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

[Anonymous]

The Department of Behavioral Health vouchers go to the seriously mentally ill.

Having them live independently in what used to be safe middle class apartment buildings full of families and retirees, along with released convicts, has been disastrous. DC needs to follow the lead of CA in making involuntary commitment easier so people can be truly stabilized. Otherwise we end up with situations like the Petit Scholars incident. (That guy is still at PIW, W3 does plenty for the mentally ill with basically the new St. E's, multiple halfway houses and shelters).

Those who live in Forest Hills or Cleveland Park who think the issues are confined to apartment buildings and won't impact those in SFHs are due for a nasty surprise. The visible drug dealing in the area and property crimes are soaring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So here’s an idea on how to course correct on DC’s voucher program: let’s give MPD cops and firefighters and junior level federal agents the opportunity to live in a voucher rental on Connecticut Avenue if they want to. Not only would it provide workforce housing to deserving public servants, it could help to get more voucher residents to walk the straight and narrow instead of committing crime and mayhem.

Someone w/MPD told me at present they only qualify for a discount if they have a take home vehicle, which is not the norm in DC.

Right now the landlords are incentivized to turn whole buildings into private public housing, why would they want to "course correct?" Why would MPD with families want to move into dangerous buildings?

[Anonymous]

The back windows of many cars parked on Brandywine and Chesapeake, between Connecticut and RCP were smashed last night. Assume it was looking for valuables in trunk once back seat pulled forward. Pricey to fix and not many houses have garage parking. The glass smasher was confronted and ran into the Owl's Nest property.

[Anonymous]

From zero to 7,000+: One DC agency charts voucher renters in its programs since 2016

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

This article is also well worth a read. That 5,000+ vouchers, many issued to returning convicts and the mentally ill, are being used in the Connecticut and Wisconsin corridors is an enormous number in a very short period of time. And as problems arose, the pause button was never hit.

Of note is this

The figure is from the DHS report “A Path to Ending Homelessness,” which chronicles growth in the agency’s voucher programs since 2016.

“Over the past two years, the District has expanded its housing voucher program for people experiencing chronic homelessness by more than 100%,” said the report. Under the U.S. Housing and Urban Development definition, the chronically homeless have been continuously unhoused for a year or more, or four times in three years. They also struggle with one or more of the following conditions: substance abuse, mental illness, and physical or developmental disabilities.

The PSH program serves people who have been chronically homeless. Such renters need intensive services – which they can refuse – but caseworkers must check in at least twice a month, at least one of those times in person.

The numbers, mainly clustered along 2 commercial corridors, are huge, and have clearly impacted the community. With so many PSH vouchers and no plans to move people toward becoming self supporting, how is this remotely sustainable in the long term?

[Anonymous]

It is a violation of the DC Human Rights Act to discriminate in housing due to source of income. Which means that landlords cannot turn away voucher applicants. Landlords cannot cap the number of voucher tenants they accept. What has happened is that once a building reaches a critical mass of voucher tenants, then the market tenants vote with their feet. I work in commercial real estate. Landlords do not want to be forced into becoming DC's public housing providers, when DC has thousands of vacant public housing units that are not being made available due to government mismanagement. A critical mass of voucher tenants results in security issues, damage to the building and units---all resulting in additional operating costs to the LLs. But unless DC is willing to revisit "source of income" as a protected class in discrimination law, DC landlords are stuck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is a violation of the DC Human Rights Act to discriminate in housing due to source of income. Which means that landlords cannot turn away voucher applicants. Landlords cannot cap the number of voucher tenants they accept. What has happened is that once a building reaches a critical mass of voucher tenants, then the market tenants vote with their feet. I work in commercial real estate. Landlords do not want to be forced into becoming DC's public housing providers, when DC has thousands of vacant public housing units that are not being made available due to government mismanagement. A critical mass of voucher tenants results in security issues, damage to the building and units---all resulting in additional operating costs to the LLs. But unless DC is willing to revisit "source of income" as a protected class in discrimination law, DC landlords are stuck.

You mean if a tenant is paying his rent in stacks of $100 bills as the proceeds from selling drugs in the building, the landlord can't "discriminate" on the basis of this "source of income"? That's f---ed up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From zero to 7,000+: One DC agency charts voucher renters in its programs since 2016

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

This article is also well worth a read. That 5,000+ vouchers, many issued to returning convicts and the mentally ill, are being used in the Connecticut and Wisconsin corridors is an enormous number in a very short period of time. And as problems arose, the pause button was never hit.

Of note is this

The figure is from the DHS report “A Path to Ending Homelessness,” which chronicles growth in the agency’s voucher programs since 2016.

“Over the past two years, the District has expanded its housing voucher program for people experiencing chronic homelessness by more than 100%,” said the report. Under the U.S. Housing and Urban Development definition, the chronically homeless have been continuously unhoused for a year or more, or four times in three years. They also struggle with one or more of the following conditions: substance abuse, mental illness, and physical or developmental disabilities.

The PSH program serves people who have been chronically homeless. Such renters need intensive services – which they can refuse – but caseworkers must check in at least twice a month, at least one of those times in person.

The numbers, mainly clustered along 2 commercial corridors, are huge, and have clearly impacted the community. With so many PSH vouchers and no plans to move people toward becoming self supporting, how is this remotely sustainable in the long term?

It's not just vouchers that are clustered along Connecticut Avenue, the DC crime statistics show unusual clusters of reported crime in this formerly fairly safe area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is a violation of the DC Human Rights Act to discriminate in housing due to source of income. Which means that landlords cannot turn away voucher applicants. Landlords cannot cap the number of voucher tenants they accept. What has happened is that once a building reaches a critical mass of voucher tenants, then the market tenants vote with their feet. I work in commercial real estate. Landlords do not want to be forced into becoming DC's public housing providers, when DC has thousands of vacant public housing units that are not being made available due to government mismanagement. A critical mass of voucher tenants results in security issues, damage to the building and units---all resulting in additional operating costs to the LLs. But unless DC is willing to revisit "source of income" as a protected class in discrimination law, DC landlords are stuck.

This. DC law. The council made it, the council can change it.

[Anonymous]

Welcome your perspective, PP. Aren't there typically multiple prospective tenants to choose from? And hasn't the huge overpayments, $1,000+ over market rate, played a role in making those tenants especially appealing? Is the chaos a desired factor in getting rent stabilized tenants (often elderly) who are well UNDER market rate to move out? This strategy was described in the series the WP did on Sedgewick Gardens, the man who triggered a SWAT standoff there had his voucher moved to The Brandywine when he was released from jail.

With many young people having shifted to living in NoMA, The Wharf, etc., since gentrification, how could landlords fill the large buildings on Connecticut and Wisconsin without moving in the mentally ill and convicts?

Are there any permissible grounds for screening now that income, evictions and crimes committed 7+ years ago are not permitted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So here’s an idea on how to course correct on DC’s voucher program: let’s give MPD cops and firefighters and junior level federal agents the opportunity to live in a voucher rental on Connecticut Avenue if they want to. Not only would it provide workforce housing to deserving public servants, it could help to get more voucher residents to walk the straight and narrow instead of committing crime and mayhem.

That would be fantastic. It makes way to much sense for DC to implement

They do this in Alexandria City and it is called a police rent deal. Free rent to live in the building/public housing that you occupy, patrol and get to know the residence.
It is a fantastic program that allows civil servants to live in high rent districts while assisting the residents that just want to go about life without violence a chance to live in peace and chase out the riff raff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Update re: Days Inn shooter, the one who KILLED a woman and injured 4 others, even for DC this is UNBELIEVABLE!

I have no words.

Prior to being appointed as a judge, she was a public defender for 14 years.

Her 15 year term is almost up, anyone know of ways to keep her from remaining on the bench?

She is well known amongst those that practice criminal law in DC for being the most defense friendly judge on the bench. She has never remotely attempted to move away from being a public defender. Learning she was the judge that allowed this person to remain on the streets was not shocking in the least.

Another Obama appointee.

"If I had a son......"

[Anonymous]

A building on Connecticut in Forest Hills had an attempted break in on Sunday night, someone tried to crowbar open the front door.

No notice to tenants, better they be ignorant of risks.

Same plate put back on door, no security enhancement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Welcome your perspective, PP. Aren't there typically multiple prospective tenants to choose from? And hasn't the huge overpayments, $1,000+ over market rate, played a role in making those tenants especially appealing? Is the chaos a desired factor in getting rent stabilized tenants (often elderly) who are well UNDER market rate to move out? This strategy was described in the series the WP did on Sedgewick Gardens, the man who triggered a SWAT standoff there had his voucher moved to The Brandywine when he was released from jail.

With many young people having shifted to living in NoMA, The Wharf, etc., since gentrification, how could landlords fill the large buildings on Connecticut and Wisconsin without moving in the mentally ill and convicts?

Are there any permissible grounds for screening now that income, evictions and crimes committed 7+ years ago are not permitted?

Meant PP who works in commercial real estate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A building on Connecticut in Forest Hills had an attempted break in on Sunday night, someone tried to crowbar open the front door.

No notice to tenants, better they be ignorant of risks.

Same plate put back on door, no security enhancement.

Realized I wasn't clear, the exact same type of plate was put back on, the damaged one removed. Since it was vulnerable once, seems like it would be wise to enhance security.

This was one of the few buildings w/o a lot of MPD calls, so, still lots of kids and elderly living there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So here’s an idea on how to course correct on DC’s voucher program: let’s give MPD cops and firefighters and junior level federal agents the opportunity to live in a voucher rental on Connecticut Avenue if they want to. Not only would it provide workforce housing to deserving public servants, it could help to get more voucher residents to walk the straight and narrow instead of committing crime and mayhem.

That would be fantastic. It makes way to much sense for DC to implement

They do this in Alexandria City and it is called a police rent deal. Free rent to live in the building/public housing that you occupy, patrol and get to know the residence.
It is a fantastic program that allows civil servants to live in high rent districts while assisting the residents that just want to go about life without violence a chance to live in peace and chase out the riff raff.

I can't imagine anti-police DC going for this, tbh.