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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
The development isn't wanted or needed by the community. Period. [/quote]

Redeveloping the community center and library were resoundingly approved by the community.

It is only the housing on top that was not.[/quote]

Nobody is arguing over redevelopment of the Library and Community Center. Both need a renovation (at the very least).

The problem is that should the current plan move forward, the new library and community center would be the lowest priority, with the mixed use private development being the primary goal. Many local residents (including myself) are doubtful that a new community center and library would even actually be built under the current plan - the private developer would no doubt rush to construct the apartments approved through this Trojan horse maneuver (including the necessary demo of the existing library/community center) while DC futzes around trying to fund the new library/community center. Eventually the apartments will be built while the new library/community center will be quietly shelved and replaced with even more apartments. [/quote]

If there is a clause in the contract that says community center and library must be complete before a single storefront or apartment could be rented, would you still have a problem with the development?[/quote]

Yes, I would still have a problem with it. Maybe less so, but it’s just not appropriate for the neighborhood.

Chevy Chase remains one of the few thriving middle to upper middle class neighborhoods in DC where single family homes are predominant, and that needs to be protected before it turns into another Bethesda dominated by overpriced condos, apartments, townhomes, etc.[/quote]

"Upper middle class" maybe for the folks who moved in 30 years ago. An entry level fixer upper inthis area goes for a cool $1.3mm.  Upper middle class, this is not.[/quote]

That is pretty middle class for the DC metro.

But that is beyond the point.

The point is that building massive apartment buildings on public land as a gift to wealthy developers [b]is not what the community wants, and is not appropriate for the suburban, low density area, and would seriously impact the neighborhood[/b]. Connecticut avenue, and many of its side streets, are already at capacity (and add in the proposed bike lanes - it is only getting worse and worse), the parks are already overwhelmed, and there is zero access to reliable non-bus public transit, all without an influx of new residents.

I’m all for building more density, but it needs to be built places that can support it. [/quote]

Trying to track here....

Continuing to characterize this development as a "gift" is unjustified speculation.....and apparently not the reason you object
The first bolded is three ways of saying the same thing.....which is that it is change and you don't want change
Then you argue infrastructure....which really doesn't make much sense unless you object to density in DC anywhere
[/quote]

Of course I object to giving gifts to private developers, but sadly that is just par for the course in this city nowadays.

There are neighborhoods where more density could be managed with infrastructure. These typically offer easy access to Metro, primary arterial roads, etc.

Unfortunately, most of these areas are in SE DC, so developers have little interest in developing them when, instead, they could bulldoze a beloved public library and community center and build expensive “luxury” apartments instead of the affordable apartments that the SE DC market can bear.[/quote]

The site is on an arterial road and is under a mile from a metro.  How close does it have to be to a metro to qualify?
Can you give an example of a neighborhood within DC that is better suited to more density?[/quote]

Connecticut Avenue is a collector, especially after the poorly thought out bike lane project that steals valuable traffic space, not an arterial street. And the Friendship Heights metro stop is approximately 0.8 miles from the proposed location, which is hardly walking distance for most people.

Friendship Heights is one location that could handle limited additional high density development. You are likely looking at more townhome/small lot residential development, rather then large scale multi-family, but Wisconsin Avenue is a minor arterial with direct access to Downtown DC, and Friendship Heights station is within easy walking distance of multiple local development opportunities.

Congress Heights is another excellent location. There is a wealth of opportunities surrounding the Metro Stop, and within close proximity to Suitland Parkway, an arterial street. Of course, the problem is that developers aren’t going to be happy because apartments built in Congress Heights will rent at $1,500-1700/month compared to the $3,000-4,000 rents that the developers can charge here in Chevy Chase.

Southern Avenue area has basically the same benefits as Congress Heights.

Minnesota Avenue also has open development potential, with Minnesota Avenue being an arterial street and the metro station.

You see a pattern? The areas where there is capacity for increasingly dense development are (generally) in poorer areas where the average rent is lower and the potential profit on the behalf of the developer is lower. Instead, these developers would much prefer to steamroll over the concerns of local residents and build $4000-5000/month apartments as a part of this insane Chevy Chase “affordable housing” program.

If DC actually wanted to help provide much needed affordable housing, they would be working to incentivize and work with developers in lower cost of living neighborhoods (primarily in SE and NE DC) to construct actually affordable housing rather then gifting their crony developers the opportunity to build luxury apartments over a public library and civic center where rents will be far, far above what the people in desperate need of housing can pay.[/quote]

So how close to a metro does it need to be exactly?

And you are missing the inclusive zoning point.  The idea is to break the pattern of keeping poor people in poor areas.  And while it may not be a majority of the housing, a meaningful percentage of the housing will be below market rate.[/quote]

And you trust that DC will actually enforce any below market rent requirements (which, by the way, does not mean ‘affordable, just means slightly less then what current market rates in the area are)? Do you really think once the apartments are constructed and DC’s buddy-buddy developer pal starts renting each unit at $3,999/month rather then $4,000/month DC will just show up and start tearing the apartments down because their buddies aren’t meeting their stipulations and aren’t renting the apartments out cheaply enough?

That is not how this works. Any breach of contract would takes years of legal proceedings for DC to actually resolve, and cost tens of thousands of dollars. Most likely DC would just wash their hands of it rather than deal with the fallout. Even if they do try to hold their buddies accountable, it is hardly a sure thing that the courts would side with them and force the developer to provide affordable housing. Going back to the above example, if the developer can show that market rate in Chevy Chase DC is $4,000/ month and they are renting out the required number of “affordable” apartments at $3999.99/month with a $0.01 monthly convenience fee, are they not providing the apartments at “below market value?’ Obviously, depends on the talent of the lawyer who drew up the contract. But this is DC we are talking about, so I wouldn’t expect much competence from that department.

Again, why not incentivize development in area where the current rent is far more affordable? That is the only way you are actually going to get long-term affordable housing to help fix the current crisis. [/quote]

I used the phrase below market for a reason.  I know what it means by DC law.  And it is not "slightly less" than current market.

The developer will build these units slightly smaller and with less upscale finishes. They will rent for less.  Can you cite to a single example of where these rules are being violated and the city is turning a blind eye?

(And also, it might help if you stop using "buddy buddy" and similar phrases to characterize your hypothetical relationship with the chosen developer.)[/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