Chevy Chase Community Center Redevelopment

[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.

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.

Which has only resulted in more overcrowding. He is fighting the wrong battle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

SFH is the worst land use in human history. We don;t have enough land for everyone to live in SFH. As it is, our region is begrimed by an inadequate transportation system to handle what we have. We have to totally rethink how people live, work, play and get around, and SFH and cars are not the way to do it.

Funny thing then that people are willing to pay millions to live in a Victorian foursquare SFH on Morrison Street in Chevy Chase. Why on earth would anyone want to live in them?

Those houses are already there, built at a time when land was plentiful. If one were designing a city from scratch given today's population, there wouldn't be single family homes.

Cities need rich people. And most rich people want yards and SFH. You may not like that fact. But that will never change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

SFH is the worst land use in human history. We don;t have enough land for everyone to live in SFH. As it is, our region is begrimed by an inadequate transportation system to handle what we have. We have to totally rethink how people live, work, play and get around, and SFH and cars are not the way to do it.

Funny thing then that people are willing to pay millions to live in a Victorian foursquare SFH on Morrison Street in Chevy Chase. Why on earth would anyone want to live in them?

Those houses are already there, built at a time when land was plentiful. If one were designing a city from scratch given today's population, there wouldn't be single family homes.

Cities need rich people. And most rich people want yards and SFH. You may not like that fact. But that will never change.

This is absolutely fascinating. You are proposing that the city needs more SFH than it currently has. How would you go about achieving that policy goal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

SFH is the worst land use in human history. We don;t have enough land for everyone to live in SFH. As it is, our region is begrimed by an inadequate transportation system to handle what we have. We have to totally rethink how people live, work, play and get around, and SFH and cars are not the way to do it.

Funny thing then that people are willing to pay millions to live in a Victorian foursquare SFH on Morrison Street in Chevy Chase. Why on earth would anyone want to live in them?

Those houses are already there, built at a time when land was plentiful. If one were designing a city from scratch given today's population, there wouldn't be single family homes.

Washington DC’s population is smaller than it was in 1950. The city needs (and has) a variety of housing types, but single family homes are especially sought after, particularly in semi-suburban neighborhoods like Chevy Chase. Hence their high value. If anything, Northwest DC coukd use more of them.

In 1950, the houses on Morrison Street that you cite had two parents, live-in help and 4 to 6 kids. Today that same house would have a DINK couple or maybe 1-2 kids. That, more than anything, accounts for the population shift. So yes it was and it a highly sought after housing type. I am simply stating that having 3 people living on a .2 acre lot is very low density and wouldn't be what planners would seek if designing a city from scratch today.

[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.

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.

Which has only resulted in more overcrowding. He is fighting the wrong battle.

What?

He suppoprted the two new schools in Foxhall, one of which is open and creates more seats at Jackson-Reed. How does that result in more overcrowding?
He also supported the expansions of all of the schools in the Ward including his home schools of Janney, Deal and (now) Jackson-Reed. How did those renovations result in overcrowding?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

SFH is the worst land use in human history. We don;t have enough land for everyone to live in SFH. As it is, our region is begrimed by an inadequate transportation system to handle what we have. We have to totally rethink how people live, work, play and get around, and SFH and cars are not the way to do it.

Funny thing then that people are willing to pay millions to live in a Victorian foursquare SFH on Morrison Street in Chevy Chase. Why on earth would anyone want to live in them?

Those houses are already there, built at a time when land was plentiful. If one were designing a city from scratch given today's population, there wouldn't be single family homes.

Cities need rich people. And most rich people want yards and SFH. You may not like that fact. But that will never change.

I guess you haven't see where rich people live in NY City or Singapore or Hing Kong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

SFH is the worst land use in human history. We don;t have enough land for everyone to live in SFH. As it is, our region is begrimed by an inadequate transportation system to handle what we have. We have to totally rethink how people live, work, play and get around, and SFH and cars are not the way to do it.

Funny thing then that people are willing to pay millions to live in a Victorian foursquare SFH on Morrison Street in Chevy Chase. Why on earth would anyone want to live in them?

Those houses are already there, built at a time when land was plentiful. If one were designing a city from scratch given today's population, there wouldn't be single family homes.

Cities need rich people. And most rich people want yards and SFH. You may not like that fact. But that will never change.

I guess you haven't see where rich people live in NY City or Singapore or Hing Kong?

Yes, I know those cities and those rich people very well. And I know that the very second that their business obligations no longer require them to be in the city that they flee to their large SFH with a yard. Because living on top of each other in cities is a horrible way to live, no matter how you try to sugar coat it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

SFH is the worst land use in human history. We don;t have enough land for everyone to live in SFH. As it is, our region is begrimed by an inadequate transportation system to handle what we have. We have to totally rethink how people live, work, play and get around, and SFH and cars are not the way to do it.

Funny thing then that people are willing to pay millions to live in a Victorian foursquare SFH on Morrison Street in Chevy Chase. Why on earth would anyone want to live in them?

Those houses are already there, built at a time when land was plentiful. If one were designing a city from scratch given today's population, there wouldn't be single family homes.

Cities need rich people. And most rich people want yards and SFH. You may not like that fact. But that will never change.

I guess you haven't see where rich people live in NY City or Singapore or Hing Kong?

Yes, I know those cities and those rich people very well. And I know that the very second that their business obligations no longer require them to be in the city that they flee to their large SFH with a yard. Because living on top of each other in cities is a horrible way to live, no matter how you try to sugar coat it.

I am astonished and intrigued by your myopic view.

[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.

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.

Which has only resulted in more overcrowding. He is fighting the wrong battle.

What?

He suppoprted the two new schools in Foxhall, one of which is open and creates more seats at Jackson-Reed. How does that result in more overcrowding?
He also supported the expansions of all of the schools in the Ward including his home schools of Janney, Deal and (now) Jackson-Reed. How did those renovations result in overcrowding?

DCPS views expanded Ward 3 schools going forward (MacArthur, Eaton for example) as remaining at least 40 percent city-wide enrollment for equity reasons. As local crachement area enrollment grows this will perpetuate and exacerbate the Ward 3 overcrowding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

SFH is the worst land use in human history. We don;t have enough land for everyone to live in SFH. As it is, our region is begrimed by an inadequate transportation system to handle what we have. We have to totally rethink how people live, work, play and get around, and SFH and cars are not the way to do it.

Funny thing then that people are willing to pay millions to live in a Victorian foursquare SFH on Morrison Street in Chevy Chase. Why on earth would anyone want to live in them?

Those houses are already there, built at a time when land was plentiful. If one were designing a city from scratch given today's population, there wouldn't be single family homes.

Cities need rich people. And most rich people want yards and SFH. You may not like that fact. But that will never change.

I guess you haven't see where rich people live in NY City or Singapore or Hing Kong?

Yes, I know those cities and those rich people very well. And I know that the very second that their business obligations no longer require them to be in the city that they flee to their large SFH with a yard. Because living on top of each other in cities is a horrible way to live, no matter how you try to sugar coat it.

This is one reason why Spring Valley and the “village in the city” neighborhoods like Chevy Chase, Cleveland Park, Palisades remain so popular and pricey. There are nice houses, yards and green spaces, and neighborhood-serving retail nearby. It’s a head scratcher why the DC central planners and their developer allies want to change the essence of what has helped to make D.C. so desirable to people who might otherwise move to MD and VA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

SFH is the worst land use in human history. We don;t have enough land for everyone to live in SFH. As it is, our region is begrimed by an inadequate transportation system to handle what we have. We have to totally rethink how people live, work, play and get around, and SFH and cars are not the way to do it.

Funny thing then that people are willing to pay millions to live in a Victorian foursquare SFH on Morrison Street in Chevy Chase. Why on earth would anyone want to live in them?

Those houses are already there, built at a time when land was plentiful. If one were designing a city from scratch given today's population, there wouldn't be single family homes.

Cities need rich people. And most rich people want yards and SFH. You may not like that fact. But that will never change.

I guess you haven't see where rich people live in NY City or Singapore or Hing Kong?

Yes, I know those cities and those rich people very well. And I know that the very second that their business obligations no longer require them to be in the city that they flee to their large SFH with a yard. Because living on top of each other in cities is a horrible way to live, no matter how you try to sugar coat it.

I am astonished and intrigued by your myopic view.

It’s not my view. It’s the view of anyone with the means to make it so. Including Obama with his 7000 sq/ft home on the Vineyard and Biden with his 87 trips to Rehobeth at the expense of millions of taxpayers dollars and thousands of tons of CO2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

SFH is the worst land use in human history. We don;t have enough land for everyone to live in SFH. As it is, our region is begrimed by an inadequate transportation system to handle what we have. We have to totally rethink how people live, work, play and get around, and SFH and cars are not the way to do it.

Funny thing then that people are willing to pay millions to live in a Victorian foursquare SFH on Morrison Street in Chevy Chase. Why on earth would anyone want to live in them?

Those houses are already there, built at a time when land was plentiful. If one were designing a city from scratch given today's population, there wouldn't be single family homes.

Cities need rich people. And most rich people want yards and SFH. You may not like that fact. But that will never change.

Sure! Just look at Manhattan, for example. Or Paris. Or Singapore. Or Tokyo. All those rich people, living in detached houses with yards!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

SFH is the worst land use in human history. We don;t have enough land for everyone to live in SFH. As it is, our region is begrimed by an inadequate transportation system to handle what we have. We have to totally rethink how people live, work, play and get around, and SFH and cars are not the way to do it.

Funny thing then that people are willing to pay millions to live in a Victorian foursquare SFH on Morrison Street in Chevy Chase. Why on earth would anyone want to live in them?

Those houses are already there, built at a time when land was plentiful. If one were designing a city from scratch given today's population, there wouldn't be single family homes.

Cities need rich people. And most rich people want yards and SFH. You may not like that fact. But that will never change.

This is absolutely fascinating. You are proposing that the city needs more SFH than it currently has. How would you go about achieving that policy goal?

DP. Obviously, knocking down all of the apartment buildings on Connecticut Ave and replacing them with a couple of McMansions each. I don't know how that would pencil out, but cities need rich people, and most rich people want yards and SFH, and that will never change!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

SFH is the worst land use in human history. We don;t have enough land for everyone to live in SFH. As it is, our region is begrimed by an inadequate transportation system to handle what we have. We have to totally rethink how people live, work, play and get around, and SFH and cars are not the way to do it.

Funny thing then that people are willing to pay millions to live in a Victorian foursquare SFH on Morrison Street in Chevy Chase. Why on earth would anyone want to live in them?

Those houses are already there, built at a time when land was plentiful. If one were designing a city from scratch given today's population, there wouldn't be single family homes.

Cities need rich people. And most rich people want yards and SFH. You may not like that fact. But that will never change.

Sure! Just look at Manhattan, for example. Or Paris. Or Singapore. Or Tokyo. All those rich people, living in detached houses with yards!

Except for being a capital city, Washington is not like those foreign cities. And it is not and will never be Manhattan despite the fervent fantasy of some urbanist basement bloggers that it become so. Washington is a city that, unlike so many US cities, managed to fight the suburban flight of the 50s-80s. The reason it did so was many of its neighborhoods which offered the best of both close-in living, access to downtown, parks and culture, with some attributes of the suburbs. Chevy Chase is a good example. People clearly value those qualities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

SFH is the worst land use in human history. We don;t have enough land for everyone to live in SFH. As it is, our region is begrimed by an inadequate transportation system to handle what we have. We have to totally rethink how people live, work, play and get around, and SFH and cars are not the way to do it.

Funny thing then that people are willing to pay millions to live in a Victorian foursquare SFH on Morrison Street in Chevy Chase. Why on earth would anyone want to live in them?

Those houses are already there, built at a time when land was plentiful. If one were designing a city from scratch given today's population, there wouldn't be single family homes.

Cities need rich people. And most rich people want yards and SFH. You may not like that fact. But that will never change.

Sure! Just look at Manhattan, for example. Or Paris. Or Singapore. Or Tokyo. All those rich people, living in detached houses with yards!

Except for being a capital city, Washington is not like those foreign cities. And it is not and will never be Manhattan despite the fervent fantasy of some urbanist basement bloggers that it become so. Washington is a city that, unlike so many US cities, managed to fight the suburban flight of the 50s-80s. The reason it did so was many of its neighborhoods which offered the best of both close-in living, access to downtown, parks and culture, with some attributes of the suburbs. Chevy Chase is a good example. People clearly value those qualities.

Umm, what?

Read this thread. DC was hit hard by suburban flight in the 50-70s, which is part of why the population is still less than it was 60 years ago.