Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the voucher program where the city pays above market rate for getting voucher holders into market rate buildings. The smaller buildings in Columbia heights have been completely taken over by gangs. There was a good article in the post about this. The city has failed to provide wrap around services for these tenants, many of whom have ongoing mental health and addiction issues. Take it up with your councilman.

Don’t miss any opportunity to bash lower class people! Got in there right away to blame the poors!

Again, HUD explicitly forbids any requirement that voucher tenants PARTICIPATE in services, addiction treatment, mental health treatment, etc. The idea that if DC just provided "services" all would be well is a strawman argument in light of the facts that the tenant does not need to open the door to social workers and that HUD has cut the number of required contacts from 4 to 2 a month, 1 in person.

The Post article focused on the reality of losing control of the door and having buildings taken over by crime and drug dealing. In those conditions, no social worker talking would have an impact.

can you please post a link showing that HUD forbids that?

It is quoted upthread from a HUD document.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frumin would have been better off running for an at-large seat. He seems to have little interest in advocating for his constituents.

if he didn't have any interest in advocating for his constituents, he wouldn't have bothered with having the meeting last night. There really isn't a lot a Councilmember of ANC Commissioner can do about crime. There just isn't.

Disagree. He HAD to do something or look awful if the ANCs did it instead. He was slow to respond over the weekend, was roasted for calling it a euphemistic "incident" etc. It was the minimum required. Not an indicator of zeal re: public safety. His performance was concerning. The exchange with the last neighbor was tense and uncomfortable, he could not even fake a connection on the issue briefly, it was more vague word salad and "I'm trying" type comments. Was about HIM and excuses, not responsive to what was said.

For those who have not see it but would like to the recording is here https://www.facebook.com/events/d41d8cd9/public-safety-meeting-with-cm-matt-frumin/664811008938976/

The flopsweat from some of his answers, particularly to the last gentleman, was overwhelming. He's really struggling with this job when it entails something more than a selfie on a bike. Way out of his element, as are probably 75 percent of the Council (Allen and Nadeau are like this, as well, when someone challenges them, they just completely fall apart).

Yeah, exactly this.

A neighbor mentioned a shooting or robbery involving a gun at The Chesapeake, next to The Saratoga, in the past few years. Anyone remember that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the voucher program where the city pays above market rate for getting voucher holders into market rate buildings. The smaller buildings in Columbia heights have been completely taken over by gangs. There was a good article in the post about this. The city has failed to provide wrap around services for these tenants, many of whom have ongoing mental health and addiction issues. Take it up with your councilman.

Don’t miss any opportunity to bash lower class people! Got in there right away to blame the poors!

Again, HUD explicitly forbids any requirement that voucher tenants PARTICIPATE in services, addiction treatment, mental health treatment, etc. The idea that if DC just provided "services" all would be well is a strawman argument in light of the facts that the tenant does not need to open the door to social workers and that HUD has cut the number of required contacts from 4 to 2 a month, 1 in person.

The Post article focused on the reality of losing control of the door and having buildings taken over by crime and drug dealing. In those conditions, no social worker talking would have an impact.

can you please post a link showing that HUD forbids that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frumin would have been better off running for an at-large seat. He seems to have little interest in advocating for his constituents.

if he didn't have any interest in advocating for his constituents, he wouldn't have bothered with having the meeting last night. There really isn't a lot a Councilmember of ANC Commissioner can do about crime. There just isn't.

Disagree. He HAD to do something or look awful if the ANCs did it instead. He was slow to respond over the weekend, was roasted for calling it a euphemistic "incident" etc. It was the minimum required. Not an indicator of zeal re: public safety. His performance was concerning. The exchange with the last neighbor was tense and uncomfortable, he could not even fake a connection on the issue briefly, it was more vague word salad and "I'm trying" type comments. Was about HIM and excuses, not responsive to what was said.

For those who have not see it but would like to the recording is here https://www.facebook.com/events/d41d8cd9/public-safety-meeting-with-cm-matt-frumin/664811008938976/

The flopsweat from some of his answers, particularly to the last gentleman, was overwhelming. He's really struggling with this job when it entails something more than a selfie on a bike. Way out of his element, as are probably 75 percent of the Council (Allen and Nadeau are like this, as well, when someone challenges them, they just completely fall apart).

We're not sending our best.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frumin would have been better off running for an at-large seat. He seems to have little interest in advocating for his constituents.

if he didn't have any interest in advocating for his constituents, he wouldn't have bothered with having the meeting last night. There really isn't a lot a Councilmember of ANC Commissioner can do about crime. There just isn't.

Disagree. He HAD to do something or look awful if the ANCs did it instead. He was slow to respond over the weekend, was roasted for calling it a euphemistic "incident" etc. It was the minimum required. Not an indicator of zeal re: public safety. His performance was concerning. The exchange with the last neighbor was tense and uncomfortable, he could not even fake a connection on the issue briefly, it was more vague word salad and "I'm trying" type comments. Was about HIM and excuses, not responsive to what was said.

For those who have not see it but would like to the recording is here https://www.facebook.com/events/d41d8cd9/public-safety-meeting-with-cm-matt-frumin/664811008938976/

The flopsweat from some of his answers, particularly to the last gentleman, was overwhelming. He's really struggling with this job when it entails something more than a selfie on a bike. Way out of his element, as are probably 75 percent of the Council (Allen and Nadeau are like this, as well, when someone challenges them, they just completely fall apart).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frumin would have been better off running for an at-large seat. He seems to have little interest in advocating for his constituents.

if he didn't have any interest in advocating for his constituents, he wouldn't have bothered with having the meeting last night. There really isn't a lot a Councilmember of ANC Commissioner can do about crime. There just isn't.

Disagree. He HAD to do something or look awful if the ANCs did it instead. He was slow to respond over the weekend, was roasted for calling it a euphemistic "incident" etc. It was the minimum required. Not an indicator of zeal re: public safety. His performance was concerning. The exchange with the last neighbor was tense and uncomfortable, he could not even fake a connection on the issue briefly, it was more vague word salad and "I'm trying" type comments. Was about HIM and excuses, not responsive to what was said.

For those who have not see it but would like to the recording is here https://www.facebook.com/events/d41d8cd9/public-safety-meeting-with-cm-matt-frumin/664811008938976/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The building at 5333 doesn't have vouchers or anything of the like. It is a super high end, very new building with mostly affluent tenants.

That’s how the Saratoga used to be. I was so jealous when one of my classmates moved in there during college (her parents paid). The Saratoga was palace compared to the 1950s dumpy studio apartment I lived in with no AC. And now it’s a homeless shelter. Mind boggling.

I know, right?! I had a book club member friend who lived there and I was in awe at how nice it was, how much parking there was west of the park, etc. Now, to have someone shot in broad daylight next to the side door, on a Saturday no less, is just shocking. I fear it will be a new low of desensitization on the issue of crime.

Can someone who is more familiar with DC MPD crime cards explain how I might find drug related crime tracked? In daily arrest emails I see MPD arrest for possession, possession with intent to distribute, etc. But on the crime card dashboard I only see violent crime and property crime. It would be interesting to see drug related arrest patterns around the big buildings on Connecticut and Wisconsin (and elsewhere!)

https://crimecards.dc.gov/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the voucher program where the city pays above market rate for getting voucher holders into market rate buildings. The smaller buildings in Columbia heights have been completely taken over by gangs. There was a good article in the post about this. The city has failed to provide wrap around services for these tenants, many of whom have ongoing mental health and addiction issues. Take it up with your councilman.

Don’t miss any opportunity to bash lower class people! Got in there right away to blame the poors!

Not just the poor. There's someone in almost every building who gets rich taking kickbacks off the voucher programs.

Even before kickbacks, it was raised back in 2019 in a hearing before Bonds, that the program, including overpayments of at least $1,000/month per unit is an enormous transfer of public money into private hands. It also exerts a great upward pressure on rents. Prior to HF rolling out, many of the buildings on Connecticut and Wisconsin were offering discounts, several months of free rent as a move in special, etc. Swapping out below market rate units for vouchers is one piece, making the rental housing more unaffordable for everyone is another, rents would have decreased to fill buildings or they would have used coupons, but the tenants would have been working people with good enough credit, in some cases a very different population.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the voucher program where the city pays above market rate for getting voucher holders into market rate buildings. The smaller buildings in Columbia heights have been completely taken over by gangs. There was a good article in the post about this. The city has failed to provide wrap around services for these tenants, many of whom have ongoing mental health and addiction issues. Take it up with your councilman.

Don’t miss any opportunity to bash lower class people! Got in there right away to blame the poors!

Again, HUD explicitly forbids any requirement that voucher tenants PARTICIPATE in services, addiction treatment, mental health treatment, etc. The idea that if DC just provided "services" all would be well is a strawman argument in light of the facts that the tenant does not need to open the door to social workers and that HUD has cut the number of required contacts from 4 to 2 a month, 1 in person.

The Post article focused on the reality of losing control of the door and having buildings taken over by crime and drug dealing. In those conditions, no social worker talking would have an impact.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the voucher program where the city pays above market rate for getting voucher holders into market rate buildings. The smaller buildings in Columbia heights have been completely taken over by gangs. There was a good article in the post about this. The city has failed to provide wrap around services for these tenants, many of whom have ongoing mental health and addiction issues. Take it up with your councilman.

Don’t miss any opportunity to bash lower class people! Got in there right away to blame the poors!

Not just the poor. There's someone in almost every building who gets rich taking kickbacks off the voucher programs.

I love reading white leftists in the midst of a moral panic take the time to complain about housing vouchers and violent crime. The officer talked at the beginning re the need for accountability from the perps. The same is true for the law abiding residents that are responsible for this mayor and city council. You voted for these officials and the violent crime, the public harassment, the car jacking, the drug dealing, etc are you feeling accountability for your actions. Maybe you will learn, if it not, that’s great too- far better entertainment if you don’t.

Anonymous wrote:It’s the voucher program where the city pays above market rate for getting voucher holders into market rate buildings. The smaller buildings in Columbia heights have been completely taken over by gangs. There was a good article in the post about this. The city has failed to provide wrap around services for these tenants, many of whom have ongoing mental health and addiction issues. Take it up with your councilman.

Don’t miss any opportunity to bash lower class people! Got in there right away to blame the poors!