Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC managed to run one centralized shelter completely into the ground, forgive me for being for not believing that the city gained enough competence to run multiple smaller satellite shelters and not have them turn into poorly maintained and regulated slums.

Well considering stable geniuses like you refuse to volunteer your expertise in civil service to help our local governments run more efficiently - what do you expect.
If you puff your chest out like have all the answers and turn your nose up like you know all the solutions but aren't willing to run for office and fix the shit then I don't think you're in a privileged position to bitch about how f_cked up shit is later.

NP. By this logic, no one should criticize their government or elected representatives unless they have personally run for office.

You can’t possibly be as stupid as your post suggests, can you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC managed to run one centralized shelter completely into the ground, forgive me for being for not believing that the city gained enough competence to run multiple smaller satellite shelters and not have them turn into poorly maintained and regulated slums.

Well considering stable geniuses like you refuse to volunteer your expertise in civil service to help our local governments run more efficiently - what do you expect.
If you puff your chest out like have all the answers and turn your nose up like you know all the solutions but aren't willing to run for office and fix the shit then I don't think you're in a privileged position to bitch about how f_cked up shit is later.

Anonymous wrote:DC managed to run one centralized shelter completely into the ground, forgive me for being for not believing that the city gained enough competence to run multiple smaller satellite shelters and not have them turn into poorly maintained and regulated slums.

Anonymous wrote:DC managed to run one centralized shelter completely into the ground, forgive me for being for not believing that the city gained enough competence to run multiple smaller satellite shelters and not have them turn into poorly maintained and regulated slums.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC managed to run one centralized shelter completely into the ground, forgive me for being for not believing that the city gained enough competence to run multiple smaller satellite shelters and not have them turn into poorly maintained and regulated slums.

There's discussion about a Phase II for the Idaho Avenue shelter, which could add another 300+ beds, either another family wing, a separate men's dormitory, or both. The site is fortuitous because DC owns several acres behind the police station, which are largely vacant and allows for phased expansion. This would also create greater economies of scale for providing services, as the Ward 3 complex expands.

Anonymous wrote:DC managed to run one centralized shelter completely into the ground, forgive me for being for not believing that the city gained enough competence to run multiple smaller satellite shelters and not have them turn into poorly maintained and regulated slums.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There should be affordable housing built near the shelters so that people can stay in the neighborhoods they are placed in. Otherwise it doesn't make sense to displace families after they've stabilized.

FWIW, there was a post of PoPville about how the Columbia Heights residents are opposed to the new shelter that's going up there so this isn't just a ward 3 thing.

are you dense? Columbia Heights has the highest concentration of subsidized housing in the city. Public Housing, Section 8, including a homeless shelter and medical facility, permanent "supportive" housing for recovering addicts. Please tell me why Ward 3 thinks they are exempt from sharing a city wide burden. How many of you have signs in your yard stating that "all are welcome here" in multiple languages? Just as long as they aren't homeless. And to the poster who thinks its wrong to let poor folks live in Ward 3 for a few months since they won't be able to stay long term? What you are saying is "why let them see how nice our life is, it will only make them sad"- insert sad face emoji. WTF is wrong with you?

I'm confused. What I'm saying is that there should be affordable housing near the new ward 3 shelter so that there is a path for people who stay at the shelter to permanently transition into the neighborhood.

And how, pray tell, will you do that? Use eminent domain and tear down the SFHs in Cleveland Park historic district? Bulldoze McLean Gardens and build high rises? Cathedral Commons is already built out, and the minimal 'affordable' units there are being rented by AU students. The fancy Wegman's town center will include the minimal number of 'affordable' units also, but the developer intends that to be more upscale than Cathedral Commons.

Do you have evidence of this? Most AU students are too wealthy to waste time gaming the IZ system and it makes even less sense with all the new on-campus housing AU has built. Do do you know that this has happened or does it just fit your ignorant narrative of what is going on around you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There should be affordable housing built near the shelters so that people can stay in the neighborhoods they are placed in. Otherwise it doesn't make sense to displace families after they've stabilized.

FWIW, there was a post of PoPville about how the Columbia Heights residents are opposed to the new shelter that's going up there so this isn't just a ward 3 thing.

are you dense? Columbia Heights has the highest concentration of subsidized housing in the city. Public Housing, Section 8, including a homeless shelter and medical facility, permanent "supportive" housing for recovering addicts. Please tell me why Ward 3 thinks they are exempt from sharing a city wide burden. How many of you have signs in your yard stating that "all are welcome here" in multiple languages? Just as long as they aren't homeless. And to the poster who thinks its wrong to let poor folks live in Ward 3 for a few months since they won't be able to stay long term? What you are saying is "why let them see how nice our life is, it will only make them sad"- insert sad face emoji. WTF is wrong with you?

I'm confused. What I'm saying is that there should be affordable housing near the new ward 3 shelter so that there is a path for people who stay at the shelter to permanently transition into the neighborhood.

And how, pray tell, will you do that? Use eminent domain and tear down the SFHs in Cleveland Park historic district? Bulldoze McLean Gardens and build high rises? Cathedral Commons is already built out, and the minimal 'affordable' units there are being rented by AU students. The fancy Wegman's town center will include the minimal number of 'affordable' units also, but the developer intends that to be more upscale than Cathedral Commons.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There should be affordable housing built near the shelters so that people can stay in the neighborhoods they are placed in. Otherwise it doesn't make sense to displace families after they've stabilized.

FWIW, there was a post of PoPville about how the Columbia Heights residents are opposed to the new shelter that's going up there so this isn't just a ward 3 thing.

are you dense? Columbia Heights has the highest concentration of subsidized housing in the city. Public Housing, Section 8, including a homeless shelter and medical facility, permanent "supportive" housing for recovering addicts. Please tell me why Ward 3 thinks they are exempt from sharing a city wide burden. How many of you have signs in your yard stating that "all are welcome here" in multiple languages? Just as long as they aren't homeless. And to the poster who thinks its wrong to let poor folks live in Ward 3 for a few months since they won't be able to stay long term? What you are saying is "why let them see how nice our life is, it will only make them sad"- insert sad face emoji. WTF is wrong with you?

I'm confused. What I'm saying is that there should be affordable housing near the new ward 3 shelter so that there is a path for people who stay at the shelter to permanently transition into the neighborhood.

And how, pray tell, will you do that? Use eminent domain and tear down the SFHs in Cleveland Park historic district? Bulldoze McLean Gardens and build high rises? Cathedral Commons is already built out, and the minimal 'affordable' units there are being rented by AU students. The fancy Wegman's town center will include the minimal number of 'affordable' units also, but the developer intends that to be more upscale than Cathedral Commons.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There should be affordable housing built near the shelters so that people can stay in the neighborhoods they are placed in. Otherwise it doesn't make sense to displace families after they've stabilized.

FWIW, there was a post of PoPville about how the Columbia Heights residents are opposed to the new shelter that's going up there so this isn't just a ward 3 thing.

are you dense? Columbia Heights has the highest concentration of subsidized housing in the city. Public Housing, Section 8, including a homeless shelter and medical facility, permanent "supportive" housing for recovering addicts. Please tell me why Ward 3 thinks they are exempt from sharing a city wide burden. How many of you have signs in your yard stating that "all are welcome here" in multiple languages? Just as long as they aren't homeless. And to the poster who thinks its wrong to let poor folks live in Ward 3 for a few months since they won't be able to stay long term? What you are saying is "why let them see how nice our life is, it will only make them sad"- insert sad face emoji. WTF is wrong with you?

I'm confused. What I'm saying is that there should be affordable housing near the new ward 3 shelter so that there is a path for people who stay at the shelter to permanently transition into the neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There should be affordable housing built near the shelters so that people can stay in the neighborhoods they are placed in. Otherwise it doesn't make sense to displace families after they've stabilized.

FWIW, there was a post of PoPville about how the Columbia Heights residents are opposed to the new shelter that's going up there so this isn't just a ward 3 thing.

are you dense? Columbia Heights has the highest concentration of subsidized housing in the city. Public Housing, Section 8, including a homeless shelter and medical facility, permanent "supportive" housing for recovering addicts. Please tell me why Ward 3 thinks they are exempt from sharing a city wide burden. How many of you have signs in your yard stating that "all are welcome here" in multiple languages? Just as long as they aren't homeless. And to the poster who thinks its wrong to let poor folks live in Ward 3 for a few months since they won't be able to stay long term? What you are saying is "why let them see how nice our life is, it will only make them sad"- insert sad face emoji. WTF is wrong with you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And something else to consider is what will the children be doing? All the discussion of overcrowding at Eaton shows that Ward 3 residents think homeless families only have children under 10? What about the middle school and highschoolers? What's the city plan for providing them support (many of them no doubt have one parent who is absent and possibly adjudicated), academic delays, need for meaningful after school activities etc. What the operational plan once this shelter is IN? The BEST thing the city could do is start wooing neighbors including businesses to make creative partnerships. My understanding is the apartments don't have kitchens...(not sure how that encourages independence). Is the city partnering with Giant across the street to provide healthy food? With a local restaurant to provide cooking classes? Or at they jamming it in with zero partnership or follow up. I have not seen the 'vision' for how this is going to be different from any other failed DC shelter--just smaller and geographically spread apart. I'd like to see that. As a neighbor and as a taxpayer.

On John Eaton, (1) the shelter kids have to go to school somewhere; (2) the shelter will be within the Eaton zone; (3) other area schools like Janney are overcrowded and have no room, and the shelter kids would likely feel out of place in a more demographically homogeneous environment. Eaton is already diverse. Just suck it up, Eaton. You'll be ok.

I am questioning the assumption they will all be elementary aged. Surely there will be middle and high schoolers as well who also need support and supervision - especially if mom or dad is at work or in school. And especially if they have any accompanying needs from the trauma of their family displacement and or the issues that led to it.

Still to be answered is what happens to children of families after they leave the shelter. First of all, while DC plans the shelter to be for temporary stays, left unsaid is what happens if the family unit hasn't found suitable accommodations within 6-8 months. Presumably they will stay. But even as they leave the shelter, as at-risk students, the children at Eaton will have the right to continue at Eaton if the family wishes. They also then will be in the feeder pattern for Hardy and eventually Wilson. It's unlikely that a family will be able to find affordable housing in Ward 3 after they leave the shelter. However, even if they re-locate elsewhere in the city, given the chance for their kids to attend a good elementary school and eventually a good high school, why wouldn't a parent logically consider that option? The result could be over time that, even as there's regular turnover at the shelter, the number of at-risk kids at Eaton will steadily grow. Eaton will need the resources to deal with associated specialized learning needs and to assess what this could mean for enrollment planning.

It seems odd to me to place a family for 6-8 months in a neighborhood they won't afford to live in, if the long term goal is stability. Puzzle me that, Mary Cheh.

May not afford to live in that community long term but maybe those 6-8 months of exposure to that stable environment will give them the firsthand knowledge of what sound structured communities consist of along with a few months of peace of mind and reprieve from drama and chaos that will allow them to focus on getting themselves together and get a recovery plan in order as opposed to putting them in some shithole neighborhood where they're besieged by dysfunction and drama and chaos all around them and no opportunity to exhale for a few seconds to get their lives in order because they're too busy stressing about all the shouting, sirens, shootings, etc.

You just must be kidding. You think a city run shelter in a more affordable neighborhood would be all drama dysfunction chaos sirens shooting and shouting? How much TV do you watch? You do know they are planning to build some there. Are they Doomed? And you think high ses neighborhoods are a "magic wand" and 6 months of "exposure" in a shelter there will rightsize anyone's life? It's like some sort of Swiss mountain spa? This is my real fear that this is the council and Chehs plan. Just put these families in a higher ses ward and don't worry about actually having any services. The magical air will just take its effects.??????????

This is basically like the DCPS philosophy of pretending to improve academic performance. Either put a cohort of high-achieving kids in a lackluster school, or put some high-risk kids in a higher performing school (but without the investment of resources to ensure that their learning needs are actually addressed), and viola! -- expect improving academic performance. But it usually doesn't work that way. It avoids the hard slog of improving education.

With Bowsers's decentralized shelter plan, she's never explained how the DC government -- which couldn't deliver even basic quality services to homeless families in one, centralized location -- will somehow be able to deliver better quality services in seven or eight new locations, with all of the inefficiencies and other challenges that decentralization brings.

Meanwhile developers are salivating at getting their hands on the DC General site. That may be Bowser's true plan here.

Exactly. Everything above. No need to go further. Where's the how with this, when there was no how before? I'm going to call Chehs office and read this to the bored, defensive receptionist. Well put.

I'm afraid that it's now abundantly clear that crony development is the main goal here. The news this morning is that the DC General site will be cleared out by the end of 2018, despite the fact that most of the new shelter sites will not be constructed by then.