The "smart development," folks and (I include Rob in that group) got quite an education as we engaged in the "small area plan," and the ABDO/CUA and EYA development projects ... it was a learning process. We learned how little "weight," is actually given to the ANC's. When the chips are down the council can and has ignored the entire ANC's wishes. We are not irrational we are informed! The very first step the system (city, developers, consultants) takes is to attack any citizens that want to limit in any way, a maximum density development. There seems to be only two possible positions, Maximum Density or Nothing! The deck is stacked on the other side. The cabal The Property Owners, The City, and The Developers all have deep pockets and full time staffs to wear you out. They will send useless, powerless bureaucrats to endless meetings that have no merit or even potential. They will look concerned but they are really concerned about their paychecks.
There is, in truth, only one way to effectively engage such a cabal - Sue Them right from the start! I was part of a citizen's group in Berwyn PA that stopped a $10 Billion Federal Highway project for 20 years. We beat ten developers twelve municipal gov'ts and The Fed's. The cabal has a seemingly reasonable approach. It plays the reasonable partner - it holds meetings with graphics and notes tacked up by citizens and gives the appearance of affable and concerned cooperation. It holds numerous community meetings thus allowing it to claim participation. However the real goal is to nullify the communities efforts to limit the project and in the end very, very few of the community's requirements are met and ultimately even those that have been forced upon the cabel are ignored because the city is complicit and will not enforce its own rules and regulations. Then there are the Community Benefit agreements. That is another story altogether.
Make no mistake here. This is an adversarial relationship with the smart development community on one side and on the other side: the maximum density crowd all waving their, mixed use and transit oriented development flags. All of the rewards go to those who "cooperate," just look at NOMA for example. I am not placing Jeff on the other side of the fence as of yet .. I think he has potential. Jeff, it is about more than the cash value of property. it is about a livable city, with decent green space (and I don't mean small trees in big pots either)
We have substantive socio economic problems in this city and no one will solve them but us. Our city government has proven it's veniality and callous disregard for the lives of anyone who does not live in a gentrified community. I think that sucks!
Jerry
----- Original message -----
From: Rob <indianrob@gmail.com>
To: ward5@yahoogroups.com, Ward 5 Google Groups <wardfive@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [WardFive] Re: [ward5] WCP HC: McMillan "gone today, here tomorrow?"
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 01:05:35 -0400
Hey Jeff,
OK. For me, like everyone else, all development brings more home value and for me, more value to from a business perspective (if I am around). But I have some questions.
1. If this site was a parking lot, I would see how green infrastructure would offset some of the runoff with green infrastructure. However, since this is a very permeable surface, I don't think that the run off from here is part of the current flooding issue. Where is all that sewage going and all runoff will not be able to be "greened" away, so some (more than currently) will get into storm Drains.
2. Not that I am against development on this site, but why couldn't the development be inversed to the open space. We have no real open space for residents throughout that entire area. Personally, I see no soccer fields in the area which is an up and coming sport. Also, I see no real track and field for the general public. At the end of the years, if we do need more "revenue", I guess we could always build but right now, there is still soldiers home, the clover leaf at N. Capitol and Irving, the Horning Bros. Parking Lot and Quiznos on Michigan and Irving, Catholic Univ. 49 acres church's Lot on Harewood/Irving/N.Capitol.
3. Open space could be accessible if utilized differently - if I think creatively, shops could be below and parkland on top - maybe.
4. New streets do not relieve congestion. More development with retail is only attracting more traffic. No amount of streets will be able to lessen traffic flow and that area will be a converging point.
5. I do agree that jobs will offer opportunity for the future - to be more transparent - most of the folks suffering from Unemployment and the less than educated now and their kids won't even be able to be hired at the types of retail environments. Those places will be filled with college students and probably grown children of those who live in Bloomongdale Brookland area (mostly Whites). However, housing if it is rental, that offers no opportunity for anyone. And if they are condos (which I seriously doubt), there will be very expensive - eliminating home ownership.
6. Until we re-define "affordable" housing, and increase the %%% being stipulated at 8% in a C2B zoning, then this is dog and pony show - downright disrespectful. Remember the medium income for White household is about 95,000 and for Blacks is about 45,000 (I think that was the reported numbers).
7, I really need you to stop thinking "underserved" to thinking "Under-privileged"!! Nothing is being built for the not so privileged!!! How about a high end Senior Citizen Facility with income supplemented units as well as a Field of play that could double as an NE "Carter Barron" -that would be awesome as it will be close to hospital, and retail for grocery store and few coffee shops/restaurants. How about that for a Meaningful APPROACH!!
Last, so this place cost $9mil, maintenance, 50million to be given up soon, some more $$ probably through the entire process, and probably some incentives. So that's about 65+million to start. When does the City start seeing a return on this and how much $$ per year in "revenue" is the City to make. Let's get the real numbers together and analyze. You may be right on point or you might be just as wrong.
Let's look at the numbers. Be sure that you note that I am Kool with some development but maybe we should focus on things that we are not solving for. Trust and believe, folks who live in this neighborhood will need to have their parents housed when they get older.
And last, with all that is happening now, tell me why we can't use the site to tank storm water to offset the flow from above bloomingdale until the water slowed down.
Rob Ramson
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 7:24 PM, jeffndc@yahoo.com <jeffndc@yahoo.com> wrote:
At last a reasonable opinion. The site development will help deal with the flooding issue through green infrastructure. The open space will be accessible and used. New streets will relieve congestion. Jobs and housing will offer opportunity for the future. Let's hope the district learns from this leaderless debacle of chaotic citizen participation ( prior to this year's improved effort) to a better and more meaningful approach.
----- Reply message -----
From: "scott@scott-roberts.net" <scott@scott-roberts.net>
To: "ward5@yahoogroups.com" <ward5@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [ward5] WCP HC: McMillan "gone today, here tomorrow?"
Date: Thu, Sep 20, 2012 4:06 pm
See this post from the brand-new WCP Housing Complex reporter Aaron Wiener on Bloomingdale`s McMillan Sand Filtration site. Right out of the gate!
/
D.C.`s Biggest Development Project: Gone Today, Here Tomorrow?
Posted by Aaron Wiener on Sep. 20, 2012 at 3:23 pm
[http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/housingcomplex/2012/09/20/d-c-s-biggest-development-project-gone-today-here-tomorrow/]
Twenty-five years ago, the D.C. government paid $9.3 million for a 25-acre site along North
Capitol Street that it hoped to develop into a mixed-use community. And for a
quarter century, the McMillan Sand Filtration Site has sat fenced off and
vacant, a waste of valuable space that leaves most passersby wondering about
the vaguely alien mounds and towers.
Back in 1987, according to deputy mayor Victor Hoskins` prepared testimony at a D.C.
Council roundtable yesterday, ``the intent then, as it is now, was to provide
retail amenities, community resources, and most importantly jobs in an area
that has been historically underserved by these features.`` But year after
year, bickering over the development plans (http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/housingcomplex/2010/12/16/the-great-reset-mcmillan-has-bedeviled-developers-for-decades-can-the-latest-try-be-the-last/) has maintained the status quo—that is, a
state of deterioration that forced the city to shut down the old landmark (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mike-debonis/post/mcmillan-site-tours-are-on-hold-for-now/2012/06/25/gJQA7iWZ2V_blog.html?wprss=rss_mike-debonis) to even the occasional tours that used
to pass through.
But — at the risk of ignoring the lessons of history — it does appear that there`s some
momentum now for the latest development plans. Despite pockets of continuing
local opposition, the Advisory Neighborhood Commission whose domain includes
the site voted Monday to support the Master Development Plan drafted by Vision
McMillan Partners, led by EYA, Jair Lynch Development Partners, and Trammell
Crow Company. And at yesterday`s hearing, the two D.C. councilmembers present—
Kenyan McDuffie of Ward 5, where the site is located, and Michael Brown, who
chairs the Committee on Economic Development and Housing—both strongly backed
the plan. So did a number of community members who showed up despite what one
termed ``McMillan fatigue`` in order to help end the decades of foot-dragging.
And then there were the opponents. Residents of neighboring Bloomingdale expressed
their fear that the development would worsen the flooding that`s repeatedly hit
the area this year. Others worried that the nine acres of open space were
inadequate, given the results of an local survey showing that the overwhelming
majority of neighbors wanted at least half of the site to remain green. Some
complained about the increase in traffic that might result. One local, Kirby
Vining, likened the administration`s hunger for development to ``prostitution.``
It`s hard to please everyone. Just take a look at the ``nine core goals`` for the
site, according to Hoskins:
1. Meaningful PRESERVATION that captures the history and beauty of McMillan
2. Large, inviting OPEN SPACES throughout the site
3. GROCERY and local, neighborhood serving RETAIL
4. Economic diversification and JOB CREATION
5. Expansion of HEALTHCARE options to serve our residents
6. Mix of HOUSING types and AFFORDABILITY levels
7. HIGHEST QUALITY planning, architecture, and park design
8. BALANCE community needs with District resources
9. Concurrence with the District`s COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
You`d expect a grab-bag of aims like this to produce a scheme roughly resembling this
(http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/The_Homer) or this (http://www.wired.com/listening_post/2008/05/survey-produced/).
Instead, the planners appear to have created a design with reasonable coherence
and non-negligible neighborhood support, the inevitably NIMBY outcry
notwithstanding.
Of course, there`s still plenty of tinkering to do. But let`s hope that the
opponents of the current design work constructively to incorporate their ideas
rather than stall the whole project for another 10 or 20 years. Brown hammered
this point home in a forceful jab at the naysayers.
``I am extremely serious about getting past the rhetoric, the half-truths and
frankly some of the deliberate false information that some chose to put out
instead of having honest discussion,`` Brown said. ``What that does is takes
away from discussing the two real issues that must be dealt with if this
project is to be an unqualified success of well-planned and well-executed
community development. Those issues are storm and waste water management and
traffic.``
And maybe some additional park space. (Though parks are that much more useful if
there are people around to use them—and it`s hard to argue with a grocery store
in an area that`s lacking easy access to one.) But these are, given the
magnitude of the project, not much more than details, and there ought to be a
compromise that`ll allow development to begin in our lifetimes.
After all, something, anything, is better than the wasteland we`ve got now.
Photo by David Monack (Wikimedia Commons). Drawing courtesy of Vision McMillan Partners.
__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1) To Post a message, send it to: ward5@eGroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: ward5-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
.
__,_._,___
--
R. Ramson
3744 12th Street, N.E.,
Washington D.C., 20017
202-438-5988
"We must become the change we want to see" - Mohandas Gandhi-
(Together, for a Brighter Tomorrow)
--
WardFive@googlegroups.com is open to WardFive residents for community discussion and information sharing.
To post to this group, send email to wardfive@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to wardfive+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wardfive?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment