Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:^ fare evasion should also be re-criminalized now that you can get free fare cards if qualify for EBT.
Fare evasion arrests would catch suspects wanted on outstanding warrants.
So would pulling over cars with fake dealer tags. The council has prevented cops from doing this just like they decriminalized fare jumping.
The Council has enacted the policies that enabled the skyrocketing crime.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:^ fare evasion should also be re-criminalized now that you can get free fare cards if qualify for EBT.
Fare evasion arrests would catch suspects wanted on outstanding warrants.
Anonymous wrote:^ fare evasion should also be re-criminalized now that you can get free fare cards if qualify for EBT.
Anonymous wrote:Frumpkin is so unimpressive - ill-spoken, low energy, poorly dressed, average intelligence. Before joining the council, he had no track record of excellence in anything. Still no sign of excellence. Ward 3 deserves better.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 voters really need to think if they are going to keep voting for someone who wants our laws to be even laxer than Allen and Nadeau want them.
Of course he's going to do his old song and dance of, "I'm very concerned about crime, but..." or "We're working on a lot of ideas..."
I've even heard people say, "Well, now it looks like he's finally paying attention" - people, he didn't even want to talk about crime for the first year he was in office, and ignored his constituents who contacted him about it. Look, if you share his disinterest in crime, fine, vote for him. I'm just completely confused about why people who are concerned about crime still support the guy.
I agree. Even if we discount crime, what has he done? And honestly, crime is all I want him to do at this point.
Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 voters really need to think if they are going to keep voting for someone who wants our laws to be even laxer than Allen and Nadeau want them.
Of course he's going to do his old song and dance of, "I'm very concerned about crime, but..." or "We're working on a lot of ideas..."
I've even heard people say, "Well, now it looks like he's finally paying attention" - people, he didn't even want to talk about crime for the first year he was in office, and ignored his constituents who contacted him about it. Look, if you share his disinterest in crime, fine, vote for him. I'm just completely confused about why people who are concerned about crime still support the guy.
We face an epidemic of crime and gun violence in our city that impacts every resident, regardless of age, income, or ward, and we must work together to empower public agencies to stem the tide of violence. You’re part of that conversation: Please plan on attending my Ward 3 Public Safety Forum next Wednesday.
Yesterday, my colleague Councilmember Brooke Pinto introduced the Secure DC Omnibus, a package of bills and initiatives aimed at taking action to address public safety. While I do not vote on the Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety, I have been actively engaged in the measures that comprise the omnibus. I met with Councilmember Pinto in advance of the bill's release and will be actively engaged in the debate going forward.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Reality is going to BITE quite HARD in the very near future. The soft on crime policies and refusal to govern in a serious way is only going to make the financial hit worse. If you scroll down, the grim projections do not capture the CRE crash that is in progress. 2015 is not coming back in any way, shape or form.
But, bike lanes will help. Right?