Comments on: Dear PoP – An Article Featured A Building You Discussed a While Back http://www.princeofpetworth.com/2009/01/dear-pop-an-article-featured-a-building-you-discussed-a-while-back/ Welcome to the beautiful life Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:37:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Anonymous http://www.princeofpetworth.com/2009/01/dear-pop-an-article-featured-a-building-you-discussed-a-while-back/#comment-2344 Anonymous Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:51:18 +0000 http://www.princeofpetworth.com/2009/01/dear-pop-an-article-featured-a-building-you-discussed-a-while-back/#comment-2344 I agree with the other Newton street dwellers that although it is frustrating to live across the street from this thing, it is even more aggravating that after receiving 80 citations in five years the owners will come out with a windfall (particularly after rejecting other offers years ago). This would seem to create the worst kind of incentives. I agree with the other Newton street dwellers that although it is frustrating to live across the street from this thing, it is even more aggravating that after receiving 80 citations in five years the owners will come out with a windfall (particularly after rejecting other offers years ago). This would seem to create the worst kind of incentives.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.princeofpetworth.com/2009/01/dear-pop-an-article-featured-a-building-you-discussed-a-while-back/#comment-2343 Anonymous Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:46:13 +0000 http://www.princeofpetworth.com/2009/01/dear-pop-an-article-featured-a-building-you-discussed-a-while-back/#comment-2343 Eric -- I agree with you re: what should happen to the owners of this building. They should be taxed and/or fined until they can't pay anymore and are forced to sell at a market price. As for "affordable workforce housing," allowing that I have no basis for this other than my own cynicism paired with anecdotal evidence from observation, I suspect that is just the way politicians have decided to phrase it to spend less of their political capital to build low-income housing. I seriously doubt that this place is going to end up as a teacher/fireman/cop/nurse dormitory of goodwill and public service. Eric — I agree with you re: what should happen to the owners of this building. They should be taxed and/or fined until they can’t pay anymore and are forced to sell at a market price.

As for “affordable workforce housing,” allowing that I have no basis for this other than my own cynicism paired with anecdotal evidence from observation, I suspect that is just the way politicians have decided to phrase it to spend less of their political capital to build low-income housing. I seriously doubt that this place is going to end up as a teacher/fireman/cop/nurse dormitory of goodwill and public service.

]]> By: eric in ledroit http://www.princeofpetworth.com/2009/01/dear-pop-an-article-featured-a-building-you-discussed-a-while-back/#comment-2342 eric in ledroit Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:23:10 +0000 http://www.princeofpetworth.com/2009/01/dear-pop-an-article-featured-a-building-you-discussed-a-while-back/#comment-2342 "Affordable housing often means “workforce housing” for teachers, firemen, govt employees, etc. I don’t think this is supposed to be section 8 or low income housing, but rather housing for those that make a living wage but just can’t afford to buy in the city. " is that what really happens? anyone live near a building developed by the city as "affordable workforce housing"? are you living by a building full of teachers and firemen? I'm genuinely curious. what needs to happen to the building subject of this post is the owners get the crap taxed out of them until they sell or the government seizes it and auctions it off. spend my tax dollars to enrich them? are you serious? “Affordable housing often means “workforce housing” for teachers, firemen, govt employees, etc. I don’t think this is supposed to be section 8 or low income housing, but rather housing for those that make a living wage but just can’t afford to buy in the city. ”

is that what really happens? anyone live near a building developed by the city as “affordable workforce housing”? are you living by a building full of teachers and firemen? I’m genuinely curious.

what needs to happen to the building subject of this post is the owners get the crap taxed out of them until they sell or the government seizes it and auctions it off. spend my tax dollars to enrich them? are you serious?

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.princeofpetworth.com/2009/01/dear-pop-an-article-featured-a-building-you-discussed-a-while-back/#comment-2341 Anonymous Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:57:47 +0000 http://www.princeofpetworth.com/2009/01/dear-pop-an-article-featured-a-building-you-discussed-a-while-back/#comment-2341 The irony of this is that the developer of the Allegro condos offered the owners of this building a significant amount for the property (not sure of the offer, but this was circa 2006) and couldn't get a response from them. If the city wants the building, it should begin condemnation proceedings, which it should have done long ago. Bailing out the two idiots who own this piece of sh*t and only do anything to it when forced to by the govt is a slap in the face to taxpayers. There were lots of inquiries about buying this heap back in the real estate market, but I guess the owners thought they could do better. Now that they can't, rather than letting them realize that they cooked their own goose, the city is going to bail them out. That is an outright slap in the face of the taxpayer -- for those of us who've had to live next to the dump all these years now to get stuck with the bill for paying off the @$$holes who left their sh*t on the sidewalk in our neighborhood?? Incredible. Also, I still can't think of anything worse for this property than a DCHA-controlled development. This whole thing just reeks of every reason I hate DC. Sweet jeebus, Jim Graham ... don't let this happen! The irony of this is that the developer of the Allegro condos offered the owners of this building a significant amount for the property (not sure of the offer, but this was circa 2006) and couldn’t get a response from them. If the city wants the building, it should begin condemnation proceedings, which it should have done long ago. Bailing out the two idiots who own this piece of sh*t and only do anything to it when forced to by the govt is a slap in the face to taxpayers. There were lots of inquiries about buying this heap back in the real estate market, but I guess the owners thought they could do better. Now that they can’t, rather than letting them realize that they cooked their own goose, the city is going to bail them out. That is an outright slap in the face of the taxpayer — for those of us who’ve had to live next to the dump all these years now to get stuck with the bill for paying off the @$$holes who left their sh*t on the sidewalk in our neighborhood?? Incredible.

Also, I still can’t think of anything worse for this property than a DCHA-controlled development. This whole thing just reeks of every reason I hate DC. Sweet jeebus, Jim Graham … don’t let this happen!

]]> By: springroadintoaction http://www.princeofpetworth.com/2009/01/dear-pop-an-article-featured-a-building-you-discussed-a-while-back/#comment-2340 springroadintoaction Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:41:23 +0000 http://www.princeofpetworth.com/2009/01/dear-pop-an-article-featured-a-building-you-discussed-a-while-back/#comment-2340 The Washington Times estimates that the final cost of Nationals Park is actually $693 million. That number has gone up from older estimates of $611 million. That's $82 million more, for those who don't do the maths. For that price, we could have just bought 24 of those buildings. The Washington Times estimates that the final cost of Nationals Park is actually $693 million. That number has gone up from older estimates of $611 million. That’s $82 million more, for those who don’t do the maths. For that price, we could have just bought 24 of those buildings.

]]> By: vonstallin http://www.princeofpetworth.com/2009/01/dear-pop-an-article-featured-a-building-you-discussed-a-while-back/#comment-2339 vonstallin Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:42:20 +0000 http://www.princeofpetworth.com/2009/01/dear-pop-an-article-featured-a-building-you-discussed-a-while-back/#comment-2339 Chris in Eckington Says: January 8th, 2009 at 11:39 pm You want to see a travesty...take a walk to 1000 Quebec PL and look at the boarded up house. It's been boarded up since 1987'ish... DC is being a dick about the taxes owed and will not let anyone buy it to fix unless the back taxes are paid up ontop of the selling price. From what I remember the taxes was in the 50k range about ten years ago. On a block that where houses can fetch 400k-mid 500k DC needs to let this one go. Its called the Rat House. Chris in Eckington Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 11:39 pm

You want to see a travesty…take a walk to 1000 Quebec PL and look at the boarded up house.

It’s been boarded up since 1987′ish… DC is being a dick about the taxes owed and will not let anyone buy it to fix unless the back taxes are paid up ontop of the selling price.

From what I remember the taxes was in the 50k range about ten years ago. On a block that where houses can fetch 400k-mid 500k DC needs to let this one go.

Its called the Rat House.

]]> By: Chris in Eckington http://www.princeofpetworth.com/2009/01/dear-pop-an-article-featured-a-building-you-discussed-a-while-back/#comment-2338 Chris in Eckington Fri, 09 Jan 2009 04:39:16 +0000 http://www.princeofpetworth.com/2009/01/dear-pop-an-article-featured-a-building-you-discussed-a-while-back/#comment-2338 I used to live in Mt. P (1996-2002) and walked by this building frequently and thoutght it was a travesty that while neighboring buildings were renovated, that this one sat fallow. I think paying them over the assissed value is allowing absentee owners to make a profit that they don't deserve. Charge them the vacant property rate and wate until they're forced to sell, or use emminent domane. I used to live in Mt. P (1996-2002) and walked by this building frequently and thoutght it was a travesty that while neighboring buildings were renovated, that this one sat fallow. I think paying them over the assissed value is allowing absentee owners to make a profit that they don’t deserve. Charge them the vacant property rate and wate until they’re forced to sell, or use emminent domane.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.princeofpetworth.com/2009/01/dear-pop-an-article-featured-a-building-you-discussed-a-while-back/#comment-2337 Anonymous Fri, 09 Jan 2009 01:42:49 +0000 http://www.princeofpetworth.com/2009/01/dear-pop-an-article-featured-a-building-you-discussed-a-while-back/#comment-2337 Affordable housing often means "workforce housing" for teachers, firemen, govt employees, etc. I don't think this is supposed to be section 8 or low income housing, but rather housing for those that make a living wage but just can't afford to buy in the city. DC will make these affordable for purchase by those that couldn't otherwise buy a place in this area. If it was section 9, the reference to Fenty wanting to preserve 500 such units in the city wouldn't make any sense. Affordable housing often means “workforce housing” for teachers, firemen, govt employees, etc. I don’t think this is supposed to be section 8 or low income housing, but rather housing for those that make a living wage but just can’t afford to buy in the city. DC will make these affordable for purchase by those that couldn’t otherwise buy a place in this area. If it was section 9, the reference to Fenty wanting to preserve 500 such units in the city wouldn’t make any sense.

]]> By: DC http://www.princeofpetworth.com/2009/01/dear-pop-an-article-featured-a-building-you-discussed-a-while-back/#comment-2336 DC Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:42:24 +0000 http://www.princeofpetworth.com/2009/01/dear-pop-an-article-featured-a-building-you-discussed-a-while-back/#comment-2336 Ah crap ... this is just what we need. Subsidized or Section 8 housing on Newton St. Just an FYI...I was really looking for someone to come in and make that building beautiful again. It has so much potential...and I was talking private contractor, not DC government of DCHA. Section 8 = crime, loitering, and depressed housing values. Just what we need. Ah crap … this is just what we need. Subsidized or Section 8 housing on Newton St. Just an FYI…I was really looking for someone to come in and make that building beautiful again. It has so much potential…and I was talking private contractor, not DC government of DCHA. Section 8 = crime, loitering, and depressed housing values. Just what we need.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.princeofpetworth.com/2009/01/dear-pop-an-article-featured-a-building-you-discussed-a-while-back/#comment-2335 Anonymous Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:13:29 +0000 http://www.princeofpetworth.com/2009/01/dear-pop-an-article-featured-a-building-you-discussed-a-while-back/#comment-2335 I DO live across the street, and frankly, I'd rather live with the eyesore than a DC-owned, DC-renovated, DC-run affordable housing unit. Call it a case of the devil you know being better than the devil you don't. I DO live across the street, and frankly, I’d rather live with the eyesore than a DC-owned, DC-renovated, DC-run affordable housing unit. Call it a case of the devil you know being better than the devil you don’t.

]]>