Give your top 3 suggestions to make DC world's best capital city

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) improve the schools - it is the one thing that really holds back parts of the city. Of course, that also means providing breakfast and lunch, breaking the cycle of poverty, making sure there are opportunities and alternatives to crime to survive and thrive

2) provide incentives at the federal level, to bring big business to the district (not the suburbs, they already have state level incentives and are doing this)

3) Build more housing that is affordable. That means increasing density in the outer areas of the city so people can afford to live here. Even in the poorest parts of the city, rents are $800-1000/mo and even cheap condos are $250,000+ and houses are $400,000+
That isn't "affordable" for people making a working class salary.

Yes, ruin the good neighborhoods.

If you don’t want density, move out to VA or MD.

So driving wealthy people who can afford to live in single family homes out to the suburbs would be good for the city? I don't think so. How about if you want density you move to neighborhoods that have high density and if you want tree lined streets filled with single family homes you get to live there while remaining a dc tax payer.

I live in a SFH in DC and am wealthy. I also support higher density housing. You can do a mix. See the Walter Reed redevelopment next to some beautiful SFH in Colonial Village/Shepherd Park/Brightwood or the high rises on CT Ave near beautiful SFH in Chevy Chase/Forrest Hills.

NEAR. Not in. High Density people want to change neighborhoods like Chevy Chase into Tenleytown or Friendship Heights. Just move there if that's what you want. Yes, neighborhoods can be next to each other but that's not what this is about and you know it.

Sorry, no I have no idea to what you’re referring. My friends and neighbors support high density and have never suggested that they want high rises only. They all own SFH. Not everyone can afford a SFH. High density will accommodate more people at different price points. No one has ever suggested tearing down the SFH.

One of us is misinformed on high density housing.

No one wants high density buildings next to sfh except people who can't afford sfh. Why do we need a wealthy neighborhood to accommodate more people at different price points? It's a wealthy neighborhood. It's for wealthy people. Cry me a river if you can't afford to live there, but don't take it away from people who can by turning it into a different neighborhood. Just move to one that has high density and all different price points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) improve the schools - it is the one thing that really holds back parts of the city. Of course, that also means providing breakfast and lunch, breaking the cycle of poverty, making sure there are opportunities and alternatives to crime to survive and thrive

2) provide incentives at the federal level, to bring big business to the district (not the suburbs, they already have state level incentives and are doing this)

3) Build more housing that is affordable. That means increasing density in the outer areas of the city so people can afford to live here. Even in the poorest parts of the city, rents are $800-1000/mo and even cheap condos are $250,000+ and houses are $400,000+
That isn't "affordable" for people making a working class salary.

Yes, ruin the good neighborhoods.

If you don’t want density, move out to VA or MD.

So driving wealthy people who can afford to live in single family homes out to the suburbs would be good for the city? I don't think so. How about if you want density you move to neighborhoods that have high density and if you want tree lined streets filled with single family homes you get to live there while remaining a dc tax payer.

I live in a SFH in DC and am wealthy. I also support higher density housing. You can do a mix. See the Walter Reed redevelopment next to some beautiful SFH in Colonial Village/Shepherd Park/Brightwood or the high rises on CT Ave near beautiful SFH in Chevy Chase/Forrest Hills.

NEAR. Not in. High Density people want to change neighborhoods like Chevy Chase into Tenleytown or Friendship Heights. Just move there if that's what you want. Yes, neighborhoods can be next to each other but that's not what this is about and you know it.

Sorry, no I have no idea to what you’re referring. My friends and neighbors support high density and have never suggested that they want high rises only. They all own SFH. Not everyone can afford a SFH. High density will accommodate more people at different price points. No one has ever suggested tearing down the SFH.

One of us is misinformed on high density housing.

No one wants high density buildings next to sfh except people who can't afford sfh. Why do we need a wealthy neighborhood to accommodate more people at different price points? It's a wealthy neighborhood. It's for wealthy people. Cry me a river if you can't afford to live there, but don't take it away from people who can by turning it into a different neighborhood. Just move to one that has high density and all different price points.

good luck finding a police/fire or maid or landscapers to service your wealthy property.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Restrict it to the Federal city it’s supposed to be, b/c the DC government has been incompetent for years. So a lot of the residential should just go to Maryland. They’re all Dems anyway, and would get a real congressman/senator. Everyone would be better off. I realize the Feds would have to pay to offload.

the DC government has the highest bond rating in the country, or did until Congress withheld a billion dollars of its own money to spend in the city. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

I traveled there for 25+ years for work. It’s a cess pool regardless of their bond rating. The schools are horrendous. Even PG looks down on them. They are a comical joke compared to the surrounding counties.

I guess you know nothing about Moodys, Fitch's or S&P and municipal bond ratings. Sad.

Fact: DC had a AAA+ until April when the Congress told DC it wasn't going to approve the 2026 budget, forcing DC to put a billion dollars of its own money (not the federal money, not the congress money) into its rainy day fund and not spend it on policy, social services, schools etc.

You seriously have no clue.

F the bond ratings, Bozo. Nobody judges quality of life for the residents based on bond ratings. Go ask someone living Southeast if their life is improved b/c of bond ratings. What a joke.

What do you think pays for schools and floats the general fund to the city is liquid at all times. Sure, the average resident may not understand that, but the city leadership certainly does. So if you don't think high bond ratings are material to the quality of life in a jurisdiction, that is a you problem. But saying f the Bond ratings is both immature and unrealistic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) improve the schools - it is the one thing that really holds back parts of the city. Of course, that also means providing breakfast and lunch, breaking the cycle of poverty, making sure there are opportunities and alternatives to crime to survive and thrive

2) provide incentives at the federal level, to bring big business to the district (not the suburbs, they already have state level incentives and are doing this)

3) Build more housing that is affordable. That means increasing density in the outer areas of the city so people can afford to live here. Even in the poorest parts of the city, rents are $800-1000/mo and even cheap condos are $250,000+ and houses are $400,000+
That isn't "affordable" for people making a working class salary.

Yes, ruin the good neighborhoods.

If you don’t want density, move out to VA or MD.

So driving wealthy people who can afford to live in single family homes out to the suburbs would be good for the city? I don't think so. How about if you want density you move to neighborhoods that have high density and if you want tree lined streets filled with single family homes you get to live there while remaining a dc tax payer.

I live in a SFH in DC and am wealthy. I also support higher density housing. You can do a mix. See the Walter Reed redevelopment next to some beautiful SFH in Colonial Village/Shepherd Park/Brightwood or the high rises on CT Ave near beautiful SFH in Chevy Chase/Forrest Hills.

NEAR. Not in. High Density people want to change neighborhoods like Chevy Chase into Tenleytown or Friendship Heights. Just move there if that's what you want. Yes, neighborhoods can be next to each other but that's not what this is about and you know it.

The question was how to improve the city. One of the responsive answers was to build more housing so people can afford to live and work there, rather than having a workforce driving in from WVA or Howard County. In your world, the people who are your first responders and retail workers have to have a 2 hour commute to serve you. What does that say about you?

I'm sick of pretend scenarios just so you can win the argument. The point is some want to CHANGE wealthy neighborhoods into affordable neighborhoods by changing zoning. It's not to save first responders and the like from a 2-hour commute, since high density, less expensive neighborhoods are already close by. That is just a bullshit rehashing of the argument. What does that say about YOU? I'll tell you -- you can'twin on the merits.

That is an entirely different discussion than this thread. But keep yelling at the clouds.

[Anonymous]

We’re too young for that. It does not have to be the best. It needs to be functional.

Agree on statehood.

And perhaps moving all federal offices to one area that’s non residential (without disrupting established residents). Like a separate government district that’s not part of the state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ban guns, all firearms.
Ban drug use and open containers.

firearms are already banned, and look where that got us

Ban them nationwide so people feel safer like in Europe.

A big start to improving life overall. As well as our international credibility. Our country is a laughingstock in regards to guns and healthcare compared to most countries.

[Anonymous]

1) A few hundred more years of history to add charm.

2) More cafes and more fun stuff to do near the Mall, rather than just a sterile stretch of city around it.

3) A metro system that is faster and has more stops so every trip does include big stretches of walking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1) A few hundred more years of history to add charm.

2) More cafes and more fun stuff to do near the Mall, rather than just a sterile stretch of city around it.

3) A metro system that is faster and has more stops so every trip does include big stretches of walking.

^ does NOT include

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) improve the schools - it is the one thing that really holds back parts of the city. Of course, that also means providing breakfast and lunch, breaking the cycle of poverty, making sure there are opportunities and alternatives to crime to survive and thrive

2) provide incentives at the federal level, to bring big business to the district (not the suburbs, they already have state level incentives and are doing this)

3) Build more housing that is affordable. That means increasing density in the outer areas of the city so people can afford to live here. Even in the poorest parts of the city, rents are $800-1000/mo and even cheap condos are $250,000+ and houses are $400,000+
That isn't "affordable" for people making a working class salary.

Yes, ruin the good neighborhoods.

If you don’t want density, move out to VA or MD.

So driving wealthy people who can afford to live in single family homes out to the suburbs would be good for the city? I don't think so. How about if you want density you move to neighborhoods that have high density and if you want tree lined streets filled with single family homes you get to live there while remaining a dc tax payer.

other than property taxes, those wealthy people don't pay income taxes. Sure, they pay taxes at restaurants and with some shopping, but more likely they have residences in FL, ME or DE or some other tax free state where they make any big purchases like a car. But assuming wealthy people don't want density is silly. Do you think there are not wealthy people in Tokyo or NY?

LOL you're not a local, clearly.

I am a 50 year local, actually. Yes, the uber wealthy who have houses in Kalorama or Mass Ave Heights has other residences where they make their big purchases and in many cases, have their official (tax) residencies. The locals all know this.

You mean buying a car while at the beach house in Rehoboth? Sure.

[Anonymous]

It already is! LOVE DC!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We’re too young for that. It does not have to be the best. It needs to be functional.

Agree on statehood.

And perhaps moving all federal offices to one area that’s non residential (without disrupting established residents). Like a separate government district that’s not part of the state.

its called the national mall, including the white house and capitol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:owners of all deteriorating homes should clean, repair and spruce up exterior or sell.

Sam could be said for just about any city or county in the country. If they don't have the money to maintain, you can't force them to sell, well at least not without being an authoritarian country. Oh, I see where you are going with this. If it doesn't meet YOUR standards, then take it away.

Instead of living as house poor in a $500k home which is crumbling in a HCOL city, they can buy a newer home in a LCOL area and have a better quality of life.

For many of "those" people, DC is home and probably in a multigenerational way. No, I am not telling someone they have to leave because their house needs a paint job.

Showing them that there are options to improve lives would help many make the move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Affordable housing should be in nearby suburbs, making a small city dense with cheap apartment buildings would only uglyfy it. Tall buildings should house company headquarters and luxury apartments to help those companies bring top talent to DC.

if there are not enough housing units IN DC then those HQ's are not coming here. Their workforce needs to be able to live in the city.

Their workforce wouldn't live in affordable housing.

[Anonymous]

Why is it too much to expect homeowners to keep their homes and neighborhoods clean and yards well maintained? Basic responsibility of owning a home. If someone is sick or disabled, they can apply for help.

[Anonymous]

as car free as possible
free transportation
free housing for the poor