Chevy Chase Community Center Redevelopment

[Anonymous]

The polling was done with many experts consulting many times over. It was beyond professional and carefully planned. Those who didn’t like the fact that the majority of respondents said 1. “Affordable housing — all for it “ 2. “But don’t give away the library and community center” ——like to point fingers. They scream NIMBY and constantly pepper this discussion and others with false information like claiming the new community center will have more green space. Hello ? No one wants to drag their kid to the roof of a condo and call it a playground. As has been stated many times, there’s plenty of affordable housing up and down Conn Ave. with vacant apartments all over.

That a few power hungry ANC members found a path to notoriety by falling prey to developers who couldn’t care less about anything other than the windfall that is the civic core , is what needs to be called out. We need much less naive leaders. In the name of affordable housing, while whispering “ racism “, they are in fact bought and paid for by commercial interests who are laughing all the way to the bank as their standard “co-opt the ambitious ANC members” playbook is working yet again.

Great work ANC. Usher in a development most don’t want so that 50 more families can live in Chevy Chase while 15,000 residents sit by and watch their public facilities get sold off. Just brilliant. …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dc does not need anymore subsidized housing at all. It already has one of highest rates of subsidized housing anywhere in the country. More than any other state on a per capita basis in the entire US. It needs more market rate housing to balance out the budget and backfill the giant financial hole from downsizing federal government employment levels.

Any jobs for these new homeowners or are you just interested in the independently wealthy that don't need jobs?

There is plenty of market rate housing that is affordable to people that are employed. DC needs more balanced growth in order to support the funding required for the generous social services it currently provides. Continuing to require and approve such a large number of housing units for very low income people is a recipe for disaster if you want a functional government. Without balanced growth by income group this whole funding mechanism will collapse and the quality of public services will deteriorate.

80% AMI is not "very low income" people. I mean, this is not a homeless shelter being proposed in Chevy Chase, despite the crying from the NIMBYs.

I’m saying nothing about this specific development income threshold, I’m saying that forcing high density development on communities that don’t want it is symptomatic of DCs overall political dysfunction where people seem to know what is best for everyone else, but themselves.

the proposed development in Chevy Chase is a whopping ten feet higher than what is there currently, with more usable greenspace on the ground. It is public space, so the public writ large gets to decide how to use it, not a few NIMBYs who are on a twit because they don't want "the poors" begriming their neighborhood.

I wasn’t aware that they voted on it, and the public seemed pretty against it at the meetings.

How was this decision so clearly made?

you mean the same 20-30 people who show up at every meeting to complain about this? That isn't "the public pretty against it" it is a handful of cranks in a neighborhood of thousands of people. Even the unscientific polling that has been done shows an even split, and the elections show the people who live closest to it, support it. It is hard to understand why people who iive more than a mile away in ward 4 are so concerned about this.

I might say the same about the YIMBYs, which seems to be same 10-15 white guys in bike helmets that get themselves all worked up about places they don’t live, inserting their ridiculous views into areas far from there they live. If they could get 30 I’d be ever so impressed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dc does not need anymore subsidized housing at all. It already has one of highest rates of subsidized housing anywhere in the country. More than any other state on a per capita basis in the entire US. It needs more market rate housing to balance out the budget and backfill the giant financial hole from downsizing federal government employment levels.

Any jobs for these new homeowners or are you just interested in the independently wealthy that don't need jobs?

There is plenty of market rate housing that is affordable to people that are employed. DC needs more balanced growth in order to support the funding required for the generous social services it currently provides. Continuing to require and approve such a large number of housing units for very low income people is a recipe for disaster if you want a functional government. Without balanced growth by income group this whole funding mechanism will collapse and the quality of public services will deteriorate.

80% AMI is not "very low income" people. I mean, this is not a homeless shelter being proposed in Chevy Chase, despite the crying from the NIMBYs.

I’m saying nothing about this specific development income threshold, I’m saying that forcing high density development on communities that don’t want it is symptomatic of DCs overall political dysfunction where people seem to know what is best for everyone else, but themselves.

the proposed development in Chevy Chase is a whopping ten feet higher than what is there currently, with more usable greenspace on the ground. It is public space, so the public writ large gets to decide how to use it, not a few NIMBYs who are on a twit because they don't want "the poors" begriming their neighborhood.

I wasn’t aware that they voted on it, and the public seemed pretty against it at the meetings.

How was this decision so clearly made?

you mean the same 20-30 people who show up at every meeting to complain about this? That isn't "the public pretty against it" it is a handful of cranks in a neighborhood of thousands of people. Even the unscientific polling that has been done shows an even split, and the elections show the people who live closest to it, support it. It is hard to understand why people who iive more than a mile away in ward 4 are so concerned about this.

I might say the same about the YIMBYs, which seems to be same 10-15 white guys in bike helmets that get themselves all worked up about places they don’t live, inserting their ridiculous views into areas far from there they live. If they could get 30 I’d be ever so impressed.

Are these closed meetings only for those few people or open to all residents, voters, community members? If you can’t be bothered to show up, why should anyone care what you think?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The polling was done with many experts consulting many times over. It was beyond professional and carefully planned. Those who didn’t like the fact that the majority of respondents said 1. “Affordable housing — all for it “ 2. “But don’t give away the library and community center” ——like to point fingers. They scream NIMBY and constantly pepper this discussion and others with false information like claiming the new community center will have more green space. Hello ? No one wants to drag their kid to the roof of a condo and call it a playground. As has been stated many times, there’s plenty of affordable housing up and down Conn Ave. with vacant apartments all over.

That a few power hungry ANC members found a path to notoriety by falling prey to developers who couldn’t care less about anything other than the windfall that is the civic core , is what needs to be called out. We need much less naive leaders. In the name of affordable housing, while whispering “ racism “, they are in fact bought and paid for by commercial interests who are laughing all the way to the bank as their standard “co-opt the ambitious ANC members” playbook is working yet again.

Great work ANC. Usher in a development most don’t want so that 50 more families can live in Chevy Chase while 15,000 residents sit by and watch their public facilities get sold off. Just brilliant. …

LOL, no, it wasn't. There was no sampling, questions were leading or misleading and there was no calibration to any mean. Sorry, I don't know who told you these were professional polls, they were nowhere close. And fact...getting a few hundred or even a couple of thousand responses is a nice snapshot, but in a neighborhood of thousands and a city of hundreds of thousands - people who all pay for and have a stake in every public facility, the polling is nowhere near representative of anything other than who responded to it, particularly when there were no controls on how many responses could be generated from the same IP address. I saw rthe raw data from the polling when it was shared. there were multiple responses from the same households, mostly on the NIMBY side. sure, you might get a couple from each, but this was like 5-8 from the same IP, and there was no balancing out of that data.

These facts have been pointed out to the ANC in emails and on the neighborhood email group, and yet, the fallacy is STILL repeated all.the.time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dc does not need anymore subsidized housing at all. It already has one of highest rates of subsidized housing anywhere in the country. More than any other state on a per capita basis in the entire US. It needs more market rate housing to balance out the budget and backfill the giant financial hole from downsizing federal government employment levels.

Any jobs for these new homeowners or are you just interested in the independently wealthy that don't need jobs?

There is plenty of market rate housing that is affordable to people that are employed. DC needs more balanced growth in order to support the funding required for the generous social services it currently provides. Continuing to require and approve such a large number of housing units for very low income people is a recipe for disaster if you want a functional government. Without balanced growth by income group this whole funding mechanism will collapse and the quality of public services will deteriorate.

80% AMI is not "very low income" people. I mean, this is not a homeless shelter being proposed in Chevy Chase, despite the crying from the NIMBYs.

I’m saying nothing about this specific development income threshold, I’m saying that forcing high density development on communities that don’t want it is symptomatic of DCs overall political dysfunction where people seem to know what is best for everyone else, but themselves.

the proposed development in Chevy Chase is a whopping ten feet higher than what is there currently, with more usable greenspace on the ground. It is public space, so the public writ large gets to decide how to use it, not a few NIMBYs who are on a twit because they don't want "the poors" begriming their neighborhood.

I wasn’t aware that they voted on it, and the public seemed pretty against it at the meetings.

How was this decision so clearly made?

you mean the same 20-30 people who show up at every meeting to complain about this? That isn't "the public pretty against it" it is a handful of cranks in a neighborhood of thousands of people. Even the unscientific polling that has been done shows an even split, and the elections show the people who live closest to it, support it. It is hard to understand why people who iive more than a mile away in ward 4 are so concerned about this.

I might say the same about the YIMBYs, which seems to be same 10-15 white guys in bike helmets that get themselves all worked up about places they don’t live, inserting their ridiculous views into areas far from there they live. If they could get 30 I’d be ever so impressed.

I have attended meetings with project supporters and i cannot think of a single white guy bicycle person among them.

[Anonymous]

The white bicycle guys and Greater Greater Washington are behind the policies. They also tried to stack the ANCs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The white bicycle guys and Greater Greater Washington are behind the policies. They also tried to stack the ANCs.

Ah, so we are back to the conspiratorial bike lobby.

Who are these people? Look at the list of people on the Chevy Chase forward website- who are these bike lobby greater greater Washington folks on that list?

They are mostly people in their 60’s and 70’s who have lived in Chevy Chase for more than 30 years.

[Anonymous]

Oh please - to the defensive anc member or member rep above who claimed to have “seen raw data “ on the polling. IP addresses were “ painstakingly tracked and removed “ according to the many meetings and transcripts of them about this very issue. And they know several polling consultants were used in every stage of the process. More - much more professional oversight than is typical. IP addresses in particular were removed over and over if too many votes came from same one.

When the pro development lobby doesn’t like the results they claim bad data. When they are called out for not voting in sync with what their actual constituents clearly say they want ——they say “ but look. The majority elected me “. Was that bad data too ? A much smaller percentage actually voted in the election than filled out the survey …enough of the nonsense. The neighborhood has spoken. And everyone knows it. It’s a bad look to constantly claim bad data only for the results they don’t like.

[Anonymous]

the neighborhood is divided. Any sense the NIMBYs believe they are the majority is rooted in the biases of the neighborhood listserv moderator who censors hundreds of posts from people she disagrees with.

[Anonymous]

I would also note, that the amount of lies and misinformation propagated by the project opponents on this thread, on said listserv and other venues undermines the credibility of any survey. Same thing with the verbose resolutions that have materials lies in them to justify whatever the resolution is requesting.

At least have the decency to oppose the project based on facts and not lies.

[Anonymous]

But..you can’t quite say what the actual lie is … calling someone a liar or calling their resolution full of lies doesn’t make it true. It just makes you a bully. We see you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But..you can’t quite say what the actual lie is … calling someone a liar or calling their resolution full of lies doesn’t make it true. It just makes you a bully. We see you.

There are a ton of lies

"developer giveaway"
"selling the land to developers"
"loss of green space"
"insufficient library space"
"insufficient community center space"

I could go on, but if you believe any of the quoted items above, then you have bought the lies.

[Anonymous]

eh....none of the stuff in quotes above appear in the polls or the resolutions...the question was to be specific about what was in the polls and resolutions that apparently contained "lies". The answer given simply quotes commentary from a discussion board which is irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Here is a recent resolution

https://anc3g.dc.gov/sites/default/files/file-upload/Resolution_on_Civic_Core_Surplus_and_Disposition_FINAL_TM_20260413050631PM_0.pdf


here is a clause:

WHEREAS, the surplus determination addresses whether public property should cease to serve public purposes, while the disposition legislation addresses a separate policy question concerning the terms under which redevelopment may occur

Fact: the legal definition of "surplus' in this context is not only quite clear, but has been explained by the city and advocates both in meetings and the the listserv many times. There is no suggestion that the public site will not be serving a public function any longer. the implication otherwise IS A LIE.

Here are a few more clauses
WHEREAS, in the fall of 2023 ANC 3/4G conducted a community survey regarding
redevelopment of the Community Center and Library site that received 2,838 responses,
including 2,298 respondents identifying themselves as ANC 3/4G residents;
WHEREAS, 2,142 of those residents responded to a question regarding whether a portion of the site should be declared surplus to enable housing, and approximately 62 percent opposed such a declaration while approximately 29 percent supported it, demonstrating that the question of surplussing the Civic Core site is itself a substantive and contested policy issue within the community;
WHEREAS, these sources of public input demonstrate that the threshold determination of whether the Civic Core site should be declared surplus is itself a matter of significant public interest and policy debate within the community and is distinct from subsequent decisions concerning the design, scale, and terms of any redevelopment;

1) there are more than 14,000 residents covered in this ANC. Citing a survey of 2100 respondants that is not scientifically tested and again, not bound for multiple responses from the same respondent, has little validity to be used for this purpose, yet the ANC uses it for this purpose anyhow.
2) the specifics about support or opposition was not properly qualified in the poll, because there are people who were opposed because they wanted MORE housing and MORE density, but that wasn't tested. There are also people who support housing on the site, but want it to be social housing or some other mechanism than what is being proposed. People like Janeese Lewis-George fall under that category.

Here is another resolution:

https://dcgovict-my.sharepoint.com/personal/3g04_anc_dc_gov/_layouts/15/onedrive.aspx?id=%2Fpersonal%2F3g04%5Fanc%5Fdc%5Fgov%2FDocuments%2F2026%2D05%2D11%2DResolution%2DInterim%5FANC%5FViews%5Fon%5FRift%5FValley%5FProposal%5Fsigned%2Epdf&parent=%2Fpersonal%2F3g04%5Fanc%5Fdc%5Fgov%2FDocuments&ga=1

with another clause

WHEREAS, ANC 3/4G has previously resolved, including in July 2025 and March 2026, that DMPED should abandon its housing plans for the Civic Core, prioritize modernization of the community center and library while preserving meaningful green space and recreational facilities, and treat any designation of the site as surplus to facilitate housing as a separate, unresolved policy question prior to considering
disposition of the property; and

So same issue, the misuse of the term surplus. The city still owns the propery, there will still be a community center and the size and specifications of DPR and a library at the size and specifications of DCPL. There will also be more greenspace than is on the current site. So the inferal here that the site is being fully privatized or that there won't be "meaningful" greenspace is either misleading, or a lie.

another clause

WHEREAS, ANC survey data from 2023 and 2025 show that majorities of respondents oppose housing at the Civic Core site as well as declaring the site surplus to facilitate housing, and that respondents strongly support open space and neighborhood-compatible scale; and

again, the site will have more greenspace than the current site. Also, again, using this survey data that had a couple of thousand people to carry water when the overwhelming majority didn't bother to respond tells most rational people that folks are fine with the city plans. It is only the rabid thousand or so who are really opposed to it and willing to continue to divide the neighborhood over it, rather than working to make the facilities the best they can be. The current ANC is fomenting and encouraging this division....it really harkens back to the 1950's in terms of the rhetoric and poor treatment of certain people.

another clause

WHEREAS, the Rift Valley proposal evaluated by residents in 2025 has since materially changed with respect to unit count, affordability mix, and other key elements, in ways that are inconsistent with
preferences expressed by residents, including those who support housing.

The implication here is that Rift Valley changed the proposal....nothing could be further from the truth. The city - DMPED - changed the specifications because of macroeconomics. So the ANC is sending this resolution to the city (DMPED) to complain about an action DMPED has taken.

I mean, sure it has that right, but, as mentioned before, wouldn't this energy be better spent making sure the design is as good as it can be and that the facilities are as good as they can be? It is just such a huge waste of time and energy. Imagine putting this kind of energy and people power into something societally productive!

[Anonymous]

This is a bunch of bloated bs. Two points are made and neither are about lies. 1 is objection to inferring anything from the survey because someone thinks only a percentage of respondents doesn’t reflect a majority view. Not a lie. An opinion. The other is a technical question about the use of the word surplus and again no lies. Just a bunch a verbiage. The question about green space really needs to be fleshed out. Will the rooftop have astroturf. ?? Is a real park being replaced by a rooftop park with no trees or real green. This needs to be determined. I hope someone with some real data can respond to this last question because the rest is just bs to have the last word. If someone understands the actual green space issue it would be good to hear from them only.