Chevy Chase Community Center Redevelopment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quick Question--drove by the Omni in Woodley Park. What on earth is being built in that huge chasm by Oyster School (while we are speaking of development)? Seems like a lot of 're-development' on CT cooridor, geeze!

Omni is on Calvert. You are referring to the former Wardman Marriot site:

https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/900-apartments-proposed-for-former-wardman-marriott-site/19189

You can see it as you approach the Omni from Calvert. the chasm is massive. How is it that the sentiment persists that there is no housing/development in Ward 3? All is see is housing/development

It could be developed with more density there. Their iare potential housing units left on the table.

Zoning wouldn't allow for more density and the city didn't buy it, so it will have a minima amount of affordable housing units. I think the developers lost an opportunity to extend the Woodley Park commercial area up into the property. Oh well.

DC requires only 8 to 10 percent affordable units even in large developments and then is surprised that progress is so incremental. Other cities require more, even much more. But the DC government is so captive to development interests that it is unlikely that it will raise its baseline mandate. So they just seek more and more market rate apartments and condos in the hope that a few more crumbs of affordable housing will trickle down.

Having seen the voucher mess, I am just fine with less affordable housing. 8 to 10 percent sounds fine. What's funny is that they are building so little for middle income families--just tiny luxury condos. It's like this city doesn't want middle income families or something.

Why do you equate vouchers with affordable housing? They are two different things.

Also, not everyone on vouchers causes problems. Just like there are people not on vouchers who do cause problems.

Because vouchers that wiped out EXISTING rent controlled affordable housing sent a message across the bow that this city does not value affordable housing. Only vouchers. So I'm over both at this point. "fooled me once" etc.

Are those voucher programs a HUD program?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quick Question--drove by the Omni in Woodley Park. What on earth is being built in that huge chasm by Oyster School (while we are speaking of development)? Seems like a lot of 're-development' on CT cooridor, geeze!

Omni is on Calvert. You are referring to the former Wardman Marriot site:

https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/900-apartments-proposed-for-former-wardman-marriott-site/19189

You can see it as you approach the Omni from Calvert. the chasm is massive. How is it that the sentiment persists that there is no housing/development in Ward 3? All is see is housing/development

It could be developed with more density there. Their iare potential housing units left on the table.

Zoning wouldn't allow for more density and the city didn't buy it, so it will have a minima amount of affordable housing units. I think the developers lost an opportunity to extend the Woodley Park commercial area up into the property. Oh well.

DC requires only 8 to 10 percent affordable units even in large developments and then is surprised that progress is so incremental. Other cities require more, even much more. But the DC government is so captive to development interests that it is unlikely that it will raise its baseline mandate. So they just seek more and more market rate apartments and condos in the hope that a few more crumbs of affordable housing will trickle down.

Having seen the voucher mess, I am just fine with less affordable housing. 8 to 10 percent sounds fine. What's funny is that they are building so little for middle income families--just tiny luxury condos. It's like this city doesn't want middle income families or something.

Why do you equate vouchers with affordable housing? They are two different things.

Also, not everyone on vouchers causes problems. Just like there are people not on vouchers who do cause problems.

Because vouchers that wiped out EXISTING rent controlled affordable housing sent a message across the bow that this city does not value affordable housing. Only vouchers. So I'm over both at this point. "fooled me once" etc.

Are those voucher programs a HUD program?

https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/news/panel-at-ward-3-democrats-dec-6th-meeting-will-discuss-housing-vouchers-and-impact-on-rent-stabilized-apartments/

[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: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

Yeppers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quick Question--drove by the Omni in Woodley Park. What on earth is being built in that huge chasm by Oyster School (while we are speaking of development)? Seems like a lot of 're-development' on CT cooridor, geeze!

Omni is on Calvert. You are referring to the former Wardman Marriot site:

https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/900-apartments-proposed-for-former-wardman-marriott-site/19189

You can see it as you approach the Omni from Calvert. the chasm is massive. How is it that the sentiment persists that there is no housing/development in Ward 3? All is see is housing/development

It could be developed with more density there. Their iare potential housing units left on the table.

Zoning wouldn't allow for more density and the city didn't buy it, so it will have a minima amount of affordable housing units. I think the developers lost an opportunity to extend the Woodley Park commercial area up into the property. Oh well.

DC requires only 8 to 10 percent affordable units even in large developments and then is surprised that progress is so incremental. Other cities require more, even much more. But the DC government is so captive to development interests that it is unlikely that it will raise its baseline mandate. So they just seek more and more market rate apartments and condos in the hope that a few more crumbs of affordable housing will trickle down.

Having seen the voucher mess, I am just fine with less affordable housing. 8 to 10 percent sounds fine. What's funny is that they are building so little for middle income families--just tiny luxury condos. It's like this city doesn't want middle income families or something.

Why do you equate vouchers with affordable housing? They are two different things.

Also, not everyone on vouchers causes problems. Just like there are people not on vouchers who do cause problems.

Because vouchers that wiped out EXISTING rent controlled affordable housing sent a message across the bow that this city does not value affordable housing. Only vouchers. So I'm over both at this point. "fooled me once" etc.

Are those voucher programs a HUD program?

A mis handled HUD program. This is on the city .

[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.

Commissioner Siddiqui was complaining on social media that the ANC’s poll was unfairly conducted and not reliable.

[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: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.

Commissioner Siddiqui was complaining on social media that the ANC’s poll was unfairly conducted and not reliable.

So what? It's social media and he is a person who can voice his opinion just like anyone else. The meeting itself is on the record and no one like him spoke at it, except for NIMBY Supreme Ed Hanlon himself.

[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: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.

Commissioner Siddiqui was complaining on social media that the ANC’s poll was unfairly conducted and not reliable.

It was a survey not an election. And a lot of the NIMBYs took Bruce Sherman's views on how to interpret it, which will prompt the District to simply ignore it all together.

[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: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.

Commissioner Siddiqui was complaining on social media that the ANC’s poll was unfairly conducted and not reliable.

So what? It's social media and he is a person who can voice his opinion just like anyone else. The meeting itself is on the record and no one like him spoke at it, except for NIMBY Supreme Ed Hanlon himself.

What is Siddiqui’s interest as an ANC commissioner in a Chevy Chase matter? It’s not his ANC, not even close. Apparently he didn’t like the survey results.

[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: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.

Commissioner Siddiqui was complaining on social media that the ANC’s poll was unfairly conducted and not reliable.

So what? It's social media and he is a person who can voice his opinion just like anyone else. The meeting itself is on the record and no one like him spoke at it, except for NIMBY Supreme Ed Hanlon himself.

What is Siddiqui’s interest as an ANC commissioner in a Chevy Chase matter? It’s not his ANC, not even close. Apparently he didn’t like the survey results.

I think this is misplaced. People can and do care about things that are not happening in their immediate neighborhood all the time.

[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: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.

Commissioner Siddiqui was complaining on social media that the ANC’s poll was unfairly conducted and not reliable.

It was a survey not an election. And a lot of the NIMBYs took Bruce Sherman's views on how to interpret it, which will prompt the District to simply ignore it all together.

So if we agree it was a survey not an election (vote), you would agree that there is no obligation to take the course of action that the majority of respondents wanted, right?

[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: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.

Commissioner Siddiqui was complaining on social media that the ANC’s poll was unfairly conducted and not reliable.

So what? It's social media and he is a person who can voice his opinion just like anyone else. The meeting itself is on the record and no one like him spoke at it, except for NIMBY Supreme Ed Hanlon himself.

What is Siddiqui’s interest as an ANC commissioner in a Chevy Chase matter? It’s not his ANC, not even close. Apparently he didn’t like the survey results.

I think this is misplaced. People can and do care about things that are not happening in their immediate neighborhood all the time.

He should try to keep his middle finger out of issues that don’t concern his ANC.

[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: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.

Commissioner Siddiqui was complaining on social media that the ANC’s poll was unfairly conducted and not reliable.

So what? It's social media and he is a person who can voice his opinion just like anyone else. The meeting itself is on the record and no one like him spoke at it, except for NIMBY Supreme Ed Hanlon himself.

What is Siddiqui’s interest as an ANC commissioner in a Chevy Chase matter? It’s not his ANC, not even close. Apparently he didn’t like the survey results.

I think this is misplaced. People can and do care about things that are not happening in their immediate neighborhood all the time.

He should try to keep his middle finger out of issues that don’t concern his ANC.

Why? Is the principle here that people should not express opinions about things that do not affect them directly?

[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: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.

Commissioner Siddiqui was complaining on social media that the ANC’s poll was unfairly conducted and not reliable.

It was a survey not an election. And a lot of the NIMBYs took Bruce Sherman's views on how to interpret it, which will prompt the District to simply ignore it all together.

So if we agree it was a survey not an election (vote), you would agree that there is no obligation to take the course of action that the majority of respondents wanted, right?

It wasn't an election, it was meant to gather opinions.

The most responses were from Bruce Shermans SMD which is further away from the Chevy Chase Center than many households in a different Commission all together. The majority of the respondents were people over 70 living in single family homes. That oversampled the families and renters who generally live closer to Conn Ave and generally support the proposal.

Should the people in that SMD, that is so far away from the Avenue be discounted based on geography?

[Anonymous]

DC is a dumpster fire right now. Everything the city touches turns to ash. Why would anyone trust its judgment to take on a project that would impact the neighborhood enormously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC is a dumpster fire right now. Everything the city touches turns to ash. Why would anyone trust its judgment to take on a project that would impact the neighborhood enormously?

Exactly. How many times have we heard activists saying "This won't cause any problems at all and anyone who thinks it will is racist"? Decriminalize fare evasion, reduce the police force, the voucher program, the homeless shelters, etc. And now activists are saying we need to ignore all of the bad policies that they were pushing before because this time it's different? They don't even pause to reconsider the messes they've made, it's just immediately on to the next thing.

Five years from now they'll be saying "why are you bringing up the huge failure of the Chevy Chase Community Center development? This new project we're pushing is completely different."