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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a week ago DeAndre was looking forward to Halloween.

Why isn’t the father locked up?!

And what was a family with a Maryland address doing in DC in free housing?

He’s been released so he can get “services.”

He was released pending autopsy results.

He is a danger to his other children. DC never makes choices to protect children. Ever.

I don't disagree with your premise, but it was USAO who was OK with releasing him and OK with not even asking for a GPS monitor (the judge appeared to be incredulous about this).

USAO has a rather sordid history when it comes to going light on toddler-terrorizers. USAO was charged with prosecuting the monster who did this to a two year old :

"“He forcefully punched [her] with his fist numerous times in the face, head and body. He also kicked her in the chest repeatedly and threw [her] against the bedroom walls several times, causing the child’s blood to splatter on the wall. [He] then cut the electrical cord from a television and used it to whip [her].”"

Thanks to USAO this monster was given supervised release. USAO further promised the that prosecutors that they would not seek indictment on any remaining or greater charges arising from the facts.

USAO absolutely disgusts me. I would not be above picketing outside their offices with posters emblazoned with photos of kids that have suffered from monsters they've seen to fit to keep out of jail.

[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:

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.

The voucher program brought violent criminals—like a man who could kill his own child—into the building where I lived with my family. It doesn’t affect someone like Frumin, so he’s glad it happened.

People like you have contempt for regular working families, so you’re glad it happened too.

Making an argument that vouchers given to others reduces your quality of life is a fine argument.

But it’s a very different argument than one that suggests that vouchers resulted in the kid being killed.

I don’t take issue with your opposition to vouchers housing people in your neighborhood.

But to exploit the death of a child to try to make your life better - which distracts from the factors that actually contributed to his death - is sick.

I’m not sure what part of this you fail to understand. Vouchers helped cause this. DC, by pushing housing of the most vulnerable to the private sector and removing oversight, and at the same time removing the private sector’s legal ability to exercise its own oversight, created unsafe an chaotic housing conditions that led directly to this. DC decided that equity (in the form of sn above market voucher system) was more important than safety.

You’ve constructed an elaborate scenario to confirm an obsessive against voucher holders in NW that you held well before this tragic incident. That scenario is based on complete nonsense. You have absolutely no understanding of the life of this family or any other families that benefit from vouchers. Your prognostications of what would have happened in the absence of being extended a housing voucher are pulled straight from a place where the sun don’t shine. You are an embarrassment to discourse. Please stop.

It’s not “elaborate” to anyone but you.

Elaborate was kind. Utter bullshit is more accurate.

I don’t know how you sleep at night with the knowledge that you exploit the deaths of dead kids to keep voucher recipients out of your neighborhood.

I left the neighborhood because I could t sleep at night in it as my building descended into crime and chaos. I don’t know how you, Frumin, Bowser eta all can think it is right to inflict that on people.

I don’t see anyone on here defending the way the voucher program is being run.

But do you really need to use the violent deaths of two innocent children to draw attention to your specific problems?

DP: It is related. There are other people like him and their children and neighbors are also at risk. This is not a one-off situation.

The voucher program - and how it operates - had almost nothing to do with the children’s deaths. That has been conclusively established throughout this thread.

Trying to use these tragedies to bring attention to the voucher program simply tells everyone else that you are OK with such tragedies as long as they don’t happen in your neighborhood.

That is not true. Disgusting of you to put those words out into the world. All public services are connected as they are touchpoints of the government into the lives of people who are struggling, and these service touchpoints are always opportunities to make a difference and in this case, protect kids.

[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:

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.

The voucher program brought violent criminals—like a man who could kill his own child—into the building where I lived with my family. It doesn’t affect someone like Frumin, so he’s glad it happened.

People like you have contempt for regular working families, so you’re glad it happened too.

Making an argument that vouchers given to others reduces your quality of life is a fine argument.

But it’s a very different argument than one that suggests that vouchers resulted in the kid being killed.

I don’t take issue with your opposition to vouchers housing people in your neighborhood.

But to exploit the death of a child to try to make your life better - which distracts from the factors that actually contributed to his death - is sick.

I’m not sure what part of this you fail to understand. Vouchers helped cause this. DC, by pushing housing of the most vulnerable to the private sector and removing oversight, and at the same time removing the private sector’s legal ability to exercise its own oversight, created unsafe an chaotic housing conditions that led directly to this. DC decided that equity (in the form of sn above market voucher system) was more important than safety.

You’ve constructed an elaborate scenario to confirm an obsessive against voucher holders in NW that you held well before this tragic incident. That scenario is based on complete nonsense. You have absolutely no understanding of the life of this family or any other families that benefit from vouchers. Your prognostications of what would have happened in the absence of being extended a housing voucher are pulled straight from a place where the sun don’t shine. You are an embarrassment to discourse. Please stop.

It’s not “elaborate” to anyone but you.

Elaborate was kind. Utter bullshit is more accurate.

I don’t know how you sleep at night with the knowledge that you exploit the deaths of dead kids to keep voucher recipients out of your neighborhood.

I left the neighborhood because I could t sleep at night in it as my building descended into crime and chaos. I don’t know how you, Frumin, Bowser eta all can think it is right to inflict that on people.

I don’t see anyone on here defending the way the voucher program is being run.

But do you really need to use the violent deaths of two innocent children to draw attention to your specific problems?

DP: It is related. There are other people like him and their children and neighbors are also at risk. This is not a one-off situation.

The voucher program - and how it operates - had almost nothing to do with the children’s deaths. That has been conclusively established throughout this thread.

Trying to use these tragedies to bring attention to the voucher program simply tells everyone else that you are OK with such tragedies as long as they don’t happen in your neighborhood.

That is not true. Disgusting of you to put those words out into the world. All public services are connected as they are touchpoints of the government into the lives of people who are struggling, and these service touchpoints are always opportunities to make a difference and in this case, protect kids.

Such strong words for someone who seems to know so little about what they are talking about.

Service providers had ample “touchpoints” to engage with Deandre’s family. Tacking on conditions to the voucher program, denying them a voucher entirely, or confining them to a locale populated by other people in need of services would have changed nothing.

DC CFSA had this family on their radar after the father was charged with domestic violence. Somehow the family dropped off their radar. It’s very hard to make the case that the family would have received better services had CFSA been given a much larger case load by the family.

If you have an ax to grind about the voucher program, do it in the other thread.

[Anonymous]

* much larger case load by the Council.

[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:

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.

The voucher program brought violent criminals—like a man who could kill his own child—into the building where I lived with my family. It doesn’t affect someone like Frumin, so he’s glad it happened.

People like you have contempt for regular working families, so you’re glad it happened too.

Making an argument that vouchers given to others reduces your quality of life is a fine argument.

But it’s a very different argument than one that suggests that vouchers resulted in the kid being killed.

I don’t take issue with your opposition to vouchers housing people in your neighborhood.

But to exploit the death of a child to try to make your life better - which distracts from the factors that actually contributed to his death - is sick.

I’m not sure what part of this you fail to understand. Vouchers helped cause this. DC, by pushing housing of the most vulnerable to the private sector and removing oversight, and at the same time removing the private sector’s legal ability to exercise its own oversight, created unsafe an chaotic housing conditions that led directly to this. DC decided that equity (in the form of sn above market voucher system) was more important than safety.

You’ve constructed an elaborate scenario to confirm an obsessive against voucher holders in NW that you held well before this tragic incident. That scenario is based on complete nonsense. You have absolutely no understanding of the life of this family or any other families that benefit from vouchers. Your prognostications of what would have happened in the absence of being extended a housing voucher are pulled straight from a place where the sun don’t shine. You are an embarrassment to discourse. Please stop.

It’s not “elaborate” to anyone but you.

Elaborate was kind. Utter bullshit is more accurate.

I don’t know how you sleep at night with the knowledge that you exploit the deaths of dead kids to keep voucher recipients out of your neighborhood.

I left the neighborhood because I could t sleep at night in it as my building descended into crime and chaos. I don’t know how you, Frumin, Bowser eta all can think it is right to inflict that on people.

I don’t see anyone on here defending the way the voucher program is being run.

But do you really need to use the violent deaths of two innocent children to draw attention to your specific problems?

DP: It is related. There are other people like him and their children and neighbors are also at risk. This is not a one-off situation.

The voucher program - and how it operates - had almost nothing to do with the children’s deaths. That has been conclusively established throughout this thread.

Trying to use these tragedies to bring attention to the voucher program simply tells everyone else that you are OK with such tragedies as long as they don’t happen in your neighborhood.

That is not true. Disgusting of you to put those words out into the world. All public services are connected as they are touchpoints of the government into the lives of people who are struggling, and these service touchpoints are always opportunities to make a difference and in this case, protect kids.

Such strong words for someone who seems to know so little about what they are talking about.

Service providers had ample “touchpoints” to engage with Deandre’s family. Tacking on conditions to the voucher program, denying them a voucher entirely, or confining them to a locale populated by other people in need of services would have changed nothing.

DC CFSA had this family on their radar after the father was charged with domestic violence. Somehow the family dropped off their radar. It’s very hard to make the case that the family would have received better services had CFSA been given a much larger case load by the family.

If you have an ax to grind about the voucher program, do it in the other thread.

Silly PP, the racists in this thread are engaged in "what-about-ism" on vouchers. Anything that can be loosely associated with a voucher program can and will be weaponized by the NIMBYs of Ward 3 to keep it as lilly white as possible.

[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:

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.

The voucher program brought violent criminals—like a man who could kill his own child—into the building where I lived with my family. It doesn’t affect someone like Frumin, so he’s glad it happened.

People like you have contempt for regular working families, so you’re glad it happened too.

Making an argument that vouchers given to others reduces your quality of life is a fine argument.

But it’s a very different argument than one that suggests that vouchers resulted in the kid being killed.

I don’t take issue with your opposition to vouchers housing people in your neighborhood.

But to exploit the death of a child to try to make your life better - which distracts from the factors that actually contributed to his death - is sick.

I’m not sure what part of this you fail to understand. Vouchers helped cause this. DC, by pushing housing of the most vulnerable to the private sector and removing oversight, and at the same time removing the private sector’s legal ability to exercise its own oversight, created unsafe an chaotic housing conditions that led directly to this. DC decided that equity (in the form of sn above market voucher system) was more important than safety.

You’ve constructed an elaborate scenario to confirm an obsessive against voucher holders in NW that you held well before this tragic incident. That scenario is based on complete nonsense. You have absolutely no understanding of the life of this family or any other families that benefit from vouchers. Your prognostications of what would have happened in the absence of being extended a housing voucher are pulled straight from a place where the sun don’t shine. You are an embarrassment to discourse. Please stop.

It’s not “elaborate” to anyone but you.

Elaborate was kind. Utter bullshit is more accurate.

I don’t know how you sleep at night with the knowledge that you exploit the deaths of dead kids to keep voucher recipients out of your neighborhood.

I left the neighborhood because I could t sleep at night in it as my building descended into crime and chaos. I don’t know how you, Frumin, Bowser eta all can think it is right to inflict that on people.

I don’t see anyone on here defending the way the voucher program is being run.

But do you really need to use the violent deaths of two innocent children to draw attention to your specific problems?

DP: It is related. There are other people like him and their children and neighbors are also at risk. This is not a one-off situation.

The voucher program - and how it operates - had almost nothing to do with the children’s deaths. That has been conclusively established throughout this thread.

Trying to use these tragedies to bring attention to the voucher program simply tells everyone else that you are OK with such tragedies as long as they don’t happen in your neighborhood.

That is not true. Disgusting of you to put those words out into the world. All public services are connected as they are touchpoints of the government into the lives of people who are struggling, and these service touchpoints are always opportunities to make a difference and in this case, protect kids.

Such strong words for someone who seems to know so little about what they are talking about.

Service providers had ample “touchpoints” to engage with Deandre’s family. Tacking on conditions to the voucher program, denying them a voucher entirely, or confining them to a locale populated by other people in need of services would have changed nothing.

DC CFSA had this family on their radar after the father was charged with domestic violence. Somehow the family dropped off their radar. It’s very hard to make the case that the family would have received better services had CFSA been given a much larger case load by the family.

If you have an ax to grind about the voucher program, do it in the other thread.

Silly PP, the racists in this thread are engaged in "what-about-ism" on vouchers. Anything that can be loosely associated with a voucher program can and will be weaponized by the NIMBYs of Ward 3 to keep it as lilly white as possible.

When posters on here respond to the violent deaths of two children by ignoring the incompetence of USAO and CYFS and instead suggesting that the key to preventing further tragedies is to cluster people “requiring services” all together in another party of the city, it’s hard to reach too many other conclusions.

[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:

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.

The voucher program brought violent criminals—like a man who could kill his own child—into the building where I lived with my family. It doesn’t affect someone like Frumin, so he’s glad it happened.

People like you have contempt for regular working families, so you’re glad it happened too.

Making an argument that vouchers given to others reduces your quality of life is a fine argument.

But it’s a very different argument than one that suggests that vouchers resulted in the kid being killed.

I don’t take issue with your opposition to vouchers housing people in your neighborhood.

But to exploit the death of a child to try to make your life better - which distracts from the factors that actually contributed to his death - is sick.

I’m not sure what part of this you fail to understand. Vouchers helped cause this. DC, by pushing housing of the most vulnerable to the private sector and removing oversight, and at the same time removing the private sector’s legal ability to exercise its own oversight, created unsafe an chaotic housing conditions that led directly to this. DC decided that equity (in the form of sn above market voucher system) was more important than safety.

You’ve constructed an elaborate scenario to confirm an obsessive against voucher holders in NW that you held well before this tragic incident. That scenario is based on complete nonsense. You have absolutely no understanding of the life of this family or any other families that benefit from vouchers. Your prognostications of what would have happened in the absence of being extended a housing voucher are pulled straight from a place where the sun don’t shine. You are an embarrassment to discourse. Please stop.

It’s not “elaborate” to anyone but you.

Elaborate was kind. Utter bullshit is more accurate.

I don’t know how you sleep at night with the knowledge that you exploit the deaths of dead kids to keep voucher recipients out of your neighborhood.

I left the neighborhood because I could t sleep at night in it as my building descended into crime and chaos. I don’t know how you, Frumin, Bowser eta all can think it is right to inflict that on people.

I don’t see anyone on here defending the way the voucher program is being run.

But do you really need to use the violent deaths of two innocent children to draw attention to your specific problems?

DP: It is related. There are other people like him and their children and neighbors are also at risk. This is not a one-off situation.

The voucher program - and how it operates - had almost nothing to do with the children’s deaths. That has been conclusively established throughout this thread.

Trying to use these tragedies to bring attention to the voucher program simply tells everyone else that you are OK with such tragedies as long as they don’t happen in your neighborhood.

That is not true. Disgusting of you to put those words out into the world. All public services are connected as they are touchpoints of the government into the lives of people who are struggling, and these service touchpoints are always opportunities to make a difference and in this case, protect kids.

Such strong words for someone who seems to know so little about what they are talking about.

Service providers had ample “touchpoints” to engage with Deandre’s family. Tacking on conditions to the voucher program, denying them a voucher entirely, or confining them to a locale populated by other people in need of services would have changed nothing.

DC CFSA had this family on their radar after the father was charged with domestic violence. Somehow the family dropped off their radar. It’s very hard to make the case that the family would have received better services had CFSA been given a much larger case load by the family.

If you have an ax to grind about the voucher program, do it in the other thread.

It’s absolutely absurd that you think one public policy can be completely insulated from criticism.

[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:

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.

The voucher program brought violent criminals—like a man who could kill his own child—into the building where I lived with my family. It doesn’t affect someone like Frumin, so he’s glad it happened.

People like you have contempt for regular working families, so you’re glad it happened too.

Making an argument that vouchers given to others reduces your quality of life is a fine argument.

But it’s a very different argument than one that suggests that vouchers resulted in the kid being killed.

I don’t take issue with your opposition to vouchers housing people in your neighborhood.

But to exploit the death of a child to try to make your life better - which distracts from the factors that actually contributed to his death - is sick.

I’m not sure what part of this you fail to understand. Vouchers helped cause this. DC, by pushing housing of the most vulnerable to the private sector and removing oversight, and at the same time removing the private sector’s legal ability to exercise its own oversight, created unsafe an chaotic housing conditions that led directly to this. DC decided that equity (in the form of sn above market voucher system) was more important than safety.

You’ve constructed an elaborate scenario to confirm an obsessive against voucher holders in NW that you held well before this tragic incident. That scenario is based on complete nonsense. You have absolutely no understanding of the life of this family or any other families that benefit from vouchers. Your prognostications of what would have happened in the absence of being extended a housing voucher are pulled straight from a place where the sun don’t shine. You are an embarrassment to discourse. Please stop.

It’s not “elaborate” to anyone but you.

Elaborate was kind. Utter bullshit is more accurate.

I don’t know how you sleep at night with the knowledge that you exploit the deaths of dead kids to keep voucher recipients out of your neighborhood.

I left the neighborhood because I could t sleep at night in it as my building descended into crime and chaos. I don’t know how you, Frumin, Bowser eta all can think it is right to inflict that on people.

I don’t see anyone on here defending the way the voucher program is being run.

But do you really need to use the violent deaths of two innocent children to draw attention to your specific problems?

DP: It is related. There are other people like him and their children and neighbors are also at risk. This is not a one-off situation.

The voucher program - and how it operates - had almost nothing to do with the children’s deaths. That has been conclusively established throughout this thread.

Trying to use these tragedies to bring attention to the voucher program simply tells everyone else that you are OK with such tragedies as long as they don’t happen in your neighborhood.

That is not true. Disgusting of you to put those words out into the world. All public services are connected as they are touchpoints of the government into the lives of people who are struggling, and these service touchpoints are always opportunities to make a difference and in this case, protect kids.

Such strong words for someone who seems to know so little about what they are talking about.

Service providers had ample “touchpoints” to engage with Deandre’s family. Tacking on conditions to the voucher program, denying them a voucher entirely, or confining them to a locale populated by other people in need of services would have changed nothing.

DC CFSA had this family on their radar after the father was charged with domestic violence. Somehow the family dropped off their radar. It’s very hard to make the case that the family would have received better services had CFSA been given a much larger case load by the family.

If you have an ax to grind about the voucher program, do it in the other thread.

Silly PP, the racists in this thread are engaged in "what-about-ism" on vouchers. Anything that can be loosely associated with a voucher program can and will be weaponized by the NIMBYs of Ward 3 to keep it as lilly white as possible.

I see. As I thought, policies that primarily produce “equity” in the literal sense of numbers of black bodies present are ALL you care about. Actual safety, actual education, actual wellbeing - nope.

[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:

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.

The voucher program brought violent criminals—like a man who could kill his own child—into the building where I lived with my family. It doesn’t affect someone like Frumin, so he’s glad it happened.

People like you have contempt for regular working families, so you’re glad it happened too.

Making an argument that vouchers given to others reduces your quality of life is a fine argument.

But it’s a very different argument than one that suggests that vouchers resulted in the kid being killed.

I don’t take issue with your opposition to vouchers housing people in your neighborhood.

But to exploit the death of a child to try to make your life better - which distracts from the factors that actually contributed to his death - is sick.

I’m not sure what part of this you fail to understand. Vouchers helped cause this. DC, by pushing housing of the most vulnerable to the private sector and removing oversight, and at the same time removing the private sector’s legal ability to exercise its own oversight, created unsafe an chaotic housing conditions that led directly to this. DC decided that equity (in the form of sn above market voucher system) was more important than safety.

You’ve constructed an elaborate scenario to confirm an obsessive against voucher holders in NW that you held well before this tragic incident. That scenario is based on complete nonsense. You have absolutely no understanding of the life of this family or any other families that benefit from vouchers. Your prognostications of what would have happened in the absence of being extended a housing voucher are pulled straight from a place where the sun don’t shine. You are an embarrassment to discourse. Please stop.

It’s not “elaborate” to anyone but you.

Elaborate was kind. Utter bullshit is more accurate.

I don’t know how you sleep at night with the knowledge that you exploit the deaths of dead kids to keep voucher recipients out of your neighborhood.

I left the neighborhood because I could t sleep at night in it as my building descended into crime and chaos. I don’t know how you, Frumin, Bowser eta all can think it is right to inflict that on people.

I don’t see anyone on here defending the way the voucher program is being run.

But do you really need to use the violent deaths of two innocent children to draw attention to your specific problems?

DP: It is related. There are other people like him and their children and neighbors are also at risk. This is not a one-off situation.

The voucher program - and how it operates - had almost nothing to do with the children’s deaths. That has been conclusively established throughout this thread.

Trying to use these tragedies to bring attention to the voucher program simply tells everyone else that you are OK with such tragedies as long as they don’t happen in your neighborhood.

That is not true. Disgusting of you to put those words out into the world. All public services are connected as they are touchpoints of the government into the lives of people who are struggling, and these service touchpoints are always opportunities to make a difference and in this case, protect kids.

Such strong words for someone who seems to know so little about what they are talking about.

Service providers had ample “touchpoints” to engage with Deandre’s family. Tacking on conditions to the voucher program, denying them a voucher entirely, or confining them to a locale populated by other people in need of services would have changed nothing.

DC CFSA had this family on their radar after the father was charged with domestic violence. Somehow the family dropped off their radar. It’s very hard to make the case that the family would have received better services had CFSA been given a much larger case load by the family.

If you have an ax to grind about the voucher program, do it in the other thread.

Silly PP, the racists in this thread are engaged in "what-about-ism" on vouchers. Anything that can be loosely associated with a voucher program can and will be weaponized by the NIMBYs of Ward 3 to keep it as lilly white as possible.

When posters on here respond to the violent deaths of two children by ignoring the incompetence of USAO and CYFS and instead suggesting that the key to preventing further tragedies is to cluster people “requiring services” all together in another party of the city, it’s hard to reach too many other conclusions.

Literally nobody said that, but thanks for proving you get off on opportunities to call other white people racist (we know you are white) first and foremost.

[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:

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.

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.

The voucher program brought violent criminals—like a man who could kill his own child—into the building where I lived with my family. It doesn’t affect someone like Frumin, so he’s glad it happened.

People like you have contempt for regular working families, so you’re glad it happened too.

Making an argument that vouchers given to others reduces your quality of life is a fine argument.

But it’s a very different argument than one that suggests that vouchers resulted in the kid being killed.

I don’t take issue with your opposition to vouchers housing people in your neighborhood.

But to exploit the death of a child to try to make your life better - which distracts from the factors that actually contributed to his death - is sick.

I’m not sure what part of this you fail to understand. Vouchers helped cause this. DC, by pushing housing of the most vulnerable to the private sector and removing oversight, and at the same time removing the private sector’s legal ability to exercise its own oversight, created unsafe an chaotic housing conditions that led directly to this. DC decided that equity (in the form of sn above market voucher system) was more important than safety.

You’ve constructed an elaborate scenario to confirm an obsessive against voucher holders in NW that you held well before this tragic incident. That scenario is based on complete nonsense. You have absolutely no understanding of the life of this family or any other families that benefit from vouchers. Your prognostications of what would have happened in the absence of being extended a housing voucher are pulled straight from a place where the sun don’t shine. You are an embarrassment to discourse. Please stop.

It’s not “elaborate” to anyone but you.

Elaborate was kind. Utter bullshit is more accurate.

I don’t know how you sleep at night with the knowledge that you exploit the deaths of dead kids to keep voucher recipients out of your neighborhood.

I left the neighborhood because I could t sleep at night in it as my building descended into crime and chaos. I don’t know how you, Frumin, Bowser eta all can think it is right to inflict that on people.

I don’t see anyone on here defending the way the voucher program is being run.

But do you really need to use the violent deaths of two innocent children to draw attention to your specific problems?

DP: It is related. There are other people like him and their children and neighbors are also at risk. This is not a one-off situation.

The voucher program - and how it operates - had almost nothing to do with the children’s deaths. That has been conclusively established throughout this thread.

Trying to use these tragedies to bring attention to the voucher program simply tells everyone else that you are OK with such tragedies as long as they don’t happen in your neighborhood.

That is not true. Disgusting of you to put those words out into the world. All public services are connected as they are touchpoints of the government into the lives of people who are struggling, and these service touchpoints are always opportunities to make a difference and in this case, protect kids.

Such strong words for someone who seems to know so little about what they are talking about.

Service providers had ample “touchpoints” to engage with Deandre’s family. Tacking on conditions to the voucher program, denying them a voucher entirely, or confining them to a locale populated by other people in need of services would have changed nothing.

DC CFSA had this family on their radar after the father was charged with domestic violence. Somehow the family dropped off their radar. It’s very hard to make the case that the family would have received better services had CFSA been given a much larger case load by the family.

If you have an ax to grind about the voucher program, do it in the other thread.

Silly PP, the racists in this thread are engaged in "what-about-ism" on vouchers. Anything that can be loosely associated with a voucher program can and will be weaponized by the NIMBYs of Ward 3 to keep it as lilly white as possible.

When posters on here respond to the violent deaths of two children by ignoring the incompetence of USAO and CYFS and instead suggesting that the key to preventing further tragedies is to cluster people “requiring services” all together in another party of the city, it’s hard to reach too many other conclusions.

Literally nobody said that, but thanks for proving you get off on opportunities to call other white people racist (we know you are white) first and foremost.

Oh really? You don’t remember writing this?:

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.

[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:

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.

The voucher program brought violent criminals—like a man who could kill his own child—into the building where I lived with my family. It doesn’t affect someone like Frumin, so he’s glad it happened.

People like you have contempt for regular working families, so you’re glad it happened too.

Making an argument that vouchers given to others reduces your quality of life is a fine argument.

But it’s a very different argument than one that suggests that vouchers resulted in the kid being killed.

I don’t take issue with your opposition to vouchers housing people in your neighborhood.

But to exploit the death of a child to try to make your life better - which distracts from the factors that actually contributed to his death - is sick.

I’m not sure what part of this you fail to understand. Vouchers helped cause this. DC, by pushing housing of the most vulnerable to the private sector and removing oversight, and at the same time removing the private sector’s legal ability to exercise its own oversight, created unsafe an chaotic housing conditions that led directly to this. DC decided that equity (in the form of sn above market voucher system) was more important than safety.

You’ve constructed an elaborate scenario to confirm an obsessive against voucher holders in NW that you held well before this tragic incident. That scenario is based on complete nonsense. You have absolutely no understanding of the life of this family or any other families that benefit from vouchers. Your prognostications of what would have happened in the absence of being extended a housing voucher are pulled straight from a place where the sun don’t shine. You are an embarrassment to discourse. Please stop.

It’s not “elaborate” to anyone but you.

Elaborate was kind. Utter bullshit is more accurate.

I don’t know how you sleep at night with the knowledge that you exploit the deaths of dead kids to keep voucher recipients out of your neighborhood.

I left the neighborhood because I could t sleep at night in it as my building descended into crime and chaos. I don’t know how you, Frumin, Bowser eta all can think it is right to inflict that on people.

I don’t see anyone on here defending the way the voucher program is being run.

But do you really need to use the violent deaths of two innocent children to draw attention to your specific problems?

DP: It is related. There are other people like him and their children and neighbors are also at risk. This is not a one-off situation.

The voucher program - and how it operates - had almost nothing to do with the children’s deaths. That has been conclusively established throughout this thread.

Trying to use these tragedies to bring attention to the voucher program simply tells everyone else that you are OK with such tragedies as long as they don’t happen in your neighborhood.

That is not true. Disgusting of you to put those words out into the world. All public services are connected as they are touchpoints of the government into the lives of people who are struggling, and these service touchpoints are always opportunities to make a difference and in this case, protect kids.

Such strong words for someone who seems to know so little about what they are talking about.

Service providers had ample “touchpoints” to engage with Deandre’s family. Tacking on conditions to the voucher program, denying them a voucher entirely, or confining them to a locale populated by other people in need of services would have changed nothing.

DC CFSA had this family on their radar after the father was charged with domestic violence. Somehow the family dropped off their radar. It’s very hard to make the case that the family would have received better services had CFSA been given a much larger case load by the family.

If you have an ax to grind about the voucher program, do it in the other thread.

It’s absolutely absurd that you think one public policy can be completely insulated from criticism.

You, me, and almost everyone have plenty of bones to pick with the voucher program.

But only a select few - such as you - are inclined to seize on the violent deaths of two innocent children to push policy changes completely irrelevant to the circumstances that led to their deaths.

There is another thread on the main page that discusses the voucher issue. Please take your points there and stop trying to deflect attention from institutional incompetence at USAO and CFSA.

[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:

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.

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.

The voucher program brought violent criminals—like a man who could kill his own child—into the building where I lived with my family. It doesn’t affect someone like Frumin, so he’s glad it happened.

People like you have contempt for regular working families, so you’re glad it happened too.

Making an argument that vouchers given to others reduces your quality of life is a fine argument.

But it’s a very different argument than one that suggests that vouchers resulted in the kid being killed.

I don’t take issue with your opposition to vouchers housing people in your neighborhood.

But to exploit the death of a child to try to make your life better - which distracts from the factors that actually contributed to his death - is sick.

I’m not sure what part of this you fail to understand. Vouchers helped cause this. DC, by pushing housing of the most vulnerable to the private sector and removing oversight, and at the same time removing the private sector’s legal ability to exercise its own oversight, created unsafe an chaotic housing conditions that led directly to this. DC decided that equity (in the form of sn above market voucher system) was more important than safety.

You’ve constructed an elaborate scenario to confirm an obsessive against voucher holders in NW that you held well before this tragic incident. That scenario is based on complete nonsense. You have absolutely no understanding of the life of this family or any other families that benefit from vouchers. Your prognostications of what would have happened in the absence of being extended a housing voucher are pulled straight from a place where the sun don’t shine. You are an embarrassment to discourse. Please stop.

It’s not “elaborate” to anyone but you.

Elaborate was kind. Utter bullshit is more accurate.

I don’t know how you sleep at night with the knowledge that you exploit the deaths of dead kids to keep voucher recipients out of your neighborhood.

I left the neighborhood because I could t sleep at night in it as my building descended into crime and chaos. I don’t know how you, Frumin, Bowser eta all can think it is right to inflict that on people.

I don’t see anyone on here defending the way the voucher program is being run.

But do you really need to use the violent deaths of two innocent children to draw attention to your specific problems?

DP: It is related. There are other people like him and their children and neighbors are also at risk. This is not a one-off situation.

The voucher program - and how it operates - had almost nothing to do with the children’s deaths. That has been conclusively established throughout this thread.

Trying to use these tragedies to bring attention to the voucher program simply tells everyone else that you are OK with such tragedies as long as they don’t happen in your neighborhood.

That is not true. Disgusting of you to put those words out into the world. All public services are connected as they are touchpoints of the government into the lives of people who are struggling, and these service touchpoints are always opportunities to make a difference and in this case, protect kids.

Such strong words for someone who seems to know so little about what they are talking about.

Service providers had ample “touchpoints” to engage with Deandre’s family. Tacking on conditions to the voucher program, denying them a voucher entirely, or confining them to a locale populated by other people in need of services would have changed nothing.

DC CFSA had this family on their radar after the father was charged with domestic violence. Somehow the family dropped off their radar. It’s very hard to make the case that the family would have received better services had CFSA been given a much larger case load by the family.

If you have an ax to grind about the voucher program, do it in the other thread.

Silly PP, the racists in this thread are engaged in "what-about-ism" on vouchers. Anything that can be loosely associated with a voucher program can and will be weaponized by the NIMBYs of Ward 3 to keep it as lilly white as possible.

When posters on here respond to the violent deaths of two children by ignoring the incompetence of USAO and CYFS and instead suggesting that the key to preventing further tragedies is to cluster people “requiring services” all together in another party of the city, it’s hard to reach too many other conclusions.

Literally nobody said that, but thanks for proving you get off on opportunities to call other white people racist (we know you are white) first and foremost.

Oh really? You don’t remember writing this?:

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.

that identifies vouchers as one aspect - and it’s not a bad point. if your only goal is to disperse the most troubled tenants all you are doing is spreading trouble around and you can hardly pretend to be shocked when people get upset that their previously safe block is now unsafe.

[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:

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.

The voucher program brought violent criminals—like a man who could kill his own child—into the building where I lived with my family. It doesn’t affect someone like Frumin, so he’s glad it happened.

People like you have contempt for regular working families, so you’re glad it happened too.

Making an argument that vouchers given to others reduces your quality of life is a fine argument.

But it’s a very different argument than one that suggests that vouchers resulted in the kid being killed.

I don’t take issue with your opposition to vouchers housing people in your neighborhood.

But to exploit the death of a child to try to make your life better - which distracts from the factors that actually contributed to his death - is sick.

I’m not sure what part of this you fail to understand. Vouchers helped cause this. DC, by pushing housing of the most vulnerable to the private sector and removing oversight, and at the same time removing the private sector’s legal ability to exercise its own oversight, created unsafe an chaotic housing conditions that led directly to this. DC decided that equity (in the form of sn above market voucher system) was more important than safety.

You’ve constructed an elaborate scenario to confirm an obsessive against voucher holders in NW that you held well before this tragic incident. That scenario is based on complete nonsense. You have absolutely no understanding of the life of this family or any other families that benefit from vouchers. Your prognostications of what would have happened in the absence of being extended a housing voucher are pulled straight from a place where the sun don’t shine. You are an embarrassment to discourse. Please stop.

It’s not “elaborate” to anyone but you.

Elaborate was kind. Utter bullshit is more accurate.

I don’t know how you sleep at night with the knowledge that you exploit the deaths of dead kids to keep voucher recipients out of your neighborhood.

I left the neighborhood because I could t sleep at night in it as my building descended into crime and chaos. I don’t know how you, Frumin, Bowser eta all can think it is right to inflict that on people.

I don’t see anyone on here defending the way the voucher program is being run.

But do you really need to use the violent deaths of two innocent children to draw attention to your specific problems?

DP: It is related. There are other people like him and their children and neighbors are also at risk. This is not a one-off situation.

The voucher program - and how it operates - had almost nothing to do with the children’s deaths. That has been conclusively established throughout this thread.

Trying to use these tragedies to bring attention to the voucher program simply tells everyone else that you are OK with such tragedies as long as they don’t happen in your neighborhood.

That is not true. Disgusting of you to put those words out into the world. All public services are connected as they are touchpoints of the government into the lives of people who are struggling, and these service touchpoints are always opportunities to make a difference and in this case, protect kids.

Such strong words for someone who seems to know so little about what they are talking about.

Service providers had ample “touchpoints” to engage with Deandre’s family. Tacking on conditions to the voucher program, denying them a voucher entirely, or confining them to a locale populated by other people in need of services would have changed nothing.

DC CFSA had this family on their radar after the father was charged with domestic violence. Somehow the family dropped off their radar. It’s very hard to make the case that the family would have received better services had CFSA been given a much larger case load by the family.

If you have an ax to grind about the voucher program, do it in the other thread.

It’s absolutely absurd that you think one public policy can be completely insulated from criticism.

You, me, and almost everyone have plenty of bones to pick with the voucher program.

But only a select few - such as you - are inclined to seize on the violent deaths of two innocent children to push policy changes completely irrelevant to the circumstances that led to their deaths.

There is another thread on the main page that discusses the voucher issue. Please take your points there and stop trying to deflect attention from institutional incompetence at USAO and CFSA.

once again, who appointed you the arbiter of what city policies are and are not to blame?

and as much as you don’t want to accept this - the revulsion of people experiencing this kind of crime in their neighborhood for the first time actually matters on a policy level. there’s truly not a better way to lose public support for vouchers than to say “suck it up, you have to accept it.”

[Anonymous]

Punishing the residents of Ward 3 is among the primary goals the voucher program, but it’s extremely hilarious that Ward 3 voted for a guy promising to help make the punishment worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Punishing the residents of Ward 3 is among the primary goals the voucher program, but it’s extremely hilarious that Ward 3 voted for a guy promising to help make the punishment worse.

I’d say that Frumin has put Ward 3 over the proverbial pickleball barrel.