I very much doubt that the units above a fire station will be that high end for the area.

I'd rather see rentals than condos.

by charlie on Jun 1, 2012 12:30 pm • link • report

I am looking forward to see the creative language that the local ANC will use to oppose this project.

by Jasper on Jun 1, 2012 12:32 pm • link • report

It's not like firetrucks turn on the sirens when they are in the station, only when they are on the road. Also, it looks like there is a buffer between residences and the station. I think that's a great use of mixed-use.

by cmc on Jun 1, 2012 1:03 pm • link • report

Why not just make the money available to assist people needing financial assistance with their housing needs instead of designating where they must live? Seems Orwellian to tell the 'down and outs' where they have to live if we, as a society are going to help them. Of course 80% of median income doesn't exactly sound 'down and out'? There were a number of years (probably most of my adult life) that I would have earned less than 80% of median income. And I NEVER would have expected the taxpayer (or a developer) to 'help me out'. I just rented where I could afford. What gives with this notion of helping out people who don't really need the help? Wouldn't these monies be better spent on the hundreds (if not thousands) of individuals (and families) who don't have a roof over their heads ... Or don't have money to pay to heat where they live ..; etc ... etc ... ?

by Lance on Jun 1, 2012 1:44 pm • link • report

@Lance: This $7 million deal for 52 units in West End is one of the things we must do bridge the widening gap between East and West geographies which follow a income divide. The Local Rent Supplement Program and federal housing vouchers do exactly what you suggest - provide the money to make up the difference in the cost of an apartment someone at a low income can afford. We need to address this worsening problem through a variety of ways. Most of our city's subsidized housing is on the east side.

As for only getting the fallback 80% AMI IZ units - yes it's pretty high income level (tho way below this market), that's why we are asking for the funding to provide more affordable 52 units at 60% AMI -- where the housing cost burden spikes up among lower income households.

by Cheryl Cort on Jun 1, 2012 1:54 pm • link • report

"Most of our city's subsidized housing is on the east side."

I suspect that is by design.

by charlie on Jun 1, 2012 1:59 pm • link • report

"one of the things we must do bridge the widening gap between East and West geographies which follow a income divide."

Forgetting for a second that this bridge you mention (I am assuming it is the widely known 16th street boundry seperating west of the park and east of the parker's)isn't widening, but closing with the gentrification changing all of NE/NW...

My question is "why"? Seriously, I am curious why we "must" tell people they have to live in the West End, or anywhere else for that matter?

I've always wondered why we "must" shoehorn people into neighborhoods they can't afford, at enormous taxpayer expense when you could take that same money and either go much further with it in cheaper locations, or simply parcel it out as a voucher and let them live where they want to.

by Question on Jun 1, 2012 2:03 pm • link • report

@Cheryl "As for only getting the fallback 80% AMI IZ units - yes it's pretty high income level (tho way below this market), that's why we are asking for the funding to provide more affordable 52 units at 60% AMI -- where the housing cost burden spikes up among lower income households."

But even at 60% AMI, I'd have a hard time calling that 'needy'. I mean I can see someone earning 60% of AMI wanting to live where they can't afford, AND I know the situation because I've been there. But I worked harder and afforded it. Giving that to someone is a very very bad idea. How do you expect them to get incentivised to provide for themselves if they are being given what they want vs. what they need? I.e., We all want more than we have. But unless we're talking about some actually suffering because they're not getting something, I don't see how we can consider that a need. Do you disagree?

by Lance on Jun 1, 2012 2:15 pm • link • report

There used to a be a lot of affordable housing in the west end -- until GWU bought it all out.

by charlie on Jun 1, 2012 2:17 pm • link • report

@Lance,

I'm curious: couldn't your argument be applied to *all* affordable housing? Why should someone who has a household income below the poverty line be subsidized when someone at 60% of AMI isn't?

DC has a compelling economic interest in subsidizing middle-income residents.

by oboe on Jun 1, 2012 2:26 pm • link • report

@Question: There's good evidence to suggest that integration of lower income households into amenity-rich areas produces better outcomes - such as better school performance and health. I think we need to make less affluent neighborhoods better and make high-priced, amenity-rich neighborhoods more accessible to a broader range of people who might already be working in the neighborhood (at all those medical facilities and hotels). Doing all these things reduces the problems associated with concentrated poverty or even the barriers to opportunity of living in an under-resourced community.

by Cheryl Cort on Jun 1, 2012 2:27 pm • link • report

@oboe "I'm curious: couldn't your argument be applied to *all* affordable housing? Why should someone who has a household income below the poverty line be subsidized when someone at 60% of AMI isn't?"

No, it's the difference between 'I want' and 'I need'. We all want more than we have. We don't all need something. For example, you and I could be living in a cheaply built apartment out in New Carrolton or some such place, and we may 'want' to live instead in Dupont or the West End. But that's our problem and not society's. Contrast that to someone who doesn't have a home to live in because they don't have the means to even rent a room anywhere. That's 'need'. And that, as a society, is incumbent on our helping them. That's doable and realistic. Moving all of New Carrolton into Dupont or the West End is not doable. And helping just the token few move there accomplishes nothing other than make some people feel better about themselves because they've put a band aid on a gushing wound. A better accomplishment would be helping these people acheive their potential so that they can afford to live wherever they want. But that's harder. It's easier just to do the superficial thing and then take your bows.

by Lance on Jun 1, 2012 3:06 pm • link • report

Sorry, Lance, your 3:06 response is not persuasive.

Affordable housing --at least in this case-- is not about helping "someone who doesn't have a home to live in because they don't have the means to even rent a room anywhere." It's about subsidizing the consumption choice (that is, the decision to "consume" living in certain neighborhoods of the District of Columbia) of people who meet certain income criteria.

Affordable housing is not inherently "affordable." It's just...subsidized housing; or, stated another way, "housing that is subsidized so that it is affordable to that subset of the income-eligible population that manages to get one of the apartments and that is willing to live in that specific location selected by the government."

We should not be subsidizing somebody's choice to live in a neighborhood that they cannot afford to live in. That housing is surely affordable to somebody. Why not let that somebody that pay the full freight benefit from their money? Subsidized housing takes housing AWAY from people that could afford to pay market rate with all kinds of negative consequences.

Does that seem fair? Not to me. Scrap affordable and public housing altogether and let the market sort and private sector charities sort this stuff out.

Q2

by Question II on Jun 1, 2012 3:17 pm • link • report

A further few remarks...

There is nothing wrong with wanting people of diverse incomes to be able to live in the same neighborhood. It's just that the most sensible way to achieve is not to take money away from developers by using the force of the government to force them to sell/lease units at below-market rates

Consider these approaches that would increase the stock of housing that would settle at "affordable" rates using market forces:

- Allow more accessory dwellings;
- Allow smaller bedrooms, smaller enclosed courts, and greater FAR;
- Relax historic preservation regulations that prevent or (in some cases significantly) drive up the cost of adding bedrooms either by changes in existing buildings or by adding to existing buildings;
- Reduce or eliminate parking requirements;
- Allow the construction of more studio apartments;
- Etc.

Sure, accessory dwellings, studio apartments, less space, etc., is not as desirable as one bedroom 1000 sf apartment. But...its still a roof and it allows far greater physical and economic mobility for the residents.

I would take a moment to emphasize two points:

- It is ironic that the solution to a problem created in part by regulation (limited housing to people below percentile X of the AMI) is...more regulation.

- Historic preservation is a big part of the problem. Let's sacrifice some unloved old buildings to increase our housing stock of all kinds.

Q2

by Q2 on Jun 1, 2012 3:57 pm • link • report

@Q2 ... It's sounds like we're in agreement. Maybe you didn't understand what I wrote?

by Lance on Jun 1, 2012 4:03 pm • link • report

btw, I don't agree with all items in your checklist ... (for example, I DO think historic preservation policy is important and its abandonment is not a solution to making housing more affordable)

by Lance on Jun 1, 2012 4:04 pm • link • report

but I agree with your outlay of what affordable housing is in this case.

by Lance on Jun 1, 2012 4:06 pm • link • report

@Q2: Housing construction is simply expensive and a lot of wage levels of a lot of jobs dont keep up with those costs. It's a market failure. In the case of West End, the constraint is the cost of construction. The value the city traded with the developer for these sites was put into the new library and fire station, both worthy public investments. With no value left over to bridge the gap between what it costs to build and what low income folks can afford for the housing above the fire station, the city is trying to reprogram some capital funds to make a subsidized deal work.

by Cheryl Cort on Jun 1, 2012 4:07 pm • link • report

Scrap affordable and public housing altogether and let the market sort and private sector charities sort this stuff out.

Yes, scrap affordable housing (as it's thought of in this context) and maybe scrap public housing ... BUT do give assistance to people who don't have a roof over their head. It's only human to do so.

by Lance on Jun 1, 2012 4:07 pm • link • report

...BUT do give assistance to people who don't have a roof over their head...

So only help someone who's already lost their home instead of preventing home loss in the first place?

by Tina on Jun 1, 2012 4:18 pm • link • report

@Tina, I didn't say that. Of course, help someone out temporarily who can't make their rent or their mortgage.

by Lance on Jun 1, 2012 4:26 pm • link • report

@Tina, What level of help do you think is appropriate? I mean, if it's okay to help someone who can afford a nice comfortable place in Germantown (without taxpayer help) to live instead in a tony and exclusive neighborhood like the West End, is it okay for you (the taxpayer) to be told to help me live in a nice snazzy apartment on the upper west side in NYC because it'll open opportunities up to me that I'd never get here in DC? I mean ... please ... it's your obligation as a citizen of this city to make sure my wants are met! Didn't you get that memo?

by Lance on Jun 1, 2012 5:37 pm • link • report

Diversity of housing in a metro area, a jurisdiction, or a neighborhood,is an externality, and an intervention is justified. Just as some of us want to preserve historic architecture, when the market would not do so, some of us want to live in an economically diverse area when the market will not do that. Historically downtown DC and Georgetown were not all affluent people - so having some moderate income people around is part of preserving their historic character, as much as historic architecture or the height limit is.

Both such desires may have costs, and need to be pursued within reasonable limits.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 1, 2012 5:42 pm • link • report

I live in the West End, and I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the social engineering you're proposing. Call me a NIMBY. My family paid full price for our condo over a decade ago; and my new neighbors are doing the same, although at higher prices than we paid. If my family didn't buy then, we couldn't afford living in WE today.

Yet, I suppose it's only fair that we replace the 'affordable' housing we lost, since somehow the Tiverton got converted from rent control to condos; and this new building is being built on former gov't property.

But the better solution for the new folks you want to move into my neighborhood is for them to purchase their homes in soon-to-be up-and-coming neighborhoods, such as River East (aka Anacostia?)

And another question-- why the impetus to move a family into the WE? For the same price, you could purchase a starter home in Brookland or Edgewood-- with a yard, ample street parking, a small-town ambience (sort of), and walking distance to retail amenities and Metro.

by Adam Sawyer on Jun 1, 2012 8:31 pm • link • report

Section 8 is the 60% Average Median Income I assume. And the Inclusionary Zoning is 80% AMI. This will be one of the first buildings under IZ.

I wish the residential had been more targeted to the location. An eldercare or even senior citizen building next to GW hospitals and clinics would have been nice. Or a single-room occupancy facility for recovering addicts at the methadone clinic next to GW. Yuppies just out of school working for 80% of AMI don't tug at my heart. Section 8 I'd feel a little better about.

by Tom Coumaris on Jun 1, 2012 9:04 pm • link • report

@Walkerinthecity, Sorry, I don't see the analogy. Historic Preservation prevents externalities rather than introducing them. Without 'rules' as to what is permissable (be it historic preservation rules or your neighborhood association rules) one neighbor can enrich themselves at the expense of another (or more) neighbors. For example, 'everyone loves Georgetown ... so I will buy a 2 story 19th century house and turn it into a 7 story pop up condo building.' 'Rules' as to what is allowable or isnt't are what prevent these externalities. Having taxpayers (or even a develper ... who will surely pass on their costs to those paying market rate) pay to subsidize someone not willing to get off their duffs to earn what it takes to live where they want to live, doesn't similarly prevent any externality. Actually, you could argue that it causes an externality.

by Lance on Jun 1, 2012 9:56 pm • link • report

And again, to put it into perspective, thet 60% of median income is not a 'poverty' level. For many years I managed to survive off that and never would have expected anyone to subsidize my living expenses. People in poverty needing housing assistance I can fully agree with the taxpayer helping out. People just wanting what they can't otherwise afford expecting hard working taxpayers to subsidize them is nothing less than shameful.

by Lance on Jun 1, 2012 10:00 pm • link • report

@Tom +1

by Lance on Jun 1, 2012 10:02 pm • link • report

@Cheryl,

It's my recollection that this site was part of a deal the District worked out with the developer. The firehouse and library were District property and affordable housing was a inegral part of the deal, but the developer whined appropriately in front of the Zoning Commission and was let off the affordability hook. Somehow I see Jack Evans' fingerprints all over this deal.

The successful bidder on the project was well aware of the requirement to include the affordable housing. The role of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development also needs to be highlighted because he did not cry foul when the units were not included.

I support your encouragement of the Council Chair to take action to ensure the affordable units are delivered, but also feel the DMPED needs to be reminded of the contract that was signed by the city and the developer. And, shame on the Zoning Commission for not requiring the deal be honored as a condition of approval. It may be too late for any action to occur on this site.

by karl on Jun 2, 2012 9:42 am • link • report

lance

If its the negs of a 7 story condo that are at issue, they should be limited in ALL neighborhoods, not only historic ones. The notion behind an HISTORIC preservation designation is that the historic nature of the community provides a POSITIVE benefit, and that a non-conforming building detracts from that, as it does not in a non historic area. Also, of course, its not just new buildings that violate a historic area, but the demolition of existing historic buildings, which I believe originally motivated historic PRESERVATION.

You seem to assume "externality" always means a negative. There are positive externalities as well, the word externality is neutral.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 2, 2012 9:50 am • link • report

whether the presence of people earning 60% of ami is a positive or negative externality in a more affluent neighborhood is a question of taste. Some folks dislike having moderate income people around, just as some folks dislike traditional architecture. They have the right to take their POV before their elected officials and explain what they dislike, and make their case. If a resident of a neighborhood in DC finds they are unable to persuade the majority of district residents, they have the option to move to an area that shares their tastes, as do people who dislike traditionally built neighborhoods.

It should be noted that at the time Georgetown and other similar areas were built, there plenty of moderate income people who lived there. Their presence is historical.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 2, 2012 9:56 am • link • report

Q2 wrote:

"- Allow more accessory dwellings;
- Allow smaller bedrooms, smaller enclosed courts, and greater FAR;
- Relax historic preservation regulations that prevent or (in some cases significantly) drive up the cost of adding bedrooms either by changes in existing buildings or by adding to existing buildings;
- Reduce or eliminate parking requirements;
- Allow the construction of more studio apartments;"

i completely agree. We should be focusing on ways to make housing affordable without public subsidies and pseudo-social engineering. The impact of the policy shifts above won't be immediately evident as say providing an MPDU/affordable housing set aside, but they will long have a long-term impact. And dare I say parking and building code reform is more politically palpable than providing handouts for people to live in expensive neighborhoods on the public dole.

by Tyler on Jun 2, 2012 11:38 am • link • report

[Deleted for violating the comment policy.] I purchased an affordable condo in a pretty nice building in Columbia Heights. I thought that it would great to live in one of the buildings in a really hot part of the City and because the units were affordable to me, this couldn't be better. Three and a half years later, my condo fees are almost the same as mortgage, I have restrictions up the whazoo, so can't rent or even sell the units (no one at the level I original purchased can afford the unit now because of the now higher condo fees). I'm a college educated person with a decent job. I purchased my place and now I'm trapped. [Deleted for violating the comment policy.] I've heard that she says that our problem is isolated because our developer lied to us. Well, it turns out that all of these luxury buildings that has affordable units in them are facing the same problems as I am. This will be the same situation for ADU owners here. [Deleted for violating the comment policy.] Want to buy my place? Great location.

by ADU Owner on Jun 4, 2012 7:53 am • link • report

Earlier transactions had many problems because the quasi-government agency (NCRC) and later DMPED didnt have a systematic way of dealing with covenants and setting condo fees. More recently, the Dept of Housing & Community Develpoment set up a new program to administrator ADUs (affordable dwelling units) and Inclusionary Zoning units. More recent agreements for affordable units should avoid the problems of the earlier ones like the Columbia Heights buildings.

by Cheryl Cort on Jun 4, 2012 8:24 am • link • report

@ADU Owner - The West End affordable housing building wont have the condo fee challenge faced by mixed income buildings for 2 reasons: (1) it's rental, (2) it's 100% affordable so even if it were a condo building, fees would be set to conform to the affordability requirements more easily. This is one of the simplifications of doing a 100% affordable building. Note that the Hine project also creates a 100% affordable building, though it will have IZ-like units in the market-rate South building.

by Cheryl Cort on Jun 4, 2012 9:52 am • link • report

[Deleted for violating the comment policy.]

As for the affordable units, who really would purchase units here once completed? Actual working families or recent graduates of GWU who are doing a couple years stint with the World Bank? Many of these recent graduates probably earn modest incomes now, but come from wealthy families. So, these units will be produced for privileged in the guise of public good.

by Economust on Jun 4, 2012 10:02 am • link • report

@Economust: I don't see why this post is misleading. Construction costs are high but not out of bounds. Placing living units above a fire house has inherent added costs. As for the fire station & library - I state in the post this is worth doing (and have strongly advocated for the project) but the city committed to also finding the funds to add an affordable housing component to it, since the value of the land was consumed by the 2 public facilities.

Note these are rental units, not for sale. This makes it fairly easy to ensure that they continue to be rented to qualified households. Low Income Housing Tax Credits (used here) have severe penalties for violations.

by Cheryl Cort on Jun 4, 2012 10:12 am • link • report

People slay me with the "I worked to afford a house in my neighborhood. Other people should too." As if governments do not make policy choices all the time to subsidize "lifestyles" as people call it. Exhibit A is the federal mortage interest deduction for primary homeowners. It was a policy choice to offer the mortgage interest deduction. Just as it's a policy choice to maintain affordable housing in cities so that people earning lower wages can afford to live where they most likely work, to provide some semblance of continuity for people so that they do not have to continually uproot in search of affordable housing. The level of self-righteousness from people who have most likely benefited from similar government policies that offered for example very low-interest loans, grants, tax credits/deductions, and etc. for anything from education to housing to business is quite simply astounding.

by Roman on Jun 4, 2012 12:21 pm • link • report

@CCort: "The West End and nearby Foggy Bottom are home to some two dozen large and medium-sized hotels, as well as George Washington University and its hospital center."

The GW University and its hospital center are sitting on untaxed land. It's about time the city worked out some agreement with tax-free institutions to lessen the tax burden on residents of the city. It isn't sufficient to say, "our employees pay taxes on their wages." There is no guarantee those employees live in the District.

by Karl on Jun 4, 2012 3:41 pm • link • report

The ANC supports this project, and approved having no affordable units in the library project in exchange for more affordable units at the firehouse.

by STS on Jun 5, 2012 2:36 pm • link • report

A lawsuit is in order on behalf of city residents. Projects like this on public lands should be required to have affordable housing or housing for librarians/firefighters/police officers as a component. This was a requirement of the RFP that EastBanc and the Toll Brothers Team responded to. Now it sounds like EastBanc (and the arrogant neighbors) are trying to change to sweeten the deal, make the community lilly-white. Toll brothers should have a right to sue because the terms of the deal have changed substantially, and should be given a right to meet the terms of the original deal.

by A resident. on Jun 5, 2012 3:09 pm • link • report