Big GDS news

[Anonymous]

The project will be a net loss of tax revenue and housing for DC, and vibrancy to Tenleytown, because a private school is going on a valuable commercial lot. If fact, full matter of right development on those lots in addition to full matter of right development on the Maartens lot would produce more tax revenue and housing for DC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tenleytown doesn't get tax revenue. It all goes to DC.

reading is so hard. So many words, so many letters and stuff:

"[B]ring desired vibrancy and renewal to Tenleytown and needed tax revenue and housing to DC."

[Anonymous]

Currently there is a big empty grocery store, a bike shop and a used car dealer.

Replace that with the high value private school expansion, 200 new housing units (with related income, property and sales tax) and 75,000 square feet of high value retail and voila, more revenue to the city, higher property taxes around the school and more amenities in the neighborhood.

Not everyone sees this as a negative.

[Anonymous]

Undeniable that it is less revenue for the city and less housing than if the lots were put entirely to commercial and residential use. Where is the 75,000 sq ft of retail of which you speak going? Are you saying that GDS is putting retail in on the Safeway site?

Anonymous wrote:Currently there is a big empty grocery store, a bike shop and a used car dealer.

Replace that with the high value private school expansion, 200 new housing units (with related income, property and sales tax) and 75,000 square feet of high value retail and voila, more revenue to the city, higher property taxes around the school and more amenities in the neighborhood.

Not everyone sees this as a negative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tenleytown doesn't get tax revenue. It all goes to DC.

reading is so hard. So many words, so many letters and stuff:

"[B]ring desired vibrancy and renewal to Tenleytown and needed tax revenue and housing to DC."

Except that wasn't the post that prompted the comment. This one was: "By putting a school on a valuable commercial lot, the school will actually take tax revenue and vibrancy away from Tenleytown."

[Anonymous]

Very important distinction. The harm of this project will be both to DC generally and Tenleytown specifically. A large swath of land that could be used for dense mixed-use development, creating hundreds of new homes for residents in Tenleytown, millions of dollars of tax revenue directly, and more through enhanced valuations of surrounding properties, is instead being devoted to a private school. Greater Greater Washington should get on this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tenleytown doesn't get tax revenue. It all goes to DC.

reading is so hard. So many words, so many letters and stuff:

"[B]ring desired vibrancy and renewal to Tenleytown and needed tax revenue and housing to DC."

Except that wasn't the post that prompted the comment. This one was: "By putting a school on a valuable commercial lot, the school will actually take tax revenue and vibrancy away from Tenleytown."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Currently there is a big empty grocery store, a bike shop and a used car dealer.

Replace that with the high value private school expansion, 200 new housing units (with related income, property and sales tax) and 75,000 square feet of high value retail and voila, more revenue to the city, higher property taxes around the school and more amenities in the neighborhood.

Not everyone sees this as a negative.

What exactly is a "high value private school expansion"? It sounds good, but seems to be one of those empty calories expressions -- i.e., meaningless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Very important distinction. The harm of this project will be both to DC generally and Tenleytown specifically. A large swath of land that could be used for dense mixed-use development, creating hundreds of new homes for residents in Tenleytown, millions of dollars of tax revenue directly, and more through enhanced valuations of surrounding properties, is instead being devoted to a private school. Greater Greater Washington should get on this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tenleytown doesn't get tax revenue. It all goes to DC.

reading is so hard. So many words, so many letters and stuff:

"[B]ring desired vibrancy and renewal to Tenleytown and needed tax revenue and housing to DC."

Except that wasn't the post that prompted the comment. This one was: "By putting a school on a valuable commercial lot, the school will actually take tax revenue and vibrancy away from Tenleytown."

1. Dense mixed use in proximity to existing residential areas can also lead to lower property values because of traffic, parking and other external costs imposed on the neighborhood.

2. In many quarters, Greater Greater Washington is considered somewhere between a joke run by myopic little twits and a despicable, if dependable, shill for big development interests in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Very important distinction. The harm of this project will be both to DC generally and Tenleytown specifically. A large swath of land that could be used for dense mixed-use development, creating hundreds of new homes for residents in Tenleytown, millions of dollars of tax revenue directly, and more through enhanced valuations of surrounding properties, is instead being devoted to a private school. Greater Greater Washington should get on this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tenleytown doesn't get tax revenue. It all goes to DC.

reading is so hard. So many words, so many letters and stuff:

"[B]ring desired vibrancy and renewal to Tenleytown and needed tax revenue and housing to DC."

Except that wasn't the post that prompted the comment. This one was: "By putting a school on a valuable commercial lot, the school will actually take tax revenue and vibrancy away from Tenleytown."

If a private developer had bought both the Safeway parcel and the Martens lot, then yes, you would have an argument. However, the school bought the property, so unless they sell the whole thing, we are left with maximizing the part that won't be the school.

But, you can continue to fight the school because NIMBY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Currently there is a big empty grocery store, a bike shop and a used car dealer.

Replace that with the high value private school expansion, 200 new housing units (with related income, property and sales tax) and 75,000 square feet of high value retail and voila, more revenue to the city, higher property taxes around the school and more amenities in the neighborhood.

Not everyone sees this as a negative.

What exactly is a "high value private school expansion"? It sounds good, but seems to be one of those empty calories expressions -- i.e., meaningless.

Some people actually want to buy a house near a school where their kid attends. Besides, I don't see housing values hurting near Maret, Sidwell, St Albans, St Patricks, NPC, St Johns or NCS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very important distinction. The harm of this project will be both to DC generally and Tenleytown specifically. A large swath of land that could be used for dense mixed-use development, creating hundreds of new homes for residents in Tenleytown, millions of dollars of tax revenue directly, and more through enhanced valuations of surrounding properties, is instead being devoted to a private school. Greater Greater Washington should get on this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tenleytown doesn't get tax revenue. It all goes to DC.

reading is so hard. So many words, so many letters and stuff:

"[B]ring desired vibrancy and renewal to Tenleytown and needed tax revenue and housing to DC."

Except that wasn't the post that prompted the comment. This one was: "By putting a school on a valuable commercial lot, the school will actually take tax revenue and vibrancy away from Tenleytown."

1. Dense mixed use in proximity to existing residential areas can also lead to lower property values because of traffic, parking and other external costs imposed on the neighborhood.

Can you provide any evidence of this or a citation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Currently there is a big empty grocery store, a bike shop and a used car dealer.

Replace that with the high value private school expansion, 200 new housing units (with related income, property and sales tax) and 75,000 square feet of high value retail and voila, more revenue to the city, higher property taxes around the school and more amenities in the neighborhood.

Not everyone sees this as a negative.

What exactly is a "high value private school expansion"? It sounds good, but seems to be one of those empty calories expressions -- i.e., meaningless.

Some people actually want to buy a house near a school where their kid attends. Besides, I don't see housing values hurting near Maret, Sidwell, St Albans, St Patricks, NPC, St Johns or NCS.

Can you please provide a citation demonstrating that the immediately adjacent and closest home values aren't lower than identical homes 3 blocks away from these schools?

[Anonymous]

The school could sell the Safeway lot to a developer to put residential on the residentially-zoned plots and commercial on the commercial plots. Smart growth groups should pressure GDS to do so instead of applauding this massive loss of housing and tax revenue. Matter of right development at both sites would produce much more tax revenue and housing for the District. But you can continue to support this bad project because GDS shill.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very important distinction. The harm of this project will be both to DC generally and Tenleytown specifically. A large swath of land that could be used for dense mixed-use development, creating hundreds of new homes for residents in Tenleytown, millions of dollars of tax revenue directly, and more through enhanced valuations of surrounding properties, is instead being devoted to a private school. Greater Greater Washington should get on this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tenleytown doesn't get tax revenue. It all goes to DC.

reading is so hard. So many words, so many letters and stuff:

"ring desired vibrancy and renewal to Tenleytown and needed tax revenue and housing to DC."

Except that wasn't the post that prompted the comment. This one was: "By putting a school on a valuable commercial lot, the school will actually take tax revenue and vibrancy away from Tenleytown."

If a private developer had bought both the Safeway parcel and the Martens lot, then yes, you would have an argument. However, the school bought the property, so unless they sell the whole thing, we are left with maximizing the part that won't be the school.

But, [b]you can continue to fight the school because NIMBY.

[Anonymous]

Look at the house immediately next to Maret that sold in a day. And while I wasn't referring to the immediate parcel, but rather the neighborhood, so despite that, there is high demand for houses on Woodley Road, off of Foxhall Rd, in Cleveland Park and North Cleveland Park and Tenleytown. I don't see where the presence of private schools has at all diminished property values and instead look in the school directories and you will see scores of families that chose to live within walking distance of these schools, and in many cases, they moved after their kids were admitted.

Otherwise, all of the data is available in the DC Property Tax database. Inspect it yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The school could sell the Safeway lot to a developer to put residential on the residentially-zoned plots and commercial on the commercial plots. Smart growth groups should pressure GDS to do so instead of applauding this massive loss of housing and tax revenue. Matter of right development at both sites would produce much more tax revenue and housing for the District. But you can continue to support this bad project because GDS shill.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very important distinction. The harm of this project will be both to DC generally and Tenleytown specifically. A large swath of land that could be used for dense mixed-use development, creating hundreds of new homes for residents in Tenleytown, millions of dollars of tax revenue directly, and more through enhanced valuations of surrounding properties, is instead being devoted to a private school. Greater Greater Washington should get on this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tenleytown doesn't get tax revenue. It all goes to DC.

reading is so hard. So many words, so many letters and stuff:

"ring desired vibrancy and renewal to Tenleytown and needed tax revenue and housing to DC."

Yes, the school could do that and I suspect Smart Growth groups would welcome the additional housing. However, I don't think Smart Growth groups are in a position to pressure a property owner to do anything like what you suggest.




Except that wasn't the post that prompted the comment. This one was: "By putting a school on a valuable commercial lot, the school will actually take tax revenue and vibrancy away from Tenleytown."

If a private developer had bought both the Safeway parcel and the Martens lot, then yes, you would have an argument. However, the school bought the property, so unless they sell the whole thing, we are left with maximizing the part that won't be the school.

But, [b]you can continue to fight the school because NIMBY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The school could sell the Safeway lot to a developer to put residential on the residentially-zoned plots and commercial on the commercial plots. Smart growth groups should pressure GDS to do so instead of applauding this massive loss of housing and tax revenue. Matter of right development at both sites would produce much more tax revenue and housing for the District. But you can continue to support this bad project because GDS shill.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very important distinction. The harm of this project will be both to DC generally and Tenleytown specifically. A large swath of land that could be used for dense mixed-use development, creating hundreds of new homes for residents in Tenleytown, millions of dollars of tax revenue directly, and more through enhanced valuations of surrounding properties, is instead being devoted to a private school. Greater Greater Washington should get on this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tenleytown doesn't get tax revenue. It all goes to DC.

reading is so hard. So many words, so many letters and stuff:

"ring desired vibrancy and renewal to Tenleytown and needed tax revenue and housing to DC."

Except that wasn't the post that prompted the comment. This one was: "By putting a school on a valuable commercial lot, the school will actually take tax revenue and vibrancy away from Tenleytown."

If a private developer had bought both the Safeway parcel and the Martens lot, then yes, you would have an argument. However, the school bought the property, so unless they sell the whole thing, we are left with maximizing the part that won't be the school.

But, [b]you can continue to fight the school because NIMBY.

Yes, the school could do that and I suspect Smart Growth groups would welcome the additional housing. However, I don't think Smart Growth groups are in a position to pressure a property owner to do anything like what you suggest.