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]“[b]It is a scandal that the city sells public land to developers cheaply in the expectation of affordable housing and what we get instead is a glut of luxury housing while the need for affordable housing is in crisis[/b],” said Nick DelleDonne, speaking for the Wardman Hotel Strategy Team (WHST) on December 14 at a Council hearing for Bill 25-39, the Common Ground Amendment Act, introduced by Councilmember Janeese Lewis George.

[b]Two prime examples are the Chevy Chase property and the police and fire station complex at 1617 U St. NW,[/b] which is one of the last large public parcels remaining in the city. In the latter case DMPED held public meetings where virtually all public comment opposed the sale of the property. “That voice is being ignored as the process proceeds,” said DelleDonne.

The Wardman Team applauds the purposes of the bill to require more in-depth analysis prior to the surplus of District land and community engagement in real property surplus and disposition decisions, but remains skeptical that it addresses the problems. The record for comment is open until Dec. 21.[/quote]

Then it is a good thing the city isn't selling land to developers, at least where the Chevy Chase Community Center is concerned.

It kind of matters when people are articulating a position on an issue to use the basis of fact as part of the dialogue. Because lying and gaslighting truly undermine the position. [/quote]

A distinction without a difference.  A 99-year ground lease is actually even more favorable to the developer, who will not have to put up the considerable price to purchase the land and will build a cheap building that won't last that long.  In other words, well before the lease is up it won't care about the residual value of the building.  Bowser has to stop providing DC assets to her crony developers at sweetheart prices.[/quote]

In your mind it is without a difference, but the fact remains, the city owns the land and will continue to own the land. The developer will be responsible for building a new library, a new community center and new housing. They will also be responsible for maintaining that housing over the course of the lease. So it is in their interest not to build something that will require a lot of maintenance as the lease hits the latter decades.[/quote]

So you're saying that the library and no community center, etc. will be built with no public funds at all?  Where is that committed to?[/quote]

No, there would be public funds to build the library and community center, but it is likely the developer would use the same construction firm for all three, given economies of scale and coordination.[/quote]

Ah.  So it’s more likely that taxpayer funds will provide even more of a subsidy to the for-profit aspects of the project.  This will turn into a rather high value opportunity for a favored developer, indeed. Thanks, Bowser![/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