Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The right place for a shelter should have been one of the redeveloping buildings in Tenleytown, but since the Mayor didn't vet any of the options and had the original Ward 3 site shot down by other NIMBYs, then it is what it is.

Which one of those buildings are owned by the city?

And you probably aren't aware of this but TT already has a couple of significant homeless services there - which is why I would not have opposed locating the shelter in TT and think the people from CP and McLean gardens who are outraged about this are a bunch of snowflakes.

The biggest losers (and whiners) with Helter-Shelter are the anchor investors in the Cathedral Commons town center. Although they had a lot of political connections in the last administration that allowed them to get their building approvals easily, they apparently don't have the same connections to Bowser and the current council. So now they watch as their development investment (where they try to charge $9000 monthly to rent a townhouse) loses value as the high-rise homeless shelter rises directly across the street. And once the really upscale Wegmans center planned at Fannie Mae opens, and with the homeless shelter next door, Cathedral Commons will seem shabby by comparison.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The right place for a shelter should have been one of the redeveloping buildings in Tenleytown, but since the Mayor didn't vet any of the options and had the original Ward 3 site shot down by other NIMBYs, then it is what it is.

Which one of those buildings are owned by the city?

And you probably aren't aware of this but TT already has a couple of significant homeless services there - which is why I would not have opposed locating the shelter in TT and think the people from CP and McLean gardens who are outraged about this are a bunch of snowflakes.

There are buildings that were sold by AU, either of which could have been leased by the city, if the timing were a little different.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 NIMBYs gonna NIMBY

Many Ward 3 voters are staunchly YIYBY! That is, they can get on their soap box with furrowed brow and talk about how important it is to "share the burden" of homelessness across the city. They know full well that only a small number of residents in the ward will be faced with the impact of the shelter, while they can moralize knowing full well that they and their neighborhoods will not be affected in the least.

YIYBY! "Yes, but in your backyard!"

I don't know anyone who wants to share the burden by co-homing. Homelessness is pretty wretched. no one--in the COUNTRY--has got a bead on it. Mental health laws and lack of substance treatment complicate it all greatly. I think the plan a few PPS ago is a fine one and about being efficient with tax dollars, which ward 3 pay plenty of. How many of these homeless are originally from DC btw? Why aren't they with their families? Is there something there that could be addressed, ie changing housing codes so they could stay temporarily or giving their families a bonus to house them? If they alienated their families through some kind of toxic behavior then they definintely need to be in more controlled environs on the other hand. if they are not from DC and are just normal striving people looking to get ahead as one PP claimed, then they should be rational enough to take advantage of the shelters on offer or move to a place where the cost of living is lower. Have you seen what is happening in CA with homeless? DC is not nearly as smart, efficient or effective with its systems to take on CA size problems in the snazzy, sexy way they wish. Keep it simple and humane. To me, if we could not administer DC General properly we certainly haven't proved we can administer a satellite system. Let's administer the shelters we have properly, then branch out.

\

Lost in the whole debate is the true imperative to close DC General: Crony developer friends of Mayor Bowser covet the site, and the mayor is happy to ensure that it becomes available to them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The right place for a shelter should have been one of the redeveloping buildings in Tenleytown, but since the Mayor didn't vet any of the options and had the original Ward 3 site shot down by other NIMBYs, then it is what it is.

Which one of those buildings are owned by the city?

And you probably aren't aware of this but TT already has a couple of significant homeless services there - which is why I would not have opposed locating the shelter in TT and think the people from CP and McLean gardens who are outraged about this are a bunch of snowflakes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The right place for a shelter should have been one of the redeveloping buildings in Tenleytown, but since the Mayor didn't vet any of the options and had the original Ward 3 site shot down by other NIMBYs, then it is what it is.

Which one of those buildings are owned by the city?

And you probably aren't aware of this but TT already has a couple of significant homeless services there - which is why I would not have opposed locating the shelter in TT and think the people from CP and McLean gardens who are outraged about this are a bunch of snowflakes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 NIMBYs gonna NIMBY

Many Ward 3 voters are staunchly YIYBY! That is, they can get on their soap box with furrowed brow and talk about how important it is to "share the burden" of homelessness across the city. They know full well that only a small number of residents in the ward will be faced with the impact of the shelter, while they can moralize knowing full well that they and their neighborhoods will not be affected in the least.

YIYBY! "Yes, but in your backyard!"

I don't know anyone who wants to share the burden by co-homing. Homelessness is pretty wretched. no one--in the COUNTRY--has got a bead on it. Mental health laws and lack of substance treatment complicate it all greatly. I think the plan a few PPS ago is a fine one and about being efficient with tax dollars, which ward 3 pay plenty of. How many of these homeless are originally from DC btw? Why aren't they with their families? Is there something there that could be addressed, ie changing housing codes so they could stay temporarily or giving their families a bonus to house them? If they alienated their families through some kind of toxic behavior then they definintely need to be in more controlled environs on the other hand. if they are not from DC and are just normal striving people looking to get ahead as one PP claimed, then they should be rational enough to take advantage of the shelters on offer or move to a place where the cost of living is lower. Have you seen what is happening in CA with homeless? DC is not nearly as smart, efficient or effective with its systems to take on CA size problems in the snazzy, sexy way they wish. Keep it simple and humane. To me, if we could not administer DC General properly we certainly haven't proved we can administer a satellite system. Let's administer the shelters we have properly, then branch out.

\

Lost in the whole debate is the true imperative to close DC General: Crony developer friends of Mayor Bowser covet the site, and the mayor is happy to ensure that it becomes available to them.

Anonymous wrote:The right place for a shelter should have been one of the redeveloping buildings in Tenleytown, but since the Mayor didn't vet any of the options and had the original Ward 3 site shot down by other NIMBYs, then it is what it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 NIMBYs gonna NIMBY

Many Ward 3 voters are staunchly YIYBY! That is, they can get on their soap box with furrowed brow and talk about how important it is to "share the burden" of homelessness across the city. They know full well that only a small number of residents in the ward will be faced with the impact of the shelter, while they can moralize knowing full well that they and their neighborhoods will not be affected in the least.

YIYBY! "Yes, but in your backyard!"

I don't know anyone who wants to share the burden by co-homing. Homelessness is pretty wretched. no one--in the COUNTRY--has got a bead on it. Mental health laws and lack of substance treatment complicate it all greatly. I think the plan a few PPS ago is a fine one and about being efficient with tax dollars, which ward 3 pay plenty of. How many of these homeless are originally from DC btw? Why aren't they with their families? Is there something there that could be addressed, ie changing housing codes so they could stay temporarily or giving their families a bonus to house them? If they alienated their families through some kind of toxic behavior then they definintely need to be in more controlled environs on the other hand. if they are not from DC and are just normal striving people looking to get ahead as one PP claimed, then they should be rational enough to take advantage of the shelters on offer or move to a place where the cost of living is lower. Have you seen what is happening in CA with homeless? DC is not nearly as smart, efficient or effective with its systems to take on CA size problems in the snazzy, sexy way they wish. Keep it simple and humane. To me, if we could not administer DC General properly we certainly haven't proved we can administer a satellite system. Let's administer the shelters we have properly, then branch out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 NIMBYs gonna NIMBY

Many Ward 3 voters are staunchly YIYBY! That is, they can get on their soap box with furrowed brow and talk about how important it is to "share the burden" of homelessness across the city. They know full well that only a small number of residents in the ward will be faced with the impact of the shelter, while they can moralize knowing full well that they and their neighborhoods will not be affected in the least.

YIYBY! "Yes, but in your backyard!"

Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 NIMBYs gonna NIMBY

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do single homeless men need small "neighborhood" based shelters?

Spit it out just say what you are afraid of...
The idea of 20-30 junkies nutjobs and criminals all housed in a shelter just hanging around all day congregating on the corners and walking around the neighborhood is frightening and you’re all for helping the homeless but not at the expense of them impeding on your comfortable community and invading your safe space. You’d rather they be hoarded off and housed in some other part of the city among “their kind” i.e. other low-income undesirables that you similarly would prefer to avoid at all costs.
I totally get it - not judging at all cause it’s an understandable attitude to have but it’s an anonymous forum - so just say it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't the city council blocking an underground parking lot for the fannie mae redevelopment project in their misguided war on driving? This would simply force the developer to enlarge the projects footprint and knock down trees for an above ground parking area. Meanwhile, they give all kinds of variances for this shelter project. It seems like our council just wants to spread architectural blight up and down Wisconsin avenue, so it can be as ugly and congested as other recently "developed" areas. I guess that's their idea of equity.

Where did you hear this? First of all the Council doesn't get involved in individual zoning cases. Second, the developer has indicated that he's got the city agencies at his back. An underground garage there is a good, needed thing, although not the developer's proposed new Wisconsin access for trucks and cars. It would put another light about 100 feet from an existing one at Rodman and 250 feet from the other light at Fannie/Post Office. This will create even more gridlock in an already congested area. The developer should use the existing Wisconsin access, but it clearly wants to put trucks on the periphery of its site (next to existig McLean Gardens residences on Rodman) rather than create noise for the on-site residences that the developer wants to sell.

Neither of these posts are true. Either use links and supporting evidence or stop spreading false information.

With large tract review, the city has very little to say or weigh in on with this project with respect to parking or anything else. And the plans show using the existing light between the site and Cafe Ole.

Has the developer requested underground parking and has that been approved ?

A third access to the site, direct to Wisconsin Avenue next to existing lights, absolutely requires regulatory review, starting with DDOT. It's crazy to put a new access at the south part of that site, which is very much part of the plans. Are you a flack for the developer?

A third access used only by delivery trucks at off hours - ya, that will have tremendous impact.