Reply to The Urbanist Cult

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "The Urbanist Cult"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
The fact that the only thing they have planned for RFK are some sport fields and low rise commercial office buildings says a lot about Bowsers commitment to affordable housing. Even with flood zone constraints, the opportunities are limitless and they have chosen not to exercise any of them. [/quote]
Not to mention that all the folks screaming about density and upzoning just don’t seem to give a rats ass about the opportunities at RFK speaks volumes for what that movement is about. [/quote]

I'm all for redeveloping RFK into a dense housing and commercial neighborhood. (I do also like the soccer fields.) But [b](a) I live in Tenleytown, so I feel like I have more of a stake in -- and more authority to opine about -- what happens here than what happens in RFK,[/b] (b) there's no reason you can't build affordable housing next door to my house and also build it at the RFK site, and (c) I recognize that the D.C. government appears more interested in building a football stadium at RFK than in doing something useful for the people who live in D.C.[/quote]
We should only talk about and advocate for issues in our own neighborhood? That’s a great rule.

Also didn’t realize that you don’t seem too fussed that you think the city should prioritize using your tax dollars for a football stadium over affordable housing. So in terms of priorities you will advocate for they are very even. Cool, cool. [/quote]

What are you talking about? I wasn't the person who brought up RFK in the first place -- that was you or someone else, who seems to think that you can't have affordable housing anywhere in D.C. if you don't first put it somewhere else. I don't think affordable housing and a football stadium are even or equivalent. One reason to oppose the football stadium is that the site could be used instead for something useful. Is your idea basically that anyone who wants affordable housing anywhere in the city needs to get involved in plans to redevelop RFK? Talk about stupid rules.[/quote]
You brought up free land. There is no bigger piece of free land in DC than RFK. And yet none of y’all want to talk about it ever. It’s frankly bizarre considering that it had a metro stop. Whatever’s fevered dream you have for urban utopia could be fulfilled at RFK and yet it’s crickets as the city prioritized a couple soccer fields and unneeded commercial office space over affordable housing. Where’s the outcry?[/quote]

I didn't bring up free land.

I'd love to see RFK become residential housing. But RFK is also owned by the feds, leased to the city, and potentially in need of major environmental cleanup, so building anything there is going to a very long time. Whereas if they changed the zoning in Ward 3, someone could buy the house next to mine tomorrow, tear it down, and have four affordable apartments there within a year. Seems like a better fix to a housing problem to do both rather than insisting that we all talk about RFK instead of doing anything else![/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