Comments on: Groundbreaking at Old Gales School, To Become Central Union Mission

By: Greedy Homeless Shelter

Greedy Homeless Shelter — Wed, 16 May 2012 16:35:55 +0000

Central Union Mission is not a government homeless facility. That organization chose to sell their location on 14th for the money. They chose to move to a different location. This ominous “we” who is moving the homeless shelters east is simple economics and the desire of the organizations to make money and move to cheaper locations in order to have more funding to serve. It is not some secret, master plan.

By: bruno

bruno — Wed, 09 May 2012 18:38:45 +0000

Actually, what Matthew says is that we are supposed to clothe, feed and house the homeless….ourselves. We are not supposed to pass the buck and ask the city to do it. If you see someone who needs shelter, take them into your own home or get them shelter. If you see someone who is hungry, buy them some food. If you see someone who is cold, give them your coat. Don’t pass the buck to a charity or to the state.

By: Marcus Aurelius

Marcus Aurelius — Tue, 08 May 2012 20:57:22 +0000

theheights: I’m not sure how far back the PoP archives go but if you can go back to the numerous threads that popped up when Central Union Mission first announced the move to Georgia Ave, you’ll see that the negative reactions that many people had to the move were portrayed in a pretty dark light. Granted there probably wasn’t as much of a race angle to it as one might suspect (perhaps wrongly) would be present in an analysis of a Cleveland Park listserv screed against a homeless shelter. But the discussions were pretty heated.
The fact that a neighborhood has crime should not necessarily preclude the placement of a homeless shelter in the neighborhood. But it should not be assumed that because a neighborhood has crime already, adding a homeless shelter won’t have any appreciable negative impact – i.e., “That neighborhood already sucks. Let’s stick the homeless there.” And a neighborhood with a crime problem may not be the best environment for homeless people, particularly with respect to a shelter like Central Union which, as I understand it, forces it’s residents to leave each morning for the day.

By: Anon X

Anon X — Tue, 08 May 2012 20:40:38 +0000

Incorrect. You were saying that the reason that there is some double standard about classifying NIMBYs. Thats a strawman argument. I dont see anyone “begrudging rich folks”. The truth about the term NIMBY is that every community, rich or poor, has NIMBY tendencies when it comes to social services.

However, the other truth is that the rich communities are able to actually succeed.

I also dont agree with statements such as “It’s wrong to attack a homeowner for not wanting a homeless shelter near their investment.” Its not wrong, a homeless shelter has to go somewhere, or alternatively, there will be homeless people somewhere… you cant box them up and send them to China. So, people need to suck it up and find a way to make a common-sense distribution of them and make sure they’re well functioning.

By: theheights

theheights — Tue, 08 May 2012 20:06:03 +0000

Anon X,

1. I’m not Todd. If you have a problem, take it up with him.

2. You can begrudge wealthier neighborhoods for having more clout, but that’s reality. I’m just pointing out the common hypocrisy of calling some people NIMBY’s and others “concerned homeowners.”

By: classic_six

classic_six — Tue, 08 May 2012 19:59:43 +0000

To Bloomingdude,

Re: your 3:49 post – I get what you are saying and for the most part I agree with you. I think my confusion from your earlier post was that the division was by neighborhood (CP v. Petworth) as opposed to homeowner v. renter (non-homeowner), which is where I think the divide in this issue really stands. I still do tend to agree that there is a pejorative slant, though, when people talk about the NIMBY’s from CP, Dupont, Georgetown, etc. because people assume that the people who live there are wealthy or yuppie or hipster or whatever. (Please don’t get on my case for using those terms because I don’t use those terms in the real world.) If you are a homeowner or someone with a vested interest – either from CP or from Petworth, I make no assumptions about your financial value or how you got there. If you are a homeowner from either neighborhood, of course you want to protect your investment, that makes a lot of sense.

By: Anon X

Anon X — Tue, 08 May 2012 19:52:23 +0000

The Heights: Stop making strawmen argument.

The truth is, no neighborhood wants a social service like a methadone clinic, homelesss shelter or soup kitchen. Everyone protests it. But its the neighborhoods that have more political clout that always win out and so less wealthy areas and less connected areas always get a higher concentration.

Then people like Todd come around and believe that because they live in a nice neighborhood they’re entitled to never see a homeless person.

By: Bloomingdude

Bloomingdude — Tue, 08 May 2012 19:49:49 +0000

classic_six,

I’m not implying anything about one area having more homeowners than another. I’m saying that I believe that people who oppose a homeless shelter near them (NIMBYs) should not be assumed to be cold-hearted or against help for the poor. It is not wrong for a homeowner to want to protect his or her investment. Too many people assume that a homeowner/NIMBY comes from wealth (Yuppie Hipster!) and is simply greedy. Detractors never imagine that a NIMBY worked his or her way up and must protect his or her investment, because they have no others and may have dependents (children, parents) they are supporting.

I would wager that the vast majority of people (if there are any) who want a homeless shelter near them don’t actually own the place where they live.

On a related note, I can completely understand why people in areas robust with social service organizations would oppose having even more of them.

By: theheights

theheights — Tue, 08 May 2012 19:47:26 +0000

Good luck with that.

By: theheights

theheights — Tue, 08 May 2012 19:43:20 +0000

To Marcus Aurelius:

You’re right and I didn’t really clarify that in my post. Social services and retail certainly are different. I was thinking of situation where mixed income housing or a shelter or whatnot would be proposed for a place like Cleveland Park. The neighbors would freak out, but their reaction would be portrayed in a far darker light. Don’t get me wrong, I think a neighborhood can have too many social services (ask Historic Anacisria). But I don’t buy the argument that because a neighborhood has other negatives like crime it should not be a site for a shelter. When it all comes down to it, most homeowners’ want to protect teir asset.