And the people who are opposed aren't working in their self-interests?

What's the big deal?

Time and again, it seems that advocates for GDS's plans just can't help themselves. The latest GDS action that condescends to the community and assumes that all who question GDS's plans are ignorant fools takes the form of a letter in this week's Northwest Current. It seems once again that the Smartest Guys in the Room think they simply can bluster their way through. The Current letter is submitted on behalf of "Revive 3E", purported neighbors of GDS who claim a "unique interest" in the proposed GDS project and yet "strongly support" the school's original plans for dense development that would exceed what zoning allows. Left undisclosed in the letter is the real "unique interest" of the letter's author: according to the GDS website, he's a member of the GDS alumni board, whose purpose is to "support" GDS and serve as "ambassadors" of the school's interests. The author insults readers' intelligence by not disclosing this connection to the school, while pretending to be a disinterested neighbor. In doing so, he leaves the distinct impression that "Revive 3E" is just another "astroturf" group, a faux grass roots group sponsored by or working with the applicant to create the illusion of public support for its project. GDS's arrogant Team of Aces takes the community and the DC Office of Planning for chumps, which is perhaps why they're shocked to discover that not everyone shares their "vision" for Tenleytown/AU Park and that the smooth path to approval that GDS so confidently assumed is not happening.

"anything goes era"

Anonymous wrote:So your characterization that she was fired was in error, yes she wanted the NYC job, but she ended up with a plumb Federal job that has much far reaching impacts than either the DC or NYC planning job. She left of her own choice because the Administration was winding down. she was not pushed out.

For the record, Tregoning got a third-tier job in a third-tier federal department. During her tenure at OP, she totally bullied and intimidated the professional staff to line up behind developers who had connections to her and to the mayor's office, and OP stopped playing the "honest broker" and analyst role that is its responsibility. Tregoning also pursued an ideological agenda of a sort and tolerated no challenges or dissent from that. Bowser is also no stranger to crony developer ties (witness her disastrous homeless shelter plan), but at least she has appointed a director at OP who respects the professional staff more and lets them do their jobs. Clearly GDS was following an outdated political playbook (their proposal might have gone through like grease 4 years ago), but the "anything-does era" at OP and the zoning commission seems to be over.

So your characterization that she was fired was in error, yes she wanted the NYC job, but she ended up with a plumb Federal job that has much far reaching impacts than either the DC or NYC planning job. She left of her own choice because the Administration was winding down. she was not pushed out.

Tregoning was a liability and got pushed out a couple months before the primary (which Gray lost anyway). She wanted the NYC job but DiBlasio didn't offer it to her. Not surprising -- they do actual planning in NYC and she has very little interest/experience in that field. She's more into policy/advocacy. And it wasn't a plum job with the Feds but, hey, any port in a storm.

And, yeah, Bowser's pro-developer too.

Anonymous wrote:
Ever since Harriet Tregoning, the former Office of Planning director was fired, OP has returned to being more of an honest broker and less of a shill for anything-goes big development interests. Too bad for GDS and the Team of Aces.

She wasn't fired, she left the Grey administration as many top level officials do, towards the end of the term. She landed at one of the top jobs she could possibly get: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/about/principal_staff/harriet_tregoning

I would say the Bowser Administration is much more pro-developer, just not in this particular proposal.

Good riddance to the Greedy Developers School's plan!!!

Anonymous wrote:If you look at precedent, the GDS proposal should have been accepted. It really is an aberation that it wasn't.

Ever since Harriet Tregoning, the former Office of Planning director was fired, OP has returned to being more of an honest broker and less of a shill for anything-goes big development interests. Too bad for GDS and the Team of Aces.

If you look at precedent, the GDS proposal should have been accepted. It really is an aberation that it wasn't.

It's remarkable how GDS so arrogantly assumed that everyone, including the DC Office of Planning, would just roll over and rubber stamp their PUD plans and map amendment. They were so confident in the consultants they had engaged to "lubricate" their application that the pushback that GDS received totally surprised them, and they've actually said so publicly.

Anonymous wrote:Why isn't the smart growth community pushing for the smart growth alternative? Sounds like there are some GDS board members that would support it. Why not try to sway the rest?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like something this is something the whole neighborhood could join together behind. Maybe the smart growth groups could start a petition calling on GDS to devote both sites to full matter of right residential/commercial development?

Anonymous wrote:Who says they haven't?

This assumes that GDS's primary strategic objective is to profit from real estate development rather than to consolidate the campus.

Because they are hiding behind their smart growth fig

And not only vibrancy. The city is better off if it collects property tax and income tax from residents and property taxes from conforming commercial uses. A private school offers some benefits to the community, but the salaries that the schools pay to commuting employees cannot be taxed and schools consume services without paying property taxes.

That said, GDS owns the property and can build within the legal structure.

More housing and vibrancy on Wisconsin Avenue would be much better than a consolidated GDS campus. No one but a GDS supporter would argue otherwise.

Smart growth advocates pushing for more housing and tax revenue when it conflicts with GDS plans is highly unlikely.

Anonymous wrote:GDS would need to abandon the campus consolidation aspects of its plans in order for anything else to be considered. That is highly unlikely.