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

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Why does an able-bodied 32 year old need a voucher? Why wasn’t his voucher revoked once he behaved violently? The DC government was basically enabling this criminal and monster to carry on without any consequences to his behavior.


I'm sure he's on social security disability for addiction issues or mental health. The voucher extends from that. it's life long --you never lose the voucher in DC. They are good.


This. Is. The. Problem.

I get we need to help people with mental health but if they’re unfit and too unwell to work then they are too unwell to parent and live in a community.


*live freely
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Maybe, just maybe the City shouldn’t approve marijuana dispensaries along Connecticut Ave?


Hell no they shouldn't! That would be a disaster.


They just approved them. Right next to the UDC campus. Can’t make this stuff up.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Why does an able-bodied 32 year old need a voucher? Why wasn’t his voucher revoked once he behaved violently? The DC government was basically enabling this criminal and monster to carry on without any consequences to his behavior.


I'm sure he's on social security disability for addiction issues or mental health. The voucher extends from that. it's life long --you never lose the voucher in DC. They are good.


You can't get SSI or SSDI for addiction. PTSD, intellectual disability, psychosis, tbi, etc...but not substance use..in fact drug addiction and alcoholism, if material, can disqualify someone from disability benefits. Obviously not the main point here but didn't want false information to percolate unchecked.
Anonymous
Of course a marijuana dispensary next to UDC. It will contribute even more diversity and vibrancy to the neighborhood. Just give them the neighborhood. It will never be the same again. You can't undo the damage.









Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:This demonstrates that you cannot solve homelessness and mental illness simply by giving people apartments for free. They need to be in settings where they can get the support they need and where they are safe.


Where do you think this mythical support and safety is? Newflash: it's nowhere.

Deandre wasn't killed because Ward 3 didn't have the services his family needed. He was killed because his dad is a monster and because our system sucks at protecting children. All over the city. It's sick to see a bunch of comments leveraging this tragedy to try to wall off upper NW from the problems of the city. The right place to direct anger is the USAO, the father who murdered his own kid, and the city who failed the kid. NOT marijuana dispensaries or vouchers or any other NIMBY garbage.


Right. If this kid had died in SW, would we now be five pages deep in this thread?


It should be. This was a family that had to have been deeply involved in DC social services yet all they got was a voucher in a building with zero support or care. Maybe if the city had just taken the kids and let him be homeless things would have turned out better.


The parents are supposed to be the supports for children.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Why does an able-bodied 32 year old need a voucher? Why wasn’t his voucher revoked once he behaved violently? The DC government was basically enabling this criminal and monster to carry on without any consequences to his behavior.


This. A 32 year old man should be working a job. We should not be providing free housing to violent felons and allowing them to threaten others in the community.
Anonymous
Why are these violent former felons being guaranteed housing around families and children?


Because (1) DC's "check the box" laws means that landlords cannot refuse to rent to tenants based on prior criminal convictions; (2) DC's Human Rights Law prohibits discrimination based on "source of income" so a landlord does not have any rights to limit the number of voucher tenants in a building, and once there is a critical mass of voucher tenants, the market tenants will start to depart, thus converting a private building into de facto public housing; (3) it is impossible to get a tenant evicted on the basis of a "lease violation" aka tenant behavior---DC's extremely liberal judiciary will grant extensive rights to cure. So people who are having their rent paid by the government who threaten their fellow tenants and generally engage in anti-social behaviors in violation of their leases have little to fear with respect to eviction. So now the apartment-dwelling progressives of Ward 3 are getting to see the policies they voted for in action . . . .
Anonymous
CM Frumin is out with a statement. The solution is, you guessed it, . . . . more services!
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Maybe, just maybe the City shouldn’t approve marijuana dispensaries along Connecticut Ave?


Hell no they shouldn't! That would be a disaster.


They just approved them. Right next to the UDC campus. Can’t make this stuff up.


Why? WTF?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:This is just horrifying. Why was the child from Upper Marlboro in an apartment in DC. Where is the outrage?


I would assume that the kid was being watched by either a friend or a family member. Or was visiting someone with their parent(s). Unfortunately, kids this age are most at risk from their own parents, or partners of their parents.


Unfortunately, exactly this. Very few stranger boogey men, usually boogey man you know.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how a fall could leave to cardiac arrest...


It doesn’t.


Read any of the news articles. The father beat the child to death. He told 911 the child "fell." Now he is out already. Hopefully to be re-arrested soon.

RIP little guy.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Maybe, just maybe the City shouldn’t approve marijuana dispensaries along Connecticut Ave?


Hell no they shouldn't! That would be a disaster.


They just approved them. Right next to the UDC campus. Can’t make this stuff up.


Why? WTF?


Where the old Wells Fargo used to be. It's something Van Ness Main Street has been eager for for years. SMH.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Why are these violent former felons being guaranteed housing around families and children?


Because (1) DC's "check the box" laws means that landlords cannot refuse to rent to tenants based on prior criminal convictions; (2) DC's Human Rights Law prohibits discrimination based on "source of income" so a landlord does not have any rights to limit the number of voucher tenants in a building, and once there is a critical mass of voucher tenants, the market tenants will start to depart, thus converting a private building into de facto public housing; (3) it is impossible to get a tenant evicted on the basis of a "lease violation" aka tenant behavior---DC's extremely liberal judiciary will grant extensive rights to cure. So people who are having their rent paid by the government who threaten their fellow tenants and generally engage in anti-social behaviors in violation of their leases have little to fear with respect to eviction. So now the apartment-dwelling progressives of Ward 3 are getting to see the policies they voted for in action . . . .


This but to add a detail, even if evicted for non-payment of their share or for criminal or violent conduct toward staff or other tenants, they just move a building up or across the street. DC does not pull vouchers for pretty much any reason.

Housing First, a HUD program, forbids any conditions being placed on the voucher tenant. Social workers could knock on the door 24/7/365 and there is no obligation to answer, never mind get drug or MH treatment, stop engaging in antisocial behavior (dirty diapers thrown in lobby and stairwell of one of the FEW bldgs in Van Ness not yet named a "nuisance property", in recycling bins too), stop drug dealing, stop threatening staff and other residents, etc.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Why does an able-bodied 32 year old need a voucher? Why wasn’t his voucher revoked once he behaved violently? The DC government was basically enabling this criminal and monster to carry on without any consequences to his behavior.


This. A 32 year old man should be working a job. We should not be providing free housing to violent felons and allowing them to threaten others in the community.


Vouchers are never pulled.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/08/08/dc-paid-housing-chronic-homelessness/

At SG, one guy stabbed someone and triggered a SWAT incident. While he was incarcerated, other tenants got a stay away order. His voucher was simply moved up to Forest Hills to The Brandywine.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-housed-the-homeless-in-upscale-apartments-it-hasnt-gone-as-planned/2019/04/16/60c8ab9c-5648-11e9-8ef3-fbd41a2ce4d5_story.html Article is from 2019, none of this is new.

Connecticut House has a LOT of visible drug dealing and violence in and around the building. It's my understanding that many voucher tenants have moved out due to safety concerns.

Big buildings up and down Connecticut and Wisconsin but even rented condo units and small garden style apts in Palisades and Glover Park have more and more vouchers, and they were converted at some point from 1 year to PSH, permanent supportive housing, with preference given to addicts, the mentally ill and felons "returning citizens." DC pays well over market rate for vouchers and that has led to a lot of big and small landlords targeting the income stream.

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Why does an able-bodied 32 year old need a voucher? Why wasn’t his voucher revoked once he behaved violently? The DC government was basically enabling this criminal and monster to carry on without any consequences to his behavior.


Why do you assume he was on the voucher and it wasn't just the mom and kids?



The dad was the one on the voucher


This. There was no mom living in the unit.
Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics
Go to: