Stabbing at The Brandywine in 4500 block Connecticut Ave. NW DC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 folks love to argue that they live on the city and not in the suburbs. Well, now you’re really a part of us. Welcome!

It’s remarkable how 30 years of progress could be dismantled so quickly.

If Bowser had made a campaign pledge to spread crime "equitably" to all areas of the District, then she could announce "Mission Accomplished!"

Ward 3 “burden sharing” for equity has been a pretty explicit policy priority throughout Bowser’s time in office. Not sure why folks decided not to pay attention.

Do you think Bowser would have been transparent and said "I'm going to spread violent crime, thefts, disorder, vagrancy and other social problems to your neighborhood and then keep raising your taxes to pay for the "burden sharing"?

I’m honestly curious what people thought Bowser was doing. It’s not like she was hiding anything.

There was the 2016 shelter plan. The 2018 affordable housing production goals. DHCA in 2019 intentionally setting policy to over-estimate fair market rent for housing choice vouchers with the double whammy of undercutting rent control. All of this stuff individually and in totality was done with the express purpose of increasing Ward 3 “burden sharing”.

People can just read the reports themselves.
https://housing.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/housingdc/page_content/attachments/Housing%20Equity%20Report%2010-15-19.pdf

When they see talk of “fair share” and projections that put 2/3 of new affordable housing in wards 2, 3 and 4, it’s just not clear how people could not understand what this meant. What do people think they are talking about when they see the world “vibrant”?

It was all extremely transparent, if you bothered to pay attention.

Does “vibrant” mean vouchers? We thought it meant Urbanist, sustainable, gentle dense-mixed use that also yields affordable housing.

According to the Comp Plan that I am sure that you supported, it meant:

“locating special needs housing more equitably so that all neighborhoods accept their fair share”

Where “special needs housing” includes group homes and housing for “homeless, troubled youth, elderly, foster children, ex-offenders”.

That’s the vibrant, mixed use urbanism that folks fought for and congratulations, you got it.
https://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/op/Vision%20for%20Inclusive%20CIty%202004.pdf

W3 already had PIW, multiple shelters and multiple halfway houses.

Yup. And Bowser said that it was still not enough and still wasn’t accommodating its fair share. So here we are with no place left for people to do with piece of mind except the suburbs.

[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:Ward 3 folks love to argue that they live on the city and not in the suburbs. Well, now you’re really a part of us. Welcome!

It’s remarkable how 30 years of progress could be dismantled so quickly.

If Bowser had made a campaign pledge to spread crime "equitably" to all areas of the District, then she could announce "Mission Accomplished!"

Ward 3 “burden sharing” for equity has been a pretty explicit policy priority throughout Bowser’s time in office. Not sure why folks decided not to pay attention.

Do you think Bowser would have been transparent and said "I'm going to spread violent crime, thefts, disorder, vagrancy and other social problems to your neighborhood and then keep raising your taxes to pay for the "burden sharing"?

I’m honestly curious what people thought Bowser was doing. It’s not like she was hiding anything.

There was the 2016 shelter plan. The 2018 affordable housing production goals. DHCA in 2019 intentionally setting policy to over-estimate fair market rent for housing choice vouchers with the double whammy of undercutting rent control. All of this stuff individually and in totality was done with the express purpose of increasing Ward 3 “burden sharing”.

People can just read the reports themselves.
https://housing.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/housingdc/page_content/attachments/Housing%20Equity%20Report%2010-15-19.pdf

When they see talk of “fair share” and projections that put 2/3 of new affordable housing in wards 2, 3 and 4, it’s just not clear how people could not understand what this meant. What do people think they are talking about when they see the world “vibrant”?

It was all extremely transparent, if you bothered to pay attention.

Does “vibrant” mean vouchers? We thought it meant Urbanist, sustainable, gentle dense-mixed use that also yields affordable housing.

According to the Comp Plan that I am sure that you supported, it meant:

“locating special needs housing more equitably so that all neighborhoods accept their fair share”

Where “special needs housing” includes group homes and housing for “homeless, troubled youth, elderly, foster children, ex-offenders”.

That’s the vibrant, mixed use urbanism that folks fought for and congratulations, you got it.
https://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/op/Vision%20for%20Inclusive%20CIty%202004.pdf

Not CityRidge?

No, City Ridge came in under the plan to build ugly, dark caverns with chain retail. The only thing good about that development is they retained the Fannie Mae facade and lawn. The rest is dark and soulless.

Couldn’t agree more. What a shitty complex of hideous design and why must all new construction in DC be so unappealing?

Read DC’s new development guidelines for Wisconsin Ave. City Ridge and the big building next to it are DC’s vision for the avenue from Glover Pk to the Maryland line, only taller.

City Ridge is fine, the building next to it under construction however is awful and so will be the building that will replace Mazza Gallerie.

[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:Ward 3 folks love to argue that they live on the city and not in the suburbs. Well, now you’re really a part of us. Welcome!

It’s remarkable how 30 years of progress could be dismantled so quickly.

If Bowser had made a campaign pledge to spread crime "equitably" to all areas of the District, then she could announce "Mission Accomplished!"

Ward 3 “burden sharing” for equity has been a pretty explicit policy priority throughout Bowser’s time in office. Not sure why folks decided not to pay attention.

Do you think Bowser would have been transparent and said "I'm going to spread violent crime, thefts, disorder, vagrancy and other social problems to your neighborhood and then keep raising your taxes to pay for the "burden sharing"?

I’m honestly curious what people thought Bowser was doing. It’s not like she was hiding anything.

There was the 2016 shelter plan. The 2018 affordable housing production goals. DHCA in 2019 intentionally setting policy to over-estimate fair market rent for housing choice vouchers with the double whammy of undercutting rent control. All of this stuff individually and in totality was done with the express purpose of increasing Ward 3 “burden sharing”.

People can just read the reports themselves.
https://housing.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/housingdc/page_content/attachments/Housing%20Equity%20Report%2010-15-19.pdf

When they see talk of “fair share” and projections that put 2/3 of new affordable housing in wards 2, 3 and 4, it’s just not clear how people could not understand what this meant. What do people think they are talking about when they see the world “vibrant”?

It was all extremely transparent, if you bothered to pay attention.

Does “vibrant” mean vouchers? We thought it meant Urbanist, sustainable, gentle dense-mixed use that also yields affordable housing.

According to the Comp Plan that I am sure that you supported, it meant:

“locating special needs housing more equitably so that all neighborhoods accept their fair share”

Where “special needs housing” includes group homes and housing for “homeless, troubled youth, elderly, foster children, ex-offenders”.

That’s the vibrant, mixed use urbanism that folks fought for and congratulations, you got it.
https://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/op/Vision%20for%20Inclusive%20CIty%202004.pdf

Not CityRidge?

No, City Ridge came in under the plan to build ugly, dark caverns with chain retail. The only thing good about that development is they retained the Fannie Mae facade and lawn. The rest is dark and soulless.

Couldn’t agree more. What a shitty complex of hideous design and why must all new construction in DC be so unappealing?

Read DC’s new development guidelines for Wisconsin Ave. City Ridge and the big building next to it are DC’s vision for the avenue from Glover Pk to the Maryland line, only taller.

City Ridge is fine, the building next to it under construction however is awful and so will be the building that will replace Mazza Gallerie.

Yeah, the ugly new development next to City Ridge is cheap stick-built construction. I’d be surprised if it’s designed to last 40 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still don’t know why Ward 3 voters elected someone who go actively works against your interests.

Because nobody would deign to vote for a Republican in the midst of MAGA craziness. It was extremely misguided.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don’t know why Ward 3 voters elected someone who go actively works against your interests.

Because nobody would deign to vote for a Republican in the midst of MAGA craziness. It was extremely misguided.

What’s so ironic then is that a number of Ward 3 ANC commissioners who claim to be progressives let themselves be led around by a MAGA political consultant who now works for the development industry.

[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:Ward 3 folks love to argue that they live on the city and not in the suburbs. Well, now you’re really a part of us. Welcome!

It’s remarkable how 30 years of progress could be dismantled so quickly.

If Bowser had made a campaign pledge to spread crime "equitably" to all areas of the District, then she could announce "Mission Accomplished!"

Ward 3 “burden sharing” for equity has been a pretty explicit policy priority throughout Bowser’s time in office. Not sure why folks decided not to pay attention.

Do you think Bowser would have been transparent and said "I'm going to spread violent crime, thefts, disorder, vagrancy and other social problems to your neighborhood and then keep raising your taxes to pay for the "burden sharing"?

I’m honestly curious what people thought Bowser was doing. It’s not like she was hiding anything.

There was the 2016 shelter plan. The 2018 affordable housing production goals. DHCA in 2019 intentionally setting policy to over-estimate fair market rent for housing choice vouchers with the double whammy of undercutting rent control. All of this stuff individually and in totality was done with the express purpose of increasing Ward 3 “burden sharing”.

People can just read the reports themselves.
https://housing.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/housingdc/page_content/attachments/Housing%20Equity%20Report%2010-15-19.pdf

When they see talk of “fair share” and projections that put 2/3 of new affordable housing in wards 2, 3 and 4, it’s just not clear how people could not understand what this meant. What do people think they are talking about when they see the world “vibrant”?

It was all extremely transparent, if you bothered to pay attention.

Does “vibrant” mean vouchers? We thought it meant Urbanist, sustainable, gentle dense-mixed use that also yields affordable housing.

According to the Comp Plan that I am sure that you supported, it meant:

“locating special needs housing more equitably so that all neighborhoods accept their fair share”

Where “special needs housing” includes group homes and housing for “homeless, troubled youth, elderly, foster children, ex-offenders”.

That’s the vibrant, mixed use urbanism that folks fought for and congratulations, you got it.
https://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/op/Vision%20for%20Inclusive%20CIty%202004.pdf

Not CityRidge?

No, City Ridge came in under the plan to build ugly, dark caverns with chain retail. The only thing good about that development is they retained the Fannie Mae facade and lawn. The rest is dark and soulless.

Couldn’t agree more. What a shitty complex of hideous design and why must all new construction in DC be so unappealing?

Read DC’s new development guidelines for Wisconsin Ave. City Ridge and the big building next to it are DC’s vision for the avenue from Glover Pk to the Maryland line, only taller.

City Ridge is fine, the building next to it under construction however is awful and so will be the building that will replace Mazza Gallerie.

Yeah, the ugly new development next to City Ridge is cheap stick-built construction. I’d be surprised if it’s designed to last 40 years.

The exterior trim and cladding--yikes. And some of the apartments are extremely expensive $9,000+. However, I don't want it to be empty for the neighborhood's sake. We don't need more nuisance buildings .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 folks love to argue that they live on the city and not in the suburbs. Well, now you’re really a part of us. Welcome!

It’s remarkable how 30 years of progress could be dismantled so quickly.

If Bowser had made a campaign pledge to spread crime "equitably" to all areas of the District, then she could announce "Mission Accomplished!"

Ward 3 “burden sharing” for equity has been a pretty explicit policy priority throughout Bowser’s time in office. Not sure why folks decided not to pay attention.

Do you think Bowser would have been transparent and said "I'm going to spread violent crime, thefts, disorder, vagrancy and other social problems to your neighborhood and then keep raising your taxes to pay for the "burden sharing"?

I’m honestly curious what people thought Bowser was doing. It’s not like she was hiding anything.

There was the 2016 shelter plan. The 2018 affordable housing production goals. DHCA in 2019 intentionally setting policy to over-estimate fair market rent for housing choice vouchers with the double whammy of undercutting rent control. All of this stuff individually and in totality was done with the express purpose of increasing Ward 3 “burden sharing”.

People can just read the reports themselves.
https://housing.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/housingdc/page_content/attachments/Housing%20Equity%20Report%2010-15-19.pdf

When they see talk of “fair share” and projections that put 2/3 of new affordable housing in wards 2, 3 and 4, it’s just not clear how people could not understand what this meant. What do people think they are talking about when they see the world “vibrant”?

It was all extremely transparent, if you bothered to pay attention.

Does “vibrant” mean vouchers? We thought it meant Urbanist, sustainable, gentle dense-mixed use that also yields affordable housing.

According to the Comp Plan that I am sure that you supported, it meant:

“locating special needs housing more equitably so that all neighborhoods accept their fair share”

Where “special needs housing” includes group homes and housing for “homeless, troubled youth, elderly, foster children, ex-offenders”.

That’s the vibrant, mixed use urbanism that folks fought for and congratulations, you got it.
https://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/op/Vision%20for%20Inclusive%20CIty%202004.pdf

W3 already had PIW, multiple shelters and multiple halfway houses.

Yup. And Bowser said that it was still not enough and still wasn’t accommodating its fair share. So here we are with no place left for people to do with piece of mind except the suburbs.

Yeh, but the BS-ability of this kind of GGW meets equity talk is high. If anything, all their efforts had the opposite effect than they claimed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 folks love to argue that they live on the city and not in the suburbs. Well, now you’re really a part of us. Welcome!

It’s remarkable how 30 years of progress could be dismantled so quickly.

If Bowser had made a campaign pledge to spread crime "equitably" to all areas of the District, then she could announce "Mission Accomplished!"

Ward 3 “burden sharing” for equity has been a pretty explicit policy priority throughout Bowser’s time in office. Not sure why folks decided not to pay attention.

Do you think Bowser would have been transparent and said "I'm going to spread violent crime, thefts, disorder, vagrancy and other social problems to your neighborhood and then keep raising your taxes to pay for the "burden sharing"?

I’m honestly curious what people thought Bowser was doing. It’s not like she was hiding anything.

There was the 2016 shelter plan. The 2018 affordable housing production goals. DHCA in 2019 intentionally setting policy to over-estimate fair market rent for housing choice vouchers with the double whammy of undercutting rent control. All of this stuff individually and in totality was done with the express purpose of increasing Ward 3 “burden sharing”.

People can just read the reports themselves.
https://housing.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/housingdc/page_content/attachments/Housing%20Equity%20Report%2010-15-19.pdf

When they see talk of “fair share” and projections that put 2/3 of new affordable housing in wards 2, 3 and 4, it’s just not clear how people could not understand what this meant. What do people think they are talking about when they see the world “vibrant”?

It was all extremely transparent, if you bothered to pay attention.

Does “vibrant” mean vouchers? We thought it meant Urbanist, sustainable, gentle dense-mixed use that also yields affordable housing.

According to the Comp Plan that I am sure that you supported, it meant:

“locating special needs housing more equitably so that all neighborhoods accept their fair share”

Where “special needs housing” includes group homes and housing for “homeless, troubled youth, elderly, foster children, ex-offenders”.

That’s the vibrant, mixed use urbanism that folks fought for and congratulations, you got it.
https://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/op/Vision%20for%20Inclusive%20CIty%202004.pdf

W3 already had PIW, multiple shelters and multiple halfway houses.

Yup. And Bowser said that it was still not enough and still wasn’t accommodating its fair share. So here we are with no place left for people to do with piece of mind except the suburbs.

Yeh, but the BS-ability of this kind of GGW meets equity talk is high. If anything, all their efforts had the opposite effect than they claimed.

It’s total BS. The loudest Smart Growth spinner in NW worked for Trump but now lobbies every DC board abut how zoning limitations perpetuate racism and that more, more, more density and market-rate development will somehow bring “equity and inclusion.” Maybe for developers, it will.

[Anonymous]

Is City Ridge seeing more crime and incidents like what’s going on around the Wisconsin Giant?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because nobody would deign to vote for a Republican in the midst of MAGA craziness. It was extremely misguided.

The funny thing is, D.C. voters pay so little attention to politics that as soon as the (D) and (R)'s are removed from the ballot, they start voting for Trump supporters. That's how Ashley Carter, a Trump supporter, unseated incumbent Mary Lord on the school board (the vote was non-partisan with no (D)s and (R)s next to the names).

But even if they wanted a solid Democrat, people still had Goulet as an option. He's been a solid supporter of traditional Democratic ideas, but also said we should do something about crime, shouldn't fill up the Connecticut and Wisconsin apartments with criminals, and should have Ward 3 get the same access to Pre-K as other wards do (it's the most underserved ward for Pre-K at the moment). But voters opted for Frumin, who said his goal was for Ward 3 residents to sacrifice more on behalf of people outside of the ward.

Really insane that people voted him in. And he's done about as well as expected, ignoring every e-mail his constituents send him about crime while his Twitter account is full of photo-ops.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 folks love to argue that they live on the city and not in the suburbs. Well, now you’re really a part of us. Welcome!

It’s remarkable how 30 years of progress could be dismantled so quickly.

If Bowser had made a campaign pledge to spread crime "equitably" to all areas of the District, then she could announce "Mission Accomplished!"

Ward 3 “burden sharing” for equity has been a pretty explicit policy priority throughout Bowser’s time in office. Not sure why folks decided not to pay attention.

Do you think Bowser would have been transparent and said "I'm going to spread violent crime, thefts, disorder, vagrancy and other social problems to your neighborhood and then keep raising your taxes to pay for the "burden sharing"?

I’m honestly curious what people thought Bowser was doing. It’s not like she was hiding anything.

There was the 2016 shelter plan. The 2018 affordable housing production goals. DHCA in 2019 intentionally setting policy to over-estimate fair market rent for housing choice vouchers with the double whammy of undercutting rent control. All of this stuff individually and in totality was done with the express purpose of increasing Ward 3 “burden sharing”.

People can just read the reports themselves.
https://housing.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/housingdc/page_content/attachments/Housing%20Equity%20Report%2010-15-19.pdf

When they see talk of “fair share” and projections that put 2/3 of new affordable housing in wards 2, 3 and 4, it’s just not clear how people could not understand what this meant. What do people think they are talking about when they see the world “vibrant”?

It was all extremely transparent, if you bothered to pay attention.

Does “vibrant” mean vouchers? We thought it meant Urbanist, sustainable, gentle dense-mixed use that also yields affordable housing.

According to the Comp Plan that I am sure that you supported, it meant:

“locating special needs housing more equitably so that all neighborhoods accept their fair share”

Where “special needs housing” includes group homes and housing for “homeless, troubled youth, elderly, foster children, ex-offenders”.

That’s the vibrant, mixed use urbanism that folks fought for and congratulations, you got it.
https://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/op/Vision%20for%20Inclusive%20CIty%202004.pdf

W3 already had PIW, multiple shelters and multiple halfway houses.

Those don’t count for meeting the mayor’s ambitious, equitable and affordable housing goals.

#Ward3ForAll. Slay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because nobody would deign to vote for a Republican in the midst of MAGA craziness. It was extremely misguided.

The funny thing is, D.C. voters pay so little attention to politics that as soon as the (D) and (R)'s are removed from the ballot, they start voting for Trump supporters. That's how Ashley Carter, a Trump supporter, unseated incumbent Mary Lord on the school board (the vote was non-partisan with no (D)s and (R)s next to the names).

But even if they wanted a solid Democrat, people still had Goulet as an option. He's been a solid supporter of traditional Democratic ideas, but also said we should do something about crime, shouldn't fill up the Connecticut and Wisconsin apartments with criminals, and should have Ward 3 get the same access to Pre-K as other wards do (it's the most underserved ward for Pre-K at the moment). But voters opted for Frumin, who said his goal was for Ward 3 residents to sacrifice more on behalf of people outside of the ward.

Really insane that people voted him in. And he's done about as well as expected, ignoring every e-mail his constituents send him about crime while his Twitter account is full of photo-ops.

I don’t live in Ward 3 and am happy it’s voters are getting exactly what they wanted.

[Anonymous]

The funny thing is, D.C. voters pay so little attention to politics that as soon as the (D) and (R)'s are removed from the ballot, they start voting for Trump supporters. That's how Ashley Carter, a Trump supporter, unseated incumbent Mary Lord on the school board (the vote was non-partisan with no (D)s and (R)s next to the names).

Is that how a Trump consultant and a couple of his associates were able to hijack ANC redistricting in Ward 3 last year?

[Anonymous]

But voters opted for Frumin, who said his goal was for Ward 3 residents to sacrifice more on behalf of people outside of the ward.

Then “Mission Accomplished!”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because nobody would deign to vote for a Republican in the midst of MAGA craziness. It was extremely misguided.

The funny thing is, D.C. voters pay so little attention to politics that as soon as the (D) and (R)'s are removed from the ballot, they start voting for Trump supporters. That's how Ashley Carter, a Trump supporter, unseated incumbent Mary Lord on the school board (the vote was non-partisan with no (D)s and (R)s next to the names).

But even if they wanted a solid Democrat, people still had Goulet as an option. He's been a solid supporter of traditional Democratic ideas, but also said we should do something about crime, shouldn't fill up the Connecticut and Wisconsin apartments with criminals, and should have Ward 3 get the same access to Pre-K as other wards do (it's the most underserved ward for Pre-K at the moment). But voters opted for Frumin, who said his goal was for Ward 3 residents to sacrifice more on behalf of people outside of the ward.

Really insane that people voted him in. And he's done about as well as expected, ignoring every e-mail his constituents send him about crime while his Twitter account is full of photo-ops.

Funny thing is now you have families who came with vouchers who no longer have neighborhood school access to free Prek3 like they would have in other parts of the city. I wonder if DCPS will be forced to offer it in Ward 3 at some point.