Shooting at Brandywine & Connecticut Ave NW This Afternoon

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps it will be clarified at Frumin's community meeting at UDC on Thursday, but it has not yet been stated that the victim or 2 gunmen had any connection to the voucher program or that any of the 3 lived in a building in Forest Hills.

d
Or whether they knew each other or if this was a random shooting of someone crossing the street.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps it will be clarified at Frumin's community meeting at UDC on Thursday, but it has not yet been stated that the victim or 2 gunmen had any connection to the voucher program or that any of the 3 lived in a building in Forest Hills.

If they are connected to the program, it is a solvable problem. If this is representative of the overall neighborhood going to sht like much of the rest of the city has, we're really in trouble.

[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."

Problem was the voucher queen who took kickbacks from landlords on Connecticut avenue to place people in those buildings. And the 2000+ HUD units lying unused because the HUD Queen didn’t bother to get them repaired. Neither is in jail. Both are out of their jobs. Both were Bowser’s choices. This is on Bowser.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There is a HUD program called "Housing First" that forbid preconditions and which funds the bulk of the PSH voucher program. It was enacted by Bush. Educate yourself here https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/3892/housing-first-in-permanent-supportive-housing-brief/

Housing First is an approach to quickly and successfully connect individuals and families experiencing homelessness to permanent housing without preconditions and barriers to entry, such as sobriety, treatment or service participation requirements. Supportive services are offered to maximize housing stability and prevent returns to homelessness as opposed to addressing predetermined treatment goals prior to permanent housing entry.

this is an “approach,” not a regulatory requirement. I’m not disagreeing that there are laws/regulations that need to be fixed, but the “Housing First” model is just a model (that has been implemented with some success). but some are now trying to make it into the next “CRT.”

[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/

Stop it. From the article: “ The program claims a “housing first” approach — immediate housing followed by intensive services to help people work toward goals like stability and sobriety… .” The problem is that the services are not being provided (including security to keep the drug dealers out.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The $ and barrier to restrictions and cutting of required service contacts with social workers from 4 to 2/month in the last year (1 in person) all come from HUD. This is not some fever dream of Bowser's. The overpayments of $1,000+/month OVER market rate are a corrupt DC twist, for which a HUD audit fined them heavily, they continue. The rest, well, you could complain to your representatives in Congress, but...

Please - how do these things come from HUD? They are the fault of DC.

[Anonymous]

Maybe DC should make it illegal to shoot each other...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps it will be clarified at Frumin's community meeting at UDC on Thursday, but it has not yet been stated that the victim or 2 gunmen had any connection to the voucher program or that any of the 3 lived in a building in Forest Hills.

If they are connected to the program, it is a solvable problem. If this is representative of the overall neighborhood going to sht like much of the rest of the city has, we're really in trouble.

+1. This is it. You are complaining about vouchers when there’s no evidence that voucher recipients were involved here. Random people are now shooting randomly everywhere, and have been doing that for the past few years everywhere outside Ward 3. Now that it’s finally come to Ward 3, you all are paying attention.

[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.

^ True. He’s not advocate for the neighborhood, like Cheh was. He has got to go

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Have your head on a swivel near the Tenleytown metro, multiple women have been clubbed in the head

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/i-couldnt-move-at-all-police-search-for-man-accused-of-striking-woman-on-the-head-outside-tenleytown-metro-station/3411077/
This is very upsetting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Have your head on a swivel near the Tenleytown metro, multiple women have been clubbed in the head

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/i-couldnt-move-at-all-police-search-for-man-accused-of-striking-woman-on-the-head-outside-tenleytown-metro-station/3411077/
This is very upsetting

Yikes. Crazy story.

[Anonymous]

Why can't we make a rule that people in shelters or voucher housing cannot use drugs? Apparently the Brooks shelter, next to a police station, has such a rule, but some residents just go outside to use drugs with no consequences except to the neighborhood.

[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."

Problem was the voucher queen who took kickbacks from landlords on Connecticut avenue to place people in those buildings. And the 2000+ HUD units lying unused because the HUD Queen didn’t bother to get them repaired. Neither is in jail. Both are out of their jobs. Both were Bowser’s choices. This is on Bowser.

link to this??

[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."

Problem was the voucher queen who took kickbacks from landlords on Connecticut avenue to place people in those buildings. And the 2000+ HUD units lying unused because the HUD Queen didn’t bother to get them repaired. Neither is in jail. Both are out of their jobs. Both were Bowser’s choices. This is on Bowser.

Similar thing happened at the place by the Exxon on 14th st north of Columbia height. One guy was making an insane amount in kickbacks from the residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what Ward 3 voted for. Could have elected David Krukoff, but he was an "evil Republican." So the mayor will continue to fill rental apartments on Connecticut Ave. with unemployable voucher recipients, who will continue to victimize aging Ward 3 libs. Might as well rename it "Ward 8 West."

Oh come on.

I lived in another ward for years. Hearing gunfire (typically not "close", but close enough to hear) was a pretty normal weekend during summer occurrence. Ward 3 is NOWHERE NEAR that. You're nuts if you think it is.

Believe it or not, the other Wards used to be like Ward 3. We are now spiraling in that direction.