Anonymous wrote:The movie theater went out of business long before any zoning changes.

True, although the planning and zoning proposals were already made by the Mayor and the Office of Planning as ANC ceased Uptown operations shortly before COVID. The key takeaway is that by Mary Cheh's FLUM-up, the potential development value of the Uptown site just went up very, very substantially, as did the hurdle for a community nonprofit to try to buy the theater. Cheh and her staff were aware of this beforehand, but proceeded to FLUM it up anyway.

The movie theater went out of business long before any zoning changes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It did nothing of the sort. Changing the underlying future land use map doesn't raise the value. They would still have to go through the zoning process, which in Cleveland Park, is an uphill battle. And then, even with that, they would have to get through Preservation.

So, no, not really.

So, with all that, what was the point of Cheh's spectacular FLUM up in Cleveland Park?

I presume to at least give the appearance of trying to address the affordable housing situation in the District while also providing an opportunity for property owners to help salvage the dying commercial area in Cleveland Park.

The Cleveland Park commercial area certainly is not dying. According to the District government, CP has a lower vacancy rate than other Ward 3 commercial areas, particularly Van Ness which has high multi-family density. Where the vacancies exist in CP, they include Firehook where the landlord refused to renew the lease in anticipation upzoning (Thanks, Cheh) and the Uptown itself, where Cheh’s colossal FLUM-up has complicated the path for a nonprofit to buy it (thanks again, Cheh).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't.

What does bother me is a private citizen complaining about the disposition of a privately owned asset as if they control it. If they are so vested in it, then they should take action, catalyze others, raise the monies and realize a vision.

Complaining about it on an anonymous forum and blaming elected officials who have no control over private property is petty and lame.

Are you the owner of said asset? Do you regularly defend the valor of other peoples assets?

I see people all the time discussing other peoples assets as if they control them, particularly when discussing future plans about peoples assets that they would like to be “upzoned” or whatever. How is this any different?

Also, you may want to consider the irony of complaining about someone else complaining on an anonymous forum.

No, I am reacting to the people complaining about the asset as if they own it. So they should own it and do something with it rather than ascribe blame to everyone else.

You don’t make any sense and are obviously applying different standards to other people than yourself, which is comical.

Good luck being angry at people anonymously on the internet for doing the same thing you’re doing. Sounds like a great way to spend your free time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It did nothing of the sort. Changing the underlying future land use map doesn't raise the value. They would still have to go through the zoning process, which in Cleveland Park, is an uphill battle. And then, even with that, they would have to get through Preservation.

So, no, not really.

So, with all that, what was the point of Cheh's spectacular FLUM up in Cleveland Park?

I presume to at least give the appearance of trying to address the affordable housing situation in the District while also providing an opportunity for property owners to help salvage the dying commercial area in Cleveland Park.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't.

What does bother me is a private citizen complaining about the disposition of a privately owned asset as if they control it. If they are so vested in it, then they should take action, catalyze others, raise the monies and realize a vision.

Complaining about it on an anonymous forum and blaming elected officials who have no control over private property is petty and lame.

Are you the owner of said asset? Do you regularly defend the valor of other peoples assets?

I see people all the time discussing other peoples assets as if they control them, particularly when discussing future plans about peoples assets that they would like to be “upzoned” or whatever. How is this any different?

Also, you may want to consider the irony of complaining about someone else complaining on an anonymous forum.

No, I am reacting to the people complaining about the asset as if they own it. So they should own it and do something with it rather than ascribe blame to everyone else.

Anonymous wrote:It did nothing of the sort. Changing the underlying future land use map doesn't raise the value. They would still have to go through the zoning process, which in Cleveland Park, is an uphill battle. And then, even with that, they would have to get through Preservation.

So, no, not really.

So, with all that, what was the point of Cheh's spectacular FLUM up in Cleveland Park?

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't.

What does bother me is a private citizen complaining about the disposition of a privately owned asset as if they control it. If they are so vested in it, then they should take action, catalyze others, raise the monies and realize a vision.

Complaining about it on an anonymous forum and blaming elected officials who have no control over private property is petty and lame.

Are you the owner of said asset? Do you regularly defend the valor of other peoples assets?

I see people all the time discussing other peoples assets as if they control them, particularly when discussing future plans about peoples assets that they would like to be “upzoned” or whatever. How is this any different?

Also, you may want to consider the irony of complaining about someone else complaining on an anonymous forum.

It did nothing of the sort. Changing the underlying future land use map doesn't raise the value. They would still have to go through the zoning process, which in Cleveland Park, is an uphill battle. And then, even with that, they would have to get through Preservation.

So, no, not really.

Anonymous wrote:Do you think Cheh is reading this thread? I don't.

the way to get her attention is to get a lot of people and money rallied around the idea of buying the Uptown and re-programming it as a non-profit.

Just complaining about it here does nothing.

Given that I have seen nothing on the listserve about trying to do just that, I assume the good people of Cleveland Park are not interested in it.

Mary Cheh's FLUM-up giveaway to big developers and their hired Trump-Manafort operatives just increased the price of the Uptown by about 3x. Thanks a lot for FLUMming up the Uptown, Cheh.

It doesn't.

What does bother me is a private citizen complaining about the disposition of a privately owned asset as if they control it. If they are so vested in it, then they should take action, catalyze others, raise the monies and realize a vision.

Complaining about it on an anonymous forum and blaming elected officials who have no control over private property is petty and lame.

Anonymous wrote:Do you think Cheh is reading this thread? I don't.

the way to get her attention is to get a lot of people and money rallied around the idea of buying the Uptown and re-programming it as a non-profit.

Just complaining about it here does nothing.

Given that I have seen nothing on the listserve about trying to do just that, I assume the good people of Cleveland Park are not interested in it.

Since I see a lot of posting on here that is obviously purely motivated issue advocacy astroturfing, PP is welcome to post anything about Cheh that they like. Why does it bother you?

Do you think Cheh is reading this thread? I don't.

the way to get her attention is to get a lot of people and money rallied around the idea of buying the Uptown and re-programming it as a non-profit.

Just complaining about it here does nothing.

Given that I have seen nothing on the listserve about trying to do just that, I assume the good people of Cleveland Park are not interested in it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why won't Mary Cheh stand with her constituents and work to save the iconic Uptown? Instead, she seems to support speculators and developers who want to change the Uptown forever into upscale dense dreck.

It is protected by the historic district. What do you want her to do that she hasn't already done?

What are YOU doing to save it? Have you participated in the community meetings about it? Have you pledged to contribute to purchasing it? Have you volunteered to start thinking through a business plan?

If the answer to any of these questions is "no" then you are doing it wrong.

If the Uptown is protected by the historic district, then why did Cheh push legislation that will enable zoning for a 10-story building at the site? Cheh is no friend of the Uptown, of historic preservation, or of Cleveland Park.

so what's the upshot? Change.org petition? recall cheh? Flood her with emails? Who is organizing in the neighborhood to save the Uptown?

Apparently people would rather bash Cheh than to actually take this energy to save the Uptown and you know, save the Uptown.

NP. But if she is leading the charge to NOT SAVE the Uptown, then it would make sense to spend your energy on her due to the inordinate amount of power she wields. Who do you think people should be trying to rally to convince to save the theatre if not Cheh?

Cheh didn't disagree when her chief of staff claimed that dense-mixed use development is exactly what they want to see to replace the Uptown Theater.

The PPs circular logic is really interesting. Instead of focusing on Cheh, people should organize to petition their elected leaders who is…. Cheh.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why won't Mary Cheh stand with her constituents and work to save the iconic Uptown? Instead, she seems to support speculators and developers who want to change the Uptown forever into upscale dense dreck.

It is protected by the historic district. What do you want her to do that she hasn't already done?

What are YOU doing to save it? Have you participated in the community meetings about it? Have you pledged to contribute to purchasing it? Have you volunteered to start thinking through a business plan?

If the answer to any of these questions is "no" then you are doing it wrong.

If the Uptown is protected by the historic district, then why did Cheh push legislation that will enable zoning for a 10-story building at the site? Cheh is no friend of the Uptown, of historic preservation, or of Cleveland Park.

so what's the upshot? Change.org petition? recall cheh? Flood her with emails? Who is organizing in the neighborhood to save the Uptown?

Apparently people would rather bash Cheh than to actually take this energy to save the Uptown and you know, save the Uptown.

NP. But if she is leading the charge to NOT SAVE the Uptown, then it would make sense to spend your energy on her due to the inordinate amount of power she wields. Who do you think people should be trying to rally to convince to save the theatre if not Cheh?

Cheh didn't disagree when her chief of staff claimed that dense-mixed use development is exactly what they want to see to replace the Uptown Theater.