Muriel Bowser and Developers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Boy, you sound really threatened . For those who haven't heard of this non-profit civic group ( all have day jobs) :
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_100_on_the_Federal_City

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_100_on_the_Federal_City

The website description linked does nothing to dissuade my opinion of the organization. Many of the things it opposed (skylight for example) have become iconic images in the District. Further it does nothing to show how the group selects its members or display any diversity of thought where urban planning is concerned. Indeed the last part of the entry acknowledges that many/most of the Committee of 100 members live in upper NW DC where they share an autocentric vision of the city in a groupthink manner.

It is fine that there is an organization that self-selects its membership and shares its own anti-environmental, anti-affordable housing and anti-mass transit vision, but to suggest that it has the same standing as an ANC or real elected body is a misnomer. To suggest that it should be put on a pedestal or lauded for its more recent work is a crock to most people across the city who may any attention to these matters. Yes, fighting the inner city freeways in the 1960's was a good thing, but that was 50 years ago. The Committee of 100 wasn't the primary driver of that issue and hasn't don't anything of significant positive relevance since.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Boy, you sound really threatened . For those who haven't heard of this non-profit civic group ( all have day jobs) :
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_100_on_the_Federal_City

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_100_on_the_Federal_City

The website description linked does nothing to dissuade my opinion of the organization. Many of the things it opposed (skylight for example) have become iconic images in the District. Further it does nothing to show how the group selects its members or display any diversity of thought where urban planning is concerned. Indeed the last part of the entry acknowledges that many/most of the Committee of 100 members live in upper NW DC where they share an autocentric vision of the city in a groupthink manner.

It is fine that there is an organization that self-selects its membership and shares its own anti-environmental, anti-affordable housing and anti-mass transit vision, but to suggest that it has the same standing as an ANC or real elected body is a misnomer. To suggest that it should be put on a pedestal or lauded for its more recent work is a crock to most people across the city who may any attention to these matters. Yes, fighting the inner city freeways in the 1960's was a good thing, but that was 50 years ago. The Committee of 100 wasn't the primary driver of that issue and hasn't don't anything of significant positive relevance since.

"Acknowledges"? You think that the Wikipedia entry is a press release from C100 or even an edited objective article? Practically anyone with an axe to grind or a personal agenda can put about any claptrap out on Wikepedia, particularly about more minor subjects. And as for the "acknowledgement", I am not involved with C100 but I personally know some who are and they live on Capitol Hill and several east of the Anacostia River.

I don't agree with every stand the organization has taken, and it would be extraordinary if anyone did with respect to every civic group. But when I see the issues in which they've been instrumental over the years -- opposing loops of freeways through Washington and instead using highway funding to build Metro, preserving Lafayette Square, opposing the Three Sisters Bridge and freeway through the Palisades and Georgetown. the preservation and adaptive reuse of the old Patent Office Building (Hotel Monaco) and the protection of important vistas, I believe that they have had an important and positive impact on the qualify of life in the District. As for the criticism that they are "car-centric" (and odd criticism given the organization's central role in stopping some destructive freeways), the reality is that not all neighborhoods in DC are well-served by transit. Indeed, that's the problem with the so-called "smart growth agenda" which wants to use a broad brush (e.g., the zoning code revisions) to infill and densify all parts of the District with similar-type development, without taking account of local neighborhood characteristics.

[Anonymous]

I don't disagree that many of the issues they supported provided a net positive to the District, but those are all over 30 years old. Their more recent battles and the rhetoric of their leadership when they testify at the Council or city agencies are that of people who are more concerned with preservation of free parking spaces and limiting affordable housing opportunities. Those are not supportable goals.

Further, I was commenting on the link provided by the Committee of 100 supporter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't disagree that many of the issues they supported provided a net positive to the District, but those are all over 30 years old. Their more recent battles and the rhetoric of their leadership when they testify at the Council or city agencies are that of people who are more concerned with preservation of free parking spaces and limiting affordable housing opportunities. Those are not supportable goals.

Further, I was commenting on the link provided by the Committee of 100 supporter.

The Committee of 100 recently took a strong stand on opposing major changes to the height limit in Washington. Far from an outlier position, it was echoed by the overwhelming weight of testimony before the National Capitol Planning Commission and by the entirety of the DC Council. Being able to see the sky and the impressive open vistas of the Capitol, Washington Monument and other landmarks are among Washington's most distinctive features and great attributes, IMO. I realize that the Committee's (and Council's and NCPC's) position may go against the profit-maximizing desire of certain corporate development and real estate speculation interests, but so be it.

[Anonymous]

Certainly protecting the federal core is a lofty and worthwhile goal. Why do we need height limits on Minnesota Avenue, or Ft. Totten or Friendship Heights?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Certainly protecting the federal core is a lofty and worthwhile goal. Why do we need height limits on Minnesota Avenue, or Ft. Totten or Friendship Heights?

Friendship Heights would be about the last place for tall buildings. It's one of the highest points in DC. Moreover, the area can't support the density of a true office center. There's one Metro stop but major highways (like the Beltway or 270) are several miles away. By contrast, Rosslyn, north Bethesda, Ballston, etc. have both good public transit and easy nearby access to major highways. (I won't mention Tyson's because that's in a whole different league.) If Friendship Heights became a a dense, tall employment center, workers would have to reach it over the street network. I guess that you can blame the Committee of 100 for the fact that 270 doesn't cut next to Bethesda and FH as was originally planned.

Washington, DC has plenty of land that is ripe for (re)-development. Just look at the NY Avenue corridor, which is only a glimmer now in developer eyes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a very interesting article in this week's Northwest current that puts public-private development partnership's in DC in perspective. The article shows that the DC government spent $1 million to reinforce the Tenley library structure to accommodate a future condo structure on top, for what a consultant report showed would be at most a benefit of less than $300,000 to DC. In other words, $700,000 of taxpayer money was spent at best to subsidize a project that would've returned far less to the District. In reality it was wasted all together because most people agree that a condo building, which would cantilever over the Janney playground, will never be built on the site. The wasted money aside, the PPP fiasco resulted in the Tenley library being closed for six years and a design that presents an ugly blank wall on the west side toward Janney. The lesson is that monetizing DC assets for development doesn't always result in the expected returns and in fact may result in significant cost to the public.

Similar invested economics caused the DC public library board (excuse the phrase) to "shelve" further consideration of a public-private partnership for development at the MLK library site.

In DC it seems, PPPs are about developers getting access to public properties on very favorable, even taxpayer subsidized, terms. PPP = Preferred Property Pricing to political cronies.

The DC public library had a presentation the other evening in Cleveland Park on the renovation -- but most likely the reconstruction -- of the Cleveland Park library. One thing they said was that the new building will be a stand-alone library and that there will be no consideration of a private-public partnership/mixed use development on the site. It's good to see that the library system and DC government learned from the Tenley fiasco.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Friendship Heights would be about the last place for tall buildings. It's one of the highest points in DC. Moreover, the area can't support the density of a true office center. There's one Metro stop but major highways (like the Beltway or 270) are several miles away. By contrast, Rosslyn, north Bethesda, Ballston, etc. have both good public transit and easy nearby access to major highways. (I won't mention Tyson's because that's in a whole different league.) If Friendship Heights became a a dense, tall employment center, workers would have to reach it over the street network. I guess that you can blame the Committee of 100 for the fact that 270 doesn't cut next to Bethesda and FH as was originally planned.

Washington, DC has plenty of land that is ripe for (re)-development. Just look at the NY Avenue corridor, which is only a glimmer now in developer eyes.

On the Maryland side, Friendship Heights already is a tall, high density center. Montgomery County and the state of Maryland reap millions of dollars per year in taxes from the residents who live and work there. Yes across the street, the District is stuck with some mediocre indoor malls, a hotel and a bus yard. Surely there is more productive use for these parcels that could provide more to the District coffers and help pay for more affordable housing, and other important general fund necessities?

[Anonymous]

DC has a secret plan for more affordable housing. It's called PG County.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Friendship Heights would be about the last place for tall buildings. It's one of the highest points in DC. Moreover, the area can't support the density of a true office center. There's one Metro stop but major highways (like the Beltway or 270) are several miles away. By contrast, Rosslyn, north Bethesda, Ballston, etc. have both good public transit and easy nearby access to major highways. (I won't mention Tyson's because that's in a whole different league.) If Friendship Heights became a a dense, tall employment center, workers would have to reach it over the street network. I guess that you can blame the Committee of 100 for the fact that 270 doesn't cut next to Bethesda and FH as was originally planned.

Washington, DC has plenty of land that is ripe for (re)-development. Just look at the NY Avenue corridor, which is only a glimmer now in developer eyes.

On the Maryland side, Friendship Heights already is a tall, high density center. Montgomery County and the state of Maryland reap millions of dollars per year in taxes from the residents who live and work there. Yes across the street, the District is stuck with some mediocre indoor malls, a hotel and a bus yard. Surely there is more productive use for these parcels that could provide more to the District coffers and help pay for more affordable housing, and other important general fund necessities?

FH in Maryland is more complicated than that. First of all, the 'gateway" building on the MoCo side of Wisconsin and Western is an ugly brutalist building on top of a bus depot. Second, both the GEICO site to the west and the properties from Saks south along the east side are now permanently zoned for low rise, less dense development. Finally, Chevy Chase MD managed to virtually barricade itself from the FH commercial area, to keep out cut through traffic.

[Anonymous]

No disagreement, but Wisconsin Place and the high rise buildings between Western and Somerset House on the west side are all high rises, as are the high rises behind them and down Willard. There are thousands of people who work or live in those buildings.

And yes, closing the roads to cars in the Chevy Chase, MD area makes the vehicular traffic on Wisconsin worse. It is little different to the same choices made with respect to River Road during rush hours.

[Anonymous]

A little off topic, but I fully understand what Checy Chase has tried to do to keep cut through traffic out of their neighborhood. With such proximity to Freindship Heights, the neighborhood would be overwhelmed with commuters and other drivers looking for a bypass around FH. Wisconsin and Western are where the traffic is supposed to go. Why should the residents of Chevy Chase compromise their kids' safety, endure traffic noise and fumes and see their home values fall as quiet residential streets become through-ways, while some shopping center or condo developer gets the upside? I think CC offers a useful template for some DC neighborhoods that are seeing dense development on their periphery.

[Anonymous]

Thats great, River Road already did this and look at the negative impacts everywhere else. I am not a fan of closing public space off so it is just for private use. It selfishly disrupts the entire transportation flow.

[Anonymous]

To add, if that is the case, then let's just close ALL of the streets to cars and just let buses, bikes and taxis use them. Why should some streets get closed off while others aren't? Who chooses which streets are to be closed or limited?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thats great, River Road already did this and look at the negative impacts everywhere else. I am not a fan of closing public space off so it is just for private use. It selfishly disrupts the entire transportation flow.

You mean like Fenty and now Bowser have tried to do with "public private partnerships" involving public assets in sweetheart deals with politically connected develoopers?