Chevy Chase Community Center Redevelopment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What smart growth groups are not transparent?

Greater Greater Washington
Ward 3 Vision
Cleveland Park Smart Growth
to name a few.

Ward 3 Vision lists their steering committee right there on the homepage and has pictures of members. You do a Google search and it lists their address right there as well.
GGW has a link to its staff and lists them all right there
Cleveland Park Smart Growth lists their steering committee right there when you go to the About Us section.

Chevy Chase Conservancy...they list NOTHING.

Only GGW provides some information on governance but (as a whole DCUM thread makes clear) provides very little transparency on their funding sources. Ward 3 Vision and CP Growth aren't real organizations. No incorporation, no bylaws, no boards of directors, no disclosures on revenues and funders.

That is because they don't have revenues or funders. They are community groups. Neighbors like you and me.

Uh huh.

Believe it or not, people do actually volunteer because they believe in something.

Prove that there is money involved.

This line of discussion went off track. Let's retrace:
1. Somebody suggested that it an organization that is listed on an official document supporting historic designation should disclose who runs it. This seems wholly reasonable.
2. Somebody responded with the non sequitur that smarth growth organizations are not transparent
3. Somebody responded with links to exactly that transparency about the people running smart growth groups
4. Somebody responded with an additional non sequitur about funding.

It was never about funding and never about smart growth groups. The point is that any organization, even volunteer and even made up of "neighbors" that is formal enough to have a website and be listed on official documents should be transparent about who/how it was formed and organized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What smart growth groups are not transparent?

Greater Greater Washington
Ward 3 Vision
Cleveland Park Smart Growth
to name a few.

Ward 3 Vision lists their steering committee right there on the homepage and has pictures of members. You do a Google search and it lists their address right there as well.
GGW has a link to its staff and lists them all right there
Cleveland Park Smart Growth lists their steering committee right there when you go to the About Us section.

Chevy Chase Conservancy...they list NOTHING.

Only GGW provides some information on governance but (as a whole DCUM thread makes clear) provides very little transparency on their funding sources. Ward 3 Vision and CP Growth aren't real organizations. No incorporation, no bylaws, no boards of directors, no disclosures on revenues and funders.

What does "Chevy Chase DC Conservancy" have?

If it is a DC 501c3 then I am pretty sure someone can look up their registration on the DC Incorporation website. Perhaps that will be enlightening.

They have a Donate button on their website. I wonder who handles the money, and what they do with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What smart growth groups are not transparent?

Greater Greater Washington
Ward 3 Vision
Cleveland Park Smart Growth
to name a few.

Ward 3 Vision lists their steering committee right there on the homepage and has pictures of members. You do a Google search and it lists their address right there as well.
GGW has a link to its staff and lists them all right there
Cleveland Park Smart Growth lists their steering committee right there when you go to the About Us section.

Chevy Chase Conservancy...they list NOTHING.

Only GGW provides some information on governance but (as a whole DCUM thread makes clear) provides very little transparency on their funding sources. Ward 3 Vision and CP Growth aren't real organizations. No incorporation, no bylaws, no boards of directors, no disclosures on revenues and funders.

OK...but at the very least they list the principals of the organization.

Please, provide all the information you indicate above on Chevy Chase DC Conservancy...or maybe the minimum which is just who the principals may be.

Haha, PP to you is just dancing around this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What smart growth groups are not transparent?

Greater Greater Washington
Ward 3 Vision
Cleveland Park Smart Growth
to name a few.

Ward 3 Vision lists their steering committee right there on the homepage and has pictures of members. You do a Google search and it lists their address right there as well.
GGW has a link to its staff and lists them all right there
Cleveland Park Smart Growth lists their steering committee right there when you go to the About Us section.

Chevy Chase Conservancy...they list NOTHING.

Only GGW provides some information on governance but (as a whole DCUM thread makes clear) provides very little transparency on their funding sources. Ward 3 Vision and CP Growth aren't real organizations. No incorporation, no bylaws, no boards of directors, no disclosures on revenues and funders.

That is because they don't have revenues or funders. They are community groups. Neighbors like you and me.

Uh huh.

Believe it or not, people do actually volunteer because they believe in something.

Prove that there is money involved.

This line of discussion went off track. Let's retrace:
1. Somebody suggested that it an organization that is listed on an official document supporting historic designation should disclose who runs it. This seems wholly reasonable.
2. Somebody responded with the non sequitur that smarth growth organizations are not transparent
3. Somebody responded with links to exactly that transparency about the people running smart growth groups
4. Somebody responded with an additional non sequitur about funding.

It was never about funding and never about smart growth groups. The point is that any organization, even volunteer and even made up of "neighbors" that is formal enough to have a website and be listed on official documents should be transparent about who/how it was formed and organized.

Just going to leave this here - from the website for the group who opposes the historic district. Speaks for itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guess what? A dude (who seems to be using his last name only) is posting on NextDoor about the historic district and trying to get people upset about it. (Spoiler: they're not.) The writing style is very similar to here. A google search shows that he lives in Chevy Chase and seems to be some sort of housing lawyer.

Update: he seems to be using his middle and last name. If you're on NextDoor and live in Chevy Chase, you should check it out.

I'm really confused as to why you think this is relevant? You are saying that there is a poster on other forums who you believe also posts here about the same issue? Why would that be surprising?

Because it’s likely the poster is the same as here. It’s what we all thought — some dude who couldn’t give an F about DCUM- has come here to post and lobby for his pet interest. He’s not just another mom (or occasional dad) regular but someone intentionally targeting this site with the objective of trying to influence opinion. No mom has time to be singularly focused on housing density in Chevy Chase. It is obvious that he’s an outsider with an agenda. He is/was an attorney for the Federal Housing Authority. And anyone from the Chevy Chase community who is in favor of the historic district should head over to Next Door and reply. Hint: his name sounds like a two-word city in North Carolina.

If you want to keep to a strict definition for DC Urban Moms...well, let's just say the owners wouldn't be very happy because a lot of people aren't moms, are not female and don't even live in DC or the DMV area.

It's a vibe. We generally don't have single-issue advocacy people coming over to try to influence opinion and to engage in multi-page attempts to refute. The tone is hubris and mainsplain 101 that we tend to come here to avoid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guess what? A dude (who seems to be using his last name only) is posting on NextDoor about the historic district and trying to get people upset about it. (Spoiler: they're not.) The writing style is very similar to here. A google search shows that he lives in Chevy Chase and seems to be some sort of housing lawyer.

Update: he seems to be using his middle and last name. If you're on NextDoor and live in Chevy Chase, you should check it out.

I'm really confused as to why you think this is relevant? You are saying that there is a poster on other forums who you believe also posts here about the same issue? Why would that be surprising?

Because it’s likely the poster is the same as here. It’s what we all thought — some dude who couldn’t give an F about DCUM- has come here to post and lobby for his pet interest. He’s not just another mom (or occasional dad) regular but someone intentionally targeting this site with the objective of trying to influence opinion. No mom has time to be singularly focused on housing density in Chevy Chase. It is obvious that he’s an outsider with an agenda. He is/was an attorney for the Federal Housing Authority. And anyone from the Chevy Chase community who is in favor of the historic district should head over to Next Door and reply. Hint: his name sounds like a two-word city in North Carolina.

If you want to keep to a strict definition for DC Urban Moms...well, let's just say the owners wouldn't be very happy because a lot of people aren't moms, are not female and don't even live in DC or the DMV area.

It's a vibe. We generally don't have single-issue advocacy people coming over to try to influence opinion and to engage in multi-page attempts to refute. The tone is hubris and mainsplain 101 that we tend to come here to avoid.

Huh? That is literally what most of DCUM is. Do you not look at other threads outside of DC politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guess what? A dude (who seems to be using his last name only) is posting on NextDoor about the historic district and trying to get people upset about it. (Spoiler: they're not.) The writing style is very similar to here. A google search shows that he lives in Chevy Chase and seems to be some sort of housing lawyer.

Update: he seems to be using his middle and last name. If you're on NextDoor and live in Chevy Chase, you should check it out.

I'm really confused as to why you think this is relevant? You are saying that there is a poster on other forums who you believe also posts here about the same issue? Why would that be surprising?

Because it’s likely the poster is the same as here. It’s what we all thought — some dude who couldn’t give an F about DCUM- has come here to post and lobby for his pet interest. He’s not just another mom (or occasional dad) regular but someone intentionally targeting this site with the objective of trying to influence opinion. No mom has time to be singularly focused on housing density in Chevy Chase. It is obvious that he’s an outsider with an agenda. He is/was an attorney for the Federal Housing Authority. And anyone from the Chevy Chase community who is in favor of the historic district should head over to Next Door and reply. Hint: his name sounds like a two-word city in North Carolina.

If you want to keep to a strict definition for DC Urban Moms...well, let's just say the owners wouldn't be very happy because a lot of people aren't moms, are not female and don't even live in DC or the DMV area.

It's a vibe. We generally don't have single-issue advocacy people coming over to try to influence opinion and to engage in multi-page attempts to refute. The tone is hubris and mainsplain 101 that we tend to come here to avoid.

This person (if it is the same person) has a personal stake in an issue that he is passionate about that is being discussed on an open message board. There is no reason he shouldn't post about it.

And I feel fairly certain you would not have an issue with a person doing the same about any other topic than this one. In fact, if this person felt the same amount of passion and shared your view, you would not even question it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guess what? A dude (who seems to be using his last name only) is posting on NextDoor about the historic district and trying to get people upset about it. (Spoiler: they're not.) The writing style is very similar to here. A google search shows that he lives in Chevy Chase and seems to be some sort of housing lawyer.

Update: he seems to be using his middle and last name. If you're on NextDoor and live in Chevy Chase, you should check it out.

I'm really confused as to why you think this is relevant? You are saying that there is a poster on other forums who you believe also posts here about the same issue? Why would that be surprising?

Because it’s likely the poster is the same as here. It’s what we all thought — some dude who couldn’t give an F about DCUM- has come here to post and lobby for his pet interest. He’s not just another mom (or occasional dad) regular but someone intentionally targeting this site with the objective of trying to influence opinion. No mom has time to be singularly focused on housing density in Chevy Chase. It is obvious that he’s an outsider with an agenda. He is/was an attorney for the Federal Housing Authority. And anyone from the Chevy Chase community who is in favor of the historic district should head over to Next Door and reply. Hint: his name sounds like a two-word city in North Carolina.

If you want to keep to a strict definition for DC Urban Moms...well, let's just say the owners wouldn't be very happy because a lot of people aren't moms, are not female and don't even live in DC or the DMV area.

It's a vibe. We generally don't have single-issue advocacy people coming over to try to influence opinion and to engage in multi-page attempts to refute. The tone is hubris and mainsplain 101 that we tend to come here to avoid.

DP. Yeah we do (whoever "we" even is).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guess what? A dude (who seems to be using his last name only) is posting on NextDoor about the historic district and trying to get people upset about it. (Spoiler: they're not.) The writing style is very similar to here. A google search shows that he lives in Chevy Chase and seems to be some sort of housing lawyer.

Update: he seems to be using his middle and last name. If you're on NextDoor and live in Chevy Chase, you should check it out.

I'm really confused as to why you think this is relevant? You are saying that there is a poster on other forums who you believe also posts here about the same issue? Why would that be surprising?

Because it’s likely the poster is the same as here. It’s what we all thought — some dude who couldn’t give an F about DCUM- has come here to post and lobby for his pet interest. He’s not just another mom (or occasional dad) regular but someone intentionally targeting this site with the objective of trying to influence opinion. No mom has time to be singularly focused on housing density in Chevy Chase. It is obvious that he’s an outsider with an agenda. He is/was an attorney for the Federal Housing Authority. And anyone from the Chevy Chase community who is in favor of the historic district should head over to Next Door and reply. Hint: his name sounds like a two-word city in North Carolina.

If you want to keep to a strict definition for DC Urban Moms...well, let's just say the owners wouldn't be very happy because a lot of people aren't moms, are not female and don't even live in DC or the DMV area.

It's a vibe. We generally don't have single-issue advocacy people coming over to try to influence opinion and to engage in multi-page attempts to refute. The tone is hubris and mainsplain 101 that we tend to come here to avoid.

You are literally that person arguing the opposite position...that is what is comical with your posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What smart growth groups are not transparent?

Greater Greater Washington
Ward 3 Vision
Cleveland Park Smart Growth
to name a few.

Ward 3 Vision lists their steering committee right there on the homepage and has pictures of members. You do a Google search and it lists their address right there as well.
GGW has a link to its staff and lists them all right there
Cleveland Park Smart Growth lists their steering committee right there when you go to the About Us section.

Chevy Chase Conservancy...they list NOTHING.

Only GGW provides some information on governance but (as a whole DCUM thread makes clear) provides very little transparency on their funding sources. Ward 3 Vision and CP Growth aren't real organizations. No incorporation, no bylaws, no boards of directors, no disclosures on revenues and funders.

That is because they don't have revenues or funders. They are community groups. Neighbors like you and me.

Uh huh.

Believe it or not, people do actually volunteer because they believe in something.

Prove that there is money involved.

This line of discussion went off track. Let's retrace:
1. Somebody suggested that it an organization that is listed on an official document supporting historic designation should disclose who runs it. This seems wholly reasonable.
2. Somebody responded with the non sequitur that smarth growth organizations are not transparent
3. Somebody responded with links to exactly that transparency about the people running smart growth groups
4. Somebody responded with an additional non sequitur about funding.

It was never about funding and never about smart growth groups. The point is that any organization, even volunteer and even made up of "neighbors" that is formal enough to have a website and be listed on official documents should be transparent about who/how it was formed and organized.

A local Chevy Chase newsletter published the following:

On October 16, 2023 Chevy Chase resident Mary Rowse, as the authorized representative of the Chevy Chase DC Conservancy (a group established by Chevy Chase residents Mary E. Rowse, Teresa Grana, and Sheryl Blank Barnes)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What smart growth groups are not transparent?

Greater Greater Washington
Ward 3 Vision
Cleveland Park Smart Growth
to name a few.

Ward 3 Vision lists their steering committee right there on the homepage and has pictures of members. You do a Google search and it lists their address right there as well.
GGW has a link to its staff and lists them all right there
Cleveland Park Smart Growth lists their steering committee right there when you go to the About Us section.

Chevy Chase Conservancy...they list NOTHING.

Only GGW provides some information on governance but (as a whole DCUM thread makes clear) provides very little transparency on their funding sources. Ward 3 Vision and CP Growth aren't real organizations. No incorporation, no bylaws, no boards of directors, no disclosures on revenues and funders.

That is because they don't have revenues or funders. They are community groups. Neighbors like you and me.

Uh huh.

Believe it or not, people do actually volunteer because they believe in something.

Prove that there is money involved.

This line of discussion went off track. Let's retrace:
1. Somebody suggested that it an organization that is listed on an official document supporting historic designation should disclose who runs it. This seems wholly reasonable.
2. Somebody responded with the non sequitur that smarth growth organizations are not transparent
3. Somebody responded with links to exactly that transparency about the people running smart growth groups
4. Somebody responded with an additional non sequitur about funding.

It was never about funding and never about smart growth groups. The point is that any organization, even volunteer and even made up of "neighbors" that is formal enough to have a website and be listed on official documents should be transparent about who/how it was formed and organized.

A local Chevy Chase newsletter published the following:

On October 16, 2023 Chevy Chase resident Mary Rowse, as the authorized representative of the Chevy Chase DC Conservancy (a group established by Chevy Chase residents Mary E. Rowse, Teresa Grana, and Sheryl Blank Barnes)

Congrats. We're saying they should be disclosing who is on their leadership/formation on their personal website. Jerry does his investigative journalism, but its bad form for a purported local, neighborhood group to not say who they are.

[Anonymous]

Who is Jerry?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does the nomination form cover the period 1900-1964?

That is a "period of significance"

Yes. Why all the way to 1964? What's significant about anything that happened after, I don't know, 1920?

A lot of architecture worth preserving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is pretty clear that the survey has way oversampled single family homeowners and as well as those over 60. In other words, this is pretty meaningless given the overall demographics of that area.

This is the demographics of that area...

Let people decide what happens in their backyard. Homeowners should also have a greater say given all the property tax that is collected from their homes..

Perhaps keeping a lock on single family only development in the area has contributed to those demographic patterns persisting over the last ... century ... where other parts of the city are far more diverse? Perhaps??

Aren’t there a number of apartment buildings in Chevy Chase DC, particularly Connecticut Ave including from Nebraska north to Maryland? This notion of a “lock on single family development” is a complete red herring.

There are more people who live in those buildings than in the single family homes. Yet, the SFH respondents dwarf the apartment renters in the survey results. Hence why the survey is totally meaningless.

First of all, who is to assume how people may respond to a survey based on their housing situation. Second, why wouldn’t folks on apartments respond?

Maybe they are too busy focused on bigger issues like climate change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who is Jerry?

The old anc person who does the newsletter that PP was referring to once a month.