Chevy Chase Community Center Redevelopment

[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.

And yet, if I put my house on the market, there would be a bidding war into the 7 figures for it. So calling the city a corrupt crime-riddled distopia doesn;t really do anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: 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.

The area had single family homes on it to CT Ave until the commercial area was developed. Where the Safeway is was originally 6 or 8 single family homes.

The exclusion of apartment houses was to keep "the riff raff" out. Nothing more, nothing less. Trying to ascribe a different motive 120 years later is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Many of them are, or already have. You can see examples of churches and temples around the city that have taken on mission oriented housing projects. If you were aware of that, you wouldn't have made your silly comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

5333 CT Ave and City Ridge were both matter of right projects where the developers did the bare minimum on the IZ side. So I guess you are saying the IZ rules should be more stringent? I agree. As such, you should be joining GGW, Ward 3 Vision and the others, who have been asking for that for years/decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't know, but I also don't care. 5333 Connecticut was built on private land owned by the developer without any city assistance.

Just pointing out that building any apartment building in a city and area where there are hundreds, is a non-event.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't know, but I also don't care. 5333 Connecticut was built on private land owned by the developer without any city assistance.

Just pointing out that building any apartment building in a city and area where there are hundreds, is a non-event.

The Chevy Chase commons is publicly-owned land which could be made available on very attractive terms to a developer. But there are no fixed, meaningfully higher requirements for affordable housing. It's just like "let's see what a creative developer does in the RFP." So why should the community then expect any meaningfully different result? The bottom line is that the District wants to monetize this community asset for market-rate development and likely will take whatever "affordable" crumbs it can get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Many of them are, or already have. You can see examples of churches and temples around the city that have taken on mission oriented housing projects. If you were aware of that, you wouldn't have made your silly comment.

"Pray tell" us which of the signers' congregations are developing affordable housing on their properties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: 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.

The area had single family homes on it to CT Ave until the commercial area was developed. Where the Safeway is was originally 6 or 8 single family homes.

The exclusion of apartment houses was to keep "the riff raff" out. Nothing more, nothing less. Trying to ascribe a different motive 120 years later is ridiculous.

There seems to be a misconception that Ward 3 has lower population density than other Wards. That's simply not the case. Wards 4, 7, 8 and 9 all have fewer housing units. Like Ward 3, Ward 4 is highly residential and filled with single family homes. Where is the call to add density to Ward 4? Ward 3 is being unfairly singled out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: 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.

The area had single family homes on it to CT Ave until the commercial area was developed. Where the Safeway is was originally 6 or 8 single family homes.

The exclusion of apartment houses was to keep "the riff raff" out. Nothing more, nothing less. Trying to ascribe a different motive 120 years later is ridiculous.

There seems to be a misconception that Ward 3 has lower population density than other Wards. That's simply not the case. Wards 4, 7, 8 and 9 all have fewer housing units. Like Ward 3, Ward 4 is highly residential and filled with single family homes. Where is the call to add density to Ward 4? Ward 3 is being unfairly singled out.

I guess you missed all the new development and affordable housing along GA Ave, just to name one area that has hundreds of new units.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: 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.

The area had single family homes on it to CT Ave until the commercial area was developed. Where the Safeway is was originally 6 or 8 single family homes.

The exclusion of apartment houses was to keep "the riff raff" out. Nothing more, nothing less. Trying to ascribe a different motive 120 years later is ridiculous.

There seems to be a misconception that Ward 3 has lower population density than other Wards. That's simply not the case. Wards 4, 7, 8 and 9 all have fewer housing units. Like Ward 3, Ward 4 is highly residential and filled with single family homes. Where is the call to add density to Ward 4? Ward 3 is being unfairly singled out.

I guess you missed all the new development and affordable housing along GA Ave, just to name one area that has hundreds of new units.

Great, now they have just a little over 7,000 units to go to catch up to Ward 3.

[Anonymous]

The PR efforts have been aggressive on this parcel. Most disturbing is that clergy have been manipulated .

If I was a member of any of the congregations or churches led by the signers of the op ed : Aaron Alexander (Adas Israel) Hannah Goldstein ( Temple Sinai), Ledlie I. Laughlin ( St Columba's) Rachel Livingston and Doug Robinson-Johnson ( National UMC) and Molly Blythe Teichert ( CCPC), I would be irate. Did they even ask their members or their Boards where they stood on this issue that is truly dividing the community ?? They signed a fake-lofty piece of strategic PR that commercial interests likely wrote and put in front of them. 

It’s shameful to squander one's well won credibility for a bunch of developers using them to bolster a land grab.  How dumb are they ? 
1. Do they know where their own members and Board stand on the issues?  Or did they poll their members ? 
2. They could easily have said they support the social justice efforts on racial covenants and affordable housing but explicitly abstain from commenting on the issue of whether to offer the public land to private interests. 
3. Was a back door deal done with any of them ? Were they promised a donation or some-such? Who wrote the op-Ed for them ? Are they willing to explain to their members exactly how this came about ? 

Amazing they didn’t know bringing in the clergy was literally the oldest trick in the book. It's not leadership to throw your name onto a PR piece that's being used for political purposes. I'm sure many many others wisely said no before this crew got seduced. 

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: 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.

The area had single family homes on it to CT Ave until the commercial area was developed. Where the Safeway is was originally 6 or 8 single family homes.

The exclusion of apartment houses was to keep "the riff raff" out. Nothing more, nothing less. Trying to ascribe a different motive 120 years later is ridiculous.

There seems to be a misconception that Ward 3 has lower population density than other Wards. That's simply not the case. Wards 4, 7, 8 and 9 all have fewer housing units. Like Ward 3, Ward 4 is highly residential and filled with single family homes. Where is the call to add density to Ward 4? Ward 3 is being unfairly singled out.

https://www.dcnewsnow.com/news/local-news/washington-dc/almost-200-homes-coming-to-ward-4/
https://www.dfmdevelopment.com/news/permit-expediting/permit-expediting-in-dc/https://www.dfmdevelopment.com/news/permit-expediting/permit-expediting-in-dc/
https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2022/07/11/2477327/0/en/DCHFA-s-Investment-Expands-Affordable-Housing-in-Ward-4.html
https://dhcd.dc.gov/release/dhcd-financing-produce-affordable-units-ward-4

You're just not paying attention to other wards...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These data https://ggwash.org/view/91763/historic-districts-may-be-preserving-racial-segregation-in-dc

These data https://ggwash.org/view/91763/historic-districts-may-be-preserving-racial-segregation-in-dc


Just a glance at that guy's Twitter account will tell you a lot. He's extremely obsessed with his idea that Ward 3 is too white, and with bike lanes. He also thinks that homeless should be allowed to create tent encampments wherever they want, and the council candidate he was cheering for was against adding more police to the police force.

https://twitter.com/BobWardDC/status/1529271823736655873
https://twitter.com/theBeauFinley/status/1522761701279649792

I've given up even engaging with people like that at this point. If you're in favor of tent cities and defunding the police, you're simply so far gone that it's going to be a waste of time to even try having a conversation.

That’s not entirely correct. The source of the "data" cited, with Cleveland Pk Smart Growth, is likely not a woke progressive. He was national pollster for Trump and has other strong ties to MAGA world. He backed an unsuccessful Ward-3 Council candidate because that candidate was staunchly pro-development as an ANC chair. His claims in GGW like “designating Chevy Chase, or parts of it, as historic could permanently prevent it from being meaningfully racially or economically integrated” are not credible and should not be taken at face value; instead, they appear as simply a calculated argument to sell up-zoning and dense development in Chevy Chase and Ward 3 to a DC audience.

[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?

It's challenging to do smart transit-oriented development in Potomac.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The PR efforts have been aggressive on this parcel. Most disturbing is that clergy have been manipulated .

If I was a member of any of the congregations or churches led by the signers of the op ed : Aaron Alexander (Adas Israel) Hannah Goldstein ( Temple Sinai), Ledlie I. Laughlin ( St Columba's) Rachel Livingston and Doug Robinson-Johnson ( National UMC) and Molly Blythe Teichert ( CCPC), I would be irate. Did they even ask their members or their Boards where they stood on this issue that is truly dividing the community ?? They signed a fake-lofty piece of strategic PR that commercial interests likely wrote and put in front of them. 

It’s shameful to squander one's well won credibility for a bunch of developers using them to bolster a land grab.  How dumb are they ? 
1. Do they know where their own members and Board stand on the issues?  Or did they poll their members ? 
2. They could easily have said they support the social justice efforts on racial covenants and affordable housing but explicitly abstain from commenting on the issue of whether to offer the public land to private interests. 
3. Was a back door deal done with any of them ? Were they promised a donation or some-such? Who wrote the op-Ed for them ? Are they willing to explain to their members exactly how this came about ? 

Amazing they didn’t know bringing in the clergy was literally the oldest trick in the book. It's not leadership to throw your name onto a PR piece that's being used for political purposes. I'm sure many many others wisely said no before this crew got seduced. 

So, I guess you are opposed to development on the site.

Just because these faith leaders may actually support the development, does not warrant your blatant, anti-religious screed.

Some of the things you are alleging are quite outrageous and unwarranted. Especially the implication that they were bribed.