The Brooks

[Anonymous]

I supported the construction of the Brooks family shelter and have donated money and supplies, but I'm beginning to regret it. The shelter worked well for the first couple years, but it has been less well run this year. An increasing number of residents smoke weed and panhandle aggressively in front of the Giant. I also routinely witness them throwing trash, including used diapers, in the planters instead of nearby trash cans. If their basic needs are being met, why are they panhandling? And aren't drugs against the rules at the shelter? They are definitely illegal in public places. And I know it is people from the shelter because I've witnessed them returning there.

People who used to walk to the Giant are now driving to avoid the mess in front. What is the best approach to dealing with this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I supported the construction of the Brooks family shelter and have donated money and supplies, but I'm beginning to regret it. The shelter worked well for the first couple years, but it has been less well run this year. An increasing number of residents smoke weed and panhandle aggressively in front of the Giant. I also routinely witness them throwing trash, including used diapers, in the planters instead of nearby trash cans. If their basic needs are being met, why are they panhandling? And aren't drugs against the rules at the shelter? They are definitely illegal in public places. And I know it is people from the shelter because I've witnessed them returning there.

People who used to walk to the Giant are now driving to avoid the mess in front. What is the best approach to dealing with this?

You live in a city. Deal with it.

[Anonymous]

Wow -- don't you ever strive for something better? Do you think it's a good life for the Brooks residents to be doing drugs and panhandling all day?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow -- don't you ever strive for something better? Do you think it's a good life for the Brooks residents to be doing drugs and panhandling all day?

How are drugging and panhandling in front of the Cathedral Giant striving for something better? Isn't it a condition of living in the shelter to not use recreational drugs?!

[Anonymous]

My comment was in response to the "you live in a city "comment. I also thought drug use was prohibited in the shelters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My comment was in response to the "you live in a city "comment. I also thought drug use was prohibited in the shelters.

Guess that's why the residents do their drugs on the street outside.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I supported the construction of the Brooks family shelter and have donated money and supplies, but I'm beginning to regret it. The shelter worked well for the first couple years, but it has been less well run this year. An increasing number of residents smoke weed and panhandle aggressively in front of the Giant. I also routinely witness them throwing trash, including used diapers, in the planters instead of nearby trash cans. If their basic needs are being met, why are they panhandling? And aren't drugs against the rules at the shelter? They are definitely illegal in public places. And I know it is people from the shelter because I've witnessed them returning there.

People who used to walk to the Giant are now driving to avoid the mess in front. What is the best approach to dealing with this?

Do you know how many buildings along Connecticut Avenue are now de facto homeless shelters? It’s absolutely criminal what our Ward Rep and ANCs have allowed to happen to a once safe and family friendly corridor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I supported the construction of the Brooks family shelter and have donated money and supplies, but I'm beginning to regret it. The shelter worked well for the first couple years, but it has been less well run this year. An increasing number of residents smoke weed and panhandle aggressively in front of the Giant. I also routinely witness them throwing trash, including used diapers, in the planters instead of nearby trash cans. If their basic needs are being met, why are they panhandling? And aren't drugs against the rules at the shelter? They are definitely illegal in public places. And I know it is people from the shelter because I've witnessed them returning there.

People who used to walk to the Giant are now driving to avoid the mess in front. What is the best approach to dealing with this?

Do you know how many buildings along Connecticut Avenue are now de facto homeless shelters? It’s absolutely criminal what our Ward Rep and ANCs have allowed to happen to a once safe and family friendly corridor.

In the process, they are pushing out workforce renters and seniors who have looked to older apartment buildings on Connecticut in Ward 3 for rent-stabilized housing. When a building owner accepts a DC voucher for a rental unit it takes that unit out of rent control. In time the whole building can be re-set to market rate rentals (or above market in the case of vouchers).

[Anonymous]

It’s almost like progressive naive and idealistic policies lead to real world consequences. But I guess we get to become California, with all its homeless glory on display, in order to learn from our mistakes. Or not. Because there will always be some liberal trying to shoe horn in a shelter in a nice neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s almost like progressive naive and idealistic policies lead to real world consequences. But I guess we get to become California, with all its homeless glory on display, in order to learn from our mistakes. Or not. Because there will always be some liberal trying to shoe horn in a shelter in a nice neighborhood.

No problem with having a well-run shelter in a "nice" neighborhood. But I have a problem with being told to just accept anti-social behavior on the surrounding streets and with DC just shrugging and doing nothing to fix the problem that they created.

[Anonymous]

DC really needs to be held responsible for managing programs better. https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/08/08/dc-paid-housing-chronic-homelessness/ It always seems to end up being a boon to developers...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I supported the construction of the Brooks family shelter and have donated money and supplies, but I'm beginning to regret it. The shelter worked well for the first couple years, but it has been less well run this year. An increasing number of residents smoke weed and panhandle aggressively in front of the Giant. I also routinely witness them throwing trash, including used diapers, in the planters instead of nearby trash cans. If their basic needs are being met, why are they panhandling? And aren't drugs against the rules at the shelter? They are definitely illegal in public places. And I know it is people from the shelter because I've witnessed them returning there.

People who used to walk to the Giant are now driving to avoid the mess in front. What is the best approach to dealing with this?

Do you know how many buildings along Connecticut Avenue are now de facto homeless shelters? It’s absolutely criminal what our Ward Rep and ANCs have allowed to happen to a once safe and family friendly corridor.

In the process, they are pushing out workforce renters and seniors who have looked to older apartment buildings on Connecticut in Ward 3 for rent-stabilized housing. When a building owner accepts a DC voucher for a rental unit it takes that unit out of rent control. In time the whole building can be re-set to market rate rentals (or above market in the case of vouchers).

That loophole was closed years ago. Still, landlords love taking vouchers from the city because the city doesn't bother to assess how much it should be paying for them and pays significantly above market rate (which is a violation of federal law)

[Anonymous]

I've worked in at risk programs in DC and reached two conclusions--one, it would probably work better to give those in need direct cash payments than involve programs and middlemen. Two, since there is ALWAYS a middleman, there should be support and accountability for whatever the goal of the 'program' is. Can anyone speak to what they offer residents at that facility to move them from short term housing to productive living? It's odd that panhandling and pot would be part of that vision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you know how many buildings along Connecticut Avenue are now de facto homeless shelters? It’s absolutely criminal what our Ward Rep and ANCs have allowed to happen to a once safe and family friendly corridor.

Right, we just had a race between Goulet, who said that there were issues with the housing vouchers that the city needed to address, and Frumin, who said that the city needed to step on the gas and have the city should spend more to bring more people into the Ward ("Ward 3 for all"). People voted for Frumin.

The post had an article just a few days ago about how the city's programs are turning neighborhoods that used to be good into drug dens:

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

But if that's what people vote for, that's what people vote for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you know how many buildings along Connecticut Avenue are now de facto homeless shelters? It’s absolutely criminal what our Ward Rep and ANCs have allowed to happen to a once safe and family friendly corridor.

Right, we just had a race between Goulet, who said that there were issues with the housing vouchers that the city needed to address, and Frumin, who said that the city needed to step on the gas and have the city should spend more to bring more people into the Ward ("Ward 3 for all"). People voted for Frumin.

The post had an article just a few days ago about how the city's programs are turning neighborhoods that used to be good into drug dens:

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

But if that's what people vote for, that's what people vote for.

If Frumin had an at-large seat, I get it. But he is here to represent the interests of Ward 3. And packing buildings with the homeless and mentally ill is not only expensive, bad policy. It is also clear and present danger to many of the elderly residents who live in those buildings and supported him.