“Community Meeting to Discuss Brutal Assault at Kansas Ave & Quincy St” Tonight “Kid was 20 years old walking home from the Coupe at 8pm”

via google maps

A reader reports:

“A young man in his 20’s was assaulted at 8pm last night [Monday] at Kansas Ave & Quincy St. After stealing all his personal belongings, they ran up the 3800 block of Kansas Ave and west on Randolph St towards 14th St.

Not only is this disturbing because it happened so early in the evening when many of our families are still out and about, but it further illustrates the spike in crime in DC — especially near the Petworth metro and upper 14th St.

The young man was ok from what I understand, but was still at the hospital at the time of this email.


He is doing well as I understand it. Very well liked in the neighborhood. Not seriously injured although he did sustain injuries. There is (another) community crime meeting to discuss this with MPD. Kid was 20 years old walking home from the Coupe at 8pm.

Community Meeting to Discuss Brutal Assault at Kansas Ave & Quincy St

Date: Thursday November 12, 2015
Time: 6:30 pm
Location: Raymond Recreation Center
3725 10th St NW”

51 Comment

  • At least there will be a community response. I was attacked just a block from there in 2004 – at Randolph & Kansas – resulting in $50,000 of surgery and the police didn’t even bother to investigate.

    • Wow. I hope you had insurance. Unacceptable that people have to take on that financial burden because they were attacked by people who are just a drain on society.

  • Vote Bowser.

    • SusanRH

      I read in the city paper that she has something like a 67% approval rating, clearly Popville was not included in the polling.

      • HaileUnlikely

        If every age-eligible adult in DC voted and the entire readership of PopVille voted identically, we could influence the outcome by at most a fraction of a percentage point.

        • I wonder how many regular POP readers are registered to vote in the District. Its one thing to complain on the blog (and believe me I think Bowser stinks) but a lot of new/younger folks don’t necessarily get around to registering to vote. Boswer knows who her base it. Nadeau is a giant let down as well. May Pop could do a survey of his readers? How many are registered and actually voted in the last election?

          • Truth. I was depressed during the last election. I’d say no more than half the people I know that lived in DC at the time voted, and a couple that did chose Bowser simply because she received the most publicity and was endorsed by the post.

          • 67% one year in to her term is nothing. The honeymoon is just now starting to wear off. I supported Bowser and I know many people that did as well… We are very disappointed. I’m not sure if I’ll support her again, it’ll depend honestly depend on if she can show the ability to deal with all of the criminal activity.

          • I think part of the story that you are missing is that this blog’s readership, or at least those who participate in the comments, is probably not generally representative of the city’s overall populace. I would be surprised if an overwhelming majority of PoPville readers are not registered and did not vote (excluding those who don’t or didn’t live in DC.)

          • HaileUnlikely

            My point was that PopVille’s readership comprises at most 1% of the DC adult population, and that is being extraordinarily generous with rounding. A statistically representative random sample of 1,000 DC residents (about the size of a typical public opinion poll) would not contain more than 10 or so PoPville readers, likely way less. That is not a knock on PopVille, just a reality check.

          • Anyone know if Nadeau received money from the FreshPAC?

          • In DC, you really have to vote in the Democratic primary if you want to have a say and even less people vote in the primaries than the general.

  • I heard about this from a friend of the victim. My prayers and thoughts are with you.
    When I heard about this incident yesterday, I checked the MPD alerts and also found this:
    Mugged at taser-point? WTF. Things are already out of control, but this is outrageous.

  • samanda_bynes

    jesus, how scary. i walk around there all the time!

  • I have walked that stretch of Kansas many, many times and have always felt safe due to generally high traffic and people often milling around outside their homes. This is very unsettling. Shows it really can happen anywhere.

  • I can’t go to this meeting, but anyone who does can reference (add it to the list) the violent mugging at 7th St and Gallatin St NW that I witnessed and helped respond to. Four guys jumped one dude, stole his wallet and phone, punching and kicking him repeatedly in the process. He was walking home from the Metro after work. It was ~9pm.

    • HaileUnlikely

      Thanks. What day was the incident that you are describing here?

    • I didn’t even hear about this and I live very close to this. Would also like more details on this. There was a mugging of a woman at 8th and Gallatin recently, too.

    • A week or two ago my spouse & I drove onto the scene of an assault around 5:30 pm on a weekday at Allison & Iowa. A man was walking north on Iowa and a group of teenagers started beating him up (no robbery, I think) near MacFarland. The cops did come in response to our call, but I haven’t heard anything since.

  • Headline says “Brutal Assault.” Story says “not seriously injured.”

    I don’t mean to trivialize this because ANY assault is serious and a terrifying experience but “brutal” in the headline suggests a physical attack that was worse than it seems it was.

    • Prince Of Petworth

      That’s the title of the meeting the reader sent in an email. I think the fact that the victim had to go to the hospital indicates there was some level of brutality.

    • “A young man in his 20’s was assaulted at 8pm last night” and he “was still at the hospital at the time of this email.” Anything involving hospital admission is pretty awful in my book–“not seriously injured” hopefully means no permanent disability as a result.

    • Is this comment from the folks at FreshPAC?

      • This was a bunch of teenagers or low 20 year olds. Police tracked the phone to Howard U and Park View area before it went dead. This isn’t common for this area of Petworth, but things have gotten much worse. Not as bad as in Park View or Brightwod, but worse for this area. A woman was sexually assaulted near here a year ago. My guess is that the huge crime problem in Park View and CoHi is starting to spread north.

        • HaileUnlikely

          “or Brightwood?” Brightwood has been having some major problems with shootings lately, but I’m pretty sure the crimes of opportunity (both robberies and beating victims for sport) are much more prevalent in Petworth than in Brightwood.

        • “spread north”? or it’s been there all along. Don’t remember Petworth being particularly safe, ever.

  • The response to crime in ward 4 has been awful. You could make the argument that its been awful for the entire District, but having lived in several different wards, I can tell you that my personal experience is that ward 4 is the worst by far. An assault at 8pm at night is damn ridiculous. When will our politicians take crime seriously? Do they not understand how pissed off people are???

  • the Post just published a map that showed the “cluster” of CoHi, Mnt P and Park View had the most violent crimes of anywher else in the entire City. Of course our councilmember thinks we are just making it up when we post on this blog.

  • This happened here because you have a very residential couple of blocks sandwiched between Georgia Ave/the Petworth metro, and 14th St./Upper Columbia Heights. There has also been a rash of break-ins around this area that have been reported on this blog.
    Meanwhile, Sam Jewlr and his cronies from Jews For Justice want to convince the world that this neighborhood “is in favor of” 90% affordable housing at the Old Hebrew Home on Spring St. NOT TRUE! It is an organized campaign to try and force this narrative down everyone’s throat. This neighborhood is fully in favor of 20% affordable if you ask most people who live here. 90% affordable would make this area a Georgia Ave south of the metro/Park Morton Part II.
    This neighborhood is large enough with not that much density that MPD patrol has been ineffective. Adding 180 affordable units, that the city won’t maintain properly, is going to exacerbate the issues we already have here. Instead, we should be focusing our affordable housing efforts on enforcing and increasing mandates on developers to offer enough affordable units. This way, the market rents will support the maintenance of the building, those in affordable units won’t feel like they’re in “public housing,” and it will increase our lower-income residents’ chances (by way of neighborly interaction) of pulling themselves out of the poverty cycle.

    • HaileUnlikely

      I agree with most of this, but the notion that “market rents” are required to maintain a building properly is total bunk. “Affordable” rents here are much more than market rents in some other cities as well as in DC suburbs whose maintenance contractors are drawn from basically the same pool as those who service DC buildings. Also, neither the cost of materials nor labor have grown at anything close to the rate of DC rents over the past decade. There are plenty of other legitimate reasons why neighbors might prefer a different mix of incomes, but the notion that you need people paying present-day DC market-rate rents to be able to afford to perform basic maintenance is a fabrication.

      • Keep in mind that the work “affordable” is interchangeable with “subsidized”, its just more palatable to say affordable. Often people you affordable to mean what the word traditionally means…people can afford it, but developers and govt officials use affordable to mean subsidized.

        • I don’t think that’s correct. Publicly-funded housing is “subsidized”, while “affordable” means that the rate is supposed to be in line with what a certain percentile of workers can afford. In some cases the city can say that a portion of a building’s units can be set at “market” rates, while others have to be limited to a band of rents.

        • HaileUnlikely

          That’s beside the point, though. The relationship between how much apartments rent for and how much they cost to maintain to the same standard is pretty weak. When low-rent buildings fall into disrepair, it is hardly ever because the money brought in through rents is insufficient to cover maintenance expenses, it is usually because the owner or manager doesn’t give a f*.

          • I get what you’re saying, but incentives matter, too. If the owner or manager of city-mandated “affordable” housing can’t attract wealthier tenants who would be able and willing to pay a higher rent, why would he (or she) want to do more than the bare minimum maintenance? This is Rent Control 101.
            If there’s an abundance of f***-giving landlords out there, and if you can figure out how to legally discriminate in favor of them so that they get to own all the affordable housing developments, go forth and make the city a better place. I suspect the status quo mess is the best we’re capable of doing with the government & structures we have today.

      • Ok, your point that DC “market” rent rates are not required to maintain a building are understood. I agree. I was just using the term “market” to distinguish it from “government subsidized,” i.e., rates that a person who was looking for an apartment to rent, out of their own pocket, would pay. Maybe it’s only 50% of the DC “market rate” amount that is needed to properly maintain the building. My point was that when we build affordable housing tracts, and the municipality is in charge of managing it, paying for repairs, etc…, it’s much more likely to fall into disrepair than if “private” rent rolls exist

        • HaileUnlikely

          Basically agreed (with the major exception of some of the better affordable senior buildings. I wonder if I could get onto the waiting list for Victory Housing now…in my late 30’s–so hopefully they’ll have a unit for me by the time I’m 80)

      • not sure about the ownership of this specific property, but generally you also have to factor in the purchase price of a property and how much the rent will contribute to re-paying the loan. this is a bigger factor than maintenance costs.

    • So it’s important to limit the number of “affordable” units because if there are too many, the residents will feel like they are in public housing and then do what everyone in public housing does – commit crimes? Is that the point of your argument?

      • No, it’s not important to limit to overall number of affordable units, it’s important to weave those affordable units into non-affordable/subsidized developments by enforcing mandates on developers, as well as working to strengthen the requirements for affordability ratios in the first place.
        Spoiler alert: poverty and crime are directly related. Why continue to construct buildings and complexes where all the affordable units are clustered together? It’s a quantity over quality argument that has an insane track record of failure. I don’t get why it keeps getting advocated other than the alternative that I’m suggesting makes too much sense.

    • Market-rate rents aren’t necessary to “maintain” the building per se, but I suspect the thinking is that market-rate tenants — who have other options — will help keep the building management accountable. And they’re more likely to be squeaky wheels.

      • It’s not about living among squeaky wheels, it’s about whomever owns and/or manages the building having a steady stream of income to maintain the facilities. You’re right, it’s not NECESSARY to maintain the building, but it sure does help.

        • Developers that build subsidized housing get LIHTCs — low-income housing tax credits. So although they’re bringing in less rent, the LIHTCs lower their expenses.
          I’m no fan of concentrated subsidized housing either, but I don’t think your reasoning is correct as to why mixed-income housing is better.

  • No, affordable means the owner gets direct tax benefits and payments for offering reduced rent to the same people who qualify for public housing. Affordable = public housing restructured. Keep in mind that choice housing vouchers count as income and people use then in affordable units, making there rent free. Granted, the is a difference between 80% ami, but any time you drop below 60% ami, it’s a housing project.

    • HaileUnlikely

      I’ll stipulate that lots of places that have an income limit of 60% of the AMI (for a single person this works out to $45,900) really really suck and kind of resemble housing projects, but there are actually some pretty nice ones, too, which I suspect you do not realize are LIHTC properties. There are actually lots of hipsters with substantial incomes who inquire about the availability of a few affordable apartments I know of in Columbia Heights and Mount Pleasant without even realizing that they are reserved for people below 60% of the AMI.

  • No one from MPD in PSA 404 where this assault took place bothered to show up at this meeting last night. Unbelievable.

Comments are closed.