Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Here's one thing I don't get - that it's mostly AA, and that we also have a disproportionately high unemployement/underemployment rate among AAs in DC, with so many teetering on the brink of homelessness/financial disaster. Yet it seems that on so many construction sites, in so many restaurants, hotels, et cetera you will see a lot of latino workers. In many cases they came 2,000 miles to a city they don't know, barely able to speak the language, an likely not able to produce evidence of a diploma, et cetera. Yet they were able to find work, whereas people who grew up here, who know the city, who speak the language evidently can't seem to manage to find work? Likewise, the latinos manage to find places where they can afford to live - and in most cases aren't even eligible for subsidies, et cetera. Yet the DC-born and raised can't seem to find their own asses with both hands?

What's your best guess?

Culture and the environment you're raised in. Contrast it with AA entrepreneurism happening in PG - different values and culture there.

Isn't pg largely populated by successful aas who move out of poor neighborhoods (including DC) as quickly as possible?

A lot continue to sup at the DC government slop trough. Many shady, well-connected DC crony "consultants" and contractors have turned their spoils into McMansions in Upper Marlboro.

Yep

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how long it will take for you to realize you can't end homelessness in D.C.? Always been a dump, always will be a dump.

Homelessness in a regional issue. It is very hard to end homelessness when surrounding jurisdictions aren't doing their part. In effect, Virginia is saying "Yes DC build those great homeless facilities and we are happy to send you people to fill them up!" Their will never be enough beds.

With that said we can do a better job than DC General. I don't support the current plan but we can certainly do better......

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has bozzuto/cathedral commons chimed in? They've done a beautiful development job - have they even sold all the flats though?

Cathedral Commons is a rental community and yes it is stabilized. Buzzuto most likely will not weigh in publically - they have to get approvals on other projects in the City.

Homelessness is a horrible and certainly needs to be addressed. Mayor Bowser put forth a plan that was 1) not actually studied and 2) that benefitted her campaign contributors. Now it is no secret that the Mayor and Mendelson have some bad blood. He seized on this as an opportunity to attack her. At the same time the constituents in Glover Park united and scared Cheh politically. Cheh and Mendelson (who lives in Glover) quickly realized this was going to be a hot button issue and an opportunity to score points on Bowser and they did EXACTLY what was in their political best interest. Cheh identified a site in Ward 3 that would have the least political impact on her. This site is in the Eaton School district and although it is a beautiful school and performs extremely well it has a high OOB population, meaning less constituents she would be affecting. Eaton has been the sacrificial lamb for Cheh on almost every issue. This entire thing including the rush to approve after a POORLY advertised meeting and a holiday weekend is the very essence of poor governance. Cheh, Mendelson, and the entire DC government should be ASHAMED that instead of doing there fiduciary duty: a study of all sites, identifying real solutions, and making hard decisions that benefit all DC Citizens, they did what was in their political best interest.

There are 50 DC owned sites in Ward 3 that are 1/2 acre or more. As of now DC considered 3 and studied 0 of them. Cheh and Mendelson claim the Idaho site will save money because it is D owned. However, the site they chose will require either underground or above ground parking for all the police force (based on a count of the parking lot last night it is 175 cars). This will cost a minimum of $40,000 a car. In addition their is a refueling station on this site for Police and Fire. This will have to be removed and relocated creating inefficiencies for our police department. It will also require the tanks to be removed and remediation of any environmental issues. The cost of this will be exponential. So saying this site will save money is laughable.

As a city I do think we need to provide support for the homeless. DC general is unacceptable and there is a strong case for decentralization. The Idaho station site could be the best site, although based on a little study I doubt it. My point is instead of rushing through a decision like this - FOR POLITICAL COVERAGE - it should be fully vetted. We should find answers to homelessness in our city - but the quick answer is often not the best. If after a thorough study of all sites, Idaho is selected as the best then we should invite it. But we should NOT accept this type of POOR GOVERNANCE for our City.

There should be a public process. This was a rushed mess. One site was even changed when the vote was taken. This type of poor governance is exactly why DC will not receive Statehood.

Horrible, horrible people.

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how long it will take for you to realize you can't end homelessness in D.C.? Always been a dump, always will be a dump.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has bozzuto/cathedral commons chimed in? They've done a beautiful development job - have they even sold all the flats though?

Cathedral Commons is a rental community and yes it is stabilized. Buzzuto most likely will not weigh in publically - they have to get approvals on other projects in the City.

Homelessness is a horrible and certainly needs to be addressed. Mayor Bowser put forth a plan that was 1) not actually studied and 2) that benefitted her campaign contributors. Now it is no secret that the Mayor and Mendelson have some bad blood. He seized on this as an opportunity to attack her. At the same time the constituents in Glover Park united and scared Cheh politically. Cheh and Mendelson (who lives in Glover) quickly realized this was going to be a hot button issue and an opportunity to score points on Bowser and they did EXACTLY what was in their political best interest. Cheh identified a site in Ward 3 that would have the least political impact on her. This site is in the Eaton School district and although it is a beautiful school and performs extremely well it has a high OOB population, meaning less constituents she would be affecting. Eaton has been the sacrificial lamb for Cheh on almost every issue. This entire thing including the rush to approve after a POORLY advertised meeting and a holiday weekend is the very essence of poor governance. Cheh, Mendelson, and the entire DC government should be ASHAMED that instead of doing there fiduciary duty: a study of all sites, identifying real solutions, and making hard decisions that benefit all DC Citizens, they did what was in their political best interest.

There are 50 DC owned sites in Ward 3 that are 1/2 acre or more. As of now DC considered 3 and studied 0 of them. Cheh and Mendelson claim the Idaho site will save money because it is D owned. However, the site they chose will require either underground or above ground parking for all the police force (based on a count of the parking lot last night it is 175 cars). This will cost a minimum of $40,000 a car. In addition their is a refueling station on this site for Police and Fire. This will have to be removed and relocated creating inefficiencies for our police department. It will also require the tanks to be removed and remediation of any environmental issues. The cost of this will be exponential. So saying this site will save money is laughable.

As a city I do think we need to provide support for the homeless. DC general is unacceptable and there is a strong case for decentralization. The Idaho station site could be the best site, although based on a little study I doubt it. My point is instead of rushing through a decision like this - FOR POLITICAL COVERAGE - it should be fully vetted. We should find answers to homelessness in our city - but the quick answer is often not the best. If after a thorough study of all sites, Idaho is selected as the best then we should invite it. But we should NOT accept this type of POOR GOVERNANCE for our City.

There should be a public process. This was a rushed mess. One site was even changed when the vote was taken. This type of poor governance is exactly why DC will not receive Statehood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this thread has devolved into the expected moralizing. Can't wait to get back to inventing reasons why this plan is worse for the homeless than DC general.

No inventions. Many very legitimate, substantive, serious and non-NIMBY points have been raised about many aspects of the plan. They were not addressed.

If you want to get back on topic and defend your off-base "invented" comment then maybe you ought to think about coming up with some better answers.

NIMBYs always think they have a case. Saying the city needs to figure out the magic answer to homelessness in order to be worthy of putting a shelter in your neighborhood is a red herring.

Still no answers, I see... Just build 8 mini DC Generals without dealing with why DC General was such a horrific mess in the first place. You don't understand anything.

How many days or nights have you spent working in a homeless facility? I have done hundreds.

I have spent enough time working in homeless shelters to know that smaller ones are less prone to problems. It is the same phenomenon that you see in large housing complexes and large schools. The bigger the institution, the more dramatic the effect of the bad apples. Do you not recall Relisha Rudd? She's dead now. And it is plainly obvious that the size and scale of the DC General Family Shelter had something to do with a janitor being able to walk off with a child.

I also know that some of DC general's problems are that the facilities are a total mess. Seriously, the place needs to be torn down. Raccoons roaming the halls would cause any other facility to be declared uninhabitable. Insect bites? Heating out for weeks at a time. Overflowing showers.

And families with children should not be housed adjacent to a meth rehab clinic or a jail.

Lastly, the facility was built as a hospital. It is not structured to provide housing. That is why there are lots of places for vulnerable children to be preyed upon.

Each of these things can be addressed by smaller and properly designed shelters.

Do you think a properly designed shelter includes private bathrooms and sufficient bath tubs for each family? The DC General facility is deplorable. At the same time, Bowser's proposal included design elements which still leave families vulnerable yet allowed the city to evade the zoning restrictions. Should a mom have to wake and take all children to the bathroom? Are 2 bath tubs really sufficient for 40 families?

Yes, I support adding bathrooms. That's not an excuse to block the shelters. It is reason to fight for bathrooms.

Anonymous wrote:Has bozzuto/cathedral commons chimed in? They've done a beautiful development job - have they even sold all the flats though?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this thread has devolved into the expected moralizing. Can't wait to get back to inventing reasons why this plan is worse for the homeless than DC general.

No inventions. Many very legitimate, substantive, serious and non-NIMBY points have been raised about many aspects of the plan. They were not addressed.

If you want to get back on topic and defend your off-base "invented" comment then maybe you ought to think about coming up with some better answers.

NIMBYs always think they have a case. Saying the city needs to figure out the magic answer to homelessness in order to be worthy of putting a shelter in your neighborhood is a red herring.

Still no answers, I see... Just build 8 mini DC Generals without dealing with why DC General was such a horrific mess in the first place. You don't understand anything.

How many days or nights have you spent working in a homeless facility? I have done hundreds.

I have spent enough time working in homeless shelters to know that smaller ones are less prone to problems. It is the same phenomenon that you see in large housing complexes and large schools. The bigger the institution, the more dramatic the effect of the bad apples. Do you not recall Relisha Rudd? She's dead now. And it is plainly obvious that the size and scale of the DC General Family Shelter had something to do with a janitor being able to walk off with a child.

I also know that some of DC general's problems are that the facilities are a total mess. Seriously, the place needs to be torn down. Raccoons roaming the halls would cause any other facility to be declared uninhabitable. Insect bites? Heating out for weeks at a time. Overflowing showers.

And families with children should not be housed adjacent to a meth rehab clinic or a jail.

Lastly, the facility was built as a hospital. It is not structured to provide housing. That is why there are lots of places for vulnerable children to be preyed upon.

Each of these things can be addressed by smaller and properly designed shelters.

Do you think a properly designed shelter includes private bathrooms and sufficient bath tubs for each family? The DC General facility is deplorable. At the same time, Bowser's proposal included design elements which still leave families vulnerable yet allowed the city to evade the zoning restrictions. Should a mom have to wake and take all children to the bathroom? Are 2 bath tubs really sufficient for 40 families?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this thread has devolved into the expected moralizing. Can't wait to get back to inventing reasons why this plan is worse for the homeless than DC general.

No inventions. Many very legitimate, substantive, serious and non-NIMBY points have been raised about many aspects of the plan. They were not addressed.

If you want to get back on topic and defend your off-base "invented" comment then maybe you ought to think about coming up with some better answers.

NIMBYs always think they have a case. Saying the city needs to figure out the magic answer to homelessness in order to be worthy of putting a shelter in your neighborhood is a red herring.

Still no answers, I see... Just build 8 mini DC Generals without dealing with why DC General was such a horrific mess in the first place. You don't understand anything.

How many days or nights have you spent working in a homeless facility? I have done hundreds.

I have spent enough time working in homeless shelters to know that smaller ones are less prone to problems. It is the same phenomenon that you see in large housing complexes and large schools. The bigger the institution, the more dramatic the effect of the bad apples. Do you not recall Relisha Rudd? She's dead now. And it is plainly obvious that the size and scale of the DC General Family Shelter had something to do with a janitor being able to walk off with a child.

I also know that some of DC general's problems are that the facilities are a total mess. Seriously, the place needs to be torn down. Raccoons roaming the halls would cause any other facility to be declared uninhabitable. Insect bites? Heating out for weeks at a time. Overflowing showers.

And families with children should not be housed adjacent to a meth rehab clinic or a jail.

Lastly, the facility was built as a hospital. It is not structured to provide housing. That is why there are lots of places for vulnerable children to be preyed upon.

Each of these things can be addressed by smaller and properly designed shelters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this thread has devolved into the expected moralizing. Can't wait to get back to inventing reasons why this plan is worse for the homeless than DC general.

No inventions. Many very legitimate, substantive, serious and non-NIMBY points have been raised about many aspects of the plan. They were not addressed.

If you want to get back on topic and defend your off-base "invented" comment then maybe you ought to think about coming up with some better answers.

NIMBYs always think they have a case. Saying the city needs to figure out the magic answer to homelessness in order to be worthy of putting a shelter in your neighborhood is a red herring.

Still no answers, I see... Just build 8 mini DC Generals without dealing with why DC General was such a horrific mess in the first place. You don't understand anything.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://marycheh.com/letter-from-councilmember-cheh-on-the-proposed-ward-3-shelter-for-families-experiencing-homelessness/

I do love that she also cites that same NY study on property values, that does not actually evaluate the impact of shelters,and then says well there are no such studies so it will have to do. What a social experiment. Who qualifies for the massive DC total assistance plan she mentions? What's to stop people moving here in droves? I would. And is it fifty people or fifty families? Thats a heck of a lot of people .

This shows how little you know.

Last year, mayor bowser and county execs Leggett and baker (of MoCo and pg) signed a regional commitment to coordinate efforts to end homelessness. They are sharing info and data and can immediately determine residency and systems being used. People won't flock to dc because dc only serves dc residents. Anyone from pg or MoCo will be quickly redirected. People from other jurisdictions will be brushed off.

The dc homeless czar used to lead the flipping USICH...she's not a clueless newbie. They won't make any of the ridiculous mistakes you posters fear.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok -it just clicked. 50 families. One parent, 2-3 kids (average, some more, some less) 200 people?

She claims only 80 children, but that doesn't make much sense.

Anonymous wrote:http://marycheh.com/letter-from-councilmember-cheh-on-the-proposed-ward-3-shelter-for-families-experiencing-homelessness/

I do love that she also cites that same NY study on property values, that does not actually evaluate the impact of shelters,and then says well there are no such studies so it will have to do. What a social experiment. Who qualifies for the massive DC total assistance plan she mentions? What's to stop people moving here in droves? I would. And is it fifty people or fifty families? Thats a heck of a lot of people .