Chevy Chase Community Center Redevelopment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You’re asking the wrong question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What’s to prevent the mayor from packing the proposed building with vouchers? There was a time when the Saratoga was considered upscale and see what they’ve done with it.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

I don’t give a flying fig what they “articulated.” What amount of affordable housing are they absolutely requiring?

Crickets.

[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.

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.

I don’t give a flying fig what they “articulated.” What amount of affordable housing are they absolutely requiring?

Crickets.

So the answer is "no, I do not have a link to back up my false claim that the proposal for the Chevy Chase Community Center is to have the absolute minimum of affordable housing"

Thank you for responding.

[Anonymous]

Worth remembering that the Future Land Use Map changes to Connecticut Ave and the Chevy Chase Small Area Plan (incl the housing development at the library) are the brainchild of ex-deputy mayor John Falcicchio and his right hand man Andrew Trueblood. And Falcicchio was Bowser’s right hand man with developers. Lovely. https://districtdig.com/2023/12/21/right-hand-man/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What’s to prevent the mayor from packing the proposed building with vouchers? There was a time when the Saratoga was considered upscale and see what they’ve done with it.

Nothing. And we all know that DC won’t have a wrecking ball ready to return the site to its current state once (not when) their developer buddies stop playing by the rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You’re asking the wrong question.

How is that the wrong question?

Lafeyette, Deal, and Jackson Reed (/Wilson) are already well over capacity. We cannot handle any more residential development until we have a new High School, middle school, and at least one new elementary school up and running for at least a few years to analyze existing development capacity. Period. Our schools can’t handle it now, and may not be able to handle it even after expansion considering the current crisis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You’re asking the wrong question.

How is that the wrong question?

Lafeyette, Deal, and Jackson Reed (/Wilson) are already well over capacity. We cannot handle any more residential development until we have a new High School, middle school, and at least one new elementary school up and running for at least a few years to analyze existing development capacity. Period. Our schools can’t handle it now, and may not be able to handle it even after expansion considering the current crisis.

No more plans for housing until three schools have been planned, built, and up and running "for at least a few years"? Kudos for thinking big.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You’re asking the wrong question.

How is that the wrong question?

Lafeyette, Deal, and Jackson Reed (/Wilson) are already well over capacity. We cannot handle any more residential development until we have a new High School, middle school, and at least one new elementary school up and running for at least a few years to analyze existing development capacity. Period. Our schools can’t handle it now, and may not be able to handle it even after expansion considering the current crisis.

Or, we can send kids to school buildings that are underutilized. There are a lot of them in Ward 4, Ward 1 and Ward 2 - all adjacent to Ward 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You’re asking the wrong question.

How is that the wrong question?

Lafeyette, Deal, and Jackson Reed (/Wilson) are already well over capacity. We cannot handle any more residential development until we have a new High School, middle school, and at least one new elementary school up and running for at least a few years to analyze existing development capacity. Period. Our schools can’t handle it now, and may not be able to handle it even after expansion considering the current crisis.

The only problem with this argument is that there is literally nothing stopping the owner of the building in which say Blue44 is housed, from deciding to throw up an apartment building if they thought they could make enough $$$s to justify the investment.

They would only have to abide by current zoning and other regulations which do not factor in the things you mention above regarding schools.

Also, there is no way the city would ever condition development on a new high school (although...there is a new high school in Macarthur which starting next year all Hardy kids will have to attend, which will help at Jackson-Reed), middle school and elementary school...I mean, that is a fantasy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You’re asking the wrong question.

How is that the wrong question?

Lafeyette, Deal, and Jackson Reed (/Wilson) are already well over capacity. We cannot handle any more residential development until we have a new High School, middle school, and at least one new elementary school up and running for at least a few years to analyze existing development capacity. Period. Our schools can’t handle it now, and may not be able to handle it even after expansion considering the current crisis.

Or, we can send kids to school buildings that are underutilized. There are a lot of them in Ward 4, Ward 1 and Ward 2 - all adjacent to Ward 3.

This flippant reply suggests that the writer has little firsthand knowledge of the Chevy Chase neighborhood or children who attend public schools in Chevy Chase and upper NW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You’re asking the wrong question.

How is that the wrong question?

Lafeyette, Deal, and Jackson Reed (/Wilson) are already well over capacity. We cannot handle any more residential development until we have a new High School, middle school, and at least one new elementary school up and running for at least a few years to analyze existing development capacity. Period. Our schools can’t handle it now, and may not be able to handle it even after expansion considering the current crisis.

The only problem with this argument is that there is literally nothing stopping the owner of the building in which say Blue44 is housed, from deciding to throw up an apartment building if they thought they could make enough $$$s to justify the investment.

They would only have to abide by current zoning and other regulations which do not factor in the things you mention above regarding schools.

Also, there is no way the city would ever condition development on a new high school (although...there is a new high school in Macarthur which starting next year all Hardy kids will have to attend, which will help at Jackson-Reed), middle school and elementary school...I mean, that is a fantasy.

The DC Comprehensive Plan used to require that before large development was approved there needed to be adequate school capacity and other infrastructure. But the “smart” growth development lobby succeeded in eliminating that requirement when the Comp Plan was last amended. Enjoy our overcrowded schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Worth remembering that the Future Land Use Map changes to Connecticut Ave and the Chevy Chase Small Area Plan (incl the housing development at the library) are the brainchild of ex-deputy mayor John Falcicchio and his right hand man Andrew Trueblood. And Falcicchio was Bowser’s right hand man with developers. Lovely. https://districtdig.com/2023/12/21/right-hand-man/

Why is it worth remembering?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Worth remembering that the Future Land Use Map changes to Connecticut Ave and the Chevy Chase Small Area Plan (incl the housing development at the library) are the brainchild of ex-deputy mayor John Falcicchio and his right hand man Andrew Trueblood. And Falcicchio was Bowser’s right hand man with developers. Lovely. https://districtdig.com/2023/12/21/right-hand-man/

What do you mean that it was "his brainchild" and do you have any proof of that?

And have we really reached the point of trying to undermine a project simply by creating an association with someone who may have touched it at one point? I know that is the MO of the persistent "MAGA" commenter, but it is really pathetic...

[Anonymous]

A fish rots from the head first. The DPMED office stinks of cronyism as does the Chevy Chase development deal.