Oh, Chevy Chase (DC affordable housing)!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read all 20+ pages of this thread, but I live very close (less than a minute walk) to the planned affordable housing sites. Many of my neighbors, including myself, would welcome affordable housing in the neighborhood. I WANT my kids, who go to Lafayette, to be exposed to more socioeconomic diversity (and if that comes with racial diversity, all the better too). But the problem is that we've seen no plans from the city about how to deal with a sudden population influx. Most importantly, Lafayette is already overcrowded - where the heck are they going to put all the extra kids? If the project is going to move forward without school re-zoning, then part of the new community center should actually be space for PK/K and then have the current Lafayette site be grades 1-5 to make room for the influx of kids. Sort of like the Peabody/Watkins schools.

Additional concerns would include making the E4 bus more frequent (presumably many in the new housing would commute via Friendship Heights metro to work) and making some kind of deal about parking/cars with the apartment residents so that we don't have traffic congestion as people look for parking on surrounding streets.

Anyone who brings up school overcrowding -- which already is happening and will only get worse -- is immediately branded as a NIMBY and disregarded. You'll notice that all plans for CCDC specifically say that no consideration be given to what will happen to the schools. It's simply not important to the people who are pushing for this, either because they don't have kids, don't live in the neighborhood (hi GGW!), send their kids to privates and think everyone who lives in CCDC can just do the same, or a combination of the above.

[Anonymous]

PP here - this is half of the reason that some of my fellow neighbors and I haven’t spoken out. These groups would call us NIMBYs while our actually bigoted neighbors would accost us with lectures about the importance of preserving the neighborhood’s “historic character” (this already happens when I haven’t said one word about my views to them). I’d really like to share my mixed support/concerns at the various planning meetings but not as much as I want to live my life and not be harassed.

[Anonymous]

The single digit number of kids this development would bring is immaterial to the existing overcrowding. Maybe the politicos should suck it up and actually draw some redistricting lines so 80% of the kids aren't jammed into 10 upper NW schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP here - this is half of the reason that some of my fellow neighbors and I haven’t spoken out. These groups would call us NIMBYs while our actually bigoted neighbors would accost us with lectures about the importance of preserving the neighborhood’s “historic character” (this already happens when I haven’t said one word about my views to them). I’d really like to share my mixed support/concerns at the various planning meetings but not as much as I want to live my life and not be harassed.

I’m honestly shocked that anyone would use the words “historic character” when describing CCDC. We’re not talking about a quaint village from 1780 here! The history is recent, and bad! I actually like the character of CCDC and appreciate why it’s a pleasant place to live but one shouldn’t use the word “historic,” sheesh! The character has a lot of benefits. The history of it is shameful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The single digit number of kids this development would bring is immaterial to the existing overcrowding. Maybe the politicos should suck it up and actually draw some redistricting lines so 80% of the kids aren't jammed into 10 upper NW schools.

Politicians like getting reelected, which is why that's never gonna happen. Imagine Janeese even hinting at Lafayette getting moved across the park (which is probably what needs to happen to address the overcrowding in any significant fashion). It would be political suicide. I don't think she's a particularly good council member, but she's not stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read all 20+ pages of this thread, but I live very close (less than a minute walk) to the planned affordable housing sites. Many of my neighbors, including myself, would welcome affordable housing in the neighborhood. I WANT my kids, who go to Lafayette, to be exposed to more socioeconomic diversity (and if that comes with racial diversity, all the better too). But the problem is that we've seen no plans from the city about how to deal with a sudden population influx. Most importantly, Lafayette is already overcrowded - where the heck are they going to put all the extra kids? If the project is going to move forward without school re-zoning, then part of the new community center should actually be space for PK/K and then have the current Lafayette site be grades 1-5 to make room for the influx of kids. Sort of like the Peabody/Watkins schools.

Additional concerns would include making the E4 bus more frequent (presumably many in the new housing would commute via Friendship Heights metro to work) and making some kind of deal about parking/cars with the apartment residents so that we don't have traffic congestion as people look for parking on surrounding streets.

I don’t think all of this is unreasonable, but you can’t dictate the parking on a public street. Especially if you’re suggesting the city put a pre-K and K at the community center. Parking and traffic always come up when new developments are suggested and nobody is going to take it seriously. As a homeowner I def understand your concern, but I wouldn’t put any real focus there. Nobody else really cares.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP here - this is half of the reason that some of my fellow neighbors and I haven’t spoken out. These groups would call us NIMBYs while our actually bigoted neighbors would accost us with lectures about the importance of preserving the neighborhood’s “historic character” (this already happens when I haven’t said one word about my views to them). I’d really like to share my mixed support/concerns at the various planning meetings but not as much as I want to live my life and not be harassed.

If you only saw some of the emails the ANC commissioners receive that may as well been written in 1850, you wouldn't be talking about both-siding this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The single digit number of kids this development would bring is immaterial to the existing overcrowding. Maybe the politicos should suck it up and actually draw some redistricting lines so 80% of the kids aren't jammed into 10 upper NW schools.

Single digit number of kids in 100 units? Does the city plan to let the developer build a bunch of one bedroom and studios rather than family sized units?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The single digit number of kids this development would bring is immaterial to the existing overcrowding. Maybe the politicos should suck it up and actually draw some redistricting lines so 80% of the kids aren't jammed into 10 upper NW schools.

Single digit number of kids in 100 units? Does the city plan to let the developer build a bunch of one bedroom and studios rather than family sized units?

It will be up to the RFP process in terms of what is proposed as financially viable that the city will decide what happens there. I think there is a vocal majority who support the project who also prefer more family housing - two and three bedrooms, but those will be VERY expensive to lease out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It would never fly with the current Supreme Court. They’d at least make an exception for religious schools. And this entire line of argument (prohibiting private schools to get revenge over the wealthy and supposedly reduce the achievement gap) is completely mind boggling in the USA. This isn’t Finland- for good and for bad. If I have to pay for my own healthcare you’re damn right I’m gonna send my kids to whatever school I want.

There's direct precedent on point. In Pierce vs. Society of Sisters, the Supreme Court ruled UNANIMOUSLY that a law that required all Oregon children to attend public schools was unconstitutional. The court memorably said that children are not "the mere creatures of the state." While the case was from the 1920s, I like to think that there are still 9 votes on the current Supreme Court for the proposition that children, and people in general, are not merely creatures of the state.

[Anonymous]

Why not just make it 55 and over with no kids under 18.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why not just make it 55 and over with no kids under 18.

Because that's discriminatory and not the purpose of affordable and workforce housing. It's how developers get over actually offering inclusive housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not just make it 55 and over with no kids under 18.

Because that's discriminatory and not the purpose of affordable and workforce housing. It's how developers get over actually offering inclusive housing.

First every gets old. So not discriminatory. Full max SS is 70. People today don’t fully retire till their 70s. So it can be over 55 and workforce housing.

A bunch of SAHMs with 3 kids how is that workforce housing. If only 1 in 5 people actually work.

[Anonymous]

I watched tonight's ANC meeting. The comments from the public ranged from cautious to militant, with a few that were well over the line of racist. It is hard to have sympathy for a bunch of older, really entitled cranky people.

Kudos to most of the ANC, who appear to be willing to push this project through despite a handful of very vocal opponents, and also to Councilmember Frumin who reiterated his campaign message of support for more affordable housing in Ward 3 and the benefits of using publicly owned land to that end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not just make it 55 and over with no kids under 18.

Because that's discriminatory and not the purpose of affordable and workforce housing. It's how developers get over actually offering inclusive housing.

First every gets old. So not discriminatory. Full max SS is 70. People today don’t fully retire till their 70s. So it can be over 55 and workforce housing.

A bunch of SAHMs with 3 kids how is that workforce housing. If only 1 in 5 people actually work.

I don't understand - why limit it to 55+? Why do you care if there are SAHMs or working dads or single dads or grandmas and childless couples? We need housing - I don't think we should discriminate about who gets it.