Anonymous wrote:...so no one wants to engage (besides Mr. Steele) on the obvious subject of wrap-around-services in wards outside of 2 and 3. No wonder the DCPS is still in shambles, the outspoken middle class around here mostly only cares about their own.

Anonymous wrote:
Now we have a situation where Henderson's claiming literacy resources are being placed in every school... when in fact, she's cut many schools to put literacy resources in the worst 40% of schools. And that's just librarians.

(http://wamu.org/news/13/04/30/catania_outlines_plans_for_reform_20_in_dcps)

Anonymous wrote:...so no one wants to engage (besides Mr. Steele) on the obvious subject of wrap-around-services in wards outside of 2 and 3. No wonder the DCPS is still in shambles, the outspoken middle class around here mostly only cares about their own.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is painfully obvious that your understanding of most public policy issues is pretty sketchy. Notwithstanding such an authoritative source as Wikipedia, setting up the PADC, which could barely save the Old Post Office, and.constructing the Hoover building hardly led to revitalization. Undervalued properties, many of which were snatched up by Doug Jemal and other developers operating at the fringes, allowed commercial development to close the gap between the traditional downtown area and Union Station. Abe Pollin and the Verizon center then provided impetus for condo-residential development as infill.

It's safe to assume my understanding of "most public policy issues is pretty sketchy". Please enlighten me. What specifically were the policies that the city pursued to specifically appeal to "affluent interests"? Discounting Wikipedia is low-hanging fruit. It's tough to tell, but you seem to be making the point that most public initiatives failed, and because that area was depressed for so long, those who had the foresight to buy up property and commercial development to slowly take hold. Abe Pollin's Verizon center (which I understand was mostly funded with private money) furthered that renaissance. Today, the cost of market rate housing has skyrocketed, but that's a function of its being adjacent to the traditional downtown, and it's rebirth as a cultural and retail destination.

So again, not seeing the many policies the city pursued to court "affluent people". Seems to me the policies the city did pursue were "not interfering when changing consumer preferences led to a return of the middle-class (and the affluent) to the city."

Personally, I'm not seeing what's wrong with courting "affluent people" considering that DC spent literally decades chasing them away.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is painfully obvious that your understanding of most public policy issues is pretty sketchy. Notwithstanding such an authoritative source as Wikipedia, setting up the PADC, which could barely save the Old Post Office, and.constructing the Hoover building hardly led to revitalization. Undervalued properties, many of which were snatched up by Doug Jemal and other developers operating at the fringes, allowed commercial development to close the gap between the traditional downtown area and Union Station. Abe Pollin and the Verizon center then provided impetus for condo-residential development as infill.

It's safe to assume my understanding of "most public policy issues is pretty sketchy". Please enlighten me. What specifically were the policies that the city pursued to specifically appeal to "affluent interests"? Discounting Wikipedia is low-hanging fruit. It's tough to tell, but you seem to be making the point that most public initiatives failed, and because that area was depressed for so long, those who had the foresight to buy up property and commercial development to slowly take hold. Abe Pollin's Verizon center (which I understand was mostly funded with private money) furthered that renaissance. Today, the cost of market rate housing has skyrocketed, but that's a function of its being adjacent to the traditional downtown, and it's rebirth as a cultural and retail destination.

So again, not seeing the many policies the city pursued to court "affluent people". Seems to me the policies the city did pursue were "not interfering when changing consumer preferences led to a return of the middle-class (and the affluent) to the city."

Anonymous wrote:...so no one wants to engage (besides Mr. Steele) on the obvious subject of wrap-around-services in wards outside of 2 and 3. No wonder the DCPS is still in shambles, the outspoken middle class around here mostly only cares about their own.