Big GDS news

[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.

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.

Which will undoubtedly be a consideration in the process. Laws change of are modified in other parts of life through due process. Zoning is no different.

[Anonymous]

"It's not illegal!" Nice spin, Aces.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And PUD's are legal.

But they cannot be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This PUD would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and should be rejected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And PUD's are legal.

But they cannot be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This PUD would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and should be rejected.

Which is why even the pro-development leaning DC Office of Planning opposes GDS's map amendment.

[Anonymous]

And yet they are against the alternative apparently favored by some GDS board members to devote all of the land to residential/retail use? How is that not hypocrisy?

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.

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]

Who said they were opposed to that?

[Anonymous]

Why haven't they called on GDS to do it, then?

Anonymous wrote:Who said they were opposed to that?

[Anonymous]

Who says they haven't?

[Anonymous]

Why not name the stairs to be built from Wisconsin to the GDS campus the Social Justice Steps?

[Anonymous]

Sounds like something this is something the whole neighborhood could join together behind. Maybe the smart growth groups could start a petition calling on GDS to devote both sites to full matter of right residential/commercial development?

Anonymous wrote:Who says they haven't?

[Anonymous]

I would guess Smart Growth groups would prefer to see mixed use and good design on Wisconsin Avenue and more residential density including more affordable housing units- why not the homeless shelter the Mayor wants?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like something this is something the whole neighborhood could join together behind. Maybe the smart growth groups could start a petition calling on GDS to devote both sites to full matter of right residential/commercial development?

Anonymous wrote:Who says they haven't?

This assumes that GDS's primary strategic objective is to profit from real estate development rather than to consolidate the campus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would guess Smart Growth groups would prefer to see mixed use and good design on Wisconsin Avenue and more residential density including more affordable housing units- why not the homeless shelter the Mayor wants?

The Mayor should move the homeless shelter on top of what is proposed. OP should support that.

[Anonymous]

Why isn't the smart growth community pushing for the smart growth alternative? Sounds like there are some GDS board members that would support it. Why not try to sway the rest?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like something this is something the whole neighborhood could join together behind. Maybe the smart growth groups could start a petition calling on GDS to devote both sites to full matter of right residential/commercial development?

Anonymous wrote:Who says they haven't?

This assumes that GDS's primary strategic objective is to profit from real estate development rather than to consolidate the campus.

[Anonymous]

GDS would need to abandon the campus consolidation aspects of its plans in order for anything else to be considered. That is highly unlikely.