Anonymous wrote:I have contacted Ward 3 CM Frumin re the safety issues at the Brandywine and other buildings on Connecticut Ave several times with no response from him. Criminals and severely mentally ill people are being given carte blanche to wreak havoc in an area filled with kids and elderly people, the most vulnerable among us.
Frumin hides his head in the sand, as does the mayor. Shame on them.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Some of you seem to be implying that it was ok when this behavior was confined to "those neighborhoods".
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?
Strategy? Bowser??? Hah
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.
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.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Some of you seem to be implying that it was ok when this behavior was confined to "those neighborhoods".
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?
Strategy? Bowser??? Hah
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.
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.
But nobody will want to pay non-rent control rates to live in these unsafe buildings.
+1. Who would pay market rate to live in these buildings?? I'm only going to live there if I get a voucher for it.
Anonymous wrote:There is very visible drug dealing now in Forest Hills, it was even noted on a thread on DCUM a while ago by a mom who waits for her kid's speech therapy to finish sitting in a car on the corner of Connecticut and Brandywine (right by where the 3pm Saturday shooting happened, in fact).
Many violent released offenders "returning citizens" are getting vouchers to live in buildings up and down the Wisconsin and Connecticut Ave. corridors, including for offenses like rape and murder. The DBH also provides PSH vouchers to the seriously mentally ill, who are under no requirement to comply with treatment or even to open the door to a monthly social worker visit.
DC has no requirements re: CSA offenders living at a distance from children or even schools, do a search for the area surrounding Murch before renting nearby. There are over 3,000 PSH vouchers just in those 2 corridors, tax paying residents and law abiding voucher recipients deserve safety and public order. The city does not remove vouchers even for egregious conduct, that needs to change.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/08/08/dc-paid-housing-chronic-homelessness/
Anonymous wrote:I have contacted Ward 3 CM Frumin re the safety issues at the Brandywine and other buildings on Connecticut Ave several times with no response from him. Criminals and severely mentally ill people are being given carte blanche to wreak havoc in an area filled with kids and elderly people, the most vulnerable among us.
Frumin hides his head in the sand, as does the mayor. Shame on them.
Anonymous wrote:Bowser has ruined this city.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Some of you seem to be implying that it was ok when this behavior was confined to "those neighborhoods".
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?
Strategy? Bowser??? Hah
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.
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.
But nobody will want to pay non-rent control rates to live in these unsafe buildings.
Anonymous wrote:I have contacted Ward 3 CM Frumin re the safety issues at the Brandywine and other buildings on Connecticut Ave several times with no response from him. Criminals and severely mentally ill people are being given carte blanche to wreak havoc in an area filled with kids and elderly people, the most vulnerable among us.
Frumin hides his head in the sand, as does the mayor. Shame on them.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Some of you seem to be implying that it was ok when this behavior was confined to "those neighborhoods".
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?
Strategy? Bowser??? Hah
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.
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.
Anonymous wrote:Some of you seem to be implying that it was ok when this behavior was confined to "those neighborhoods".
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Some of you seem to be implying that it was ok when this behavior was confined to "those neighborhoods".
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?
Strategy? Bowser??? Hah
In DC landlords cannot consider past criminal convictions if more than 7 years old, no matter how heinous. So if someone served 8 years for the rape of a child, then gets out, landlord can't consider that when renting a unit in a building filled with families. They also cannot consider credit if rent is paid with a voucher or past evictions even if for grounds other than non-payment.
SO at least are often on a registry. Murderers are being moved into buildings and there is no way to know. One recently was moved into a building in Chevy Chase DC that is full of the unsuspecting and vulnerable elderly and families of modest means eager to get their kids into Lafayette, Deal, JR.
There have been issues in condo buildings too, where individual landlords are eager to get in on the $$$ that they city pays over market rate for vouchers. Any multifamily housing may have unanticipated safety risks. If not from the voucher holder, then their associates. Over time, many buildings tip and become de facto, overpriced, private public housing.