Is Frumin running again?

[Anonymous]

Just read his announcement. This is a guy who just said he voted the wrong way on the rent legislation that Council passed last week. This is a guy who voted to spend/forego $billions of our tax dollars to present a united front on the stadium. This is a guy who seems to have not kept a single campaign promise. This guy is a clown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just read his announcement. This is a guy who just said he voted the wrong way on the rent legislation that Council passed last week. This is a guy who voted to spend/forego $billions of our tax dollars to present a united front on the stadium. This is a guy who seems to have not kept a single campaign promise. This guy is a clown.

His opponents are going to tee off on his record and his constant flip-flopping. He’s also done next to nothing on his biggest campaign promise from 2022, namely to improve overcrowding in W3 dcps (the MacArthur plan was already in the works, and if he tries to take credit for that he should be roasted).


I foresee people running against him from both his left flank and his right.

[Anonymous]

He was partially responsible for getting the macarthur school as a city wide advocate. At least know something about the guy's background before you slam his record.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just read his announcement. This is a guy who just said he voted the wrong way on the rent legislation that Council passed last week. This is a guy who voted to spend/forego $billions of our tax dollars to present a united front on the stadium. This is a guy who seems to have not kept a single campaign promise. This guy is a clown.

His opponents are going to tee off on his record and his constant flip-flopping. He’s also done next to nothing on his biggest campaign promise from 2022, namely to improve overcrowding in W3 dcps (the MacArthur plan was already in the works, and if he tries to take credit for that he should be roasted).


I foresee people running against him from both his left flank and his right.

What opponents? I haven't seen anyone filing to run in this race, unlike other wards. Who has the name recognition or base to mount a decent challenge?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just read his announcement. This is a guy who just said he voted the wrong way on the rent legislation that Council passed last week. This is a guy who voted to spend/forego $billions of our tax dollars to present a united front on the stadium. This is a guy who seems to have not kept a single campaign promise. This guy is a clown.

His opponents are going to tee off on his record and his constant flip-flopping. He’s also done next to nothing on his biggest campaign promise from 2022, namely to improve overcrowding in W3 dcps (the MacArthur plan was already in the works, and if he tries to take credit for that he should be roasted).


I foresee people running against him from both his left flank and his right.

What opponents? I haven't seen anyone filing to run in this race, unlike other wards. Who has the name recognition or base to mount a decent challenge?

Agreed. I haven’t heard much from Goulet in a while now and his main issue - crime - is a lot less salient now than it was three years ago. Even with RCV, he’s not unseating Frumin. And who else is there out there? Frumin is nowhere near as effective as Cheh was, but he’s also a lot more straightforward and that buys him a lot of goodwill. I’d put down solid money that he will face no serious challenge.

[Anonymous]

To be fair, Cheh was effective because she had tenure, particularly in her last two terms.

A freshman Councilmember doesn't get a committee until their third year, so there is no real power that goes with the seat until then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, Cheh was effective because she had tenure, particularly in her last two terms.

A freshman Councilmember doesn't get a committee until their third year, so there is no real power that goes with the seat until then.

Frumin is intent on screwing over Ward 3, so his attaining power will just allow him to do that more effectively.

[Anonymous]

Of course.

Frumin is the ultimate pick-me girl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, Cheh was effective because she had tenure, particularly in her last two terms.

A freshman Councilmember doesn't get a committee until their third year, so there is no real power that goes with the seat until then.

I don’t think it’s just that. Cheh had an edge to her and let it be known that she wasn’t to be messed with. Frumin is a puppy dog in comparison.

[Anonymous]

He will not rest until he has implemented his pickleball-centered agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people wanted the bike lanes, including the mayor and DDOT, as well as all of the other Ward 3 candidates from 2022. The only reason they didn't happen is because downtown business interests intervened.

That said, he has supported the various main street orgs in terms of providing funds and resources to businesses on the corridor and has been proactive with MPD in terms of presence and enforcement. Maybe your ire is directed at the failing national economy?

He has done exactly nothing about the rising crime rate along Connecticut stemming from DC blindly putting voucher recipients into empty apartments without offering them any sort of support services. When horrifically violent crimes have happened because of this -- kids dying, etc. -- he offers his thoughts and prayers but says his hands are tied and he can't do anything, like a simp. He's worthless.

And I think Frumin's staffers have better use of their time than posting here.

So Frumin is in charge of public and section 8 housing in the district and not, you know, the private property owners who are converting their properties to take the money from the city? What exactly do you expect a councilmember to do to intervene between a private property owner and the city when there are no permits or hearing or other "stop points" that could put the brakes on such moves? Methinks you either have no idea of what a councilmember can or can't do, or believe they can act as an executive authoritarian.

He could introduce legislation to cap the number of voucher residents allowed in one building. In fact, Ward 3 residents have explicitly asked him to do this multiple times but he steadfastly refuses to do so.

Try harder with your simping for him.

Not simping for him, but this particular example, no, that legislation would never pass and it isn't worth the time to try. How about offering real solutions and not something completely unviable?

How about forcing the city to provide either on-site or in-neighborhood support services for voucher residents who are placed far from their usual neighborhoods? How about forcing landlords who gladly accept above-market-rate payment from the DC government to use that money for building security? How about making buildings that have been declared nuisance properties off-limits to future voucher recipients until actionable fixes have been made? How about doing something more than whimpering "this is such a sad story" when a child dies in a voucher apartment (there have been, what, three voucher-family kids who have died violent deaths in Connecticut Avenue apartments since he took office)?

He's done none of this. He's done nothing. Show me one thing he's done. Just one. I'll wait.

Are people new here? Caps was tried by Cheh, no go with Council. Cheh also had social workers stationed in Sedgwick Gardens. I believe residents made 2 contacts in 18 months. Services are voluntary, most refuse to participate.

[Anonymous]

How about forcing the city to provide either on-site or in-neighborhood support services for voucher residents who are placed far from their usual neighborhoods? How about forcing landlords who gladly accept above-market-rate payment from the DC government to use that money for building security? How about making buildings that have been declared nuisance properties off-limits to future voucher recipients until actionable fixes have been made? How about doing something more than whimpering "this is such a sad story" when a child dies in a voucher apartment (there have been, what, three voucher-family kids who have died violent deaths in Connecticut Avenue apartments since he took office)?

Landlords do not "gladly accept above-market rate payment" ---there was one landlord doing that and a big settlement about it. Landlords by law cannot refuse to accept voucher tenant applicants nor can landlords cap the number of vouchers in their building. Both actions are illegal under the DC Human Rights Act which elevated "source of income" to a protected class commensurate with race, ethnicity, gender. etc. which IMO, was extremely unwise. And I don't know what you expect LLs to do with respect to mentally ill/criminal/violent voucher tenant residents. It is impossible to evict a tenant for a behavior related lease violation---the courts give endless opportunities to "cure". The only other path to eviction is non-payment of rent, which isn't happening because the government is paying the rent. The best way to make a building safe again is to streamline eviction laws and allow landlords to cap the number of vouchers they have to take at 10 to 15% of the units for any building over 10 units. AND the city needs to REQUIRE that residents receiving vouchers participate in services and then the city needs to offer those services (particularly in the mental health realm). These are all legislative changes that a competent Ward 3 councilperson should be advocating for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

How about forcing the city to provide either on-site or in-neighborhood support services for voucher residents who are placed far from their usual neighborhoods? How about forcing landlords who gladly accept above-market-rate payment from the DC government to use that money for building security? How about making buildings that have been declared nuisance properties off-limits to future voucher recipients until actionable fixes have been made? How about doing something more than whimpering "this is such a sad story" when a child dies in a voucher apartment (there have been, what, three voucher-family kids who have died violent deaths in Connecticut Avenue apartments since he took office)?

Landlords do not "gladly accept above-market rate payment" ---there was one landlord doing that and a big settlement about it. Landlords by law cannot refuse to accept voucher tenant applicants nor can landlords cap the number of vouchers in their building. Both actions are illegal under the DC Human Rights Act which elevated "source of income" to a protected class commensurate with race, ethnicity, gender. etc. which IMO, was extremely unwise. And I don't know what you expect LLs to do with respect to mentally ill/criminal/violent voucher tenant residents. It is impossible to evict a tenant for a behavior related lease violation---the courts give endless opportunities to "cure". The only other path to eviction is non-payment of rent, which isn't happening because the government is paying the rent. The best way to make a building safe again is to streamline eviction laws and allow landlords to cap the number of vouchers they have to take at 10 to 15% of the units for any building over 10 units. AND the city needs to REQUIRE that residents receiving vouchers participate in services and then the city needs to offer those services (particularly in the mental health realm). These are all legislative changes that a competent Ward 3 councilperson should be advocating for.

Show me you know nothing about how any of this works without using the words.

[Anonymous]

Fruman always has a dopey smile on that makes him look non serious. It’s like he’s at summer camp and it’s all fun and games for him. Which could be one reason why he has accomplished nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


Landlords do not "gladly accept above-market rate payment" ---there was one landlord doing that and a big settlement about it. Landlords by law cannot refuse to accept voucher tenant applicants nor can landlords cap the number of vouchers in their building. Both actions are illegal under the DC Human Rights Act which elevated "source of income" to a protected class commensurate with race, ethnicity, gender. etc. which IMO, was extremely unwise. And I don't know what you expect LLs to do with respect to mentally ill/criminal/violent voucher tenant residents. It is impossible to evict a tenant for a behavior related lease violation---the courts give endless opportunities to "cure". The only other path to eviction is non-payment of rent, which isn't happening because the government is paying the rent. The best way to make a building safe again is to streamline eviction laws and allow landlords to cap the number of vouchers they have to take at 10 to 15% of the units for any building over 10 units. AND the city needs to REQUIRE that residents receiving vouchers participate in services and then the city needs to offer those services (particularly in the mental health realm). These are all legislative changes that a competent Ward 3 councilperson should be advocating for.


Show me you know nothing about how any of this works without using the words.

Are you kidding me? I know EXACTLY how this works. I deal with this craziness on a daily basis---irate tenants who are upset that the city handed out vouchers to the long-term mentally ill, attorneys who try over and over to get the most problematic tenants evicted, to no avail. Everyone wants to blame the landlords for a situation that the District itself has created through a series of laws which, taken individually were well-meaning, but collectively have led to chaos.