Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of my neighbors who don’t typically pay attention to local politics are awakening and concluding that Matt Frumin may not be the best leader for Ward 3 at this moment in history.

Frumin is a nice guy, but he seems himself as a District-wide policymaker first. The elected advocate for Ward 3 issues, not so much.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If they are connected to the program, it is a solvable problem. If this is representative of the overall neighborhood going to sht like much of the rest of the city has, we're really in trouble.

Anonymous wrote: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:

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/

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Anonymous wrote:Key facts about tenants who have voucher contracts in Frumin's statement:

"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."

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.

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.