for the personal attack but I’m not concerned about someone getting something I’m not getting (I guess you’re talking about free or subsidized housing? Not sure but I don’t want that anyway). What I am concerned about is people not getting something they need (services, ideally in an institutional setting where they can’t be declined) but instead getting something that someone in an ivory tower thinks they need (an apartment on Connecticut Ave).

Anonymous wrote:
“Housing first” is an abject failure. It should be “services first.” There’s a fundamental disconnect between reality and the people driving homelessness policy. The vast majority of people living on the street have mental health issues or drug issues or both. That’s the reality. But the “housing first” people want you to believe that it’s just a rough patch or a little bad luck.


Literally every reputable study on reducing homelessness has definitively proven housing first is by far the most effective strategy.

Just because you're a horrible person and can't stand the idea of someone less fortunate than you getting something you're not getting doesn't change reality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope they make a mental health screening before accepting possible tenants.

The Housing First policy applied by the DCHA has been a disaster. It has destroyed the peaceful living of so many communities around DC because they populated those communities with people with severe mental issues.

Destroyed? Highly doubtful. I'd much rather see them housed than living in tents on the street.

I guess you has been living in a bubble. There are so many cases of people with mental issues assaulting condo's staff or residents. There other cases with people with criminal records (sexual offenders, pedophiles, etc.) living in condos where there are children. Nobody wants to have a sexual offender neighbor specially if you have children. There are mental facilities for those kind of people.

What is the problem with screening people for mental health issues or criminal record before inserting them in a community?

I have no problem with Affordable housing, but the way that is has been implemented by the DCHA is a disaster.

Here are some examples of many:

"D.C. housed the homeless in upscale apartments. It hasn’t gone as planned."
https://www.reddit.com/r/washingtondc/comments/be19wp/dc_housed_the_homeless_in_upscale_apartments_it/?rdt=50224

"Apartment updates: Police calls rise, case managers remain absent, and tenant leaders continue to press for change"
https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/home-front/apartment-updates-police-calls-rise-case-managers-remain-absent-and-tenant-leaders-continue-to-press-for-change/

"MPD referred three Van Ness apartment buildings to DC AG’s “nuisance” property office"
"https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/news/mpd-referred-three-van-ness-apartment-buildings-to-dc-ags-nuisance-property-office/

"Residents and landlords speak at an apartment-focused Council hearing on crime"
https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/home-front/residents-and-landlords-speak-at-an-apartment-focused-council-hearing-on-crime/

This. My elderly aunt moved out of one of those buildings because life became unbearable with constant noise and pot smoking in public places from the people who do not behave in civil ways and violate the rules of the community. She moved to a garden apartment in a suburban area outside of Beltway, not ideal, but they have respectful people around and don't have to deal with degeneracy. People with addictions and mental health issues do not belong in the residential communities with children, elderly and anyone who just wants safety and peaceful living. They shouldn't be dumping degenerates in the midst of the nice residential communities. People who need rehabilitation are not going to get it this way either, they need to be sent to other facilities where it can happen.

The way it's been done in DC is another example of suicidal empathy. Help for lower income people who do work or live off SS/disability and just want the same thing (Peace and safety) and access to better amenities but cannot afford it is different than dumping a bunch of tent inhabitants (with addictions and mental illness needing treatment) or drug/criminal element from the hood (acting out their thug fantasies and smoking weed everywhere) into the buildings and in the midst of the residential areas full of people who have a different set of rules.

No, it's pushed by idiots like Frumin and the poster above who don;t have to suffer under these policies. They get to feel good about themselves while others take the brunt of the results.

Anonymous wrote:I love the histrionics from the people who are conflating "affordable housing" with "homeless shelters"

The proposal here is for affordable housing, not a homeless shelter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Housing first” is an abject failure. It should be “services first.” There’s a fundamental disconnect between reality and the people driving homelessness policy. The vast majority of people living on the street have mental health issues or drug issues or both. That’s the reality. But the “housing first” people want you to believe that it’s just a rough patch or a little bad luck.

Literally every reputable study on reducing homelessness has definitively proven housing first is by far the most effective strategy.

Just because you're a horrible person and can't stand the idea of someone less fortunate than you getting something you're not getting doesn't change reality.

Anonymous wrote:Honest question, not trying to be snarky, but why can’t these people just get jobs? There is s labor shortage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Housing first” is an abject failure. It should be “services first.” There’s a fundamental disconnect between reality and the people driving homelessness policy. The vast majority of people living on the street have mental health issues or drug issues or both. That’s the reality. But the “housing first” people want you to believe that it’s just a rough patch or a little bad luck.

Literally every reputable study on reducing homelessness has definitively proven housing first is by far the most effective strategy.

Just because you're a horrible person and can't stand the idea of someone less fortunate than you getting something you're not getting doesn't change reality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Housing first” is an abject failure. It should be “services first.” There’s a fundamental disconnect between reality and the people driving homelessness policy. The vast majority of people living on the street have mental health issues or drug issues or both. That’s the reality. But the “housing first” people want you to believe that it’s just a rough patch or a little bad luck.

Literally every reputable study on reducing homelessness has definitively proven housing first is by far the most effective strategy.

Just because you're a horrible person and can't stand the idea of someone less fortunate than you getting something you're not getting doesn't change reality.

Anonymous wrote:“Housing first” is an abject failure. It should be “services first.” There’s a fundamental disconnect between reality and the people driving homelessness policy. The vast majority of people living on the street have mental health issues or drug issues or both. That’s the reality. But the “housing first” people want you to believe that it’s just a rough patch or a little bad luck.