Running short on funds for homeless and social service programs?

Redevelop the Mitch Snyder homeless center (grossly underutilized as a decrepit three story homeless center on some of the most expensive real estate on the planet, two blocks from the Capitol) as a high dollar Class A office building, and you'd have a never-ending revenue stream, both in rents and in taxes collected. Literally millions of dollars a year.

Ditto for a few of the public housing complexes on stunningly expensive real estate in trendy parts of DC.

Use the tens of millions you get in revenue to fund all the programs your little hearts desire. Just on less expensive real estate. In short, trade the artificial value of expensive location for actual funds for programs.

Until homeless and affordable housing advocates are willing to discuss this, they aren't serious about helping the poor.

by Hillman on May 18, 2011 9:40 am • link • report

OK. I am very confused about BIXI.

BIXI builds the bike, then sells them to Alta, which then sells them to CABI.

Or does CABI buy them from Bixi.

Clearly their call center is Canadian.

I guess the real mystery is what the contract between Alta and PBSC (bixi) looks like.

Given those bikes cost 1500, but I have to imagine there is a lot of fat. The frames are custom, but should be scaled up now after London.

by charlie on May 18, 2011 9:50 am • link • report

Hillman: You know, cutting and pasting the same comment to multiple blogs could be seen as spamming.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on May 18, 2011 9:59 am • link • report

Re: Bixi in Trouble - just out of curiosity, why does it matter if the bikes are compatible?

by Shipsa01 on May 18, 2011 10:02 am • link • report

WUSA9 likely stole the article on bus passes without attribution from Unsuck DC Metro, which reported it first yesterday morning.

by Michael Perkins on May 18, 2011 10:03 am • link • report

@Geoffrey

Or, you know, advocacy among different platforms who have different, though overlapping, readers. Not even close to spamming. Especially since he's taken the time to re-phrase the idea (at least twice).

by Andrew in DC on May 18, 2011 10:12 am • link • report

Andrew in DC: You say potato, I say po-tah-toe. :)

by Geoffrey Hatchard on May 18, 2011 10:13 am • link • report

The information available now seems to say that 37M of the Bixi shortfall is a one time charge for development of the system, which was financed by Montreal. 71M seems to be from badly designed licensing and finance for export of the system. They have charges on the books for bikes and stations sold to other cities, for which their contracts have not paid back the capital cost.

Some of this seems to be the typical growing pain for a first adopter city, while the rest is basic mismanagement.

by CJ on May 18, 2011 10:14 am • link • report

I'm not sure that I agree with the conclusion that future cities will need to use different bikeshare technology - what's happened is that Montreal has been using their export of the Bixi technology and system to cover local operating costs - if they continue down this path after they resolve this cash-flow issue, you'd expect more sales to other cities, not fewer.

The system itself is too good to just fail - someone will be able to scoop up the technology itself and continue to make it and sell it to cities, even if that doesn't solve the local finance issues for Montreal's local system. It's important to separate the technology from Montreal's local system here.

by Alex B. on May 18, 2011 10:17 am • link • report

@Michael Perkins: It doesn't look like the content was copied. If you're saying that WUSA learned of the story, then did its own research, I don't see anything wrong with that. Just because you break a story doesn't mean no one else can report it.

by Tim on May 18, 2011 10:22 am • link • report

@Shipsa01: so that new/replacement bikes can use CaBi's existing docking stations.

by Froggie on May 18, 2011 10:27 am • link • report

"Popularity" and profits don't always mesh, so it doesn't surprise me about BIXI. Zipcar also has yet to turn a profit. It lost $6m in the first quarter.

by Paul on May 18, 2011 10:33 am • link • report

Ah, duh. For some reason I thought they were talking about if a new city like Toronto built a system, would those bikes then be compatible with the ones in Montreal or DC. Yeah, I'm an idiot.

by Shipsa01 on May 18, 2011 10:34 am • link • report

@AlexB; "The system itself is too good to just fail - someone will be able to scoop up the technology itself and continue to make it and sell it to cities"

While I get your point about startup costs, your assumption is that even after a bankruptcy the system can turn a profit for contractors. On washcycle, someone quoted Alta as saying it is costing them $155 to a month to maintain their bikes, which is a problem if they are only being paid $150.

by charlie on May 18, 2011 10:37 am • link • report

Geoffrey:

My question is on topic. And I do try to tailor my posts to the specific blog in question.

Since I've been asking this question for some time and have yet to receive a substantive response from anyone in the social services field, I think a little repeat posting in different forums may be overlooked.

But beyond that technicality, do you have any thoughts on the subject?

by Hillman on May 18, 2011 10:41 am • link • report

I was always a bit surprised that the company operating Montreal's Bixi was never spun off separately from the company building the bikes and docks, precisely to prevent this sort of thing from happening.

I was also under the impression that Bixi and CaBi were essentially a patchwork of components that had all been subcontracted out. If Bixi goes bust, presumably somebody else can purchase the intellectual property to continue manufacturing the bikes. They're really the best design that I've seen for a shared bike.

by andrew on May 18, 2011 10:43 am • link • report

Hillman: If you're asking a question for people in the social services field, I fail to understand why you're asking it here. Here's one blog where you can find an email in the "contact us" button on top. Send them an email, ask them what other agencies and organizations you should ask as well, and then report back.

If I had a question for the National Zoo, and I posted it on a blog about brunch options in DC, do you think it would get answered?

by Geoffrey Hatchard on May 18, 2011 10:46 am • link • report

@charlie

The problem is that Bixi's startup costs are being combined together - those costs include both the local start-up costs for Montreal's system, as well as the costs of building the technology for export.

Essentially, I read this as a local financing issue for Montreal's system that is unfortunately affecting the technology that DC is using. In the end, however, I do think this will be resolved.

by Alex B. on May 18, 2011 10:46 am • link • report

GGW is a pretty widely-read blog, specific to planning issues and quality of life in DC. And it has a decidedly liberal bent, particularly on social service issues, which it addresses quite frequently.

I have contacted people in the social services field. Most of the time they just don't respond.

And honestly I think a public airing of the issue is much more useful.

by Hillman on May 18, 2011 10:49 am • link • report

Hillman: OK, since you don't seem to want to do the legwork, I'll do it for you. Just because you have contacted people once doesn't mean you shouldn't try again. And again. And again. Sometimes you have to do that in life to get what you want.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on May 18, 2011 10:50 am • link • report

Tim,
Maybe what people are asking for is attribution by WUSA when they get a story from another news site.

by Q on May 18, 2011 10:52 am • link • report

LOL@GHatchard, this may be a lost cause but Hillman is at least consistent in that his dialogue rarely ventures outside of social services and poor babymamas on welfare.

by HogWash on May 18, 2011 10:54 am • link • report

Hogwash:

Since my own mother was one of those babymamas on welfare, I do feel a close connection to this issue.

I'm on a tear on this issue now because yet again the social service advocates are demanding tax increases but refusing to look at reforming their failing systems.

I'll stop posting on the issue so much when someone can explain to me why my ideas have no merit.

by Hillman on May 18, 2011 10:56 am • link • report

I'd also point out that this isn't a conservative/liberal issue, particularly from people like me that recognize the need for social programs - we just have a big problem with how they are run.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the biggest liberal ever, fought for welfare reform for decades.

by Hillman on May 18, 2011 10:59 am • link • report

@Q: Being a journalist I may be biased, but I don't think such attribution is necessary. If WUSA actually got information from Unsuck and relied on such information for the story, yes, Unsuck deserves attribution. But if WUSA verified all such information independent of Unsuck, they aren't using any Unsuck information, so there's no need for attribution.

Plus, Michael said WUSA "stole" the story.

by Tim on May 18, 2011 11:02 am • link • report

Personally, I think your complaints probably have merit, Hillman. But I think it's fair to point out that there's only so much you can expect to happen when your efforts consist mostly of blog comments. If this is truly a cause important to you, then I think you'll have to take steps in the actual community to accomplish anything. I'm not criticizing you for advocating via blog comments, but there's only so much that can accomplish.

by TM on May 18, 2011 11:05 am • link • report

How will Bixi's financial problems affect DC expansion? We really need expansion.

by Tom Coumaris on May 18, 2011 11:05 am • link • report

Bixi very obviously needs more oversite of their finances, and possibly a different financial structure all together. As it is, we can't discern whether there was a cash inflow from the export of the program to other cities, or whether the export itself was a money pit. A 71M shortfall is attributed to the export, but that's not enough information to decide what happened.

I agree that a separate corporate structure for Bixi and the bike and stations manufacture process would be desirable. As it is, the financial health of the Bixi program will always be tightly intertwined with the prospects for our own program. With that said, it seems that DC may now benefit from a 100M bailout of Bixi by Montreal.

by CJ on May 18, 2011 11:05 am • link • report

Hillman, why do you suppose the CCNV building is under utilized? Do you have a link to support that assertion?

It is perfectly located as being in walking distance to SOME and other places that serve the homeless. It is also located near restaurants and retail business that are a possible source of jobs for some of them, thus providing the possibility of moving out of the shelter. I don't see any reason that rich and poor can't live side by side and I don't see why DC can't have a shelter in an otherwise pricey neighborhood.

by dcblogger on May 18, 2011 11:08 am • link • report

TM: You raise a valid point. But I think you'd be surprised how much influence some of these local blogs have. They are read pretty widely, both inside government and out. And their give-and-take dialog is actually a lot more useful than more staid 'leave an email for your Councilmember to reply to with generic platitudes' format.

by Hillman on May 18, 2011 11:10 am • link • report

Agree, sorry for using the word "Stole". It just irks me when a blog breaks a story and then the real media verifies the story already broken and puts out a story that appears they came up with the idea themselves.

by Michael Perkins on May 18, 2011 11:15 am • link • report

"first reported in the blog Unsuck DC Metro" would have been nice.

by Michael Perkins on May 18, 2011 11:16 am • link • report

DCBlogger:

Common sense tell you it's underutilized. It's three dilapidated stories on an EXTREMELY expensive parcel of land. The real value is in the land, not the current building there.

If you were to redevelop that parcel as ten or eleven stories of high dollar office space or hotel, with maybe restaurant on the first floor, the annual income stream would be in the millions.

Plus, you could likely get the city to dedicate all actual real estate tax revenues from the entire thing to specific homeless causes.

How in the world could that not be worth more than what is there now?

Your suggestion that it's location is necessary for the homeless isn't really completely correct.

First, while there are a few restaurants within walking distance, I don't see much of an effort from the homeless to get jobs there.

In a suburban location they'd have FAR more retail and restaurant job possibilities.

As for walking distance to SOME or similar facilities, using your never-ending revenue stream from the redevelopment of the current facility you could build your own brand new massive modern homeless facilities, with in-house SOME-like capabilities, state of the art job training and drug treatment, etc.

And have a never-ending revenue stream to fund it forever.

All of the services that are downtown could easily be replicated elsewhere, at much less cost.

And the jobs available downtown for the homeless are a bit of a myth. Particularly when you compare those jobs to, say, the jobs available at many suburban locations. Even two medium size strip malls in the burbs or in more 'suburban' locations in DC proper probably offer more real entrylevel job opportunities for the homeless than the few high end restaurants right around CCNV/Mitch Snyder do.

by Hillman on May 18, 2011 11:20 am • link • report

@Hillman, uhm...thas all well and good. But, how exactly does you coming from a family of former welfare recipients and your obvious connection to this issue, warrant you interjecting your "social welfare reform" agenda into any topic loosely tied to the bugdet? Hell, just the other day you decided that a post on "parking" mandated we talk about social services.

To be honest, if you aren't currently on welfare, I'm not sure why your connection to the issue is such that you must bring up the "20yr old babymama on the gov't dole" into every online discussion.

BTW, considering that there are proposed cuts to social services, who are you referring as those who want tax increases but no social services reform? Since this is an issue true to your own heart, what "advocates" are you referring to? You certainly can't be referring to the GGW community.

by HogWash on May 18, 2011 11:21 am • link • report

So given that DC's budget has apparently grown dramatically in the past few years, and given that we apparently can't take care of the most disadvantaged among us despite this size increase, I must ask:

Where did the money go?

Was it all to salaries and benefits for city employees? Lining the pockets of developers? Teachers? Police? Infrastructure? Lincoln Navigators?

Or did the budget not grow dramatically and this is just how things are meant to be?

by EJ on May 18, 2011 11:23 am • link • report

Twitter is buzzing about the new DDOT head being Bellamy.

by Michael Perkins on May 18, 2011 11:27 am • link • report

Hog:

The Save Our Safety Net folks and the DC Fiscal Policy Institute and nearly every other social welfare group in town is currently lobbying City Hall for higher taxes for welfare projects.

As for loosely tied into the budget, by definition the hundreds of millions we spend on welfare programs in DC is budget related. It's a legitimate topic for discussion, particularly given the histrionic class-warfare language we see in GGW articles on the issue.

I'll post the actual language from GGW:

"Poor bear brunt of DC cuts: Prior to Mayor Gray and council's proposals to cut more social services, the state of services was so bad that a mother and baby were turned away from shelter with instructions to ride the bus all night long. "

Call me crazy, but I wasn't aware that only those on welfare currently could discuss the issue, and I thought that actually addressing that ridiculous post on GGW would be relevant.

Now, could we discuss the actual merits of my proposals, instead of wasting time on whether or not I'm allowed to actually post on the topic?

by Hillman on May 18, 2011 11:29 am • link • report

@Hillman "Call me crazy, but I wasn't aware that only those on welfare currently could discuss the issue..."

Awesome logic on Hogwash's part. Let's extend it further. I want to use this as an opportunity to make sure that non-veterans and non-active duty folk can never again discuss anything having to do with the military. No wars, no cutbacks, certainly nothing to do with BRAC.

Furthermore, if you're not a cop, a lawyer, a judge or a criminal, you're no longer allowed to discuss the following: Supreme Court decisions, police abuse, rights of the accused, or any moral vs. legal issues.

I'm certain these guidelines will add to our discussion immeasurably.

by Andrew in DC on May 18, 2011 11:40 am • link • report

@Hillman, you should write an article so the rest of us can get up to speed on this issue.

by goldfish on May 18, 2011 11:41 am • link • report

@Hillman:

It sounds like a good idea (and I think it's within the purview of this blog). I'm far from an expert in this field but here are some possible issues:

1. Doing this once is probably fine. But if you do it too much wouldn't you start concentrating the shelters in a smaller and smaller area to the point where you have a homeless ghetto?
2. Can the government run what is essentially a for profit venture like that? Perhaps this works as a public/private partnership but those can be riddled with their own issues (see Tenleytown Library)

by Steven Yates on May 18, 2011 11:48 am • link • report

HogW if you aren't currently on welfare, I'm not sure why your connection to the issue is such that you must bring up the "20yr old babymama on the gov't dole" into every online discussion.

Hillman:Call me crazy, but I wasn't aware that only those on welfare currently could discuss the issue...

Spin as you might but it's rather clear what I said. Since your family's history of welfare is a driving force of your connection to this issue and if you aren't currently on welfare, then why MUST you bring this issue up in every discussion. You're the one who challenges everyone else for not "caring" about social services reform because they don't bring it up in every discussion. Not us. You do this. So please, spin away. Just make sure the bike is stationary, else you might fall off.

@AndrewDC, please read, comprehend, then respond.

by HogWash on May 18, 2011 11:51 am • link • report

@Goldfish, EXCELLENT idea. Yes Hillman, there's your answer. Submit an article to DAl. Here, they make it known that they welcome guest submissions.

Since the rest of us aren't concerned, maybe that'll give you the platform you need to reach the unreacheable people who run our gov't.

by HogWash on May 18, 2011 11:54 am • link • report

Hillman, if your options are to email your CM or write a blog comment, I suppose I would agree that a blog comment is better. But those are pretty limited options. Have you tried to engage a community group on the issue? Have you tried to form one? These are large commitments of time and energy, but the facts is is that that is how things actually get done here (and probably most places). Feel free to keep commenting into the ether, hoping that it convinces some decisionmaker, but don't be surprised when nothing happens.

I think writing an article, as opposed to a comment, for GGW is actually a pretty good first step towards action. Will you do it?

by TM on May 18, 2011 12:07 pm • link • report

We would welcome a guest post if Hillman is interested in putting something together looking at serious ways to accomplish the general mission of some of these programs but to do so in a more cost-effective way.

I don't want to hear the general "well I'm sure there must be waste — just cut everyone's salary, people should run major government programs on minimum wage while getting skewered for every misstep in the press" kind of thing, but if there are indeed ways to be more effective and efficient, it would be fantastic to discuss them.

by David Alpert on May 18, 2011 12:11 pm • link • report

@Shipsa01 - Actually, Toronto does have a Bixi system with black bikes. I just used it this past weekend and was very nice (though the stations are all hyperconcentrated downtown which was rather inconvenient).

https://toronto.bixi.com/

by chuck on May 18, 2011 12:17 pm • link • report

@ Ken Archer: The last day of classes for Georgetown had been May 2nd and the last day of exams was May 13th. It seemed to us that allowing an exception in this case was common sense.

Unfortunately, ANC 2E and the neighborhood associations disagreed. When the Zoning Commission’s Chairman asked if any parties objected, their hands sprung up. To my disappointment, so did a chorus of neighbors claiming that the Commission would never allow them a similar exemption.

Is this another example of Georgetown's ANC reaching out to students and the University?

by Jasper on May 18, 2011 12:39 pm • link • report

Hillman - how do you know how many homeless are working in walking distance of the CCNV shelter? If a homeless person was working at the reception desk, would you know it? How do you know what kind of jobs they have been applying for? Consider the definition of walking distance. If you are homeless and obliged to leave the shelter no later than 7 AM and not able to return until dinner time, your definition of walking distance might change. Foggy Bottom might be walking distance, Even Dupont Circule could be walking distance.

Given that the neighborhood around the DC Nationals park was promised redevelopment money, and given that they have never seed a dime of it, the idea that the land for CCNV could be redeveloped and the proceeds from that would ever find its way into the pockets of the poorest and most despised portion of the city's population strikes me as fantasy.

And why do you suppose that the homeless could just move to the suburbs? Do you suppose there are empty sheter's in the suburbs waiting to welcome DC's most despised population?

Why not keep CCNV. We have it. It is doing a job, however imperfectly.

by dcblogger on May 18, 2011 12:43 pm • link • report

actually,
@hillman is right on the nose.
A few years back, CNV's downtown shelter was going to be sold- and they were anticipating a multi-million dollar return that would finance a much larger, and farther out location . I believe that the real estate crash doomed this proposal. It was, contrary to knee-jerk liberal commie thinking- a real notion and it was being seriously considered. It seems that far too many people who read or write on these blogs are either NOT from DC or have lived here for a short time and have no concept of what has gone on- even recently.
@hillman SHOULD be copying and pasting his wonderful idea because people- especially closed -minded super social service bleeding heart types need to wake up and get with the system- and realize that they can actually do better at saving the world if only they would break out of their 1970's era fossilized mindsets and smell the friggin roses of capitalism and free market glory.
@ hillman is a good influence on you hipster newbies. We need more like him .

by w on May 18, 2011 12:45 pm • link • report

also- CNV should leave the city for the suburbs. DC has been burdened with far too much of the social services that no one wants their kids to grow up around- this has been a nationwide problem- and one that most suburban born do-gooder hipsters know nothing about since they have not had the time or experience of having to live near these dens of iniquity and chaos. Only organized neighborhoods can fight off these jerks when they propose to move in- like the Boys Town fight that happened back int he late 90's into 2002. We had all number of suburbanite do-good ass kissers coming into DC to fight for this horrible concept because-secretly- they didnt want a Boys Town next to their Fairfax High School or in Monkey County. The suburbs should be taking ALL new social service organizations- stop preying on the city.

by w on May 18, 2011 12:51 pm • link • report

Hillman,

The main problem with building a homeless shelter in a location with a lot of suburban strip malls is that places like that aren't in the District. I agree that there are jobs for people with limited education available in places like Clarendon or Rockville, but the District can't close their shelter and build something out of state...I think MD and VA might have some opposition to that.

As for closing the shelter and using the revenues to build somewhere else in the District, even if we assume it's a place with as many jobs, access to transit and service providers, etc. as CCNV (doubtful) there are a couple of issues:

* where are the current residents going to stay when CCNV closes? And if you say "build a new building, move people there, then demolish CCNV" do you really think the Council would want/be able to borrow or raise revenues enough to make that possible?

* the District tried this. Look into the Franklin school-turned-shelter. They closed it in 2008 and it has not been redeveloped and is stuck in federal court. See http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/housingcomplex/2010/08/03/franklin-school-shelter-in-federal-court-tomorrow/. So even if DC did close CCNV, it would be years before they saw any revenue from it.

* Let's assume the building rents for $45 per square foot (high, but it's a nice location) and has a million rentable square feet (also optimistic, but why not?). That sounds sweet, until you realize that RENOVATING Constitution Center into a nice new office building of similar size cost $250 million. So let's say demolishing the current building and doing everything required to build it back up is $400 million (which I'm admittedly making up). How much of the $45 million in rent (assuming full lease-up from the beginning, which is optimistic for a huge building) do you think would be left over each year after paying off the construction loans? Do you really think it would be enough to provide the awesome services in some less-densely populated part of DC (remembering, of coure, that you also had to borrow to build the new shelter?)

by sb on May 18, 2011 12:55 pm • link • report

before you point it out, I realize that I overlooked the property tax revenue from an office building on a CCNV site. That could be substantial.

I am not 100% opposing what Hillman says, though I do think there's a LOT of value in having a shelter near jobs, services, and tranist. But I think he's overlooking a lot.

by sb on May 18, 2011 12:58 pm • link • report

"I am not 100% opposing what Hillman says, though I do think there's a LOT of value in having a shelter near jobs, services, and tranist"

All of those things can be easily found on MUCH less expensive real estate.

by Hillman on May 18, 2011 1:07 pm • link • report

w: Your perspective is very valuable, but your recent comments have been veering quite a bit into using namecalling to make points — "hipster newbies," "jerks," "do-good ass kissers."

Please make your points in a respectful way. Thanks.

by David Alpert on May 18, 2011 1:11 pm • link • report

SB:

I can honestly tell you I can't give you an accurate figure on building costs. I'm not a developer.

But I've spoken to several in the office space development field that have told me they'd salivate at the opportunity to build an office building from scratch there. It would be some of the highest commercial rents in town.

If CCNV/ the city / etc. were not interested in taking a development risk, they could instead sell the parcel. It would bring in tens of millions in sale proceeds alone. Heck, a similar size parcel just sold on H St NE in a considerably less high dollar location for, what, $45 million? And it is limited to six stories (or so I think.... could be wrong about that limitation)

Two reasons: it's location, and it's zoning. It could easily accommodate the full 10 to 12 story height that downtown zoning brings (assuming no odd restrictions I"m unaware of).

That's worth a ton of money.

Or they could do a 100 year land lease.

There are many different ways this could be done.

Then the city could designate all real estate and use taxes on that site to be dedicated forever to homeless funding. After all, they get nothing from the site now in terms of taxes.

Yes, there would be logistics involved. But the city has a ton of underutilized lowrise buildings - any number of which are in at least as good of shape as the Mitch Snyder / CCNV property is. People could be housed there temporarily without a huge amount of cost.

Or, you build the new facility first, then do the transfer.

I should also point out that I'd expand this idea to any number of public housing projects. One that springs to mind instantly is Potomac Gardens. Huge resale or redevelopment potential.

by Hillman on May 18, 2011 1:31 pm • link • report

"The main problem with building a homeless shelter in a location with a lot of suburban strip malls is that places like that aren't in the District. "

Lots of areas in NE bordering Maryland are quite suburban, and technically still in DC.

A quick trip down Bladensburg Road will show you plenty of places that fit this description.

by Hillman on May 18, 2011 1:32 pm • link • report

"Hillman - how do you know how many homeless are working in walking distance of the CCNV shelter? If a homeless person was working at the reception desk, would you know it? How do you know what kind of jobs they have been applying for?"

Valid point.

As for homeless being hired in the area, it stands to reason that at least a few businesses in the area hire homeless. My point is that the same types of jobs are just as common in other areas. I'd argue moreso. A homeless person of low employability is more likely to get a job at Burger King in the burbs than he is at the front desk at the Marriott downtown.

Saying we must keep the homeless downtown to be close to a handful of jobs ignores the fact that similar jobs exist all over the DC area, often in greater numbers. Heck, I'd say that more such jobs exist in just one large suburban mall. Or along a one mile stretch of Bladensburg Road.

by Hillman on May 18, 2011 1:39 pm • link • report

Steven:

You raise valid questions.

Yes, you risk the possibility of oversaturation of shelters. But I'd argue you have that downtown already.

As for CCNV or the city being able to actually pull a redevelopment off, that's a very good point. An obvious solution is to just sell outright, and be done with it. Or a partnership with a private developer, like a 100 year land lease. I could be wrong, but isn't that what the Hine Jr High redevelopment on Cap Hill is?

by Hillman on May 18, 2011 1:47 pm • link • report

David-
OK- it is best not to go overboard-
I will tone things down a bit - but colorful language can also be entertaining and fun- especially when it is at the expense of hipsters.
In any case- CCNV would work a lot better in a place like Reston Towne Centre or in one of these new suburban "lifestyle centers" or maybe in downtown Bethesda.Most of the volunteers come from places like this- so it would make it less of a problem for them to get to the shelter to do god's work [ or to appease whatever weird guilt complex they harbor]
There is not reason to have a dump like CCNV in DC- except that Mitch Snyder himself wanted the utmost in visibility in order to embarass the federal government- mostly at the expense of the LOCAL DC taxpayers.
This is one of the main reasons I have a seething didain and hatred towards new comers to DC who wish to save the world- it always becomes abusive of local people - we have to bear the burdens- the trash from protestors and rioters, and the disrespect they engender towards DC folks- not the transient newbies and feds.

by w on May 18, 2011 1:53 pm • link • report

W, I look forward to you trying to convince the following groups of your plan for the District to build a CCNV-like shelter in Reston:

a) current Reston residents
b) elected officials serving Reston
c) homeless residents of DC
d) the DC council

by sb on May 18, 2011 2:00 pm • link • report

@DAl, w: Your perspective is very valuable, but your recent comments have been veering quite a bit into using namecalling to make points — "hipster newbies," "jerks," "do-good ass kissers."

Veering? Pardon my hurt feelings here, but I called a former DDOT official a nimwit idiot and was censored.

@Hillman, according to your own GGW supporter, the building was slated to be sold but the real estate market killed that. Ok, that is at least ONE reason why the building is still there operating as it has.

But I've spoken to several in the office space development field that have told me they'd salivate at the opportunity to build an office building from scratch there. It would be some of the highest commercial rents in town.

Developers hunh? Don't you think that if the WH became "developable" that developers wouldn't JUMP at the opportunity? That's like asking a landlord to decide if its better to rent from a Section 8 tenant vs. a cardiologist.

I can honestly tell you I can't give you an accurate figure on building costs. I'm not a developer

If you are as connected to this issue as you suggest, wouldn't be prudent to understand the nuances involved? At least re: the CCNV building since you brought it up.

by HogWash on May 18, 2011 2:06 pm • link • report

David:

I appreciate your offer, but unfortunately I value my livelihood and anonymity too much to take you up on that. I'm simply not comfortable becoming the public poster boy for a very volatile issue in a city like DC.

Whilst I must admit that makes me a bit of a chicken, I have my family and their interests to consider.

by Hillman on May 18, 2011 2:08 pm • link • report

Hillman: There's no reason you can't write under a pseudonym.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on May 18, 2011 2:28 pm • link • report

We generally don't do totally random pseudonyms for articles, but we have put last initials in place of last names when people were concerned about this (David C., John D.). If your first name is particularly unusual, we could probably figure something out.

by David Alpert on May 18, 2011 2:29 pm • link • report

"W, I look forward to you trying to convince the following groups of your plan for the District to build a CCNV-like shelter in Reston:

a) current Reston residents
b) elected officials serving Reston
c) homeless residents of DC
d) the DC council"

I would add one more reason. I know of at least 3 shelters for homeless people in Reston, they are all full. I don't think that Reston is interested in taking in all of the homeless of CCNV. Nor is Reston especially walkable. There are plenty of jobs there, including entry level jobs, they just are not in walking distance of anything.

I understood that part of the reason for this blog was to discuss land use issues. Speaking only for myself, I see no reason why the poorest of the poor should not live in a pricey neighborhood. Mixed use should mean more than office/retain/residential. Ideally, it should mean that all sorts of different people could live in close proximity.

The city needs a homeless shelter. Closing the doors on April 1 and sending everyone on the street in the worst economy of my lifetime does not sound like a good idea to me. It would be better to raise taxes on our most fortunate citizens to pay for maintenance of what is already a badly strained social safety net. But that is just me.

by dcblogger on May 18, 2011 2:30 pm • link • report

"If you are as connected to this issue as you suggest, wouldn't be prudent to understand the nuances involved? At least re: the CCNV building since you brought it up."

I'll make it simple.

It stands to reason that the CCNV building could be sold for $100 million (probably more, and definitely more once you factor in a never-ending revenue stream from the taxes on the now taxable land and improvements).

Boston Properties bought the NPR building at 635 Mass Ave for $120 million. And they plan to tear the building down and build brand new from scratch.

It's land mass is 25,000 sf. Assessed by DC at $25 million for the land, with a building slated for demolition. It sold of course for nearly $100 million above that.

The CCNV land mass is 50,000 sf. It's double the land mass, in a location even closer to the Capitol. Wouldn't it stand to reason that it'd get at least $100 million?

Do you not think you couldn't build one hellacious homeless center far better than what's there now with $100 million?

It really is that simple, at least conceptually.

by Hillman on May 18, 2011 2:39 pm • link • report

David: Could I use a drag name or a porn name?

by Hillman on May 18, 2011 2:40 pm • link • report

"Speaking only for myself, I see no reason why the poorest of the poor should not live in a pricey neighborhood. "

It's a matter of what you value more.

You would really rather house five people in dilapidated substandard unsafe housing in a pricey neighborhood (actually, CCNV isn't even in a neighborhood really.... it's a collection of office buildings, hotels, and very expensive restaurants) rather than house ten or even fifteen people in modern, clean, efficient housing , with a ton more $$ for drug and alcohol treatment, job training, etc. in a less expensive neighborhood?

That is really what this comes down to.

by Hillman on May 18, 2011 2:45 pm • link • report

@Hillman: you never do talk about the ghetto aspect. you are essentially saying that the poorest of the poor (those who live in homeless shelters) should be housed in only poor areas. That then creates a government created ghetto.

How do you then take into account:
--How this newly created ghetto ensures the area surrounding it remain poor as well (decreased property values).
--The social aspects of poor only begin around/interacting with poor people and the "out of site out of mind" affect it would have on the non-poor.

The issue is not simple, and does not only breakdown economically, though that seems to be the only area you tackle, and only with "common sense", not actual factual analysis.

by greent on May 18, 2011 2:55 pm • link • report

Green:

You raise a valid point.

But I'd say we already have government-created ghettos. Potomac Gardens is a prime example. It's a ghetto ecosystem all to itself. Bought and paid for by our tax dollars.

I'd also argue that the proliferation of homeless shelters downtown means that most of the actual residents of that block are in fact homeless. That's the case for CCNV's block. You have the pathologies that damn so many of our homeless at CCNV currently. It wouldn't matter if they were relocated to the moon, or to the worst ghetto in DC.... the pathologies are already there.

Also, I suggest less valuable real estate locations.

Those aren't necessarily in areas where only poor people live. And not all poor people share the same self-destructive pathologies of the homeless.

There are quite a few middle class locations in the DC area that would service quite well. Springfield, for instance.

Of course, there is the jurisdictional and political issue there.

But you can find reasonably stable areas along, say, Bladensburg Road. With all you need in terms of transit, jobs, etc. And reasonably stable social structure. In fact, far more stable than what will exist in the homeless shelter itself.

As for the 'out of sight, out of mind' affect on the non-poor, I'd suggest that's 2/3 of our current problem. We value 'keeping the homeless visible' over anything else.

I'd argue that having CCNV where it is has resulted in far less sympathy toward the homeless, particularly on the national level. I can only imagine a conservative politician from a rural state seeing CCNV and the resulting crowd of drunks and panhandlers on that block every time he comes and goes from the Capitol.

Does anyone really think that sight is going to make him more likely to support homeless causes? Particularly since, like me, he will take one look at that location and realize what a stunningly poor waste of resources it is?

I have no problem with homeless programs and public housing if it's run as well as can be reasonably expected. Truly I do not. But years of seeing the stunning waste of resources at CCNV and public housing complexes are actually doing far more to turn even moderates like me into critics than any barnburner right-wing rhetoric could ever do.

The 'keep the poor visible at all costs' movement has actually backfired, in terms of a PR or empathy-generating campaign.

by Hillman on May 18, 2011 3:15 pm • link • report

The social aspects of poor only begin around/interacting with poor people and the "out of site out of mind" affect it would have on the non-poor.

Right, but the reason we have such an incredibly stingy social safety net *now* is because there's already an "out of sight, out of mind" effect--there has been since the early 60s.

The majority of middle-class voters--basically the voting block that determines policy in our winner-take-all political system--lives in segregated suburbs; the majority of the needy have been penned up in the cities. We've constructed this system of apartheid over more than a half century--by formal and informal policies.

This segregation of the dominant voting-class from society's neediest has been an incredibly corrosive phenomenon of the 20th century, at least when it comes to issues of social justice. Frankly, the faster the 21st century trend of the suburbanization of poverty progresses, the better off our chances for a move to sane, humane, and effective social policy at the national level.

When the poor live in the suburbs, they'll have a vote. They'll also have middle-class neighbors who won't be able to afford to ignore the question any more.

DC is a small, isolated, economically fragile system with no representation at the Federal level. Whenever someone brings up the question, "How does DC solve its various social problems?" I want to say, "It doesn't." It can't solve them alone; the Federal government isn't interested in truly addressing the issues; our regional neighbors are more than happy letting DC carry a grossly outsized share of the burden (After all, that's the way it's always been).

You might just as well cast Ward 7 out of the District--make it an independent political entity--and ask how Ward 7 is going to solve *its* social problems. It won't.

by oboe on May 18, 2011 3:22 pm • link • report

back in the 70's, when I was a kid, there were nowhere NEAR the numbers of "homeless" people that we have today- I believe- mostly this is due to the publicity garnered by Snyder and others who sought to turn DC into somekind of social services Vahallah - this in turn attracted mentally disabled and other social outcasts- in addition to the already overburdened DC citizenry - we had to deal with the feds breathing down our backs and causing other situations. I recall as a boy the old timers complaining about how Eleanor Roosevelt actually created a sort of social services marketplace that drew in poor people to DC when the problems had been tiny before. I think alot of this "crisis" stuff is total nonsense- it is the makings of a few political opportunists who want a name for themselves at the expense of DC residents. This crap has been going on for years- all the way back to Ellen Wilson and her social experimentation right after WW1. DC has to take it up the wazoo for social reformers who are never willing to experiment on their own constituents. I recall when Tom Davis tried to open up a full service homeless emporium in the aabandoned school near the SW-SE freeway that is now a popular gym. DC residents had no power at that time because we were under the control board- so the US in-Congruous had total domain over us and could dump anything on us.
The upside of this in the old days of the Board of Commissioners was that they got all kinds of nice perks for DC residents- prior to the 60's DC had the absolute lowest taxes of any jurisdiction in the 5 state region - liquor stores and commerce of all kinds flourished in the city- then we got "home rule" and the feces hit the fan- and taxes started going up left and right to pay for the illiterate to get city jobs, and for more poor country folk from the Carolinas to move here for a free ride.
At least back in the 40's & 50's they knew it was best to give rather than to always take.
DC should not be the dumping ground for all of the regions misfits, dysfunctional people, poor and disenfranchised. Everyone should pitch in and no one place should carry the full burden. It is high time the suburbs did this- and they have a LONG way to go to fullfilling that obligation to the center city and our long suffering and abused residents.

by w on May 18, 2011 3:44 pm • link • report

@charlie,
While I get your point about startup costs, your assumption is that even after a bankruptcy the system can turn a profit for contractors. On washcycle, someone quoted Alta as saying it is costing them $155 to a month to maintain their bikes, which is a problem if they are only being paid $150.

Arlington has the CaBi contract posted on their site. We dug it up in an earlier thread on washcycle.

The cost of a bike is $1000. Alta is paid $155/month per bike to operate CaBi. I've never seen anything authoritative saying what it cost Alta to provide such service. I would think, for competitive reasons, that information may not be public. And as CaBi is less than a year old they probably don't have a hard figure for it anyway yet.

by JeffB on May 18, 2011 3:52 pm • link • report

@Hillman, do you have an example of fully functioning inner city homeless shelters that we can use to compare? I ask because although I'm not a cyclist, most people here point to other areas (Portland, Europe etc) as examples of how we can piggyback off of their efforts. That is relevant to the discussion. Do you have any examples?

I'm not a "long-time" dc resident but was Potomac Gardens built "as a ghetto" or has circumstances turned it into one?

I would argue that homeless shelters are centrally located near or in downtown exactly because of the location. Let's say you tear CC down and rebuild it on Bladensburg Road, how walkable is that area? How much access to transit does the area offer?

And I'm sorry, I really don't understand your position re: out of sight. Do you think that people would be more inclined to sympathize with the plight of the homeless if they are out of sight? I'm just not sure how that works.

Also, can you please cite examples of where DC has chosen to keep the homeless "in sight" at the expense of everything else? The mere fact that the CCNV is where/what it is..is not such an example.

by HogWash on May 18, 2011 3:54 pm • link • report

"This segregation of the dominant voting-class from society's neediest has been an incredibly corrosive phenomenon of the 20th century, at least when it comes to issues of social justice."

I'd argue that the demagogues on the right have just be far more better at marketing their ideas.

I'd also argue that rural poverty is quite visible. Just go through East Tennessee or large portions of West Virginia or Mississippi and ask a random person how many really poor people they know. Or even a lot of rustbelt working class suburbs.

A stunning number of people in the US think that public housing and food stamps comprise something like 1/3 to 1/2 of the federal budget.

That's because the far right has been very, very good at portraying it as so.

And the far left has inadvertantly played right into their hands, by refusing to discuss welfare reform in any meaningful way, after Bill Clinton made a stab at it, what, 15 years ago?

When we can't even argue that TANF funds should be cut off after five years if no job search has been initiated without being called racist and meanspirited...... we are going to lose that PR battle. And we should.

The excesses and the inefficiencies of the welfare programs are ruining even the good that the programs do.

I come from a rural area. I can't count the number of times I've heard people say they will NEVER vote Democratic because of welfare abuses. And they aren't all racist. They cite rural white welfare abuses just as much as urban black ones.

But they were raised to believe that if you didn't at least try to work then society, friends, family, etc., had no further obligation to help you.

It is THE overriding issue for a lot of people of modest and working class means. Particularly on an emotional level. And we all know that emotion guides politics more than we care to admit.

It's that fundamental belief that so many on the far left just can't seem to fathom.

I think the only modern politician that truly got this was Bill Clinton. And I think that was largely because of his modest means background.

Call it cultural. Call it rural or suburban. Call it whatever.

It's a very strong feeling that has never been adequately addressed by the left. Much to the detriment of the very decent ideals of society made stronger by decent social programs.

by Hillman on May 18, 2011 3:55 pm • link • report

I for one have no problem being labeled a @hillman supporter because @ hillman says things that most people are too afraid to even mention for fear of being labeled reactionary or even republican. I dislike a lot of the liberal emphasis voters in DC have because both political parties have used DC to gain and then threw us under the bus- as Obama did recently- and yet these moron social reformer types still kow-tow to the demon crats who couldn't care less about DC and our lack of rights.
Actually- truth be told- Nixon gave DC more than just about any President- but this is not popualr to say- the liberals get all worked up and cannot admit he did anyone any good.
JFK was one of the worst- he tried to demolish entire areas of historic downtown including Lafeyette Square until Jackie kicked his stupid butt . His California developer boys wanted to build a freeway right thru the center city and destroy East Capitol street, demolish the Jefferson Bldg of the LOC, and do numerous other atrocities in the name of modernism and progress. It is not any one party that is to blame- they all dumped on DC.
Yes- we should put a big homeless shelter in Reston, another in Kingstowne, another in Kentlands, another in Chevy Chase, another one in Falls Church. Let those rich suburbanites who feel so sorry for all of the misfits get a taste of their own medicine for a change. Free DC of these crazy external burdens NOW.

by w on May 18, 2011 3:57 pm • link • report

@wand taxes started going up left and right to pay for the illiterate to get city jobs, and for more poor country folk from the Carolinas to move here for a free ride.

Can you please explain how/when the city paid for employment of those who are illiterate. That's history before my time here.

Also, as a southerner, can you amend your statement with actual facts to support your idea that southerners moved here for a free ride? Hadn't heard about that one.

by HogWash on May 18, 2011 4:02 pm • link • report

When we can't even argue that TANF funds should be cut off after five years if no job search has been initiated without being called racist and meanspirited...... we are going to lost that PR battle. And we should.

Really? That's interesting because I believe that very same proposal is part of the mayor's current budget. And he hasn't been called a racist or meanspirited.

Care to cite your examples of us not being able to have this conversation?

by HogWash on May 18, 2011 4:06 pm • link • report

not to sound smug- but do you recall who Marion Barry was?
He basically created a jobs bank for all manner of indigent and unqualified people to work in the DC city government as his way of stiffing the "man" and the feds. What he wound up doing was alienating his own constituents- and those who could just bailed out of the city for Mitchelville and other parts of the area where they could at least count on their trash being picked up& streetlights replaced, etc...
It was going on in DC before barry- walter Washington was no winner. He placed numerous bad apples intot he DC gov't. City services have been basically non-existent until Anthony Williams came into play. This Grey fellow is a ghost from the past- I believe he will be a one termer- his supporters do not want to live in a DC with bike paths and coffeehouses. They wany fried chicken , mega- churches,take out Chinese behind bullet proof plexiglas windows, and funeral parlors ....

by w on May 18, 2011 4:12 pm • link • report

Hogwash:

CCNV is a perfect example of 'keep the homeless visible'. Thats pretty much verbatim what Mitch Snyder said when he fought to have such a center opened (actually, technically the buildings there house several different social service agencies..... most locals just refer to the whole thing as the Mitch Snyder center).

It was chosen specifically because of it's high profile location.

Bladensburg Road is very well served by metro bus. It's as walkable as it needs to be. That is, there are plenty of bus stops, retail and job opportunities, etc. Bladensburg is essentially one very long retail strip. For miles.

Unfortunately, no I don't have any ready examples of well-run inner city homeless shelters.

Potomac Gardens was built as public housing. There was/is a elderly housing component, and a 'regular' public housing component. It's currently around 350 units,but I believe some are unoccupied. It has a long history of violence. To the point that Marion Barry actually hired Nation of Islam to patrol the facility.

Out of sight - I truly do believe facilities like CCNV being so visible and so poorly run and such a stunning waste of resources is actually a terrible PR move.

Ditto for poorly run public housing. Particularly as the surrounding neighborhoods get so expensive. Nothing turns a moderate into a conservative faster than having to pay a ton for housing, only to be mugged by a public housing resident getting free housing on your own block, and then the more you investigate the more you realize that a high percentage of the taxes you pay for that public housing (or homeless services) is being wasted.

And the solution proposed? Yet higher taxes, and no reform of the system.

by Hillman on May 18, 2011 4:22 pm • link • report

Hog:

The latest iteration of the budget has or at least had a proposal removing the TANF 5 year limitation. Specific reason given was that they feel five years isn't long enough to find a job.

I can't honestly say who is behind this, as so little is out in the open in DC politics. I seem to recall Mary Cheh was involved somehow.

And I don't know the status of it - it may have been removed, but it was most certainly pushed for. Hard.

I personally was labelled racist and meanspirited for questioning the TANF provision removal. Repeatedly.

Marion Barry, to his credit, actually pushed for the TANF limit. Rather emphatically.

I honestly don't know Vince Gray's true position on that. If memory serves me right he was eventually goaded into accepting the TANF limitation by Marion Barry.

by Hillman on May 18, 2011 4:28 pm • link • report

Response from Bixi:

https://montreal.bixi.com/about-bixi/news/2011/05/18/bixi-establishing-the-facts

by Adam L on May 18, 2011 4:29 pm • link • report

the form of transportation homeless people have is their feet. Bus stops do not mean anything to people who are penniless.

"When the poor live in the suburbs, they'll have a vote. They'll also have middle-class neighbors who won't be able to afford to ignore the question any more."

there are thousands of poor people in the VA and MD suburbs. Richmond Highway and Route 50 are lined with cheap motels that are used by suburban governments to house homeless families. homeless adults live in their cars in the suburbs. There are hundreds of such people. The suburbs do not take care of their own homeless, they certainly are not interested in DC's homeless.

And I cannot accept the suggestion that Mitch Snyder has anything to do with the presence of homeless people in DC, only that they have a shelter, however inadequate.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/may/16/homelessness-washington-dc

by dcblogger on May 18, 2011 4:42 pm • link • report

@Hillman -- I'd like to see some responses to specific issues that people have raised where organization have tried to do what you are suggesting. Like with the Franklin School.

In my experience when organizations look at selling and trying to provide more or better services on cheaper land they hit two problems: 1) when push comes to shove, no one really will pay the kind of money the people throw around in theory and 2) the push back from any place they hope to locate new services that effectively blocks anything from opening.

I know churches and nonprofit providers of social services that have looked into deals that either involve selling out completely or letting a developer build a much bigger building on the land while them space in the new complex. It also almost never works out. Not because people don't want it to, not because they have idealogical objections to it, but because when its time to get specific the money and the agreements aren't really as good as people thought they might be.

You have a lot of faith in the idea that because it seems logical to you and some people have said the space involve should be worth lots of money that means it should work. Any evidence of actual offers turned down? Offers made? Places it has succeeded?

I can think of one place it has succeeded and that is Saint Peter's Lutheran Church in Midtown, Manhattan. Some time in the 80s, Citibank bought their air rights and built an office tower over them. However, DC is not Manhattan in the 80s.

by Kate W on May 18, 2011 4:45 pm • link • report

The suburbs do not take care of their own homeless, they certainly are not interested in DC's homeless.

You misunderstood my point. I didn't say MD and VA were interested in taking care of *our* homeless (and there is no "their homeless" versus "our homeless", which is a major pet-peeve of mine, but leave that aside).

My point was that the DC's poor are doubly-disenfranchised because they live in DC. Middle-class America in general, who mostly live in the suburbs, have no interest in poverty issues, because those issues do not affect them. You may as well be talking about starving children in Africa.

Your "thousands of poor people in the VA and MD suburbs" are a drop in the bucket. The poor in DC have a formidable political presence in the city--the only problem is that DC is relatively powerless. If you took every poor person in DC--say 80k people making less than $20k per year, and dropped them in MD or VA, they'd have some real power.

by oboe on May 18, 2011 4:53 pm • link • report

@Wnot to sound smug- but do you recall who Marion Barry was? He basically created a jobs bank for all manner of indigent and unqualified people to work in the DC city government as his way of stiffing the "man" and the feds.

Yes, I know who he is but wasn't here during either of his administrations. Your take on this is interesting. I've often heard that Barry helped build DC's black middle class by offering high school students the opportunity to work and subsequently obtain a gov't job. But you're suggesting that what he basically did was hire the unqualified, homeless and illiterate? WOW!

I believe he will be a one termer- his supporters do not want to live in a DC with bike paths and coffeehouses. They wany fried chicken , mega- churches,take out Chinese behind bullet proof plexiglas windows, and funeral parlors

Care to cite examples of us Gray supporters choosing fried chicken shops over coffee shops and bike lanes? thanks

by HogWash on May 18, 2011 5:08 pm • link • report

@HillThe latest iteration of the budget has or at least had a proposal removing the TANF 5 year limitation. Specific reason given was that they feel five years isn't long enough to find a job.

Yes, there may have been a proposal but according to what Gray said @his May 7th, Ward 7 budget meeting, the TANF proposal is still there. That does not satisfy your assertion that no one wants to reform anything.

CCNV is a perfect example of 'keep the homeless visible'. Thats pretty much verbatim what Mitch Snyder said

While that too may be true. I asked an example of where DC has chosen to kept the homeless visible at the expense of everything else because that's the accusation your hurled.

Unfortunately, no I don't have any ready examples of well-run inner city homeless shelters. In a debate like such, it's prudent to have a reference point. Saying that we should do better in comparison to nothing doesn't seem to advance your position.

Sure, Potomac was built as a public housing project. Since I don't know, does everyone live there for free or do a number of them have their rents subsidized? You leave the impression that it was built for the sole purpose of housing the unemployable and provide them with free rent.

by HogWash on May 18, 2011 5:19 pm • link • report

@Michael Perkins

""first reported in the blog Unsuck DC Metro" would have been nice."

I'm a journalist and I agree with you. It's professional courtesy. You often see citations like that when referring to major newspapers or other large news organizations. But when it comes to giving credit to bloggers, professional courtesy seems to go right out the window.

It's mostly inertia. Citizen journalism is still relatively new so you just have to keep pounding at us until we get it right. The Washington Post consistently picks up media stories from DCRTV. Only recently did they start giving Dave Hughes some credit - and even then, it's rarely given.

So I'm always pleased to see the positive attention GGW gets from Examiner, the Post, etc. All of you do good work, and you should be recognized for that.

by TJ on May 18, 2011 8:28 pm • link • report

The Bixi response (emailed to all members) notes that the system was designed to turn an operating profit at 50,000 members, and with corporate sponsorship; they're at 40,000 now and just placed ads on the bikes' skirt guards. The $108M loan has two components:
- $37M lent from Montreal to Bixi, refinancing a loan from the parking authority that paid for startup and local buildout, and
- $71M lent from a commercial bank, guaranteed by Montreal, for financing facilities for the export business.

It appears to be the media that seems to be mixing the two business lines, not Bixi.

by Payton on May 18, 2011 8:56 pm • link • report

Kate:

The Franklin School parcel and the CCNV parcel are fairly different.

Franklin School cannot be razed. It's a historically protected structure. It was built as a school, and the renovation costs are significant, but what you'll have left is a very specific structure that is actually fairly small.

It's, what, four stories tall?

The CCNV parcel can be torn down, and a huge office building can be built in it's place. Up to 12 stories.

As for the lawsuits, the difference is DC apparently promised the Franklin School parcel to several different groups, then in usual fashion messed up the sale process. Much of the lawsuit and delay was because of homeless advocacy.

It's worth noting that much of the delay was because homeless advocates insisted on using the building as a shelter, even though it was poorly designed for such a use (the heating costs alone were astronomical). The renovation costs alone were estimated at $30 million, in large part because of it's historic nature.

It is a pretty good example of a building being chosen by homeless advocates not because of it's usefulness but because of it's high profile address.

by Hillman on May 19, 2011 7:53 am • link • report

Hogwash:

I don't know the ratio of free vs reduced rents at Potomac Gardens.

What I do know is that it's a self-contained ghetto, on very expensive land.

The shame of that is that the decent residents in Potomac Gardens have to suffer the most, as their not so decent neighbors terrorize them.

All brought to you by our unwillingness to have a discussion about these issues.

As for the 'keeping the homeless visible' being a higher priority, CCNV is a prime example. As is, ironically, the Franklin School.

by Hillman on May 19, 2011 7:57 am • link • report

"the form of transportation homeless people have is their feet. Bus stops do not mean anything to people who are penniless. "

Yet these penniless folks seem to have enough for booze all day.

Also, why can't the shelter simply give them bus passes? It's not hard. Literally hand one out to each person each morning.

Was there not a program in DC recently that actually bussed the homeless to the National Mall to panhandle? I believe it cost around $1 million a year.

If we can afford that, we can afford to give out bus passes.

by Hillman on May 19, 2011 7:59 am • link • report

@hillman -- I am more convinced than ever that you should at least write an article, probably more than one. If anonymity is what you need but is not available on GGW, then how about another blog? Say at Sociology in my neighborhood, and you could link to it.

by goldfish on May 19, 2011 10:54 am • link • report

Goldfish:

My problem is that I go in spurts (that's what she said).

I get all hot and bothered about this topic, but then I get discouraged and don't have the energy to pursue it anymore.

by Hillman on May 19, 2011 11:31 am • link • report

@hillman - just copy everything you've written here and you have more than enough to edit into an article.

by Tina on May 19, 2011 11:52 am • link • report

Let's face it, Hillman came into the discussion harping on "those people" who refuse to talk about how we allocate our social service resources.

When he was asked why he doesn’t submit something to the council. He responded by saying that he feels as if the online community is a better way to get his message out.

It was suggested he write an article. He then said (after admitting that this was an issue close to his heart) that out of concern for himself and his family, he didn’t want to do that.

So what we do have here? We have Hillman choosing to visit blog after blog w/the same schtick with the hopes that someone else will take his concerns, those “close to his heart concerns,” and implore someone else to do something about it.

Face it, you want to complain, attack other for not caring about your special issue, but not do any of the legwork required.

And at the end of the day, what do we have? Well, tear down all the homeless shelters and relocate them to less expensive parcel of land. We should also raze ghettos that sit on expensive parcels of land because we could be making a killing off of the sale and revenue.

In essence, he’s not serious or @a minimum is simply comfortable complaining online and positioning himself as the “one” who’s most concerned about all the problems the social service sympathizers have created, which is fine because most of us do. But, let's call a spade a spade.

by HogWash on May 19, 2011 12:41 pm • link • report

So my ideas aren't valid if they aren't in a forum you approve of?

Really, folks, I'm not sure why this requires some formal treatise. It's not really that complicated.

So far I've seen far more time spent complaining about me personally than I have seen addressing the ideas I have.

I have yet to see a cohesive argument against my basic premise of us needing to look at how we use the properties and resources we already have available to us.

by hillman on May 19, 2011 1:47 pm • link • report

Amen, Hogwash.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on May 19, 2011 1:50 pm • link • report

Sorry Hillman, you won't be allowed to play victim here.

Unlike many other blogs, the people here took the time to engage you on what you claimed were issues close to your heart. Hell, I engaged even though I knew what the outcome would be. I practically knew this would lead to nowhere. I knew this discussion would turn in circles which is why I raised a supercilious brow when you first started this strategy. You were provided an opportunity to prevent your views and have them discussed. You chose not to.

And the reason that you've yet to hear a cohesive argument against the idea that we need to look at our properties and resources is LIKELY because no one disagrees with that. YOU are the one who suggests that no one else is concerned or want to talk about these things. That's your accusation.

An accusation clearly (as evidenced by this very blog exchange) that doesn't apply here. So sorry dude, no dice here. May work for the WCP and neighborhood blogs. Just not here. Not on GGW.

by HogWash on May 20, 2011 10:52 am • link • report

Hogwash:

So you agree that the CCNV / Mitch Snyder facility is a poor use of available resources, and we should seriously investigate closing it instead a long term raise in taxes?

You also agree with that idea for some public housing facilities?

If so that's terrific, but I sure didn't get that sense from any of your postings.

by Hillman on May 21, 2011 9:03 am • link • report