Chevy Chase Community Center Redevelopment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The development isn't wanted or needed by the community. Period.

Redeveloping the community center and library were resoundingly approved by the community.

It is only the housing on top that was not.

Nobody is arguing over redevelopment of the Library and Community Center. Both need a renovation (at the very least).

The problem is that should the current plan move forward, the new library and community center would be the lowest priority, with the mixed use private development being the primary goal. Many local residents (including myself) are doubtful that a new community center and library would even actually be built under the current plan - the private developer would no doubt rush to construct the apartments approved through this Trojan horse maneuver (including the necessary demo of the existing library/community center) while DC futzes around trying to fund the new library/community center. Eventually the apartments will be built while the new library/community center will be quietly shelved and replaced with even more apartments.

If there is a clause in the contract that says community center and library must be complete before a single storefront or apartment could be rented, would you still have a problem with the development?

Yes, I would still have a problem with it. Maybe less so, but it’s just not appropriate for the neighborhood.

Chevy Chase remains one of the few thriving middle to upper middle class neighborhoods in DC where single family homes are predominant, and that needs to be protected before it turns into another Bethesda dominated by overpriced condos, apartments, townhomes, etc.

"Upper middle class" maybe for the folks who moved in 30 years ago. An entry level fixer upper inthis area goes for a cool $1.3mm. Upper middle class, this is not.

That is pretty middle class for the DC metro.

But that is beyond the point.

The point is that building massive apartment buildings on public land as a gift to wealthy developers is not what the community wants, and is not appropriate for the suburban, low density area, and would seriously impact the neighborhood. Connecticut avenue, and many of its side streets, are already at capacity (and add in the proposed bike lanes - it is only getting worse and worse), the parks are already overwhelmed, and there is zero access to reliable non-bus public transit, all without an influx of new residents.

I’m all for building more density, but it needs to be built places that can support it.

Trying to track here....

Continuing to characterize this development as a "gift" is unjustified speculation.....and apparently not the reason you object
The first bolded is three ways of saying the same thing.....which is that it is change and you don't want change
Then you argue infrastructure....which really doesn't make much sense unless you object to density in DC anywhere

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nick, Ed and Lance?

Nick = Nick DellaDonne, the erstwhile bike opponent who has been caught on video yelling at children with a megaphone.

No idea who Ed and Lance are.

Ed Hanlon, his buddy attorney who Chevy Choice Voice retained. Lance is a lackey of theirs who is a frequent agitator on the AdMo listserv and in the public meetings.

Anyway, while certainly they hate bikes and cyclists, the thing they dislike even more is affordable housing and change in the neighborhoods of the city that takes the form of development.

These "nothing can/should ever change because its perfect the way it is" fools. Bound to show up a community meeting or development site near you.

Change for the sake of change or unneeded density also is a real problem.

…and some ideas are just bad. Of course people would show up to community meetings to complain.

At ones 10 neighborhoods or more away from where they live?

So people in the neighborhood should be heard more loudly than people outside the neighborhood? We should listen to the survey? Ok, fine by me.

Please let the YIMBY shills know that they should mind their own business…it’s not their backyard, anyway.

Exactly, it's the bike lobby bro/greater greater washington nexus. Mainly white dudes trying to ruin things.

And with MAGA spinmeisters.

Again with this weird MAGA reference....

https://ggwash.org/view/91763/historic-districts-may-be-preserving-racial-segregation-in-dc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

Bullshit. 5 years from now you'll be getting your latte and chocolate crossiant from some trendy shop in what used to be the old community center site and saying to your friend 'can't believe *people* opossed this redevelopment years ago', ignoring that you were one of them.

There's already a quite nice place across the street to get a latte and a chocolate croissant. Do you really know the community, or is this yet another site for generic dense mixed-used sameness?

I want to get back to this post, as I believe it most clearly and succinctly identifies the impasse here.

The supporters of this “redevelopment” are not people who live in the neighborhood or have basically any idea about the neighborhood. They are - and I should say clearly, mostly well meaning - outsiders who were told that Chevy Chase is this wealthy, white enclave completely separate from the city, and that it has no apartments and is fighting against poor people moving into their exclusive enclave.

What they don’t realize is that all of that is just smoke and mirrors. Chevy Chase is one of the few primarily-low density residential, middle-to-upper-middle class neighborhoods in the city with a diverse, engaging community centered around a thriving commercial core that would be detrimentally impacted should these plans come to fruition. They don’t realize this because they don’t come up here to have a lovely scone and coffee at Bread & Chocolate, or get their hair cut at the wonderful family barber shop owned and operated by a first-generation Latino family, or enjoy some of the Best Greek Food in the city at Parthenon Restaurant, or grab a six pack at Magruders while chatting with the wonderful cashier who has been working there since you were a kid.

In short, they mean well, but they do not understand how important that community center and library is, and how big a loss they would be to this community. To those that support this plan, I ask that before you railroad through a plan that will further damage one of the few remaining middle class neighborhoods in this city against our wishes, that you actually come up here and walk down Connecticut Avenue, and enjoy a coffee at Bread and Chocolate, grab a bite to eat at Parthenon, get a haircut at the barber shop, but a six pack at Magruders, and see a show at the Avalon. Then, if you still think your hair rained scheme is a good one, I will look you in the eye and explain why you are wrong, but at least I can respect you.

I live squarely in the neighborhood and I absolutely support redevelopment.

I don’t care about the housing, but the current library and community center are awful, especially the community center. The programming is non-existent and it is literally falling apart.

The library is so much worse than the renovated Tenley and Cleveland Park, such that I rarely use it anymore even though I am only 4 blocks away.

The commercial stuff is fine, although it is frustrating to have so many banks and dry cleaners. I appreciate the Avalon but would have preferred the AMC at Mazza to have survived. There is not any talk of developing the West side of CT Avenue so not even sure why you are implying such.

I am hoping the Friendship Heights development of the former Mazza sparks something as it used to be fairly vibrant. Would love for that area to resemble the new development across from Sidwell with the Wegman’s and all the other new stores.

Two points in response:

First, you are absolutely correct that Chevy Chase DC should have a new branch library community center. DC has fully funded a number of such new facilities around the District, including some architecturally stunning ones, without conditioning them on the community having to swallow dense mixed-use development with a public asset. The community should absolutely reject Bowser’s condition that Chevy Chase can only have these new faculties if it agrees to private development on public land - likely a profitable giveaway to a politically-connected developer. Bowser and her associates should not be allowed to hold the new library and community center hostage to their own agenda.

Second, Friendship Heights is being redeveloped. Wisconsin in Friendship Heights has long been zoned for greater height and density. Chevy Chase residents can enjoy both aspects: a lower density, pedestrian-scale, neighborhood-oriented “village in the city” atmospher on Connecticut Avenue and a larger retail center in nearby Friendship Heights. The Chevy Chase Connecticut Ave area doesn’t have to be remade into Friendship Heights, too.

I agree with this post. I’m in favor of renovating the library and community center - both need it - but we DO NOT need a giant apartment building that is nothing but a giveaway to developers and will fundamentally change the character of the Conn Ave corridor. I’m tired of the million posts on the Chevy Chase list serv that are written by self-interested developers trying to pose as advocates for fair housing and equity.

Let's pretend for a minute that your unproven conclusions are wrong. Let's pretend that the deal is not a giveaway and that the people on the listserv have no connection to developers and are actual advocates for fair housing and equity.

What else do you have an issue with?

There are clearly some people who want to have this lucrative development opportunity very, very badly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The development isn't wanted or needed by the community. Period.

Redeveloping the community center and library were resoundingly approved by the community.

It is only the housing on top that was not.

Nobody is arguing over redevelopment of the Library and Community Center. Both need a renovation (at the very least).

The problem is that should the current plan move forward, the new library and community center would be the lowest priority, with the mixed use private development being the primary goal. Many local residents (including myself) are doubtful that a new community center and library would even actually be built under the current plan - the private developer would no doubt rush to construct the apartments approved through this Trojan horse maneuver (including the necessary demo of the existing library/community center) while DC futzes around trying to fund the new library/community center. Eventually the apartments will be built while the new library/community center will be quietly shelved and replaced with even more apartments.

If there is a clause in the contract that says community center and library must be complete before a single storefront or apartment could be rented, would you still have a problem with the development?

Yes, I would still have a problem with it. Maybe less so, but it’s just not appropriate for the neighborhood.

Chevy Chase remains one of the few thriving middle to upper middle class neighborhoods in DC where single family homes are predominant, and that needs to be protected before it turns into another Bethesda dominated by overpriced condos, apartments, townhomes, etc.

Why does it need to be protected?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The development isn't wanted or needed by the community. Period.

Redeveloping the community center and library were resoundingly approved by the community.

It is only the housing on top that was not.

Nobody is arguing over redevelopment of the Library and Community Center. Both need a renovation (at the very least).

The problem is that should the current plan move forward, the new library and community center would be the lowest priority, with the mixed use private development being the primary goal. Many local residents (including myself) are doubtful that a new community center and library would even actually be built under the current plan - the private developer would no doubt rush to construct the apartments approved through this Trojan horse maneuver (including the necessary demo of the existing library/community center) while DC futzes around trying to fund the new library/community center. Eventually the apartments will be built while the new library/community center will be quietly shelved and replaced with even more apartments.

If there is a clause in the contract that says community center and library must be complete before a single storefront or apartment could be rented, would you still have a problem with the development?

Yes, I would still have a problem with it. Maybe less so, but it’s just not appropriate for the neighborhood.

Chevy Chase remains one of the few thriving middle to upper middle class neighborhoods in DC where single family homes are predominant, and that needs to be protected before it turns into another Bethesda dominated by overpriced condos, apartments, townhomes, etc.

"Upper middle class" maybe for the folks who moved in 30 years ago. An entry level fixer upper inthis area goes for a cool $1.3mm. Upper middle class, this is not.

That is pretty middle class for the DC metro.

But that is beyond the point.

The point is that building massive apartment buildings on public land as a gift to wealthy developers is not what the community wants, and is not appropriate for the suburban, low density area, and would seriously impact the neighborhood. Connecticut avenue, and many of its side streets, are already at capacity (and add in the proposed bike lanes - it is only getting worse and worse), the parks are already overwhelmed, and there is zero access to reliable non-bus public transit, all without an influx of new residents.

I’m all for building more density, but it needs to be built places that can support it.

LOL.

-person who lives in an area that actually is suburban and low-density

[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:Nick, Ed and Lance?

Nick = Nick DellaDonne, the erstwhile bike opponent who has been caught on video yelling at children with a megaphone.

No idea who Ed and Lance are.

Ed Hanlon, his buddy attorney who Chevy Choice Voice retained. Lance is a lackey of theirs who is a frequent agitator on the AdMo listserv and in the public meetings.

Anyway, while certainly they hate bikes and cyclists, the thing they dislike even more is affordable housing and change in the neighborhoods of the city that takes the form of development.

These "nothing can/should ever change because its perfect the way it is" fools. Bound to show up a community meeting or development site near you.

Change for the sake of change or unneeded density also is a real problem.

…and some ideas are just bad. Of course people would show up to community meetings to complain.

At ones 10 neighborhoods or more away from where they live?

So people in the neighborhood should be heard more loudly than people outside the neighborhood? We should listen to the survey? Ok, fine by me.

Please let the YIMBY shills know that they should mind their own business…it’s not their backyard, anyway.

Exactly, it's the bike lobby bro/greater greater washington nexus. Mainly white dudes trying to ruin things.

And with MAGA spinmeisters.

Again with this weird MAGA reference....

https://ggwash.org/view/91763/historic-districts-may-be-preserving-racial-segregation-in-dc

I do not understand why you think this article is relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

Bullshit. 5 years from now you'll be getting your latte and chocolate crossiant from some trendy shop in what used to be the old community center site and saying to your friend 'can't believe *people* opossed this redevelopment years ago', ignoring that you were one of them.

There's already a quite nice place across the street to get a latte and a chocolate croissant. Do you really know the community, or is this yet another site for generic dense mixed-used sameness?

I want to get back to this post, as I believe it most clearly and succinctly identifies the impasse here.

The supporters of this “redevelopment” are not people who live in the neighborhood or have basically any idea about the neighborhood. They are - and I should say clearly, mostly well meaning - outsiders who were told that Chevy Chase is this wealthy, white enclave completely separate from the city, and that it has no apartments and is fighting against poor people moving into their exclusive enclave.

What they don’t realize is that all of that is just smoke and mirrors. Chevy Chase is one of the few primarily-low density residential, middle-to-upper-middle class neighborhoods in the city with a diverse, engaging community centered around a thriving commercial core that would be detrimentally impacted should these plans come to fruition. They don’t realize this because they don’t come up here to have a lovely scone and coffee at Bread & Chocolate, or get their hair cut at the wonderful family barber shop owned and operated by a first-generation Latino family, or enjoy some of the Best Greek Food in the city at Parthenon Restaurant, or grab a six pack at Magruders while chatting with the wonderful cashier who has been working there since you were a kid.

In short, they mean well, but they do not understand how important that community center and library is, and how big a loss they would be to this community. To those that support this plan, I ask that before you railroad through a plan that will further damage one of the few remaining middle class neighborhoods in this city against our wishes, that you actually come up here and walk down Connecticut Avenue, and enjoy a coffee at Bread and Chocolate, grab a bite to eat at Parthenon, get a haircut at the barber shop, but a six pack at Magruders, and see a show at the Avalon. Then, if you still think your hair rained scheme is a good one, I will look you in the eye and explain why you are wrong, but at least I can respect you.

I live squarely in the neighborhood and I absolutely support redevelopment.

I don’t care about the housing, but the current library and community center are awful, especially the community center. The programming is non-existent and it is literally falling apart.

The library is so much worse than the renovated Tenley and Cleveland Park, such that I rarely use it anymore even though I am only 4 blocks away.

The commercial stuff is fine, although it is frustrating to have so many banks and dry cleaners. I appreciate the Avalon but would have preferred the AMC at Mazza to have survived. There is not any talk of developing the West side of CT Avenue so not even sure why you are implying such.

I am hoping the Friendship Heights development of the former Mazza sparks something as it used to be fairly vibrant. Would love for that area to resemble the new development across from Sidwell with the Wegman’s and all the other new stores.

Two points in response:

First, you are absolutely correct that Chevy Chase DC should have a new branch library community center. DC has fully funded a number of such new facilities around the District, including some architecturally stunning ones, without conditioning them on the community having to swallow dense mixed-use development with a public asset. The community should absolutely reject Bowser’s condition that Chevy Chase can only have these new faculties if it agrees to private development on public land - likely a profitable giveaway to a politically-connected developer. Bowser and her associates should not be allowed to hold the new library and community center hostage to their own agenda.

Second, Friendship Heights is being redeveloped. Wisconsin in Friendship Heights has long been zoned for greater height and density. Chevy Chase residents can enjoy both aspects: a lower density, pedestrian-scale, neighborhood-oriented “village in the city” atmospher on Connecticut Avenue and a larger retail center in nearby Friendship Heights. The Chevy Chase Connecticut Ave area doesn’t have to be remade into Friendship Heights, too.

I agree with this post. I’m in favor of renovating the library and community center - both need it - but we DO NOT need a giant apartment building that is nothing but a giveaway to developers and will fundamentally change the character of the Conn Ave corridor. I’m tired of the million posts on the Chevy Chase list serv that are written by self-interested developers trying to pose as advocates for fair housing and equity.

Let's pretend for a minute that your unproven conclusions are wrong. Let's pretend that the deal is not a giveaway and that the people on the listserv have no connection to developers and are actual advocates for fair housing and equity.

What else do you have an issue with?

There are clearly some people who want to have this lucrative development opportunity very, very badly.

I'm sure there are a lot of people who want to have a lucrative development opportunity. What is your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The development isn't wanted or needed by the community. Period.

Redeveloping the community center and library were resoundingly approved by the community.

It is only the housing on top that was not.

Nobody is arguing over redevelopment of the Library and Community Center. Both need a renovation (at the very least).

The problem is that should the current plan move forward, the new library and community center would be the lowest priority, with the mixed use private development being the primary goal. Many local residents (including myself) are doubtful that a new community center and library would even actually be built under the current plan - the private developer would no doubt rush to construct the apartments approved through this Trojan horse maneuver (including the necessary demo of the existing library/community center) while DC futzes around trying to fund the new library/community center. Eventually the apartments will be built while the new library/community center will be quietly shelved and replaced with even more apartments.

If there is a clause in the contract that says community center and library must be complete before a single storefront or apartment could be rented, would you still have a problem with the development?

Yes, I would still have a problem with it. Maybe less so, but it’s just not appropriate for the neighborhood.

Chevy Chase remains one of the few thriving middle to upper middle class neighborhoods in DC where single family homes are predominant, and that needs to be protected before it turns into another Bethesda dominated by overpriced condos, apartments, townhomes, etc.

"Upper middle class" maybe for the folks who moved in 30 years ago. An entry level fixer upper inthis area goes for a cool $1.3mm. Upper middle class, this is not.

That is pretty middle class for the DC metro.

But that is beyond the point.

The point is that building massive apartment buildings on public land as a gift to wealthy developers is not what the community wants, and is not appropriate for the suburban, low density area, and would seriously impact the neighborhood. Connecticut avenue, and many of its side streets, are already at capacity (and add in the proposed bike lanes - it is only getting worse and worse), the parks are already overwhelmed, and there is zero access to reliable non-bus public transit, all without an influx of new residents.

I’m all for building more density, but it needs to be built places that can support it.

Trying to track here....

Continuing to characterize this development as a "gift" is unjustified speculation.....and apparently not the reason you object
The first bolded is three ways of saying the same thing.....which is that it is change and you don't want change
Then you argue infrastructure....which really doesn't make much sense unless you object to density in DC anywhere

Of course I object to giving gifts to private developers, but sadly that is just par for the course in this city nowadays.

There are neighborhoods where more density could be managed with infrastructure. These typically offer easy access to Metro, primary arterial roads, etc.

Unfortunately, most of these areas are in SE DC, so developers have little interest in developing them when, instead, they could bulldoze a beloved public library and community center and build expensive “luxury” apartments instead of the affordable apartments that the SE DC market can bear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The development isn't wanted or needed by the community. Period.

Redeveloping the community center and library were resoundingly approved by the community.

It is only the housing on top that was not.

Nobody is arguing over redevelopment of the Library and Community Center. Both need a renovation (at the very least).

The problem is that should the current plan move forward, the new library and community center would be the lowest priority, with the mixed use private development being the primary goal. Many local residents (including myself) are doubtful that a new community center and library would even actually be built under the current plan - the private developer would no doubt rush to construct the apartments approved through this Trojan horse maneuver (including the necessary demo of the existing library/community center) while DC futzes around trying to fund the new library/community center. Eventually the apartments will be built while the new library/community center will be quietly shelved and replaced with even more apartments.

If there is a clause in the contract that says community center and library must be complete before a single storefront or apartment could be rented, would you still have a problem with the development?

Yes, I would still have a problem with it. Maybe less so, but it’s just not appropriate for the neighborhood.

Chevy Chase remains one of the few thriving middle to upper middle class neighborhoods in DC where single family homes are predominant, and that needs to be protected before it turns into another Bethesda dominated by overpriced condos, apartments, townhomes, etc.

"Upper middle class" maybe for the folks who moved in 30 years ago. An entry level fixer upper inthis area goes for a cool $1.3mm. Upper middle class, this is not.

That is pretty middle class for the DC metro.

But that is beyond the point.

The point is that building massive apartment buildings on public land as a gift to wealthy developers is not what the community wants, and is not appropriate for the suburban, low density area, and would seriously impact the neighborhood. Connecticut avenue, and many of its side streets, are already at capacity (and add in the proposed bike lanes - it is only getting worse and worse), the parks are already overwhelmed, and there is zero access to reliable non-bus public transit, all without an influx of new residents.

I’m all for building more density, but it needs to be built places that can support it.

Trying to track here....

Continuing to characterize this development as a "gift" is unjustified speculation.....and apparently not the reason you object
The first bolded is three ways of saying the same thing.....which is that it is change and you don't want change
Then you argue infrastructure....which really doesn't make much sense unless you object to density in DC anywhere

Of course I object to giving gifts to private developers, but sadly that is just par for the course in this city nowadays.

There are neighborhoods where more density could be managed with infrastructure. These typically offer easy access to Metro, primary arterial roads, etc.

Unfortunately, most of these areas are in SE DC, so developers have little interest in developing them when, instead, they could bulldoze a beloved public library and community center and build expensive “luxury” apartments instead of the affordable apartments that the SE DC market can bear.

The site is on an arterial road and is under a mile from a metro. How close does it have to be to a metro to qualify?
Can you give an example of a neighborhood within DC that is better suited to more density?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The development isn't wanted or needed by the community. Period.

Redeveloping the community center and library were resoundingly approved by the community.

It is only the housing on top that was not.

Nobody is arguing over redevelopment of the Library and Community Center. Both need a renovation (at the very least).

The problem is that should the current plan move forward, the new library and community center would be the lowest priority, with the mixed use private development being the primary goal. Many local residents (including myself) are doubtful that a new community center and library would even actually be built under the current plan - the private developer would no doubt rush to construct the apartments approved through this Trojan horse maneuver (including the necessary demo of the existing library/community center) while DC futzes around trying to fund the new library/community center. Eventually the apartments will be built while the new library/community center will be quietly shelved and replaced with even more apartments.

If there is a clause in the contract that says community center and library must be complete before a single storefront or apartment could be rented, would you still have a problem with the development?

Yes, I would still have a problem with it. Maybe less so, but it’s just not appropriate for the neighborhood.

Chevy Chase remains one of the few thriving middle to upper middle class neighborhoods in DC where single family homes are predominant, and that needs to be protected before it turns into another Bethesda dominated by overpriced condos, apartments, townhomes, etc.

Why does it need to be protected?

Why does it need to change?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The development isn't wanted or needed by the community. Period.

Redeveloping the community center and library were resoundingly approved by the community.

It is only the housing on top that was not.

Nobody is arguing over redevelopment of the Library and Community Center. Both need a renovation (at the very least).

The problem is that should the current plan move forward, the new library and community center would be the lowest priority, with the mixed use private development being the primary goal. Many local residents (including myself) are doubtful that a new community center and library would even actually be built under the current plan - the private developer would no doubt rush to construct the apartments approved through this Trojan horse maneuver (including the necessary demo of the existing library/community center) while DC futzes around trying to fund the new library/community center. Eventually the apartments will be built while the new library/community center will be quietly shelved and replaced with even more apartments.

If there is a clause in the contract that says community center and library must be complete before a single storefront or apartment could be rented, would you still have a problem with the development?

Yes, I would still have a problem with it. Maybe less so, but it’s just not appropriate for the neighborhood.

Chevy Chase remains one of the few thriving middle to upper middle class neighborhoods in DC where single family homes are predominant, and that needs to be protected before it turns into another Bethesda dominated by overpriced condos, apartments, townhomes, etc.

Why does it need to be protected?

Why does it need to change?

To provide more housing
To provide more commerce
To provide more revenue to the City

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The development isn't wanted or needed by the community. Period.

Redeveloping the community center and library were resoundingly approved by the community.

It is only the housing on top that was not.

Nobody is arguing over redevelopment of the Library and Community Center. Both need a renovation (at the very least).

The problem is that should the current plan move forward, the new library and community center would be the lowest priority, with the mixed use private development being the primary goal. Many local residents (including myself) are doubtful that a new community center and library would even actually be built under the current plan - the private developer would no doubt rush to construct the apartments approved through this Trojan horse maneuver (including the necessary demo of the existing library/community center) while DC futzes around trying to fund the new library/community center. Eventually the apartments will be built while the new library/community center will be quietly shelved and replaced with even more apartments.

If there is a clause in the contract that says community center and library must be complete before a single storefront or apartment could be rented, would you still have a problem with the development?

Yes, I would still have a problem with it. Maybe less so, but it’s just not appropriate for the neighborhood.

Chevy Chase remains one of the few thriving middle to upper middle class neighborhoods in DC where single family homes are predominant, and that needs to be protected before it turns into another Bethesda dominated by overpriced condos, apartments, townhomes, etc.

Why does it need to be protected?

Why does it need to change?

It's going to change, regardless. Things change. Are you saying that you want to stop things from changing? You can't. How do you want things to change?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The development isn't wanted or needed by the community. Period.

Redeveloping the community center and library were resoundingly approved by the community.

It is only the housing on top that was not.

Nobody is arguing over redevelopment of the Library and Community Center. Both need a renovation (at the very least).

The problem is that should the current plan move forward, the new library and community center would be the lowest priority, with the mixed use private development being the primary goal. Many local residents (including myself) are doubtful that a new community center and library would even actually be built under the current plan - the private developer would no doubt rush to construct the apartments approved through this Trojan horse maneuver (including the necessary demo of the existing library/community center) while DC futzes around trying to fund the new library/community center. Eventually the apartments will be built while the new library/community center will be quietly shelved and replaced with even more apartments.

If there is a clause in the contract that says community center and library must be complete before a single storefront or apartment could be rented, would you still have a problem with the development?

Yes, I would still have a problem with it. Maybe less so, but it’s just not appropriate for the neighborhood.

Chevy Chase remains one of the few thriving middle to upper middle class neighborhoods in DC where single family homes are predominant, and that needs to be protected before it turns into another Bethesda dominated by overpriced condos, apartments, townhomes, etc.

"Upper middle class" maybe for the folks who moved in 30 years ago. An entry level fixer upper inthis area goes for a cool $1.3mm. Upper middle class, this is not.

That is pretty middle class for the DC metro.

But that is beyond the point.

The point is that building massive apartment buildings on public land as a gift to wealthy developers is not what the community wants, and is not appropriate for the suburban, low density area, and would seriously impact the neighborhood. Connecticut avenue, and many of its side streets, are already at capacity (and add in the proposed bike lanes - it is only getting worse and worse), the parks are already overwhelmed, and there is zero access to reliable non-bus public transit, all without an influx of new residents.

I’m all for building more density, but it needs to be built places that can support it.

Trying to track here....

Continuing to characterize this development as a "gift" is unjustified speculation.....and apparently not the reason you object
The first bolded is three ways of saying the same thing.....which is that it is change and you don't want change
Then you argue infrastructure....which really doesn't make much sense unless you object to density in DC anywhere

Of course I object to giving gifts to private developers, but sadly that is just par for the course in this city nowadays.

There are neighborhoods where more density could be managed with infrastructure. These typically offer easy access to Metro, primary arterial roads, etc.

Unfortunately, most of these areas are in SE DC, so developers have little interest in developing them when, instead, they could bulldoze a beloved public library and community center and build expensive “luxury” apartments instead of the affordable apartments that the SE DC market can bear.

The site is on an arterial road and is under a mile from a metro. How close does it have to be to a metro to qualify?
Can you give an example of a neighborhood within DC that is better suited to more density?

Connecticut Avenue is a collector, especially after the poorly thought out bike lane project that steals valuable traffic space, not an arterial street. And the Friendship Heights metro stop is approximately 0.8 miles from the proposed location, which is hardly walking distance for most people.

Friendship Heights is one location that could handle limited additional high density development. You are likely looking at more townhome/small lot residential development, rather then large scale multi-family, but Wisconsin Avenue is a minor arterial with direct access to Downtown DC, and Friendship Heights station is within easy walking distance of multiple local development opportunities.

Congress Heights is another excellent location. There is a wealth of opportunities surrounding the Metro Stop, and within close proximity to Suitland Parkway, an arterial street. Of course, the problem is that developers aren’t going to be happy because apartments built in Congress Heights will rent at $1,500-1700/month compared to the $3,000-4,000 rents that the developers can charge here in Chevy Chase.

Southern Avenue area has basically the same benefits as Congress Heights.

Minnesota Avenue also has open development potential, with Minnesota Avenue being an arterial street and the metro station.

You see a pattern? The areas where there is capacity for increasingly dense development are (generally) in poorer areas where the average rent is lower and the potential profit on the behalf of the developer is lower. Instead, these developers would much prefer to steamroll over the concerns of local residents and build $4000-5000/month apartments as a part of this insane Chevy Chase “affordable housing” program.

If DC actually wanted to help provide much needed affordable housing, they would be working to incentivize and work with developers in lower cost of living neighborhoods (primarily in SE and NE DC) to construct actually affordable housing rather then gifting their crony developers the opportunity to build luxury apartments over a public library and civic center where rents will be far, far above what the people in desperate need of housing can pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The development isn't wanted or needed by the community. Period.

Redeveloping the community center and library were resoundingly approved by the community.

It is only the housing on top that was not.

Nobody is arguing over redevelopment of the Library and Community Center. Both need a renovation (at the very least).

The problem is that should the current plan move forward, the new library and community center would be the lowest priority, with the mixed use private development being the primary goal. Many local residents (including myself) are doubtful that a new community center and library would even actually be built under the current plan - the private developer would no doubt rush to construct the apartments approved through this Trojan horse maneuver (including the necessary demo of the existing library/community center) while DC futzes around trying to fund the new library/community center. Eventually the apartments will be built while the new library/community center will be quietly shelved and replaced with even more apartments.

If there is a clause in the contract that says community center and library must be complete before a single storefront or apartment could be rented, would you still have a problem with the development?

Yes, I would still have a problem with it. Maybe less so, but it’s just not appropriate for the neighborhood.

Chevy Chase remains one of the few thriving middle to upper middle class neighborhoods in DC where single family homes are predominant, and that needs to be protected before it turns into another Bethesda dominated by overpriced condos, apartments, townhomes, etc.

"Upper middle class" maybe for the folks who moved in 30 years ago. An entry level fixer upper inthis area goes for a cool $1.3mm. Upper middle class, this is not.

That is pretty middle class for the DC metro.

But that is beyond the point.

The point is that building massive apartment buildings on public land as a gift to wealthy developers is not what the community wants, and is not appropriate for the suburban, low density area, and would seriously impact the neighborhood. Connecticut avenue, and many of its side streets, are already at capacity (and add in the proposed bike lanes - it is only getting worse and worse), the parks are already overwhelmed, and there is zero access to reliable non-bus public transit, all without an influx of new residents.

I’m all for building more density, but it needs to be built places that can support it.

Trying to track here....

Continuing to characterize this development as a "gift" is unjustified speculation.....and apparently not the reason you object
The first bolded is three ways of saying the same thing.....which is that it is change and you don't want change
Then you argue infrastructure....which really doesn't make much sense unless you object to density in DC anywhere

Of course I object to giving gifts to private developers, but sadly that is just par for the course in this city nowadays.

There are neighborhoods where more density could be managed with infrastructure. These typically offer easy access to Metro, primary arterial roads, etc.

Unfortunately, most of these areas are in SE DC, so developers have little interest in developing them when, instead, they could bulldoze a beloved public library and community center and build expensive “luxury” apartments instead of the affordable apartments that the SE DC market can bear.

The site is on an arterial road and is under a mile from a metro. How close does it have to be to a metro to qualify?
Can you give an example of a neighborhood within DC that is better suited to more density?

Connecticut Avenue is a collector, especially after the poorly thought out bike lane project that steals valuable traffic space, not an arterial street. And the Friendship Heights metro stop is approximately 0.8 miles from the proposed location, which is hardly walking distance for most people.

Friendship Heights is one location that could handle limited additional high density development. You are likely looking at more townhome/small lot residential development, rather then large scale multi-family, but Wisconsin Avenue is a minor arterial with direct access to Downtown DC, and Friendship Heights station is within easy walking distance of multiple local development opportunities.

Congress Heights is another excellent location. There is a wealth of opportunities surrounding the Metro Stop, and within close proximity to Suitland Parkway, an arterial street. Of course, the problem is that developers aren’t going to be happy because apartments built in Congress Heights will rent at $1,500-1700/month compared to the $3,000-4,000 rents that the developers can charge here in Chevy Chase.

Southern Avenue area has basically the same benefits as Congress Heights.

Minnesota Avenue also has open development potential, with Minnesota Avenue being an arterial street and the metro station.

You see a pattern? The areas where there is capacity for increasingly dense development are (generally) in poorer areas where the average rent is lower and the potential profit on the behalf of the developer is lower. Instead, these developers would much prefer to steamroll over the concerns of local residents and build $4000-5000/month apartments as a part of this insane Chevy Chase “affordable housing” program.

If DC actually wanted to help provide much needed affordable housing, they would be working to incentivize and work with developers in lower cost of living neighborhoods (primarily in SE and NE DC) to construct actually affordable housing rather then gifting their crony developers the opportunity to build luxury apartments over a public library and civic center where rents will be far, far above what the people in desperate need of housing can pay.

So how close to a metro does it need to be exactly?

And you are missing the inclusive zoning point. The idea is to break the pattern of keeping poor people in poor areas. And while it may not be a majority of the housing, a meaningful percentage of the housing will be below market rate.

[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:
The development isn't wanted or needed by the community. Period.

Redeveloping the community center and library were resoundingly approved by the community.

It is only the housing on top that was not.

Nobody is arguing over redevelopment of the Library and Community Center. Both need a renovation (at the very least).

The problem is that should the current plan move forward, the new library and community center would be the lowest priority, with the mixed use private development being the primary goal. Many local residents (including myself) are doubtful that a new community center and library would even actually be built under the current plan - the private developer would no doubt rush to construct the apartments approved through this Trojan horse maneuver (including the necessary demo of the existing library/community center) while DC futzes around trying to fund the new library/community center. Eventually the apartments will be built while the new library/community center will be quietly shelved and replaced with even more apartments.

If there is a clause in the contract that says community center and library must be complete before a single storefront or apartment could be rented, would you still have a problem with the development?

Yes, I would still have a problem with it. Maybe less so, but it’s just not appropriate for the neighborhood.

Chevy Chase remains one of the few thriving middle to upper middle class neighborhoods in DC where single family homes are predominant, and that needs to be protected before it turns into another Bethesda dominated by overpriced condos, apartments, townhomes, etc.

"Upper middle class" maybe for the folks who moved in 30 years ago. An entry level fixer upper inthis area goes for a cool $1.3mm. Upper middle class, this is not.

That is pretty middle class for the DC metro.

But that is beyond the point.

The point is that building massive apartment buildings on public land as a gift to wealthy developers is not what the community wants, and is not appropriate for the suburban, low density area, and would seriously impact the neighborhood. Connecticut avenue, and many of its side streets, are already at capacity (and add in the proposed bike lanes - it is only getting worse and worse), the parks are already overwhelmed, and there is zero access to reliable non-bus public transit, all without an influx of new residents.

I’m all for building more density, but it needs to be built places that can support it.

Trying to track here....

Continuing to characterize this development as a "gift" is unjustified speculation.....and apparently not the reason you object
The first bolded is three ways of saying the same thing.....which is that it is change and you don't want change
Then you argue infrastructure....which really doesn't make much sense unless you object to density in DC anywhere

Of course I object to giving gifts to private developers, but sadly that is just par for the course in this city nowadays.

There are neighborhoods where more density could be managed with infrastructure. These typically offer easy access to Metro, primary arterial roads, etc.

Unfortunately, most of these areas are in SE DC, so developers have little interest in developing them when, instead, they could bulldoze a beloved public library and community center and build expensive “luxury” apartments instead of the affordable apartments that the SE DC market can bear.

The site is on an arterial road and is under a mile from a metro. How close does it have to be to a metro to qualify?
Can you give an example of a neighborhood within DC that is better suited to more density?

Connecticut Avenue is a collector, especially after the poorly thought out bike lane project that steals valuable traffic space, not an arterial street. And the Friendship Heights metro stop is approximately 0.8 miles from the proposed location, which is hardly walking distance for most people.

Friendship Heights is one location that could handle limited additional high density development. You are likely looking at more townhome/small lot residential development, rather then large scale multi-family, but Wisconsin Avenue is a minor arterial with direct access to Downtown DC, and Friendship Heights station is within easy walking distance of multiple local development opportunities.

Congress Heights is another excellent location. There is a wealth of opportunities surrounding the Metro Stop, and within close proximity to Suitland Parkway, an arterial street. Of course, the problem is that developers aren’t going to be happy because apartments built in Congress Heights will rent at $1,500-1700/month compared to the $3,000-4,000 rents that the developers can charge here in Chevy Chase.

Southern Avenue area has basically the same benefits as Congress Heights.

Minnesota Avenue also has open development potential, with Minnesota Avenue being an arterial street and the metro station.

You see a pattern? The areas where there is capacity for increasingly dense development are (generally) in poorer areas where the average rent is lower and the potential profit on the behalf of the developer is lower. Instead, these developers would much prefer to steamroll over the concerns of local residents and build $4000-5000/month apartments as a part of this insane Chevy Chase “affordable housing” program.

If DC actually wanted to help provide much needed affordable housing, they would be working to incentivize and work with developers in lower cost of living neighborhoods (primarily in SE and NE DC) to construct actually affordable housing rather then gifting their crony developers the opportunity to build luxury apartments over a public library and civic center where rents will be far, far above what the people in desperate need of housing can pay.

So how close to a metro does it need to be exactly?

And you are missing the inclusive zoning point. The idea is to break the pattern of keeping poor people in poor areas. And while it may not be a majority of the housing, a meaningful percentage of the housing will be below market rate.

And you trust that DC will actually enforce any below market rent requirements (which, by the way, does not mean ‘affordable, just means slightly less then what current market rates in the area are)? Do you really think once the apartments are constructed and DC’s buddy-buddy developer pal starts renting each unit at $3,999/month rather then $4,000/month DC will just show up and start tearing the apartments down because their buddies aren’t meeting their stipulations and aren’t renting the apartments out cheaply enough?

That is not how this works. Any breach of contract would takes years of legal proceedings for DC to actually resolve, and cost tens of thousands of dollars. Most likely DC would just wash their hands of it rather than deal with the fallout. Even if they do try to hold their buddies accountable, it is hardly a sure thing that the courts would side with them and force the developer to provide affordable housing. Going back to the above example, if the developer can show that market rate in Chevy Chase DC is $4,000/ month and they are renting out the required number of “affordable” apartments at $3999.99/month with a $0.01 monthly convenience fee, are they not providing the apartments at “below market value?’ Obviously, depends on the talent of the lawyer who drew up the contract. But this is DC we are talking about, so I wouldn’t expect much competence from that department.

Again, why not incentivize development in area where the current rent is far more affordable? That is the only way you are actually going to get long-term affordable housing to help fix the current crisis.