Reply to Is Frumin running again?

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Is Frumin running again?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]A lot of people wanted the bike lanes, including the mayor and DDOT, as well as all of the other Ward 3 candidates from 2022. The only reason they didn't happen is because downtown business interests intervened.

That said, he has supported the various main street orgs in terms of providing funds and resources to businesses on the corridor and has been proactive with MPD in terms of presence and enforcement. Maybe your ire is directed at the failing national economy?[/quote]

He has done exactly nothing about the rising crime rate along Connecticut stemming from DC blindly putting voucher recipients into empty apartments without offering them any sort of support services. When horrifically violent crimes have happened because of this -- kids dying, etc. -- he offers his thoughts and prayers but says his hands are tied and he can't do anything, like a simp. He's worthless.

And I think Frumin's staffers have better use of their time than posting here.[/quote]

So Frumin is in charge of public and section 8 housing in the district and not, you know, the private property owners who are converting their properties to take the money from the city? What exactly do you expect a councilmember to do to intervene between a private property owner and the city when there are no permits or hearing or other "stop points" that could put the brakes on such moves? Methinks you either have no idea of what a councilmember can or can't do, or believe they can act as an executive authoritarian.[/quote]

He could introduce legislation to cap the number of voucher residents allowed in one building. In fact, Ward 3 residents have explicitly asked him to do this multiple times but he steadfastly refuses to do so.

Try harder with your simping for him.[/quote]

Not simping for him, but this particular example, no, that legislation would never pass and it isn't worth the time to try. How about offering real solutions and not something completely unviable?[/quote]

NP here. For one, there could be a cap on the number of tenants per building on vouchers to avoid destabilizing the tenant population as the vouchers have done. Secondly, the city should stop using tax dollars to pay above market rents for voucher tenants. Thirdly, he could have prevented a weed store opening only a few blocks from a school in the Van Ness Area.  Residents did not want any of this. [/quote]

How do you propose putting a cap on a transaction between a landlord and a tenant?
I agree, the city should stop doing that. It doesn't have the votes on the council and even if it did, it is set by the mayor to help her landlord friends.
A copuncilmember cannot stop a legally operating business application from being granted by the city. What is the legal basis by which you think this can happen?[/quote]

The city is using our tax dollars to pay over market rates for vouchers. Frumin could oppose that instead he rolls out the the red carpet. We had a 30 percent(!) increase in crime under his watch — much of it occurring in or around voucher buildings. The city of course could allocate and ration the number of vouchers per building. The city could also restrict areas and corridors. Your saying his hand are tied? If so, why even have a ward rep in the first place???[/quote]

The only way rationing or limiting the number of voucher receipients would solve the problems in Ward 3 would be to limit the rule to Ward 3.

Otherwise you would make the problem worse as the rule would force Section 8 tenants out of existing buildings who would then come looking for spots in guess where - Ward 3 - where the vouchers are greater than not just rent controlled rents but in many cases market rents.

And you'd create a problem in the buildings the tenants were chased out of because people don't want to live in unsafe neighborhoods in Wards 7 & 8 so the existing buildings would become unstable too.

The solution remains some reforms of the rules - landlords of buildings with rent control units should be required to rent to section 8 tenants (this is already the law) but they should have to rent to them at the rent controlled rates.  This would remove the incentive they currently have to buy out tenants of rent controlled units because they can re-rent the units at well above market rates to section 8 holders.

This reform would never pass because the landlords are making a killing from this but it would be smart for CM Frumin to at least be vocally advocating for some reform of the rules.

[/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