Chevy Chase Community Center Redevelopment

[Anonymous]

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.

Have you been to the Wegman’s development? Once you get beyond the front lawn, it’s just a dark cavernous warren of sidewalks between soulless buildings. There’s no light or vibrancy. No thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used 'the poors' ironically; obviously you didn't get it, but it is a DCUM trope to reflect your attitude.

The proposal is for an affordable housing building. That is what the Mayor and the ANC and the Councilmember all want and support.

Why people like you keep bleating on about market rate housing on the site is just baffling.

The proposal is for the absolute minimum of affordable housing. Its going to be mostly housing for the wealthy, which will do jack shit for the city's affordable hosing crisis. Please try to keep up.

Do you have a link for this (false) assertion?

Because in attending virtually all of the public meetings with DMPED and OP, that isn't what they articulated.

[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:

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.

How very droll of the entitled, white, boomer who adamantly believes their way of life is perfect and all others should just accept that.

NP, here. What makes you think anyone here is white or boomer? My family isn't and we oppose this. But your snarkiness puts a microscope on your prejudices. Whenever someone says something you don't like, you decide to try to say they're entitled or old or white. When you very most likely are white and entitled yourself. Why does your voice matter more than others?

Because if you look at the results of the ANC survey, they overwhelming respondents who were oversampled in the results, were aging white boomers who are opposed to the redevelopment. But I am a different posted than who you are responding to. That would be my guess.

It’s really hard to fathom why anyone would be cheerleading so hard (on Christmas no less) for fancy housing on this civic site when there are other buildings and developments going up around upper Northwest. One assumes that the cheerleader either is a developer who hopes to scoop up an opportunity on favorable terms or someone being paid by a developer, an investor group, or maybe the DC planning office. In any event, the attempt to sow division based on race and age is offensive. It’s a real estate project.

What difference does it make that it is Christmas?

What other affordable housing is going up in Upper Northwest? Please be specific on location and number of units. If anything, on Christmas, we should be cheering for opportunities to provide housing for people who need the help, you know, act Christian.

You are deluding yourself if you think this will be affordable housing. If you read a number of postings on this thread from proponents of the development they are very careful not to commit to any affordable housing percentage or number. A few say it will at least contain the legally required minimum, which is a meagre 8 percent. That’s the percentage at City Ridge and the large building on Connecticut and Military. Why then should a public site be given over to private development with no assurances that it won’t just be more of the same?

We won't know until we see the RFP and the responses to the RFP. The whole point of this project is that the finances work to maximize affordable housing because the city owns it and that is what it wants there.

We don’t need to see the RFP to know that this is a waste of money and that any limited “affordable” housing provided by this project is unlikely to be worth the loss of public space.

Our government should not waste money writing up an RFP for a failed project gated by the community.

LOL now we have moved the goalposts to "gated community" - bravo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I have lived in this community for 20+ years and have been very active in the community - church, boards, civic groups, etc. I absolutely know hundreds of community members, and I’m not sure why that is hard to grasp.

Of course the majority of people aren’t aware of this project, that is why I’m working my ass off to make sure everybody is aware of the monstrosity that is being railroaded into our community behind our back with no real public outreach. That is why I am discussing it with you.

And again, I don’t know anybody who is against renovating/replacing the library and civic center. I’m all for that! What we oppose is the city stealing private land and gifting it to their favored developers to build fancy new apartments where our infrastructure cannot handle it. If they want to renovate or replace the library and civic center, they should renegade or replace the civic center and library, full stop.

Which part(s) of "our infrastructure" cannot handle it, and how can "our infrastructure" not handle it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used 'the poors' ironically; obviously you didn't get it, but it is a DCUM trope to reflect your attitude.

The proposal is for an affordable housing building. That is what the Mayor and the ANC and the Councilmember all want and support.

Why people like you keep bleating on about market rate housing on the site is just baffling.

The proposal is for the absolute minimum of affordable housing. Its going to be mostly housing for the wealthy, which will do jack shit for the city's affordable hosing crisis. Please try to keep up.

Even market rate housing (which this project does NOT entirely consist of) helps make a dent in the affordability crisis. Try to keep up.

It's amazing that people think trickle-down economics will work with regard to housing when it doesn't work in nearly every other instance. But hey, the one semester of high school economics that most people take makes everyone an expert.

How did you get from

-this expands the supply of housing (which is what the PP said)

to

-this is trickle-down economics?

Please explain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have lived in this community for 20+ years and have been very active in the community - church, boards, civic groups, etc. I absolutely know hundreds of community members, and I’m not sure why that is hard to grasp.

Of course the majority of people aren’t aware of this project, that is why I’m working my ass off to make sure everybody is aware of the monstrosity that is being railroaded into our community behind our back with no real public outreach. That is why I am discussing it with you.

And again, I don’t know anybody who is against renovating/replacing the library and civic center. I’m all for that! What we oppose is the city stealing private land and gifting it to their favored developers to build fancy new apartments where our infrastructure cannot handle it. If they want to renovate or replace the library and civic center, they should renegade or replace the civic center and library, full stop.

Which part(s) of "our infrastructure" cannot handle it, and how can "our infrastructure" not handle it?

Oh, I don’t know. Maybe the Ward 3 schools which are already the most over crowded in the city?

[Anonymous]

It’s hard to unsee the damage the mayor has done to the Forest Hills neighborhood with her voucher program. I think that’s why there is a reasonable amount of apprehension over the proposed CC redevelopment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have lived in this community for 20+ years and have been very active in the community - church, boards, civic groups, etc. I absolutely know hundreds of community members, and I’m not sure why that is hard to grasp.

Of course the majority of people aren’t aware of this project, that is why I’m working my ass off to make sure everybody is aware of the monstrosity that is being railroaded into our community behind our back with no real public outreach. That is why I am discussing it with you.

And again, I don’t know anybody who is against renovating/replacing the library and civic center. I’m all for that! What we oppose is the city stealing private land and gifting it to their favored developers to build fancy new apartments where our infrastructure cannot handle it. If they want to renovate or replace the library and civic center, they should renegade or replace the civic center and library, full stop.

Which part(s) of "our infrastructure" cannot handle it, and how can "our infrastructure" not handle it?

Oh, I don’t know. Maybe the Ward 3 schools which are already the most over crowded in the city?

The addition of some number of affordable units is not going to break the bank for inboundry schools. And really, the lines should have been redrawn decades ago, or a few years ago, or right now. It is crazy the concentration of students from across the city in Ward 3 schools. But this proposal is not going to be material on that front.

It also won;t be material on things like water pipe, electric consumption etc.

Infrastrucutre is just another NIMBY buzzword to try to kill projects.

We have had all sorts of new development over the past 15 years and the NIMBYs have used infrastructure as part of their game the whole time and at the end of the day, nothing much has changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have lived in this community for 20+ years and have been very active in the community - church, boards, civic groups, etc. I absolutely know hundreds of community members, and I’m not sure why that is hard to grasp.

Of course the majority of people aren’t aware of this project, that is why I’m working my ass off to make sure everybody is aware of the monstrosity that is being railroaded into our community behind our back with no real public outreach. That is why I am discussing it with you.

And again, I don’t know anybody who is against renovating/replacing the library and civic center. I’m all for that! What we oppose is the city stealing private land and gifting it to their favored developers to build fancy new apartments where our infrastructure cannot handle it. If they want to renovate or replace the library and civic center, they should renegade or replace the civic center and library, full stop.

Which part(s) of "our infrastructure" cannot handle it, and how can "our infrastructure" not handle it?

Oh, I don’t know. Maybe the Ward 3 schools which are already the most over crowded in the city?

I agree those issues should be addressed. Good news is they are being addressed. The city already has plans to adjust feeders and build more schools, all of which will be complete before any new students will be living in the development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to unsee the damage the mayor has done to the Forest Hills neighborhood with her voucher program. I think that’s why there is a reasonable amount of apprehension over the proposed CC redevelopment.

1) the proposal for affordable housing is not attracting the same type of tenant who uses vouchers
2) either you or one of your compatriots above complained that there is just a superficial amount of affordable housing proposed. If that is the case, then the issue you express isn't really an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to unsee the damage the mayor has done to the Forest Hills neighborhood with her voucher program. I think that’s why there is a reasonable amount of apprehension over the proposed CC redevelopment.

I am in favor of the development, but I also agree this is a good point. This is why residents should be watching closely as this progresses and ensuring that it goes as intended.

What I don't agree with is blanket opposition to the project at all because it could hypothetically not go as planned. What is worse is using hyperbolic language and concluding/asserting that it is a giveaway and corrupt and a boondoggle or whatever other pejorative language.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have lived in this community for 20+ years and have been very active in the community - church, boards, civic groups, etc. I absolutely know hundreds of community members, and I’m not sure why that is hard to grasp.

Of course the majority of people aren’t aware of this project, that is why I’m working my ass off to make sure everybody is aware of the monstrosity that is being railroaded into our community behind our back with no real public outreach. That is why I am discussing it with you.

And again, I don’t know anybody who is against renovating/replacing the library and civic center. I’m all for that! What we oppose is the city stealing private land and gifting it to their favored developers to build fancy new apartments where our infrastructure cannot handle it. If they want to renovate or replace the library and civic center, they should renegade or replace the civic center and library, full stop.

Which part(s) of "our infrastructure" cannot handle it, and how can "our infrastructure" not handle it?

Oh, I don’t know. Maybe the Ward 3 schools which are already the most over crowded in the city?

The addition of some number of affordable units is not going to break the bank for inboundry schools. And really, the lines should have been redrawn decades ago, or a few years ago, or right now. It is crazy the concentration of students from across the city in Ward 3 schools. But this proposal is not going to be material on that front.

It also won;t be material on things like water pipe, electric consumption etc.

Infrastrucutre is just another NIMBY buzzword to try to kill projects.

We have had all sorts of new development over the past 15 years and the NIMBYs have used infrastructure as part of their game the whole time and at the end of the day, nothing much has changed.

Ahhhh. But this is a common deflection technique. “Oh, Shepherd only sends 20 kids a year to Deal, so it’s not a big deal.” Or, “Oh, there’s only a handful of OOB kids at Hearst, so it’s not a big deal.” Or now, “ The addition of some number of affordable units is not going to break the bank for inboundry schools.”

Well you know what? When you add it all up it is breaking the bank.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have lived in this community for 20+ years and have been very active in the community - church, boards, civic groups, etc. I absolutely know hundreds of community members, and I’m not sure why that is hard to grasp.

Of course the majority of people aren’t aware of this project, that is why I’m working my ass off to make sure everybody is aware of the monstrosity that is being railroaded into our community behind our back with no real public outreach. That is why I am discussing it with you.

And again, I don’t know anybody who is against renovating/replacing the library and civic center. I’m all for that! What we oppose is the city stealing private land and gifting it to their favored developers to build fancy new apartments where our infrastructure cannot handle it. If they want to renovate or replace the library and civic center, they should renegade or replace the civic center and library, full stop.

Which part(s) of "our infrastructure" cannot handle it, and how can "our infrastructure" not handle it?

Oh, I don’t know. Maybe the Ward 3 schools which are already the most over crowded in the city?

The addition of some number of affordable units is not going to break the bank for inboundry schools. And really, the lines should have been redrawn decades ago, or a few years ago, or right now. It is crazy the concentration of students from across the city in Ward 3 schools. But this proposal is not going to be material on that front.

It also won;t be material on things like water pipe, electric consumption etc.

Infrastrucutre is just another NIMBY buzzword to try to kill projects.

We have had all sorts of new development over the past 15 years and the NIMBYs have used infrastructure as part of their game the whole time and at the end of the day, nothing much has changed.

Ahhhh. But this is a common deflection technique. “Oh, Shepherd only sends 20 kids a year to Deal, so it’s not a big deal.” Or, “Oh, there’s only a handful of OOB kids at Hearst, so it’s not a big deal.” Or now, “ The addition of some number of affordable units is not going to break the bank for inboundry schools.”

Well you know what? When you add it all up it is breaking the bank.

What are you doing to increase school capacity in Ward 3?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have lived in this community for 20+ years and have been very active in the community - church, boards, civic groups, etc. I absolutely know hundreds of community members, and I’m not sure why that is hard to grasp.

Of course the majority of people aren’t aware of this project, that is why I’m working my ass off to make sure everybody is aware of the monstrosity that is being railroaded into our community behind our back with no real public outreach. That is why I am discussing it with you.

And again, I don’t know anybody who is against renovating/replacing the library and civic center. I’m all for that! What we oppose is the city stealing private land and gifting it to their favored developers to build fancy new apartments where our infrastructure cannot handle it. If they want to renovate or replace the library and civic center, they should renegade or replace the civic center and library, full stop.

Which part(s) of "our infrastructure" cannot handle it, and how can "our infrastructure" not handle it?

Oh, I don’t know. Maybe the Ward 3 schools which are already the most over crowded in the city?

The addition of some number of affordable units is not going to break the bank for inboundry schools. And really, the lines should have been redrawn decades ago, or a few years ago, or right now. It is crazy the concentration of students from across the city in Ward 3 schools. But this proposal is not going to be material on that front.

It also won;t be material on things like water pipe, electric consumption etc.

Infrastrucutre is just another NIMBY buzzword to try to kill projects.

We have had all sorts of new development over the past 15 years and the NIMBYs have used infrastructure as part of their game the whole time and at the end of the day, nothing much has changed.

Ahhhh. But this is a common deflection technique. “Oh, Shepherd only sends 20 kids a year to Deal, so it’s not a big deal.” Or, “Oh, there’s only a handful of OOB kids at Hearst, so it’s not a big deal.” Or now, “ The addition of some number of affordable units is not going to break the bank for inboundry schools.”

Well you know what? When you add it all up it is breaking the bank.

There are several plans on already in the works to address school capacity in Ward 3. New students will not appear in schools tomorrow. There is time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have lived in this community for 20+ years and have been very active in the community - church, boards, civic groups, etc. I absolutely know hundreds of community members, and I’m not sure why that is hard to grasp.

Of course the majority of people aren’t aware of this project, that is why I’m working my ass off to make sure everybody is aware of the monstrosity that is being railroaded into our community behind our back with no real public outreach. That is why I am discussing it with you.

And again, I don’t know anybody who is against renovating/replacing the library and civic center. I’m all for that! What we oppose is the city stealing private land and gifting it to their favored developers to build fancy new apartments where our infrastructure cannot handle it. If they want to renovate or replace the library and civic center, they should renegade or replace the civic center and library, full stop.

Which part(s) of "our infrastructure" cannot handle it, and how can "our infrastructure" not handle it?

Oh, I don’t know. Maybe the Ward 3 schools which are already the most over crowded in the city?

The addition of some number of affordable units is not going to break the bank for inboundry schools. And really, the lines should have been redrawn decades ago, or a few years ago, or right now. It is crazy the concentration of students from across the city in Ward 3 schools. But this proposal is not going to be material on that front.

It also won;t be material on things like water pipe, electric consumption etc.

Infrastrucutre is just another NIMBY buzzword to try to kill projects.

We have had all sorts of new development over the past 15 years and the NIMBYs have used infrastructure as part of their game the whole time and at the end of the day, nothing much has changed.

Ahhhh. But this is a common deflection technique. “Oh, Shepherd only sends 20 kids a year to Deal, so it’s not a big deal.” Or, “Oh, there’s only a handful of OOB kids at Hearst, so it’s not a big deal.” Or now, “ The addition of some number of affordable units is not going to break the bank for inboundry schools.”

Well you know what? When you add it all up it is breaking the bank.

Then district Lafayette into the Roosevelt pyramid, and problem solved!