Reply to Oh, Chevy Chase (DC affordable housing)!

Forum Index » Real Estate

Reply to "Oh, Chevy Chase (DC affordable housing)!"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I don't understand why people can't separate out the issues of affordable housing with development of the library/community center.  Many of us want both - We want the city to do their job and refurbish the library and the community center as publicly owned assets.  And develop affordable housing in Ward 3.

The rub is - why does it all have to be on the same lot? [b]In case you haven't been around DC recently, the development boom over the last decade has been astounding and yet the pace has not kept up with demand, and growth in Ward 3 lags the other 7 wards significantly[/b] There's plenty of other housing being developed.  Does City Center have affordable housing? [b]yes[/b] What about all the development in Tenley/Friendship Heights? [b]yes, there are IZ units in the new buildings on Wisconsin Ave[/b] Or the many other aging apartment buildings on CT avenue that constantly have a "vacancy" sign out front. [b]some of those take vouchers, but you cannot force a private building owner to accept them[/b] Set the zoning to require set-asides of affordable housing units.[b] this is already being done[/b]  I'd even prefer the city buy one of these other buildings [or just units in one of these other buildings] and develop the whole thing into affordable housing.  [b]it is better to defuse affordable units across several buildings and neighborhoods rather than concentrating them[/b] But basically by combining the two and giving away public land to a developer, the City is basically giving away these public resources. [b]they aren't "giving the land to a developer- they are paying them to build the public facilities and incorporating some affordable and market rate housing with it, the city still owns the land[/b] [/quote][/quote]

CCDC resident who has been following this process. Actually the city will NO LONGER own the land if this proposal goes through. The city intends to surplus the land and "sell" it to the developer for a nominal amount ($1). As far as I understand, this is because the city is not in the business of developing real estate so it can't remain as owner of the land. This issue has created a lot of concern among residents because it furthers the suspicion that the proposal is a giveaway to developers.[/quote]

WRONG

The term surplus in this sense is not to SELL the property, but rather to "surplus" the current land so it can be made available for different uses. This has been explained NUMEROUS times on the listserv and in public meetings but people like you spread FALSE and MISLEADING information to scare everyone else to support your perspective.

The District of Columbia will still own the land. The District of Columbia will own and operate the library and the community center. The District of Columbia, in a joint venture, will operate a residential building that has affordable units in it in a long term ground lease.

Just stop with the lies, it is very Trumpian and unbecoming.[/quote]

I am the poster you are responding to and am genuinely interested in being corrected. Please stop calling me Trumpian and explain to me what surplusing means then. Clearly I missed the emails to the listserve where this was explained. You probably will not believe me if I say that this was a good faith error on my part but truly it is. Thanks. [/quote]

There are no fewer than at least 10 emails on the listserv that explained this. Do a search.

Here is a start
https://dmped.dc.gov/page/land-surplus-and-disposition-agreements[/quote]

Can you review this (https://dcregs.dc.gov/common/NoticeDetail.aspx?noticeId=N130203) then (Article 1) and tell me if I'm still wrong? Doesn't "disposition" mean selling? [/quote]

No, not in this context. It has been explained a million times. DC owns and will own the property. Terms like "surplus" and "disposition" do not have the common meaning in this context.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics