Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are the No River School protestors? How many additional cars will be in the neighborhood daily with this proposal?

It will literally be steps from the metro. And probably no additional parking spots.

And yet, you can be sure the residents will own cars, especially if they have kids.

There are lots of people with kids in DC who don't have cars. If you make the building market rate, a lot more will have cars than if you make it 30% AMI.

I have 3 kids in DC and know a lot of parents. Do not know even one single parent without a car.

This says more about you than about reality. I live in Shaw and now parents without cars.

Or perhaps it says more about you than reality.

I don't have a car either...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are the No River School protestors? How many additional cars will be in the neighborhood daily with this proposal?

It will literally be steps from the metro. And probably no additional parking spots.

And yet, you can be sure the residents will own cars, especially if they have kids.

There are lots of people with kids in DC who don't have cars. If you make the building market rate, a lot more will have cars than if you make it 30% AMI.

I have 3 kids in DC and know a lot of parents. Do not know even one single parent without a car.

This says more about you than about reality. I live in Shaw and now parents without cars.

Or perhaps it says more about you than reality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are the No River School protestors? How many additional cars will be in the neighborhood daily with this proposal?

It will literally be steps from the metro. And probably no additional parking spots.

And yet, you can be sure the residents will own cars, especially if they have kids.

There are lots of people with kids in DC who don't have cars. If you make the building market rate, a lot more will have cars than if you make it 30% AMI.

I have 3 kids in DC and know a lot of parents. Do not know even one single parent without a car.

This says more about you than about reality. I live in Shaw and now parents without cars.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are the No River School protestors? How many additional cars will be in the neighborhood daily with this proposal?

It will literally be steps from the metro. And probably no additional parking spots.

And yet, you can be sure the residents will own cars, especially if they have kids.

There are lots of people with kids in DC who don't have cars. If you make the building market rate, a lot more will have cars than if you make it 30% AMI.

I have 3 kids in DC and know a lot of parents. Do not know even one single parent without a car.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are the No River School protestors? How many additional cars will be in the neighborhood daily with this proposal?

It will literally be steps from the metro. And probably no additional parking spots.

And yet, you can be sure the residents will own cars, especially if they have kids.

There are lots of people with kids in DC who don't have cars. If you make the building market rate, a lot more will have cars than if you make it 30% AMI.

I have 3 kids in DC and know a lot of parents. Do not know even one single parent without a car.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are the No River School protestors? How many additional cars will be in the neighborhood daily with this proposal?

It will literally be steps from the metro. And probably no additional parking spots.

And yet, you can be sure the residents will own cars, especially if they have kids.

There are lots of people with kids in DC who don't have cars. If you make the building market rate, a lot more will have cars than if you make it 30% AMI.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are the No River School protestors? How many additional cars will be in the neighborhood daily with this proposal?

It will literally be steps from the metro. And probably no additional parking spots.

And yet, you can be sure the residents will own cars, especially if they have kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Wisconsin Ave across from the metro on city-owned land is a great place to increase density. I am not worried about shadows on a playground. Considering how climate change I think more and more playgrounds are going to wind up putting up sunshades or covers like you see in AZ, FL, and other hot states anyway.

Cool! An 11 floor sunshade for Janney. How much of the playground will be forefeited for the tower entrance on Albermarle St, as the entrance to residences will have to be separate from the library space? Is such a sacrifice worth it if the tower is only 20 percent “inclusive zoning” amd 80 percent market rate? This ratio would strike most people as a giveaway of public assets to a developer. Should the trade off of some of the playground only happen if the tower is truly affordable (ie, all affordable units, no market rate and a substantial number truly affordable - no more than 40 percent AMI versus the much higher current DC standard of 80 percent AMI)?

I’d strongly prefer for new housing construction in Ward 3 to be entirely low-income and city-owned. So if this is supposed to be some sort of horrible “what if it’s all low-income!” scenario, it doesn’t change my mind about that site being a good spot for new housing. But I think you’re getting ahead of yourself a bit in imagining how much of the playground is going to be “sacrificed” for a building that no plan has been introduced for.

Oh yes. Another low income in my backyard please! Person. In Ward 3! Let’s not improve resources in other parts of the city that have room to build up. What sense would that make when we can jam folks into Ward 3!

I just laugh when I here people say there's no room in Ward 3. Have you never been to another city like New York? Or another part of DC like Shaw? Ward 3 has plenty of room for growth.

And if people wanted to live in a dense area like NY or Shaw they'd've moved there instead of here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m glad to see this happening, and my kids attend Janney (and one of them will be there for a while). We can’t claim to care about equity broadly and then oppose new housing because it might add one or two kids to our children’s classrooms.

Teacher here. Adding one or two more kids to a classroom that’s already crowded is crazy-making for all. This is not insignificant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are the No River School protestors? How many additional cars will be in the neighborhood daily with this proposal?

It will literally be steps from the metro. And probably no additional parking spots.

Anonymous wrote:Where are the No River School protestors? How many additional cars will be in the neighborhood daily with this proposal?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Wisconsin Ave across from the metro on city-owned land is a great place to increase density. I am not worried about shadows on a playground. Considering how climate change I think more and more playgrounds are going to wind up putting up sunshades or covers like you see in AZ, FL, and other hot states anyway.

Cool! An 11 floor sunshade for Janney. How much of the playground will be forefeited for the tower entrance on Albermarle St, as the entrance to residences will have to be separate from the library space? Is such a sacrifice worth it if the tower is only 20 percent “inclusive zoning” amd 80 percent market rate? This ratio would strike most people as a giveaway of public assets to a developer. Should the trade off of some of the playground only happen if the tower is truly affordable (ie, all affordable units, no market rate and a substantial number truly affordable - no more than 40 percent AMI versus the much higher current DC standard of 80 percent AMI)?

I’d strongly prefer for new housing construction in Ward 3 to be entirely low-income and city-owned. So if this is supposed to be some sort of horrible “what if it’s all low-income!” scenario, it doesn’t change my mind about that site being a good spot for new housing. But I think you’re getting ahead of yourself a bit in imagining how much of the playground is going to be “sacrificed” for a building that no plan has been introduced for.

Oh yes. Another low income in my backyard please! Person. In Ward 3! Let’s not improve resources in other parts of the city that have room to build up. What sense would that make when we can jam folks into Ward 3!

I just laugh when I here people say there's no room in Ward 3. Have you never been to another city like New York? Or another part of DC like Shaw? Ward 3 has plenty of room for growth.

Anonymous wrote:Where are the No River School protestors? How many additional cars will be in the neighborhood daily with this proposal?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Wisconsin Ave across from the metro on city-owned land is a great place to increase density. I am not worried about shadows on a playground. Considering how climate change I think more and more playgrounds are going to wind up putting up sunshades or covers like you see in AZ, FL, and other hot states anyway.

Cool! An 11 floor sunshade for Janney. How much of the playground will be forefeited for the tower entrance on Albermarle St, as the entrance to residences will have to be separate from the library space? Is such a sacrifice worth it if the tower is only 20 percent “inclusive zoning” amd 80 percent market rate? This ratio would strike most people as a giveaway of public assets to a developer. Should the trade off of some of the playground only happen if the tower is truly affordable (ie, all affordable units, no market rate and a substantial number truly affordable - no more than 40 percent AMI versus the much higher current DC standard of 80 percent AMI)?

I’d strongly prefer for new housing construction in Ward 3 to be entirely low-income and city-owned. So if this is supposed to be some sort of horrible “what if it’s all low-income!” scenario, it doesn’t change my mind about that site being a good spot for new housing. But I think you’re getting ahead of yourself a bit in imagining how much of the playground is going to be “sacrificed” for a building that no plan has been introduced for.

Cheh would not have introduced a last-minute amendment to the CompPlan bill increase the density of thissite, if there wasn’t a developer already whispering in her ear and scratching her back to do so. My bet is that a developer will propose another 8 floors of market rate, upscale flats on top of the library, and will offer to like 15%-20% of IZ units. Although IZ is not truly affordable hiding, Cheh and Bowser will cheer this sweetheart deal as a boon for housing affordability in Ward 3. They will need to use some of Janney’s property for an entrance, and for loading/trash access.