Anonymous wrote:Wrong. Putting one in every ward ensures that everyone has skin in the game and should be committed to addressing homelessness effectively.

PS - It's also a commonly accepted best practice to spread them out rather than cluster them. The more you know ;0)

This sounds like another one of Bowser's meaningless slogans. Mayor Empty Suit.

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, I should have said Macomb Giant.

It's known as the Giant Giant.

Anonymous wrote:Wrong. Putting one in every ward ensures that everyone has skin in the game and should be committed to addressing homelessness effectively.

PS - It's also a commonly accepted best practice to spread them out rather than cluster them. The more you know ;0)

And where exactly are the conclusive studies on that? If DC can't get its act together on providing quality services to the homeless in a location with scale, what makes you think that it will do a better job in replicating/duplicating such services in seven or eight more locations around DC? Moreover, these aren't exactly small, community-based group homes that are being proposed, where there is more possibility of integration within the community They are at least 50-unit shelters housing potentially hundreds of people, with on-site DC security (DC has not explained exactly what for -- what are they protecting the residents from, or the community from?)

Anonymous wrote:This neighborhood never disappoints. Worst NIMBYs in the city. Blocked the new Giant development for a decade over petty objections to every minor detail. Oppose everything as the end of civilization as we know it. As one neighbor said during the Giant fight, these are people who live the city to be close to everything but don't want anyone or anything to be near to them.

And now there will be "The Homeless Shelter at Cathedral Commons." How "vibrant and upscale."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wrong. Putting one in every ward ensures that everyone has skin in the game and should be committed to addressing homelessness effectively.

PS - It's also a commonly accepted best practice to spread them out rather than cluster them. The more you know ;0)

What a stupid point, honey.

To ensure everyone has skin in the game, let's collect the same exact income and property tax from everyone in the city -- let's divide DC's budget by 8, and demand every Ward to pony up equally.

Even better, give every ward an equal share to spend on how it sees fit. Ward 3, for example, could choose to spend on enrichment programs in the schools, good parks and libraries and decent streets. Ward 8 could spend its money on featherbedding jobs with the DC government and crony contracts for "community" contractors.

Anonymous wrote:Wrong. Putting one in every ward ensures that everyone has skin in the game and should be committed to addressing homelessness effectively.

PS - It's also a commonly accepted best practice to spread them out rather than cluster them. The more you know ;0)

"Skin in the game" means it could be your skin when the shelters attract criminal activity. Just look at what goes on in and around DC General. Think that's all going to go away magically when shelters each housing at least a couple of hundred people open?

Anonymous wrote:Wrong. Putting one in every ward ensures that everyone has skin in the game and should be committed to addressing homelessness effectively.

PS - It's also a commonly accepted best practice to spread them out rather than cluster them. The more you know ;0)

What a stupid point, honey.

To ensure everyone has skin in the game, let's collect the same exact income and property tax from everyone in the city -- let's divide DC's budget by 8, and demand every Ward to pony up equally.

This neighborhood never disappoints. Worst NIMBYs in the city. Blocked the new Giant development for a decade over petty objections to every minor detail. Oppose everything as the end of civilization as we know it. As one neighbor said during the Giant fight, these are people who live the city to be close to everything but don't want anyone or anything to be near to them.

Anonymous wrote:Wrong. Putting one in every ward ensures that everyone has skin in the game and should be committed to addressing homelessness effectively.

PS - It's also a commonly accepted best practice to spread them out rather than cluster them. The more you know ;0)

I know the Bowser team lives the phrase "skin in the game" with this multi-ward approach. So why don't you explain how that works? How exactly does having a shelter in each ward mean everyone across the city will be "committed" to addressing homelessness effectively? Will people in Colonial Village suddenly start spending lots more time at the soup kitchen on weekends simply because they know there's a shelter 5 miles away on the other side of the ward? Will kids stay in school longer because they know there is a shelter in each ward?

I bet 95% of DC residents could not point to DCGeneral on a map, will not be able to point to where even one of the new shelters will be, and won't care either way. That's why it's a perfect opportunity for Bowser to score political points, because only the immediate neighbors care about the locations. The extra cost of small shelters and their poor design and placement is just a general drag on the budget, so most people don't notice it. But Bowser can score political points on the slogan. So really, we are just wasting DC money and having little impact on homelessness, all so Bowser can get a slogan for her next campaign.

Anonymous wrote:Wrong. Putting one in every ward ensures that everyone has skin in the game and should be committed to addressing homelessness effectively.

PS - It's also a commonly accepted best practice to spread them out rather than cluster them. The more you know ;0)

But it ignores the fact that several wards already had skin in the game where it comes to homelessness - in some cases wards that already had shelters and resources for the homeless are getting double hit. It also doesn't actually spread them out that much - many of Bowser's proposed locations are still effectively clustered together, having been pushed to the edges of wards, and just across the ward boundary is another proposed shelter in the next ward over. And certainly pushed miles from Bowser's own home.

As for the "commonly accepted best practice" the efficacy and effectiveness of that toward actually improving conditions and outcomes is not proven. It certainly makes coordinating, providing infrastructure, services and logistics a lot more expensive.

Why do we even have homeless shelters? Isn't that like rewarding the bottom 5% of your workers with permanent employment instead of simply firing them?

Wrong. Putting one in every ward ensures that everyone has skin in the game and should be committed to addressing homelessness effectively.

PS - It's also a commonly accepted best practice to spread them out rather than cluster them. The more you know ;0)

Anonymous wrote:First Bowser and now Cheh preaching this gospel about how we all have to share the wealth and make sacrifices and wagging their fingers at NIMBYs, yet evidently they think we can't understand geography well enough to recognize that they themselves are miles from the nearest proposed shelter...

To be fair to Cheh, one of the sites she proposed for consideration is two blocks from her house. The Ward 4 site was on the opposite corner of Ward 4 from Bowser. Indeed if you look at the map, for almost every Ward, the proposed site is near the edge of the Ward, so each shelter is almost in another Ward. So for most Wards, most of the residents can console themselves by saying most of the shelter problems will spill over into another part of the city.

My biggest problem with the plan is that it's too wrapped up in politics. Pick the most effective site for each shelter regardless of politics. Putting one in each Ward is just a political maneuver that makes the whole plan needlessly complex.

There was just another robbery yesterday afternoon in broad daylight a half block away from Bowser's proposed Ward 6 location...

First Bowser and now Cheh preaching this gospel about how we all have to share the wealth and make sacrifices and wagging their fingers at NIMBYs, yet evidently they think we can't understand geography well enough to recognize that they themselves are miles from the nearest proposed shelter...