Anonymous wrote:It will be even funnier when the Chevy Chase NIMBYs discover that she is for the project.

We'll see. I think you're correct but I also wouldn't underestimate the level of opposition the community has for the project. Shutting it down would be an instant popularity boost for her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We'll see if JLG keeps her promise to kill this project. If not, it's yet another warning sign about her.

She never said she would kill the project. She said that the project as currently devised had too much benefit for the developer and she prefers "social housing" as a means by which to achieve the goal. She pledged to build 72,000 new units of housing - killing this project would undermine her own cornerstone platform issue.

Where did you get the idea she promised to kill the project?

https://x.com/GoreforDC/status/2063709889109672445

She has repeatedly said she wants to start the project over to make it entirely social housing, which is the same thing as saying she wants to kill the project to die because her plan has a 0.0 percent chance of happening.

JLG also has met multiple times with Chevy Chase Voice, the leading opposition group to the project, while meeting zero times with the group that supports the project.

It's going to be hilarious when the YIMBY groups who endorsed her realize they got completely hoodwinked, because JLG is a NIMBY and always has been.

How do you square the circle that she wants 72,000 new units of housing but will somehow oppose this particular one?

You'll have to ask her, she's the one who is opposing it.

And the 72,000 number she threw out is utterly preposterous, considering her platform is full of NIMBYism (rent control expansion, letting people continue to not pay rent and face zero consequences, opposition to the CCDC project, massive social housing, etc.). Under the policies she is promising, no project is ever going to pencil out, and nothing will ever be built.

But hey, she promised some bike lanes so you all fell for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We'll see if JLG keeps her promise to kill this project. If not, it's yet another warning sign about her.

She never said she would kill the project. She said that the project as currently devised had too much benefit for the developer and she prefers "social housing" as a means by which to achieve the goal. She pledged to build 72,000 new units of housing - killing this project would undermine her own cornerstone platform issue.

Where did you get the idea she promised to kill the project?

https://x.com/GoreforDC/status/2063709889109672445

She has repeatedly said she wants to start the project over to make it entirely social housing, which is the same thing as saying she wants to kill the project to die because her plan has a 0.0 percent chance of happening.

JLG also has met multiple times with Chevy Chase Voice, the leading opposition group to the project, while meeting zero times with the group that supports the project.

It's going to be hilarious when the YIMBY groups who endorsed her realize they got completely hoodwinked, because JLG is a NIMBY and always has been.

How do you square the circle that she wants 72,000 new units of housing but will somehow oppose this particular one?

It will be even funnier when the Chevy Chase NIMBYs discover that she is for the project.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We'll see if JLG keeps her promise to kill this project. If not, it's yet another warning sign about her.

She never said she would kill the project. She said that the project as currently devised had too much benefit for the developer and she prefers "social housing" as a means by which to achieve the goal. She pledged to build 72,000 new units of housing - killing this project would undermine her own cornerstone platform issue.

Where did you get the idea she promised to kill the project?

https://x.com/GoreforDC/status/2063709889109672445

She has repeatedly said she wants to start the project over to make it entirely social housing, which is the same thing as saying she wants to kill the project to die because her plan has a 0.0 percent chance of happening.

JLG also has met multiple times with Chevy Chase Voice, the leading opposition group to the project, while meeting zero times with the group that supports the project.

It's going to be hilarious when the YIMBY groups who endorsed her realize they got completely hoodwinked, because JLG is a NIMBY and always has been.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My understanding is that ground level green space will be basically eliminated, and moved to the rooftop which may well have astroturf. No one wants this....No one. To call this "more greenspace" is outrageous. Its a tone deaf workaround and everyone knows it.

In addition, ground level retail of 8000 sf has been offered as part of the $1 giveaway deal while community center and library will be reduced in size...because hey, in the future who needs books?

And somehow a bunch of somewhat naive ANC members are patting themselves on the back for indulging this atrocious land grab in the name of affordable housing which its not gonna be.

Its gonna be a mixed use development with expansive retail, a few reduced rate condos and mostly new expensive housing, given to a developer for free, with tax breaks, 1$ rent for about a century, and reduced diminished public facilities ..train wreck sponsored by profoundly ill informed actors who have selfish short term interests front of mind.

False.

First, DCPL has had input on how much space they want. They were given what they requested. There is no shortchanging of space for either the library or community center. Continuing to claim "we are losing XXX space" is simply false. Both the library and community center were designed in a different era when space was taken up with infrastructure such as boiler rooms, that are no longer needed.

Second, buildings cost money, affordable housing needs to be subsidized. Having ground floor retail helps offset the costs for this building. Maybe if the city had been able to start on it in 2019 rather than 2027, the costs would have allowed to bypass the need for ground floor retail, alas, NIMBYs fought and fought and fought so here we are.

You just can't help yourself. It is a simple and unequivocal fact that both the library and community center are losing space.

Yes, but if you read the fine print, as has been explained in this forum and at every meeting DPR and DCPL and DMPED have attended, the current buildings have inefficient use of space, and both entities were consulted about their programming and space needs, and the current proposal meets or exceeds those requirements. At the meeting last week at the Community Center, this was reaffirmed again. I don't know why project opponents keep raising it as an issue, because neither DCPL nor DPR consider it an issue at all and have been vocal about it at every turn.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My understanding is that ground level green space will be basically eliminated, and moved to the rooftop which may well have astroturf. No one wants this....No one. To call this "more greenspace" is outrageous. Its a tone deaf workaround and everyone knows it.

In addition, ground level retail of 8000 sf has been offered as part of the $1 giveaway deal while community center and library will be reduced in size...because hey, in the future who needs books?

And somehow a bunch of somewhat naive ANC members are patting themselves on the back for indulging this atrocious land grab in the name of affordable housing which its not gonna be.

Its gonna be a mixed use development with expansive retail, a few reduced rate condos and mostly new expensive housing, given to a developer for free, with tax breaks, 1$ rent for about a century, and reduced diminished public facilities ..train wreck sponsored by profoundly ill informed actors who have selfish short term interests front of mind.

False.

First, DCPL has had input on how much space they want. They were given what they requested. There is no shortchanging of space for either the library or community center. Continuing to claim "we are losing XXX space" is simply false. Both the library and community center were designed in a different era when space was taken up with infrastructure such as boiler rooms, that are no longer needed.

Second, buildings cost money, affordable housing needs to be subsidized. Having ground floor retail helps offset the costs for this building. Maybe if the city had been able to start on it in 2019 rather than 2027, the costs would have allowed to bypass the need for ground floor retail, alas, NIMBYs fought and fought and fought so here we are.

You have your history wrong. The people supporting this project are the ones that put a stop to it in 2019. It was supposed to be a simple renovation but the same pandemic era ANC that screwed everything else up decided to screw this up as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My understanding is that ground level green space will be basically eliminated, and moved to the rooftop which may well have astroturf. No one wants this....No one. To call this "more greenspace" is outrageous. Its a tone deaf workaround and everyone knows it.

In addition, ground level retail of 8000 sf has been offered as part of the $1 giveaway deal while community center and library will be reduced in size...because hey, in the future who needs books?

And somehow a bunch of somewhat naive ANC members are patting themselves on the back for indulging this atrocious land grab in the name of affordable housing which its not gonna be.

Its gonna be a mixed use development with expansive retail, a few reduced rate condos and mostly new expensive housing, given to a developer for free, with tax breaks, 1$ rent for about a century, and reduced diminished public facilities ..train wreck sponsored by profoundly ill informed actors who have selfish short term interests front of mind.

False.

First, DCPL has had input on how much space they want. They were given what they requested. There is no shortchanging of space for either the library or community center. Continuing to claim "we are losing XXX space" is simply false. Both the library and community center were designed in a different era when space was taken up with infrastructure such as boiler rooms, that are no longer needed.

Second, buildings cost money, affordable housing needs to be subsidized. Having ground floor retail helps offset the costs for this building. Maybe if the city had been able to start on it in 2019 rather than 2027, the costs would have allowed to bypass the need for ground floor retail, alas, NIMBYs fought and fought and fought so here we are.

You just can't help yourself. It is a simple and unequivocal fact that both the library and community center are losing space.

Anonymous wrote:We'll see if JLG keeps her promise to kill this project. If not, it's yet another warning sign about her.

She never said she would kill the project. She said that the project as currently devised had too much benefit for the developer and she prefers "social housing" as a means by which to achieve the goal. She pledged to build 72,000 new units of housing - killing this project would undermine her own cornerstone platform issue.

Where did you get the idea she promised to kill the project?

Anonymous wrote:My understanding is that ground level green space will be basically eliminated, and moved to the rooftop which may well have astroturf. No one wants this....No one. To call this "more greenspace" is outrageous. Its a tone deaf workaround and everyone knows it.

In addition, ground level retail of 8000 sf has been offered as part of the $1 giveaway deal while community center and library will be reduced in size...because hey, in the future who needs books?

And somehow a bunch of somewhat naive ANC members are patting themselves on the back for indulging this atrocious land grab in the name of affordable housing which its not gonna be.

Its gonna be a mixed use development with expansive retail, a few reduced rate condos and mostly new expensive housing, given to a developer for free, with tax breaks, 1$ rent for about a century, and reduced diminished public facilities ..train wreck sponsored by profoundly ill informed actors who have selfish short term interests front of mind.

False.

First, DCPL has had input on how much space they want. They were given what they requested. There is no shortchanging of space for either the library or community center. Continuing to claim "we are losing XXX space" is simply false. Both the library and community center were designed in a different era when space was taken up with infrastructure such as boiler rooms, that are no longer needed.

Second, buildings cost money, affordable housing needs to be subsidized. Having ground floor retail helps offset the costs for this building. Maybe if the city had been able to start on it in 2019 rather than 2027, the costs would have allowed to bypass the need for ground floor retail, alas, NIMBYs fought and fought and fought so here we are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a bunch of bloated bs. Two points are made and neither are about lies. 1 is objection to inferring anything from the survey because someone thinks only a percentage of respondents doesn’t reflect a majority view. Not a lie. An opinion. The other is a technical question about the use of the word surplus and again no lies. Just a bunch a verbiage. The question about green space really needs to be fleshed out. Will the rooftop have astroturf. ?? Is a real park being replaced by a rooftop park with no trees or real green. This needs to be determined. I hope someone with some real data can respond to this last question because the rest is just bs to have the last word. If someone understands the actual green space issue it would be good to hear from them only.

the question about greenspace has been asked and answered a thousand times. the new development has MORE greenspace than what is currently there. That is what happens when you eliminate a surface parking lot.

Eliminating the parking lot was the aspect that the neighborhood was most overwhelmingly against.

No matter how many times the question was asked. No matter how many times the phrasing was changed. That was the one thing the entire neighborhood was adamantly against.

So you admit there is more greenspace, thank you.

In terms of surface parking, it is the least efficient use of space to store cars on asphalt and have it sit empty 15 hours a day. Face it, boomers love their cars and expect to be able to drive and park for free everywhere. Sorry, those days are over.

We'll see if JLG keeps her promise to kill this project. If not, it's yet another warning sign about her.

My understanding is that ground level green space will be basically eliminated, and moved to the rooftop which may well have astroturf. No one wants this....No one. To call this "more greenspace" is outrageous. Its a tone deaf workaround and everyone knows it.

In addition, ground level retail of 8000 sf has been offered as part of the $1 giveaway deal while community center and library will be reduced in size...because hey, in the future who needs books?

And somehow a bunch of somewhat naive ANC members are patting themselves on the back for indulging this atrocious land grab in the name of affordable housing which its not gonna be.

Its gonna be a mixed use development with expansive retail, a few reduced rate condos and mostly new expensive housing, given to a developer for free, with tax breaks, 1$ rent for about a century, and reduced diminished public facilities ..train wreck sponsored by profoundly ill informed actors who have selfish short term interests front of mind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a bunch of bloated bs. Two points are made and neither are about lies. 1 is objection to inferring anything from the survey because someone thinks only a percentage of respondents doesn’t reflect a majority view. Not a lie. An opinion. The other is a technical question about the use of the word surplus and again no lies. Just a bunch a verbiage. The question about green space really needs to be fleshed out. Will the rooftop have astroturf. ?? Is a real park being replaced by a rooftop park with no trees or real green. This needs to be determined. I hope someone with some real data can respond to this last question because the rest is just bs to have the last word. If someone understands the actual green space issue it would be good to hear from them only.

the question about greenspace has been asked and answered a thousand times. the new development has MORE greenspace than what is currently there. That is what happens when you eliminate a surface parking lot.

Eliminating the parking lot was the aspect that the neighborhood was most overwhelmingly against.

No matter how many times the question was asked. No matter how many times the phrasing was changed. That was the one thing the entire neighborhood was adamantly against.

Anonymous wrote:This is a bunch of bloated bs. Two points are made and neither are about lies. 1 is objection to inferring anything from the survey because someone thinks only a percentage of respondents doesn’t reflect a majority view. Not a lie. An opinion. The other is a technical question about the use of the word surplus and again no lies. Just a bunch a verbiage. The question about green space really needs to be fleshed out. Will the rooftop have astroturf. ?? Is a real park being replaced by a rooftop park with no trees or real green. This needs to be determined. I hope someone with some real data can respond to this last question because the rest is just bs to have the last word. If someone understands the actual green space issue it would be good to hear from them only.

the question about greenspace has been asked and answered a thousand times. the new development has MORE greenspace than what is currently there. That is what happens when you eliminate a surface parking lot.