Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

MarkinDC24 t1_j8y5fqf wrote

I personally think we should hold those who have oversight roles accountable. So, yes, I believe the buck stops with Anita Bonds. She should have provided adequate oversight. Truthfully, if she had provided overisight we would not have these entrenched problems.

2

Quiet_Meaning5874 t1_j8y5s0y wrote

Y’all are delusional lol. From being so awful they were placed in federal receivership in the 90s etc they been a mess for decades

Frankly a lot of it is on the tenants and residents of the city as well. DCHA doesn’t exist in some kind of vacuum lol

1

MarkinDC24 t1_j8ysfzb wrote

Since you think, I am delusional, I should share my logic with you. First, as the central and chief policy-making body for the District of Columbia, the Council's mission is to provide strong, innovative and effective leadership for the benefit of residents across the city. In Anita Bonds case, she was given oversight over the District of Columbia’s Housing Authority (DCHA). The last Director of DCHA, Tyrone Garrett, openly admitted his strategy was to “remove about a quarter of its public housing stock from federal ownership” and “demolish or gut 10 apartment buildings”. You would think, with such an aggressive and/or controversial plan that Anita Bonds would closely monitor the process. Nope. Instead, she neglected her duties, and allowed for occupant rates to dip, housing to become inhabitable (mold, persistent crime, etc.), and basically she didn’t care!

Now tell me again, how oversight wasn’t her job?

The Council's central role as a legislative body is to make laws.

2