You must log in or register to comment.

daphydoods t1_j0umxxb wrote

The Housing First model has been proven time and time again to WORK!!!!

You know why a lot of the unhoused drink and do drugs? To keep them warm. To numb the physical and emotional pain. To make life at least a little bit bearable. If we house them they have warmth and dignity. They have a stable address so they can actually get jobs. They will get better and be able to support themselves in due time, if we just treat them like the human beings they are.

My time interning with the Rhode Island Coalition for the Homeless was such an eye opener. Everybody deserves the dignity of having a warm, safe place to sleep at night. No if, ands, or buts about it.


SandyBouattick t1_j0vd604 wrote

I'm not in this area and don't have a dog in this fight, but I think most people opposing these types of places aren't arguing that they don't work. They usually object to bringing lots of homeless addicts to their neighborhood. Those homeless addicts need help and housing, and most people agree with that, but NIMBY is real. In these cases, it isn't even just the rich people not wanting something to bring down their property values, but a fear that the population assigned to this housing will bring an increase in crime. Everybody wants to house the homeless in theory. Not everybody wants to invite a population with serious substance abuse and mental health problems to their home neighborhood.


HeroOfOldIron t1_j1049bg wrote

That's why the state should enforce a minimum amount of housing for homeless people in every major town and city.

The only reason that homeless people congregate at Mass/Cass is because that's where all the support services are. If they were instead spread out all over boston along with a decent amount of housing, then you wouldn't run into the problems that come with a huge encampment of homeless people.

Extending the logic, if Dorchester is the only place with this kind of housing initiative then it's going to run into problems, but with mandatory minimums spread out over the state then no individual neighborhood will run into problems so severe that they can't deal with them.


SandyBouattick t1_j106mi6 wrote

Good luck passing that in the legislature, where reps vote for the interests of their towns. Also, I agree with you that having housing spread out would make sense, but spreading out the extremely limited free addiction and mental health services is tough. There aren't enough of them to have them available in every town like you want the housing to be. Telling a homeless addict with mental health problems that they get a free apartment in Framingham, but they have to go to Cambridge to get counseling or addiction treatment, isn't going to work for people who typically have no car or income.


HeroOfOldIron t1_j108558 wrote

Agreed, I meant something more like instead of having one central location that provides food, medical care, housing assistance, etc. for 1000 people, build 20 of them spread out that can each serve 50.

Obviously the numbers aren't representative, but having smaller support centers to provide all of the necessary resources is what we should aim for.


SandyBouattick t1_j109wlg wrote

It makes sense in theory, but we have a provider shortage. You can imagine that providers working for non-profits serving homeless people aren't making a ton of money. Recruiting them to such an important, but stressful and low-paying position is tough. Having one hub for services maximizes the number of patients you can treat with limited providers. If you spread those providers out, then you probably can't serve as many people. You'd need way more providers to make it work spread out that way, and we already have a shortage. Like everything else in low SES service work, funding is the major limiting factor. When you ask for more money AND for towns to open up homeless addict residential treatment centers in their town, you can probably guess the answer. Most of them are happy to keep those places concentrated where they are.


peace_love17 t1_j0uqv5k wrote

Overcoming addiction, getting a job, overcoming mental health challenges are all incredibly difficult things to do even if you have a home. Expecting people to do any of those things while living on the street is doomed to fail.


Redsmedsquan t1_j0w4c9v wrote

It’s possible but it’s very hard. I’m still waiting on my getting my place


ari_iaccarino t1_j0ultxx wrote

I’ve lived up the street from there for 10 years — the proposal is a good thing. Everyone deserves housing, and we’re only as strong as the neediest among us. Additionally, as a former public school teacher, I believe people need to stop using their kids as excuses to block this type of development — fairly presumptuous of them to assume another child’s parent or relative won’t benefit, which in turn helps the kid.


bdeeney098 t1_j0ur36i wrote

Where "up the street" do you live that you think this location is good for a program like this? Also, "as a former public school teacher", can you honestly say that directly across the street from an elementary school is the ideal location? Anyone who lives in reality has to understand that this will bring an increase in drug use and sales to the location so maybe across the street from a public school isn't the best spot.


AboyNamedBort t1_j0ussra wrote

Everywhere in Boston is near a school or a park. Its a lame excuse. There is a reason The Simpsons made fun of such things.


too-cute-by-half t1_j0uzx4p wrote

My kids go to that school. I have no problem with the project. I've been to other supportive housing buildings and they are more like nursing homes than shelters.


bdeeney098 t1_j0v4hg2 wrote

While I respect your opinion I do think that it's wrong. The hotel I saw that they used for the same program looked like skid row after a couple weeks. Trash and shit in the hallways and every room was just a shooting gallery. I don't have kids but I would not want a place like that across from their school. That's just me though!


EndoftheWeek t1_j0vhp6b wrote

“Some of the most at risk people in our society don’t deserve to be provided with an opportunity to get the help they need to get back on their feet because children (which I don’t have) might see an ugly building.”

Are you fucking insane?


bdeeney098 t1_j0vj1br wrote

That's not even close to what I said, cut it out. I did say however that I totally believe in housing first to get people back on their feet and a path to better lives. I simply just think that this is not a good location for them to set up this program. Keep twisting my words and making shit up though, it will probably work out for ya.


EndoftheWeek t1_j0vmp0m wrote

It doesn’t matter what words you use. The actual, material result of this endless ‘oh, of course, but not here’ nonsense is exactly what I said. There is an actual proposal with an actual location that has actual potential to help people in real need. That’s rare enough as is. Finding a special, secluded zone for it is a both an unnecessary luxury and one that keeps these projects in limbo and the people in need of them on the streets.


bdeeney098 t1_j0vpweb wrote

It absolutely matters what words I use and to think otherwise is ridiculous. Also, I think it's important to do some homework and figure out where this transitional housing should be set up to best service those in need so they can be successful. If the location is nowhere near the services people need and there isn't transportation close by to get them where those services are then it's not gonna work. We aren't helping people by putting them in a hotel room to turn into a shooting gallery without any plans on how they'll transition to more permanent housing. Next thing you know the hotel is trashed, time and resources have been wasted, and we're back where we started except the community is worse off for it.

Edit: spelling


AchillesDev t1_j0wlsba wrote

So you’re using kids as your excuse without even having any? And telling a parent and teacher of actual children that actually exist that they are wrong? Get a grip.


DEWOuch t1_j0w2jkh wrote

Don’t even waste your breath, the only people that need to weigh in on this development are the neighbors.

If it turns out as you predict, then the burden will be borne by those same neighbors. All the caterwauling on this sub doesn’t mean squat.

Been in the halls with many addict/alcoholics, so I know that even the most motivated, find achieving sobriety a daunting task.


tiedyepieguy t1_j0uuqsv wrote

u/bdeeney098 you’re ok with asking people on Reddit for money to help you out, but you’re against a reasonable location to house the homeless?


bdeeney098 t1_j0uwd8k wrote

I am absolutely not against a REASONABLE location to house the homeless. That's my whole issue, this is not a reasonable location for this program. You should read what I'm talking about here on this post instead of worrying about my history on this site. Fuck yourself.


NativeMasshole t1_j0v2ydb wrote

Where would you consider REASONABLE? Anywhere that's accessible to the homeless is probably going to be near a lot of other social infrastructure that someone is going to take issue with them being nearby.


tiedyepieguy t1_j0uyw46 wrote

I was getting some context. Your history is quite relevant when it comes to discussing the subject matter at hand.

If you don’t want people to read your stuff, I recommend blocking them, or deleting stuff after you post it. Even then, it’s still accessible on archiving sites.


6corsican6lily6 t1_j0voclm wrote

It’s nimby fucking assholes like you that keep progress from happening in our state and towns. Go fuck yaself clown.


DEWOuch t1_j0w2vz1 wrote

You’re interfering with their virtue signaling, hence the downvotes.


ari_iaccarino t1_j0viqma wrote

A guy got shot in the head six times 20 ft from my place a few years back — nowhere is truly safe until we bring all of us into the collective fold of prosperity.


bdeeney098 t1_j0vjq1m wrote

Damn bro that's crazy. Yeah I can't argue with you I just don't think that this particular hotel is a good location for this program.


ak47workaccnt OP t1_j0u9ome wrote

Will the nimbys win this round?

>"I have a huge heart and I definitely am for these type of projects, this just isn't the location," said Mancuso. "Our kids, I want them to be safe ... As a parent, I couldn't feel safe with my children walking the streets with this kind of homelessness, drugs."

She doesn't realize this is an effort to reduce homelessness and by extension, public drug use and crime?

>"We're maxed out, we don't need it," said Dillon. "Find somewhere else. There's a ton of places in the city that this can go in and, better yet, go outside the city. Why does Dorchester, Roxbury always have to take the brunt of this? And we're just ... we're done. We've had enough."

Yeah! Ship our homeless somewhere else. That's the solution /s


Chunderbutt t1_j0ue0c5 wrote

I’m so sick of this.

>I have a huge heart…



Zizoud t1_j0vdfzg wrote

I have a huge (trash can) heart


NotExcitedToBeHere22 t1_j0uw5at wrote

I could care less, tbh. Put the temporary housing wherever it’s available…

However, unless you are actively advocating for this type of establishment next door to your own home….what leg do you have to stand on in this argument over who’s heart is bigger?

My guess is you aren’t, you’re a keyboard warrior.


Zizoud t1_j0vddby wrote

The proponent’s lead literally is trying to put this type of housing next to his house in JP lol


umassmza t1_j0ubo79 wrote

I can paraphrase that woman

“This area has a lot going for it, cant we ship the bums somewhere crappy. PS I’m not a bad person because I have a big heart”


tubatackle t1_j0v2uy5 wrote

Are we talking about the same Dorchester?


umassmza t1_j0vfpc8 wrote

Try to buy a house in Dorchester it’s gentrifying. You are in the city have easy access to downtown, parking, and a little outdoor space, especially compared to Southie.


TheyMikeBeGiants t1_j0v41cq wrote

If this building gets put into Roxbury or Dorchester, the nimbys HAVE won this round.

Roxbury and Dorchester comprise 50 PERCENT of the GBA's affordable housing. FIFTY PERCENT.

There's a reason this proposal isn't in Brookline or Newton. It wouldn't even make it to the stage that it has here in a town like that.


pelican_chorus t1_j0vlvxs wrote

Amen. People here complaining about NIBYs with regards to this are ridiculous: Roxbury and Dorchester are the poor neighborhoods where these kinds of projects are always placed.

Build more of this in my backyard, in Cambridge. Or in an affluent part of Boston, or Brookline, or wherever.


TheyMikeBeGiants t1_j0vx9qy wrote

Fuckin amen. Build them in Somerville and Charlestown and Beacon Hill. Build ALL of them in Brookline. Build them in West Roxbury too, and in Milton and Westwood and EVERYWHERE along the Cape.

Build affordable housing everywhere rich assholes near what is ostensibly a metropolitan center claim that their backyard deserves protection instead of people on the street.


TheTr7nity t1_j0y4o9g wrote

Why Somerville? The homeless population is pretty low in Somerville. Why not build it where there are a lot of homeless, like Dorchester… where it can be easily accessible?


TheyMikeBeGiants t1_j0zsiuu wrote

Accessible to what? The alleys they used to sleep in before they got housed? So long as anybody can afford the T - which is easier to get than not once you're housed, given that subsidized housing takes a percentage of your income instead of as much as they can get at market rate - then it doesn't matter where they are inside the Greater Boston Area.

For what it's worth, we're already at where you are suggesting. They already build public housing out in Dorchester, a hugely disproportionate amount. That's where the least resistance is, because nobody out there has the money to fight it. Boston's solution to homelessness and addiction is to put all of them in one place, away from all the tourists who take photos, and that's how and why we end up with situations like Mass & Cass.

If we're gonna talk about why the housing crisis is so fucking terrible here, it's because the most politically expedient solution has always been "Well we'll put another bandaid in Dorchester and that'll keep my poll numbers up". It's been that way for longer than I've been alive and it'll be that way until we're both dead unless something changes. We gotta build everywhere else and it can't just be yet more lab space.


NativeMasshole t1_j0v3c8h wrote

>"Our kids, I want them to be safe ... As a parent, I couldn't feel safe with my children walking the streets with this kind of homelessness, drugs."

They're already on the streets, that's the whole damn problem!


AboyNamedBort t1_j0ut5p8 wrote

I'm all for projects like this. I live by some in Jamaica Plain and they are fine neighbors. But its completely true that Boston is bearing the brunt of this while the suburbs do nothing but send their "problems" into the city.


MrsMurphysChowder t1_j0ubjom wrote

I hope the NIMBYs don't win. I have a big heart" my arse. We need more housing of all kinds, but especially for the homeless.


BasicDesignAdvice t1_j0uknlx wrote

> go outside the city

Why can't they put the riffraff out of sight and away from easy access to centralized resources and services?


Graywulff t1_j0uq6xs wrote

Yeah what suburb will take them?


AboyNamedBort t1_j0utcg5 wrote

A lot of these homeless people are from the suburbs. Why should they be just Boston's problem?


Graywulff t1_j0v0xzv wrote

I know they’re from all over and it should be a distributed problem. How about we make every town share the burden? They did this with the projects building them in towns like Arlington where there are better schools.

Areas with high cost of living probably have high cost of labor too.

I’m fine with distributing it equally across the commonwealth. As long as we aren’t seriously displacing people from family.

There also needs to be the treatment infrastructure in place which boston has going for it. They could build clinics right into these places and have substance abuse counselors, mental health specialists and nurse practitioners on hand to take care of medical needs and detox.

There also need to be jobs for these people. I mean in more rural areas they could run their own farm and grow their own food and stuff.

Maybe locate them near vocational training? My brother said ford mechanic school is free now bc of a shortage of workers.


bdeeney098 t1_j0uz3hy wrote

This hotel isn't near any of the services needed, it's not close to any train stations and there aren't any buses on morrissey Blvd where it's located. I assume they'll be setting up some kind of shuttle service. Why would t that work somewhere outside of the city and residential neighborhoods?


khanyoufeelthelove t1_j0ub6mf wrote

"you know....ship the homeless to a camp...a camp that helps them work...a work camp. use the trains to bring them there..." - interview nimby (probably)


5teerPike t1_j0uz8je wrote

"I have a huge heart" that's still three sizes too small.


ballwasher89 t1_j0v43he wrote

I like your idea, but logistically how do you transport that many homeless people to Texas?



MrRileyJr t1_j0van7g wrote

>I have a huge heart

Sure you do, hun. Probably the same size heart as most Conservatives, since you sound like them.


HebrewHammer14 t1_j0uxbz1 wrote

So everyone here is the “ all all for helping the homeless as long as it’s not my neighborhood” crowd lol


MrRileyJr t1_j0va6hw wrote

Isn't that literally almost everyone in this state? They want to help those struggling while in the same breath condemning them and wanting them 5 states away. Some of the same people here that are saying they love this and can't understand why anyone would be against will be those same people within a year or so. The problem is getting worse because nobody is willing to do what needs to be done to move things along.

There's little downsides to these sort of things, the research says it works. People need to stop clutching those pearls.


HebrewHammer14 t1_j0vbc69 wrote

It should really be simple. The residents are assuming everyone who is homeless is a drug addict or criminal which isn’t the case. Allow this to happen, make a requirement of no drugs or arrests while a resident and having to keep your own space clean. If they can’t follow those simple rules then they get booted out. Sometimes it’s just a family who’s living on a couch or out of their car but need to be in the city.


pelican_chorus t1_j0vm0z7 wrote

Please build more of this in my backyard (Cambridge).

Stop piling all of these in poor neighborhoods like Dorchester every time and then accusing the residents of those places of NIMBYism.


ThrillSeekingDoggo t1_j0v8jdc wrote

This is like 75% of Democrats in the US and easily a majority of folks in Mass. It shouldn't be surprising tbh.


HebrewHammer14 t1_j0v8xbj wrote

Notice how quiet they are too. If they thought they had a leg to stand on then they would downvote and speak up with their whole chest.


ThrillSeekingDoggo t1_j0wnbs6 wrote

I wasn't trying to shit on Democrats specifically, I mean it's not like anyone who identifies as conservative in the US actually gives a shit about any homeless or impoverished people either. Just saying it shouldn't be surprising.


420trashcan t1_j0xcdxt wrote

What's the percentage of Republicans my guy?


ThrillSeekingDoggo t1_j107hwm wrote

100? I mean you're doing some bizarre mental gymnastics if you identify more closely with the Republican party than the dems and simultaneously pretend to care about those in need.


420trashcan t1_j107xkr wrote

Just wondering why you specified Democrats.


ThrillSeekingDoggo t1_j10hc1j wrote

Because nobody would ever think people who identify as conservative/republican would care, didn't seem like that needed to be explicitly stated. My point was more "even among dems, most people think this way, in MA and across the US". Thought it was implied.


Rjp2 t1_j0vbwbe wrote

BINGO. They love the idea till it shows up on their doorstep


YoMomma-IsNice t1_j0uc0zw wrote

Very typical response… We want to help as long as you don’t bring it to my area.


ithinkmynameismoose t1_j0uijbh wrote

How many homeless are you boarding currently.


YoMomma-IsNice t1_j0uinso wrote

I’m not out there saying I’m willing to help. How is that answer for you?


ithinkmynameismoose t1_j0uix6y wrote

Totally fine! Seriously, as long as you’re also not trying to force me to live with these people next to me either, and I’m not saying I want to help myself.

(Regardless of location since I’m not actually in Dorchester)


snakeheads0 t1_j0uqljx wrote

Any of 'these people' could live next to you anyway, go move to antartica if you don't any people around. We don't want you here too :)


SYNTHLORD t1_j0uf51z wrote

Looks like a NIMBY who doesn’t understand the efficacy of social welfare programs came through and downvoted everyone, so I gave everyones solid contributions an updoot.

This is a great idea, and the fact that we even have space for it (unlike LA) is a sign that it needs to pass before the opportunity is too late. These naysayers don’t realize that this development will become something much less useful. And, instead of assisting our homeless with becoming healthy functioning members of society, they will remain on the street perpetuating whatever archaic ideas these people have of them.

It took like 1/3rd of my morning coffee to realize this is a good idea, come on nimbys, get your shitty Keurigs repaired or something and wake the fuck up


flamethrower2 t1_j0uvf0r wrote

Could be summarized as classist or possibly racist. What they are saying is not fact-based. It's most likely based on preconceived notions, i.e., classism or racism.


NotExcitedToBeHere22 t1_j0uwpxp wrote

So, call up your local civic leaders to move this establishment to your neighborhood.

If it’s a great idea, which it is, put your money where your mouth is.

An idea can be “good” and “concerning” at the same time.

So many people complaining about the “nimby” perspective, not one is calling their local leaders to take this “opportunity to help those in need” to their neighborhood.


[deleted] t1_j0v4mbc wrote



warlocc_ t1_j0v5qgp wrote

Even though the attitude on display is wrong, gotta be careful with that one. It's far too easy to get downvotes on reddit for no reason.


Thisbymaster t1_j0uhy02 wrote

If you are a good person housing the homeless shouldn't be a problem.


sneakylyric t1_j0v6sfv wrote

Housing first initiatives work. It's evidence based. I'm all for it. Better than having them out in the middle of the street near the hospitals/shelters.


minimagoo77 t1_j0vxlez wrote

I think it’s more Dorchester residents are wondering why they’re being used as a dumping ground for the rest of the city at this point. This wouldn’t even enter the realm of possibility in any other neighborhood in the city. Plenty of places and buildings but for whatever reasons it seems to always be Dorchester. Not Back Bay, South End, Fenway, Seaport, Allston/Brighton, etc… The city is simply hiding this issue instead of dealing with it. It just all gets pushed into corners of Dorchester so the “main” city doesn’t have to deal with any of it.

This is such an odd area to be doing this in but just supports that the city is trying to hide the issue. It’s be nice if they took that entire warehouse wasteland between South Bay and Boston Medical and developed it instead of tearing down and building in this very remote area where there’s hardly any homeless folks and limited access to transit options.




YellowSea11 t1_j0uoa3e wrote

Yeah .. the old "I have a huge heart .. .but". People like that should never ever be given a microphone, because all they're doing is rationalizing their own bigotry and stereotyping.


Bryandan1elsonV2 t1_j0uclfq wrote

These people make my blood boil.


traditionalsmoke01 t1_j0utp5t wrote

Would love to see your reaction to this after you spent 700k on a condo across the street


Crimson-Forever t1_j0ux59f wrote

And that is the real reason, people who are claiming they want to save the kids are more likely to be worried about property values dropping and hurting their wallets.


traditionalsmoke01 t1_j0uz1ea wrote

Pretty good reason


dkmbruins8517 t1_j0va7w1 wrote

I wholeheartedly disagree. Your property value going down isn’t worth more than human lives. You should be more angry at a system that has you pay $700k for a condo than over a modicum of compassion for housing the homeless. I think your priorities are out of order.


bdeeney098 t1_j0uoflo wrote

Downvotes me all you want but this is a terrible location for this kind of project. I'll start by saying that I have personally experienced homelessness as well as substance abuse and coexisting mental health issues and am very sympathetic to these people's struggles. I've also lived in Dorchester my entire life and am very familiar with the hotel and area they are talking about. It is literally directly across the street from a school (Murphy) as well as 2 blocks from another school (St. Ann's) , it's a 1 minute walk from a newly renovated baseball field/park/playground (Garvey), an ice hockey rink where kids play and practice everyday, and Tinean beach. Not to mention the residential neighborhoods that this hotel is right in the middle of. Call me a NIMBY all you want and on this issue I will take that hit because this is not the type of location that a program like this needs to be operating in. I'd like to think that something like this will lead to those housed here becoming contributing members of society who will help boost the local economy and all that but that's just idealistic, wishful thinking and frankly it's pretty ignorant. What will happen is the property and the surrounding area will be trashed with people getting high, crime increasing and turn into a micro Mass and Cass. I wish it wasn't true but it absolutely is and if you think otherwise then you're delusional! Something like this should be somewhere that isn't right in the middle of a beautiful residential neighborhood that will only be negatively impacted by it.

Bring on the hate....


BlaineTog t1_j0us0n6 wrote

So the issue is, everywhere is next to kids. If we use NIMBY arguments, then there's literally nowhere we can put unhoused people. Everywhere with any kind of infrastructure is going to have other people living somewhat nearby, and that means families, and that means children. The simple fact that there might be a child within 5 miles cannot be used to prevent adding an apartment building for formally unhoused or lower-income people, because that would mean that such housing simply can't exist and the problem remains unsolvable. If we want to solve homelessness, we need to modify the criteria for housing them, and NIMBYs never propose reasonable criteria.

> What will happen is the property and the surrounding area will be trashed with people getting high, crime increasing and turn into a micro Mass and Cass. I wish it wasn't true but it absolutely is and if you think otherwise then you're delusional!

Housing-first solutions are evidence-based and proven to work better than treatment-first solutions. Seriously, google it and you'll find mountains of evidence. Giving someone a home doesn't magically make all their problems go away on its own, but it does make some of their problems go away, and it makes many of their remaining problems dramatically easier to address.


bdeeney098 t1_j0uvlbn wrote

I'm all for housing first, I think it's the right way to go, I just think there are better locations for it..The Newmarket Sq. area down by Mass and Cass is mostly industrial and is within walking distance of a lot of the services that are needed. Ideally they could build new apartments or use some kind of modular housing to get people housed and back on their feet. There's also a hotel right at the South Bay Center that is away from residential neighborhoods enough where they wiukdnt be impacted. it. There are other areas within greater Boston that would make much more sense and wouldn't have such an impact on existing communities.


BlaineTog t1_j0uy6hx wrote

> mostly industrial

Ah but see, it's not entirely industrial! There's Clifford Playground right across the street, plus there's still some residential housing in the area. Someone would object and say that there must be a better place.

> There's also a hotel right at the South Bay Center that is away from residential neighborhoods enough where they wiukdnt be impacted.

I would bet good money that if you proposed sticking this new building there, some people in those neighborhoods would still claim to be impacted. Plus it looks like there are a number of schools within a few blocks of the South Bay Center anyway, so that automatically disqualifies the location by NIMBY standards.

There are better and worse places to put low-income housing, but requirements this strict just means that such housing will never be built.


bdeeney098 t1_j0v2ffy wrote

I understand your argument and of course there is nowhere that is a perfect fit for this but some areas are better than others. This comfort inn is as poor of a choice than most areas in an around the city. There aren't even mbta options close by! There are no train stations within reasonable walking distance and there isn't even a bus route that goes down Morrissey Blvd!! Come on now.


biddily t1_j0w3bp6 wrote

I live in the neighborhood. The T here sucks ass. Almost all of here have cars it sucks ass so bad. It's been an ongoing issue. We've been at war for years.

There's 3 schools. He forgot neighborhood charter school.

The it's not that there Are kids on the hill. It's the QUANTITY of kids on the hill every day. 3 schools worth. The traffic of dropping off and picking up 3 schools worth of kids. Walking home in a neighborhoods with 3 schools. Sharing the mbta bus stop with the school kids. It's a thought. It's a lot of kids and a large quantity of unknown people who don't interact with society normally.

There's some bridges over Morrissey blvd there. The walking bridge and the train Bridge, it's dark walking under the bridges, no light, and there's always been concern about how dangerous it is there. No one will take responsibility for the area under the train bridge. The DCR owns the road, but they say the MBTA own it. The MBTA says lol no. We've talked to the city, we've talked to the owners of the comfort/boston bowl. The sidewalk is a mess, it's dark, it's Dangerous to walk thru there. The mess that is Tenean, under the highway, the homeless that live up under there. That lobserts and mobsters trolley tour bus that drives straight by, stops at tenean, and talks about the murder beach. We are a cheerful bunch.

The walking overpass has issues. The stairs like to become unsafe. When it snows it turn to ice. We never know if it's going to be shoveled. Then people walk across Morrissey without walking down to the light, and THAT'S a death trap.

I legit just drive from one side of Morrissey to the other cause I can't be bothered to deal with it all. I drive to north Quincy station, park there, and take the T downtown cause the bus on Neponset is so bad. I drive to the Shaws at jfk cause the stop and shop on the hill is atrocious.


bdeeney098 t1_j0wcpi6 wrote

I did forget the charter school, all tucked up there on its own, my mistake!! You make some valid points! Soooo many kids in that area it definitely becomes a shit show in the afternoons, not to mention the morning. I wasn't even considering Boston bowl but that would be a problem especially on weekend nights with potential robberies and fights. Tenean isn't too bad I don't think. They've cleaned it up a bit over the years but this would ruin any progress already made there which would be unfortunate. I grew up on the hill behind St Ann's (Arbroth St) and given how expensive the homes are these days I sadly will probably never be able to own my own around there. Actually, maybe this will drive down the price of homes??!!! I still vote no....


biddily t1_j0wddvr wrote

Im on the corner of Popes Hill and Neponset. Right smack dab in the middle of the shit show.

Tenean is better than it had been, but its still got issues, and it could backslide so easily. And being right around the corner from the comfort, its an ideal place for people staying there to go to get away if they wanted to do something away from oversight. There or the path behind the murphy.


bdeeney098 t1_j0wegk4 wrote

Yup (I used to hang on that path back in the day) and I forgot to even mention victory road park! It's crazy for them to want to put a program like this here! I know it's hard to find reasonable places for housing but this is just such a true neighborhood and community there's no reason to even rub such a risk. There are much, much more appropriate places for then to do it.


BlaineTog t1_j0v61on wrote

Now access to public transportation is a good reason to consider another location. You're not treating these people as if they're smelly human garbage but instead taking their needs into account.


bdeeney098 t1_j0vm40f wrote

Don't patronize me bro I've been homeless and struggle with mental health as substance issues myself I'm not some yuppie who doesn't want to deal with the homeless I just don't think that this location is a good one for the program.


AboyNamedBort t1_j0utqvr wrote

Name one place in Boston not near a school or park? That is a dumb argument. They put a similar project across from a playground in Franklin Park in JP and guess what? Everything is fine.


throwaway72646w t1_j0wdg7d wrote

No hate. My gripe is that it's only here in Dorchester and not anywhere else. Everyone calling us NIMBYs are the same ones who live in the white areas who don't want it there and push it here. It's not in any other area and we're just tired of it at this point.


warlocc_ t1_j0v67bj wrote

I worked security in one of these hotels for a while. You can't tell they're even there at all unless you tried to get into any of their rooms and ran into the signs.


bdeeney098 t1_j0vjbmq wrote

Well that's good to hear unfortunately it's not my experience with one of them. I hope where ever they do set people up it works out the way you're saying though.


Flatout_87 t1_j0uyc1w wrote

It’s really a hard problem to solve.


RedditSkippy t1_j0uhpsk wrote

Was this hotel a Doubletree about 20ish years ago?


biddily t1_j0vzdsu wrote

No. This is next to boston bowl. Doubletree was down by jfk.


RedditSkippy t1_j0w4fw7 wrote

Thanks. Looks like a similar building, that’s why I asked.


bassistmuzikman t1_j0utw1p wrote

I like this, but we really also need to address the mental health issues as well. I know the previous facilities were poorly run, so we need to improve upon that, but these people are out in the street a lot of times because they have severe mental disabilities. Many of these people should be hospitalized/institutionalized, rather than just thrown together into a big converted hotel with no oversight.


flamethrower2 t1_j0v10lc wrote

Affordable housing is a problem too. Tear down that abandoned building or convert it to units that are like these or maybe a little smaller. That regular people can actually afford! It's like people who are not wealthy are second class citizens or somehow undesirables.


Kodiak01 t1_j0vikz9 wrote

Anyone that thinks just building housing, rounding up people and sticking them in it are deluding themselves. Many people don't WANT to come in from the cold, for a multitude of reasons.

For housing specifically, these people often don't have the faculties (physical, mental or emotional) to maintain a residence. Without intensive support in multiple other areas of life to adjust (which there is nowhere near enough of to cover everyone), they are doomed to failure.

>"Housing without support sets up people to fail," said Tod Lipka, president and CEO of Step Up on Second, a housing and service provider in Santa Monica, California. "It has to be a transformative experience."

>The challenges formerly homeless people face manifest in various ways, he said. Some continue to pile their belongings in a corner, a habit born out of the need to keep their possessions safe. Others, accustomed to sleeping in shelters, wake up at 6 a.m. to vacate their apartments, forgetting that those rules don't apply to private accommodations.

>Lipka recalls one client at Step Up on Second who screamed loudly every morning around 3 o'clock. It was a trick the man learned while living on the streets to protect himself by keeping others away.

>"I was on drugs and all out of whack," she said. "It took me a minute to finally see that Step Up was exactly what I was looking for. It was complicated to trust people who were trying to help me."

>Building trust is just the first part of securing stable housing. Many people who have experienced homelessness protect themselves by refusing to believe their situations can change, Lipka said.

>"Most of these individuals never think they can get housing again," he said. "You harden yourself against the hope and disappointment."

>Once people accept help, they must tackle bureaucracy. Case managers work with people to secure documentation, such as IDs or Social Security cards, needed to apply for financial assistance. After the paperwork is sorted, people receive housing vouchers.

>Walker spent a year living in a hotel room before finding a permanent apartment through Step Up on Second. She said the time indoors was crucial.

>"I didn't really have any home training," she said.

>That included cooking and even shopping for food, Walker said. At one point, she asked her case manager about how to handle fish. Walker wasn't sure whether it should be refrigerated or how long it would last. She learned the hard way.

>"My whole apartment stunk," she said, laughing at the memory.

This particular story has a happy ending for the subject, but this is sadly far closer to the exception than the rule.

>After months, even years, of sleeping on the sidewalks, in tents or in cars, for some residents learning to live in an apartment was not as simple as unlocking a door and stepping inside. It meant living on someone else’s terms. It meant paying bills, cleaning, remembering their keys when they stepped out.

>Leaving the streets also meant abandoning the past and imagining the future, which could be a challenge for anyone whose focus had been hour to hour.

>To ease confusion and loneliness, residents invited friends over who were still homeless. Some found it hard to accept that they had been given housing and others had not. Guilt could sabotage good fortune, trigger old behaviors.

>A visit could turn into an overnight, then a few days, then a few weeks, and weeks would lead to eviction. Visitors had nothing to lose by behaving badly. In their jealousy and envy, they didn’t care about lease agreements. Nor did they care that they were being watched to see if rules were being broken.


NorthshoreFrank t1_j0vzene wrote

When will the long Island bridge be replaced? Best waterfront views of Boston.


mari0br0 t1_j0vy2wx wrote

“Not in my backyard”


Great-Ad-5047 t1_j0w5zfx wrote

No, no way, no! To the streets with you!


posthaste99 t1_j0wx6r1 wrote

This demo of people always have more issue with this than gentrification, which can sometimes be traced back as a cause of homelessness. Like….?


PuritanSettler1620 t1_j0wxmff wrote

This might be a crazy idea but if no one wants to build a shelter for the homeless near where they live why not build one in the financial district? no ones lives there and with the Work From Home model there is a ton of empty office space. Plus maybe it would mean they would be close to potential jobs and other things.


unrulywordss t1_j0uxqdc wrote

I’m not against helping the homeless, but i think this should be done in an area where you’ll find a lot more homeless people. Location is horrible. It’s really not that accessible near a train station or anything.

They shouldn’t only be proposing housing, but also other systems in place such as mental health work, doctor visits, social workers. Housing is just a first step, this can’t be a place where they dump them all.


pertante t1_j0v0cti wrote

My question is, what kinds of background checks do they do? Will it include criminal checks as well? Will Pine Street Inn provide or work with other organizations to provide services for these folks to help them transition to other affordable housing? And I doubt that anyone wants BPD to be just hanging around without good reason, but will BPD be adding more patrols to this area to minimize possible crime?

I think it is a solution to the homeless issue, even if there are a lot of legit concerns or more efforts needed. Besides, it seems like a lot of hotels have opened in Boston for whatever reason in the last year or so. If this hotel is not being used, might as well put it to good use.


posthaste99 t1_j0wxdjf wrote

Also guns are a way bigger threat to children and yet where is this level of passion for any measure of gun reform???????


Sufficient-Walk-4502 t1_j0xccfm wrote

Building this is a monument to the dealers that bring the drugs into our state. A publicly funded building so some asshole can get blown on a yacht…

I want the money to go into finding out who, what, when, where and why is importing the shit right into downtown Boston.

I’m sure the housing works, so would publicly caning the distributers. I don’t blame the users, but who the hell is able to allow this to just happen?


mhmh1742 t1_j0xf5mk wrote

No one’s going to agree with me and it’s never going to happen but hear me out…

Obviously people don’t want this in their neighborhood. No one in their right might would want this next door.

These people are sick but they’re also breaking numerous laws. What if we completely reform our prison system to provides treatment and job training. Rewarding/incentivizing individuals facing drug addiction isn’t solving this issue.


Dizzy_De_De t1_j0yf72h wrote

When multiple vulnerable people are housed in one location it makes it easier and more convenient for the criminals who try to prey on them.

Sell this property and use the funds to purchase 1 bedroom condos in separate locations in real community neighborhoods

This property is in the middle of a commercial zone. Those that need homes deserve a better connection to a real community.


ReverseBanzai t1_j0ut0jc wrote

“Transitional “ housing . Average age 57 , average stay 27 years. Yes very transitional. Make it housing with at least 33% low income . Move community builders and there money making system to Braintree abandoned motel 6.


gregkel22 t1_j0wdjn5 wrote

Why did Ayana Pressley's felon husband get the contract to "clean up" mass and cass? Hmmmm....


bemest t1_j0v21wp wrote

Maybe Martha’s Vineyard?


[deleted] t1_j0utws7 wrote



pertante t1_j0uz7k3 wrote

I agree but the issue is that a lot of places don't hire homeless or use it as a means to justify firing someone. Would you hire someone who didn't have a place to sleep, shower and/or wash their clothes?


saltthefries t1_j0ul1pg wrote

Massachusetts is going to set up concentration camps for homeless people within a decade, given the current political trajectory. They won't have that name but they'll serve the same function.


DEWOuch t1_j0w4v9n wrote

The government has been setting up those camps all over America in the last five years. FEMA camps.