Greater Greater Washington


Cheh, Brown ask to shelve Tenley library PPP

Councilmembers Mary Cheh and Kwame Brown have formally asked Mayor Fenty to stop pursuing a public-private partnership for the Tenley library and the adjacent Janney school. The original idea was a good one: the library is a low-rise building on a major corner that could support housing above, and help fund a better library and expansion for Janney.

Tenley-Janney drawing by Squalish.

Unfortunately, according to activists who supported the general idea of a PPP, the project went fatally off the rails when the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED) narrowed the RFP in ways that limited neighborhood options to a bad project or nothing at all. After effective organizing by anti-PPP groups and low enthusiasm by proponents for what had turned into a lousy project, Cheh responded to neighborhood sentiment and chose the latter.

In their letter, Cheh and Brown write that "we believe that [the current LCOR proposal] is fatally flawed." Still, they haven't given up on something better. "We still believe, as we have throughout, that the public interest lies in the comprehensive development of this site. There is an urgent need to have vibrant, mixed-use development along our main corridors and the Tenley Library site, which is located across the street from the subway, ought to be a key part of such development."

How can we have it both ways? Cheh and Brown suggest adding "the structural supports necessary to permit development on top of the Library at a future date," whether "residential, mixed-use, or even an increase in the size of the Library." That maintains some options, though fewer.

Moving the library upstairs to place retail on the ground floor and the library upstairs (as in Rockville) would probably not be practical once a new library is up and running. A future project won't be able to combine improvements to the school and to the library site like this concept by Squalish. Still, it's better than nothing, and the Councilmembers are salvaging a little hope from a bad situation.

Tenleytown ANC candidate Jonathan Bender wrote on the neighborhood email list that "One would hope DPMED learned from this experience that hoarding information and excluding public input is, to understate, unwise." Some DC agencies, sadly, seem to lurch from not speaking to the public at all (and risking uninformed decisions) to listening too much and making hasty changes to projects based on momentary resident feedback.

Good decisionmakers communicate plans clearly, listen thoroughly to all input, then make a reasoned decision with the totality of evidence. DMPED's failure in this case has squandered a great opportunity to improve one of our underutilized Metro-accessible corridors. Hopefully the city won't squander the next opportunity so lightly.

Did you enjoy this article? Greater Greater Washington is running a reader drive to raise funds so we can keep editing and publishing great articles every day. Please help us be sustainable by making a monthly, yearly, or one-time contribution today!

Support us: Monthly   Yearly   One time
Greatest supporter—$250/year
Greater supporter—$100/year
Great supporter—$50/year
Or pick your own amount: $/year
Greatest supporter—$250
Greater supporter—$100
Great supporter—$50
Or pick your own amount: $
Want to contribute by mail or another way? Instructions are here.
Contributions to Greater Greater Washington are not tax deductible.

David Alpert is the founder of Greater Greater Washington and its board president. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He now lives with his wife and daughter in Dupont Circle. 


“Unfortunately, according to activists who supported the general idea of a PPP, the project went fatally off the rails when the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED) narrowed the RFP in ways that limited neighborhood options to a bad project or nothing at all.”

David, Did you do any fact-checking? If you had simply looked at the October 20, 2007 Solicitation of Offers and the later announcement modifying the Solicitation, you would have realized that the Solicitation was not narrowed until well after the developers were required to submit their offers. The LCOR proposal did not comply with the modified request. The other two proposals did not comply with the modified request. All three proposals were found to be objectionable by all community groups including the activists who supported the general idea of a PPP. While you state that you relied on information provided to you by “activists who supported the general idea of a PPP”, you lose credibility by repeating information from such apparently unreliable sources.

The October 30 Solicitation requested responses by December 18, 2007. It was on February 4, 2008, that the Deputy Mayor announced that they modified the RFP. Time was allowed for the developers to revise their offers. Further information is available on the blog ( ) that was set up by the Deputy Mayor’s office to disseminate information on this project.

by xyzzx on Oct 30, 2008 3:51 pm • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

You can use some HTML, like <blockquote>quoting another comment</blockquote>, <i>italics</i>, and <a href="http://url_here">hyperlinks</a>. More here.

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.