Anonymous wrote:Wasn't a fan of Mary Cheh, but I wish she was back.

+1
Frumin is a disaster.

Wasn't a fan of Mary Cheh, but I wish she was back.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/news/neighborhood-in-the-news-another-ambassador-moving-in-rent-on-the-rise-the-real-birthplace-of-the-u-s-atomic-age/

Rent on the rise: The median advertised rent for a two-bedroom Van Ness apartment during the May-July study period was $3,333, a 7.5% increase from year-ago levels. (RentHop via UrbanTurf)

Vouchers have really exerted an upward pressure on rents. Prior to the program being rolled out in Van Ness/Forest Hills, many buildings were offering several months free as move in specials.

The middle class is being priced out, area also used to have a lot of new grad grads and government workers in addition to families and the elderly, all drawn by the safety and quiet of neighborhood.

I don't get the logic of hoping the voucher program drives away long-time rent controlled tenants. If those tenants leave, do landlords really think anyone who can pay full price will want to live in the buildings if there are so many disruptions? Or are they merely wanting to increase their stock to get more public $$ for the voucher programs? In that scenario, we are back to the private public housing scenario with tax $ enriching select landlords.

DC pays as much as $1,000/month/unit OVER market rate. Many long term tenants of the rent stabilized older buildings are paying well under market rate. Chaos and violence is one way to move them along.

In the Sedgewick Garden articles in the WP it was pretty clear that very disruptive tenants were allowed to create havoc to try to rid the building of tenants who had organized to try to exercise TOPA rights. Something similar could be happening, with a longer range plan, and cash grab with presumed kickbacks in the interim.

Even individual landlords who rent out their condo or buy a second one are profiting.

Commercial landlords who decline vouchers have been sued by the city in the past. The Council limited how much time could be considered when evaluating the criminal past of a prospective tenant. That is a big problem too.

In this scenario, the only outcome will be buildings entirely filled with voucher recipients. Paying renters will move to buildings more stability. It also encourages people to become homeless -- and wait it out -- to get better housing than they could otherwise afford.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/news/neighborhood-in-the-news-another-ambassador-moving-in-rent-on-the-rise-the-real-birthplace-of-the-u-s-atomic-age/

Rent on the rise: The median advertised rent for a two-bedroom Van Ness apartment during the May-July study period was $3,333, a 7.5% increase from year-ago levels. (RentHop via UrbanTurf)

Vouchers have really exerted an upward pressure on rents. Prior to the program being rolled out in Van Ness/Forest Hills, many buildings were offering several months free as move in specials.

The middle class is being priced out, area also used to have a lot of new grad grads and government workers in addition to families and the elderly, all drawn by the safety and quiet of neighborhood.

I don't get the logic of hoping the voucher program drives away long-time rent controlled tenants. If those tenants leave, do landlords really think anyone who can pay full price will want to live in the buildings if there are so many disruptions? Or are they merely wanting to increase their stock to get more public $$ for the voucher programs? In that scenario, we are back to the private public housing scenario with tax $ enriching select landlords.

DC pays as much as $1,000/month/unit OVER market rate. Many long term tenants of the rent stabilized older buildings are paying well under market rate. Chaos and violence is one way to move them along.

In the Sedgewick Garden articles in the WP it was pretty clear that very disruptive tenants were allowed to create havoc to try to rid the building of tenants who had organized to try to exercise TOPA rights. Something similar could be happening, with a longer range plan, and cash grab with presumed kickbacks in the interim.

Even individual landlords who rent out their condo or buy a second one are profiting.

Commercial landlords who decline vouchers have been sued by the city in the past. The Council limited how much time could be considered when evaluating the criminal past of a prospective tenant. That is a big problem too.

Anonymous wrote:https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/news/neighborhood-in-the-news-another-ambassador-moving-in-rent-on-the-rise-the-real-birthplace-of-the-u-s-atomic-age/

Rent on the rise: The median advertised rent for a two-bedroom Van Ness apartment during the May-July study period was $3,333, a 7.5% increase from year-ago levels. (RentHop via UrbanTurf)

Vouchers have really exerted an upward pressure on rents. Prior to the program being rolled out in Van Ness/Forest Hills, many buildings were offering several months free as move in specials.

The middle class is being priced out, area also used to have a lot of new grad grads and government workers in addition to families and the elderly, all drawn by the safety and quiet of neighborhood.

I don't get the logic of hoping the voucher program drives away long-time rent controlled tenants. If those tenants leave, do landlords really think anyone who can pay full price will want to live in the buildings if there are so many disruptions? Or are they merely wanting to increase their stock to get more public $$ for the voucher programs? In that scenario, we are back to the private public housing scenario with tax $ enriching select landlords.

Anonymous wrote:Council passed a unanimous bill re: e bike rebates yesterday.

Besides Pinto, no one seems too focused on quality of life issues that impact families. But, other voices are louder.

Frumin would easily win again today.

Talk to neighbors about these issues. If the broad public support starts to shift, we may see some change from the Council. But we are not even remotely there yet, this thread has no power outside DCUMlandia.

I wrote to him last week and he didn't write back.

Bowser's Housing First program is turning the apartment buildings on Connecticut into private, unsupervised mental institutions. Matt Frumin has tried to sponsor legislation allowing for landlords to cap the number of voucher tenants they have to accept--it has failed to gain traction with the rest of the Council. A cap would be fair and reasonable, as well as allowing for a quicker eviction process for tenants who threaten or commit violence, as well as those who are completely uncooperative with building management (such as the example I heard today where a water pipe had burst in a unit and the tenant (paranoid) barricaded themselves in the unit and refused to allow maintenance admission to fix it. The police had to be called.) We need real supervised and staffed housing for the mentally ill provided by the city or specialized providers. Mainstreaming the severely mentally ill (and often aggressive and anti-social) into market buildings is an abject failure of a policy.

Wouldn’t it make sense for DC to purchase one of the many nearly vacant downtown office buildings to turn into low income housing rather than destabilizing a once thriving commercial corridor?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are newcomers going to settle in DC at the same rate or will they go to close in suburbs or other cities if concerned about the thousands in stolen cars, 700+ carjackings and random street crime? How will DC attract and retain those who DO pay taxes and don't consume expensive services?

When DC was cheap in the DC was a better trade off re: safety, now it's high crime AND high costs + more remote work options. We'd really like to stay but things can't keep going on this way.

just to point out, UMC “consumer expensive services” in the form of schools, road maintenance, etc. and if you look at the data DC is losing a huge chunk of taxable income from lower-income people moving to PG. The need for better safety is more acute in Wards 7 and 8, and those wards bleed working, taxpaying households in large numbers.

Everyone with kids uses schools and everyone with a car or who rides the bus uses roads, an UMC benefit would be more the e bike rebates.

3,000 PSH vouchers in W3 alone at @ $4k/month in perpetuity for a lifetime is a lot of money that benefits a small group who are not paying in at all.

I agree re: the flight to PG, DC really needs to try to hold working, taxpaying couples and families overall, and everyone could benefit from greater safety and order, regardless of how they pay for housing. Schools are also a net benefit to society overall.

Anonymous wrote:Are newcomers going to settle in DC at the same rate or will they go to close in suburbs or other cities if concerned about the thousands in stolen cars, 700+ carjackings and random street crime? How will DC attract and retain those who DO pay taxes and don't consume expensive services?

When DC was cheap in the DC was a better trade off re: safety, now it's high crime AND high costs + more remote work options. We'd really like to stay but things can't keep going on this way.

just to point out, UMC “consumer expensive services” in the form of schools, road maintenance, etc. and if you look at the data DC is losing a huge chunk of taxable income from lower-income people moving to PG. The need for better safety is more acute in Wards 7 and 8, and those wards bleed working, taxpaying households in large numbers.

When DC was cheap in the 90s...wish there was an edit feature.

Are newcomers going to settle in DC at the same rate or will they go to close in suburbs or other cities if concerned about the thousands in stolen cars, 700+ carjackings and random street crime? How will DC attract and retain those who DO pay taxes and don't consume expensive services?

When DC was cheap in the DC was a better trade off re: safety, now it's high crime AND high costs + more remote work options. We'd really like to stay but things can't keep going on this way.

Surely Bowser and the Council are aware of the numbers?

^ new college grads

https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/news/neighborhood-in-the-news-another-ambassador-moving-in-rent-on-the-rise-the-real-birthplace-of-the-u-s-atomic-age/

Rent on the rise: The median advertised rent for a two-bedroom Van Ness apartment during the May-July study period was $3,333, a 7.5% increase from year-ago levels. (RentHop via UrbanTurf)

Vouchers have really exerted an upward pressure on rents. Prior to the program being rolled out in Van Ness/Forest Hills, many buildings were offering several months free as move in specials.

The middle class is being priced out, area also used to have a lot of new grad grads and government workers in addition to families and the elderly, all drawn by the safety and quiet of neighborhood.