Reply to Mary Cheh has turned Cleveland Park/Cleveland Park North into her personal political asset

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Mary Cheh has turned Cleveland Park/Cleveland Park North into her personal political asset"

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][quote=Anonymous]No, I think it is fine to increase density and have affordable units as part of a mix.

[b]What I do not favor is the city buying the Wardman[/b] and warehouse all of 'the poors" in one place as a way of solving the "ward 3" problem.

Bottom line, increasing density and spreading affordable units across  the new addresses better expresses economic and probably racial diversity across the Ward as oppose to just in one place.[/quote]

Of course the Smart Growth lobby disfavors the DC government buying the Wardman.  It's a very juicy, potentially highly profitable market rate development opportunity.[/quote]

Of course, the NIMBYs in Cleveland Park want to warehouse all of the poor people in one place that isn't their neighborhood.[/quote]

Last we checked, Cleveland Park has the only homeless shelter in Ward 3.  Mary Cheh got it moved from its orgiinal proposed location in Mass Ave Heights when some of her more influential constituents complained, and of course there's no shelter located in Cheh's own Forest Hills neighborhood.  John Eaton is the designated Ward 3 elementary school for the shelter.  So don't lecture Cleveland Park unless other Ward 3 neighborhoods are doing their part.[/quote]

I love this post.

[b]First, the CITY had it moved when the costs to partner with a private developer on private land escalated, so the city moved it to city owned land in Cathedral Heights (not Cleveland Park.)
[/b]
Second, the people of both Cathedral Heights AND Cleveland Park complained bitterly and fought in courts, the installation of a shelter, with all sorts of wild claims of traffic, parkking (as if homeless people have cars, LOL) and newfound crime in the area, as well as supercharged overcrowding for the schools. Of course, NONE of that came to pass.

Third, now, when it is convenient, you actually tout the shelters existence to bolster an argument.

Just a reminder

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/557686.page
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/600/532812.page

Just to cite two examples of threads that went off the rails over the fear and doom of the proposal.[/quote]

Some nice revisionist history in the bolded part. The city didn't have the shelter moved. The City Council had the shelter moved after it was revealed by WaPo that a massive developer donor to Bowser was going to reap ludicrous profits from the Mass Ave site and would take over the site entirely after 20 years per the terms of the lease, which almost certainly would have meant kicking out the homeless shelter. It had nothing to do with the cost of the site and everything to do with who would profit from it. Bowser tried to sneak that one past everyone and got caught red-handed.[/quote]

Interesting. Any rebuttal, PP at 6:25?[/quote]

Yes. The post I responded to said specifically that Mary Cheh had it moved because of influential constituents. I said "the city"moved it. The person responded to me in agreement, it was the city, not Cheh, that moved it. So what rebuttal are you looking for?[/quote]

You said "when the costs to partner with a private developer on private land escalated." That's superficially true but not the real reason: that Bowser was attempting to line her donors' pockets, and the Council only stepped in after WaPo revealed it. If you read the article, Bowser was trying to do this in every ward, not just Ward 3. The costs didn't "escalate": They were already high because the mayor wanted her donors to profit, at excessive cost to city taxpayers, and she almost got away with it. Frankly, I'm surprised it wasn't a bigger scandal. If it had occurred today, when Bowser has basically no friends left on a Council that is now filled with likely future electoral opponents, there would have been investigations.

Do you deny that Bowser's initial shelter placements were done entirely -- 100 percent -- with altruistic intent and not to benefit the companies that fund her campaigns? The established facts scream otherwise.[/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