Shooting at Brandywine & Connecticut Ave NW This Afternoon

[Anonymous]

My son moved back to the DMV this year and looked at some formerly nice apartment buildings along Connecticut. He could quickly see that several buildings were overrun with voucher holders, many with behavioral issues. He now lives in Bethesda. He loved growing up in DC but will settle in Maryland. DC is losing its tax base because of this misguided voucher program and unwillingness to address criminal and deviant behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. And many in AU Park, Forest Hills and SV support all of the above and "like the sound of" restorative justice. Removing the penalty of losing license for not paying traffic fines was another issue where Cheh raised concerns but voted for it anyway, and we've seen more mayhem on the streets.

This is it. A lot of people in these areas want to appear "with it," and will follow wherever the activists tell them to go. Some neighbors will quietly tell you they disagree with the craziness, but few have the courage to risk the wrath of the radicals. Look how often people get accused of being racist on here just for saying they want less crime (something polls show is the top issue for D.C. residents).

That's how bullies are being handled - with meek acquiescence. I wouldn't be surprised if more people are willing to move out of the area than to stand up for it.

People are only willing to speak up about what's right when these failures really hit home. But by the time most people are willing to speak up, it's going to take years to dig ourselves out of this hole and get back to where things were a decade ago.

ANC 3F covers the area where the shooting happened. They are meeting on Tuesday, 9/19 at 7pm. Don't see crime mentioned on agenda on ND but MPD does attend.

https://www.anc3f.com/about
Meeting link: https://bit.ly/anc3fmeet

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Also links to this article:

https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/home-front/apartment-updates-new-nuisance-building-at-van-ness-tenant-leaders-request-meeting-with-mayor/

Which talks about tenant leaders meeting with Frumin to discuss these problems in May of 2022. It's now over a year later, and he doesn't have a plan.

Has any District leader said what the end goal of the voucher program is? Can homeless people just move to D.C., stay a year, and then get the District to pay for their upper NW apartments for life? We had ~4,000 homeless people living D.C. in 2015:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/with-4000-in-homeless-shelters-dc-on-pace-to-eclipse-record-set-last-year/2015/01/29/e74de4ca-a7c4-11e4-a06b-9df2002b86a0_story.html

https://streetsensemedia.org/article/single-adult-shelters-issues-briefiing-dc/

Now we have more than twice that amount of vouchers alone (and when you consider one voucher could be for a family with multiple individuals, we're talking about an even larger number). More than 1.2% of the population, and the number has been growing every year.

Do you have a link for people not being eligible for housing for a year after arrival in DC? That is contrary to some things I have heard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you have a link for people not being eligible for housing for a year after arrival in DC? That is contrary to some things I have heard.

Here's the eligibility they have listed on their site:

https://dhs.dc.gov/page/permanent-supportive-housing-individuals-and-families-project-based-tenant-based-local-veterans

1. 1+ years of documented chronic homelessness (1 consecutive year or experienced 4 episodes of homelessness within the last 3 years that accumulate to at least 1+ year) and chronic disabling condition
2. Limited income earning potential
3. Need for intensive case management

[Anonymous]

The more we discuss this, the more it seems absolutely bonkers to house the chronically homeless (by definition, having some sort of severe mental and/or addiction) in private buildings using above market-rate vouchers. Like, calculated to lead to failure on multiple levela. Private *market-rate* voucher solutions make sense for people who just have an affordability problem. But turning private buildings into unstaffed low barriee homeless shelters is nuttttttssss.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for that info, PP.

I'm not sure that year has to be in DC, or at least how strictly that is followed, would be a good question to ask Frumin. I've heard of people moving from VA and elsewhere and getting a voucher in far less than a year. Also people from encampments that are cleared are offered vouchers right away.

Btw, heard from a neighbor that the attempted armed car jacking @ 7 this am in Chevy Chase DC was at the Exxon on Connecticut. Racine may have been on to something when he expressed concern re: buying gas in dc. F driver and 3 M in car, makes me wonder if they are truant kids? We had kids carjacking during school hours last year. Have never heard Bowser speak about addressing. There was also carjacking up by Fort Reno on a day there was a snow delay. Schwab may have to adjust his "kids are kids" mantra. No consequences does the kids no favors either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The more we discuss this, the more it seems absolutely bonkers to house the chronically homeless (by definition, having some sort of severe mental and/or addiction) in private buildings using above market-rate vouchers. Like, calculated to lead to failure on multiple levela. Private *market-rate* voucher solutions make sense for people who just have an affordability problem. But turning private buildings into unstaffed low barriee homeless shelters is nuttttttssss.

Agree. HF frames the issue as housing and as having requirements for entry, compelled participation in services, requiring sobriety, all the things shelters traditionally did.

If the issue is framed as substance abuse and/or MI, then the solution is nuts. But, those things cost a lot of money to address and there is no huge pot of funds for developers to kick back from, so...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more we discuss this, the more it seems absolutely bonkers to house the chronically homeless (by definition, having some sort of severe mental and/or addiction) in private buildings using above market-rate vouchers. Like, calculated to lead to failure on multiple levela. Private *market-rate* voucher solutions make sense for people who just have an affordability problem. But turning private buildings into unstaffed low barriee homeless shelters is nuttttttssss.

Agree. HF frames the issue as housing and as having requirements for entry, compelled participation in services, requiring sobriety, all the things shelters traditionally did.

If the issue is framed as substance abuse and/or MI, then the solution is nuts. But, those things cost a lot of money to address and there is no huge pot of funds for developers to kick back from, so...

To be clear, I actually think Housing First is the solution. I don’t think you have to coerce people into treatment. But the housing should be public and fully staffed and only for the chronic homeless. Once stabilized they could possibly step up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The more we discuss this, the more it seems absolutely bonkers to house the chronically homeless (by definition, having some sort of severe mental and/or addiction) in private buildings using above market-rate vouchers. Like, calculated to lead to failure on multiple levela. Private *market-rate* voucher solutions make sense for people who just have an affordability problem. But turning private buildings into unstaffed low barriee homeless shelters is nuttttttssss.

In the WP Sedgewick Gardens series from 2019 it was pretty clear that they were using very disruptive tenants to clear the building of those who could exercise TOPA rights when the owner had wanted to sell. They used other tactics laid out too, and many have indeed moved out, including voucher holders who think it isn't safe (same scenario in Connecticut House where many voucher holding moms try to move on ASAP for safety).

Another issue is that the program was set up so that even renting to 1 voucher holder briefly took the unit out of rent control program permanently, so many rent control units were lost. Supposedly the Council fixed this, recently, but so much corruption, who knows. There is also an incentive to find ways to get tenants paying below market rate out, especially elderly long term tenants. In that instance too, disruptive tenants who may be especially frightening to the frail leads to that goal. The program has led to less overall rent stabilized units and vouchers being swapped out for others, Frumin does talk about this directly and is supposedly trying a legislative fix in a pending bill.

The program as is primarily benefits developers and landlords who rake in staggering sums of public funds, and whoever gets kickbacks. Despite the rhetoric and PR, not so much the recipients, who are often rendered homeless again by the problems that were not addressed effectively. San Fransicko is a good read on the reality of HF, the consequences for individuals and communities is tragic. For ex, untreated addicts who are isolated in apartments are more likely to OD without anyone there to summon help. DC claims that they provide furniture, etc, but from neighbors who have seen inside apartments, that is not true. Many don't even have a pot to cook in. It's all very scammy but it has good marketing and very broad public support in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more we discuss this, the more it seems absolutely bonkers to house the chronically homeless (by definition, having some sort of severe mental and/or addiction) in private buildings using above market-rate vouchers. Like, calculated to lead to failure on multiple levela. Private *market-rate* voucher solutions make sense for people who just have an affordability problem. But turning private buildings into unstaffed low barriee homeless shelters is nuttttttssss.

Agree. HF frames the issue as housing and as having requirements for entry, compelled participation in services, requiring sobriety, all the things shelters traditionally did.

If the issue is framed as substance abuse and/or MI, then the solution is nuts. But, those things cost a lot of money to address and there is no huge pot of funds for developers to kick back from, so...

To be clear, I actually think Housing First is the solution. I don’t think you have to coerce people into treatment. But the housing should be public and fully staffed and only for the chronic homeless. Once stabilized they could possibly step up.

That model is usually referred to as shelter first, housing later. HF explicitly eliminated any sort of stepping up, passing through stages, etc. If given the option, people prefer private housing in W3 over public housing, which, like shelters, comes with rules.

[Anonymous]

ANC 3F doesn’t have it on the agenda because we are not allowed to say vouchers are related to crime as ward 3 residents. They’ll just respond with “you’re rich and entitled”

Get rid of the vouchers!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I've heard of people moving from VA and elsewhere and getting a voucher in far less than a year. Also people from encampments that are cleared are offered vouchers right away.

That's a good point, the website only says you have to have a year of documented homelessness, not that you have to have a year of D.C. residence. If the eligibility requirements are the same as they posted on the site, theoretically you could be homeless in VA or Florida for a year, then move to D.C. to get a free upscale apartment. Maybe for life? I’m still unclear what the endpoint of these vouchers are. The website refers to it as “permanent supportive housing.”

As it stands, it looks like the city is announcing that any addicted/mentally unstable homeless individual can move to the city and have the city pay them to live in upscale apartments for the rest of their life. Which seems crazy and obviously unsustainable.

[Anonymous]

https://www.city-journal.org/article/homelessness-is-not-about-housing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ANC 3F doesn’t have it on the agenda because we are not allowed to say vouchers are related to crime as ward 3 residents. They’ll just respond with “you’re rich and entitled”

Get rid of the vouchers!!!!

Even Frumin directly stated that both increased at the same time in his meeting. MPD said same.

You forgot NIMBY and racist. Even though many voucher recipients are the ones calling for reforms to the program and more safety.

[Anonymous]

With the attempted armed carjacking at Exxon in Chevy Chase earlier this morning, I am not sure what to tell my teen drivers if they need to stop for gas. Daylight on a major road used to be pretty safe. Now, can't even watch for sketchy people, they pull up in a luxury Volvo stolen in VA. All of this crime feels really overwhelming and random and not easily avoided. Had planned to retire in W3.