Chevy Chase Community Center Redevelopment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

There is a difference between affordable housing subsidies for the working middle class and section 8/voucher housing.
What is proposed for Chevy Chase is the former, not the latter.

Stop conflating the two. It will be an apartment building, not a facility that requires wraparound services.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The reference to 5333 was in that it is a new building. We don't know the mix yet of affordable versus market rate, or what degree of affordability - 30% AMI or 50% AMI or 80% AMI etc - that is what the developers will be proposing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What he wants is more public investment in housing and affordable housing so that we don't need tent cities. The policy failure is in not having enough housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: 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.

Wealthy white people like Frumin buy housing in Tenleytown is the reason why it's predominantly white and wealthy. If white people like him didn’t want to buy, it wouldn’t be so white.

That might seem overly simplistic, but that’s exactly what happened to the majority of white-only neighborhoods in the city. Go look at a map of where the racial covenants were. Most of those places became almost all black within a few decades after white people moved out. The long complicated, multi-faceted, historical, etc. reason that some people love to bring somehow didn’t prevent these all-white neighborhoods from quickly turning to almost all-black neighborhoods as soon as white people didn’t want to move there anymore. The white population in the city itself dropped from 72% in 1940 to 28% in 1970, with a corresponding rise in the black population, from 28% to 71%.

We see the reverse is true as well - plenty of plenty of neighborhoods that had no white people have suddenly gained a lot of white residents now that white people want to move their. When black residents became interested in moving into white suburbs, those suburbs quickly became majority black (PG County went from being 15% black to over 60% black in 30 years). You see this across the city and across demographics groups - white neighborhoods turning black, black neighborhoods turning white, white neighborhoods turning Hispanic, Chinatown in D.C. disappearing and moving to the suburbs, etc.

So yes, it’s ridiculous for Frumin to do the very thing that causes Tenleytown to be a cluster of wealthy white people, and then say he’s opposed to that clustering. People like him are the entire reason why the area is that white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The reference to 5333 was in that it is a new building. We don't know the mix yet of affordable versus market rate, or what degree of affordability - 30% AMI or 50% AMI or 80% AMI etc - that is what the developers will be proposing.

So, it's let's gamble on a public asset and see what developers are willing to do -- when there is no shortage of apartments for rent in Northwest DC, when landlords are again offering rent concessions, when there's an overhang of downtown office space that could be converted to residential, and when the commercial real estate finance market has seized up. If one thinks that a developer is going to "offer" significantly more IZ housing than the DC statutory minimum in this market, that's totally naive. Or maybe it's the Office of Planning and the development lobby that thinks DC residents will continue to be gullible.

[Anonymous]

The most likely scenario if DC goes down the road of a "public private partnership" to develop housing on the Chevy Chase DC library site is that developers will come back with a project is is heavily market-rate housing and not much more affordable than what the law requires anyway. By then the Bowser administration will tell the the community that it has budgeted few funds for a new library and community center, so if Chevy Chase wants new facilities it will have to take something like 5333 Connecticut on this public site. Basically, take it or shove it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The most likely scenario if DC goes down the road of a "public private partnership" to develop housing on the Chevy Chase DC library site is that developers will come back with a project is is heavily market-rate housing and not much more affordable than what the law requires anyway. By then the Bowser administration will tell the the community that it has budgeted few funds for a new library and community center, so if Chevy Chase wants new facilities it will have to take something like 5333 Connecticut on this public site. Basically, take it or shove it.

It's funny...the 5333 Connecticut Avenue was going to be the end of the world for all the people opposed. It got built...and crickets. Because nobody cares. Traffic didn't get horrifically worse...house values immediately adjacent held up just fine, etc. All the horrible things that were going to happen...of course didn't happen.

It's another apartment/condo building in a city filled with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The reference to 5333 was in that it is a new building. We don't know the mix yet of affordable versus market rate, or what degree of affordability - 30% AMI or 50% AMI or 80% AMI etc - that is what the developers will be proposing.

So, it's let's gamble on a public asset and see what developers are willing to do -- when there is no shortage of apartments for rent in Northwest DC, when landlords are again offering rent concessions, when there's an overhang of downtown office space that could be converted to residential, and when the commercial real estate finance market has seized up. If one thinks that a developer is going to "offer" significantly more IZ housing than the DC statutory minimum in this market, that's totally naive. Or maybe it's the Office of Planning and the development lobby that thinks DC residents will continue to be gullible.

If there aren't acceptable proposals, the city won't move forward. This isn't hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most likely scenario if DC goes down the road of a "public private partnership" to develop housing on the Chevy Chase DC library site is that developers will come back with a project is is heavily market-rate housing and not much more affordable than what the law requires anyway. By then the Bowser administration will tell the the community that it has budgeted few funds for a new library and community center, so if Chevy Chase wants new facilities it will have to take something like 5333 Connecticut on this public site. Basically, take it or shove it.

It's funny...the 5333 Connecticut Avenue was going to be the end of the world for all the people opposed. It got built...and crickets. Because nobody cares. Traffic didn't get horrifically worse...house values immediately adjacent held up just fine, etc. All the horrible things that were going to happen...of course didn't happen.

It's another apartment/condo building in a city filled with them.

This is true of...everything.

Tenley View and it's no parking provision;
AU Law School;
AU dorms;
Temp shelter on Idaho Ave;
GDS school;
Speed humps on XXX street (all of them and too many to list)
Sidewalks on XXX street (all of them, too many to list)
Cathedral Commons (aka Cleveland Park Giant)

People don't like change, but cities are evolutionary and need to adapt to growth and conditions. The idea that nothing should change, that everything be locked as is, is crazy and is not how anything in humankind has worked. The only thing these fights do is expose the crazy for who they are and cause rancor and divisiveness.

Literally everything gets challenged by the NIMBYs as "the end of the neighborhood" or "destroying the community" and literally nothing has dramatically changed.

[Anonymous]

Nope. The city will take anything it can get. Bowser is desperate to please developers who are leaving in droves and refusing tax breaks because DC has become a crime ridden corrupt dysfunctional dystopia. Handing over public land for a dime is just one of many tactics that won’t work. And it’s crazy naive of clergy and ANC commissioners to Greenlight any of it. Bowser needs to dig out of her own hole some other way.

[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.)

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.

And the Wisconsin corridor and Cleveland Park as well.

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.

Increased crime, visible drug dealing and anti-social behavior such as used diapers strewn in public spaces and metal and plastic flushed in plumbing fixtures leading to floods is not a "rich tapestry." PSH vouchers suggest that people will be dependent on the taxpayer for food, housing and medical care for LIFE. This is not giving pro-social working poor opportunities that they will run with.

[Anonymous]

From the public hearing Friday I thought this testimony was worth taking seriously

My name is ____, 45-year resident of Chevy Chase, retired three term
Chevy Chase ANC Commissioner. and Past President of the Chevy Chase
Community Association.

The subject Bill is deeply flawed. It is confusing, wrong on the facts, it
establishes poor public policy, and is deceitful about its intent. It should be
rejected.

Community members are confused why the Bill unfairly singles out Chevy Chase
for negative attention. Racially explicit deed restrictions can be found in virtually
every ward and neighborhood, affec􀆟ng thousands of households across
Washington DC. The prize-winning study, Mapping Segregation in Washington DC
(arcgis.com) bears this out, see Figure1. Every neighborhood in Ward 3 has
restrictive covenants in old deeds. Does the Councilmember intend to pursue
similar Bills for every neighborhood in Ward 3 or just discriminate against Chevy
Chase?

A puzzling element is that the Bill, while citing Chevy Chase in its title, directs
legislation at only four Tax Squares out of hundreds once owned by the Chevy
Chase Land Company (CCLC). What’s so special about these four? They are
occupied by a Presbyterian Church, a Safeway, a Wells Fargo Bank, the Chevy
Chase Library/Community Center (CC Commons) and 95 households. Except for
the CC Commons, not one of the proper􀆟es intends to consider building an
apartment building in the foreseeable future.

That leaves the CC Commons. It is the one and only property where an apartment
building is contemplated by the city. The administration is planning to upzone the
CC Commons in preparation for an RFP solicitation to developers. The back 40% of
the property deeded in 1909 is subject to the “no-apartment house” covenant.
I am proud to say that my research on the CC Commons inadvertently unearthed
its two deeds, the first in 1897 and the second in 1909. Both deeds transferred
land to the District government for a school.

The 1897 deed had no covenants. The 1909 deed had two: the first prevented
stables except in the rear of the property and required a 15-foot setback from the
street. These have been superseded by modern DC zoning.

The 1909 covenant is more vexing. It reads: “That no Apartment house or houses
shall be erected thereon.” The Councilmember, in his transmi􀆩al le􀆩er says that
“Such covenants appear to have been intended to exclude residents on the basis
of race and socioeconomic status.” It’s a wishy-washy statement because it’s not
truthful. The Councilmember has based his conclusion on a poor reading of
history and conjecture built up conjecture.

If the no- apartment house covenant was racist then the Fair Housing Act voids it.
If it is not racist, then why create this bill? By contrast, many turn-of-the-century
developers clearly used abhorrent language in their restrictive covenants. The
Chevy Chase Land Company (CCLC) could have easily inserted racial, religious, or
similar restrictions if it cared to do that, but it didn’t. I contend the true reason for
the covenant is that CCLC wanted to create a low-density, single-family housing
community. It is the simplest answer, and all the historic evidence points that way.

The Act should be rejected because it is wrong on the facts, and it establishes
poor public policy. It will harm ninety-five families with homes in those squares. It
doesn’t address housing segregation across Chevy Chase or across DC. 

The heart of the matter is that the legislation is solely meant to pave the way for an
apartment building on the Chevy Chase Commons and if it were open and transparent, it would say so. 


So why not be upfront and prepare a Bill to overturn
the covenant at the CC Commons and see how that goes?

[Anonymous]

If the frontage along Connecticut Avenue permits apartments yet the back 40 percent of the parcel (where the parking lot is) has a deed restriction, doesn't that undercut the inference that the limited restriction was intended to racially exclusionary? An equally, if not more plausible conclusion is that the deed restriction was intended to provide a buffer between taller commercial and multifamily uses along the avenue and the lower-density single family housing behind. The other question is, if multifamily housing were to be on built on library site why couldn't it be built closer to Connecticut with lower height and density stepping down to the east? DC must be planning a rather large development project if it's so important to remove the restriction on the back 40 percent next to the houses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nope. The city will take anything it can get. Bowser is desperate to please developers who are leaving in droves and refusing tax breaks because DC has become a crime ridden corrupt dysfunctional dystopia. Handing over public land for a dime is just one of many tactics that won’t work. And it’s crazy naive of clergy and ANC commissioners to Greenlight any of it. Bowser needs to dig out of her own hole some other way.

The clergy are YIYBYs - "yes, in your back yard" advocates. They would have more credibility if their respective religious institutions were developing affordable housing on their own sites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most likely scenario if DC goes down the road of a "public private partnership" to develop housing on the Chevy Chase DC library site is that developers will come back with a project is is heavily market-rate housing and not much more affordable than what the law requires anyway. By then the Bowser administration will tell the the community that it has budgeted few funds for a new library and community center, so if Chevy Chase wants new facilities it will have to take something like 5333 Connecticut on this public site. Basically, take it or shove it.

It's funny...the 5333 Connecticut Avenue was going to be the end of the world for all the people opposed. It got built...and crickets. Because nobody cares. Traffic didn't get horrifically worse...house values immediately adjacent held up just fine, etc. All the horrible things that were going to happen...of course didn't happen.

It's another apartment/condo building in a city filled with them.

Where is all of the affordable housing? It's like 8 percent "inclusionary zoning," which is not really affordable. It's really just more upmarket flats that are generally too small for families, just like City Ridge. And yet Bowser, GGW, Smart Growth, etc. continue to sell more of the same market rate apartments and condos throughout Ward 3 as affordable housing. People are starting to see through the bullshit.