Shooting at Brandywine & Connecticut Ave NW This Afternoon

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what Matt meant by making “Ward 3 More Welcoming.” How’s it working out?

Serious danger to community residents from violence like this is “out of site out of mind” to people like Frumin. He truly does not care at all.

I don't know how many times it needs to be stressed here. Most voucher recipients are not habitual violent criminals or offenders, there is a small minority. It should also be noted crime is up in white states such as Colorado, Washington, Vermont, Oregon. This is a direct result of the prolonged COVID closures, low wages, inflation and the pitiful way this country deals with mental illness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what Matt meant by making “Ward 3 More Welcoming.” How’s it working out?

Serious danger to community residents from violence like this is “out of site out of mind” to people like Frumin. He truly does not care at all.

I don't know how many times it needs to be stressed here. Most voucher recipients are not habitual violent criminals or offenders, there is a small minority. It should also be noted crime is up in white states such as Colorado, Washington, Vermont, Oregon. This is a direct result of the prolonged COVID closures, low wages, inflation and the pitiful way this country deals with mental illness.

Let me fix this for you. Crime is up as a direct result of the police shortage which was created by liberal politicians, activists, and the media demeaning the profession for two years straight and leaving behind a force is afraid to go hands on with criminals even while witnessing a crime in progress.

[Anonymous]

The city council and other states would not be afraid of increasing their local police cadet programs and recruitment if there was no such thing as police brutality. We have watched and continue to watch armed police officers assault and brutalize the civilian population while absolutely not really going after violent criminals until after the offense has been committed.

I distinctly remember the Uvalde school shooting, where grown armed police officers left children and school staff to fend for themselves. Yet they had artillery to take out one man.

MORE POLICE DOES NOT = PROTECTION! The Supreme Court has already ruled that police officers are not necessarily obligated to put themselves in harms way for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what Matt meant by making “Ward 3 More Welcoming.” How’s it working out?

Serious danger to community residents from violence like this is “out of site out of mind” to people like Frumin. He truly does not care at all.

I don't know how many times it needs to be stressed here. Most voucher recipients are not habitual violent criminals or offenders, there is a small minority. It should also be noted crime is up in white states such as Colorado, Washington, Vermont, Oregon. This is a direct result of the prolonged COVID closures, low wages, inflation and the pitiful way this country deals with mental illness.

Crime is up in Ward 3 more than other parts of DC. Ward 3 has experienced a 45 percent in crime year-over-year. That compares with a 27 percent increase for DC at large. While voucher holders may not directly be the source, there is a strong argument that they are indirectly contributing. Case in point is that the shooter in this month's "incident" had entry access to the Saratoga even though he wasn't a resident. One solution could be capping the number of vouchers per building to avoid destabilizing a building or a neighborhood. Another solution would be to use some of this available housing stock to provide vouchers for teachers, law enforcement and other first responders/essential workers who are priced out of the neighborhood. Voucher recipients should also be required to access services as needed.

If this is not curbed, people will leave the neighborhood and it will create a spiraling effect. There are terrible market distortions and perverse incentives in the voucher program that need to be corrected. But more importantly, more lives could be unnecessarily lost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what Matt meant by making “Ward 3 More Welcoming.” How’s it working out?

Serious danger to community residents from violence like this is “out of site out of mind” to people like Frumin. He truly does not care at all.

I don't know how many times it needs to be stressed here. Most voucher recipients are not habitual violent criminals or offenders, there is a small minority. It should also be noted crime is up in white states such as Colorado, Washington, Vermont, Oregon. This is a direct result of the prolonged COVID closures, low wages, inflation and the pitiful way this country deals with mental illness.

Crime is up in Ward 3 more than other parts of DC. Ward 3 has experienced a 45 percent in crime year-over-year. That compares with a 27 percent increase for DC at large. While voucher holders may not directly be the source, there is a strong argument that they are indirectly contributing. Case in point is that the shooter in this month's "incident" had entry access to the Saratoga even though he wasn't a resident. One solution could be capping the number of vouchers per building to avoid destabilizing a building or a neighborhood. Another solution would be to use some of this available housing stock to provide vouchers for teachers, law enforcement and other first responders/essential workers who are priced out of the neighborhood. Voucher recipients should also be required to access services as needed.

If this is not curbed, people will leave the neighborhood and it will create a spiraling effect. There are terrible market distortions and perverse incentives in the voucher program that need to be corrected. But more importantly, more lives could be unnecessarily lost.

Here's the data for ward 3 crime: https://crimecards.dc.gov/all:crimes/all:weapons/1:year%20to%20date/in:Ward:3
Here's the data for dc-wide crime:https://crimecards.dc.gov/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what Matt meant by making “Ward 3 More Welcoming.” How’s it working out?

Serious danger to community residents from violence like this is “out of site out of mind” to people like Frumin. He truly does not care at all.

I don't know how many times it needs to be stressed here. Most voucher recipients are not habitual violent criminals or offenders, there is a small minority. It should also be noted crime is up in white states such as Colorado, Washington, Vermont, Oregon. This is a direct result of the prolonged COVID closures, low wages, inflation and the pitiful way this country deals with mental illness.

Crime is up in Ward 3 more than other parts of DC. Ward 3 has experienced a 45 percent in crime year-over-year. That compares with a 27 percent increase for DC at large. While voucher holders may not directly be the source, there is a strong argument that they are indirectly contributing. Case in point is that the shooter in this month's "incident" had entry access to the Saratoga even though he wasn't a resident. One solution could be capping the number of vouchers per building to avoid destabilizing a building or a neighborhood. Another solution would be to use some of this available housing stock to provide vouchers for teachers, law enforcement and other first responders/essential workers who are priced out of the neighborhood. Voucher recipients should also be required to access services as needed.

If this is not curbed, people will leave the neighborhood and it will create a spiraling effect. There are terrible market distortions and perverse incentives in the voucher program that need to be corrected. But more importantly, more lives could be unnecessarily lost.

There should not be a voucher cap because then you will have people sleeping on the street and then crime rates will rise even more. People who have nothing to lose will wreak havoc on the community. D.C. has more police per capita than elsewhere in the country, more police will not keep you safe. Investing in holistic services will keep you safe. It is racist to argue that everyone is not entitled to proper housing, food, and healthcare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what Matt meant by making “Ward 3 More Welcoming.” How’s it working out?

Serious danger to community residents from violence like this is “out of site out of mind” to people like Frumin. He truly does not care at all.

I don't know how many times it needs to be stressed here. Most voucher recipients are not habitual violent criminals or offenders, there is a small minority. It should also be noted crime is up in white states such as Colorado, Washington, Vermont, Oregon. This is a direct result of the prolonged COVID closures, low wages, inflation and the pitiful way this country deals with mental illness.

Crime is up in Ward 3 more than other parts of DC. Ward 3 has experienced a 45 percent in crime year-over-year. That compares with a 27 percent increase for DC at large. While voucher holders may not directly be the source, there is a strong argument that they are indirectly contributing. Case in point is that the shooter in this month's "incident" had entry access to the Saratoga even though he wasn't a resident. One solution could be capping the number of vouchers per building to avoid destabilizing a building or a neighborhood. Another solution would be to use some of this available housing stock to provide vouchers for teachers, law enforcement and other first responders/essential workers who are priced out of the neighborhood. Voucher recipients should also be required to access services as needed.

If this is not curbed, people will leave the neighborhood and it will create a spiraling effect. There are terrible market distortions and perverse incentives in the voucher program that need to be corrected. But more importantly, more lives could be unnecessarily lost.

There should not be a voucher cap because then you will have people sleeping on the street and then crime rates will rise even more. People who have nothing to lose will wreak havoc on the community. D.C. has more police per capita than elsewhere in the country, more police will not keep you safe. Investing in holistic services will keep you safe. It is racist to argue that everyone is not entitled to proper housing, food, and healthcare.

The privileged are fine with the vouchers because they warehouse the poor away and make them someone else's problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what Matt meant by making “Ward 3 More Welcoming.” How’s it working out?

Serious danger to community residents from violence like this is “out of site out of mind” to people like Frumin. He truly does not care at all.

I don't know how many times it needs to be stressed here. Most voucher recipients are not habitual violent criminals or offenders, there is a small minority. It should also be noted crime is up in white states such as Colorado, Washington, Vermont, Oregon. This is a direct result of the prolonged COVID closures, low wages, inflation and the pitiful way this country deals with mental illness.

Crime is up in Ward 3 more than other parts of DC. Ward 3 has experienced a 45 percent in crime year-over-year. That compares with a 27 percent increase for DC at large. While voucher holders may not directly be the source, there is a strong argument that they are indirectly contributing. Case in point is that the shooter in this month's "incident" had entry access to the Saratoga even though he wasn't a resident. One solution could be capping the number of vouchers per building to avoid destabilizing a building or a neighborhood. Another solution would be to use some of this available housing stock to provide vouchers for teachers, law enforcement and other first responders/essential workers who are priced out of the neighborhood. Voucher recipients should also be required to access services as needed.

If this is not curbed, people will leave the neighborhood and it will create a spiraling effect. There are terrible market distortions and perverse incentives in the voucher program that need to be corrected. But more importantly, more lives could be unnecessarily lost.

There should not be a voucher cap because then you will have people sleeping on the street and then crime rates will rise even more. People who have nothing to lose will wreak havoc on the community. D.C. has more police per capita than elsewhere in the country, more police will not keep you safe. Investing in holistic services will keep you safe. It is racist to argue that everyone is not entitled to proper housing, food, and healthcare.

Amazing. Every word of what you just said was wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The city council and other states would not be afraid of increasing their local police cadet programs and recruitment if there was no such thing as police brutality. We have watched and continue to watch armed police officers assault and brutalize the civilian population while absolutely not really going after violent criminals until after the offense has been committed.

I distinctly remember the Uvalde school shooting, where grown armed police officers left children and school staff to fend for themselves. Yet they had artillery to take out one man.

MORE POLICE DOES NOT = PROTECTION! The Supreme Court has already ruled that police officers are not necessarily obligated to put themselves in harms way for you.

I thought Harriet's Dreams was having a teach in on this very slogan tonight, what are y'all doing highjacking the thread about a specific shooting that had NOTHING to do with police brutality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what Matt meant by making “Ward 3 More Welcoming.” How’s it working out?

Serious danger to community residents from violence like this is “out of site out of mind” to people like Frumin. He truly does not care at all.

I don't know how many times it needs to be stressed here. Most voucher recipients are not habitual violent criminals or offenders, there is a small minority. It should also be noted crime is up in white states such as Colorado, Washington, Vermont, Oregon. This is a direct result of the prolonged COVID closures, low wages, inflation and the pitiful way this country deals with mental illness.

Crime is up in Ward 3 more than other parts of DC. Ward 3 has experienced a 45 percent in crime year-over-year. That compares with a 27 percent increase for DC at large. While voucher holders may not directly be the source, there is a strong argument that they are indirectly contributing. Case in point is that the shooter in this month's "incident" had entry access to the Saratoga even though he wasn't a resident. One solution could be capping the number of vouchers per building to avoid destabilizing a building or a neighborhood. Another solution would be to use some of this available housing stock to provide vouchers for teachers, law enforcement and other first responders/essential workers who are priced out of the neighborhood. Voucher recipients should also be required to access services as needed.

If this is not curbed, people will leave the neighborhood and it will create a spiraling effect. There are terrible market distortions and perverse incentives in the voucher program that need to be corrected. But more importantly, more lives could be unnecessarily lost.

There should not be a voucher cap because then you will have people sleeping on the street and then crime rates will rise even more. People who have nothing to lose will wreak havoc on the community. D.C. has more police per capita than elsewhere in the country, more police will not keep you safe. Investing in holistic services will keep you safe. It is racist to argue that everyone is not entitled to proper housing, food, and healthcare.

Amazing. Every word of what you just said was wrong.[/quote

Most poor in DC have access to shelters, healthcare and EBT, unlike the working poor and middle class who struggle to pay for those things AND high taxes. Like CA, the generous benefits actually draw people here. But over market rate individual apartments? On who's dime? Explain the economics of that over time when many in the program are quite young and do nothing re: education (could get free credits at UDC), job training, or otherwise preparing to be self supporting at any point. When the CRE disaster is fully felt and the tax base shrinks, money for these programs will be cut. Biden already almost cut HUD voucher funding. Why don't you think people can do what people have always done, support themselves and their families? Why such low expectations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what Matt meant by making “Ward 3 More Welcoming.” How’s it working out?

Serious danger to community residents from violence like this is “out of site out of mind” to people like Frumin. He truly does not care at all.

I don't know how many times it needs to be stressed here. Most voucher recipients are not habitual violent criminals or offenders, there is a small minority. It should also be noted crime is up in white states such as Colorado, Washington, Vermont, Oregon. This is a direct result of the prolonged COVID closures, low wages, inflation and the pitiful way this country deals with mental illness.

Crime is up in Ward 3 more than other parts of DC. Ward 3 has experienced a 45 percent in crime year-over-year. That compares with a 27 percent increase for DC at large. While voucher holders may not directly be the source, there is a strong argument that they are indirectly contributing. Case in point is that the shooter in this month's "incident" had entry access to the Saratoga even though he wasn't a resident. One solution could be capping the number of vouchers per building to avoid destabilizing a building or a neighborhood. Another solution would be to use some of this available housing stock to provide vouchers for teachers, law enforcement and other first responders/essential workers who are priced out of the neighborhood. Voucher recipients should also be required to access services as needed.

If this is not curbed, people will leave the neighborhood and it will create a spiraling effect. There are terrible market distortions and perverse incentives in the voucher program that need to be corrected. But more importantly, more lives could be unnecessarily lost.

Here's the data for ward 3 crime: https://crimecards.dc.gov/all:crimes/all:weapons/1:year%20to%20date/in:Ward:3
Here's the data for dc-wide crime:https://crimecards.dc.gov/

The data is pretty damning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what Matt meant by making “Ward 3 More Welcoming.” How’s it working out?

Serious danger to community residents from violence like this is “out of site out of mind” to people like Frumin. He truly does not care at all.

I don't know how many times it needs to be stressed here. Most voucher recipients are not habitual violent criminals or offenders, there is a small minority. It should also be noted crime is up in white states such as Colorado, Washington, Vermont, Oregon. This is a direct result of the prolonged COVID closures, low wages, inflation and the pitiful way this country deals with mental illness.

Crime is up in Ward 3 more than other parts of DC. Ward 3 has experienced a 45 percent in crime year-over-year. That compares with a 27 percent increase for DC at large. While voucher holders may not directly be the source, there is a strong argument that they are indirectly contributing. Case in point is that the shooter in this month's "incident" had entry access to the Saratoga even though he wasn't a resident. One solution could be capping the number of vouchers per building to avoid destabilizing a building or a neighborhood. Another solution would be to use some of this available housing stock to provide vouchers for teachers, law enforcement and other first responders/essential workers who are priced out of the neighborhood. Voucher recipients should also be required to access services as needed.

If this is not curbed, people will leave the neighborhood and it will create a spiraling effect. There are terrible market distortions and perverse incentives in the voucher program that need to be corrected. But more importantly, more lives could be unnecessarily lost.

There should not be a voucher cap because then you will have people sleeping on the street and then crime rates will rise even more. People who have nothing to lose will wreak havoc on the community. D.C. has more police per capita than elsewhere in the country, more police will not keep you safe. Investing in holistic services will keep you safe. It is racist to argue that everyone is not entitled to proper housing, food, and healthcare.

A cap per building. That way there's no great concentration. But secondly, the program has a structural flaw. There's a perverse incentive to become homeless or to relocate from another state as a homeless person to then get free/highly subsidized housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what Matt meant by making “Ward 3 More Welcoming.” How’s it working out?

Serious danger to community residents from violence like this is “out of site out of mind” to people like Frumin. He truly does not care at all.

I don't know how many times it needs to be stressed here. Most voucher recipients are not habitual violent criminals or offenders, there is a small minority. It should also be noted crime is up in white states such as Colorado, Washington, Vermont, Oregon. This is a direct result of the prolonged COVID closures, low wages, inflation and the pitiful way this country deals with mental illness.

Crime is up in Ward 3 more than other parts of DC. Ward 3 has experienced a 45 percent in crime year-over-year. That compares with a 27 percent increase for DC at large. While voucher holders may not directly be the source, there is a strong argument that they are indirectly contributing. Case in point is that the shooter in this month's "incident" had entry access to the Saratoga even though he wasn't a resident. One solution could be capping the number of vouchers per building to avoid destabilizing a building or a neighborhood. Another solution would be to use some of this available housing stock to provide vouchers for teachers, law enforcement and other first responders/essential workers who are priced out of the neighborhood. Voucher recipients should also be required to access services as needed.

If this is not curbed, people will leave the neighborhood and it will create a spiraling effect. There are terrible market distortions and perverse incentives in the voucher program that need to be corrected. But more importantly, more lives could be unnecessarily lost.

There should not be a voucher cap because then you will have people sleeping on the street and then crime rates will rise even more. People who have nothing to lose will wreak havoc on the community. D.C. has more police per capita than elsewhere in the country, more police will not keep you safe. Investing in holistic services will keep you safe. It is racist to argue that everyone is not entitled to proper housing, food, and healthcare.

The privileged are fine with the vouchers because they warehouse the poor away and make them someone else's problem.

The privileged pay taxes that fund the vouchers. The privileged paid a premium to live in a safe neighborhood. If the privileged don't feel safe, they'll leave. And instead of have safe spots in DC, the crime will be distributed throughout, which was obviously the point. But the coveted tax base will be gone and won't be able to foot the bill.

[Anonymous]

This is what the Van Ness Main Street board and ANC are jonesing to bring to the neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Cash, weapons and a valuable product, I mean what could go wrong, amirite?!!! Just what the Connecticut corridor needs! Overnight robberies and robberies of delivery trucks are obvious vulnerabilities. Visible drug dealing and use is already up, including near Forest Hills Playground yet many of the current ANC supported this being brought in.

There was no reason to hold that ANC meeting since PillPlus had a valid lease for the space in question, it was just a chance for VNMS and ANCs to signal support for a dispensary.

No one is speaking up for residents - homeowners, paying renters and voucher renters who do not cause issues - to live in a peaceful and safe community. As businesses close, more poor are brought in and the hotel no longer seems to cater to business travelers, who will support the remaining small local businesses? What is going to stop the spiral? Why haven't ANC and/or Frumin taken steps to resolve bureaucratic delays re: the MOMs in Van Ness opening since that would be a draw to the neighborhood of people who might also have lunch, etc. nearby?

Will the community ever be told why the gunman had an electronic key to The Saratoga despite not being a resident? And what is being done to increase proactive security measures? Fairly sure the answers are "no" and "nothing."

Is Frumin supporting Pinto's newest public safety bill? If he is, why won't his office say so? I take the non-response and lack of a public statement as a "no."