Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As pointed out earlier, this is all hypothetical discussion. Cleveland Park Library is completed and open. Cleveland Park is in an historic district and has zoning that limits height. There is plenty of land in other parts of the city, including parking lots out New York Ave. that are ripe for housing development and redevelopment.

Clearly you haven't driven out NY Ave in 15 years.

And no, there is no reason why Ward 3 cannot help the city with affordable housing units a block from the Cleveland Park metro.

Cleveland Park is getting a multi-story homeless shelter. Let some other neighborhoods step up for a change.

Wow - do you actually believe this? That only CP has been getting new things, undesired or otherwise?

You might need to step out of your privileged bubble if you do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As pointed out earlier, this is all hypothetical discussion. Cleveland Park Library is completed and open. Cleveland Park is in an historic district and has zoning that limits height. There is plenty of land in other parts of the city, including parking lots out New York Ave. that are ripe for housing development and redevelopment.

Clearly you haven't driven out NY Ave in 15 years.

And no, there is no reason why Ward 3 cannot help the city with affordable housing units a block from the Cleveland Park metro.

Cleveland Park is getting a multi-story homeless shelter. Let some other neighborhoods step up for a change.

Anonymous wrote:As pointed out earlier, this is all hypothetical discussion. Cleveland Park Library is completed and open. Cleveland Park is in an historic district and has zoning that limits height. There is plenty of land in other parts of the city, including parking lots out New York Ave. that are ripe for housing development and redevelopment.

Clearly you haven't driven out NY Ave in 15 years.

And no, there is no reason why Ward 3 cannot help the city with affordable housing units a block from the Cleveland Park metro.

Anonymous wrote:As pointed out earlier, this is all hypothetical discussion. Cleveland Park Library is completed and open. Cleveland Park is in an historic district and has zoning that limits height. There is plenty of land in other parts of the city, including parking lots out New York Ave. that are ripe for housing development and redevelopment.

Textbook NIMBY argument - we should have more housing it should just go elsewhere!

Meanwhile Cleveland Park businesses are struggling and in some cases moving to more dense neighborhoods.

As pointed out earlier, this is all hypothetical discussion. Cleveland Park Library is completed and open. Cleveland Park is in an historic district and has zoning that limits height. There is plenty of land in other parts of the city, including parking lots out New York Ave. that are ripe for housing development and redevelopment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many live in Culpepper and Warrenton too. That is too far to be useful in a regional emergency.

They live out there because they want a semi-rural setting and more land for the money. Despite what Greater Greater Development would have you believe, they’re not going to want to live in some little flat above a Cava.

Well maybe that's true (though you of course have no clue) but it doesn't change the fact that there are more people looking for housing than available housing units in DC which is driving up prices and sending those unable to afford it to further flung and less sustainable locales all of which have costs for everyone involved.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many live in Culpepper and Warrenton too. That is too far to be useful in a regional emergency.

They live out there because they want a semi-rural setting and more land for the money. Despite what Greater Greater Development would have you believe, they’re not going to want to live in some little flat above a Cava.

Because you speak for all first responders.

Anonymous wrote:Many live in Culpepper and Warrenton too. That is too far to be useful in a regional emergency.

They live out there because they want a semi-rural setting and more land for the money. Despite what Greater Greater Development would have you believe, they’re not going to want to live in some little flat above a Cava.

Many live in Culpepper and Warrenton too. That is too far to be useful in a regional emergency.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be careful about assuming that "we" don't want D.C. to slide into SF territory of wildly expensive housing. "We" don't actually all agree that the city needs more affordable rentals. As long as there are some addresses for moderate-income people to live in the Greater, Greater metro area -- and there absolutely are -- then we're good. Those residences need not be in the District.

-- 25-year D.C. resident here (never Cleveland park though)

If we don't have enough affordable housing for teachers and first responders IN THE DISTRICT, then we are failing. That should be a priority and a benefit to those employees.

This is a tautological argument.

It is not an inherent "failure" for a moderate income worker to have limitations on residential options. All participants on this thread face cost limits on their choice in housing.

I think it is an inherent failure of a city if the city's municipal workers (teachers, firefighters, garbage collectors) can't afford to live in the city.

Not really. DC is a relatively small city, unhampered by geography the way San Francisco is. The Potomac crossings present a certain challenge at rush hour but the Maryland border is just a line, and the city is just 10 miles across side to side. Many DC employees choose to live in the suburbs, which (esp Prince George’s) offer a lot more house and yard for less money. Your offering a blunderbuss solution in search of a real problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be careful about assuming that "we" don't want D.C. to slide into SF territory of wildly expensive housing. "We" don't actually all agree that the city needs more affordable rentals. As long as there are some addresses for moderate-income people to live in the Greater, Greater metro area -- and there absolutely are -- then we're good. Those residences need not be in the District.

-- 25-year D.C. resident here (never Cleveland park though)

If we don't have enough affordable housing for teachers and first responders IN THE DISTRICT, then we are failing. That should be a priority and a benefit to those employees.

This is a tautological argument.

It is not an inherent "failure" for a moderate income worker to have limitations on residential options. All participants on this thread face cost limits on their choice in housing.

I think it is an inherent failure of a city if the city's municipal workers (teachers, firefighters, garbage collectors) can't afford to live in the city.

I commend the posters. Generally by page 5 or 6 these "discussions" have gone off track or become middle school playgrounds. Amazingly, 5/6 pages in and the discourse is civil and helpful information is being added. Am I really on DCUM?

The neighbors would go batshit over affordable housing at the Washington Home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The good news is that the new Cleveland Park library is open and is quite nice. The bad new is that this was a missed opportunity to add dense housing, including affordable housing, to this desirable, transit-accessible location. DC-owned sites present an opportunity for taller and denser multi-family housing and mixed use development. This not only creates vibrancy and inclusive zoning housing, but the revenue to DC can fund more social spending priorities.

They should turn down Sidwell and build up affordable housing for the homeless and the middle class.

Turn down Sidwell for what? They already have their approvals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The good news is that the new Cleveland Park library is open and is quite nice. The bad new is that this was a missed opportunity to add dense housing, including affordable housing, to this desirable, transit-accessible location. DC-owned sites present an opportunity for taller and denser multi-family housing and mixed use development. This not only creates vibrancy and inclusive zoning housing, but the revenue to DC can fund more social spending priorities.

They should turn down Sidwell and build up affordable housing for the homeless and the middle class.

Before Sidwell bought the Washington Home property, some residents there tried to challenge the deal asserting tenant rights. The court didn't agree with their legal theory, but there was discussion then about an enlightened developer coming in, piggybacking on the tenant right to redevelop the site with a right-sized nonprofit care facility and vibrant mixed-use to include market and affordable housing, as well as more retail. The neighbors no doubt (and Sidwell) would have fought that.