Anonymous wrote:Perhaps it will be clarified at Frumin's community meeting at UDC on Thursday, but it has not yet been stated that the victim or 2 gunmen had any connection to the voucher program or that any of the 3 lived in a building in Forest Hills.

Nuisance areas attract crime, and DC policy has created a very disregulated environment on a once quiet main artery. That's the connection.

Anonymous wrote:A man was shot just after 3:00 pm today near the 4600 block of Connecticut Ave NW. The suspects fled through Forest Hills playground. The victim was shot in the abdomen and was taken and treated at the hospital. It should be noted this happened during a rain storm.

Very upsetting on many levels.

Did they find out more about the shooter and the victim in this case?

It seems likely that The Saratoga will empty out and accelerate the slide toward becoming expensive private public housing.

No cap on number per buildings. A WP article linked upthread talks about this more.

I do worry that some elderly neighbors paying well under market rate may not have as many options and may have a target on them since a voucher could bring in substantially more. All prized the safety and walkability to groceries, Politics & Prose, etc. Some have been in neighborhood since 70s.

Are there guidelines or limits on the number of voucher residents per building? It seems like having too many voucher tenants per building could be destabilizing. For example, those already living in the buildings may move out, which, in turn, would make more vacant units available for more voucher recipients. Having a limit (e.g, a fixed percentage of units) could perhaps help to stabilize things.

This is also driven by landlord greed. They get more $ per unit from voucher recipients than the market rate. The incentive for them is to keep adding voucher tenants.

There has been a noticeable increase in violent crime in Cleveland Park/Van Ness/Forest Hills corridor over the past few years.

It's quite possible that people will start to move away. Many people moved to these neighborhoods in because they were safe and secure. The residents of these neighborhoods have the means to move elsewhere and don't have to tolerate a decrease in safety and security.

Anonymous wrote:This is what Ward 3 voted for. Could have elected David Krukoff, but he was an "evil Republican." So the mayor will continue to fill rental apartments on Connecticut Ave. with unemployable voucher recipients, who will continue to victimize aging Ward 3 libs. Might as well rename it "Ward 8 West."

Oh come on.

I lived in another ward for years. Hearing gunfire (typically not "close", but close enough to hear) was a pretty normal weekend during summer occurrence. Ward 3 is NOWHERE NEAR that. You're nuts if you think it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have to say I miss the Fenty years...reasonable mayor, reasonable council, USAO office that still functioned and a stable tax base made for some really good years for family life in the District. The redone playgrounds, the pools, the greater safety, schools on the upswing...

The years with Tony Williams as mayor were the best ones. Wish he'd come back.

. Yes, he was great.

Anonymous wrote:Have to say I miss the Fenty years...reasonable mayor, reasonable council, USAO office that still functioned and a stable tax base made for some really good years for family life in the District. The redone playgrounds, the pools, the greater safety, schools on the upswing...

And declining murder rates.

I live in Ward 3 and voted for Goulet, as did many of my neighbors.

That said, clearly Frumin is not the right guy for the job. Nor is the new chief a good pick. Both over their heads at really critical times.

This is what Ward 3 voted for. Could have elected David Krukoff, but he was an "evil Republican." So the mayor will continue to fill rental apartments on Connecticut Ave. with unemployable voucher recipients, who will continue to victimize aging Ward 3 libs. Might as well rename it "Ward 8 West."

The Forest Hills PSA has had the largest increase in crime of anywhere in the city (obviously not highest NUMBERS, biggest change) over the past few years. The data was from MPD crime cards, it was discussed at a meeting, Cheh may have been there, and confirmed by MPD. So, huge change is not an issue of perception or delicate sensibilities.

It's not just the Days Inn, visible drug dealing is now common throughout CP, Van Ness and around many buildings in Forest Hills, Chevy Chase DC, Cathedral Heights, etc. MPD focuses resources as they are able, there was already a portable MPD camera in the works for the corner of Connecticut and Brandywine prior to the shooting on Saturday. That will relocate dealers slightly and temporarily, then the camera will be needed elsewhere.

While many are new to these issues, there have been literally dozens of community meetings with MPD, ANCs, Bowser officials, etc. from CP to Forest Hills to Chevy Chase to Cathedral Heights over the past few years. Because of limitations in changes that can be made to how HF programs run and because of a 67% no paper rate by USAO and Council changing laws re: juveniles and misdemeanors, its like playing whack a mole.

The disinterest by homeowners who think it does not effect them does not help. That changed for some on Brandywine over the weekend. Bowser's push to lower homelessness as one of her signature achievements, while laudable, may be a pyric victory if it increases families heading out of DC and shrinks her tax base.

Besides the crime I just don't see how the financials of this work long term. I remember Clinton policies requiring job training or volunteering or education, now that is prohibited. I read that a shelter in the south tried to do so and was fined a staggering sum by HUD. I think it's healthier for people to work toward being self sustaining, especially when many of them are quite young.

We need more information but it sounds like that particular area has seen a spike in crime at least partly relating to the Days Inn, where there appears to be some drug dealing. There was a shooting at that hotel not long ago.

Perhaps it will be clarified at Frumin's community meeting at UDC on Thursday, but it has not yet been stated that the victim or 2 gunmen had any connection to the voucher program or that any of the 3 lived in a building in Forest Hills.

The $ and barrier to restrictions and cutting of required service contacts with social workers from 4 to 2/month in the last year (1 in person) all come from HUD. This is not some fever dream of Bowser's. The overpayments of $1,000+/month OVER market rate are a corrupt DC twist, for which a HUD audit fined them heavily, they continue. The rest, well, you could complain to your representatives in Congress, but...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If people were to lose their housing voucher, then that means they have nothing left to lose. Advocating for such a stupid policy will result in higher crimes and you risk becoming a bigger target and victim. Housing is a basic necessity. Causing people to lose their housing vouchers will mean more reckless violent behaviors. I would caution you against such an idea.

This is what Councilmember Frumin wrote in the last paragraph of his statement posted on his website September 11:

"My office has heard from many residents about safety concerns in the area. One of the themes raised is concern regarding the District’s voucher program. We do not yet know whether the individuals involved in Saturday’s incident were affiliated with the program. Additional information is crucial. While most apartment residents, including voucher recipients, are thriving members of our community, some residents need additional behavioral and mental health support. The District’s voucher program is an important tool to place vulnerable neighbors on a path toward success. Unfortunately, the legal and operational framework supporting the current system is flawed. To ensure the voucher program can serve recipients and existing neighbors alike, residents must receive the services they need to live independently, and property managers must invest meaningfully in security. I have been working closely with tenant leaders, landlords, and the Office of the Attorney General to explore legislative solutions to address these issues; it is a high priority."

See website here: https://mattfruminward3.com/4601connave/

This is more of the same BS. Housing First does not, per HUD, allow any conditions to be put on voucher holders. Period. They can have a social worker knock and they have no obligation to open the door. Literally. No obligation to be compliant with meds, mental health care, rehab, to not commit crimes, including violent ones, none of that will result in loss of the voucher. Frumin is way behind the curve in grasping the issues, a lightweight and is spouting platitudes.

For those who have not read it, highly recommend this recent piece and imagine same thing WOTP but with some paying tenants. Note that the required number of monthly contacts was cut from 4 to 2 in the past year and, again, no requirement to open door to services never mind engage, if the reports even happen and are not faked. In public housing social workers would have to show up at the building, in this scenario they are purportedly driving all over without oversight. HUD recently issued a scathing audit and issued millions in fines re: DC housing policies and programs, yet, rolls on with overpayments continuing. So much money is changing hands from public funds to private hands. Read the details at the link and think The Brandywine is not far off.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/08/08/dc-paid-housing-chronic-homelessness/

There is no benefit called “Housing First” that forbids an agency from enacting any standards around it. DC could, but does. not, enact regulations that would ensure appropriate placements. Another issue is DC and federal anti-discrimination law that force buildings to take vouchers and make eviction difficult on the one hand, and DC inflated rental payments that incentize other landlords to load up on vouchers (sometimes to get rid of rent controlled tenants) — without putting into place proper security measures.

There is a HUD program called "Housing First" that forbid preconditions and which funds the bulk of the PSH voucher program. It was enacted by Bush. Educate yourself here https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/3892/housing-first-in-permanent-supportive-housing-brief/

Housing First is an approach to quickly and successfully connect individuals and families experiencing homelessness to permanent housing without preconditions and barriers to entry, such as sobriety, treatment or service participation requirements. Supportive services are offered to maximize housing stability and prevent returns to homelessness as opposed to addressing predetermined treatment goals prior to permanent housing entry.