Reply to Shooting at Brandywine & Connecticut Ave NW This Afternoon

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Shooting at Brandywine & Connecticut Ave NW This Afternoon"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It seems some possible policy solutions are:
1. Limiting the number/percentage of voucher holders per building. This is to stem destabilization. If non-voucher residents move out, the problem magnifies as landlords fill more and more units and create private public housing. 
2. Ensure that vouchers pay landlord what existing tenants pay and not an amount above that. This would end market distortions for the rental market and temper the incentives for landlord. The main incentive would instead be filling vacant units, not garnering as much profit as possible. The profit is coming from taxpayer dollars. 
3. Require that voucher holders participate in relevant support programs
4. Ending the musical chairs of sending people who have been kicked out of one building to another down the street. [/quote]

All good ideas

Cheh attempted #1, no go. This was also discussed in the WP article about the voucher disaster on Quincy Street in this thread.

HUD audit and tens of millions in fines did not accomplish 2. Since there is a higher likelihood of property damage or need to pay for eviction proceedings, that has been used at times as an excuse.

3 is explicitly not allowed by HUD.

4 would be fab, as would revoking vouchers for behavior that would get someone kicked out of public housing. "Private" de facto public housing should follow the same rules.

A tenant of Section 8 housing can be evicted for the following reasons:
Repeated or serious lease violations
Conducting illegal activities on or near the property
The unit isn't safe and fails to meet health and safety standards
Nonreporting of household members and their income
Criminal activity[/quote]

Yes, similar guidelines would be useful. [/quote]

I would have asked Frumin about this at the meeting but he is not that informed about the program and he did not have a staff member who is an expert present, nor did he invite someone from DC agencies. He is a proponent of MORE of this, people have to understand this. He can be pushed to go through the motions, maybe, or to mouth platitudes, but he only wants the fun parts of the job and to get accolades as a SJW.

I really do miss Cheh. I know a few people who heard the shots, it's traumatizing that this happened right where people's kids play, they walk to BreadFurst, Politics & Prose, play tennis and more than 1 has said that they have changed their routine or feel anxiety going out or that they drive now. When people in W7 & 8 talk about trauma related to crime, I have always believed them.

There are a lot of law abiding pro-social people who could benefit from vouchers, but the reality is that many of them have relatives, friends and associates that come along and cause issues. MPD has indicated that the victim and shooters did not live in FH, that's of cold comfort. The man who threw the young mom out the window at Connecticut House, paralyzing her in front of a toddler, was not on the lease. Public public housing, not this private public housing twist, has more rules, security, a chance at door control, but has always had this issue. The way that they try to now shift the responsibility for violent behavior of individuals to landlords is ludicrous, having limited the grounds to screen people out and with AG suing companies that do not accept vouchers. And "services" as the mantra is ridiculous. What "services" would have made the violent, drug dealing felon not throw his baby mama out a window after strangling her and tying her up? Plus there is the not required to participate provision. People might at least try to exercise better "door control" themselves if they stood to lose their voucher if a visitor dealt drugs or was violent in or around the building.

I do not see this genie going back in the bottle. The only thing that has changed since this series from 2019 is things getting worse. 3,000 PSH vouchers being used on Connecticut and Wisconsin, the impact was/is inevitable. The piece I don't quite get is where the City thinks tax income is going to come from if W3 becomes an increasing % of people living on tax money rather than paying it as has historically been the case?

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[/quote]

Good post but I really do wish we could nail down whether it’s true that the vouchers cannot be removed. I’m not going to blame the woman for being a DV victim though - I wonder if she had tried to get rid of him and was unable to. [/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