jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey Jeff, who is the new Deputy Mayor for Econ Dev or is it still Victor Hoskins ?

Brian Kenner:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/digger/wp/2015/01/08/bowser-names-brian-kenner-top-economic-development-aide-shuffles-agencies/

Victor Hoskins already on his second job since leaving DC.

Where is Hoskins now ? we should warn the home owners of his new populous to watch out for zoning changes that are designed to free up housing stock to developers

Anonymous wrote:Hey Jeff, who is the new Deputy Mayor for Econ Dev or is it still Victor Hoskins ?

Brian Kenner:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/digger/wp/2015/01/08/bowser-names-brian-kenner-top-economic-development-aide-shuffles-agencies/

Victor Hoskins already on his second job since leaving DC.

Hey Jeff, who is the new Deputy Mayor for Econ Dev or is it still Victor Hoskins ?

The answer will reveal a lot about who Bowser is.

Also , let's FOIA the list the DC Builder's Assoc has sent the Mayor advising her on who they want for the upcoming vacancy on the Zoning Commission and HPRB review Board.

If Bowser rubber stamps their short list and picks no one that Comm of 100 nominates to the Mayor, then well, that will tell all

btw, " Brianne" is employed by the PR firm that lobbied the CC on behalf of the developer for McMillian Resevoir

IMO, the hostility towards developers is unjustified. However, the hostility to Mayor Bowser for making this decision, without even talking to the museum organizers, doesn't even pass the giggle test.

Shameful, and I am sure there will be more of this.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The city is simply putting the school back on the market, inviting the usual deep-pocketed firms to suggest yet more desultory office space, hotels for the 1 percent and other dreary things." "

office space provides room for jobs and pays property taxes. Less office space in DC means more jobs in the suburbs instead (downtown office space has a low vacancy rate and high prices) where transit is less convenient (even in the most transit oriented suburban locations)

Hotels, whomever their customers are, pay property taxes and provide employment.

Neither needs to be dreary.

I do not know how serious the financing issues for the museum are, nor the legal situation. I DO think that this kind of hostility toward economic activity is uncalled for. I am glad that Mayor Bowser is developer friendly - it suggests that her admin will continue the progress that was made in Gray, Fenty, and Williams administrations.

Museums create jobs as well. But, more importantly, unlike offices they attract people outside of normal work hours. Variety is important to an economy. If you want nothing but office buildings and a city that closes up at 6 pm, Bowser is probably the mayor for you. I am sure that when the project is awarded to one of the developers that has funded Bowser for years, you will be back here to defend the cronyism.

I am all for keeping downtown streets active longer - the most likely to way to get that will be with residential/retail mixed use, and, yes, hotels, though museums may help. As I said I am not judging the particulars of this case, which seem less clear cut to me, but the reflex hostility to commerce I saw above. And yes, I am glad Ms Bowser has financial ties to developers. The biggest threat to DC is not a minor difference in mix downtown, but broader NIMBYISM and hostility to neourbanism. The developers at least have a stake in opposing that.


And I would note that you now seem to be defending the actions of the Gray admin, which had definite issues with ethics. My point is not that this particular development was tainted by that, but that the forward progress of the city can be advanced by politicians of less than 100% purity.

Anonymous wrote:"The city is simply putting the school back on the market, inviting the usual deep-pocketed firms to suggest yet more desultory office space, hotels for the 1 percent and other dreary things." "

office space provides room for jobs and pays property taxes. Less office space in DC means more jobs in the suburbs instead (downtown office space has a low vacancy rate and high prices) where transit is less convenient (even in the most transit oriented suburban locations)

Hotels, whomever their customers are, pay property taxes and provide employment.

Neither needs to be dreary.

I do not know how serious the financing issues for the museum are, nor the legal situation. I DO think that this kind of hostility toward economic activity is uncalled for. I am glad that Mayor Bowser is developer friendly - it suggests that her admin will continue the progress that was made in Gray, Fenty, and Williams administrations.

Museums create jobs as well. But, more importantly, unlike offices they attract people outside of normal work hours. Variety is important to an economy. If you want nothing but office buildings and a city that closes up at 6 pm, Bowser is probably the mayor for you. I am sure that when the project is awarded to one of the developers that has funded Bowser for years, you will be back here to defend the cronyism.

"The city is simply putting the school back on the market, inviting the usual deep-pocketed firms to suggest yet more desultory office space, hotels for the 1 percent and other dreary things." "

office space provides room for jobs and pays property taxes. Less office space in DC means more jobs in the suburbs instead (downtown office space has a low vacancy rate and high prices) where transit is less convenient (even in the most transit oriented suburban locations)

Hotels, whomever their customers are, pay property taxes and provide employment.

Neither needs to be dreary.

I do not know how serious the financing issues for the museum are, nor the legal situation. I DO think that this kind of hostility toward economic activity is uncalled for. I am glad that Mayor Bowser is developer friendly - it suggests that her admin will continue the progress that was made in Gray, Fenty, and Williams administrations.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how she can just unilaterally cancel the prior agreement for the Franklin Square complex.

I think she can cancel it because it hasn't been approved by the Council. The Gray administration submitted it to the Council and it was referred to the committee chaired by Council Member Muriel Bowser -- who didn't move it.

Seems like a cozy play to swing the site to a friendly developer supporter

That is exactly what it seems like. Moreover, the RFP period for new proposals is especially short. A developer that might have been tipped off months ago would have a huge advantage in preparing a proposal.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how she can just unilaterally cancel the prior agreement for the Franklin Square complex.

I think she can cancel it because it hasn't been approved by the Council. The Gray administration submitted it to the Council and it was referred to the committee chaired by Council Member Muriel Bowser -- who didn't move it.

Seems like a cozy play to swing the site to a friendly developer supporter

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how she can just unilaterally cancel the prior agreement for the Franklin Square complex.

I think she can cancel it because it hasn't been approved by the Council. The Gray administration submitted it to the Council and it was referred to the committee chaired by Council Member Muriel Bowser -- who didn't move it.

I don't understand how she can just unilaterally cancel the prior agreement for the Franklin Square complex.

This is starting to remind me of the negative aspects of the Fenty era. I credit Fenty with doing a lot of good things, but an area of weakness was his efforts to award valuable city property to favored developers. Folks in Upper NW may remember the plan to provide a portion of the Janney school yard and the Tenley library to a development group that would supposedly pay some of the costs of renovation. The fiasco of a plan set both school and library projects back several years. Considering the overcrowding at Janney, giving up a portion of the playground and fields would have been foolish -- especially when the DC government was able to renovate schools and build libraries all over town without exacting a pound of flesh (or real estate, as the case may be) from those communities.

It is particularly sad considering the relationship that had been formed with the people redesigning Franklin Square Park. This is insanely stupid.

This is very concerning. Let's hope that Bowser's administration doesn't turn around and award Franklin School to a group that includes her Park Southern friends.

In this blog post which remains at the top of the DCUM Home Page:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/weblog/2015/01/02/bowser

I expressed my concerns about Muriel Bowser and her relationship with developers. Developers have exploited a loophole in DC campaign finance laws to contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to her various campaigns. It looks like my fears were well justified. Bowser just killed an agreement to create an art museum in the vacant Franklin School building. As the arts critic for the Post puts it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/museums/new-mayors-killing-of-dc-cultural-project-shows-only-money-matters/2015/02/10/5fff732a-b14d-11e4-827f-93f454140e2b_story.html

"And so we have a first, clear and painful indication that despite professed support for the arts and arts education, Bowser will prioritize the interests of commercial developers over the public well-being."
...

"Cultural promises are made to be broken, but the love between developers and politicians is golden, and abiding, and now we know the tone Bowser will set."
...

"The city is simply putting the school back on the market, inviting the usual deep-pocketed firms to suggest yet more desultory office space, hotels for the 1 percent and other dreary things."