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]From the public hearing Friday I thought this testimony was worth taking seriously

My name is ____, 45-year resident of Chevy Chase, retired three term
Chevy Chase ANC Commissioner. and Past President of the Chevy Chase
Community Association.

The subject Bill is deeply flawed. It is confusing, wrong on the facts, it
establishes poor public policy, and is deceitful about its intent. It should be
rejected.

Community members are confused why the Bill unfairly singles out Chevy Chase
for negative attention. Racially explicit deed restrictions can be found in virtually
every ward and neighborhood, affec􀆟ng thousands of households across
Washington DC. The prize-winning study, Mapping Segregation in Washington DC
(arcgis.com) bears this out, see Figure1. Every neighborhood in Ward 3 has
restrictive covenants in old deeds. Does the Councilmember intend to pursue
similar Bills for every neighborhood in Ward 3 or just discriminate against Chevy
Chase?

A puzzling element is that the Bill, while citing Chevy Chase in its title, directs
legislation at only four Tax Squares out of hundreds once owned by the Chevy
Chase Land Company (CCLC). What’s so special about these four? They are
occupied by a Presbyterian Church, a Safeway, a Wells Fargo Bank, the Chevy
Chase Library/Community Center (CC Commons) and 95 households. Except for
the CC Commons, not one of the proper􀆟es intends to consider building an
apartment building in the foreseeable future.

That leaves the CC Commons. It is the one and only property where an apartment
building is contemplated by the city. The administration is planning to upzone the
CC Commons in preparation for an RFP solicitation to developers. The back 40% of
the property deeded in 1909 is subject to the “no-apartment house” covenant.
I am proud to say that my research on the CC Commons inadvertently unearthed
its two deeds, the first in 1897 and the second in 1909. Both deeds transferred
land to the District government for a school.

The 1897 deed had no covenants. The 1909 deed had two: the first prevented
stables except in the rear of the property and required a 15-foot setback from the
street. These have been superseded by modern DC zoning.

The 1909 covenant is more vexing. It reads: “That no Apartment house or houses
shall be erected thereon.” The Councilmember, in his transmi􀆩al le􀆩er says that
“Such covenants appear to have been intended to exclude residents on the basis
of race and socioeconomic status.” It’s a wishy-washy statement because it’s not
truthful. The Councilmember has based his conclusion on a poor reading of
history and conjecture built up conjecture.

If the no- apartment house covenant was racist then the Fair Housing Act voids it.
If it is not racist, then why create this bill? By contrast, many turn-of-the-century
developers clearly used abhorrent language in their restrictive covenants. The
Chevy Chase Land Company (CCLC) could have easily inserted racial, religious, or
similar restrictions if it cared to do that, but it didn’t. I contend the true reason for
the covenant is that CCLC wanted to create a low-density, single-family housing
community. It is the simplest answer, and all the historic evidence points that way.

The Act should be rejected because it is wrong on the facts, and it establishes
poor public policy. It will harm ninety-five families with homes in those squares. It
doesn’t address housing segregation across Chevy Chase or across DC.

The heart of the matter is that the legislation is solely meant to pave the way for an
apartment building on the Chevy Chase Commons and if it were open and transparent, it would say so.

So why not be upfront and prepare a Bill to overturn
the covenant at the CC Commons and see how that goes?[/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