Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Recall Bowser. These programs are hers, not the Council. It is an executive agency placing the tenants. It is an executive agency not providing basic screening. It is an executive agency not ensuring the tenants are law-abiding. (And don’t give me that HUD housing First only requires one in-person site visit per month. That’s a minimum, not a maximum. And I’ll bet that isn’t even taking place.)
It is Bowser. Start there with the recall petition.
Harder to do. Frumin is possible though.
Who is the ANC Commissioner for these buildings? They need to go too.
3F01 (west side of Connecticut) resigned his post (moved away I think)
3F02 (east side of Connecticut) is Teri Huet who is not the brightest bulb in the bin.
Who would’ve guessed, except all long-time residents, that the 20-something GGW endorsed, socialist DSA member wasn’t going to stick around. No one would’ve guessed though that they’d move away and quit 6 months after the election. This is precisely why no one takes these ANC positions seriously.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Recall Bowser. These programs are hers, not the Council. It is an executive agency placing the tenants. It is an executive agency not providing basic screening. It is an executive agency not ensuring the tenants are law-abiding. (And don’t give me that HUD housing First only requires one in-person site visit per month. That’s a minimum, not a maximum. And I’ll bet that isn’t even taking place.)
It is Bowser. Start there with the recall petition.
Harder to do. Frumin is possible though.
Who is the ANC Commissioner for these buildings? They need to go too.
3F01 (west side of Connecticut) resigned his post (moved away I think)
3F02 (east side of Connecticut) is Teri Huet who is not the brightest bulb in the bin.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I know several neighbors who have been involved with the voucher issue for years. So many hearings, articles, meetings with the mayor, etc. and things just get worse. I don't see the trajectory changing for a long while yet, unfortunately.
Which of the Whites would have been a better choice in this regard? Wouldn't both Robert and Trayon have been worse?
I do think more people are starting for move from SFH. And certainly from the problem buildings, accelerating the decline into overpriced private public housing and also the decline of the neighborhood.
Passed CH last night with out of town visitors who used to live here and they were pretty shocked.
I think Robert White would be better. He seems to be concerned about the thousands of vacant public housing units, which would reduce the need for as many voucher placements.
The core problem though is that all of these policies are closely tied to real estate interests, so it’s unclear if that influence can be broken any time soon.
Anonymous wrote:Who is shooting people at 730 AM on a Saturday?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Recall Bowser. These programs are hers, not the Council. It is an executive agency placing the tenants. It is an executive agency not providing basic screening. It is an executive agency not ensuring the tenants are law-abiding. (And don’t give me that HUD housing First only requires one in-person site visit per month. That’s a minimum, not a maximum. And I’ll bet that isn’t even taking place.)
It is Bowser. Start there with the recall petition.
Harder to do. Frumin is possible though.
Who is the ANC Commissioner for these buildings? They need to go too.
Anonymous wrote:I know several neighbors who have been involved with the voucher issue for years. So many hearings, articles, meetings with the mayor, etc. and things just get worse. I don't see the trajectory changing for a long while yet, unfortunately.
Which of the Whites would have been a better choice in this regard? Wouldn't both Robert and Trayon have been worse?
I do think more people are starting for move from SFH. And certainly from the problem buildings, accelerating the decline into overpriced private public housing and also the decline of the neighborhood.
Passed CH last night with out of town visitors who used to live here and they were pretty shocked.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s really sad that a solid policy (rapid rehousing, housing first) is losing support due to a terrible implementation that combined policy goals that have nothing to do with housing. DC’s voucher policy was a hamfisted project primarily intended to move high poverty tenants into higher income zip codes, not designed to actually provide the intensive support needed by the mentally ill/drug addicted homeless.
When spike is the motivating objective, it’s hard to see how any other policy goal can be accomplished appropriately.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s really sad that a solid policy (rapid rehousing, housing first) is losing support due to a terrible implementation that combined policy goals that have nothing to do with housing. DC’s voucher policy was a hamfisted project primarily intended to move high poverty tenants into higher income zip codes, not designed to actually provide the intensive support needed by the mentally ill/drug addicted homeless.
When spike is the motivating objective, it’s hard to see how any other policy goal can be accomplished appropriately.
Anonymous wrote:It’s really sad that a solid policy (rapid rehousing, housing first) is losing support due to a terrible implementation that combined policy goals that have nothing to do with housing. DC’s voucher policy was a hamfisted project primarily intended to move high poverty tenants into higher income zip codes, not designed to actually provide the intensive support needed by the mentally ill/drug addicted homeless.