This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2016, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
"Spend a little bit more for dignity and safety. What is wrong with us?" That was the impassioned plea last fall from Washington, D.C., Council member Mary M. Cheh during a debate over features of the homeless shelters that are envisioned to replace the notorious facility at D.C. General. Cheh's words bear repeating these days as the city's ambitious plans to locate sites and build the replacement shelters have come under attack from critics who have seized on their cost as a weapon.
And not only that. The onslaught of opposition to Mayor Muriel E. Bowser's proposal to locate smaller shelters throughout the city runs the gamut from neighborhood concerns about the impact of homeless families on property values to unfounded allegations of political chicanery. The D.C. Council, which has endorsed the philosophy behind the plan, has delayed a vote in the face of the mounting resistance.
"What I don't want to end up with," Council member Jack Evans warned at a public hearing last month, "is doing nothing. And that's a real possibility." Said a former D.C. General resident, "If everyone nitpicks this proposal, I am concerned that this plan will fall apart, and D.C. General will still be standing" with families living in horrible conditions.
D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson assured us that won't happen. By the time the council recesses for the summer, he said, a plan will have been approved to replace D.C. General. But, making no secret for his disdain of the specifics the Bowser administration laid out, he said he thinks there is a way to replace D.C. General with better locations and at lower costs to the District. He said he's scouting other locations but wouldn't provide details on the process; only the executive is allowed to negotiate on behalf of the city.
Clearly, cost must be a consideration, and the council is right to scrutinize the plan. We would hope, though, that the council and administration would collaborate on any revisions to the plan, rather than work at cross-purposes. It's worrying that well-heeled opponents, rooted in neighborhoods that simply don't want these shelters, have managed to hijack and distort the debate. Their challenge to the use of leased buildings, for example, ignores the fact that this is a normal government practice offering distinct advantages, such as the ability to spread out costs over a number of years. Then, too, there is the fact that the city will get more for its money, and homeless families will receive better services in small, well-supported shelters than in the wasteland that is D.C. General.
Some council members seem to have lost a sense of urgency about closing — and razing — D.C. General by a date certain. It has been more than two years since an 8-year-old girl by the name of Relisha Rudd disappeared from the shelter; if council members don't see an emergency requiring them to get other children out of this decrepit, decaying facility as quickly as possible, then perhaps they should rename it the D.C. Council Family Homeless Shelter.