Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again the shelter proposed for your neighborhood that you are paranoid about is to serve as transitional short term housing for families recently made homeless.

You keep talking about the mentally ill long term homeless who often also have substance abuse issues and are difficult to employ.

This shelter will be serving people who for whatever reason have hit a stretch of bad luck and need housing to get back on their feet - many of these folks are even employed.

One of the reasons to immediately house these people and get them back on their feet is so that they and their children don't become part of the long term homeless population - get them sheltered and protected and keep them employed or employable and keep their kids in school rather than allowing their situation to deteriorate which is bad for everyone including taxpayers.

I'm not the PP you've been bickering with, but another PP from a few pages back. A few thoughts:

1. I've read all of the Mayor's materials about these 8 new ward shelters, and I understand that she's claiming they will be short-term transitional facilities for families only. But I also know (and I hope you'd admit) that it's not unreasonable to be wary of a bait-and-switch, where these supposed short-term transitional facilities for families only get converted into long-term housing for high-risk singles. Indeed, I've even seen some of the later DC materials that start to water down their promises about how the facilities will be used, for example adding wiggle-room language about how the shelters are primarily designed and intended initially to house mostly families. When I see ambiguous words like those, I get suspicious of the Mayor's true intentions. That suspicion is increased by how the Mayor announced these shelter locations and tried to force them without any public input.

2. I suspect most of the people posting about this topic genuinely do want to help the needy population. You are being unfair to them, and quite frankly discouraging them from wanting to help, when you take a condescending attitude and accuse anyone who raises concerns of parroting right-wing talking points. I know your approach turns me off. Consider whether you might achieve more good by seeking a compromise that works for both (1) the homeless population, (2) the neighborhoods that are expected to absorb the shelters.

Exactly. Why is it so frowned upon to consider the needs of a neighborhood full of hardworking families just like those you seek to house? For it to be win win, everything should be crystal clear and transparent. And the supports for these needy families should be in place. As well as the conditions and requirements for being provided the service of free shelter. I would like to know, if we are transitioning families to independence, if there are kitchens in the living units. How are they eating? Are the bathrooms communal? If so, how is this different from DC General? What are residents doing during the day? What are they doing at night? I think it's fair to stipulate conditions in exchange for free housing and the chance to get on ones feet. When I was a single parent you'd better believe my family (whom I was fortunate to have) stipulated a LOT of conditions as I struggled to get on my feet. They also provided supports and I would very clearly like to know how the city aims to support these worthy families spread in 8 shelters city wide in an efficient, effective, caring and professional manner.

This was all gone over in great detail at the public meetings. And DC has rules and processes for how it deals with the homeless under its care and DC should not change those rules just because it is opening a shelter in Ward 3 and some right wing talking points are creeping into the discussion. If you are as a general matter interested in these processes and believe they are insufficient and need to be changed then immerse yourself in the rules and engage with the agency directly or by attending and testifying at a DC Council hearing about it.

But jumping in and dropping "consider the needs of a neighborhood full of hardworking families" as if the neighborhoods around the shelter are somehow made up of people different than the people who live near any other shelter is condescending, ignorant and elitist.

There are probably more households with just one working adult in them near the shelter than in most DC neighborhoods so I suspect your assumption is actually wrong that this neighborhood is somehow harder working than others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The impact of homeless shelters on surrounding communities has been studied in great depth and there is lots of credible scholarship that they have no negative impact on surrounding communities.

Let's see all that in depth and credible research. Talk is cheap.

And looking things up on Google is easy for most people but apparently not so for you! Here you go:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.457.912&rep=rep1&type=pdf

https://citylimits.org/2015/02/25/after-the-shouting-do-shelters-and-supportive-housing-harm-neighborhoods/

While the average relationship between this set of supportive housing facilities and
proximate house prices was positive, not all site/neighborhood combinations in Denver
experienced the same relationship. When we disaggregated our analysis to measure impacts for
different common clusters of sites and neighborhoods, we found that the set of five supportive
housing sites located in low-valued, heavily minority (typically majority Black-occupied)
neighborhoods consistently evinced the positive price impacts noted above. By contrast, the site
in the highest-value, overwhelmingly White-occupied neighborhood apparently had a negative
effect on house prices, as did another (poorly maintained) site in a modestly valued, high-density
core neighborhood with Hispanics comprising one-quarter of the population.

... This finding provides the clear implication that, the greater the number of beds in a
supportive facility, the greater the incidence of police reports of disorderly conduct.

Inasmuch as lower appreciation areas
also typically had the higher values in 1990 and were predominantly
white-occupied, reported rates of violent crime increased in the
vicinity after supportive housing was opened in the more affluent sections of Denver.

... our results reinforce what our key informants indicated: developers must
pay close attention to management, education, and siting. Nearby homeowners clearly can
distinguish between well-managed and poorly managed facilities ...

Our central finding—that supportive housing generally has a positive impact on neighborhoods when
done at a small scale, but that poorly managed properties can be deleterious to
neighborhoods—implies that public policy would do well to encourage both public education and
high-quality operation in the realm of supportive housing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again the shelter proposed for your neighborhood that you are paranoid about is to serve as transitional short term housing for families recently made homeless.

You keep talking about the mentally ill long term homeless who often also have substance abuse issues and are difficult to employ.

This shelter will be serving people who for whatever reason have hit a stretch of bad luck and need housing to get back on their feet - many of these folks are even employed.

One of the reasons to immediately house these people and get them back on their feet is so that they and their children don't become part of the long term homeless population - get them sheltered and protected and keep them employed or employable and keep their kids in school rather than allowing their situation to deteriorate which is bad for everyone including taxpayers.

I'm not the PP you've been bickering with, but another PP from a few pages back. A few thoughts:

1. I've read all of the Mayor's materials about these 8 new ward shelters, and I understand that she's claiming they will be short-term transitional facilities for families only. But I also know (and I hope you'd admit) that it's not unreasonable to be wary of a bait-and-switch, where these supposed short-term transitional facilities for families only get converted into long-term housing for high-risk singles. Indeed, I've even seen some of the later DC materials that start to water down their promises about how the facilities will be used, for example adding wiggle-room language about how the shelters are primarily designed and intended initially to house mostly families. When I see ambiguous words like those, I get suspicious of the Mayor's true intentions. That suspicion is increased by how the Mayor announced these shelter locations and tried to force them without any public input.

2. I suspect most of the people posting about this topic genuinely do want to help the needy population. You are being unfair to them, and quite frankly discouraging them from wanting to help, when you take a condescending attitude and accuse anyone who raises concerns of parroting right-wing talking points. I know your approach turns me off. Consider whether you might achieve more good by seeking a compromise that works for both (1) the homeless population, (2) the neighborhoods that are expected to absorb the shelters.

Exactly. Why is it so frowned upon to consider the needs of a neighborhood full of hardworking families just like those you seek to house? For it to be win win, everything should be crystal clear and transparent. And the supports for these needy families should be in place. As well as the conditions and requirements for being provided the service of free shelter. I would like to know, if we are transitioning families to independence, if there are kitchens in the living units. How are they eating? Are the bathrooms communal? If so, how is this different from DC General? What are residents doing during the day? What are they doing at night? I think it's fair to stipulate conditions in exchange for free housing and the chance to get on ones feet. When I was a single parent you'd better believe my family (whom I was fortunate to have) stipulated a LOT of conditions as I struggled to get on my feet. They also provided supports and I would very clearly like to know how the city aims to support these worthy families spread in 8 shelters city wide in an efficient, effective, caring and professional manner.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've lived in neighborhoods in DC you would be too terrified to even get out of your car in.

You don't know me, and you have no idea where I've lived. Quit trying to act tough.

You were the one beating your chest on here claiming people who support the shelter lack the courage to live in tough neighborhoods - I've lived in tough neighborhoods in DC - have you?

Anonymous wrote:The impact of homeless shelters on surrounding communities has been studied in great depth and there is lots of credible scholarship that they have no negative impact on surrounding communities.

Let's see all that in depth and credible research. Talk is cheap.

And looking things up on Google is easy for most people but apparently not so for you! Here you go:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.457.912&rep=rep1&type=pdf

https://citylimits.org/2015/02/25/after-the-shouting-do-shelters-and-supportive-housing-harm-neighborhoods/

Anonymous wrote:BTW no doubt you are aware that there are other entities serving the homeless in Ward 3 - do you need me to list them for you?

Let's see you list them. I bet you don't know them. And if Ward 3 is already serving the homeless, then why does Ward 3 need to have another shelter forced on it?

Anonymous wrote:I live around the corner from one that serves the long term homeless, dozens of whom visit every day and they aren't being escorted in police cars or monitored and we've never had a problem.

Name the shelter so we can look at the police records to see whether crime is higher near this long term homeless shelter you supposedly live near. Otherwise, talk is cheap. I don't believe you.

You don't believe me because you are not aware of the organization providing services. By the way it is not a shelter nor did I say it is one but because it serves transients it probably generates more daily visits than a shelter does. I'm not going help you with your ignorance so please try that google thing yourself but suffice it to say I closely follow the crime stats in my neighborhood and there is no evidence that the shelter has caused more.

You are welcome to be scared and to express you own opinion but that is all you are doing - there is ample evidence that disproves everything you have been arguing. If you want to step up and share that evidence please do. In the meantime I'll be comfortably walking around my own diverse Ward 3 neighborhood and looking forward to it doing more to share in the burden of serving all of the cities residents. And privately hoping in the process it drives nut jobs like you over the edge.

Anonymous wrote:So yeah I am walking the walk on this one while you cower in fear and ignorance in McLean Gardens and post ignorant screeds on DCUM.

Talk is cheap. Let's see you post some actual facts if you want to claim you walk the walk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again the shelter proposed for your neighborhood that you are paranoid about is to serve as transitional short term housing for families recently made homeless.

You keep talking about the mentally ill long term homeless who often also have substance abuse issues and are difficult to employ.

This shelter will be serving people who for whatever reason have hit a stretch of bad luck and need housing to get back on their feet - many of these folks are even employed.

One of the reasons to immediately house these people and get them back on their feet is so that they and their children don't become part of the long term homeless population - get them sheltered and protected and keep them employed or employable and keep their kids in school rather than allowing their situation to deteriorate which is bad for everyone including taxpayers.

I'm not the PP you've been bickering with, but another PP from a few pages back. A few thoughts:

1. I've read all of the Mayor's materials about these 8 new ward shelters, and I understand that she's claiming they will be short-term transitional facilities for families only. But I also know (and I hope you'd admit) that it's not unreasonable to be wary of a bait-and-switch, where these supposed short-term transitional facilities for families only get converted into long-term housing for high-risk singles. Indeed, I've even seen some of the later DC materials that start to water down their promises about how the facilities will be used, for example adding wiggle-room language about how the shelters are primarily designed and intended initially to house mostly families. When I see ambiguous words like those, I get suspicious of the Mayor's true intentions. That suspicion is increased by how the Mayor announced these shelter locations and tried to force them without any public input.

2. I suspect most of the people posting about this topic genuinely do want to help the needy population. You are being unfair to them, and quite frankly discouraging them from wanting to help, when you take a condescending attitude and accuse anyone who raises concerns of parroting right-wing talking points. I know your approach turns me off. Consider whether you might achieve more good by seeking a compromise that works for both (1) the homeless population, (2) the neighborhoods that are expected to absorb the shelters.

Anonymous wrote:I've lived in neighborhoods in DC you would be too terrified to even get out of your car in.

Anonymous wrote:The impact of homeless shelters on surrounding communities has been studied in great depth and there is lots of credible scholarship that they have no negative impact on surrounding communities.

Anonymous wrote:BTW no doubt you are aware that there are other entities serving the homeless in Ward 3 - do you need me to list them for you?

Anonymous wrote:I live around the corner from one that serves the long term homeless, dozens of whom visit every day and they aren't being escorted in police cars or monitored and we've never had a problem.

Anonymous wrote:So yeah I am walking the walk on this one while you cower in fear and ignorance in McLean Gardens and post ignorant screeds on DCUM.

Anonymous wrote:Again the shelter proposed for your neighborhood that you are paranoid about is to serve as transitional short term housing for families recently made homeless.

You keep talking about the mentally ill long term homeless who often also have substance abuse issues and are difficult to employ.

This shelter will be serving people who for whatever reason have hit a stretch of bad luck and need housing to get back on their feet - many of these folks are even employed.

One of the reasons to immediately house these people and get them back on their feet is so that they and their children don't become part of the long term homeless population - get them sheltered and protected and keep them employed or employable and keep their kids in school rather than allowing their situation to deteriorate which is bad for everyone including taxpayers.

Anonymous wrote:And sorry, typing on my phone. I don't question your kind intentions. I question that they are really helping. I think the homeless need far more. Intervention and support than simply being spread around. And I think it shod be acknowledged that they exhibit many nuisance behaviors that are hard on neighbors. These are very dysfunctional humans who need serious help, not cite strays that it's fun to feed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize that Bowser's main impetus to close DC General isn't to enhance services for homeless families? (The mayor has yet to explain how DC will deliver services more capably and efficiently on a vasty decentralized basis when it was incapable of delivering them in one principal location.) No, the main reason, dear readers, is that Bowser's developer cronies want to redevelop the DC General property for upscale housing and mixed-use.

And why is that necessarily a bad thing? It is a big piece of under utilized property that hosted a poorly functioning shelter. Fix the shelter and redevelop the property - seems like a win win to me?

Win for the cronies and perhaps a win for the mayor whose nest they feather. Perhaps not such a win-win for homeowners in McLean Gardens and Idaho Ave. Whether it's a win for the homeless depends on how well DC scales poor services that it couldn't deliver in one location to eight separate locations.

Oh geez another Ward 3 snowflake.

There won't be hordes of homeless over-running McLean Gardens because there is a family homeless shelter a couple of blocks away.

And it is a win for the entire city when new housing gets built. And bonus for Ward 3 (which always fights new housing) in this case the new housing is on the other side of town so McLean Gardens residents won't need to worry about rubbing shoulders with any newcomers.

How close do you live to a shelter, moron? Easy to ride your high horse when someone else saddles it.

I've lived in neighborhoods in DC you would be too terrified to even get out of your car in.

The impact of homeless shelters on surrounding communities has been studied in great depth and there is lots of credible scholarship that they have no negative impact on surrounding communities.

BTW no doubt you are aware that there are other entities serving the homeless in Ward 3 - do you need me to list them for you?

I live around the corner from one that serves the long term homeless, dozens of whom visit every day and they aren't being escorted in police cars or monitored and we've never had a problem.

So yeah I am walking the walk on this one while you cower in fear and ignorance in McLean Gardens and post ignorant screeds on DCUM.

I find the long term homeless your shelter serves a real nuisance. If they were in your shelter it would be one thing. The ones. In the bus shelter who smell so horribly, the ones lying in the bushes who one worries are dead (I've called police a few times to wellness check), people shouting. Obscenities or threats on the top of their lungs... Please please don't glorify the existence or presence of long term homeless. These are people with deep and often frightening substance of mental health issues, such as schizophrenia. They should be in a state of the heart facility providing care. Would you sit in 8 blankets in DC summer? How. Many simultaneous health issues do you think they suffer at once? If the council actually cared about them they would have revamped DC general and. Updated involuntary commitment laws and services. Instead theyive incredibly uncomfortable lives eating thrown away food. And eking out a terrible existence by visiting service stations like yours. I never give money to the. Homeless. I pay taxes and the city should spend those dollars far more thoughtfully.