Muriel Bowser and Developers

[Anonymous]

WTF :

According to a senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the mayor had not yet made the details public, Kenner will oversee the Department of Transportation (DDOT), the Department of the Environment (DDOE) and the Taxicab Commission. That’s in addition to oversight of housing, employment, permitting, planning, banking/insurance regulation,

So, developer interests now also control DDOE and DDOT and they can effectively block any regulatory supervision of banks lending practices ...


Its official, DC is now a Kleptocracy " open for Business" I believe is how Muriel phrases it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"The city is simply putting the school back on the market, inviting the usual deep-pocketed firms to suggest yet more desultory office space, hotels for the 1 percent and other dreary things." "

office space provides room for jobs and pays property taxes. Less office space in DC means more jobs in the suburbs instead (downtown office space has a low vacancy rate and high prices) where transit is less convenient (even in the most transit oriented suburban locations)

Hotels, whomever their customers are, pay property taxes and provide employment.

Neither needs to be dreary.

I do not know how serious the financing issues for the museum are, nor the legal situation. I DO think that this kind of hostility toward economic activity is uncalled for. I am glad that Mayor Bowser is developer friendly - it suggests that her admin will continue the progress that was made in Gray, Fenty, and Williams administrations.

I don't have an issue with developers, however, in order to be a well rounded city, we need more than condos. I want our community to be rich and museums are a part of that. All of the soul DC had is gone.

[Anonymous]

May I ask, what the heck is "neourbanization"? If it means the Rockvilletowncenterhomogenericlarendonization of DC neighborhoods like Chevy Chase DC and Palisades or the "adjustment" of historic districts and special zoning overlays, then I do have reservations. I favor balanced growth and development that respects the character of Washington's diverse, livable neighborhoods. I also favor adaptive re-use of publicly owned property for public purposes or for a public mission as a first priority, not their use to repay political favors with for private gain.

[Anonymous]

I don't think the Franklin School is a slam dunk for developers--given that parts of the interior are landmarked, it will be very difficult to redevelop for office or hotel use. (unlike, say ---the old Tariff Building---which is now the Hotel Monaco---one of the reasons it made a good hotel was because the interior historic offices were already hotel room size---hotel use was the least intrusive repurpose option from a historic preservation perspective).

A museum/arts center is still probably the best reuse for Franklin, but the District is right to be concerned about financial viability. The DC Historical Society's move into the Carnegie Library 15 years ago was a disaster---the funding was just not there for the non-profit to conduct its mission and maintain the property.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If Bowser rubber stamps their short list and picks no one that Comm of 100 nominates to the Mayor, then well, that will tell all

If the Committee of 100, a self-appointed group of "know it alls" is your litmus test, then I am not sure anyone can help your or your opinion. Outside of the 100 (are there even 100?), no one cares about this group or its opinions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If Bowser rubber stamps their short list and picks no one that Comm of 100 nominates to the Mayor, then well, that will tell all

If the Committee of 100, a self-appointed group of "know it alls" is your litmus test, then I am not sure anyone can help your or your opinion. Outside of the 100 (are there even 100?), no one cares about this group or its opinions.

I find them to be refreshingly balanced compared to the "Smart Growth Coalition", "Ward 3 Vision", Greater Greater Washington and any of a number of front groups for the corporate development lobby.

[Anonymous]

I would like to see your tin-foil hat collection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would like to see your tin-foil hat collection.

It's not "tin hat" to point out that these groups are funded by development lobbies and coordinate their messaging with them. DC citizens want more transparency in the historically cozy relationship between developers and the mayor's office, including the deputy mayor for economic development. This issue predates Bowser, but her closeness with developers and others in that orbit (Park Southern) cause special concern. Is that "tin hat" -- or do you have a hidden agenda here?

[Anonymous]

The idea that you allege and "agenda" is enough to show your paranoia over the issue.

Where do you live? Would where you live exist without a developer? Should the city be placed under a glass shield with everything remaining exactly as it is forever?

Like it or not, people need places to live, places to work, places to shop and just because you are already "here" doesn't mean that everything should be pushed somewhere else. That is an incredibly selfish "I have mine" attitude that only makes the District more expensive for future generations.

Yes, I guess I have an agenda. My agenda is to make it easier to live here without a car, and make it so more people can afford to live here so we have a robust economy that can take care of things like good education, jobs, training and affordable housing.

What is your agenda? To make it so you life as you know it isn't altered in any way. So you can drive and park wherever you want for free and so others are precluded from living in your neighborhood or going to your kids schools.

Yes, that is a winning agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The idea that you allege and "agenda" is enough to show your paranoia over the issue.

Where do you live? Would where you live exist without a developer? Should the city be placed under a glass shield with everything remaining exactly as it is forever?

Like it or not, people need places to live, places to work, places to shop and just because you are already "here" doesn't mean that everything should be pushed somewhere else. That is an incredibly selfish "I have mine" attitude that only makes the District more expensive for future generations.

Yes, I guess I have an agenda. My agenda is to make it easier to live here without a car, and make it so more people can afford to live here so we have a robust economy that can take care of things like good education, jobs, training and affordable housing.

What is your agenda? To make it so you life as you know it isn't altered in any way. So you can drive and park wherever you want for free and so others are precluded from living in your neighborhood or going to your kids schools.

Yes, that is a winning agenda.

I live in Ward 4 and yes, I want my car. It makes my life easier. I want development, but I also believe that in order to have a robust city, you need hotels, cultural buildings and green space! Is that too much to ask? Hell, I love my dog park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The idea that you allege and "agenda" is enough to show your paranoia over the issue.

Where do you live? Would where you live exist without a developer? Should the city be placed under a glass shield with everything remaining exactly as it is forever?

Like it or not, people need places to live, places to work, places to shop and just because you are already "here" doesn't mean that everything should be pushed somewhere else. That is an incredibly selfish "I have mine" attitude that only makes the District more expensive for future generations.

Yes, I guess I have an agenda. My agenda is to make it easier to live here without a car, and make it so more people can afford to live here so we have a robust economy that can take care of things like good education, jobs, training and affordable housing.

What is your agenda? To make it so you life as you know it isn't altered in any way. So you can drive and park wherever you want for free and so others are precluded from living in your neighborhood or going to your kids schools.

Yes, that is a winning agenda.

Attacking someone ("tin hats" etc) is the surest sign of having a lightweight position.

[Anonymous]

And not addressing the issue is the surest sign of having a still weaker position.

Glad we understand each other.

[Anonymous]

NP here.

I think each of us has an image of the ideal neighborhood and city to live in. People in the same neighborhood often differ about what they want to see around them, and the people downtown may have another view. It's an oversimplification to reduce the issue to a binary pro or con on development rather than a spectrum of how much, how high, how dense. The Mayor generally prefers more development in my neighborhood than I do, for example, but it's usually a matter of degree. The fact thet she does not think the museum plan will work at Franklin does not (necessarily) translate into a payoff for one of her donors; she may just feel that more options should be explored.

I did not vote for her, but I see no need to demonize her.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:NP here.

I think each of us has an image of the ideal neighborhood and city to live in. People in the same neighborhood often differ about what they want to see around them, and the people downtown may have another view. It's an oversimplification to reduce the issue to a binary pro or con on development rather than a spectrum of how much, how high, how dense. The Mayor generally prefers more development in my neighborhood than I do, for example, but it's usually a matter of degree. The fact thet she does not think the museum plan will work at Franklin does not (necessarily) translate into a payoff for one of her donors; she may just feel that more options should be explored.

I did not vote for her, but I see no need to demonize her.

I agree that the connection is not automatic, but I also think it is highly likely. I would be less suspicious if the Bowser administration were able to demonstrate that it had done even the slightest due diligence before making its determination. But, it is really amateur hour to cancel a project based on financials when you haven't even asked the group about its financials. BTW, here is a follow-up article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/museums/a-setback-for-dc-arts-and-culture-years-in-the-making/2015/02/16/94371d20-b3b7-11e4-854b-a38d13486ba1_story.html

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:
I agree that the connection is not automatic, but I also think it is highly likely. I would be less suspicious if the Bowser administration were able to demonstrate that it had done even the slightest due diligence before making its determination. But, it is really amateur hour to cancel a project based on financials when you haven't even asked the group about its financials. BTW, here is a follow-up article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/museums/a-setback-for-dc-arts-and-culture-years-in-the-making/2015/02/16/94371d20-b3b7-11e4-854b-a38d13486ba1_story.html

This. She cancelled it after sitting on it for months on the Council. Given the short turnaround on the RFQ, one has to assume it is wired for one of her cronies.