Anonymous wrote:Is the only answer to just move away? It begins to feel like this. This administration is a failure from the top down. No ward should be so lacking in amenities that people feel a need to send their children to another ward to go to school. The mayor is concentrated on making ward 3 pay for having had a racist founder 100 years ago. She takes huge contributions from developers then tries to give away our public land to them for “affordable housing” using BLM as a cover. She doesn’t care about the wards producing this grinding poverty and crime. She does nothing to help them. Our own ward 3 CM has bought into the guilt trip. “There is no diversity in Chevy Chase so we need to build more apartments.” Walk on Connecticut avenue and tell me that. We have a lot of ethnic and racial diversity. Putting addicts and mentally individuals into apartments to drive long time rent controlled tenants out should be criminal. But just as the Mayor’s voucher queen took kickbacks from landlords to place over valued vouchers in these buildings and she only stepped down and has not been fined or taken to court, should tell everyone what’s happening. The Mayor protects her friends.

Look at the 911 call center as another example that puts people's lives at risk. She brought back someone who had left under a cloud and got rid of an interim head who had been a whistleblower. The 911 issues and the randomness of crime worry me a lot.

The funny thing is that Cheh would be considered a far-left activist type in most places in this country. She had a hand in a lot of the problems we see today - she voted to decriminalize fare evasion, she was in favor of lowering the MPD budget below what was necessary to retain officers in 2020, she voted for the DC crime bill that was co-written by DC Justice Lab activists and that Biden ended up opposing, and she endorsed Frumin over Goulet at the end. She just wasn't as far off the deep end as Frumin appears to be.

And that's the problem with the activist groups, there's really no limit. Even if they get everything they want today, they're going to be asking for twice as much tomorrow - even fewer officers, even fewer penalties for violent crime, even more money funneled into failed programs.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Yes, similar guidelines would be useful.

I would have asked Frumin about this at the meeting but he is not that informed about the program and he did not have a staff member who is an expert present, nor did he invite someone from DC agencies. He is a proponent of MORE of this, people have to understand this. He can be pushed to go through the motions, maybe, or to mouth platitudes, but he only wants the fun parts of the job and to get accolades as a SJW.

I really do miss Cheh. I know a few people who heard the shots, it's traumatizing that this happened right where people's kids play, they walk to BreadFurst, Politics & Prose, play tennis and more than 1 has said that they have changed their routine or feel anxiety going out or that they drive now. When people in W7 & 8 talk about trauma related to crime, I have always believed them.

There are a lot of law abiding pro-social people who could benefit from vouchers, but the reality is that many of them have relatives, friends and associates that come along and cause issues. MPD has indicated that the victim and shooters did not live in FH, that's of cold comfort. The man who threw the young mom out the window at Connecticut House, paralyzing her in front of a toddler, was not on the lease. Public public housing, not this private public housing twist, has more rules, security, a chance at door control, but has always had this issue. The way that they try to now shift the responsibility for violent behavior of individuals to landlords is ludicrous, having limited the grounds to screen people out and with AG suing companies that do not accept vouchers. And "services" as the mantra is ridiculous. What "services" would have made the violent, drug dealing felon not throw his baby mama out a window after strangling her and tying her up? Plus there is the not required to participate provision. People might at least try to exercise better "door control" themselves if they stood to lose their voucher if a visitor dealt drugs or was violent in or around the building.

I do not see this genie going back in the bottle. The only thing that has changed since this series from 2019 is things getting worse. 3,000 PSH vouchers being used on Connecticut and Wisconsin, the impact was/is inevitable. The piece I don't quite get is where the City thinks tax income is going to come from if W3 becomes an increasing % of people living on tax money rather than paying it as has historically been the case?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-housed-the-homeless-in-upscale-apartments-it-hasnt-gone-as-planned/2019/04/16/60c8ab9c-5648-11e9-8ef3-fbd41a2ce4d5_story.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else feel a bit nervous about using the playground?

A bit. It's been closed this week for maintenance.

There are men who regularly linger and smoke marijuana on the benches around the park. This has been going on for two years. Does DCMPD ever do any undercover enforcement?

I mentioned this to 2D recently. They said they will try to do drive bys more frequently, and to call when see a problem, give descriptions, etc. Of course, there is the concern about putting a target on yourself if you go there often and they come right after you leave.

This is exactly on point. Fortunately the FBI is now investigating the Bowser administration for this activity. I hope something comes of it.

Is the only answer to just move away? It begins to feel like this. This administration is a failure from the top down. No ward should be so lacking in amenities that people feel a need to send their children to another ward to go to school. The mayor is concentrated on making ward 3 pay for having had a racist founder 100 years ago. She takes huge contributions from developers then tries to give away our public land to them for “affordable housing” using BLM as a cover. She doesn’t care about the wards producing this grinding poverty and crime. She does nothing to help them. Our own ward 3 CM has bought into the guilt trip. “There is no diversity in Chevy Chase so we need to build more apartments.” Walk on Connecticut avenue and tell me that. We have a lot of ethnic and racial diversity. Putting addicts and mentally individuals into apartments to drive long time rent controlled tenants out should be criminal. But just as the Mayor’s voucher queen took kickbacks from landlords to place over valued vouchers in these buildings and she only stepped down and has not been fined or taken to court, should tell everyone what’s happening. The Mayor protects her friends.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else feel a bit nervous about using the playground?

A bit. It's been closed this week for maintenance.

There are men who regularly linger and smoke marijuana on the benches around the park. This has been going on for two years. Does DCMPD ever do any undercover enforcement?

Maybe for trash cans left out too long or a bike lane being blocked. Not for crime.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else feel a bit nervous about using the playground?

A bit. It's been closed this week for maintenance.

There are men who regularly linger and smoke marijuana on the benches around the park. This has been going on for two years. Does DCMPD ever do any undercover enforcement?

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else feel a bit nervous about using the playground?

A bit. It's been closed this week for maintenance.

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.

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

Yes, similar guidelines would be useful.

I’d like to know more

Ok, so research and let us know what you find. WP has written many articles on the topic, including a series in 2019 that focused on Sedgewick Gardens in Cleveland Park. There is even a lengthy wiki about Housing First. So, have at it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t see where you posted the actual regulations forbidding DC from attaching any conditions to the vouchers.

Also even though there may be low barriers to entry, that certainly doesn’t mean people can’t be evicted for violent or criminal behavior by themselves or household members.

Anyway, I think the better point is that relying on the private market to house people with chronic, serious conditions that lead to chronic homelessness is just a disaster waiting to happen. People with serious addiction and mental illness need MUCH more support, onsite. Even simple things like help maintaining the apartment and cleaning. We have assisted living for the elderly - we should have similar buildings for the seriously mentally ill/addicted. Vouchers for private buildings are more appropriate for people who are homeless due to affordability/job issues.

I posted a link to a HUD summary publication, if you want to see the regulations, should come up in Google.

that HUD “summary publication” does not say that DC can’t have different standards.

It's a federal program with federal rules that come with the federal funds. DC and a few other cities did get an exception made to pay over market rate in certain neighborhoods but the tenants of the program are what they are. You take the money, you play in their sandbox. Why would you expect a "summary" titled "In Brief" to contain regulations (assume you are that poster) or all information about a program? Google works for you as well as me, I'm sure.

How is Housing First different from other approaches?
Housing First does not require people experiencing homelessness to address the all of their problems including behavioral health problems, or to graduate through a series of services programs before they can access housing. Housing First does not mandate participation in services either before obtaining housing or in order to retain housing.

https://endhomelessness.org/resource/housing-first/

look, you keep on posting things that absolutely do not support what you are saying. maybe it’s true that HUD prohibits DC from putting conditions on vouchers for homeless people, but you have not provided any support for that. We all know that the Housing First concept is zero/low-barrier housing but that does not mean it is a regulatory requirement from HUD that binds DC.

Please post a link that states that states, or in this case, DC can use federal Housing First funds while imposing conditions in direct contradiction to the program fundamentals. Not just at entry but throughout the program. Share your expertise with the class.

I can’t post that because I don’t even think “federal Housing First funds” are ab actual thing. The PP who made this assertion needs to substantiate it, not me. It could be true, who knows.

also this is DCUM - if you’re going to make a claim about federal regulations you darn well better support it with an actual citation.

Where is your citation that DC can implement Housing First differently than the HUD model? Which specific provisions are you claiming that they can change? Barriers to entry? Requirements for participation in services? Eviction for drug use if not otherwise in violation of lease? Others? This is DCUM, be specific and support your claim.

YOU are the one acting like you are a federal housing legal expert. Not me! I’d like to know more but cleary you don’t actually know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t see where you posted the actual regulations forbidding DC from attaching any conditions to the vouchers.

Also even though there may be low barriers to entry, that certainly doesn’t mean people can’t be evicted for violent or criminal behavior by themselves or household members.

Anyway, I think the better point is that relying on the private market to house people with chronic, serious conditions that lead to chronic homelessness is just a disaster waiting to happen. People with serious addiction and mental illness need MUCH more support, onsite. Even simple things like help maintaining the apartment and cleaning. We have assisted living for the elderly - we should have similar buildings for the seriously mentally ill/addicted. Vouchers for private buildings are more appropriate for people who are homeless due to affordability/job issues.

I posted a link to a HUD summary publication, if you want to see the regulations, should come up in Google.

that HUD “summary publication” does not say that DC can’t have different standards.

It's a federal program with federal rules that come with the federal funds. DC and a few other cities did get an exception made to pay over market rate in certain neighborhoods but the tenants of the program are what they are. You take the money, you play in their sandbox. Why would you expect a "summary" titled "In Brief" to contain regulations (assume you are that poster) or all information about a program? Google works for you as well as me, I'm sure.

How is Housing First different from other approaches?
Housing First does not require people experiencing homelessness to address the all of their problems including behavioral health problems, or to graduate through a series of services programs before they can access housing. Housing First does not mandate participation in services either before obtaining housing or in order to retain housing.

https://endhomelessness.org/resource/housing-first/

look, you keep on posting things that absolutely do not support what you are saying. maybe it’s true that HUD prohibits DC from putting conditions on vouchers for homeless people, but you have not provided any support for that. We all know that the Housing First concept is zero/low-barrier housing but that does not mean it is a regulatory requirement from HUD that binds DC.

Please post a link that states that states, or in this case, DC can use federal Housing First funds while imposing conditions in direct contradiction to the program fundamentals. Not just at entry but throughout the program. Share your expertise with the class.

I can’t post that because I don’t even think “federal Housing First funds” are ab actual thing. The PP who made this assertion needs to substantiate it, not me. It could be true, who knows.

also this is DCUM - if you’re going to make a claim about federal regulations you darn well better support it with an actual citation.

Where is your citation that DC can implement Housing First differently than the HUD model? Which specific provisions are you claiming that they can change? Barriers to entry? Requirements for participation in services? Eviction for drug use if not otherwise in violation of lease? Others? This is DCUM, be specific and support your claim.

Housing First gets a lot of press, especially with outlets like NPR. There is a great deal of support for it in DC, whether that is informed support or not is unclear.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t see where you posted the actual regulations forbidding DC from attaching any conditions to the vouchers.

Also even though there may be low barriers to entry, that certainly doesn’t mean people can’t be evicted for violent or criminal behavior by themselves or household members.

Anyway, I think the better point is that relying on the private market to house people with chronic, serious conditions that lead to chronic homelessness is just a disaster waiting to happen. People with serious addiction and mental illness need MUCH more support, onsite. Even simple things like help maintaining the apartment and cleaning. We have assisted living for the elderly - we should have similar buildings for the seriously mentally ill/addicted. Vouchers for private buildings are more appropriate for people who are homeless due to affordability/job issues.

I posted a link to a HUD summary publication, if you want to see the regulations, should come up in Google.

that HUD “summary publication” does not say that DC can’t have different standards.

It's a federal program with federal rules that come with the federal funds. DC and a few other cities did get an exception made to pay over market rate in certain neighborhoods but the tenants of the program are what they are. You take the money, you play in their sandbox. Why would you expect a "summary" titled "In Brief" to contain regulations (assume you are that poster) or all information about a program? Google works for you as well as me, I'm sure.

How is Housing First different from other approaches?
Housing First does not require people experiencing homelessness to address the all of their problems including behavioral health problems, or to graduate through a series of services programs before they can access housing. Housing First does not mandate participation in services either before obtaining housing or in order to retain housing.

https://endhomelessness.org/resource/housing-first/

look, you keep on posting things that absolutely do not support what you are saying. maybe it’s true that HUD prohibits DC from putting conditions on vouchers for homeless people, but you have not provided any support for that. We all know that the Housing First concept is zero/low-barrier housing but that does not mean it is a regulatory requirement from HUD that binds DC.

Please post a link that states that states, or in this case, DC can use federal Housing First funds while imposing conditions in direct contradiction to the program fundamentals. Not just at entry but throughout the program. Share your expertise with the class.

I can’t post that because I don’t even think “federal Housing First funds” are ab actual thing. The PP who made this assertion needs to substantiate it, not me. It could be true, who knows.

also this is DCUM - if you’re going to make a claim about federal regulations you darn well better support it with an actual citation.