Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Oh Safeway.

Also on the agenda at Monday's ANC 6D meeting was Safeway and its new "Quality Assurance Program" (i.e. greeters who check receipts as customers leave the store). This part of the meeting became somewhat of a heated debate as some ANC commissioners and audience members accused Safeway of targeting the Waterfront Station Safeway store for its new policy, not to increase customer service, but because of shoplifting and subjecting all shoppers to this new receipt check was degrading. A couple of Safeway representatives countered that all stores in the District have experienced shrink (when the actual inventory is less than what is thought to be on the shelves) and the increase occurred after the bag tax was instituted in the city. Another potential cause of shrink is the design of the store, which has a food court area in the front of the store that customers who didn't use the parking garage have to walk through in order to leave the store. The Southwest Safeway was chosen as a test case because of four main reasons:
  • The SW Safeway has 35,000 customer counts per week - more than any other Safeway in the city.
  • The clientele is diverse (including residents, office workers, tourists, and baseball fans) which serves as a microcosm of the District's population.
  • They have faith in the store's management team to implement the test.
  • There has been an increase in shrink.
The test will last up to 26 weeks and after the test period, Safeway will evaluate whether to implement the receipt check in other stores in the District. Not satisfied with Safeway's explanation, which didn't mention anything about customer service, but focused on "shrink," the ANC voted 5-0-1 to send a letter to Safeway's regional management team expressing their dismay with the new policy and requests that the store implement the receipt check at a non-urban store (Georgetown's new Social Safeway comes to mind).

Has anyone experienced issues with the new receipt checking procedure?

Update: Here is The Washington City Paper's take on my post.

49 comments:

Anonymous said...

I was one of the original posters who voiced my strong opposition to the receipt check - before I even stepped foot in the store. After a few visits I really don't mind. The receipt checkers are extremely friendly and approachable. Lastly, it's nice to hear "have a blessed day" upon leaving.

I heard through the grapevine that a customer was carrying two bags of items and the receipt showed a purchase of just one item. If that is the case then I don't mind at all being asked for my receipt because I'm not a thief.

Barath said...

I have no problem with the checks, either. Many different types of stores check receipts all over the country. I really don't see what the big deal is...

Tom said...

we simply just need better security

DCABuckeye said...

Truly, who cares if they check my receipt. To pretend that theft, i.e., "Shrink" doesn't occur in greater percentage in urban stores than in the near suburbs is like saying drug dealing is as prominent at 35th& Wisconsin NW as it is at Half & P St SW. I've been on a "buy-bust" grand jury in D.C., and I assure anyone that there is a great distinction.

I would argue that this procedure is great customer service. If Safeway's losses are reduced, then those costs aren't passed onto the rest of us who shop. If we're going to compare ourselves to Georgetown, then I'd like to see how many parents let their children run wild through that store as compared to our SW store. As the late Richard Pryor used to say "my grandmother didn't get the switch; she'd get the tree!"

If I had behaved anywhere, let alone in a public grocery store like these kids do in our Safeway, my mother would have put me in the middle of next week before Thursday knew I was there. I fully support Safeway's decision.

Jay said...

As a private company, Safeway has every right to request that customers show their receipts upon exiting the building. It does not, however, have the legal authority to demand it. The receipt-checking policy is entirely voluntary (albeit insulting and accusatory), and customers have every right--as I do--to offer a polite "no thank you" as they leave the store on their own free will.

That being said, unless Safeway adopts more draconian measures and forgets that it has only the right to REQUEST that customers show receipts, it seems invasive for the ANC to get involved. Safeway should have every right to continue to assume that their customers are guilty until proven innocent. The free market will take care of that injustice; the ANC should not.

Mike said...

Is the ANC going to ask Safeway to stop scented Tide too because 5 of them don't like scented Tide? It is Safeway's job to determine how best to counter shoplifting and if it is a problem there and no where else then they have every right to do what they deem is right.

The ANC should stay out of Safeway's business.

BTW - which ANC commissioner was the abstain vote?

Anonymous said...

My thing is that when I hand them my receipt, it seems like they're not even looking at it. They're usually talking to a coworker and check the receipt without looking at anything. What's the point of that? Not customer service and not to prevent "shrink."

Mike said...

I shop at the SW Safeway all the time and never show a receipt. They ask, I decline politely and they wish me a nice day.

Anonymous said...

I have no problem with Safeway asking for receipts. Costco "checks" receipts in a similar manner to reduce shrink. The receipt checkers at Safeway have never been anything but friendly and polite and making the SW Safeway less inviting for thieves is good for all the honest customers.

Jay said...

Regarding the above comment about Costco, Costco requires membership upon entry and thus operates differently than Safeway. Costco can include a clause in the membership/cardholder agreement in which the member understands that their membership will be revoked if they refuse to show their receipt upon exit, whereas Safeway patrons enter into no such agreement. Thus, the comparison is somewhat invalid.

HRH King Friday XIII, Ret. said...

I don't mind the reciept checks. They have an efficient and courteous was of doing it. In Hell, I'd be in favor of Safeway taking over secruity at the L'Enfant Plaza station. They could teach Metro a thing or two about professionalism.

Anonymous said...

The receipt checkers don't really read the receipt or look in the bags. They simply check it while talking to the receipt checker next to them. They are very friendly. However, the store needs more security. There are alot of kids that run around the store without adult supervison. I have seen a few taking sodas, candy etc.

Anonymous said...

I think you misunderstand my Costco comment. My point wasn't whether Costco members have consented or not, it was that the complaints that Safeway was targeting an "urban" store was not relevant. Costco is primarily out in the burbs and uses the same practice. As someone else pointed out, Safeway does not seem to trouble anyone who declines to have their receipt checked, so it doesn't seem consent is an issue either.

Anonymous said...

I'm in this store multiple times a week, and the policy doesn't bother me in the least. Safeway is a business, not a philanthropic endeavor. If they lose money b/c people are robbing them blind the alternative becomes very simple...Humping dozens of blocks away to another store after they close the SW location.

Anonymous said...

Shrink is the problem. And underlying that problem are shoplifters. If Safeway chose SW, then the problem has to be greater here than in other areas: here in our "diverse" and "low-crime" neighborhood.

Anonymous said...

I agree that the receipt checkers are very friendly and I dont mind showing my receipt either - but they NEVER actually look at the items on the receipt or the number of bags im carrying - so I dont understand what the point of them putting a checkmark on the receipt is. If the problem is shrink, they definitely need more security, uniformed and plain clothed, especially paying attention to the adolescent population. EVERY time i'm in the store i see groups of 5-6 teenagers running around, grabbing chips, candy, and soda, and running right out the door in a pack right past the receipt checker. the checkers dont stop them or say anything. several times i've seen the teenagers standing right outside the entrance to the store bragging about what they took and saying to one another something along the lines of "dont worry, they wont come out here" And it's always after 4pm (usually around 6pm) when i thought technically they werent supposed to enter the store without a guardian - so i'm not sure what good that rule does either because its not enforced.

Matt said...

MORE SECURITY is needed!!!

Anonymous said...

This thread takes me back to the OLD Safeway. In those days there was a security guard or two stationed at the doors. One late afternoon I entered the store. A few seconds later I heard a ruckus behind me. Sure enough a band of 6-9 kids tried to rush the entrance but the security guard manually closed and locked the door. Those crazy kids!

If Safeway management asks to see my receipt fine. However, if Safeway management ignores PROBLEM CHILDREN RANSACKING THE STORE it is not fine. Just as they were able to lock out a band of kids in the old store, they should have the right to monitor anybody in the new store. He's a good boy. He don't cause no trouble!

Kiley said...

Doesn't the ANC have better things to do/worry about? Really?!!! If Safeway wants to check receipts( likely because that particular store is experiencing a higher amount of shoplifting) that's their right- and frankly, if it reduces the amount of shoplifting - isn't that good for the neighborhood image anyway? ANC: there are many more pressing issues/concerns in the area - stop picking on one of the few large-scale investors in the neighborhood.

Anonymous said...

I've only been stopped twice. Once, when heading down to the parking garage a nice lady asked me if I'd remembered to validate my parking pass. Nice reminder, as I often forget.

Second time, they checked my receipt leaving on foot, and as several mentioned above, the lady scribbled on my receipt so fast it didn't feel like a very thorough check. BUT, I don't think the point is for them to cross-check every item on the receipt with what's in your bag.

Rather, the goal is to ensure that the general quantity of items on the receipt matches the general amount of items in your bag(s). That is, if your receipt says you purchased one item and your bag is bulging, that's a red flag to the greeter. Second, the mark on the receipt prevents that same receipt from being used again and again to carry items out of the store.

And of course, their mere presence and the fear that they MIGHT check every item in the bag, is a very effective deterrent. Just like the fear that security MIGHT inspect your bags at the airport is a very effective deterrent against terrorists.

Overall, I think the issue has been completely overblown. I am particularly concerned that a few loudmouths worried about alleged civil liberty violations are going to deter businesses from opening up shop in our neighborhood and stall the area's redevelopment. The neighborhood still has some drawbacks and if businesses are going to come here, they need assurance that they can implement security measures to keep their busines viable, and that the community will support them.

sb said...

If the goal is to reduce shrink, then they should really do it. Walk around the store. Hire off-duty cops for security. Actually check the receipt; don't just scribble on it. And if the goal is to be welcoming, then don't look at my receipt like you expect me to be a criminal. Just welcome me.

Right now, we've got the worst of both worlds: A process that makes our neighborhood appear way more dangerous/criminal than it really is, but that's really "security theater" that doesn't stop shoplifters but employs lots of people (both of which drive up food costs at the store)

With that said, Safeway's allowed to ask. Customers are allowed to refuse. And if I were that fired up about it, I could just stop shopping there. I won't--it's too convenient. And maybe potential homebuyers will be turned off by it and keep the prices low for when I'm ready to go house-hunting!

Anonymous said...

Interested parties should know that the majority of ANC Commissioners did not want the Safeway issue on the agenda which is why there was virtual silence from 6 of the 7 of them. One commissioner bullied the Chairman into it and everyone there saw the embarassing result. Three cheers to Craycraft for walking out.

Anonymous said...

I thought the new "customer service" procedures were b/s from the beginning and I largely still do. But I understand a few points being made in marking the receipt so it can't be re-used and seeing a bulging bag and only one item on a receipt.

That said, those on this thread who are freaking out about kids stealing sodas and candy, that's chump change compared to the HIGH PRICED stuff: frozen shrimp, steaks, chicken, etc. Also, people with backpacks and bags don't get their bags checked when they leave. That's not a problem.

Although I'm not a fan of the new security procedures, I think ANC intervention is far from necessary.

Eric said...

There are so many comments on this blog that I would like to address, I don't know where to start. Also, I know I don't have the time to deal with them all. So I guess I will start with this one: If the most of the members of the ANC did not want this on the agenda; why did they vote to send letters to Safeway Management? Why did they not have the guts to express how they really felt. If this is how they function, then Safeway is the least of our worries. We need to get some ANC Commissioners that can express themselves and not just be a rubber stamp. I will deal with some other comments later.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if Safeway has considered moving the check-out stands to a more traditional location near the entrance/exit?

Anonymous said...

I don't like this new Safeway policy but have accepted it as the trade-off to have a Georgetown-style store in the shadow of the projects. I don't believe Safeway's explanation of how this store was chosen for a minute, I'd rather they just be honest. I was in the store last night around 9pm and it's clear the "youth" from the projects have targeted this store as somewhere they plan to make mischief this summer, they had bicycles, skaeboards, and were bouncing basketballs in the entry foyer, intimidating customers trying to enter and leave. I'm not certain this is the right situation for a "have a blessed day" greeter. Where are the adults responsible for these children?

Anonymous said...

As someone who lives in an apartment couple blocks away, I can attest to the fact that shoplifting was running absolutely rampant in that store. EVERY single time I went into that store (couple times a week) the first few months it was open I either directly witnessed kids craming stuff in the pockets pants, or heawrd kids/teens grouped up on the benches outside the entrance talking loudly about what they were going in to take, or what they had just walked out with. There is a prepared food display right next to the door and I would see people run in, grab two or 3 thingd and run right out the door 5 seconds later. It's why they had to lock the side door where the Starbucks is.

I even got in line behind a woman at the checkout counter who had a Safeway brand frozen turkey in her basket but only put a soda and pack of gum on the conveyor. When the checkout woman asked her about the big frozen turkey, she responded she had just bought it at a Giant (remember, it was a safeway brand). When the manager came over to talk to her she started screaming for the police, calling the checkout lady and manager "ni&&ers" (they were all black), it was a mess.

I don't blame them for one second checking reciepts. The should simply just announce what it is...a theft prevention tactic and call it a day. I am sure the store had already quantified a sizable drop in theft loss.

At the end of the day, you can build all the nice new shiny stores you want, but it doesn't change the fact that they built it across the street from some seriously ghettofied projects.

Anonymous said...

I was there at 9pm too, last night, and I saw the group of young kids, hanging out in the entryway, yelling and carrying on.

You could hear them all the way back at the check-out lines.

I had to walk through them to get in, and through them to get out.

And NOTHING was done about it.

They can keep the greeters; that's fine, but BRING BACK THE SECURITY GUARDS!

DavidSW

Anonymous said...

This issue goes beyond Safeway --- the MPD needs to set a tone in this community that even low-level crime such as shoplifting will not be tolerated.

Yes, I realize Police resources are limited and they need to focus on preventing and investigating major crimes ----- however if people think they can get away with petty crime like this, you've just raised their threshold. (Although I consider imprisoning people for minor drug possession a travesty, but stealing is stealing)

I suggest maybe once or twice a month, the MPD dedicate 1-3 officers to conduct a random sting to nab shoplifters at either Safeway or CVS. Give them a slap on the wrist or a fine, but the key is to publicize the hell out of it. Call them out by name --- throw their pictures out there. Make it an embarrassing affair.

PostIt said...

*Amen* to Anonymous 3:26. Setting up a little sting operation like that wouldn't take much -- all of 6-8 man-hours per month. Please. Can MPD really not afford that?

Successful or tolerated petty theft emboldens people to commit bigger crimes. If MPD really wants to stop those bigger crime, it should go for low-hanging fruit. This is an easy way to have dividends that pay off for years to come.

AK said...

It seems there is no need for yet another comment on this topic, but what the heck, I'll weigh in, too. I agree with the points already made by many posters that are either supportive or at least not opposed to the new receipt-checking policy. It seems quite obvious that it is an anti-theft tactic, despite how Safeway tries to spin it, and I'm just fine with that. The fact that they are targeting our store is also fine with me, since it seems that there is a reasonable basis, such as the rate of "shrink." It's better that they target our store than that they target particular individuals in the store. The fact that they check everyone (or mostly everyone -- apparently not the groups of kids that bum-rush them) is certainly better than if they only asked "randomly chosen" individuals, which would certainly lead to understandable complaints of profiling, racism, etc.

I also agree, though, that the receipt checking doesn't seem to make much sense if they just rubber stamp the receipt without really paying attention and if people realize they can just say "no" and move on. Any deterrent effect will be short-lived, I think, given such circumstances. It also doesn't make sense if they're not going to make a concerted effort to really target crime. If it is well know that groups of kids are regularly causing a disturbance and/or stealing from the store, which it sounds like it is, then do something about it. Don't let them in without adult supervision. Have security guards who will actively keep them out of the store in such situations. And don't just target kids either. (No age-ism here!) Don't let adults get away with stealing entire turkeys or other food products either.

It comes down to this. I don't steal; therefore, I don't have a problem with someone checking my receipt if it is implemented against everyone across the board. But if that alone isn't solving the problems that the store has with deterring crime, including rambunctious kids harrassing customers on their way in and out of the store, then more needs to be done. By all means, get security guards. We can't stick our heads in the sand and pretend crime isn't happening and that it doesn't hurt all of us. If I am afraid to go into my own neighborhood grocery store, I fortunately have the freedom to take my car and drive to another store. Having said that, it would be very unfortunate if many of us have to do just that and end up losing what is/was a nice grocery store in our neighborhood.

Kudos to Bob Craycraft for not signing onto the letter of complaint from the rest of the ANC.

Cara said...

@AK -- It was Ron McBee who voted against sending the letter.

I voted in favor of it because I heard too many different explanations on a previous phone call and that evening. I want a definite, official response from Safeway to the concerns that have been voiced.

Matt said...

I'm sorry, but more needs to be done regarding safety and security. People should be bringing these things up to the Safeway Manager, Building/Complex/Property Managers, as well as community representatives. We can all complain, but we all need to step up as a community and make sure things are done and make those people accountable for their actions.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know the Safeway's managers email address?

Anonymous said...

It's going to get worse. Next month is the 1-year anniversary of our new 4th St. As we move into the 2nd year, the build-out on the M St side of Safeway is nearly finished, and a new plaza area will open soon. One Safeway employee told me that the plaza will have tables and chairs.

It all sounds very nice. My point is that Safeway will then have multiple entry points, making it easier for kids to run in and out. If they closed the Starbuck's door to inhibit the kids, well now they'll have several new doors to run through.

We need to tell Safeway that they need to bring the guards back. AND the guards need to be empowered to do something, not just follow silently behind the kids! The kids aren't stupid - they know how to create a diversion on one aisle while the real action takes place on another aisle. I want to see a guard grab a kid by the ear and throw him out of the store!

DavidSW

Anonymous said...

Store Manager is Michael Bigelow
202-554-9155

Craig Muckle, Safeway Public Affairs Manager
301-918-6803
craig.muckle@safeway.com

Safeway Corporate Office Headquarters
5918 Stoneridge Mall Road Pleasanton, CA 94588
(800) 723-3929

STORE NUMBER #2892

Ethics Hotline - Safeway strives to maintain the highest level of honesty and integrity in its dealing(s) with employees and vendors. If you have any questions, concerns or information regarding business ethics or integrity in your dealings with Safeway, please contact our confidential Business Ethics Hotline at 1-866-239-1376
or email us at business.ethics@safeway.com

Matt said...

Anon @ 8:53pm. Thank you for posting the information. This actually needs to be re-posted at the beginning of the thread so that everyone can see it.

I'm not exactly sure who writes the blogs, but he or she should provide this information so that everyone can express their concerns to the right people, who can actually do something.

And YES, please bring back the GUARDS, but good ones who actually work and do the job.

Anonymous said...

I agree on the comments above relating to "it's going to get worse." When the warm summer months get here, and Station 4 is going across the street, the children and young adults from the projects are going to terrorize Fourth Street at night. No one wins if we see it in purely racial terms, it's a turf war between old and new residents. The Police and other civic agencies need to get a plan in place NOW and not react to the problem after someone is killed and Southwest makes negative headlines again.

PostIt said...

@Anonymous 8:48

I take it you're a fan of hyperbole.

"terrorize"?
"turf war"?

Do you really want to cast your neighborhood's ills in apocalyptic terms? These are problems that have relatively simple solutions. Such language only feeds the illusion that the problem is worse than it is and de-legitimizes a valid concern. Adding to your comment, no one wins if you can't have a rational discussion.

Anonymous said...

@Postit@10:59am.
If you think the problems of Southwest have relatively simple solutions, I'd love to see what you think a complicated one would be. And, yes, I do call it a turf war when people are being beaten, and in at least one case* beaten to death, by their fellow neighbors over hate based on race, income, ethnicity, or perceived sexual orientation. You are simply parroting liberal non-speak.

* Mark Blank at 6th and M Streets, October 2009, roughly 9:30pm.

Anonymous said...

For Anonymous @3:32

Well said! Mark Blank's death was a tragedy.

I live at 4th & I, and about two years ago my neighbor was beaten and mugged, walking back from the Safeway (when you had walk the long way around). She was 1/2 a block from our building, on Wesley Pl when this happened. She was really banged up and had to be checked out at the hospital. It was one teenage boy, who stole her purse.

Around the same time another neighbor was knocked off his bicycle by a group of kids on bikes, (roughly 10pm) and he was beaten - right in front of our building! I'd like to see the simple solution for that.

DavidSW

PostIt said...

@Folks
I'm not parroting anybody but my own darned views and if you want to have a serious discussion you had better be prepared to do without the insults.

Anyway, I thought this was a post about Safeway? Isn't that what you were talking about? If you want to talk about violent crime or hate crimes in the District, it's another beast altogether. But I think most of us on here were discussing shoplifting and petty theft. And I think we can all agree that a simple solution to that would be both visible and hidden law enforcement in and around Safeway.

What exactly is this "turf war” that you like to mention? Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great storyline, but it just isn’t happening. If you’re talking about run-of-the-mill violent urban crime, though – yes, we’ve certainly got that. But it’s by no means something unique to SW, even though you make it sound like we’ve got some home-grown trend where 4th and M will be ground zero this summer. Then you go and suggest that the opening of a restaurant will lead to more turf war fighting?

Where are you even getting such ideas? While senseless beatings and muggings are tragic, any level-headed examination of SW's crime stats shows how we’re better off compared to many other parts of the city. Go ahead, just look at a map http://www.washingtonpost.com/real-estate/neighborhoods/20024-crime.html. Friction among various factions within a community will always exist and can erupt, no matter where you are -- big cities have always struggled with that. And for that, you're right, there is no simple solution.

Senseless acts will continue, our hearts will cringe when they happen, and we will struggle to find reasons for why they happened ("turf war in our neighborhood!"). And then people like you will try to find solutions to these notions we’ve conjured up. And that's precisely the problem -- you can’t use anecdotes (tragic as they might be) as somehow confirming the existence of a crime epidemic as perceived by you. Take a good look at where we stand (statistically) with respect to our DC neighbors outside of SW, and then come back. When it comes to violent crime in DC, MPD has much bigger fish to fry – including the REAL turf war happening among the gangs up in Columbia Heights.

Do we stand idly by and not call out the crime in our own neighborhood? Hell no. But we similarly don't go around irresponsibly comparing street crime to terrorism.

Anonymous said...

PostIt, I think it is a form of terrorism when one group is targeted by street crinimals versus random crime. Isn't terrorism trying to intimidate a group by targeting them? Excluding situations where the victim was acquainted with their assailant, isn't the violent crime in SW overwhelming black-on-white? Is that not an effort to intimidate white residents versus others? That is one of the bases of hate crimes, which is why Mark Blank's murderers were all three convicted of murder *and* hate crimes. We can't fix the crime problem in SW by painting it as something it isn't and covering it up with generalized statistics.

AK said...

@Cara - Thanks for the information. I understand that Bob Craycraft abstained from the vote b/c of receiving mixed input from his constituents, the majority of which was trending in support of the receipt-checking policy. I did not know that Ron McBee was the one who actively voted against it. In that case, I'll amend my statement: kudos to both Bob Craycraft & Ron McBee for not signing onto the letter of complaint from the ANC to Safeway.

I hope the ANC's future efforts will focus more on encouraging Safeway and other retail establishments, and most importantly our local law enforcement, to take steps to improve security in the area.

PostIt said...

@Anonymous
I don't know any numbers on this issue, but I think most crime in the District is actually black-on-black (including our neighborhood). And, yes, most cross-racial crime is black-on-white, but again, this is by no means unique to SW -- it's a trend NATIONWIDE.

I also find it strange that you mention hate crimes. Did you know? In 2009, the year of Blank's murder, our MPD District (#1) actually had the lowest number of hate crimes of any DC district. Combined totals from 2008 & 2009 show we have the second lowest over that time. Does that mean hate crimes are absent? Of course not -- as we have seen. But saying that WE are the ones experiencing some kind of new epidemic would be, as you put it, “painting it as something it isn’t.”

You might think I'm covering up reality with statistics (even though statistics ARE the easiest way to approximate reality), but when you use anecdotes to cover up a known statistical observation, we call that bias. Go find a random person unfamiliar with SW, show them the crime stats for DC and then try to convince them we’re the hotbed for a “turf war” and "terrorizing" thugs. $20 says they don’t buy it – I mean, how could they? Stop living in your world, start living in the real world. Your refusal to portray something honestly, as I said before, de-legitimizes a valid concern about continued crime in our neighborhood and does us all a disservice.

SWill said...

@ PostIt: Sorry about the delay in displaying your comment. For some reason, your comment went into the spam folder. I was wondering why I kept getting the same comment from you in my inbox...I was about to make a smart comment like "no need to beat a head horse" but then I took a look at the spam folder and found your multiple comments.

Anonymous said...

Can we have some police presence sometime? Safeway says it is Metro's problem, Metro blames Safeway etc. No one is in control but the mall security. They should be responsible for having guards protect citizens from the generational people in the projects. Not only do the teens act up in Safeway but the adults are horrible also. Show your receipt if you have nothing to be ashamed of, if you do then or do not like showing a receipt go to Georgetown and see how you will be followed up and down the aisles.

PostIt said...

@SWill
Aha! That explains it! I thought my browser was going haywire. I appreciate the follow up and I will try not to spam you again :-)

Anonymous said...

Why is DC government (and our politicians) continuing to support and protect the type of behavior we are discussing here? When can we expect our tax dollars to represent re-development in SW that includes Greenleaf Gardens, James Creek, and Syphax Gardens PH -- ? -- We have had these discussions often enough and for long enough -- I expect when we have voted to have the same type of redevelopment as witnessed across the street from the Department of Transportation in SE, then we will begin to have the type of community we deserve --
less the intimidation, violence, litter, theft, drugs, etc. This also includes redevelopment that improves the tax base for city planning due to an increase in law abiding tax paying citizens, who dwell in SW in a manner that negates the need for the type of discussion we are having here.