Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two thoughts. Not really related to one another.

1. It seems wasteful for the city to spend lots of money to buy/lease expensive NWDC property to create a shelter for a homeless population that doesn't seem very high in NWDC. I am pretty sure that Polish embassy site will cost $3-4 million just for the property, and it needs tons of renovations. I suppose it's just a politics thing, where the city has to waste that money so Bowser can show she is equally burdening all neighborhoods. Seems silly though. Number of shelters should be tied to the number of homeless in the neighborhood, in a logical and non-political world.

2. To ease neighbors fears, it seems the city could make a clear policy that removes permanently any shelter resident identified as engaged in misdeeds, and also has a clear trigger for the removal of the shelter entirely if it is associated with an increase in crime or other bad activity. Is the city willing to commit to complete removal of the shelter if the shelter becomes a drag on the neighborhood?

Why do so many people in Ward 3 seem to think they should be immune from city life problems? Homelessness is an issue that cities will always be dealing with, and if you don't want to deal with homelessness you might not want to live in a city.

Also, are you serious about removing a shelter for "bad activity"? These are HOMELESS CHILDREN - MOSTLY TODDLERS. If their mom gets into some sort of "bad activity" you want to throw them out onto the street?

This is somewhat correct but oversimplifies the situation. It's pretty likely that the "men" of these homeless women will start showing up/hanging out from time to time. So it won't be as rosy and pacific as you suggest.

Anonymous wrote:residents of Tenley are probably rushing to get City Church designated a historic property now.

It would seem that City Church and the former Polish embassy house are throw aways. The site that Cheh seems to favor is in McLean Gardens.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which site is best from a public transportation perspective?

River Road because it's practically on top of the Tenley Metro station.

As a Maryland resident, I would much prefer DC problems stay as far away from Bethesda as possible. RR is a bit too close for me.

As a DC resident, I would much prefer Maryland drivers stay the f*ck off our roads. I'm going to email Trump about the feasibility of building a yuuuuge, terrific wall along Eastern and Western Avenues.

Please do. What little crime there is in Bethesda will all but dry up after your wall is built.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two thoughts. Not really related to one another.

1. It seems wasteful for the city to spend lots of money to buy/lease expensive NWDC property to create a shelter for a homeless population that doesn't seem very high in NWDC. I am pretty sure that Polish embassy site will cost $3-4 million just for the property, and it needs tons of renovations. I suppose it's just a politics thing, where the city has to waste that money so Bowser can show she is equally burdening all neighborhoods. Seems silly though. Number of shelters should be tied to the number of homeless in the neighborhood, in a logical and non-political world.

2. To ease neighbors fears, it seems the city could make a clear policy that removes permanently any shelter resident identified as engaged in misdeeds, and also has a clear trigger for the removal of the shelter entirely if it is associated with an increase in crime or other bad activity. Is the city willing to commit to complete removal of the shelter if the shelter becomes a drag on the neighborhood?

Why do so many people in Ward 3 seem to think they should be immune from city life problems? Homelessness is an issue that cities will always be dealing with, and if you don't want to deal with homelessness you might not want to live in a city.

Also, are you serious about removing a shelter for "bad activity"? These are HOMELESS CHILDREN - MOSTLY TODDLERS. If their mom gets into some sort of "bad activity" you want to throw them out onto the street?

No one's saying anyone gets to be "immune from city life problems," but that doesn't mean anyone wants to create new problems. I recognize that homelessness is an issue DC and other cities deal with, and I agree DC should deal with it productively. Creating a shelter in a part of town that doesn't have much of a homeless population, and intentionally moving shelter residents across town into that shelter, doesn't make much sense to me. If those shelter residents cause problems (big IF, because I'm not assuming they will), then you've basically created a problem.

I'm very serious about removing people from the shelter for bad activity. Take a look at DC's current regulations for shelters - http://dccouncil.us/files/performance_oversight/Attachment323_DCGFamilySevereWeather2013_14.pdf . Look at item 5 on page 6, which describes a whole list of offenses that can lead to termination of shelter services, such as possessing a firearm on shelter premises, selling drugs on shelter premises, assault on shelter premises, or stealing on shelter premises. It seems pretty reasonable to deny shelter access to someone who's engaged in that sort of bad activity, doesn't it? Of course, DC and most other cities don't have a great history at enforcing such rules - https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/2014/03/27/a4711a1c-b5e1-11e3-b899-20667de76985_story.html - which describes people using drugs right in front of the shelter without any discipline. If you've ever spent any time around any shelter in any city, you know full well what sort of activities happen in the nearby alleys and bushes. And yeah, since this particular shelter (wherever it ends up getting sited) represents DC government creating a new shelter in a neighborhood and essentially importing a homeless population into that neighborhood, I do think it's reasonable to extend some of DC's existing "shelter rules" to cover the surrounding neighborhood. If a shelter resident gets caught with a gun at the shelter, or she assaults someone at the shelter, she gets kicked out. The shelter doesn't want her around if she's engaged in that sort of bad behavior. Well, if she's caught wandering the streets of a nearby neighborhood with a gun, or assaulting someone on a nearby street, I don't want her around my neighborhood either. So, yes, I do think that if Bowser is serious about gaining any small measure of community support for her plan to force shelters into new neighborhoods, then she ought to consider proving she's willing to ensure the shelter and its residents will be good neighbors by extending and enforcing the shelter rules.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:residents of Tenley are probably rushing to get City Church designated a historic property now.

It's already on the National Register of Historic Places:
http://thecitydc.org/contentpages/15662/6afc84b8-9712-4ac3-9da7-be7b8a8cfeb0/OurFacility.aspx

Then how is it available for this sort of development? Would it require pulling strings like they're trying to do with the current identified site?

Anonymous wrote:residents of Tenley are probably rushing to get City Church designated a historic property now.

It's already on the National Register of Historic Places:
http://thecitydc.org/contentpages/15662/6afc84b8-9712-4ac3-9da7-be7b8a8cfeb0/OurFacility.aspx

residents of Tenley are probably rushing to get City Church designated a historic property now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which site is best from a public transportation perspective?

River Road because it's practically on top of the Tenley Metro station.

As a Maryland resident, I would much prefer DC problems stay as far away from Bethesda as possible. RR is a bit too close for me.

As a DC resident, I would much prefer Maryland drivers stay the f*ck off our roads. I'm going to email Trump about the feasibility of building a yuuuuge, terrific wall along Eastern and Western Avenues.

Anonymous wrote:Two thoughts. Not really related to one another.

1. It seems wasteful for the city to spend lots of money to buy/lease expensive NWDC property to create a shelter for a homeless population that doesn't seem very high in NWDC. I am pretty sure that Polish embassy site will cost $3-4 million just for the property, and it needs tons of renovations. I suppose it's just a politics thing, where the city has to waste that money so Bowser can show she is equally burdening all neighborhoods. Seems silly though. Number of shelters should be tied to the number of homeless in the neighborhood, in a logical and non-political world.

2. To ease neighbors fears, it seems the city could make a clear policy that removes permanently any shelter resident identified as engaged in misdeeds, and also has a clear trigger for the removal of the shelter entirely if it is associated with an increase in crime or other bad activity. Is the city willing to commit to complete removal of the shelter if the shelter becomes a drag on the neighborhood?

Why do so many people in Ward 3 seem to think they should be immune from city life problems? Homelessness is an issue that cities will always be dealing with, and if you don't want to deal with homelessness you might not want to live in a city.

Also, are you serious about removing a shelter for "bad activity"? These are HOMELESS CHILDREN - MOSTLY TODDLERS. If their mom gets into some sort of "bad activity" you want to throw them out onto the street?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which site is best from a public transportation perspective?

River Road because it's practically on top of the Tenley Metro station.

As a Maryland resident, I would much prefer DC problems stay as far away from Bethesda as possible. RR is a bit too close for me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moving the NW site does not address many of the shortcomings of the plan discussed in the very long previous thread on this topic. There many questioned why the city should spend money putting up special buildings (and then paying again to lease them back from the developers) to temporarily house homeless families that purposely had features like dorm style living arrangements, communal bathrooms--with two bathtubs for 40 people for a population consisting heavily of children, and only common kitchens.

One PP there made a much more sensible suggestion that the city simply buy existing small multifamily housing units and put six to seven families in them with one or two resident social workers.

Alas, that proposal does not include a revenue stream for the developers, whom Bowser is banking on for her re-elex.

+1. Will they Council please step up and fiscalize what is going on?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The space currently tapped for this is right on Wisconsin which is high traffic and very dense. The Idaho Ave spot is nestled in a neighborhood. Much better.

My thought is that the Wisconsin space will be fought over tooth and nail by developers.

Someone told me part of the push behind Wisconsin Avenue site is that it allows the developers to circumvent the current SFH zoning for that parcel.

Anonymous wrote:I personally think the Idaho Ave site is genius. There is a playground right there. It's next to McLean Gardens which is all condo living with lots of families and children, walkable to Giant grocery, walkable to Eaton and Hearst, etc. Now good luck getting the people who love their little plot of land in the community garden to hand it over without huge complaints.

Is the site there or immediately adjacent to the police station and bordering Idaho?

Anonymous wrote:Moving the NW site does not address many of the shortcomings of the plan discussed in the very long previous thread on this topic. There many questioned why the city should spend money putting up special buildings (and then paying again to lease them back from the developers) to temporarily house homeless families that purposely had features like dorm style living arrangements, communal bathrooms--with two bathtubs for 40 people for a population consisting heavily of children, and only common kitchens.

One PP there made a much more sensible suggestion that the city simply buy existing small multifamily housing units and put six to seven families in them with one or two resident social workers.

Alas, that proposal does not include a revenue stream for the developers, whom Bowser is banking on for her re-elex.

Anonymous wrote:Cheh doesn't seem to be addressing any of the bigger picture items that have been raised about costs and private properties vs city owned properties, about leasing vs. purchase, and about whether this really alleviates anything at all because it will still be the same services as the ones that let DC General fall into decline and the same process that has had people staying at DC General indefinitely (as opposed to it supposedly being temporary with placement within 30 days).

How is she not addressing? Doesn't the city own the Idaho site?