Anonymous wrote:I have no faith that a floor is going to be put in the crime situation in NW, never mind it improving.

Frumin is not someone who inspires confidence in the future and Bowser admin reps have attended countless community meetings with things only getting worse. The only one who seemed genuinely concerned about public safety was Chris Geldart and he had issues and is long gone.

It makes me quite sad and my family is going to have to look seriously at relocating, having been in DC for 30 years. We moved west for schools and safety after 20 years EOTP and that worked for a long time and now the calculus has changed again. I wish we had gone to the burbs a long time ago, and become established then, we are not at life stages that are super conducive to moving right now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The caseworkers essential to the city’s housing-first approach work for service providers contracted by the District. They are supposed to help program participants like Watts with tasks that include creating household budgets, building community support networks and connecting with mental health and substance abuse services. For this, city contracts show, the Department of Human Services pays $755 per tenant per month. The contracts allow caseloads of up to 25 clients per caseworker.

Under the agreement, caseworkers must make at least two contacts with participants a month, one of which must be in person — down from a minimum of four contacts a month required until last year.

Yikes, that is not much and it's my understanding that participants do not need to even open the door if a caseworker knocks, never mind be compliant with MH treatment, addiction treatment, etc. Housing First does not allow requirements re: job training or education or moving toward self-sufficiency, in fact DC seems to have recently converted what used to be 1 year vouchers into PSH, not sure how that will be financially sustainable or if the end is built in when the buildings will be emptied, tenants who could exercise TOPA rights gone years before, and flipped to condos? No idea if audits are done to substantiate even these extremely minimal contacts, we know from WMATA how often records are faked.

If this is true then Housing First is Bull* in terms of benefiting ANY constituents, and I will no longer listen to a word they say. Is it?

Once again, why should basic housing have requirements? When you have too many unhoused people, crime will arise because those people have nothing to lose. That is a dangerous place to back a human into a corner.

why should one person get to ruin the quality of life of others? if they can’t follow community norms, they can go elsewhere.

Why are you linking unhoused peoples with crimes of violence? Most unhoused people are not the ones committing acts with guns and smash and dashes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like the police are well-funded, so what's the issue? Prosecutors failing to prosecute? Police failing to arrest? Lenient sentencing? Lenient bonds?

Charles Allen, Brianne Nadeau, et al. froze police hiring in 2020. Following the riots and Insurrection, retirement eligible veterans left the force. The Council took a strong anti-law enforcement stance and passed legislation prohibiting pursuits and making police personnel records public. Meanwhile, the USAO and Superior Court judges stayed home for 2 years, meaning arrests for gun and other violent crimes went unprosecuted. Racine and Schwalb were and are unapologetic in their stance that there should not be any consequences for juvenile crime. In this environment, MPD staffing shrunk to its lowest levels in 50 years, and even if applicants wanted to go to DC with a hostile Council and prosecutors who don’t prosecute, with a year-long background/training cycle, it will be years before staffing returns to its pre-pandemic level.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I lived EOTP, it was common for me and neighbors to drive kids to Forest Hills Playground or to Rose Park or Palisades. That SHOOTERS ran across this playground at 3pm on a Saturday afternoon blows my mind. And basically crickets from the political class and somewhat of a shrug from residents. No community meeting scheduled as of yet...

https://dgs.dc.gov/page/dgs-forest-hills-park--play-dc-playground-project

3 shots were fired, 1 hit the victim, what do people think will protect you or your kids on the sidewalk from the other 2 as you go to the park, tennis courts, BreadFurst or Politics & Prose in broad daylight on a weekend?

If the provisions limiting the criminal background screenings and evictions were changed and landlords were held responsible for results or become ineligible for program, things would change. Too much money being made from status quo, I suppose. The WP series on Sedgewick Gardens laid out how disruptive tenants can be used to clear buildings of below market rent stabilized tenants and those who have the resources to exercise TOPA.

Curious- why didn’t you walk to your local playground? Or drive to one closer to your home?

DP but I almost find the naïveté here charming.

I also lived EOTP, walking distance to several playgrounds, and shootings in the vicinity were a thing more than once.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the options for addressing the concerning increase in violent crime in Ward 3? The mayor? The council? What can make things better?

Elect a councilmember that's concerned about this issue, not one who was actively trying to avoid it his first few months in office?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The caseworkers essential to the city’s housing-first approach work for service providers contracted by the District. They are supposed to help program participants like Watts with tasks that include creating household budgets, building community support networks and connecting with mental health and substance abuse services. For this, city contracts show, the Department of Human Services pays $755 per tenant per month. The contracts allow caseloads of up to 25 clients per caseworker.

Under the agreement, caseworkers must make at least two contacts with participants a month, one of which must be in person — down from a minimum of four contacts a month required until last year.

Yikes, that is not much and it's my understanding that participants do not need to even open the door if a caseworker knocks, never mind be compliant with MH treatment, addiction treatment, etc. Housing First does not allow requirements re: job training or education or moving toward self-sufficiency, in fact DC seems to have recently converted what used to be 1 year vouchers into PSH, not sure how that will be financially sustainable or if the end is built in when the buildings will be emptied, tenants who could exercise TOPA rights gone years before, and flipped to condos? No idea if audits are done to substantiate even these extremely minimal contacts, we know from WMATA how often records are faked.

If this is true then Housing First is Bull* in terms of benefiting ANY constituents, and I will no longer listen to a word they say. Is it?

Once again, why should basic housing have requirements? When you have too many unhoused people, crime will arise because those people have nothing to lose. That is a dangerous place to back a human into a corner.

why should one person get to ruin the quality of life of others? if they can’t follow community norms, they can go elsewhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The caseworkers essential to the city’s housing-first approach work for service providers contracted by the District. They are supposed to help program participants like Watts with tasks that include creating household budgets, building community support networks and connecting with mental health and substance abuse services. For this, city contracts show, the Department of Human Services pays $755 per tenant per month. The contracts allow caseloads of up to 25 clients per caseworker.

Under the agreement, caseworkers must make at least two contacts with participants a month, one of which must be in person — down from a minimum of four contacts a month required until last year.

Yikes, that is not much and it's my understanding that participants do not need to even open the door if a caseworker knocks, never mind be compliant with MH treatment, addiction treatment, etc. Housing First does not allow requirements re: job training or education or moving toward self-sufficiency, in fact DC seems to have recently converted what used to be 1 year vouchers into PSH, not sure how that will be financially sustainable or if the end is built in when the buildings will be emptied, tenants who could exercise TOPA rights gone years before, and flipped to condos? No idea if audits are done to substantiate even these extremely minimal contacts, we know from WMATA how often records are faked.

If this is true then Housing First is Bull* in terms of benefiting ANY constituents, and I will no longer listen to a word they say. Is it?

Once again, why should basic housing have requirements? When you have too many unhoused people, crime will arise because those people have nothing to lose. That is a dangerous place to back a human into a corner.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The caseworkers essential to the city’s housing-first approach work for service providers contracted by the District. They are supposed to help program participants like Watts with tasks that include creating household budgets, building community support networks and connecting with mental health and substance abuse services. For this, city contracts show, the Department of Human Services pays $755 per tenant per month. The contracts allow caseloads of up to 25 clients per caseworker.

Under the agreement, caseworkers must make at least two contacts with participants a month, one of which must be in person — down from a minimum of four contacts a month required until last year.

Yikes, that is not much and it's my understanding that participants do not need to even open the door if a caseworker knocks, never mind be compliant with MH treatment, addiction treatment, etc. Housing First does not allow requirements re: job training or education or moving toward self-sufficiency, in fact DC seems to have recently converted what used to be 1 year vouchers into PSH, not sure how that will be financially sustainable or if the end is built in when the buildings will be emptied, tenants who could exercise TOPA rights gone years before, and flipped to condos? No idea if audits are done to substantiate even these extremely minimal contacts, we know from WMATA how often records are faked.

If this is true then Housing First is Bull* in terms of benefiting ANY constituents, and I will no longer listen to a word they say. Is it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The caseworkers essential to the city’s housing-first approach work for service providers contracted by the District. They are supposed to help program participants like Watts with tasks that include creating household budgets, building community support networks and connecting with mental health and substance abuse services. For this, city contracts show, the Department of Human Services pays $755 per tenant per month. The contracts allow caseloads of up to 25 clients per caseworker.

Under the agreement, caseworkers must make at least two contacts with participants a month, one of which must be in person — down from a minimum of four contacts a month required until last year.

Yikes, that is not much and it's my understanding that participants do not need to even open the door if a caseworker knocks, never mind be compliant with MH treatment, addiction treatment, etc. Housing First does not allow requirements re: job training or education or moving toward self-sufficiency, in fact DC seems to have recently converted what used to be 1 year vouchers into PSH, not sure how that will be financially sustainable or if the end is built in when the buildings will be emptied, tenants who could exercise TOPA rights gone years before, and flipped to condos? No idea if audits are done to substantiate even these extremely minimal contacts, we know from WMATA how often records are faked.

If this is true then Housing First is Bull* in terms of benefiting ANY constituents, and I will no longer listen to a word they say. Is it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The caseworkers essential to the city’s housing-first approach work for service providers contracted by the District. They are supposed to help program participants like Watts with tasks that include creating household budgets, building community support networks and connecting with mental health and substance abuse services. For this, city contracts show, the Department of Human Services pays $755 per tenant per month. The contracts allow caseloads of up to 25 clients per caseworker.

Under the agreement, caseworkers must make at least two contacts with participants a month, one of which must be in person — down from a minimum of four contacts a month required until last year.

Yikes, that is not much and it's my understanding that participants do not need to even open the door if a caseworker knocks, never mind be compliant with MH treatment, addiction treatment, etc. Housing First does not allow requirements re: job training or education or moving toward self-sufficiency, in fact DC seems to have recently converted what used to be 1 year vouchers into PSH, not sure how that will be financially sustainable or if the end is built in when the buildings will be emptied, tenants who could exercise TOPA rights gone years before, and flipped to condos? No idea if audits are done to substantiate even these extremely minimal contacts, we know from WMATA how often records are faked.

If this is true then Housing First is Bull* in terms of benefiting ANY constituents, and I will no longer listen to a word they say. Is it?