Soooo, how is high-density looking to everyone now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems rash and reckless to push this now in the midst of a global pandemic. Density is not desirable right now. The fact that the mayor is going full steam ahead on this suggests to me that she is in the pocket of the developers. Not a good look, especially during a time of crisis when leadership is so important.

It seems rash and reckless to you to continue with the basic functions of local government in the midst of a global pandemic? It doesn't seem rash and reckless to me.

Why should Bowser and her cronies let a good crisis go to waste, especially when the Council is distracted with other things and residents are too scared to venture out and testify at hearings?

Public participation is happening via Zoom etc, just like everywhere else.

Our family participated in our Ward 3 ANC Zoom yesterday. Unfortunately, the Mayor changed the plan AFTER closing of public comment on the Comp Plan. Given the changes she made, public comment and the ANC comment period need to start over. Let her, the at-large reps, Mary Cheh and your ANC reps hear about this.

Participate people. She is gunning for Ward 3, for no apparent reason other than re-election $.

Really? I watched a Ward 3 ANC meeting last night and there were no changes discussed after the comment period closed at that meeting. Maybe you can elaborate in case you are confused?

The mayor and OP say it’s the same document as was proposed in the fall with just some minor tweaks, so no need for a new comment period. At the same time they insist that the Plan has been developed to respond to Coronavirus and thus needs to be passed with urgency. Because Bowser is not too bright, she assumes that most voters are dummies, too.

This.

[Anonymous]

The mayor and OP say it’s the same document as was proposed in the fall with just some minor tweaks, so no need for a new comment period. At the same time they insist that the Plan has been developed to respond to Coronavirus and thus needs to be passed with urgency. Because Bowser is not too bright, she assumes that most voters are dummies, too.

No they have not done that - please provide the citation for that. Someone is hell bent on conflating things and it is really unclear why when what they are saying is provably untrue.

I have been reading this from afar. This PP is interesting. They love using the term 'conflate' in an attempt to discredit and provide no real substance to the argument at the same time. It is my understanding that the poster was arguing that the Single Family Home report, Produced by the Office of Planning, is providing recommendations to the Mayor at the request of the Mayor. I say that because that is what the report says. Meanwhile in January it was the Office of Planning that was responsible for collecting ANC input to the COMP Plan in order to consolidate comments and provide one updated COMP Plan proposal to the City Council for debate. Now, for some reason the order that this all happened in was public discussions first under a set of rules identified by the OP and approved by the Mayor. After the public discussion period and submissions, the Office of Planning collected comments and responded to ANC's and then released its Single Family Housing Report. The Single Family Housing report effectively changed the playing field as it lays clear that while zoning will not change, zoning functionality will change. It basically in one report rendered previous discussions meaningless because it outlined that the public was not playing with all of the information.

Ex.

1. (Nov '19) Have this debate with the certainty that not one single family zoned house will have it zoning upzoned in Ward 3. (How many times have we heard this on this thread)
2. (Jan '20) Provide, recommendations to the Comp Plan knowing that not one single family zoned house will change on the FLUM.
3. (Mar '20) Here is the consolidated and revised Comp Plan without one single family zoned house upzoned in the proposed Comp Plan.
4. (Apr '20) Here is the Single Family Housing Report where we will recommend targeted growth in single family zoned areas through 'gentle densification' and creating missing middleman housing within single family zoned areas without needing to change the zoning rules.

The public was given one set of rules why the Office of Planning and the Mayor were planning an end around the entire time. Had the public known about the Single Family Housing Report in November, it would have informed their debate for the required submissions in January.

There is nothing being conflated here. The public had one requirement with one set of rules and the Office of Planning (the same agency that established the set of rules) changed the playing field after the period of public comment was concluded and released a new document showing its newly interpreted scope of housing planning.

[Anonymous]

Definition of conflate

transitive verb
1a : to bring together : fuse
b : confuse
2 : to combine (things, such as two readings of a text) into a composite whole The editor conflated the two texts. … a city of conflated races and cultures …— Earl Shorris

[Anonymous]

I have been reading this from afar. This PP is interesting. They love using the term 'conflate' in an attempt to discredit and provide no real substance to the argument at the same time. It is my understanding that the poster was arguing that the Single Family Home report, Produced by the Office of Planning, is providing recommendations to the Mayor at the request of the Mayor. I say that because that is what the report says. Meanwhile in January it was the Office of Planning that was responsible for collecting ANC input to the COMP Plan in order to consolidate comments and provide one updated COMP Plan proposal to the City Council for debate. Now, for some reason the order that this all happened in was public discussions first under a set of rules identified by the OP and approved by the Mayor. After the public discussion period and submissions, the Office of Planning collected comments and responded to ANC's and then released its Single Family Housing Report. The Single Family Housing report effectively changed the playing field as it lays clear that while zoning will not change, zoning functionality will change. It basically in one report rendered previous discussions meaningless because it outlined that the public was not playing with all of the information.

Ex.

1. (Nov '19) Have this debate with the certainty that not one single family zoned house will have it zoning upzoned in Ward 3. (How many times have we heard this on this thread)
2. (Jan '20) Provide, recommendations to the Comp Plan knowing that not one single family zoned house will change on the FLUM.
3. (Mar '20) Here is the consolidated and revised Comp Plan without one single family zoned house upzoned in the proposed Comp Plan.
4. (Apr '20) Here is the Single Family Housing Report where we will recommend targeted growth in single family zoned areas through 'gentle densification' and creating missing middleman housing within single family zoned areas without needing to change the zoning rules.

The public was given one set of rules why the Office of Planning and the Mayor were planning an end around the entire time. Had the public known about the Single Family Housing Report in November, it would have informed their debate for the required submissions in January.

There is nothing being conflated here. The public had one requirement with one set of rules and the Office of Planning (the same agency that established the set of rules) changed the playing field after the period of public comment was concluded and released a new document showing its newly interpreted scope of housing planning.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The mayor and OP say it’s the same document as was proposed in the fall with just some minor tweaks, so no need for a new comment period. At the same time they insist that the Plan has been developed to respond to Coronavirus and thus needs to be passed with urgency. Because Bowser is not too bright, she assumes that most voters are dummies, too.

No they have not done that - please provide the citation for that. Someone is hell bent on conflating things and it is really unclear why when what they are saying is provably untrue.

I have been reading this from afar. This PP is interesting. They love using the term 'conflate' in an attempt to discredit and provide no real substance to the argument at the same time. It is my understanding that the poster was arguing that the Single Family Home report, Produced by the Office of Planning, is providing recommendations to the Mayor at the request of the Mayor. I say that because that is what the report says. Meanwhile in January it was the Office of Planning that was responsible for collecting ANC input to the COMP Plan in order to consolidate comments and provide one updated COMP Plan proposal to the City Council for debate. Now, for some reason the order that this all happened in was public discussions first under a set of rules identified by the OP and approved by the Mayor. After the public discussion period and submissions, the Office of Planning collected comments and responded to ANC's and then released its Single Family Housing Report. The Single Family Housing report effectively changed the playing field as it lays clear that while zoning will not change, zoning functionality will change. It basically in one report rendered previous discussions meaningless because it outlined that the public was not playing with all of the information.

Ex.

1. (Nov '19) Have this debate with the certainty that not one single family zoned house will have it zoning upzoned in Ward 3. (How many times have we heard this on this thread)
2. (Jan '20) Provide, recommendations to the Comp Plan knowing that not one single family zoned house will change on the FLUM.
3. (Mar '20) Here is the consolidated and revised Comp Plan without one single family zoned house upzoned in the proposed Comp Plan.
4. (Apr '20) Here is the Single Family Housing Report where we will recommend targeted growth in single family zoned areas through 'gentle densification' and creating missing middleman housing within single family zoned areas without needing to change the zoning rules.

The public was given one set of rules why the Office of Planning and the Mayor were planning an end around the entire time. Had the public known about the Single Family Housing Report in November, it would have informed their debate for the required submissions in January.

There is nothing being conflated here. The public had one requirement with one set of rules and the Office of Planning (the same agency that established the set of rules) changed the playing field after the period of public comment was concluded and released a new document showing its newly interpreted scope of housing planning.



In public meetings in November and December, OP Director Trueblood was denying that OP was moving forward with “gentle density” and any alterations to SFH zones, while privately communicating to allies that gentle density in SFH neighborhoods was very much part of the mayor’s agenda. His lack of transparency and disingenuousness totally undercuts his and the mayor’s credibility.

[Anonymous]

It seems that “pajama boy” Trueblood has been caught with his pants down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The mayor and OP say it’s the same document as was proposed in the fall with just some minor tweaks, so no need for a new comment period. At the same time they insist that the Plan has been developed to respond to Coronavirus and thus needs to be passed with urgency. Because Bowser is not too bright, she assumes that most voters are dummies, too.

No they have not done that - please provide the citation for that. Someone is hell bent on conflating things and it is really unclear why when what they are saying is provably untrue.

I have been reading this from afar. This PP is interesting. They love using the term 'conflate' in an attempt to discredit and provide no real substance to the argument at the same time. It is my understanding that the poster was arguing that the Single Family Home report, Produced by the Office of Planning, is providing recommendations to the Mayor at the request of the Mayor. I say that because that is what the report says. Meanwhile in January it was the Office of Planning that was responsible for collecting ANC input to the COMP Plan in order to consolidate comments and provide one updated COMP Plan proposal to the City Council for debate. Now, for some reason the order that this all happened in was public discussions first under a set of rules identified by the OP and approved by the Mayor. After the public discussion period and submissions, the Office of Planning collected comments and responded to ANC's and then released its Single Family Housing Report. The Single Family Housing report effectively changed the playing field as it lays clear that while zoning will not change, zoning functionality will change. It basically in one report rendered previous discussions meaningless because it outlined that the public was not playing with all of the information.

Ex.

1. (Nov '19) Have this debate with the certainty that not one single family zoned house will have it zoning upzoned in Ward 3. (How many times have we heard this on this thread)
2. (Jan '20) Provide, recommendations to the Comp Plan knowing that not one single family zoned house will change on the FLUM.
3. (Mar '20) Here is the consolidated and revised Comp Plan without one single family zoned house upzoned in the proposed Comp Plan.
4. (Apr '20) Here is the Single Family Housing Report where we will recommend targeted growth in single family zoned areas through 'gentle densification' and creating missing middleman housing within single family zoned areas without needing to change the zoning rules.

The public was given one set of rules why the Office of Planning and the Mayor were planning an end around the entire time. Had the public known about the Single Family Housing Report in November, it would have informed their debate for the required submissions in January.

There is nothing being conflated here. The public had one requirement with one set of rules and the Office of Planning (the same agency that established the set of rules) changed the playing field after the period of public comment was concluded and released a new document showing its newly interpreted scope of housing planning.

In public meetings in November and December, OP Director Trueblood was denying that OP was moving forward with “gentle density” and any alterations to SFH zones, while privately communicating to allies that gentle density in SFH neighborhoods was very much part of the mayor’s agenda. His lack of transparency and disingenuousness totally undercuts his and the mayor’s credibility.

You guys are truly nuts - please go and take your hydroxychloroquine.

There is no proposal to implement gentle density.

Just a report.

You can state it on here a hundred or a thousand times but it doesn't make it true.

If you want to discuss the report we can certainly do that.

But you are being dishonest with this nonsense that there is any proposal.

[Anonymous]

You guys are truly nuts - please go and take your hydroxychloroquine.

There is no proposal to implement gentle density.

Just a report.

You can state it on here a hundred or a thousand times but it doesn't make it true.

If you want to discuss the report we can certainly do that.

But you are being dishonest with this nonsense that there is any proposal.

The 'report' in its own words is a recommendation to the Mayor and itself for how to implement the new COMP Plan to do exactly what it recommends.

You can keep saying 'it is a report'. That is TRUE.
The report recommends 'gentle density'.
The report recommends that to the Mayor and itself. That is the ENTIRE purpose of the report. Otherwise OP simply would not have published it.

CONCLUSION
This report recommends that the District pursue gentle
density in single-family zones in a targeted manner that
prioritizes neighborhoods that are high-opportunity,
high-cost, or near high-capacity transit. An important
element of this recommendation is ensuring that
the District maintains and grows a supply of familysized units as land uses change from single-family to
multifamily.

That is the conclusion of the report. You can say it makes no recommendations, but its words say it does. You can say it never recommends 'gentle densification' but that is simply because you have not read the document and now are refusing to do so. We have been discussing the report for twenty pages or so, but you simply will not acknowledge that the report uses the words that it does or even makes a conclusion or even provides the Mayor a recommendation. I am not sure how we discuss this constructively when you will not even acknowledge the conclusions first paragraph.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You guys are truly nuts - please go and take your hydroxychloroquine.

There is no proposal to implement gentle density.

Just a report.

You can state it on here a hundred or a thousand times but it doesn't make it true.

If you want to discuss the report we can certainly do that.

But you are being dishonest with this nonsense that there is any proposal.

The 'report' in its own words is a recommendation to the Mayor and itself for how to implement the new COMP Plan to do exactly what it recommends.

You can keep saying 'it is a report'. That is TRUE.
The report recommends 'gentle density'.
The report recommends that to the Mayor and itself. That is the ENTIRE purpose of the report. Otherwise OP simply would not have published it.

CONCLUSION
This report recommends that the District pursue gentle
density in single-family zones in a targeted manner that
prioritizes neighborhoods that are high-opportunity,
high-cost, or near high-capacity transit. An important
element of this recommendation is ensuring that
the District maintains and grows a supply of familysized units as land uses change from single-family to
multifamily.

That is the conclusion of the report. You can say it makes no recommendations, but its words say it does. You can say it never recommends 'gentle densification' but that is simply because you have not read the document and now are refusing to do so. We have been discussing the report for twenty pages or so, but you simply will not acknowledge that the report uses the words that it does or even makes a conclusion or even provides the Mayor a recommendation. I am not sure how we discuss this constructively when you will not even acknowledge the conclusions first paragraph.

PP. You are debating against someone who is probably a lawyer and using a nuanced term of art here in order to maintain that he is 'factually' correct. That does not mean that he is correct about the 'argument' but he may be factually correct here.

The PPP is using the term 'proposal'. He is arguing that the Single Family Zone report does not make 'proposals' and you PP are stating that it makes 'recommendations', allowing the PPP to dance around saying that it never makes proposals. In a court of law PPP 'Proposal Guy' would win despite the fact that we know in this case that proposal and recommendation are being used to effect the same function (another term PPP 'Proposal Guy' likes).

So my recommendation would be to get off of the cogent argument that the Single Family Zoning Report states a 'recommendation' in its conclusion. PPP 'proposal guy' will simply say that is not a proposal of gentle densification, it is a recommendation only.

Try another reference from page ten of the same document. This states directly using PPP 'proposal guy's' favored terminology and goes further to say that it is the COMP Plan which incorporates gentle density:

"The Mayor’s Comp Plan Proposal incorporates gentle density throughout its policies by encouraging development that respects neighborhood character, while considering neighborhood priorities, such as affordable housing and public facilities (LU-2.1.3: Conserving, Enhancing, and Revitalizing Neighborhoods)."

Now maybe with the terms of art outlined, we can move beyond them and get back to the work of this 70 page thread.

PPP 'proposal guy' says that he is ready to discuss the document. Let's let him cast the first argument now we have put this behind us.

My popcorn is ready.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You guys are truly nuts - please go and take your hydroxychloroquine.

There is no proposal to implement gentle density.

Just a report.

You can state it on here a hundred or a thousand times but it doesn't make it true.

If you want to discuss the report we can certainly do that.

But you are being dishonest with this nonsense that there is any proposal.

The 'report' in its own words is a recommendation to the Mayor and itself for how to implement the new COMP Plan to do exactly what it recommends.

You can keep saying 'it is a report'. That is TRUE.
The report recommends 'gentle density'.
The report recommends that to the Mayor and itself. That is the ENTIRE purpose of the report. Otherwise OP simply would not have published it.

CONCLUSION
This report recommends that the District pursue gentle
density in single-family zones in a targeted manner that
prioritizes neighborhoods that are high-opportunity,
high-cost, or near high-capacity transit. An important
element of this recommendation is ensuring that
the District maintains and grows a supply of familysized units as land uses change from single-family to
multifamily.

That is the conclusion of the report. You can say it makes no recommendations, but its words say it does. You can say it never recommends 'gentle densification' but that is simply because you have not read the document and now are refusing to do so. We have been discussing the report for twenty pages or so, but you simply will not acknowledge that the report uses the words that it does or even makes a conclusion or even provides the Mayor a recommendation. I am not sure how we discuss this constructively when you will not even acknowledge the conclusions first paragraph.

PP. You are debating against someone who is probably a lawyer and using a nuanced term of art here in order to maintain that he is 'factually' correct. That does not mean that he is correct about the 'argument' but he may be factually correct here.

The PPP is using the term 'proposal'. He is arguing that the Single Family Zone report does not make 'proposals' and you PP are stating that it makes 'recommendations', allowing the PPP to dance around saying that it never makes proposals. In a court of law PPP 'Proposal Guy' would win despite the fact that we know in this case that proposal and recommendation are being used to effect the same function (another term PPP 'Proposal Guy' likes).

So my recommendation would be to get off of the cogent argument that the Single Family Zoning Report states a 'recommendation' in its conclusion. PPP 'proposal guy' will simply say that is not a proposal of gentle densification, it is a recommendation only.

Try another reference from page ten of the same document. This states directly using PPP 'proposal guy's' favored terminology and goes further to say that it is the COMP Plan which incorporates gentle density:

"The Mayor’s Comp Plan Proposal incorporates gentle density throughout its policies by encouraging development that respects neighborhood character, while considering neighborhood priorities, such as affordable housing and public facilities (LU-2.1.3: Conserving, Enhancing, and Revitalizing Neighborhoods)."

Now maybe with the terms of art outlined, we can move beyond them and get back to the work of this 70 page thread.

PPP 'proposal guy' says that he is ready to discuss the document. Let's let him cast the first argument now we have put this behind us.

My popcorn is ready.

OMG this is truly nuts.

And I am not a lawyer just someone who understands how laws get enacted in DC and let me tell you it isn't rocket science though it is akin to sausage being made.

For "gentle density" to become policy in DC it needs to be incorporated into legislation.

Currently there is no legislative proposal that incorporates "gentle density."

If you believe there is a proposal or that it is incorporated somewhere in the proposal DCOP sent to DC Council more than a month ago to update the Comp Plan please provide a citation for where it is in that legislation.

Otherwise all we have is a report with recommendations and you can repeat it all you want that it is a formal proposal but that will never make it true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The 'report' in its own words is a recommendation to the Mayor and itself for how to implement the new COMP Plan to do exactly what it recommends.

You can keep saying 'it is a report'. That is TRUE.
The report recommends 'gentle density'.
The report recommends that to the Mayor and itself. That is the ENTIRE purpose of the report. Otherwise OP simply would not have published it.

CONCLUSION
This report recommends that the District pursue gentle
density in single-family zones in a targeted manner that
prioritizes neighborhoods that are high-opportunity,
high-cost, or near high-capacity transit. An important
element of this recommendation is ensuring that
the District maintains and grows a supply of familysized units as land uses change from single-family to
multifamily.

That is the conclusion of the report. You can say it makes no recommendations, but its words say it does. You can say it never recommends 'gentle densification' but that is simply because you have not read the document and now are refusing to do so. We have been discussing the report for twenty pages or so, but you simply will not acknowledge that the report uses the words that it does or even makes a conclusion or even provides the Mayor a recommendation. I am not sure how we discuss this constructively when you will not even acknowledge the conclusions first paragraph.

DP. Even I understand the difference between a report recommendation to change the zoning code and an actual proposal to change the zoning code, and I am not a lawyer.

I (random anonymous poster on an Internet message board) recommend replacing the Cleveland Park library with a 100-foot climbing wall <---is that a proposal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The 'report' in its own words is a recommendation to the Mayor and itself for how to implement the new COMP Plan to do exactly what it recommends.

You can keep saying 'it is a report'. That is TRUE.
The report recommends 'gentle density'.
The report recommends that to the Mayor and itself. That is the ENTIRE purpose of the report. Otherwise OP simply would not have published it.

CONCLUSION
This report recommends that the District pursue gentle
density in single-family zones in a targeted manner that
prioritizes neighborhoods that are high-opportunity,
high-cost, or near high-capacity transit. An important
element of this recommendation is ensuring that
the District maintains and grows a supply of familysized units as land uses change from single-family to
multifamily.

That is the conclusion of the report. You can say it makes no recommendations, but its words say it does. You can say it never recommends 'gentle densification' but that is simply because you have not read the document and now are refusing to do so. We have been discussing the report for twenty pages or so, but you simply will not acknowledge that the report uses the words that it does or even makes a conclusion or even provides the Mayor a recommendation. I am not sure how we discuss this constructively when you will not even acknowledge the conclusions first paragraph.

DP. Even I understand the difference between a report recommendation to change the zoning code and an actual proposal to change the zoning code, and I am not a lawyer.

I (random anonymous poster on an Internet message board) recommend replacing the Cleveland Park library with a 100-foot climbing wall <---is that a proposal?

I propose that the new Cleveland Park vape shop be replaced with a hydroxychloroquine dispensary!

[Anonymous]

OMG this is truly nuts.

And I am not a lawyer just someone who understands how laws get enacted in DC and let me tell you it isn't rocket science though it is akin to sausage being made.

For "gentle density" to become policy in DC it needs to be incorporated into legislation.

Currently there is no legislative proposal that incorporates "gentle density."

If you believe there is a proposal or that it is incorporated somewhere in the proposal DCOP sent to DC Council more than a month ago to update the Comp Plan please provide a citation for where it is in that legislation.

Otherwise all we have is a report with recommendations and you can repeat it all you want that it is a formal proposal but that will never make it true.

Hmmm...NOBODY ever said that there was legislation to incorporate 'gentle density'. Everybody has maintained that the Comp Plan and the Single Family Zoning report both 'propose' and 'recommend' gentle density. I believe even the steps have been enumerated here.

So now that you have thrown your little tantrum and moved the goal posts again, are we going to get down to the discussion you proposed or are you going to 'conflate' (to use your term) COVID treatments with housing policy? (technically you probably can continue conflating because the thread is about how COVID may impact density planning)

So all in for replacing the vape shop with a COVID therapeutics Shoppe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

OMG this is truly nuts.

And I am not a lawyer just someone who understands how laws get enacted in DC and let me tell you it isn't rocket science though it is akin to sausage being made.

For "gentle density" to become policy in DC it needs to be incorporated into legislation.

Currently there is no legislative proposal that incorporates "gentle density."

If you believe there is a proposal or that it is incorporated somewhere in the proposal DCOP sent to DC Council more than a month ago to update the Comp Plan please provide a citation for where it is in that legislation.

Otherwise all we have is a report with recommendations and you can repeat it all you want that it is a formal proposal but that will never make it true.

Hmmm...NOBODY ever said that there was legislation to incorporate 'gentle density'. Everybody has maintained that the Comp Plan and the Single Family Zoning report both 'propose' and 'recommend' gentle density. I believe even the steps have been enumerated here.

So now that you have thrown your little tantrum and moved the goal posts again, are we going to get down to the discussion you proposed or are you going to 'conflate' (to use your term) COVID treatments with housing policy? (technically you probably can continue conflating because the thread is about how COVID may impact density planning)

So all in for replacing the vape shop with a COVID therapeutics Shoppe?

It won't, no matter how much you might want it to. Now we can we end the thread?

[Anonymous]

OMG this is truly nuts.

And I am not a lawyer just someone who understands how laws get enacted in DC and let me tell you it isn't rocket science though it is akin to sausage being made.

For "gentle density" to become policy in DC it needs to be incorporated into legislation.

Currently there is no legislative proposal that incorporates "gentle density."

If you believe there is a proposal or that it is incorporated somewhere in the proposal DCOP sent to DC Council more than a month ago to update the Comp Plan please provide a citation for where it is in that legislation.

Otherwise all we have is a report with recommendations and you can repeat it all you want that it is a formal proposal but that will never make it true.

Ok. Got it. Let's just wait until the process moves to legislation and then we can all continue this discussion. No sense in understanding the issues earlier. Lets all wait. Stop the train.

Popcorn...chomp....chomp....

I'd like a climbing wall as well. I suggest using Tenley Gastropub wall. Less hot when the sun reflects off of the glass and once they build housing on the library, the tenants will resent people peaking in their windows.