Chevy Chase Community Center Redevelopment

[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)

Hmmm...interesting that Sheryl Blank Barnes is quite active on behalf of Chevy Chase Voice (which also hides its leadership) which is leading the charge to stop affordable housing at the Chevy Chase Community Center.

[Anonymous]

Will the renovated Chevy Chase Community Center be all affordable housing? Does this mean IZ or more affordable? And what percentage is required?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Too bad the Northwest Current isn’t still around to delve into issues like planning, zoning, preservation, schools, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Will the renovated Chevy Chase Community Center be all affordable housing? Does this mean IZ or more affordable? And what percentage is required?

the mix of housing, the shape of new development and greenspace will all be dictated by the RFP process and what creative developers submit in response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will the renovated Chevy Chase Community Center be all affordable housing? Does this mean IZ or more affordable? And what percentage is required?

the mix of housing, the shape of new development and greenspace will all be dictated by the RFP process and what creative developers submit in response.

So promises of substantial affordable housing are “aspirational” (which is a polite way of saying horsesh!&). What “creative developers submit in response” to an RFP sounds like it is likely to be a pretty lucrative deal for private developers to get their mitts on a lucrative DC publicly-owned asset. This whole plan stinks, but it is so typical of Bowser and the tricks she turns for her developer funders.

[Anonymous]

Don't fall for the promise of affordable housing. The "progressives" on the CP ANC actually voted down an amendment to require more affordable housing in up-zoned properties. They're just in the pocket of developers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't fall for the promise of affordable housing. The "progressives" on the CP ANC actually voted down an amendment to require more affordable housing in up-zoned properties. They're just in the pocket of developers.

Yeah, way better to support no affordable housing than a reasonable amount of it! >.>

[Anonymous]

If you are going to up zone property with the goal of affordable housing, it should be more than 10% affordable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't fall for the promise of affordable housing. The "progressives" on the CP ANC actually voted down an amendment to require more affordable housing in up-zoned properties. They're just in the pocket of developers.

Yeah, way better to support no affordable housing than a reasonable amount of it! >.>

If there were more officially-designated-as-affordable housing, people would oppose that too.

[Anonymous]

Nice op-ed from people of the cloth

https://ggwash.org/view/91803/make-a-home-for-affordable-housing-in-chevy-chase-dc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nice op-ed from people of the cloth

https://ggwash.org/view/91803/make-a-home-for-affordable-housing-in-chevy-chase-dc

It would carry more heft if the people of the cloth also were to propose development of substantial affordable housing on their own religious institutions' properties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you are going to up zone property with the goal of affordable housing, it should be more than 10% affordable.

Does the approved Chevy Chase small area plan actually require more affordable housing than the minimum required by DC law?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't fall for the promise of affordable housing. The "progressives" on the CP ANC actually voted down an amendment to require more affordable housing in up-zoned properties. They're just in the pocket of developers.

Affordable housing is just a red herring from the DC development lobby. It’s really about the development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't fall for the promise of affordable housing. The "progressives" on the CP ANC actually voted down an amendment to require more affordable housing in up-zoned properties. They're just in the pocket of developers.

Affordable housing is just a red herring from the DC development lobby. It’s really about the development.

So you think it is better to restrict housing in the city and have that income and sales tax go to other jurisdictions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't fall for the promise of affordable housing. The "progressives" on the CP ANC actually voted down an amendment to require more affordable housing in up-zoned properties. They're just in the pocket of developers.

Affordable housing is just a red herring from the DC development lobby. It’s really about the development.

So you think it is better to restrict housing in the city and have that income and sales tax go to other jurisdictions?

Trumpy deflection from addressing the point.