CCDC Redevelopment Plans

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should build another elementary or middle school here.

The area desperately needs another ES and MS but it also needs a library and community center. We'll never get those things back if this goes through.

All of the proposed designs include a library and community center.

Some are just glorified common rooms that are more of a building amenity than a community amenity. Those are also always the first thing to go when building starts. Renderings are architecural vapor ware.

What is the real need for a library (that isn't just a place for people to go to use the internet) and the community center (which is mostly used for community/ANC meetings?)

I am not suggesting they shouldn't be core to the program, but let's be real about what these "amenities" are in the 21st century.

Add a pool, weight room and meeting rooms, and maybe we can begin to talk about amenities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Opinions? I think it is ridiculous that the city is circumventing the easement the land is subject to when it was originally given to the city. AU park has a perfect site for this development. And the whole”affordable housing” is BS and just being used as a way to justify it. There are plenty of vacant apartments in this area the city could offer, with incentives to the property owners, if they truly cared about affordable housing. Additionally there is not infrastructure that supports the additional cars and new students to the zoned school system.

https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/the_8_proposals_pitched_for_a_hotly_debated_site_in_chevy_chase/23344?fbclid=IwY2xjawJXkzhleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHdiCaiitjnFbdsYgEzCgSPEn3EdVs3cKWDVBd8g2mHnJM2O6zf5nVwnGMA_aem_qyLCL8af-8X9wKZ83Wl27g

This is your uninformed opinion. Legal minds wholly disagree.

The city has to rebuild the library and community center. A partnership like this that adds new housing on city land is the best public use and certainly more cost effective than DCHA buying apartment buildings that are not available currently.

No it isn’t. And no one is suggesting buying apartment buildings. There are vacant apartments (look at the building at Conn and Nebraska for example - still full of empty units- which they promised would have retail on the ground floor) The city could provide tax incentives for leasing vacant units. Putting the public library and community center under apartments is ridiculous . The reality is not many people within the community are going to there anymore or go to a DCPR class, I certainly don’t want to go to a library in an apartment building affordable housing or otherwise. A free standing library and community center are what is needed. Building apartments on top is circumventing the easement plain as day.

There isn't a building at the corner of Nebraska and CT that is empty or devoid of first floor retail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Opinions? I think it is ridiculous that the city is circumventing the easement the land is subject to when it was originally given to the city. AU park has a perfect site for this development. And the whole”affordable housing” is BS and just being used as a way to justify it. There are plenty of vacant apartments in this area the city could offer, with incentives to the property owners, if they truly cared about affordable housing. Additionally there is not infrastructure that supports the additional cars and new students to the zoned school system.

https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/the_8_proposals_pitched_for_a_hotly_debated_site_in_chevy_chase/23344?fbclid=IwY2xjawJXkzhleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHdiCaiitjnFbdsYgEzCgSPEn3EdVs3cKWDVBd8g2mHnJM2O6zf5nVwnGMA_aem_qyLCL8af-8X9wKZ83Wl27g

This is your uninformed opinion. Legal minds wholly disagree.

The city has to rebuild the library and community center. A partnership like this that adds new housing on city land is the best public use and certainly more cost effective than DCHA buying apartment buildings that are not available currently.

No it isn’t. And no one is suggesting buying apartment buildings. There are vacant apartments (look at the building at Conn and Nebraska for example - still full of empty units- which they promised would have retail on the ground floor) The city could provide tax incentives for leasing vacant units. Putting the public library and community center under apartments is ridiculous . The reality is not many people within the community are going to there anymore or go to a DCPR class, I certainly don’t want to go to a library in an apartment building affordable housing or otherwise. A free standing library and community center are what is needed. Building apartments on top is circumventing the easement plain as day.

Then someone should sue over the easement violation.

I am happy to have NIMBYs waste their money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Opinions? I think it is ridiculous that the city is circumventing the easement the land is subject to when it was originally given to the city. AU park has a perfect site for this development. And the whole”affordable housing” is BS and just being used as a way to justify it. There are plenty of vacant apartments in this area the city could offer, with incentives to the property owners, if they truly cared about affordable housing. Additionally there is not infrastructure that supports the additional cars and new students to the zoned school system.

https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/the_8_proposals_pitched_for_a_hotly_debated_site_in_chevy_chase/23344?fbclid=IwY2xjawJXkzhleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHdiCaiitjnFbdsYgEzCgSPEn3EdVs3cKWDVBd8g2mHnJM2O6zf5nVwnGMA_aem_qyLCL8af-8X9wKZ83Wl27g

This is your uninformed opinion. Legal minds wholly disagree.

The city has to rebuild the library and community center. A partnership like this that adds new housing on city land is the best public use and certainly more cost effective than DCHA buying apartment buildings that are not available currently.

No it isn’t. And no one is suggesting buying apartment buildings. There are vacant apartments (look at the building at Conn and Nebraska for example - still full of empty units- which they promised would have retail on the ground floor) The city could provide tax incentives for leasing vacant units. Putting the public library and community center under apartments is ridiculous . The reality is not many people within the community are going to there anymore or go to a DCPR class, I certainly don’t want to go to a library in an apartment building affordable housing or otherwise. A free standing library and community center are what is needed. Building apartments on top is circumventing the easement plain as day.

Then someone should sue over the easement violation.

I am happy to have NIMBYs waste their money.

Do you actually have any substantive things to say regarding this development proposal or are you just part of the developers cult?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should build another elementary or middle school here.

The area desperately needs another ES and MS but it also needs a library and community center. We'll never get those things back if this goes through.

All of the proposed designs include a library and community center.

Some are just glorified common rooms that are more of a building amenity than a community amenity. Those are also always the first thing to go when building starts. Renderings are architecural vapor ware.

What is the real need for a library (that isn't just a place for people to go to use the internet) and the community center (which is mostly used for community/ANC meetings?)

I am not suggesting they shouldn't be core to the program, but let's be real about what these "amenities" are in the 21st century.

Add a pool, weight room and meeting rooms, and maybe we can begin to talk about amenities.

We actually utilize the community center. Our kids have done something there almost every year. Even though it is rundown it is an asset to the community. An asset that is being underutilized but has potential. It should have a weight room and meeting rooms for community use. Those are the things people asked for five years ago and those were the answers that were ignored and delayed in pursuit of this plan.

Yeah, we have ignored spaces like this in the 21st Century. But that's not a good thing. I'd argue that we need them now more than ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should build another elementary or middle school here.

The area desperately needs another ES and MS but it also needs a library and community center. We'll never get those things back if this goes through.

All of the proposed designs include a library and community center.

Some are just glorified common rooms that are more of a building amenity than a community amenity. Those are also always the first thing to go when building starts. Renderings are architecural vapor ware.

What is the real need for a library (that isn't just a place for people to go to use the internet) and the community center (which is mostly used for community/ANC meetings?)

I am not suggesting they shouldn't be core to the program, but let's be real about what these "amenities" are in the 21st century.

Add a pool, weight room and meeting rooms, and maybe we can begin to talk about amenities.

We actually utilize the community center. Our kids have done something there almost every year. Even though it is rundown it is an asset to the community. An asset that is being underutilized but has potential. It should have a weight room and meeting rooms for community use. Those are the things people asked for five years ago and those were the answers that were ignored and delayed in pursuit of this plan.

Yeah, we have ignored spaces like this in the 21st Century. But that's not a good thing. I'd argue that we need them now more than ever.

Agree. I also have taken several classes at the community center (as an adult), and there were plenty of other people there. Suburban communities have more quantity and quality of classes at their community centers - this is something we should be striving for as well.

[Anonymous]

The biggest irony of all is that progressive voices are pushing the "hey its affordable housing" narrative up and down the street even recruiting uninformed clergy into a process that they naively think will result in some kind of fantasized low income haven for the needy when in fact its first and foremost a giveaway of public resources to private interests.

Substance: The proposed buildings are gigantic, 80 feet tall and ugly--and there is no community infrastructure to support or absorb so many people. No planning around congestion, emergency services, utilities, sewage, parking, ( of which there's  practically none proposed) and most importantly schools already are at capacity. 

Process: No one has held the developers to the actual law which designates lower density than proposed, the ANC is without leadership ( the head of the ANC Lisa Gore recently called one of her ANC colleagues "disgusting" in a public forum) and the community feels completely shut out of the process after the majority polled don't want any of it.

The worst was a recent planning meeting for this where one ANC member told two others they couldn't come to the planning meeting unless they were silent and didn't speak -no joke.

Welcome to Chevy Chase where they will win battles and lose wars if they don't get it together fast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Opinions? I think it is ridiculous that the city is circumventing the easement the land is subject to when it was originally given to the city. AU park has a perfect site for this development. And the whole”affordable housing” is BS and just being used as a way to justify it. There are plenty of vacant apartments in this area the city could offer, with incentives to the property owners, if they truly cared about affordable housing. Additionally there is not infrastructure that supports the additional cars and new students to the zoned school system.

https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/the_8_proposals_pitched_for_a_hotly_debated_site_in_chevy_chase/23344?fbclid=IwY2xjawJXkzhleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHdiCaiitjnFbdsYgEzCgSPEn3EdVs3cKWDVBd8g2mHnJM2O6zf5nVwnGMA_aem_qyLCL8af-8X9wKZ83Wl27g

Area resident. I like a few of the new designs a lot. Big improvement over what's there right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The biggest irony of all is that progressive voices are pushing the "hey its affordable housing" narrative up and down the street even recruiting uninformed clergy into a process that they naively think will result in some kind of fantasized low income haven for the needy when in fact its first and foremost a giveaway of public resources to private interests.

Substance: The proposed buildings are gigantic, 80 feet tall and ugly--and there is no community infrastructure to support or absorb so many people. No planning around congestion, emergency services, utilities, sewage, parking, ( of which there's  practically none proposed) and most importantly schools already are at capacity. 

Process: No one has held the developers to the actual law which designates lower density than proposed, the ANC is without leadership ( the head of the ANC Lisa Gore recently called one of her ANC colleagues "disgusting" in a public forum) and the community feels completely shut out of the process after the majority polled don't want any of it.

The worst was a recent planning meeting for this where one ANC member told two others they couldn't come to the planning meeting unless they were silent and didn't speak -no joke.

Welcome to Chevy Chase where they will win battles and lose wars if they don't get it together fast.

Hey Cheryl, how's life?

[Anonymous]

someone posted this on the list serv this morning and it is worth considering-

The ones unhappy and the ones thrilled about the eight redevelopment privatization proposals are very likely to share the same curiosity that I bet neither attorneys nor politicos could explain away... the highly irrational giveaway of the public air rights at the Commons.

Giving away the public air rights at the Commons means giving away control of this site to unknown private entities for decades.

Giving away the public air rights means the income benefits derived by this project will inure to private entities to payback equity investors for their expensive loans and to spend discretionarily (likely far off site) instead of reinvesting it into the project as needed over time.

Giving away the public air rights means routine private screening out whoever these private interests deem not suitable to access whatever "affordable" housing may get built. It also likely means the "affordability" evaporates in 10 to 20 years like other public asset giveaways in the DMPED deal track record.

Absolutely no one can explain why, if the city is paying to rebuild the library, community center, open rec space and landscaping, and even the so-called affordable housing, that the public air rights should also be given away to private entities for any duration at all.

Sure, it is reasonable for developers to deserve a fee to design & build the project, possibly to also manage the housing, but that paid-for task absolutely does not need to be gifted with the right to profit from and control our public air rights for decades.

From what I've read, absolutely no one surveyed, those thrilled or unhappy, lawyers or politicos, asked for this.

Correct me if I am wrong, with a clear explanation why anyone believes the public must sacrifice our public assets this way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The biggest irony of all is that progressive voices are pushing the "hey its affordable housing" narrative up and down the street even recruiting uninformed clergy into a process that they naively think will result in some kind of fantasized low income haven for the needy when in fact its first and foremost a giveaway of public resources to private interests.

Substance: The proposed buildings are gigantic, 80 feet tall and ugly--and there is no community infrastructure to support or absorb so many people. No planning around congestion, emergency services, utilities, sewage, parking, ( of which there's  practically none proposed) and most importantly schools already are at capacity. 

Process: No one has held the developers to the actual law which designates lower density than proposed, the ANC is without leadership ( the head of the ANC Lisa Gore recently called one of her ANC colleagues "disgusting" in a public forum) and the community feels completely shut out of the process after the majority polled don't want any of it.

The worst was a recent planning meeting for this where one ANC member told two others they couldn't come to the planning meeting unless they were silent and didn't speak -no joke.

Welcome to Chevy Chase where they will win battles and lose wars if they don't get it together fast.

Same ol NIMBY tripe.

the buildings will not increase "congestion" nor will they be a burden on emergency services, utilities, sewage or parking. And the ANC Commissioner confirmed there is plenty of room at Lafayette if schools space is needed. Face it, the PP and people like them simply don't want change, don't want "those people" in their neighborhood and cannot fathom that this is among the best and most efficient use of public space and public dollars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The biggest irony of all is that progressive voices are pushing the "hey its affordable housing" narrative up and down the street even recruiting uninformed clergy into a process that they naively think will result in some kind of fantasized low income haven for the needy when in fact its first and foremost a giveaway of public resources to private interests.

Substance: The proposed buildings are gigantic, 80 feet tall and ugly--and there is no community infrastructure to support or absorb so many people. No planning around congestion, emergency services, utilities, sewage, parking, ( of which there's  practically none proposed) and most importantly schools already are at capacity. 

Process: No one has held the developers to the actual law which designates lower density than proposed, the ANC is without leadership ( the head of the ANC Lisa Gore recently called one of her ANC colleagues "disgusting" in a public forum) and the community feels completely shut out of the process after the majority polled don't want any of it.

The worst was a recent planning meeting for this where one ANC member told two others they couldn't come to the planning meeting unless they were silent and didn't speak -no joke.

Welcome to Chevy Chase where they will win battles and lose wars if they don't get it together fast.

I saw the "legal analysis" from the main NIMBY group. I really hope they try to sue the city. They will lose and lose in a humiliating fashion because they clearly do not understand the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:someone posted this on the list serv this morning and it is worth considering-

The ones unhappy and the ones thrilled about the eight redevelopment privatization proposals are very likely to share the same curiosity that I bet neither attorneys nor politicos could explain away... the highly irrational giveaway of the public air rights at the Commons.

Giving away the public air rights at the Commons means giving away control of this site to unknown private entities for decades.

Giving away the public air rights means the income benefits derived by this project will inure to private entities to payback equity investors for their expensive loans and to spend discretionarily (likely far off site) instead of reinvesting it into the project as needed over time.

Giving away the public air rights means routine private screening out whoever these private interests deem not suitable to access whatever "affordable" housing may get built. It also likely means the "affordability" evaporates in 10 to 20 years like other public asset giveaways in the DMPED deal track record.

Absolutely no one can explain why, if the city is paying to rebuild the library, community center, open rec space and landscaping, and even the so-called affordable housing, that the public air rights should also be given away to private entities for any duration at all.

Sure, it is reasonable for developers to deserve a fee to design & build the project, possibly to also manage the housing, but that paid-for task absolutely does not need to be gifted with the right to profit from and control our public air rights for decades.

From what I've read, absolutely no one surveyed, those thrilled or unhappy, lawyers or politicos, asked for this.

Correct me if I am wrong, with a clear explanation why anyone believes the public must sacrifice our public assets this way.

Chris Otten never has anything to say that is worth considering. The bottom line is that the PUBLIC air rights are being used to address a severe PUBLIC NEED which is the best and most optimal use for it.

[Anonymous]

Hey, it's a day that ends in "y" and the NIMBYs are angry about something.

You love to see it.

[Anonymous]

There are very aggressive actors on this issue that are associated with organizations that have a lot to gain by the give-away of public lands and air rights to private interests. They spend their days posting publicly, reformatting proposals into nicer presentations and altogether bombarding the public discourse with " advice" no one wants. They profoundly annoy the entire community and fool no one. The public spoke loud and clear when surveyed, and so they attacked the survey. The community is mostly opposed ( 60%) to this and if you asked them if they feel they have a voice in it they'd probably tell you no because either their ANC member thinks they know better or the organizations that wont shut up and let the issue breathe, just keep populating every forum daily with their self interested blather disguised as "information". And no I am not involved in any of these organizations on either side.