Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They could have redeveloped the hospital into a state of the art medical grade shelter and then passed a nanny law (they love those for other circumstances) mandating forcible hospitalisation for the dire homeless we all pass on the streets every day. But no, they'd rather use bus shelters and the computer section of all our public libraries - forget the kids doing research, older people without tech and job seekers. Oh, and rather than stick the new family shelters near the limo liberals houses (like the observatory) let's crowd up Wisconsin and CT. Ace with even more development. Let's waive aesthetic and height codes. I totally applaud any NIMBYs who wanted the CP library to just be a.library. this city has ample.resources for planned development and taking care of people, but instead create fake concerns about skin in the game to cloak basically more.mismanagement and selling out to developers..

How about, Ronald Reagan shouldn't have closed all of the federal mental facilities. If you really want to get down to brass tacks about why the homeless situation is where it is. Kids doing research at libraries? The internet has completely displaced that. Primary and secondary sources abound at the fingertips. Development should be on Wisconsin and Connecticut Avenue - where do you propose new development go?

The state mental institutions were shut down because the left hated them and thought them institutional and repressive, and the courts also ruled that people couldn't be institutionalized against their will, even if they were certifiably crazy. The idea was to replace the state mental institutions with more intimate group homes in normal settings, with the belief that many of the people formerly in the institutions could become part of the local communities. As it turned out, the mental inmates went straight from the group homes to the streets, because most had drug/alcohol problems and group homes couldn't allow possession of drugs/alcohol on the properties. Blaming it on Reagan does you no good when the vast majority of the blame falls squarely on liberal do-gooders and their ultimately flawed beliefs and ideals surrounding the mental institutions and mentally impaired people. And, that our laws prohibits us from committing people to mental institutions against their will.

Anonymous wrote:I worked really, really hard for half my adult life to get as far away from "affordable housing" (and the people who live there) as I could. And I cringe every time I hear people who NEVER grew up poor talk about how they want to import poor people into their neighborhoods, as though they're some kind of pet or horticultural specimen.

As someone who grew up poor, in affordable housing, hear me when I say this: you don't want people like the ones who surrounded me while growing up living down the block from you. You DO NOT want this.

The point is that you grew up in what sounds like pretty dense affordable housing in an area where most people were poor. If you put these units into places that are NOT primarily poor, you create opportunities for the people living in affordable housing. And you diversify neighborhoods in a way that provides opportunities for people who are upper middle class.

Btw - I proposed development be AT THE SITE of DC General, which was already valuablw city owned land. And that nanny laws be passed to hospitalised the chronic homeless. I don't mean to offend you, but what was unclear about that?

So you think libraries should be de facto homeless shelters? Then you're in line with our city government who instructed shuttles to drop off homeless at libraries. Yes, the closing of hospitals was a disaster for our country as was amnesty. glad we agree.

Anonymous wrote:They could have redeveloped the hospital into a state of the art medical grade shelter and then passed a nanny law (they love those for other circumstances) mandating forcible hospitalisation for the dire homeless we all pass on the streets every day. But no, they'd rather use bus shelters and the computer section of all our public libraries - forget the kids doing research, older people without tech and job seekers. Oh, and rather than stick the new family shelters near the limo liberals houses (like the observatory) let's crowd up Wisconsin and CT. Ace with even more development. Let's waive aesthetic and height codes. I totally applaud any NIMBYs who wanted the CP library to just be a.library. this city has ample.resources for planned development and taking care of people, but instead create fake concerns about skin in the game to cloak basically more.mismanagement and selling out to developers..

How about, Ronald Reagan shouldn't have closed all of the federal mental facilities. If you really want to get down to brass tacks about why the homeless situation is where it is. Kids doing research at libraries? The internet has completely displaced that. Primary and secondary sources abound at the fingertips. Development should be on Wisconsin and Connecticut Avenue - where do you propose new development go?

They could have redeveloped the hospital into a state of the art medical grade shelter and then passed a nanny law (they love those for other circumstances) mandating forcible hospitalisation for the dire homeless we all pass on the streets every day. But no, they'd rather use bus shelters and the computer section of all our public libraries - forget the kids doing research, older people without tech and job seekers. Oh, and rather than stick the new family shelters near the limo liberals houses (like the observatory) let's crowd up Wisconsin and CT. Ace with even more development. Let's waive aesthetic and height codes. I totally applaud any NIMBYs who wanted the CP library to just be a.library. this city has ample.resources for planned development and taking care of people, but instead create fake concerns about skin in the game to cloak basically more.mismanagement and selling out to developers..

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I assume most of you are ward 3 residents and are, like me, a registered democrat. Just checking, because you are sounding like Trumpsters in your rhetoric.

I have mine, so everyone else can eat cake.

Im a Ward 3 and registered Republican. I'd prefer ward 3 not end up looking like Columbia Heights. I'm from the District and I think the gentrification and development there were not well thought out. The development around the metro is big box and not that attractive and last time I was there, half empty. The street life is Eh. You can say it's "vibrant" but the area is pretty filthy. I wouldn't wish higher building, density, trash, litter, graffiti, and more street homeless who desperate ly need hospitalisation (oh wait, they're demolishing DC general to sell to developers so I guess that's not a priority) on Ward 3.

That was a city managed program to redevelop what had been mostly empty parcels as a result of the 1968 riots. Apple to oranges of any infill from Ward 3 metro stations. But keep making those strawman arguments.

Anonymous wrote:I assume most of you are ward 3 residents and are, like me, a registered democrat. Just checking, because you are sounding like Trumpsters in your rhetoric.

I have mine, so everyone else can eat cake.

Im a Ward 3 and registered Republican. I'd prefer ward 3 not end up looking like Columbia Heights. I'm from the District and I think the gentrification and development there were not well thought out. The development around the metro is big box and not that attractive and last time I was there, half empty. The street life is Eh. You can say it's "vibrant" but the area is pretty filthy. I wouldn't wish higher building, density, trash, litter, graffiti, and more street homeless who desperate ly need hospitalisation (oh wait, they're demolishing DC general to sell to developers so I guess that's not a priority) on Ward 3.

I assume most of you are ward 3 residents and are, like me, a registered democrat. Just checking, because you are sounding like Trumpsters in your rhetoric.

I have mine, so everyone else can eat cake.

Anonymous wrote:I worked really, really hard for half my adult life to get as far away from "affordable housing" (and the people who live there) as I could. And I cringe every time I hear people who NEVER grew up poor talk about how they want to import poor people into their neighborhoods, as though they're some kind of pet or horticultural specimen.

As someone who grew up poor, in affordable housing, hear me when I say this: you don't want people like the ones who surrounded me while growing up living down the block from you. You DO NOT want this.

Nor do you want DC to basically invite as many homeless as possible with taxpayer welcome mat. I think our council should be forced to take a trip to SF, talk with their leaders about the mess they are having, and then figure out how to be humane but not end up with CA size homeless challenges .

I worked really, really hard for half my adult life to get as far away from "affordable housing" (and the people who live there) as I could. And I cringe every time I hear people who NEVER grew up poor talk about how they want to import poor people into their neighborhoods, as though they're some kind of pet or horticultural specimen.

As someone who grew up poor, in affordable housing, hear me when I say this: you don't want people like the ones who surrounded me while growing up living down the block from you. You DO NOT want this.

I don't hate brutalism..I find it pretty interesting. They could do a lot with geometric planters, trees, flowers, living walls, sculpture and what about a fountain? To make the campus more appealing. To the original point of this thread, I love the low density/low height of DC and hope that is preserved forever in the neighborhoods like CP and Tenleytown. If Pepe don't like that living feel, there are other neighbor hoods to choose from.with a different feel. I hope the council doesn't sell out to developers on this issue and I'm all for NIMBYs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And it is all much better than it was 5 years ago, and will continue to improve. So referring to it as "van mess" is a self-reflective fallacy.

Van Ness or Van Mess, one problem that will hold the “neighborhood” back is that, thanks to the eponymous Metro stop, its name is forever linked to UDC. That’s a depressive factor on image/desirability/real estate values alone

Van Ness IS much better than even three years ago. But yeah, it's also true that the UDC campus is a barren Brutalist wasteland, even when classes are in session. Even the new student center -- admittedly a huge improvement on the streetscape -- is empty most of the day. The Murch swing space was pretty much the only sign of life, and now that's gone, too (and UDC officials did everything in their power to make Murch's time there as unpleasant as they could).

Saying UDC is depressing the neighborhood's real estate values is pretty silly, tho.

Anonymous wrote:And it is all much better than it was 5 years ago, and will continue to improve. So referring to it as "van mess" is a self-reflective fallacy.

Van Ness or Van Mess, one problem that will hold the “neighborhood” back is that, thanks to the eponymous Metro stop, its name is forever linked to UDC. That’s a depressive factor on image/desirability/real estate values alone

And it is all much better than it was 5 years ago, and will continue to improve. So referring to it as "van mess" is a self-reflective fallacy.