Oh, Chevy Chase (DC affordable housing)!

[Anonymous]

Article on todays Wash Post about Cedarhurst Long Island similar story to Chevy Chase.

A developer wants to built a 98 unit apt complex geared towards younger people who work in NYC and may not have a car. Ones who can’t afford a 1-5 million dollar home in town. Mind you this is a market rate complex.

But it is a very very wealthy very very Jewish town who wants no part of 98 apartments springing up in town walking distance to Train to Manhattan.

The old if I wanted to live in Brooklyn I move there song.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I appreciate what you’re saying, and it’s an important point. But can these people never make these other points about the place where they live (about pretty rose bushes, or feeling like a development is a giveaway to developers) because of the history of where they live? That doesn’t quite add up. I think there is room to talk about the legacy of discrimination in CCDC and what responsibility current residents have to remediate that somehow, but I also think they need to be able to voice their concerns about crime/overcrowding at schools/green space/neighborhood character without that being per se racism.

[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.

I just want to make sure I understand. You want the city to pay to improve your community center? And then you also want them to buy a building somewhere else for affordable housing? And you think this a good use of public funds, or just a good deal
for your neighborhood? Are you actually for real?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Article on todays Wash Post about Cedarhurst Long Island similar story to Chevy Chase.

A developer wants to built a 98 unit apt complex geared towards younger people who work in NYC and may not have a car. Ones who can’t afford a 1-5 million dollar home in town. Mind you this is a market rate complex.

But it is a very very wealthy very very Jewish town who wants no part of 98 apartments springing up in town walking distance to Train to Manhattan.

The old if I wanted to live in Brooklyn I move there song.

Land near a commuter train seems like a great place to build apartments…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Article on todays Wash Post about Cedarhurst Long Island similar story to Chevy Chase.

A developer wants to built a 98 unit apt complex geared towards younger people who work in NYC and may not have a car. Ones who can’t afford a 1-5 million dollar home in town. Mind you this is a market rate complex.

But it is a very very wealthy very very Jewish town who wants no part of 98 apartments springing up in town walking distance to Train to Manhattan.

The old if I wanted to live in Brooklyn I move there song.

TF is wrong with you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I appreciate what you’re saying, and it’s an important point. But can these people never make these other points about the place where they live (about pretty rose bushes, or feeling like a development is a giveaway to developers) because of the history of where they live? That doesn’t quite add up. I think there is room to talk about the legacy of discrimination in CCDC and what responsibility current residents have to remediate that somehow, but I also think they need to be able to voice their concerns about crime/overcrowding at schools/green space/neighborhood character without that being per se racism.

They can! Nobody is jumping to a conclusion of racism right away.

If they proposed this for Lafayette Park? Even with the history, it would irreparably change the character of the neighborhood and remove a beautiful and heavily used shared resource. I would completely understand the opposition.

I’m looking at the proposal and the existing community center and the arguments don’t add up for me. There are a small handful of houses that will probably end up worse off because they might loose some light. A tiny bit worse off. That’s it. And on balance with access to the new community center? It’s questionable.

That’s why one wonders if the rose bushes can really be the true objection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don’t understand why poor people think they are entitled to live in rich people neighborhoods.

Not just "poor" people - teachers, police, nurses. These people used to be able to buy in the neighborhood. In fact many of the current retirees living here are former DC government employees. Now they can't afford to live anywhere in DC. Some of us don't want to live solely amongst rich and entitled snots.

If you were building housing reserved for cops, firefighters and nurses, no one would object.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article on todays Wash Post about Cedarhurst Long Island similar story to Chevy Chase.

A developer wants to built a 98 unit apt complex geared towards younger people who work in NYC and may not have a car. Ones who can’t afford a 1-5 million dollar home in town. Mind you this is a market rate complex.

But it is a very very wealthy very very Jewish town who wants no part of 98 apartments springing up in town walking distance to Train to Manhattan.

The old if I wanted to live in Brooklyn I move there song.

TF is wrong with you?

Ceaderhurst is nearly 100 percent Orthodox. It is like 99 percent Jewish. They pretty much defunded all the public schools and force all business to close from Friday to Saturday night. It is part of reason they don’t want the building

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don’t understand why poor people think they are entitled to live in rich people neighborhoods.

Not just "poor" people - teachers, police, nurses. These people used to be able to buy in the neighborhood. In fact many of the current retirees living here are former DC government employees. Now they can't afford to live anywhere in DC. Some of us don't want to live solely amongst rich and entitled snots.

If you were building housing reserved for cops, firefighters and nurses, no one would object.

We understand your "perspective": you don't want perceived low-income scum people moving into the neighborhood. It is enough already. Might I ask your annual household income please? I am expecting an answer if you persist with this.

[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.

Good news! The people in this housing units will overwhelmingly be your fellow DC residents, rather than folks coming from "elsewhere."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don’t understand why poor people think they are entitled to live in rich people neighborhoods.

Not just "poor" people - teachers, police, nurses. These people used to be able to buy in the neighborhood. In fact many of the current retirees living here are former DC government employees. Now they can't afford to live anywhere in DC. Some of us don't want to live solely amongst rich and entitled snots.

If you were building housing reserved for cops, firefighters and nurses, no one would object.

We understand your "perspective": you don't want perceived low-income scum people moving into the neighborhood. It is enough already. Might I ask your annual household income please? I am expecting an answer if you persist with this.

Actually, I also need to know the number of people in your household. I am waiting with a pencil and paper to do the math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 except that in the younger generations (Gen X and below), I don't even think they worked that hard. Everyone I know who was able to buy in CCDC or CCMD did so with generational wealth in the form of parents either paying for all of college/grad school or parents paying the down payment (or both).

[Anonymous]

It has become even worse in the most recent years: I have 30-something trust-fund babies living on both sides of me (everything is paid for by mommy and daddy). They are really difficult to live near, and they have created a large culture clash with all of the other residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 except that in the younger generations (Gen X and below), I don't even think they worked that hard. Everyone I know who was able to buy in CCDC or CCMD did so with generational wealth in the form of parents either paying for all of college/grad school or parents paying the down payment (or both).

Hopefully they will be the most amenable to providing subsidies to others!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It has become even worse in the most recent years: I have 30-something trust-fund babies living on both sides of me (everything is paid for by mommy and daddy). They are really difficult to live near, and they have created a large culture clash with all of the other residents.

Realistically you’re just old and cranky and would have disliked them even if they were self-made.