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

[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.

So contrary to an above post, it wasn't Mary Cheh. Got it.

[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?

Yes. The post I responded to said specifically that Mary Cheh had it moved because of influential constituents. I said "the city"moved it. The person responded to me in agreement, it was the city, not Cheh, that moved it. So what rebuttal are you looking for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes. The post I responded to said specifically that Mary Cheh had it moved because of influential constituents. I said "the city"moved it. The person responded to me in agreement, it was the city, not Cheh, that moved it. So what rebuttal are you looking for?

You said "when the costs to partner with a private developer on private land escalated." That's superficially true but not the real reason: that Bowser was attempting to line her donors' pockets, and the Council only stepped in after WaPo revealed it. If you read the article, Bowser was trying to do this in every ward, not just Ward 3. The costs didn't "escalate": They were already high because the mayor wanted her donors to profit, at excessive cost to city taxpayers, and she almost got away with it. Frankly, I'm surprised it wasn't a bigger scandal. If it had occurred today, when Bowser has basically no friends left on a Council that is now filled with likely future electoral opponents, there would have been investigations.

Do you deny that Bowser's initial shelter placements were done entirely -- 100 percent -- with altruistic intent and not to benefit the companies that fund her campaigns? The established facts scream otherwise.

[Anonymous]

No, I agree with you that it was a sham deal.

The best place for the Ward 3 shelter should have been in the old WAMU building in Tenleytown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, I agree with you that it was a sham deal.

The best place for the Ward 3 shelter should have been in the old WAMU building in Tenleytown.

It stinks that these decisions are not made with internationality and thoughtfulness. Yet over and over we are asked to trust and get behind new proposals. Just waking by Hearst Pool the door the other day, the conundrum is if it is successful/popular it's going to be too small. No water features for kiddies? Barely any lanes for laps? I also feel the site should have been closer to metro Who is using this pool? What was the point anyway?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes. The post I responded to said specifically that Mary Cheh had it moved because of influential constituents. I said "the city"moved it. The person responded to me in agreement, it was the city, not Cheh, that moved it. So what rebuttal are you looking for?

You said "when the costs to partner with a private developer on private land escalated." That's superficially true but not the real reason: that Bowser was attempting to line her donors' pockets, and the Council only stepped in after WaPo revealed it. If you read the article, Bowser was trying to do this in every ward, not just Ward 3. The costs didn't "escalate": They were already high because the mayor wanted her donors to profit, at excessive cost to city taxpayers, and she almost got away with it. Frankly, I'm surprised it wasn't a bigger scandal. If it had occurred today, when Bowser has basically no friends left on a Council that is now filled with likely future electoral opponents, there would have been investigations.

Do you deny that Bowser's initial shelter placements were done entirely -- 100 percent -- with altruistic intent and not to benefit the companies that fund her campaigns? The established facts scream otherwise.

It's more than that. Bowser's policy priority to close DC General wasn't driven so much by a concern that the site was not suitable as a homeless shelter but by the imperative to make the DC General site available for development as soon as possible. She never explained how, if DC struggled to deliver services to the homeless at a larger, central site, how DC would succeed in providing such services on a decentralized basis in all eight wards.

Cheh doesn't get off the hook so easily here, either. Unusually for Cheh, who is not known for advocating for Ward 3 neighborhoods, several times she has weighed in with DC agencies to successfully derail projects proposed in Mass Ave Heights - not just the homeless shelter, but also an assisted living facility along Wisconsin. And she personally chose the new site of the shelter on Idaho Ave., without consulting or even informing MPD that their parking lot would be taken for the project This snafu resulted in the unplanned expendtiure of several million dollars to quickly build an expensive but ugly multivevel parking garage for the police.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, I agree with you that it was a sham deal.

The best place for the Ward 3 shelter should have been in the old WAMU building in Tenleytown.

And if she's done this before, how can she be trusted to spearhead a general housing plan that could benefit her developer donors exponentially more than simply building eight homeless shelters? She almost certainly will go back to this well again -- she probably already has -- this time more furtively so WaPo and the Council don't catch wind of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, I agree with you that it was a sham deal.

The best place for the Ward 3 shelter should have been in the old WAMU building in Tenleytown.

It stinks that these decisions are not made with internationality and thoughtfulness. Yet over and over we are asked to trust and get behind new proposals. Just waking by Hearst Pool the door the other day, the conundrum is if it is successful/popular it's going to be too small. No water features for kiddies? Barely any lanes for laps? I also feel the site should have been closer to metro Who is using this pool? What was the point anyway?

Ask Mary Cheh. She directed DPR that Hearst should be the site of the Ward 3 pool. It was not DPR's choice, and certainly not one backed up by a rigorous, comparative analysis of various sites. At a community forum several years ago, Mayor Bowser made it very clear that Hearst pool site was a Cheh decision and not an agency decision.

[Anonymous]

There was no where else to put a pool, other than, perhaps, the Chevy Chase Community Center, which is not as centrally located as Hearst.

There is a 100 page thread about this if you want to search for it. But it simply isn't true that no other sites were considered.

[Anonymous]

If the mayor had seriously opposed the site, it wouldn’t be happening. She used Cheh for political cover.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the mayor had seriously opposed the site, it wouldn’t be happening. She used Cheh for political cover.

Bowser does not give a wet fart about anything that happens in Ward 3 unless her donors are benefiting. She realizes that she never will win Ward 3 in a competitive election (Catania beat her pretty handily there in the 2014 general and she would have lost to a ham sandwich in Ward 3 in 2018 had anyone actually opposed her) and probably doesn't need those votes anyway, so she just doesn't care about the entire ward. It's a lost cause for her. But she's also quite self-serving: If the location of the pool had been widely popular, she would have taken total credit. But it was a contentious issue, so she passed the buck to Cheh.

I remember her speech when the new Murch building was dedicated. She spent nearly all of it talking about how she personally pushed for the renovation to go through and that we should be grateful to her. Everyone in the crowd was like, "Lady, you tried to sabotage the renovation at every possible instance."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There was no where else to put a pool, other than, perhaps, the Chevy Chase Community Center, which is not as centrally located as Hearst.

There is a 100 page thread about this if you want to search for it. But it simply isn't true that no other sites were considered.

People did a FIOA request of DPR and DGS for the comparative site analysis. There was nothing. Had there been a more rigorous process, it's highly unlikely that the DC agencies would have chosen a site with such chronic water problems. All through construction, they've had to pump water 24/7 into the street and the storm sewer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was no where else to put a pool, other than, perhaps, the Chevy Chase Community Center, which is not as centrally located as Hearst.

There is a 100 page thread about this if you want to search for it. But it simply isn't true that no other sites were considered.

People did a FIOA request of DPR and DGS for the comparative site analysis. There was nothing. Had there been a more rigorous process, it's highly unlikely that the DC agencies would have chosen a site with such chronic water problems. All through construction, they've had to pump water 24/7 into the street and the storm sewer.

I'm super worried after seeing the tragedy in Florida. Hasn't another "new build" DC pool been shut down due to cracked foundations/cement/water?

[Anonymous]

The new building at Hearst Park (for the elevators to transport users down to the bottom of the bowl where the pool will be), resembles a convenience store at a highway gas station. It makes us so sad to see this. Hearst was once a beautiful green park with an incredible tree canopy. It’s too bad that Hearst Park is located on the other side of Rodman from the CP historic district. If it were 50 feet to the south, even the DC government would not have been allowed to build such an eyesore.

[Anonymous]

It is hideous. Hoping they out siding on it or whatever. Looks heinous now.