Big GDS news

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

Why does the PUD process exist as a part of the law? Its mere existence calls into question the rigidity of zoning laws. So, again, object to the proposal on its merits and admit freely that you are representing your own interests and not some more noble cause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

DC's insatiable appetite for more tax revenue is like an addict's fixation on getting more crack.

So the city shouldn't grow and should just raise taxes on the people who live here? That is unsustainable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Many believe that this result is worse than what was proposed. That is why the PUD process exists. It isn't being greedy, it is making something better from what would be a by-right development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

There is no ambiguity in the zoning, and what is allowed as a matter of right is clearly described in the regulations: (1) 50 foot tall (possibly mixed use) buildings with clearly described limits on density and uses where the Safeway current sits, as well as along Wisconsin Avenue, and (2) single family houses, including duplexes and rowhouses in a limited area, on the current Safeway parking area and nearby open space. Any representation to the contrary is clearly false, and I would expect real estate lawyers to know what the zoning regulations allow as a matter of right.

They have the right to ask for a special exception to build a private school on the low-density residential land, and they have a right to apply for a PUD, but that doesn't give them an entitlement to the heights, density and uses that they are asking for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

There is no ambiguity in the zoning, and what is allowed as a matter of right is clearly described in the regulations: (1) 50 foot tall (possibly mixed use) buildings with clearly described limits on density and uses where the Safeway current sits, as well as along Wisconsin Avenue, and (2) single family houses, including duplexes and rowhouses in a limited area, on the current Safeway parking area and nearby open space. Any representation to the contrary is clearly false, and I would expect real estate lawyers to know what the zoning regulations allow as a matter of right.

They have the right to ask for a special exception to build a private school on the low-density residential land, and they have a right to apply for a PUD, but that doesn't give them an entitlement to the heights, density and uses that they are asking for.

You are not reading the PP correctly. He is saying that the request by GDS is not an entitlement, but instead a request as part of a process. You are more than welcome to raise objections to the request. PP was responding to another poster who was using hyperbolic language to describe the action of the school; that the school felt entitled to the development as planned in their proposal. Yet, no one has said any such thing.

[Anonymous]

GDS's argument is we're entitled to this level of development -- we're just moving it around on the site. Not true. And, yes, they have to request ZC approval to build this project (because they are not entitled to move SF around). No one is saying what GDS is doing is illegal -- what they're trying to do is get legal restrictions waived. Part of the reason cronyism keeps getting mentioned is that the ZC often waives such restrictions, especially for well-connected developers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:GDS's argument is we're entitled to this level of development -- we're just moving it around on the site. Not true. And, yes, they have to request ZC approval to build this project (because they are not entitled to move SF around). No one is saying what GDS is doing is illegal -- what they're trying to do is get legal restrictions waived. Part of the reason cronyism keeps getting mentioned is that the ZC often waives such restrictions, especially for well-connected developers.

Thank you for describing the PUD process in plain terms. You clearly want to project all of your hang ups onto their process. Again, object to their proposal. They are not hiding their motivations and their plan is clearly spelled out. You keep going to the same well - greed and cronyism, neither of which is proven - as your reasons for objecting. My guess is that there will be constituents with more articulate arguments than this. I recommend you draft off of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Zoning and the Comprehensive Plan have the force of law in the District of Columbia. It's hardly fair to describe as a narrow self-interest the view that these laws should be followed, particularly as members of the community have relied on both in purchasing their homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Based on the head of school's "joke" (that the project would drive nearby neighbors to sell their homes) it seems that GDS also would like to pick up some of the homesites on the same block as the school.

[Anonymous]

I thought the smart growth ideals were about allowing more people to live in Tenleytown near Metro and to generate more tax revenue. Viewed through the smart growth lens, full matter of right mixed-use on both parcels is superior to GDS' plan. If the neighborhood wants it too, the only stakeholder that wants the school expanded instead of more mixed-use and residential is GDS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Many believe that this result is worse than what was proposed. That is why the PUD process exists. It isn't being greedy, it is making something better from what would be a by-right development.

[Anonymous]

But GDS owns the land, so of course their goals of expanded facilities and consolidated school, in its perspective, has to be the driving force. The added residents and mixed-use retail ar the economic engine that benefit the local businesses and broader city goals.

[Anonymous]

Fine -- so long as they follow the law.

[Anonymous]

And PUD's are legal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

The "new amenities for the neighbors! Tax base!" rationale is brought to you by the GGW echo chamber, which resides entirely in 20010 and 20001 and has never even been to the neighborhood under discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And PUD's are legal.

Yes they are. The person who keeps arguing as-of-right or bust needs to save his or her breath. Can't put the genie back in the bottle. Need to prevail based upon merits.