Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:People who say that a shelter does not negatively affect property values either don’t actually own property in Ward 3 or own property in ward 3 but far away from the shelter. Its not credible to say that a shelter housing people who have “poor” habits, eg, prone to criminality, will not negatively affect the surrounding neighborhood and amenities. I cant wait for the reactions when the first shelter resident or one of their friends assaults someone minding their own business nat the shopping center or robs someone walking home from work at night.This is a stupid, feel-good policy that is going to cause actual physical damage to some unlucky ward 3 residents not to mention the lower property values.
This is a family shelter, not like the shelter at Second and D ST NW. There are other shelters in Ward 3 and you don't even notice them. This one will be like those. You are stereotyping in the worst way. Like was said before, look in the mirror and just admit, you are a horrible person.
You own no property in Ward 3- just admit it. And you probably work in these shelters or have family that does. The 2d and D shelter, as you tacitly acknowledge, is among the most dangerous places in DC. Poors strewn everywhere in the surrounding streets, urinating and defacating in public, aggressive pan handlers, wild-eyed, strung out on drugs. Family shelter means highly irresponsible, single moms and fatherless children wilding in the streets. And boyfriends and baby daddies stopping by from time to time. Its like the 2d & D shelter, only with a younger, more energized population to prey on the ward 3 residents. Once you own valuable property, your views will change. Its easy to condemn neighborhoods where you dont live to with facilities like this.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:People who say that a shelter does not negatively affect property values either don’t actually own property in Ward 3 or own property in ward 3 but far away from the shelter. Its not credible to say that a shelter housing people who have “poor” habits, eg, prone to criminality, will not negatively affect the surrounding neighborhood and amenities. I cant wait for the reactions when the first shelter resident or one of their friends assaults someone minding their own business nat the shopping center or robs someone walking home from work at night.This is a stupid, feel-good policy that is going to cause actual physical damage to some unlucky ward 3 residents not to mention the lower property values.
This is a family shelter, not like the shelter at Second and D ST NW. There are other shelters in Ward 3 and you don't even notice them. This one will be like those. You are stereotyping in the worst way. Like was said before, look in the mirror and just admit, you are a horrible person.
Anonymous wrote:People who say that a shelter does not negatively affect property values either don’t actually own property in Ward 3 or own property in ward 3 but far away from the shelter. Its not credible to say that a shelter housing people who have “poor” habits, eg, prone to criminality, will not negatively affect the surrounding neighborhood and amenities. I cant wait for the reactions when the first shelter resident or one of their friends assaults someone minding their own business at the shopping center or robs someone walking home from work at night.This is a stupid, feel-good policy that is going to cause actual physical damage to some unlucky ward 3 residents not to mention the lower property values.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The bigger issue is why does ward 3 have to be burdened with a dreadful facility like this? Ward 3 pays more in personal income taxes than all of the other wards combined - that shoud buy freedom from a facility housing poors prone to violence and criminality. I never understood why the ward whose culture spawned the shelter residents in the first instance (chiefly wards 7 and 8) should not get to “enjoy” the fruits of their labor.
This is the worst of the worst of Ward 3 tripe. We are a city. If you want to live on an island, move. Most of us understand that, while there are wealthier and less wealthy areas, it is better to distribute and not focus "all the poors" in one place. And, this is a TEMPORARY shelter for FAMILIES. You are a truly deplorable person and likely consider yourself to be an anti-Trump liberal. Look in the mirror. And if you are actually a pro-Trump conservative, then the shoe fits.
Ward 3 must house poors bc “we are a city”? That does not follow. There are many ways to assist and Ward 3 has gone above and beyond helping the less desireable wards in terms of tax dollars— more than every other ward put together. But there is no recognition of that when forcing a housing facility on us. And why do you think it is a good idea to export the poors to wards that did not spawn them? That harms ward 3 and its property values and increases the crime rates in ward 3. Maybe its not ideal for all the facilities to be in ward 7 and 8, but there is a real cost of putting one in ward 3 to the community in ward 3 that is not being taken into account at all, which is annoying. Why not just have more shelters in wards 6 or 5 if you want to sprinkle them around? All you are accomplishing by putting a shelter in ward 3 is biting the hand that feeds wards 7 and 8. Stupid social policy and yes I am a liberal. But this is a stupid liberal idea. Looking at it honestly, none of my friends think it makes any sense.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The bigger issue is why does ward 3 have to be burdened with a dreadful facility like this? Ward 3 pays more in personal income taxes than all of the other wards combined - that shoud buy freedom from a facility housing poors prone to violence and criminality. I never understood why the ward whose culture spawned the shelter residents in the first instance (chiefly wards 7 and 8) should not get to “enjoy” the fruits of their labor.
This is the worst of the worst of Ward 3 tripe. We are a city. If you want to live on an island, move. Most of us understand that, while there are wealthier and less wealthy areas, it is better to distribute and not focus "all the poors" in one place. And, this is a TEMPORARY shelter for FAMILIES. You are a truly deplorable person and likely consider yourself to be an anti-Trump liberal. Look in the mirror. And if you are actually a pro-Trump conservative, then the shoe fits.
Ward 3 must house poors bc “we are a city”? That does not follow. There are many ways to assist and Ward 3 has gone above and beyond helping the less desireable wards in terms of tax dollars— more than every other ward put together. But there is no recognition of that when forcing a housing facility on us. And why do you think it is a good idea to export the poors to wards that did not spawn them? That harms ward 3 and its property values and increases the crime rates in ward 3. Maybe its not ideal for all the facilities to be in ward 7 and 8, but there is a real cost of putting one in ward 3 to the community in ward 3 that is not being taken into account at all, which is annoying. Why not just have more shelters in wards 6 or 5 if you want to sprinkle them around? All you are accomplishing by putting a shelter in ward 3 is biting the hand that feeds wards 7 and 8. Stupid social policy and yes I am a liberal. But this is a stupid liberal idea. Looking at it honestly, none of my friends think it makes any sense.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The bigger issue is why does ward 3 have to be burdened with a dreadful facility like this? Ward 3 pays more in personal income taxes than all of the other wards combined - that shoud buy freedom from a facility housing poors prone to violence and criminality. I never understood why the ward whose culture spawned the shelter residents in the first instance (chiefly wards 7 and 8) should not get to “enjoy” the fruits of their labor.
This is the worst of the worst of Ward 3 tripe. We are a city. If you want to live on an island, move. Most of us understand that, while there are wealthier and less wealthy areas, it is better to distribute and not focus "all the poors" in one place. And, this is a TEMPORARY shelter for FAMILIES. You are a truly deplorable person and likely consider yourself to be an anti-Trump liberal. Look in the mirror. And if you are actually a pro-Trump conservative, then the shoe fits.
Ward 3 must house poors bc “we are a city”? That does not follow. There are many ways to assist and Ward 3 has gone above and beyond helping the less desireable wards in terms of tax dollars— more than every other ward put together. But there is no recognition of that when forcing a housing facility on us. And why do you think it is a good idea to export the poors to wards that did not spawn them? That harms ward 3 and its property values and increases the crime rates in ward 3. Maybe its not ideal for all the facilities to be in ward 7 and 8, but there is a real cost of putting one in ward 3 to the community in ward 3 that is not being taken into account at all, which is annoying. Why not just have more shelters in wards 6 or 5 if you want to sprinkle them around? All you are accomplishing by putting a shelter in ward 3 is biting the hand that feeds wards 7 and 8. Stupid social policy and yes I am a liberal. But this is a stupid liberal idea. Looking at it honestly, none of my friends think it makes any sense.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The bigger issue is why does ward 3 have to be burdened with a dreadful facility like this? Ward 3 pays more in personal income taxes than all of the other wards combined - that shoud buy freedom from a facility housing poors prone to violence and criminality. I never understood why the ward whose culture spawned the shelter residents in the first instance (chiefly wards 7 and 8) should not get to “enjoy” the fruits of their labor.
This is the worst of the worst of Ward 3 tripe. We are a city. If you want to live on an island, move. Most of us understand that, while there are wealthier and less wealthy areas, it is better to distribute and not focus "all the poors" in one place. And, this is a TEMPORARY shelter for FAMILIES. You are a truly deplorable person and likely consider yourself to be an anti-Trump liberal. Look in the mirror. And if you are actually a pro-Trump conservative, then the shoe fits.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The bigger issue is why does ward 3 have to be burdened with a dreadful facility like this? Ward 3 pays more in personal income taxes than all of the other wards combined - that shoud buy freedom from a facility housing poors prone to violence and criminality. I never understood why the ward whose culture spawned the shelter residents in the first instance (chiefly wards 7 and 8) should not get to “enjoy” the fruits of their labor.
This is the worst of the worst of Ward 3 tripe. We are a city. If you want to live on an island, move. Most of us understand that, while there are wealthier and less wealthy areas, it is better to distribute and not focus "all the poors" in one place. And, this is a TEMPORARY shelter for FAMILIES. You are a truly deplorable person and likely consider yourself to be an anti-Trump liberal. Look in the mirror. And if you are actually a pro-Trump conservative, then the shoe fits.
Anonymous wrote:You really haven't spoken to my point. If the goal is continuity and stability, why would you not locate a family near to where they would secure low income housing after their stay in the shelter? They could establish transport and shopping habits, stay in same school etc. I'm just not sure the goal is the longterm welfare of these families, combines with safety (that's important - I'm not saying house them somewhere dodgy) and efficiency.
Anonymous wrote:You really haven't spoken to my point. If the goal is continuity and stability, why would you not locate a family near to where they would secure low income housing after their stay in the shelter? They could establish transport and shopping habits, stay in same school etc. I'm just not sure the goal is the longterm welfare of these families, combines with safety (that's important - I'm not saying house them somewhere dodgy) and efficiency.
Anonymous wrote:The bigger issue is why does ward 3 have to be burdened with a dreadful facility like this? Ward 3 pays more in personal income taxes than all of the other wards combined - that shoud buy freedom from a facility housing poors prone to violence and criminality. I never understood why the ward whose culture spawned the shelter residents in the first instance (chiefly wards 7 and 8) should not get to “enjoy” the fruits of their labor.