Oh, Chevy Chase (DC affordable housing)!

[Anonymous]

"Hate has no home here"
*Hate meaning anyone with a household income of less than $250,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Can you review this (https://dcregs.dc.gov/common/NoticeDetail.aspx?noticeId=N130203) then (Article 1) and tell me if I'm still wrong? Doesn't "disposition" mean selling?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular question: is there a neighborhood that has been positively impacted by affordable housing?

All across the country, there are positive affordable housing stories. What a naive question.

Positive for the low income residents but not their neighbors

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Can you review this (https://dcregs.dc.gov/common/NoticeDetail.aspx?noticeId=N130203) then (Article 1) and tell me if I'm still wrong? Doesn't "disposition" mean selling?

No, not in this context. It has been explained a million times. DC owns and will own the property. Terms like "surplus" and "disposition" do not have the common meaning in this context.

[Anonymous]

I know I will get flamed for this, but what's wrong with people wanting to live with people of equal stature, education, money etc. This is the way society has always worked, people live with whom they have something in common so that they can build a community around them. This new liberal mindset that everybody is entitled to live in the most exclusive neighborhoods is beyond crazy, I want to live next to the White House but I suppose I won't be allowed, that's how life goes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know I will get flamed for this, but what's wrong with people wanting to live with people of equal stature, education, money etc. This is the way society has always worked, people live with whom they have something in common so that they can build a community around them. This new liberal mindset that everybody is entitled to live in the most exclusive neighborhoods is beyond crazy, I want to live next to the White House but I suppose I won't be allowed, that's how life goes.

This isn't a "new liberal mindset" - facts show that concentrating "the poors" in ghetto like settings makes things worse. It is better to spread people of differeing income levels through a community rather than concentrating. Also, the people being contemplated for this kind of housing are not homeless/non-working people, but rather the types of people who, a generation ago, would have been living in our community but are totally priced out now because salaries for those kinds of jobs, teachers, nurses, first responders etc, have not kept pace with housing costs. Generally speaking and speaking for myself, I would be proud to live among such neighbors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know I will get flamed for this, but what's wrong with people wanting to live with people of equal stature, education, money etc. This is the way society has always worked, people live with whom they have something in common so that they can build a community around them. This new liberal mindset that everybody is entitled to live in the most exclusive neighborhoods is beyond crazy, I want to live next to the White House but I suppose I won't be allowed, that's how life goes.

You can have that mindset but you can’t live like that in a city, where people of all education levels and income levels are needed to make the city run. Anyone can feel how they want, but if you really feel like that, you need to move somewhere else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know I will get flamed for this, but what's wrong with people wanting to live with people of equal stature, education, money etc. This is the way society has always worked, people live with whom they have something in common so that they can build a community around them. This new liberal mindset that everybody is entitled to live in the most exclusive neighborhoods is beyond crazy, I want to live next to the White House but I suppose I won't be allowed, that's how life goes.

To me it's just the hilarity of the hypocrisy. These are some of the signs that are ubiquitous in this neighborhood, yet...

"Black Lives Matter" --> you matter, so long as you don't live by us!

"No matter where you're from, we're glad you're our neighbor" (with the token Spanish & Arabic translation of course!) --> but only if you are of "equal stature, education, and money."

"Hate has no home here" --> cross out hate and replace it with "household income less than $200k"

"All are welcome" --> so long as you have a master's degree

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know I will get flamed for this, but what's wrong with people wanting to live with people of equal stature, education, money etc. This is the way society has always worked, people live with whom they have something in common so that they can build a community around them. This new liberal mindset that everybody is entitled to live in the most exclusive neighborhoods is beyond crazy, I want to live next to the White House but I suppose I won't be allowed, that's how life goes.

You can have that mindset but you can’t live like that in a city, where people of all education levels and income levels are needed to make the city run. Anyone can feel how they want, but if you really feel like that, you need to move somewhere else.

Oh please, your response is naive and lame. Every city in the world has affluent areas, in the middle areas, poor areas etc. Not everyone in London can afford to live in Chelsea or it takes a certain income level to live in Manhattan.

This tired trope that in a *city* everyone should be able to live anywhere is ridiculous and crazy. Also, Teachers, First responders etc are not poor people so the talk is concentrating them in a ghetto is stupid, there are plenty of affordable areas in the city where they can live happily.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know I will get flamed for this, but what's wrong with people wanting to live with people of equal stature, education, money etc. This is the way society has always worked, people live with whom they have something in common so that they can build a community around them. This new liberal mindset that everybody is entitled to live in the most exclusive neighborhoods is beyond crazy, I want to live next to the White House but I suppose I won't be allowed, that's how life goes.

This isn't a "new liberal mindset" - facts show that concentrating "the poors" in ghetto like settings makes things worse. It is better to spread people of differeing income levels through a community rather than concentrating. Also, the people being contemplated for this kind of housing are not homeless/non-working people, but rather the types of people who, a generation ago, would have been living in our community but are totally priced out now because salaries for those kinds of jobs, teachers, nurses, first responders etc, have not kept pace with housing costs. Generally speaking and speaking for myself, I would be proud to live among such neighbors.

The whole point of being a limousine liberal is to tell middle class people how to act and to advocate for policies that effect them. Having affordable housing that actually borders your house is anathema. All those all are welcome are theoretical, not an actual invitation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know I will get flamed for this, but what's wrong with people wanting to live with people of equal stature, education, money etc. This is the way society has always worked, people live with whom they have something in common so that they can build a community around them. This new liberal mindset that everybody is entitled to live in the most exclusive neighborhoods is beyond crazy, I want to live next to the White House but I suppose I won't be allowed, that's how life goes.

You can have that mindset but you can’t live like that in a city, where people of all education levels and income levels are needed to make the city run. Anyone can feel how they want, but if you really feel like that, you need to move somewhere else.

Oh please, your response is naive and lame. Every city in the world has affluent areas, in the middle areas, poor areas etc. Not everyone in London can afford to live in Chelsea or it takes a certain income level to live in Manhattan.

This tired trope that in a *city* everyone should be able to live anywhere is ridiculous and crazy. Also, Teachers, First responders etc are not poor people so the talk is concentrating them in a ghetto is stupid, there are plenty of affordable areas in the city where they can live happily.

I think what YOU are missing is that nobody is saying that “anyone” should live “anywhere.” Nobody is handing out the house next door to you. It’s a few units in a relatively small apartment building on a piece of government land. The market-rate units will make up the difference and the neighborhood is getting an improved community center. I don’t know many times this needs to be explained to some people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know I will get flamed for this, but what's wrong with people wanting to live with people of equal stature, education, money etc. This is the way society has always worked, people live with whom they have something in common so that they can build a community around them. This new liberal mindset that everybody is entitled to live in the most exclusive neighborhoods is beyond crazy, I want to live next to the White House but I suppose I won't be allowed, that's how life goes.

You can have that mindset but you can’t live like that in a city, where people of all education levels and income levels are needed to make the city run. Anyone can feel how they want, but if you really feel like that, you need to move somewhere else.

Oh please, your response is naive and lame. Every city in the world has affluent areas, in the middle areas, poor areas etc. Not everyone in London can afford to live in Chelsea or it takes a certain income level to live in Manhattan.

This tired trope that in a *city* everyone should be able to live anywhere is ridiculous and crazy. Also, Teachers, First responders etc are not poor people so the talk is concentrating them in a ghetto is stupid, there are plenty of affordable areas in the city where they can live happily.

where can two DCPS teachers with two kids and an HHI of 150k live happily in the city (assuming that part of happily is low crime and access to green space)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know I will get flamed for this, but what's wrong with people wanting to live with people of equal stature, education, money etc. This is the way society has always worked, people live with whom they have something in common so that they can build a community around them. This new liberal mindset that everybody is entitled to live in the most exclusive neighborhoods is beyond crazy, I want to live next to the White House but I suppose I won't be allowed, that's how life goes.

You can have that mindset but you can’t live like that in a city, where people of all education levels and income levels are needed to make the city run. Anyone can feel how they want, but if you really feel like that, you need to move somewhere else.

Oh please, your response is naive and lame. Every city in the world has affluent areas, in the middle areas, poor areas etc. Not everyone in London can afford to live in Chelsea or it takes a certain income level to live in Manhattan.

This tired trope that in a *city* everyone should be able to live anywhere is ridiculous and crazy. Also, Teachers, First responders etc are not poor people so the talk is concentrating them in a ghetto is stupid, there are plenty of affordable areas in the city where they can live happily.

where can two DCPS teachers with two kids and an HHI of 150k live happily in the city (assuming that part of happily is low crime and access to green space)

Mayor should work to make all areas in the city safe and crime free, there is no excuse for not prosecuting criminals and then declare half the city uninhabitable. Sorry, you can’t have it both ways, if you support liberal policies of letting criminals roam free then don’t come running to well off areas to seek shelter. So, yes two teachers with 150k HHI can afford live in most areas if the liberals vote for policies that keep the city safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know I will get flamed for this, but what's wrong with people wanting to live with people of equal stature, education, money etc. This is the way society has always worked, people live with whom they have something in common so that they can build a community around them. This new liberal mindset that everybody is entitled to live in the most exclusive neighborhoods is beyond crazy, I want to live next to the White House but I suppose I won't be allowed, that's how life goes.

You can have that mindset but you can’t live like that in a city, where people of all education levels and income levels are needed to make the city run. Anyone can feel how they want, but if you really feel like that, you need to move somewhere else.

Oh please, your response is naive and lame. Every city in the world has affluent areas, in the middle areas, poor areas etc. Not everyone in London can afford to live in Chelsea or it takes a certain income level to live in Manhattan.

This tired trope that in a *city* everyone should be able to live anywhere is ridiculous and crazy. Also, Teachers, First responders etc are not poor people so the talk is concentrating them in a ghetto is stupid, there are plenty of affordable areas in the city where they can live happily.

where can two DCPS teachers with two kids and an HHI of 150k live happily in the city (assuming that part of happily is low crime and access to green space)

Mayor should work to make all areas in the city safe and crime free, there is no excuse for not prosecuting criminals and then declare half the city uninhabitable. Sorry, you can’t have it both ways, if you support liberal policies of letting criminals roam free then don’t come running to well off areas to seek shelter. So, yes two teachers with 150k HHI can afford live in most areas if the liberals vote for policies that keep the city safe.

I really can’t believe you would begrudge 2 teachers a small apartment unit on a piece of public land that already has public infrastructure. That’s wild.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know I will get flamed for this, but what's wrong with people wanting to live with people of equal stature, education, money etc. This is the way society has always worked, people live with whom they have something in common so that they can build a community around them. This new liberal mindset that everybody is entitled to live in the most exclusive neighborhoods is beyond crazy, I want to live next to the White House but I suppose I won't be allowed, that's how life goes.

You can have that mindset but you can’t live like that in a city, where people of all education levels and income levels are needed to make the city run. Anyone can feel how they want, but if you really feel like that, you need to move somewhere else.

Oh please, your response is naive and lame. Every city in the world has affluent areas, in the middle areas, poor areas etc. Not everyone in London can afford to live in Chelsea or it takes a certain income level to live in Manhattan.

This tired trope that in a *city* everyone should be able to live anywhere is ridiculous and crazy. Also, Teachers, First responders etc are not poor people so the talk is concentrating them in a ghetto is stupid, there are plenty of affordable areas in the city where they can live happily.

where can two DCPS teachers with two kids and an HHI of 150k live happily in the city (assuming that part of happily is low crime and access to green space)

Mayor should work to make all areas in the city safe and crime free, there is no excuse for not prosecuting criminals and then declare half the city uninhabitable. Sorry, you can’t have it both ways, if you support liberal policies of letting criminals roam free then don’t come running to well off areas to seek shelter. So, yes two teachers with 150k HHI can afford live in most areas if the liberals vote for policies that keep the city safe.

I really can’t believe you would begrudge 2 teachers a small apartment unit on a piece of public land that already has public infrastructure. That’s wild.

Oh stop the histrionics! This discussion wouldn’t be happening if half of the city wasn’t unsafe due to crime. Nobody is begrudging anyone anything, but people can’t have it both ways. Your votes have consequences and those chickens have come home to roost.