Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why not just make it 55 and over with no kids under 18.
Because that's discriminatory and not the purpose of affordable and workforce housing. It's how developers get over actually offering inclusive housing.
First every gets old. So not discriminatory. Full max SS is 70. People today don’t fully retire till their 70s. So it can be over 55 and workforce housing.
A bunch of SAHMs with 3 kids how is that workforce housing. If only 1 in 5 people actually work.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why not just make it 55 and over with no kids under 18.
Because that's discriminatory and not the purpose of affordable and workforce housing. It's how developers get over actually offering inclusive housing.
Anonymous wrote:Why not just make it 55 and over with no kids under 18.
Anonymous wrote:It would never fly with the current Supreme Court. They’d at least make an exception for religious schools. And this entire line of argument (prohibiting private schools to get revenge over the wealthy and supposedly reduce the achievement gap) is completely mind boggling in the USA. This isn’t Finland- for good and for bad. If I have to pay for my own healthcare you’re damn right I’m gonna send my kids to whatever school I want.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The single digit number of kids this development would bring is immaterial to the existing overcrowding. Maybe the politicos should suck it up and actually draw some redistricting lines so 80% of the kids aren't jammed into 10 upper NW schools.
Single digit number of kids in 100 units? Does the city plan to let the developer build a bunch of one bedroom and studios rather than family sized units?
Anonymous wrote:The single digit number of kids this development would bring is immaterial to the existing overcrowding. Maybe the politicos should suck it up and actually draw some redistricting lines so 80% of the kids aren't jammed into 10 upper NW schools.
Anonymous wrote:PP here - this is half of the reason that some of my fellow neighbors and I haven’t spoken out. These groups would call us NIMBYs while our actually bigoted neighbors would accost us with lectures about the importance of preserving the neighborhood’s “historic character” (this already happens when I haven’t said one word about my views to them). I’d really like to share my mixed support/concerns at the various planning meetings but not as much as I want to live my life and not be harassed.
Anonymous wrote:I haven't read all 20+ pages of this thread, but I live very close (less than a minute walk) to the planned affordable housing sites. Many of my neighbors, including myself, would welcome affordable housing in the neighborhood. I WANT my kids, who go to Lafayette, to be exposed to more socioeconomic diversity (and if that comes with racial diversity, all the better too). But the problem is that we've seen no plans from the city about how to deal with a sudden population influx. Most importantly, Lafayette is already overcrowded - where the heck are they going to put all the extra kids? If the project is going to move forward without school re-zoning, then part of the new community center should actually be space for PK/K and then have the current Lafayette site be grades 1-5 to make room for the influx of kids. Sort of like the Peabody/Watkins schools.
Additional concerns would include making the E4 bus more frequent (presumably many in the new housing would commute via Friendship Heights metro to work) and making some kind of deal about parking/cars with the apartment residents so that we don't have traffic congestion as people look for parking on surrounding streets.
Anonymous wrote:The single digit number of kids this development would bring is immaterial to the existing overcrowding. Maybe the politicos should suck it up and actually draw some redistricting lines so 80% of the kids aren't jammed into 10 upper NW schools.
Anonymous wrote:PP here - this is half of the reason that some of my fellow neighbors and I haven’t spoken out. These groups would call us NIMBYs while our actually bigoted neighbors would accost us with lectures about the importance of preserving the neighborhood’s “historic character” (this already happens when I haven’t said one word about my views to them). I’d really like to share my mixed support/concerns at the various planning meetings but not as much as I want to live my life and not be harassed.
Anonymous wrote:I haven't read all 20+ pages of this thread, but I live very close (less than a minute walk) to the planned affordable housing sites. Many of my neighbors, including myself, would welcome affordable housing in the neighborhood. I WANT my kids, who go to Lafayette, to be exposed to more socioeconomic diversity (and if that comes with racial diversity, all the better too). But the problem is that we've seen no plans from the city about how to deal with a sudden population influx. Most importantly, Lafayette is already overcrowded - where the heck are they going to put all the extra kids? If the project is going to move forward without school re-zoning, then part of the new community center should actually be space for PK/K and then have the current Lafayette site be grades 1-5 to make room for the influx of kids. Sort of like the Peabody/Watkins schools.
Additional concerns would include making the E4 bus more frequent (presumably many in the new housing would commute via Friendship Heights metro to work) and making some kind of deal about parking/cars with the apartment residents so that we don't have traffic congestion as people look for parking on surrounding streets.