Chevy Chase Community Center Redevelopment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This does not bode well for downtown. Wonder how tightening credit may impact the CC project?

https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2023/12/07/dc-madison-highland-office-conversion-treasury.html

Not as much. Because DC is retaining the land and entering into a 99-year ground lease with the developer, the developer will not have to pay the land acquisition costs for the Civic Core. This provides more project flexibility.

How is that better? DC takes on the main risk + doesn't get any property tax revenue.

It’s better for the developer.

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

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...

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.

The bolded is a fair point, but that also holds that it is not necessarily "better for the developer" right?
And as a general rule, as pointed out the in cited article, ground leases are popular because they are beneficial to the owner...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

Chevy Chase Rec Center is a mile from the metro station. This has nothing to do with "transit-oriented development".

It's actualy 7/10 of a mile from the metro station. I don't get it...if you are within a mile of a metro station, then you are close to a metro station.

It's also across the street from a Bus Depot. That's mass transit too. Although you can be forgiven for forgetting that, since you're above riding on a bus.

That's not a bus depot. You would know that if you either lived in the area or took the bus.

Let's see.. its a large area with a parking lot where buses come east and west and head south, where they engage in transfers, where there's shelter, and an inside area with a bathroom. What do you want me to call it? A really nice bus stop?

And that's where you gave yourself away as someone that not only doesn't live in the area but also doesn't take the bus.

I take the L2 at Nebraska and Conn down to admo and back. I don't live in MD and I have no compelling reason to travel north of DC to there, so no reason to transfer to the MTA bus.

The only bus that goes there is the L2.

The E4 ceased to exist?

The E4 doesn't go there

It's a block away.. that's a transfer point... less walking to get to the E4 than to change from red to green at gallery place..

In point of fact it is not a transfer point. The bus depot for the area is at Friendship Heights.

It's a bit ironic that you don't know any of this because that location is developer manna.

It is a transfer point to MTA. And you can hop on the E4 to go to Friendship Heights. Why is this so hard for you?

Wrong again.

The E4 crosses Connecticut on a different street.

Because you are making up bullshit.

DP. I'm looking at Google Maps. The E4 and L2 both have stops at Connecticut/McKinley, and it's a 16-minute walk from Connecticut/McKinley to Friendship Heights Metro. What are you arguing about?

Just open up the previous replies. It's very straight forward.

IT CROSSES ONE FREAKING BLOCK SOUTH OF THE BUS TRANSFER STOP

2.5 blocks since you're counting. You can't even be honest about that. Regardless, it's not a bus depot, transfer station or anything else you're pretending it to be. Remember that this all started because you were trying to make something up to double down on your fallacious claim that this is transit oriented development.

It's the rampant dishonesty and ascerbic insults that engenders the strident opposition.

It's the pedantisms and sophistry of the "strident opposition" that engenders proponents of these projects to maintain it's positions.

It is less than 2 blocks. It's not 1, okay. But its not 2.5 either. From the bus area to northampton is (generously) 1 block. From Northampton to McKinley, another. Regardless of this - if you are coming in from MTA you can get off at that stop just south the circle. From there, you can get on the L2. OR you can walk for 3 minutes to get on the E4. Or you can walk <1 block north and get on the L8.

So yes. It is transit orientated development, as it's served by multiple bus lines, 2 of which connect to red line stations within 10 minutes of hopping on, and eventually, that MTA heading north will connect to the Purple line as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This does not bode well for downtown. Wonder how tightening credit may impact the CC project?

https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2023/12/07/dc-madison-highland-office-conversion-treasury.html

Not as much. Because DC is retaining the land and entering into a 99-year ground lease with the developer, the developer will not have to pay the land acquisition costs for the Civic Core. This provides more project flexibility.

How is that better? DC takes on the main risk + doesn't get any property tax revenue.

DC gets lease payments equivalent or greater than tax revenue. It is locked in and a safer revenue stream for the city. It is a normal and common practice.

Are you correct or is the poster after you?

What are the size of these lease payments?

I don't know what the exact terms are, because no ground lease has been executed. But if you want to know more about how common these are, here are some sources:

https://www.fool.com/investing/stock-market/market-sectors/real-estate-investing/commercial-real-estate/ground-lease/
https://www.rockefellergroup.com/news/jv-led-by-stonebridge-and-rockefeller-group-officially-breaks-ground-on-washington-d-c-s-first-new-office-development-of-2023/
https://dmped.dc.gov/page/waterfront-station-ii

We don't know what the projected lease payments are or how much "affordable" housing the development will contain.

But the future for the "Chevy Chase Civic Core" is welcoming, vibrant, inclusive, equitable and glorious!*

* for the crony developer that is chosen.

Sounds like a great and glorious future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

Chevy Chase Rec Center is a mile from the metro station. This has nothing to do with "transit-oriented development".

It's actualy 7/10 of a mile from the metro station. I don't get it...if you are within a mile of a metro station, then you are close to a metro station.

It's also across the street from a Bus Depot. That's mass transit too. Although you can be forgiven for forgetting that, since you're above riding on a bus.

That's not a bus depot. You would know that if you either lived in the area or took the bus.

Let's see.. its a large area with a parking lot where buses come east and west and head south, where they engage in transfers, where there's shelter, and an inside area with a bathroom. What do you want me to call it? A really nice bus stop?

And that's where you gave yourself away as someone that not only doesn't live in the area but also doesn't take the bus.

I take the L2 at Nebraska and Conn down to admo and back. I don't live in MD and I have no compelling reason to travel north of DC to there, so no reason to transfer to the MTA bus.

The only bus that goes there is the L2.

The E4 ceased to exist?

The E4 doesn't go there

It's a block away.. that's a transfer point... less walking to get to the E4 than to change from red to green at gallery place..

In point of fact it is not a transfer point. The bus depot for the area is at Friendship Heights.

It's a bit ironic that you don't know any of this because that location is developer manna.

It is a transfer point to MTA. And you can hop on the E4 to go to Friendship Heights. Why is this so hard for you?

Wrong again.

The E4 crosses Connecticut on a different street.

Because you are making up bullshit.

DP. I'm looking at Google Maps. The E4 and L2 both have stops at Connecticut/McKinley, and it's a 16-minute walk from Connecticut/McKinley to Friendship Heights Metro. What are you arguing about?

Just open up the previous replies. It's very straight forward.

IT CROSSES ONE FREAKING BLOCK SOUTH OF THE BUS TRANSFER STOP

2.5 blocks since you're counting. You can't even be honest about that. Regardless, it's not a bus depot, transfer station or anything else you're pretending it to be. Remember that this all started because you were trying to make something up to double down on your fallacious claim that this is transit oriented development.

It's the rampant dishonesty and ascerbic insults that engenders the strident opposition.

It's the pedantisms and sophistry of the "strident opposition" that engenders proponents of these projects to maintain it's positions.

It is less than 2 blocks. It's not 1, okay. But its not 2.5 either. From the bus area to northampton is (generously) 1 block. From Northampton to McKinley, another. Regardless of this - if you are coming in from MTA you can get off at that stop just south the circle. From there, you can get on the L2. OR you can walk for 3 minutes to get on the E4. Or you can walk <1 block north and get on the L8.

So yes. It is transit orientated development, as it's served by multiple bus lines, 2 of which connect to red line stations within 10 minutes of hopping on, and eventually, that MTA heading north will connect to the Purple line as well.

Not PP. But this is the kinda stuff I love coming to Nextdoor, I mean DCUM, to see - a couple of people engaged in a trivial argument over nitpicking stuff.

Also, WMATA calls it a "bus terminal", of which there seem to be only three in the city. So that seems cool.

But carry on!

[Anonymous]

The Chevy Chase bus depot would be a smart site for dense mixed-use residential-retail development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This does not bode well for downtown. Wonder how tightening credit may impact the CC project?

https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2023/12/07/dc-madison-highland-office-conversion-treasury.html

Not as much. Because DC is retaining the land and entering into a 99-year ground lease with the developer, the developer will not have to pay the land acquisition costs for the Civic Core. This provides more project flexibility.

How is that better? DC takes on the main risk + doesn't get any property tax revenue.

It’s better for the developer.

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

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...

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.

The bolded is a fair point, but that also holds that it is not necessarily "better for the developer" right?
And as a general rule, as pointed out the in cited article, ground leases are popular because they are beneficial to the owner...

That also depends on the terms. Everything depends on the terms and the oversight. The benefit is that ownership reverts, which can be valuable, and that there is oversight potential. The cost is that everything becomes a rental, construction quality is lower, tax revenue is less and there will likely be associated costs.

The West End Library/Fire Station was a bad deal. If it wasn't for Columbia Women's giving control to the neighborhood and the neighborhood flexing that power then that would have been a disaster. The neighborhood chose (and went out and got) a supermarket over a bigger library.

The devil is in the details and the oversight. We already know that the City actively doesn't care about us. We know that we have no representation on the Council because our votes got split, Frumin only cares about Wisconsin and West while JLG only cares about EOTP. We know that there have been a lot of intentional bad faith claims made by non-local proponents of this projects.

There's a lot of faith required for this to turn out well and the vast majority of us have no faith in the City, the Council or the ANC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Chevy Chase bus depot would be a smart site for dense mixed-use residential-retail development.

No density needed. Already a slew of buildings on CT Ave with vacancy notices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This does not bode well for downtown. Wonder how tightening credit may impact the CC project?

https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2023/12/07/dc-madison-highland-office-conversion-treasury.html

Not as much. Because DC is retaining the land and entering into a 99-year ground lease with the developer, the developer will not have to pay the land acquisition costs for the Civic Core. This provides more project flexibility.

How is that better? DC takes on the main risk + doesn't get any property tax revenue.

It’s better for the developer.

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

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...

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.

The bolded is a fair point, but that also holds that it is not necessarily "better for the developer" right?
And as a general rule, as pointed out the in cited article, ground leases are popular because they are beneficial to the owner...

That also depends on the terms. Everything depends on the terms and the oversight. The benefit is that ownership reverts, which can be valuable, and that there is oversight potential. The cost is that everything becomes a rental, construction quality is lower, tax revenue is less and there will likely be associated costs.

The West End Library/Fire Station was a bad deal. If it wasn't for Columbia Women's giving control to the neighborhood and the neighborhood flexing that power then that would have been a disaster. The neighborhood chose (and went out and got) a supermarket over a bigger library.

The devil is in the details and the oversight. We already know that the City actively doesn't care about us. We know that we have no representation on the Council because our votes got split, Frumin only cares about Wisconsin and West while JLG only cares about EOTP. We know that there have been a lot of intentional bad faith claims made by non-local proponents of this projects.

There's a lot of faith required for this to turn out well and the vast majority of us have no faith in the City, the Council or the ANC.

Speaking of the city not caring about us, there were no pick up options for big numbers in Ward 3 for the mayor's FIT DC New Year's Day race. It's like there's a concerted effort to continue to neglect, ignore and inconvenience Ward 3 because of some view that we are already privileged and need to be taken down a notch. Does anyone know the total contribution of Ward 3 residents to DC taxes vs other wards?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This does not bode well for downtown. Wonder how tightening credit may impact the CC project?

https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2023/12/07/dc-madison-highland-office-conversion-treasury.html

Not as much. Because DC is retaining the land and entering into a 99-year ground lease with the developer, the developer will not have to pay the land acquisition costs for the Civic Core. This provides more project flexibility.

How is that better? DC takes on the main risk + doesn't get any property tax revenue.

It’s better for the developer.

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

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...

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.

The bolded is a fair point, but that also holds that it is not necessarily "better for the developer" right?
And as a general rule, as pointed out the in cited article, ground leases are popular because they are beneficial to the owner...

That also depends on the terms. Everything depends on the terms and the oversight. The benefit is that ownership reverts, which can be valuable, and that there is oversight potential. The cost is that everything becomes a rental, construction quality is lower, tax revenue is less and there will likely be associated costs.

The West End Library/Fire Station was a bad deal. If it wasn't for Columbia Women's giving control to the neighborhood and the neighborhood flexing that power then that would have been a disaster. The neighborhood chose (and went out and got) a supermarket over a bigger library.

The devil is in the details and the oversight. We already know that the City actively doesn't care about us. We know that we have no representation on the Council because our votes got split, Frumin only cares about Wisconsin and West while JLG only cares about EOTP. We know that there have been a lot of intentional bad faith claims made by non-local proponents of this projects.

There's a lot of faith required for this to turn out well and the vast majority of us have no faith in the City, the Council or the ANC.

Why are smart growth lobbyists and ANC commissioners from outside Chevy Chase mucking around in the process?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This does not bode well for downtown. Wonder how tightening credit may impact the CC project?

https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2023/12/07/dc-madison-highland-office-conversion-treasury.html

Not as much. Because DC is retaining the land and entering into a 99-year ground lease with the developer, the developer will not have to pay the land acquisition costs for the Civic Core. This provides more project flexibility.

How is that better? DC takes on the main risk + doesn't get any property tax revenue.

It’s better for the developer.

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

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...

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.

The bolded is a fair point, but that also holds that it is not necessarily "better for the developer" right?
And as a general rule, as pointed out the in cited article, ground leases are popular because they are beneficial to the owner...

That also depends on the terms. Everything depends on the terms and the oversight. The benefit is that ownership reverts, which can be valuable, and that there is oversight potential. The cost is that everything becomes a rental, construction quality is lower, tax revenue is less and there will likely be associated costs.

The West End Library/Fire Station was a bad deal. If it wasn't for Columbia Women's giving control to the neighborhood and the neighborhood flexing that power then that would have been a disaster. The neighborhood chose (and went out and got) a supermarket over a bigger library.

The devil is in the details and the oversight. We already know that the City actively doesn't care about us. We know that we have no representation on the Council because our votes got split, Frumin only cares about Wisconsin and West while JLG only cares about EOTP. We know that there have been a lot of intentional bad faith claims made by non-local proponents of this projects.

There's a lot of faith required for this to turn out well and the vast majority of us have no faith in the City, the Council or the ANC.

Why are smart growth lobbyists and ANC commissioners from outside Chevy Chase mucking around in the process?

Good question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This does not bode well for downtown. Wonder how tightening credit may impact the CC project?

https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2023/12/07/dc-madison-highland-office-conversion-treasury.html

Not as much. Because DC is retaining the land and entering into a 99-year ground lease with the developer, the developer will not have to pay the land acquisition costs for the Civic Core. This provides more project flexibility.

How is that better? DC takes on the main risk + doesn't get any property tax revenue.

It’s better for the developer.

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

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...

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.

The bolded is a fair point, but that also holds that it is not necessarily "better for the developer" right?
And as a general rule, as pointed out the in cited article, ground leases are popular because they are beneficial to the owner...

That also depends on the terms. Everything depends on the terms and the oversight. The benefit is that ownership reverts, which can be valuable, and that there is oversight potential. The cost is that everything becomes a rental, construction quality is lower, tax revenue is less and there will likely be associated costs.

The West End Library/Fire Station was a bad deal. If it wasn't for Columbia Women's giving control to the neighborhood and the neighborhood flexing that power then that would have been a disaster. The neighborhood chose (and went out and got) a supermarket over a bigger library.

The devil is in the details and the oversight. We already know that the City actively doesn't care about us. We know that we have no representation on the Council because our votes got split, Frumin only cares about Wisconsin and West while JLG only cares about EOTP. We know that there have been a lot of intentional bad faith claims made by non-local proponents of this projects.

There's a lot of faith required for this to turn out well and the vast majority of us have no faith in the City, the Council or the ANC.

I think we are agreeing here on the narrow point at issue: We do not yet know whether any deal will be more favorable to the city or to a developer. The assertion that this is a 99 year lease does not mean that it is "better for the developer." Correct?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This does not bode well for downtown. Wonder how tightening credit may impact the CC project?

https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2023/12/07/dc-madison-highland-office-conversion-treasury.html

Not as much. Because DC is retaining the land and entering into a 99-year ground lease with the developer, the developer will not have to pay the land acquisition costs for the Civic Core. This provides more project flexibility.

How is that better? DC takes on the main risk + doesn't get any property tax revenue.

It’s better for the developer.

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

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...

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.

The bolded is a fair point, but that also holds that it is not necessarily "better for the developer" right?
And as a general rule, as pointed out the in cited article, ground leases are popular because they are beneficial to the owner...

That also depends on the terms. Everything depends on the terms and the oversight. The benefit is that ownership reverts, which can be valuable, and that there is oversight potential. The cost is that everything becomes a rental, construction quality is lower, tax revenue is less and there will likely be associated costs.

The West End Library/Fire Station was a bad deal. If it wasn't for Columbia Women's giving control to the neighborhood and the neighborhood flexing that power then that would have been a disaster. The neighborhood chose (and went out and got) a supermarket over a bigger library.

The devil is in the details and the oversight. We already know that the City actively doesn't care about us. We know that we have no representation on the Council because our votes got split, Frumin only cares about Wisconsin and West while JLG only cares about EOTP. We know that there have been a lot of intentional bad faith claims made by non-local proponents of this projects.

There's a lot of faith required for this to turn out well and the vast majority of us have no faith in the City, the Council or the ANC.

How do we know the bolded?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This does not bode well for downtown. Wonder how tightening credit may impact the CC project?

https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2023/12/07/dc-madison-highland-office-conversion-treasury.html

Not as much. Because DC is retaining the land and entering into a 99-year ground lease with the developer, the developer will not have to pay the land acquisition costs for the Civic Core. This provides more project flexibility.

How is that better? DC takes on the main risk + doesn't get any property tax revenue.

It’s better for the developer.

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

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...

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.

The bolded is a fair point, but that also holds that it is not necessarily "better for the developer" right?
And as a general rule, as pointed out the in cited article, ground leases are popular because they are beneficial to the owner...

That also depends on the terms. Everything depends on the terms and the oversight. The benefit is that ownership reverts, which can be valuable, and that there is oversight potential. The cost is that everything becomes a rental, construction quality is lower, tax revenue is less and there will likely be associated costs.

The West End Library/Fire Station was a bad deal. If it wasn't for Columbia Women's giving control to the neighborhood and the neighborhood flexing that power then that would have been a disaster. The neighborhood chose (and went out and got) a supermarket over a bigger library.

The devil is in the details and the oversight. We already know that the City actively doesn't care about us. We know that we have no representation on the Council because our votes got split, Frumin only cares about Wisconsin and West while JLG only cares about EOTP. We know that there have been a lot of intentional bad faith claims made by non-local proponents of this projects.

There's a lot of faith required for this to turn out well and the vast majority of us have no faith in the City, the Council or the ANC.

Why are smart growth lobbyists and ANC commissioners from outside Chevy Chase mucking around in the process?

Advocates for smart growth will.....advocate for smart growth. Just like advocates for anything will. And if you want me to call them "lobbyists"....same answer.

ANC commissioners are "mucking around" because that is literally what they were elected to do. The structure was not designed for even more hyper-local input, nor should it be. That is like asking why the members of the House vote on things that don't affect their specific district directly. You know this.
https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/1-309.10.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This does not bode well for downtown. Wonder how tightening credit may impact the CC project?

https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2023/12/07/dc-madison-highland-office-conversion-treasury.html

Not as much. Because DC is retaining the land and entering into a 99-year ground lease with the developer, the developer will not have to pay the land acquisition costs for the Civic Core. This provides more project flexibility.

How is that better? DC takes on the main risk + doesn't get any property tax revenue.

It’s better for the developer.

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

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...

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.

The bolded is a fair point, but that also holds that it is not necessarily "better for the developer" right?
And as a general rule, as pointed out the in cited article, ground leases are popular because they are beneficial to the owner...

That also depends on the terms. Everything depends on the terms and the oversight. The benefit is that ownership reverts, which can be valuable, and that there is oversight potential. The cost is that everything becomes a rental, construction quality is lower, tax revenue is less and there will likely be associated costs.

The West End Library/Fire Station was a bad deal. If it wasn't for Columbia Women's giving control to the neighborhood and the neighborhood flexing that power then that would have been a disaster. The neighborhood chose (and went out and got) a supermarket over a bigger library.

The devil is in the details and the oversight. We already know that the City actively doesn't care about us. We know that we have no representation on the Council because our votes got split, Frumin only cares about Wisconsin and West while JLG only cares about EOTP. We know that there have been a lot of intentional bad faith claims made by non-local proponents of this projects.

There's a lot of faith required for this to turn out well and the vast majority of us have no faith in the City, the Council or the ANC.

Speaking of the city not caring about us, there were no pick up options for big numbers in Ward 3 for the mayor's FIT DC New Year's Day race. It's like there's a concerted effort to continue to neglect, ignore and inconvenience Ward 3 because of some view that we are already privileged and need to be taken down a notch. Does anyone know the total contribution of Ward 3 residents to DC taxes vs other wards?

There are 8 wards and 4 pick up locations. I agree there should be more. But it is a real stretch to say that Ward 3 is being singled out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This does not bode well for downtown. Wonder how tightening credit may impact the CC project?

https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2023/12/07/dc-madison-highland-office-conversion-treasury.html

Not as much. Because DC is retaining the land and entering into a 99-year ground lease with the developer, the developer will not have to pay the land acquisition costs for the Civic Core. This provides more project flexibility.

How is that better? DC takes on the main risk + doesn't get any property tax revenue.

It’s better for the developer.

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

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...

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.

The bolded is a fair point, but that also holds that it is not necessarily "better for the developer" right?
And as a general rule, as pointed out the in cited article, ground leases are popular because they are beneficial to the owner...

That also depends on the terms. Everything depends on the terms and the oversight. The benefit is that ownership reverts, which can be valuable, and that there is oversight potential. The cost is that everything becomes a rental, construction quality is lower, tax revenue is less and there will likely be associated costs.

The West End Library/Fire Station was a bad deal. If it wasn't for Columbia Women's giving control to the neighborhood and the neighborhood flexing that power then that would have been a disaster. The neighborhood chose (and went out and got) a supermarket over a bigger library.

The devil is in the details and the oversight. We already know that the City actively doesn't care about us. We know that we have no representation on the Council because our votes got split, Frumin only cares about Wisconsin and West while JLG only cares about EOTP. We know that there have been a lot of intentional bad faith claims made by non-local proponents of this projects.

There's a lot of faith required for this to turn out well and the vast majority of us have no faith in the City, the Council or the ANC.

Why are smart growth lobbyists and ANC commissioners from outside Chevy Chase mucking around in the process?

Advocates for smart growth will.....advocate for smart growth. Just like advocates for anything will. And if you want me to call them "lobbyists"....same answer.

ANC commissioners are "mucking around" because that is literally what they were elected to do. The structure was not designed for even more hyper-local input, nor should it be. That is like asking why the members of the House vote on things that don't affect their specific district directly. You know this.
https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/1-309.10.html

The ANC's were indeed created to be hyper-local. They are not and were never intended to be a stealth legislature. Their sole purpose is to seek out and transmit the wishes and needs of the hyper-local to the Council and the City. That is why they have no hard power and everything is advice. It was a 1970's hippie collective unity idea of community organization.