Shooting at Brandywine & Connecticut Ave NW This Afternoon

[Anonymous]

The Forest Hills Connect has done some good reporting on the issue. Harry Gural has been a real asset to the neighborhood with all of his number crunching.

https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/home-front/from-0-to-7000-one-dc-agency-charts-voucher-renters-in-its-programs-since-2016/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the voucher program where the city pays above market rate for getting voucher holders into market rate buildings. The smaller buildings in Columbia heights have been completely taken over by gangs. There was a good article in the post about this. The city has failed to provide wrap around services for these tenants, many of whom have ongoing mental health and addiction issues. Take it up with your councilman.

Don’t miss any opportunity to bash lower class people! Got in there right away to blame the poors!

Again, HUD explicitly forbids any requirement that voucher tenants PARTICIPATE in services, addiction treatment, mental health treatment, etc. The idea that if DC just provided "services" all would be well is a strawman argument in light of the facts that the tenant does not need to open the door to social workers and that HUD has cut the number of required contacts from 4 to 2 a month, 1 in person.

The Post article focused on the reality of losing control of the door and having buildings taken over by crime and drug dealing. In those conditions, no social worker talking would have an impact.

can you please post a link showing that HUD forbids that?

It is quoted upthread from a HUD document.

You’re going to have to post it again.

I did, look at the bottom of the previous page.

I don’t see where you posted the actual regulations forbidding DC from attaching any conditions to the vouchers.

Also even though there may be low barriers to entry, that certainly doesn’t mean people can’t be evicted for violent or criminal behavior by themselves or household members.

Anyway, I think the better point is that relying on the private market to house people with chronic, serious conditions that lead to chronic homelessness is just a disaster waiting to happen. People with serious addiction and mental illness need MUCH more support, onsite. Even simple things like help maintaining the apartment and cleaning. We have assisted living for the elderly - we should have similar buildings for the seriously mentally ill/addicted. Vouchers for private buildings are more appropriate for people who are homeless due to affordability/job issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My building started accepted voucher residents and this calendar year we've had a murder, a second shooting, and a man threatening women in the building gym. Fun times.

This is how Fruminomics works. Ward 3 residents pay the bulk of DC taxes and in return you get thousands of new, fun neighbors Deal with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the voucher program where the city pays above market rate for getting voucher holders into market rate buildings. The smaller buildings in Columbia heights have been completely taken over by gangs. There was a good article in the post about this. The city has failed to provide wrap around services for these tenants, many of whom have ongoing mental health and addiction issues. Take it up with your councilman.

Don’t miss any opportunity to bash lower class people! Got in there right away to blame the poors!

Again, HUD explicitly forbids any requirement that voucher tenants PARTICIPATE in services, addiction treatment, mental health treatment, etc. The idea that if DC just provided "services" all would be well is a strawman argument in light of the facts that the tenant does not need to open the door to social workers and that HUD has cut the number of required contacts from 4 to 2 a month, 1 in person.

The Post article focused on the reality of losing control of the door and having buildings taken over by crime and drug dealing. In those conditions, no social worker talking would have an impact.

can you please post a link showing that HUD forbids that?

It is quoted upthread from a HUD document.

You’re going to have to post it again.

I did, look at the bottom of the previous page.

I don’t see where you posted the actual regulations forbidding DC from attaching any conditions to the vouchers.

Also even though there may be low barriers to entry, that certainly doesn’t mean people can’t be evicted for violent or criminal behavior by themselves or household members.

Anyway, I think the better point is that relying on the private market to house people with chronic, serious conditions that lead to chronic homelessness is just a disaster waiting to happen. People with serious addiction and mental illness need MUCH more support, onsite. Even simple things like help maintaining the apartment and cleaning. We have assisted living for the elderly - we should have similar buildings for the seriously mentally ill/addicted. Vouchers for private buildings are more appropriate for people who are homeless due to affordability/job issues.

I posted a link to a HUD summary publication, if you want to see the regulations, should come up in Google.

[Anonymous]

Due to the backlog in the DC court system, seeking an eviction due to a lease violation (which would be any kind of behavior-based issue, as opposed to non-payment of rent), landlords cannot get court dates until 2024. Even then, landlord/tenant court is EXTREMELY tenant-friendly, and judges are reluctant to evict. So no matter how terribly a tenant is behaving, it is extremely difficult for a landlord to remove a tenant.

[Anonymous]

Last night Frumin said they are exploring adding a separate eviction track for dangerous/violent/threat making tenants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the voucher program where the city pays above market rate for getting voucher holders into market rate buildings. The smaller buildings in Columbia heights have been completely taken over by gangs. There was a good article in the post about this. The city has failed to provide wrap around services for these tenants, many of whom have ongoing mental health and addiction issues. Take it up with your councilman.

Don’t miss any opportunity to bash lower class people! Got in there right away to blame the poors!

Again, HUD explicitly forbids any requirement that voucher tenants PARTICIPATE in services, addiction treatment, mental health treatment, etc. The idea that if DC just provided "services" all would be well is a strawman argument in light of the facts that the tenant does not need to open the door to social workers and that HUD has cut the number of required contacts from 4 to 2 a month, 1 in person.

The Post article focused on the reality of losing control of the door and having buildings taken over by crime and drug dealing. In those conditions, no social worker talking would have an impact.

can you please post a link showing that HUD forbids that?

It is quoted upthread from a HUD document.

You’re going to have to post it again.

I did, look at the bottom of the previous page.

I don’t see where you posted the actual regulations forbidding DC from attaching any conditions to the vouchers.

Also even though there may be low barriers to entry, that certainly doesn’t mean people can’t be evicted for violent or criminal behavior by themselves or household members.

Anyway, I think the better point is that relying on the private market to house people with chronic, serious conditions that lead to chronic homelessness is just a disaster waiting to happen. People with serious addiction and mental illness need MUCH more support, onsite. Even simple things like help maintaining the apartment and cleaning. We have assisted living for the elderly - we should have similar buildings for the seriously mentally ill/addicted. Vouchers for private buildings are more appropriate for people who are homeless due to affordability/job issues.

I posted a link to a HUD summary publication, if you want to see the regulations, should come up in Google.

that HUD “summary publication” does not say that DC can’t have different standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Last night Frumin said they are exploring adding a separate eviction track for dangerous/violent/threat making tenants.

that’s good but incredibly ironic. DC’s utterly misguided ideological policy to put the most unstable people into UMC buildings just results in worsening their condition and sending them back onto the streets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Due to the backlog in the DC court system, seeking an eviction due to a lease violation (which would be any kind of behavior-based issue, as opposed to non-payment of rent), landlords cannot get court dates until 2024. Even then, landlord/tenant court is EXTREMELY tenant-friendly, and judges are reluctant to evict. So no matter how terribly a tenant is behaving, it is extremely difficult for a landlord to remove a tenant.

All true, which is why limiting the ways landlords could screen for credit, criminal history, etc was so reckless of the Council.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last night Frumin said they are exploring adding a separate eviction track for dangerous/violent/threat making tenants.

that’s good but incredibly ironic. DC’s utterly misguided ideological policy to put the most unstable people into UMC buildings just results in worsening their condition and sending them back onto the streets.

No going back to the streets, DC does not remove vouchers so they just head elsewhere. In Forest Hills they move next door or across the street to another rental. Similar to how problem kids are shifted around by schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the voucher program where the city pays above market rate for getting voucher holders into market rate buildings. The smaller buildings in Columbia heights have been completely taken over by gangs. There was a good article in the post about this. The city has failed to provide wrap around services for these tenants, many of whom have ongoing mental health and addiction issues. Take it up with your councilman.

Don’t miss any opportunity to bash lower class people! Got in there right away to blame the poors!

Again, HUD explicitly forbids any requirement that voucher tenants PARTICIPATE in services, addiction treatment, mental health treatment, etc. The idea that if DC just provided "services" all would be well is a strawman argument in light of the facts that the tenant does not need to open the door to social workers and that HUD has cut the number of required contacts from 4 to 2 a month, 1 in person.

The Post article focused on the reality of losing control of the door and having buildings taken over by crime and drug dealing. In those conditions, no social worker talking would have an impact.

can you please post a link showing that HUD forbids that?

It is quoted upthread from a HUD document.

You’re going to have to post it again.

I did, look at the bottom of the previous page.

I don’t see where you posted the actual regulations forbidding DC from attaching any conditions to the vouchers.

Also even though there may be low barriers to entry, that certainly doesn’t mean people can’t be evicted for violent or criminal behavior by themselves or household members.

Anyway, I think the better point is that relying on the private market to house people with chronic, serious conditions that lead to chronic homelessness is just a disaster waiting to happen. People with serious addiction and mental illness need MUCH more support, onsite. Even simple things like help maintaining the apartment and cleaning. We have assisted living for the elderly - we should have similar buildings for the seriously mentally ill/addicted. Vouchers for private buildings are more appropriate for people who are homeless due to affordability/job issues.

I posted a link to a HUD summary publication, if you want to see the regulations, should come up in Google.

that HUD “summary publication” does not say that DC can’t have different standards.

It's a federal program with federal rules that come with the federal funds. DC and a few other cities did get an exception made to pay over market rate in certain neighborhoods but the tenants of the program are what they are. You take the money, you play in their sandbox. Why would you expect a "summary" titled "In Brief" to contain regulations (assume you are that poster) or all information about a program? Google works for you as well as me, I'm sure.

How is Housing First different from other approaches?
Housing First does not require people experiencing homelessness to address the all of their problems including behavioral health problems, or to graduate through a series of services programs before they can access housing. Housing First does not mandate participation in services either before obtaining housing or in order to retain housing.

https://endhomelessness.org/resource/housing-first/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the voucher program where the city pays above market rate for getting voucher holders into market rate buildings. The smaller buildings in Columbia heights have been completely taken over by gangs. There was a good article in the post about this. The city has failed to provide wrap around services for these tenants, many of whom have ongoing mental health and addiction issues. Take it up with your councilman.

Don’t miss any opportunity to bash lower class people! Got in there right away to blame the poors!

Again, HUD explicitly forbids any requirement that voucher tenants PARTICIPATE in services, addiction treatment, mental health treatment, etc. The idea that if DC just provided "services" all would be well is a strawman argument in light of the facts that the tenant does not need to open the door to social workers and that HUD has cut the number of required contacts from 4 to 2 a month, 1 in person.

The Post article focused on the reality of losing control of the door and having buildings taken over by crime and drug dealing. In those conditions, no social worker talking would have an impact.

can you please post a link showing that HUD forbids that?

It is quoted upthread from a HUD document.

You’re going to have to post it again.

I did, look at the bottom of the previous page.

I don’t see where you posted the actual regulations forbidding DC from attaching any conditions to the vouchers.

Also even though there may be low barriers to entry, that certainly doesn’t mean people can’t be evicted for violent or criminal behavior by themselves or household members.

Anyway, I think the better point is that relying on the private market to house people with chronic, serious conditions that lead to chronic homelessness is just a disaster waiting to happen. People with serious addiction and mental illness need MUCH more support, onsite. Even simple things like help maintaining the apartment and cleaning. We have assisted living for the elderly - we should have similar buildings for the seriously mentally ill/addicted. Vouchers for private buildings are more appropriate for people who are homeless due to affordability/job issues.

I posted a link to a HUD summary publication, if you want to see the regulations, should come up in Google.

that HUD “summary publication” does not say that DC can’t have different standards.

It's a federal program with federal rules that come with the federal funds. DC and a few other cities did get an exception made to pay over market rate in certain neighborhoods but the tenants of the program are what they are. You take the money, you play in their sandbox. Why would you expect a "summary" titled "In Brief" to contain regulations (assume you are that poster) or all information about a program? Google works for you as well as me, I'm sure.

How is Housing First different from other approaches?
Housing First does not require people experiencing homelessness to address the all of their problems including behavioral health problems, or to graduate through a series of services programs before they can access housing. Housing First does not mandate participation in services either before obtaining housing or in order to retain housing.

https://endhomelessness.org/resource/housing-first/

look, you keep on posting things that absolutely do not support what you are saying. maybe it’s true that HUD prohibits DC from putting conditions on vouchers for homeless people, but you have not provided any support for that. We all know that the Housing First concept is zero/low-barrier housing but that does not mean it is a regulatory requirement from HUD that binds DC.

[Anonymous]

Anyone else feel a bit nervous about using the playground?

[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:It’s the voucher program where the city pays above market rate for getting voucher holders into market rate buildings. The smaller buildings in Columbia heights have been completely taken over by gangs. There was a good article in the post about this. The city has failed to provide wrap around services for these tenants, many of whom have ongoing mental health and addiction issues. Take it up with your councilman.

Don’t miss any opportunity to bash lower class people! Got in there right away to blame the poors!

Again, HUD explicitly forbids any requirement that voucher tenants PARTICIPATE in services, addiction treatment, mental health treatment, etc. The idea that if DC just provided "services" all would be well is a strawman argument in light of the facts that the tenant does not need to open the door to social workers and that HUD has cut the number of required contacts from 4 to 2 a month, 1 in person.

The Post article focused on the reality of losing control of the door and having buildings taken over by crime and drug dealing. In those conditions, no social worker talking would have an impact.

can you please post a link showing that HUD forbids that?

It is quoted upthread from a HUD document.

You’re going to have to post it again.

I did, look at the bottom of the previous page.

I don’t see where you posted the actual regulations forbidding DC from attaching any conditions to the vouchers.

Also even though there may be low barriers to entry, that certainly doesn’t mean people can’t be evicted for violent or criminal behavior by themselves or household members.

Anyway, I think the better point is that relying on the private market to house people with chronic, serious conditions that lead to chronic homelessness is just a disaster waiting to happen. People with serious addiction and mental illness need MUCH more support, onsite. Even simple things like help maintaining the apartment and cleaning. We have assisted living for the elderly - we should have similar buildings for the seriously mentally ill/addicted. Vouchers for private buildings are more appropriate for people who are homeless due to affordability/job issues.

I posted a link to a HUD summary publication, if you want to see the regulations, should come up in Google.

that HUD “summary publication” does not say that DC can’t have different standards.

It's a federal program with federal rules that come with the federal funds. DC and a few other cities did get an exception made to pay over market rate in certain neighborhoods but the tenants of the program are what they are. You take the money, you play in their sandbox. Why would you expect a "summary" titled "In Brief" to contain regulations (assume you are that poster) or all information about a program? Google works for you as well as me, I'm sure.

How is Housing First different from other approaches?
Housing First does not require people experiencing homelessness to address the all of their problems including behavioral health problems, or to graduate through a series of services programs before they can access housing. Housing First does not mandate participation in services either before obtaining housing or in order to retain housing.

https://endhomelessness.org/resource/housing-first/

look, you keep on posting things that absolutely do not support what you are saying. maybe it’s true that HUD prohibits DC from putting conditions on vouchers for homeless people, but you have not provided any support for that. We all know that the Housing First concept is zero/low-barrier housing but that does not mean it is a regulatory requirement from HUD that binds DC.

Please post a link that states that states, or in this case, DC can use federal Housing First funds while imposing conditions in direct contradiction to the program fundamentals. Not just at entry but throughout the program. Share your expertise with the class.

[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:It’s the voucher program where the city pays above market rate for getting voucher holders into market rate buildings. The smaller buildings in Columbia heights have been completely taken over by gangs. There was a good article in the post about this. The city has failed to provide wrap around services for these tenants, many of whom have ongoing mental health and addiction issues. Take it up with your councilman.

Don’t miss any opportunity to bash lower class people! Got in there right away to blame the poors!

Again, HUD explicitly forbids any requirement that voucher tenants PARTICIPATE in services, addiction treatment, mental health treatment, etc. The idea that if DC just provided "services" all would be well is a strawman argument in light of the facts that the tenant does not need to open the door to social workers and that HUD has cut the number of required contacts from 4 to 2 a month, 1 in person.

The Post article focused on the reality of losing control of the door and having buildings taken over by crime and drug dealing. In those conditions, no social worker talking would have an impact.

can you please post a link showing that HUD forbids that?

It is quoted upthread from a HUD document.

You’re going to have to post it again.

I did, look at the bottom of the previous page.

I don’t see where you posted the actual regulations forbidding DC from attaching any conditions to the vouchers.

Also even though there may be low barriers to entry, that certainly doesn’t mean people can’t be evicted for violent or criminal behavior by themselves or household members.

Anyway, I think the better point is that relying on the private market to house people with chronic, serious conditions that lead to chronic homelessness is just a disaster waiting to happen. People with serious addiction and mental illness need MUCH more support, onsite. Even simple things like help maintaining the apartment and cleaning. We have assisted living for the elderly - we should have similar buildings for the seriously mentally ill/addicted. Vouchers for private buildings are more appropriate for people who are homeless due to affordability/job issues.

I posted a link to a HUD summary publication, if you want to see the regulations, should come up in Google.

that HUD “summary publication” does not say that DC can’t have different standards.

It's a federal program with federal rules that come with the federal funds. DC and a few other cities did get an exception made to pay over market rate in certain neighborhoods but the tenants of the program are what they are. You take the money, you play in their sandbox. Why would you expect a "summary" titled "In Brief" to contain regulations (assume you are that poster) or all information about a program? Google works for you as well as me, I'm sure.

How is Housing First different from other approaches?
Housing First does not require people experiencing homelessness to address the all of their problems including behavioral health problems, or to graduate through a series of services programs before they can access housing. Housing First does not mandate participation in services either before obtaining housing or in order to retain housing.

https://endhomelessness.org/resource/housing-first/

look, you keep on posting things that absolutely do not support what you are saying. maybe it’s true that HUD prohibits DC from putting conditions on vouchers for homeless people, but you have not provided any support for that. We all know that the Housing First concept is zero/low-barrier housing but that does not mean it is a regulatory requirement from HUD that binds DC.

Please post a link that states that states, or in this case, DC can use federal Housing First funds while imposing conditions in direct contradiction to the program fundamentals. Not just at entry but throughout the program. Share your expertise with the class.

I can’t post that because I don’t even think “federal Housing First funds” are ab actual thing. The PP who made this assertion needs to substantiate it, not me. It could be true, who knows.