Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I was in college and the clubs were there, we used to pay people to watch our cars. This used to be real rough. The bougie stuff is a cresting wave than will fall back

To some extent, but the stadium brought in some expensive buildings and stores. Unfortunately, it’s still very poor in surrounding areas and some of those people are criminals and rob stores and have shoot outs. Non criminals got soooked and left.

Good thing D.C. replaced so many MPD police officers with paid “violence interrupters.”

DC partially defunded the MPD and funneled that budget money into DC Councilman Trayon White’s corruption scheme:

https://www.nbcwashington.com/investigations/internal-dc-review-halts-violence-interruption-contract-renewals-after-trayon-white-arrest/3705944/

1. Your article says absolutely nothing about DC "defunding the police," because it didn't happen.

2. DC did not replace and MPD officers with violence interrupters. In fact, MPD is desperately trying to increase the number of MPD officers and is fully funded to do so including offering significant hiring bonuses. The issue is not that MPD doesn't have the money or is firing officers, they're just not getting enough applicants.

3. DC didn't know the contractors being paid were corrupt at the time of payment, and after they learned about the corruption they took all the steps they could to ensure no more money would go to the corrupt contractors. Your article literally says this which makes me question if you even read the article as opposed to making up a premise, googling it, and pasting the first link that you saw.

That’s nice dear. You just go right on believing all that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I was in college and the clubs were there, we used to pay people to watch our cars. This used to be real rough. The bougie stuff is a cresting wave than will fall back

To some extent, but the stadium brought in some expensive buildings and stores. Unfortunately, it’s still very poor in surrounding areas and some of those people are criminals and rob stores and have shoot outs. Non criminals got soooked and left.

Good thing D.C. replaced so many MPD police officers with paid “violence interrupters.”

DC partially defunded the MPD and funneled that budget money into DC Councilman Trayon White’s corruption scheme:

https://www.nbcwashington.com/investigations/internal-dc-review-halts-violence-interruption-contract-renewals-after-trayon-white-arrest/3705944/

1. Your article says absolutely nothing about DC "defunding the police," because it didn't happen.

2. DC did not replace and MPD officers with violence interrupters. In fact, MPD is desperately trying to increase the number of MPD officers and is fully funded to do so including offering significant hiring bonuses. The issue is not that MPD doesn't have the money or is firing officers, they're just not getting enough applicants.

3. DC didn't know the contractors being paid were corrupt at the time of payment, and after they learned about the corruption they took all the steps they could to ensure no more money would go to the corrupt contractors. Your article literally says this which makes me question if you even read the article as opposed to making up a premise, googling it, and pasting the first link that you saw.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I was in college and the clubs were there, we used to pay people to watch our cars. This used to be real rough. The bougie stuff is a cresting wave than will fall back

To some extent, but the stadium brought in some expensive buildings and stores. Unfortunately, it’s still very poor in surrounding areas and some of those people are criminals and rob stores and have shoot outs. Non criminals got soooked and left.

Good thing D.C. replaced so many MPD police officers with paid “violence interrupters.”

DC partially defunded the MPD and funneled that budget money into DC Councilman Trayon White’s corruption scheme:

https://www.nbcwashington.com/investigations/internal-dc-review-halts-violence-interruption-contract-renewals-after-trayon-white-arrest/3705944/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I was in college and the clubs were there, we used to pay people to watch our cars. This used to be real rough. The bougie stuff is a cresting wave than will fall back

To some extent, but the stadium brought in some expensive buildings and stores. Unfortunately, it’s still very poor in surrounding areas and some of those people are criminals and rob stores and have shoot outs. Non criminals got soooked and left.

Good thing D.C. replaced so many MPD police officers with paid “violence interrupters.”

This neighborhood used to be public housing, a seven eleven, and dance and gay strip clubs. It was totally full of drug crime.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Inclusionary boning does result in more crime (than purely market rate development) statistically speaking. The correlation between crime rates and income is very strong. So a higher proportion of low income residents means more crime on average. The counterfactual scenario where all of the new development units were expensive would mean slightly lower crime in Navy Yard.

The per capita percentage of poor people in SW and Near SE is at its lowest point in 50 years. So how could "inclusionary boning" be responsible for high crime in the neighborhood?

IZ increases crime relative to only market rate development because it results in more low income residents (in comparison to only market rate). I did not say it was the primary contributing factors, but it definitely doesn't help the crime rates. DC providing free/discounted metro passed for low income people and the income composition of nearby neighborhoods are likely the significant causal factors.

You are an idiot. You really think discounted metro cards for poor people are "significant causal factors" to high crime in the neighborhood?

Thanks for the laugh.

This may not be politically correct to say, but statistically speaking it is true. The violent crime rate for teens whose families are in the bottom 20% of the income distribution is more than 6x that of teens whose families are in the top 20% of the income distribution. Providing free or discounted metro passes (to low-income teens) will not necessarily have a significant impact on the total crime rate. However, it will have an impact on the geographic distribution of crime and redistribute some of it to more affluent areas that are accessible with public transportation.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4180846/

The developers got their cut and moved on to gentrifying the next “up and coming” neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Inclusionary boning does result in more crime (than purely market rate development) statistically speaking. The correlation between crime rates and income is very strong. So a higher proportion of low income residents means more crime on average. The counterfactual scenario where all of the new development units were expensive would mean slightly lower crime in Navy Yard.

The per capita percentage of poor people in SW and Near SE is at its lowest point in 50 years. So how could "inclusionary boning" be responsible for high crime in the neighborhood?

IZ increases crime relative to only market rate development because it results in more low income residents (in comparison to only market rate). I did not say it was the primary contributing factors, but it definitely doesn't help the crime rates. DC providing free/discounted metro passed for low income people and the income composition of nearby neighborhoods are likely the significant causal factors.

The out of control teens who commit crimes don't live in Navy Yard, alhtough there is a lot of public housing pn M Street SW and around buzzard point so that it quite a bit of. Close to 1000 units of public housing in that area alone.

Ahhh..I remember the days of talking to the dealers and hookers on the corners while walking to the Navy Yard for work. You all missed out!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Inclusionary boning does result in more crime (than purely market rate development) statistically speaking. The correlation between crime rates and income is very strong. So a higher proportion of low income residents means more crime on average. The counterfactual scenario where all of the new development units were expensive would mean slightly lower crime in Navy Yard.

The per capita percentage of poor people in SW and Near SE is at its lowest point in 50 years. So how could "inclusionary boning" be responsible for high crime in the neighborhood?

IZ increases crime relative to only market rate development because it results in more low income residents (in comparison to only market rate). I did not say it was the primary contributing factors, but it definitely doesn't help the crime rates. DC providing free/discounted metro passed for low income people and the income composition of nearby neighborhoods are likely the significant causal factors.

You are an idiot. You really think discounted metro cards for poor people are "significant causal factors" to high crime in the neighborhood?

Thanks for the laugh.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Inclusionary boning does result in more crime (than purely market rate development) statistically speaking. The correlation between crime rates and income is very strong. So a higher proportion of low income residents means more crime on average. The counterfactual scenario where all of the new development units were expensive would mean slightly lower crime in Navy Yard.

The per capita percentage of poor people in SW and Near SE is at its lowest point in 50 years. So how could "inclusionary boning" be responsible for high crime in the neighborhood?

IZ increases crime relative to only market rate development because it results in more low income residents (in comparison to only market rate). I did not say it was the primary contributing factors, but it definitely doesn't help the crime rates. DC providing free/discounted metro passed for low income people and the income composition of nearby neighborhoods are likely the significant causal factors.

Anonymous wrote:
Inclusionary boning does result in more crime (than purely market rate development) statistically speaking. The correlation between crime rates and income is very strong. So a higher proportion of low income residents means more crime on average. The counterfactual scenario where all of the new development units were expensive would mean slightly lower crime in Navy Yard.

The per capita percentage of poor people in SW and Near SE is at its lowest point in 50 years. So how could "inclusionary boning" be responsible for high crime in the neighborhood?

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been here since Covid and I’m
Shocked at how far downhill it’s gone. So much business turnover, dangerous scooter riding, elevators being out everywhere, aggressive dogs even on the metro and owners mishandling them, ZERO working escalators on the DOT side of the navy yard metro exit to name a few. Customer service is also bad a lot of places it’s so so dirty.

I don’t remember it being this way even two years ago. What changed?

Hey look, an aggrieved driver who's bitter that M St is no longer a six lane car sewer.

Inclusionary boning

This is an incredible typo.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been here since Covid and I’m
Shocked at how far downhill it’s gone. So much business turnover, dangerous scooter riding, elevators being out everywhere, aggressive dogs even on the metro and owners mishandling them, ZERO working escalators on the DOT side of the navy yard metro exit to name a few. Customer service is also bad a lot of places it’s so so dirty.

I don’t remember it being this way even two years ago. What changed?

Clutch those pearls any harder and you'll have a diamond necklace instead.

Imagine being this fragile, being shocked and terrified of a neighborhood overrun by accountants in baseball jerseys three days a week.

Virtue signaling people like you (and others who excuse anti-social behavior) is why parents and families move out of cities.

DP. No one is saying crime is okay. I live in Capitol Hill, near Navy Yard. I am acutely aware of the crime issues there and I openly advocate for better policing and stronger enforcement.

But OP and others who think Navy Yard has "gone downhill" or is more dangerous now than 5, 10, or 15 years ago are simply ignorant. The issues in Navy Yard have been continuous over that time. What has changed is the number if UMC white people living in the neighborhood, the number if businesses, the larger likelihood of the crime impacting populations and businesses likely to have some political power or media presence.

Navy Yard is a neighborhood that gentrified incredibly rapidly and largely through aggressive, large-scale development. What you see now with the crime is a very predictable result if that process. Pearl clutching about "oh no, where did all this crime come from" is annoying and not really productive.