Development at Superfresh in AU park

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looking forward to a grocery store-- in AU Park. Like there isn't a Wegman's or Whole Foods or Amazon Fresh or Giant 5 more minutes away. All with parking since we all drive!

l guess you prefer a vacant building? Not everyone drives to the grocery store. I walk to and from metro to get to my job and often stop at while food or target before walking home. Ya sometimes l drive but l try not to most days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looking forward to a grocery store-- in AU Park. Like there isn't a Wegman's or Whole Foods or Amazon Fresh or Giant 5 more minutes away. All with parking since we all drive!

This isn’t the zinger you think it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great. DC will lose money from all of the new housing units and our budget is already in shambles. Property taxes and income taxes will give up to pay for all of these unfounded programs and this development only makes the problem worse.

Wait there are more taxes generated by an empty lot? Including the income taxes from the...non-existent residents?

Density Bros are being evasive again. The point this person is making is that the tax revenue from residential development does not cover the expenses of providing services for new residents. Increase tax revenue is not beneficial if the new residents do not cover their share of DC government expenses. It will worsen the overall financial situation for DC. Most residential development is net tax negative. The only residential development that usually creates a budget surplus is very high end residential and senior housing.

We found it everyone, the NIMBYest argument ever put forward!

"We shouldn't build any more housing unless it generates net tax revenue." They're not even bothering to hide the classism anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking forward to a grocery store-- in AU Park. Like there isn't a Wegman's or Whole Foods or Amazon Fresh or Giant 5 more minutes away. All with parking since we all drive!

This isn’t the zinger you think it is.

It would be great to bring back something like the old Super Fresh. Decent groceries (and wine) at good prices. It doesn't have to be fancy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not a fan of the rendering. It looks like a cross between a bank building and a college dorm.

Amazing how developers will practically purchase dreck on the internet rather than hiring a quality architect who is sensitive to the context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great. DC will lose money from all of the new housing units and our budget is already in shambles. Property taxes and income taxes will give up to pay for all of these unfounded programs and this development only makes the problem worse.

Wait there are more taxes generated by an empty lot? Including the income taxes from the...non-existent residents?

Density Bros are being evasive again. The point this person is making is that the tax revenue from residential development does not cover the expenses of providing services for new residents. Increase tax revenue is not beneficial if the new residents do not cover their share of DC government expenses. It will worsen the overall financial situation for DC. Most residential development is net tax negative. The only residential development that usually creates a budget surplus is very high end residential and senior housing.

We found it everyone, the NIMBYest argument ever put forward!

"We shouldn't build any more housing unless it generates net tax revenue." They're not even bothering to hide the classism anymore.

This has nothing to do with class, it’s basic math and an essential consideration for government development policies. If you actually had something constructive to say you would not be resorting to the NIMBY diatribes to refute this statement. DC needs money to operate and the funding situation is very dire with the declining property taxes collected from office space. Development decisions need to be very careful and deliberative to ensure that they will not create significant long term liabilities for DC. We can’t afford to solve all of the problems in US society and there is a limit to how much DC can subsidize development that does not provide net positive tax revenue.

[Anonymous]

The Lady Bird developer stated that a main selling (leasing?) point for the almost 300 units will their location in the Janney District and the Deal/(ex-)Wilson cluster. So expect increased demand for local school spots. I don’t see D.C. trying to build a new elementary school un upper Northwest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Lady Bird developer stated that a main selling (leasing?) point for the almost 300 units will their location in the Janney District and the Deal/(ex-)Wilson cluster. So expect increased demand for local school spots. I don’t see D.C. trying to build a new elementary school un upper Northwest.

You could say that about other developments as well, not just Superfresh. The Mazza Gallery replacement will be zoned to those same schools. Yes DC will eventually need to add another ES and MS in upper NW. The new MacArthur high school was already made to relive JR. DCPS can only do so much at once.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Lady Bird developer stated that a main selling (leasing?) point for the almost 300 units will their location in the Janney District and the Deal/(ex-)Wilson cluster. So expect increased demand for local school spots. I don’t see D.C. trying to build a new elementary school un upper Northwest.

You could say that about other developments as well, not just Superfresh. The Mazza Gallery replacement will be zoned to those same schools. Yes DC will eventually need to add another ES and MS in upper NW. The new MacArthur high school was already made to relive JR. DCPS can only do so much at once.

One thing that the District could do is to impose a tax surcharge or construction fee on developments above a threshold size to pay for new school construction and other added infrastructure costs. Many other jurisdictions do this, so that the cost burdens don't fall as hard on the existing tax base. But Bowser is such a captive handmaiden to the real estate lobby that this common municipal practice is unlikely to happen in ol' Dee-Cee.

[Anonymous]

Update from the ANC meeting yesterday - construction starts in June (asbestos abatement is the first activity) and is estimated to take 3 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Update from the ANC meeting yesterday - construction starts in June (asbestos abatement is the first activity) and is estimated to take 3 years.

It appears that the plan involves moving the traffic access point to Massachusetts Avenue between the bank and the Spring Valley shopping center, to get traffic away from the lower density side streets.