Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Metropolitan DC Local Politics
Reply to "Stabbing at The Brandywine in 4500 block Connecticut Ave. NW DC"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Some of you seem to be implying that it was ok when this behavior was confined to "those neighborhoods".[/quote] Stop trolling and attempting to derail. Obviously, unsafe people need to be removed from the community, in any Ward. DC rarely does that. Dispersing them more widely solves nothing but greatly enriches the landlords paid well over market rate and whoever they kick back to. And law abiding voucher recipients, many elderly, also deserve a safe and orderly environment, many have moved OUT of Connecticut House and The Brandywine due to safety concerns. This was documented way back in the series the WP did on Sedgewick Gardens. What about those people? In the 90s, DC did not target the tax base that is Ward 3 in this fashion. Given the looming CRE implosion, anyone have a sense of what the strategy seems to be here? [/quote] Strategy? Bowser??? Hah[/quote] [b]DP. The passed a law to allow landlords out of rent control if they allow voucher recipients in units. Removing units from rent control provides significant long term value for RE owners.[/b] In addition, if you have a building with a significant enough number of voucher recipients, it basically moots TOPA issues. As a result, RE owners can receive market rate rent while allowing their buildings to depreciate without need for costly O&M, while removing rental control and mooting TOPA. It seems like a perfect medium term strategy to create depreciated, vacant buildings ripe for redevelopment and I am sure this is by design.[/quote] For about the millionth time whenever this subject comes up, the Council didn't pass a law allowing such landlords to get out of rent control. It *repealed* the loophole that allowed this, in 2019. Yet people keep insisting it's fact all these years later. It's become the "here's why Georgetown doesn't have a Metro station" myth of DC housing policy, parroted constantly and incorrectly. https://thedcline.org/2019/05/31/a-connecticut-avenue-apartment-complex-shows-effects-of-a-legal-loophole-and-cracks-in-city-housing-subsidy-programs/[/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics