The comments that Bowser is getting via the WaPo article are brutal... https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-mayor-refuses-to-say-how-she-picked-sites-for-new-homeless-shelters/2016/02/15/8a6817c6-d199-11e5-b2bc-988409ee911b_story.html?hpid=hp_local-news_dchomeless756pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

I also note a lot of commenters and posters are pointing out that Southwest has become the dumping grounds for DC's poor. Ward 6 already has more homeless shelters than most other wards, and has the largest number of public housing units of any ward in the city. Enough already.

Anonymous wrote:I don't see why ward 3 can't handle some subsidized housing, yes. I like socioeconomic diversity. It is good for everyone, except the kind of nouveau riche snobs that no one else can stand anyway.

That's great then move to a neighborhood or Ward that has it. Don't ask the taxpayers to provide a socioeconomic diverse neighborhood for you. I lived on Capitol Hill and after my friend was mugged, my house was attempted to be broken into by a crack addict while I was home, and not being able to walk around alone past 6pm, I moved to a safer wealthier neighborhood. I won't apologize for that. We could help more families if we handle homelessness more cost effectively.

I don't see why ward 3 can't handle some subsidized housing, yes. I like socioeconomic diversity. It is good for everyone, except the kind of nouveau riche snobs that no one else can stand anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this will be viewed as black heresy by the $300,000-a-year-but-totally-middle-class citizens of DCUM, but I would personally prefer the city arrange as many backroom crony deals as they need to to build shelters that get children out of the hell holes they've living in right now instead of more developments of luxury condo buildings for 20-something Hill staffers and lobbyists. I would vote for whatever candidate forces those developers to allocate 25% of those new buildings towards actual affordable housing.

Affordable is different than public housing or low income housing. Which do you support?

Affordable housing, public housing and low income housing are all subsidized in some form or another. Mechanisms vary but that's about it...

Different levels. Are you saying the govt should pay to have low income people living in million dollar homes? Sounds like socialism or income redistribution to me. I support affordable housing but not income redistribution.

I don't think anyone here said anything about low income people living in million dollar homes but it seems that's practically what Bowser is doing - I don't get why low income people should be living in a more expensive neighborhood than me, in an apartment where the rent alone will be a lot more than my mortgage payment. Bowser's plan has rents (JUST rents, not even including meals or anything else) costing taxpayers upwards of $3,300 a month (one site involves a $2 million dollar a year lease to house 50 families, per WaPo). For that kind of money we could be basically buying every homeless family in DC General a $750,000 home.

Well the pro bowser poster said they will or may buy housing in Ward three so the people at the shelter can stay in that ward. Even the cheapest apartment or homes in Ward three are $750k plus.

Why pick the most expensive areas of the city? Why pick privately owned properties? Why not leverage land that the city already owns? Why not rehab existing buildings that the city already owns?

Exactly. The reply to that at the ward 3 meeting was "you think they should only live in poor areas?"

That's a flaky answer. What about everyone else living in poor areas? Should they also be subsidized to go live in Ward 3?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this will be viewed as black heresy by the $300,000-a-year-but-totally-middle-class citizens of DCUM, but I would personally prefer the city arrange as many backroom crony deals as they need to to build shelters that get children out of the hell holes they've living in right now instead of more developments of luxury condo buildings for 20-something Hill staffers and lobbyists. I would vote for whatever candidate forces those developers to allocate 25% of those new buildings towards actual affordable housing.

Affordable is different than public housing or low income housing. Which do you support?

Affordable housing, public housing and low income housing are all subsidized in some form or another. Mechanisms vary but that's about it...

Different levels. Are you saying the govt should pay to have low income people living in million dollar homes? Sounds like socialism or income redistribution to me. I support affordable housing but not income redistribution.

I don't think anyone here said anything about low income people living in million dollar homes but it seems that's practically what Bowser is doing - I don't get why low income people should be living in a more expensive neighborhood than me, in an apartment where the rent alone will be a lot more than my mortgage payment. Bowser's plan has rents (JUST rents, not even including meals or anything else) costing taxpayers upwards of $3,300 a month (one site involves a $2 million dollar a year lease to house 50 families, per WaPo). For that kind of money we could be basically buying every homeless family in DC General a $750,000 home.

Well the pro bowser poster said they will or may buy housing in Ward three so the people at the shelter can stay in that ward. Even the cheapest apartment or homes in Ward three are $750k plus.

Why pick the most expensive areas of the city? Why pick privately owned properties? Why not leverage land that the city already owns? Why not rehab existing buildings that the city already owns?

Exactly. The reply to that at the ward 3 meeting was "you think they should only live in poor areas?"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this will be viewed as black heresy by the $300,000-a-year-but-totally-middle-class citizens of DCUM, but I would personally prefer the city arrange as many backroom crony deals as they need to to build shelters that get children out of the hell holes they've living in right now instead of more developments of luxury condo buildings for 20-something Hill staffers and lobbyists. I would vote for whatever candidate forces those developers to allocate 25% of those new buildings towards actual affordable housing.

Affordable is different than public housing or low income housing. Which do you support?

Affordable housing, public housing and low income housing are all subsidized in some form or another. Mechanisms vary but that's about it...

Different levels. Are you saying the govt should pay to have low income people living in million dollar homes? Sounds like socialism or income redistribution to me. I support affordable housing but not income redistribution.

I don't think anyone here said anything about low income people living in million dollar homes but it seems that's practically what Bowser is doing - I don't get why low income people should be living in a more expensive neighborhood than me, in an apartment where the rent alone will be a lot more than my mortgage payment. Bowser's plan has rents (JUST rents, not even including meals or anything else) costing taxpayers upwards of $3,300 a month (one site involves a $2 million dollar a year lease to house 50 families, per WaPo). For that kind of money we could be basically buying every homeless family in DC General a $750,000 home.

Well the pro bowser poster said they will or may buy housing in Ward three so the people at the shelter can stay in that ward. Even the cheapest apartment or homes in Ward three are $750k plus.

Why pick the most expensive areas of the city? Why pick privately owned properties? Why not leverage land that the city already owns? Why not rehab existing buildings that the city already owns?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this will be viewed as black heresy by the $300,000-a-year-but-totally-middle-class citizens of DCUM, but I would personally prefer the city arrange as many backroom crony deals as they need to to build shelters that get children out of the hell holes they've living in right now instead of more developments of luxury condo buildings for 20-something Hill staffers and lobbyists. I would vote for whatever candidate forces those developers to allocate 25% of those new buildings towards actual affordable housing.

Affordable is different than public housing or low income housing. Which do you support?

Affordable housing, public housing and low income housing are all subsidized in some form or another. Mechanisms vary but that's about it...

Different levels. Are you saying the govt should pay to have low income people living in million dollar homes? Sounds like socialism or income redistribution to me. I support affordable housing but not income redistribution.

I don't think anyone here said anything about low income people living in million dollar homes but it seems that's practically what Bowser is doing - I don't get why low income people should be living in a more expensive neighborhood than me, in an apartment where the rent alone will be a lot more than my mortgage payment. Bowser's plan has rents (JUST rents, not even including meals or anything else) costing taxpayers upwards of $3,300 a month (one site involves a $2 million dollar a year lease to house 50 families, per WaPo). For that kind of money we could be basically buying every homeless family in DC General a $750,000 home.

Well the pro bowser poster said they will or may buy housing in Ward three so the people at the shelter can stay in that ward. Even the cheapest apartment or homes in Ward three are $750k plus.

Anonymous wrote:I know this will be viewed as black heresy by the $300,000-a-year-but-totally-middle-class citizens of DCUM, but I would personally prefer the city arrange as many backroom crony deals as they need to to build shelters that get children out of the hell holes they've living in right now instead of more developments of luxury condo buildings for 20-something Hill staffers and lobbyists. I would vote for whatever candidate forces those developers to allocate 25% of those new buildings towards actual affordable housing.

The reality is that DC doesn't enforce very well its existing laws on "affordable" housing minimums in new projects. In fact, I've seen zoning cases where the developer dangles having additional affordable housing than what the statute requires in exchange for being allowed more height and density in what's called a planned unit development or PUD. Yet by the end of the case, not only has the applicant successfully gotten the same number of housing units to count for both statute and PUD purposes, but its lawyers have further reduced the affordable minimum through various technical arguments. It's a complete racket, and most DC politicians and certainly developers know it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this will be viewed as black heresy by the $300,000-a-year-but-totally-middle-class citizens of DCUM, but I would personally prefer the city arrange as many backroom crony deals as they need to to build shelters that get children out of the hell holes they've living in right now instead of more developments of luxury condo buildings for 20-something Hill staffers and lobbyists. I would vote for whatever candidate forces those developers to allocate 25% of those new buildings towards actual affordable housing.

Affordable is different than public housing or low income housing. Which do you support?

Affordable housing, public housing and low income housing are all subsidized in some form or another. Mechanisms vary but that's about it...

Different levels. Are you saying the govt should pay to have low income people living in million dollar homes? Sounds like socialism or income redistribution to me. I support affordable housing but not income redistribution.

I don't think anyone here said anything about low income people living in million dollar homes but it seems that's practically what Bowser is doing - I don't get why low income people should be living in a more expensive neighborhood than me, in an apartment where the rent alone will be a lot more than my mortgage payment. Bowser's plan has rents (JUST rents, not even including meals or anything else) costing taxpayers upwards of $3,300 a month (one site involves a $2 million dollar a year lease to house 50 families, per WaPo). For that kind of money we could be basically buying every homeless family in DC General a $750,000 home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much hatred for the holmeless for such a "so called" liberal city.

You guys are full of shit.

If you are talking to the Mayor, you should know it's a She.

Oh, and her NEW house is apparently 3 miles from the closest new shelter.

Shocking, I know.

That's for security reasons. Now move along.

???

What security reasons? To avoid toddler crime, as some pro-Bowser PP was making fun earlier?

They fail to mention that 7 out of the 8 shelters will also house men, so it's not just single women with toddlers.

They are FAMILY shelters. Fathers/husbands are considered part of a family.

Exactly so why do you keep saying only women and toddlers will be in the shelters?

I wasn't the one who said that, but for what it's worth, in my experience, the majority are single moms with kids. Sometimes there are two-parent families, but single mom with 1-2 kids under age 5 is most common.

The kids don't stay under 5 forever. And the women don't generally go through the rest of life without men either.

There are no curfews as they said at the meeting that these will be their homes and they can come and go as they like.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much hatred for the holmeless for such a "so called" liberal city.

You guys are full of shit.

If you are talking to the Mayor, you should know it's a She.

Oh, and her NEW house is apparently 3 miles from the closest new shelter.

Shocking, I know.

That's for security reasons. Now move along.

???

What security reasons? To avoid toddler crime, as some pro-Bowser PP was making fun earlier?

They fail to mention that 7 out of the 8 shelters will also house men, so it's not just single women with toddlers.

They are FAMILY shelters. Fathers/husbands are considered part of a family.

Exactly so why do you keep saying only women and toddlers will be in the shelters?

I wasn't the one who said that, but for what it's worth, in my experience, the majority are single moms with kids. Sometimes there are two-parent families, but single mom with 1-2 kids under age 5 is most common.

The kids don't stay under 5 forever. And the women don't generally go through the rest of life without men either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this will be viewed as black heresy by the $300,000-a-year-but-totally-middle-class citizens of DCUM, but I would personally prefer the city arrange as many backroom crony deals as they need to to build shelters that get children out of the hell holes they've living in right now instead of more developments of luxury condo buildings for 20-something Hill staffers and lobbyists. I would vote for whatever candidate forces those developers to allocate 25% of those new buildings towards actual affordable housing.

Affordable is different than public housing or low income housing. Which do you support?

Affordable housing, public housing and low income housing are all subsidized in some form or another. Mechanisms vary but that's about it...

Different levels. Are you saying the govt should pay to have low income people living in million dollar homes? Sounds like socialism or income redistribution to me. I support affordable housing but not income redistribution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this will be viewed as black heresy by the $300,000-a-year-but-totally-middle-class citizens of DCUM, but I would personally prefer the city arrange as many backroom crony deals as they need to to build shelters that get children out of the hell holes they've living in right now instead of more developments of luxury condo buildings for 20-something Hill staffers and lobbyists. I would vote for whatever candidate forces those developers to allocate 25% of those new buildings towards actual affordable housing.

Affordable is different than public housing or low income housing. Which do you support?

Affordable housing, public housing and low income housing are all subsidized in some form or another. Mechanisms vary but that's about it...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. Apparently one of the shelters is going to be leased at a cost of $2m per year, to house 50 families.

That works out to be a rental cost of $3,333 per month per family.

What. The. FUCK.

Holy shit, that's a lot of money for an apartment for a homeless family. Bet you it's a crony deal with one of Bowser's friends.

Source?

Been covered in several articles in the WaPo and Washington Business Journal...

Anonymous wrote:I know this will be viewed as black heresy by the $300,000-a-year-but-totally-middle-class citizens of DCUM, but I would personally prefer the city arrange as many backroom crony deals as they need to to build shelters that get children out of the hell holes they've living in right now instead of more developments of luxury condo buildings for 20-something Hill staffers and lobbyists. I would vote for whatever candidate forces those developers to allocate 25% of those new buildings towards actual affordable housing.

Affordable is different than public housing or low income housing. Which do you support?