Muriel Bowser and Developers

[Anonymous]

The Post makes it sound like it is "wired" for either Co-Star or Jemal. Honestly, while I love the arts a great deal, I am perfectly fine with either of those entities getting the building. Both have pockets deep enough to ensure that it is renovated. Jemal did a great job with his renovations in the East End---you can roll your eyes at his rather suburbanesque tenant mix---such as Fuddrucker's---but in developer parlance---financially stable national and regional credit-worthy tenants are what enables developers to have the cash to restore historic buildings appropriately---as doing the renovation work required is extremely costly.

[Anonymous]

So it is okay to have gone though a legal process, sit on it and then award the 'riches" to someone else?

Not in my world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Post makes it sound like it is "wired" for either Co-Star or Jemal. Honestly, while I love the arts a great deal, I am perfectly fine with either of those entities getting the building. Both have pockets deep enough to ensure that it is renovated. Jemal did a great job with his renovations in the East End---you can roll your eyes at his rather suburbanesque tenant mix---such as Fuddrucker's---but in developer parlance---financially stable national and regional credit-worthy tenants are what enables developers to have the cash to restore historic buildings appropriately---as doing the renovation work required is extremely costly.

It's curious that Bowser's office says that they had issues with the museum's finances, yet they never asked for nor reviewed any financial information. It's clear that one or more of Bowser's developer-backers wants this property, and that's why she sat on the lease approval while still a council member and the mayor-presumptuous, er, -presumtive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If Bowser rubber stamps their short list and picks no one that Comm of 100 nominates to the Mayor, then well, that will tell all

If the Committee of 100, a self-appointed group of "know it alls" is your litmus test, then I am not sure anyone can help your or your opinion. Outside of the 100 (are there even 100?), no one cares about this group or its opinions.

I find them to be refreshingly balanced compared to the "Smart Growth Coalition", "Ward 3 Vision", Greater Greater Washington and any of a number of front groups for the corporate development lobby.

GGW is just a blog, I don't think they get any money from developers. Do you have any evidence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that you allege and "agenda" is enough to show your paranoia over the issue.

Where do you live? Would where you live exist without a developer? Should the city be placed under a glass shield with everything remaining exactly as it is forever?

Like it or not, people need places to live, places to work, places to shop and just because you are already "here" doesn't mean that everything should be pushed somewhere else. That is an incredibly selfish "I have mine" attitude that only makes the District more expensive for future generations.

Yes, I guess I have an agenda. My agenda is to make it easier to live here without a car, and make it so more people can afford to live here so we have a robust economy that can take care of things like good education, jobs, training and affordable housing.

What is your agenda? To make it so you life as you know it isn't altered in any way. So you can drive and park wherever you want for free and so others are precluded from living in your neighborhood or going to your kids schools.

Yes, that is a winning agenda.

I live in Ward 4 and yes, I want my car. It makes my life easier. I want development, but I also believe that in order to have a robust city, you need hotels, cultural buildings and green space! Is that too much to ask? Hell, I love my dog park.

And CSG and GGW are not saying it should not be possible to have a car. They also support hotels, cultural buildings and parks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

GGW is just a blog, I don't think they get any money from developers. Do you have any evidence?

No, she doesn't, because none exists. However, it is the only way the Committee of 100 types can justify the thought that reasonable people can come to difference conclusions than their own. There are plenty of societal and environmental reasons why there should be more affordable housing spread in the different corners of the city, why there should be good transportation options including more buses, streetcar, car sharing and other choices readily available, why there should be more mixed-use development on our main streets and more density focused near metro stations. However, these folks seem to think that free parking wherever and whenever they want it is a means to an end to oppose new development, new density and new transportation options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

GGW is just a blog, I don't think they get any money from developers. Do you have any evidence?

No, she doesn't, because none exists. However, it is the only way the Committee of 100 types can justify the thought that reasonable people can come to difference conclusions than their own. There are plenty of societal and environmental reasons why there should be more affordable housing spread in the different corners of the city, why there should be good transportation options including more buses, streetcar, car sharing and other choices readily available, why there should be more mixed-use development on our main streets and more density focused near metro stations. However, these folks seem to think that free parking wherever and whenever they want it is a means to an end to oppose new development, new density and new transportation options.

Re: density near Metro stations, good in theory but not always in practice. Thanks God we have an historic district in Cleveland Park. Otherwise the area near the Metro would look like Van Ness today.

[Anonymous]

I remember reading recently that the Spy Museum needs a new site? This would be good for that.

[Anonymous]

And a surface parking lot that can hold 30 cars is a much better use of space than more residences and amenities RIGHT ON TOP OF THE CLEVELAND PARK METRO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And a surface parking lot that can hold 30 cars is a much better use of space than more residences and amenities RIGHT ON TOP OF THE CLEVELAND PARK METRO.

The Park n Shop in CP is a National Register protected property. I read that the Spring Valley shopping center is also, so front modifications Are limited. Besides I hear the restaurant owners in CP complain bitterly that there is little parking, so I don't think that anyone would want to give up 30 parking spaces.

[Anonymous]

There is a very interesting article in this week's Northwest current that puts public-private development partnership's in DC in perspective. The article shows that the DC government spent $1 million to reinforce the Tenley library structure to accommodate a future condo structure on top, for what a consultant report showed would be at most a benefit of less than $300,000 to DC. In other words, $700,000 of taxpayer money was spent at best to subsidize a project that would've returned far less to the District. In reality it was wasted all together because most people agree that a condo building, which would cantilever over the Janney playground, will never be built on the site. The wasted money aside, the PPP fiasco resulted in the Tenley library being closed for six years and a design that presents an ugly blank wall on the west side toward Janney. The lesson is that monetizing DC assets for development doesn't always result in the expected returns and in fact may result in significant cost to the public.

[Anonymous]

True, but the Tenley fiasco was poorly executed from beginning to end, resulting in a sub-par facility as well as the wasted monies outlined. It was Fenty at his worst, and Muriel is showing the same colors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If Bowser rubber stamps their short list and picks no one that Comm of 100 nominates to the Mayor, then well, that will tell all

If the Committee of 100, a self-appointed group of "know it alls" is your litmus test, then I am not sure anyone can help your or your opinion. Outside of the 100 (are there even 100?), no one cares about this group or its opinions.

Boy, you sound really threatened . For those who haven't heard of this non-profit civic group ( all have day jobs) :
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_100_on_the_Federal_City

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_100_on_the_Federal_City

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a very interesting article in this week's Northwest current that puts public-private development partnership's in DC in perspective. The article shows that the DC government spent $1 million to reinforce the Tenley library structure to accommodate a future condo structure on top, for what a consultant report showed would be at most a benefit of less than $300,000 to DC. In other words, $700,000 of taxpayer money was spent at best to subsidize a project that would've returned far less to the District. In reality it was wasted all together because most people agree that a condo building, which would cantilever over the Janney playground, will never be built on the site. The wasted money aside, the PPP fiasco resulted in the Tenley library being closed for six years and a design that presents an ugly blank wall on the west side toward Janney. The lesson is that monetizing DC assets for development doesn't always result in the expected returns and in fact may result in significant cost to the public.

DC needs to modernize its regulatory review process : instead of a developer having their plans reviwed by one agency after another in Silos, with the ZA , Matt Legrant, writing his infamous " determination letters" behind closed doors, DC needs to have a rep from every agency at public hearing, all testimony must be sworn and subject to cross . Only then will DC having anything approaching " urban planning"

right now we have public corruption and gifting to developers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a very interesting article in this week's Northwest current that puts public-private development partnership's in DC in perspective. The article shows that the DC government spent $1 million to reinforce the Tenley library structure to accommodate a future condo structure on top, for what a consultant report showed would be at most a benefit of less than $300,000 to DC. In other words, $700,000 of taxpayer money was spent at best to subsidize a project that would've returned far less to the District. In reality it was wasted all together because most people agree that a condo building, which would cantilever over the Janney playground, will never be built on the site. The wasted money aside, the PPP fiasco resulted in the Tenley library being closed for six years and a design that presents an ugly blank wall on the west side toward Janney. The lesson is that monetizing DC assets for development doesn't always result in the expected returns and in fact may result in significant cost to the public.

Similar invested economics caused the DC public library board (excuse the phrase) to "shelve" further consideration of a public-private partnership for development at the MLK library site.

In DC it seems, PPPs are about developers getting access to public properties on very favorable, even taxpayer subsidized, terms. PPP = Preferred Property Pricing to political cronies.