Oh, Chevy Chase (DC affordable housing)!

[Anonymous]

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.

You are afraid. You typed it anonymously.

Ding ding ding!

[Anonymous]

You want cheap rent give developers what they want and let them build a ton of full market rate apartments and condos.

In ten years they will have overbuilt and have to cut rents and condo prices will fall

[Anonymous]

Just curious—do any of the subsidy programs give preference to those that work for schools, police, fire? (Or even any DC goverent employment?).

[Anonymous]

I think we need to invest in more signs in Chevy Chase reminding white people how awful their ancestors were like at Chevy Chase Circle and Lafayette. I, for one, find the self flagellation refreshing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One other thing I’m baffled by is why smart rich people could be so stupid and self-sabotaging as to be quoted in the Washington Post about how you think affordable housing will ruin your neighborhood. All “Connor McCarthy” has to say is “no comment,” or even “can I give you a comment without attribution?” What kind of person can be that rich and successful but also that stupid?

He's not some random guy, either--he's on the ANC's standing committee on zoning and development https://anc3g.org/standing-commitees/zoning-design-and-development-zdd-standing-committee/ and he's a real estate professional.

Why would a real estate expert move across the street from an aging community center if he wanted certainty around the future of his little section of the neighborhood?

[Anonymous]

Maybe CC should just be a neighborhood for white supremacists.
Then they will have their whetto, and the rest of us can stay out. They can even build a wall around themselves. Do they have food in there? The best. Concierge medical practices available? We'd never have to see them again. Problem solved.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand why people can't separate out the issues of affordable housing with development of the library/community center. Many of us want both - We want the city to do their job and refurbish the library and the community center as publicly owned assets. And develop affordable housing in Ward 3.

The rub is - why does it all have to be on the same lot? There's plenty of other housing being developed. Does City Center have affordable housing? What about all the development in Tenley/Friendship Heights? Or the many other aging apartment buildings on CT avenue that constantly have a "vacancy" sign out front. Set the zoning to require set-asides of affordable housing units. I'd even prefer the city buy one of these other buildings [or just units in one of these other buildings] and develop the whole thing into affordable housing. But basically by combining the two and giving away public land to a developer, the City is basically giving away these public resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are already many apartment buildings in CC that are affordable. But obviously that does nothing for the developers.

I don’t think this is true.

The city has been placing homeless people in subsidized apartments up and down CT Ave for years now. No reason they couldn’t do the same for working class families in the apartment bldgs in CC. But again, no gain for developers in that scenario.

We have an acute housing crisis, there are not enough vacant apartments. You sound very out of touch.

One seven-story building in CC won’t change that.

Each additional unit will help. Obviously.

Great. Start with the apartment buildings that already exist. There are a lot of them.

They are already in use. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Nah. Vacancies come up all the time. As seen in the many people the city has already placed in subsidized apartments along the CT corridor.
No shiny objects for developers, though.

But I’m sure DC wants designated affordable units for a certain period of time. The developer/landlord must agree to keep the units affordable for a certain period of time. Then the tenants pay their share to the landlord and the landlord doesn’t have the same freedom to adjust rent like for a market-rate unit. I don’t see how your suggestion really does anything to guarantee a certain number of affordable units are available in CC and/or DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why people can't separate out the issues of affordable housing with development of the library/community center. Many of us want both - We want the city to do their job and refurbish the library and the community center as publicly owned assets. And develop affordable housing in Ward 3.

The rub is - why does it all have to be on the same lot? There's plenty of other housing being developed. Does City Center have affordable housing? What about all the development in Tenley/Friendship Heights? Or the many other aging apartment buildings on CT avenue that constantly have a "vacancy" sign out front. Set the zoning to require set-asides of affordable housing units. I'd even prefer the city buy one of these other buildings [or just units in one of these other buildings] and develop the whole thing into affordable housing. But basically by combining the two and giving away public land to a developer, the City is basically giving away these public resources.

But can the city afford to buy another building and would it be cheaper than using land it already owns? More and more of these public-private partnerships to provide affordable housing are popping up in metro areas and it’s because land is just so expensive now.

[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.

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.

DP.
Sometimes just saying no shuts the whole argument, whereas giving a finger leads to losing an arm.
There is a story upthread about how a community agreed to build housing for its residents but then there was a lawsuit and “urban” folks came in from other areas.

[Anonymous]

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

Subsidized housing resident here. Well people from the neighborhood do dump large items into our trash cans so there’s that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why people can't separate out the issues of affordable housing with development of the library/community center. Many of us want both - We want the city to do their job and refurbish the library and the community center as publicly owned assets. And develop affordable housing in Ward 3.

The rub is - why does it all have to be on the same lot? There's plenty of other housing being developed. Does City Center have affordable housing? What about all the development in Tenley/Friendship Heights? Or the many other aging apartment buildings on CT avenue that constantly have a "vacancy" sign out front. Set the zoning to require set-asides of affordable housing units. I'd even prefer the city buy one of these other buildings [or just units in one of these other buildings] and develop the whole thing into affordable housing. But basically by combining the two and giving away public land to a developer, the City is basically giving away these public resources.

Yes. Did you even try to check?
https://www.apartmentsatcitycenter.com/housing-for-all/

It’s a great spot for this development. There’s no good reason to only have the community center on that site except that it was like that before. It’s close to amenities, transit, jobs. It makes perfect sense.

You all need to come up with some better arguments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

DP.
Sometimes just saying no shuts the whole argument, whereas giving a finger leads to losing an arm.
There is a story upthread about how a community agreed to build housing for its residents but then there was a lawsuit and “urban” folks came in from other areas.

You trust some random story from 1993 without links?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why people can't separate out the issues of affordable housing with development of the library/community center. Many of us want both - We want the city to do their job and refurbish the library and the community center as publicly owned assets. And develop affordable housing in Ward 3.

The rub is - why does it all have to be on the same lot? There's plenty of other housing being developed. Does City Center have affordable housing? What about all the development in Tenley/Friendship Heights? Or the many other aging apartment buildings on CT avenue that constantly have a "vacancy" sign out front. Set the zoning to require set-asides of affordable housing units. I'd even prefer the city buy one of these other buildings [or just units in one of these other buildings] and develop the whole thing into affordable housing. But basically by combining the two and giving away public land to a developer, the City is basically giving away these public resources.

None of the buildings constantly have vacancy signs out. And just because there are vacancies now and then doesn't mean that there isn't a shortage of housing. There should always be a healthy number of vacancies in the market so that people can easily move in and out of apartment buildings, from apartments to houses, etc. I would suggest going through the exercise of looking at historical vacancy rates to compare to today's vacancy rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why people can't separate out the issues of affordable housing with development of the library/community center. Many of us want both - We want the city to do their job and refurbish the library and the community center as publicly owned assets. And develop affordable housing in Ward 3.

The rub is - why does it all have to be on the same lot? There's plenty of other housing being developed. Does City Center have affordable housing? What about all the development in Tenley/Friendship Heights? Or the many other aging apartment buildings on CT avenue that constantly have a "vacancy" sign out front. Set the zoning to require set-asides of affordable housing units. I'd even prefer the city buy one of these other buildings [or just units in one of these other buildings] and develop the whole thing into affordable housing. But basically by combining the two and giving away public land to a developer, the City is basically giving away these public resources.

Yes. Did you even try to check?
https://www.apartmentsatcitycenter.com/housing-for-all/

It’s a great spot for this development. There’s no good reason to only have the community center on that site except that it was like that before. It’s close to amenities, transit, jobs. It makes perfect sense.

You all need to come up with some better arguments.

And it’s already publicly-owned. There is close to zero chance this doesn’t go forward.