Oh, Chevy Chase (DC affordable housing)!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please rezone Lafayette to feed into Wells/Coolidge. These bigots are so entitled. They need to be taught a lesson.

They'll just send their kids to private. CC is my hometown. My kids are 4th generation CC. Everyone knows that neighborhood kids that stay in the area live in CCDC only if they are REALLY rich. They send their kids to private school. The mildly rich buy homes in CCMD and send their kids to MCPS.

You must be joking. The majority of CCDC folks are middle class people in small houses who've been there forever.

+1

No, this isn’t true. Sorry. For one, they were never “middle class.” They were upper income, white collar professionals. And only people who have been there forever fit in that category now. Anyone moving in is priced out.

The baby boomers in this neighborhood were not all white collar professionals. Many were just middle class. One of my neighbors was a hairdresser who owned a small kiosk in one of the department stores in Friendship Heights. Two are contractors. One was a teacher. The later generations are white collar.

+100 My older neighbors are a mix of former teachers, government workers, and journalists. Some had creative careers. The younger folks are white collar, but not the older ones!

This is literally a list of white collar jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please rezone Lafayette to feed into Wells/Coolidge. These bigots are so entitled. They need to be taught a lesson.

They'll just send their kids to private. CC is my hometown. My kids are 4th generation CC. Everyone knows that neighborhood kids that stay in the area live in CCDC only if they are REALLY rich. They send their kids to private school. The mildly rich buy homes in CCMD and send their kids to MCPS.

You must be joking. The majority of CCDC folks are middle class people in small houses who've been there forever.

+1

No, this isn’t true. Sorry. For one, they were never “middle class.” They were upper income, white collar professionals. And only people who have been there forever fit in that category now. Anyone moving in is priced out.

The baby boomers in this neighborhood were not all white collar professionals. Many were just middle class. One of my neighbors was a hairdresser who owned a small kiosk in one of the department stores in Friendship Heights. Two are contractors. One was a teacher. The later generations are white collar.

+100 My older neighbors are a mix of former teachers, government workers, and journalists. Some had creative careers. The younger folks are white collar, but not the older ones!

Yes but journalists are white collar professionals (many government workers are, too). They're not paid as well as K Street lawyers, but that doesn't make them somehow blue collar.

Thanks, I think we meant that they weren't UMC white collar. When I say white collar professional now I pretty much think of the UMC. There aren't any young teachers or government workers in this neighborhood anymore.

[Anonymous]

FYI, this is CC in DC, not MD. I'm not saying that MD is better, but lots of commenters are talking about Montgomery Co. but this is a DC neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean nobody likes affordable housing. If you don’t oppose it you are idealistic or it doesn’t affect you or both

To add, I live in a subsidized apt building. Was lucky to get into a relatively decent one but many neighbors are quite the characters. Higher level of littering for sure compared to my old complex. Pot smell is on par. Noise level on par or higher

I don't think that can be generalized. The affordable housing in Potomac is filled with families who just want good schools for the kids.

Because people in DC don't want good schools for their kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure all the CC residents consider themselves to be progressive, have rainbow flags, and black lives matter signs in their yard. But when it comes time to walk the walk, look at them squirming now. They're the same dbags who block the purple line for the entire region and now want to block affordable housing because some brown people might move in. Just the same kinds of reasoning they used to block the purple line.

Why is it that areas like Silver Spring etc. are the ones that have to deal with all of the affordable housing issues? It's time for other areas of the county and city to put up or shut up. Time to build affordable housing in areas of Potomac, Bethesda, and CC.

What affordable housing issues?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/12/16/dc-affordable-housing-subsidies/

Those aren't affordable buildings. They are subsidized units which buildings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are already many apartment buildings in CC that are affordable. But obviously that does nothing for the developers.

I don’t think this is true.

The city has been placing homeless people in subsidized apartments up and down CT Ave for years now. No reason they couldn’t do the same for working class families in the apartment bldgs in CC. But again, no gain for developers in that scenario.

We have an acute housing crisis, there are not enough vacant apartments. You sound very out of touch.

One seven-story building in CC won’t change that.

Every little bit helps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live a few blocks from the proposed site and read the listserve regularly. Granted the listserve may not be a fully accurate representation of how neighbors feel, but the article’s claim that “Most residents agree the site needs to be updated, but the addition of affordable housing has proved divisive” Is absolutely misleading in the most unfair, nasty and self-serving way. That is not at all the way people in the neighborhood feel. What we are sensing is that the city is hiding behind a purported objective of increasing the number of affordable housing to give giveaways to developers, and, in the process, sacrificing the existing positive attributes of the site (mainly open space). The key here is how many affordable units will the neighborhood actually get in exchange for a massive building on the community center site. My understanding is that in practice we will only get a handful. So why don’t we just build those few affordable units and not build the remaining luxury units that the developers salivate over (or build fewer of them) and keep the open space instead? That’s the approach that would satisfy me at least.

This is the tin-foil hat call out that the Chevy Chase Listserv moderator won't let others call out. The process for having the city put out an open RFP for public, private and non-profit developers respond to is open and transparent. The city will still own/control the land, the DCPL will still operate the library and DPR will still operate the Community Center and related facilities. What changes is the addition of some number of units, to be determined by the proposing entities, because one proposal may be for 100 one bedroom apartments, while another may call for 35 3 BR apartments - only the proposers will know based on market conditions at the time they submit to the city.

As to the question, why not build a handful....that isn't how it works. You need the money that would come from the market rate to cover the costs of the affordable units. That is how the city gets the private sector to cover the costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess when you don’t have anything of substance to offer, just accuse everyone that disagrees with you of being racist.

I guess that it’s an argument.

Not a good one, but an argument.

Classist? Maybe you’d be on to something.

the trope from the people interviewed are mirrored from the talking points of the 1950's. Verbatim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live a few blocks from the proposed site and read the listserve regularly. Granted the listserve may not be a fully accurate representation of how neighbors feel, but the article’s claim that “Most residents agree the site needs to be updated, but the addition of affordable housing has proved divisive” Is absolutely misleading in the most unfair, nasty and self-serving way. That is not at all the way people in the neighborhood feel. What we are sensing is that the city is hiding behind a purported objective of increasing the number of affordable housing to give giveaways to developers, and, in the process, sacrificing the existing positive attributes of the site (mainly open space). The key here is how many affordable units will the neighborhood actually get in exchange for a massive building on the community center site. My understanding is that in practice we will only get a handful. So why don’t we just build those few affordable units and not build the remaining luxury units that the developers salivate over (or build fewer of them) and keep the open space instead? That’s the approach that would satisfy me at least.

The open space is a surface asphalt parking lot, a surface asphalt basketball court, a concrete plaza and walkway and a very small tot lot. None of that is very inviting or pleasant. There should still be open green space on the new development, but let's not romanticize what is there currently, particularly when there are two very green open public spaces two blocks in either direction and the entirety of Rock Creek less than a mile away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live a few blocks from the proposed site and read the listserve regularly. Granted the listserve may not be a fully accurate representation of how neighbors feel, but the article’s claim that “Most residents agree the site needs to be updated, but the addition of affordable housing has proved divisive” Is absolutely misleading in the most unfair, nasty and self-serving way. That is not at all the way people in the neighborhood feel. What we are sensing is that the city is hiding behind a purported objective of increasing the number of affordable housing to give giveaways to developers, and, in the process, sacrificing the existing positive attributes of the site (mainly open space). The key here is how many affordable units will the neighborhood actually get in exchange for a massive building on the community center site. My understanding is that in practice we will only get a handful. So why don’t we just build those few affordable units and not build the remaining luxury units that the developers salivate over (or build fewer of them) and keep the open space instead? That’s the approach that would satisfy me at least.

Because selling the luxury units is what pays for the construction of the affordable units. That’s the model. And it creates a mixed income building, which people think improves the likelihood that it will maintain itself. What you’re describing is a housing project.

Exactly which is why I suggested building fewer of them, not none at all. How about we bid the project out, establish a minimum number of affordable units that must be included and see which developer is willing to take the project on with the least massive building? Tell my why something like this wouldn’t work.

Because the Mayor's goal is to maximize new units in the city. We live in a city and we need the new housing for the demand that people have to live here. It is helpful to have some units be for teachers, police officers etc that are too expensive otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, the article is a hit job meant to make the neighborhood look bad. It should be fair to ask effected officials questions like:

How exactly will the community center and library be build out?

What amenities will be provided?

Will there be any green space left reserved?

Will there be a playground?

Will there still be a basketball/pickleball corurt?

Why can’t the city pay to develop these city owned resources which are available to and used by city-wide residents now?

Is this the best location to add housing when there are numerous other housing projects in flight nearby and many currently available units in the neighborhood?

But of course, when you ask questions like that you get slammed as racist and anti-affordable housing.

These questions have been asked and answered a thousand times. And yet, we still get the racist crap from some in the neighborhood who simply oppose any sort of change from the status quo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, the article is a hit job meant to make the neighborhood look bad. It should be fair to ask effected officials questions like:

How exactly will the community center and library be build out? The private developer will use the city monies earmarked for the site to build out the facilities to the specifications outlined by DCPL and DPR

What amenities will be provided? To be determined via community input and the RFP process

Will there be any green space left reserved? Yes, there is a minimum amount mandated by zoning and the community has asked for more, so the RFP process will provide the guidance here

Will there be a playground? Most likely, since the community has asked for it

Will there still be a basketball/pickleball corurt? Most likely, since the community has asked for it

Why can’t the city pay to develop these city owned resources which are available to and used by city-wide residents now? Because it is expensive and the model being deployed exchanges some market rate units for the affordable ones

Is this the best location to add housing when there are numerous other housing projects in flight nearby and many currently available units in the neighborhood? Both are needed, in Chevy Chase AND in Friendship Heights as well as other neighborhoods. There are not many currently available units in the neighborhood

But of course, when you ask questions like that you get slammed as racist and anti-affordable housing. No, these questions have been asked and answered, you just ignore than answers

The bolded above is based on my understanding from having attended the various community meetings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:CCDC resident here. First off, most of DC was segregated in the early 1900s when CCDC was established. Yes, they wanted to keep other people out. This was the norm, however disgusting. I don't get the argument singling out CC.

Second, when I was in my early 20s, I was broke and made virtually nothing starting my career. Had I not had the option of low-priced housing I wouldn't have been able to live in a safe neighborhood within a reasonable distance from my job downtown, which was extremely demanding and required long hours.

Fast forward 15 years. I live in a $2 million house a few blocks from where they're proposing this building. I have no doubt developers couldn't care less about people like me, and wouldn't set aside low-priced units if not required to do so, but luckily it will be a requirement. They should be required to also build a new community center and library in that footprint (it can be done).

Hopefully another kid will get the lucky break I did, exactly when they need it.

CC isn't being singled out. It is just next on the list of city owned properties where the opportunity to add housing is viable.

As to your other point, I lived in a group house in the early 1990's in Chevy Chase and our aggregate rent was $1,000/mo. Today, that same house would rant for $10,000/mo but the corresponding salaries have not kept pace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, the article is a hit job meant to make the neighborhood look bad. It should be fair to ask effected officials questions like:

How exactly will the community center and library be build out?

What amenities will be provided?

Will there be any green space left reserved?

Will there be a playground?

Will there still be a basketball/pickleball corurt?

Why can’t the city pay to develop these city owned resources which are available to and used by city-wide residents now?

Is this the best location to add housing when there are numerous other housing projects in flight nearby and many currently available units in the neighborhood?

But of course, when you ask questions like that you get slammed as racist and anti-affordable housing.

You do get to ask those questions. There’s a whole democratic system of government whereby you get to influence the answers.

This is exactly what ChCh residents are up in arms. The existence of some kind of process in no way ensures that we will like the outcomes. We feel like the city will end up doing whatever they want no matter the opposition. And on top of everything we’ll be vilified for being “racist”.

Once again, you are trying to speak for everyone who lives in CCDC, and are also suggesting that all are in agreement with *your* views. I don't know anyone in the neighborhood who is "up in arms" about the proposed development. In my opinion, there has been a lot of irrational fear-mongering coming from a small group of households opposed to the development. Why should a subset of residents have such great influence in the matter?

This.

I have been to several of the meetings and generally support the proposal. And yes, I live on the same block as the community center and library, so am not some distant neighbor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, the article is a hit job meant to make the neighborhood look bad. It should be fair to ask effected officials questions like:

How exactly will the community center and library be build out?

What amenities will be provided?

Will there be any green space left reserved?

Will there be a playground?

Will there still be a basketball/pickleball corurt?

Why can’t the city pay to develop these city owned resources which are available to and used by city-wide residents now?

Is this the best location to add housing when there are numerous other housing projects in flight nearby and many currently available units in the neighborhood?

But of course, when you ask questions like that you get slammed as racist and anti-affordable housing.

You do get to ask those questions. There’s a whole democratic system of government whereby you get to influence the answers.

This is exactly what ChCh residents are up in arms. The existence of some kind of process in no way ensures that we will like the outcomes. We feel like the city will end up doing whatever they want no matter the opposition. And on top of everything we’ll be vilified for being “racist”.

Once again, you are trying to speak for everyone who lives in CCDC, and are also suggesting that all are in agreement with *your* views. I don't know anyone in the neighborhood who is "up in arms" about the proposed development. In my opinion, there has been a lot of irrational fear-mongering coming from a small group of households opposed to the development. Why should a subset of residents have such great influence in the matter?

Fair enough, I should have said “some ChCh residents”: At least I can speak for myself and others who have been vocal on the listserve. We absolutely have no more rights than any other ChCh resident but this is not going to be decided in a democratic way where people will get a chance to vote and in the end majority will prevail. If that happened and I came out on the losing side I would absolutely accept the outcome but this process is totally opaque so what more can we do but write petitions and send emails to the listserve and show up at meetings? I don’t want more rights than others but I will defend mine to the best of my abilities. Based on the Post article, it’s clear the other side is campaigning hard.

The thing is, we did have that vote. We ended up with a mayor, a councilmember and ANC members who generally support this. So you did come out on the losing side, so please accept it. Continuing with the hateful rhetoric is simply divisive.