What is the purpose of an ANC? Do they have any real powers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You should stop peddling this lying trope. Do you know that Commissioner MacWood had the ANC hire an architect and asked Giant to engage with the ANC and the community on a new store back in 2005? This was several years after Giant/Ahold breached an agreement with the DC government to build a new store. MacWood brought Giant back to the table.

Breached an agreement with the DC Government? What the heck are you talking about?

Giant first proposed in 1999. Only south parcel, 2 stories, 70,000 foot store with front facing access on Wisconsin Ave.
The so-called GiantGiant people opposed it. Elected MacWoood. They wanted Matter of Right.
Giant cam back with Matter of Right but it was a big blank wall on Wisconsin Ave. No one supported it. The GiantGiant people filed a landmark application. It failed.
In the meantime, Giant sold out to RoyalAhold. The project died.
In 2005, after years of complaints, Nancy hired an architect to work with the new owners.
Bozzuto and Street Sense developed the new plans but it required the 6 story residential building on the north parcel.

Prey tell, what is the breech with the DC Government?

[Anonymous]

You should stop peddling this lying trope. Do you know that Commissioner MacWood had the ANC hire an architect and asked Giant to engage with the ANC and the community on a new store back in 2005? This was several years after Giant/Ahold breached an agreement with the DC government to build a new store. MacWood brought Giant back to the table.



I guess the legalization of marijuana is going to get us posts like this.

Macwood had nothing whatsoever to do with Giant coming back to the table.

And her "architect" had nothing to do with the final design which in part is cheap looking because the project is so small and there was no reason for the developer to engage with Macwood and the other nutjobs on the ANC about the buildings design.

Sometimes a neighborhood gets what it deserves and the legacy of NIMBY's like Macwood is a regressing neighborhood in a city that is otherwise evolving and thriving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I want my current ANC member to challenge Charles Allen next time, but what can she run on? What do they even do?

Why don't YOU do it, you lazy POS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You should stop peddling this lying trope. Do you know that Commissioner MacWood had the ANC hire an architect and asked Giant to engage with the ANC and the community on a new store back in 2005? This was several years after Giant/Ahold breached an agreement with the DC government to build a new store. MacWood brought Giant back to the table.

Breached an agreement with the DC Government? What the heck are you talking about?

Giant first proposed in 1999. Only south parcel, 2 stories, 70,000 foot store with front facing access on Wisconsin Ave.
The so-called GiantGiant people opposed it. Elected MacWoood. They wanted Matter of Right.
Giant cam back with Matter of Right but it was a big blank wall on Wisconsin Ave. No one supported it. The GiantGiant people filed a landmark application. It failed.
In the meantime, Giant sold out to RoyalAhold. The project died.
In 2005, after years of complaints, Nancy hired an architect to work with the new owners.
Bozzuto and Street Sense developed the new plans but it required the 6 story residential building on the north parcel.

Prey tell, what is the breech with the DC Government?

In 2002 Giant signed an agreement with the ANC (chaired by Nancy MacWood), a community group, and the DC government to build a new store. Before resorting to fake news, it helps to check the record:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2002/05/07/giant-neighbors-reach-deal-on-renovations/162860a5-5593-46ce-9351-8baba983985c/?utm_term=.f934d6695f50

Giant then got acquired by Ahold, which breached the agreement. At the time Ahold was consolidating acquisitions and fighting securities fraud charges, but whatever the reason, they refused to move forward with the agreement that Giant signed.

[Anonymous]

A non-binding agreement with the big caveat to submit the proposal for design review for a building that isn't a landmark.

Get real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A non-binding agreement with the big caveat to submit the proposal for design review for a building that isn't a landmark.

Get real.

So you're saying that Giant entered into a 2002 agreement to build a new store by 2003, which was announced by Mayor Anthony Wliiams and Giant's external affairs VP, but then Giant said "Oh, forget it, we changed our mind and it's not legally binding"?

That stinks worse than a Giant fish counter!

[Anonymous]

The "agreement" was signed by Giant knowing they were in discussions to sell the chain. Once Ahold bought the chain, all bets were off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The "agreement" was signed by Giant knowing they were in discussions to sell the chain. Once Ahold bought the chain, all bets were off.

Are you suggesting that Giant negotiated and entered into an agreement in bad faith, knowing that they were for sale?

In any event, it's a bit disingenuous for some to claim that the community held up a new Giant for many years. It's clear that all stakeholders, including the mayor, Giant and the ANC and community groups, agreed on the specifics of a new store which Giant committed to complete and open by 2003. Instead, it was Giant that backed away from this commitment and let the existing store deteriorate, until the ANC got them to re-engage several years later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "agreement" was signed by Giant knowing they were in discussions to sell the chain. Once Ahold bought the chain, all bets were off.

Are you suggesting that Giant negotiated and entered into an agreement in bad faith, knowing that they were for sale?

In any event, it's a bit disingenuous for some to claim that the community held up a new Giant for many years. It's clear that all stakeholders, including the mayor, Giant and the ANC and community groups, agreed on the specifics of a new store which Giant committed to complete and open by 2003. Instead, it was Giant that backed away from this commitment and let the existing store deteriorate, until the ANC got them to re-engage several years later.

And if the neighbors hadn't held up the perfectly reasonable 1999 proposal, it would have been open in 2002. The landmarking of the 2002 proposal is an action that has done permanent damage to the credibility of the preservationists movement in the city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "agreement" was signed by Giant knowing they were in discussions to sell the chain. Once Ahold bought the chain, all bets were off.

Are you suggesting that Giant negotiated and entered into an agreement in bad faith, knowing that they were for sale?

In any event, it's a bit disingenuous for some to claim that the community held up a new Giant for many years. It's clear that all stakeholders, including the mayor, Giant and the ANC and community groups, agreed on the specifics of a new store which Giant committed to complete and open by 2003. Instead, it was Giant that backed away from this commitment and let the existing store deteriorate, until the ANC got them to re-engage several years later.

And if the neighbors hadn't held up the perfectly reasonable 1999 proposal, it would have been open in 2002. The landmarking of the 2002 proposal is an action that has done permanent damage to the credibility of the preservationists movement in the city.

Many feel that the original store proposal, with a 300’ blank wall on Wisconsin, would have deadened the street. I thought that self-styled hip, smart-growther urbanists want a lively streetscaoe.

[Anonymous]

I worked on that project and I can assure you the community did everything possible to stop that project. The attempted landmarking of the old giant still gets a
Laugh. The stop the “giant giant” movement was absurd. Now they got their dreamy Rockville
Pike looking new building I guess. Nancy is smart but she needs to know when to make a graceful exit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "agreement" was signed by Giant knowing they were in discussions to sell the chain. Once Ahold bought the chain, all bets were off.

Are you suggesting that Giant negotiated and entered into an agreement in bad faith, knowing that they were for sale?

In any event, it's a bit disingenuous for some to claim that the community held up a new Giant for many years. It's clear that all stakeholders, including the mayor, Giant and the ANC and community groups, agreed on the specifics of a new store which Giant committed to complete and open by 2003. Instead, it was Giant that backed away from this commitment and let the existing store deteriorate, until the ANC got them to re-engage several years later.

And if the neighbors hadn't held up the perfectly reasonable 1999 proposal, it would have been open in 2002. The landmarking of the 2002 proposal is an action that has done permanent damage to the credibility of the preservationists movement in the city.

Many feel that the original store proposal, with a 300’ blank wall on Wisconsin, would have deadened the street. I thought that self-styled hip, smart-growther urbanists want a lively streetscaoe.

The 300 foot blank wall was the "matter of right" 2002 proposal. Please go back to the original 1999 proposal before you make more of a fool of yourself than you already have.

[Anonymous]

I hope that Macwood stays forever, particularly if the alternative is someone like her last opponent, Mr Ward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope that Macwood stays forever, particularly if the alternative is someone like her last opponent, Mr Ward.

And continue to see the commercial strip whither away to nothing but CVS and Walgreens, each with 15 storefronts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope that Macwood stays forever, particularly if the alternative is someone like her last opponent, Mr Ward.

And continue to see the commercial strip whither away to nothing but CVS and Walgreens, each with 15 storefronts.

Seriously. Macwood's opponent at least understood that being open minded and willing to look at things differently is a good thing. While Macwood is wandering around in a daze like it is 1986.