I have lived in this community for 20+ years and have been very active in the community - church, boards, civic groups, etc. I absolutely know hundreds of community members, and I’m not sure why that is hard to grasp.
Of course the majority of people aren’t aware of this project, that is why I’m working my ass off to make sure everybody is aware of the monstrosity that is being railroaded into our community behind our back with no real public outreach. That is why I am discussing it with you.
And again, I don’t know anybody who is against renovating/replacing the library and civic center. I’m all for that! What we oppose is the city stealing private land and gifting it to their favored developers to build fancy new apartments where our infrastructure cannot handle it. If they want to renovate or replace the library and civic center, they should renegade or replace the civic center and library, full stop.
Which part(s) of "our infrastructure" cannot handle it, and how can "our infrastructure" not handle it?
Oh, I don’t know. Maybe the Ward 3 schools which are already the most over crowded in the city?
The addition of some number of affordable units is not going to break the bank for inboundry schools. And really, the lines should have been redrawn decades ago, or a few years ago, or right now. It is crazy the concentration of students from across the city in Ward 3 schools. But this proposal is not going to be material on that front.
It also won;t be material on things like water pipe, electric consumption etc.
Infrastrucutre is just another NIMBY buzzword to try to kill projects.
We have had all sorts of new development over the past 15 years and the NIMBYs have used infrastructure as part of their game the whole time and at the end of the day, nothing much has changed.
Ahhhh. But this is a common deflection technique. “Oh, Shepherd only sends 20 kids a year to Deal, so it’s not a big deal.” Or, “Oh, there’s only a handful of OOB kids at Hearst, so it’s not a big deal.” Or now, “ The addition of some number of affordable units is not going to break the bank for inboundry schools.”
Well you know what? When you add it all up it is breaking the bank.
What are you doing to increase school capacity in Ward 3?
You’re asking the wrong question.
How is that the wrong question?
Lafeyette, Deal, and Jackson Reed (/Wilson) are already well over capacity. We cannot handle any more residential development until we have a new High School, middle school, and at least one new elementary school up and running for at least a few years to analyze existing development capacity. Period. Our schools can’t handle it now, and may not be able to handle it even after expansion considering the current crisis.
The only problem with this argument is that there is literally nothing stopping the owner of the building in which say Blue44 is housed, from deciding to throw up an apartment building if they thought they could make enough $$$s to justify the investment.
They would only have to abide by current zoning and other regulations which do not factor in the things you mention above regarding schools.
Also, there is no way the city would ever condition development on a new high school (although...there is a new high school in Macarthur which starting next year all Hardy kids will have to attend, which will help at Jackson-Reed), middle school and elementary school...I mean, that is a fantasy.
The City Council can amend the zoning code and/or institute a residential moratorium whenever they feel like it. The answer is we need to make sure to keep the pressure on them to fix this broken system.
Problem is that the developers are bankrolling them and making them filthy rich, and is little guys simply can’t compete. But we can protest and make their lives as uncomfortable as possible to save our neighborhood. Personally, I would like to see resistance like ‘Cop City’ down in Atlanta for any residential development constructed prior to adequate school system expansions to accommodate future pressure from both current and future residential developments.
Again, let's keep the discussion to the real world. The City Council is not going to institute a residential moratorium, nor would it be worth anyone's time to advocate for that. You won't be viewed seriously. Also, zoning is going towards less SFH and more mullti-family development...what you are really saying is that the City Council needs to be completely revamped, and then maybe those new council members could change the zoning.
“Just give up because corrupt city council members are corrupt!” Is not a good argument.
Yes, the implication is that we need new leadership who are willing to stand up for local residents, not development interests and protect our neighborhoods. There are a good number of reasons why we need new leadership (crime, corruption, lying, etc…), but this is certainly one of them.
I strongly disagree with the current trends in urban development to discourage/prohibit construction of single family homes for these massive high density developments. If you ask the vast majority of Americans, their ideal home is a single family home, with a yard, and a garage, in a nice, well-kept neighborhood of the same. Building thousands of “luxury” apartments will not change the fact that this demand will not be met, and in fact will only increase demand (and ultimately cost) on a diminishing supply of single family ideal housing. People will rent for a few years, but all that is doing is offsetting demand for a short period.
If DC actually cared about increasing the supply of affordable housing, they would be identifying and incentivizing the construction of more modest single family homes in more affordable neighborhoods, not the construction of more “luxury” apartments in Chevy Chase for the middle class to live in for a year or two while they save up a down payment on an increasingly expensive long term home.
SFH is the worst land use in human history. We don;t have enough land for everyone to live in SFH. As it is, our region is begrimed by an inadequate transportation system to handle what we have. We have to totally rethink how people live, work, play and get around, and SFH and cars are not the way to do it.
Funny thing then that people are willing to pay millions to live in a Victorian foursquare SFH on Morrison Street in Chevy Chase. Why on earth would anyone want to live in them?
Those houses are already there, built at a time when land was plentiful. If one were designing a city from scratch given today's population, there wouldn't be single family homes.
Cities need rich people. And most rich people want yards and SFH. You may not like that fact. But that will never change.
I guess you haven't see where rich people live in NY City or Singapore or Hing Kong?
Yes, I know those cities and those rich people very well. And I know that the very second that their business obligations no longer require them to be in the city that they flee to their large SFH with a yard. Because living on top of each other in cities is a horrible way to live, no matter how you try to sugar coat it.
This is one reason why Spring Valley and the “village in the city” neighborhoods like Chevy Chase, Cleveland Park, Palisades remain so popular and pricey. There are nice houses, yards and green spaces, and neighborhood-serving retail nearby. It’s a head scratcher why the DC central planners and their developer allies want to change the essence of what has helped to make D.C. so desirable to people who might otherwise move to MD and VA.
Because we are running out of space and need to continue to add housing opportunities, particularly for the people who actually work in these expensive "village" communities. Or do you think it is sustainable and attractive that our first responders and health care workers all commute in from West Virginia to serve you?
Instead of spending a lot of tax money on so many drug addicts and quasi-criminals to use vouchers to live in the apartment buildings on Connecticut Ave, why not provide apartments on favorable terms to cops and firefighters to live there? This would have the added benefit of encouraging more voucher recipients to fly right.
This is the best idea to bring the middle class in. Then the city can develop the library and community center to actually serve the community, especially the youth, who need social spaces and activities. So many possibilities! What about a roof-top community garden, music rooms for kids to practice in, a community theater, or an arts center with a kiln?
Or apartments for people to live on top of the community center and library? More community!
But apartments are private spaces. No one wants strangers traipsing through their living areas (understandably). No, they can live in the many apartment buildings on Connecticut Ave. With voucher assistance for teachers, police, firefighters, and nurses.
The public space of the whole community can remain wholly public. It’s a win win.
I think you must be confused. Community center and library (public spaces) below - to be used by people who are members of the community. Apartments (private spaces) above - to be lived in by people who are members of the community.
I have lived in this community for 20+ years and have been very active in the community - church, boards, civic groups, etc. I absolutely know hundreds of community members, and I’m not sure why that is hard to grasp.
Of course the majority of people aren’t aware of this project, that is why I’m working my ass off to make sure everybody is aware of the monstrosity that is being railroaded into our community behind our back with no real public outreach. That is why I am discussing it with you.
And again, I don’t know anybody who is against renovating/replacing the library and civic center. I’m all for that! What we oppose is the city stealing private land and gifting it to their favored developers to build fancy new apartments where our infrastructure cannot handle it. If they want to renovate or replace the library and civic center, they should renegade or replace the civic center and library, full stop.
Which part(s) of "our infrastructure" cannot handle it, and how can "our infrastructure" not handle it?
Oh, I don’t know. Maybe the Ward 3 schools which are already the most over crowded in the city?
The addition of some number of affordable units is not going to break the bank for inboundry schools. And really, the lines should have been redrawn decades ago, or a few years ago, or right now. It is crazy the concentration of students from across the city in Ward 3 schools. But this proposal is not going to be material on that front.
It also won;t be material on things like water pipe, electric consumption etc.
Infrastrucutre is just another NIMBY buzzword to try to kill projects.
We have had all sorts of new development over the past 15 years and the NIMBYs have used infrastructure as part of their game the whole time and at the end of the day, nothing much has changed.
Ahhhh. But this is a common deflection technique. “Oh, Shepherd only sends 20 kids a year to Deal, so it’s not a big deal.” Or, “Oh, there’s only a handful of OOB kids at Hearst, so it’s not a big deal.” Or now, “ The addition of some number of affordable units is not going to break the bank for inboundry schools.”
Well you know what? When you add it all up it is breaking the bank.
What are you doing to increase school capacity in Ward 3?
You’re asking the wrong question.
How is that the wrong question?
Lafeyette, Deal, and Jackson Reed (/Wilson) are already well over capacity. We cannot handle any more residential development until we have a new High School, middle school, and at least one new elementary school up and running for at least a few years to analyze existing development capacity. Period. Our schools can’t handle it now, and may not be able to handle it even after expansion considering the current crisis.
The only problem with this argument is that there is literally nothing stopping the owner of the building in which say Blue44 is housed, from deciding to throw up an apartment building if they thought they could make enough $$$s to justify the investment.
They would only have to abide by current zoning and other regulations which do not factor in the things you mention above regarding schools.
Also, there is no way the city would ever condition development on a new high school (although...there is a new high school in Macarthur which starting next year all Hardy kids will have to attend, which will help at Jackson-Reed), middle school and elementary school...I mean, that is a fantasy.
The City Council can amend the zoning code and/or institute a residential moratorium whenever they feel like it. The answer is we need to make sure to keep the pressure on them to fix this broken system.
Problem is that the developers are bankrolling them and making them filthy rich, and is little guys simply can’t compete. But we can protest and make their lives as uncomfortable as possible to save our neighborhood. Personally, I would like to see resistance like ‘Cop City’ down in Atlanta for any residential development constructed prior to adequate school system expansions to accommodate future pressure from both current and future residential developments.
Again, let's keep the discussion to the real world. The City Council is not going to institute a residential moratorium, nor would it be worth anyone's time to advocate for that. You won't be viewed seriously. Also, zoning is going towards less SFH and more mullti-family development...what you are really saying is that the City Council needs to be completely revamped, and then maybe those new council members could change the zoning.
“Just give up because corrupt city council members are corrupt!” Is not a good argument.
Yes, the implication is that we need new leadership who are willing to stand up for local residents, not development interests and protect our neighborhoods. There are a good number of reasons why we need new leadership (crime, corruption, lying, etc…), but this is certainly one of them.
I strongly disagree with the current trends in urban development to discourage/prohibit construction of single family homes for these massive high density developments. If you ask the vast majority of Americans, their ideal home is a single family home, with a yard, and a garage, in a nice, well-kept neighborhood of the same. Building thousands of “luxury” apartments will not change the fact that this demand will not be met, and in fact will only increase demand (and ultimately cost) on a diminishing supply of single family ideal housing. People will rent for a few years, but all that is doing is offsetting demand for a short period.
If DC actually cared about increasing the supply of affordable housing, they would be identifying and incentivizing the construction of more modest single family homes in more affordable neighborhoods, not the construction of more “luxury” apartments in Chevy Chase for the middle class to live in for a year or two while they save up a down payment on an increasingly expensive long term home.
SFH is the worst land use in human history. We don;t have enough land for everyone to live in SFH. As it is, our region is begrimed by an inadequate transportation system to handle what we have. We have to totally rethink how people live, work, play and get around, and SFH and cars are not the way to do it.
Funny thing then that people are willing to pay millions to live in a Victorian foursquare SFH on Morrison Street in Chevy Chase. Why on earth would anyone want to live in them?
Those houses are already there, built at a time when land was plentiful. If one were designing a city from scratch given today's population, there wouldn't be single family homes.
Cities need rich people. And most rich people want yards and SFH. You may not like that fact. But that will never change.
I guess you haven't see where rich people live in NY City or Singapore or Hing Kong?
Yes, I know those cities and those rich people very well. And I know that the very second that their business obligations no longer require them to be in the city that they flee to their large SFH with a yard. Because living on top of each other in cities is a horrible way to live, no matter how you try to sugar coat it.
This is one reason why Spring Valley and the “village in the city” neighborhoods like Chevy Chase, Cleveland Park, Palisades remain so popular and pricey. There are nice houses, yards and green spaces, and neighborhood-serving retail nearby. It’s a head scratcher why the DC central planners and their developer allies want to change the essence of what has helped to make D.C. so desirable to people who might otherwise move to MD and VA.
Because we are running out of space and need to continue to add housing opportunities, particularly for the people who actually work in these expensive "village" communities. Or do you think it is sustainable and attractive that our first responders and health care workers all commute in from West Virginia to serve you?
Instead of spending a lot of tax money on so many drug addicts and quasi-criminals to use vouchers to live in the apartment buildings on Connecticut Ave, why not provide apartments on favorable terms to cops and firefighters to live there? This would have the added benefit of encouraging more voucher recipients to fly right.
This is the best idea to bring the middle class in. Then the city can develop the library and community center to actually serve the community, especially the youth, who need social spaces and activities. So many possibilities! What about a roof-top community garden, music rooms for kids to practice in, a community theater, or an arts center with a kiln?
Or apartments for people to live on top of the community center and library? More community!
But apartments are private spaces. No one wants strangers traipsing through their living areas (understandably). No, they can live in the many apartment buildings on Connecticut Ave. With voucher assistance for teachers, police, firefighters, and nurses.
The public space of the whole community can remain wholly public. It’s a win win.
I think you must be confused. Community center and library (public spaces) below - to be used by people who are members of the community. Apartments (private spaces) above - to be lived in by people who are members of the community.
Oh I see the community center will be shrunk down to a room-off-the-lobby kind of thing. And no noise, or performances, or a garden, or late hours, right? It will kind of be like the way the Taco Bell shares with KFC, or something.
I have lived in this community for 20+ years and have been very active in the community - church, boards, civic groups, etc. I absolutely know hundreds of community members, and I’m not sure why that is hard to grasp.
Of course the majority of people aren’t aware of this project, that is why I’m working my ass off to make sure everybody is aware of the monstrosity that is being railroaded into our community behind our back with no real public outreach. That is why I am discussing it with you.
And again, I don’t know anybody who is against renovating/replacing the library and civic center. I’m all for that! What we oppose is the city stealing private land and gifting it to their favored developers to build fancy new apartments where our infrastructure cannot handle it. If they want to renovate or replace the library and civic center, they should renegade or replace the civic center and library, full stop.
Which part(s) of "our infrastructure" cannot handle it, and how can "our infrastructure" not handle it?
Oh, I don’t know. Maybe the Ward 3 schools which are already the most over crowded in the city?
The addition of some number of affordable units is not going to break the bank for inboundry schools. And really, the lines should have been redrawn decades ago, or a few years ago, or right now. It is crazy the concentration of students from across the city in Ward 3 schools. But this proposal is not going to be material on that front.
It also won;t be material on things like water pipe, electric consumption etc.
Infrastrucutre is just another NIMBY buzzword to try to kill projects.
We have had all sorts of new development over the past 15 years and the NIMBYs have used infrastructure as part of their game the whole time and at the end of the day, nothing much has changed.
Ahhhh. But this is a common deflection technique. “Oh, Shepherd only sends 20 kids a year to Deal, so it’s not a big deal.” Or, “Oh, there’s only a handful of OOB kids at Hearst, so it’s not a big deal.” Or now, “ The addition of some number of affordable units is not going to break the bank for inboundry schools.”
Well you know what? When you add it all up it is breaking the bank.
What are you doing to increase school capacity in Ward 3?
You’re asking the wrong question.
How is that the wrong question?
Lafeyette, Deal, and Jackson Reed (/Wilson) are already well over capacity. We cannot handle any more residential development until we have a new High School, middle school, and at least one new elementary school up and running for at least a few years to analyze existing development capacity. Period. Our schools can’t handle it now, and may not be able to handle it even after expansion considering the current crisis.
The only problem with this argument is that there is literally nothing stopping the owner of the building in which say Blue44 is housed, from deciding to throw up an apartment building if they thought they could make enough $$$s to justify the investment.
They would only have to abide by current zoning and other regulations which do not factor in the things you mention above regarding schools.
Also, there is no way the city would ever condition development on a new high school (although...there is a new high school in Macarthur which starting next year all Hardy kids will have to attend, which will help at Jackson-Reed), middle school and elementary school...I mean, that is a fantasy.
The City Council can amend the zoning code and/or institute a residential moratorium whenever they feel like it. The answer is we need to make sure to keep the pressure on them to fix this broken system.
Problem is that the developers are bankrolling them and making them filthy rich, and is little guys simply can’t compete. But we can protest and make their lives as uncomfortable as possible to save our neighborhood. Personally, I would like to see resistance like ‘Cop City’ down in Atlanta for any residential development constructed prior to adequate school system expansions to accommodate future pressure from both current and future residential developments.
Again, let's keep the discussion to the real world. The City Council is not going to institute a residential moratorium, nor would it be worth anyone's time to advocate for that. You won't be viewed seriously. Also, zoning is going towards less SFH and more mullti-family development...what you are really saying is that the City Council needs to be completely revamped, and then maybe those new council members could change the zoning.
“Just give up because corrupt city council members are corrupt!” Is not a good argument.
Yes, the implication is that we need new leadership who are willing to stand up for local residents, not development interests and protect our neighborhoods. There are a good number of reasons why we need new leadership (crime, corruption, lying, etc…), but this is certainly one of them.
I strongly disagree with the current trends in urban development to discourage/prohibit construction of single family homes for these massive high density developments. If you ask the vast majority of Americans, their ideal home is a single family home, with a yard, and a garage, in a nice, well-kept neighborhood of the same. Building thousands of “luxury” apartments will not change the fact that this demand will not be met, and in fact will only increase demand (and ultimately cost) on a diminishing supply of single family ideal housing. People will rent for a few years, but all that is doing is offsetting demand for a short period.
If DC actually cared about increasing the supply of affordable housing, they would be identifying and incentivizing the construction of more modest single family homes in more affordable neighborhoods, not the construction of more “luxury” apartments in Chevy Chase for the middle class to live in for a year or two while they save up a down payment on an increasingly expensive long term home.
SFH is the worst land use in human history. We don;t have enough land for everyone to live in SFH. As it is, our region is begrimed by an inadequate transportation system to handle what we have. We have to totally rethink how people live, work, play and get around, and SFH and cars are not the way to do it.
Funny thing then that people are willing to pay millions to live in a Victorian foursquare SFH on Morrison Street in Chevy Chase. Why on earth would anyone want to live in them?
Those houses are already there, built at a time when land was plentiful. If one were designing a city from scratch given today's population, there wouldn't be single family homes.
Cities need rich people. And most rich people want yards and SFH. You may not like that fact. But that will never change.
I guess you haven't see where rich people live in NY City or Singapore or Hing Kong?
Yes, I know those cities and those rich people very well. And I know that the very second that their business obligations no longer require them to be in the city that they flee to their large SFH with a yard. Because living on top of each other in cities is a horrible way to live, no matter how you try to sugar coat it.
This is one reason why Spring Valley and the “village in the city” neighborhoods like Chevy Chase, Cleveland Park, Palisades remain so popular and pricey. There are nice houses, yards and green spaces, and neighborhood-serving retail nearby. It’s a head scratcher why the DC central planners and their developer allies want to change the essence of what has helped to make D.C. so desirable to people who might otherwise move to MD and VA.
Because we are running out of space and need to continue to add housing opportunities, particularly for the people who actually work in these expensive "village" communities. Or do you think it is sustainable and attractive that our first responders and health care workers all commute in from West Virginia to serve you?
Instead of spending a lot of tax money on so many drug addicts and quasi-criminals to use vouchers to live in the apartment buildings on Connecticut Ave, why not provide apartments on favorable terms to cops and firefighters to live there? This would have the added benefit of encouraging more voucher recipients to fly right.
This is the best idea to bring the middle class in. Then the city can develop the library and community center to actually serve the community, especially the youth, who need social spaces and activities. So many possibilities! What about a roof-top community garden, music rooms for kids to practice in, a community theater, or an arts center with a kiln?
Or apartments for people to live on top of the community center and library? More community!
But apartments are private spaces. No one wants strangers traipsing through their living areas (understandably). No, they can live in the many apartment buildings on Connecticut Ave. With voucher assistance for teachers, police, firefighters, and nurses.
The public space of the whole community can remain wholly public. It’s a win win.
I think you must be confused. Community center and library (public spaces) below - to be used by people who are members of the community. Apartments (private spaces) above - to be lived in by people who are members of the community.
Oh I see the community center will be shrunk down to a room-off-the-lobby kind of thing. And no noise, or performances, or a garden, or late hours, right? It will kind of be like the way the Taco Bell shares with KFC, or something.
I have lived in this community for 20+ years and have been very active in the community - church, boards, civic groups, etc. I absolutely know hundreds of community members, and I’m not sure why that is hard to grasp.
Of course the majority of people aren’t aware of this project, that is why I’m working my ass off to make sure everybody is aware of the monstrosity that is being railroaded into our community behind our back with no real public outreach. That is why I am discussing it with you.
And again, I don’t know anybody who is against renovating/replacing the library and civic center. I’m all for that! What we oppose is the city stealing private land and gifting it to their favored developers to build fancy new apartments where our infrastructure cannot handle it. If they want to renovate or replace the library and civic center, they should renegade or replace the civic center and library, full stop.
Which part(s) of "our infrastructure" cannot handle it, and how can "our infrastructure" not handle it?
Oh, I don’t know. Maybe the Ward 3 schools which are already the most over crowded in the city?
The addition of some number of affordable units is not going to break the bank for inboundry schools. And really, the lines should have been redrawn decades ago, or a few years ago, or right now. It is crazy the concentration of students from across the city in Ward 3 schools. But this proposal is not going to be material on that front.
It also won;t be material on things like water pipe, electric consumption etc.
Infrastrucutre is just another NIMBY buzzword to try to kill projects.
We have had all sorts of new development over the past 15 years and the NIMBYs have used infrastructure as part of their game the whole time and at the end of the day, nothing much has changed.
Ahhhh. But this is a common deflection technique. “Oh, Shepherd only sends 20 kids a year to Deal, so it’s not a big deal.” Or, “Oh, there’s only a handful of OOB kids at Hearst, so it’s not a big deal.” Or now, “ The addition of some number of affordable units is not going to break the bank for inboundry schools.”
Well you know what? When you add it all up it is breaking the bank.
What are you doing to increase school capacity in Ward 3?
You’re asking the wrong question.
How is that the wrong question?
Lafeyette, Deal, and Jackson Reed (/Wilson) are already well over capacity. We cannot handle any more residential development until we have a new High School, middle school, and at least one new elementary school up and running for at least a few years to analyze existing development capacity. Period. Our schools can’t handle it now, and may not be able to handle it even after expansion considering the current crisis.
The only problem with this argument is that there is literally nothing stopping the owner of the building in which say Blue44 is housed, from deciding to throw up an apartment building if they thought they could make enough $$$s to justify the investment.
They would only have to abide by current zoning and other regulations which do not factor in the things you mention above regarding schools.
Also, there is no way the city would ever condition development on a new high school (although...there is a new high school in Macarthur which starting next year all Hardy kids will have to attend, which will help at Jackson-Reed), middle school and elementary school...I mean, that is a fantasy.
The City Council can amend the zoning code and/or institute a residential moratorium whenever they feel like it. The answer is we need to make sure to keep the pressure on them to fix this broken system.
Problem is that the developers are bankrolling them and making them filthy rich, and is little guys simply can’t compete. But we can protest and make their lives as uncomfortable as possible to save our neighborhood. Personally, I would like to see resistance like ‘Cop City’ down in Atlanta for any residential development constructed prior to adequate school system expansions to accommodate future pressure from both current and future residential developments.
Again, let's keep the discussion to the real world. The City Council is not going to institute a residential moratorium, nor would it be worth anyone's time to advocate for that. You won't be viewed seriously. Also, zoning is going towards less SFH and more mullti-family development...what you are really saying is that the City Council needs to be completely revamped, and then maybe those new council members could change the zoning.
“Just give up because corrupt city council members are corrupt!” Is not a good argument.
Yes, the implication is that we need new leadership who are willing to stand up for local residents, not development interests and protect our neighborhoods. There are a good number of reasons why we need new leadership (crime, corruption, lying, etc…), but this is certainly one of them.
I strongly disagree with the current trends in urban development to discourage/prohibit construction of single family homes for these massive high density developments. If you ask the vast majority of Americans, their ideal home is a single family home, with a yard, and a garage, in a nice, well-kept neighborhood of the same. Building thousands of “luxury” apartments will not change the fact that this demand will not be met, and in fact will only increase demand (and ultimately cost) on a diminishing supply of single family ideal housing. People will rent for a few years, but all that is doing is offsetting demand for a short period.
If DC actually cared about increasing the supply of affordable housing, they would be identifying and incentivizing the construction of more modest single family homes in more affordable neighborhoods, not the construction of more “luxury” apartments in Chevy Chase for the middle class to live in for a year or two while they save up a down payment on an increasingly expensive long term home.
SFH is the worst land use in human history. We don;t have enough land for everyone to live in SFH. As it is, our region is begrimed by an inadequate transportation system to handle what we have. We have to totally rethink how people live, work, play and get around, and SFH and cars are not the way to do it.
Funny thing then that people are willing to pay millions to live in a Victorian foursquare SFH on Morrison Street in Chevy Chase. Why on earth would anyone want to live in them?
Those houses are already there, built at a time when land was plentiful. If one were designing a city from scratch given today's population, there wouldn't be single family homes.
Cities need rich people. And most rich people want yards and SFH. You may not like that fact. But that will never change.
I guess you haven't see where rich people live in NY City or Singapore or Hing Kong?
Yes, I know those cities and those rich people very well. And I know that the very second that their business obligations no longer require them to be in the city that they flee to their large SFH with a yard. Because living on top of each other in cities is a horrible way to live, no matter how you try to sugar coat it.
This is one reason why Spring Valley and the “village in the city” neighborhoods like Chevy Chase, Cleveland Park, Palisades remain so popular and pricey. There are nice houses, yards and green spaces, and neighborhood-serving retail nearby. It’s a head scratcher why the DC central planners and their developer allies want to change the essence of what has helped to make D.C. so desirable to people who might otherwise move to MD and VA.
Because we are running out of space and need to continue to add housing opportunities, particularly for the people who actually work in these expensive "village" communities. Or do you think it is sustainable and attractive that our first responders and health care workers all commute in from West Virginia to serve you?
Instead of spending a lot of tax money on so many drug addicts and quasi-criminals to use vouchers to live in the apartment buildings on Connecticut Ave, why not provide apartments on favorable terms to cops and firefighters to live there? This would have the added benefit of encouraging more voucher recipients to fly right.
This is the best idea to bring the middle class in. Then the city can develop the library and community center to actually serve the community, especially the youth, who need social spaces and activities. So many possibilities! What about a roof-top community garden, music rooms for kids to practice in, a community theater, or an arts center with a kiln?
Or apartments for people to live on top of the community center and library? More community!
But apartments are private spaces. No one wants strangers traipsing through their living areas (understandably). No, they can live in the many apartment buildings on Connecticut Ave. With voucher assistance for teachers, police, firefighters, and nurses.
The public space of the whole community can remain wholly public. It’s a win win.
I think you must be confused. Community center and library (public spaces) below - to be used by people who are members of the community. Apartments (private spaces) above - to be lived in by people who are members of the community.
Oh I see the community center will be shrunk down to a room-off-the-lobby kind of thing. And no noise, or performances, or a garden, or late hours, right? It will kind of be like the way the Taco Bell shares with KFC, or something.
I have lived in this community for 20+ years and have been very active in the community - church, boards, civic groups, etc. I absolutely know hundreds of community members, and I’m not sure why that is hard to grasp.
Of course the majority of people aren’t aware of this project, that is why I’m working my ass off to make sure everybody is aware of the monstrosity that is being railroaded into our community behind our back with no real public outreach. That is why I am discussing it with you.
And again, I don’t know anybody who is against renovating/replacing the library and civic center. I’m all for that! What we oppose is the city stealing private land and gifting it to their favored developers to build fancy new apartments where our infrastructure cannot handle it. If they want to renovate or replace the library and civic center, they should renegade or replace the civic center and library, full stop.
Which part(s) of "our infrastructure" cannot handle it, and how can "our infrastructure" not handle it?
Oh, I don’t know. Maybe the Ward 3 schools which are already the most over crowded in the city?
The addition of some number of affordable units is not going to break the bank for inboundry schools. And really, the lines should have been redrawn decades ago, or a few years ago, or right now. It is crazy the concentration of students from across the city in Ward 3 schools. But this proposal is not going to be material on that front.
It also won;t be material on things like water pipe, electric consumption etc.
Infrastrucutre is just another NIMBY buzzword to try to kill projects.
We have had all sorts of new development over the past 15 years and the NIMBYs have used infrastructure as part of their game the whole time and at the end of the day, nothing much has changed.
Ahhhh. But this is a common deflection technique. “Oh, Shepherd only sends 20 kids a year to Deal, so it’s not a big deal.” Or, “Oh, there’s only a handful of OOB kids at Hearst, so it’s not a big deal.” Or now, “ The addition of some number of affordable units is not going to break the bank for inboundry schools.”
Well you know what? When you add it all up it is breaking the bank.
What are you doing to increase school capacity in Ward 3?
You’re asking the wrong question.
How is that the wrong question?
Lafeyette, Deal, and Jackson Reed (/Wilson) are already well over capacity. We cannot handle any more residential development until we have a new High School, middle school, and at least one new elementary school up and running for at least a few years to analyze existing development capacity. Period. Our schools can’t handle it now, and may not be able to handle it even after expansion considering the current crisis.
The only problem with this argument is that there is literally nothing stopping the owner of the building in which say Blue44 is housed, from deciding to throw up an apartment building if they thought they could make enough $$$s to justify the investment.
They would only have to abide by current zoning and other regulations which do not factor in the things you mention above regarding schools.
Also, there is no way the city would ever condition development on a new high school (although...there is a new high school in Macarthur which starting next year all Hardy kids will have to attend, which will help at Jackson-Reed), middle school and elementary school...I mean, that is a fantasy.
The City Council can amend the zoning code and/or institute a residential moratorium whenever they feel like it. The answer is we need to make sure to keep the pressure on them to fix this broken system.
Problem is that the developers are bankrolling them and making them filthy rich, and is little guys simply can’t compete. But we can protest and make their lives as uncomfortable as possible to save our neighborhood. Personally, I would like to see resistance like ‘Cop City’ down in Atlanta for any residential development constructed prior to adequate school system expansions to accommodate future pressure from both current and future residential developments.
Again, let's keep the discussion to the real world. The City Council is not going to institute a residential moratorium, nor would it be worth anyone's time to advocate for that. You won't be viewed seriously. Also, zoning is going towards less SFH and more mullti-family development...what you are really saying is that the City Council needs to be completely revamped, and then maybe those new council members could change the zoning.
“Just give up because corrupt city council members are corrupt!” Is not a good argument.
Yes, the implication is that we need new leadership who are willing to stand up for local residents, not development interests and protect our neighborhoods. There are a good number of reasons why we need new leadership (crime, corruption, lying, etc…), but this is certainly one of them.
I strongly disagree with the current trends in urban development to discourage/prohibit construction of single family homes for these massive high density developments. If you ask the vast majority of Americans, their ideal home is a single family home, with a yard, and a garage, in a nice, well-kept neighborhood of the same. Building thousands of “luxury” apartments will not change the fact that this demand will not be met, and in fact will only increase demand (and ultimately cost) on a diminishing supply of single family ideal housing. People will rent for a few years, but all that is doing is offsetting demand for a short period.
If DC actually cared about increasing the supply of affordable housing, they would be identifying and incentivizing the construction of more modest single family homes in more affordable neighborhoods, not the construction of more “luxury” apartments in Chevy Chase for the middle class to live in for a year or two while they save up a down payment on an increasingly expensive long term home.
SFH is the worst land use in human history. We don;t have enough land for everyone to live in SFH. As it is, our region is begrimed by an inadequate transportation system to handle what we have. We have to totally rethink how people live, work, play and get around, and SFH and cars are not the way to do it.
Funny thing then that people are willing to pay millions to live in a Victorian foursquare SFH on Morrison Street in Chevy Chase. Why on earth would anyone want to live in them?
Those houses are already there, built at a time when land was plentiful. If one were designing a city from scratch given today's population, there wouldn't be single family homes.
Cities need rich people. And most rich people want yards and SFH. You may not like that fact. But that will never change.
I guess you haven't see where rich people live in NY City or Singapore or Hing Kong?
Yes, I know those cities and those rich people very well. And I know that the very second that their business obligations no longer require them to be in the city that they flee to their large SFH with a yard. Because living on top of each other in cities is a horrible way to live, no matter how you try to sugar coat it.
This is one reason why Spring Valley and the “village in the city” neighborhoods like Chevy Chase, Cleveland Park, Palisades remain so popular and pricey. There are nice houses, yards and green spaces, and neighborhood-serving retail nearby. It’s a head scratcher why the DC central planners and their developer allies want to change the essence of what has helped to make D.C. so desirable to people who might otherwise move to MD and VA.
Because we are running out of space and need to continue to add housing opportunities, particularly for the people who actually work in these expensive "village" communities. Or do you think it is sustainable and attractive that our first responders and health care workers all commute in from West Virginia to serve you?
Instead of spending a lot of tax money on so many drug addicts and quasi-criminals to use vouchers to live in the apartment buildings on Connecticut Ave, why not provide apartments on favorable terms to cops and firefighters to live there? This would have the added benefit of encouraging more voucher recipients to fly right.
This is the best idea to bring the middle class in. Then the city can develop the library and community center to actually serve the community, especially the youth, who need social spaces and activities. So many possibilities! What about a roof-top community garden, music rooms for kids to practice in, a community theater, or an arts center with a kiln?
Or apartments for people to live on top of the community center and library? More community!
But apartments are private spaces. No one wants strangers traipsing through their living areas (understandably). No, they can live in the many apartment buildings on Connecticut Ave. With voucher assistance for teachers, police, firefighters, and nurses.
The public space of the whole community can remain wholly public. It’s a win win.
I think you must be confused. Community center and library (public spaces) below - to be used by people who are members of the community. Apartments (private spaces) above - to be lived in by people who are members of the community.
Oh I see the community center will be shrunk down to a room-off-the-lobby kind of thing. And no noise, or performances, or a garden, or late hours, right? It will kind of be like the way the Taco Bell shares with KFC, or something.
I guess you didn;t attend any of the public meetings where community wishes were expressed and incorporated into letters from the ANC to the city; and where city officials described their vision. instead you continue to post these woe-is-me illinformed misinformation doom and gloom tropes.
I have lived in this community for 20+ years and have been very active in the community - church, boards, civic groups, etc. I absolutely know hundreds of community members, and I’m not sure why that is hard to grasp.
Of course the majority of people aren’t aware of this project, that is why I’m working my ass off to make sure everybody is aware of the monstrosity that is being railroaded into our community behind our back with no real public outreach. That is why I am discussing it with you.
And again, I don’t know anybody who is against renovating/replacing the library and civic center. I’m all for that! What we oppose is the city stealing private land and gifting it to their favored developers to build fancy new apartments where our infrastructure cannot handle it. If they want to renovate or replace the library and civic center, they should renegade or replace the civic center and library, full stop.
Which part(s) of "our infrastructure" cannot handle it, and how can "our infrastructure" not handle it?
Oh, I don’t know. Maybe the Ward 3 schools which are already the most over crowded in the city?
The addition of some number of affordable units is not going to break the bank for inboundry schools. And really, the lines should have been redrawn decades ago, or a few years ago, or right now. It is crazy the concentration of students from across the city in Ward 3 schools. But this proposal is not going to be material on that front.
It also won;t be material on things like water pipe, electric consumption etc.
Infrastrucutre is just another NIMBY buzzword to try to kill projects.
We have had all sorts of new development over the past 15 years and the NIMBYs have used infrastructure as part of their game the whole time and at the end of the day, nothing much has changed.
Ahhhh. But this is a common deflection technique. “Oh, Shepherd only sends 20 kids a year to Deal, so it’s not a big deal.” Or, “Oh, there’s only a handful of OOB kids at Hearst, so it’s not a big deal.” Or now, “ The addition of some number of affordable units is not going to break the bank for inboundry schools.”
Well you know what? When you add it all up it is breaking the bank.
What are you doing to increase school capacity in Ward 3?
You’re asking the wrong question.
How is that the wrong question?
Lafeyette, Deal, and Jackson Reed (/Wilson) are already well over capacity. We cannot handle any more residential development until we have a new High School, middle school, and at least one new elementary school up and running for at least a few years to analyze existing development capacity. Period. Our schools can’t handle it now, and may not be able to handle it even after expansion considering the current crisis.
The only problem with this argument is that there is literally nothing stopping the owner of the building in which say Blue44 is housed, from deciding to throw up an apartment building if they thought they could make enough $$$s to justify the investment.
They would only have to abide by current zoning and other regulations which do not factor in the things you mention above regarding schools.
Also, there is no way the city would ever condition development on a new high school (although...there is a new high school in Macarthur which starting next year all Hardy kids will have to attend, which will help at Jackson-Reed), middle school and elementary school...I mean, that is a fantasy.
The City Council can amend the zoning code and/or institute a residential moratorium whenever they feel like it. The answer is we need to make sure to keep the pressure on them to fix this broken system.
Problem is that the developers are bankrolling them and making them filthy rich, and is little guys simply can’t compete. But we can protest and make their lives as uncomfortable as possible to save our neighborhood. Personally, I would like to see resistance like ‘Cop City’ down in Atlanta for any residential development constructed prior to adequate school system expansions to accommodate future pressure from both current and future residential developments.
Again, let's keep the discussion to the real world. The City Council is not going to institute a residential moratorium, nor would it be worth anyone's time to advocate for that. You won't be viewed seriously. Also, zoning is going towards less SFH and more mullti-family development...what you are really saying is that the City Council needs to be completely revamped, and then maybe those new council members could change the zoning.
“Just give up because corrupt city council members are corrupt!” Is not a good argument.
Yes, the implication is that we need new leadership who are willing to stand up for local residents, not development interests and protect our neighborhoods. There are a good number of reasons why we need new leadership (crime, corruption, lying, etc…), but this is certainly one of them.
I strongly disagree with the current trends in urban development to discourage/prohibit construction of single family homes for these massive high density developments. If you ask the vast majority of Americans, their ideal home is a single family home, with a yard, and a garage, in a nice, well-kept neighborhood of the same. Building thousands of “luxury” apartments will not change the fact that this demand will not be met, and in fact will only increase demand (and ultimately cost) on a diminishing supply of single family ideal housing. People will rent for a few years, but all that is doing is offsetting demand for a short period.
If DC actually cared about increasing the supply of affordable housing, they would be identifying and incentivizing the construction of more modest single family homes in more affordable neighborhoods, not the construction of more “luxury” apartments in Chevy Chase for the middle class to live in for a year or two while they save up a down payment on an increasingly expensive long term home.
SFH is the worst land use in human history. We don;t have enough land for everyone to live in SFH. As it is, our region is begrimed by an inadequate transportation system to handle what we have. We have to totally rethink how people live, work, play and get around, and SFH and cars are not the way to do it.
Funny thing then that people are willing to pay millions to live in a Victorian foursquare SFH on Morrison Street in Chevy Chase. Why on earth would anyone want to live in them?
Those houses are already there, built at a time when land was plentiful. If one were designing a city from scratch given today's population, there wouldn't be single family homes.
Cities need rich people. And most rich people want yards and SFH. You may not like that fact. But that will never change.
I guess you haven't see where rich people live in NY City or Singapore or Hing Kong?
Yes, I know those cities and those rich people very well. And I know that the very second that their business obligations no longer require them to be in the city that they flee to their large SFH with a yard. Because living on top of each other in cities is a horrible way to live, no matter how you try to sugar coat it.
This is one reason why Spring Valley and the “village in the city” neighborhoods like Chevy Chase, Cleveland Park, Palisades remain so popular and pricey. There are nice houses, yards and green spaces, and neighborhood-serving retail nearby. It’s a head scratcher why the DC central planners and their developer allies want to change the essence of what has helped to make D.C. so desirable to people who might otherwise move to MD and VA.
Because we are running out of space and need to continue to add housing opportunities, particularly for the people who actually work in these expensive "village" communities. Or do you think it is sustainable and attractive that our first responders and health care workers all commute in from West Virginia to serve you?
Instead of spending a lot of tax money on so many drug addicts and quasi-criminals to use vouchers to live in the apartment buildings on Connecticut Ave, why not provide apartments on favorable terms to cops and firefighters to live there? This would have the added benefit of encouraging more voucher recipients to fly right.
This is the best idea to bring the middle class in. Then the city can develop the library and community center to actually serve the community, especially the youth, who need social spaces and activities. So many possibilities! What about a roof-top community garden, music rooms for kids to practice in, a community theater, or an arts center with a kiln?
Or apartments for people to live on top of the community center and library? More community!
But apartments are private spaces. No one wants strangers traipsing through their living areas (understandably). No, they can live in the many apartment buildings on Connecticut Ave. With voucher assistance for teachers, police, firefighters, and nurses.
The public space of the whole community can remain wholly public. It’s a win win.
I think you must be confused. Community center and library (public spaces) below - to be used by people who are members of the community. Apartments (private spaces) above - to be lived in by people who are members of the community.
Oh I see the community center will be shrunk down to a room-off-the-lobby kind of thing. And no noise, or performances, or a garden, or late hours, right? It will kind of be like the way the Taco Bell shares with KFC, or something.
I guess you didn;t attend any of the public meetings where community wishes were expressed and incorporated into letters from the ANC to the city; and where city officials described their vision. instead you continue to post these woe-is-me illinformed misinformation doom and gloom tropes.
I missed it. Was John Falcicchio the city official?
I have lived in this community for 20+ years and have been very active in the community - church, boards, civic groups, etc. I absolutely know hundreds of community members, and I’m not sure why that is hard to grasp.
Of course the majority of people aren’t aware of this project, that is why I’m working my ass off to make sure everybody is aware of the monstrosity that is being railroaded into our community behind our back with no real public outreach. That is why I am discussing it with you.
And again, I don’t know anybody who is against renovating/replacing the library and civic center. I’m all for that! What we oppose is the city stealing private land and gifting it to their favored developers to build fancy new apartments where our infrastructure cannot handle it. If they want to renovate or replace the library and civic center, they should renegade or replace the civic center and library, full stop.
Which part(s) of "our infrastructure" cannot handle it, and how can "our infrastructure" not handle it?
Oh, I don’t know. Maybe the Ward 3 schools which are already the most over crowded in the city?
The addition of some number of affordable units is not going to break the bank for inboundry schools. And really, the lines should have been redrawn decades ago, or a few years ago, or right now. It is crazy the concentration of students from across the city in Ward 3 schools. But this proposal is not going to be material on that front.
It also won;t be material on things like water pipe, electric consumption etc.
Infrastrucutre is just another NIMBY buzzword to try to kill projects.
We have had all sorts of new development over the past 15 years and the NIMBYs have used infrastructure as part of their game the whole time and at the end of the day, nothing much has changed.
Ahhhh. But this is a common deflection technique. “Oh, Shepherd only sends 20 kids a year to Deal, so it’s not a big deal.” Or, “Oh, there’s only a handful of OOB kids at Hearst, so it’s not a big deal.” Or now, “ The addition of some number of affordable units is not going to break the bank for inboundry schools.”
Well you know what? When you add it all up it is breaking the bank.
What are you doing to increase school capacity in Ward 3?
You’re asking the wrong question.
How is that the wrong question?
Lafeyette, Deal, and Jackson Reed (/Wilson) are already well over capacity. We cannot handle any more residential development until we have a new High School, middle school, and at least one new elementary school up and running for at least a few years to analyze existing development capacity. Period. Our schools can’t handle it now, and may not be able to handle it even after expansion considering the current crisis.
The only problem with this argument is that there is literally nothing stopping the owner of the building in which say Blue44 is housed, from deciding to throw up an apartment building if they thought they could make enough $$$s to justify the investment.
They would only have to abide by current zoning and other regulations which do not factor in the things you mention above regarding schools.
Also, there is no way the city would ever condition development on a new high school (although...there is a new high school in Macarthur which starting next year all Hardy kids will have to attend, which will help at Jackson-Reed), middle school and elementary school...I mean, that is a fantasy.
The City Council can amend the zoning code and/or institute a residential moratorium whenever they feel like it. The answer is we need to make sure to keep the pressure on them to fix this broken system.
Problem is that the developers are bankrolling them and making them filthy rich, and is little guys simply can’t compete. But we can protest and make their lives as uncomfortable as possible to save our neighborhood. Personally, I would like to see resistance like ‘Cop City’ down in Atlanta for any residential development constructed prior to adequate school system expansions to accommodate future pressure from both current and future residential developments.
Again, let's keep the discussion to the real world. The City Council is not going to institute a residential moratorium, nor would it be worth anyone's time to advocate for that. You won't be viewed seriously. Also, zoning is going towards less SFH and more mullti-family development...what you are really saying is that the City Council needs to be completely revamped, and then maybe those new council members could change the zoning.
“Just give up because corrupt city council members are corrupt!” Is not a good argument.
Yes, the implication is that we need new leadership who are willing to stand up for local residents, not development interests and protect our neighborhoods. There are a good number of reasons why we need new leadership (crime, corruption, lying, etc…), but this is certainly one of them.
I strongly disagree with the current trends in urban development to discourage/prohibit construction of single family homes for these massive high density developments. If you ask the vast majority of Americans, their ideal home is a single family home, with a yard, and a garage, in a nice, well-kept neighborhood of the same. Building thousands of “luxury” apartments will not change the fact that this demand will not be met, and in fact will only increase demand (and ultimately cost) on a diminishing supply of single family ideal housing. People will rent for a few years, but all that is doing is offsetting demand for a short period.
If DC actually cared about increasing the supply of affordable housing, they would be identifying and incentivizing the construction of more modest single family homes in more affordable neighborhoods, not the construction of more “luxury” apartments in Chevy Chase for the middle class to live in for a year or two while they save up a down payment on an increasingly expensive long term home.
SFH is the worst land use in human history. We don;t have enough land for everyone to live in SFH. As it is, our region is begrimed by an inadequate transportation system to handle what we have. We have to totally rethink how people live, work, play and get around, and SFH and cars are not the way to do it.
Funny thing then that people are willing to pay millions to live in a Victorian foursquare SFH on Morrison Street in Chevy Chase. Why on earth would anyone want to live in them?
Those houses are already there, built at a time when land was plentiful. If one were designing a city from scratch given today's population, there wouldn't be single family homes.
Cities need rich people. And most rich people want yards and SFH. You may not like that fact. But that will never change.
I guess you haven't see where rich people live in NY City or Singapore or Hing Kong?
Yes, I know those cities and those rich people very well. And I know that the very second that their business obligations no longer require them to be in the city that they flee to their large SFH with a yard. Because living on top of each other in cities is a horrible way to live, no matter how you try to sugar coat it.
This is one reason why Spring Valley and the “village in the city” neighborhoods like Chevy Chase, Cleveland Park, Palisades remain so popular and pricey. There are nice houses, yards and green spaces, and neighborhood-serving retail nearby. It’s a head scratcher why the DC central planners and their developer allies want to change the essence of what has helped to make D.C. so desirable to people who might otherwise move to MD and VA.
Because we are running out of space and need to continue to add housing opportunities, particularly for the people who actually work in these expensive "village" communities. Or do you think it is sustainable and attractive that our first responders and health care workers all commute in from West Virginia to serve you?
Instead of spending a lot of tax money on so many drug addicts and quasi-criminals to use vouchers to live in the apartment buildings on Connecticut Ave, why not provide apartments on favorable terms to cops and firefighters to live there? This would have the added benefit of encouraging more voucher recipients to fly right.
This is the best idea to bring the middle class in. Then the city can develop the library and community center to actually serve the community, especially the youth, who need social spaces and activities. So many possibilities! What about a roof-top community garden, music rooms for kids to practice in, a community theater, or an arts center with a kiln?
Or apartments for people to live on top of the community center and library? More community!
But apartments are private spaces. No one wants strangers traipsing through their living areas (understandably). No, they can live in the many apartment buildings on Connecticut Ave. With voucher assistance for teachers, police, firefighters, and nurses.
The public space of the whole community can remain wholly public. It’s a win win.
I think you must be confused. Community center and library (public spaces) below - to be used by people who are members of the community. Apartments (private spaces) above - to be lived in by people who are members of the community.
Oh I see the community center will be shrunk down to a room-off-the-lobby kind of thing. And no noise, or performances, or a garden, or late hours, right? It will kind of be like the way the Taco Bell shares with KFC, or something.
I guess you didn;t attend any of the public meetings where community wishes were expressed and incorporated into letters from the ANC to the city; and where city officials described their vision. instead you continue to post these woe-is-me illinformed misinformation doom and gloom tropes.
I missed it. Was John Falcicchio the city official?
I have lived in this community for 20+ years and have been very active in the community - church, boards, civic groups, etc. I absolutely know hundreds of community members, and I’m not sure why that is hard to grasp.
Of course the majority of people aren’t aware of this project, that is why I’m working my ass off to make sure everybody is aware of the monstrosity that is being railroaded into our community behind our back with no real public outreach. That is why I am discussing it with you.
And again, I don’t know anybody who is against renovating/replacing the library and civic center. I’m all for that! What we oppose is the city stealing private land and gifting it to their favored developers to build fancy new apartments where our infrastructure cannot handle it. If they want to renovate or replace the library and civic center, they should renegade or replace the civic center and library, full stop.
Which part(s) of "our infrastructure" cannot handle it, and how can "our infrastructure" not handle it?
Oh, I don’t know. Maybe the Ward 3 schools which are already the most over crowded in the city?
The addition of some number of affordable units is not going to break the bank for inboundry schools. And really, the lines should have been redrawn decades ago, or a few years ago, or right now. It is crazy the concentration of students from across the city in Ward 3 schools. But this proposal is not going to be material on that front.
It also won;t be material on things like water pipe, electric consumption etc.
Infrastrucutre is just another NIMBY buzzword to try to kill projects.
We have had all sorts of new development over the past 15 years and the NIMBYs have used infrastructure as part of their game the whole time and at the end of the day, nothing much has changed.
Ahhhh. But this is a common deflection technique. “Oh, Shepherd only sends 20 kids a year to Deal, so it’s not a big deal.” Or, “Oh, there’s only a handful of OOB kids at Hearst, so it’s not a big deal.” Or now, “ The addition of some number of affordable units is not going to break the bank for inboundry schools.”
Well you know what? When you add it all up it is breaking the bank.
What are you doing to increase school capacity in Ward 3?
You’re asking the wrong question.
How is that the wrong question?
Lafeyette, Deal, and Jackson Reed (/Wilson) are already well over capacity. We cannot handle any more residential development until we have a new High School, middle school, and at least one new elementary school up and running for at least a few years to analyze existing development capacity. Period. Our schools can’t handle it now, and may not be able to handle it even after expansion considering the current crisis.
The only problem with this argument is that there is literally nothing stopping the owner of the building in which say Blue44 is housed, from deciding to throw up an apartment building if they thought they could make enough $$$s to justify the investment.
They would only have to abide by current zoning and other regulations which do not factor in the things you mention above regarding schools.
Also, there is no way the city would ever condition development on a new high school (although...there is a new high school in Macarthur which starting next year all Hardy kids will have to attend, which will help at Jackson-Reed), middle school and elementary school...I mean, that is a fantasy.
The City Council can amend the zoning code and/or institute a residential moratorium whenever they feel like it. The answer is we need to make sure to keep the pressure on them to fix this broken system.
Problem is that the developers are bankrolling them and making them filthy rich, and is little guys simply can’t compete. But we can protest and make their lives as uncomfortable as possible to save our neighborhood. Personally, I would like to see resistance like ‘Cop City’ down in Atlanta for any residential development constructed prior to adequate school system expansions to accommodate future pressure from both current and future residential developments.
Again, let's keep the discussion to the real world. The City Council is not going to institute a residential moratorium, nor would it be worth anyone's time to advocate for that. You won't be viewed seriously. Also, zoning is going towards less SFH and more mullti-family development...what you are really saying is that the City Council needs to be completely revamped, and then maybe those new council members could change the zoning.
“Just give up because corrupt city council members are corrupt!” Is not a good argument.
Yes, the implication is that we need new leadership who are willing to stand up for local residents, not development interests and protect our neighborhoods. There are a good number of reasons why we need new leadership (crime, corruption, lying, etc…), but this is certainly one of them.
I strongly disagree with the current trends in urban development to discourage/prohibit construction of single family homes for these massive high density developments. If you ask the vast majority of Americans, their ideal home is a single family home, with a yard, and a garage, in a nice, well-kept neighborhood of the same. Building thousands of “luxury” apartments will not change the fact that this demand will not be met, and in fact will only increase demand (and ultimately cost) on a diminishing supply of single family ideal housing. People will rent for a few years, but all that is doing is offsetting demand for a short period.
If DC actually cared about increasing the supply of affordable housing, they would be identifying and incentivizing the construction of more modest single family homes in more affordable neighborhoods, not the construction of more “luxury” apartments in Chevy Chase for the middle class to live in for a year or two while they save up a down payment on an increasingly expensive long term home.
SFH is the worst land use in human history. We don;t have enough land for everyone to live in SFH. As it is, our region is begrimed by an inadequate transportation system to handle what we have. We have to totally rethink how people live, work, play and get around, and SFH and cars are not the way to do it.
Funny thing then that people are willing to pay millions to live in a Victorian foursquare SFH on Morrison Street in Chevy Chase. Why on earth would anyone want to live in them?
Those houses are already there, built at a time when land was plentiful. If one were designing a city from scratch given today's population, there wouldn't be single family homes.
Cities need rich people. And most rich people want yards and SFH. You may not like that fact. But that will never change.
I guess you haven't see where rich people live in NY City or Singapore or Hing Kong?
Yes, I know those cities and those rich people very well. And I know that the very second that their business obligations no longer require them to be in the city that they flee to their large SFH with a yard. Because living on top of each other in cities is a horrible way to live, no matter how you try to sugar coat it.
This is one reason why Spring Valley and the “village in the city” neighborhoods like Chevy Chase, Cleveland Park, Palisades remain so popular and pricey. There are nice houses, yards and green spaces, and neighborhood-serving retail nearby. It’s a head scratcher why the DC central planners and their developer allies want to change the essence of what has helped to make D.C. so desirable to people who might otherwise move to MD and VA.
Because we are running out of space and need to continue to add housing opportunities, particularly for the people who actually work in these expensive "village" communities. Or do you think it is sustainable and attractive that our first responders and health care workers all commute in from West Virginia to serve you?
Instead of spending a lot of tax money on so many drug addicts and quasi-criminals to use vouchers to live in the apartment buildings on Connecticut Ave, why not provide apartments on favorable terms to cops and firefighters to live there? This would have the added benefit of encouraging more voucher recipients to fly right.
This is the best idea to bring the middle class in. Then the city can develop the library and community center to actually serve the community, especially the youth, who need social spaces and activities. So many possibilities! What about a roof-top community garden, music rooms for kids to practice in, a community theater, or an arts center with a kiln?
Or apartments for people to live on top of the community center and library? More community!
But apartments are private spaces. No one wants strangers traipsing through their living areas (understandably). No, they can live in the many apartment buildings on Connecticut Ave. With voucher assistance for teachers, police, firefighters, and nurses.
The public space of the whole community can remain wholly public. It’s a win win.
I think you must be confused. Community center and library (public spaces) below - to be used by people who are members of the community. Apartments (private spaces) above - to be lived in by people who are members of the community.
Oh I see the community center will be shrunk down to a room-off-the-lobby kind of thing. And no noise, or performances, or a garden, or late hours, right? It will kind of be like the way the Taco Bell shares with KFC, or something.
I guess you didn;t attend any of the public meetings where community wishes were expressed and incorporated into letters from the ANC to the city; and where city officials described their vision. instead you continue to post these woe-is-me illinformed misinformation doom and gloom tropes.
I missed it. Was John Falcicchio the city official?
No. He had nothing to do with it.
(This spurious attach is pathetic.)
This is incorrect. As deputy mayor Falcicchio oversaw the Office of Planning when it pushed through changes to the comprehensive plan and future land use map to increase height and density in Chevy Chase. He oversaw the development of the CC “Small Area Plan”, finalized in mid-2022, which had the housing development at the public library site as a main feature. He didn’t resign until the following year in March 2023.
I have lived in this community for 20+ years and have been very active in the community - church, boards, civic groups, etc. I absolutely know hundreds of community members, and I’m not sure why that is hard to grasp.
Of course the majority of people aren’t aware of this project, that is why I’m working my ass off to make sure everybody is aware of the monstrosity that is being railroaded into our community behind our back with no real public outreach. That is why I am discussing it with you.
And again, I don’t know anybody who is against renovating/replacing the library and civic center. I’m all for that! What we oppose is the city stealing private land and gifting it to their favored developers to build fancy new apartments where our infrastructure cannot handle it. If they want to renovate or replace the library and civic center, they should renegade or replace the civic center and library, full stop.
Which part(s) of "our infrastructure" cannot handle it, and how can "our infrastructure" not handle it?
Oh, I don’t know. Maybe the Ward 3 schools which are already the most over crowded in the city?
The addition of some number of affordable units is not going to break the bank for inboundry schools. And really, the lines should have been redrawn decades ago, or a few years ago, or right now. It is crazy the concentration of students from across the city in Ward 3 schools. But this proposal is not going to be material on that front.
It also won;t be material on things like water pipe, electric consumption etc.
Infrastrucutre is just another NIMBY buzzword to try to kill projects.
We have had all sorts of new development over the past 15 years and the NIMBYs have used infrastructure as part of their game the whole time and at the end of the day, nothing much has changed.
Ahhhh. But this is a common deflection technique. “Oh, Shepherd only sends 20 kids a year to Deal, so it’s not a big deal.” Or, “Oh, there’s only a handful of OOB kids at Hearst, so it’s not a big deal.” Or now, “ The addition of some number of affordable units is not going to break the bank for inboundry schools.”
Well you know what? When you add it all up it is breaking the bank.
What are you doing to increase school capacity in Ward 3?
You’re asking the wrong question.
How is that the wrong question?
Lafeyette, Deal, and Jackson Reed (/Wilson) are already well over capacity. We cannot handle any more residential development until we have a new High School, middle school, and at least one new elementary school up and running for at least a few years to analyze existing development capacity. Period. Our schools can’t handle it now, and may not be able to handle it even after expansion considering the current crisis.
The only problem with this argument is that there is literally nothing stopping the owner of the building in which say Blue44 is housed, from deciding to throw up an apartment building if they thought they could make enough $$$s to justify the investment.
They would only have to abide by current zoning and other regulations which do not factor in the things you mention above regarding schools.
Also, there is no way the city would ever condition development on a new high school (although...there is a new high school in Macarthur which starting next year all Hardy kids will have to attend, which will help at Jackson-Reed), middle school and elementary school...I mean, that is a fantasy.
The City Council can amend the zoning code and/or institute a residential moratorium whenever they feel like it. The answer is we need to make sure to keep the pressure on them to fix this broken system.
Problem is that the developers are bankrolling them and making them filthy rich, and is little guys simply can’t compete. But we can protest and make their lives as uncomfortable as possible to save our neighborhood. Personally, I would like to see resistance like ‘Cop City’ down in Atlanta for any residential development constructed prior to adequate school system expansions to accommodate future pressure from both current and future residential developments.
Again, let's keep the discussion to the real world. The City Council is not going to institute a residential moratorium, nor would it be worth anyone's time to advocate for that. You won't be viewed seriously. Also, zoning is going towards less SFH and more mullti-family development...what you are really saying is that the City Council needs to be completely revamped, and then maybe those new council members could change the zoning.
“Just give up because corrupt city council members are corrupt!” Is not a good argument.
Yes, the implication is that we need new leadership who are willing to stand up for local residents, not development interests and protect our neighborhoods. There are a good number of reasons why we need new leadership (crime, corruption, lying, etc…), but this is certainly one of them.
I strongly disagree with the current trends in urban development to discourage/prohibit construction of single family homes for these massive high density developments. If you ask the vast majority of Americans, their ideal home is a single family home, with a yard, and a garage, in a nice, well-kept neighborhood of the same. Building thousands of “luxury” apartments will not change the fact that this demand will not be met, and in fact will only increase demand (and ultimately cost) on a diminishing supply of single family ideal housing. People will rent for a few years, but all that is doing is offsetting demand for a short period.
If DC actually cared about increasing the supply of affordable housing, they would be identifying and incentivizing the construction of more modest single family homes in more affordable neighborhoods, not the construction of more “luxury” apartments in Chevy Chase for the middle class to live in for a year or two while they save up a down payment on an increasingly expensive long term home.
SFH is the worst land use in human history. We don;t have enough land for everyone to live in SFH. As it is, our region is begrimed by an inadequate transportation system to handle what we have. We have to totally rethink how people live, work, play and get around, and SFH and cars are not the way to do it.
Funny thing then that people are willing to pay millions to live in a Victorian foursquare SFH on Morrison Street in Chevy Chase. Why on earth would anyone want to live in them?
Those houses are already there, built at a time when land was plentiful. If one were designing a city from scratch given today's population, there wouldn't be single family homes.
Cities need rich people. And most rich people want yards and SFH. You may not like that fact. But that will never change.
I guess you haven't see where rich people live in NY City or Singapore or Hing Kong?
Yes, I know those cities and those rich people very well. And I know that the very second that their business obligations no longer require them to be in the city that they flee to their large SFH with a yard. Because living on top of each other in cities is a horrible way to live, no matter how you try to sugar coat it.
This is one reason why Spring Valley and the “village in the city” neighborhoods like Chevy Chase, Cleveland Park, Palisades remain so popular and pricey. There are nice houses, yards and green spaces, and neighborhood-serving retail nearby. It’s a head scratcher why the DC central planners and their developer allies want to change the essence of what has helped to make D.C. so desirable to people who might otherwise move to MD and VA.
Because we are running out of space and need to continue to add housing opportunities, particularly for the people who actually work in these expensive "village" communities. Or do you think it is sustainable and attractive that our first responders and health care workers all commute in from West Virginia to serve you?
Instead of spending a lot of tax money on so many drug addicts and quasi-criminals to use vouchers to live in the apartment buildings on Connecticut Ave, why not provide apartments on favorable terms to cops and firefighters to live there? This would have the added benefit of encouraging more voucher recipients to fly right.
For example, in apartments on top of the redeveloped community center and library? What a great idea!
If it’s such a great idea why isn’t the Saratoga filled with teacher and cops? Why hasn’t it happened yet?
Because teachers and cops are not eligible for vouchers and the apartments are otherwise too expensive for them to rent. Hence why we need city owned affordable housing in the community.
By the way, this question has been answered about a thousands times in this thread and on the neighborhood email group and yet, people like you keep asking it over and over again as some sort of 'gotcha' question.
But this won’t be “city owned affordable housing.” It will be developer-owned, mostly market rate housing, built on District property. Per City Paper, the Department of Justice and FBI are looking into various D.C. real estate transactions under Falcicchio and Bowser, some likely quite similar to the scheme at the Chevy Chase library site. Is this the time to double down on another scheme (or scam)?
Admittedly, I only spent 5 minutes searching, but I can find no evidence of thhe bolded.
The investigation “has included an examination of Falcicchio’s conduct in his dual roles as Bowser’s chief of staff and deputy mayor for planning and economic development, and has involved officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice who investigate public corruption cases, the source says. LL has reviewed emails from investigators that support these claims.” Subjects of investigation have included the sexual harassment allegations “as well as his role running DMPED, the source says. The questions have also involved the conduct of some of his deputies at the agency, which manages the city’s complex (and politically sensitive) real estate deals, according to the source.”
Right. I saw that piece. Where do you see it being about, as you said, "real estate transactions..some likely quite similar to the 'scheme' at Chevy Chase"?
It appears to not be at all about "real estate transactions" rather about reprehensible behavior my management.
This is the best idea to bring the middle class in.
Please explain how a market rate apartment development at the library site with the legally required minimum of IZ units “will bring the middle class in” - any more than 5333 Connecticut or the larger City Ridge have brought the middle class in. I get why you say it; it sounds nice. But back up your claims with FACTS, please.
I have lived in this community for 20+ years and have been very active in the community - church, boards, civic groups, etc. I absolutely know hundreds of community members, and I’m not sure why that is hard to grasp.
Of course the majority of people aren’t aware of this project, that is why I’m working my ass off to make sure everybody is aware of the monstrosity that is being railroaded into our community behind our back with no real public outreach. That is why I am discussing it with you.
And again, I don’t know anybody who is against renovating/replacing the library and civic center. I’m all for that! What we oppose is the city stealing private land and gifting it to their favored developers to build fancy new apartments where our infrastructure cannot handle it. If they want to renovate or replace the library and civic center, they should renegade or replace the civic center and library, full stop.
Which part(s) of "our infrastructure" cannot handle it, and how can "our infrastructure" not handle it?
Oh, I don’t know. Maybe the Ward 3 schools which are already the most over crowded in the city?
The addition of some number of affordable units is not going to break the bank for inboundry schools. And really, the lines should have been redrawn decades ago, or a few years ago, or right now. It is crazy the concentration of students from across the city in Ward 3 schools. But this proposal is not going to be material on that front.
It also won;t be material on things like water pipe, electric consumption etc.
Infrastrucutre is just another NIMBY buzzword to try to kill projects.
We have had all sorts of new development over the past 15 years and the NIMBYs have used infrastructure as part of their game the whole time and at the end of the day, nothing much has changed.
Ahhhh. But this is a common deflection technique. “Oh, Shepherd only sends 20 kids a year to Deal, so it’s not a big deal.” Or, “Oh, there’s only a handful of OOB kids at Hearst, so it’s not a big deal.” Or now, “ The addition of some number of affordable units is not going to break the bank for inboundry schools.”
Well you know what? When you add it all up it is breaking the bank.
What are you doing to increase school capacity in Ward 3?
You’re asking the wrong question.
How is that the wrong question?
Lafeyette, Deal, and Jackson Reed (/Wilson) are already well over capacity. We cannot handle any more residential development until we have a new High School, middle school, and at least one new elementary school up and running for at least a few years to analyze existing development capacity. Period. Our schools can’t handle it now, and may not be able to handle it even after expansion considering the current crisis.
The only problem with this argument is that there is literally nothing stopping the owner of the building in which say Blue44 is housed, from deciding to throw up an apartment building if they thought they could make enough $$$s to justify the investment.
They would only have to abide by current zoning and other regulations which do not factor in the things you mention above regarding schools.
Also, there is no way the city would ever condition development on a new high school (although...there is a new high school in Macarthur which starting next year all Hardy kids will have to attend, which will help at Jackson-Reed), middle school and elementary school...I mean, that is a fantasy.
The City Council can amend the zoning code and/or institute a residential moratorium whenever they feel like it. The answer is we need to make sure to keep the pressure on them to fix this broken system.
Problem is that the developers are bankrolling them and making them filthy rich, and is little guys simply can’t compete. But we can protest and make their lives as uncomfortable as possible to save our neighborhood. Personally, I would like to see resistance like ‘Cop City’ down in Atlanta for any residential development constructed prior to adequate school system expansions to accommodate future pressure from both current and future residential developments.
Again, let's keep the discussion to the real world. The City Council is not going to institute a residential moratorium, nor would it be worth anyone's time to advocate for that. You won't be viewed seriously. Also, zoning is going towards less SFH and more mullti-family development...what you are really saying is that the City Council needs to be completely revamped, and then maybe those new council members could change the zoning.
“Just give up because corrupt city council members are corrupt!” Is not a good argument.
Yes, the implication is that we need new leadership who are willing to stand up for local residents, not development interests and protect our neighborhoods. There are a good number of reasons why we need new leadership (crime, corruption, lying, etc…), but this is certainly one of them.
I strongly disagree with the current trends in urban development to discourage/prohibit construction of single family homes for these massive high density developments. If you ask the vast majority of Americans, their ideal home is a single family home, with a yard, and a garage, in a nice, well-kept neighborhood of the same. Building thousands of “luxury” apartments will not change the fact that this demand will not be met, and in fact will only increase demand (and ultimately cost) on a diminishing supply of single family ideal housing. People will rent for a few years, but all that is doing is offsetting demand for a short period.
If DC actually cared about increasing the supply of affordable housing, they would be identifying and incentivizing the construction of more modest single family homes in more affordable neighborhoods, not the construction of more “luxury” apartments in Chevy Chase for the middle class to live in for a year or two while they save up a down payment on an increasingly expensive long term home.
SFH is the worst land use in human history. We don;t have enough land for everyone to live in SFH. As it is, our region is begrimed by an inadequate transportation system to handle what we have. We have to totally rethink how people live, work, play and get around, and SFH and cars are not the way to do it.
Funny thing then that people are willing to pay millions to live in a Victorian foursquare SFH on Morrison Street in Chevy Chase. Why on earth would anyone want to live in them?
Those houses are already there, built at a time when land was plentiful. If one were designing a city from scratch given today's population, there wouldn't be single family homes.
Cities need rich people. And most rich people want yards and SFH. You may not like that fact. But that will never change.
I guess you haven't see where rich people live in NY City or Singapore or Hing Kong?
Yes, I know those cities and those rich people very well. And I know that the very second that their business obligations no longer require them to be in the city that they flee to their large SFH with a yard. Because living on top of each other in cities is a horrible way to live, no matter how you try to sugar coat it.
This is one reason why Spring Valley and the “village in the city” neighborhoods like Chevy Chase, Cleveland Park, Palisades remain so popular and pricey. There are nice houses, yards and green spaces, and neighborhood-serving retail nearby. It’s a head scratcher why the DC central planners and their developer allies want to change the essence of what has helped to make D.C. so desirable to people who might otherwise move to MD and VA.
Because we are running out of space and need to continue to add housing opportunities, particularly for the people who actually work in these expensive "village" communities. Or do you think it is sustainable and attractive that our first responders and health care workers all commute in from West Virginia to serve you?
Instead of spending a lot of tax money on so many drug addicts and quasi-criminals to use vouchers to live in the apartment buildings on Connecticut Ave, why not provide apartments on favorable terms to cops and firefighters to live there? This would have the added benefit of encouraging more voucher recipients to fly right.
For example, in apartments on top of the redeveloped community center and library? What a great idea!
If it’s such a great idea why isn’t the Saratoga filled with teacher and cops? Why hasn’t it happened yet?
Because teachers and cops are not eligible for vouchers and the apartments are otherwise too expensive for them to rent. Hence why we need city owned affordable housing in the community.
By the way, this question has been answered about a thousands times in this thread and on the neighborhood email group and yet, people like you keep asking it over and over again as some sort of 'gotcha' question.
But this won’t be “city owned affordable housing.” It will be developer-owned, mostly market rate housing, built on District property. Per City Paper, the Department of Justice and FBI are looking into various D.C. real estate transactions under Falcicchio and Bowser, some likely quite similar to the scheme at the Chevy Chase library site. Is this the time to double down on another scheme (or scam)?
Admittedly, I only spent 5 minutes searching, but I can find no evidence of thhe bolded.
The investigation “has included an examination of Falcicchio’s conduct in his dual roles as Bowser’s chief of staff and deputy mayor for planning and economic development, and has involved officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice who investigate public corruption cases, the source says. LL has reviewed emails from investigators that support these claims.” Subjects of investigation have included the sexual harassment allegations “as well as his role running DMPED, the source says. The questions have also involved the conduct of some of his deputies at the agency, which manages the city’s complex (and politically sensitive) real estate deals, according to the source.”
Right. I saw that piece. Where do you see it being about, as you said, "real estate transactions..some likely quite similar to the 'scheme' at Chevy Chase"?
It appears to not be at all about "real estate transactions" rather about reprehensible behavior my management.
When the public integrity section of the FBI (which focuses on bribes and kickbacks to public officials) and the DoJ are investigating real estate transactions involving the District on Mr. Falcicchio’s watch, this does not suggest some mere routine audit.
This is the best idea to bring the middle class in.
Please explain how a market rate apartment development at the library site with the legally required minimum of IZ units “will bring the middle class in” - any more than 5333 Connecticut or the larger City Ridge have brought the middle class in. I get why you say it; it sounds nice. But back up your claims with FACTS, please.
5333 CT Ave was a matter of right project.
The Chevy Chase Community Center is a city managed project where affordable housing is the driving impetus. To suggest falsely and repeatedly that there will be a bare minimum of affordable housing does your side a disservice because of how detached from reality it is.
I have lived in this community for 20+ years and have been very active in the community - church, boards, civic groups, etc. I absolutely know hundreds of community members, and I’m not sure why that is hard to grasp.
Of course the majority of people aren’t aware of this project, that is why I’m working my ass off to make sure everybody is aware of the monstrosity that is being railroaded into our community behind our back with no real public outreach. That is why I am discussing it with you.
And again, I don’t know anybody who is against renovating/replacing the library and civic center. I’m all for that! What we oppose is the city stealing private land and gifting it to their favored developers to build fancy new apartments where our infrastructure cannot handle it. If they want to renovate or replace the library and civic center, they should renegade or replace the civic center and library, full stop.
Which part(s) of "our infrastructure" cannot handle it, and how can "our infrastructure" not handle it?
Oh, I don’t know. Maybe the Ward 3 schools which are already the most over crowded in the city?
The addition of some number of affordable units is not going to break the bank for inboundry schools. And really, the lines should have been redrawn decades ago, or a few years ago, or right now. It is crazy the concentration of students from across the city in Ward 3 schools. But this proposal is not going to be material on that front.
It also won;t be material on things like water pipe, electric consumption etc.
Infrastrucutre is just another NIMBY buzzword to try to kill projects.
We have had all sorts of new development over the past 15 years and the NIMBYs have used infrastructure as part of their game the whole time and at the end of the day, nothing much has changed.
Ahhhh. But this is a common deflection technique. “Oh, Shepherd only sends 20 kids a year to Deal, so it’s not a big deal.” Or, “Oh, there’s only a handful of OOB kids at Hearst, so it’s not a big deal.” Or now, “ The addition of some number of affordable units is not going to break the bank for inboundry schools.”
Well you know what? When you add it all up it is breaking the bank.
What are you doing to increase school capacity in Ward 3?
You’re asking the wrong question.
How is that the wrong question?
Lafeyette, Deal, and Jackson Reed (/Wilson) are already well over capacity. We cannot handle any more residential development until we have a new High School, middle school, and at least one new elementary school up and running for at least a few years to analyze existing development capacity. Period. Our schools can’t handle it now, and may not be able to handle it even after expansion considering the current crisis.
The only problem with this argument is that there is literally nothing stopping the owner of the building in which say Blue44 is housed, from deciding to throw up an apartment building if they thought they could make enough $$$s to justify the investment.
They would only have to abide by current zoning and other regulations which do not factor in the things you mention above regarding schools.
Also, there is no way the city would ever condition development on a new high school (although...there is a new high school in Macarthur which starting next year all Hardy kids will have to attend, which will help at Jackson-Reed), middle school and elementary school...I mean, that is a fantasy.
The City Council can amend the zoning code and/or institute a residential moratorium whenever they feel like it. The answer is we need to make sure to keep the pressure on them to fix this broken system.
Problem is that the developers are bankrolling them and making them filthy rich, and is little guys simply can’t compete. But we can protest and make their lives as uncomfortable as possible to save our neighborhood. Personally, I would like to see resistance like ‘Cop City’ down in Atlanta for any residential development constructed prior to adequate school system expansions to accommodate future pressure from both current and future residential developments.
Again, let's keep the discussion to the real world. The City Council is not going to institute a residential moratorium, nor would it be worth anyone's time to advocate for that. You won't be viewed seriously. Also, zoning is going towards less SFH and more mullti-family development...what you are really saying is that the City Council needs to be completely revamped, and then maybe those new council members could change the zoning.
“Just give up because corrupt city council members are corrupt!” Is not a good argument.
Yes, the implication is that we need new leadership who are willing to stand up for local residents, not development interests and protect our neighborhoods. There are a good number of reasons why we need new leadership (crime, corruption, lying, etc…), but this is certainly one of them.
I strongly disagree with the current trends in urban development to discourage/prohibit construction of single family homes for these massive high density developments. If you ask the vast majority of Americans, their ideal home is a single family home, with a yard, and a garage, in a nice, well-kept neighborhood of the same. Building thousands of “luxury” apartments will not change the fact that this demand will not be met, and in fact will only increase demand (and ultimately cost) on a diminishing supply of single family ideal housing. People will rent for a few years, but all that is doing is offsetting demand for a short period.
If DC actually cared about increasing the supply of affordable housing, they would be identifying and incentivizing the construction of more modest single family homes in more affordable neighborhoods, not the construction of more “luxury” apartments in Chevy Chase for the middle class to live in for a year or two while they save up a down payment on an increasingly expensive long term home.
SFH is the worst land use in human history. We don;t have enough land for everyone to live in SFH. As it is, our region is begrimed by an inadequate transportation system to handle what we have. We have to totally rethink how people live, work, play and get around, and SFH and cars are not the way to do it.
Funny thing then that people are willing to pay millions to live in a Victorian foursquare SFH on Morrison Street in Chevy Chase. Why on earth would anyone want to live in them?
Those houses are already there, built at a time when land was plentiful. If one were designing a city from scratch given today's population, there wouldn't be single family homes.
Cities need rich people. And most rich people want yards and SFH. You may not like that fact. But that will never change.
I guess you haven't see where rich people live in NY City or Singapore or Hing Kong?
Yes, I know those cities and those rich people very well. And I know that the very second that their business obligations no longer require them to be in the city that they flee to their large SFH with a yard. Because living on top of each other in cities is a horrible way to live, no matter how you try to sugar coat it.
This is one reason why Spring Valley and the “village in the city” neighborhoods like Chevy Chase, Cleveland Park, Palisades remain so popular and pricey. There are nice houses, yards and green spaces, and neighborhood-serving retail nearby. It’s a head scratcher why the DC central planners and their developer allies want to change the essence of what has helped to make D.C. so desirable to people who might otherwise move to MD and VA.
Because we are running out of space and need to continue to add housing opportunities, particularly for the people who actually work in these expensive "village" communities. Or do you think it is sustainable and attractive that our first responders and health care workers all commute in from West Virginia to serve you?
Instead of spending a lot of tax money on so many drug addicts and quasi-criminals to use vouchers to live in the apartment buildings on Connecticut Ave, why not provide apartments on favorable terms to cops and firefighters to live there? This would have the added benefit of encouraging more voucher recipients to fly right.
For example, in apartments on top of the redeveloped community center and library? What a great idea!
If it’s such a great idea why isn’t the Saratoga filled with teacher and cops? Why hasn’t it happened yet?
Because teachers and cops are not eligible for vouchers and the apartments are otherwise too expensive for them to rent. Hence why we need city owned affordable housing in the community.
By the way, this question has been answered about a thousands times in this thread and on the neighborhood email group and yet, people like you keep asking it over and over again as some sort of 'gotcha' question.
But this won’t be “city owned affordable housing.” It will be developer-owned, mostly market rate housing, built on District property. Per City Paper, the Department of Justice and FBI are looking into various D.C. real estate transactions under Falcicchio and Bowser, some likely quite similar to the scheme at the Chevy Chase library site. Is this the time to double down on another scheme (or scam)?
Admittedly, I only spent 5 minutes searching, but I can find no evidence of thhe bolded.
The investigation “has included an examination of Falcicchio’s conduct in his dual roles as Bowser’s chief of staff and deputy mayor for planning and economic development, and has involved officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice who investigate public corruption cases, the source says. LL has reviewed emails from investigators that support these claims.” Subjects of investigation have included the sexual harassment allegations “as well as his role running DMPED, the source says. The questions have also involved the conduct of some of his deputies at the agency, which manages the city’s complex (and politically sensitive) real estate deals, according to the source.”
Right. I saw that piece. Where do you see it being about, as you said, "real estate transactions..some likely quite similar to the 'scheme' at Chevy Chase"?
It appears to not be at all about "real estate transactions" rather about reprehensible behavior my management.
When the public integrity section of the FBI (which focuses on bribes and kickbacks to public officials) and the DoJ are investigating real estate transactions involving the District on Mr. Falcicchio’s watch, this does not suggest some mere routine audit.
Where does it say that they are investigating "real estate transactions"?
And BTW, has any real estate transaction occurred on the CC site?
This is the best idea to bring the middle class in.
Please explain how a market rate apartment development at the library site with the legally required minimum of IZ units “will bring the middle class in” - any more than 5333 Connecticut or the larger City Ridge have brought the middle class in. I get why you say it; it sounds nice. But back up your claims with FACTS, please.
5333 CT Ave was a matter of right project.
The Chevy Chase Community Center is a city managed project where affordable housing is the driving impetus. To suggest falsely and repeatedly that there will be a bare minimum of affordable housing does your side a disservice because of how detached from reality it is.
What will be the minimum amount of affordable housing then?
This is the best idea to bring the middle class in.
Please explain how a market rate apartment development at the library site with the legally required minimum of IZ units “will bring the middle class in” - any more than 5333 Connecticut or the larger City Ridge have brought the middle class in. I get why you say it; it sounds nice. But back up your claims with FACTS, please.
5333 CT Ave was a matter of right project.
The Chevy Chase Community Center is a city managed project where affordable housing is the driving impetus. To suggest falsely and repeatedly that there will be a bare minimum of affordable housing does your side a disservice because of how detached from reality it is.
What will be the minimum amount of affordable housing then?
We have to see what the RFP outlines and what respondants come back with. Everyone agrees it should be maxmized, so the winning bid will have as much as financially possible. If it isn't enough, then the ANC and Councilmember will oppose it.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}