Shooting at Brandywine & Connecticut Ave NW This Afternoon

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no faith that a floor is going to be put in the crime situation in NW, never mind it improving.

Frumin is not someone who inspires confidence in the future and Bowser admin reps have attended countless community meetings with things only getting worse. The only one who seemed genuinely concerned about public safety was Chris Geldart and he had issues and is long gone.

It makes me quite sad and my family is going to have to look seriously at relocating, having been in DC for 30 years. We moved west for schools and safety after 20 years EOTP and that worked for a long time and now the calculus has changed again. I wish we had gone to the burbs a long time ago, and become established then, we are not at life stages that are super conducive to moving right now.

Well that’s a little excessive. Unless you live in the Sedgewick or on top of the Tenleytown metro, it’s not going to get that much worse.

Actually, the PSA that includes Saratoga, Brandywine, Connecticut House was found to have the greatest crime increase of anywhere in the city, numbers were crunched from DC Crime Cards. Obviously not highest numbers in city but greatest change. Now a daytime weekend shooting after a lot of MPD focus for years. I live in that PSA and the effects of quality of life and safety in the past few years have been tremendous. There are tennis courts and a playground on the block where a shooting occurred at 3pm on a Saturday. We won't be the only ones likely to move. And for those that leave the Saratoga and Brandywine, the ratio of paying tenants may shrink further. My kids go to school near and often use the Tenleytown metro. I'd be remiss as a parent not to react to real shifts in safety levels. YMMV.

Crime becoming less predictable, more random and more diffuse has stretched a smaller MPD very thin. The commercial tax base has shrunk and population is dropping so there will be less money for safety initiatives, services, etc. It's happened before, maybe newcomers don't know that.

Not really the time to be Pollyanna when it comes to my family's well being when we heard the shots on Saturday. We moved away from that to what used to be a very quiet, safe area, for that and for the schools. Now, it's far less safe. There have been dozens upon dozens of community meetings in the past few years. For those unaware of that history, they may think there is some likely fix if they send a few emails or make a few calls, but no. The idea that Courtney Carlson can impact this in any way is laughable, Mary Cheh was not able to do much, with more power, and living even closer to the problem buildings. In fact, talking about the issues may have led to pushback that caused her to not run again.

Thanks for your support and concern for my family's well being, PP, the heartfelt scorn is noted.

I live in an area with much more crime and am concerned about it. Still, I think you’re being a bit absurd. Moving to the burbs and driving a lot is statistically higher risk for you.

People love to post the “driving more” narrative in response to concerns about rising crime. We moved to the suburbs after 25 years due to rising crime in our neighborhood. We drive less out here. My kids can walk to the ES, MS and HS. We can easily walk to three different pools, hiking trails, tennis courts and sports fields. My kids walk or bike to get snacks or pizza with friends. We have a community center and recreation center that haven’t been taken over by pot smokers and the homeless. If we want to go into the city it’s a 20 min drive. Driving is really a minor inconvenience versus dealing with package thefts, carjackings, violent unhoused people, or random gunfire on a regular basis.

Crime in DC will not be properly addressed until the real estate market bottoms out, businesses begin to leave and the tourist industry takes a huge hit. Expect more families to leave. Expect city services to decline due to less tax revenue. You only need to look to the 80s and 90s to see the future.

Most suburbs aren’t that walkable. And the point is not that driving is an inconvenience, but that it is more dangerous than other forms of transit.

Driving stats typically include death numbers from interstates and major highways. Most people don't die driving around in the suburbs to stores, schools, restaurants, doctor appts, parks and playgrounds, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have to say I miss the Fenty years...reasonable mayor, reasonable council, USAO office that still functioned and a stable tax base made for some really good years for family life in the District. The redone playgrounds, the pools, the greater safety, schools on the upswing...

The years with Tony Williams as mayor were the best ones. Wish he'd come back.

Not sure what even he could do with this Council and the way it was created, any change re: members is incremental, at best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no faith that a floor is going to be put in the crime situation in NW, never mind it improving.

Frumin is not someone who inspires confidence in the future and Bowser admin reps have attended countless community meetings with things only getting worse. The only one who seemed genuinely concerned about public safety was Chris Geldart and he had issues and is long gone.

It makes me quite sad and my family is going to have to look seriously at relocating, having been in DC for 30 years. We moved west for schools and safety after 20 years EOTP and that worked for a long time and now the calculus has changed again. I wish we had gone to the burbs a long time ago, and become established then, we are not at life stages that are super conducive to moving right now.

Well that’s a little excessive. Unless you live in the Sedgewick or on top of the Tenleytown metro, it’s not going to get that much worse.

Actually, the PSA that includes Saratoga, Brandywine, Connecticut House was found to have the greatest crime increase of anywhere in the city, numbers were crunched from DC Crime Cards. Obviously not highest numbers in city but greatest change. Now a daytime weekend shooting after a lot of MPD focus for years. I live in that PSA and the effects of quality of life and safety in the past few years have been tremendous. There are tennis courts and a playground on the block where a shooting occurred at 3pm on a Saturday. We won't be the only ones likely to move. And for those that leave the Saratoga and Brandywine, the ratio of paying tenants may shrink further. My kids go to school near and often use the Tenleytown metro. I'd be remiss as a parent not to react to real shifts in safety levels. YMMV.

Crime becoming less predictable, more random and more diffuse has stretched a smaller MPD very thin. The commercial tax base has shrunk and population is dropping so there will be less money for safety initiatives, services, etc. It's happened before, maybe newcomers don't know that.

Not really the time to be Pollyanna when it comes to my family's well being when we heard the shots on Saturday. We moved away from that to what used to be a very quiet, safe area, for that and for the schools. Now, it's far less safe. There have been dozens upon dozens of community meetings in the past few years. For those unaware of that history, they may think there is some likely fix if they send a few emails or make a few calls, but no. The idea that Courtney Carlson can impact this in any way is laughable, Mary Cheh was not able to do much, with more power, and living even closer to the problem buildings. In fact, talking about the issues may have led to pushback that caused her to not run again.

Thanks for your support and concern for my family's well being, PP, the heartfelt scorn is noted.

I live in an area with much more crime and am concerned about it. Still, I think you’re being a bit absurd. Moving to the burbs and driving a lot is statistically higher risk for you.

People love to post the “driving more” narrative in response to concerns about rising crime. We moved to the suburbs after 25 years due to rising crime in our neighborhood. We drive less out here. My kids can walk to the ES, MS and HS. We can easily walk to three different pools, hiking trails, tennis courts and sports fields. My kids walk or bike to get snacks or pizza with friends. We have a community center and recreation center that haven’t been taken over by pot smokers and the homeless. If we want to go into the city it’s a 20 min drive. Driving is really a minor inconvenience versus dealing with package thefts, carjackings, violent unhoused people, or random gunfire on a regular basis.

Crime in DC will not be properly addressed until the real estate market bottoms out, businesses begin to leave and the tourist industry takes a huge hit. Expect more families to leave. Expect city services to decline due to less tax revenue. You only need to look to the 80s and 90s to see the future.

Most suburbs aren’t that walkable. And the point is not that driving is an inconvenience, but that it is more dangerous than other forms of transit.

Driving stats typically include death numbers from interstates and major highways. Most people don't die driving around in the suburbs to stores, schools, restaurants, doctor appts, parks and playgrounds, etc.

And if people are driving around in the city to safer playgrounds, etc, what is the difference?

Do you genuinely believe that those in big houses on Brandwine, with family generational wealth, are going to take the tots to the Forest Hills playground that just had shooters run across it, Saturday afternoon? I'm going with, "not anytime soon!"

[Anonymous]

For those new to the issue of changing crime patterns in Connecticut Avenue corridor, there have already BEEN countless meetings over the past few years. And in that time, things have grown worse.

With the USAO and Superior Court judges that have been appointed, with USAO staff attorneys prosecution patterns and with a shrinking MPD that can't hire to outpace those leaving, I don't see crime stabilizing. And that is separate from the voucher program management issues, albeit potentially linked in some ways.

Murch was great for my kids years ago, I hope ALL of the kids attending are having a similarly good experience. Many of the voucher recipients do not cause issues and only want the same things for their kids that we all do. It's a small number who may be visitors to the neighborhood not even residents, that make everyone else less safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those new to the issue of changing crime patterns in Connecticut Avenue corridor, there have already BEEN countless meetings over the past few years. And in that time, things have grown worse.

With the USAO and Superior Court judges that have been appointed, with USAO staff attorneys prosecution patterns and with a shrinking MPD that can't hire to outpace those leaving, I don't see crime stabilizing. And that is separate from the voucher program management issues, albeit potentially linked in some ways.

Murch was great for my kids years ago, I hope ALL of the kids attending are having a similarly good experience. Many of the voucher recipients do not cause issues and only want the same things for their kids that we all do. It's a small number who may be visitors to the neighborhood not even residents, that make everyone else less safe.

Who are they visiting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If people were to lose their housing voucher, then that means they have nothing left to lose. Advocating for such a stupid policy will result in higher crimes and you risk becoming a bigger target and victim. Housing is a basic necessity. Causing people to lose their housing vouchers will mean more reckless violent behaviors. I would caution you against such an idea.

This is what Councilmember Frumin wrote in the last paragraph of his statement posted on his website September 11:

"My office has heard from many residents about safety concerns in the area. One of the themes raised is concern regarding the District’s voucher program. We do not yet know whether the individuals involved in Saturday’s incident were affiliated with the program. Additional information is crucial. While most apartment residents, including voucher recipients, are thriving members of our community, some residents need additional behavioral and mental health support. The District’s voucher program is an important tool to place vulnerable neighbors on a path toward success. Unfortunately, the legal and operational framework supporting the current system is flawed. To ensure the voucher program can serve recipients and existing neighbors alike, residents must receive the services they need to live independently, and property managers must invest meaningfully in security. I have been working closely with tenant leaders, landlords, and the Office of the Attorney General to explore legislative solutions to address these issues; it is a high priority."

See website here: https://mattfruminward3.com/4601connave/

[Anonymous]

Key facts about tenants who have voucher contracts in Frumin's statement:

"While most apartment residents, including voucher recipients, are thriving members of our community, some residents need additional behavioral and mental health support. The District’s voucher program is an important tool to place vulnerable neighbors on a path toward success."

[Anonymous]

Many of my neighbors who don’t typically pay attention to local politics are awakening and concluding that Matt Frumin may not be the best leader for Ward 3 at this moment in history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Key facts about tenants who have voucher contracts in Frumin's statement:

"While most apartment residents, including voucher recipients, are thriving members of our community, some residents need additional behavioral and mental health support. The District’s voucher program is an important tool to place vulnerable neighbors on a path toward success."

And how many of your neighbors are not Boucher recipients that receive rental assistance from the city due to their age, rising inflation costs and expensive rents. I hope you realize DC has programs geared toward DC seniors and many of the people utilizing such services live in Ward 3.

I've watched seniors steal from the Safeway. Should we also discriminate against them too? Or pretend this does not exist because they are white?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Key facts about tenants who have voucher contracts in Frumin's statement:

"While most apartment residents, including voucher recipients, are thriving members of our community, some residents need additional behavioral and mental health support. The District’s voucher program is an important tool to place vulnerable neighbors on a path toward success."

And how many of your neighbors are not Boucher recipients that receive rental assistance from the city due to their age, rising inflation costs and expensive rents. I hope you realize DC has programs geared toward DC seniors and many of the people utilizing such services live in Ward 3.

I've watched seniors steal from the Safeway. Should we also discriminate against them too? Or pretend this does not exist because they are white?

What about the epidemic of old people stealing groceries?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many of my neighbors who don’t typically pay attention to local politics are awakening and concluding that Matt Frumin may not be the best leader for Ward 3 at this moment in history.

Frumin is a nice guy, but he seems himself as a District-wide policymaker first. The elected advocate for Ward 3 issues, not so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If people were to lose their housing voucher, then that means they have nothing left to lose. Advocating for such a stupid policy will result in higher crimes and you risk becoming a bigger target and victim. Housing is a basic necessity. Causing people to lose their housing vouchers will mean more reckless violent behaviors. I would caution you against such an idea.

This is what Councilmember Frumin wrote in the last paragraph of his statement posted on his website September 11:

"My office has heard from many residents about safety concerns in the area. One of the themes raised is concern regarding the District’s voucher program. We do not yet know whether the individuals involved in Saturday’s incident were affiliated with the program. Additional information is crucial. While most apartment residents, including voucher recipients, are thriving members of our community, some residents need additional behavioral and mental health support. The District’s voucher program is an important tool to place vulnerable neighbors on a path toward success. Unfortunately, the legal and operational framework supporting the current system is flawed. To ensure the voucher program can serve recipients and existing neighbors alike, residents must receive the services they need to live independently, and property managers must invest meaningfully in security. I have been working closely with tenant leaders, landlords, and the Office of the Attorney General to explore legislative solutions to address these issues; it is a high priority."

See website here: https://mattfruminward3.com/4601connave/

This is more of the same BS. Housing First does not, per HUD, allow any conditions to be put on voucher holders. Period. They can have a social worker knock and they have no obligation to open the door. Literally. No obligation to be compliant with meds, mental health care, rehab, to not commit crimes, including violent ones, none of that will result in loss of the voucher. Frumin is way behind the curve in grasping the issues, a lightweight and is spouting platitudes.

For those who have not read it, highly recommend this recent piece and imagine same thing WOTP but with some paying tenants. Note that the required number of monthly contacts was cut from 4 to 2 in the past year and, again, no requirement to open door to services never mind engage, if the reports even happen and are not faked. In public housing social workers would have to show up at the building, in this scenario they are purportedly driving all over without oversight. HUD recently issued a scathing audit and issued millions in fines re: DC housing policies and programs, yet, rolls on with overpayments continuing. So much money is changing hands from public funds to private hands. Read the details at the link and think The Brandywine is not far off.

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of my neighbors who don’t typically pay attention to local politics are awakening and concluding that Matt Frumin may not be the best leader for Ward 3 at this moment in history.

Frumin is a nice guy, but he seems himself as a District-wide policymaker first. The elected advocate for Ward 3 issues, not so much.

Agree with concerns re: Frumin, would say the same about the police chief. And with enormous fiscal challenges looming, it's all pretty concerning. And every month, MPD gets smaller as hiring is not even able to keep up with those leaving or retiring. Random crime in formerly safe neighborhoods stretches a smaller force even thinner.

Even the Consulate of Mexico has taken notice and warned their citizens and visitors https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/dc/mexican-consulate-rising-crime-dc/

[Anonymous]

^ oops, bad link

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/dc/mexican-consulate-rising-crime-dc/65-e8ceac21-28b7-42e9-bc2f-76febc9644bf

The Consulate of Mexico in Washington is warning its citizens to "take precautions" while in the District due to rising crime issues in the nation's capital.

The Consulate tweeted about its concerns on Monday, saying, "DC is experiencing a significant increase in crime in areas previously considered safe," according to the tweet, which was translated on Twitter.

I'd imagine Mexico is not an overly shrinking violet on the topic of crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If people were to lose their housing voucher, then that means they have nothing left to lose. Advocating for such a stupid policy will result in higher crimes and you risk becoming a bigger target and victim. Housing is a basic necessity. Causing people to lose their housing vouchers will mean more reckless violent behaviors. I would caution you against such an idea.

This is what Councilmember Frumin wrote in the last paragraph of his statement posted on his website September 11:

"My office has heard from many residents about safety concerns in the area. One of the themes raised is concern regarding the District’s voucher program. We do not yet know whether the individuals involved in Saturday’s incident were affiliated with the program. Additional information is crucial. While most apartment residents, including voucher recipients, are thriving members of our community, some residents need additional behavioral and mental health support. The District’s voucher program is an important tool to place vulnerable neighbors on a path toward success. Unfortunately, the legal and operational framework supporting the current system is flawed. To ensure the voucher program can serve recipients and existing neighbors alike, residents must receive the services they need to live independently, and property managers must invest meaningfully in security. I have been working closely with tenant leaders, landlords, and the Office of the Attorney General to explore legislative solutions to address these issues; it is a high priority."

See website here: https://mattfruminward3.com/4601connave/

This is more of the same BS. Housing First does not, per HUD, allow any conditions to be put on voucher holders. Period. They can have a social worker knock and they have no obligation to open the door. Literally. No obligation to be compliant with meds, mental health care, rehab, to not commit crimes, including violent ones, none of that will result in loss of the voucher. Frumin is way behind the curve in grasping the issues, a lightweight and is spouting platitudes.

For those who have not read it, highly recommend this recent piece and imagine same thing WOTP but with some paying tenants. Note that the required number of monthly contacts was cut from 4 to 2 in the past year and, again, no requirement to open door to services never mind engage, if the reports even happen and are not faked. In public housing social workers would have to show up at the building, in this scenario they are purportedly driving all over without oversight. HUD recently issued a scathing audit and issued millions in fines re: DC housing policies and programs, yet, rolls on with overpayments continuing. So much money is changing hands from public funds to private hands. Read the details at the link and think The Brandywine is not far off.

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

There is no benefit called “Housing First” that forbids an agency from enacting any standards around it. DC could, but does. not, enact regulations that would ensure appropriate placements. Another issue is DC and federal anti-discrimination law that force buildings to take vouchers and make eviction difficult on the one hand, and DC inflated rental payments that incentize other landlords to load up on vouchers (sometimes to get rid of rent controlled tenants) — without putting into place proper security measures.