Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nick, Ed and Lance?

Nick = Nick DellaDonne, the erstwhile bike opponent who has been caught on video yelling at children with a megaphone.

No idea who Ed and Lance are.

Ed Hanlon, his buddy attorney who Chevy Choice Voice retained. Lance is a lackey of theirs who is a frequent agitator on the AdMo listserv and in the public meetings.

Anyway, while certainly they hate bikes and cyclists, the thing they dislike even more is affordable housing and change in the neighborhoods of the city that takes the form of development.

These "nothing can/should ever change because its perfect the way it is" fools. Bound to show up a community meeting or development site near you.

Change for the sake of change or unneeded density also is a real problem.

…and some ideas are just bad. Of course people would show up to community meetings to complain.

At ones 10 neighborhoods or more away from where they live?

So people in the neighborhood should be heard more loudly than people outside the neighborhood? We should listen to the survey? Ok, fine by me.

Please let the YIMBY shills know that they should mind their own business…it’s not their backyard, anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nick, Ed and Lance?

Nick = Nick DellaDonne, the erstwhile bike opponent who has been caught on video yelling at children with a megaphone.

No idea who Ed and Lance are.

Ed Hanlon, his buddy attorney who Chevy Choice Voice retained. Lance is a lackey of theirs who is a frequent agitator on the AdMo listserv and in the public meetings.

Anyway, while certainly they hate bikes and cyclists, the thing they dislike even more is affordable housing and change in the neighborhoods of the city that takes the form of development.

These "nothing can/should ever change because its perfect the way it is" fools. Bound to show up a community meeting or development site near you.

Change for the sake of change or unneeded density also is a real problem.

…and some ideas are just bad. Of course people would show up to community meetings to complain.

At ones 10 neighborhoods or more away from where they live?

So people in the neighborhood should be heard more loudly than people outside the neighborhood? We should listen to the survey? Ok, fine by me.

Please let the YIMBY shills know that they should mind their own business…it’s not their backyard, anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC is a dumpster fire right now. Everything the city touches turns to ash. Why would anyone trust its judgment to take on a project that would impact the neighborhood enormously?

Exactly. How many times have we heard activists saying "This won't cause any problems at all and anyone who thinks it will is racist"? Decriminalize fare evasion, reduce the police force, the voucher program, the homeless shelters, etc. And now activists are saying we need to ignore all of the bad policies that they were pushing before because this time it's different? They don't even pause to reconsider the messes they've made, it's just immediately on to the next thing.

Five years from now they'll be saying "why are you bringing up the huge failure of the Chevy Chase Community Center development? This new project we're pushing is completely different."

Bullshit. 5 years from now you'll be getting your latte and chocolate crossiant from some trendy shop in what used to be the old community center site and saying to your friend 'can't believe *people* opossed this redevelopment years ago', ignoring that you were one of them.

There's already a quite nice place across the street to get a latte and a chocolate croissant. Do you really know the community, or is this yet another site for generic dense mixed-used sameness?

I want to get back to this post, as I believe it most clearly and succinctly identifies the impasse here.

The supporters of this “redevelopment” are not people who live in the neighborhood or have basically any idea about the neighborhood. They are - and I should say clearly, mostly well meaning - outsiders who were told that Chevy Chase is this wealthy, white enclave completely separate from the city, and that it has no apartments and is fighting against poor people moving into their exclusive enclave.

What they don’t realize is that all of that is just smoke and mirrors. Chevy Chase is one of the few primarily-low density residential, middle-to-upper-middle class neighborhoods in the city with a diverse, engaging community centered around a thriving commercial core that would be detrimentally impacted should these plans come to fruition. They don’t realize this because they don’t come up here to have a lovely scone and coffee at Bread & Chocolate, or get their hair cut at the wonderful family barber shop owned and operated by a first-generation Latino family, or enjoy some of the Best Greek Food in the city at Parthenon Restaurant, or grab a six pack at Magruders while chatting with the wonderful cashier who has been working there since you were a kid.

In short, they mean well, but they do not understand how important that community center and library is, and how big a loss they would be to this community. To those that support this plan, I ask that before you railroad through a plan that will further damage one of the few remaining middle class neighborhoods in this city against our wishes, that you actually come up here and walk down Connecticut Avenue, and enjoy a coffee at Bread and Chocolate, grab a bite to eat at Parthenon, get a haircut at the barber shop, but a six pack at Magruders, and see a show at the Avalon. Then, if you still think your hair rained scheme is a good one, I will look you in the eye and explain why you are wrong, but at least I can respect you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC is a dumpster fire right now. Everything the city touches turns to ash. Why would anyone trust its judgment to take on a project that would impact the neighborhood enormously?

Exactly. How many times have we heard activists saying "This won't cause any problems at all and anyone who thinks it will is racist"? Decriminalize fare evasion, reduce the police force, the voucher program, the homeless shelters, etc. And now activists are saying we need to ignore all of the bad policies that they were pushing before because this time it's different? They don't even pause to reconsider the messes they've made, it's just immediately on to the next thing.

Five years from now they'll be saying "why are you bringing up the huge failure of the Chevy Chase Community Center development? This new project we're pushing is completely different."

Bullshit. 5 years from now you'll be getting your latte and chocolate crossiant from some trendy shop in what used to be the old community center site and saying to your friend 'can't believe *people* opossed this redevelopment years ago', ignoring that you were one of them.

There's already a quite nice place across the street to get a latte and a chocolate croissant. Do you really know the community, or is this yet another site for generic dense mixed-used sameness?

I want to get back to this post, as I believe it most clearly and succinctly identifies the impasse here.

The supporters of this “redevelopment” are not people who live in the neighborhood or have basically any idea about the neighborhood. They are - and I should say clearly, mostly well meaning - outsiders who were told that Chevy Chase is this wealthy, white enclave completely separate from the city, and that it has no apartments and is fighting against poor people moving into their exclusive enclave.

What they don’t realize is that all of that is just smoke and mirrors. Chevy Chase is one of the few primarily-low density residential, middle-to-upper-middle class neighborhoods in the city with a diverse, engaging community centered around a thriving commercial core that would be detrimentally impacted should these plans come to fruition. They don’t realize this because they don’t come up here to have a lovely scone and coffee at Bread & Chocolate, or get their hair cut at the wonderful family barber shop owned and operated by a first-generation Latino family, or enjoy some of the Best Greek Food in the city at Parthenon Restaurant, or grab a six pack at Magruders while chatting with the wonderful cashier who has been working there since you were a kid.

In short, they mean well, but they do not understand how important that community center and library is, and how big a loss they would be to this community. To those that support this plan, I ask that before you railroad through a plan that will further damage one of the few remaining middle class neighborhoods in this city against our wishes, that you actually come up here and walk down Connecticut Avenue, and enjoy a coffee at Bread and Chocolate, grab a bite to eat at Parthenon, get a haircut at the barber shop, but a six pack at Magruders, and see a show at the Avalon. Then, if you still think your hair rained scheme is a good one, I will look you in the eye and explain why you are wrong, but at least I can respect you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC is a dumpster fire right now. Everything the city touches turns to ash. Why would anyone trust its judgment to take on a project that would impact the neighborhood enormously?

Exactly. How many times have we heard activists saying "This won't cause any problems at all and anyone who thinks it will is racist"? Decriminalize fare evasion, reduce the police force, the voucher program, the homeless shelters, etc. And now activists are saying we need to ignore all of the bad policies that they were pushing before because this time it's different? They don't even pause to reconsider the messes they've made, it's just immediately on to the next thing.

Five years from now they'll be saying "why are you bringing up the huge failure of the Chevy Chase Community Center development? This new project we're pushing is completely different."

Bullshit. 5 years from now you'll be getting your latte and chocolate crossiant from some trendy shop in what used to be the old community center site and saying to your friend 'can't believe *people* opossed this redevelopment years ago', ignoring that you were one of them.

There's already a quite nice place across the street to get a latte and a chocolate croissant. Do you really know the community, or is this yet another site for generic dense mixed-used sameness?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nick, Ed and Lance?

Nick = Nick DellaDonne, the erstwhile bike opponent who has been caught on video yelling at children with a megaphone.

No idea who Ed and Lance are.

Ed Hanlon, his buddy attorney who Chevy Choice Voice retained. Lance is a lackey of theirs who is a frequent agitator on the AdMo listserv and in the public meetings.

Anyway, while certainly they hate bikes and cyclists, the thing they dislike even more is affordable housing and change in the neighborhoods of the city that takes the form of development.

These "nothing can/should ever change because its perfect the way it is" fools. Bound to show up a community meeting or development site near you.

Change for the sake of change or unneeded density also is a real problem.

…and some ideas are just bad. Of course people would show up to community meetings to complain.

At ones 10 neighborhoods or more away from where they live?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nick, Ed and Lance?

Nick = Nick DellaDonne, the erstwhile bike opponent who has been caught on video yelling at children with a megaphone.

No idea who Ed and Lance are.

Ed Hanlon, his buddy attorney who Chevy Choice Voice retained. Lance is a lackey of theirs who is a frequent agitator on the AdMo listserv and in the public meetings.

Anyway, while certainly they hate bikes and cyclists, the thing they dislike even more is affordable housing and change in the neighborhoods of the city that takes the form of development.

These "nothing can/should ever change because its perfect the way it is" fools. Bound to show up a community meeting or development site near you.

Change for the sake of change or unneeded density also is a real problem.

…and some ideas are just bad. Of course people would show up to community meetings to complain.

At ones 10 neighborhoods or more away from where they live?

Yes. Why has Cleveland Park Trump Growth become obsessed with Chevy Chase?

Anonymous wrote:the city captures the economy of scale, not the developer

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“It is a scandal that the city sells public land to developers cheaply in the expectation of affordable housing and what we get instead is a glut of luxury housing while the need for affordable housing is in crisis,” said Nick DelleDonne, speaking for the Wardman Hotel Strategy Team (WHST) on December 14 at a Council hearing for Bill 25-39, the Common Ground Amendment Act, introduced by Councilmember Janeese Lewis George.

Two prime examples are the Chevy Chase property and the police and fire station complex at 1617 U St. NW, which is one of the last large public parcels remaining in the city. In the latter case DMPED held public meetings where virtually all public comment opposed the sale of the property. “That voice is being ignored as the process proceeds,” said DelleDonne.

The Wardman Team applauds the purposes of the bill to require more in-depth analysis prior to the surplus of District land and community engagement in real property surplus and disposition decisions, but remains skeptical that it addresses the problems. The record for comment is open until Dec. 21.

Then it is a good thing the city isn't selling land to developers, at least where the Chevy Chase Community Center is concerned.

It kind of matters when people are articulating a position on an issue to use the basis of fact as part of the dialogue. Because lying and gaslighting truly undermine the position.

The city captures the economy of scale, not the developer.

A distinction without a difference. A 99-year ground lease is actually even more favorable to the developer, who will not have to put up the considerable price to purchase the land and will build a cheap building that won't last that long. In other words, well before the lease is up it won't care about the residual value of the building. Bowser has to stop providing DC assets to her crony developers at sweetheart prices.

In your mind it is without a difference, but the fact remains, the city owns the land and will continue to own the land. The developer will be responsible for building a new library, a new community center and new housing. They will also be responsible for maintaining that housing over the course of the lease. So it is in their interest not to build something that will require a lot of maintenance as the lease hits the latter decades.

So you're saying that the library and no community center, etc. will be built with no public funds at all? Where is that committed to?

No, there would be public funds to build the library and community center, but it is likely the developer would use the same construction firm for all three, given economies of scale and coordination.

Ah. So it’s more likely that taxpayer funds will provide even more of a subsidy to the for-profit aspects of the project. This will turn into a rather high value opportunity for a favored developer, indeed. Thanks, Bowser!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“It is a scandal that the city sells public land to developers cheaply in the expectation of affordable housing and what we get instead is a glut of luxury housing while the need for affordable housing is in crisis,” said Nick DelleDonne, speaking for the Wardman Hotel Strategy Team (WHST) on December 14 at a Council hearing for Bill 25-39, the Common Ground Amendment Act, introduced by Councilmember Janeese Lewis George.

Two prime examples are the Chevy Chase property and the police and fire station complex at 1617 U St. NW, which is one of the last large public parcels remaining in the city. In the latter case DMPED held public meetings where virtually all public comment opposed the sale of the property. “That voice is being ignored as the process proceeds,” said DelleDonne.

The Wardman Team applauds the purposes of the bill to require more in-depth analysis prior to the surplus of District land and community engagement in real property surplus and disposition decisions, but remains skeptical that it addresses the problems. The record for comment is open until Dec. 21.

Then it is a good thing the city isn't selling land to developers, at least where the Chevy Chase Community Center is concerned.

It kind of matters when people are articulating a position on an issue to use the basis of fact as part of the dialogue. Because lying and gaslighting truly undermine the position.

A distinction without a difference. A 99-year ground lease is actually even more favorable to the developer, who will not have to put up the considerable price to purchase the land and will build a cheap building that won't last that long. In other words, well before the lease is up it won't care about the residual value of the building. Bowser has to stop providing DC assets to her crony developers at sweetheart prices.

In your mind it is without a difference, but the fact remains, the city owns the land and will continue to own the land. The developer will be responsible for building a new library, a new community center and new housing. They will also be responsible for maintaining that housing over the course of the lease. So it is in their interest not to build something that will require a lot of maintenance as the lease hits the latter decades.

So you're saying that the library and no community center, etc. will be built with no public funds at all? Where is that committed to?

No, there would be public funds to build the library and community center, but it is likely the developer would use the same construction firm for all three, given economies of scale and coordination.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“It is a scandal that the city sells public land to developers cheaply in the expectation of affordable housing and what we get instead is a glut of luxury housing while the need for affordable housing is in crisis,” said Nick DelleDonne, speaking for the Wardman Hotel Strategy Team (WHST) on December 14 at a Council hearing for Bill 25-39, the Common Ground Amendment Act, introduced by Councilmember Janeese Lewis George.

Two prime examples are the Chevy Chase property and the police and fire station complex at 1617 U St. NW, which is one of the last large public parcels remaining in the city. In the latter case DMPED held public meetings where virtually all public comment opposed the sale of the property. “That voice is being ignored as the process proceeds,” said DelleDonne.

The Wardman Team applauds the purposes of the bill to require more in-depth analysis prior to the surplus of District land and community engagement in real property surplus and disposition decisions, but remains skeptical that it addresses the problems. The record for comment is open until Dec. 21.

Then it is a good thing the city isn't selling land to developers, at least where the Chevy Chase Community Center is concerned.

It kind of matters when people are articulating a position on an issue to use the basis of fact as part of the dialogue. Because lying and gaslighting truly undermine the position.

A distinction without a difference. A 99-year ground lease is actually even more favorable to the developer, who will not have to put up the considerable price to purchase the land and will build a cheap building that won't last that long. In other words, well before the lease is up it won't care about the residual value of the building. Bowser has to stop providing DC assets to her crony developers at sweetheart prices.

In your mind it is without a difference, but the fact remains, the city owns the land and will continue to own the land. The developer will be responsible for building a new library, a new community center and new housing. They will also be responsible for maintaining that housing over the course of the lease. So it is in their interest not to build something that will require a lot of maintenance as the lease hits the latter decades.

So you're saying that the library and no community center, etc. will be built with no public funds at all? Where is that committed to?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nick, Ed and Lance?

Nick = Nick DellaDonne, the erstwhile bike opponent who has been caught on video yelling at children with a megaphone.

No idea who Ed and Lance are.

Ed Hanlon, his buddy attorney who Chevy Choice Voice retained. Lance is a lackey of theirs who is a frequent agitator on the AdMo listserv and in the public meetings.

Anyway, while certainly they hate bikes and cyclists, the thing they dislike even more is affordable housing and change in the neighborhoods of the city that takes the form of development.

These "nothing can/should ever change because its perfect the way it is" fools. Bound to show up a community meeting or development site near you.

Change for the sake of change or unneeded density also is a real problem.

…and some ideas are just bad. Of course people would show up to community meetings to complain.

At ones 10 neighborhoods or more away from where they live?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nick, Ed and Lance?

Nick = Nick DellaDonne, the erstwhile bike opponent who has been caught on video yelling at children with a megaphone.

No idea who Ed and Lance are.

Ed Hanlon, his buddy attorney who Chevy Choice Voice retained. Lance is a lackey of theirs who is a frequent agitator on the AdMo listserv and in the public meetings.

Anyway, while certainly they hate bikes and cyclists, the thing they dislike even more is affordable housing and change in the neighborhoods of the city that takes the form of development.

These "nothing can/should ever change because its perfect the way it is" fools. Bound to show up a community meeting or development site near you.

Change for the sake of change or unneeded density also is a real problem.

…and some ideas are just bad. Of course people would show up to community meetings to complain.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nick, Ed and Lance?

Nick = Nick DellaDonne, the erstwhile bike opponent who has been caught on video yelling at children with a megaphone.

No idea who Ed and Lance are.

Ed Hanlon, his buddy attorney who Chevy Choice Voice retained. Lance is a lackey of theirs who is a frequent agitator on the AdMo listserv and in the public meetings.

Anyway, while certainly they hate bikes and cyclists, the thing they dislike even more is affordable housing and change in the neighborhoods of the city that takes the form of development.

These "nothing can/should ever change because its perfect the way it is" fools. Bound to show up a community meeting or development site near you.

Change for the sake of change or unneeded density also is a real problem.