Oh, Chevy Chase (DC affordable housing)!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one wants apartment buildings in their nice, SFH neighborhood. BFR as the kids say.

Isn't that why people moved to SFH neighborhoods? Because they're not in dense areas?

Probably. But you can only own your own piece of property. This is government land. The government thinks it’s in its interest to create housing and an improved community center. I don’t see anyone offering to buy the community center and use private funds to improve it..

Get every CCDC resident to chip in and buy it - make it a private pool!

Ironically, the neighbors could ask the city to include an outdoor (rooftop?) pools in the development. I think it would be awesome!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I grew up dirt poor living in the Bronx and slept on a mattress on living room floor till 12. When I got a bedroom at 13 was 10x9 I shared with brother.
Guess what motivated me in life. I live in a nice home in DMV worth around 1.8 million and also have a beach condo.

Why do I want to bring the crack heads from the Bronx with me to my new neighborhood?

Let them succeed on their own. Nothing motivates you more than sleeping on living room floor at 12 with no AC in July afraid to open windows as will get robbed or even better shot as stray bullets were common.

Why do you assume units at 80% AMI (like 80,000 income) are crackheads?

[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!

And teachers, government workers and journalists simply could not afford to buy a house in CCDC today. Hence the need for affordable housing.

[Anonymous]

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.

That must be why there are zero kids enrolled in Lafayette! Great explanation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why people can't separate out the issues of affordable housing with development of the library/community center. Many of us want both - We want the city to do their job and refurbish the library and the community center as publicly owned assets. And develop affordable housing in Ward 3.

The rub is - why does it all have to be on the same lot? In case you haven't been around DC recently, the development boom over the last decade has been astounding and yet the pace has not kept up with demand, and growth in Ward 3 lags the other 7 wards significantly There's plenty of other housing being developed. Does City Center have affordable housing? yes What about all the development in Tenley/Friendship Heights? yes, there are IZ units in the new buildings on Wisconsin Ave Or the many other aging apartment buildings on CT avenue that constantly have a "vacancy" sign out front. some of those take vouchers, but you cannot force a private building owner to accept them Set the zoning to require set-asides of affordable housing units. this is already being done I'd even prefer the city buy one of these other buildings [or just units in one of these other buildings] and develop the whole thing into affordable housing. it is better to defuse affordable units across several buildings and neighborhoods rather than concentrating them But basically by combining the two and giving away public land to a developer, the City is basically giving away these public resources. they aren't "giving the land to a developer- they are paying them to build the public facilities and incorporating some affordable and market rate housing with it, the city still owns the land

It is illegal to refuse vouchers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why people can't separate out the issues of affordable housing with development of the library/community center. Many of us want both - We want the city to do their job and refurbish the library and the community center as publicly owned assets. And develop affordable housing in Ward 3.

The rub is - why does it all have to be on the same lot? In case you haven't been around DC recently, the development boom over the last decade has been astounding and yet the pace has not kept up with demand, and growth in Ward 3 lags the other 7 wards significantly There's plenty of other housing being developed. Does City Center have affordable housing? yes What about all the development in Tenley/Friendship Heights? yes, there are IZ units in the new buildings on Wisconsin Ave Or the many other aging apartment buildings on CT avenue that constantly have a "vacancy" sign out front. some of those take vouchers, but you cannot force a private building owner to accept them Set the zoning to require set-asides of affordable housing units. this is already being done I'd even prefer the city buy one of these other buildings [or just units in one of these other buildings] and develop the whole thing into affordable housing. it is better to defuse affordable units across several buildings and neighborhoods rather than concentrating them But basically by combining the two and giving away public land to a developer, the City is basically giving away these public resources. they aren't "giving the land to a developer- they are paying them to build the public facilities and incorporating some affordable and market rate housing with it, the city still owns the land

CCDC resident who has been following this process. Actually the city will NO LONGER own the land if this proposal goes through. The city intends to surplus the land and "sell" it to the developer for a nominal amount ($1). As far as I understand, this is because the city is not in the business of developing real estate so it can't remain as owner of the land. This issue has created a lot of concern among residents because it furthers the suspicion that the proposal is a giveaway to developers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP here. With respect, you may disagree with me but nothing that I said amounts to "hateful rhetoric". I oppose the building of a visually imposing building on the site of the existing library and community center. My objection has everything to do with the feeling of density and nothing to do with who will live there or what will go on in the building. For example, the building that was built at the corner of Military and Connecticut a few years ago is exactly what I would like to avoid for the Community Center site. If, as you say, the elected mayor, councilmember and ANC support this and I am on the losing side then why on earth does DC still pretend to seek the neighbor's input? Get on with it already and stop the charade. Or at least tell us what is the scope of what they need/want us to opine on. Maybe the color of the building?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP here. With respect, you may disagree with me but nothing that I said amounts to "hateful rhetoric". I oppose the building of a visually imposing building on the site of the existing library and community center. My objection has everything to do with the feeling of density and nothing to do with who will live there or what will go on in the building. For example, the building that was built at the corner of Military and Connecticut a few years ago is exactly what I would like to avoid for the Community Center site. If, as you say, the elected mayor, councilmember and ANC support this and I am on the losing side then why on earth does DC still pretend to seek the neighbor's input? Get on with it already and stop the charade. Or at least tell us what is the scope of what they need/want us to opine on. Maybe the color of the building?

If you object to "the feeling of density" why do you live in a CITY? No one is putting a 50-story building in your hood. If you want a suburban environment, move to the suburbs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why people can't separate out the issues of affordable housing with development of the library/community center. Many of us want both - We want the city to do their job and refurbish the library and the community center as publicly owned assets. And develop affordable housing in Ward 3.

The rub is - why does it all have to be on the same lot? In case you haven't been around DC recently, the development boom over the last decade has been astounding and yet the pace has not kept up with demand, and growth in Ward 3 lags the other 7 wards significantly There's plenty of other housing being developed. Does City Center have affordable housing? yes What about all the development in Tenley/Friendship Heights? yes, there are IZ units in the new buildings on Wisconsin Ave Or the many other aging apartment buildings on CT avenue that constantly have a "vacancy" sign out front. some of those take vouchers, but you cannot force a private building owner to accept them Set the zoning to require set-asides of affordable housing units. this is already being done I'd even prefer the city buy one of these other buildings [or just units in one of these other buildings] and develop the whole thing into affordable housing. it is better to defuse affordable units across several buildings and neighborhoods rather than concentrating them But basically by combining the two and giving away public land to a developer, the City is basically giving away these public resources. they aren't "giving the land to a developer- they are paying them to build the public facilities and incorporating some affordable and market rate housing with it, the city still owns the land

CCDC resident who has been following this process. Actually the city will NO LONGER own the land if this proposal goes through. The city intends to surplus the land and "sell" it to the developer for a nominal amount ($1). As far as I understand, this is because the city is not in the business of developing real estate so it can't remain as owner of the land. This issue has created a lot of concern among residents because it furthers the suspicion that the proposal is a giveaway to developers.

WRONG

The term surplus in this sense is not to SELL the property, but rather to "surplus" the current land so it can be made available for different uses. This has been explained NUMEROUS times on the listserv and in public meetings but people like you spread FALSE and MISLEADING information to scare everyone else to support your perspective.

The District of Columbia will still own the land. The District of Columbia will own and operate the library and the community center. The District of Columbia, in a joint venture, will operate a residential building that has affordable units in it in a long term ground lease.

Just stop with the lies, it is very Trumpian and unbecoming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP here. With respect, you may disagree with me but nothing that I said amounts to "hateful rhetoric". I oppose the building of a visually imposing building on the site of the existing library and community center. My objection has everything to do with the feeling of density and nothing to do with who will live there or what will go on in the building. For example, the building that was built at the corner of Military and Connecticut a few years ago is exactly what I would like to avoid for the Community Center site. If, as you say, the elected mayor, councilmember and ANC support this and I am on the losing side then why on earth does DC still pretend to seek the neighbor's input? Get on with it already and stop the charade. Or at least tell us what is the scope of what they need/want us to opine on. Maybe the color of the building?

The hateful rhetoric comment was directed to those who are expressing veiled racism as part of their objection to this proposal.

Things like design and massing are left to the public process and the RFP submissions, where the public is still involved, that is where it is now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up dirt poor living in the Bronx and slept on a mattress on living room floor till 12. When I got a bedroom at 13 was 10x9 I shared with brother.
Guess what motivated me in life. I live in a nice home in DMV worth around 1.8 million and also have a beach condo.

Why do I want to bring the crack heads from the Bronx with me to my new neighborhood?

Let them succeed on their own. Nothing motivates you more than sleeping on living room floor at 12 with no AC in July afraid to open windows as will get robbed or even better shot as stray bullets were common.

Why do you assume units at 80% AMI (like 80,000 income) are crackheads?

Because that is family income. Could be a bunch of crackheads cobbling that income together. 80 percent of AMI is more like $300k in Chevy Chase

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why people can't separate out the issues of affordable housing with development of the library/community center. Many of us want both - We want the city to do their job and refurbish the library and the community center as publicly owned assets. And develop affordable housing in Ward 3.

The rub is - why does it all have to be on the same lot? In case you haven't been around DC recently, the development boom over the last decade has been astounding and yet the pace has not kept up with demand, and growth in Ward 3 lags the other 7 wards significantly There's plenty of other housing being developed. Does City Center have affordable housing? yes What about all the development in Tenley/Friendship Heights? yes, there are IZ units in the new buildings on Wisconsin Ave Or the many other aging apartment buildings on CT avenue that constantly have a "vacancy" sign out front. some of those take vouchers, but you cannot force a private building owner to accept them Set the zoning to require set-asides of affordable housing units. this is already being done I'd even prefer the city buy one of these other buildings [or just units in one of these other buildings] and develop the whole thing into affordable housing. it is better to defuse affordable units across several buildings and neighborhoods rather than concentrating them But basically by combining the two and giving away public land to a developer, the City is basically giving away these public resources. they aren't "giving the land to a developer- they are paying them to build the public facilities and incorporating some affordable and market rate housing with it, the city still owns the land

CCDC resident who has been following this process. Actually the city will NO LONGER own the land if this proposal goes through. The city intends to surplus the land and "sell" it to the developer for a nominal amount ($1). As far as I understand, this is because the city is not in the business of developing real estate so it can't remain as owner of the land. This issue has created a lot of concern among residents because it furthers the suspicion that the proposal is a giveaway to developers.

WRONG

The term surplus in this sense is not to SELL the property, but rather to "surplus" the current land so it can be made available for different uses. This has been explained NUMEROUS times on the listserv and in public meetings but people like you spread FALSE and MISLEADING information to scare everyone else to support your perspective.

The District of Columbia will still own the land. The District of Columbia will own and operate the library and the community center. The District of Columbia, in a joint venture, will operate a residential building that has affordable units in it in a long term ground lease.

Just stop with the lies, it is very Trumpian and unbecoming.

I am the poster you are responding to and am genuinely interested in being corrected. Please stop calling me Trumpian and explain to me what surplusing means then. Clearly I missed the emails to the listserve where this was explained. You probably will not believe me if I say that this was a good faith error on my part but truly it is. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP here. With respect, you may disagree with me but nothing that I said amounts to "hateful rhetoric". I oppose the building of a visually imposing building on the site of the existing library and community center. My objection has everything to do with the feeling of density and nothing to do with who will live there or what will go on in the building. For example, the building that was built at the corner of Military and Connecticut a few years ago is exactly what I would like to avoid for the Community Center site. If, as you say, the elected mayor, councilmember and ANC support this and I am on the losing side then why on earth does DC still pretend to seek the neighbor's input? Get on with it already and stop the charade. Or at least tell us what is the scope of what they need/want us to opine on. Maybe the color of the building?

The hateful rhetoric comment was directed to those who are expressing veiled racism as part of their objection to this proposal.

Things like design and massing are left to the public process and the RFP submissions, where the public is still involved, that is where it is now.

Actually you were responding to a comment I made so I'm sorry but you are the one who should lower the volume here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why people can't separate out the issues of affordable housing with development of the library/community center. Many of us want both - We want the city to do their job and refurbish the library and the community center as publicly owned assets. And develop affordable housing in Ward 3.

The rub is - why does it all have to be on the same lot? In case you haven't been around DC recently, the development boom over the last decade has been astounding and yet the pace has not kept up with demand, and growth in Ward 3 lags the other 7 wards significantly There's plenty of other housing being developed. Does City Center have affordable housing? yes What about all the development in Tenley/Friendship Heights? yes, there are IZ units in the new buildings on Wisconsin Ave Or the many other aging apartment buildings on CT avenue that constantly have a "vacancy" sign out front. some of those take vouchers, but you cannot force a private building owner to accept them Set the zoning to require set-asides of affordable housing units. this is already being done I'd even prefer the city buy one of these other buildings [or just units in one of these other buildings] and develop the whole thing into affordable housing. it is better to defuse affordable units across several buildings and neighborhoods rather than concentrating them But basically by combining the two and giving away public land to a developer, the City is basically giving away these public resources. they aren't "giving the land to a developer- they are paying them to build the public facilities and incorporating some affordable and market rate housing with it, the city still owns the land

CCDC resident who has been following this process. Actually the city will NO LONGER own the land if this proposal goes through. The city intends to surplus the land and "sell" it to the developer for a nominal amount ($1). As far as I understand, this is because the city is not in the business of developing real estate so it can't remain as owner of the land. This issue has created a lot of concern among residents because it furthers the suspicion that the proposal is a giveaway to developers.

WRONG

The term surplus in this sense is not to SELL the property, but rather to "surplus" the current land so it can be made available for different uses. This has been explained NUMEROUS times on the listserv and in public meetings but people like you spread FALSE and MISLEADING information to scare everyone else to support your perspective.

The District of Columbia will still own the land. The District of Columbia will own and operate the library and the community center. The District of Columbia, in a joint venture, will operate a residential building that has affordable units in it in a long term ground lease.

Just stop with the lies, it is very Trumpian and unbecoming.

I am the poster you are responding to and am genuinely interested in being corrected. Please stop calling me Trumpian and explain to me what surplusing means then. Clearly I missed the emails to the listserve where this was explained. You probably will not believe me if I say that this was a good faith error on my part but truly it is. Thanks.

There are no fewer than at least 10 emails on the listserv that explained this. Do a search.

Here is a start
https://dmped.dc.gov/page/land-surplus-and-disposition-agreements

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why people can't separate out the issues of affordable housing with development of the library/community center. Many of us want both - We want the city to do their job and refurbish the library and the community center as publicly owned assets. And develop affordable housing in Ward 3.

The rub is - why does it all have to be on the same lot? In case you haven't been around DC recently, the development boom over the last decade has been astounding and yet the pace has not kept up with demand, and growth in Ward 3 lags the other 7 wards significantly There's plenty of other housing being developed. Does City Center have affordable housing? yes What about all the development in Tenley/Friendship Heights? yes, there are IZ units in the new buildings on Wisconsin Ave Or the many other aging apartment buildings on CT avenue that constantly have a "vacancy" sign out front. some of those take vouchers, but you cannot force a private building owner to accept them Set the zoning to require set-asides of affordable housing units. this is already being done I'd even prefer the city buy one of these other buildings [or just units in one of these other buildings] and develop the whole thing into affordable housing. it is better to defuse affordable units across several buildings and neighborhoods rather than concentrating them But basically by combining the two and giving away public land to a developer, the City is basically giving away these public resources. they aren't "giving the land to a developer- they are paying them to build the public facilities and incorporating some affordable and market rate housing with it, the city still owns the land

CCDC resident who has been following this process. Actually the city will NO LONGER own the land if this proposal goes through. The city intends to surplus the land and "sell" it to the developer for a nominal amount ($1). As far as I understand, this is because the city is not in the business of developing real estate so it can't remain as owner of the land. This issue has created a lot of concern among residents because it furthers the suspicion that the proposal is a giveaway to developers.

WRONG

The term surplus in this sense is not to SELL the property, but rather to "surplus" the current land so it can be made available for different uses. This has been explained NUMEROUS times on the listserv and in public meetings but people like you spread FALSE and MISLEADING information to scare everyone else to support your perspective.

The District of Columbia will still own the land. The District of Columbia will own and operate the library and the community center. The District of Columbia, in a joint venture, will operate a residential building that has affordable units in it in a long term ground lease.

Just stop with the lies, it is very Trumpian and unbecoming.

I am the poster you are responding to and am genuinely interested in being corrected. Please stop calling me Trumpian and explain to me what surplusing means then. Clearly I missed the emails to the listserve where this was explained. You probably will not believe me if I say that this was a good faith error on my part but truly it is. Thanks.

If you are admitting you don't know the facts, then why are you posting them with authority? The process has been explained at ANC meetings and at the various other meetings, including the one hosted by the Deputy Mayor's office. It really doesn't help if you are posting patently false things, because it helps feed the hysteria that then prompts news coverage that makes the whole community look like racist a$$holes when in reality only a fraction are opposed to this project and only a fraction of those are out of racial motives.

Ask questions of the elected officials or your neighbors who live and actually understand the process, rather than posting misleading or just plain wrong information.

Ultimately, there is no city owned land that is being sold. Never was, never will be.