Chevy Chase Community Center Redevelopment

[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.

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?

Sure, but then can we also say that it's cheaper for the developer?

[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.

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?

Sure, but then can we also say that it's cheaper for the developer?

PP Here and I want to answer you.

But in order to do that I need to know what you are asking. Cheaper than what?

Ans to be transparent about how I am thinking about this: it is arguably “cheaper” to lease a car rather than buy, but I doubt many would say that auto leases are some sort of sweetheart deal or giveaway.

[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.

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.

No pick up for Ward 3 last year, either. Back in the early COVID days, there were no Ward 3 vaccination sites. (I get that one a bit, but at least one could have been added in Ward 3.) We just keep getting shafted in large and small ways.

[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: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.

No pick up for Ward 3 last year, either. Back in the early COVID days, there were no Ward 3 vaccination sites. (I get that one a bit, but at least one could have been added in Ward 3.) We just keep getting shafted in large and small ways.

There was one (COVID shots) behind friendship heights in a parking lot for ages.. and at the firestation at Conn Ave and Ellicot(?) too.

[Anonymous]

And then Friendship Heights in Chevy Chase Pavilion.

[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: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.

No pick up for Ward 3 last year, either. Back in the early COVID days, there were no Ward 3 vaccination sites. (I get that one a bit, but at least one could have been added in Ward 3.) We just keep getting shafted in large and small ways.

There was one (COVID shots) behind friendship heights in a parking lot for ages.. and at the firestation at Conn Ave and Ellicot(?) too.

That was later. The very first round of shots excluded Ward 3.

[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: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?

Sure, but then can we also say that it's cheaper for the developer?

PP Here and I want to answer you.

But in order to do that I need to know what you are asking. Cheaper than what?

Ans to be transparent about how I am thinking about this: it is arguably “cheaper” to lease a car rather than buy, but I doubt many would say that auto leases are some sort of sweetheart deal or giveaway.

Cheaper, as in costs less. More profitable on a short and medium term basis with a quicker return on investment.

It's not like leasing a car because the property is revenue generating. It's more like mining. Rental units are an extractive industry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

The easiest visual example of this is looking at the free gyms D.C. has built. They’ve built dozens of them in the city, yet they are all east of 16th St. Not a single one in Ward 3. The maps just a great visual representation of how the city feels about Ward 3:

https://dpr.dc.gov/page/dpr-fitness-centers

Ward 3 also has the worst access to the universal pre-K in the city. It would be nice if we actually got at least one advocate for the ward on the Council. But an At-Large member from Ward 6 misused campaign funds to push the race to Frumin, whose position has been that Ward 3 isn’t sacrificing enough for the city.

The rest of the city views Ward 3 as a place to take things from. The whole discussion about the Chevy Chase Community Center has underscored this. Almost no talk about the needs of the neighborhood or how we can improve things for the people living there now. The discussion is almost entirely focused on what the neighborhood should do for people who don’t live there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

The easiest visual example of this is looking at the free gyms D.C. has built. They’ve built dozens of them in the city, yet they are all east of 16th St. Not a single one in Ward 3. The maps just a great visual representation of how the city feels about Ward 3:

https://dpr.dc.gov/page/dpr-fitness-centers

Ward 3 also has the worst access to the universal pre-K in the city. It would be nice if we actually got at least one advocate for the ward on the Council. But an At-Large member from Ward 6 misused campaign funds to push the race to Frumin, whose position has been that Ward 3 isn’t sacrificing enough for the city.

The rest of the city views Ward 3 as a place to take things from. The whole discussion about the Chevy Chase Community Center has underscored this. Almost no talk about the needs of the neighborhood or how we can improve things for the people living there now. The discussion is almost entirely focused on what the neighborhood should do for people who don’t live there.

+1

It's viewed as an area to be punished.

[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: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.

No pick up for Ward 3 last year, either. Back in the early COVID days, there were no Ward 3 vaccination sites. (I get that one a bit, but at least one could have been added in Ward 3.) We just keep getting shafted in large and small ways.

There was one (COVID shots) behind friendship heights in a parking lot for ages.. and at the firestation at Conn Ave and Ellicot(?) too.

That was later. The very first round of shots excluded Ward 3.

Yup. We had to drive to the Shenandoah Valley for COVID shots because Bowser prioritized "vaccine equity" over public health.

[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: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.

I understand why ANC 3/4G would have a view on this project. But why should some SJW ANC commissioner from Woodley Park or a development lobbyist from Cleveland Park be telling Chevy Chase what to do?

[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: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.

I understand why ANC 3/4G would have a view on this project. But why should some SJW ANC commissioner from Woodley Park or a development lobbyist from Cleveland Park be telling Chevy Chase what to do?

They shouldn't. The bigger question is why "our" ANC didn't tell them to eff off and mind their own business.

[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: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.

I understand why ANC 3/4G would have a view on this project. But why should some SJW ANC commissioner from Woodley Park or a development lobbyist from Cleveland Park be telling Chevy Chase what to do?

They shouldn't. The bigger question is why "our" ANC didn't tell them to eff off and mind their own business.

I was on the call on Monday. I didn't hear a single person who fit either of those descriptions say a word. There was a certain lawyer from Dupont who is reknown citywide for his obstructionism who did stick his nose into this though.

[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: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.

I understand why ANC 3/4G would have a view on this project. But why should some SJW ANC commissioner from Woodley Park or a development lobbyist from Cleveland Park be telling Chevy Chase what to do?

Who are the SJW ANC from 3C injected themselves into this discussion? I haven't seen one.

What I do know is that Commissioner Sherman and his SMD are farther away from the development site than parts of 3F and 3E. And his SMD adherents had an outsized response rate in the ANC 3G survey. Why should THEY have a bigger voice?

[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: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.

I understand why ANC 3/4G would have a view on this project. But why should some SJW ANC commissioner from Woodley Park or a development lobbyist from Cleveland Park be telling Chevy Chase what to do?

They shouldn't. The bigger question is why "our" ANC didn't tell them to eff off and mind their own business.

I was on the call on Monday. I didn't hear a single person who fit either of those descriptions say a word. There was a certain lawyer from Dupont who is reknown citywide for his obstructionism who did stick his nose into this though.

Omg Ed Hanlon!? I remember that joker from when I lived in DuPont and dealt with his insanity