Anonymous wrote:What I always find funny about these “Ward 3 is white because of racism” folks is that they’re almost always white transplants who made the decision to move to ward 3. Ward 3 is white because that’s where white people like them decided to move, and then they cry that it’s racist that people like them decided to move there.

For instance, here’s Matt Frumin, who’s from Michigan:

“I’ve been saying this: Ward 3 came to look the way it did” — that is to say, White and rich — “because of exclusion based on intentional policies — exclusion and then segregation,” Frumin told me. “And we need intentional policies to remedy what happened in the past.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/01/31/making-dcs-ward-3-an-example-all-land/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_local

Frumin, the reason ward 3 is full of well-off white people like you is because that’s where you and other well-off white people like you decided to move to. You could have moved to any other neighborhood in the city if you thought white people moving to ward 3 was segregationist. But being a white person, moving to a neighborhood, and then acting like it’s a travesty when other white people do the same thing is idiotic.

(The article is funny too, because Frumin says ward 3 is white because of segregation, and then goes on to say that he thinks his black friend didn’t buy a house in Tenleytown because his friend didn’t want to be around so many white people.)

You really miss the point. It is in the bolded. And also this from the article:

"Today, White households in D.C. have 81 times the wealth of Black households — with 1,500 households in the city worth more than $30 million, according to the DC Fiscal Policy Institute."

Nobody is claiming that a white person's choice to move to the neighborhood is segregationist. They are claiming that the fact that more people have the opportunity to move to that neighborhood is the result of intentional policies in the past. And the belief that intentional policies are required in the present to remedy that.

Anonymous wrote:What I always find funny about these “Ward 3 is white because of racism” folks is that they’re almost always white transplants who made the decision to move to ward 3. Ward 3 is white because that’s where white people like them decided to move, and then they cry that it’s racist that people like them decided to move there.

For instance, here’s Matt Frumin, who’s from Michigan:

“I’ve been saying this: Ward 3 came to look the way it did” — that is to say, White and rich — “because of exclusion based on intentional policies — exclusion and then segregation,” Frumin told me. “And we need intentional policies to remedy what happened in the past.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/01/31/making-dcs-ward-3-an-example-all-land/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_local

Frumin, the reason ward 3 is full of well-off white people like you is because that’s where you and other well-off white people like you decided to move to. You could have moved to any other neighborhood in the city if you thought white people moving to ward 3 was segregationist. But being a white person, moving to a neighborhood, and then acting like it’s a travesty when other white people do the same thing is idiotic.

(The article is funny too, because Frumin says ward 3 is white because of segregation, and then goes on to say that he thinks his black friend didn’t buy a house in Tenleytown because his friend didn’t want to be around so many white people.)

Okay but its not a welcoming place. Extreme racial concentration in any direction has some inertia to it to forestall diversity. This is one building that we are talking about here. And yet, look at the response from *some* of the residents. It's more than outsized. I understand that change can be challenging, and concerns about the impact on our predominantly white and wealthy neighborhood have been voiced.

It is crucial to acknowledge that diversity is a cornerstone of vibrant and thriving communities. While the initial reaction might be apprehension, let's take a moment to consider the positive aspects of incorporating public housing into our neighborhood.

Fostering Inclusivity: Public housing provides an opportunity to create a more inclusive community. By welcoming residents from diverse backgrounds and economic situations, we strengthen the fabric of our neighborhood, fostering understanding and unity among us all.

Breaking Down Socioeconomic Barriers: Integrating public housing into our community helps break down socioeconomic barriers. It provides families with access to the same resources, educational opportunities, and community services that we enjoy. This can contribute to creating a more equitable society for everyone.

Cultivating a Rich Tapestry of Cultures: Diversity brings with it a wealth of perspectives, traditions, and experiences. Embracing public housing means embracing a richer tapestry of cultures within our neighborhood. This can lead to a more vibrant and dynamic community life, where we learn from one another and celebrate our differences.

Enhancing Community Services: The redevelopment could lead to an enhancement of community services. A new library combined with public housing facilities can create a space that benefits all residents, providing improved access to education, healthcare, and social services.

Strengthening Our Collective Social Responsibility: Embracing public housing on this site is an opportunity for our neighborhood to showcase its commitment to social responsibility. By participating in projects that address housing inequality, we contribute to the broader societal goal of creating communities that work for everyone.

Change is undoubtedly challenging, and it's natural to feel a sense of attachment to the familiar. However, let's approach this redevelopment with an open mind, understanding that the inclusion of public housing is not a threat but an opportunity for our neighborhood to evolve into a more diverse, inclusive, and socially responsible community.

Let's come together, engage in constructive dialogue, and work towards building a future that reflects the values of compassion, understanding, and unity that define our neighborhood.

What I always find funny about these “Ward 3 is white because of racism” folks is that they’re almost always white transplants who made the decision to move to ward 3. Ward 3 is white because that’s where white people like them decided to move, and then they cry that it’s racist that people like them decided to move there.

For instance, here’s Matt Frumin, who’s from Michigan:

“I’ve been saying this: Ward 3 came to look the way it did” — that is to say, White and rich — “because of exclusion based on intentional policies — exclusion and then segregation,” Frumin told me. “And we need intentional policies to remedy what happened in the past.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/01/31/making-dcs-ward-3-an-example-all-land/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_local

Frumin, the reason ward 3 is full of well-off white people like you is because that’s where you and other well-off white people like you decided to move to. You could have moved to any other neighborhood in the city if you thought white people moving to ward 3 was segregationist. But being a white person, moving to a neighborhood, and then acting like it’s a travesty when other white people do the same thing is idiotic.

(The article is funny too, because Frumin says ward 3 is white because of segregation, and then goes on to say that he thinks his black friend didn’t buy a house in Tenleytown because his friend didn’t want to be around so many white people.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
1. Not being in favor of adding MORE police is not equivalent to wanting to defund the police.
2. Recounting a story about the failings of our programs/policies that leads to people living in tents is not equivalent to thinking that "homeless should be allowed to create tent encampments wherever they want."

1. The police force had already shrunk by hundred last year, in part because of Council policies from 2020 where they said they were explicitly shrinking the police force as part of the effort to defund the police. If the the police force gets shrunk part of a defund the police initiative, and you say you want to keep the force at defund levels, then yes, you're in favor of defunding the police.

It's amazing how how after just a year or two activists are trying to run from the positions they had just been espousing. All the more reason why no one should trust them. When there current policy proposal end up creating a colossal mess, they're going to come back a few years from now and claim they never supported those either.

2. The first Tweet explicitly says "DC’s no-tent zones are a moral failure and a policy failure." Keep in mind that this is after more than 8,000 people were given vouchers (more than the entire homeless population), and D.C. built new shelters across the entire city, in addition to many other initiatives like affordable housing that D.C. has been ramping up. And all this has only made the problem worse.

Activists: Just do X and the homeless population will go away.

Citizens: We believed you and did X, and the homeless situation got dramatically worse.

Activists: That's because you didn't do Y, it's your fault, you should let the homeless set up encampments everywhere because this is on you.

Where did the bolded happen?

And you don't dispute that the tweet does not say that people should be able to build tent encampments wherever they want, right?

It's much more rewarding to argue with strawmen than engage with real people with real positions based on real data.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
1. Not being in favor of adding MORE police is not equivalent to wanting to defund the police.
2. Recounting a story about the failings of our programs/policies that leads to people living in tents is not equivalent to thinking that "homeless should be allowed to create tent encampments wherever they want."

1. The police force had already shrunk by hundred last year, in part because of Council policies from 2020 where they said they were explicitly shrinking the police force as part of the effort to defund the police. If the the police force gets shrunk part of a defund the police initiative, and you say you want to keep the force at defund levels, then yes, you're in favor of defunding the police.

It's amazing how how after just a year or two activists are trying to run from the positions they had just been espousing. All the more reason why no one should trust them. When there current policy proposal end up creating a colossal mess, they're going to come back a few years from now and claim they never supported those either.

2. The first Tweet explicitly says "DC’s no-tent zones are a moral failure and a policy failure." Keep in mind that this is after more than 8,000 people were given vouchers (more than the entire homeless population), and D.C. built new shelters across the entire city, in addition to many other initiatives like affordable housing that D.C. has been ramping up. And all this has only made the problem worse.

Activists: Just do X and the homeless population will go away.

Citizens: We believed you and did X, and the homeless situation got dramatically worse.

Activists: That's because you didn't do Y, it's your fault, you should let the homeless set up encampments everywhere because this is on you.

Where did the bolded happen?

And you don't dispute that the tweet does not say that people should be able to build tent encampments wherever they want, right?

Anonymous wrote:
1. Not being in favor of adding MORE police is not equivalent to wanting to defund the police.
2. Recounting a story about the failings of our programs/policies that leads to people living in tents is not equivalent to thinking that "homeless should be allowed to create tent encampments wherever they want."

1. The police force had already shrunk by hundred last year, in part because of Council policies from 2020 where they said they were explicitly shrinking the police force as part of the effort to defund the police. If the the police force gets shrunk part of a defund the police initiative, and you say you want to keep the force at defund levels, then yes, you're in favor of defunding the police.

It's amazing how how after just a year or two activists are trying to run from the positions they had just been espousing. All the more reason why no one should trust them. When there current policy proposal end up creating a colossal mess, they're going to come back a few years from now and claim they never supported those either.

2. The first Tweet explicitly says "DC’s no-tent zones are a moral failure and a policy failure." Keep in mind that this is after more than 8,000 people were given vouchers (more than the entire homeless population), and D.C. built new shelters across the entire city, in addition to many other initiatives like affordable housing that D.C. has been ramping up. And all this has only made the problem worse.

Activists: Just do X and the homeless population will go away.

Citizens: We believed you and did X, and the homeless situation got dramatically worse.

Activists: That's because you didn't do Y, it's your fault, you should let the homeless set up encampments everywhere because this is on you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These data https://ggwash.org/view/91763/historic-districts-may-be-preserving-racial-segregation-in-dc

Just a glance at that guy's Twitter account will tell you a lot. He's extremely obsessed with his idea that Ward 3 is too white, and with bike lanes. He also thinks that homeless should be allowed to create tent encampments wherever they want, and the council candidate he was cheering for was against adding more police to the police force.

https://twitter.com/BobWardDC/status/1529271823736655873
https://twitter.com/theBeauFinley/status/1522761701279649792

I've given up even engaging with people like that at this point. If you're in favor of tent cities and defunding the police, you're simply so far gone that it's going to be a waste of time to even try having a conversation.

Your links do not support your conclusions.

1. Not being in favor of adding MORE police is not equivalent to wanting to defund the police.
2. Recounting a story about the failings of our programs/policies that leads to people living in tents is not equivalent to thinking that "homeless should be allowed to create tent encampments wherever they want."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These data https://ggwash.org/view/91763/historic-districts-may-be-preserving-racial-segregation-in-dc

Just a glance at that guy's Twitter account will tell you a lot. He's extremely obsessed with his idea that Ward 3 is too white, and with bike lanes. He also thinks that homeless should be allowed to create tent encampments wherever they want, and the council candidate he was cheering for was against adding more police to the police force.

https://twitter.com/BobWardDC/status/1529271823736655873
https://twitter.com/theBeauFinley/status/1522761701279649792

I've given up even engaging with people like that at this point. If you're in favor of tent cities and defunding the police, you're simply so far gone that it's going to be a waste of time to even try having a conversation.

There are parties out there that look at places like Portland and San Francisco and say to themselves, “Yeah, this is what we are looking for.”

It would be amazing performance art if they weren’t actually serious.

Anonymous wrote:These data https://ggwash.org/view/91763/historic-districts-may-be-preserving-racial-segregation-in-dc

Just a glance at that guy's Twitter account will tell you a lot. He's extremely obsessed with his idea that Ward 3 is too white, and with bike lanes. He also thinks that homeless should be allowed to create tent encampments wherever they want, and the council candidate he was cheering for was against adding more police to the police force.

https://twitter.com/BobWardDC/status/1529271823736655873
https://twitter.com/theBeauFinley/status/1522761701279649792

I've given up even engaging with people like that at this point. If you're in favor of tent cities and defunding the police, you're simply so far gone that it's going to be a waste of time to even try having a conversation.

Anonymous wrote:What's happening Monday night?

There's an ANC meeting to actually discuss the resolutions on next steps for the community center. One of the the resolutions takes feedback from the survey and incorporates that into site characteristic recommendations. The other one basically says "cancel the project, forthwith".

https://anc3g.org/agenda/anc-3-4g-december-11-2023-regular-scheduled-public-meeting/

What's happening Monday night?

How much of a shitshow is Monday night going to be?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quick Question--drove by the Omni in Woodley Park. What on earth is being built in that huge chasm by Oyster School (while we are speaking of development)? Seems like a lot of 're-development' on CT cooridor, geeze!

Omni is on Calvert. You are referring to the former Wardman Marriot site:

https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/900-apartments-proposed-for-former-wardman-marriott-site/19189

You can see it as you approach the Omni from Calvert. the chasm is massive. How is it that the sentiment persists that there is no housing/development in Ward 3? All is see is housing/development

It could be developed with more density there. Their iare potential housing units left on the table.

Zoning wouldn't allow for more density and the city didn't buy it, so it will have a minima amount of affordable housing units. I think the developers lost an opportunity to extend the Woodley Park commercial area up into the property. Oh well.

DC requires only 8 to 10 percent affordable units even in large developments and then is surprised that progress is so incremental. Other cities require more, even much more. But the DC government is so captive to development interests that it is unlikely that it will raise its baseline mandate. So they just seek more and more market rate apartments and condos in the hope that a few more crumbs of affordable housing will trickle down.

Having seen the voucher mess, I am just fine with less affordable housing. 8 to 10 percent sounds fine. What's funny is that they are building so little for middle income families--just tiny luxury condos. It's like this city doesn't want middle income families or something.

Why do you equate vouchers with affordable housing? They are two different things.

Also, not everyone on vouchers causes problems. Just like there are people not on vouchers who do cause problems.

Because vouchers that wiped out EXISTING rent controlled affordable housing sent a message across the bow that this city does not value affordable housing. Only vouchers. So I'm over both at this point. "fooled me once" etc.

They’ve actually fooled us twice. The pro voucher crowed is also largely the defund the police crowd. They now have a bit of a credibility problem.

Yes, they basically want to flush a livable city for anyone at all down the toilet. Huge credibility problem when they tout phrases like "vibrant urban living"

It's so crowded, nobody goes there anymore.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quick Question--drove by the Omni in Woodley Park. What on earth is being built in that huge chasm by Oyster School (while we are speaking of development)? Seems like a lot of 're-development' on CT cooridor, geeze!

Omni is on Calvert. You are referring to the former Wardman Marriot site:

https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/900-apartments-proposed-for-former-wardman-marriott-site/19189

You can see it as you approach the Omni from Calvert. the chasm is massive. How is it that the sentiment persists that there is no housing/development in Ward 3? All is see is housing/development

It could be developed with more density there. Their iare potential housing units left on the table.

Zoning wouldn't allow for more density and the city didn't buy it, so it will have a minima amount of affordable housing units. I think the developers lost an opportunity to extend the Woodley Park commercial area up into the property. Oh well.

DC requires only 8 to 10 percent affordable units even in large developments and then is surprised that progress is so incremental. Other cities require more, even much more. But the DC government is so captive to development interests that it is unlikely that it will raise its baseline mandate. So they just seek more and more market rate apartments and condos in the hope that a few more crumbs of affordable housing will trickle down.

Having seen the voucher mess, I am just fine with less affordable housing. 8 to 10 percent sounds fine. What's funny is that they are building so little for middle income families--just tiny luxury condos. It's like this city doesn't want middle income families or something.

Why do you equate vouchers with affordable housing? They are two different things.

Also, not everyone on vouchers causes problems. Just like there are people not on vouchers who do cause problems.

Because vouchers that wiped out EXISTING rent controlled affordable housing sent a message across the bow that this city does not value affordable housing. Only vouchers. So I'm over both at this point. "fooled me once" etc.

They’ve actually fooled us twice. The pro voucher crowed is also largely the defund the police crowd. They now have a bit of a credibility problem.

Yes, they basically want to flush a livable city for anyone at all down the toilet. Huge credibility problem when they tout phrases like "vibrant urban living"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My family made the opposite choice -- to live in a historic district. I agree that the city is big enough to have both to give people choices.

The same. We value having a historic district in the neighborhood. And when we renovated and enlarged our house the process was not burdensome at all.

+1

The hysteria from the people opposed to historic designation is rather astounding. It really isn't that big of a deal, and frankly, it generally improves the overall quality of home renovations.

So why do it?

Why not? There are a lot of unique neighborhoods in DC, Chevy Chase is one of them. Why not celebrate a streetcar suburb of DC? It won't impact the proposals for the community center, but it will "stabilize" the 100+ year old homes on either side of CT Ave.

That’s a load of BS. There is nothing that needs “stabilizing”…and it absolutely is being promoted as a tool to block/impede the community center development.

Just be honest about it.

Have you seen the development in the Shaw Historic District? Or the 14th Street Historic District? Or the Anacostia Historic District? Being in a historic District does not block or impede development. If that is the reason the proponents have filed their application, they will be in for a surprise.

Why is the development lobby, GGW, “Cleveland Park Smart Growth” (2+ miles from CCDC!), etc. fighting so hard to stop a relatively small Chevy Chase historic district?

They equate a CCDC historic district with racial segregation and gaslight those who oppose their development agenda as opposing racial and economic diversity.

Of course. When you are all out of ideas, simply accuse people of racism and then expect them to waste time and energy trying to prove that they aren’t racist. If they don’t take the bait, claim that their silence is proof and declare victory in the imaginary argument.

When you don't want to engage with the data, simply claim that people are wrongly accusing you of racism.

What “data” do you engage with and what is the source?

These data https://ggwash.org/view/91763/historic-districts-may-be-preserving-racial-segregation-in-dc

The sources of the data are the US Census, as well as other studies you can read for yourself to examine their data sources, for example

https://furmancenter.org/files/NYUFurmanCenter_HistoricDistrictsBrief_7MAR2016.pdf
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/evidence-and-innovation-in-housing-law-and-policy/balancing-the-costs-and-benefits-of-historic-preservation/FFEFBEC10ECF3E24EB9A0C80CC979FD1
https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/research/market-rate-development-impacts/