Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hearing one of the moderates in Glover/Cleveland/Woodley Park or Van Ness might finally step up. Otherwise we will probably have another four years of Frumin bumbling around Ward 3 pretending to ‘engage the community’ while traffic backs up, small businesses close, and crime gets worse.

He doesn't respond to email.

Anonymous wrote:And, finally, crime in Ward 3 has skyrocketed under his tenure while going down throughout the rest of DC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just read his announcement. This is a guy who just said he voted the wrong way on the rent legislation that Council passed last week. This is a guy who voted to spend/forego $billions of our tax dollars to present a united front on the stadium. This is a guy who seems to have not kept a single campaign promise. This guy is a clown.

His opponents are going to tee off on his record and his constant flip-flopping. He’s also done next to nothing on his biggest campaign promise from 2022, namely to improve overcrowding in W3 dcps (the MacArthur plan was already in the works, and if he tries to take credit for that he should be roasted).


I foresee people running against him from both his left flank and his right.

What opponents? I haven't seen anyone filing to run in this race, unlike other wards. Who has the name recognition or base to mount a decent challenge?

Agree.

I did not vote for him and am not a fan but I don’t see him going anywhere soon.

Anonymous wrote:Hearing one of the moderates in Glover/Cleveland/Woodley Park or Van Ness might finally step up. Otherwise we will probably have another four years of Frumin bumbling around Ward 3 pretending to ‘engage the community’ while traffic backs up, small businesses close, and crime gets worse.

Anonymous wrote:Hearing one of the moderates in Glover/Cleveland/Woodley Park or Van Ness might finally step up. Otherwise we will probably have another four years of Frumin bumbling around Ward 3 pretending to ‘engage the community’ while traffic backs up, small businesses close, and crime gets worse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fruman always has a dopey smile on that makes him look non serious. It’s like he’s at summer camp and it’s all fun and games for him. Which could be one reason why he has accomplished nothing.

In looking at his council website, it looks like has has actually done a lot.

Anonymous wrote:


You sound like a complaining neighbor, not someone steep in the details of affordable housing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just read his announcement. This is a guy who just said he voted the wrong way on the rent legislation that Council passed last week. This is a guy who voted to spend/forego $billions of our tax dollars to present a united front on the stadium. This is a guy who seems to have not kept a single campaign promise. This guy is a clown.

His opponents are going to tee off on his record and his constant flip-flopping. He’s also done next to nothing on his biggest campaign promise from 2022, namely to improve overcrowding in W3 dcps (the MacArthur plan was already in the works, and if he tries to take credit for that he should be roasted).


I foresee people running against him from both his left flank and his right.

What opponents? I haven't seen anyone filing to run in this race, unlike other wards. Who has the name recognition or base to mount a decent challenge?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Landlords do not "gladly accept above-market rate payment" ---there was one landlord doing that and a big settlement about it. Landlords by law cannot refuse to accept voucher tenant applicants nor can landlords cap the number of vouchers in their building. Both actions are illegal under the DC Human Rights Act which elevated "source of income" to a protected class commensurate with race, ethnicity, gender. etc. which IMO, was extremely unwise. And I don't know what you expect LLs to do with respect to mentally ill/criminal/violent voucher tenant residents. It is impossible to evict a tenant for a behavior related lease violation---the courts give endless opportunities to "cure". The only other path to eviction is non-payment of rent, which isn't happening because the government is paying the rent. The best way to make a building safe again is to streamline eviction laws and allow landlords to cap the number of vouchers they have to take at 10 to 15% of the units for any building over 10 units. AND the city needs to REQUIRE that residents receiving vouchers participate in services and then the city needs to offer those services (particularly in the mental health realm). These are all legislative changes that a competent Ward 3 councilperson should be advocating for.


Show me you know nothing about how any of this works without using the words.

Are you kidding me? I know EXACTLY how this works. I deal with this craziness on a daily basis---irate tenants who are upset that the city handed out vouchers to the long-term mentally ill, attorneys who try over and over to get the most problematic tenants evicted, to no avail. Everyone wants to blame the landlords for a situation that the District itself has created through a series of laws which, taken individually were well-meaning, but collectively have led to chaos.

You sound like a complaining neighbor, not someone steep in the details of affordable housing.

The situation sucks and is dangerous. Neighbors have every right to complain. Frumin would never allow anyone here cares about to have that happen in their building.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Landlords do not "gladly accept above-market rate payment" ---there was one landlord doing that and a big settlement about it. Landlords by law cannot refuse to accept voucher tenant applicants nor can landlords cap the number of vouchers in their building. Both actions are illegal under the DC Human Rights Act which elevated "source of income" to a protected class commensurate with race, ethnicity, gender. etc. which IMO, was extremely unwise. And I don't know what you expect LLs to do with respect to mentally ill/criminal/violent voucher tenant residents. It is impossible to evict a tenant for a behavior related lease violation---the courts give endless opportunities to "cure". The only other path to eviction is non-payment of rent, which isn't happening because the government is paying the rent. The best way to make a building safe again is to streamline eviction laws and allow landlords to cap the number of vouchers they have to take at 10 to 15% of the units for any building over 10 units. AND the city needs to REQUIRE that residents receiving vouchers participate in services and then the city needs to offer those services (particularly in the mental health realm). These are all legislative changes that a competent Ward 3 councilperson should be advocating for.


Show me you know nothing about how any of this works without using the words.

Are you kidding me? I know EXACTLY how this works. I deal with this craziness on a daily basis---irate tenants who are upset that the city handed out vouchers to the long-term mentally ill, attorneys who try over and over to get the most problematic tenants evicted, to no avail. Everyone wants to blame the landlords for a situation that the District itself has created through a series of laws which, taken individually were well-meaning, but collectively have led to chaos.

You sound like a complaining neighbor, not someone steep in the details of affordable housing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Landlords do not "gladly accept above-market rate payment" ---there was one landlord doing that and a big settlement about it. Landlords by law cannot refuse to accept voucher tenant applicants nor can landlords cap the number of vouchers in their building. Both actions are illegal under the DC Human Rights Act which elevated "source of income" to a protected class commensurate with race, ethnicity, gender. etc. which IMO, was extremely unwise. And I don't know what you expect LLs to do with respect to mentally ill/criminal/violent voucher tenant residents. It is impossible to evict a tenant for a behavior related lease violation---the courts give endless opportunities to "cure". The only other path to eviction is non-payment of rent, which isn't happening because the government is paying the rent. The best way to make a building safe again is to streamline eviction laws and allow landlords to cap the number of vouchers they have to take at 10 to 15% of the units for any building over 10 units. AND the city needs to REQUIRE that residents receiving vouchers participate in services and then the city needs to offer those services (particularly in the mental health realm). These are all legislative changes that a competent Ward 3 councilperson should be advocating for.


Show me you know nothing about how any of this works without using the words.

Are you kidding me? I know EXACTLY how this works. I deal with this craziness on a daily basis---irate tenants who are upset that the city handed out vouchers to the long-term mentally ill, attorneys who try over and over to get the most problematic tenants evicted, to no avail. Everyone wants to blame the landlords for a situation that the District itself has created through a series of laws which, taken individually were well-meaning, but collectively have led to chaos.

Anonymous wrote:Fruman always has a dopey smile on that makes him look non serious. It’s like he’s at summer camp and it’s all fun and games for him. Which could be one reason why he has accomplished nothing.