Wisconsin Ave Development Project

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Covenants, especially racial covenants, have not been enforceable for a long time. Many people have still taken the steps to remove them. These are not to be confused with historic districts, which seek to preserve the look of certain neighborhoods deemed worthy of preservation. Many neighborhoods in DC are historic districts. It doesn't mean you can't expand a home in those areas; renovations must simply be compatible. Zoning refers to the rules regarding density, massing, FAR, etc that jurisdictions establish standards on building.

The only reason there are so many historic districts in DC is because the bar to create one is so low.

Somehow we have far more than Boston and Philadelphia…not of course because our neighborhoods are so historic, but because those cities require residents to vote and the bar is higher.

[Anonymous]

The argument is that NWDC neighborhoods are so appealing that we should densify them so more people can live there. What the proponents get wrong is what makes the neighborhoods appealing -- safe residential areas with green space and good schools. Of course, you can add some density to those areas, but there is a tipping point where the neighborhoods will no longer be desirable. I love the fact that there is a mix of condos, townhomes, and single family homes in my neighborhood, but it's a balance and if it were to tip over into primarily big buildings with condos, it would lose what makes it special. It is nice to have neighborhoods like Navy Yard for people who choose that lifestyle, but it's also ok for other neighborhoods to have a predominance of single family homes. Our city can have different types of neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Racist provisions of these covenants are not enforceable and haven’t been for a long time. The other provisions which typically put some zoning restriction on survive. Given what’s happened in Arlington, it would be foolish to give up on covenant protection.

Historic districts and covenanted neighborhoods in DC are mostly in the Upper NW and only in some parts. I can see how SFH prices of homes with this type of insurance against zoning changes would skyrocket. I prefer covenant over historic just because I don’t want to deal with the historic board on everything else.

Here’s what happened in Arlington:
https://www.arlnow.com/2023/09/08/a-restrictive-covenant-used-to-block-a-duplex-also-barred-non-white-people-from-buying-or-renting-it/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Covenants, especially racial covenants, have not been enforceable for a long time. Many people have still taken the steps to remove them. These are not to be confused with historic districts, which seek to preserve the look of certain neighborhoods deemed worthy of preservation. Many neighborhoods in DC are historic districts. It doesn't mean you can't expand a home in those areas; renovations must simply be compatible. Zoning refers to the rules regarding density, massing, FAR, etc that jurisdictions establish standards on building.

You are very wrong on covenants. Only the racist provisions are not enforceable. The rest survives with the land. You could take steps to remove them in your neighborhood but after what happened with the Missing Middle in Arlington, why would you ever?

[Anonymous]

Using a restrictive covenant in a 1938 deed, neighbors in the Tara-Leeway Heights neighborhood convinced a developer to build a single-family home instead of a duplex.

The home, 1313 N. Harrison Street, is not far from a wall that separated the historically Black neighborhood of Hall’s Hill from single-family-home subdivisions originally built exclusively for white people. In addition to specifying that only one home can be built on the lot, a second provision in the deed bars owners from selling to people who are not white.
This second provision came to light this week after ARLnow and Patch reported on the neighbors convincing the developer to back down from building a two-family home. A copy of the deed circulated on social media shortly after and ARLnow obtained a copy from Arlington County Land Records Division to confirm its authenticity.

While racially restrictive covenants were rendered unenforceable by a 1948 U.S. Supreme Court ruling and illegal by the Fair Housing Act of 1968, many homeowners never scrubbed them from their deeds, according to local researchers who are mapping racially restrictive covenants in Arlington. Thus, in some cases, they exist alongside separate covenants restricting multifamily construction.

Using the covenant against multifamily housing appears to be a valid workaround for neighbors and Arlington County says it has no legal role in how these covenants are used between private parties. The county began approving 2-6 unit homes in previously single-family-only neighborhoods two months ago, but this is the first instance ARLnow knows of where such a document was used in this way.
…
ARLnow asked the county if it considered restrictive covenants as part of its zoning code changes and what, if anything, it can do about them.
“The County is aware of the existence of private covenants on properties in Arlington,” the County Attorney’s Office said in a statement. “However, the County has no legal role in the regulation or enforcement of private covenants, so we cannot comment further on how private individuals might utilize covenants on their property.”

[Anonymous]

By the way, not all Upper NW covenants contain racist provisions, particularly in the neighborhoods built after 1948.

[Anonymous]

The developers don’t care about the future of any neighborhood. They are like locusts- they devour and then move on. And Bowser seems beholden to them, plus she clearly cares very little for Ward 3.

[Anonymous]

You will love the fact that Frumin’s house is in a covenant-protected block; so he’s not inclined to care any more than he usually does, which is not at all

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You will love the fact that Frumin’s house is in a covenant-protected block; so he’s not inclined to care any more than he usually does, which is not at all

Ha!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The argument is that NWDC neighborhoods are so appealing that we should densify them so more people can live there. What the proponents get wrong is what makes the neighborhoods appealing -- safe residential areas with green space and good schools. Of course, you can add some density to those areas, but there is a tipping point where the neighborhoods will no longer be desirable. I love the fact that there is a mix of condos, townhomes, and single family homes in my neighborhood, but it's a balance and if it were to tip over into primarily big buildings with condos, it would lose what makes it special. It is nice to have neighborhoods like Navy Yard for people who choose that lifestyle, but it's also ok for other neighborhoods to have a predominance of single family homes. Our city can have different types of neighborhoods.

Exactly. The people proposing densification have a massive logic fail, but ultimately are motivated by idealism (which blinds them) or dollar signs (and see the short term reward clearly and don't give a damn about the long term consequen ces).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The argument is that NWDC neighborhoods are so appealing that we should densify them so more people can live there. What the proponents get wrong is what makes the neighborhoods appealing -- safe residential areas with green space and good schools. Of course, you can add some density to those areas, but there is a tipping point where the neighborhoods will no longer be desirable. I love the fact that there is a mix of condos, townhomes, and single family homes in my neighborhood, but it's a balance and if it were to tip over into primarily big buildings with condos, it would lose what makes it special. It is nice to have neighborhoods like Navy Yard for people who choose that lifestyle, but it's also ok for other neighborhoods to have a predominance of single family homes. Our city can have different types of neighborhoods.

What you mean by "the neighborhoods will no longer be desirable" is "it's not what I would want." However, you are not everyone, and land use should not be based on your - or my, or anyone's - personal preferences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now the development agenda is to hollow out single family zoning in Northwest DC by allowing 6 to 9 unit apartment buildings by right on side streets within a half-mile of a bus line. That’s pretty much anywhere. They soothingly call it “gentle density.”

How would Northwest DC stay 'desirable' with this plan obliterate the SFHs, low density and green space? Is there just some magic pixie dust in NW DC that makes it desirable NO MATTER WHAT? At that point, Anacostia will become fully desirable, with its rolling hills, underenrolled schools and plenty o' SFH. People want to move to NW for a reason, and when the reason is gone--that it's a pleasant place to live -they will go too.

All of this. The schools are a huge draw too. If they decline, are over-enrolled, etc., there goes the tax base.

The dismantling of Ward 3 puzzles me for this reason. It's like eating the golden goose. Reasonable measures like homeless shelters and vouchers with oversight and supports would make sense...but that's not what has occurred. Razing SFHs and relentlessly building more condos is just going to further corrode the appeal of gracious neighborhoods in NW DC that already have a mixture of Sfh, duplex (we live in one), multiplex, apartments and condos. When we drove down Wisconsin to our home I said to my family, I will miss this - the city is unique with it's low buildings (which the density bros hate), setbacks (which the density bros despise), wide Blvd, view of the cathedral, trees, parks, libraries that are just... libraries, strollability. This is city wide. This is what the density bros want to destroy. Without that, there's not a lot to miss. We were coming home from looking at SFH in MD for what it's worth, where yes development is happening but the Sfh are being replaced by newer, bulkier Sfh... Not apartments. The house we were looking at is tasteful, fwiw, and the neighborhood smells better. Density bros plus urban blight promoting policy are systemically destroying NW DC, and all of DC.

Except this whole thread is about condos and what not on Wisconsin Avenue..there is no proposal regarding changing zoning and tearing down SFHs to erect apartments. Wisconsin Avenue is commercial and apartments/multi family housing. There aren’t SFHs in Wisconsin in FHs.

Unfortunately, this DCUM and everyone goes off on strange and imaginary tangents which distract from the thread.

The density bros have pushed multiplexes on the sfhs, eliminating set backs, eliminating height limits, replacing lower buildings on Wisconsin with higher--we have lots of charming, low commercial strips. A recent development knocked down some Sfhs on wisconsin and replaced them with a multiplex with bedrooms so small they are basically unfit for habitation. Our schools are overcrowded. The city has made a disaster with vouchers, so I regard any talk of more low income housing with trepidation. All of this impacts the whole neighborhood including SFHs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main issue with upper NW is that most of it is zoned for detached SFH. we need to abolish these zoning barriers and build townhouses, apartments, and high rises. If you want a sleepy suburb, go to Bethesda or Potomac. This is the capital of the United States, and it should reflect that vibrancy

The Yes in *Your* Back Yard contingent checks in, as usual. It's never about their own sacrifice, it's always someone else who has to sacrifice.

As a homeowner, I do not want the government to limit what I am able to build in my own plot of land. I also don’t want to limit my neighbors’ choices of what they want to put on their own land. If they want to leave it (unimproved) as a detached SFH, they can knock themselves out! My land, my choice.

You bought eyes wide open re: the zoning for your land. Sorry bud. This isn’t the frontier, circa 1850

Zoning laws (circa 1920) were not engraved on stone tablets by an almighty deity, never to be changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument is that NWDC neighborhoods are so appealing that we should densify them so more people can live there. What the proponents get wrong is what makes the neighborhoods appealing -- safe residential areas with green space and good schools. Of course, you can add some density to those areas, but there is a tipping point where the neighborhoods will no longer be desirable. I love the fact that there is a mix of condos, townhomes, and single family homes in my neighborhood, but it's a balance and if it were to tip over into primarily big buildings with condos, it would lose what makes it special. It is nice to have neighborhoods like Navy Yard for people who choose that lifestyle, but it's also ok for other neighborhoods to have a predominance of single family homes. Our city can have different types of neighborhoods.

What you mean by "the neighborhoods will no longer be desirable" is "it's not what I would want." However, you are not everyone, and land use should not be based on your - or my, or anyone's - personal preferences.

Sure, but it sure as heck is spelled out in my neighborhoods document which clearly enshrined our preferences to move with the land (and there’s not a single racism provision in ours). So I will continue to enjoy my massive lot and watch my SFH skyrocket in $. You are doing me a favor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You will love the fact that Frumin’s house is in a covenant-protected block; so he’s not inclined to care any more than he usually does, which is not at all

He’s strangely silent on affordable housing at the former Super Fresh sight. Wonder why?