Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I supported the construction of the Brooks family shelter and have donated money and supplies, but I'm beginning to regret it. The shelter worked well for the first couple years, but it has been less well run this year. An increasing number of residents smoke weed and panhandle aggressively in front of the Giant. I also routinely witness them throwing trash, including used diapers, in the planters instead of nearby trash cans. If their basic needs are being met, why are they panhandling? And aren't drugs against the rules at the shelter? They are definitely illegal in public places. And I know it is people from the shelter because I've witnessed them returning there.

People who used to walk to the Giant are now driving to avoid the mess in front. What is the best approach to dealing with this?

Do you know how many buildings along Connecticut Avenue are now de facto homeless shelters? It’s absolutely criminal what our Ward Rep and ANCs have allowed to happen to a once safe and family friendly corridor.

In the process, they are pushing out workforce renters and seniors who have looked to older apartment buildings on Connecticut in Ward 3 for rent-stabilized housing. When a building owner accepts a DC voucher for a rental unit it takes that unit out of rent control. In time the whole building can be re-set to market rate rentals (or above market in the case of vouchers).

No. There was a law that overturned this. Now when the unit is vacated after being lived in by a voucher holder, the allowable rent that can be charged is the rent that would have been allowed if the rent control increases has been applied each year the voucher tenant love there. There was a WaPo article on this.

DP. Please provide the link.

Frumin introduced a bill that didn’t pass because he’s sad sack.

Frumin is constantly looking over his shoulder at all the DSA ANC Commissioners and worried about blowback if he took a strong stand on quality of life issues. I wish he’d man up and tell all the Commissioners to pound sand on soft on crime and voucher policies. He’s been an embarrassment.

Anonymous wrote:Hello, has anyone noticed the child beggars in front of the Giant? I believe these kids are from the shelter. I called MPD but after the officer left, the adult overseeing the begging, quickly had the child resume. This is so wrong!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of Frumin’s aides is closely tied to the DNC ANC commissioners.

You mean DSA. Is this the aide who used to be an ANC commissioner himself ?

It would make sense as to why he’s so overly supportive of Janeese. One DSA member supporting another.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of Frumin’s aides is closely tied to the DNC ANC commissioners.

You mean DSA. Is this the aide who used to be an ANC commissioner himself ?

Anonymous wrote:One of Frumin’s aides is closely tied to the DNC ANC commissioners.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I supported the construction of the Brooks family shelter and have donated money and supplies, but I'm beginning to regret it. The shelter worked well for the first couple years, but it has been less well run this year. An increasing number of residents smoke weed and panhandle aggressively in front of the Giant. I also routinely witness them throwing trash, including used diapers, in the planters instead of nearby trash cans. If their basic needs are being met, why are they panhandling? And aren't drugs against the rules at the shelter? They are definitely illegal in public places. And I know it is people from the shelter because I've witnessed them returning there.

People who used to walk to the Giant are now driving to avoid the mess in front. What is the best approach to dealing with this?

Do you know how many buildings along Connecticut Avenue are now de facto homeless shelters? It’s absolutely criminal what our Ward Rep and ANCs have allowed to happen to a once safe and family friendly corridor.

In the process, they are pushing out workforce renters and seniors who have looked to older apartment buildings on Connecticut in Ward 3 for rent-stabilized housing. When a building owner accepts a DC voucher for a rental unit it takes that unit out of rent control. In time the whole building can be re-set to market rate rentals (or above market in the case of vouchers).

No. There was a law that overturned this. Now when the unit is vacated after being lived in by a voucher holder, the allowable rent that can be charged is the rent that would have been allowed if the rent control increases has been applied each year the voucher tenant love there. There was a WaPo article on this.

DP. Please provide the link.

Frumin introduced a bill that didn’t pass because he’s sad sack.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I supported the construction of the Brooks family shelter and have donated money and supplies, but I'm beginning to regret it. The shelter worked well for the first couple years, but it has been less well run this year. An increasing number of residents smoke weed and panhandle aggressively in front of the Giant. I also routinely witness them throwing trash, including used diapers, in the planters instead of nearby trash cans. If their basic needs are being met, why are they panhandling? And aren't drugs against the rules at the shelter? They are definitely illegal in public places. And I know it is people from the shelter because I've witnessed them returning there.

People who used to walk to the Giant are now driving to avoid the mess in front. What is the best approach to dealing with this?

Do you know how many buildings along Connecticut Avenue are now de facto homeless shelters? It’s absolutely criminal what our Ward Rep and ANCs have allowed to happen to a once safe and family friendly corridor.

In the process, they are pushing out workforce renters and seniors who have looked to older apartment buildings on Connecticut in Ward 3 for rent-stabilized housing. When a building owner accepts a DC voucher for a rental unit it takes that unit out of rent control. In time the whole building can be re-set to market rate rentals (or above market in the case of vouchers).

No. There was a law that overturned this. Now when the unit is vacated after being lived in by a voucher holder, the allowable rent that can be charged is the rent that would have been allowed if the rent control increases has been applied each year the voucher tenant love there. There was a WaPo article on this.