Reply to Chevy Chase Community Center Redevelopment

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Chevy Chase Community Center Redevelopment"

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]What I always find funny about these “Ward 3 is white because of racism” folks is that they’re almost always white transplants who made the decision to move to ward 3. Ward 3 is white because that’s where white people like them decided to move, and then they cry that it’s racist that people like them decided to move there.

For instance, here’s Matt Frumin, who’s from Michigan:

“I’ve been saying this: Ward 3 came to look the way it did” — that is to say, White and rich — “because of exclusion based on intentional policies — exclusion and then segregation,” Frumin told me. “And we need intentional policies to remedy what happened in the past.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/01/31/making-dcs-ward-3-an-example-all-land/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_local

Frumin, the reason ward 3 is full of well-off white people like you is because that’s where you and other well-off white people like you [b]decided [/b]to move to. You could have moved to any other neighborhood in the city if you thought white people moving to ward 3 was segregationist. But being a white person, moving to a neighborhood, and then acting like it’s a travesty when other white people do the same thing is idiotic.

(The article is funny too, because Frumin says ward 3 is white because of segregation, and then goes on to say that he thinks his black friend didn’t buy a house in Tenleytown because his friend didn’t want to be around so many white people.)[/quote]

You really miss the point.  It is in the bolded.  And also this from the article:

"Today, White households in D.C. have 81 times the wealth of Black households — with 1,500 households in the city worth more than $30 million, according to the DC Fiscal Policy Institute."

Nobody is claiming that a white person's choice to move to the neighborhood is segregationist.  They are claiming that the fact that more people have the opportunity to move to that neighborhood is the result of intentional policies in the past.  And the belief that intentional policies are required in the present to remedy that.[/quote]

I’d love to live in Potomac, but I can’t afford to.  What about me?
[/quote]

I do think that more affordable housing should be developed in Potomac as well.

And the point is exclusionary policies that led to segregation in certain areas, as well as impeded generations from attaining wealth.  That is what people are trying to remedy.  They are not claiming that everyone should be able to afford to live anywhere.[/quote]

Let’s be clear:  the proposed public private partnership, [b]whereby the library and community center sites are given over to a private developer,[/b] is supposed to have an affordable housing component.  But there clearly is no fixed required percentage of affordable units right now (other than the DC statutory minimum) when a decision is being made on whether to proceed.  So what is being proposed is more market-rate development with some undetermined amount of “affordable”, likely IZ units. Proponents keep telling us that this is about addressing long ago  “exclusionary policies” and creating affordable housing, but never really show, much less explain, how more dense, mixed use is supposed to achieve those objectives.  Indeed, we can see how this trickle-down growth experiment is playing out all around Ward 3.  City Ridge is is fine but how is it affordable, particularly for families?  How does Upton Place, marketed as one of DC’s “most exclusive” enclaves, address exclusion?  Of course, these are private developments on privately owned land.  Yet now  the plan in Chevy Chase is to turn over public assets so a favored developer can do more of the same, but with only hopes and aspirations for some true affordability?  We’re all suckers and fools if we continue to fall for the development industry’s trickle-down fanstasy dust.[/quote]

Even how you phrase this is just flat out wrong.

The site will be redeveloped. [b]It will still be owned by the city.[/b] The city will own and control the community center and library, The city will sign a grond lease for 99 years for the dwellings to be developed. So basically in exchange for a ground lease, a developer will build some number of units and redevelop the city owned property, which will still be city owned.

The RFP process will show to the city, what the best 'deal" is in terms of mix of unit types and degree of affordability. If the city doesn't get any offers t likes, it doesn't have to go forward with an award.

Please stop spewing lies.[/quote]

What could go wrong? [/quote]

It won't be run by DCHA, it will be a private building with affordable/subsidized units. Like every other rental on CT Ave that isn't a condo. What could go wrong? I don't know, nothing different than say, the properties at Livingston and CT a couple of blocks down or 5333 that was built in the last decade.[/quote]

So the plan is to take public assets, add significant building density in what is essentially a public park, to create a mostly market-rate, private development like 5333 Connecticut Avenue?  That's a very questionable "deal" all around.[/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