Housing proposed for Tenley Library/portion of Janney site

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should they have say to stop it?

Giving away a chunk of the Janney school playground to enable a private development on top of the library seems messed up, no?

No, it is a great idea to increase apartment housing near the school and encourage more diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should they have say to stop it?

Giving away a chunk of the Janney school playground to enable a private development on top of the library seems messed up, no?

No, it is a great idea to increase apartment housing near the school and encourage more diversity.

Children (700 of them) need space to run and play, it will displace an educational and award winning garden. If they add more kids they will need to eventually add demountable to house them and there will be no space.

My kids have graduated, but it is a shame to do this and I do not think the few units of affordable housing are worth it. There are other places to build.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should they have say to stop it?

Giving away a chunk of the Janney school playground to enable a private development on top of the library seems messed up, no?

No, it is a great idea to increase apartment housing near the school and encourage more diversity.

Children (700 of them) need space to run and play, it will displace an educational and award winning garden. If they add more kids they will need to eventually add demountable to house them and there will be no space.

My kids have graduated, but it is a shame to do this and I do not think the few units of affordable housing are worth it. There are other places to build.

+1 My kids have also graduated.

[Anonymous]

I think you need to consider benefits to housing availability. The NIMBY crowd is strong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think you need to consider benefits to housing availability. The NIMBY crowd is strong.

So is the YIYBY crowd (yes in *your* backyard).

What benefits would come from stuffing more kids into an already overcrowded school like Janney while also taking away their outdoor space?

[Anonymous]

School boundaries can be redrawn.

What percent of the playground would be removed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:School boundaries can be redrawn.

What percent of the playground would be removed?

If school boundaries could be easily redrawn, the crazed push to build more ”affordable housing” in Ward 3 would not exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:School boundaries can be redrawn.

What percent of the playground would be removed?

If school boundaries could be easily redrawn, the crazed push to build more ”affordable housing” in Ward 3 would not exist.

The folks pushing for increased density are in large part the same urban pioneers who bought houses in transitional neighborhoods as newlyweds and who had an oh sht moment now have now have school aged children. But they are priced out of upper NW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:School boundaries can be redrawn.

What percent of the playground would be removed?

How many times does the childless GGWash YIYBY crowd need to be reminded that, no, the boundaries cannot simply be redrawn to have a serious effect on school overcrowding in W3. You're just taking kids from one overcrowded school and moving them to another overcrowded school.

Seriously, there are thousands of threads on this simple fact. If we could just snap our fingers and redraw the boundaries, this forum probably wouldn't exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who thinks it’s a nifty idea to sacrifice 40 to 50 feet of the Janney school playground so that a private developer can build 7 or 8 more floors on top of the Tenley library for upmarket flats and a handful of “inclusive zoning” units? There are few clearer examples of privatizing public assets for private profit.

Since it is all city owned land, the affordability mix could be far greater and deeper than you posit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can't the Janney Community do something to stop this?

If they want to try to privatize the school and land, then sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should they have say to stop it?

Giving away a chunk of the Janney school playground to enable a private development on top of the library seems messed up, no?

No.

The library was built with expansion in mind. It makes perfect sense. Maybe the city should by the St Ann's campus and expand Janney to the south.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should they have say to stop it?

Giving away a chunk of the Janney school playground to enable a private development on top of the library seems messed up, no?

No, it is a great idea to increase apartment housing near the school and encourage more diversity.

Children (700 of them) need space to run and play, it will displace an educational and award winning garden. If they add more kids they will need to eventually add demountable to house them and there will be no space.

My kids have graduated, but it is a shame to do this and I do not think the few units of affordable housing are worth it. There are other places to build.

There shouldn't be 700 kids in an elemntary school. Time to rezone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who thinks it’s a nifty idea to sacrifice 40 to 50 feet of the Janney school playground so that a private developer can build 7 or 8 more floors on top of the Tenley library for upmarket flats and a handful of “inclusive zoning” units? There are few clearer examples of privatizing public assets for private profit.

Since it is all city owned land, the affordability mix could be far greater and deeper than you posit.

10 to 12 perecent 'inclusive zoning' units pegged at 80% ADI? That's not affordable housing. It's token window dressing for a windfall profit opportunity for a private developer, who gets to use public assets for private gain. But what does one expect in the kleptocratic "District of Colombia."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:School boundaries can be redrawn.

What percent of the playground would be removed?

If school boundaries could be easily redrawn, the crazed push to build more ”affordable housing” in Ward 3 would not exist.

There's speculation that a "red team" in OSSE and DCPS is modeling what doing away with school boundary areas and moving to a 100% lottery would look like. It could advance diversity, equity and inclusion.