The housing activists have a LOT of sway over the Council and the aspects of the program they do control. The issues have all been laid out in so many articles, meetings, hearings, over years. Both Frumin and MPD did admit last night that crime has gone up significantly in the Connecticut corridor as vouchers expanded. So at least they did not gaslight about that reality.

https://dcist.com/story/22/09/13/dc-housing-vouchers-rent-control/

Not really, no. He did say they expect an arrest soon. In that press release they will name the victim, suspects, etc.

Did the MPD speaker share any more information about the shooting?

When people read about encampments (ie, open air drug scenes) being cleared and people being offered housing, middle class apartment buildings is where they have been going for the most part. No intervening step or half way house.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems some possible policy solutions are:
1. Limiting the number/percentage of voucher holders per building. This is to stem destabilization. If non-voucher residents move out, the problem magnifies as landlords fill more and more units and create private public housing.
2. Ensure that vouchers pay landlord what existing tenants pay and not an amount above that. This would end market distortions for the rental market and temper the incentives for landlord. The main incentive would instead be filling vacant units, not garnering as much profit as possible. The profit is coming from taxpayer dollars.
3. Require that voucher holders participate in relevant support programs
4. Ending the musical chairs of sending people who have been kicked out of one building to another down the street.

Federal law prohibits paying more than market price, though DC was asleep at the wheel about this for years and only recently stopped doing it (previous arrangements are grandfathered in, however, so the scam continues in some ways).

It's amazing to me that no one said, "You know, maybe it's a bad idea to just dump these people -- many of whom have deep-seated issues with addiction and mental health -- in empty apartments with zero support services." It's just so half-assed, which I guess is the DC way of doing things.

That is Housing First in a nutshell, a HUD program, not something DC dreamed up.

Framing the problem as "housing" has been $$$ for developers, nationwide. Even people who are temporarily without housing typically couch surf with friends or family until they can get back on their feet. Those same people are not inclined to repeatedly allow mentally ill, addicted or violent people to stay with them. If the issue was framed by the drivers of the situation, solution would not be so lucrative. Addiction and MH treatment is $$$ as is incarceration. Since there is so much corruption around development in DC, they took a problematic program with great PR and added a layer of shared graft on top. The bones of it were all put in place under Bush. Due to the size and density of rental buildings on Connecticut and Wisconsin, the problems are amplified.

Anonymous wrote:It seems some possible policy solutions are:
1. Limiting the number/percentage of voucher holders per building. This is to stem destabilization. If non-voucher residents move out, the problem magnifies as landlords fill more and more units and create private public housing.
2. Ensure that vouchers pay landlord what existing tenants pay and not an amount above that. This would end market distortions for the rental market and temper the incentives for landlord. The main incentive would instead be filling vacant units, not garnering as much profit as possible. The profit is coming from taxpayer dollars.
3. Require that voucher holders participate in relevant support programs
4. Ending the musical chairs of sending people who have been kicked out of one building to another down the street.

All good ideas

Cheh attempted #1, no go. This was also discussed in the WP article about the voucher disaster on Quincy Street in this thread.

HUD audit and tens of millions in fines did not accomplish 2. Since there is a higher likelihood of property damage or need to pay for eviction proceedings, that has been used at times as an excuse.

3 is explicitly not allowed by HUD.

4 would be fab, as would revoking vouchers for behavior that would get someone kicked out of public housing. "Private" de facto public housing should follow the same rules.

A tenant of Section 8 housing can be evicted for the following reasons:
Repeated or serious lease violations
Conducting illegal activities on or near the property
The unit isn't safe and fails to meet health and safety standards
Nonreporting of household members and their income
Criminal activity

Anonymous wrote:It seems some possible policy solutions are:
1. Limiting the number/percentage of voucher holders per building. This is to stem destabilization. If non-voucher residents move out, the problem magnifies as landlords fill more and more units and create private public housing.
2. Ensure that vouchers pay landlord what existing tenants pay and not an amount above that. This would end market distortions for the rental market and temper the incentives for landlord. The main incentive would instead be filling vacant units, not garnering as much profit as possible. The profit is coming from taxpayer dollars.
3. Require that voucher holders participate in relevant support programs
4. Ending the musical chairs of sending people who have been kicked out of one building to another down the street.

Federal law prohibits paying more than market price, though DC was asleep at the wheel about this for years and only recently stopped doing it (previous arrangements are grandfathered in, however, so the scam continues in some ways).

It's amazing to me that no one said, "You know, maybe it's a bad idea to just dump these people -- many of whom have deep-seated issues with addiction and mental health -- in empty apartments with zero support services." It's just so half-assed, which I guess is the DC way of doing things.

My building started accepted voucher residents and this calendar year we've had a murder, a second shooting, and a man threatening women in the building gym. Fun times.

It seems some possible policy solutions are:
1. Limiting the number/percentage of voucher holders per building. This is to stem destabilization. If non-voucher residents move out, the problem magnifies as landlords fill more and more units and create private public housing.
2. Ensure that vouchers pay landlord what existing tenants pay and not an amount above that. This would end market distortions for the rental market and temper the incentives for landlord. The main incentive would instead be filling vacant units, not garnering as much profit as possible. The profit is coming from taxpayer dollars.
3. Require that voucher holders participate in relevant support programs
4. Ending the musical chairs of sending people who have been kicked out of one building to another down the street.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re going to have to post it again.

I did, look at the bottom of the previous page.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the Council has made it harder to screen for criminal history and credit history cannot be considered for voucher tenants.

Not my understanding; measurable thresholds for accepting a voucher tenant are okay if spelled out in any advertising. Am I wrong in this?

https://thedcline.org/2022/03/16/dcs-new-tenant-rights-bill-protects-voucher-holders-seals-certain-eviction-records/

And landlords are sued by AG if they do not accept vouchers. The way it is all set up it's difficult to shift any of the key pieces and it benefits landlords (esp in DC with the overpayments) more than transforming the lives of the recipients. A women's shelter in TX that required treatment or job training or education or volunteer work received a staggering fine from HUD but people had been stabilized, had increased self esteem, etc. Sticking mentally ill people or addicts who are more likely to OD when isolated into apartments that have no furniture and may lack food is actually cruel imo.

There was a study in another country that also did Housing First but that required random drug testing with the consequence of losing the until. With that incentive, almost 2/3 were clean after 6 months. HF has no carrots, no sticks, just keys. And the impact on neighbors and communities is huge.

Many voucher recipients are great tenants and neighbors and people. But, 1 bad apple can spoil the barrel and the same is true of a violent and chaotic tenant. One thing that Frumin did raise was a separate eviction track being set up for such folks so it would not be such a drawn out process. Yet, if DC does not pull the voucher, they just cycle a building down or cross the street to Connecticut House, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re going to have to post it again.

Anonymous wrote:

And the Council has made it harder to screen for criminal history and credit history cannot be considered for voucher tenants.

Not my understanding; measurable thresholds for accepting a voucher tenant are okay if spelled out in any advertising. Am I wrong in this?

without preconditions and barriers to entry, such as sobriety, treatment or service participation requirements

ie, no need to participate or even open the door. Per Fed regs.

And the Council has made it harder to screen for criminal history and credit history cannot be considered for voucher tenants.