Big GDS news

[Anonymous]

1. Donohoe made a proposal for that site in 2003. 191 units vs 340. No retail.
2. No claim was made that a developer wouldn't be interested in the Martens site (which, BTW, is not one block from Metro -- it's basically equidistant from the Tenleytown and FH stations -- about 4 blocks either way). The question is under what circumstances would a developer prefer to build on GDS-owned land rather than a parcel the developer himself owns. The answer is if the developer gets more (e.g. density) for less (because GDS absorbs some of his development costs).
3. Not only will the developer be looking for a higher rate of return, GDS wants an income stream of its own on top of the developer's profits. The school's goal, like the developer's goal will be to maximize revenue extracted from the Wisconsin Ave site.

So if the comparison is between two scenarios -- developer buys Martens site and redevelops it vs. GDS buys site and makes a deal with a developer to redevelop the site, there is no reason to believe that the second scenario represents a kinder gentler alternative from the neighbors' POV. And there are good reasons (both economic and political/legal) to believe that the second scenario will have a much greater negative impact on the neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

I hope you're right 14:58. My support for the project is because what GDS is planning is smart and sensible. That existing stretch of Wisconsin is a waste of transit-accessible property and I'm so glad GDS is doing it. And yes, I live in the neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

GDS started off with humble roots in social justice. Now its an investor/front group in upscale condos who is about to enter into an epic fight with its neighborhood over its large scale development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The fact of the matter is that the Palisades location meant that only family with the time and means to commute to that location were able to send their kids there--i.e., relatively wealthy families. "

This makes no sense. Only rich people are allowed to drive to Palisades? I've never noticed the signs on MacArthur Blvd, banning people with middle and low incomes. Not to mention, GDS lower and middle school are already located in this high class section of DC - which - when I was a kid, was the last refuge of the now extinct DC redneck.

PP, you really don't understand this? Folks working two jobs, don't have a car, etc would need to jump through multiple hoops to get there. The logistics require time and money and that is what makes it exclusive.

No I dont. GDS already has 600 kids in the Palisades. Tuition is already 35k+ a year. GDS alumni road the D-4 and the D-6 to attend high school when it was located at the current River School. In addition to GDS, there are several other private schools in the palisades neighborhood. You don't want to admit GDS missed an important opportunity to secure land in a more logical area for the future of the school, but them'so the facts. Now the school is in a unfortunate situation with its campus. IF it doesn't consolidate, it will be hemmed in by commercial construction.

Whoa! How did you jump from questioning the SES of GDSers to imputing the strategic vision of the school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:GDS families come from (and that this may be true at all income levels), but won't make the school affordable to significantly more people (just different ones ).

One reason to consolidate campuses and create a revenue source is to maintain faculty salaries and increase financial aid.

[Anonymous]

Greedy Developers' School. The project is absurd and should be scaled way, way back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GDS families come from (and that this may be true at all income levels), but won't make the school affordable to significantly more people (just different ones ).

One reason to consolidate campuses and create a revenue source is to maintain faculty salaries and increase financial aid.

Presumably, that's how a developer sold the idea to the school's administration. The Board has also said that the revenue from the project will be used to prevent/limit future tuition increases. This is an all-things-to-all-people fantasy.

No developer has committed to the project or to a particular revenue stream. No realistic annual evenue stream from the sale or lease of the 3/4 of an acre of land at the Martens site will yield enough money to do all (or even much of any) of these things, given the size of the school (1200 students post-consolidation) and the cost of the tuition (currently $33-38K). Between land acquisition costs (already $40 million and increasing) and the costs of rebuilding the L/MS facilities at Tenleytown (estimated by the school to be $40-70 million -- only a fraction of which will ultimately be offset by the sale of the MacArthur campus), this is a ridiculously expensive/inefficient way to increase the funding for financial aid or hold down tuition increases or raise teacher salaries.

[Anonymous]

Did you forget your meds today?

Anonymous wrote:GDS parents, this thread is clearly the work of a developer who would love to get him/her hands on the Martens site and has a vested interested in blocking the school's plans. Let him take his issues and alternatives up with the City and see how far he goes. Don't waste your time engaging her. It only serves to feed his meme that there's an outpouring of opposition to GDS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That's fine, but you cannot speak for those of us close to Wisconsin Ave who FEAR not "drop offs" but WAY TOO MANY NEW RESIDENTS who will 1. have a car but 2. won't have onsite parking so they plop it in front of your driveway for 16 days at a time without moving it. (because they otherwise do take Metro, but hell, the car is paid for so why not keep it for weekends ...)

Multiply that times 100. It's a drag, and that's wholly independent of how much or little you as a parent care about rooftop vs. turf playing fields.

The bolded is quite a red herring, don't you think? Parking permits are for those who live in the neighborhood, whose kids would walk or be dropped off.

You did not read thoroughly, or perhaps you lack reading comprehension. Let me help.

Those of us who live very near the Martens site understand what happens when developers add too many ----> RESIDENTIAL UNITS <------- without onsite parking. The NEW RESIDENTS -- not students -- CLOG UP ALL THE SURROUNDING STREETS WITH CARS that they don't move for days on end. The "city" allows this because developers heavily fund campaigns / give gifts. The Ofc. of Planning spouts a bunch of bullshit that new RESIDENTS won't "drive cars" so they won't need onsite parking blah blah blah smart growth.

But their own DMV registration data show that, while a lot of new residents do use public transit for a lot of trips .... they still own cars and need to park them somewhere.

And again, 10:11 and others have nicely summarized why both GDS and developer partners are incentivized to maximize the absolute number of RESIDENTIAL UNITS in this project.

[Anonymous]

If the new buildings are not designated as eligible for residential parking permits, and the NEW RESIDENTS know that, and they have a car, THEY WON"T RENT THERE, or THEY WILL FIND ANOTHER PLACE TO STORE THEIR CAR despite the tripe and fear mongering you are posting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the new buildings are not designated as eligible for residential parking permits, and the NEW RESIDENTS know that, and they have a car, THEY WON"T RENT THERE, or THEY WILL FIND ANOTHER PLACE TO STORE THEIR CAR despite the tripe and fear mongering you are posting.

The city doesn't have a legal basis to withhold RPPs from some residents and not others within an RPP -- despite what smartgrowthers spout on listservs to placate opponents of waivers to mandatory onsite parking requirements. So if new residences are built within an RPP, there's no "eligible" test. You seem like you might be one of the growthers? Since you quickly came up with the equally bullshit notion promoted by Ward3Vision that 300 people will simply find convenient "places to store their cars" somewhere in proximity to their new homes.

[Anonymous]

Is the stretch of Wisconsin Avenue currently zoned for RPP?

Go check, I'll wait here.

Wait, I'll tell you the answer....No, it isn't. The ANC and Zoning Commission can insure the same will be the case after. Why not work with the ANC to make sure that happens rather than spouting BS on the internet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the new buildings are not designated as eligible for residential parking permits, and the NEW RESIDENTS know that, and they have a car, THEY WON"T RENT THERE, or THEY WILL FIND ANOTHER PLACE TO STORE THEIR CAR despite the tripe and fear mongering you are posting.

The city doesn't have a legal basis to withhold RPPs from some residents and not others within an RPP -- despite what smartgrowthers spout on listservs to placate opponents of waivers to mandatory onsite parking requirements. So if new residences are built within an RPP, there's no "eligible" test. You seem like you might be one of the growthers? Since you quickly came up with the equally bullshit notion promoted by Ward3Vision that 300 people will simply find convenient "places to store their cars" somewhere in proximity to their new homes.

Hmmm, I know a lot of folks who don't have RPPs b/c of their address. The city can do the same here.

[Anonymous]

While 21:22 was being an internet curmudgeon, the smart people were at the ANC meeting tonight asking for exactly this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is the stretch of Wisconsin Avenue currently zoned for RPP?

Go check, I'll wait here.

Wait, I'll tell you the answer....No, it isn't. The ANC and Zoning Commission can insure the same will be the case after. Why not work with the ANC to make sure that happens rather than spouting BS on the internet.

Not the PP being addressed, but, out of curiosity, I did do the look-up. Here's the database: http://ddotfiles.com/db/RPP/rpp.php and, for me, the entry for 4800 Wisconsin came up as line 3738 (but I can't tell how the list was sorted/organized so YMMV). The "B" in the column on the right indicates that addresses on both sides of that block are currently eligible for RPPs. In any event, eligibility is typically a function of residents' requests, so even if it had been the case that 4800 had not been on the RPP-eligible list, that would be no guarantee that buildings at that address wouldn't be added once hundreds of people moved in and petitioned for inclusion in the program.

Re asking the ANC and ZC for RPP denials -- it's up to DDOT. DDOT Is typically asleep at the wheel and routinely yields to political pressure. In the two cases that I know of in this ANC where RPP restrictions were part of an agreement with the developer in exchange for support in the PUD process, DDOT subsequently added both addresses (one post-construction, one pre-construction) to the eligible list and the ANC didn't even notice. (A neighbor did and got at least one of them removed, but that's no guarantee it won't get put back on if residents ask.). As a previous poster pointed out, it's not clear whether RPP denial is legitimate or politically viable. Seems really unfair to me and, at the level of votes, newcomers in high density buildings will always outnumber single family homeowners in the area.

All that said, at this point (with no developer on board), it seems as if GDS is proposing lots of onsite parking for the mixed-use project as well as for the school. Rather than ask the ANC for language denying RPPs to future residents, it makes sense to negotiate with GDS re the number of onsite parking spaces included in the PUD, to testify before the Zoning Commission that the onsite parking is a crucial requirement, and then to keep an eye on the PUD once a developer is named because that developer can request a chance in the terms of the PUD and "minor modifications" don't require public hearings. Since there's discretion involved regarding what constitutes a minor modification, it's worth flagging this issue to the ZC upfront, especially since onsite parking requirements are on the verge of changing citywide and could end up just under 1 for every 6 households at that site. A PUD can impose more stringent requirements than the zoning code does (because its function is to loosen other requirements, so it's a quid pro quo) -- so if neighbors are concerned about parking supply, it would make sense to be very clear that a specified amount of onsite parking is a crucial term in the agreement on this particular project (and not something that can/should be waived in exchange for RPP denials or in light of changes to the zoning code more generally).