Some good news: Crime is down in DC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Old enough to remember when Chevy Chase, DC was safe.

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/woman-punched-in-face-by-man-inside-dc-safeway

With the new plans for density it's only going to get more interesting.

Not sure prioritizing "returning citizens" and the severely mentally ill for housing vouchers in buildings on Connecticut is working well for other residents.

The city is intentionally loading up apartments along Connecticut Ave with voucher recipients who are antisocial and present a danger to themselves and others. This follows stated city policy for “burden sharing” and this assault is the inevitable result.

The effect of this policy is that it takes away the ability of people to pay a premium to live away from negative externalities. I guess the embedded assumption of DC officials is that people will still pay that premium anyway without any benefit because living in DC has other benefits that people wont want to give up. It’s a bad assumption.

You should have a chat with CM Frumin about the voucher program. He is tickled pink by it. He has some weird psychological damage from a AA coworker who did not want to live in his neighborhood 50 years ago and he has been processing this event for decades, apparently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Old enough to remember when Chevy Chase, DC was safe.

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/woman-punched-in-face-by-man-inside-dc-safeway

With the new plans for density it's only going to get more interesting.

Not sure prioritizing "returning citizens" and the severely mentally ill for housing vouchers in buildings on Connecticut is working well for other residents.

The city is intentionally loading up apartments along Connecticut Ave with voucher recipients who are antisocial and present a danger to themselves and others. This follows stated city policy for “burden sharing” and this assault is the inevitable result.

The effect of this policy is that it takes away the ability of people to pay a premium to live away from negative externalities. I guess the embedded assumption of DC officials is that people will still pay that premium anyway without any benefit because living in DC has other benefits that people wont want to give up. It’s a bad assumption.

The same thing is happening at the buildings at SW Waterfront with some paying a premium to live there and then paying more to break their leases after voucher tenants run the place into the ground.

I understand the concept of what the city is trying to do but I believe if said residents get several complaints, they should move them to a more suitable place. I have an associate who is a concierge at a building by the Zoo, and boy the footage he knows me is appalling along with stories he hell. He says the police don’t even show up anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Old enough to remember when Chevy Chase, DC was safe.

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/woman-punched-in-face-by-man-inside-dc-safeway

With the new plans for density it's only going to get more interesting.

Not sure prioritizing "returning citizens" and the severely mentally ill for housing vouchers in buildings on Connecticut is working well for other residents.

The city is intentionally loading up apartments along Connecticut Ave with voucher recipients who are antisocial and present a danger to themselves and others. This follows stated city policy for “burden sharing” and this assault is the inevitable result.

The effect of this policy is that it takes away the ability of people to pay a premium to live away from negative externalities. I guess the embedded assumption of DC officials is that people will still pay that premium anyway without any benefit because living in DC has other benefits that people wont want to give up. It’s a bad assumption.

The same thing is happening at the buildings at SW Waterfront with some paying a premium to live there and then paying more to break their leases after voucher tenants run the place into the ground.

I understand the concept of what the city is trying to do but I believe if said residents get several complaints, they should move them to a more suitable place. I have an associate who is a concierge at a building by the Zoo, and boy the footage he knows me is appalling along with stories he hell. He says the police don’t even show up anymore.

The city needs to have different types of housing options that are appropriate for people, depending on their needs. And the reality is, despite what the current popular trends say, a lot of these people really need to just be with each other. They are their own community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Old enough to remember when Chevy Chase, DC was safe.

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/woman-punched-in-face-by-man-inside-dc-safeway

With the new plans for density it's only going to get more interesting.

Not sure prioritizing "returning citizens" and the severely mentally ill for housing vouchers in buildings on Connecticut is working well for other residents.

The city is intentionally loading up apartments along Connecticut Ave with voucher recipients who are antisocial and present a danger to themselves and others. This follows stated city policy for “burden sharing” and this assault is the inevitable result.

The effect of this policy is that it takes away the ability of people to pay a premium to live away from negative externalities. I guess the embedded assumption of DC officials is that people will still pay that premium anyway without any benefit because living in DC has other benefits that people wont want to give up. It’s a bad assumption.

The same thing is happening at the buildings at SW Waterfront with some paying a premium to live there and then paying more to break their leases after voucher tenants run the place into the ground.

I understand the concept of what the city is trying to do but I believe if said residents get several complaints, they should move them to a more suitable place. I have an associate who is a concierge at a building by the Zoo, and boy the footage he knows me is appalling along with stories he hell. He says the police don’t even show up anymore.

The city needs to have different types of housing options that are appropriate for people, depending on their needs. And the reality is, despite what the current popular trends say, a lot of these people really need to just be with each other. They are their own community.

You should be providing a support system for your fellow residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Old enough to remember when Chevy Chase, DC was safe.

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/woman-punched-in-face-by-man-inside-dc-safeway

With the new plans for density it's only going to get more interesting.

Not sure prioritizing "returning citizens" and the severely mentally ill for housing vouchers in buildings on Connecticut is working well for other residents.

The city is intentionally loading up apartments along Connecticut Ave with voucher recipients who are antisocial and present a danger to themselves and others. This follows stated city policy for “burden sharing” and this assault is the inevitable result.

The effect of this policy is that it takes away the ability of people to pay a premium to live away from negative externalities. I guess the embedded assumption of DC officials is that people will still pay that premium anyway without any benefit because living in DC has other benefits that people wont want to give up. It’s a bad assumption.

The same thing is happening at the buildings at SW Waterfront with some paying a premium to live there and then paying more to break their leases after voucher tenants run the place into the ground.

I understand the concept of what the city is trying to do but I believe if said residents get several complaints, they should move them to a more suitable place. I have an associate who is a concierge at a building by the Zoo, and boy the footage he knows me is appalling along with stories he hell. He says the police don’t even show up anymore.

The city needs to have different types of housing options that are appropriate for people, depending on their needs. And the reality is, despite what the current popular trends say, a lot of these people really need to just be with each other. They are their own community.

Agreed. And sorry for my typos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


I understand the concept of what the city is trying to do but I believe if said residents get several complaints, they should move them to a more suitable place. I have an associate who is a concierge at a building by the Zoo, and boy the footage he knows me is appalling along with stories he hell. He says the police don’t even show up anymore.

People need to understand the current DC laws which perpetuate this situation:
1) Apartment building owners have no authority to limit the number of voucher tenants they have to accept as tenants, because "source of income" is a protected class under DC law equivalent to race, religion, income, sexual orientation, etc. So if a would-be tenant has a voucher which will cover the quoted rent, as most vouchers will for "B" buildings, or for inclusionary zoning units in newer Class A product, then the landlord cannot say "no", even if there are already a sizable percentage of voucher tenants.
2) DC's "check the box" legislation means that landlords cannot run criminal background checks and refuse to rent on those grounds.
3) Once a tenant is in residency, the landlord is helpless to evict so long as the rent is paid---which, for voucher tenants, is guaranteed. A landlord can file for eviction based on a lease violation but a tenant gets a 30 day cure period and the landlord has to wait 4 to 6 months to get a court date. So if a tenant throws a TV off of a 9th floor balcony onto the alley below (true story), and doesn't toss another TV for 30 days, that would be counted as "curing" the prior behavior. Plus, if the lease violation is based upon criminal activity---such as drug dealing---the tenant cannot be evicted on those grounds unless the tenant has been convicted AND all appeals have been exhausted. So given the issues with both enforcement and prosecution---that doesn't happen either.
4) Finally, in the unlikely event that a landlord does manage to get a hearing on an eviction action based on a lease violation, the extremely liberal DC judiciary is unlikely to be receptive to granting an eviction request and will instead insist on the tenant being given another chance.

People concerned about the current situation should be (1) pressing the Mayor's office to cease handing out housing vouchers to the mentally unstable, especially since there is currently little to no caseworker supervision, much less any requirement that mentally ill tenants maintain a treatment plan in order to continue to qualify for the vouchers; (2) push the DC Council and the DC AG to modify existing landlord tenant laws to allow landlords to promptly evict tenants who are violent to other residents or building staff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Old enough to remember when Chevy Chase, DC was safe.

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/woman-punched-in-face-by-man-inside-dc-safeway

With the new plans for density it's only going to get more interesting.

Not sure prioritizing "returning citizens" and the severely mentally ill for housing vouchers in buildings on Connecticut is working well for other residents.

The city is intentionally loading up apartments along Connecticut Ave with voucher recipients who are antisocial and present a danger to themselves and others. This follows stated city policy for “burden sharing” and this assault is the inevitable result.

The effect of this policy is that it takes away the ability of people to pay a premium to live away from negative externalities. I guess the embedded assumption of DC officials is that people will still pay that premium anyway without any benefit because living in DC has other benefits that people wont want to give up. It’s a bad assumption.

The same thing is happening at the buildings at SW Waterfront with some paying a premium to live there and then paying more to break their leases after voucher tenants run the place into the ground.

I understand the concept of what the city is trying to do but I believe if said residents get several complaints, they should move them to a more suitable place. I have an associate who is a concierge at a building by the Zoo, and boy the footage he knows me is appalling along with stories he hell. He says the police don’t even show up anymore.

The city needs to have different types of housing options that are appropriate for people, depending on their needs. And the reality is, despite what the current popular trends say, a lot of these people really need to just be with each other. They are their own community.

Racism and redlining is apparently alive and well in 2024. The racists are even using the same excuses they have since before the civil war. You should be disgusted with yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The city needs to have different types of housing options that are appropriate for people, depending on their needs. And the reality is, despite what the current popular trends say, a lot of these people really need to just be with each other. They are their own community.


Racism and redlining is apparently alive and well in 2024. The racists are even using the same excuses they have since before the civil war. You should be disgusted with yourself.

My guess is that the comment was not race based but reflecting on how the severely mentally ill should not be handed vouchers to live unsupervised in private apartment buildings, which are not equipped to meet their needs and/or keep the rest of their residents and staff safe under current laws. We do not have enough supervised housing for the mentally ill and the city's Housing First program has turned regular apartment buildings into asylums. We are talking about people screaming in hallways, throwing TVs off balconies, setting fire in microwaves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Old enough to remember when Chevy Chase, DC was safe.

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/woman-punched-in-face-by-man-inside-dc-safeway

With the new plans for density it's only going to get more interesting.

Not sure prioritizing "returning citizens" and the severely mentally ill for housing vouchers in buildings on Connecticut is working well for other residents.

The city is intentionally loading up apartments along Connecticut Ave with voucher recipients who are antisocial and present a danger to themselves and others. This follows stated city policy for “burden sharing” and this assault is the inevitable result.

The effect of this policy is that it takes away the ability of people to pay a premium to live away from negative externalities. I guess the embedded assumption of DC officials is that people will still pay that premium anyway without any benefit because living in DC has other benefits that people wont want to give up. It’s a bad assumption.

The same thing is happening at the buildings at SW Waterfront with some paying a premium to live there and then paying more to break their leases after voucher tenants run the place into the ground.

I understand the concept of what the city is trying to do but I believe if said residents get several complaints, they should move them to a more suitable place. I have an associate who is a concierge at a building by the Zoo, and boy the footage he knows me is appalling along with stories he hell. He says the police don’t even show up anymore.

The city needs to have different types of housing options that are appropriate for people, depending on their needs. And the reality is, despite what the current popular trends say, a lot of these people really need to just be with each other. They are their own community.

Racism and redlining is apparently alive and well in 2024. The racists are even using the same excuses they have since before the civil war. You should be disgusted with yourself.

What kind of racist reads PP's comment and thinks it has anything to do with race and not mental illness? You are a sick person.

[Anonymous]

Many voucher tenants are expected to pay a portion of the rent and they CAN be evicted for non-payment. DC does not take away vouchers, even if convicted of a violent crime in building, in all circumstances they are moved to a new building.

If jailed, a voucher is waiting for them. In fact, "returning citizens" are prioritized in awarding vouchers, as are the mentally ill. It's not the same as Section 8, people often confuse the 2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I understand the concept of what the city is trying to do but I believe if said residents get several complaints, they should move them to a more suitable place. I have an associate who is a concierge at a building by the Zoo, and boy the footage he knows me is appalling along with stories he hell. He says the police don’t even show up anymore.

People need to understand the current DC laws which perpetuate this situation:
1) Apartment building owners have no authority to limit the number of voucher tenants they have to accept as tenants, because "source of income" is a protected class under DC law equivalent to race, religion, income, sexual orientation, etc. So if a would-be tenant has a voucher which will cover the quoted rent, as most vouchers will for "B" buildings, or for inclusionary zoning units in newer Class A product, then the landlord cannot say "no", even if there are already a sizable percentage of voucher tenants.
2) DC's "check the box" legislation means that landlords cannot run criminal background checks and refuse to rent on those grounds.
3) Once a tenant is in residency, the landlord is helpless to evict so long as the rent is paid---which, for voucher tenants, is guaranteed. A landlord can file for eviction based on a lease violation but a tenant gets a 30 day cure period and the landlord has to wait 4 to 6 months to get a court date. So if a tenant throws a TV off of a 9th floor balcony onto the alley below (true story), and doesn't toss another TV for 30 days, that would be counted as "curing" the prior behavior. Plus, if the lease violation is based upon criminal activity---such as drug dealing---the tenant cannot be evicted on those grounds unless the tenant has been convicted AND all appeals have been exhausted. So given the issues with both enforcement and prosecution---that doesn't happen either.
4) Finally, in the unlikely event that a landlord does manage to get a hearing on an eviction action based on a lease violation, the extremely liberal DC judiciary is unlikely to be receptive to granting an eviction request and will instead insist on the tenant being given another chance.

People concerned about the current situation should be (1) pressing the Mayor's office to cease handing out housing vouchers to the mentally unstable, especially since there is currently little to no caseworker supervision, much less any requirement that mentally ill tenants maintain a treatment plan in order to continue to qualify for the vouchers; (2) push the DC Council and the DC AG to modify existing landlord tenant laws to allow landlords to promptly evict tenants who are violent to other residents or building staff.

Laws passed by the privileged who are unaffected by how they affect everyone else, ands who (as shown by Frumin) kind of enjoys the harm it causes to others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I understand the concept of what the city is trying to do but I believe if said residents get several complaints, they should move them to a more suitable place. I have an associate who is a concierge at a building by the Zoo, and boy the footage he knows me is appalling along with stories he hell. He says the police don’t even show up anymore.

People need to understand the current DC laws which perpetuate this situation:
1) Apartment building owners have no authority to limit the number of voucher tenants they have to accept as tenants, because "source of income" is a protected class under DC law equivalent to race, religion, income, sexual orientation, etc. So if a would-be tenant has a voucher which will cover the quoted rent, as most vouchers will for "B" buildings, or for inclusionary zoning units in newer Class A product, then the landlord cannot say "no", even if there are already a sizable percentage of voucher tenants.
2) DC's "check the box" legislation means that landlords cannot run criminal background checks and refuse to rent on those grounds.
3) Once a tenant is in residency, the landlord is helpless to evict so long as the rent is paid---which, for voucher tenants, is guaranteed. A landlord can file for eviction based on a lease violation but a tenant gets a 30 day cure period and the landlord has to wait 4 to 6 months to get a court date. So if a tenant throws a TV off of a 9th floor balcony onto the alley below (true story), and doesn't toss another TV for 30 days, that would be counted as "curing" the prior behavior. Plus, if the lease violation is based upon criminal activity---such as drug dealing---the tenant cannot be evicted on those grounds unless the tenant has been convicted AND all appeals have been exhausted. So given the issues with both enforcement and prosecution---that doesn't happen either.
4) Finally, in the unlikely event that a landlord does manage to get a hearing on an eviction action based on a lease violation, the extremely liberal DC judiciary is unlikely to be receptive to granting an eviction request and will instead insist on the tenant being given another chance.

People concerned about the current situation should be (1) pressing the Mayor's office to cease handing out housing vouchers to the mentally unstable, especially since there is currently little to no caseworker supervision, much less any requirement that mentally ill tenants maintain a treatment plan in order to continue to qualify for the vouchers; (2) push the DC Council and the DC AG to modify existing landlord tenant laws to allow landlords to promptly evict tenants who are violent to other residents or building staff.

5. The ability to self certify to get a “medical” marijuana card has made many apartment buildings unlivable in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


People need to understand the current DC laws which perpetuate this situation:
1) Apartment building owners have no authority to limit the number of voucher tenants they have to accept as tenants, because "source of income" is a protected class under DC law equivalent to race, religion, income, sexual orientation, etc. So if a would-be tenant has a voucher which will cover the quoted rent, as most vouchers will for "B" buildings, or for inclusionary zoning units in newer Class A product, then the landlord cannot say "no", even if there are already a sizable percentage of voucher tenants.
2) DC's "check the box" legislation means that landlords cannot run criminal background checks and refuse to rent on those grounds.
3) Once a tenant is in residency, the landlord is helpless to evict so long as the rent is paid---which, for voucher tenants, is guaranteed. A landlord can file for eviction based on a lease violation but a tenant gets a 30 day cure period and the landlord has to wait 4 to 6 months to get a court date. So if a tenant throws a TV off of a 9th floor balcony onto the alley below (true story), and doesn't toss another TV for 30 days, that would be counted as "curing" the prior behavior. Plus, if the lease violation is based upon criminal activity---such as drug dealing---the tenant cannot be evicted on those grounds unless the tenant has been convicted AND all appeals have been exhausted. So given the issues with both enforcement and prosecution---that doesn't happen either.
4) Finally, in the unlikely event that a landlord does manage to get a hearing on an eviction action based on a lease violation, the extremely liberal DC judiciary is unlikely to be receptive to granting an eviction request and will instead insist on the tenant being given another chance.

People concerned about the current situation should be (1) pressing the Mayor's office to cease handing out housing vouchers to the mentally unstable, especially since there is currently little to no caseworker supervision, much less any requirement that mentally ill tenants maintain a treatment plan in order to continue to qualify for the vouchers; (2) push the DC Council and the DC AG to modify existing landlord tenant laws to allow landlords to promptly evict tenants who are violent to other residents or building staff.


5. The ability to self certify to get a “medical” marijuana card has made many apartment buildings unlivable in DC.

Yep. And the ability of landlords to control the waft of marijuana smoke is nil. You can try to insist that smoking marijuana (as opposed to edibles) is prohibited, but then will face an ADA argument that medical marijuana users find that they can better "manage" their "medical condition" by smoking pot as it allows more fine tuning of "dosage".

The only way any of this will change is to elect more moderate politicians across the board in DC. Of course the progressives immediately accuse any reasonable moderate of being a Trumper, racist, etc. as a way to scare off DC voters, who will then reflexively reject those candidates instead of doing a deeper dive into the issues. That's what happened in both the last Ward 1 and Ward 3 council races. We need an open Democratic primary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Old enough to remember when Chevy Chase, DC was safe.

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/woman-punched-in-face-by-man-inside-dc-safeway

With the new plans for density it's only going to get more interesting.

Not sure prioritizing "returning citizens" and the severely mentally ill for housing vouchers in buildings on Connecticut is working well for other residents.

The city is intentionally loading up apartments along Connecticut Ave with voucher recipients who are antisocial and present a danger to themselves and others. This follows stated city policy for “burden sharing” and this assault is the inevitable result.

The effect of this policy is that it takes away the ability of people to pay a premium to live away from negative externalities. I guess the embedded assumption of DC officials is that people will still pay that premium anyway without any benefit because living in DC has other benefits that people wont want to give up. It’s a bad assumption.

The same thing is happening at the buildings at SW Waterfront with some paying a premium to live there and then paying more to break their leases after voucher tenants run the place into the ground.

I understand the concept of what the city is trying to do but I believe if said residents get several complaints, they should move them to a more suitable place. I have an associate who is a concierge at a building by the Zoo, and boy the footage he knows me is appalling along with stories he hell. He says the police don’t even show up anymore.

The city needs to have different types of housing options that are appropriate for people, depending on their needs. And the reality is, despite what the current popular trends say, a lot of these people really need to just be with each other. They are their own community.

Racism and redlining is apparently alive and well in 2024. The racists are even using the same excuses they have since before the civil war. You should be disgusted with yourself.

You do a disservice to actual racism by throwing the charge around willy nilly.

Here is some DC reality. Unhoused people prefer to cohabitate with each other. We know this because over time and without intervention, they create tent communities. Since this population is overwhelmingly Black, it raises a real question as to whether DC’s Housing First policy is in fact racist, because the goal is to disperse that community of people throughout the city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


People need to understand the current DC laws which perpetuate this situation:
1) Apartment building owners have no authority to limit the number of voucher tenants they have to accept as tenants, because "source of income" is a protected class under DC law equivalent to race, religion, income, sexual orientation, etc. So if a would-be tenant has a voucher which will cover the quoted rent, as most vouchers will for "B" buildings, or for inclusionary zoning units in newer Class A product, then the landlord cannot say "no", even if there are already a sizable percentage of voucher tenants.
2) DC's "check the box" legislation means that landlords cannot run criminal background checks and refuse to rent on those grounds.
3) Once a tenant is in residency, the landlord is helpless to evict so long as the rent is paid---which, for voucher tenants, is guaranteed. A landlord can file for eviction based on a lease violation but a tenant gets a 30 day cure period and the landlord has to wait 4 to 6 months to get a court date. So if a tenant throws a TV off of a 9th floor balcony onto the alley below (true story), and doesn't toss another TV for 30 days, that would be counted as "curing" the prior behavior. Plus, if the lease violation is based upon criminal activity---such as drug dealing---the tenant cannot be evicted on those grounds unless the tenant has been convicted AND all appeals have been exhausted. So given the issues with both enforcement and prosecution---that doesn't happen either.
4) Finally, in the unlikely event that a landlord does manage to get a hearing on an eviction action based on a lease violation, the extremely liberal DC judiciary is unlikely to be receptive to granting an eviction request and will instead insist on the tenant being given another chance.

People concerned about the current situation should be (1) pressing the Mayor's office to cease handing out housing vouchers to the mentally unstable, especially since there is currently little to no caseworker supervision, much less any requirement that mentally ill tenants maintain a treatment plan in order to continue to qualify for the vouchers; (2) push the DC Council and the DC AG to modify existing landlord tenant laws to allow landlords to promptly evict tenants who are violent to other residents or building staff.


5. The ability to self certify to get a “medical” marijuana card has made many apartment buildings unlivable in DC.

Yep. And the ability of landlords to control the waft of marijuana smoke is nil. You can try to insist that smoking marijuana (as opposed to edibles) is prohibited, but then will face an ADA argument that medical marijuana users find that they can better "manage" their "medical condition" by smoking pot as it allows more fine tuning of "dosage".

The only way any of this will change is to elect more moderate politicians across the board in DC. Of course the progressives immediately accuse any reasonable moderate of being a Trumper, racist, etc. as a way to scare off DC voters, who will then reflexively reject those candidates instead of doing a deeper dive into the issues. That's what happened in both the last Ward 1 and Ward 3 council races. We need an open Democratic primary.

I really don’t think that DC politicians fully understand that weed is destroying the city. That gross smell is impossible to escape downtown and is now an inevitable reality of living in any apartment building. If you don’t like that smell then your only recourse is to leave the city - and many people and business are leaving.