For the anti-development groups in Ward 3

[Anonymous]

Why are you so anti-development? Parts of Cleveland Park look like Sarajevo with empty store fronts. Babes is practically a homeless shelter, Connecticut Ave has tons of space and yet you people are against any form of development. So besides high taxes and a government that is anti-business we have incredible NIMBYs. All this does is move development to the burbs and increases car traffic. Also helps to deplete our tax base. The new debate is Bethesda vs Rosslyn. Also, if Giant is thinking about putting in a chain like Pottery Barn doesn't that mean there is a market for it? Stop ruining our city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are you so anti-development? Parts of Cleveland Park look like Sarajevo with empty store fronts. Babes is practically a homeless shelter, Connecticut Ave has tons of space and yet you people are against any form of development. So besides high taxes and a government that is anti-business we have incredible NIMBYs. All this does is move development to the burbs and increases car traffic. Also helps to deplete our tax base. The new debate is Bethesda vs Rosslyn. Also, if Giant is thinking about putting in a chain like Pottery Barn doesn't that mean there is a market for it? Stop ruining our city.

Traffic, traffic, traffic. As in there is already too much traffic in the area and there is no parking.

[Anonymous]

There will ALWAYS be traffic. It's a city!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There will ALWAYS be traffic. It's a city!

Yes, you're right. But they don't think so. They want their little borough within the city limits. The best of both worlds - suburban density a stone's throw from downtown. Never mind that it is an incredible waste of city resources that runs counter to modern urban planning theory. It was like this when they bought the house, so the city should agree to encase the whole neighborhood in amber so it never changes. Plus, if you allow development/greater density, poor and/or darker people could move in - can't have that, what woudl it do to property values.

Many are not like this, to be sure. But many are, and they appear to be the vocal/involved ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There will ALWAYS be traffic. It's a city!

Yes, you're right. But they don't think so. They want their little borough within the city limits. The best of both worlds - suburban density a stone's throw from downtown. Never mind that it is an incredible waste of city resources that runs counter to modern urban planning theory. It was like this when they bought the house, so the city should agree to encase the whole neighborhood in amber so it never changes. Plus, if you allow development/greater density, poor and/or darker people could move in - can't have that, what woudl it do to property values.

Many are not like this, to be sure. But many are, and they appear to be the vocal/involved ones.

This is the natural problem when you have too many lawyers living in one neighborhood. Everyone is lawyered up.

[Anonymous]

There's an organization called Ward 3 Vision which, with its affiliates, is funded by large developers and their law firms and recently announced that it's "vision" for "vibrancy" in NW Washington is Rosslyn, Ballston and downtown Bethesda. I don't blame the folks in Chevy Chase DC, the Palisades or the Clevland Park historic district for not being smitten with those models. There are lots of choices in the Washington metropolitan area and no one model for balanced growth.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, what 13:30 said. Chevy Chase DC resident here. I don't [Ward 3] Vision a cheesy Bethesda Row Commons Ye Olde Towne Shoppe Fake Centre down the block.

It's not that I hate Sweetgreen and Lululemon so much as this: the District of Columbia pussies out whenever it comes to traffic management measures and parking mandates for developers.

So in MoCo, residents of Chevy Chase and Edgemoor and "east Bethesda" simply ask the county and Voila! Every block transforms into a one-way street with parking only for residents and "DO NOT ENTER" signs and 1,000 other measures to ensure the neighbors do not bear the brunt of development. Arlington, too (see, e.g., the miles of "resident only" parking along the Orange line and the gated community feel of Lyon Village).

But in DC? no. In DC, a developer simply asks and the requirement for parking spots (that you see all over Bethesda and Arlington, BTW) is waived. Because 100% of shoppers and especially late-night diners take the metro, as you all know.

So yeah, I'm going to hold the line and ensure that our little part of Chevy Chase DC doesn't become a chain restaurant dining destination for slobs to block my driveway 6 nights a week.

[Anonymous]

So instead of having a higher tax base, wealthier residents moving in and better options you'll take Babes, a Giant stuck in the 1920s and still have the traffic except they're from Maryland not DC. It's not like they plan to develop Newark or Macomb. It's the main thoroughfares!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So instead of having a higher tax base, wealthier residents moving in and better options you'll take Babes, a Giant stuck in the 1920s and still have the traffic except they're from Maryland not DC. It's not like they plan to develop Newark or Macomb. It's the main thoroughfares!

It's hard to respond to nonsensical and incomplete statements and cryptic references, but let's give it a try.

"So instead of having a higher tax base, wealthier residents moving in..." Gee, I thought earlier postings on the thread blamed the all-powerful "wealthy" NIMBYs for wanting to keep out "poor" people. Which is it, or will any ad hominem argument do?

"you'll take Babes." You seem to refer to a proposed Planned Unit Development proposed on the site of the former Babes Billiards site in Tenleytown. You left out the fact that DC approved a PUD at the same site several years ago, which had the strong backing of community groups. The development was never built, and the new site owner let the previous permits expire. Rather than resurrecting them, the new owner proposes something completely different with no off-street parking at all (something the previous, approved project had). No one wants to "take Babes" but would like to see the earlier, permitted plan, which had the blessing of various stakeholders -- and enough parking -- finally built as approved.

"a Giant stuck in the 1920s." Based on your references to Newark and Macomb Sts., you must mean the Cathedral Commons project between McLean Gardens and Cleveland Park. (The Giant in fact dates from the 1950s.) Another case of developer SNAFU/overreach. Giant Realty reached agreement with the DC government and community groups in 2002/2003 to build a new, larger grocery store as a "matter of right" under zoning but never built what they agreed. Then they pursued a different path, drastically up-sized the project which required exceeding the the zoning for the site -- and now apparently can't find financing for the project! Meanwhile, Safeway built a new matter-of-right store in Georgetown while Giant fiddled, which is even LEED certified (the not-so-green-Giant doesn't plan to be). And as for more traffic, Cathedral Commons' own projections filed with their application show a resulting 1000 more cars and trucks per day on Macomb, 400-500 more a day on Newark -- which seems like a pretty real increase on non-main-throughfare streets. And they sought and got permission to build less off-street parking than what zoning required. As the other poster wrote, unlike MoCo and Allington, DC always rolls over and pussies out when it comes to traffic mitigation and parking requirements. And as for a higher tax base? DC DOT now plans to widen Idaho Ave. and cut down the mature tree canopy so the the big trucks can access Cathedral Commons -- all at taxpayer expense, not the developer's!

[Anonymous]

So instead of having a higher tax base, wealthier residents moving in and better options you'll take Babes, a Giant stuck in the 1920s and still have the traffic except they're from Maryland not DC. It's not like they plan to develop Newark or Macomb. It's the main thoroughfares!

It's not thru-traffic, it's the tens of hundreds of cars circling the residential blocks, looking for free on-street parking. Then they get understandably pissed and create a "spot" hanging over 50% of your driveway. Think Adams Morgan. No thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So instead of having a higher tax base, wealthier residents moving in and better options you'll take Babes, a Giant stuck in the 1920s and still have the traffic except they're from Maryland not DC. It's not like they plan to develop Newark or Macomb. It's the main thoroughfares!

It's not thru-traffic, it's the tens of hundreds of cars circling the residential blocks, looking for free on-street parking. Then they get understandably pissed and create a "spot" hanging over 50% of your driveway. Think Adams Morgan. No thanks.

The driveway blocking "complaint" is such a red herring. Call the cops, get them ticketed and towed. I seriously doubt your driveway (if you have one)is inaccessible every weekend. More likely, your beef is that the people looking for free on-street parking are making it more difficult for YOU to find free on-street parking. To which I say, tough. It's a public street, you have no inherent right to free parking.

[Anonymous]

Wow, you mean they want it to be like Rossylin, Ballston, or Bethesda? That would be great! How do we support this?

[Anonymous]

How do we gentrify this area. It is like driving through Detroit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, you mean they want it to be like Rossylin, Ballston, or Bethesda? That would be great! How do we support this?

I don't think anyone is talking about building high rise office buildings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So instead of having a higher tax base, wealthier residents moving in and better options you'll take Babes, a Giant stuck in the 1920s and still have the traffic except they're from Maryland not DC. It's not like they plan to develop Newark or Macomb. It's the main thoroughfares!

It's not thru-traffic, it's the tens of hundreds of cars circling the residential blocks, looking for free on-street parking. Then they get understandably pissed and create a "spot" hanging over 50% of your driveway. Think Adams Morgan. No thanks.

The driveway blocking "complaint" is such a red herring. Call the cops, get them ticketed and towed. I seriously doubt your driveway (if you have one)is inaccessible every weekend. More likely, your beef is that the people looking for free on-street parking are making it more difficult for YOU to find free on-street parking. To which I say, tough. It's a public street, you have no inherent right to free parking.

Actually they DO have an inherent right. They pay property taxes. I'm all for development but I'm against suburbanites thinking they "own" residential DC areas.