Oh, Chevy Chase (DC affordable housing)!

[Anonymous]

Apartments in ward 3 have vacancies as evidenced by the existence of the voucher program. Is there a need for greater density, particularly since parts are not metro accessible? People live in ward 3 because it’s less dense. That’s the appeal. That said, making the existing stock more affordable to teachers, first responders, and to those who work in the ward would be welcome. The voucher program has enriched apartment management companies and made neighborhoods less safe. There’s got to be a better option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jeez, Bowser started this garbage with her half way houses and homeless shelters everywhere. Look what Tenleytown has become, and it's not on the up swing. Could care less what houses are selling for, the question is would you let your teenage daughter walk at night by herself. The answer is no, unless you are a liar.

Woodley, Cleveland Park, Telney/AU, have all seen a signifivany uptick in crime, particularly violent crime in the past five years.

[Anonymous]

*significant — had a covfefe moment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love Dave Chapell, but what I like best about him is his refusal to allow a developer and politicians bring section 8 housing to his community. Why? He, as a black man, who came from poverty and section 8 neighborhoods, he said he worked hard to get away from that life and was not going back. He understands the culture and history better than most, how did he stop it? He purchased the land the developer was going to use and kept it for himself and his community. I don't care what you call me, and I do not live in Chevy Chase, but I would fight it with all my might. I with Chapelle on this, difference is I am not afraid to say it, as he was not.

There is no proposal for Section 8 housing, although one of your compatriots did propose building 100% income restricted housing upthread as a way to justify a smaller building. Maybe y'all should focus on one strategy or the other; throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks just reinforces the impression that it's nothing but good old racism underneath all your indignation and window dressing.

I really hate when these conversations devolve into “so basically you’re a racist” accusations. These are complicated issues and as someone upthread mentioned, many people are asking questions and asserting their rights, which another poster affirmed was the democratic process as work. At least these kinds of debates are on the substance of the issue, whatever your take on what the outcome should be.

It brings to mind the school reopening debates and how that became one side pushing to reopen schools and the other side saying such a request was simply racist, which effectively made a lot of guilty white liberals shut up. I think it’s a disingenuous ploy to immobilize some of the opposition without responding to the substance.

I don’t have a dog in this fight (I don’t even live in DC anymore) but maybe for once we could accept that people will have differing views on affordable housing proposals that may not be based on racist views?

Exactly, and it’s tactics like that that lead to San Francisco’s current fate. You can’t voice any concerns on this, on the trans issue like JK Rowling. There’s no room for moderates or centrists. Either you’re all in or your labeled or cancelled. Debate is a good thing. But people need to speak up and find better solutions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love Dave Chapell, but what I like best about him is his refusal to allow a developer and politicians bring section 8 housing to his community. Why? He, as a black man, who came from poverty and section 8 neighborhoods, he said he worked hard to get away from that life and was not going back. He understands the culture and history better than most, how did he stop it? He purchased the land the developer was going to use and kept it for himself and his community. I don't care what you call me, and I do not live in Chevy Chase, but I would fight it with all my might. I with Chapelle on this, difference is I am not afraid to say it, as he was not.

There is no proposal for Section 8 housing, although one of your compatriots did propose building 100% income restricted housing upthread as a way to justify a smaller building. Maybe y'all should focus on one strategy or the other; throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks just reinforces the impression that it's nothing but good old racism underneath all your indignation and window dressing.

I really hate when these conversations devolve into “so basically you’re a racist” accusations. These are complicated issues and as someone upthread mentioned, many people are asking questions and asserting their rights, which another poster affirmed was the democratic process as work. At least these kinds of debates are on the substance of the issue, whatever your take on what the outcome should be.

It brings to mind the school reopening debates and how that became one side pushing to reopen schools and the other side saying such a request was simply racist, which effectively made a lot of guilty white liberals shut up. I think it’s a disingenuous ploy to immobilize some of the opposition without responding to the substance.

I don’t have a dog in this fight (I don’t even live in DC anymore) but maybe for once we could accept that people will have differing views on affordable housing proposals that may not be based on racist views?

I stand by my point, which was never that a specific argument made was racist, but that the strategy of constantly shifting arguments to see what will have traction gives the strong impression that opponents are being disingenuous about their real motivations. If you don't want people to fill in the blank, then don't leave such a big blank space in your argument where the core motivation is supposed to go. Just say what you want and why you want it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love Dave Chapell, but what I like best about him is his refusal to allow a developer and politicians bring section 8 housing to his community. Why? He, as a black man, who came from poverty and section 8 neighborhoods, he said he worked hard to get away from that life and was not going back. He understands the culture and history better than most, how did he stop it? He purchased the land the developer was going to use and kept it for himself and his community. I don't care what you call me, and I do not live in Chevy Chase, but I would fight it with all my might. I with Chapelle on this, difference is I am not afraid to say it, as he was not.

There is no proposal for Section 8 housing, although one of your compatriots did propose building 100% income restricted housing upthread as a way to justify a smaller building. Maybe y'all should focus on one strategy or the other; throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks just reinforces the impression that it's nothing but good old racism underneath all your indignation and window dressing.

I really hate when these conversations devolve into “so basically you’re a racist” accusations. These are complicated issues and as someone upthread mentioned, many people are asking questions and asserting their rights, which another poster affirmed was the democratic process as work. At least these kinds of debates are on the substance of the issue, whatever your take on what the outcome should be.

It brings to mind the school reopening debates and how that became one side pushing to reopen schools and the other side saying such a request was simply racist, which effectively made a lot of guilty white liberals shut up. I think it’s a disingenuous ploy to immobilize some of the opposition without responding to the substance.

I don’t have a dog in this fight (I don’t even live in DC anymore) but maybe for once we could accept that people will have differing views on affordable housing proposals that may not be based on racist views?

Exactly, and it’s tactics like that that lead to San Francisco’s current fate. You can’t voice any concerns on this, on the trans issue like JK Rowling. There’s no room for moderates or centrists. Either you’re all in or your labeled or cancelled. Debate is a good thing. But people need to speak up and find better solutions.

What would "better solutions" look like? There's a lack of supply for large segments of the population that makes a city run.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love Dave Chapell, but what I like best about him is his refusal to allow a developer and politicians bring section 8 housing to his community. Why? He, as a black man, who came from poverty and section 8 neighborhoods, he said he worked hard to get away from that life and was not going back. He understands the culture and history better than most, how did he stop it? He purchased the land the developer was going to use and kept it for himself and his community. I don't care what you call me, and I do not live in Chevy Chase, but I would fight it with all my might. I with Chapelle on this, difference is I am not afraid to say it, as he was not.

There is no proposal for Section 8 housing, although one of your compatriots did propose building 100% income restricted housing upthread as a way to justify a smaller building. Maybe y'all should focus on one strategy or the other; throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks just reinforces the impression that it's nothing but good old racism underneath all your indignation and window dressing.

I really hate when these conversations devolve into “so basically you’re a racist” accusations. These are complicated issues and as someone upthread mentioned, many people are asking questions and asserting their rights, which another poster affirmed was the democratic process as work. At least these kinds of debates are on the substance of the issue, whatever your take on what the outcome should be.

It brings to mind the school reopening debates and how that became one side pushing to reopen schools and the other side saying such a request was simply racist, which effectively made a lot of guilty white liberals shut up. I think it’s a disingenuous ploy to immobilize some of the opposition without responding to the substance.

I don’t have a dog in this fight (I don’t even live in DC anymore) but maybe for once we could accept that people will have differing views on affordable housing proposals that may not be based on racist views?

I stand by my point, which was never that a specific argument made was racist, but that the strategy of constantly shifting arguments to see what will have traction gives the strong impression that opponents are being disingenuous about their real motivations. If you don't want people to fill in the blank, then don't leave such a big blank space in your argument where the core motivation is supposed to go. Just say what you want and why you want it.

I don’t think the people in CCDC are racist in the sense of harboring personal animosity towards people because of their skin color, or at least not most of them. But most of them moved to the neighborhood (and worked hard and sacrificed to be able to do it) in order to benefit from an exclusionary history that is inextricably tied to issues of race and class and what it means to live in an urban community. There’s simply no honest way to engage in political activism to preserve those exclusionary practices and pretend that you’re not part of a continuous historical thread and you only care about the rose bushes and the benches by the parking lot or are determined to make sure no developers profit.

[Anonymous]

There's a complexity at the core of the situation. People in Chevy would be perfectly fine, indeed, even thrilled, to have more upwardly mobile affluent black professionals. But they do not want, and for good reasons, poor black urban dwellers. Those of us who are honest will understand why.

[Anonymous]

Lol. Who would want public housing near their houses. I grew up in the hood (37th pl — if you know, you know) and I can tell you that it is a nightmare. You white folks make me
Laugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lol. Who would want public housing near their houses. I grew up in the hood (37th pl — if you know, you know) and I can tell you that it is a nightmare. You white folks make me
Laugh.

But this isn’t public housing. It’s a market rate apartment building with 30 percent subsidized housing over a community center. The rents will be high in this building- luxury housing. And 30 percent will be subsidized at some level or various levels. This is a mixed-income building compromised mostly of luxury units.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lol. Who would want public housing near their houses. I grew up in the hood (37th pl — if you know, you know) and I can tell you that it is a nightmare. You white folks make me
Laugh.

It’s not public housing. It’s also not homeless housing like the apartments further down Connecticut. It’s just a few units in a larger building having income restrictions for buying or renting.

[Anonymous]

Unpopular question: is there a neighborhood that has been positively impacted by affordable housing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular question: is there a neighborhood that has been positively impacted by affordable housing?

I have no earthly idea which buildings are market rate housing verses marker rate with subsidized units in our neighborhood. You absolutely can’t tell. To be completely frank, there is also a 100 percent affordable housing building (with hundreds of units) that I thought was market-rate for years. But I do think mixed-income buildings like the one proposed in CC are much better than 100 percent subsidized buildings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Apartments in ward 3 have vacancies as evidenced by the existence of the voucher program. Is there a need for greater density, particularly since parts are not metro accessible? People live in ward 3 because it’s less dense. That’s the appeal. That said, making the existing stock more affordable to teachers, first responders, and to those who work in the ward would be welcome. The voucher program has enriched apartment management companies and made neighborhoods less safe. There’s got to be a better option.

I thought this was about a specific site that's metro accessible -- the one where the library and community center are.

Why do people keep saying that area doesn't have public transportation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol. Who would want public housing near their houses. I grew up in the hood (37th pl — if you know, you know) and I can tell you that it is a nightmare. You white folks make me
Laugh.

It’s not public housing. It’s also not homeless housing like the apartments further down Connecticut. It’s just a few units in a larger building having income restrictions for buying or renting.

I think people may not realize that- depending on the level of affordability and mix of units- the residents will have to work full-time at some sort of job to pay the rent. They do have to come up with a portion of the rent and it requires a full-time job in many cases.