Some of our apartment building neighbors are here thanks to vouchers making their rents more affordable. And they are, as The DC Line puts it, “spawning debates over how best to provide housing for DC’s most vulnerable residents.”
Tenant advocates at Sedgwick Gardens, the apartment building at 3726 Connecticut Avenue, told DC housing authorities, the DC Council and the Washington Post that voucher holders reside in nearly half of the units. They also said some of the formerly homeless residents were dropped into their new living situations without needed social services and support, and that their neighbors are living with the consequences.
(The Post article itself drew critics. For a more comprehensive look at the voucher program, its benefits and its unintended effects, we encourage you to read Jake Maher’s May 31 article in The DC Line. Like the Post, Maher covers the tenant conflicts. But he also gets into the racial and income discrimination that makes it difficult for voucher users to find housing other than with a few friendly landlords, which contributes to the consolidation. And he covers the loophole that may be encouraging landlords to accept voucher tenants by reducing the number of affordable, rent-controlled units. It’s a deep dive and well worth your time.)
Residents of The Brandywine at 4545 Connecticut say they, too, have seen an influx of voucher tenants. We have reached out to the building management and hope to hear their side of the story. And we spoke to David Luria, the president of the Brandywine Tenants Association.
David Luria: The all-volunteer Brandywine Tenants Association has a 40-year history of protecting its tenants by promoting affordable and safe housing. After the Washington Post’s coverage of the issues at Sedgwick Gardens, we now feel it is important for the tenants of the Brandywine Apartments to tell our story and to say it is happening here too. Tenants have been experiencing heavy marijuana usage which is not permitted in our building, mentally unstable individuals causing disturbances within the building (many which has resulted in police being called to investigate), an increase in break-ins and building vandalism.
When did the management company start accepting these renters?
We believe it was in 2017 or 2018.
Have you lost renters as a result of this program?
Yes. Foreign embassy employees and families who are afraid for their children’s safety, or just don’t want them to witness a person having a breakdown in the hallway.
How has management responded?
The management company responds with silence, and when they do respond, there is no helpful information. They just tell tenants to call the police for any disturbance.
How similar has your situation been to the Sedgwick’s?
Unfortunately, the tenants of the Brandywine Apartments have experienced many of the same problems that plague Sedgwick Gardens residents including mentally disturbed individuals screaming while running up and down the hallways. Other tenants that attempt to help these individuals are told by management that their only recourse is to call the police.
We, like Sedgwick Gardens, unfortunately have a property management company that doesn’t seem to deem the unsafe, illegal activity and destruction of property that have increased tremendously as a top priority, leaving tenants feeling helpless and very vulnerable.
There has definitely been increased violence in our building. For example, the individual mentioned in the Washington Post article who barricaded himself in his Sedgwick Gardens apartment and threatened a police SWAT Team with violence, now lives at the Brandywine Apartments and has been arrested again for domestic violence. Placing people with known violent histories in our building leaves other tenants shaken and fearful for their own and their children’s physical and emotionally security.
Have you had to call the police? What have they done?
Through FOIA we have obtained the records of police visits to the Brandywine Apartments from March of 2017 through May 3, 2019. They show an average of 3.05 visits per month in 2017, 3.83 visits per month in 2018 (a 26% increase over 2017), and 10.5 visits per month in 2019 (an increase of 174% over 2018). These police calls were for many different offenses, including theft of property, theft from auto, sexual assault, domestic disturbance, missing person calls, domestic violence, and mental health problems.
What are your recommendations to making this a better program for the homeless?
The goals of the program are laudable. It seems like a no-brainer: Homeless individuals get stable housing, and the building management companies get up to 175% of market rate rent. But when DC places people in these apartments who are not ready to live on their own, either because of mental illness or substance abuse, it causes other tenants who live around them to suffer the consequences. DC has not made housing better for the homeless, it has made housing more dangerous and expensive for others.
One recommendation would be to have a better process of vetting new tenants and a way to demonstrate checks and balances. It is unfair to a homeless person to thrown into an environment they are not adequately prepared for without the proper resources and support, and it just as unfair to put existing tenants in an unsafe situation because the city is trying to make a statement. This one-size-fits-all solution does not work.
What has been the response of the ANC and Council members?
Silence. We have tried to arrange a meeting with Council member Silverman and the management company about these issues since December of 2018 but have been stonewalled.
Do you know of other apartment buildings on Connecticut who are accepting rent vouchers for homeless?
We have been given to understand that several apartment buildings in upper northwest DC are now participating in the voucher program. The list of tenant associations that used to be kept by DC Office of Tenant Advocate no longer exists, so we don’t know the full extent of issues. We are attempting to compile a list of tenant associations, so that we can meet with them to discuss problems we have in common.
Lauren says
I do not think Connecticut House has a tenant association. The building has had several police responses in the past few months, including for a gun shot. I have been in the building 7 years and have noticed the increase, but am unaware of the cause or potential causes for the increase.
A says
Lauren, I also live in Connecticut House. I moved in a few months ago and I have knowledge that the issues relating to these police visits stem from one particular apartment with disruptive behavior, including loud music during the night, marijuana smoking, random guests appearing, etc. Management has been made aware of this, but I am not aware what action(s) have been taken.
Dave says
The Avalon at Albemarle no longer has a tenant association, but whether or not your building has one, it is imperative that we come together as a community and take action. I have lived on Connecticut Avenue since 2005, and I too have noticed the many troubling signs cited by Mr. Luria of the increasing deterioration of our once safe neighborhood: a huge increase of pot-smoking inside our building, and more troubling, on the sidewalks around our building at all hours of the day and night, an increased presence of abandoned shopping carts on Connecticut Avenue from the nearby Giant, and not-so-nearby Safeway, violations of nighttime curfew hours for Chesapeake Park, and increased incidents of vandalism within my building.
E. David uria says
Dave, we would be most interested in being in touch with you at the Avalon. Please contact us via the FH Connection newsletter.
David Luria, Brandywine Tenants Association
Brian says
I’ll be honest: your comment hasn’t left my mind since I read it a few days ago. Maybe that’s because I had just read about Maurice Scott, the 15 year old who was killed in Congress Heights over Memorial Day. Or maybe because I have read so many stories lately about how unaffordable housing is becoming in the District, and how gentrification and displacement are more linked here than in perhaps any other city in the U.S. I want you to feel comfortable in your home but hope that residents who are fortunate to live in this beautiful, safe, and friendly neighborhood can keep perspective about our community. Shopping carts on sidewalks and pot smoking can be annoying, for sure, but are really pretty small compared to what many of our neighbors in DC face every day. So this isn’t to discount your desire to build a healthy community, but a request that we all consider our privilege and the big picture in reflecting on what that means.
Concerned Citizen says
Hello to everyone that feels threatened that people that have vouchers are moving next door to them. If someone is smoking marijuana or if you see someone leaving an abandoned shopping cart should call the appropriate authorities or grocery shopping company and report it. My question to anyone or everyone who feels threatened by someone that has a voucher. What if that individual (s), currently goes to school and is pursuing his or her degree in professional and is pursuing to work in a professional job? What if the individual (s), does not abuse drugs or alcohol? And, what if he or she also wants to live in a safe neighborhood has a vision to one day owning his or her own home and renting an apartment is only temporary? Does that person not have the right also to live in the same neighborhood as you do? Does simply having a voucher exclude the person from living on Connecticut avenue?
G. Thomas Borger says
My firm, Borger management Inc., manages the Brandywine Apartments.
Mr. Luria states that we have responded with silence to the issues he raises. That is untrue. i have personally called Mr. Luria and spoken to him at length regarding the Housing Choice Voucher Program and its current implementation by the DC agencies.
Furthermore, under the DC Fair Housing Act, participants in the voucher program are a protected class. As a result landlords do not have the option to lease or not to lease residential dwelling units based upon the applicant having a housing voucher. Failure to lease the dwelling unit to a voucher holder is a violation of the law.
i refer you to the statute:
:https://ohr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ohr/publication/attachments/FairHousingoster_2016.pdf
Concerned Community Member says
Mr. Borger,
Did you initiate the call with the President of the building’s Tenant association or were you responding to him reaching out to you? If you initiated it, what was occurring that concerned you that made you reach out to him?
Tom Borger says
Mr. Luria had sent out emails expressing his concerns after the Post article appeared regarding the Sedgewick Apartments.
i called him directly.
Concerned Community Member says
You mention he sent you “emails” which implies multiple. And your reponse came after he mentioned the public attention/Washington Post article. Could it be you were “silent” until you realized there might soon be something publicly printed about the Brandywine? Is his concerns about increased crime in the Brandywine valid?
Concerned Community Member says
Mr. Borger,
May you also share a link to your apartment building’s policy on the responsibility of the owners/Borger to ensure the tenants are safe and inhabitable living situations (this I would assume is voucher and non voucher applicants/residents)
Marjorie Rachlin says
I assume the voucher regulations are DC regulations. If so, tenants unhappy with voucher recipients should go to Mary Cheh, their Council member , with phone calls and petitions, They should also go to Phil Mendelssohn, the Council chair, and to Elisa Silverman, the member in charge of housing.
They should go to the ANC — there are six or seven members.
Mary Cheh office phone is 724 8062
Tenants must organize. Unless there is widespread discontent expressed ,there may be a feeling that only a few intolerant people are unhappy
Green Eyeshades says
Pardon me for this late reply, but I just noticed your list of DC Council members with oversight of the Section 8 housing voucher program. Section 8 refers to a section of a federal law, so Eleanor Holmes-Norton should be included on your list of legislators to contact.
The Chair of DC Council is Phil Mendelson. Elissa Silverman is an at-large member of DC Council who chairs the Committee on Labor & Workforce Development, not housing. Anita Bonds is another at-large member of DC Council who chairs the Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization
Easy references to Council committee’s are on Council’s website, at this link:
http://dccouncil.us/committees-for-council-period-23/
I do not know for certain that any specific member of DC Council maintains oversight of the Section 8 vouchers themselves. If tenants using those vouchers are entitled to services from the DC Department of Human Services, then the DC Council committee with oversight of those services would be the Committee on Human Services, which shares jurisdiction of homelessness programs with the Committee on Housing. The chair of the Committee on Human Services is Ward One Councilmember Brianne Nadeau.
Marilyn Lantz says
The issue seems to be broadening/increasing throughout Cleveland Park and Forest Hills Areas.
Carren Kaston says
Daro Management Co., the management company of Sedgwick Gardens, recently bought and, as of June 1, 2019, is managing Connecticut House. The building has 119 units and was built in 1958. In other words, it’s under rent control. Unfortunately that also means it’s a ripe vehicle for breaking rent control.
Jessica G. says
I think the focus should be on helping DC provide services to individuals who need them and not lumping all voucher holders together as a “problem” – many of these human beings have been through the trauma and tragedy of homelessness. Refusing vouchers is discrimination and they are protected residents. I hope our community can come together with these new residents to help ensure our safe, healthy community can remain so and also be extended to welcome those who need shelter.
Concerned Community Member says
It didn’t sound like anyone was saying the voucher program was a bad idea/program. It sounds like voucher or not, there is a question of whether the Brandywine/Borger is vetting new tenants and securing the building in a way that keeps all tenants and staff safe.
Jessica G. says
What vetting processes or security procedures do you suggest?
Concerned Community Member says
If a building is going to lease to individuals who have a violent criminal record , the could have a security guard. The Management company could create “if/then” procedures for certain situations. Like it would almost br ridiculous for a Mgmt company to advise a tenant to go confront another tenant about noise issues, so therir should be a procedure where the Mgmt company addresses it
It seems the article mentioned an increase in crime in the past 2 years. The question, what changed. Once you discover what factors changed, it would be prudent to at least investigate them.
IS says
Whether you like it or not, the economy is sinking. Companies like Borger are in the real estate business to make money. Especially in today’s uncertain financial climate, the low hanging fruit would be voucher holders. Yes, Borger will talk about fair housing etc., but it is about the bottom dollar. I don’t find it helpful to try to go against the inevitable.
As a trauma victim myself, I personally relate to what Jessica’s assertion. I came to Brandywine, to turn a new page. To heal and mend. People don’t realize how fragile life is. How you can be a victim of a crime and everything changes in the blink of an eye. Suffice to say my experience living here has been less than stellar. I has seen and experienced alot of elitism and pure ignorance. Instead of being able to call this place home, I felt very judged. I have tough skin but at the time it wasn’t fun. It is easy to judge, but more difficult to walk in the shoes of someone who has experiand seen things that no normal human mind can process. Furthermore, these traumatic individuals need a feeling a safety more than anything. By dehumanizing such individuals you are further traumatizing such individuals. If you don’t want to help that is fine but let’s not use the cover of “all voucher holders are criminals, mentally unstable, dangerous”. I feel like that is just a way to condone discriminatory behavior. It it just a socially acceptable way of an entire population. Like they are all the same. We are not. I have a voucher as stated before but I also graduated from a top university in 2011 and worked in real estate management until 2017. My mind was traumatized my body shut down and I developed CPTSD. What you see isn’t always what you get. It has taken my mind and body time to heal. PTSD occurs when any normal human being sees and experiences horrific things. Things the mind isn’t supposed to experience. PTSD is a normal response to a abnormal event or events. Lastly the advent of COVID would count as an abnormal event. It has been traumatic for many. I hope that this experience, while a tragedy engenders an understanding and empathy for people that might not look like you. Because we are not all the same. I am preparing for graduate school at the moment. But right now I still am undergoing testing for MS and Chrons. My point is being kind doesn’t cost anything. In addition, according to research the best way to lower crime inclusivity. By getting to know your voucher holder neighbors your more likely to hear about crime before it happens. To hear about people with criminal histories who aren’t safe for your building. So, doing the whole us versus them will prove to be counterintuitive to the shared goal of a safe community.
Best,
IS
Tequila says
The same application/vetting requirements must be met by ALL residents. Voucher/non voucher holders alike..
RebelRae says
The Brandywine seems to have an uptick on visits by the DC Police. There were six DC Police cars in front of the building a couple days ago. Some of us have worked our tails off to be able to buy condos in this neighborhood. Definitely not happy about the new neighbors.
Neil Berger says
I think there should be a limit on the number of housing voucher occupants in a building . Part of the rereasoning behind this program was to avoid over concentration of poor people in certain neighborhoods. I would say no more than 10%.
Of course management companies like a taxpayer-funded program that pays 175% of market rates.. That policy alone should be challenged as discriminatory against renters paying full amounts and property owners not receiving such subsidizing tax dollars.
Betty says
SO SAD! I don’t really know the answer. All persons should be treated equal, but persons who work hard, and want to live well, should enjoy the fruits of the labor! In saying that, persons with mental and physical problems, should have the same quality of life with GOOD support or treatment! That takes quality care and support of their families and or government! No one should live in fear, poverty and unfair treatment! When it comes down to it, $$$$$ is always at the bottom of the problem.
European countries have a MUCH better way of handling the problem! I know people are against socialized medicine, but that could be the answer?? Who knows, but there has to be fair treatment for all in America!