The shelter should be built on top of the Tenley library, to finish what Mayor Fenty has already spent $1 Million on.

I live in McLean Gardens and feel nervous but also cautiously optimistic about the shelter. I certainly deplore some of the nasty, racist crap opponents are spewing. But it does really bother me how everyone is going on about rich NIMBYs. MG is probably the least wealthy part of Ward 3; my neighbors are mostly teachers, government workers and nonprofit types who can't afford the million dollar homes up where Mary Cheh lives. I think she owes us a better explanation about why we get the honor of shouldering the lion's share of the Ward's social responsibilities as opposed to the corporate lobbyists and Biglaw partners who populate the rest of the Ward.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually need to ask--is there any way to stop this harebrained scheme at this point? If so, how? If not, I will save my breath on arguing its obvious demerits.

Call your council person. And keep calling them until they stop it.

Stop the reasoning by showing the clear adverse impact on the community. Get the commercial entities involved who have just invested millions in Cathedral Commons.

"The Homeless Shelter at Cathedral Commons."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually need to ask--is there any way to stop this harebrained scheme at this point? If so, how? If not, I will save my breath on arguing its obvious demerits.

Call your council person. And keep calling them until they stop it.

Stop the reasoning by showing the clear adverse impact on the community. Get the commercial entities involved who have just invested millions in Cathedral Commons.

PP here. That is, stop the "re-zoning."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually need to ask--is there any way to stop this harebrained scheme at this point? If so, how? If not, I will save my breath on arguing its obvious demerits.

Call your council person. And keep calling them until they stop it.

Stop the reasoning by showing the clear adverse impact on the community. Get the commercial entities involved who have just invested millions in Cathedral Commons.

Anonymous wrote:I actually need to ask--is there any way to stop this harebrained scheme at this point? If so, how? If not, I will save my breath on arguing its obvious demerits.

Call your council person. And keep calling them until they stop it.

I actually need to ask--is there any way to stop this harebrained scheme at this point? If so, how? If not, I will save my breath on arguing its obvious demerits.

Sorry, I should have said Macomb Giant.

Yesterday I took a walk on Wisonsin. Street Sense guy sleeping in bushes, homeless woman weaving in traffic, homeless woman panhandling by Macomb McDonalds. Our city leaders are turning this place into SF. ONE CONSOLIDATED shelter with buses and on site services. It does not need to be near metro or bus. Have a shuttle for apts. and a school bus for the kids This is supposed to be a temporary living arrangement yes? 120 days, yes?? Focus the money on affordable housing for those who are able to develop self-management skills with the interim support provided at the ONE CONSOLIDATED shelter. This is insanity. I'm born in DC, I've received social services which I deeply appreciated/needed at the time and hope I have repaid by becoming a productive, self supporting, giving back resident. I completely support help for the working poor--day care etc/whatever it takes to be self-reliant. I am entirely unsympathetic to this boondoggle, wasteful plan. OPEN your eyes bleeding hearts. This is a wasteful plan and I guarantee it will not move anyone to self-sufficiency. These will become permanent homes and then they will need to build more.

The city will set up the shelters with most of the services stated, then, it will fail to fund any of the continuing operations and allow the services and security to drift away. Though level crime, then higher level crime, well drift into the area, and anyone who identifies the presence of the shelter as a cause will be spoken down to condescendingly as not doing their share to fight homelessness. It will not matter that the whole idea of placing a shelter far from the metro, far from the resident children's schools, and far from the home community of most of the residents, will not be effective. The politicians will look like they have stuck it to the rich white people, and then they will go about their business of failing, again and again, to support their lofty goals. And they are relying, as Cheh did twice and talking at the community, on the neighborhood essentially supporting the shelter and making sure all goes well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Neighbors would be concerned about a proposed apartment building, but not as concerned as they are now, if the tenor of recent posts on the CP listserv is any sign.

I do feel sorry for the people on the block of Idaho Ave near Macomb. First they got hammered with the beautiful Giant loading dock facility directly adjacent or across the street (not to mention the increase in traffic from Cathedral Commons), and now they will have a homeless shelter right next door.

I would gladly trade with them.

There may be several who would be quite amenable to selling this year!

Yeah, but probably at prices much higher than what RE near me goes for.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Neighbors would be concerned about a proposed apartment building, but not as concerned as they are now, if the tenor of recent posts on the CP listserv is any sign.

I do feel sorry for the people on the block of Idaho Ave near Macomb. First they got hammered with the beautiful Giant loading dock facility directly adjacent or across the street (not to mention the increase in traffic from Cathedral Commons), and now they will have a homeless shelter right next door.

I would gladly trade with them.

There may be several who would be quite amenable to selling this year!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Neighbors would be concerned about a proposed apartment building, but not as concerned as they are now, if the tenor of recent posts on the CP listserv is any sign.

I do feel sorry for the people on the block of Idaho Ave near Macomb. First they got hammered with the beautiful Giant loading dock facility directly adjacent or across the street (not to mention the increase in traffic from Cathedral Commons), and now they will have a homeless shelter right next door.

I would gladly trade with them.

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Neighbors would be concerned about a proposed apartment building, but not as concerned as they are now, if the tenor of recent posts on the CP listserv is any sign.

I do feel sorry for the people on the block of Idaho Ave near Macomb. First they got hammered with the beautiful Giant loading dock facility directly adjacent or across the street (not to mention the increase in traffic from Cathedral Commons), and now they will have a homeless shelter right next door.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Families with children can also have teens and homeless teens are statistically more likely to have issues that can range from bein more violent to learning disabilities.

As has been pointed out on the McLean Gardens list serv, it is illegal for the DC government to exclude adult men from the shelter, and it is also illegal to inquire and exclude on the basis of prior felony convictions. "Temporary" residents who are convicted sex offenders are not required to register.