Anonymous wrote:

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:IMHO it's a kind of a hoot that Mary Cheh is pushing a homeless shelter across the street from the pretentiously "upscale" Cathedral Commons and directly across from new townhomes that rent for $8K-$9K/monthly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

First, you're acting like DC is some expansive, sprawling city and not a city that is only 64 square miles. Second, you make it sound like these shelters won't alleviate any problems. You don't see the problem in concentrated homelessness and concentrated poverty? You could maybe make the argument that when you concentrate these issues you can flood the system with supports, but let's be real and acknowledge that what is happening in DC right now is overwhelming entire wards. It's time for Ward 3 to help out and not act like an island protected by their own wealth and status.

Anonymous wrote:OP: this all came from an email from Mary Cheh? What other info did the email contain? Can you pls post?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

First, you're acting like DC is some expansive, sprawling city and not a city that is only 64 square miles. Second, you make it sound like these shelters won't alleviate any problems. You don't see the problem in concentrated homelessness and concentrated poverty? You could maybe make the argument that when you concentrate these issues you can flood the system with supports, but let's be real and acknowledge that what is happening in DC right now is overwhelming entire wards. It's time for Ward 3 to help out and not act like an island protected by their own wealth and status.

While there may be a sound moral argument that every ward in the city ought to pitch in, to me any moral argument is overcome by the fact that it makes zero economic sense to stick a shelter into some of the most expensive land in the city. DC, like any other jurisdiction, does not have an infinite supply of money. Any money they spend on the shelter program is money that is not getting spent on some other city service. For the amount of money it's going to cost the city to build a shelter on any of the four proposed ward 3 locations, they could probably build five shelters elsewhere. Which means that the city plans to waste a lot of money to make a point when instead, it could have either built more shelters and housed more people for the same amount of cash or, in the unlikely event more shelters weren't needed, it could have used all the money it saved from not building in an expensive location and used it productively elsewhere.

But then it's DC. Fiscal responsibility has never been this city's strength.

Agree. They are buying prime real estate and helping less people than purchasing less expensive real estate and helping more. In fact instead of trying to prove a point in spending money on expensive real estate, they could actually afford to put some of this money into helping the homeless by actually purchasing homes and apartments. Then they would have a long-term solution for some of these people, instead of just a short-term place to stay.

Anonymous wrote:First, you're acting like DC is some expansive, sprawling city and not a city that is only 64 square miles. Second, you make it sound like these shelters won't alleviate any problems. You don't see the problem in concentrated homelessness and concentrated poverty? You could maybe make the argument that when you concentrate these issues you can flood the system with supports, but let's be real and acknowledge that what is happening in DC right now is overwhelming entire wards. It's time for Ward 3 to help out and not act like an island protected by their own wealth and status.

Anonymous wrote:They should have used the Idaho Ave. site for a new public school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

First, you're acting like DC is some expansive, sprawling city and not a city that is only 64 square miles. Second, you make it sound like these shelters won't alleviate any problems. You don't see the problem in concentrated homelessness and concentrated poverty? You could maybe make the argument that when you concentrate these issues you can flood the system with supports, but let's be real and acknowledge that what is happening in DC right now is overwhelming entire wards. It's time for Ward 3 to help out and not act like an island protected by their own wealth and status.

While there may be a sound moral argument that every ward in the city ought to pitch in, to me any moral argument is overcome by the fact that it makes zero economic sense to stick a shelter into some of the most expensive land in the city. DC, like any other jurisdiction, does not have an infinite supply of money. Any money they spend on the shelter program is money that is not getting spent on some other city service. For the amount of money it's going to cost the city to build a shelter on any of the four proposed ward 3 locations, they could probably build five shelters elsewhere. Which means that the city plans to waste a lot of money to make a point when instead, it could have either built more shelters and housed more people for the same amount of cash or, in the unlikely event more shelters weren't needed, it could have used all the money it saved from not building in an expensive location and used it productively elsewhere.

But then it's DC. Fiscal responsibility has never been this city's strength.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

First, you're acting like DC is some expansive, sprawling city and not a city that is only 64 square miles. Second, you make it sound like these shelters won't alleviate any problems. You don't see the problem in concentrated homelessness and concentrated poverty? You could maybe make the argument that when you concentrate these issues you can flood the system with supports, but let's be real and acknowledge that what is happening in DC right now is overwhelming entire wards. It's time for Ward 3 to help out and not act like an island protected by their own wealth and status.

Anonymous wrote:

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:IMHO it's a kind of a hoot that Mary Cheh is pushing a homeless shelter across the street from the pretentiously "upscale" Cathedral Commons and directly across from new townhomes that rent for $8K-$9K/monthly.