Chevy Chase Community Center Redevelopment
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
All this for rental apartments? Wonder what the overlap is between supporters of this and opponents of the stadium deals. |
Anonymous
Sure, be mad that the specifics aren't worked out yet. And it is fair to be skeptical that the goal will be achieved. But it isn't wrong to have a goal/vision. I was just answering the question about 99y ground leases. They are common and the city does generate significant revenue from them. It is not as though they are getting 0 and forfeiting 99 years of property taxes. |
Anonymous
"In a long-term ground-lease structure, a private party or governmental entity owns a development site, leases the land to a developer and receives rent over the term of the lease. This structure has become a very common element in the US real estate market......For landowners, a ground-lease structure creates plenty of benefits. A successful development project by the ground tenant creates a long-term secure passive income stream. Long-term ownership is retained. Control over development can be exercised, a critical issue for public land owners. Ownership of the improvements vests in the landowner at the end of the lease term. Public-entity landowners have become more appreciative of a ground-lease structure as an alternative to sale. In addition to realising the economic benefits of a public/private partnership, public landowners can try to achieve social goals in a proprietary capacity that can go beyond what they may do in their governmental capacity. These can include imposition of architectural and design requirements, affordable housing requirements in rental housing developments, local and disadvantaged worker hiring obligations, prevailing wage requirements, and other public benefits, such as public parking, day-care facilities, community rooms, and bicycle storage and repair operations. The ground-lease structure can allow the governmental entity to impose these costs on the developer in exchange for the developer’s paying less rent, thus avoiding the scrutiny and challenges that might arise if the costs appeared in an actual governmental budget." https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4a590ad1-647d-46ad-8a70-0505a31fa0a9 |
Anonymous
Actually they are common. There are several public facilities just in NW DC that has them including the West End library and the Apple store on Mt Vernon Square. |
Anonymous
That is literally what I said? |
Anonymous
This all sounds lofty and inspirational. But what is the minimum amount of affordable housing that this project must contain in order for a developer to be able to develop this public asset? |
Anonymous
| I think social housing is nice in theory, but do we really expect people to pay market rates for units in a building where 2/3 are affordable or deeply affordable? How does that work in other cities? |
Anonymous
Let's just be clear on issues: It was asserted that a ground-lease was uncommon and a bad deal for the city. I was responding to that assertion. On to this distinct assertion: Regular IZ set-aside requirements for affordable units are generally as follows: 8%-8.33% of the total residential floor area for buildings constructed out of steel and concrete, and 10%-12.5% of the total residential floor area for buildings constructed out of wood. https://planning.dc.gov/inclusionaryzoning#:~:text=Regular%20IZ%20set-aside%20requirements%20for%20affordable%20units%20are,floor%20area%20for%20buildings%20constructed%20out%20of%20wood. |
Anonymous
The required MPDU (moderately priced dwelling units) can be somewhat smaller or have less expensive internal finishes than the market rate units. They just need to blend in with the rest of the units. You pay more, you get more. |
Anonymous
By city law, 30% is the minimum. But it could be more depending on the AMI requirements and what the developer is willing to offer. |
Anonymous
IZ doesn't really apply here because of the surplussing and city RFP process. Per my previous post, 30% will be the minimum. |
Anonymous
PP here, and I shouldn't have posted so quick. This may not be the most accurate. Disregard and I'll try to find it. PP above says 30%... |
Anonymous
Of course. The developer who is likely a heavy donor to the mayor, right? Anyone see this? Does not bode all that well re: management of this project or the silly co-housing ideas. Bowser's agencies are administrative disasters. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/dc-sold-properties-for-affordable-housing-half-are-still-vacant/ar-AA1loOwz |
Anonymous
Any evidence that ground leases are better for the developer? The article cited above says it is a better deal for the owner/city Also any evidence that a hypothetical developer will be a heavy donor to the mayor? I'm sincerely asking. I did a little digging and found a scandal regarding a donor from 2017: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-council-report-bowser-administration-favored-top-donor-in-contracting/2017/06/14/5799a712-5134-11e7-b064-828ba60fbb98_story.html But I don't see any other issues or anything in the past six years... |
Anonymous
Whether or not it's a good deal for the city will entirely depend on the terms of the lease. Both the amount of rent and any potential costs borne by the city. The only thing that is certain is that it won't be anywhere near as rosy as the proponents proclaim. The history of this mayor, this council and this ANC does not fill one with confidence. There will be more shoes to drop. |