Rock Creek Park needs to be developed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP has to be a troll. No one is this stupid.

You must be new here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go away, GGWash trollbag

If anything, OP is trolling people who want to change zoning to make more affordable housing in parts of D.C. that aren't national parks, by making a ludicrous suggestion as if turning Rock Creek Park into housing were the only option for increasing affordable housing (other than, say, raising the height limit on buildings, allowing for small apartment buildings in single-family-housing-zoned neighborhoods near transit, actually investing city money into building high-quality public housing, etc.).

Well, the point of the ludicrous suggestion is to make the others sound more reasonable because people are agianst them too. It's like the terrible opening offer makes the equally terrible compromise seem more reasonable, even though it isn't. Old trick. Stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC has a jurisdiction with cheaper real estate just over the District line, called PG County. Economically it makes sense on a regional level that PG should a sort more affordable housing where it’s cheaper to acquire sites than in the city. The District shouldn’t bear most of the burden for the Washington region.

Exactly. The DMV is not only DC. There is affordable house in the region, in the suburbs and close in urban areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We're in a housing crisis

BS. The crisis is you want to build more and make even more money for yourself.

[Anonymous]

It seems really one percenty to not give up just 50 acres of an 1,800 acre park for housing. that 50 acres could come from different parts of the park. I don't see why its such a big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems really one percenty to not give up just 50 acres of an 1,800 acre park for housing. that 50 acres could come from different parts of the park. I don't see why its such a big deal.

That’s because you’re an idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems really one percenty to not give up just 50 acres of an 1,800 acre park for housing. that 50 acres could come from different parts of the park. I don't see why its such a big deal.

But why not just upzone pre-existing parking lots? THere are plenty of barely used and undervalued ones in DC and the nearby suburbs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go away, GGWash trollbag

If anything, OP is trolling people who want to change zoning to make more affordable housing in parts of D.C. that aren't national parks, by making a ludicrous suggestion as if turning Rock Creek Park into housing were the only option for increasing affordable housing (other than, say, raising the height limit on buildings, allowing for small apartment buildings in single-family-housing-zoned neighborhoods near transit, actually investing city money into building high-quality public housing, etc.).

Well, the point of the ludicrous suggestion is to make the others sound more reasonable because people are agianst them too. It's like the terrible opening offer makes the equally terrible compromise seem more reasonable, even though it isn't. Old trick. Stupid.

No, they’re mocking people who want to make other changes, not trying to shift the window of what appears to be reasonable.

[Anonymous]

They paved paradise to put up a parking lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems really one percenty to not give up just 50 acres of an 1,800 acre park for housing. that 50 acres could come from different parts of the park. I don't see why its such a big deal.

So the next year you take 100 acre and the following year you take 75, etc, etc. If they did build in RCP the park would be bid out for the highest price. The homes would not be for low income or affordable. It is not free land just because it has tree on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems really one percenty to not give up just 50 acres of an 1,800 acre park for housing. that 50 acres could come from different parts of the park. I don't see why its such a big deal.

So the next year you take 100 acre and the following year you take 75, etc, etc. If they did build in RCP the park would be bid out for the highest price. The homes would not be for low income or affordable. It is not free land just because it has tree on it.

How about using a portion of the RFK site for affordable housing if the land is transferred to the District, instead of as a subsidy/giveaway to Dan “Pants on Fire” Snyder?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go away, GGWash trollbag

The OP isn't a GGWash "trollbag." I'm a GGWash trollbag--the city should be building tons of multi-unit apartments in Ward 3 instead of concentrating it in NoMa and SW/Near SE.

Actually, it should be Ward 4. There is tons of greenfield, grade level land at Oregon and Military Rd that should be given way to housing for everyone instead of being set aside as unused grass fields by no one.

You could spend a decade converting unattached houses in Ward 3 to 4-plexes or whatever and it would not come close to matching that thousands of housing units that can be built at that location.

It would take you more than a decade (perhaps a decade of decades) to get that land from NPS. Better put all your creativity into converting SFHs or building at the old RFK site. RCP? NGH.

You are comparing what you perceive to be a political obstacle and making a w.a.g. based on that, from a basic and very real reality of the physical world.

In my estimation, I believe that Congress and the Administration has turned the corner on understanding the depth of our country’s housing crisis and are willing to take action commensurate with the crisis that we face. If you don’t ask for something, you won’t get it. We just need an organized front and this will be a reality a lot sooner than you can understand.

If you are not on board and keep fighting real opportunities to make a difference to deliver affordable housing and more sustainable and climate resilient communities, then it sounds like you are a NIMBY.

Oh, you make me laugh and laugh.

NPS will not do this and you can talk about it till the cows come home and graze on the Mall again. This is not a perceived obstacle. It is a very real one - which you would understand had any experience dealing with NPS wrt federal land in DC.

Paving greenfield in RCP is not climate friendly. It would be developer friendly.

Oh and BTW, I really don’t care if you think I’m a NIMBY. So so right ahead.

So funny!

NPS will do whatever the President and Congress tell it to do. The idea that national land is sacred it ridiculous. A significant portion of the Vail ski resort is in a national forest. At the very least, the federal government can, should and will allow for affordable housing construction on appropriate areas of federal lands to alleviate a housing shortage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go away, GGWash trollbag

The OP isn't a GGWash "trollbag." I'm a GGWash trollbag--the city should be building tons of multi-unit apartments in Ward 3 instead of concentrating it in NoMa and SW/Near SE.

Actually, it should be Ward 4. There is tons of greenfield, grade level land at Oregon and Military Rd that should be given way to housing for everyone instead of being set aside as unused grass fields by no one.

You could spend a decade converting unattached houses in Ward 3 to 4-plexes or whatever and it would not come close to matching that thousands of housing units that can be built at that location.

It would take you more than a decade (perhaps a decade of decades) to get that land from NPS. Better put all your creativity into converting SFHs or building at the old RFK site. RCP? NGH.

You are comparing what you perceive to be a political obstacle and making a w.a.g. based on that, from a basic and very real reality of the physical world.

In my estimation, I believe that Congress and the Administration has turned the corner on understanding the depth of our country’s housing crisis and are willing to take action commensurate with the crisis that we face. If you don’t ask for something, you won’t get it. We just need an organized front and this will be a reality a lot sooner than you can understand.

If you are not on board and keep fighting real opportunities to make a difference to deliver affordable housing and more sustainable and climate resilient communities, then it sounds like you are a NIMBY.

Oh, you make me laugh and laugh.

NPS will not do this and you can talk about it till the cows come home and graze on the Mall again. This is not a perceived obstacle. It is a very real one - which you would understand had any experience dealing with NPS wrt federal land in DC.

Paving greenfield in RCP is not climate friendly. It would be developer friendly.

Oh and BTW, I really don’t care if you think I’m a NIMBY. So so right ahead.

So funny!

NPS will do whatever the President and Congress tell it to do. The idea that national land is sacred it ridiculous. A significant portion of the Vail ski resort is in a national forest. At the very least, the federal government can, should and will allow for affordable housing construction on appropriate areas of federal lands to alleviate a housing shortage.

You do realize that something like 80% of Americans love their national parks right? It’s like… one of our least controversial political agendas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go away, GGWash trollbag

The OP isn't a GGWash "trollbag." I'm a GGWash trollbag--the city should be building tons of multi-unit apartments in Ward 3 instead of concentrating it in NoMa and SW/Near SE.

Actually, it should be Ward 4. There is tons of greenfield, grade level land at Oregon and Military Rd that should be given way to housing for everyone instead of being set aside as unused grass fields by no one.

You could spend a decade converting unattached houses in Ward 3 to 4-plexes or whatever and it would not come close to matching that thousands of housing units that can be built at that location.

It would take you more than a decade (perhaps a decade of decades) to get that land from NPS. Better put all your creativity into converting SFHs or building at the old RFK site. RCP? NGH.

You are comparing what you perceive to be a political obstacle and making a w.a.g. based on that, from a basic and very real reality of the physical world.

In my estimation, I believe that Congress and the Administration has turned the corner on understanding the depth of our country’s housing crisis and are willing to take action commensurate with the crisis that we face. If you don’t ask for something, you won’t get it. We just need an organized front and this will be a reality a lot sooner than you can understand.

If you are not on board and keep fighting real opportunities to make a difference to deliver affordable housing and more sustainable and climate resilient communities, then it sounds like you are a NIMBY.

Oh, you make me laugh and laugh.

NPS will not do this and you can talk about it till the cows come home and graze on the Mall again. This is not a perceived obstacle. It is a very real one - which you would understand had any experience dealing with NPS wrt federal land in DC.

Paving greenfield in RCP is not climate friendly. It would be developer friendly.

Oh and BTW, I really don’t care if you think I’m a NIMBY. So so right ahead.

So funny!

NPS will do whatever the President and Congress tell it to do. The idea that national land is sacred it ridiculous. A significant portion of the Vail ski resort is in a national forest. At the very least, the federal government can, should and will allow for affordable housing construction on appropriate areas of federal lands to alleviate a housing shortage.

You do realize that something like 80% of Americans love their national parks right? It’s like… one of our least controversial political agendas.

Either we are in a housing crisis that requires dramatic action to resolve or we aren’t. This is about the self-determination of DC to provide enough affordable housing for its population, not “America”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go away, GGWash trollbag

The OP isn't a GGWash "trollbag." I'm a GGWash trollbag--the city should be building tons of multi-unit apartments in Ward 3 instead of concentrating it in NoMa and SW/Near SE.

Actually, it should be Ward 4. There is tons of greenfield, grade level land at Oregon and Military Rd that should be given way to housing for everyone instead of being set aside as unused grass fields by no one.

You could spend a decade converting unattached houses in Ward 3 to 4-plexes or whatever and it would not come close to matching that thousands of housing units that can be built at that location.

It would take you more than a decade (perhaps a decade of decades) to get that land from NPS. Better put all your creativity into converting SFHs or building at the old RFK site. RCP? NGH.

You are comparing what you perceive to be a political obstacle and making a w.a.g. based on that, from a basic and very real reality of the physical world.

In my estimation, I believe that Congress and the Administration has turned the corner on understanding the depth of our country’s housing crisis and are willing to take action commensurate with the crisis that we face. If you don’t ask for something, you won’t get it. We just need an organized front and this will be a reality a lot sooner than you can understand.

If you are not on board and keep fighting real opportunities to make a difference to deliver affordable housing and more sustainable and climate resilient communities, then it sounds like you are a NIMBY.

Oh, you make me laugh and laugh.

NPS will not do this and you can talk about it till the cows come home and graze on the Mall again. This is not a perceived obstacle. It is a very real one - which you would understand had any experience dealing with NPS wrt federal land in DC.

Paving greenfield in RCP is not climate friendly. It would be developer friendly.

Oh and BTW, I really don’t care if you think I’m a NIMBY. So so right ahead.

So funny!

NPS will do whatever the President and Congress tell it to do. The idea that national land is sacred it ridiculous. A significant portion of the Vail ski resort is in a national forest. At the very least, the federal government can, should and will allow for affordable housing construction on appropriate areas of federal lands to alleviate a housing shortage.

You do realize that something like 80% of Americans love their national parks right? It’s like… one of our least controversial political agendas.

Either we are in a housing crisis that requires dramatic action to resolve or we aren’t. This is about the self-determination of DC to provide enough affordable housing for its population, not “America”.

Lol there is no housing crisis. You just can not afford to live in DC.