Anonymous wrote:Chen at a meeting right now just condescendingly told neighbors to take a "time out," and is speaking in the presumptuous, obnoxious way to the community. Asking doubtfully if neighbors would be as concerned about an apartment going up, to which the answer was a resounding yes to which she smirked (ignoring the neighborhood's longstanding efforts to consider these issues). And then we're told the DC CFO concluded there would Brno decrease in government revenue, but then it was revealed that DC didn't even request that the impact of a homeless shelters in adjacent property values be considered. Pathetic circus.

Anonymous wrote:Chen at a meeting right now just condescendingly told neighbors to take a "time out," and is speaking in the presumptuous, obnoxious way to the community. Asking doubtfully if neighbors would be as concerned about an apartment going up, to which the answer was a resounding yes to which she smirked (ignoring the neighborhood's longstanding efforts to consider these issues).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What makes you think these will be families who use Eaton? What about mentally ill (who I see wandering Tenlrytown) or drug addicts? Spice, meth, crack? Has anyone specified to you who will be served there?

It's specifically a shelter for families, which by definition means kids. They might not go to Eaton: they might not be elementary-school aged or they might choose to continue to go to wherever they went before (homeless students have certain rights, which include being allowed to stay in a previous school). Their parents might, indeed, be mentally ill, but I do not think they will be active drug users.

Anonymous wrote:Will Eaton get funding for extra staff/counsellors to works with these kids who made need extra support?

Anonymous wrote:With the homeless around Cathedral Commons Giant and the Tenley Library--Wisconsin Ave. is getting very SF. What are the laws? These people need shelter and treatment, not the bus stop or the doorway. I am guessing none of them will get served through this plan though due to involuntary commitment laws. They will continue to populate the street corners, while these families move into these inefficient homes with so far--no one has explained--any strings attached.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Will Eaton get the extra resources to deal with an influx of "at risk" children who may be rotating in and out of the school. Despite best intentions, this could be a real challenge for the school and other students if not managed carefully and with maximum resources.

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?

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.

Those homeless who are single, they are supposed to vanish in thin air?

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?

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where would the police station go?

I thought it would stay where it is? That the shelter goes on the parking lot next to it?

Yes, it's a big parcel of land. Apparently the police station can stay put as well as the community garden.