Anonymous wrote:And PUD's are legal.

Anonymous wrote:Where you see too big and dense, I see more neighbors more support for the local retailers and more tax revenue for the city. Those are all good things, unless you are selfish and greedy yourself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matter of right development means you don't have to please everybody. But you get a result everybody can live with and that everyone knew was acceptable when they purchased their property. No favoritism involved, just enforcement of rules that bind everyone.

If the Safeway lot were developed MOR, you'd have (at most) a 5 story/50 foot apartment building with 60% lot occupancy where the Safeway store was located and single-family homes (probably duplexes and/or rowhouses) on the land that was Safeway's parking lot. You'd probably have a mixed residential-retail building (also max 50 feet) on Wisconsin, with retail covering the lot and a more slender residential component on top. (Different lot occupancy and FAR constraints for residential vs. retail development). And the campus would remain a HS.

That's significantly less burdensome than a PUD proposing that the private school more than doubles in size PLUS we get the same amount of res/retail SF as there would be
if the Safeway parcel had been devoted to res/retail rather than school use. That's why it's considered greedy and a worst of both worlds scenario. It's a form of double-dipping in which, rather than choosing between two alternatives, the school wants both. And, in fact, claims it's entitled to both and that any one who is critical of this claim is a selfish NIMBY or opposed to affordable housing or insufficiently progressive. It's pretty obnoxious.

Many believe that this result is worse than what was proposed. That is why the PUD process exists. It isn't being greedy, it is making something better from what would be a by-right development.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, and as a part of that process the public has a right to weigh in on their proposals. The PUD standard is that the project would be superior to MOR not only for the applicant but for others affected.

And, no, GDS is not just rearranging the where it builds what it is entitled to build. Its lawyers are trying to frame its proposal that way, but the argument is spurious.

Nor will the scenario you envision come to pass. The school needs and wants the Safeway land for its own facilities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matter of right development means you don't have to please everybody. But you get a result everybody can live with and that everyone knew was acceptable when they purchased their property. No favoritism involved, just enforcement of rules that bind everyone.

If the Safeway lot were developed MOR, you'd have (at most) a 5 story/50 foot apartment building with 60% lot occupancy where the Safeway store was located and single-family homes (probably duplexes and/or rowhouses) on the land that was Safeway's parking lot. You'd probably have a mixed residential-retail building (also max 50 feet) on Wisconsin, with retail covering the lot and a more slender residential component on top. (Different lot occupancy and FAR constraints for residential vs. retail development). And the campus would remain a HS.

That's significantly less burdensome than a PUD proposing that the private school more than doubles in size PLUS we get the same amount of res/retail SF as there would be
if the Safeway parcel had been devoted to res/retail rather than school use. That's why it's considered greedy and a worst of both worlds scenario. It's a form of double-dipping in which, rather than choosing between two alternatives, the school wants both. And, in fact, claims it's entitled to both and that any one who is critical of this claim is a selfish NIMBY or opposed to affordable housing or insufficiently progressive. It's pretty obnoxious.

If it claims it is entitled to both, then clearly there must be some ambiguity in the zoning that allows for them to make this claim. This is not to say that they will be successful in making their case.

If the zoning is crystal clear (it seldom is) then they must apply for an exception. You have every right to object to this exception, representing your own self interest (can't hide some amorphous construct of it as in the neighborhood's best interest...at least own it as self interest). In this case, neither party is greedy. They just want what they want.

Anonymous wrote:GDS's argument is we're entitled to this level of development -- we're just moving it around on the site. Not true. And, yes, they have to request ZC approval to build this project (because they are not entitled to move SF around). No one is saying what GDS is doing is illegal -- what they're trying to do is get legal restrictions waived. Part of the reason cronyism keeps getting mentioned is that the ZC often waives such restrictions, especially for well-connected developers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matter of right development means you don't have to please everybody. But you get a result everybody can live with and that everyone knew was acceptable when they purchased their property. No favoritism involved, just enforcement of rules that bind everyone.

If the Safeway lot were developed MOR, you'd have (at most) a 5 story/50 foot apartment building with 60% lot occupancy where the Safeway store was located and single-family homes (probably duplexes and/or rowhouses) on the land that was Safeway's parking lot. You'd probably have a mixed residential-retail building (also max 50 feet) on Wisconsin, with retail covering the lot and a more slender residential component on top. (Different lot occupancy and FAR constraints for residential vs. retail development). And the campus would remain a HS.

That's significantly less burdensome than a PUD proposing that the private school more than doubles in size PLUS we get the same amount of res/retail SF as there would be
if the Safeway parcel had been devoted to res/retail rather than school use. That's why it's considered greedy and a worst of both worlds scenario. It's a form of double-dipping in which, rather than choosing between two alternatives, the school wants both. And, in fact, claims it's entitled to both and that any one who is critical of this claim is a selfish NIMBY or opposed to affordable housing or insufficiently progressive. It's pretty obnoxious.

If it claims it is entitled to both, then clearly there must be some ambiguity in the zoning that allows for them to make this claim. This is not to say that they will be successful in making their case.

If the zoning is crystal clear (it seldom is) then they must apply for an exception. You have every right to object to this exception, representing your own self interest (can't hide some amorphous construct of it as in the neighborhood's best interest...at least own it as self interest). In this case, neither party is greedy. They just want what they want.

There is no ambiguity in the zoning, and what is allowed as a matter of right is clearly described in the regulations: (1) 50 foot tall (possibly mixed use) buildings with clearly described limits on density and uses where the Safeway current sits, as well as along Wisconsin Avenue, and (2) single family houses, including duplexes and rowhouses in a limited area, on the current Safeway parking area and nearby open space. Any representation to the contrary is clearly false, and I would expect real estate lawyers to know what the zoning regulations allow as a matter of right.

They have the right to ask for a special exception to build a private school on the low-density residential land, and they have a right to apply for a PUD, but that doesn't give them an entitlement to the heights, density and uses that they are asking for.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matter of right development means you don't have to please everybody. But you get a result everybody can live with and that everyone knew was acceptable when they purchased their property. No favoritism involved, just enforcement of rules that bind everyone.

If the Safeway lot were developed MOR, you'd have (at most) a 5 story/50 foot apartment building with 60% lot occupancy where the Safeway store was located and single-family homes (probably duplexes and/or rowhouses) on the land that was Safeway's parking lot. You'd probably have a mixed residential-retail building (also max 50 feet) on Wisconsin, with retail covering the lot and a more slender residential component on top. (Different lot occupancy and FAR constraints for residential vs. retail development). And the campus would remain a HS.

That's significantly less burdensome than a PUD proposing that the private school more than doubles in size PLUS we get the same amount of res/retail SF as there would be
if the Safeway parcel had been devoted to res/retail rather than school use. That's why it's considered greedy and a worst of both worlds scenario. It's a form of double-dipping in which, rather than choosing between two alternatives, the school wants both. And, in fact, claims it's entitled to both and that any one who is critical of this claim is a selfish NIMBY or opposed to affordable housing or insufficiently progressive. It's pretty obnoxious.

If it claims it is entitled to both, then clearly there must be some ambiguity in the zoning that allows for them to make this claim. This is not to say that they will be successful in making their case.

If the zoning is crystal clear (it seldom is) then they must apply for an exception. You have every right to object to this exception, representing your own self interest (can't hide some amorphous construct of it as in the neighborhood's best interest...at least own it as self interest). In this case, neither party is greedy. They just want what they want.

Anonymous wrote:Matter of right development means you don't have to please everybody. But you get a result everybody can live with and that everyone knew was acceptable when they purchased their property. No favoritism involved, just enforcement of rules that bind everyone.

If the Safeway lot were developed MOR, you'd have (at most) a 5 story/50 foot apartment building with 60% lot occupancy where the Safeway store was located and single-family homes (probably duplexes and/or rowhouses) on the land that was Safeway's parking lot. You'd probably have a mixed residential-retail building (also max 50 feet) on Wisconsin, with retail covering the lot and a more slender residential component on top. (Different lot occupancy and FAR constraints for residential vs. retail development). And the campus would remain a HS.

That's significantly less burdensome than a PUD proposing that the private school more than doubles in size PLUS we get the same amount of res/retail SF as there would be
if the Safeway parcel had been devoted to res/retail rather than school use. That's why it's considered greedy and a worst of both worlds scenario. It's a form of double-dipping in which, rather than choosing between two alternatives, the school wants both. And, in fact, claims it's entitled to both and that any one who is critical of this claim is a selfish NIMBY or opposed to affordable housing or insufficiently progressive. It's pretty obnoxious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where you see too big and dense, I see more neighbors more support for the local retailers and more tax revenue for the city. Those are all good things, unless you are selfish and greedy yourself.

DC's insatiable appetite for more tax revenue is like an addict's fixation on getting more crack.

Anonymous wrote:Well, but one side wants the law enforced and another side wants much more than what the law allows.

Wanting what you want when it's much more than what you're entitled is almost the definition of greed isn't it?