Rock Creek Park needs to be developed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

How about Arlington National Cemetery? That place is primary for development?

[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.

Maybe Bob should stick to Trump and Ukraine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC is concerned about housing and not having enough, why isn't' the city developing Rock Creek Park? I'm not saying build over the entire thing, but take a sizeable chunk of it and build affordable housing.

It would be better to tear down all the SFH housing in NW and turn them into rowhouses.

^^^ THIS ^^^

Best idea of the whole thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

-+1. Bitter because I can’t have a SFH so I need fo take away from others. There is no housing crisis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

-+1. Bitter because I can’t have a SFH so I need fo take away from others. There is no housing crisis.

There is no housing crisis. There is a loser crisis. All these people complaining about not being able to afford a home on the leafy streets. Go get a job or move into a condo in Brookland. This is what happens when you hand out too many participation trophies.

[Anonymous]

There isn’t a housing crisis. There is a greedy developer crisis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why hasn't' EHN or Bowser asked the Feds to do a land swap or to purchase some portion of it for housing then??? How would that be a bad idea?

The issue in DC isn't affordable housing, it's that everyone thinks the solution is housing everyone and sending ALL the kids to school in Ward 3- (which at some point becomes an oxymoron). Building affordable housing blocks in Rock Creek Park does nothing to address this. If it did, they would not have knocked down the emergency housing in the old DC General.

[Anonymous]

Is the city putting in - or demanding that developers put in - affordable housing at Walter Reed and St. Elizabeths as they get developed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There isn’t a housing crisis. There is a greedy developer crisis.

But the housing crisis is being fanned by the greedy developers who push for zoning changes in Ward 3 and raising height limits so that they can build more and more expensive housing.

[Anonymous]

There is no right to affordable housing. Live where you can afford to buy a house whether that is in Ward 7 or 8 or MD/VA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There isn’t a housing crisis. There is a greedy developer crisis.

But the housing crisis is being fanned by the greedy developers who push for zoning changes in Ward 3 and raising height limits so that they can build more and more expensive housing.

Maybe some of you all that are complaining should take a page from these “greedy developers” who are trying to maximize their profits in order to make enough money not to have to be concerned about affordable housing. If you don’t want to make more money, live somewhere cheaper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

How about Arlington National Cemetery? That place is primary for development?

[Anonymous]

I was in RCP this morning and it’s completely flooded. The parts not flooded are steep ravines. That’s why it couldn’t be developed I even if you wanted to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was in RCP this morning and it’s completely flooded. The parts not flooded are steep ravines. That’s why it couldn’t be developed I even if you wanted to.

Oregon Avenue at Military Road, across the street from St John’s College HS is an open grass field on high ground and flat land. Perfect for development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was in RCP this morning and it’s completely flooded. The parts not flooded are steep ravines. That’s why it couldn’t be developed I even if you wanted to.

Oregon Avenue at Military Road, across the street from St John’s College HS is an open grass field on high ground and flat land. Perfect for development.

No. It’s perfect for recreation. Try your “Trump Growth” flackery somewhere else.