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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

I wonder about this. One of the consequences of “equity” and sending voucher recipients to Ward 3 is that communities are broken up. Maybe if these kids were in Anacostia the neighborhood church ladies would have looked out for them. Or the school more attuned to signs of abuse and less scared of being labeled “Karens.” Or even relatives around to check in.

This is despicable derailing nonsense. Plenty of toddlers and children are being terrorized across DC and anyone with half a brain can come up with two dozen reasons why “sending voucher recipients to Ward 3” would actually help the respective families get the services (including MPD attention) they need to find a way out of their horror. But on balance, vouchers had nothing to do with this. Stop exploiting the deaths of two children to advocate for push your own pet policy preferences, which seem to almost exclusively serve the goal of keeping all the dysfunction in DC sequestered in EOTR neighborhoods.

Vouchers have everything to do with the blight and crime that have be fallen the Connecticut Ave corridor. It’s you who are using the death of these poor kids to stifle an uncomfortable conversation. The city has had years to fix this. Time is up.

So you are solely focused on what impacts you and not failures by USAO and CFS that have directly led to the brutal deaths of many kids in DC? Your priority is to highjack focus on dead kids to focus on where they were when killed? Journee was a MD resident. If they died elsewhere, no prob?

There have been dozens of threads on here about vouchers, even more community meetings and hearings. Stifled?

Their deaths were not due to housing. Letting USAO and CFS skate, stifling THAT life and death discussion because you think it will never impact you, when these kids are barely cold is something.

I was also surprised 911 answered promptly and sent help to the correct address, not a given, and hasn’t been for many years.

Well I’ll play your game.

Dad applies for voucher.
Dad gets denied voucher.
Dad cannot house his children.
CPS takes children away and puts into foster care.
Dad does not murder his child.


It’s actually quite easy to see how the voucher plays in here.

We can agree to disagree on whether vouchers are appropriate in well established buildings where families and elderly live. For the record, I don’t think they are. Mixing violent criminals with children and elderly is never a good idea.

And we both agree that the DC child welfare system is wholly inadequate.

Let’s see what we can do with this logic . . .

1. Protected bike lanes are built on CT Ave, as was previously decided many moons ago by DDOT

2. Families living along CT Ave have an safe alternative to using their vehicles to run errands in the neighborhood and around NW DC

3. Deandre Pettus is not reliant on his car for running errands etc.

4. Deandre doesn’t suffer the frustration of being immobilized due to a flat car battery and so never gets angry that morning.

5. Deandre Pettus doesn’t beat his son to death.

You might find the assumptions underlying this hypothetical chain of events to be ridiculous, but those assumptions are no less so than your own.

Just like you don’t see bicycle safety advocates exploiting the deaths of these two children to call out the NIMBYs for blocking the CT Ave bike lane, you should similarly exhibit a modicum of decency and refrain from trying to make stupid arguments about how the tragic deaths of these two children were caused by DC residents using housing vouchers to move to Upper NW.

What a hilarious self-own from a typically ghoulish GGWash mouth-breather.

Predictably, you lack the self-awareness to realize that it is your own self-centered non-sensical arguments that are in fact being taken to the cleaners.

Says the person who has -- in the guise of a hypothetical -- inserted their demand for bike lanes into discussion of the killing of a young child by a parent.

Please seek help. You're sick.

You - and/or your ilk - have been demanding for pages that Frumin put a pause on the use of housing vouchers in Ward 3. Those demands are apparently serious.

Since you apparently can’t figure it out for yourself, I’ll have to spell it out for you. No one is making a serious argument that the deaths of the children were due to a lack of bike lanes. That would be ridiculous.

What they are showing is that the logic of tying these deaths to the voucher program is just as ridiculous and just as offensive.

I trust that you now understand how sick it is to exploit these deaths for pet causes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those very young kids have had a lot of exposure to violence.

Per Housing First/HUD guidelines, even committing a crime in the apartment does not necessarily result in the loss of the voucher. The prior felony DV charge took place in same apt in Connecticut House. CPS should have been keeping an eye on those kids, so foreseeable that this violent man could harm them. The argument with the girlfriend was said to be about the kids, likely re: his treatment of them. So he punched her in the mouth and threatened to shoot her. Other residents have stay away orders against him. The kids were defenseless.

Hope the girls are with someone safe.

Now, all 650 students at their school have also had exposure to the kind of violence families worked hard to earn the money to move to this part of the city to avoid. Truth.

The irony is that the government seemed to have believed that moving violent people into safe neighborhoods would magically make their lives better, but the reality is that everyone's lives are worse now. No one wants violence to happen. And also, no one wants to live in a place where women are thrown out of windows and babies are murdered by their parents. Moving people around doesn't substitute for mental health, social services, and a strong criminal justice system.

Spreading the problem adults around doesn't fix the problem, it just makes it a more widespread problem and thins out scare government resources in every area of the city.

I know nobody actually cares, but the decline of Ct Ave apartments almost certainly means that I will be moving my kid to Virginia or Md for school instead of to NW as previously planned. I won’t raise my kid in an apartment building full of violent criminals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

I wonder about this. One of the consequences of “equity” and sending voucher recipients to Ward 3 is that communities are broken up. Maybe if these kids were in Anacostia the neighborhood church ladies would have looked out for them. Or the school more attuned to signs of abuse and less scared of being labeled “Karens.” Or even relatives around to check in.

This is despicable derailing nonsense. Plenty of toddlers and children are being terrorized across DC and anyone with half a brain can come up with two dozen reasons why “sending voucher recipients to Ward 3” would actually help the respective families get the services (including MPD attention) they need to find a way out of their horror. But on balance, vouchers had nothing to do with this. Stop exploiting the deaths of two children to advocate for push your own pet policy preferences, which seem to almost exclusively serve the goal of keeping all the dysfunction in DC sequestered in EOTR neighborhoods.

Vouchers have everything to do with the blight and crime that have be fallen the Connecticut Ave corridor. It’s you who are using the death of these poor kids to stifle an uncomfortable conversation. The city has had years to fix this. Time is up.

So you are solely focused on what impacts you and not failures by USAO and CFS that have directly led to the brutal deaths of many kids in DC? Your priority is to highjack focus on dead kids to focus on where they were when killed? Journee was a MD resident. If they died elsewhere, no prob?

There have been dozens of threads on here about vouchers, even more community meetings and hearings. Stifled?

Their deaths were not due to housing. Letting USAO and CFS skate, stifling THAT life and death discussion because you think it will never impact you, when these kids are barely cold is something.

I was also surprised 911 answered promptly and sent help to the correct address, not a given, and hasn’t been for many years.

Well I’ll play your game.

Dad applies for voucher.
Dad gets denied voucher.
Dad cannot house his children.
CPS takes children away and puts into foster care.
Dad does not murder his child.


It’s actually quite easy to see how the voucher plays in here.

We can agree to disagree on whether vouchers are appropriate in well established buildings where families and elderly live. For the record, I don’t think they are. Mixing violent criminals with children and elderly is never a good idea.

And we both agree that the DC child welfare system is wholly inadequate.

Let’s see what we can do with this logic . . .

1. Protected bike lanes are built on CT Ave, as was previously decided many moons ago by DDOT

2. Families living along CT Ave have an safe alternative to using their vehicles to run errands in the neighborhood and around NW DC

3. Deandre Pettus is not reliant on his car for running errands etc.

4. Deandre doesn’t suffer the frustration of being immobilized due to a flat car battery and so never gets angry that morning.

5. Deandre Pettus doesn’t beat his son to death.

You might find the assumptions underlying this hypothetical chain of events to be ridiculous, but those assumptions are no less so than your own.

Just like you don’t see bicycle safety advocates exploiting the deaths of these two children to call out the NIMBYs for blocking the CT Ave bike lane, you should similarly exhibit a modicum of decency and refrain from trying to make stupid arguments about how the tragic deaths of these two children were caused by DC residents using housing vouchers to move to Upper NW.

What a hilarious self-own from a typically ghoulish GGWash mouth-breather.

+1 disgusting post.

Well, the proximate cause of the father’s rage was apparently a dead car battery, but yet the NIMBYs on here seem to have no problem drawing some very tenuous connections to conjure up arguments about the kid was actually killed by unconditional vouchers.

If the dad could have gotten around on bike lanes or bus lanes, he wouldn't have needed a car, and the kid would be alive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those very young kids have had a lot of exposure to violence.

Per Housing First/HUD guidelines, even committing a crime in the apartment does not necessarily result in the loss of the voucher. The prior felony DV charge took place in same apt in Connecticut House. CPS should have been keeping an eye on those kids, so foreseeable that this violent man could harm them. The argument with the girlfriend was said to be about the kids, likely re: his treatment of them. So he punched her in the mouth and threatened to shoot her. Other residents have stay away orders against him. The kids were defenseless.

Hope the girls are with someone safe.

Now, all 650 students at their school have also had exposure to the kind of violence families worked hard to earn the money to move to this part of the city to avoid. Truth.

The irony is that the government seemed to have believed that moving violent people into safe neighborhoods would magically make their lives better, but the reality is that everyone's lives are worse now. No one wants violence to happen. And also, no one wants to live in a place where women are thrown out of windows and babies are murdered by their parents. Moving people around doesn't substitute for mental health, social services, and a strong criminal justice system.

Spreading the problem adults around doesn't fix the problem, it just makes it a more widespread problem and thins out scare government resources in every area of the city.

Your three paragraphs reduce neatly to, “I want my safe little Upper NW cocoon back!”

I didn’t think I’d ever encounter the argument that ghettoes are the solution to urban violence, but you’ve yet again set a new bar for nonsense-on-DCUM.

I can’t see a lot of good coming out of this horrific event, but I still hope that having it happen so close to you may, just maybe, inspire you to hold the DC mayor and Council accountable for the disastrous performance of CFSA and other institutions that serve populations less fortunate than yourself.

There is NOTHING wrong with wanting safety. Nothing. That’s what everyone wants, white, black, W7 and W3. This incident and many others exposes that some in DC government have zero interest or ability in actually providing safety but would rather sweep problems under the rug and/or engage in grandstanding social experiments in the name of “equity” that result in disaster. This is not unlike school busing of yore, which most acknowledge as a total failure now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

I wonder about this. One of the consequences of “equity” and sending voucher recipients to Ward 3 is that communities are broken up. Maybe if these kids were in Anacostia the neighborhood church ladies would have looked out for them. Or the school more attuned to signs of abuse and less scared of being labeled “Karens.” Or even relatives around to check in.

This is despicable derailing nonsense. Plenty of toddlers and children are being terrorized across DC and anyone with half a brain can come up with two dozen reasons why “sending voucher recipients to Ward 3” would actually help the respective families get the services (including MPD attention) they need to find a way out of their horror. But on balance, vouchers had nothing to do with this. Stop exploiting the deaths of two children to advocate for push your own pet policy preferences, which seem to almost exclusively serve the goal of keeping all the dysfunction in DC sequestered in EOTR neighborhoods.

Vouchers have everything to do with the blight and crime that have be fallen the Connecticut Ave corridor. It’s you who are using the death of these poor kids to stifle an uncomfortable conversation. The city has had years to fix this. Time is up.

So you are solely focused on what impacts you and not failures by USAO and CFS that have directly led to the brutal deaths of many kids in DC? Your priority is to highjack focus on dead kids to focus on where they were when killed? Journee was a MD resident. If they died elsewhere, no prob?

There have been dozens of threads on here about vouchers, even more community meetings and hearings. Stifled?

Their deaths were not due to housing. Letting USAO and CFS skate, stifling THAT life and death discussion because you think it will never impact you, when these kids are barely cold is something.

I was also surprised 911 answered promptly and sent help to the correct address, not a given, and hasn’t been for many years.

Well I’ll play your game.

Dad applies for voucher.
Dad gets denied voucher.
Dad cannot house his children.
CPS takes children away and puts into foster care.
Dad does not murder his child.


It’s actually quite easy to see how the voucher plays in here.

We can agree to disagree on whether vouchers are appropriate in well established buildings where families and elderly live. For the record, I don’t think they are. Mixing violent criminals with children and elderly is never a good idea.

And we both agree that the DC child welfare system is wholly inadequate.

Let’s see what we can do with this logic . . .

1. Protected bike lanes are built on CT Ave, as was previously decided many moons ago by DDOT

2. Families living along CT Ave have an safe alternative to using their vehicles to run errands in the neighborhood and around NW DC

3. Deandre Pettus is not reliant on his car for running errands etc.

4. Deandre doesn’t suffer the frustration of being immobilized due to a flat car battery and so never gets angry that morning.

5. Deandre Pettus doesn’t beat his son to death.

You might find the assumptions underlying this hypothetical chain of events to be ridiculous, but those assumptions are no less so than your own.

Just like you don’t see bicycle safety advocates exploiting the deaths of these two children to call out the NIMBYs for blocking the CT Ave bike lane, you should similarly exhibit a modicum of decency and refrain from trying to make stupid arguments about how the tragic deaths of these two children were caused by DC residents using housing vouchers to move to Upper NW.

What a hilarious self-own from a typically ghoulish GGWash mouth-breather.

+1 disgusting post.

Well, the proximate cause of the father’s rage was apparently a dead car battery, but yet the NIMBYs on here seem to have no problem drawing some very tenuous connections to conjure up arguments about the kid was actually killed by unconditional vouchers.

Housing First vouchers as implemented in DC are not YIMBY. It’s a failed social program that is related to housing costs but not a remedy for high housing costs. In DC in particular it has little to do with housing costs since the whole issue is that DC priced the vouchers TOO HIGH and distorted the naturally occuring “missing middle” housing in NW as well as the actual rent control programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

I wonder about this. One of the consequences of “equity” and sending voucher recipients to Ward 3 is that communities are broken up. Maybe if these kids were in Anacostia the neighborhood church ladies would have looked out for them. Or the school more attuned to signs of abuse and less scared of being labeled “Karens.” Or even relatives around to check in.

This is despicable derailing nonsense. Plenty of toddlers and children are being terrorized across DC and anyone with half a brain can come up with two dozen reasons why “sending voucher recipients to Ward 3” would actually help the respective families get the services (including MPD attention) they need to find a way out of their horror. But on balance, vouchers had nothing to do with this. Stop exploiting the deaths of two children to advocate for push your own pet policy preferences, which seem to almost exclusively serve the goal of keeping all the dysfunction in DC sequestered in EOTR neighborhoods.

Vouchers have everything to do with the blight and crime that have be fallen the Connecticut Ave corridor. It’s you who are using the death of these poor kids to stifle an uncomfortable conversation. The city has had years to fix this. Time is up.

So you are solely focused on what impacts you and not failures by USAO and CFS that have directly led to the brutal deaths of many kids in DC? Your priority is to highjack focus on dead kids to focus on where they were when killed? Journee was a MD resident. If they died elsewhere, no prob?

There have been dozens of threads on here about vouchers, even more community meetings and hearings. Stifled?

Their deaths were not due to housing. Letting USAO and CFS skate, stifling THAT life and death discussion because you think it will never impact you, when these kids are barely cold is something.

I was also surprised 911 answered promptly and sent help to the correct address, not a given, and hasn’t been for many years.

Well I’ll play your game.

Dad applies for voucher.
Dad gets denied voucher.
Dad cannot house his children.
CPS takes children away and puts into foster care.
Dad does not murder his child.


It’s actually quite easy to see how the voucher plays in here.

We can agree to disagree on whether vouchers are appropriate in well established buildings where families and elderly live. For the record, I don’t think they are. Mixing violent criminals with children and elderly is never a good idea.

And we both agree that the DC child welfare system is wholly inadequate.

Let’s see what we can do with this logic . . .

1. Protected bike lanes are built on CT Ave, as was previously decided many moons ago by DDOT

2. Families living along CT Ave have an safe alternative to using their vehicles to run errands in the neighborhood and around NW DC

3. Deandre Pettus is not reliant on his car for running errands etc.

4. Deandre doesn’t suffer the frustration of being immobilized due to a flat car battery and so never gets angry that morning.

5. Deandre Pettus doesn’t beat his son to death.

You might find the assumptions underlying this hypothetical chain of events to be ridiculous, but those assumptions are no less so than your own.

Just like you don’t see bicycle safety advocates exploiting the deaths of these two children to call out the NIMBYs for blocking the CT Ave bike lane, you should similarly exhibit a modicum of decency and refrain from trying to make stupid arguments about how the tragic deaths of these two children were caused by DC residents using housing vouchers to move to Upper NW.

What a hilarious self-own from a typically ghoulish GGWash mouth-breather.

+1 disgusting post.

Well, the proximate cause of the father’s rage was apparently a dead car battery, but yet the NIMBYs on here seem to have no problem drawing some very tenuous connections to conjure up arguments about the kid was actually killed by unconditional vouchers.

If the dad could have gotten around on bike lanes or bus lanes, he wouldn't have needed a car, and the kid would be alive.

Please cut it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those very young kids have had a lot of exposure to violence.

Per Housing First/HUD guidelines, even committing a crime in the apartment does not necessarily result in the loss of the voucher. The prior felony DV charge took place in same apt in Connecticut House. CPS should have been keeping an eye on those kids, so foreseeable that this violent man could harm them. The argument with the girlfriend was said to be about the kids, likely re: his treatment of them. So he punched her in the mouth and threatened to shoot her. Other residents have stay away orders against him. The kids were defenseless.

Hope the girls are with someone safe.

Now, all 650 students at their school have also had exposure to the kind of violence families worked hard to earn the money to move to this part of the city to avoid. Truth.

The irony is that the government seemed to have believed that moving violent people into safe neighborhoods would magically make their lives better, but the reality is that everyone's lives are worse now. No one wants violence to happen. And also, no one wants to live in a place where women are thrown out of windows and babies are murdered by their parents. Moving people around doesn't substitute for mental health, social services, and a strong criminal justice system.

Spreading the problem adults around doesn't fix the problem, it just makes it a more widespread problem and thins out scare government resources in every area of the city.

Your three paragraphs reduce neatly to, “I want my safe little Upper NW cocoon back!”

I didn’t think I’d ever encounter the argument that ghettoes are the solution to urban violence, but you’ve yet again set a new bar for nonsense-on-DCUM.

I can’t see a lot of good coming out of this horrific event, but I still hope that having it happen so close to you may, just maybe, inspire you to hold the DC mayor and Council accountable for the disastrous performance of CFSA and other institutions that serve populations less fortunate than yourself.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Save your outrage. Read better.

It is what you are saying. Here, I’ll explain it to you.

You say:

The irony is that the government seemed to have believed that moving violent people into safe neighborhoods would magically make their lives better, but the reality is that everyone's lives are worse now.

You are complaining that vouchers have made life in your neighborhood worse for you. That may be the case, but it’s a massive stretch to argue that the lives of voucher recipients are worse off.

And also, no one wants to live in a place where women are thrown out of windows and babies are murdered by their parents.

But it’s OK if these things happen in another part of the city? Because they would have and, in fact, do on a regular basis.

Spreading the problem adults around doesn't fix the problem, it just makes it a more widespread problem and thins out scare government resources in every area of the city.

. . . which leads us to the corollary that those receiving voucher recipients would be better off - because they could more efficiently receive services - if they were all clustered together in one part of the city, that is, in a ghetto.

If I’m missing something here, please enlighten us as to what you really meant. I really don’t want to believe that there are people who seriously advocate ghettoization in 2024.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those very young kids have had a lot of exposure to violence.

Per Housing First/HUD guidelines, even committing a crime in the apartment does not necessarily result in the loss of the voucher. The prior felony DV charge took place in same apt in Connecticut House. CPS should have been keeping an eye on those kids, so foreseeable that this violent man could harm them. The argument with the girlfriend was said to be about the kids, likely re: his treatment of them. So he punched her in the mouth and threatened to shoot her. Other residents have stay away orders against him. The kids were defenseless.

Hope the girls are with someone safe.

Now, all 650 students at their school have also had exposure to the kind of violence families worked hard to earn the money to move to this part of the city to avoid. Truth.

The irony is that the government seemed to have believed that moving violent people into safe neighborhoods would magically make their lives better, but the reality is that everyone's lives are worse now. No one wants violence to happen. And also, no one wants to live in a place where women are thrown out of windows and babies are murdered by their parents. Moving people around doesn't substitute for mental health, social services, and a strong criminal justice system.

Spreading the problem adults around doesn't fix the problem, it just makes it a more widespread problem and thins out scare government resources in every area of the city.

Your three paragraphs reduce neatly to, “I want my safe little Upper NW cocoon back!”

I didn’t think I’d ever encounter the argument that ghettoes are the solution to urban violence, but you’ve yet again set a new bar for nonsense-on-DCUM.

I can’t see a lot of good coming out of this horrific event, but I still hope that having it happen so close to you may, just maybe, inspire you to hold the DC mayor and Council accountable for the disastrous performance of CFSA and other institutions that serve populations less fortunate than yourself.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Save your outrage. Read better.

It is what you are saying. Here, I’ll explain it to you.

You say:

The irony is that the government seemed to have believed that moving violent people into safe neighborhoods would magically make their lives better, but the reality is that everyone's lives are worse now.

You are complaining that vouchers have made life in your neighborhood worse for you. That may be the case, but it’s a massive stretch to argue that the lives of voucher recipients are worse off.

And also, no one wants to live in a place where women are thrown out of windows and babies are murdered by their parents.

But it’s OK if these things happen in another part of the city? Because they would have and, in fact, do on a regular basis.

Spreading the problem adults around doesn't fix the problem, it just makes it a more widespread problem and thins out scare government resources in every area of the city.

. . . which leads us to the corollary that those receiving voucher recipients would be better off - because they could more efficiently receive services - if they were all clustered together in one part of the city, that is, in a ghetto.

If I’m missing something here, please enlighten us as to what you really meant. I really don’t want to believe that there are people who seriously advocate ghettoization in 2024.

A 5 year old is DEAD because his father was handed a no-strings-attached housing voucher instead of being subjected to oversight like he should have been. It’s only you who are stigmatizing all-black neighborhoods as “ghettos.” What that family needed was intensive social services and eyes on them. Instead they got a NW voucher because “equity” was the most important value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

I wonder about this. One of the consequences of “equity” and sending voucher recipients to Ward 3 is that communities are broken up. Maybe if these kids were in Anacostia the neighborhood church ladies would have looked out for them. Or the school more attuned to signs of abuse and less scared of being labeled “Karens.” Or even relatives around to check in.

This is despicable derailing nonsense. Plenty of toddlers and children are being terrorized across DC and anyone with half a brain can come up with two dozen reasons why “sending voucher recipients to Ward 3” would actually help the respective families get the services (including MPD attention) they need to find a way out of their horror. But on balance, vouchers had nothing to do with this. Stop exploiting the deaths of two children to advocate for push your own pet policy preferences, which seem to almost exclusively serve the goal of keeping all the dysfunction in DC sequestered in EOTR neighborhoods.

Vouchers have everything to do with the blight and crime that have be fallen the Connecticut Ave corridor. It’s you who are using the death of these poor kids to stifle an uncomfortable conversation. The city has had years to fix this. Time is up.

So you are solely focused on what impacts you and not failures by USAO and CFS that have directly led to the brutal deaths of many kids in DC? Your priority is to highjack focus on dead kids to focus on where they were when killed? Journee was a MD resident. If they died elsewhere, no prob?

There have been dozens of threads on here about vouchers, even more community meetings and hearings. Stifled?

Their deaths were not due to housing. Letting USAO and CFS skate, stifling THAT life and death discussion because you think it will never impact you, when these kids are barely cold is something.

I was also surprised 911 answered promptly and sent help to the correct address, not a given, and hasn’t been for many years.

Well I’ll play your game.

Dad applies for voucher.
Dad gets denied voucher.
Dad cannot house his children.
CPS takes children away and puts into foster care.
Dad does not murder his child.


It’s actually quite easy to see how the voucher plays in here.

We can agree to disagree on whether vouchers are appropriate in well established buildings where families and elderly live. For the record, I don’t think they are. Mixing violent criminals with children and elderly is never a good idea.

And we both agree that the DC child welfare system is wholly inadequate.

Let’s see what we can do with this logic . . .

1. Protected bike lanes are built on CT Ave, as was previously decided many moons ago by DDOT

2. Families living along CT Ave have an safe alternative to using their vehicles to run errands in the neighborhood and around NW DC

3. Deandre Pettus is not reliant on his car for running errands etc.

4. Deandre doesn’t suffer the frustration of being immobilized due to a flat car battery and so never gets angry that morning.

5. Deandre Pettus doesn’t beat his son to death.

You might find the assumptions underlying this hypothetical chain of events to be ridiculous, but those assumptions are no less so than your own.

Just like you don’t see bicycle safety advocates exploiting the deaths of these two children to call out the NIMBYs for blocking the CT Ave bike lane, you should similarly exhibit a modicum of decency and refrain from trying to make stupid arguments about how the tragic deaths of these two children were caused by DC residents using housing vouchers to move to Upper NW.

What a hilarious self-own from a typically ghoulish GGWash mouth-breather.

+1 disgusting post.

Well, the proximate cause of the father’s rage was apparently a dead car battery, but yet the NIMBYs on here seem to have no problem drawing some very tenuous connections to conjure up arguments about the kid was actually killed by unconditional vouchers.

Housing First vouchers as implemented in DC are not YIMBY. It’s a failed social program that is related to housing costs but not a remedy for high housing costs. In DC in particular it has little to do with housing costs since the whole issue is that DC priced the vouchers TOO HIGH and distorted the naturally occuring “missing middle” housing in NW as well as the actual rent control programs.

No one on here is arguing it’s a good program. It’s not and in need of desperate reform. But it’s stupid, disgusting, and offensive to use these kids’ violent deaths to make that point. Just like it would be stupid, disgusting, and offensive to say that the lack of bike lanes on CT Ave contributed to the death of Deandre Pettus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please show me a house or condo that will fit a family of 5 with a dual income before taxes of $140k, in Ward 3. We are already paying $2k a month for daycare. We can’t afford a mortgage currently higher than our rent of $2200 which is already insanely cheap and only because we had the benefit of finding an outdated unit in a rent controlled building. I’ll wait for your links to those available houses/condos.

Nome of that is worth subjecting my children to what you say you've witnessed over the years. Literally none. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those very young kids have had a lot of exposure to violence.

Per Housing First/HUD guidelines, even committing a crime in the apartment does not necessarily result in the loss of the voucher. The prior felony DV charge took place in same apt in Connecticut House. CPS should have been keeping an eye on those kids, so foreseeable that this violent man could harm them. The argument with the girlfriend was said to be about the kids, likely re: his treatment of them. So he punched her in the mouth and threatened to shoot her. Other residents have stay away orders against him. The kids were defenseless.

Hope the girls are with someone safe.

Now, all 650 students at their school have also had exposure to the kind of violence families worked hard to earn the money to move to this part of the city to avoid. Truth.

The irony is that the government seemed to have believed that moving violent people into safe neighborhoods would magically make their lives better, but the reality is that everyone's lives are worse now. No one wants violence to happen. And also, no one wants to live in a place where women are thrown out of windows and babies are murdered by their parents. Moving people around doesn't substitute for mental health, social services, and a strong criminal justice system.

Spreading the problem adults around doesn't fix the problem, it just makes it a more widespread problem and thins out scare government resources in every area of the city.

Your three paragraphs reduce neatly to, “I want my safe little Upper NW cocoon back!”

I didn’t think I’d ever encounter the argument that ghettoes are the solution to urban violence, but you’ve yet again set a new bar for nonsense-on-DCUM.

I can’t see a lot of good coming out of this horrific event, but I still hope that having it happen so close to you may, just maybe, inspire you to hold the DC mayor and Council accountable for the disastrous performance of CFSA and other institutions that serve populations less fortunate than yourself.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Save your outrage. Read better.

It is what you are saying. Here, I’ll explain it to you.

You say:

The irony is that the government seemed to have believed that moving violent people into safe neighborhoods would magically make their lives better, but the reality is that everyone's lives are worse now.

You are complaining that vouchers have made life in your neighborhood worse for you. That may be the case, but it’s a massive stretch to argue that the lives of voucher recipients are worse off.

And also, no one wants to live in a place where women are thrown out of windows and babies are murdered by their parents.

But it’s OK if these things happen in another part of the city? Because they would have and, in fact, do on a regular basis.

Spreading the problem adults around doesn't fix the problem, it just makes it a more widespread problem and thins out scare government resources in every area of the city.

. . . which leads us to the corollary that those receiving voucher recipients would be better off - because they could more efficiently receive services - if they were all clustered together in one part of the city, that is, in a ghetto.

If I’m missing something here, please enlighten us as to what you really meant. I really don’t want to believe that there are people who seriously advocate ghettoization in 2024.

A 5 year old is DEAD because his father was handed a no-strings-attached housing voucher instead of being subjected to oversight like he should have been. It’s only you who are stigmatizing all-black neighborhoods as “ghettos.” What that family needed was intensive social services and eyes on them. Instead they got a NW voucher because “equity” was the most important value.

It’s telling that you’re now brining race into the discussion. No one else has mentioned it.

What you apparently want is for all families requiring intensive CYFS support to be clustered together in a single neighborhood. That is, by definition, a ghetto. Feel free to look up that definition if you are confused.

There is no such thing as a “NW voucher”, but again it’s telling you that refer to the program in this manner. You just can’t get away from the argument - stupid, disgusting, and offensive that it is - that the reason these kids are DEAD is that a family member was given a voucher that allowed them to move to YOUR neighborhood.

Yes, this family needed intensive social services. CFSA failed to provide those services despite the family being on their books after the father was arrested for domestic violence. What the hell makes you feel that anyone would believe that CFSA would have been better able to provide such services if the Council mandated that all voucher recipients had to receive their support?

But this is not really about the two dead children, is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

I wonder about this. One of the consequences of “equity” and sending voucher recipients to Ward 3 is that communities are broken up. Maybe if these kids were in Anacostia the neighborhood church ladies would have looked out for them. Or the school more attuned to signs of abuse and less scared of being labeled “Karens.” Or even relatives around to check in.

This is despicable derailing nonsense. Plenty of toddlers and children are being terrorized across DC and anyone with half a brain can come up with two dozen reasons why “sending voucher recipients to Ward 3” would actually help the respective families get the services (including MPD attention) they need to find a way out of their horror. But on balance, vouchers had nothing to do with this. Stop exploiting the deaths of two children to advocate for push your own pet policy preferences, which seem to almost exclusively serve the goal of keeping all the dysfunction in DC sequestered in EOTR neighborhoods.

Vouchers have everything to do with the blight and crime that have be fallen the Connecticut Ave corridor. It’s you who are using the death of these poor kids to stifle an uncomfortable conversation. The city has had years to fix this. Time is up.

So you are solely focused on what impacts you and not failures by USAO and CFS that have directly led to the brutal deaths of many kids in DC? Your priority is to highjack focus on dead kids to focus on where they were when killed? Journee was a MD resident. If they died elsewhere, no prob?

There have been dozens of threads on here about vouchers, even more community meetings and hearings. Stifled?

Their deaths were not due to housing. Letting USAO and CFS skate, stifling THAT life and death discussion because you think it will never impact you, when these kids are barely cold is something.

I was also surprised 911 answered promptly and sent help to the correct address, not a given, and hasn’t been for many years.

Well I’ll play your game.

Dad applies for voucher.
Dad gets denied voucher.
Dad cannot house his children.
CPS takes children away and puts into foster care.
Dad does not murder his child.


It’s actually quite easy to see how the voucher plays in here.

We can agree to disagree on whether vouchers are appropriate in well established buildings where families and elderly live. For the record, I don’t think they are. Mixing violent criminals with children and elderly is never a good idea.

And we both agree that the DC child welfare system is wholly inadequate.

Let’s see what we can do with this logic . . .

1. Protected bike lanes are built on CT Ave, as was previously decided many moons ago by DDOT

2. Families living along CT Ave have an safe alternative to using their vehicles to run errands in the neighborhood and around NW DC

3. Deandre Pettus is not reliant on his car for running errands etc.

4. Deandre doesn’t suffer the frustration of being immobilized due to a flat car battery and so never gets angry that morning.

5. Deandre Pettus doesn’t beat his son to death.

You might find the assumptions underlying this hypothetical chain of events to be ridiculous, but those assumptions are no less so than your own.

Just like you don’t see bicycle safety advocates exploiting the deaths of these two children to call out the NIMBYs for blocking the CT Ave bike lane, you should similarly exhibit a modicum of decency and refrain from trying to make stupid arguments about how the tragic deaths of these two children were caused by DC residents using housing vouchers to move to Upper NW.

What a hilarious self-own from a typically ghoulish GGWash mouth-breather.

+1 disgusting post.

Well, the proximate cause of the father’s rage was apparently a dead car battery, but yet the NIMBYs on here seem to have no problem drawing some very tenuous connections to conjure up arguments about the kid was actually killed by unconditional vouchers.

Housing First vouchers as implemented in DC are not YIMBY. It’s a failed social program that is related to housing costs but not a remedy for high housing costs. In DC in particular it has little to do with housing costs since the whole issue is that DC priced the vouchers TOO HIGH and distorted the naturally occuring “missing middle” housing in NW as well as the actual rent control programs.

No one on here is arguing it’s a good program. It’s not and in need of desperate reform. But it’s stupid, disgusting, and offensive to use these kids’ violent deaths to make that point. Just like it would be stupid, disgusting, and offensive to say that the lack of bike lanes on CT Ave contributed to the death of Deandre Pettus.

No, it’s truly not. This shows the voucher program is a failure on two levels: it failed the family by not getting them services and it failed the neighborhood by letting the building become increasingly violent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

I wonder about this. One of the consequences of “equity” and sending voucher recipients to Ward 3 is that communities are broken up. Maybe if these kids were in Anacostia the neighborhood church ladies would have looked out for them. Or the school more attuned to signs of abuse and less scared of being labeled “Karens.” Or even relatives around to check in.

This is despicable derailing nonsense. Plenty of toddlers and children are being terrorized across DC and anyone with half a brain can come up with two dozen reasons why “sending voucher recipients to Ward 3” would actually help the respective families get the services (including MPD attention) they need to find a way out of their horror. But on balance, vouchers had nothing to do with this. Stop exploiting the deaths of two children to advocate for push your own pet policy preferences, which seem to almost exclusively serve the goal of keeping all the dysfunction in DC sequestered in EOTR neighborhoods.

Vouchers have everything to do with the blight and crime that have be fallen the Connecticut Ave corridor. It’s you who are using the death of these poor kids to stifle an uncomfortable conversation. The city has had years to fix this. Time is up.

So you are solely focused on what impacts you and not failures by USAO and CFS that have directly led to the brutal deaths of many kids in DC? Your priority is to highjack focus on dead kids to focus on where they were when killed? Journee was a MD resident. If they died elsewhere, no prob?

There have been dozens of threads on here about vouchers, even more community meetings and hearings. Stifled?

Their deaths were not due to housing. Letting USAO and CFS skate, stifling THAT life and death discussion because you think it will never impact you, when these kids are barely cold is something.

I was also surprised 911 answered promptly and sent help to the correct address, not a given, and hasn’t been for many years.

Well I’ll play your game.

Dad applies for voucher.
Dad gets denied voucher.
Dad cannot house his children.
CPS takes children away and puts into foster care.
Dad does not murder his child.


It’s actually quite easy to see how the voucher plays in here.

We can agree to disagree on whether vouchers are appropriate in well established buildings where families and elderly live. For the record, I don’t think they are. Mixing violent criminals with children and elderly is never a good idea.

And we both agree that the DC child welfare system is wholly inadequate.

Let’s see what we can do with this logic . . .

1. Protected bike lanes are built on CT Ave, as was previously decided many moons ago by DDOT

2. Families living along CT Ave have an safe alternative to using their vehicles to run errands in the neighborhood and around NW DC

3. Deandre Pettus is not reliant on his car for running errands etc.

4. Deandre doesn’t suffer the frustration of being immobilized due to a flat car battery and so never gets angry that morning.

5. Deandre Pettus doesn’t beat his son to death.

You might find the assumptions underlying this hypothetical chain of events to be ridiculous, but those assumptions are no less so than your own.

Just like you don’t see bicycle safety advocates exploiting the deaths of these two children to call out the NIMBYs for blocking the CT Ave bike lane, you should similarly exhibit a modicum of decency and refrain from trying to make stupid arguments about how the tragic deaths of these two children were caused by DC residents using housing vouchers to move to Upper NW.

All I can do is think how obtuse you are. It is these events that spur action and open eyes to what's really happening.

You're correct, NIMBY or anyone's for that matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those very young kids have had a lot of exposure to violence.

Per Housing First/HUD guidelines, even committing a crime in the apartment does not necessarily result in the loss of the voucher. The prior felony DV charge took place in same apt in Connecticut House. CPS should have been keeping an eye on those kids, so foreseeable that this violent man could harm them. The argument with the girlfriend was said to be about the kids, likely re: his treatment of them. So he punched her in the mouth and threatened to shoot her. Other residents have stay away orders against him. The kids were defenseless.

Hope the girls are with someone safe.

Now, all 650 students at their school have also had exposure to the kind of violence families worked hard to earn the money to move to this part of the city to avoid. Truth.

The irony is that the government seemed to have believed that moving violent people into safe neighborhoods would magically make their lives better, but the reality is that everyone's lives are worse now. No one wants violence to happen. And also, no one wants to live in a place where women are thrown out of windows and babies are murdered by their parents. Moving people around doesn't substitute for mental health, social services, and a strong criminal justice system.

Spreading the problem adults around doesn't fix the problem, it just makes it a more widespread problem and thins out scare government resources in every area of the city.

Your three paragraphs reduce neatly to, “I want my safe little Upper NW cocoon back!”

I didn’t think I’d ever encounter the argument that ghettoes are the solution to urban violence, but you’ve yet again set a new bar for nonsense-on-DCUM.

I can’t see a lot of good coming out of this horrific event, but I still hope that having it happen so close to you may, just maybe, inspire you to hold the DC mayor and Council accountable for the disastrous performance of CFSA and other institutions that serve populations less fortunate than yourself.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Save your outrage. Read better.

It is what you are saying. Here, I’ll explain it to you.

You say:

The irony is that the government seemed to have believed that moving violent people into safe neighborhoods would magically make their lives better, but the reality is that everyone's lives are worse now.

You are complaining that vouchers have made life in your neighborhood worse for you. That may be the case, but it’s a massive stretch to argue that the lives of voucher recipients are worse off.

And also, no one wants to live in a place where women are thrown out of windows and babies are murdered by their parents.

But it’s OK if these things happen in another part of the city? Because they would have and, in fact, do on a regular basis.

Spreading the problem adults around doesn't fix the problem, it just makes it a more widespread problem and thins out scare government resources in every area of the city.

. . . which leads us to the corollary that those receiving voucher recipients would be better off - because they could more efficiently receive services - if they were all clustered together in one part of the city, that is, in a ghetto.

If I’m missing something here, please enlighten us as to what you really meant. I really don’t want to believe that there are people who seriously advocate ghettoization in 2024.

A 5 year old is DEAD because his father was handed a no-strings-attached housing voucher instead of being subjected to oversight like he should have been. It’s only you who are stigmatizing all-black neighborhoods as “ghettos.” What that family needed was intensive social services and eyes on them. Instead they got a NW voucher because “equity” was the most important value.

It’s telling that you’re now brining race into the discussion. No one else has mentioned it.

What you apparently want is for all families requiring intensive CYFS support to be clustered together in a single neighborhood. That is, by definition, a ghetto. Feel free to look up that definition if you are confused.

There is no such thing as a “NW voucher”, but again it’s telling you that refer to the program in this manner. You just can’t get away from the argument - stupid, disgusting, and offensive that it is - that the reason these kids are DEAD is that a family member was given a voucher that allowed them to move to YOUR neighborhood.

Yes, this family needed intensive social services. CFSA failed to provide those services despite the family being on their books after the father was arrested for domestic violence. What the hell makes you feel that anyone would believe that CFSA would have been better able to provide such services if the Council mandated that all voucher recipients had to receive their support?

But this is not really about the two dead children, is it?

There absolutely are NW vouchers in that DC raised the amount of voucher reimbursement specifically to match (actually exceed) market rent in NW. This is all a matter of public record.

And families/individuals in need of intense social services should be housed in buildings that provide that. Not sent to de facto zero-barrier private homeless shelters where not only do they get no services, but the private landlord is prevented from protecting other tenants because they cannot evict or screen them.

The Housing First approach DC had implemented is an absolute abject failure and this is just one awful example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those very young kids have had a lot of exposure to violence.

Per Housing First/HUD guidelines, even committing a crime in the apartment does not necessarily result in the loss of the voucher. The prior felony DV charge took place in same apt in Connecticut House. CPS should have been keeping an eye on those kids, so foreseeable that this violent man could harm them. The argument with the girlfriend was said to be about the kids, likely re: his treatment of them. So he punched her in the mouth and threatened to shoot her. Other residents have stay away orders against him. The kids were defenseless.

Hope the girls are with someone safe.

Now, all 650 students at their school have also had exposure to the kind of violence families worked hard to earn the money to move to this part of the city to avoid. Truth.

The irony is that the government seemed to have believed that moving violent people into safe neighborhoods would magically make their lives better, but the reality is that everyone's lives are worse now. No one wants violence to happen. And also, no one wants to live in a place where women are thrown out of windows and babies are murdered by their parents. Moving people around doesn't substitute for mental health, social services, and a strong criminal justice system.

Spreading the problem adults around doesn't fix the problem, it just makes it a more widespread problem and thins out scare government resources in every area of the city.

I know nobody actually cares, but the decline of Ct Ave apartments almost certainly means that I will be moving my kid to Virginia or Md for school instead of to NW as previously planned. I won’t raise my kid in an apartment building full of violent criminals.

I care.