Anonymous wrote:Cheh also likes what ever was the last idea she heard if decision making becomes difficult. She has all the signs of burn out.

I have been hearing this more and more.

Cheh also likes what ever was the last idea she heard if decision making becomes difficult. She has all the signs of burn out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cheh created this mess. She should take some leadership on seeing what the Fannie Mae property can do to resolve this situation.

More and more Cheh seems to make snap decisions on her own, not holding public process or otherwise consulting her constituents. Then she disengages and loses interest in addressing the problems and sorting out the details.

What's worse is the way she leads from behind. She lets the staff from city agencies take the flak for her ideas. Has she ever once come out and made a pitch for the Hearst pool?

Yeah, the DPR and DGS staff hate her for this. They have to face the crowds on her half-baked ideas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cheh created this mess. She should take some leadership on seeing what the Fannie Mae property can do to resolve this situation.

More and more Cheh seems to make snap decisions on her own, not holding public process or otherwise consulting her constituents. Then she disengages and loses interest in addressing the problems and sorting out the details.

What's worse is the way she leads from behind. She lets the staff from city agencies take the flak for her ideas. Has she ever once come out and made a pitch for the Hearst pool?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cheh created this mess. She should take some leadership on seeing what the Fannie Mae property can do to resolve this situation.

More and more Cheh seems to make snap decisions on her own, not holding public process or otherwise consulting her constituents. Then she disengages and loses interest in addressing the problems and sorting out the details.

In my experience she gets angry and vindictive at people who question her decisions. Classic defensive behavior.

Professor Cheh is used to being the one who asks the questions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cheh created this mess. She should take some leadership on seeing what the Fannie Mae property can do to resolve this situation.

More and more Cheh seems to make snap decisions on her own, not holding public process or otherwise consulting her constituents. Then she disengages and loses interest in addressing the problems and sorting out the details.

In my experience she gets angry and vindictive at people who question her decisions. Classic defensive behavior.

Anonymous wrote:Cheh created this mess. She should take some leadership on seeing what the Fannie Mae property can do to resolve this situation.

More and more Cheh seems to make snap decisions on her own, not holding public process or otherwise consulting her constituents. Then she disengages and loses interest in addressing the problems and sorting out the details.

Cheh created this mess. She should take some leadership on seeing what the Fannie Mae property can do to resolve this situation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To sell Cathedral Commons at the zoning board, the developers offered to install a round planter with benches on the corner of Wisconsin and Idaho, by the present eyeglasses store. Kind of appropriate, because if you blink as you go past there you will miss seeing it. That was the big "community amenity" that CC provided. If they got by with such a paltry thing in order to get PUD density, what makes you think that the Fannie purchaser will build a community pool ?! More like a little fountain perhaps....


Seriously? What about ten years of lawsuits and design changes.

It's interesting because under the holdings of a couple of recent DC Court of Appeals decisions, Cathedral Commons likely would not get built in its present form today.

+1. Unfortunately it's too late for that. When I see the finer design and craftsmanship of the new Park Van Ness development on Connecticut Ave, as compared to the cheap dreck design quality of Cathedral Commons, it's sad. Perhaps it was too much to expect anything more than lesser quality mediocrity from any project in which Giant was the co-developer. I empathize especially with those people who live on Idaho near Macomb, who got a tractor-trailer loading dock and a four-story blank wall built next to their homes in a RESIDENTIAL zone, no less. That's another good example of Mary Cheh ignoring her constituents -- in that case their plea that she help to broker a compromise solution on the loading facility. Now the same families are going to have a 6-story homeless shelter built next to their homes. As a result of DC's planning decisions, these folks have lost $$$ in market value on their properties and likely will lose more. They'd probably have a good claim against DC for that.

Anonymous wrote:To sell Cathedral Commons at the zoning board, the developers offered to install a round planter with benches on the corner of Wisconsin and Idaho, by the present eyeglasses store. Kind of appropriate, because if you blink as you go past there you will miss seeing it. That was the big "community amenity" that CC provided. If they got by with such a paltry thing in order to get PUD density, what makes you think that the Fannie purchaser will build a community pool ?! More like a little fountain perhaps....


Seriously? What about ten years of lawsuits and design changes.

It's interesting because under the holdings of a couple of recent DC Court of Appeals decisions, Cathedral Commons likely would not get built in its present form today.

Anonymous wrote:To sell Cathedral Commons at the zoning board, the developers offered to install a round planter with benches on the corner of Wisconsin and Idaho, by the present eyeglasses store. Kind of appropriate, because if you blink as you go past there you will miss seeing it. That was the big "community amenity" that CC provided. If they got by with such a paltry thing in order to get PUD density, what makes you think that the Fannie purchaser will build a community pool ?! More like a little fountain perhaps....


Seriously? What about ten years of lawsuits and design changes.

What design changes? Seriously. The developer got everything it proposed at Cathedral Commons. The zoning commission didn't change a thing -- no reduction in height, scale, scope, no architectural changes. Even the commission staff at the time remarked on how wired the process seemed.

To sell Cathedral Commons at the zoning board, the developers offered to install a round planter with benches on the corner of Wisconsin and Idaho, by the present eyeglasses store. Kind of appropriate, because if you blink as you go past there you will miss seeing it. That was the big "community amenity" that CC provided. If they got by with such a paltry thing in order to get PUD density, what makes you think that the Fannie purchaser will build a community pool ?! More like a little fountain perhaps....


Seriously? What about ten years of lawsuits and design changes.

Anonymous wrote:What has the developer proposed that requires making peace with the neighbors? That is a very charged statement, particularly from someone who wants them to host a public facility for no good reason.

All developers need to make peace with neighbors. That's just a fact of life. I didn't mean it to be a charged statement or even a subtle threat. It is the way every urban, suburban and rural area handles developments large and small. It is part of the process. This area recently completed a battle over the Cathedral Commons that lasted more than a decade. Just down the street, GDS proposed a relatively modest - (relative to what will happen at Fannie Mae - not relative to anything else) project and got shellacked.

The reality is that there will be major opposition no matter what the developer proposes - even if its a butterfly. That's life in the big city.

To sell Cathedral Commons at the zoning board, the developers offered to install a round planter with benches on the corner of Wisconsin and Idaho, by the present eyeglasses store. Kind of appropriate, because if you blink as you go past there you will miss seeing it. That was the big "community amenity" that CC provided. If they got by with such a paltry thing in order to get PUD density, what makes you think that the Fannie purchaser will build a community pool ?! More like a little fountain perhaps....

What has the developer proposed that requires making peace with the neighbors? That is a very charged statement, particularly from someone who wants them to host a public facility for no good reason.

All developers need to make peace with neighbors. That's just a fact of life. I didn't mean it to be a charged statement or even a subtle threat. It is the way every urban, suburban and rural area handles developments large and small. It is part of the process. This area recently completed a battle over the Cathedral Commons that lasted more than a decade. Just down the street, GDS proposed a relatively modest - (relative to what will happen at Fannie Mae - not relative to anything else) project and got shellacked.

The reality is that there will be major opposition no matter what the developer proposes - even if its a butterfly. That's life in the big city.

Anonymous wrote:




There is room in back. And the developer is going to need to find a way to make peace with neighbors....

What has the developer proposed that requires making peace with the neighbors? That is a very charged statement, particularly from someone who wants them to host a public facility for no good reason.