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

[Anonymous]

USAOs since late in Obama’s term have become increasingly lax on crime, across D and R administrations. Read DC Crome Facts.

Pressure on Bowser re CPS is more likely to have an impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People should look up MPD crime cards before renting. Forest Hills Connect has written many pieces on issues in buildings in that stretch, but it is all rentals and rented condos and not unique to DC. It’s illegal to discriminate against vouchers and both Racine and Schwab have sued. The problems are very noticeable in big buildings, but 1 resident has caused havoc in 4600 Connecticut condo building when owners left country and wanted to maximize take in rental of unit.

There are lots of threads about vouchers on this site, DeAndre deserves the focus to stay on him here.

This was an issue during the last Ward 3 council race. Frumin refused to support a voucher moratorium like his opponent did. Despite this PSA having the largest crime increase in the city. He owns a big part of this.

Why do you want to make this all about vouchers in Ward 3? Are you more concerned about the death of an innocent five year old or the sliver of your taxes that (maybe) go to the vouchers that housed him and his family? Or do you just want to seize the opportunity to try to score a cheap political point?

A housing voucher that allowed this family to live in Ward 3 sure as heck didn't contribute to the death of this kid. But the failures of USAO to prosecute his father for a previous incident of domestic violence and of city agencies to reduce the risk of domestic violence harming someone else in the family potentially did.

I'd really like to read your explanation of why you think it more important to use this thread to discuss a voucher moratorium rather than the circumstances that preceded this kid's death and how we can prevent such heinous acts from happening again in our city, whether that be in Ward 3 or in Ward 8.

The voucher program has destabilized a once safe place to live. It’s put thousands of law abiding citizens at risk on a daily basis, many of which are female senior citizens living alone in these buildings. We know it to be true because we have the data and we have our own eyes. It led to the worst increase in crime in city in this exact PSA. I’d like to read your explanation about why we shouldn’t be having this conversation at this exact moment.

Because this is a thread about two kids who were beaten to death, not about whether you are comfortable with your new neighbors. If you want to start that thread, go ahead - it should be interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Chen supporting one made no difference, I did not vote for Frumin but this is so far beyond him. Cheh’s comments outside Days Inn did likely bump her from office. Predates him by at least a decade+. Chen even got social workers put in Sedgwick Gardens for a time, voucher tenants did not engage. Without the threat of losing the voucher, no effective curbs on behavior. Public housing you can be kicked out and banned. With vouchers, crime, you get moved from Sedgwick Gardens to Brandywine. Do not pay your share, move from Brandywine to Saratoga or Connecticut House.

Truth

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chen supporting one made no difference, I did not vote for Frumin but this is so far beyond him. Cheh’s comments outside Days Inn did likely bump her from office. Predates him by at least a decade+. Chen even got social workers put in Sedgwick Gardens for a time, voucher tenants did not engage. Without the threat of losing the voucher, no effective curbs on behavior. Public housing you can be kicked out and banned. With vouchers, crime, you get moved from Sedgwick Gardens to Brandywine. Do not pay your share, move from Brandywine to Saratoga or Connecticut House.

Truth

But Frump owns it now. He has been negligent or worse on this issue, and it's the vulnerable poor children in these families who are suffering the most

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chen supporting one made no difference, I did not vote for Frumin but this is so far beyond him. Cheh’s comments outside Days Inn did likely bump her from office. Predates him by at least a decade+. Chen even got social workers put in Sedgwick Gardens for a time, voucher tenants did not engage. Without the threat of losing the voucher, no effective curbs on behavior. Public housing you can be kicked out and banned. With vouchers, crime, you get moved from Sedgwick Gardens to Brandywine. Do not pay your share, move from Brandywine to Saratoga or Connecticut House.

Truth

But Frump owns it now. He has been negligent or worse on this issue, and it's the vulnerable poor children in these families who are suffering the most

Frumin own it - "frump" a typo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People should look up MPD crime cards before renting. Forest Hills Connect has written many pieces on issues in buildings in that stretch, but it is all rentals and rented condos and not unique to DC. It’s illegal to discriminate against vouchers and both Racine and Schwab have sued. The problems are very noticeable in big buildings, but 1 resident has caused havoc in 4600 Connecticut condo building when owners left country and wanted to maximize take in rental of unit.

There are lots of threads about vouchers on this site, DeAndre deserves the focus to stay on him here.

This was an issue during the last Ward 3 council race. Frumin refused to support a voucher moratorium like his opponent did. Despite this PSA having the largest crime increase in the city. He owns a big part of this.

Why do you want to make this all about vouchers in Ward 3? Are you more concerned about the death of an innocent five year old or the sliver of your taxes that (maybe) go to the vouchers that housed him and his family? Or do you just want to seize the opportunity to try to score a cheap political point?

A housing voucher that allowed this family to live in Ward 3 sure as heck didn't contribute to the death of this kid. But the failures of USAO to prosecute his father for a previous incident of domestic violence and of city agencies to reduce the risk of domestic violence harming someone else in the family potentially did.

I'd really like to read your explanation of why you think it more important to use this thread to discuss a voucher moratorium rather than the circumstances that preceded this kid's death and how we can prevent such heinous acts from happening again in our city, whether that be in Ward 3 or in Ward 8.

A carte blanc housing voucher that came with no oversight of the unit or the people living in the unit absolutely contributed to this. If Pettus had been required to random inspections and if he had been mandated to allow access to his children for support this would may be have been prevented.

If you don't want government in your life, don't be a violent criminal or take government assisted housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People should look up MPD crime cards before renting. Forest Hills Connect has written many pieces on issues in buildings in that stretch, but it is all rentals and rented condos and not unique to DC. It’s illegal to discriminate against vouchers and both Racine and Schwab have sued. The problems are very noticeable in big buildings, but 1 resident has caused havoc in 4600 Connecticut condo building when owners left country and wanted to maximize take in rental of unit.

There are lots of threads about vouchers on this site, DeAndre deserves the focus to stay on him here.

This was an issue during the last Ward 3 council race. Frumin refused to support a voucher moratorium like his opponent did. Despite this PSA having the largest crime increase in the city. He owns a big part of this.

Why do you want to make this all about vouchers in Ward 3? Are you more concerned about the death of an innocent five year old or the sliver of your taxes that (maybe) go to the vouchers that housed him and his family? Or do you just want to seize the opportunity to try to score a cheap political point?

A housing voucher that allowed this family to live in Ward 3 sure as heck didn't contribute to the death of this kid. But the failures of USAO to prosecute his father for a previous incident of domestic violence and of city agencies to reduce the risk of domestic violence harming someone else in the family potentially did.

I'd really like to read your explanation of why you think it more important to use this thread to discuss a voucher moratorium rather than the circumstances that preceded this kid's death and how we can prevent such heinous acts from happening again in our city, whether that be in Ward 3 or in Ward 8.

The voucher program has destabilized a once safe place to live. It’s put thousands of law abiding citizens at risk on a daily basis, many of which are female senior citizens living alone in these buildings. We know it to be true because we have the data and we have our own eyes. It led to the worst increase in crime in city in this exact PSA. I’d like to read your explanation about why we shouldn’t be having this conversation at this exact moment.

Because this is a thread about two kids who were beaten to death, not about whether you are comfortable with your new neighbors. If you want to start that thread, go ahead - it should be interesting.

These are interrelated issues. If the voucher program required oversight, perhaps the conditions of these children's lives would have been found before one was murdered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chen supporting one made no difference, I did not vote for Frumin but this is so far beyond him. Cheh’s comments outside Days Inn did likely bump her from office. Predates him by at least a decade+. Chen even got social workers put in Sedgwick Gardens for a time, voucher tenants did not engage. Without the threat of losing the voucher, no effective curbs on behavior. Public housing you can be kicked out and banned. With vouchers, crime, you get moved from Sedgwick Gardens to Brandywine. Do not pay your share, move from Brandywine to Saratoga or Connecticut House.

Truth

But Frump owns it now. He has been negligent or worse on this issue, and it's the vulnerable poor children in these families who are suffering the most

Frumin own it - "frump" a typo

Surely there must be a reasonable centrist position between D.J. Trump and “D.C Frump.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a good question and I’m not sure of the exact answer. I imagine that many buildings in the city are taking in voucher recipients. But because Ward 3 in particular is the demographic that it is, it’s more noticeable when there are issues? Also Conn Ave has lots of older rent controlled buildings, is close to bus lines and metro, lots of grocery stores, so it is a desirable place to live. When we lived in Sedgwick we met with our ANC rep to talk about the issues. She said landlords can get more money from DC for voucher recipients than they can compared to market rate. So they made money. DARO was the worst offender. When we moved into Sedgwick in 2010 the building was full of older folks who had lived there for 20 years plus. They all got pushed out.

We also need places for teachers and public employees to live. We already have a hiring crisis. They are forcing out the middle with this program.

Exactly. The deserving folks who pay the taxes and obey the laws. They, including fixed-income seniors and manual workers, are being forced out by crime and disorder brought by DC’s voucher dysfunction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We need to have an email campaign to USA Matt Graves re this:

When Pettus made his first court appearance Monday morning, an assistant U.S. attorney said, “Your honor, the government has no objection to releasing the defendant on his own personal recognizance. We are asking for a stay away/no contact order for any

“I wonder would GPS be appropriate in this case?” the judge asked.

“Your honor, at this time, we are not asking for GPS,” the prosecutor said.

No GPS attached to his ankle? This guy instead might deserve an electrode attached to his leg.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People should look up MPD crime cards before renting. Forest Hills Connect has written many pieces on issues in buildings in that stretch, but it is all rentals and rented condos and not unique to DC. It’s illegal to discriminate against vouchers and both Racine and Schwab have sued. The problems are very noticeable in big buildings, but 1 resident has caused havoc in 4600 Connecticut condo building when owners left country and wanted to maximize take in rental of unit.

There are lots of threads about vouchers on this site, DeAndre deserves the focus to stay on him here.

This was an issue during the last Ward 3 council race. Frumin refused to support a voucher moratorium like his opponent did. Despite this PSA having the largest crime increase in the city. He owns a big part of this.

Why do you want to make this all about vouchers in Ward 3? Are you more concerned about the death of an innocent five year old or the sliver of your taxes that (maybe) go to the vouchers that housed him and his family? Or do you just want to seize the opportunity to try to score a cheap political point?

A housing voucher that allowed this family to live in Ward 3 sure as heck didn't contribute to the death of this kid. But the failures of USAO to prosecute his father for a previous incident of domestic violence and of city agencies to reduce the risk of domestic violence harming someone else in the family potentially did.

I'd really like to read your explanation of why you think it more important to use this thread to discuss a voucher moratorium rather than the circumstances that preceded this kid's death and how we can prevent such heinous acts from happening again in our city, whether that be in Ward 3 or in Ward 8.

The voucher program has destabilized a once safe place to live. It’s put thousands of law abiding citizens at risk on a daily basis, many of which are female senior citizens living alone in these buildings. We know it to be true because we have the data and we have our own eyes. It led to the worst increase in crime in city in this exact PSA. I’d like to read your explanation about why we shouldn’t be having this conversation at this exact moment.

Because this is a thread about two kids who were beaten to death, not about whether you are comfortable with your new neighbors. If you want to start that thread, go ahead - it should be interesting.

This thread encompasses all. What if your elderly widowed mother lived in this once-safe building?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People should look up MPD crime cards before renting. Forest Hills Connect has written many pieces on issues in buildings in that stretch, but it is all rentals and rented condos and not unique to DC. It’s illegal to discriminate against vouchers and both Racine and Schwab have sued. The problems are very noticeable in big buildings, but 1 resident has caused havoc in 4600 Connecticut condo building when owners left country and wanted to maximize take in rental of unit.

There are lots of threads about vouchers on this site, DeAndre deserves the focus to stay on him here.

This was an issue during the last Ward 3 council race. Frumin refused to support a voucher moratorium like his opponent did. Despite this PSA having the largest crime increase in the city. He owns a big part of this.

Why do you want to make this all about vouchers in Ward 3? Are you more concerned about the death of an innocent five year old or the sliver of your taxes that (maybe) go to the vouchers that housed him and his family? Or do you just want to seize the opportunity to try to score a cheap political point?

A housing voucher that allowed this family to live in Ward 3 sure as heck didn't contribute to the death of this kid. But the failures of USAO to prosecute his father for a previous incident of domestic violence and of city agencies to reduce the risk of domestic violence harming someone else in the family potentially did.

I'd really like to read your explanation of why you think it more important to use this thread to discuss a voucher moratorium rather than the circumstances that preceded this kid's death and how we can prevent such heinous acts from happening again in our city, whether that be in Ward 3 or in Ward 8.

The voucher program has destabilized a once safe place to live. It’s put thousands of law abiding citizens at risk on a daily basis, many of which are female senior citizens living alone in these buildings. We know it to be true because we have the data and we have our own eyes. It led to the worst increase in crime in city in this exact PSA. I’d like to read your explanation about why we shouldn’t be having this conversation at this exact moment.

Because this is a thread about two kids who were beaten to death, not about whether you are comfortable with your new neighbors. If you want to start that thread, go ahead - it should be interesting.

This thread encompasses all. What if your elderly widowed mother lived in this once-safe building?

But she doesn’t. And as much problems as there are with the voucher program, using a kid’s death as an opportunity to make cheap political points about de-gentrification of your neighborhood is incredibly despicable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People should look up MPD crime cards before renting. Forest Hills Connect has written many pieces on issues in buildings in that stretch, but it is all rentals and rented condos and not unique to DC. It’s illegal to discriminate against vouchers and both Racine and Schwab have sued. The problems are very noticeable in big buildings, but 1 resident has caused havoc in 4600 Connecticut condo building when owners left country and wanted to maximize take in rental of unit.

There are lots of threads about vouchers on this site, DeAndre deserves the focus to stay on him here.

This was an issue during the last Ward 3 council race. Frumin refused to support a voucher moratorium like his opponent did. Despite this PSA having the largest crime increase in the city. He owns a big part of this.

Why do you want to make this all about vouchers in Ward 3? Are you more concerned about the death of an innocent five year old or the sliver of your taxes that (maybe) go to the vouchers that housed him and his family? Or do you just want to seize the opportunity to try to score a cheap political point?

A housing voucher that allowed this family to live in Ward 3 sure as heck didn't contribute to the death of this kid. But the failures of USAO to prosecute his father for a previous incident of domestic violence and of city agencies to reduce the risk of domestic violence harming someone else in the family potentially did.

I'd really like to read your explanation of why you think it more important to use this thread to discuss a voucher moratorium rather than the circumstances that preceded this kid's death and how we can prevent such heinous acts from happening again in our city, whether that be in Ward 3 or in Ward 8.

The voucher program has destabilized a once safe place to live. It’s put thousands of law abiding citizens at risk on a daily basis, many of which are female senior citizens living alone in these buildings. We know it to be true because we have the data and we have our own eyes. It led to the worst increase in crime in city in this exact PSA. I’d like to read your explanation about why we shouldn’t be having this conversation at this exact moment.

Because this is a thread about two kids who were beaten to death, not about whether you are comfortable with your new neighbors. If you want to start that thread, go ahead - it should be interesting.

These are interrelated issues. If the voucher program required oversight, perhaps the conditions of these children's lives would have been found before one was murdered.

This has nothing to do with the friggin’ voucher program. Did you really miss the part in this whole sordid tale where the father was arrested for DV, his three kids were taken off him, the kids were returned when the USAO dropped the charges, and CFS didn’t bother to keep tabs on the family? Or did you just ignore it because it’s not convenient for your narrative? If city services can’t do their job properly when the father of a family under their care picked up a DV charge, what the hell makes you think they would have done it had the Council mandated it for every single voucher recipient in the city? This is really silly stuff you’re bringing here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chen supporting one made no difference, I did not vote for Frumin but this is so far beyond him. Cheh’s comments outside Days Inn did likely bump her from office. Predates him by at least a decade+. Chen even got social workers put in Sedgwick Gardens for a time, voucher tenants did not engage. Without the threat of losing the voucher, no effective curbs on behavior. Public housing you can be kicked out and banned. With vouchers, crime, you get moved from Sedgwick Gardens to Brandywine. Do not pay your share, move from Brandywine to Saratoga or Connecticut House.

Truth

But Frump owns it now. He has been negligent or worse on this issue, and it's the vulnerable poor children in these families who are suffering the most

It's not about how the rent is paid but about how children are not protected from known to be violent men. Had they lived in public housing in SE, poor DeAndre would be just as dead.

Frumin is on the housing committee. Still, press him to address CPS laxity and to push USAO to protect women and kids from violent men.

If the children were homeless or in public housing still would not help them. I get that you hate Frumin and I'm not a fan, but your focus on housing is not going to help kids like DeAndre.

Violent men do not need "services" that they are not even required to participate in. They need to be REMOVED FROM THE COMMUNITY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People should look up MPD crime cards before renting. Forest Hills Connect has written many pieces on issues in buildings in that stretch, but it is all rentals and rented condos and not unique to DC. It’s illegal to discriminate against vouchers and both Racine and Schwab have sued. The problems are very noticeable in big buildings, but 1 resident has caused havoc in 4600 Connecticut condo building when owners left country and wanted to maximize take in rental of unit.

There are lots of threads about vouchers on this site, DeAndre deserves the focus to stay on him here.

This was an issue during the last Ward 3 council race. Frumin refused to support a voucher moratorium like his opponent did. Despite this PSA having the largest crime increase in the city. He owns a big part of this.

Why do you want to make this all about vouchers in Ward 3? Are you more concerned about the death of an innocent five year old or the sliver of your taxes that (maybe) go to the vouchers that housed him and his family? Or do you just want to seize the opportunity to try to score a cheap political point?

A housing voucher that allowed this family to live in Ward 3 sure as heck didn't contribute to the death of this kid. But the failures of USAO to prosecute his father for a previous incident of domestic violence and of city agencies to reduce the risk of domestic violence harming someone else in the family potentially did.

I'd really like to read your explanation of why you think it more important to use this thread to discuss a voucher moratorium rather than the circumstances that preceded this kid's death and how we can prevent such heinous acts from happening again in our city, whether that be in Ward 3 or in Ward 8.

A carte blanc housing voucher that came with no oversight of the unit or the people living in the unit absolutely contributed to this. If Pettus had been required to random inspections and if he had been mandated to allow access to his children for support this would may be have been prevented.

If you don't want government in your life, don't be a violent criminal or take government assisted housing.

That would actually be more true in public housing but NO CONDITIONS is a core tenant of Housing First, a HUD program started by Bush. Read any of the numerous threads on here about it.

The child's death is not about housing but about CPS oversight that ended too early or that should not have reunified and about the abject failure of the federal USAO to prosecute crime, particularly DV. Bowser and the Council have control over CPS. Best and most direct place to focus ire and concern.