Chevy Chase Community Center Redevelopment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I always find funny about these “Ward 3 is white because of racism” folks is that they’re almost always white transplants who made the decision to move to ward 3. Ward 3 is white because that’s where white people like them decided to move, and then they cry that it’s racist that people like them decided to move there.

For instance, here’s Matt Frumin, who’s from Michigan:

“I’ve been saying this: Ward 3 came to look the way it did” — that is to say, White and rich — “because of exclusion based on intentional policies — exclusion and then segregation,” Frumin told me. “And we need intentional policies to remedy what happened in the past.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/01/31/making-dcs-ward-3-an-example-all-land/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_local

Frumin, the reason ward 3 is full of well-off white people like you is because that’s where you and other well-off white people like you decided to move to. You could have moved to any other neighborhood in the city if you thought white people moving to ward 3 was segregationist. But being a white person, moving to a neighborhood, and then acting like it’s a travesty when other white people do the same thing is idiotic.

(The article is funny too, because Frumin says ward 3 is white because of segregation, and then goes on to say that he thinks his black friend didn’t buy a house in Tenleytown because his friend didn’t want to be around so many white people.)

Okay but its not a welcoming place. Extreme racial concentration in any direction has some inertia to it to forestall diversity. This is one building that we are talking about here. And yet, look at the response from *some* of the residents. It's more than outsized. I understand that change can be challenging, and concerns about the impact on our predominantly white and wealthy neighborhood have been voiced.

It is crucial to acknowledge that diversity is a cornerstone of vibrant and thriving communities. While the initial reaction might be apprehension, let's take a moment to consider the positive aspects of incorporating public housing into our neighborhood.

Fostering Inclusivity: Public housing provides an opportunity to create a more inclusive community. By welcoming residents from diverse backgrounds and economic situations, we strengthen the fabric of our neighborhood, fostering understanding and unity among us all.

Breaking Down Socioeconomic Barriers: Integrating public housing into our community helps break down socioeconomic barriers. It provides families with access to the same resources, educational opportunities, and community services that we enjoy. This can contribute to creating a more equitable society for everyone.

Cultivating a Rich Tapestry of Cultures: Diversity brings with it a wealth of perspectives, traditions, and experiences. Embracing public housing means embracing a richer tapestry of cultures within our neighborhood. This can lead to a more vibrant and dynamic community life, where we learn from one another and celebrate our differences.

Enhancing Community Services: The redevelopment could lead to an enhancement of community services. A new library combined with public housing facilities can create a space that benefits all residents, providing improved access to education, healthcare, and social services.

Strengthening Our Collective Social Responsibility: Embracing public housing on this site is an opportunity for our neighborhood to showcase its commitment to social responsibility. By participating in projects that address housing inequality, we contribute to the broader societal goal of creating communities that work for everyone.

Change is undoubtedly challenging, and it's natural to feel a sense of attachment to the familiar. However, let's approach this redevelopment with an open mind, understanding that the inclusion of public housing is not a threat but an opportunity for our neighborhood to evolve into a more diverse, inclusive, and socially responsible community.

Let's come together, engage in constructive dialogue, and work towards building a future that reflects the values of compassion, understanding, and unity that define our neighborhood.

We’ve seen what people like you have done to Forest Hills. It ain’t pretty. No thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I always find funny about these “Ward 3 is white because of racism” folks is that they’re almost always white transplants who made the decision to move to ward 3. Ward 3 is white because that’s where white people like them decided to move, and then they cry that it’s racist that people like them decided to move there.

For instance, here’s Matt Frumin, who’s from Michigan:

“I’ve been saying this: Ward 3 came to look the way it did” — that is to say, White and rich — “because of exclusion based on intentional policies — exclusion and then segregation,” Frumin told me. “And we need intentional policies to remedy what happened in the past.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/01/31/making-dcs-ward-3-an-example-all-land/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_local

Frumin, the reason ward 3 is full of well-off white people like you is because that’s where you and other well-off white people like you decided to move to. You could have moved to any other neighborhood in the city if you thought white people moving to ward 3 was segregationist. But being a white person, moving to a neighborhood, and then acting like it’s a travesty when other white people do the same thing is idiotic.

(The article is funny too, because Frumin says ward 3 is white because of segregation, and then goes on to say that he thinks his black friend didn’t buy a house in Tenleytown because his friend didn’t want to be around so many white people.)

You really miss the point. It is in the bolded. And also this from the article:

"Today, White households in D.C. have 81 times the wealth of Black households — with 1,500 households in the city worth more than $30 million, according to the DC Fiscal Policy Institute."

Nobody is claiming that a white person's choice to move to the neighborhood is segregationist. They are claiming that the fact that more people have the opportunity to move to that neighborhood is the result of intentional policies in the past. And the belief that intentional policies are required in the present to remedy that.

I’d love to live in Potomac, but I can’t afford to. What about me?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I always find funny about these “Ward 3 is white because of racism” folks is that they’re almost always white transplants who made the decision to move to ward 3. Ward 3 is white because that’s where white people like them decided to move, and then they cry that it’s racist that people like them decided to move there.

For instance, here’s Matt Frumin, who’s from Michigan:

“I’ve been saying this: Ward 3 came to look the way it did” — that is to say, White and rich — “because of exclusion based on intentional policies — exclusion and then segregation,” Frumin told me. “And we need intentional policies to remedy what happened in the past.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/01/31/making-dcs-ward-3-an-example-all-land/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_local

Frumin, the reason ward 3 is full of well-off white people like you is because that’s where you and other well-off white people like you decided to move to. You could have moved to any other neighborhood in the city if you thought white people moving to ward 3 was segregationist. But being a white person, moving to a neighborhood, and then acting like it’s a travesty when other white people do the same thing is idiotic.

(The article is funny too, because Frumin says ward 3 is white because of segregation, and then goes on to say that he thinks his black friend didn’t buy a house in Tenleytown because his friend didn’t want to be around so many white people.)

You really miss the point. It is in the bolded. And also this from the article:

"Today, White households in D.C. have 81 times the wealth of Black households — with 1,500 households in the city worth more than $30 million, according to the DC Fiscal Policy Institute."

Nobody is claiming that a white person's choice to move to the neighborhood is segregationist. They are claiming that the fact that more people have the opportunity to move to that neighborhood is the result of intentional policies in the past. And the belief that intentional policies are required in the present to remedy that.

I’d love to live in Potomac, but I can’t afford to. What about me?

I do think that more affordable housing should be developed in Potomac as well.

And the point is exclusionary policies that led to segregation in certain areas, as well as impeded generations from attaining wealth. That is what people are trying to remedy. They are not claiming that everyone should be able to afford to live anywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I always find funny about these “Ward 3 is white because of racism” folks is that they’re almost always white transplants who made the decision to move to ward 3. Ward 3 is white because that’s where white people like them decided to move, and then they cry that it’s racist that people like them decided to move there.

For instance, here’s Matt Frumin, who’s from Michigan:

“I’ve been saying this: Ward 3 came to look the way it did” — that is to say, White and rich — “because of exclusion based on intentional policies — exclusion and then segregation,” Frumin told me. “And we need intentional policies to remedy what happened in the past.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/01/31/making-dcs-ward-3-an-example-all-land/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_local

Frumin, the reason ward 3 is full of well-off white people like you is because that’s where you and other well-off white people like you decided to move to. You could have moved to any other neighborhood in the city if you thought white people moving to ward 3 was segregationist. But being a white person, moving to a neighborhood, and then acting like it’s a travesty when other white people do the same thing is idiotic.

(The article is funny too, because Frumin says ward 3 is white because of segregation, and then goes on to say that he thinks his black friend didn’t buy a house in Tenleytown because his friend didn’t want to be around so many white people.)

You really miss the point. It is in the bolded. And also this from the article:

"Today, White households in D.C. have 81 times the wealth of Black households — with 1,500 households in the city worth more than $30 million, according to the DC Fiscal Policy Institute."

Nobody is claiming that a white person's choice to move to the neighborhood is segregationist. They are claiming that the fact that more people have the opportunity to move to that neighborhood is the result of intentional policies in the past. And the belief that intentional policies are required in the present to remedy that.

I’d love to live in Potomac, but I can’t afford to. What about me?

I do think that more affordable housing should be developed in Potomac as well.

And the point is exclusionary policies that led to segregation in certain areas, as well as impeded generations from attaining wealth. That is what people are trying to remedy. They are not claiming that everyone should be able to afford to live anywhere.

No, you don’t understand. I want a mansion in Potomac. What about me?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I always find funny about these “Ward 3 is white because of racism” folks is that they’re almost always white transplants who made the decision to move to ward 3. Ward 3 is white because that’s where white people like them decided to move, and then they cry that it’s racist that people like them decided to move there.

For instance, here’s Matt Frumin, who’s from Michigan:

“I’ve been saying this: Ward 3 came to look the way it did” — that is to say, White and rich — “because of exclusion based on intentional policies — exclusion and then segregation,” Frumin told me. “And we need intentional policies to remedy what happened in the past.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/01/31/making-dcs-ward-3-an-example-all-land/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_local

Frumin, the reason ward 3 is full of well-off white people like you is because that’s where you and other well-off white people like you decided to move to. You could have moved to any other neighborhood in the city if you thought white people moving to ward 3 was segregationist. But being a white person, moving to a neighborhood, and then acting like it’s a travesty when other white people do the same thing is idiotic.

(The article is funny too, because Frumin says ward 3 is white because of segregation, and then goes on to say that he thinks his black friend didn’t buy a house in Tenleytown because his friend didn’t want to be around so many white people.)

You really miss the point. It is in the bolded. And also this from the article:

"Today, White households in D.C. have 81 times the wealth of Black households — with 1,500 households in the city worth more than $30 million, according to the DC Fiscal Policy Institute."

Nobody is claiming that a white person's choice to move to the neighborhood is segregationist. They are claiming that the fact that more people have the opportunity to move to that neighborhood is the result of intentional policies in the past. And the belief that intentional policies are required in the present to remedy that.

I’d love to live in Potomac, but I can’t afford to. What about me?

I do think that more affordable housing should be developed in Potomac as well.

And the point is exclusionary policies that led to segregation in certain areas, as well as impeded generations from attaining wealth. That is what people are trying to remedy. They are not claiming that everyone should be able to afford to live anywhere.

Let’s be clear: the proposed public private partnership, whereby the library and community center sites are given over to a private developer, is supposed to have an affordable housing component. But there clearly is no fixed required percentage of affordable units right now (other than the DC statutory minimum) when a decision is being made on whether to proceed. So what is being proposed is more market-rate development with some undetermined amount of “affordable”, likely IZ units. Proponents keep telling us that this is about addressing long ago “exclusionary policies” and creating affordable housing, but never really show, much less explain, how more dense, mixed use is supposed to achieve those objectives. Indeed, we can see how this trickle-down growth experiment is playing out all around Ward 3. City Ridge is is fine but how is it affordable, particularly for families? How does Upton Place, marketed as one of DC’s “most exclusive” enclaves, address exclusion? Of course, these are private developments on privately owned land. Yet now the plan in Chevy Chase is to turn over public assets so a favored developer can do more of the same, but with only hopes and aspirations for some true affordability? We’re all suckers and fools if we continue to fall for the development industry’s trickle-down fanstasy dust.

[Anonymous]

Enhancing Community Services: The redevelopment could lead to an enhancement of community services. A new library combined with public housing facilities can create a space that benefits all residents, providing improved access to education, healthcare, and social services.

Isnt this like the wrap-around social services concept that was supposed to undergird the housing voucher program up and down Connecticut Avenue? How has that worked out? DC has done nada while crime has spiked. What assurances would the Chevy Chase community have that the promised glorious future will be any different?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I always find funny about these “Ward 3 is white because of racism” folks is that they’re almost always white transplants who made the decision to move to ward 3. Ward 3 is white because that’s where white people like them decided to move, and then they cry that it’s racist that people like them decided to move there.

For instance, here’s Matt Frumin, who’s from Michigan:

“I’ve been saying this: Ward 3 came to look the way it did” — that is to say, White and rich — “because of exclusion based on intentional policies — exclusion and then segregation,” Frumin told me. “And we need intentional policies to remedy what happened in the past.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/01/31/making-dcs-ward-3-an-example-all-land/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_local

Frumin, the reason ward 3 is full of well-off white people like you is because that’s where you and other well-off white people like you decided to move to. You could have moved to any other neighborhood in the city if you thought white people moving to ward 3 was segregationist. But being a white person, moving to a neighborhood, and then acting like it’s a travesty when other white people do the same thing is idiotic.

(The article is funny too, because Frumin says ward 3 is white because of segregation, and then goes on to say that he thinks his black friend didn’t buy a house in Tenleytown because his friend didn’t want to be around so many white people.)

Okay but its not a welcoming place. Extreme racial concentration in any direction has some inertia to it to forestall diversity. This is one building that we are talking about here. And yet, look at the response from *some* of the residents. It's more than outsized. I understand that change can be challenging, and concerns about the impact on our predominantly white and wealthy neighborhood have been voiced.

It is crucial to acknowledge that diversity is a cornerstone of vibrant and thriving communities. While the initial reaction might be apprehension, let's take a moment to consider the positive aspects of incorporating public housing into our neighborhood.

Fostering Inclusivity: Public housing provides an opportunity to create a more inclusive community. By welcoming residents from diverse backgrounds and economic situations, we strengthen the fabric of our neighborhood, fostering understanding and unity among us all.

Breaking Down Socioeconomic Barriers: Integrating public housing into our community helps break down socioeconomic barriers. It provides families with access to the same resources, educational opportunities, and community services that we enjoy. This can contribute to creating a more equitable society for everyone.

Cultivating a Rich Tapestry of Cultures: Diversity brings with it a wealth of perspectives, traditions, and experiences. Embracing public housing means embracing a richer tapestry of cultures within our neighborhood. This can lead to a more vibrant and dynamic community life, where we learn from one another and celebrate our differences.

Enhancing Community Services: The redevelopment could lead to an enhancement of community services. A new library combined with public housing facilities can create a space that benefits all residents, providing improved access to education, healthcare, and social services.

Strengthening Our Collective Social Responsibility: Embracing public housing on this site is an opportunity for our neighborhood to showcase its commitment to social responsibility. By participating in projects that address housing inequality, we contribute to the broader societal goal of creating communities that work for everyone.

Change is undoubtedly challenging, and it's natural to feel a sense of attachment to the familiar. However, let's approach this redevelopment with an open mind, understanding that the inclusion of public housing is not a threat but an opportunity for our neighborhood to evolve into a more diverse, inclusive, and socially responsible community.

Let's come together, engage in constructive dialogue, and work towards building a future that reflects the values of compassion, understanding, and unity that define our neighborhood.

Note how the proponents carefully use weasel words like “could lead to” and “can create.” Heck, even the amount of supposedly affordable units is aspirational.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I always find funny about these “Ward 3 is white because of racism” folks is that they’re almost always white transplants who made the decision to move to ward 3. Ward 3 is white because that’s where white people like them decided to move, and then they cry that it’s racist that people like them decided to move there.

For instance, here’s Matt Frumin, who’s from Michigan:

“I’ve been saying this: Ward 3 came to look the way it did” — that is to say, White and rich — “because of exclusion based on intentional policies — exclusion and then segregation,” Frumin told me. “And we need intentional policies to remedy what happened in the past.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/01/31/making-dcs-ward-3-an-example-all-land/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_local

Frumin, the reason ward 3 is full of well-off white people like you is because that’s where you and other well-off white people like you decided to move to. You could have moved to any other neighborhood in the city if you thought white people moving to ward 3 was segregationist. But being a white person, moving to a neighborhood, and then acting like it’s a travesty when other white people do the same thing is idiotic.

(The article is funny too, because Frumin says ward 3 is white because of segregation, and then goes on to say that he thinks his black friend didn’t buy a house in Tenleytown because his friend didn’t want to be around so many white people.)

You really miss the point. It is in the bolded. And also this from the article:

"Today, White households in D.C. have 81 times the wealth of Black households — with 1,500 households in the city worth more than $30 million, according to the DC Fiscal Policy Institute."

Nobody is claiming that a white person's choice to move to the neighborhood is segregationist. They are claiming that the fact that more people have the opportunity to move to that neighborhood is the result of intentional policies in the past. And the belief that intentional policies are required in the present to remedy that.

I’d love to live in Potomac, but I can’t afford to. What about me?

I do think that more affordable housing should be developed in Potomac as well.

And the point is exclusionary policies that led to segregation in certain areas, as well as impeded generations from attaining wealth. That is what people are trying to remedy. They are not claiming that everyone should be able to afford to live anywhere.

Let’s be clear: the proposed public private partnership, whereby the library and community center sites are given over to a private developer, is supposed to have an affordable housing component. But there clearly is no fixed required percentage of affordable units right now (other than the DC statutory minimum) when a decision is being made on whether to proceed. So what is being proposed is more market-rate development with some undetermined amount of “affordable”, likely IZ units. Proponents keep telling us that this is about addressing long ago “exclusionary policies” and creating affordable housing, but never really show, much less explain, how more dense, mixed use is supposed to achieve those objectives. Indeed, we can see how this trickle-down growth experiment is playing out all around Ward 3. City Ridge is is fine but how is it affordable, particularly for families? How does Upton Place, marketed as one of DC’s “most exclusive” enclaves, address exclusion? Of course, these are private developments on privately owned land. Yet now the plan in Chevy Chase is to turn over public assets so a favored developer can do more of the same, but with only hopes and aspirations for some true affordability? We’re all suckers and fools if we continue to fall for the development industry’s trickle-down fanstasy dust.

Couple things:

I was addressing the poster who referenced a WaPo article about Matt Frumin, not this issue specifically. I was addressing the apparent assertion that white people can't move to a neighborhood and also think that there are underlying reasons why an area is predominantly white and wealthy.

The DC minimum affordable housing requirement will mean that there is more affordable housing in the area.
The fact that it is currently public property is exactly what makes it different.
What is this "favored developer" you reference?

[Anonymous]

Maybe they will also have a cool bridge to sell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I always find funny about these “Ward 3 is white because of racism” folks is that they’re almost always white transplants who made the decision to move to ward 3. Ward 3 is white because that’s where white people like them decided to move, and then they cry that it’s racist that people like them decided to move there.

For instance, here’s Matt Frumin, who’s from Michigan:

“I’ve been saying this: Ward 3 came to look the way it did” — that is to say, White and rich — “because of exclusion based on intentional policies — exclusion and then segregation,” Frumin told me. “And we need intentional policies to remedy what happened in the past.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/01/31/making-dcs-ward-3-an-example-all-land/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_local

Frumin, the reason ward 3 is full of well-off white people like you is because that’s where you and other well-off white people like you decided to move to. You could have moved to any other neighborhood in the city if you thought white people moving to ward 3 was segregationist. But being a white person, moving to a neighborhood, and then acting like it’s a travesty when other white people do the same thing is idiotic.

(The article is funny too, because Frumin says ward 3 is white because of segregation, and then goes on to say that he thinks his black friend didn’t buy a house in Tenleytown because his friend didn’t want to be around so many white people.)

You really miss the point. It is in the bolded. And also this from the article:

"Today, White households in D.C. have 81 times the wealth of Black households — with 1,500 households in the city worth more than $30 million, according to the DC Fiscal Policy Institute."

Nobody is claiming that a white person's choice to move to the neighborhood is segregationist. They are claiming that the fact that more people have the opportunity to move to that neighborhood is the result of intentional policies in the past. And the belief that intentional policies are required in the present to remedy that.

I’d love to live in Potomac, but I can’t afford to. What about me?

I do think that more affordable housing should be developed in Potomac as well.

And the point is exclusionary policies that led to segregation in certain areas, as well as impeded generations from attaining wealth. That is what people are trying to remedy. They are not claiming that everyone should be able to afford to live anywhere.

Let’s be clear: the proposed public private partnership, whereby the library and community center sites are given over to a private developer, is supposed to have an affordable housing component. But there clearly is no fixed required percentage of affordable units right now (other than the DC statutory minimum) when a decision is being made on whether to proceed. So what is being proposed is more market-rate development with some undetermined amount of “affordable”, likely IZ units. Proponents keep telling us that this is about addressing long ago “exclusionary policies” and creating affordable housing, but never really show, much less explain, how more dense, mixed use is supposed to achieve those objectives. Indeed, we can see how this trickle-down growth experiment is playing out all around Ward 3. City Ridge is is fine but how is it affordable, particularly for families? How does Upton Place, marketed as one of DC’s “most exclusive” enclaves, address exclusion? Of course, these are private developments on privately owned land. Yet now the plan in Chevy Chase is to turn over public assets so a favored developer can do more of the same, but with only hopes and aspirations for some true affordability? We’re all suckers and fools if we continue to fall for the development industry’s trickle-down fanstasy dust.

Even how you phrase this is just flat out wrong.

The site will be redeveloped. It will still be owned by the city. The city will own and control the community center and library, The city will sign a grond lease for 99 years for the dwellings to be developed. So basically in exchange for a ground lease, a developer will build some number of units and redevelop the city owned property, which will still be city owned.

The RFP process will show to the city, what the best 'deal" is in terms of mix of unit types and degree of affordability. If the city doesn't get any offers t likes, it doesn't have to go forward with an award.

Please stop spewing lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I always find funny about these “Ward 3 is white because of racism” folks is that they’re almost always white transplants who made the decision to move to ward 3. Ward 3 is white because that’s where white people like them decided to move, and then they cry that it’s racist that people like them decided to move there.

For instance, here’s Matt Frumin, who’s from Michigan:

“I’ve been saying this: Ward 3 came to look the way it did” — that is to say, White and rich — “because of exclusion based on intentional policies — exclusion and then segregation,” Frumin told me. “And we need intentional policies to remedy what happened in the past.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/01/31/making-dcs-ward-3-an-example-all-land/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_local

Frumin, the reason ward 3 is full of well-off white people like you is because that’s where you and other well-off white people like you decided to move to. You could have moved to any other neighborhood in the city if you thought white people moving to ward 3 was segregationist. But being a white person, moving to a neighborhood, and then acting like it’s a travesty when other white people do the same thing is idiotic.

(The article is funny too, because Frumin says ward 3 is white because of segregation, and then goes on to say that he thinks his black friend didn’t buy a house in Tenleytown because his friend didn’t want to be around so many white people.)

You really miss the point. It is in the bolded. And also this from the article:

"Today, White households in D.C. have 81 times the wealth of Black households — with 1,500 households in the city worth more than $30 million, according to the DC Fiscal Policy Institute."

Nobody is claiming that a white person's choice to move to the neighborhood is segregationist. They are claiming that the fact that more people have the opportunity to move to that neighborhood is the result of intentional policies in the past. And the belief that intentional policies are required in the present to remedy that.

I’d love to live in Potomac, but I can’t afford to. What about me?

I do think that more affordable housing should be developed in Potomac as well.

And the point is exclusionary policies that led to segregation in certain areas, as well as impeded generations from attaining wealth. That is what people are trying to remedy. They are not claiming that everyone should be able to afford to live anywhere.

Let’s be clear: the proposed public private partnership, whereby the library and community center sites are given over to a private developer, is supposed to have an affordable housing component. But there clearly is no fixed required percentage of affordable units right now (other than the DC statutory minimum) when a decision is being made on whether to proceed. So what is being proposed is more market-rate development with some undetermined amount of “affordable”, likely IZ units. Proponents keep telling us that this is about addressing long ago “exclusionary policies” and creating affordable housing, but never really show, much less explain, how more dense, mixed use is supposed to achieve those objectives. Indeed, we can see how this trickle-down growth experiment is playing out all around Ward 3. City Ridge is is fine but how is it affordable, particularly for families? How does Upton Place, marketed as one of DC’s “most exclusive” enclaves, address exclusion? Of course, these are private developments on privately owned land. Yet now the plan in Chevy Chase is to turn over public assets so a favored developer can do more of the same, but with only hopes and aspirations for some true affordability? We’re all suckers and fools if we continue to fall for the development industry’s trickle-down fanstasy dust.

Even how you phrase this is just flat out wrong.

The site will be redeveloped. It will still be owned by the city. The city will own and control the community center and library, The city will sign a grond lease for 99 years for the dwellings to be developed. So basically in exchange for a ground lease, a developer will build some number of units and redevelop the city owned property, which will still be city owned.

The RFP process will show to the city, what the best 'deal" is in terms of mix of unit types and degree of affordability. If the city doesn't get any offers t likes, it doesn't have to go forward with an award.

Please stop spewing lies.

What could go wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I always find funny about these “Ward 3 is white because of racism” folks is that they’re almost always white transplants who made the decision to move to ward 3. Ward 3 is white because that’s where white people like them decided to move, and then they cry that it’s racist that people like them decided to move there.

For instance, here’s Matt Frumin, who’s from Michigan:

“I’ve been saying this: Ward 3 came to look the way it did” — that is to say, White and rich — “because of exclusion based on intentional policies — exclusion and then segregation,” Frumin told me. “And we need intentional policies to remedy what happened in the past.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/01/31/making-dcs-ward-3-an-example-all-land/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_local

Frumin, the reason ward 3 is full of well-off white people like you is because that’s where you and other well-off white people like you decided to move to. You could have moved to any other neighborhood in the city if you thought white people moving to ward 3 was segregationist. But being a white person, moving to a neighborhood, and then acting like it’s a travesty when other white people do the same thing is idiotic.

(The article is funny too, because Frumin says ward 3 is white because of segregation, and then goes on to say that he thinks his black friend didn’t buy a house in Tenleytown because his friend didn’t want to be around so many white people.)

You really miss the point. It is in the bolded. And also this from the article:

"Today, White households in D.C. have 81 times the wealth of Black households — with 1,500 households in the city worth more than $30 million, according to the DC Fiscal Policy Institute."

Nobody is claiming that a white person's choice to move to the neighborhood is segregationist. They are claiming that the fact that more people have the opportunity to move to that neighborhood is the result of intentional policies in the past. And the belief that intentional policies are required in the present to remedy that.

I’d love to live in Potomac, but I can’t afford to. What about me?

Advocate for more housing, and more different housing types, in Potomac.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I always find funny about these “Ward 3 is white because of racism” folks is that they’re almost always white transplants who made the decision to move to ward 3. Ward 3 is white because that’s where white people like them decided to move, and then they cry that it’s racist that people like them decided to move there.

For instance, here’s Matt Frumin, who’s from Michigan:

“I’ve been saying this: Ward 3 came to look the way it did” — that is to say, White and rich — “because of exclusion based on intentional policies — exclusion and then segregation,” Frumin told me. “And we need intentional policies to remedy what happened in the past.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/01/31/making-dcs-ward-3-an-example-all-land/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_local

Frumin, the reason ward 3 is full of well-off white people like you is because that’s where you and other well-off white people like you decided to move to. You could have moved to any other neighborhood in the city if you thought white people moving to ward 3 was segregationist. But being a white person, moving to a neighborhood, and then acting like it’s a travesty when other white people do the same thing is idiotic.

(The article is funny too, because Frumin says ward 3 is white because of segregation, and then goes on to say that he thinks his black friend didn’t buy a house in Tenleytown because his friend didn’t want to be around so many white people.)

You really miss the point. It is in the bolded. And also this from the article:

"Today, White households in D.C. have 81 times the wealth of Black households — with 1,500 households in the city worth more than $30 million, according to the DC Fiscal Policy Institute."

Nobody is claiming that a white person's choice to move to the neighborhood is segregationist. They are claiming that the fact that more people have the opportunity to move to that neighborhood is the result of intentional policies in the past. And the belief that intentional policies are required in the present to remedy that.

I’d love to live in Potomac, but I can’t afford to. What about me?

I do think that more affordable housing should be developed in Potomac as well.

And the point is exclusionary policies that led to segregation in certain areas, as well as impeded generations from attaining wealth. That is what people are trying to remedy. They are not claiming that everyone should be able to afford to live anywhere.

Let’s be clear: the proposed public private partnership, whereby the library and community center sites are given over to a private developer, is supposed to have an affordable housing component. But there clearly is no fixed required percentage of affordable units right now (other than the DC statutory minimum) when a decision is being made on whether to proceed. So what is being proposed is more market-rate development with some undetermined amount of “affordable”, likely IZ units. Proponents keep telling us that this is about addressing long ago “exclusionary policies” and creating affordable housing, but never really show, much less explain, how more dense, mixed use is supposed to achieve those objectives. Indeed, we can see how this trickle-down growth experiment is playing out all around Ward 3. City Ridge is is fine but how is it affordable, particularly for families? How does Upton Place, marketed as one of DC’s “most exclusive” enclaves, address exclusion? Of course, these are private developments on privately owned land. Yet now the plan in Chevy Chase is to turn over public assets so a favored developer can do more of the same, but with only hopes and aspirations for some true affordability? We’re all suckers and fools if we continue to fall for the development industry’s trickle-down fanstasy dust.

Even how you phrase this is just flat out wrong.

The site will be redeveloped. It will still be owned by the city. The city will own and control the community center and library, The city will sign a grond lease for 99 years for the dwellings to be developed. So basically in exchange for a ground lease, a developer will build some number of units and redevelop the city owned property, which will still be city owned.

The RFP process will show to the city, what the best 'deal" is in terms of mix of unit types and degree of affordability. If the city doesn't get any offers t likes, it doesn't have to go forward with an award.

Please stop spewing lies.

What could go wrong?

It won't be run by DCHA, it will be a private building with affordable/subsidized units. Like every other rental on CT Ave that isn't a condo. What could go wrong? I don't know, nothing different than say, the properties at Livingston and CT a couple of blocks down or 5333 that was built in the last decade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I always find funny about these “Ward 3 is white because of racism” folks is that they’re almost always white transplants who made the decision to move to ward 3. Ward 3 is white because that’s where white people like them decided to move, and then they cry that it’s racist that people like them decided to move there.

For instance, here’s Matt Frumin, who’s from Michigan:

“I’ve been saying this: Ward 3 came to look the way it did” — that is to say, White and rich — “because of exclusion based on intentional policies — exclusion and then segregation,” Frumin told me. “And we need intentional policies to remedy what happened in the past.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/01/31/making-dcs-ward-3-an-example-all-land/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_local

Frumin, the reason ward 3 is full of well-off white people like you is because that’s where you and other well-off white people like you decided to move to. You could have moved to any other neighborhood in the city if you thought white people moving to ward 3 was segregationist. But being a white person, moving to a neighborhood, and then acting like it’s a travesty when other white people do the same thing is idiotic.

(The article is funny too, because Frumin says ward 3 is white because of segregation, and then goes on to say that he thinks his black friend didn’t buy a house in Tenleytown because his friend didn’t want to be around so many white people.)

You really miss the point. It is in the bolded. And also this from the article:

"Today, White households in D.C. have 81 times the wealth of Black households — with 1,500 households in the city worth more than $30 million, according to the DC Fiscal Policy Institute."

Nobody is claiming that a white person's choice to move to the neighborhood is segregationist. They are claiming that the fact that more people have the opportunity to move to that neighborhood is the result of intentional policies in the past. And the belief that intentional policies are required in the present to remedy that.

I’d love to live in Potomac, but I can’t afford to. What about me?

I do think that more affordable housing should be developed in Potomac as well.

And the point is exclusionary policies that led to segregation in certain areas, as well as impeded generations from attaining wealth. That is what people are trying to remedy. They are not claiming that everyone should be able to afford to live anywhere.

Let’s be clear: the proposed public private partnership, whereby the library and community center sites are given over to a private developer, is supposed to have an affordable housing component. But there clearly is no fixed required percentage of affordable units right now (other than the DC statutory minimum) when a decision is being made on whether to proceed. So what is being proposed is more market-rate development with some undetermined amount of “affordable”, likely IZ units. Proponents keep telling us that this is about addressing long ago “exclusionary policies” and creating affordable housing, but never really show, much less explain, how more dense, mixed use is supposed to achieve those objectives. Indeed, we can see how this trickle-down growth experiment is playing out all around Ward 3. City Ridge is is fine but how is it affordable, particularly for families? How does Upton Place, marketed as one of DC’s “most exclusive” enclaves, address exclusion? Of course, these are private developments on privately owned land. Yet now the plan in Chevy Chase is to turn over public assets so a favored developer can do more of the same, but with only hopes and aspirations for some true affordability? We’re all suckers and fools if we continue to fall for the development industry’s trickle-down fanstasy dust.

Even how you phrase this is just flat out wrong.

The site will be redeveloped. It will still be owned by the city. The city will own and control the community center and library, The city will sign a grond lease for 99 years for the dwellings to be developed. So basically in exchange for a ground lease, a developer will build some number of units and redevelop the city owned property, which will still be city owned.

The RFP process will show to the city, what the best 'deal" is in terms of mix of unit types and degree of affordability. If the city doesn't get any offers t likes, it doesn't have to go forward with an award.

Please stop spewing lies.

What could go wrong?

It won't be run by DCHA, it will be a private building with affordable/subsidized units. Like every other rental on CT Ave that isn't a condo. What could go wrong? I don't know, nothing different than say, the properties at Livingston and CT a couple of blocks down or 5333 that was built in the last decade.

So the plan is to take public assets, add significant building density in what is essentially a public park, to create a mostly market-rate, private development like 5333 Connecticut Avenue? That's a very questionable "deal" all around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where did the bolded happen?

Charle Allen not only saying specifically he was for defunding the police, but laying out exactly how he and the Council were doing it in a Tweet, and then telling Congress he was never for that. A lot of defund folks are now claiming they were never for that, look at Councilmember comments from the summer of 2020, and many were in favor of shrinking the police force. Not to mention the number of people having to walk back the idea that crime isn’t a big problem now. See Mendelson awkwardly trying to walk back saying that there was no crime crisis and it was a problem of perception just a few months ago.

People pretending this doesn’t happen are actively trying to mislead people.

Anonymous wrote:And you don't dispute that the tweet does not say that people should be able to build tent encampments wherever they want, right?

If you’re opposed to no-tent zones, as he clearly is in the Tweet, I don’t see how you can say he isn’t in favor of allowing people to put tents anywhere. I mean, this is pretty fundamental reading comperhension. If a person isn’t allowed to put up there tent somewhere, it’s a no-tent area. If there aren’t any no-tent areas, then someone can put there tent anywhere.

I don’t really know why far-Left activists can’t be honest about what they actively stand for. Far-Right folk don’t say “we’re for removing all restrictions on guns, but that doesn’t mean we’re in favor of anyone being able to get guns whenever they want.” Buf for some reason this happens all the time with the far-Left - arguing against having any restrictions on something, and then saying it’s a lie to claim they’re in favor of letting people do whatever they want with no restrictions.