Norfolk Avenue Development Survey (bikes lanes, etc)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No so. The jewelry stores, the watch repair, the shoe store, the arts district, the kids activities. What happens to them?

...they continue what they have been doing for the past 2 years?

They continue to struggle. Including the shoe store.

The shoe store is struggling because it's no longer possible for one car at a time to drive and park at the metered space in front of the store?

Yes. The shoe store is struggling because no one can see it to know it exists unless you are aimlessly walking around, which would not be a shoe store customer in any case.

But people aimlessly driving around would be shoe store customers?

The sheer ignorant arrogance of people like you bothers me the most. Here is what the business community, who support anything that makes them more money had to say about Woodmont Avenue.

“Federal Realty Investment Trust, which owns the buildings along Woodmont, said in a letter to Elrich that being able to drive by a highly visible destination is the most important element of successful street retail, which is the expectation for retail stores and restaurants on Woodmont Avenue.”

FRIT can say all kinds of things, but we don't necessarily have to believe everything they say. Retailers generally tend to vastly overestimate the proportion of their customers who arrive by car.

The developers contradict themselves all the time. When they’re talking to the urbanists/YIMBYs, they’re all about walking, biking, and affordability. When they talk to their investors, they’re all about driving prices as high as possible and doing whatever it takes to produce that outcome. Which story is more consistent with what they actually do? The one they tell in community meetings or the one they file with the SEC? Trigger warning for the YIMBYs: it’s the second one because people can go to jail over that one. You’ve been useful idiots in helping developers get some deregulation but in case you haven’t noticed none of what you’ve suggested has actually worked and your guy at planning did such a good job running it that the whole board had to resign and no projects could get approved for two months.

Useful idiots is the right term.

The backstory to Norfolk Avenue is that a big chunk of the properties are owned by Greenhill and everyone in county government has beef with Greenhill so they don’t care if Greenhill loses money or their investments and the county would probably welcome them to lose money.

100 percent. Greenhill missed the boat by not jumping on the gravy train like EYA and Bozzuto.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No so. The jewelry stores, the watch repair, the shoe store, the arts district, the kids activities. What happens to them?

...they continue what they have been doing for the past 2 years?

They continue to struggle. Including the shoe store.

The shoe store is struggling because it's no longer possible for one car at a time to drive and park at the metered space in front of the store?

Yes. The shoe store is struggling because no one can see it to know it exists unless you are aimlessly walking around, which would not be a shoe store customer in any case.

But people aimlessly driving around would be shoe store customers?

The sheer ignorant arrogance of people like you bothers me the most. Here is what the business community, who support anything that makes them more money had to say about Woodmont Avenue.

“Federal Realty Investment Trust, which owns the buildings along Woodmont, said in a letter to Elrich that being able to drive by a highly visible destination is the most important element of successful street retail, which is the expectation for retail stores and restaurants on Woodmont Avenue.”

FRIT can say all kinds of things, but we don't necessarily have to believe everything they say. Retailers generally tend to vastly overestimate the proportion of their customers who arrive by car.

The developers contradict themselves all the time. When they’re talking to the urbanists/YIMBYs, they’re all about walking, biking, and affordability. When they talk to their investors, they’re all about driving prices as high as possible and doing whatever it takes to produce that outcome. Which story is more consistent with what they actually do? The one they tell in community meetings or the one they file with the SEC? Trigger warning for the YIMBYs: it’s the second one because people can go to jail over that one. You’ve been useful idiots in helping developers get some deregulation but in case you haven’t noticed none of what you’ve suggested has actually worked and your guy at planning did such a good job running it that the whole board had to resign and no projects could get approved for two months.

Useful idiots is the right term.

The backstory to Norfolk Avenue is that a big chunk of the properties are owned by Greenhill and everyone in county government has beef with Greenhill so they don’t care if Greenhill loses money or their investments and the county would probably welcome them to lose money.

100 percent. Greenhill missed the boat by not jumping on the gravy train like EYA and Bozzuto.

The big issue with Greenhill I believe is downtown Wheaton, where they own two shopping centers at the corner of Georgia and University and have refused to cooperate on redevelopment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No so. The jewelry stores, the watch repair, the shoe store, the arts district, the kids activities. What happens to them?

...they continue what they have been doing for the past 2 years?

They continue to struggle. Including the shoe store.

The shoe store is struggling because it's no longer possible for one car at a time to drive and park at the metered space in front of the store?

Yes. The shoe store is struggling because no one can see it to know it exists unless you are aimlessly walking around, which would not be a shoe store customer in any case.

But people aimlessly driving around would be shoe store customers?

The sheer ignorant arrogance of people like you bothers me the most. Here is what the business community, who support anything that makes them more money had to say about Woodmont Avenue.

“Federal Realty Investment Trust, which owns the buildings along Woodmont, said in a letter to Elrich that being able to drive by a highly visible destination is the most important element of successful street retail, which is the expectation for retail stores and restaurants on Woodmont Avenue.”

FRIT can say all kinds of things, but we don't necessarily have to believe everything they say. Retailers generally tend to vastly overestimate the proportion of their customers who arrive by car.

The developers contradict themselves all the time. When they’re talking to the urbanists/YIMBYs, they’re all about walking, biking, and affordability. When they talk to their investors, they’re all about driving prices as high as possible and doing whatever it takes to produce that outcome. Which story is more consistent with what they actually do? The one they tell in community meetings or the one they file with the SEC? Trigger warning for the YIMBYs: it’s the second one because people can go to jail over that one. You’ve been useful idiots in helping developers get some deregulation but in case you haven’t noticed none of what you’ve suggested has actually worked and your guy at planning did such a good job running it that the whole board had to resign and no projects could get approved for two months.

Useful idiots is the right term.

The backstory to Norfolk Avenue is that a big chunk of the properties are owned by Greenhill and everyone in county government has beef with Greenhill so they don’t care if Greenhill loses money or their investments and the county would probably welcome them to lose money.

100 percent. Greenhill missed the boat by not jumping on the gravy train like EYA and Bozzuto.

The big issue with Greenhill I believe is downtown Wheaton, where they own two shopping centers at the corner of Georgia and University and have refused to cooperate on redevelopment.

Because redevelopment isn’t economically viable right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No so. The jewelry stores, the watch repair, the shoe store, the arts district, the kids activities. What happens to them?

...they continue what they have been doing for the past 2 years?

They continue to struggle. Including the shoe store.

The shoe store is struggling because it's no longer possible for one car at a time to drive and park at the metered space in front of the store?

Yes. The shoe store is struggling because no one can see it to know it exists unless you are aimlessly walking around, which would not be a shoe store customer in any case.

But people aimlessly driving around would be shoe store customers?

The sheer ignorant arrogance of people like you bothers me the most. Here is what the business community, who support anything that makes them more money had to say about Woodmont Avenue.

“Federal Realty Investment Trust, which owns the buildings along Woodmont, said in a letter to Elrich that being able to drive by a highly visible destination is the most important element of successful street retail, which is the expectation for retail stores and restaurants on Woodmont Avenue.”

FRIT can say all kinds of things, but we don't necessarily have to believe everything they say. Retailers generally tend to vastly overestimate the proportion of their customers who arrive by car.

The developers contradict themselves all the time. When they’re talking to the urbanists/YIMBYs, they’re all about walking, biking, and affordability. When they talk to their investors, they’re all about driving prices as high as possible and doing whatever it takes to produce that outcome. Which story is more consistent with what they actually do? The one they tell in community meetings or the one they file with the SEC? Trigger warning for the YIMBYs: it’s the second one because people can go to jail over that one. You’ve been useful idiots in helping developers get some deregulation but in case you haven’t noticed none of what you’ve suggested has actually worked and your guy at planning did such a good job running it that the whole board had to resign and no projects could get approved for two months.

Useful idiots is the right term.

The backstory to Norfolk Avenue is that a big chunk of the properties are owned by Greenhill and everyone in county government has beef with Greenhill so they don’t care if Greenhill loses money or their investments and the county would probably welcome them to lose money.

100 percent. Greenhill missed the boat by not jumping on the gravy train like EYA and Bozzuto.

The big issue with Greenhill I believe is downtown Wheaton, where they own two shopping centers at the corner of Georgia and University and have refused to cooperate on redevelopment.

Because redevelopment isn’t economically viable right now.

You think the county government cares about what makes business sense?

But, I think they may have a case because every Greenhill property seems to be old and rundown. I don’t think they are interested in investing anything, only collecting rents. They are so cheap that they used the same paint for all their Bethesda properties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No so. The jewelry stores, the watch repair, the shoe store, the arts district, the kids activities. What happens to them?

...they continue what they have been doing for the past 2 years?

They continue to struggle. Including the shoe store.

The shoe store is struggling because it's no longer possible for one car at a time to drive and park at the metered space in front of the store?

Yes. The shoe store is struggling because no one can see it to know it exists unless you are aimlessly walking around, which would not be a shoe store customer in any case.

But people aimlessly driving around would be shoe store customers?

The sheer ignorant arrogance of people like you bothers me the most. Here is what the business community, who support anything that makes them more money had to say about Woodmont Avenue.

“Federal Realty Investment Trust, which owns the buildings along Woodmont, said in a letter to Elrich that being able to drive by a highly visible destination is the most important element of successful street retail, which is the expectation for retail stores and restaurants on Woodmont Avenue.”

FRIT can say all kinds of things, but we don't necessarily have to believe everything they say. Retailers generally tend to vastly overestimate the proportion of their customers who arrive by car.

The developers contradict themselves all the time. When they’re talking to the urbanists/YIMBYs, they’re all about walking, biking, and affordability. When they talk to their investors, they’re all about driving prices as high as possible and doing whatever it takes to produce that outcome. Which story is more consistent with what they actually do? The one they tell in community meetings or the one they file with the SEC? Trigger warning for the YIMBYs: it’s the second one because people can go to jail over that one. You’ve been useful idiots in helping developers get some deregulation but in case you haven’t noticed none of what you’ve suggested has actually worked and your guy at planning did such a good job running it that the whole board had to resign and no projects could get approved for two months.

Useful idiots is the right term.

The backstory to Norfolk Avenue is that a big chunk of the properties are owned by Greenhill and everyone in county government has beef with Greenhill so they don’t care if Greenhill loses money or their investments and the county would probably welcome them to lose money.

100 percent. Greenhill missed the boat by not jumping on the gravy train like EYA and Bozzuto.

The big issue with Greenhill I believe is downtown Wheaton, where they own two shopping centers at the corner of Georgia and University and have refused to cooperate on redevelopment.

Because redevelopment isn’t economically viable right now.

You think the county government cares about what makes business sense?

The county government has made developer profits the central focus of its housing and land use policies.

[Anonymous]

MoCo DCUM: County government hates businesses!
Also MoCo DCUM: County government does whatever developers want!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MoCo DCUM: County government hates businesses!
Also MoCo DCUM: County government does whatever developers want!

The only businesses getting sweetheart deals and eight-figure subsidies are developers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MoCo DCUM: County government hates businesses!
Also MoCo DCUM: County government does whatever developers want!

Most people don’t know that most of the economic development funds are spent subsidizing rent for commercial office space.