jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Sorry. I didn't have much time so I just had to do a quick hit and run.

Well, if you are going to do a hit and run, it might be a good idea to hit the correct target. Otherwise, your larger point gets missed. As a GU alum, I am supportive of the University and would love to see its graduate programs expand. But, when I was a student I lived in Burleith. We never cut our grass and had occasional loud parties. While I didn't have a car, everyone else in the house did, so they took up a lot of places on the street. Our neighbors had a lot of problems with us, but our landlord couldn't care less as long as we paid our rent on time. So, having been part of the problem, I get from where the residents are coming as well.

Another GU (grad) alum here, but on GU's side. I don't understand why the landlords and tenants can't be held responsible? Leases are for quiet enjoyment of the property. There are lots of landlord and tenant laws in DC to reinforce a peaceful and sanitary neighborhood. Not cutting your grass? It's a sanitation threat because it harbors rats -- there are city fines for that. Loud parties? Police carry decibel meters and issue citations for this purpose. Also, being neighborly goes a long way in the first instance of not creating a sterile environment where the student/group houses do not feel connected to the neighborhood and therefore feel badly about distrupting it. I live in Glover Park, we know the experience of group houses well. These things have worked on my block. I am also a landlord and know my responsibilities and obligations, both to my tenants and to my neighborhood. Disconnected landlords are a problem - but neighbors can really create a lot of havoc and expense by dealing with the bureaucracy that is DC landlord/tenant law.

I also strongly agree with the PP who said requiring enough housing on campus would be a fruitless and expensive proposition.

Anonymous wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-dc-vs-georgetown-in-urban-planning/2011/10/21/gIQAPkFcAM_story.html?hpid=z2

Short sighted and typical of this administration. One city under Vincent Gray.

Same type of thing has been going on with GWU for several administrations. It will end about the same way, too.

Anonymous wrote: I site my own neighborhood and its barren strip that has only a Starbucks left open. Pharmacy closed, toy store closed, yoga studio and offices on second floor closed. While we fight this more development goes on in the burbs and these people flood our streets and the NIMBys complain about suburban traffic. The new fight is against the Babes development and the Safeway development. I'm so sick and tired of it.

You are partly referring to Giant's real estate holdings on Wisconisn Avenue. Their development group is the Keystone Kops of real estate. As you point out, they evicted all of the tenants on a fully-leased block with a lot of neighborhood patronage -- Sullivan's Toys, the yoga studio, barber shop, etc., leaving only the two large, corporate-backed tenants, Starbucks and a bank and a slew of empty storefronts. The reason is that they are trying to get financing/attract an equity partner for their development project. Only the deep-pocketed chain leases are valuable to prospective purchasers -- Giant needed to clear all of the small businesses out so they wouldn't have various month-to-month tenant issues clouding their sale. Yet Giant apparently still has not been able to attract financing for its project. Unfortunately, they've also made clear that when the site is finally redeveloped (a bit of an "if" given the financiing difficulty and the murky legal status of the project) it's the chain leases that they want -- Starbucks, Pottery Barn, banks, etc. At one point they made noises about having favorable rents for the smaller shops to stay, but in the end never committed to that.

Anonymous wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-dc-vs-georgetown-in-urban-planning/2011/10/21/gIQAPkFcAM_story.html?hpid=z2

Short sighted and typical of this administration. One city under Vincent Gray.

Wrong. DC should milk private institutions like Georgetown for every cent they can. Let 'em move to Laurel if they don't like it.

Anonymous wrote:
Sorry. I didn't have much time so I just had to do a quick hit and run.

Well, if you are going to do a hit and run, it might be a good idea to hit the correct target. Otherwise, your larger point gets missed. As a GU alum, I am supportive of the University and would love to see its graduate programs expand. But, when I was a student I lived in Burleith. We never cut our grass and had occasional loud parties. While I didn't have a car, everyone else in the house did, so they took up a lot of places on the street. Our neighbors had a lot of problems with us, but our landlord couldn't care less as long as we paid our rent on time. So, having been part of the problem, I get from where the residents are coming as well.

No dog in this fight but I'm curious, how many of the apartments and houses are owned by DC or even Georgetown locals? If you live in the neighborhood, can't complain if you are leasing to a student thus contributing to the problem.

I lived next door to students in Georgetown. It was horrible.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-dc-vs-georgetown-in-urban-planning/2011/10/21/gIQAPkFcAM_story.html?hpid=z2

Short sighted and typical of this administration. One city under Vincent Gray.

This decision is being considered by the D.C. Zoning Commission, which is a quasi independent body. It has five members, 2 of whom are automatically appointed and 3 of whom are appointed by the mayor. Of those three mayoral appointees, one was appointed by Barry way back in 1998, and two were appointed by Fenty. So, if the Commission decides in favor of the proposal, you can blame Fenty rather than Gray.

The proposal itself is coming from the Office of Planning which is led by another Fenty-appointee, Harriet Tregoning. It is likely that the proposal has been in development from before Gray took office.

Finally, the knock on Gray is that "One City" is supposed to be code for robbing Wards 2 and 3 in order to provide for Wards 7 and 8. Yet, the city's proposal would forgo tax revenues in order to protect Ward 2 neighborhood interests. That would seem directly contrary to the expectation of "One City" critics.

Occasionally you will actually have to engage in thoughtful analysis rather than knee-jerk partisanship. This is one of those cases.

Sorry. I didn't have much time so I just had to do a quick hit and run. Jeff. My problem with DC and DC politicians is that they are so damn provincial and shortsighted. They view this as a sleepy town of 600,000 people that all know each other and should stay that way. A university is always going to have young hormone filled students thtat will do inappropriate things but by and large the student body is a great thing for the town. The NIMBYs in this town drive away more development than crime. I site my own neighborhood and its barren strip that has only a Starbucks left open. Pharmacy closed, toy store closed, yoga studio and offices on second floor closed. While we fight this more development goes on in the burbs and these people flood our streets and the NIMBys complain about suburban traffic. The new fight is against the Babes development and the Safeway development. I'm so sick and tired of it.

While I am more than ready to believe the worst about Mayor Gray, it's really silly to try to pin this conflict on him. In addition to the points Jeff makes, this anti-university effort is driven by Georgetown and the surrounding neighborhoods - not exactly bastions of Gray supporters.

Anonymous wrote:GU is all about increasing revenue (enrollment). Students with deplorable behavior are rarely, or never expelled. A student broke into a neighbor's house, trashed a basement bedroom before urinating and vomiting everywhere. GU did nothing. GU puts up with a lot of crappy behavior, even a meth lab. I'm glad they're being asked to house all undergrads. Maybe they can trash the campus instead of the neighborhood.

That's not quite accurate. There isn't going to be a requirement that undergrads live on campus, only that the university has housing available for all undergrads. Many will still choose to live off camous, making this whole endeavor pointless and unnecessarily costly.

Anonymous wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-dc-vs-georgetown-in-urban-planning/2011/10/21/gIQAPkFcAM_story.html?hpid=z2

Short sighted and typical of this administration. One city under Vincent Gray.

This decision is being considered by the D.C. Zoning Commission, which is a quasi independent body. It has five members, 2 of whom are automatically appointed and 3 of whom are appointed by the mayor. Of those three mayoral appointees, one was appointed by Barry way back in 1998, and two were appointed by Fenty. So, if the Commission decides in favor of the proposal, you can blame Fenty rather than Gray.

The proposal itself is coming from the Office of Planning which is led by another Fenty-appointee, Harriet Tregoning. It is likely that the proposal has been in development from before Gray took office.

Finally, the knock on Gray is that "One City" is supposed to be code for robbing Wards 2 and 3 in order to provide for Wards 7 and 8. Yet, the city's proposal would forgo tax revenues in order to protect Ward 2 neighborhood interests. That would seem directly contrary to the expectation of "One City" critics.

Occasionally you will actually have to engage in thoughtful analysis rather than knee-jerk partisanship. This is one of those cases.

I'm on GU's side but OP is such a whiner! Please get over yourself.

GU is all about increasing revenue (enrollment). Students with deplorable behavior are rarely, or never expelled. A student broke into a neighbor's house, trashed a basement bedroom before urinating and vomiting everywhere. GU did nothing. GU puts up with a lot of crappy behavior, even a meth lab. I'm glad they're being asked to house all undergrads. Maybe they can trash the campus instead of the neighborhood.

Thank you, person connected with Georgetown but who doesn't own residential property in west Georgetown!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-dc-vs-georgetown-in-urban-planning/2011/10/21/gIQAPkFcAM_story.html?hpid=z2

Short sighted and typical of this administration. One city under Vincent Gray.