#JustinsTrafficJam

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I know. That is why I suggested that the Episcopalians kick in some land for affordable housing. The head of the seminary and his wife are British citizens and should understand the need for council housing in Alexandria.

I am sure they are considering long term planning for utilization of Seminary land, including all aspects of the Seminary's mission, as responsible administrators would.

The plan is to combine many of their seminaries starting with the Seminary in Connecticut. That is why they are building new faculty houses and renovating buildings. They are nit giving an inch of land to anyone

I've lived near Episcopal High schools for decades. Episcopal pays the City no taxes. If it's true they won't provide some land for affordable housing in exchange, shame on them and their committee. "We are all in this together" (Romney King quote).

No private school, church, or other non profit is required to do that. The churches that have developed AH are working with developers (like AHDC) to do so and are getting paid for their land.

The Seminary's obligation under state law is to continue its non profit mission of educating students. Though the also open their campus to the public which may use the open space.

And this harping on affordable housing is a red herring. The leading opponents of the changes on Seminary - the Seminary Hill and Clover College Park civic associations - are NOT proponents of affordable housing, or indeed, of any further development in that area.

If they are going to advocated for either relaxation of zoning to allow accessory dwelling units, or for committed affordable housing on the Seminary property (or anywhere else in the areas they cover) I look forward very much to seeing that.

Meanwhile this is just a talking point to be used against the institution that was here before they were, and for which the road itself is named.

Wow. What makes you think these civic associations are against affordable housing? I am a CCPCA board member. We are not against affordable housing. The president of SHA sits on the city's ARHA board. Why don't you quit making shit up. Also, please stop assuming some random person online is associated with those organizations.

Plus 1. We are blocks from Quaker Hill affordable units in Clover and College Park. Seminary Hill is bordered my scattered site ARHA townhouses. It is the poster PP refers to who is making assumptions about us.

[Anonymous]

Now ACPD is proving security to Beth El on Seminary Rd.
Do they pay fir this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I know. That is why I suggested that the Episcopalians kick in some land for affordable housing. The head of the seminary and his wife are British citizens and should understand the need for council housing in Alexandria.

I am sure they are considering long term planning for utilization of Seminary land, including all aspects of the Seminary's mission, as responsible administrators would.

The plan is to combine many of their seminaries starting with the Seminary in Connecticut. That is why they are building new faculty houses and renovating buildings. They are nit giving an inch of land to anyone

I've lived near Episcopal High schools for decades. Episcopal pays the City no taxes. If it's true they won't provide some land for affordable housing in exchange, shame on them and their committee. "We are all in this together" (Romney King quote).

No private school, church, or other non profit is required to do that. The churches that have developed AH are working with developers (like AHDC) to do so and are getting paid for their land.

The Seminary's obligation under state law is to continue its non profit mission of educating students. Though the also open their campus to the public which may use the open space.

And this harping on affordable housing is a red herring. The leading opponents of the changes on Seminary - the Seminary Hill and Clover College Park civic associations - are NOT proponents of affordable housing, or indeed, of any further development in that area.

If they are going to advocated for either relaxation of zoning to allow accessory dwelling units, or for committed affordable housing on the Seminary property (or anywhere else in the areas they cover) I look forward very much to seeing that.

Meanwhile this is just a talking point to be used against the institution that was here before they were, and for which the road itself is named.

Wow. What makes you think these civic associations are against affordable housing? I am a CCPCA board member. We are not against affordable housing. The president of SHA sits on the city's ARHA board. Why don't you quit making shit up. Also, please stop assuming some random person online is associated with those organizations.

Plus 1. We are blocks from Quaker Hill affordable units in Clover and College Park. Seminary Hill is bordered my scattered site ARHA townhouses. It is the poster PP refers to who is making assumptions about us.

I don't think ARHA has $ for more units in this area now. You are talkinga about old developments that no one can do anything about. More likely would be some large workforce or mixed project. Other housing initiatives likely to legalize duplexes. If SHA supported the new project at King and Menokin I am not aware of it (its far from CCP so I would not expect them to have a position).

Certainly if either association wants to go on record requesting either more committed AH in the area, or legalizing duplexes, that would be very powerful. Please link to where they have done that.

[Anonymous]

Here is the reality of SHA on AH

Speech by President Nancy R. Jennings
November 8, 2018

This is my 9th opportunity to speak about events on Seminary Hill during the past year. It’s been almost a decade since I became President and I will step down as the face of the Association—but I do not plan on leaving the Board—though I’m sure there are some who will be disappointed I am not going away. Citizens across the City have common concerns but are divided to be conquered by staff. There are several organizations where citizens connect—such as the Alexandria Federation of Civic Associations and the West End Coalition—and perhaps progress can be made on broader topics; for example:

• Currently the City has no policy regarding “best use” of open spaces when churches or other property owners make them available. Recently they have all become affordable housing developments, but the City has other needs that do not place demands on already overwhelmed public resources and services, such as our tree canopy, open space, parking, and schools. It would be good to define these needs and weigh them against each other when a project is proposed.

• The City is allowing developers to burden City services and ruin the quality of life in neighborhoods by the imposition of dense development under the politically correct guise of “affordable housing.”

To me this suggests that SHA would not welcome additional AH in the area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the reality of SHA on AH

Speech by President Nancy R. Jennings
November 8, 2018

This is my 9th opportunity to speak about events on Seminary Hill during the past year. It’s been almost a decade since I became President and I will step down as the face of the Association—but I do not plan on leaving the Board—though I’m sure there are some who will be disappointed I am not going away. Citizens across the City have common concerns but are divided to be conquered by staff. There are several organizations where citizens connect—such as the Alexandria Federation of Civic Associations and the West End Coalition—and perhaps progress can be made on broader topics; for example:

• Currently the City has no policy regarding “best use” of open spaces when churches or other property owners make them available. Recently they have all become affordable housing developments, but the City has other needs that do not place demands on already overwhelmed public resources and services, such as our tree canopy, open space, parking, and schools. It would be good to define these needs and weigh them against each other when a project is proposed.

• The City is allowing developers to burden City services and ruin the quality of life in neighborhoods by the imposition of dense development under the politically correct guise of “affordable housing.”

To me this suggests that SHA would not welcome additional AH in the area.

Interesting that you quoted that without context instead of the testimony they gave to city council on the Presbyterian Church AH project which was the subject of these comments. Here a a snippet of that testimony:

We, the neighbors, do not oppose affordable housing in our community. We have affordable housing in our community. Our concern is one of scale and density. The City’s own small area plan for Seminary Hill envisions a low-density community of single-family homes, townhomes and garden style rental housing. That is what the city wants for this neighborhood and it is what we, the residents, want as well.

The scope of what is being proposed, although technically permitted, is well outside what currently exists in the community. The project, if completed will impose serious new problems on our community including parking, traffic and increased burdens on our already overcrowded school.

It doesn’t have to be this way. The community has asked the proponents to sit down around a table in a collaborative way and see if a project could be developed that would meet the needs of both the developer and the neighbors. We asked – they refused. City staff is solidly behind this project and is working with the developers to move forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the reality of SHA on AH

Speech by President Nancy R. Jennings
November 8, 2018

This is my 9th opportunity to speak about events on Seminary Hill during the past year. It’s been almost a decade since I became President and I will step down as the face of the Association—but I do not plan on leaving the Board—though I’m sure there are some who will be disappointed I am not going away. Citizens across the City have common concerns but are divided to be conquered by staff. There are several organizations where citizens connect—such as the Alexandria Federation of Civic Associations and the West End Coalition—and perhaps progress can be made on broader topics; for example:

• Currently the City has no policy regarding “best use” of open spaces when churches or other property owners make them available. Recently they have all become affordable housing developments, but the City has other needs that do not place demands on already overwhelmed public resources and services, such as our tree canopy, open space, parking, and schools. It would be good to define these needs and weigh them against each other when a project is proposed.

• The City is allowing developers to burden City services and ruin the quality of life in neighborhoods by the imposition of dense development under the politically correct guise of “affordable housing.”

To me this suggests that SHA would not welcome additional AH in the area.

Interesting that you quoted that without context instead of the testimony they gave to city council on the Presbyterian Church AH project which was the subject of these comments. Here a a snippet of that testimony:

We, the neighbors, do not oppose affordable housing in our community. We have affordable housing in our community. Our concern is one of scale and density. The City’s own small area plan for Seminary Hill envisions a low-density community of single-family homes, townhomes and garden style rental housing. That is what the city wants for this neighborhood and it is what we, the residents, want as well.

The scope of what is being proposed, although technically permitted, is well outside what currently exists in the community. The project, if completed will impose serious new problems on our community including parking, traffic and increased burdens on our already overcrowded school.

It doesn’t have to be this way. The community has asked the proponents to sit down around a table in a collaborative way and see if a project could be developed that would meet the needs of both the developer and the neighbors. We asked – they refused. City staff is solidly behind this project and is working with the developers to move forward.

1. Small Area plans do not preclude other uses. (And the Presbyterian church is down the block from a high rise, so the claim that only garden style apts are envisioned is particularly disingenous)

2. It is typical of NIMBYs to support AH in theory, but to oppose the actual projects brought forward.

3. In any case, this is just the kind of project that the Seminary would likely bring forward were it to build AH. And the same complaints about schools, traffic and parking would be advanced.

The point is SHA is not interested in the Seminary building AH, and would almost certainly oppose any proposal.

The complaint that the Seminary is NOT currently proposing AH on their land is either ignorant of the real political conditions or is made in bad faith.

[Anonymous]

Note also in the complaint about the church development they do not ask for garden apt style AH, but for uses other than AH.

[Anonymous]

Recently they have all become affordable housing developments, but the City has other needs that do not place demands on already overwhelmed public resources and services, such as our tree canopy, open space, parking, and schools. It would be good to define these needs and weigh them against each other when a project is proposed

Note not a word here about the height or density of the AH. Just that AH places demands on allegedly already overwhelmed public resources" Hard to see how a similar complaint would not be advanced against ANY AH the Seminary would propose, whatever the density or height.

[Anonymous]

So the President of VTS apparently offered to cede land to the city for the construction of a sidewalk today.

Just two weeks ago, they were congratulating the city on the road diet (after they had privately promised neighbors opposition to such a plan) and were seeking for a city-paid installation of said sidewalk.

I wonder if someone told them that might jeopardize their tax exempt status?

It's hard to decide whether th Seminay is more of a snake or a weasel. First, they stab their neighbors in the back, then they seek more handouts, then they back off and play nice once they realize they are likely shooting themselves in the foot.

What a disgusting group of people.

This is so, so, so far from over.

I can't wait to see where it goes from here.

[Anonymous]

I think the Seminary should at their cost expand their child care center , subsidize the tuition, and then allow City residents only to use spaces not filled by Seminary students or staff. It’s the least they could do since they take up so much valuable land in the city and pay no Taxes and the Lord would want them to help their neighbors

[Anonymous]

I'd like to see the calculation they did that revealed the construction of a mile long concrete sidewalk was more cost effective than losing their tax exempt status.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the President of VTS apparently offered to cede land to the city for the construction of a sidewalk today.

Just two weeks ago, they were congratulating the city on the road diet (after they had privately promised neighbors opposition to such a plan) and were seeking for a city-paid installation of said sidewalk.

I wonder if someone told them that might jeopardize their tax exempt status?

It's hard to decide whether th Seminay is more of a snake or a weasel. First, they stab their neighbors in the back, then they seek more handouts, then they back off and play nice once they realize they are likely shooting themselves in the foot.

What a disgusting group of people.

This is so, so, so far from over.

I can't wait to see where it goes from here.

They did not stab anyone in the back. They took a position. They have been supporting that position for over a year. No one should be surprised.

They did not seek any handouts.

The vitriolic attacks on one of the City's oldest and most distinguished institutions says more about you then them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the President of VTS apparently offered to cede land to the city for the construction of a sidewalk today.

Just two weeks ago, they were congratulating the city on the road diet (after they had privately promised neighbors opposition to such a plan) and were seeking for a city-paid installation of said sidewalk.

I wonder if someone told them that might jeopardize their tax exempt status?

It's hard to decide whether th Seminay is more of a snake or a weasel. First, they stab their neighbors in the back, then they seek more handouts, then they back off and play nice once they realize they are likely shooting themselves in the foot.

What a disgusting group of people.

This is so, so, so far from over.

I can't wait to see where it goes from here.

They did not stab anyone in the back. They took a position. They have been supporting that position for over a year. No one should be surprised.

They did not seek any handouts.

The vitriolic attacks on one of the City's oldest and most distinguished institutions says more about you then them.

They absolutely betrayed their neighbors. And they absolutely sought to have the city give them a sidewalk. It's indisputable. Whether or not youre educated on the matter isn't my concern.

They have done more harm to their name than anything I or anyone else could do.

Shame on the Seminary.

[Anonymous]

Just saw this tjread. Wow the traffic on seminary is now insane. We now have a flood of cars pouring down Fort Williams parkway and Trinity that used to be a trickle. Thank you, Waze. Thanks even more to Justin and the council who were persuaded by the Transurban-bought Nike lobby. Thanks all!

We’ve started a petition to drop the speed limit to 15 and introduce no left turn signs at strategic intersections within area neighborhoods to keep the traffic on Quaker and Seninary, and off of the side street cut throughs.

Please consider signing it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just saw this tjread. Wow the traffic on seminary is now insane. We now have a flood of cars pouring down Fort Williams parkway and Trinity that used to be a trickle. Thank you, Waze. Thanks even more to Justin and the council who were persuaded by the Transurban-bought Nike lobby. Thanks all!

We’ve started a petition to drop the speed limit to 15 and introduce no left turn signs at strategic intersections within area neighborhoods to keep the traffic on Quaker and Seninary, and off of the side street cut throughs.

Please consider signing it!

They measured. Traffic was reduced. The excess traffic simply evaporated or people took public transportation. /s