Anonymous
09/21/2023 21:32
Subject: Re:Shooting at Brandywine & Connecticut Ave NW This Afternoon
This legislation, if enacted, will be narrowly tailored to work to stop people who are given the opportunity to remain in the community despite having been convicted of gun offenses, or people given the opportunity to be released pending trial—notwithstanding a presumption of pretrial detention—from re-arming themselves while they are under supervision.Anonymous wrote:USAO Matt Graves stated:
This will allow law enforcement to search a limited category of people for—among other things—guns that they are carrying in public places in violation of their conditions of release. This provision recognizes that swift and certain apprehension is an effective deterrent to criminal activity, and draws from research from the U.S. Sentencing Commission showing that people convicted of gun offenses have higher rates of recidivism.
We have reviewed similar legislation from California and other states, and the court decisions affirming their constitutionality, including decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court. Based on judicial precedent, we are confident that the legislation complies with the Fourth Amendment, and if this legislation is enacted, we are prepared to defend the statute’s constitutionality in court.
Wow, lawyers are terrible writers. I am thinking he’s saying one thing, but by the end of a sentence, im sure he means the opposite.
Can someone give me a two sentence translation? Eg— This law is good bc it will prevent those charged with gun related crimes from returning to the community pending their trial.
Or: This law is bad bc preventing those charged with gun crimes from returning to the community is a violation of their civil rights and does not measurably impact crime rates in the community.
Anonymous
Anonymous
09/21/2023 21:01
Subject: Shooting at Brandywine & Connecticut Ave NW This Afternoon
Eric Goulet also ran for W3 CM, he would have been a much better pick, imo.
Anonymous
09/21/2023 20:59
Subject: Re:Shooting at Brandywine & Connecticut Ave NW This Afternoon
Anonymous wrote:
Interesting tweet about one of the judges who wrote the letter. A guy opened fire on a Metro bus while on probation, and she only sentenced him to a year in prison. 9 days after he got out, he carjacked someone at gunpoint:
It's pretty clear that D.C. judges are a huge part of the problem.
I remember that shooting at a bus.
NY has a dashboard that allows you to track the outcomes of cases and shows what is prosecuted, declined, etc. It is only the last few months that USAO has reported any stats and that was due to a Congressional hearing.
A dashboard of outcomes per judge would also be quite valuable. Since we can't get rid of them at election time, public attention and shame are kind of all we have.
Anonymous
09/21/2023 20:56
Subject: Re:Shooting at Brandywine & Connecticut Ave NW This Afternoon
Anonymous wrote:
Interesting tweet about one of the judges who wrote the letter. A guy opened fire on a Metro bus while on probation, and she only sentenced him to a year in prison. 9 days after he got out, he carjacked someone at gunpoint:
It's pretty clear that D.C. judges are a huge part of the problem.
They made that crystal clear this week. Unfortunately they are federally appointed for life and can't be voted out.
Anonymous
09/21/2023 20:55
Subject: Re:Shooting at Brandywine & Connecticut Ave NW This Afternoon
Preliminary docs are up on the DC Superior Court website. https://eaccess.dccourts.gov/eaccess/home.page.2
Search for Andrew A Black and go to the last of the many pages of his rap sheet for today's hearing.
Black and the victim both appear to live EOTP. Concerningly Black or S2 used a key card to enter The Saratoga just before the shooting although neither is believed to live there. That gets into the door control issue from the WP article
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/08/08/dc-paid-housing-chronic-homelessness/
The victim was on life support for 48 hours, needed surgery and was in the hospital 9 days. Shame Black can't be made to repay those costs from funds earned in prison. He was in violation of conditions of a plea deal from April 2023, felon in possession case, so hopefully will be off the streets for a while. It sounds as though there are witnesses and video. It also reads as though Black has associates in The Brandywine, a neighbor mentioned a large LE presence there after the shooting too. It is surreal that they then left across Forest Hills playground.
Search for Andrew A Black and go to the last of the many pages of his rap sheet for today's hearing.
Black and the victim both appear to live EOTP. Concerningly Black or S2 used a key card to enter The Saratoga just before the shooting although neither is believed to live there. That gets into the door control issue from the WP article
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/08/08/dc-paid-housing-chronic-homelessness/
The victim was on life support for 48 hours, needed surgery and was in the hospital 9 days. Shame Black can't be made to repay those costs from funds earned in prison. He was in violation of conditions of a plea deal from April 2023, felon in possession case, so hopefully will be off the streets for a while. It sounds as though there are witnesses and video. It also reads as though Black has associates in The Brandywine, a neighbor mentioned a large LE presence there after the shooting too. It is surreal that they then left across Forest Hills playground.
Anonymous
09/21/2023 20:40
Subject: Re:Shooting at Brandywine & Connecticut Ave NW This Afternoon
Anonymous
09/21/2023 20:25
Subject: Re:Shooting at Brandywine & Connecticut Ave NW This Afternoon
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Another ND post, note Frumin has sent out nothing, these are all exchanges with individuals and his response is really weak and passive.
xxxxxxxxxxx
• Wakefield•15h
My most recent exchange with the Councilman
Me:
As you probably know, the ownership of many of these buildings is obscured through a series of LLCs and trusts. To get at the root of the problem, DC should require that in order for a property to be eligible to accept vouchers, the names of the actual owners must be disclosed. Providing the names of a management company should not be sufficient. These names should be a matter of public record and provided to any and all interested parties—from tenants to neighbors to law enforcement to the press. There is no reason to protect the owners. Sunshine is always the best disinfectant.
As I know from the work of one of my colleagues, real estate one of the favorite vehicles used by criminals to launder money. Wouldn’t it be ironic if we learned that one or more of these properties is actually owned by someone laundering money and that DC is actually providing the vehicle for doing so. We also know that there are unscrupulous landlords who would be more than happy to drive out rent-stabilized tenants so that they can increase rents by nearly 200%—again with the city paying.
Bottom line is that the focus should be on the owners of these properties. DC has given them a license to print money. We shouldn’t be surprised that they are taking advantage of both those who benefit from affordable housing programs and those who pay for them.
Frumin:
Thanks xxxxx.
I like the sunshine idea. We press on Management Companies and they sometimes say the owners will not authorize expenditures. We have been trying to figure out how to get to the owners themselves and get a sense of rates of return. We have legislation that helps get at the printing money problem, and we are hopeful the HUD report and response will help there but are pressing to fully understand whether recent proposed changes will help or hurt.
The owners are a big part of the problem, and as you suggest, unscrupulous ones are profiting wildly.
But it is worse than that. The city policy while well-intentioned has been implemented irresponsibly and then when criticisms are raised, the critics are caricatured. Folks are starting to get it and there is the makings of a serious discussion -- we certainly are trying to make that happen -- about how to adjust the programs so they are fair to all involved and actually are helping beneficiaries. It is very tricky territory, but I can assure you, a major focus for me and my office.
I know that is cold comfort when shots were fired near your home. And, I need to accept that I need to take the brunt of that and fully understand the urgency those most affected feel. That is what I signed up for and the role I feel privileged to fill. All I can say is that I get it and am trying. But that does not mean you need to be or should be satisfied. Thank you for pressing on this and for underscoring the urgency.
---
Matt Frumin
Ward 3 Councilmember
(202) 724-8062 | mfrumin@dccouncil.gov
What exactly does everyone expect property owners and managers to do? DC is the most tenent friendly state in the country. Voucher tenants even more so. If a lot of the vouvhers holders have addiction and menta. health issues, they still cannot be barred from renting. Landlords CANNOT deny a voucher holder for using a voucher, they cannot deny a convicted felon, even if he is a murderer. Does the community expect the building manager to provide addiction counselors, mental health professionals onsite? that is not their responsbility. This problem in DC govt made through and through. I don;t blame landlords for raising the rents as much as possible, voucher tenents are very very hard on buildings. Its why no one wants to rent to them. A tenant would have to commit a felony on site or stop paying rent fo r6 months before a landlord could go to court to kick them out. DC is way to liberal even for this lifelong democrat.
What is the endgame re: turning these big buildings on Connecticut and Wisconsin into very overpriced private public housing? Besides short term profiteering and kickbacks, surely it's not financially sustainable long term without any movement by the voucher holders toward self sufficiency?
Anonymous
09/21/2023 19:32
Subject: Shooting at Brandywine & Connecticut Ave NW This Afternoon
Anonymous wrote:As an owner of rental property in the District, I would be first in line to be barred from participating in the voucher program. Landlords want to be able to screen their tenants. Because "source of income" is a protected category, landlords have to accept any voucher tenant which can pay the rent. DC's extremely liberal "check the box" laws also make it illegal under most circumstances to refuse to rent to someone with a prior criminal conviction. So any offeror of units for let has to be willing to participate in a government run housing assistance program regardless of whether they wish to participate in such a program.
A friend is grappling with this issue now with a rental unit.
It's easy to rail about landlords but many people have been incarcerated without a change in behavior and that is a lot more power over the individual than any 3rd party has over a tenant.
The shooter in this instance appears to live in a house, EOTP. His criminal behavior going back decades cannot be ascribed to being "unhoused." So his only connection to the voucher program is to associate with someone who lives in a building with a lot of vouchers and frequent mpd visits. What can the landlords do about that? It's not clear that the person the 2 suspects (1 arrested) and victim were allegedly visiting receives a voucher. More will come out after the hearing. Even if so, landlords do not vet visitors or bar them as a conventional shelter does.
Per the WP, DC agencies will not pull vouchers from tenants even if they commit crimes on the premises or do not pay their share of rent. They may be evicted for either but just move up the block or across the street.
If you were creating a program to disperse crime and chaos and avoid accountability it would be hard to do better.
Anonymous
09/21/2023 17:41
Subject: Shooting at Brandywine & Connecticut Ave NW This Afternoon
Anonymous wrote:People are getting shot all over DC at all times of day, but You People only care when it happens in the "nice" neighborhoods.
the problem is DC govet doesn't care about it is ANYWHERE? At least the Ward 3 community actually has finacial, social and political capital to actually get something done that would benefit the entire city
Anonymous
09/21/2023 17:36
Subject: Re:Shooting at Brandywine & Connecticut Ave NW This Afternoon
Anonymous wrote:Another ND post, note Frumin has sent out nothing, these are all exchanges with individuals and his response is really weak and passive.
xxxxxxxxxxx
• Wakefield•15h
My most recent exchange with the Councilman
Me:
As you probably know, the ownership of many of these buildings is obscured through a series of LLCs and trusts. To get at the root of the problem, DC should require that in order for a property to be eligible to accept vouchers, the names of the actual owners must be disclosed. Providing the names of a management company should not be sufficient. These names should be a matter of public record and provided to any and all interested parties—from tenants to neighbors to law enforcement to the press. There is no reason to protect the owners. Sunshine is always the best disinfectant.
As I know from the work of one of my colleagues, real estate one of the favorite vehicles used by criminals to launder money. Wouldn’t it be ironic if we learned that one or more of these properties is actually owned by someone laundering money and that DC is actually providing the vehicle for doing so. We also know that there are unscrupulous landlords who would be more than happy to drive out rent-stabilized tenants so that they can increase rents by nearly 200%—again with the city paying.
Bottom line is that the focus should be on the owners of these properties. DC has given them a license to print money. We shouldn’t be surprised that they are taking advantage of both those who benefit from affordable housing programs and those who pay for them.
Frumin:
Thanks xxxxx.
I like the sunshine idea. We press on Management Companies and they sometimes say the owners will not authorize expenditures. We have been trying to figure out how to get to the owners themselves and get a sense of rates of return. We have legislation that helps get at the printing money problem, and we are hopeful the HUD report and response will help there but are pressing to fully understand whether recent proposed changes will help or hurt.
The owners are a big part of the problem, and as you suggest, unscrupulous ones are profiting wildly.
But it is worse than that. The city policy while well-intentioned has been implemented irresponsibly and then when criticisms are raised, the critics are caricatured. Folks are starting to get it and there is the makings of a serious discussion -- we certainly are trying to make that happen -- about how to adjust the programs so they are fair to all involved and actually are helping beneficiaries. It is very tricky territory, but I can assure you, a major focus for me and my office.
I know that is cold comfort when shots were fired near your home. And, I need to accept that I need to take the brunt of that and fully understand the urgency those most affected feel. That is what I signed up for and the role I feel privileged to fill. All I can say is that I get it and am trying. But that does not mean you need to be or should be satisfied. Thank you for pressing on this and for underscoring the urgency.
---
Matt Frumin
Ward 3 Councilmember
(202) 724-8062 | mfrumin@dccouncil.gov
What exactly does everyone expect property owners and managers to do? DC is the most tenent friendly state in the country. Voucher tenants even more so. If a lot of the vouvhers holders have addiction and menta. health issues, they still cannot be barred from renting. Landlords CANNOT deny a voucher holder for using a voucher, they cannot deny a convicted felon, even if he is a murderer. Does the community expect the building manager to provide addiction counselors, mental health professionals onsite? that is not their responsbility. This problem in DC govt made through and through. I don;t blame landlords for raising the rents as much as possible, voucher tenents are very very hard on buildings. Its why no one wants to rent to them. A tenant would have to commit a felony on site or stop paying rent fo r6 months before a landlord could go to court to kick them out. DC is way to liberal even for this lifelong democrat.
Anonymous
09/21/2023 17:29
Subject: Shooting at Brandywine & Connecticut Ave NW This Afternoon
Anonymous wrote:^ new college grads
Why would new college grads want to live in this area? for that price they can live some place a lot more fun!
Anonymous
09/21/2023 14:16
Subject: Shooting at Brandywine & Connecticut Ave NW This Afternoon
As an owner of rental property in the District, I would be first in line to be barred from participating in the voucher program. Landlords want to be able to screen their tenants. Because "source of income" is a protected category, landlords have to accept any voucher tenant which can pay the rent. DC's extremely liberal "check the box" laws also make it illegal under most circumstances to refuse to rent to someone with a prior criminal conviction. So any offeror of units for let has to be willing to participate in a government run housing assistance program regardless of whether they wish to participate in such a program.
Anonymous
Anonymous
09/21/2023 11:44
Subject: Re:Shooting at Brandywine & Connecticut Ave NW This Afternoon
USAO Matt Graves stated:
This legislation, if enacted, will be narrowly tailored to work to stop people who are given the opportunity to remain in the community despite having been convicted of gun offenses, or people given the opportunity to be released pending trial—notwithstanding a presumption of pretrial detention—from re-arming themselves while they are under supervision.
This will allow law enforcement to search a limited category of people for—among other things—guns that they are carrying in public places in violation of their conditions of release. This provision recognizes that swift and certain apprehension is an effective deterrent to criminal activity, and draws from research from the U.S. Sentencing Commission showing that people convicted of gun offenses have higher rates of recidivism.
We have reviewed similar legislation from California and other states, and the court decisions affirming their constitutionality, including decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court. Based on judicial precedent, we are confident that the legislation complies with the Fourth Amendment, and if this legislation is enacted, we are prepared to defend the statute’s constitutionality in court.