jsteele wrote:
I agree that the connection is not automatic, but I also think it is highly likely. I would be less suspicious if the Bowser administration were able to demonstrate that it had done even the slightest due diligence before making its determination. But, it is really amateur hour to cancel a project based on financials when you haven't even asked the group about its financials. BTW, here is a follow-up article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/museums/a-setback-for-dc-arts-and-culture-years-in-the-making/2015/02/16/94371d20-b3b7-11e4-854b-a38d13486ba1_story.html

Anonymous wrote:NP here.

I think each of us has an image of the ideal neighborhood and city to live in. People in the same neighborhood often differ about what they want to see around them, and the people downtown may have another view. It's an oversimplification to reduce the issue to a binary pro or con on development rather than a spectrum of how much, how high, how dense. The Mayor generally prefers more development in my neighborhood than I do, for example, but it's usually a matter of degree. The fact thet she does not think the museum plan will work at Franklin does not (necessarily) translate into a payoff for one of her donors; she may just feel that more options should be explored.

I did not vote for her, but I see no need to demonize her.

Anonymous wrote:The idea that you allege and "agenda" is enough to show your paranoia over the issue.

Where do you live? Would where you live exist without a developer? Should the city be placed under a glass shield with everything remaining exactly as it is forever?

Like it or not, people need places to live, places to work, places to shop and just because you are already "here" doesn't mean that everything should be pushed somewhere else. That is an incredibly selfish "I have mine" attitude that only makes the District more expensive for future generations.

Yes, I guess I have an agenda. My agenda is to make it easier to live here without a car, and make it so more people can afford to live here so we have a robust economy that can take care of things like good education, jobs, training and affordable housing.

What is your agenda? To make it so you life as you know it isn't altered in any way. So you can drive and park wherever you want for free and so others are precluded from living in your neighborhood or going to your kids schools.

Yes, that is a winning agenda.

Anonymous wrote:The idea that you allege and "agenda" is enough to show your paranoia over the issue.

Where do you live? Would where you live exist without a developer? Should the city be placed under a glass shield with everything remaining exactly as it is forever?

Like it or not, people need places to live, places to work, places to shop and just because you are already "here" doesn't mean that everything should be pushed somewhere else. That is an incredibly selfish "I have mine" attitude that only makes the District more expensive for future generations.

Yes, I guess I have an agenda. My agenda is to make it easier to live here without a car, and make it so more people can afford to live here so we have a robust economy that can take care of things like good education, jobs, training and affordable housing.

What is your agenda? To make it so you life as you know it isn't altered in any way. So you can drive and park wherever you want for free and so others are precluded from living in your neighborhood or going to your kids schools.

Yes, that is a winning agenda.

Anonymous wrote:I would like to see your tin-foil hat collection.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

If the Committee of 100, a self-appointed group of "know it alls" is your litmus test, then I am not sure anyone can help your or your opinion. Outside of the 100 (are there even 100?), no one cares about this group or its opinions.

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.