Big GDS news
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Greedier??!!! Why is this greedier? This is crazy. It is not bad to try to have a more financially sound more inclusive institution. What trying to make the mist out of something when you are not taking it out from others is greed? WTF?! |
Anonymous
| Greedy is when you live in a neighborhood, even a 9 story building, and suggest that others cannot live here or in a building as tall as the one that is already there. |
Anonymous
Demanding twice as much as you're entitled to strikes me as greedy. YMMV. Any corporation could argue that greater profits would make it more financially sound. And the whole more inclusive mantra is BS. This deal isn't about financial aid -- it's about status and cronyism. And, yes, overdeveloping that block does affect the quality of life for others. |
Anonymous
| Too big, too ugly, too dense, too intense and too destructive of the surrounding community. THAT is greedy. |
Anonymous
| Where you see too big and dense, I see more neighbors more support for the local retailers and more tax revenue for the city. Those are all good things, unless you are selfish and greedy yourself. |
Anonymous
GDS wasn't demanding anything. They were going through a public process that is perfect legal, to build what they are entitled to, but in a different arrangement than is allowed by current zoning. It makes more sense to stack that density on Wisconsin Avenue then along the back of the property where there are single family homes. But that won't happen now. GDS should just build what they are entitled to, to the maximum, in the areas where they can and cut their losses. |
Anonymous
|
Yes, and as a part of that process the public has a right to weigh in on their proposals. The PUD standard is that the project would be superior to MOR not only for the applicant but for others affected.
And, no, GDS is not just rearranging the where it builds what it is entitled to build. Its lawyers are trying to frame its proposal that way, but the argument is spurious. Nor will the scenario you envision come to pass. The school needs and wants the Safeway land for its own facilities. |
Anonymous
| The are Board members who want to cut the losses and just develop the Safeway lot as it can be. Don't delude yourself into thinking is isn't an option. |
Anonymous
| That's good to hear. I don't see MOR on the Safeway lot as problematic. And it would mean no campus consolidation. |
Anonymous
DC's insatiable appetite for more tax revenue is like an addict's fixation on getting more crack. |
Anonymous
If this is another "threat" from the team of aces, crony consultants and smartest guys in the room, then bring it on! Much of the neighborhood isn't exactly pining to have the GDS school population double in size, you know. |
Anonymous
|
The objectives of the neighboring community members seem particularly unfocused in this instance, and I am not sure how you please everyone. Of course the school is going to grow in size on the site, but this is what personal property rights are all about. All that they can do is propose and advocate for what they want and let the cards fall where they may. It is exactly what any rational organization would do under the circumstances.
No more or less greedy...just self interest. And use of the term greedy smacks of being a "dog whistle", which serves to discredit the opposition. Don't like the plan proposed, object to it on its merit. No need to make unflattering references to make your point, unless you have no point other than to make unflattering references. |
Anonymous
|
Matter of right development means you don't have to please everybody. But you get a result everybody can live with and that everyone knew was acceptable when they purchased their property. No favoritism involved, just enforcement of rules that bind everyone.
If the Safeway lot were developed MOR, you'd have (at most) a 5 story/50 foot apartment building with 60% lot occupancy where the Safeway store was located and single-family homes (probably duplexes and/or rowhouses) on the land that was Safeway's parking lot. You'd probably have a mixed residential-retail building (also max 50 feet) on Wisconsin, with retail covering the lot and a more slender residential component on top. (Different lot occupancy and FAR constraints for residential vs. retail development). And the campus would remain a HS. That's significantly less burdensome than a PUD proposing that the private school more than doubles in size PLUS we get the same amount of res/retail SF as there would be if the Safeway parcel had been devoted to res/retail rather than school use. That's why it's considered greedy and a worst of both worlds scenario. It's a form of double-dipping in which, rather than choosing between two alternatives, the school wants both. And, in fact, claims it's entitled to both and that any one who is critical of this claim is a selfish NIMBY or opposed to affordable housing or insufficiently progressive. It's pretty obnoxious. |
Anonymous
If it claims it is entitled to both, then clearly there must be some ambiguity in the zoning that allows for them to make this claim. This is not to say that they will be successful in making their case. If the zoning is crystal clear (it seldom is) then they must apply for an exception. You have every right to object to this exception, representing your own self interest (can't hide some amorphous construct of it as in the neighborhood's best interest...at least own it as self interest). In this case, neither party is greedy. They just want what they want. |
Anonymous
|
Well, but one side wants the law enforced and another side wants much more than what the law allows.
Wanting what you want when it's much more than what you're entitled is almost the definition of greed isn't it? |