Mary Cheh has turned Cleveland Park/Cleveland Park North into her personal political asset

[Anonymous]

You keep making this allegation without anything to back it up. I checked the assessments. they haven't increased. There is still a zoning and preservation barrier to doing anything different on the site. So, no, not really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It did nothing of the sort. Changing the underlying future land use map doesn't raise the value. They would still have to go through the zoning process, which in Cleveland Park, is an uphill battle. And then, even with that, they would have to get through Preservation.

So, no, not really.

So, with all that, what was the point of Cheh's spectacular FLUM up in Cleveland Park?

I presume to at least give the appearance of trying to address the affordable housing situation in the District while also providing an opportunity for property owners to help salvage the dying commercial area in Cleveland Park.

Turning a historic theater into luxury apartments will do absolutely nothing to address affordable housing in DC. Further more, in case you have not noticed, housing is and will always be expensive where there are high paying jobs and job growth. Welcome to capitalism. If you want housing to be cheaper in DC you are saying that you want DC to be economically poorer. So good luck with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It did nothing of the sort. Changing the underlying future land use map doesn't raise the value. They would still have to go through the zoning process, which in Cleveland Park, is an uphill battle. And then, even with that, they would have to get through Preservation.

So, no, not really.

So, with all that, what was the point of Cheh's spectacular FLUM up in Cleveland Park?

I presume to at least give the appearance of trying to address the affordable housing situation in the District while also providing an opportunity for property owners to help salvage the dying commercial area in Cleveland Park.

Turning a historic theater into luxury apartments will do absolutely nothing to address affordable housing in DC. Further more, in case you have not noticed, housing is and will always be expensive where there are high paying jobs and job growth. Welcome to capitalism. If you want housing to be cheaper in DC you are saying that you want DC to be economically poorer. So good luck with that.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It did nothing of the sort. Changing the underlying future land use map doesn't raise the value. They would still have to go through the zoning process, which in Cleveland Park, is an uphill battle. And then, even with that, they would have to get through Preservation.

So, no, not really.

So, with all that, what was the point of Cheh's spectacular FLUM up in Cleveland Park?

I presume to at least give the appearance of trying to address the affordable housing situation in the District while also providing an opportunity for property owners to help salvage the dying commercial area in Cleveland Park.

Turning a historic theater into luxury apartments will do absolutely nothing to address affordable housing in DC. Further more, in case you have not noticed, housing is and will always be expensive where there are high paying jobs and job growth. Welcome to capitalism. If you want housing to be cheaper in DC you are saying that you want DC to be economically poorer. So good luck with that.

So where should the cleaning crew for your law office work? Or teachers, policemen, firefighters? What about the server at your favorite coffee spot?
Affordable housing is a choice that our government could make, if they wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It did nothing of the sort. Changing the underlying future land use map doesn't raise the value. They would still have to go through the zoning process, which in Cleveland Park, is an uphill battle. And then, even with that, they would have to get through Preservation.

So, no, not really.

So, with all that, what was the point of Cheh's spectacular FLUM up in Cleveland Park?

I presume to at least give the appearance of trying to address the affordable housing situation in the District while also providing an opportunity for property owners to help salvage the dying commercial area in Cleveland Park.

Turning a historic theater into luxury apartments will do absolutely nothing to address affordable housing in DC. Further more, in case you have not noticed, housing is and will always be expensive where there are high paying jobs and job growth. Welcome to capitalism. If you want housing to be cheaper in DC you are saying that you want DC to be economically poorer. So good luck with that.

So where should the cleaning crew for your law office work? Or teachers, policemen, firefighters? What about the server at your favorite coffee spot?
Affordable housing is a choice that our government could make, if they wanted.

Here's an idea. Ward 3 has the highest or at least the second highest number of rent controlled units in DC. These are often in older, smaller apartment buildings, but they provide more affordable housing today for workforce and lower wage workers, as well as older people on fixed incomes. Rent controlled housing in Ward 3 provides families with access to decent schools. However, in its statements, Bowser's Office of Planning refuses to protect, much less to acknowledge, rent controlled housing as an important component of DC'S affordable housing strategy. OP pretends that this important resource doesn't even exist, most likely to understate existing affordable housing stock in order to push their economic theory that building lots more market-rate housing will trickle down some inclusive zoning units. Indeed, District policy encourages the conversation of existing affordable, rent controlled units to market rate units and the recently enacted Comprehensive Plan amendments create economic incentives to tear down or redevelop older apartment buildings into upscale housing. A few IZ units sprinkled in new market rate developments are a minuscule tradeoff for the loss of rent controlled housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You keep making this allegation without anything to back it up. I checked the assessments. they haven't increased. There is still a zoning and preservation barrier to doing anything different on the site. So, no, not really.

You're being misleading. Cheh pushed the DC Council to enact the Comp Plan amendments and her FLUM up just a month ago. DC assessments are on an annual cycle, and there hasn't been time for property owners and investors to seek zoning changes consistent with the greater height and density that the FLUM up makes possible. But commercial real estate owners in Cleveland Park, including Firehook's former landlord, are already circulating offering memoranda that highlight height and density changes as they try to flip their properties to developers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It did nothing of the sort. Changing the underlying future land use map doesn't raise the value. They would still have to go through the zoning process, which in Cleveland Park, is an uphill battle. And then, even with that, they would have to get through Preservation.

So, no, not really.

So, with all that, what was the point of Cheh's spectacular FLUM up in Cleveland Park?

I presume to at least give the appearance of trying to address the affordable housing situation in the District while also providing an opportunity for property owners to help salvage the dying commercial area in Cleveland Park.

Turning a historic theater into luxury apartments will do absolutely nothing to address affordable housing in DC. Further more, in case you have not noticed, housing is and will always be expensive where there are high paying jobs and job growth. Welcome to capitalism. If you want housing to be cheaper in DC you are saying that you want DC to be economically poorer. So good luck with that.

So where should the cleaning crew for your law office work? Or teachers, policemen, firefighters? What about the server at your favorite coffee spot?
Affordable housing is a choice that our government could make, if they wanted.

Here's an idea. Ward 3 has the highest or at least the second highest number of rent controlled units in DC. These are often in older, smaller apartment buildings, but they provide more affordable housing today for workforce and lower wage workers, as well as older people on fixed incomes. Rent controlled housing in Ward 3 provides families with access to decent schools. However, in its statements, Bowser's Office of Planning refuses to protect, much less to acknowledge, rent controlled housing as an important component of DC'S affordable housing strategy. OP pretends that this important resource doesn't even exist, most likely to understate existing affordable housing stock in order to push their economic theory that building lots more market-rate housing will trickle down some inclusive zoning units. Indeed, District policy encourages the conversation of existing affordable, rent controlled units to market rate units and the recently enacted Comprehensive Plan amendments create economic incentives to tear down or redevelop older apartment buildings into upscale housing. A few IZ units sprinkled in new market rate developments are a minuscule tradeoff for the loss of rent controlled housing.

Rent controlled housing only works for the people already there. This is not the unicorn you think it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It did nothing of the sort. Changing the underlying future land use map doesn't raise the value. They would still have to go through the zoning process, which in Cleveland Park, is an uphill battle. And then, even with that, they would have to get through Preservation.

So, no, not really.

So, with all that, what was the point of Cheh's spectacular FLUM up in Cleveland Park?

I presume to at least give the appearance of trying to address the affordable housing situation in the District while also providing an opportunity for property owners to help salvage the dying commercial area in Cleveland Park.

Turning a historic theater into luxury apartments will do absolutely nothing to address affordable housing in DC. Further more, in case you have not noticed, housing is and will always be expensive where there are high paying jobs and job growth. Welcome to capitalism. If you want housing to be cheaper in DC you are saying that you want DC to be economically poorer. So good luck with that.

So where should the cleaning crew for your law office work? Or teachers, policemen, firefighters? What about the server at your favorite coffee spot?
Affordable housing is a choice that our government could make, if they wanted.

Here's an idea. Ward 3 has the highest or at least the second highest number of rent controlled units in DC. These are often in older, smaller apartment buildings, but they provide more affordable housing today for workforce and lower wage workers, as well as older people on fixed incomes. Rent controlled housing in Ward 3 provides families with access to decent schools. However, in its statements, Bowser's Office of Planning refuses to protect, much less to acknowledge, rent controlled housing as an important component of DC'S affordable housing strategy. OP pretends that this important resource doesn't even exist, most likely to understate existing affordable housing stock in order to push their economic theory that building lots more market-rate housing will trickle down some inclusive zoning units. Indeed, District policy encourages the conversation of existing affordable, rent controlled units to market rate units and the recently enacted Comprehensive Plan amendments create economic incentives to tear down or redevelop older apartment buildings into upscale housing. A few IZ units sprinkled in new market rate developments are a minuscule tradeoff for the loss of rent controlled housing.

Rent controlled housing only works for the people already there. This is not the unicorn you think it is.

Here's where it doesn't work: There's a recent example of a redeveloped building in the 3400 block of Connecticut Avenue NW close to Metro, a small apartment building of about 12 or 14 units, all completely under rent control. The building owner empties the building out of all of the tenants in the rent controlled units. The owner/developer then gets approval to add two floors on top of the building and renovates the entire building to produce a total of 18 units, 16 at market-rate, with just two IZ units.

So 12 rent controlled units are lost and only two IZ units are added. That's Mayor Bowser's "affordable housing" vision for you. The new Comprehensive Plan amendments will turbocharge what just happened on Connecticut Avenue, elsewhere in Ward 3 and around the District.

[Anonymous]

Anecdotal.

Bottom line, we need more housing and more affordable housing in Ward 3.

Increasing density is one way of beginning to address it.

If you want to run a rent controlled apartment building then go buy one.

You seem to be really good at telling apartment building owners and movie theater owners what to do with their properties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anecdotal.

Bottom line, we need more housing and more affordable housing in Ward 3.

Increasing density is one way of beginning to address it.

If you want to run a rent controlled apartment building then go buy one.

You seem to be really good at telling apartment building owners and movie theater owners what to do with their properties.

The only way to get meaningful new affordable housing is fior DC to build it on government owned land, given high property prices. In Ward 3, the UDC site that has been the swing space for several school renovations could be a promising site.

But the notion that opening the floodgates to upzone our neighborhoods for lots of upscale market rate flats, in the hope that relatively few IZ units trickle down, is naive. Let’s recognize it for what it is, a pretext served up by the Smart Growth industry to secure windfall profit opportunities through regulatory favors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It did nothing of the sort. Changing the underlying future land use map doesn't raise the value. They would still have to go through the zoning process, which in Cleveland Park, is an uphill battle. And then, even with that, they would have to get through Preservation.

So, no, not really.

So, with all that, what was the point of Cheh's spectacular FLUM up in Cleveland Park?

I presume to at least give the appearance of trying to address the affordable housing situation in the District while also providing an opportunity for property owners to help salvage the dying commercial area in Cleveland Park.

Turning a historic theater into luxury apartments will do absolutely nothing to address affordable housing in DC. Further more, in case you have not noticed, housing is and will always be expensive where there are high paying jobs and job growth. Welcome to capitalism. If you want housing to be cheaper in DC you are saying that you want DC to be economically poorer. So good luck with that.

So where should the cleaning crew for your law office work? Or teachers, policemen, firefighters? What about the server at your favorite coffee spot?
Affordable housing is a choice that our government could make, if they wanted.

When I was coming up, servers at coffee shops lived with roommates or in Mount Pleasant group homes. I am pretty sure that roommates are still a thing. There are house buying - favorable loan programs for teachers (not sure about policeman and firefighters). The Mayor would have absolute support in expanding those. For cleaning crews who live in DC (many live in MD and I'm not sure why that's a.problem) the Mayor could bolster the right of first but when affordable apartment buildings are flipped, as well as maintain rather than actively try to reduce rent control apartments in the city. The Mayor has been flipping these to higher than market rate vouchers, changing the status from rent control to regular market rent.Of course, the Mayor/GGW has no interest in that kind of "affordable housing;" program even as our city runs a huge budget surplus. Good ideas though!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anecdotal.

Bottom line, we need more housing and more affordable housing in Ward 3.

Increasing density is one way of beginning to address it.

If you want to run a rent controlled apartment building then go buy one.

You seem to be really good at telling apartment building owners and movie theater owners what to do with their properties.

Your response to PP'S Conn Ave. example shows you are not actually interested in affordable housing stock..So what is your agenda? Some kind of Ayn Randian freedom for developers? Next!

[Anonymous]

No, I think it is fine to increase density and have affordable units as part of a mix.

What I do not favor is the city buying the Wardman and warehouse all of 'the poors" in one place as a way of solving the "ward 3" problem.

Bottom line, increasing density and spreading affordable units across the new addresses better expresses economic and probably racial diversity across the Ward as oppose to just in one place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anecdotal.

Bottom line, we need more housing and more affordable housing in Ward 3.

Increasing density is one way of beginning to address it.

If you want to run a rent controlled apartment building then go buy one.

You seem to be really good at telling apartment building owners and movie theater owners what to do with their properties.

You want markets to work but also don’t want markets to work? Makes tons of sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, I think it is fine to increase density and have affordable units as part of a mix.

What I do not favor is the city buying the Wardman and warehouse all of 'the poors" in one place as a way of solving the "ward 3" problem.

Bottom line, increasing density and spreading affordable units across the new addresses better expresses economic and probably racial diversity across the Ward as oppose to just in one place.

“Affordable units” given away via lottery to a handful of lucky duckies who are capable of navigating DC bureaucracy and who are likely to be overwhelmingly white (looking at the demographic patterns of vaccine shots and charter schools). While at the same time increasing costs and making housing less affordable for everyone else. How do people say these things with a straight face?