Gun violence in Columbia Heights DC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone with inside knowledge willing to share what can be done to reduce/end gun violence on the streets of Columbia Heights?

I've lived in Columbia Heights for about 25 years. I think the main root of the gun violence is the drug and gun sales happening in the building and parking lot of the apartments at 14th and Fairmont Streets. All these years, I've been on friendly speaking terms with the man who stands on the 1400 block of Fairmont every day -- he sells guns -- and he has warned me to never, never go into that parking lot. Now, I doubt any of this is news to the police or prosecutor's office. They do arrest people there and convict people of crimes. But the decades go by and nothing changes and I'm frustrated. When I talk with my neighbors about it, no one has any hope that it will get better.

A friend on the 1300 block on Fairmont was nervous that he wouldn't be able to sell his home because there were gunshots on the street every day that he held an open house. It took a month but he sold it, top dollar.

Before anyone asks, I am an active community member. I mentor teens, attend a local church, and donate to local nonprofits. I'm fully rooted here. What I would like to see change is that parking lot closed and the schools (Tubman and Cardozo) completely, radically transformed, in order to reach the kids and get them focused on a positive life.

I hate to break it to you, but unless they bulldoze the projects in the greater CH area and redevelop those properties, nothing is going to change.

[Anonymous]

I've lived in the greater CH area for 10 years and the NE corner of 14 and Park is the worst it's ever been. More guys are laying around on the sidewalk, they stink, they're always drunk. So many government resources are constantly spent on these guys.

Sabel Harris is a babe but I don't see how she's much different than Brianne.

[Anonymous]

DC needs to implement a "focused deterrence" strategy:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/12/20679091/thomas-abt-bleeding-out-urban-gun-violence-book-review

"In 2012, after years of struggling with gun violence, Oakland, California, adopted what is now known as the Oakland Ceasefire — detailed in a recent rigorous analysis published by the Giffords Law Center, an advocacy group that aims to reduce gun violence.
First, officials analyzed crime trends to see who was most at risk to commit gun violence. They found just 400 people — 0.1 percent of the city’s population — were at the highest risk at any given time, and responsible for the majority of the city’s homicides.

Officials and community leaders then coordinated interventions for these people, hosting call-ins in which they brought in the people at highest risk for gun violence for a meeting with police, social services, faith leaders, and other community activists. After the call-in, local officials followed up with individual interventions as needed.

The idea was to convey a clear, direct message, something like: “We know who you are. We want the best for you, but we can’t and don’t approve of what you’re doing. We will crack down quickly and harshly if you continue down a path of violence. But if you agree to stop, we’ll give you an array of services — jobs, education, health care, and so on — to help you build a better, violence-free life.”

The approach had focus, balance, and fairness. It focused on the 400 individuals at the greatest risk of violence. It made the threat of law enforcement clear but balanced it with community help. The entire process was made as transparent and clear as possible, with leaders throughout the community involved. "

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lived in CH when the the DCUSA site was a needle-strewn vacant lot, the Tivoli was still boarded up and every shopkeeper on 14th Street worked behind an inch-think wall of plexiglass.

I felt much safer then than I do in CH now. This is what happens when you build luxury condos and million-dollar renovated rowhouses right next to entrenched poverty.

I'm from DC and agree, I have seen the whole evolution. Everyone was SO HOPEFUL when they put the new metro in, and then the 'vibrant density' happened overnight, very soul-lessly (building just to build + sell), and the neighnorhood is somewhat worse in some regards. Plus our feeble attitudes towards youth violence and rehabilitation. YUCK. I roll my eyes when the density bros talk, having moved on to other neighnorhoods to destroy.

LOL no. I feel 100% safer in CH compared to the before times. You couldn't walk in daylight down the street west of about 15th.

[Anonymous]

Edit: East, not west.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC needs to implement a "focused deterrence" strategy:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/12/20679091/thomas-abt-bleeding-out-urban-gun-violence-book-review

"In 2012, after years of struggling with gun violence, Oakland, California, adopted what is now known as the Oakland Ceasefire — detailed in a recent rigorous analysis published by the Giffords Law Center, an advocacy group that aims to reduce gun violence.
First, officials analyzed crime trends to see who was most at risk to commit gun violence. They found just 400 people — 0.1 percent of the city’s population — were at the highest risk at any given time, and responsible for the majority of the city’s homicides.

Officials and community leaders then coordinated interventions for these people, hosting call-ins in which they brought in the people at highest risk for gun violence for a meeting with police, social services, faith leaders, and other community activists. After the call-in, local officials followed up with individual interventions as needed.

The idea was to convey a clear, direct message, something like: “We know who you are. We want the best for you, but we can’t and don’t approve of what you’re doing. We will crack down quickly and harshly if you continue down a path of violence. But if you agree to stop, we’ll give you an array of services — jobs, education, health care, and so on — to help you build a better, violence-free life.”

The approach had focus, balance, and fairness. It focused on the 400 individuals at the greatest risk of violence. It made the threat of law enforcement clear but balanced it with community help. The entire process was made as transparent and clear as possible, with leaders throughout the community involved. "

And what was the outcome of this project? (Link not working))

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shutting down the drug market would be a first step, and that is the job of police and prosecutors. No amount of community engagement will work without getting rid of the bad element.

The community does not want police and prosecutors going after drug dealers.

OP here. Yes, I've heard this from some neighbors. They don't believe it would result in a better life for most of the families impacted.

Not true. The police doesn't want to do it. What do you think happens if I walk in police station and tell them who is selling drugs, where and who brings them? Nothing. They laughed me out of there. I moved out of CH after witnessing 2 shooting from our window in one week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've lived in the greater CH area for 10 years and the NE corner of 14 and Park is the worst it's ever been. More guys are laying around on the sidewalk, they stink, they're always drunk. So many government resources are constantly spent on these guys.

Sabel Harris is a babe but I don't see how she's much different than Brianne.

A candidate who meaningfully differentiated themselves from Brianne would have wiped the floor with her, because Ward 1 residents are sick of her utter incompetence. But Sabel seems to be believe in the same provably failed policies as Brianne and thinks running on a pledge of better constituent services will win. It won't, and we'll be stuck with that cretin for another four years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've lived in the greater CH area for 10 years and the NE corner of 14 and Park is the worst it's ever been. More guys are laying around on the sidewalk, they stink, they're always drunk. So many government resources are constantly spent on these guys.

Sabel Harris is a babe but I don't see how she's much different than Brianne.

A candidate who meaningfully differentiated themselves from Brianne would have wiped the floor with her, because Ward 1 residents are sick of her utter incompetence. But Sabel seems to be believe in the same provably failed policies as Brianne and thinks running on a pledge of better constituent services will win. It won't, and we'll be stuck with that cretin for another four years.

Yeah. I'm also concerned that Sabel Harris is more of the same. Nadeau is terrible, but what we need is a moderate who can acknowledge that middle-income families need city services and their council member's advocacy, too. Harris won't speak for us, either, when it counts (schools/crime/property value/even equal access to COVID vaccines) even if she agrees our garbage should be collected.

[Anonymous]

I had never heard of long shot candidate Salah Czapary (child of immigrants, former MPD) until I got a flyer yesterday on our door, but he has my vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had never heard of long shot candidate Salah Czapary (child of immigrants, former MPD) until I got a flyer yesterday on our door, but he has my vote.

Wow. Just looked him up based on this post. Very impressive.

[Anonymous]

I'm concerned that the crime and poverty are only going to get worse. I think we're caught at the start of a vicious cycle in which more and more people leave DC permanently and fewer and fewer people move into DC because of post-pandemic work patterns, a desire for more space, and/or concerns about rising crime. The city's tax base gradually erodes and the poverty/crime only continues to get worse.

This was called the 1980s. DC has BTDT. Culminating in city mismanagement so profound that Congress placed the city under oversight of a control board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm concerned that the crime and poverty are only going to get worse. I think we're caught at the start of a vicious cycle in which more and more people leave DC permanently and fewer and fewer people move into DC because of post-pandemic work patterns, a desire for more space, and/or concerns about rising crime. The city's tax base gradually erodes and the poverty/crime only continues to get worse.

This was called the 1980s. DC has BTDT. Culminating in city mismanagement so profound that Congress placed the city under oversight of a control board.

Why are you posting this again?

[Anonymous]

tldr on all the drawn out reasons.

The answer is that we’re in an era of progressive criminal justice policy reform. There are tons of examples in DC alone of how it only exacerbates crime rather. It’s nuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As long as people call it "gun violence" or "gun deaths" the issue will never be fixed. Blaming these incidences on an inanimate object versus the criminals that are doing the actual violence is not helping.

A problem first needs to be identified before it can be fixed. And even than the "fix" needs to start in the community that is affected and causing it.

This is so true. It drives me nuts that the WaPo -- democracy dies in darkness! -- intentionally MISINFORMS it's readership by presenting it as a problem of inanimate objects rather than one of of criminals and the sub-cultures that create and excuses them. You can't fix a problem you refuse to identity.