Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good.

Public housing should be spread equally across all wards. Glad to see Ward 3 is finally making baby steps towards carrying its fair share.

+1 from this Ward 3 resident

“This” Ward 3 resident lives miles from upper Connecticut Ave and certainly never walks along it. Guaranteed.

My guess is deep into AU Park near Mass or deep into 20015 right next to RCP at about 27th

Both bastions of the limousine liberals - equity consequences for Thee but not for Me! Enjoy Murch y’all (scurries back to all white Janney/Lafayette with zero apartments )

Actually, I frequently walk and bike along upper Connecticut Avenue, and also support the plans to build more dense housing on the Wisconsin Avenue corridor, including across the street from my house, and would hope significant portions of those plans also include public housing.

Okay, but I guarantee you live far enough away — in CCDC or Wakefield or Cathedral Hts — that the downstream consequences never impact your life on a daily basis.

“Social dysfunction for Thee but not for meeee!”

I don't, but also, like I said, I am in favor of building housing on a large empty lot across from my house, and if they do that, I would prefer for the housing to be 100 percent affordable housing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good.

Public housing should be spread equally across all wards. Glad to see Ward 3 is finally making baby steps towards carrying its fair share.

+1 from this Ward 3 resident

“This” Ward 3 resident lives miles from upper Connecticut Ave and certainly never walks along it. Guaranteed.

My guess is deep into AU Park near Mass or deep into 20015 right next to RCP at about 27th

Both bastions of the limousine liberals - equity consequences for Thee but not for Me! Enjoy Murch y’all (scurries back to all white Janney/Lafayette with zero apartments )

Actually, I frequently walk and bike along upper Connecticut Avenue, and also support the plans to build more dense housing on the Wisconsin Avenue corridor, including across the street from my house, and would hope significant portions of those plans also include public housing.

Okay, but I guarantee you live far enough away — in CCDC or Wakefield or Cathedral Hts — that the downstream consequences never impact your life on a daily basis.

“Social dysfunction for Thee but not for meeee!”

Anonymous wrote:60-80% of median income would be great - that means apartments for nurses, teachers, GS-10s. The problem is really the homeless vouchers.

Nurses make the median income, not 60-80% of it.

— dc nurse

I love the histrionics from the people who are conflating "affordable housing" with "homeless shelters"

The proposal here is for affordable housing, not a homeless shelter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope they make a mental health screening before accepting possible tenants.

The Housing First policy applied by the DCHA has been a disaster. It has destroyed the peaceful living of so many communities around DC because they populated those communities with people with severe mental issues.

Destroyed? Highly doubtful. I'd much rather see them housed than living in tents on the street.

People living in tents on the street are not making 90-120k/yr, which is what this particularly proposal is for.

Anonymous wrote:“Housing first” is an abject failure. It should be “services first.” There’s a fundamental disconnect between reality and the people driving homelessness policy. The vast majority of people living on the street have mental health issues or drug issues or both. That’s the reality. But the “housing first” people want you to believe that it’s just a rough patch or a little bad luck.

The idea is that the services would be more effective if people weren’t living on the street, though. But both should go hand in hand.

“Housing first” is an abject failure. It should be “services first.” There’s a fundamental disconnect between reality and the people driving homelessness policy. The vast majority of people living on the street have mental health issues or drug issues or both. That’s the reality. But the “housing first” people want you to believe that it’s just a rough patch or a little bad luck.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope they make a mental health screening before accepting possible tenants.

The Housing First policy applied by the DCHA has been a disaster. It has destroyed the peaceful living of so many communities around DC because they populated those communities with people with severe mental issues.

Destroyed? Highly doubtful. I'd much rather see them housed than living in tents on the street.

I guess you has been living in a bubble. There are so many cases of people with mental issues assaulting condo's staff or residents. There other cases with people with criminal records (sexual offenders, pedophiles, etc.) living in condos where there are children. Nobody wants to have a sexual offender neighbor specially if you have children. There are mental facilities for those kind of people.

What is the problem with screening people for mental health issues or criminal record before inserting them in a community?

I have no problem with Affordable housing, but the way that is has been implemented by the DCHA is a disaster.

Here are some examples of many:

"D.C. housed the homeless in upscale apartments. It hasn’t gone as planned."
https://www.reddit.com/r/washingtondc/comments/be19wp/dc_housed_the_homeless_in_upscale_apartments_it/?rdt=50224

"Apartment updates: Police calls rise, case managers remain absent, and tenant leaders continue to press for change"
https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/home-front/apartment-updates-police-calls-rise-case-managers-remain-absent-and-tenant-leaders-continue-to-press-for-change/

"MPD referred three Van Ness apartment buildings to DC AG’s “nuisance” property office"
"https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/news/mpd-referred-three-van-ness-apartment-buildings-to-dc-ags-nuisance-property-office/

"Residents and landlords speak at an apartment-focused Council hearing on crime"
https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/home-front/residents-and-landlords-speak-at-an-apartment-focused-council-hearing-on-crime/

This. My elderly aunt moved out of one of those buildings because life became unbearable with constant noise and pot smoking in public places from the people who do not behave in civil ways and violate the rules of the community. She moved to a garden apartment in a suburban area outside of Beltway, not ideal, but they have respectful people around and don't have to deal with degeneracy. People with addictions and mental health issues do not belong in the residential communities with children, elderly and anyone who just wants safety and peaceful living. They shouldn't be dumping degenerates in the midst of the nice residential communities. People who need rehabilitation are not going to get it this way either, they need to be sent to other facilities where it can happen.

The way it's been done in DC is another example of suicidal empathy. Help for lower income people who do work or live off SS/disability and just want the same thing (Peace and safety) and access to better amenities but cannot afford it is different than dumping a bunch of tent inhabitants (with addictions and mental illness needing treatment) or drug/criminal element from the hood (acting out their thug fantasies and smoking weed everywhere) into the buildings and in the midst of the residential areas full of people who have a different set of rules.

No, it's pushed by idiots like Frumin and the poster above who don;t have to suffer under these policies. They get to feel good about themselves while others take the brunt of the results.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope they make a mental health screening before accepting possible tenants.

The Housing First policy applied by the DCHA has been a disaster. It has destroyed the peaceful living of so many communities around DC because they populated those communities with people with severe mental issues.

Destroyed? Highly doubtful. I'd much rather see them housed than living in tents on the street.

I guess you has been living in a bubble. There are so many cases of people with mental issues assaulting condo's staff or residents. There other cases with people with criminal records (sexual offenders, pedophiles, etc.) living in condos where there are children. Nobody wants to have a sexual offender neighbor specially if you have children. There are mental facilities for those kind of people.

What is the problem with screening people for mental health issues or criminal record before inserting them in a community?

I have no problem with Affordable housing, but the way that is has been implemented by the DCHA is a disaster.

Here are some examples of many:

"D.C. housed the homeless in upscale apartments. It hasn’t gone as planned."
https://www.reddit.com/r/washingtondc/comments/be19wp/dc_housed_the_homeless_in_upscale_apartments_it/?rdt=50224

"Apartment updates: Police calls rise, case managers remain absent, and tenant leaders continue to press for change"
https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/home-front/apartment-updates-police-calls-rise-case-managers-remain-absent-and-tenant-leaders-continue-to-press-for-change/

"MPD referred three Van Ness apartment buildings to DC AG’s “nuisance” property office"
"https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/news/mpd-referred-three-van-ness-apartment-buildings-to-dc-ags-nuisance-property-office/

"Residents and landlords speak at an apartment-focused Council hearing on crime"
https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/home-front/residents-and-landlords-speak-at-an-apartment-focused-council-hearing-on-crime/

This. My elderly aunt moved out of one of those buildings because life became unbearable with constant noise and pot smoking in public places from the people who do not behave in civil ways and violate the rules of the community. She moved to a garden apartment in a suburban area outside of Beltway, not ideal, but they have respectful people around and don't have to deal with degeneracy. People with addictions and mental health issues do not belong in the residential communities with children, elderly and anyone who just wants safety and peaceful living. They shouldn't be dumping degenerates in the midst of the nice residential communities. People who need rehabilitation are not going to get it this way either, they need to be sent to other facilities where it can happen.

The way it's been done in DC is another example of suicidal empathy. Help for lower income people who do work or live off SS/disability and just want the same thing (Peace and safety) and access to better amenities but cannot afford it is different than dumping a bunch of tent inhabitants (with addictions and mental illness needing treatment) or drug/criminal element from the hood (acting out their thug fantasies and smoking weed everywhere) into the buildings and in the midst of the residential areas full of people who have a different set of rules.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good.

Public housing should be spread equally across all wards. Glad to see Ward 3 is finally making baby steps towards carrying its fair share.

+1 from this Ward 3 resident

“This” Ward 3 resident lives miles from upper Connecticut Ave and certainly never walks along it. Guaranteed.

My guess is deep into AU Park near Mass or deep into 20015 right next to RCP at about 27th

Both bastions of the limousine liberals - equity consequences for Thee but not for Me! Enjoy Murch y’all (scurries back to all white Janney/Lafayette with zero apartments )

Actually, I frequently walk and bike along upper Connecticut Avenue, and also support the plans to build more dense housing on the Wisconsin Avenue corridor, including across the street from my house, and would hope significant portions of those plans also include public housing.

Would you volunteer a room in your house to a low-income worker? Why do you think it's fair to force other people to live in "mixed-income" buildings but you yourself are not? Why should the rent of resident A subsidize the person next door?

Do you see how these buildings in Navy Yard end up? Shootings and drive-bys every weekend.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good.

Public housing should be spread equally across all wards. Glad to see Ward 3 is finally making baby steps towards carrying its fair share.

+1 from this Ward 3 resident

Unless you live in an apt. building on Connecticut Avenue, kindly STFU, your opinion is worthless.

My opinion is that public housing should be spread around all of Ward 3, I don't have an opinion on this particular building.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good.

Public housing should be spread equally across all wards. Glad to see Ward 3 is finally making baby steps towards carrying its fair share.

+1 from this Ward 3 resident

“This” Ward 3 resident lives miles from upper Connecticut Ave and certainly never walks along it. Guaranteed.

My guess is deep into AU Park near Mass or deep into 20015 right next to RCP at about 27th

Both bastions of the limousine liberals - equity consequences for Thee but not for Me! Enjoy Murch y’all (scurries back to all white Janney/Lafayette with zero apartments )

Actually, I frequently walk and bike along upper Connecticut Avenue, and also support the plans to build more dense housing on the Wisconsin Avenue corridor, including across the street from my house, and would hope significant portions of those plans also include public housing.

Frumin is in way over his head. A guppy in a sea of sharks. Between him and JLG, the interests of residential NW are very poorly served by their council members.

"housing for households in the 60 to 80% median family income range ($92,000 to $123,750 for a family of four)."

Over $92k is hardly low income. This is great for middle America with solid but thankless jobs.

Anonymous wrote:Honest question, not trying to be snarky, but why can’t these people just get jobs? There is s labor shortage.

The folks who are paying rent based on 60-80% AMI do have jobs (or possibly pensions/other retirement income). The front desk clerk at your doctor's office or apartment building, a first-year teacher or cop, a tow truck driver, restaurant or store manager...

The people with vouchers are for the most part elderly, aged out of foster care, and/or severely physically or mentally disabled. Some of them are working but not at a rate that makes market-rate housing an option, even in cheaper parts of the DC area.