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

[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.

"Anedotral"? It's a fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That it doesn't carry close to its share of affordable housing units, partially because of the structural issues from the 20th Century, partially because of racism and partially because of hyper NIMBYism that is generally based on racism, fear of change and "I've got mine" shrouded in the term "preserving neighborhood character."

What is the "share" exactly? And who established it, pray tell?

The Mayor, the Council, the ANCs including 3C.

I'd like to see share defined, and a share map. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That it doesn't carry close to its share of affordable housing units, partially because of the structural issues from the 20th Century, partially because of racism and partially because of hyper NIMBYism that is generally based on racism, fear of change and "I've got mine" shrouded in the term "preserving neighborhood character."

What is the "share" exactly? And who established it, pray tell?

The Mayor, the Council, the ANCs including 3C.

It was simply a policy statement by the Mayor, not by the Council.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course the Smart Growth lobby disfavors the DC government buying the Wardman. It's a very juicy, potentially highly profitable market rate development opportunity.

Of course, the NIMBYs in Cleveland Park want to warehouse all of the poor people in one place that isn't their neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That it doesn't carry close to its share of affordable housing units, partially because of the structural issues from the 20th Century, partially because of racism and partially because of hyper NIMBYism that is generally based on racism, fear of change and "I've got mine" shrouded in the term "preserving neighborhood character."

What is the "share" exactly? And who established it, pray tell?

The Mayor, the Council, the ANCs including 3C.

It was simply a policy statement by the Mayor, not by the Council.

Name a councilmember who isn't in agreement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That it doesn't carry close to its share of affordable housing units, partially because of the structural issues from the 20th Century, partially because of racism and partially because of hyper NIMBYism that is generally based on racism, fear of change and "I've got mine" shrouded in the term "preserving neighborhood character."

What is the "share" exactly? And who established it, pray tell?

The Mayor, the Council, the ANCs including 3C.

I'd like to see share defined, and a share map. Thanks.

You know, if you use the Google machine to look for terms like Mayor Bowser, Ward 3 and Affordable Housing, you will find ALL of the information you are looking for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That it doesn't carry close to its share of affordable housing units, partially because of the structural issues from the 20th Century, partially because of racism and partially because of hyper NIMBYism that is generally based on racism, fear of change and "I've got mine" shrouded in the term "preserving neighborhood character."

What are you talking about?

Glad you asked, try this from our neighbors up Conn Ave, the issues are the same, or similar.

https://anc3g.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Housing-Group-Draft-Report-11-13-20-.pdf

That link is not relevant for Cleveland Park. So again, I’m asking what are you talking about? Can you directly answer that question?

Replace "Chevy Chase, DC" with "Cleveland Park" and it is 100% relevant. The only difference is that the neighbors in Chevy Chase are aware enough of local history and its impact on the composition of both the residents and housing stock in the Ward to reflect on it. I take it by your response that the people of Cleveland Park would rather ignore history and simply take the trump tactics to heart.

Bravo.

Either you are an actual stupid person or you are grossly and disgustingly cynical to so casually throw around accusations of racism, regardless of whether it fits or not. The history of the two neighborhoods are totally different. Which makes sense because they are different neighborhoods.

You may not understand it yet, but this behavior is only hurting the cause you pretend to support.

I am still awaiting the acknowlegment that Cleveland Park and Chevy Chase, DC as well as many other NW neighborhoods share the same racist history and that the stupid person is the one who proceeded to go on the bolded tirade with no awareness of their neighborhood's history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course the Smart Growth lobby disfavors the DC government buying the Wardman. It's a very juicy, potentially highly profitable market rate development opportunity.

Of course, the NIMBYs in Cleveland Park want to warehouse all of the poor people in one place that isn't their neighborhood.

Last we checked, Cleveland Park has the only homeless shelter in Ward 3. Mary Cheh got it moved from its orgiinal proposed location in Mass Ave Heights when some of her more influential constituents complained, and of course there's no shelter located in Cheh's own Forest Hills neighborhood. John Eaton is the designated Ward 3 elementary school for the shelter. So don't lecture Cleveland Park unless other Ward 3 neighborhoods are doing their part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That it doesn't carry close to its share of affordable housing units, partially because of the structural issues from the 20th Century, partially because of racism and partially because of hyper NIMBYism that is generally based on racism, fear of change and "I've got mine" shrouded in the term "preserving neighborhood character."

What is the "share" exactly? And who established it, pray tell?

The Mayor, the Council, the ANCs including 3C.

I'd like to see share defined, and a share map. Thanks.

You know, if you use the Google machine to look for terms like Mayor Bowser, Ward 3 and Affordable Housing, you will find ALL of the information you are looking for.

Helpfully drafted by GGW, Ward 3 Vision and Fabrizio Ward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course the Smart Growth lobby disfavors the DC government buying the Wardman. It's a very juicy, potentially highly profitable market rate development opportunity.

Of course, the NIMBYs in Cleveland Park want to warehouse all of the poor people in one place that isn't their neighborhood.

Last we checked, Cleveland Park has the only homeless shelter in Ward 3. Mary Cheh got it moved from its orgiinal proposed location in Mass Ave Heights when some of her more influential constituents complained, and of course there's no shelter located in Cheh's own Forest Hills neighborhood. John Eaton is the designated Ward 3 elementary school for the shelter. So don't lecture Cleveland Park unless other Ward 3 neighborhoods are doing their part.

I love this post.

First, the CITY had it moved when the costs to partner with a private developer on private land escalated, so the city moved it to city owned land in Cathedral Heights (not Cleveland Park.)

Second, the people of both Cathedral Heights AND Cleveland Park complained bitterly and fought in courts, the installation of a shelter, with all sorts of wild claims of traffic, parkking (as if homeless people have cars, LOL) and newfound crime in the area, as well as supercharged overcrowding for the schools. Of course, NONE of that came to pass.

Third, now, when it is convenient, you actually tout the shelters existence to bolster an argument.


Just a reminder

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/557686.page
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/600/532812.page

Just to cite two examples of threads that went off the rails over the fear and doom of the proposal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course the Smart Growth lobby disfavors the DC government buying the Wardman. It's a very juicy, potentially highly profitable market rate development opportunity.

Of course, the NIMBYs in Cleveland Park want to warehouse all of the poor people in one place that isn't their neighborhood.

Last we checked, Cleveland Park has the only homeless shelter in Ward 3. Mary Cheh got it moved from its orgiinal proposed location in Mass Ave Heights when some of her more influential constituents complained, and of course there's no shelter located in Cheh's own Forest Hills neighborhood. John Eaton is the designated Ward 3 elementary school for the shelter. So don't lecture Cleveland Park unless other Ward 3 neighborhoods are doing their part.

I love this post.

First, the CITY had it moved when the costs to partner with a private developer on private land escalated, so the city moved it to city owned land in Cathedral Heights (not Cleveland Park.)

Second, the people of both Cathedral Heights AND Cleveland Park complained bitterly and fought in courts, the installation of a shelter, with all sorts of wild claims of traffic, parkking (as if homeless people have cars, LOL) and newfound crime in the area, as well as supercharged overcrowding for the schools. Of course, NONE of that came to pass.

Third, now, when it is convenient, you actually tout the shelters existence to bolster an argument.


Just a reminder

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/557686.page
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/600/532812.page

Just to cite two examples of threads that went off the rails over the fear and doom of the proposal.

Some nice revisionist history in the bolded part. The city didn't have the shelter moved. The City Council had the shelter moved after it was revealed by WaPo that a massive developer donor to Bowser was going to reap ludicrous profits from the Mass Ave site and would take over the site entirely after 20 years per the terms of the lease, which almost certainly would have meant kicking out the homeless shelter. It had nothing to do with the cost of the site and everything to do with who would profit from it. Bowser tried to sneak that one past everyone and got caught red-handed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That it doesn't carry close to its share of affordable housing units, partially because of the structural issues from the 20th Century, partially because of racism and partially because of hyper NIMBYism that is generally based on racism, fear of change and "I've got mine" shrouded in the term "preserving neighborhood character."

What is the "share" exactly? And who established it, pray tell?

The Mayor, the Council, the ANCs including 3C.

I'd like to see share defined, and a share map. Thanks.

You know, if you use the Google machine to look for terms like Mayor Bowser, Ward 3 and Affordable Housing, you will find ALL of the information you are looking for.

Helpfully drafted by GGW, Ward 3 Vision and Fabrizio Ward.

All organizations with zero credibility left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course the Smart Growth lobby disfavors the DC government buying the Wardman. It's a very juicy, potentially highly profitable market rate development opportunity.

Of course, the NIMBYs in Cleveland Park want to warehouse all of the poor people in one place that isn't their neighborhood.

Last we checked, Cleveland Park has the only homeless shelter in Ward 3. Mary Cheh got it moved from its orgiinal proposed location in Mass Ave Heights when some of her more influential constituents complained, and of course there's no shelter located in Cheh's own Forest Hills neighborhood. John Eaton is the designated Ward 3 elementary school for the shelter. So don't lecture Cleveland Park unless other Ward 3 neighborhoods are doing their part.

I love this post.

First, the CITY had it moved when the costs to partner with a private developer on private land escalated, so the city moved it to city owned land in Cathedral Heights (not Cleveland Park.)

Second, the people of both Cathedral Heights AND Cleveland Park complained bitterly and fought in courts, the installation of a shelter, with all sorts of wild claims of traffic, parkking (as if homeless people have cars, LOL) and newfound crime in the area, as well as supercharged overcrowding for the schools. Of course, NONE of that came to pass.

Third, now, when it is convenient, you actually tout the shelters existence to bolster an argument.


Just a reminder

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/557686.page
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/600/532812.page

Just to cite two examples of threads that went off the rails over the fear and doom of the proposal.

Some nice revisionist history in the bolded part. The city didn't have the shelter moved. The City Council had the shelter moved after it was revealed by WaPo that a massive developer donor to Bowser was going to reap ludicrous profits from the Mass Ave site and would take over the site entirely after 20 years per the terms of the lease, which almost certainly would have meant kicking out the homeless shelter. It had nothing to do with the cost of the site and everything to do with who would profit from it. Bowser tried to sneak that one past everyone and got caught red-handed.

Interesting. Any rebuttal, PP at 6:25?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course the Smart Growth lobby disfavors the DC government buying the Wardman. It's a very juicy, potentially highly profitable market rate development opportunity.

Of course, the NIMBYs in Cleveland Park want to warehouse all of the poor people in one place that isn't their neighborhood.

Last we checked, Cleveland Park has the only homeless shelter in Ward 3. Mary Cheh got it moved from its orgiinal proposed location in Mass Ave Heights when some of her more influential constituents complained, and of course there's no shelter located in Cheh's own Forest Hills neighborhood. John Eaton is the designated Ward 3 elementary school for the shelter. So don't lecture Cleveland Park unless other Ward 3 neighborhoods are doing their part.

I love this post.

First, the CITY had it moved when the costs to partner with a private developer on private land escalated, so the city moved it to city owned land in Cathedral Heights (not Cleveland Park.)

Second, the people of both Cathedral Heights AND Cleveland Park complained bitterly and fought in courts, the installation of a shelter, with all sorts of wild claims of traffic, parkking (as if homeless people have cars, LOL) and newfound crime in the area, as well as supercharged overcrowding for the schools. Of course, NONE of that came to pass.

Third, now, when it is convenient, you actually tout the shelters existence to bolster an argument.


Just a reminder

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/557686.page
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/600/532812.page

Just to cite two examples of threads that went off the rails over the fear and doom of the proposal.

Some nice revisionist history in the bolded part. The city didn't have the shelter moved. The City Council had the shelter moved after it was revealed by WaPo that a massive developer donor to Bowser was going to reap ludicrous profits from the Mass Ave site and would take over the site entirely after 20 years per the terms of the lease, which almost certainly would have meant kicking out the homeless shelter. It had nothing to do with the cost of the site and everything to do with who would profit from it. Bowser tried to sneak that one past everyone and got caught red-handed.

Interesting. Any rebuttal, PP at 6:25?

Here's the 2016 WaPo story that revealed Bowser's true intentions:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/homeless-shelter-plan-could-be-profitable-for-bowsers-backers/2016/03/16/cbab0e76-eadc-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html

[Anonymous]

Here's a telling paragraph:

"But records show that most of the private properties proposed as shelter sites are owned or at least partly controlled by major donors to the mayor. And experts have calculated that the city leases­ would increase the assessed value of those properties by as much as 10 times for that small group of landowners and developers."

We can similarly assume that Bowser's aggressive plan to increase the FLUM density and amend the Comprehensive Plan in certain areas has the same effect: to greatly increase the value of certain properties for a connected group of landowners, investors and developers, at the expense of some District neighborhoods.