Update on Central Union Mission Plans for Georgia Ave. Location (from the chairman of anc 1a and the rep for 1a08) and a response from the Mission
13 September 2009 10:04 PM | By Prince Of Petworth in Dear PoP, Development, Georgia Ave, Neighborhoods - Park View, Park View 
IMG_1592, originally uploaded by Prince of Petworth.
An update from the discussion we had last week about the plans for 3500 block of Georgia Avenue.
“Dear PoP,
Thank you for posting information about the Weds, Sept 16th Special meeting of ANC1A. The meeting will start promptly at 7pm at the Park View Recreation Center located at the corner of Warder and Otis [From Kent Boese: Just for clarification on the location of the meeting, the address of the Park View Rec Center is 693 Otis Place and it is located on the northwest corner of Warder and Otis Place (entrance on Warder)].
I want to make sure all of your readers are aware of the facts as they stand right now, and make sure people don’t confuse past plans with current plans – as well as what our legal rights are as a community if we support or reject this proposal so I am hoping you will post this asap. I’ve also received a ton of emails and the following should help address those and the comments in your last thread on the topic. I have copied representatives from Central Union Mission on this email as well.
Here are the facts: In the missions application to receive a special exception they have abandoned the plans for a CBRF (or 250 bed mens shelter per the past proposal). They are proposing a mixed use with 100% affordable low to moderate income housing, and 3,576 square feet of office space that will be used by the mission and/or possibly a third party. This housing will consist of 37 units (21 one bedroom, 10 2 bedroom, and 1 3 bedroom). Continues after the jump including a comment from Council Member Graham and a response from the Mission
Ultimately, representatives from the mission have publicly agreed that a homeless shelter on Georgia Avenue would not be a good for the area. This has been stated at meetings and even in the Washington Post. It is still possible that they will end up at the Gale School downtown, but they did choose to walk away from the deal Councilman Graham and Mayor Fenty set up to trade the properties. They say its because of a lawsuit brought by a separation or church/state group, but city attorneys believe the supreme court has already determined the trade would be legal because of past rulings. The mission attorneys believe it is a 50/50 chance they will loose.
If they loose then the mission will be responsible for several hundred-thousand dollars in back taxes. This is also the case if they do not get the special exception they are seeking.
The mission says they are actively looking for another site to build a mens shelter somewhere else. So they want to build this affordable housing project, and a shelter somewhere else.
The problems: We are being asked to waive many elements of what the neighborhood has deemed important to the successful development of Georgia Avenue as laid out in several plans, including the Overlay District. We need to give the mission credit for being willing to step back and explore other options, however, it is hard to trust the mission because:
* If ANC1A and the BZA support this special exception nothing can stop them from changing the use of the building to a CBRF (mens shelter) after construction is complete.
* When they wanted to build a men’s shelter they went back and forth with specifics regarding to their intentions. With this newer idea we have gone from mixed income housing to low income, and from private developer to the mission being the developer. This continues to make it hard to trust that we will get what they say in the end.
* The fact that they will owe several hundred thousand dollars in back taxes should be a motivation for them to pursue the Gale School deal. Once the Special Exception is granted that negates the motivation for them to move to the Gale School. Pursuing the Gale School or pursuing the special exception have equal risks for the mission.
* How can the mission afford to build an affordable apartment building and a mens shelter somewhere else in the city if they are so strapped for cash? This helps raise suspicions that they may be trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
* ANC1A only received the amended application this week for a hearing on Sept 22. This puts added pressure to analyze this plan and its impact on Georgia Avenue into an unrealistic time frame.
* The application does not say the target market for the apartments is 50 – 80% average media income, but they did verbally state that at the ANC meeting. This means that for the 1 bedroom units a person cannot make more (roughly) than $35,000 to live there and use section 8 vouchers or other federal/local money. A person making 10,000.00 a year would. The thing people get confused on with affordable housing is figuring out how federal dollars fit in.
* Every new residential building planned and approved for Georgia Avenue south of the metro station is 100% affordable, urban planners recommend no more than 1/3 should be geared toward a specific economic group or it negatively impacts employment opportunities, and social services.
* Concerns about the commercial requirements of the overlay, as a few other items we have objected to, do not appear to be addressed. The wording of the application allows the commercial ground floor to be 100% use by the mission, and has no specific retail or non-religiously affiliated use specified.
Of all the redevelopment efforts this city has undertaken, Georgia Avenue is the one that was left behind. I remember seeing spreads in the Washington Post of a revitalized Georgia Avenue back in 2002. During that time nearly all of the main corridors through DC have been improved. Look at the way support for Great Streets has waned off or how hard it was to get a senior center built, or the fact that Park Morton is still basically at a standstill. With the economies boom years behind us it makes thoughtful planning and analysis of development on Georgia Avenue more important than ever.
The goal of Weds meeting it for the ANC to restate what its position is on this latest plan. I hope we get a lot of people to this meeting who will comment on all of the items above. Our choices are to oppose the plan, support the plan, or to take no position at all but we need the publics help to do that. If anyone wishes to contact me, please email cliffvalenti@hotmail.com , and contact information for other commissioners is available at www.anc1a.org.
Thanks,
Cliff”
From CM Jim Graham:
“Let me add something to this. First, thanks Cliff for your very helpful review of the background of all of this.
Financing in this economy is always a problem, but I don’t this has so much to do with being strapped for cash.
The problem with the Gales school deal (which we labored mightily to achieve) was not so much the money…In fact it was an attractive financial proposition since it included significant DC gov funds. The problem was the legal conclusion, provided by the Mission’s lawyers, that the deal would not survive a court challenge on the First amendment grounds. You will recall that the ACLU and perhaps others promised such a lawsuit.
WE disagree with that legal conclusion. However, there is apparently no convincing the Mission lawyers (Arent Fox). So the Mission is uncomfortable proceeding with such a prospect in sight.
What we need is a clear assurance that the Mission will not be providing overnight, low barrier homeless services at this Ga Ave location.
That has been out whole point. I think, I hope we are very close to getting that airtight assurance.
We certainly welcome a mixed use, retail residential development with affordable housing on Ga Ave.”
The Mission’s response from the Law Firm, Arent Fox:
“Councilmember Graham’s response is, for the most part, correct. However, with respect to the Gales School deal, he left out a very important detail. While the District and Arent Fox disagree with the analysis over whether the ACLU’s challenge to the transaction will be upheld by the courts, the Mission was willing to move forward with the transaction, provided that the District include certain “unwind” provisions in the contract that would relieve the Mission from the obligation to move to Gales in the event that the court ruled that the deal was unconstitutional. The District was unwilling to agree to such language, and the deal stalled and ultimately died. The Mission is hopeful that we might still be able to come to a deal, but must have some assurances that it will not be stuck with both Gales and the Georgia Avenue property, which it cannot afford to sustain.
- If ANC1A and the BZA support this special exception nothing can stop them from changing the use of the building to a CBRF (mens shelter) after construction is complete. This is not correct for several reasons. 11 DCMR § 3125.8 states that “An Applicant [before the BZA] shall be required to carry out the construction, renovation or alteration only in accordance with the plans approved by the [BZA], unless the [BZA] orders otherwise.” Special exceptions run with the land and are entered into the master address repository at DCRA. No building permits or certificates of occupancy may be issued by DCRA unless they are in accordance with any special exceptions or variances which have been approved by the BZA for the property. The Certificate of Occupancy for the building as proposed would be for a 37 unit apartment building with retail and office on the ground floor. If the Mission wanted to change the use to a CBRF, it would need to get a Certificate of Occupancy to do that, and DCRA would not grant a Certificate of Occupancy that is inconsistent with the BZA approval without modification of that approval by the BZA. Any change in use will require a trip back to the BZA and a public hearing process. The Mission has gone on record repeatedly stating that it will not building a shelter on the Georgia Avenue properties. It cannot make its position any clearer. There will be no overnight shelter of any kind on this property.
- When they wanted to build a men’s shelter they went back and forth with specifics regarding to their intentions. With this newer idea we have gone from mixed income housing to low income, and from private developer to the mission being the developer. This continues to make it hard to trust that we will get what they say in the end.
The Mission’s original development plan was consistent from day one. Insinuations that slight-of-hand changes occurred are simply not true. Any changes that occurred were driven by input from neighbors and public officials. The Mission has tried for several months to market its property for development by a private developer, with no luck. Because of the accruing property taxes, which the Mission cannot afford to pay, it must develop the property for an active, tax exempt use. The Mission continues to look for a development partner or purchaser.
- The fact that they will owe several hundred thousand dollars in back taxes should be a motivation for them to pursue the Gale School deal. Once the Special Exception is granted that negates the motivation for them to move to the Gale School. Pursuing the Gale School or pursuing the special exception have equal risks for the mission. The back taxes have nothing to do with Gales School. They are real property taxes accruing on the Georgia Avenue property. Selling the property to the District or to a private developer will require payment of the taxes, which would be built into the deal. The Mission is adequately motivated to make the Gales School or any other location work for them because they are under contract to sell their 14th Street location and vacate that property no later than October 2011.
- How can the mission afford to build an affordable apartment building and a mens shelter somewhere else in the city if they are so strapped for cash? This helps raise suspicions that they may be trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Do not attribute speculative ulterior or nefarious motives to the Mission. This faith-based organization has been providing essential social services to the neediest of the District’s residents for 125 years, at no cost to the tax payers. The Mission has fundraising options and will attempt to finance construction once it has its entitlements in place, and again, remains actively looking for a development partner who may help fund the project. The Georgia Avenue Property cannot be put to any use, and cannot be sold, until the tax burden is relieved. The only way to do that is to move forward with entitling and building a tax-exempt use. The Mission has already sunk hundreds of thousands of dollars (over and above the purchase price of the real estate) into planning for development of the Georgia Avenue Property and in studying the feasibility and negotiating over Gales School. Leaving the Georgia Avenue Property vacant means that the Mission will face a property tax burden of between $250,000 and $400,000, which threatens its financial stability and the future of the Mission as a provider of services to the homeless of the District of Columbia. The Mission must be good stewards of its financial resources and paying unnecessary taxes and development costs when it shouldn’t have to is unfair to a respected not-for-profit organization.
- ANC1A only received the amended application this week for a hearing on Sept 22. This puts added pressure to analyze this plan and its impact on Georgia Avenue into an unrealistic time frame. The Mission has been in communication with the ANC and Councilmember Graham (who supports the proposal for affordable housing on the site) since April regarding this plan. As stated at the ANC meeting, the Mission has spent the intervening months searching for a development partner who would take over the application and pay the design and development costs. The Mission waited as long as it could but no developer emerged. The BZA has postponed the case 3 times, and is not likely to do so again. To withdraw the case and refile later risked losing the tax exemption the Mission applied for (and has not yet been granted) when it acquired the property.
Unfortunately, the Mission had no choice at this point but to spend more of its own money to finalize the drawings and that would comply with the requirements for the BZA hearing. The Mission filed the actual drawings showing changes to the proposed building design as part of its Pre-Hearing Statement to the BZA, which is due 14 days prior to the hearing date. It sent courtesy copies via electronic mail to Mr. Valenti and CM Graham, and copies via U.S. Mail to each and every ANC Commissioner. In addition, the Mission has stated that if the ANC needed more time to provide comment to the BZA than is currently allowed under the rules, it would waive any objection to the ANC’s report and recommendation coming into the record late. The ANC and surrounding community have had the same amount of time to review this proposal as interested parties in any case before the BZA have under the procedural rules of that body. Nonetheless, the Mission has attempted to provide as much information as possible, to provide courtesy copies, and to be as open and transparent about its plans as possible so that the ANC could provide meaningful input to the BZA in this case. The building footprint and aesthetic have changed little since the Mission filed the application, and it meets all of the design requirements of the Georgia Avenue Overlay.
- The application does not say the target market for the apartments is 50 – 80% average media income, but they did verbally state that at the ANC meeting. This means that for the 1 bedroom units a person cannot make more (roughly) than $35,000 to live there and use section 8 vouchers or other federal/local money. A person making 10,000.00 a year would. The thing people get confused on with affordable housing is figuring out how federal dollars fit in. The Pre-Hearing Statement does say that “the Applicant now proposes to construct a mixed-use building providing ground-floor retail, 37 units of housing, 100% of which will be reserved for low- to moderate-income households, and first-floor office space.” The Zoning Regulations define ”low-income household” as a household earning 50% or less of the Metropolitan Statistical Area median income, and “moderate-income household” as a household earning 51% to 80% of the Metropolitan Statistical Area median income. We define “low- to moderate-income households” as households earning between 50% and 80% AMI. The 2008 Metropolitan Statistical Area median income for Washington, D.C. was $102,700.00 for a family of four. Thus, a family of four would have to earn between $52,377-$82,160 to qualify as “moderate-income” or below $51,350 to qualify as “low-income.” The Mission has not yet defined how it will handle qualification of income, but in order to qualify for a tax exemption for affordable housing, it must either be approved through HUD or through DHCD, and will be required to participate in programs run by either the federal or local housing agency to qualify prospective tenants and administer the leases in the building.
- Every new residential building planned and approved for Georgia Avenue south of the metro station is 100% affordable, urban planners recommend no more than 1/3 should be geared toward a specific economic group or it negatively impacts employment opportunities, and social services. Not entirely correct. The Heights DC, being developed by the Neighborhood Development Corporation at 3232 Georgia Avenue, will not be 100% affordable. NDC’s project webiste states that “At least 50% of the units will be affordable at 60% to 80%.” As many of the commenters have acknowledged, and as pointed out by reference to the Zoning Regulations, “affordable” housing has many different meanings: workforce, subsidized, low-income, and moderate-income. The District of Columbia, in its proposal to “swap” the Georgia Avenue Property for the Gales School, would have developed the Georgia Avenue Property for affordable housing. The Mission is following the recommendations of the District, and does not believe that the development of this proposal would result in an imbalance of uses in the surrounding area.
- Concerns about the commercial requirements of the overlay, as a few other items we have objected to, do not appear to be addressed. The wording of the application allows the commercial ground floor to be 100% use by the mission, and has no specific retail or non-religiously affiliated use specified. The ground floor contains four apartment units. Due to the requirement to provide retail on Georgia Avenue and the ability of the neighboring property owner on the south to build to the property line, it would not be appropriate to fill out the entire first floor with residential uses, as we cannot provide adequate light and air into the space in the southern portion of the building behind the retail. Any windows we placed along the property line would be at-risk of loss upon development of the parcel to the south, and limited light and air available to units along the southern open court, given its proximity to the property line and the maximum permitted height in the zone. From a programming standpoint, this space is more appropriate for office or “back-of-house” for retail uses. Our Pre-Hearing statement notes that this space may be used for the administrative functions of the Mission (such as accounting and fundraising) or leased to a third-party for office space. We would like to reserve the right to place the Mission’s administrative functions in this property, because many of the properties the Mission has looked at relocating to are not large enough to handle both the shelter operations and administrative offices. For example, if the Mission relocated its shelter to the Gales School, it would have needed approximately 15,000 square feet of space at another property for its offices, which would not fit at Gales.”
Follow PoP on twitter
Join the PoPville Flickr pool
13 September 2009 10:19 PM | Home-owner Said:
Can we PLEASE not have more artificial concentrations of poverty in this area?
13 September 2009 10:30 PM | Thought Said:
@Home-owner: That would make too much sense.
Time we move an equal share of Section 8 housing to Georgetown or the Palisades.
13 September 2009 10:48 PM | shy Said:
New rule… No approval or permit can be issued to any entity that owes back taxes.
Isn’t there a Boys and Girls club in Ward 2 that could be used?
13 September 2009 10:54 PM | Ocoee Said:
I like how Graham glosses over the issues so well. Exactly how are we going to get that “airtight assurance?” Because they tell us? Seems like that is total bs. I would say nothing short of a legally binding document that DC lawyers feel is “airtight” should allow the exemption to proceed and frankly if the city is going to waive the missions back taxes then I think we should be asking for more than a vague promise of some mixed use housing. The whole thing smells rotten to me. I can’t make it to the meeting but I hope many people do.
14 September 2009 8:07 AM | Just J Said:
Am I really supposed to believe a group that runs a homeless shelter and was unsuccessful in building a new one on GA ave, is now all of a sudden supposed to be a Real Estate developer?
14 September 2009 9:32 AM | majapa Said:
I’ve always snickered when I read the organization’s acronym.
14 September 2009 10:42 AM | Anonymous Said:
No matter what Law Firm, Arrant Fox says, the central union mission (CUM) mislead the community and was never completely open as to what their plans were for the GA Ave shelter. To say otherwise is to lie. So, based on past experience, I find it difficult to put any trust in the CUM.
14 September 2009 11:03 AM | Jay'O Said:
Why don’t they just give up on this site and sell it to a real, professional developer? Seems like there is so much bad blood between so many community members, the council member, ANC, that this would give the Mission $ and allow them to focus on that they do best – run homeless shelters.
I’ll be at the meeting – how about you?
14 September 2009 11:30 AM | Allana Said:
This is clearly a backdoor way for CUM to put a large homeless shelter south of the Petworth metro. This would pose a major deterrent for future development in the area. The area needs help, but not in the way CUM is proposing to do it. Wednesday night at the Parkview Rec center – I’m there.
14 September 2009 11:37 AM | dcpublius Said:
Can someone explain to me why poor people need to get subsidized ‘affordable’ housing in expensive neighborhoods? There’s a ton of affordable housing in DC as is – it’s called NE and across the river.
Otherwise, sign me up when you decide that Gtown needs some affordable housing.
14 September 2009 11:40 AM | voiceofreason Said:
I wish I could make the meeting, but I have to work. I may write a letter as a home owner in ANC1A in support of the Mission and its plan to provide low income housing on Georgia Avenue.
14 September 2009 12:17 PM | Allana Said:
It sounds like if VoiceofReason (VOR) had his/her way, Petworth would would be one big Park Morton complex (or as the loiters in my back alley call it, “the Jungle”). Some affordable housing is fine but as nearly everyone else has realized, Johnson’s War on Poverty, and the resulting concentration of chronic crime and poverty, was a dismal failure. We were supposed to learn from this mistake, not repeat it.
VOR may have the interests of the poor at heart, but he/she is ideas for assisting them are dreadfully misplaced and misinformed.
14 September 2009 12:25 PM | Anonymous Said:
“Affordable Housing” = artificially concentrated poverty, more crime. No thanks, not at a time when they’re bulldozing Section 8 projects all over Washington (including in Shaw and Southwest), and we already have more than our share along Georgia Ave.
No one is entitled to live in any particular neighborhood, and there are plenty of affordable market-rate rents in other parts of town. Build your projects in Georgetown, don’t dump on our neighborhood just because we’re not as rich.
14 September 2009 1:22 PM | Anonymous Said:
I have to chuckle that, when the issue with the Mission initially arose several years ago, there was strong concern about the (according to some, poor, helpless, and completely noble) Mission being bullied by a bunch of obstructionist NIMBYs, but now they have white-shoe Arent Fox representing them and the non-professional ANC1A on a rushed clock to consider legal/regulatory/zoning changes probably outside the scope of its expertise. This is a legal issue, and I’d strongly encourage the ANC to oppose anything not fully gone over and wholly approved by District lawyers. Graham’s assurances I would value about as much as the electronic ether they are written on from his poorly edited Blackberry email responses. And with no slight to the lawyers of Arent Fox, their concern is zealously to represent their client, the Mission, which may have interests divergent from those of the neighborhood.
14 September 2009 1:40 PM | Not The Beautiful Life Said:
I support the Mission. As I read everything above, the Mission is the only reasoned response and it certainly sounds above the board and legitimate to me. The ANC response and some of the commenters above sound so full of hatred and so full of NIMBY-ism. This is not the beautiful life to me, and it certainly makes me not like the people that are on the ANC (assuming the comments above are representative) or those that are commenting here.
Also, why didn’t the district offere the “unwind” provisions for the Gale school swap? Seems perfectly sensible to me. Would you do buy a house if you thought someone was going to file a lawsuit against you to prevent you from moving into that house? Why would you expect the Mission to do that then?
How about everyone just call this what this is: NIMBYism. And then just fight it out with residents vs. the NIMBY entity on the sole issue of “who gets to dictate who is able to moves into an area”. Everything else here is just window dressing, at best, or a calculated PR attempt to end around the real issues and win through desperate scare tactics, at worst. Property owners vs. non-profit homeless shelter. That’s what this is, plain and simple, nothing more nothing less.
14 September 2009 1:46 PM | NIMBY and proud Said:
I’m the first to say that I agree it’s NIMBYism, but I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Not everyone thinks NIMBY is a bad word. I don’t want a homeless shelter in my back yard, and I think as a homeowner, I have a right to say that and to fight for what comes to my neighborhood.
They should sell the property which is quick valuable and use the money to build a shelter in an area that is less residential. Find some farmland and build a great Utopia for the homeless out there, away from the drugs, the crime, etc..
Don’t build it in the city. It doesn’t make sense to have it here.
14 September 2009 1:56 PM | NIMBY and proud Said:
quick = quite
14 September 2009 2:02 PM | Park View Said:
I’m disturbed and disgusted. Not because the Mission wants to develop property in my neighborhood (which I’d prefer it didn’t), but by the completely unprofessional and unnecessarily public manner in which ANC1A has been operating.
There is open animosity among the commissioners, and they seemingly can’t even pick up a phone or have a meeting with Graham before their ignorant emails hit the listservs.
Do I want a shelter in Park View … NO! … but, the Mission has a legal right to build a small one on the property now. I can’t change or stop that. We can engage and help direct the direction that development goes, but not by pointing fingers and accusing them of sins they aren’t guilty of.
Other than the juvenile actions of the ANC, the biggest problem I have is lack of trust. The Mission states they do not want to build a shelter on this site. Yet, they are accused of lying. If they are as good with lying and some have suggested, then the Gales school deal would already be off the ground, because it was the Missions refusal to lie about the religious aspects of their organization that the ACLU filed suit against. If the Mission is so good with misrepresentation the Gales school would already be a done deal.
Its good to be critical and cautions … but somewhere along the way there needs to be some trust.
14 September 2009 2:26 PM | Cliff Said:
Park View – can you please define how the ANC has been unprofessional in this case? As chairman, I think I have handled this very fairly.
We have to get legal assurances if we are going to waive the requirements of the Georgia Avenue overlay district. Right now, we do not have that. Even Arent Fox’s statement about states that they could not change the use to a CBRF “unless the [BZA] orders otherwise.” Thats exactly the point. Once the building is done they could go before the BZA and ask them to change it to a CBRF and guesss what….it would be illegal for the BZA to say no. We have to get the legal assurance BEFORE we give the ok.
Please email me directly, or I will be happy to respond publicly, exactly why you see the ANC as operating unprofessionally. Additionally, the ANC is REQUIRED to operate in a public manner.
14 September 2009 2:28 PM | Lamont St's Finest Said:
Will DC give me a grant to buy this land? I will open up some neighborhood serving retail, which is what we really need! I’m sorry to be distrustful but have been involved with CMU negotiations since the beginning and feel that they have burned all of their bridges in this neighborhood.
14 September 2009 3:08 PM | Park View Said:
Cliff– Yes, the meetings need to be public and you need to “operate in a public manner”. That is why you have PUBLIC MEETINGS! By referring to inappropriate public behavior, I am referring to the open letter accusing the Mission of bait-and-switch and lying, which is unprofessional. Sending it out over the listservs is unprofessional. Having an open letter so poorly worded, full of typos, and half-truths is unprofessional. This entire conversation needs to be in a public forum … such is the MEETING ON WEDNESDAY NIGHT! Our elected representatives should not accuse, try, and convict people over emails and blogs … that is unprofessional.
I agree with you that legal assurances need to be locked up prior to you signing off … but what incentive have you given the Mission to work with you. None.
14 September 2009 3:27 PM | Cliff Said:
I have not accused the mission of any of what you say above. It would be irresponsible for me not to let people know the risks associated with approving this as things stand now. My original post was put together based on what I read in message threads and via emails, so I make no appologies for any of the content.
Mr. Treadwell has agreed, as of this afternoon, to provide the legally binding assurance. I am waiting to speak to councilman Graham and others to find out what for it will take. The ANC report will reflect this, and we will discuss it on Weds. We have been having productive dialog, but I know some people just want to make everyone elses efforts look like half measures and thats just the way it is.
14 September 2009 3:30 PM | Cliff Said:
for = form (what form it will take)
14 September 2009 3:36 PM | home-owner Said:
Please know that the community is also opposed to anything resembing Columbia Heights Village. We don’t want any more subsidized, low-income, or section 8 housing, or any other artificial concentrations of poverty in the area. The property should be sold at market rate.
There’s plenty of affordable housing in SE or in the suburbs.
We’ve tried the experiment of handing out apartments in the city to the poor people and we found out that it doesn’t work. This kind of housing breeds crime. It’s not the people’s fault, but it is what happens. It’s not fair to them, and it’s not fair to the community.
14 September 2009 3:47 PM | also a homeowner Said:
Um, I actually support the Mission here. I also find it offensive that it is called an “artificial concentration of poverty.” I am someone who feels that we have a duty to help those that are not as well off as the rest of us. Justice Sotomayor was born and raised in such a “subsidized, low-income, or section 8 housing” project, and I most certainly disagree that “we found out that it doesn’t work.”
You should really be ashamed of yourself and your naked assertions of superiority to others.
So, please, let it be shown that as I am also a homeowner in this neighbrhood, that I support this decision. Unfortunately, I have to work on Weds. night otherwise I would make a point to come to the meeting to voice my opinion.
14 September 2009 3:53 PM | voiceofreason Said:
Why do some folks feel like they can speak for the community just because they own a home in the neighborhood? I clearly don’t speak for all my neighbors, but I’m one person in the community who is completely in disagreement with “home-owner” and “Allanna” and others.
A small, low income housing unit in Park View is not going to be the downfall of the neighborhood, it’s not going to result in the parade of crime horribles some folks fear. It will provide more affordable housing in a city that needs it. I refuse to put my property value above the greater needs of the community. It’s my backyard too.
14 September 2009 4:03 PM | also a homeowner Said:
I remembered this article and think that all you NIMBYs against the Mission should read it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/01/AR2009060102481.html
14 September 2009 4:10 PM | Take5 Said:
I agree with the NIMBY’s and the .
also a homeowner, do you think all affordable housing should be in one neighborhood? I think studies have shown that it should not. In fact no neighborhood should have more than 1/3 of its housing geared toward any specific income level. They find that areas where all rich people live cannot fill low wage jobs quickly, and they also find that when all the low income housing is in one area it forces the poor to seek work outside their neighborhood, costing them more. They also find that you cannot support businesses when the balance is off center. So I agree with both.
14 September 2009 4:30 PM | also a homeowner Said:
@take5: Well, some of my apparent neighbors are suggesting in these comments that the “poor people” be sent off to SE and “across the river.” I don’t support that kind of thinking. I also don’t support the NIMBYs who just have thoughts about their paper-profits on their property values, and could care less about what happens to people served by the Mission so long as it doesn’t happen near them. None of the NIMBYs are thinking about the greater good, its just empty-headed fear mongering.
Also, your reasoning is inaccurate when applied to DC. As this blog repeatedly points out, no place is more than a bicycle jaunt away from each other–the point being that DC is in fact quite small and has adequate public transportation options to get people (regardless of income) to their jobs and home again. I’m sure you can point to some anecdotes that are not this way, but that would be the exception not the rule. In addition, no one said anything about other neighborhoods not stepping up to the plate in terms of affordable housing, but the issue HERE and NOW is that there is no legitimate reason other than hatred, fear-mongering, and NIMBYism to keep the Mission from its current plans.
14 September 2009 4:37 PM | RE: also a homeowner Said:
That’s a heartwarming article that”Also a Homeowner” linked to and its nice that some famous artists, athletes, and a judge who made it out of the projects, but in contract the anecdotal evidence provided, there is an avalanche of evidence over the past 40 years that “High-poverty neighborhoods can weigh down families trying to earn a living and raise kids. High crime, low-performing schools, and scarce job opportunities often plague poor communities—undermining families’ struggles to improve their lives.” (Urban Institute).
Take5 is right about taking a balanced approach, of mixed income housing. As was established by Cliff in in his initial letter, all or nearly all of the projects underway south of the Petworth metro are subsidized housing, not market value housing or retail. The CUM project, whether it is the 37 unit or the 170 bed shelter project, is a step in the wrong direction. Some retail and market-based housing is needed right now to balance out the neighborhood.
14 September 2009 4:55 PM | Anonymous Said:
Ahh, I just understood what this whole argument is about. The residents around the new Mission site are pissed that they don’t have some fancy new thing to brag about–i.e., they just want a Whole Foods or a Yes! Organic Market or some such thing. They think that if the Mission doesn’t building something there, that suddenly this type of establishment would move in and everything would be rainbows and unicorns. Got it. They would rather have blight and emptyness with the hope that something suburban would move into the neighborhood than something that is needed (affordable housing) and helps people. I just wish they would own up to being such whiny little babies.
14 September 2009 5:05 PM | home-owner Said:
Actually, I was hoping for a Borders with a cafe on the second floor for sipping coffee while reading and looking out the window.
A Borders is something the whole community could enjoy.
14 September 2009 5:53 PM | voiceofreason Said:
Bookstores are closing nationwide, not expanding, and besides, a yuppie book seller may be desired by many in the community, but it’s certainly not a necessity like affordable housing is.
14 September 2009 6:38 PM | anonymous Said:
“yuppie bookstore” How dare you assume only yuppies enjoy bookstores. That’s as bad as people who deride minorities who study hard as “acting white.”
14 September 2009 6:38 PM | voiceofreason Said:
Have you been in a Borders lately? Count the non-yuppies. You’ll only need one hand.
14 September 2009 6:45 PM | anonymous Said:
Not the one downtown. Its bathroom doubles as a shower for the homeless. Now wait a minute, maybe we’re onto something!
15 September 2009 11:30 AM | Tim Said:
“Most housing professionals agree that concentrating assisted-housing for low- and very low-income Americans in dense, urban areas is not an effective use of scarce affordable housing resources. Over the past decade, professionals in the affordable housing industry have turned increasingly to mixed-income housing as an alternative to traditional assisted-housing initiatives. Mixed-income housing is an attractive option because, in addition to creating housing units for occupancy by low-income households, it also contributes to the diversity and stability of American communities. ” (HUD – http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/library/modelguides/2004/200315.cfm)
15 September 2009 12:36 PM | It's Just Too Bad... Said:
With all due respect Prince, this blog used to be so much more enjoyable several years ago –before the re-design, the sponsors, the pet & tattoo non-sense, the rigidity of “stuff white people like,” the feigned social liberalism, and the resultant blatant narcissism.
It would have been better had the Washington Post never taken notice of your formally friendly neighborhood site.
16 September 2009 5:05 PM | Kate Said:
How well has this meeting been publicized outside of this blog? Does anyone know?
17 September 2009 7:51 PM | Just Joe Said:
For anyone interested in the outcome that doesn’t already know, there is a generally good summary of the meeting here http://wp.me/pBcgc-8O
17 September 2009 9:13 PM | Chocolate City Resident Said:
As one who lived for many years near the Mission down in east Dupont who now lives east of Georgia, may I just say that the mission posed no real issue at all in the neighborhood, ever, as far as I am concerned. It’s not the older black men needing a hand that freak me out, it’s the black teenagers with guns (and tough bad ass attitudes too), and more importantly the near complete lack of effective laws, enforcement, and prosecution of black juvenile violent crime in this city. When was the last time you heard of a gang of white kids running around DC beating the crap out of a grandma and leaving her for dead, or worse, an old man who actually died of his beating. blah blah blah, it goes on and on.