Various comments (see below)

1) Section III.D. obligates the CSP to identify a clear point of contact for the site. This language should be strengthened. I'd suggest "Identify a clear point of contact for the site, including an after hours telephone line for neighbors to call, and post that information via the internet, providing the information to the ANC, and post it outside of the shelter on a visible sign." 2) The smoking area that DGS is responsible for designating should not be near any resident homes nearby. Consider making the roof a designated smoking area. Current neighbors should not be exposed to 2nd hand smoke from the shelter residents. 3) The term "Unusual Incident Reports" is undefined but should be defined herein. The term is vague and could mean as little or as much as the reader would like it to mean without a greater degree of clarity. (See Section III.B). 4) The CSP's obligations re: responding to inquiries or concerns about the site needs to be stronger. Specifically, the CSP should be required to "acknowledge receipt," "provide a plan for remediation," and "provide weekly email updates" directly to the specific neighbor and ANC. The language as written does not specify to whom the CSP is obligated to update. Separately, the CSP's contract with DHS (i.e., not just this neighborhood agreement) must be reviewed annually with input from the ANC, residents, etc. If there is no annual review built into the contract, there are no "teeth" to truly enforce this neighborhood agreement.

Showing 4 reactions

How would you tag this suggestion?
Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Melissa Carder
    commented 2019-02-06 11:27:55 -0500
    While I am glad to see the section requiring that neighbors interact with residents of 1700 Rhode Island Avenue NE with courtesy and respect, I would like to see more mutuality in this agreement. I feel that neighbors requiring these things of others must be willing to be subject to the same standards themselves.

    I am concerned about aesthetics being included in the agreement. It seems to me that this agreement could used as an excuse to drive this facility out of the neighborhood based on surface or aesthetic concerns.

    I don’t like the tone/feel of this document that seems to set the neighbors up to “police” this facility. I hope that, simply because these families are in a time of financial struggle, they will not be under constant scrutiny of neighbors or made to feel less welcome in our neighborhood than any other family with more means.
  • Henri Makembe
    commented 2019-01-03 11:40:18 -0500
    Katie – Thank you very much for your feedback here. I’ll share with DGS.
  • Henri Makembe
    tagged this with good 2019-01-03 11:40:18 -0500
  • Katie Leesman
    published this page in Ward 5 Short-term Family Housing Good Neighbor Agreement Feedback 2019-01-02 09:36:30 -0500