Chevy Chase Community Center Redevelopment

[Anonymous]

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

Can you make any direct connection to cronyism with the Chevy Chase project?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I have actually lived here since 1990, but sure go ahead and claim I don't know the neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I have actually lived here since 1990, but sure go ahead and claim I don't know the neighborhood.

Is that when you were born?

[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 City Council can amend the zoning code and/or institute a residential moratorium whenever they feel like it. The answer is we need to make sure to keep the pressure on them to fix this broken system.

Problem is that the developers are bankrolling them and making them filthy rich, and is little guys simply can’t compete. But we can protest and make their lives as uncomfortable as possible to save our neighborhood. Personally, I would like to see resistance like ‘Cop City’ down in Atlanta for any residential development constructed prior to adequate school system expansions to accommodate future pressure from both current and future residential developments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 City Council can amend the zoning code and/or institute a residential moratorium whenever they feel like it. The answer is we need to make sure to keep the pressure on them to fix this broken system.

Problem is that the developers are bankrolling them and making them filthy rich, and is little guys simply can’t compete. But we can protest and make their lives as uncomfortable as possible to save our neighborhood. Personally, I would like to see resistance like ‘Cop City’ down in Atlanta for any residential development constructed prior to adequate school system expansions to accommodate future pressure from both current and future residential developments.

Can you please explain what you mean by the bolded? Who is the "them"?

[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.

CM Frumin has been clear that Ward 3 owes the rest of the city. Overcrowding is a small price to pay to the quality of the schools you receive.

[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.

CM Frumin has been clear that Ward 3 owes the rest of the city. Overcrowding is a small price to pay to the quality of the schools you receive.

Huh?

He has been advocating for more Ward 3 schools and school facilities improvements for decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 City Council can amend the zoning code and/or institute a residential moratorium whenever they feel like it. The answer is we need to make sure to keep the pressure on them to fix this broken system.

Problem is that the developers are bankrolling them and making them filthy rich, and is little guys simply can’t compete. But we can protest and make their lives as uncomfortable as possible to save our neighborhood. Personally, I would like to see resistance like ‘Cop City’ down in Atlanta for any residential development constructed prior to adequate school system expansions to accommodate future pressure from both current and future residential developments.

Again, let's keep the discussion to the real world. The City Council is not going to institute a residential moratorium, nor would it be worth anyone's time to advocate for that. You won't be viewed seriously. Also, zoning is going towards less SFH and more mullti-family development...what you are really saying is that the City Council needs to be completely revamped, and then maybe those new council members could change the zoning.

[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:

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.

I have actually lived here since 1990, but sure go ahead and claim I don't know the neighborhood.

Is that when you were born?

NP and is that an insult? A 33 year old could certainly have knowledge of the neighborhood and probably has a vested interest in schools given they are 33 and live in Chevy Chase. You sound like your youngest kids wouldn’t even be affected by this project as they age out of elementary school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 City Council can amend the zoning code and/or institute a residential moratorium whenever they feel like it. The answer is we need to make sure to keep the pressure on them to fix this broken system.

Problem is that the developers are bankrolling them and making them filthy rich, and is little guys simply can’t compete. But we can protest and make their lives as uncomfortable as possible to save our neighborhood. Personally, I would like to see resistance like ‘Cop City’ down in Atlanta for any residential development constructed prior to adequate school system expansions to accommodate future pressure from both current and future residential developments.

Again, let's keep the discussion to the real world. The City Council is not going to institute a residential moratorium, nor would it be worth anyone's time to advocate for that. You won't be viewed seriously. Also, zoning is going towards less SFH and more mullti-family development...what you are really saying is that the City Council needs to be completely revamped, and then maybe those new council members could change the zoning.

“Just give up because corrupt city council members are corrupt!” Is not a good argument.

Yes, the implication is that we need new leadership who are willing to stand up for local residents, not development interests and protect our neighborhoods. There are a good number of reasons why we need new leadership (crime, corruption, lying, etc…), but this is certainly one of them.

I strongly disagree with the current trends in urban development to discourage/prohibit construction of single family homes for these massive high density developments. If you ask the vast majority of Americans, their ideal home is a single family home, with a yard, and a garage, in a nice, well-kept neighborhood of the same. Building thousands of “luxury” apartments will not change the fact that this demand will not be met, and in fact will only increase demand (and ultimately cost) on a diminishing supply of single family ideal housing. People will rent for a few years, but all that is doing is offsetting demand for a short period.

If DC actually cared about increasing the supply of affordable housing, they would be identifying and incentivizing the construction of more modest single family homes in more affordable neighborhoods, not the construction of more “luxury” apartments in Chevy Chase for the middle class to live in for a year or two while they save up a down payment on an increasingly expensive long term home.

[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:

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 City Council can amend the zoning code and/or institute a residential moratorium whenever they feel like it. The answer is we need to make sure to keep the pressure on them to fix this broken system.

Problem is that the developers are bankrolling them and making them filthy rich, and is little guys simply can’t compete. But we can protest and make their lives as uncomfortable as possible to save our neighborhood. Personally, I would like to see resistance like ‘Cop City’ down in Atlanta for any residential development constructed prior to adequate school system expansions to accommodate future pressure from both current and future residential developments.

Again, let's keep the discussion to the real world. The City Council is not going to institute a residential moratorium, nor would it be worth anyone's time to advocate for that. You won't be viewed seriously. Also, zoning is going towards less SFH and more mullti-family development...what you are really saying is that the City Council needs to be completely revamped, and then maybe those new council members could change the zoning.

“Just give up because corrupt city council members are corrupt!” Is not a good argument.

Yes, the implication is that we need new leadership who are willing to stand up for local residents, not development interests and protect our neighborhoods. There are a good number of reasons why we need new leadership (crime, corruption, lying, etc…), but this is certainly one of them.

I strongly disagree with the current trends in urban development to discourage/prohibit construction of single family homes for these massive high density developments. If you ask the vast majority of Americans, their ideal home is a single family home, with a yard, and a garage, in a nice, well-kept neighborhood of the same. Building thousands of “luxury” apartments will not change the fact that this demand will not be met, and in fact will only increase demand (and ultimately cost) on a diminishing supply of single family ideal housing. People will rent for a few years, but all that is doing is offsetting demand for a short period.

If DC actually cared about increasing the supply of affordable housing, they would be identifying and incentivizing the construction of more modest single family homes in more affordable neighborhoods, not the construction of more “luxury” apartments in Chevy Chase for the middle class to live in for a year or two while they save up a down payment on an increasingly expensive long term home.

The bolded "protect" really means "preserve."

It is true that "the American Dream" has historically been what you describe. But the reality of the current environment, literal environment and social environment, is changing that. Plus, developers are indeed out to make money and will build those SFH if it is profitable. Plus, nothing about this project prevents a SFH from being built anywhere.

[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:

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 City Council can amend the zoning code and/or institute a residential moratorium whenever they feel like it. The answer is we need to make sure to keep the pressure on them to fix this broken system.

Problem is that the developers are bankrolling them and making them filthy rich, and is little guys simply can’t compete. But we can protest and make their lives as uncomfortable as possible to save our neighborhood. Personally, I would like to see resistance like ‘Cop City’ down in Atlanta for any residential development constructed prior to adequate school system expansions to accommodate future pressure from both current and future residential developments.

Again, let's keep the discussion to the real world. The City Council is not going to institute a residential moratorium, nor would it be worth anyone's time to advocate for that. You won't be viewed seriously. Also, zoning is going towards less SFH and more mullti-family development...what you are really saying is that the City Council needs to be completely revamped, and then maybe those new council members could change the zoning.

“Just give up because corrupt city council members are corrupt!” Is not a good argument.

Yes, the implication is that we need new leadership who are willing to stand up for local residents, not development interests and protect our neighborhoods. There are a good number of reasons why we need new leadership (crime, corruption, lying, etc…), but this is certainly one of them.

I strongly disagree with the current trends in urban development to discourage/prohibit construction of single family homes for these massive high density developments. If you ask the vast majority of Americans, their ideal home is a single family home, with a yard, and a garage, in a nice, well-kept neighborhood of the same. Building thousands of “luxury” apartments will not change the fact that this demand will not be met, and in fact will only increase demand (and ultimately cost) on a diminishing supply of single family ideal housing. People will rent for a few years, but all that is doing is offsetting demand for a short period.

If DC actually cared about increasing the supply of affordable housing, they would be identifying and incentivizing the construction of more modest single family homes in more affordable neighborhoods, not the construction of more “luxury” apartments in Chevy Chase for the middle class to live in for a year or two while they save up a down payment on an increasingly expensive long term home.

The bolded "protect" really means "preserve."

It is true that "the American Dream" has historically been what you describe. But the reality of the current environment, literal environment and social environment, is changing that. Plus, developers are indeed out to make money and will build those SFH if it is profitable. Plus, nothing about this project prevents a SFH from being built anywhere.

PP here and I should add- I live in a SFH myself. I like it. But I also understand that we have a housing crisis, that the environmental impact of SFH and their lawns is a harm to sustainability, and that density has multiple benefits. This is why I think that we as a society should be encouraging less of them, though not prohibiting them. This is in the same way that I think we should have more recycling and composting options and why I think there should be more incentives for low emission cars and sustainable appliances. It is also why I favor increased public transit and multi-passenger transportation, even though I rarely use it myself.

[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:

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 City Council can amend the zoning code and/or institute a residential moratorium whenever they feel like it. The answer is we need to make sure to keep the pressure on them to fix this broken system.

Problem is that the developers are bankrolling them and making them filthy rich, and is little guys simply can’t compete. But we can protest and make their lives as uncomfortable as possible to save our neighborhood. Personally, I would like to see resistance like ‘Cop City’ down in Atlanta for any residential development constructed prior to adequate school system expansions to accommodate future pressure from both current and future residential developments.

Again, let's keep the discussion to the real world. The City Council is not going to institute a residential moratorium, nor would it be worth anyone's time to advocate for that. You won't be viewed seriously. Also, zoning is going towards less SFH and more mullti-family development...what you are really saying is that the City Council needs to be completely revamped, and then maybe those new council members could change the zoning.

“Just give up because corrupt city council members are corrupt!” Is not a good argument.

Yes, the implication is that we need new leadership who are willing to stand up for local residents, not development interests and protect our neighborhoods. There are a good number of reasons why we need new leadership (crime, corruption, lying, etc…), but this is certainly one of them.

I strongly disagree with the current trends in urban development to discourage/prohibit construction of single family homes for these massive high density developments. If you ask the vast majority of Americans, their ideal home is a single family home, with a yard, and a garage, in a nice, well-kept neighborhood of the same. Building thousands of “luxury” apartments will not change the fact that this demand will not be met, and in fact will only increase demand (and ultimately cost) on a diminishing supply of single family ideal housing. People will rent for a few years, but all that is doing is offsetting demand for a short period.

If DC actually cared about increasing the supply of affordable housing, they would be identifying and incentivizing the construction of more modest single family homes in more affordable neighborhoods, not the construction of more “luxury” apartments in Chevy Chase for the middle class to live in for a year or two while they save up a down payment on an increasingly expensive long term home.

The bolded "protect" really means "preserve."

It is true that "the American Dream" has historically been what you describe. But the reality of the current environment, literal environment and social environment, is changing that. Plus, developers are indeed out to make money and will build those SFH if it is profitable. Plus, nothing about this project prevents a SFH from being built anywhere.

We have tried this before. Remember the condo phase, when developers tried to build all these large condo towers because, ‘It is the starter home of the future?’ Guess what, turns out most people don’t want to spend $200,000 on a box with neighbors sharing a wall/floor/ceiling on every size and half those buildings are currently rented out by the condo owners, serve as AirBnBs, or are empty.

The point is, and maybe I devolved a little bit, that this argument is silly as you can’t fix our country’s housing problem by building apartments, which are the exact reason we are in the situation to begin with. People are fed up with renting crappy apartments and want to purchase a nice single family home. Building more apartments does not reduce the demand of single family homes, and there is no scarcity of apartments that people don’t even want.

[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:

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 City Council can amend the zoning code and/or institute a residential moratorium whenever they feel like it. The answer is we need to make sure to keep the pressure on them to fix this broken system.

Problem is that the developers are bankrolling them and making them filthy rich, and is little guys simply can’t compete. But we can protest and make their lives as uncomfortable as possible to save our neighborhood. Personally, I would like to see resistance like ‘Cop City’ down in Atlanta for any residential development constructed prior to adequate school system expansions to accommodate future pressure from both current and future residential developments.

Again, let's keep the discussion to the real world. The City Council is not going to institute a residential moratorium, nor would it be worth anyone's time to advocate for that. You won't be viewed seriously. Also, zoning is going towards less SFH and more mullti-family development...what you are really saying is that the City Council needs to be completely revamped, and then maybe those new council members could change the zoning.

“Just give up because corrupt city council members are corrupt!” Is not a good argument.

Yes, the implication is that we need new leadership who are willing to stand up for local residents, not development interests and protect our neighborhoods. There are a good number of reasons why we need new leadership (crime, corruption, lying, etc…), but this is certainly one of them.

I strongly disagree with the current trends in urban development to discourage/prohibit construction of single family homes for these massive high density developments. If you ask the vast majority of Americans, their ideal home is a single family home, with a yard, and a garage, in a nice, well-kept neighborhood of the same. Building thousands of “luxury” apartments will not change the fact that this demand will not be met, and in fact will only increase demand (and ultimately cost) on a diminishing supply of single family ideal housing. People will rent for a few years, but all that is doing is offsetting demand for a short period.

If DC actually cared about increasing the supply of affordable housing, they would be identifying and incentivizing the construction of more modest single family homes in more affordable neighborhoods, not the construction of more “luxury” apartments in Chevy Chase for the middle class to live in for a year or two while they save up a down payment on an increasingly expensive long term home.

The bolded "protect" really means "preserve."

It is true that "the American Dream" has historically been what you describe. But the reality of the current environment, literal environment and social environment, is changing that. Plus, developers are indeed out to make money and will build those SFH if it is profitable. Plus, nothing about this project prevents a SFH from being built anywhere.

We have tried this before. Remember the condo phase, when developers tried to build all these large condo towers because, ‘It is the starter home of the future?’ Guess what, turns out most people don’t want to spend $200,000 on a box with neighbors sharing a wall/floor/ceiling on every size and half those buildings are currently rented out by the condo owners, serve as AirBnBs, or are empty.

The point is, and maybe I devolved a little bit, that this argument is silly as you can’t fix our country’s housing problem by building apartments, which are the exact reason we are in the situation to begin with. People are fed up with renting crappy apartments and want to purchase a nice single family home. Building more apartments does not reduce the demand of single family homes, and there is no scarcity of apartments that people don’t even want.

I do not remember a "condo phase". I know that condos exist. I also don't think there is anything wrong with an owner renting. I also know that the vast majority of people in large thriving cities live this way and are perfectly happy. How many SFHs are there in Manhattan?

Please help me understand how apartments are the CAUSE of the housing crisis?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 City Council can amend the zoning code and/or institute a residential moratorium whenever they feel like it. The answer is we need to make sure to keep the pressure on them to fix this broken system.

Problem is that the developers are bankrolling them and making them filthy rich, and is little guys simply can’t compete. But we can protest and make their lives as uncomfortable as possible to save our neighborhood. Personally, I would like to see resistance like ‘Cop City’ down in Atlanta for any residential development constructed prior to adequate school system expansions to accommodate future pressure from both current and future residential developments.

If a private developer wants to build Cathedral Commons or Upton Place in Chevy Chase DC, then they can do that on their property if zoning and historic regulations permit. What is objectionable here is the proposal to give over what is essentially a public square with public buildings on it as a private profit opportunity for a developer. That’s both unnecessary and a bit shady.