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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

I think this may be part of the Fair Housing Act, meaning it is federal.

[Anonymous]

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

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

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

No, the chaos is NOT a subterfuge to empty a building of tenants. Interest rates and construction costs are high, so there is no incentive to empty a building to do a major repositioning. The crime in NoMA, Navy Yard, etc. is starting to cause people to be more interested in Connecticut and Wisconsin---especially as the units are larger. There was one well known case of an apartment portfolio owner who tried to overcharge the District re voucher tenants. They had a multi-million dollar settlement with the District and their management company was prohibited from further management of their buildings per the settlement. That case formed the basis for the narrative that some cabal of unscrupulous landlords was trying to pack buildings with voucher tenants. Landlords would be fine with a policy that required market rate buildings to take a certain number (probably no more than 10%) of voucher tenants---similar to the inclusionary zoning requirements now imposed by DC for new buildings. DC constantly sends out testers to buildings to play "gotcha" with landlords so landlords are very cautious on screening requirements, lest they find themselves being sued by the DC AG's office. Plus, the DC Council periodically tries to introduce legislation which would prohibit landlords from reviewing credit history. That legislation hasn't passed yet, but not for lack of interest by the far left progressive wing of the council. And once a tenant (whether market or voucher) is in residence, it can take literally years to evict them for any behavior-based lease violation. Landlords have very little flexibility in terms of being able to screen tenants or evict problemmatic ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


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


I think this may be part of the Fair Housing Act, meaning it is federal.

Not true. Fair Housing protects race, religion, national origin, etc. Source of income as a protected class is not federal. It is a class created in state or municipal law. A better approach would be to require that landlords of buildings containing in excess of 10 units have to be willing to accept housing vouchers such as Section 8 for at least 10 percent of their units, but are not obligated to accept more than that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Which is why they probably don't have it. But it is a viable program that runs great just across the river. It can be done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

No, the chaos is NOT a subterfuge to empty a building of tenants. Interest rates and construction costs are high, so there is no incentive to empty a building to do a major repositioning. The crime in NoMA, Navy Yard, etc. is starting to cause people to be more interested in Connecticut and Wisconsin---especially as the units are larger. There was one well known case of an apartment portfolio owner who tried to overcharge the District re voucher tenants. They had a multi-million dollar settlement with the District and their management company was prohibited from further management of their buildings per the settlement. That case formed the basis for the narrative that some cabal of unscrupulous landlords was trying to pack buildings with voucher tenants. Landlords would be fine with a policy that required market rate buildings to take a certain number (probably no more than 10%) of voucher tenants---similar to the inclusionary zoning requirements now imposed by DC for new buildings. DC constantly sends out testers to buildings to play "gotcha" with landlords so landlords are very cautious on screening requirements, lest they find themselves being sued by the DC AG's office. Plus, the DC Council periodically tries to introduce legislation which would prohibit landlords from reviewing credit history. That legislation hasn't passed yet, but not for lack of interest by the far left progressive wing of the council. And once a tenant (whether market or voucher) is in residence, it can take literally years to evict them for any behavior-based lease violation. Landlords have very little flexibility in terms of being able to screen tenants or evict problemmatic ones.

The idea of capping has been raised several times over the past few years, but has been a no go thus far. Supposedly DC LT Court is prioritizing the eviction of dangerous tenants, we'll see what happens over time.

It's my understanding that often the voucher resident does not pay their share of the rent, they are evicted in 6 months or so and move to a nearby building. This also seems to be the pattern if they are evicted for other reasons such as violence in building or sex work. DC does not seem to remove vouchers even in extreme cases, with the Sedgewick Gardens SWAT guy a prime example.

[Anonymous]

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

You voted for this. Next time do better. We don’t simultaneously need 13 “community activists” on the city council. This is what you get.

[Anonymous]

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

Long time tenants may be paying under market rate and may find moving elsewhere quite difficult. Also, families with kids who moved in for access to Murch, Lafayette, Eaton, Janney or Deal and their feeder patterns may also feel trapped. It is a very unfortunate situation.

Unfortunately the payments over market rate have carried over to condo rentals too, so moving into those buildings may also bring unanticipated risks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

You voted for this. Next time do better. We don’t simultaneously need 13 “community activists” on the city council. This is what you get.

Many of us, in fact, did NOT "vote for this."

[Anonymous]

I voted for Goulet, specifically because he was vocal about this issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

You voted for this. Next time do better. We don’t simultaneously need 13 “community activists” on the city council. This is what you get.

Hard to feel sorry libs getting FITA by lib policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I voted for Goulet, specifically because he was vocal about this issue.

Frumin has stated he does not support calling for a pause. He’s lost our vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

I think this may be part of the Fair Housing Act, meaning it is federal.

Hasn't DC been giving vouchers that are too high, in violation of the law? The federal law plays a part, but DC too...

[Anonymous]

I also voted for Goulet due to this issue.

[Anonymous]

Connecticut Ave has become Ward 3's voucher village and crime corridor.

[Anonymous]

Wisconsin too.

On the W3 Dems meeting last night, Frumin gave a nod to some problems but kept to the script of stressing W3 needs to be "welcoming." Someone suggested that some voucher tenants move due to feeling "unwelcome" and someone else suggested gift baskets. The bulk of their living expenses, housing, snap and health care are paid by tax dollars, now there should be gift baskets? I have heard of voucher residents moving because they believe some of these buildings like Connecticut House, Brandywine, Chesapeake House, Saratoga, 3303 Van Ness, etc. are UNSAFE. And, they would be correct.