Two child homicides in Cleveland Park/Van Ness apartment buildings in eight days

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Heights had a shooting.

When? That building used to be full of Murch families, even The Brandywine and Saratoga were. Safety has really gone down hill. Think of it as moving Benning Road to Forest Hills and Cleveland Park.

The changes to the Forest Hills playground area are pretty shocking, often it's an open air drug market and there is a permanent police camera. Lots of drug pick ups by cars with VA tags behind all of the buildings, even the ones not designated a nuisance property. Racine did the tenants of Connecticut House NO favors, it has gotten steadily worse and more violent since he "acted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does an able-bodied 32 year old need a voucher? Why wasn’t his voucher revoked once he behaved violently? The DC government was basically enabling this criminal and monster to carry on without any consequences to his behavior.

I'm sure he's on social security disability for addiction issues or mental health. The voucher extends from that. it's life long --you never lose the voucher in DC. They are good.

The switch from 1 year vouchers to PSH was stealth for sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This demonstrates that you cannot solve homelessness and mental illness simply by giving people apartments for free. They need to be in settings where they can get the support they need and where they are safe.

Where do you think this mythical support and safety is? Newflash: it's nowhere.

Deandre wasn't killed because Ward 3 didn't have the services his family needed. He was killed because his dad is a monster and because our system sucks at protecting children. All over the city. It's sick to see a bunch of comments leveraging this tragedy to try to wall off upper NW from the problems of the city. The right place to direct anger is the USAO, the father who murdered his own kid, and the city who failed the kid. NOT marijuana dispensaries or vouchers or any other NIMBY garbage.

Right. If this kid had died in SW, would we now be five pages deep in this thread?

It should be. This was a family that had to have been deeply involved in DC social services yet all they got was a voucher in a building with zero support or care. Maybe if the city had just taken the kids and let him be homeless things would have turned out better.

The parents are supposed to be the supports for children.

Was it "supportive" to beat a 5 year old to death and possibly drown him?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does an able-bodied 32 year old need a voucher? Why wasn’t his voucher revoked once he behaved violently? The DC government was basically enabling this criminal and monster to carry on without any consequences to his behavior.

This. A 32 year old man should be working a job. We should not be providing free housing to violent felons and allowing them to threaten others in the community.

Vouchers are never pulled.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/08/08/dc-paid-housing-chronic-homelessness/

At SG, one guy stabbed someone and triggered a SWAT incident. While he was incarcerated, other tenants got a stay away order. His voucher was simply moved up to Forest Hills to The Brandywine.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-housed-the-homeless-in-upscale-apartments-it-hasnt-gone-as-planned/2019/04/16/60c8ab9c-5648-11e9-8ef3-fbd41a2ce4d5_story.html Article is from 2019, none of this is new.

Connecticut House has a LOT of visible drug dealing and violence in and around the building. It's my understanding that many voucher tenants have moved out due to safety concerns.

Big buildings up and down Connecticut and Wisconsin but even rented condo units and small garden style apts in Palisades and Glover Park have more and more vouchers, and they were converted at some point from 1 year to PSH, permanent supportive housing, with preference given to addicts, the mentally ill and felons "returning citizens." DC pays well over market rate for vouchers and that has led to a lot of big and small landlords targeting the income stream.

None of this makes sense. Allowing violent addict criminals to keep their vouchers harms the law abiding voucher holders because they’re going to be stuck living in buildings with these monsters. And also they get caught up in the negative public perception about renting to voucher holders even though they may be good tenants.

We should be protecting the law abiding people on the city. You want free rent? Then follow the law. The end. HUD needs to reevaluate these dangerous policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Heights had a shooting.

When? That building used to be full of Murch families, even The Brandywine and Saratoga were. Safety has really gone down hill. Think of it as moving Benning Road to Forest Hills and Cleveland Park.

The changes to the Forest Hills playground area are pretty shocking, often it's an open air drug market and there is a permanent police camera. Lots of drug pick ups by cars with VA tags behind all of the buildings, even the ones not designated a nuisance property. Racine did the tenants of Connecticut House NO favors, it has gotten steadily worse and more violent since he "acted.

It still is. The five year old who was killed was a kindergartener at Murch.

[Anonymous]

Drug convictions are one of the few ways you can lose a federally funded voucher. BUT:
* DC isn't a state so it's beholden to the assistant US attorney to decide what felonies to charge and prosecute.
* a lot of vouchers are locally funded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Heights had a shooting.

When? That building used to be full of Murch families, even The Brandywine and Saratoga were. Safety has really gone down hill. Think of it as moving Benning Road to Forest Hills and Cleveland Park.

The changes to the Forest Hills playground area are pretty shocking, often it's an open air drug market and there is a permanent police camera. Lots of drug pick ups by cars with VA tags behind all of the buildings, even the ones not designated a nuisance property. Racine did the tenants of Connecticut House NO favors, it has gotten steadily worse and more violent since he "acted.

It still is. The five year old who was killed was a kindergartener at Murch.

Connecticut HOUSE, where he died, never had many Murch families, was sketch even before voucher program.

The poster above referred to a recent shooting at Connecticut HEIGHTS, which is right by the school.

Basically, Benning Road has been imported to NW. Lots of drug dealing and accompanying violence, threats, etc. in and around buildings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does an able-bodied 32 year old need a voucher? Why wasn’t his voucher revoked once he behaved violently? The DC government was basically enabling this criminal and monster to carry on without any consequences to his behavior.

This. A 32 year old man should be working a job. We should not be providing free housing to violent felons and allowing them to threaten others in the community.

Vouchers are never pulled.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/08/08/dc-paid-housing-chronic-homelessness/

At SG, one guy stabbed someone and triggered a SWAT incident. While he was incarcerated, other tenants got a stay away order. His voucher was simply moved up to Forest Hills to The Brandywine.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-housed-the-homeless-in-upscale-apartments-it-hasnt-gone-as-planned/2019/04/16/60c8ab9c-5648-11e9-8ef3-fbd41a2ce4d5_story.html Article is from 2019, none of this is new.

Connecticut House has a LOT of visible drug dealing and violence in and around the building. It's my understanding that many voucher tenants have moved out due to safety concerns.

Big buildings up and down Connecticut and Wisconsin but even rented condo units and small garden style apts in Palisades and Glover Park have more and more vouchers, and they were converted at some point from 1 year to PSH, permanent supportive housing, with preference given to addicts, the mentally ill and felons "returning citizens." DC pays well over market rate for vouchers and that has led to a lot of big and small landlords targeting the income stream.

None of this makes sense. Allowing violent addict criminals to keep their vouchers harms the law abiding voucher holders because they’re going to be stuck living in buildings with these monsters. And also they get caught up in the negative public perception about renting to voucher holders even though they may be good tenants.

We should be protecting the law abiding people on the city. You want free rent? Then follow the law. The end. HUD needs to reevaluate these dangerous policies.

Agree. In the Sedgewick Garden article above an elderly voucher holder in 2019 spoke about having moved to GET AWAY from what then followed her to Upper NW.

Many of the vouchers are distributed through the Dept of Behavioral Health, others to released felons. They are permanent, not a help people get on their feet type of thing.

[Anonymous]

Well this is what you get. Able bodied adults shouldn’t be living for free or below market rent. Stop voting for politicians who support and enable this crime through terrible policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Heights had a shooting.

When? That building used to be full of Murch families, even The Brandywine and Saratoga were. Safety has really gone down hill. Think of it as moving Benning Road to Forest Hills and Cleveland Park.

The changes to the Forest Hills playground area are pretty shocking, often it's an open air drug market and there is a permanent police camera. Lots of drug pick ups by cars with VA tags behind all of the buildings, even the ones not designated a nuisance property. Racine did the tenants of Connecticut House NO favors, it has gotten steadily worse and more violent since he "acted.

In the name of “equity for all” we have to endure people hanging out and doing drugs in front of their free apartments on Connecticut Ave. Crime, including violent crime, has spiked from pre-voucher levels. Thanks a lot, Bowser. You too, Frumin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does an able-bodied 32 year old need a voucher? Why wasn’t his voucher revoked once he behaved violently? The DC government was basically enabling this criminal and monster to carry on without any consequences to his behavior.

I'm sure he's on social security disability for addiction issues or mental health. The voucher extends from that. it's life long --you never lose the voucher in DC. They are good.

You can't get SSI or SSDI for addiction. PTSD, intellectual disability, psychosis, tbi, etc...but not substance use..in fact drug addiction and alcoholism, if material, can disqualify someone from disability benefits. Obviously not the main point here but didn't want false information to percolate unchecked.

Strange that the poor child was listed as a Maryland resident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the voucher holders moving into those buildings.

I have 2 properties with voucher-holder tenants. The problem is not that the tenants hold vouchers, it's more likely that the management did not properly screen them, check background and references. My tenants are terrific.

No, the problem is DC dumping people who need significant assistance into empty apartments in neighborhoods far from their support centers (both familial and professional). The vouchers need to be combined with intensive support services. Just giving someone four walls and some help with the rent is only a very small part of the solution, but as usual, DC does it half-assed and is shocked when it doesn't work and actually makes things worse for everyone.

This was Mary Cheh’s take. It provoked a significant backlash and she chose to resign from the Council not long after. I wasn’t always a fan of Mary Cheh, but she made a very reasonable point on this issue and the reaction to it was disgusting.

Has Frumin said anything about all of this? Like, one word? The time to start finding an opponent for him is now. He's simply inept.

Frumin is focused on bike lanes and funk bands. Only so many hours in the day, people.

You forgot pickleball. It’s Frumin’s signature issue. And being “welcoming to all” — even those who have moved their crime, drug dealing and social disorders to Ward 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe, just maybe the City shouldn’t approve marijuana dispensaries along Connecticut Ave?

Hell no they shouldn't! That would be a disaster.

They just approved them. Right next to the UDC campus. Can’t make this stuff up.

Why? WTF?

Where the old Wells Fargo used to be. It's something Van Ness Main Street has been eager for for years. SMH.

You cannot be serious. Like the #1 complaint I the nuisance buildings is marijuana smoke. JFC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the voucher holders moving into those buildings.

I have 2 properties with voucher-holder tenants. The problem is not that the tenants hold vouchers, it's more likely that the management did not properly screen them, check background and references. My tenants are terrific.

No, the problem is DC dumping people who need significant assistance into empty apartments in neighborhoods far from their support centers (both familial and professional). The vouchers need to be combined with intensive support services. Just giving someone four walls and some help with the rent is only a very small part of the solution, but as usual, DC does it half-assed and is shocked when it doesn't work and actually makes things worse for everyone.

This was Mary Cheh’s take. It provoked a significant backlash and she chose to resign from the Council not long after. I wasn’t always a fan of Mary Cheh, but she made a very reasonable point on this issue and the reaction to it was disgusting.

It was at peak woke-dom in DC and the BLM scam time. Never much of a Cheh fan. Her arrogance got the best of her, but in this case she told the truth and paid a price.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how a fall could leave to cardiac arrest...

It doesn’t.

Read any of the news articles. The father beat the child to death. He told 911 the child "fell." Now he is out already. Hopefully to be re-arrested soon.

RIP little guy.

It sounds like he was running away from the dad and hit the wall?