Anonymous wrote:If the site ends up being the 2d Police Station, is that the Eaton-Hardy-Wilson zone?

Anonymous wrote:It should have been Eaton from the beginning, as it is the only Ward 3 elementary that's not already horribly overcrowded. As a Ward 3 resident, I think the shelter makes sense in the new location.

Relatedly, how revealing that Bowser told Mendelson to "F_k off," because the Council's plan to use city-owned property doesn't allow her campaign contributors to make millions. Apparently the Council's new plan will save the City well over $100 million -- kudos to responsible politicians. Thank got her stinky plan is back on a responsible track.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the families expected to do to get out of homelessness while they have the support of the shelter? Where will the support they need be located? I am trying to see how these scattered shelters will operate efficiently. Specifics please.

I'm the PP who's catching grief from Jeff and others. I'm no expert, but I've read a number of recent research papers about homelessness. The current trend thinking in the area seems to be that large mass shelters are bad, and small shelters or even individual dwellings are good. Sort of a "spread it out" rather than "pack it together" approach. I haven't seen much hard data supporting that conclusion, but I think it's a pretty logical one because the smaller sites will be much more akin to actual homes and will have fewer problems, so they're better for the people living there. But the cost of smaller shelters is always higher, so you're either spending more money or helping fewer people.

Some of the research papers I saw were estimating total costs by comparing the overall value of smaller shelters (higher cost per person, but shorter stays on average) against the overall value of larger shelters (lower cost per person, but longer stays on average). In short, the results were mixed, with some studies finding smaller shelters were slightly more efficient, and others finding the larger shelters more efficient. I suspect that all the results are really situation specific, and depend on each city's relative cost of shelters, size of homeless population, and turnover rates, so no broad conclusions are easily drawn.

Along these lines, I saw at least one homeless advocacy group in DC that was arguing against Bowser's small-shelter plan by pointing out that her 8 shelters of 50 residents (or fewer) really only helps 400 people max, which is a drop in the bucket of the larger problem. This organization was saying it would help more people if DC would re-open and renovate some of the larger shelters it closed years ago, because they could hold more people and provide support services more efficiently (with less duplication of cost). I'm sure that's something people who are much more knowledgeable than any of us could discuss at length.

But for me, all this leads back to my central criticisms of Bowser's plan: It seems rushed and secretive and leaves no room for any thoughtful consideration. There does not seem to have been much actual investigation by professionals into developing the most efficient and effective plan. Instead, the plan seems to be a creature of politics, where Bowser gets to claim victory by closing DC General, pad the pockets of her campaign supporters, and claim she made each Ward carry the burden equally. I recognize that getting any plan through will require some political wrangling, but I feel like her plan was created with political gains controlling approach rather than with the goal of actually addressing homelessness in a logical way. Bowser's plan seems like it's just a fiction meant to suggest she's taking positive steps, but we won't be any closer to a solution.

Reasonable mind can disagree, but that's how I see it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So this plan does not actually address the scope of homelessness in DC. Keep the DC general site and build a nice, multi purpose center. It is near metro and a school bus could take all the kids to school. Counseling and job placement and computer lab centralized. These shelters are meant to be a transition, not permanent living. I'm super confused by all the concern for location and amenities. These are not mixed income housing which is where the real money should go..isn't the plan for people to move out and up? Ludicrous waste and so far not backed up by any research anyone has shown. I mean, look at the youth facilities scattered through the city. Mismanaged and youth are constantly fleeing -and they are in 'nice neighborhoods'. Can't see it makes a difference. The focus here should be on management and efficiency. I hate seeing $ that could actually help people being flushed down the toilet.

No offense, but isn't part of the rationale for the plan that one Ward or even one neighborhood is not overly burdened by this? If you build a new shelter, aren't you dooming that neighborhood and guaranteeing that the development the rest of the City has enjoyed will never reach there. That site was a hospital - which is a favored amenity in most places - after that closed, the site became transitional housing WITHOUT significant engagement with the neighborhood on the premise that it was not a permanent use. I am not arguing the scattering argument. I am just saying that people are quick to say that a shelter 1/8 the size of DC General will impose burden on their Ward while at the same time being OK with that neighborhood bearing the brunt of the problem - against the residents of that Ward's will.

Anonymous wrote:So this plan does not actually address the scope of homelessness in DC. Keep the DC general site and build a nice, multi purpose center. It is near metro and a school bus could take all the kids to school. Counseling and job placement and computer lab centralized. These shelters are meant to be a transition, not permanent living. I'm super confused by all the concern for location and amenities. These are not mixed income housing which is where the real money should go..isn't the plan for people to move out and up? Ludicrous waste and so far not backed up by any research anyone has shown. I mean, look at the youth facilities scattered through the city. Mismanaged and youth are constantly fleeing -and they are in 'nice neighborhoods'. Can't see it makes a difference. The focus here should be on management and efficiency. I hate seeing $ that could actually help people being flushed down the toilet.

jsteele wrote:In the original legislation, which has been amended but I can't find the amended version, for each location it says something along the following:

"to house a facility for approximately 30 families experiencing homelessness".

The number of families is designated for each location.

http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/35335/B21-0620-Introduction.pdf

Anonymous wrote:What are the families expected to do to get out of homelessness while they have the support of the shelter? Where will the support they need be located? I am trying to see how these scattered shelters will operate efficiently. Specifics please.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Show me a plan that gives us the best chance of addressing the roots of homelessness and provides services most efficiently, and you'll get my support. Don't try to bully me with insults and accusations.

You seem to have ignored my response to you that didn't include insults or accusations. But, as I said, the current plan is clearly aimed at families. That's even in the legislation. Given that the occupants of the new shelters will be resettled from DC General and single men are not placed in DC General, from where do you suspect single men would come?

I did see your reasonable response, Jeff, and I appreciate it. I started looking at the legislation, but did not reach a spot that made the occupancy clear. Do you have a cite to specific language? I'm happy to be convinced that the shelters will be only families and not individuals, but I've yet to see any proof, even though the question has been raised many times.

jsteele wrote:If DC manages to solve its homeless family problem and these shelters find themselves with empty space, I could envision homeless single men being housed there. But, I don't think you need to hold your breath in expectation of the family homeless problem being solved. Moreover, you really can't expect homeless single men to remain on the street simply because you don't want them in your neighborhood.

First, I sadly agree with you that this plan won't solve the homeless problem (and incidentally, I haven't seen anything specific in it that confronts the roots of homelessness, as it seems more of a Band-Aid approach, so I am quite certain DC's homeless population will continue to grow). Second, I agree that if we reach a point where some of these shelters or other ones need to be designated for single me, we cannot simply refuse them shelter. But surely you would agree the considerations are different if the shelter populations change, wouldn't you? Can we agree that a location that might make sense for a family shelter might make lots less sense for a shelter of 50 single men?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Show me a plan that gives us the best chance of addressing the roots of homelessness and provides services most efficiently, and you'll get my support. Don't try to bully me with insults and accusations.

You seem to have ignored my response to you that didn't include insults or accusations. But, as I said, the current plan is clearly aimed at families. That's even in the legislation. Given that the occupants of the new shelters will be resettled from DC General and single men are not placed in DC General, from where do you suspect single men would come?

jsteele wrote:If DC manages to solve its homeless family problem and these shelters find themselves with empty space, I could envision homeless single men being housed there. But, I don't think you need to hold your breath in expectation of the family homeless problem being solved. Moreover, you really can't expect homeless single men to remain on the street simply because you don't want them in your neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:Show me a plan that gives us the best chance of addressing the roots of homelessness and provides services most efficiently, and you'll get my support. Don't try to bully me with insults and accusations.

Anonymous wrote:She has pretty much flown planes accross town saying it will only be families.

Look, I dislike Bowser. Didn't vote for her, don't like her. Think she's an idiot. But, we have a huge homeless problem in DC. When it comes to mothers and children, we all have to help. I have a shelter in my neighborhood (and am about to get a second one) - you need to take one in your neighborhood.

Suck it up and deal with it.

You are arguing with a Trump voter. Nothing you can do here. Maybe pictures?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need more shelters in places like Potomac.

Potomac is in Maryland, so DC is not going to be building shelters there.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess I just don't really understand your concern. DC General is a family shelter. Single adults do not get placed there. The other family shelters I can think of in DC are also family shelters where single adults do not get placed. They are two separate systems. Families seeking emergency shelter go through the Virginia Williams Center (http://www.dccfh.org/programs/housing/virginia-williams-family-resource-center), where they are screened for eligibility, including residency. If a single adult shows up there, they will be directed to another program.

Bowser's plans say specifically that it's FAMILY SHELTERS over and over again, with the stated exception of the shelter in Ward 2 every time. Single adult females will be placed there or Harriet Tubman or Nativity or another program specifically for women. Single adult males will be referred to 801 East Shelter or La Casa or another program that is specifically for men.

I don't really understand why you're missing what I'm saying. The other posters and I are not the first people to have raised this question about exactly who will be placed in the shelters that Bowser is pushing, and specifically whether there will be single men in any of them. So it just stands to reason that if these shelters will not house single men, then Bowser's team would have solved the confusion by specifically saying so. The fact that she's has not definitively made it clear that only families will be sited there suggests that she's considering some sort of bait and switch.

The legislation itself, at least as introduced, explicitly lists each facility and the number of families it will house. Moreover, the new shelters are meant to replace DC General which only houses families. Obviously, nothing can prevent plans from being changed in the future. I suspect that it would be impossible to guarantee that no single man would ever be housed in one of the new shelters. But, that is clearly not the plan at this point.

Original PP here. This is my point exactly. PPs want to know who will be housed there. Plan says "Families will be housed there." PPs say, "But how do we know for sure?" I don't have an answer to that question. You don't know for sure. All you know is that at this point is that the plan right now is to create multiple smaller family shelters. If the plan was more nebulous and simply said "smaller shelters throughout the city" I would be skeptical, but I haven't seen that language anywhere in any conversation. The 16 mentions of families in the original press release wasn't the Bowser administration trying to be cute. It was them describing the specific purpose of the plan they were announcing. That you for whatever reasons do not understand that or are not willing to accept it is confusing to me.