Anonymous wrote:No, I think it is fine to increase density and have affordable units as part of a mix.
What I do not favor is the city buying the Wardman and warehouse all of 'the poors" in one place as a way of solving the "ward 3" problem.
Bottom line, increasing density and spreading affordable units across the new addresses better expresses economic and probably racial diversity across the Ward as oppose to just in one place.
Anonymous wrote:No, I think it is fine to increase density and have affordable units as part of a mix.
What I do not favor is the city buying the Wardman and warehouse all of 'the poors" in one place as a way of solving the "ward 3" problem.
Bottom line, increasing density and spreading affordable units across the new addresses better expresses economic and probably racial diversity across the Ward as oppose to just in one place.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That it doesn't carry close to its share of affordable housing units, partially because of the structural issues from the 20th Century, partially because of racism and partially because of hyper NIMBYism that is generally based on racism, fear of change and "I've got mine" shrouded in the term "preserving neighborhood character."
What are you talking about?
Glad you asked, try this from our neighbors up Conn Ave, the issues are the same, or similar.
https://anc3g.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Housing-Group-Draft-Report-11-13-20-.pdf
That link is not relevant for Cleveland Park. So again, I’m asking what are you talking about? Can you directly answer that question?
Replace "Chevy Chase, DC" with "Cleveland Park" and it is 100% relevant. The only difference is that the neighbors in Chevy Chase are aware enough of local history and its impact on the composition of both the residents and housing stock in the Ward to reflect on it. I take it by your response that the people of Cleveland Park would rather ignore history and simply take the trump tactics to heart.
Bravo.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That it doesn't carry close to its share of affordable housing units, partially because of the structural issues from the 20th Century, partially because of racism and partially because of hyper NIMBYism that is generally based on racism, fear of change and "I've got mine" shrouded in the term "preserving neighborhood character."
What are you talking about?
Glad you asked, try this from our neighbors up Conn Ave, the issues are the same, or similar.
https://anc3g.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Housing-Group-Draft-Report-11-13-20-.pdf
That link is not relevant for Cleveland Park. So again, I’m asking what are you talking about? Can you directly answer that question?
Replace "Chevy Chase, DC" with "Cleveland Park" and it is 100% relevant. The only difference is that the neighbors in Chevy Chase are aware enough of local history and its impact on the composition of both the residents and housing stock in the Ward to reflect on it. I take it by your response that the people of Cleveland Park would rather ignore history and simply take the trump tactics to heart.
Bravo.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That it doesn't carry close to its share of affordable housing units, partially because of the structural issues from the 20th Century, partially because of racism and partially because of hyper NIMBYism that is generally based on racism, fear of change and "I've got mine" shrouded in the term "preserving neighborhood character."
What is the "share" exactly? And who established it, pray tell?
The Mayor, the Council, the ANCs including 3C.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That it doesn't carry close to its share of affordable housing units, partially because of the structural issues from the 20th Century, partially because of racism and partially because of hyper NIMBYism that is generally based on racism, fear of change and "I've got mine" shrouded in the term "preserving neighborhood character."
What is the "share" exactly? And who established it, pray tell?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That it doesn't carry close to its share of affordable housing units, partially because of the structural issues from the 20th Century, partially because of racism and partially because of hyper NIMBYism that is generally based on racism, fear of change and "I've got mine" shrouded in the term "preserving neighborhood character."
What are you talking about?
Glad you asked, try this from our neighbors up Conn Ave, the issues are the same, or similar.
https://anc3g.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Housing-Group-Draft-Report-11-13-20-.pdf
That link is not relevant for Cleveland Park. So again, I’m asking what are you talking about? Can you directly answer that question?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That it doesn't carry close to its share of affordable housing units, partially because of the structural issues from the 20th Century, partially because of racism and partially because of hyper NIMBYism that is generally based on racism, fear of change and "I've got mine" shrouded in the term "preserving neighborhood character."
What are you talking about?
Glad you asked, try this from our neighbors up Conn Ave, the issues are the same, or similar.
https://anc3g.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Housing-Group-Draft-Report-11-13-20-.pdf
Anonymous wrote:That it doesn't carry close to its share of affordable housing units, partially because of the structural issues from the 20th Century, partially because of racism and partially because of hyper NIMBYism that is generally based on racism, fear of change and "I've got mine" shrouded in the term "preserving neighborhood character."
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That it doesn't carry close to its share of affordable housing units, partially because of the structural issues from the 20th Century, partially because of racism and partially because of hyper NIMBYism that is generally based on racism, fear of change and "I've got mine" shrouded in the term "preserving neighborhood character."
What are you talking about?
Anonymous wrote:That it doesn't carry close to its share of affordable housing units, partially because of the structural issues from the 20th Century, partially because of racism and partially because of hyper NIMBYism that is generally based on racism, fear of change and "I've got mine" shrouded in the term "preserving neighborhood character."
Anonymous wrote:No, I think it is fine to increase density and have affordable units as part of a mix.
What I do not favor is the city buying the Wardman and warehouse all of 'the poors" in one place as a way of solving the "ward 3" problem.
Bottom line, increasing density and spreading affordable units across the new addresses better expresses economic and probably racial diversity across the Ward as oppose to just in one place.