Oh, Chevy Chase (DC affordable housing)!

[Anonymous]

I suppose the SAHMs and single dads might be black, and scary. And attack the poor senior citizens who live in the houses nearby. Senior housing (55+) is much safer for everyone. I suppose that is the thinking. But honestly, I really can't figure out what they want.

[Anonymous]

The problem is the problem can’t be solved.

A town similar to Chevy Chase around 30years ago built at site of an old school in town by train a beautiful subsidized rental complex.

First preference were current homeowners in town over 62 with no children.

Thought process was all the older couples sitting in large homes who don’t want to leave their town could downsize and free up the houses for families better suited for.

It last two years till lawsuits. But luckily fully occupied. But as those people died off lower income people from outside town moved in dragging neighborhood down while doing nothing to fix housing problem

[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.

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.

The bolded is not a given. I've been reading the CC list serv and my concern is that the only party that is really going to make out well here is the developer. CC loses its nice open green space which is necessary for a lot of reasons, the city hands over an extremely valuable parcel, the community gets maybe 15 affordable units, and the developer makes $$$. why can't the developer buy the property at market value? Why does the developer get it for $1? The developer can't be happy making a reasonable profit on the project overall, they have to make an enormous one? Why?

And why can't we get any straight answers about how many affordable units will be included, how big will they be (because we want them to actually be a nice place to live), what the new community center will look like, and how many stories this building is going to be?

[Anonymous]

1) a new library would necessarily be a part of the development
2) a new community center would necessarily be a part of the development.
3) the "nice open green space" is really not very nice and not very green, but YMMV.
4) The city would not be "handing over a parcel" - the city would still own it, but would enter into a long term ground lease, in exchange for some as of yet undetermined level of affordable housing units.
5) the property is not for sale, and if a developer paid market value for it, they would not be able to pencil affordable units...that is why it makes sense for the city to take that part of the cost out of the equation.
6) The RFP process will yield different proposals with different sized buildings and different sized units with different levels of affordability/subsidy. So you can't get the answers to those questions until we see what the market proposes given the parameters outlined in an RFP.
7) some of those parameter could also include guidelines around design and street engagement.,..but that requires constructive engagement with the ANC and DMPED, which based on last night's meeting, seems impossible for a the 40 people there who only wanted to disrupt the meeting and not engage constructively.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem is the problem can’t be solved.

A town similar to Chevy Chase around 30years ago built at site of an old school in town by train a beautiful subsidized rental complex.

First preference were current homeowners in town over 62 with no children.

Thought process was all the older couples sitting in large homes who don’t want to leave their town could downsize and free up the houses for families better suited for.

It last two years till lawsuits. But luckily fully occupied. But as those people died off lower income people from outside town moved in dragging neighborhood down while doing nothing to fix housing problem

Why can't you just say what you mean in a straightforward way? What is the purpose of the odd storytelling?

[Anonymous]

Because what they mean is a racist trope and they don't want to own it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1) a new library would necessarily be a part of the development
2) a new community center would necessarily be a part of the development.
3) the "nice open green space" is really not very nice and not very green, but YMMV.
4) The city would not be "handing over a parcel" - the city would still own it, but would enter into a long term ground lease, in exchange for some as of yet undetermined level of affordable housing units.
5) the property is not for sale, and if a developer paid market value for it, they would not be able to pencil affordable units...that is why it makes sense for the city to take that part of the cost out of the equation.
6) The RFP process will yield different proposals with different sized buildings and different sized units with different levels of affordability/subsidy. So you can't get the answers to those questions until we see what the market proposes given the parameters outlined in an RFP.
7) some of those parameter could also include guidelines around design and street engagement.,..but that requires constructive engagement with the ANC and DMPED, which based on last night's meeting, seems impossible for a the 40 people there who only wanted to disrupt the meeting and not engage constructively.

It’s a NINETY-NINE year lease they’re proposing. You’re reaching.

And why can’t a developer still make a profit while offering some affordable housing units? Can’t the city subsidize those units?

[Anonymous]

What is the problem with a NINETY-NINE year ground lease? It is fairly standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is the problem with a NINETY-NINE year ground lease? It is fairly standard.

They’re upset that they’re giving the developer a long term lease for free. The promise to build affordable housing, if that really is all they’re getting, does seem a bit paltry for land that is worth a lot, especially if the commitment is just that 15% of units will be 1 bedroom below market rent apartments in a sea of luxury condos.

[Anonymous]

Thanks, doesn't the ground lease require the developer to pay annual rent for the land? Or is the rent in this case set to $0?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jeez, Bowser started this garbage with her half way houses and homeless shelters everywhere. Look what Tenleytown has become, and it's not on the up swing. Could care less what houses are selling for, the question is would you let your teenage daughter walk at night by herself. The answer is no, unless you are a liar.

Yes, what happened to Tenleytown? It wasn’t like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks, doesn't the ground lease require the developer to pay annual rent for the land? Or is the rent in this case set to $0?

The "rent" is in the form of affordable housing subsidies for 99 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks, doesn't the ground lease require the developer to pay annual rent for the land? Or is the rent in this case set to $0?

I don't know - I'm just interpreting what they're upset about. It would be nice if we all had the facts!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks, doesn't the ground lease require the developer to pay annual rent for the land? Or is the rent in this case set to $0?

The "rent" is in the form of affordable housing subsidies for 99 years.

Seems very not worth it if that's it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks, doesn't the ground lease require the developer to pay annual rent for the land? Or is the rent in this case set to $0?

The "rent" is in the form of affordable housing subsidies for 99 years.

Seems very not worth it if that's it!

So let's say the city puts up $20 million each for a new library and new Community Center, that is $40 million. The two buildings would actually cost closer to $80 million to build. Add to it 75 new apartments that are 1-3 BR each and half of them are affordable to 50% AMI. The whole project costs $400 million and in return, the developer pays the city $1 for a 99 year ground lease to build the whole thing.

That seems very worth it.