Who knew there were rational people in Tenleytown.

Bravo, indeed.

by William on Oct 15, 2012 12:04 pm • link • report

Rational?

I'm glad to see the appeal of car-free living is so strong that you have to remove a class of citizens from using residental parking.

A number of other errors:

1) The developer is getting 20 spots in nearby garages for residents. So you are getting your cars.

2) Nothing in the ANC agreement would cover the units if the developer sells the building. It does cover condo conversion.

3) Stil unclear to me whether a DC judge would enfoce the agreement against the evicted tenant.

by charlie on Oct 15, 2012 12:10 pm • link • report

One big benefit to the medium height is that it can be constructed by frame or block method instead of concrete. That cuts down the construction time, cost, and neighborhood disruption tremendously.

A taller building probably would have required a bigger underground structure for a foundation (a garage).

The possibility of a building in a commercial zone getting RPP (as goldfish showed in the prior article) is disturbing. In order to get the community more supportive of new buildings, especially those without garages, RPP needs to be withheld.

by Tom Coumaris on Oct 15, 2012 12:24 pm • link • report

If the parking restrictions are in fact in the deed, they would convey to someone who purchased the building.

by Matt Engel on Oct 15, 2012 12:25 pm • link • report

"...and the extra parking spaces would merely encourage extra cars to come into the neighborhood."

I'm amused by the image in my head of gangs of sentient cars seeking out new parking.

by Ginger on Oct 15, 2012 12:28 pm • link • report

@Matt Engel

I believe that point was made on numerous occasions in other threads, but "charlie" and their compatriots fail to grasp the concept. They would rather continue to nay-say and spread fear, uncertainty and doubt.

by William on Oct 15, 2012 12:28 pm • link • report

Kudos to building new residences without adding parking. Prospective residences will make the conscience decision to rent there fully aware of the lack of parking in a neighborhood where there is little need for it.

But...

I can't understand how that it is legal to restrict someone from parking on a public street. What's preventing neighborhood associations restricting parking to other classes?

The problem is (and always has been) that the price of public parking does not reflect supply and demand. The political willpower doesn't exist to raise the price accordingly, which is a shame.

by cmc on Oct 15, 2012 12:31 pm • link • report

From a personal standpoint, with my house being on Brandywine Street, I'm thrilled that there won't be a parking garage 100 feet down the street. It would mean a huge number of new cars buzzing around the block. While I have a single off-street parking space at my house,

"I've got mine, Jack." Breathtaking.

by goldfish on Oct 15, 2012 12:41 pm • link • report

@Matt; they are leases, not deeds. The relevant language:

"(3) should Douglas sell any units at the Subject Property, adding a covenant that runs with the land to the deed for the units prohibiting Residents from applying for or obtaining RPPs; (4) executing a covenant that runs with the land for the Property generally that embodies the promises contained in this Paragraph...."

So, you can put a convenant on the land, but without any of the enforcement provisions. Game over.

by charlie on Oct 15, 2012 12:42 pm • link • report

I'm amused by the image in my head of gangs of sentient cars seeking out new parking.

"KITT, I need ya here buddy, there's a sale at the Whole Foods olive bar."

I can't understand how that it is legal to restrict someone from parking on a public street.

Aren't they just being denied RPPs? So they would be subject to the same rules as anyone else who lacks a Zone 3 permit, not utterly forbidden to park a car under any circumstances?

by iana on Oct 15, 2012 12:45 pm • link • report

@Charlie, surrounding residents can typically sue to enforce covenants that run with the land. Game on.

by Seer on Oct 15, 2012 12:47 pm • link • report

@Seer, assuming there is busybody with enough time and money to file suit against a developer with excellent legal representation, that does not mean that the renters of that building can be forced to give up their legally obtained RPP. The lease provisions preventing renters from doing such are not enforceable. Game over.

by goldfish on Oct 15, 2012 12:50 pm • link • report

These old school NW Nimbys just don't believe people don't mind, even cherish, being car free in DC. Growing up in DC everyone I knew had a car AND used metro and I think that's the outdated way these people view it. That metro is this EXTRA way of getting around but not THE way. There is this disbelief that there are people who willingly rely only on transit and those that do must just biding their time, saving to buy a car to suck up that last Tenley street space.
Also I find it funny that they fear parking-free developments AND traffic. But the two are at odds. Adding more and more parking only adds more and more cars and in turn more and more traffic. The irony is most of these Nimbys are homeowners with off-street parking. If they want to be able to ride around town in their own personal chariots they should be lobbying developers NOT to provide parking. If there is no place to put cars. Fewer people will buy them and there will be fewer on the road. As long as parking at their destinations is market rate they will always have a spot to park in commercial zones and less traffic to and fro. But hey if they want to make it easier for the "newcomers" who move into this building to own cars then they'll get what they deserve.

by Johnny on Oct 15, 2012 12:51 pm • link • report

The "No RPP" clause is problematic in terms of the future of the area. What happens if the owners of spots want to buy them back? I doubt that 20 cars would greatly change the character of the area, which seems more noisy streetcar strip than small town.

by Rich on Oct 15, 2012 12:52 pm • link • report

"I'm glad to see the appeal of car-free living is so strong that you have to remove a class of citizens from using residental parking."

AFAICT there RPP eligible people who are car free in DC. The need to deny RPP eligibility is more to assuage the fears of area residents, I think.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 15, 2012 12:57 pm • link • report

""I've got mine, Jack." Breathtaking."

This result is certainly better for the Distric, and for the planet. The usual objection is that what benefits those larger entities still harms the neighborhood, and so is wrong (is that not the essence of NIMBYISM?) The author is showing that he, an actual NEIGHBOR, finds this a net benefit. In context its a very useful datum, and not at all selfish as you imply.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 15, 2012 12:59 pm • link • report

Hallellujja! The residential area around this proposal has alleys and garages. I'm not having parking for these future residents will outweigh having a dense main street chock-a-block with ammenities.

by Thayer-D on Oct 15, 2012 12:59 pm • link • report

One thing that has been lost in the hysterics about the Babe's debate is that there is a pretty active market on Craigslist and other neighborhood listserves to rent garage and other off-street parking spaces. People (well, most of them) are rational and if there is a demand by a few of these residents at the new Babe's building for off-street parking spaces, I am sure several of the existing Tenley homeowners with excess space will be glad to rent this for several hundred dollars per month.

So far on the Tenley listserve, I have not seen homeowners trying to rent extra parking spaces, suggesting that there is sufficient curbside parking available now.

by No NIMBY on Oct 15, 2012 1:00 pm • link • report

"What happens if the owners of spots want to buy them back?"

and what happens if I live in a building without storage, put my stuff in a self store, and the self store goes out of business?

Clearly in that case the car owners in the building will need to make other arrangements.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 15, 2012 1:00 pm • link • report

For what it's worth, I moved to Tenleytown (AU Park) last February and got rid of my car a few months later because I didn't need it to get around. I'm glad car-free communities are being promoted in this area.

by Erica on Oct 15, 2012 1:02 pm • link • report

AFAICT there RPP eligible people who are car free in DC.

Yeah, I am one.

And of course there are plenty of non-RPP blocks in the District. The way people carry on in this and other threads, you would think this is the first time in history any place in DC has been RPP ineligible.

by iana on Oct 15, 2012 1:03 pm • link • report

@goldfish Re unenforceability, says you my friend. Have some DC precedent to cite for that?

by Seer on Oct 15, 2012 1:10 pm • link • report

@iana, yes. Same as anybody else who lacks a Ward 3 permit. Plenty of blocks in Ward 3 ineligible for RPPs.

by Seer on Oct 15, 2012 1:14 pm • link • report

@Seer: there was a nice back-and-forth about this in the comments following the City Paper article. The legal issues are pretty well explained.

by goldfish on Oct 15, 2012 1:26 pm • link • report

Arggh. The city paper link is here.

by goldfish on Oct 15, 2012 1:28 pm • link • report

Plenty of blocks in Ward 3 ineligible for RPPs.

I'm pretty sure RPPs are only for people who live on blocks with zone-based restrictions, which IIRC the blocks of Wisconsin Avenue and Butternut Street alongside this development already lack (they have two-hour metered parking with no zone-based exceptions). The ANC's plan seems intended to keep things pretty much as they already are.

by iana on Oct 15, 2012 1:31 pm • link • report

I hate to break it to you, Benjamin Mann, but pregnancies don't last "a few years." Your wife is just putting on weight.

by selxic on Oct 15, 2012 1:33 pm • link • report

there was a nice back-and-forth about this in the comments following the City Paper article. The legal issues are pretty well explained.

As usual, by people making the inaccurate assumption that everybody in DC already is RPP eligible and this is the first time ever an address would be excluded from RPP. ShawGuy's arguments make no sense if you realize that there are already tons of DC property owners who are RPP ineligible.

by iana on Oct 15, 2012 1:35 pm • link • report

@iana: any resident living a commercial zone can petition for a RPP, and many such have been granted (include one on that very block). See the RPP petition form and the discussion here.

by goldfish on Oct 15, 2012 1:37 pm • link • report

@goldfish, my takeaway from the City Paper comments is that there are a bunch of pseudo-lawyer spreading FUD. I'm waiting to see DC precedent that clearly shows these clauses are unenforceable. Short of that, it's a lot of he says, she says, and I find the s/he who says this would be enforceable more persuasive so far.

by Seer on Oct 15, 2012 1:37 pm • link • report

@seer: ALL discussion is speculation, short of filing suit. That was one of my points: who is willing to risk the expense to do this? If nobody steps up, then the agreement is unenforceable.

by goldfish on Oct 15, 2012 1:45 pm • link • report

That metro is this EXTRA way of getting around but not THE way.

The problem is that WMATA even seems to buy into this belief. Outside of rush hour, Metro's current service pattern does not make the rail system useful as a primary mode of transportation.

(Also, good luck affording a place within walking distance of Metro. That's something that's rapidly getting worse, but also a topic for another day)

The bus is better for non-rush trips, but only by a little bit. Metrobus is just a mess. The routes are confusing, the timetable is never accurate, and the headways are all way too long. Also, most people refuse to ever set foot on a bus.

To be perfectly honest, the DC area is doing a terrible job of building/running a comprehensive public transportation system. I'm a huge public transportation advocate, but can't convince myself to ditch my car. I went car-free for 4 months this year and last, and even though I don't commute to work by car, it really did suck.

Living directly on top of a Metro would probably convince me, but still... owning a car makes life a lot easier around here. Car2Go and Capital Bikeshare have done more to convince me that I could ditch my car than Metro ever could. (If only the Car2Go cars could fit a bike in the back...)

by andrew on Oct 15, 2012 2:00 pm • link • report

@goldfish, this is Tenleytown. Crawling with lawyers who have a bug up their chutes about parking and who love a suit clause with attorney fees for them if they win and none for the developer if they lose. I'm not worried.

by Seer on Oct 15, 2012 2:02 pm • link • report

@goldfish, also, so there is speculation, not precedent?

by Seer on Oct 15, 2012 2:04 pm • link • report

@Seer: this deal is unprecedented, ergo, there are no legal precedents. And what makes you think that Ward 3 lawyers have nothing better to do than take on a well-established developer with excellent legal representation, over residential street parking of its tenants? There is no profit in that. Good lawyers, the sort that could actually win this suit, are very well paid and do not take on frivolous cases.

by goldfish on Oct 15, 2012 2:12 pm • link • report

@goldfish

First, it doesn't seem like either of the blocks this building will front are RPP-eligible. So if you go to the DMV with your address they won't give you a sticker - just like anyone else who lives on a non-RPP block.

If you move and keep your car registered at your old address I guess you would be able to hang on to your RPP sticker. You'd have to keep your license registered there too presumably. But I bet this happens with lots of people across the city, so this situation isn't going to make things worse.

Someone could get their license and register their car at a false address, not sure if someone would go to the trouble though.

So I wouldn't say this is any more "unenforceable" than anything that a regulatory agency has to regulate. DMV won't give you a sticker if you register a car at this address.

by MLD on Oct 15, 2012 2:13 pm • link • report

@ Johnny has hit the nail on the head.

The smarter NIMBYs know this to be a fact, that having less parking means fewer cars and more room for those who already own a car. But they also know that most people are not able to put this logic together, so they use the parking issue as a blanket indicator of the "war on cars," which is something that appeals viscerally to their base of older, car-dependent residents.

The smarter NIMBYs really care little about the parking minimums themselves - they care greatly about ANY development being cost-effective for developers. And they know that if parking was required, Jemal would have to dig out the foundation of Babes and spend money they have not budgeted, therefore killing the project as a mixed use building.

On the larger scale, they don't want the parking minimums abolished because this means OTHER developers will be more likely to build similar mixed use along the currently moribund Wisconsin Avenue corridor.

So it is all about parking for their base, while also being no about parking at all.

by fongfong on Oct 15, 2012 2:17 pm • link • report

@MLD: see here regarding the RPP petition process for commercially-zoned buildings. Short answer: most any resident can get one. Residents of another building on this very block have already been granted RPPs.

by goldfish on Oct 15, 2012 2:18 pm • link • report

Right, the proper reading here is "Single family homeowners get to pretend the street parking belong to them, and continue to screw over renters who move to mid-density areas and want cars." Thanks!

@MLD; the renters can petition DMV. Again. would provisions apply if Douglass was the owner; once Douglas sells [the building] I don't think it would apply to anyone. Also, good luck getting a DC court to evict 20+ tenants based on their petition.

by charlie on Oct 15, 2012 2:22 pm • link • report

First, it doesn't seem like either of the blocks this building will front are RPP-eligible. So if you go to the DMV with your address they won't give you a sticker - just like anyone else who lives on a non-RPP block.

The discussion is getting confusing because goldfish and others are using a definition of "RPP-eligible" that includes having the ability to submit a resident petition to DDOT to change their block's RPP status. See goldfish's comment here in the thread that he linked to (in which he states, "this property IS eligible for a RPP by petitioning DDOT"). Basically, people are going for a chin-stroking meta-discussion of whether it is unusual and wrong to have a non-RPP block vs. whether it is unusual and wrong to have a block whose residents can't petition to have their RPP status changed.

by iana on Oct 15, 2012 2:23 pm • link • report

@iana, grating the RPP to residents on this block Wisconsin Avenue is not theoretical. See the database inquiry: RPPs have been granted to residents of 4622 Wisconsin Avenue NW, as well as many other residents of many other commercial buildings.

Moreover, the article above makes it clear that there is no law to codify the no-RPP agreement between the ANC and Douglas: "DC Council could back it up by passing legislation to codify the no-RPP rule for developments that request it. A bill to do that narrowly failed on second reading last month."

by goldfish on Oct 15, 2012 2:31 pm • link • report

I'd love to see this kind of variation applied to some of the new developments being built deeper in-town, like around U and 14th or in NoMa (or any redevelopments in Dupont). In addition to lowering traffic density, removing parking that residents may not even want might also lower rental rates, since it lowers the cost of construction and removes what some buildings consider an amenity.

by Circle Thomas on Oct 15, 2012 2:33 pm • link • report

@seer, sources tell me that the same guy who sued over the Akridge project has been involved in a lawsuit for literally years over the Janney PPP mixed-use development trying to get his legal fees paid. So there's an example of a guy who will sue over any development.

Also, again, you say the suit would be frivolous, but you admit that the issue is unprecedented, so there's no way an initial suit about this issue could be frivolous, and if that suit succeeds subsequent lawsuits grounded in fact would not be frivolous.

by Seer on Oct 15, 2012 2:37 pm • link • report

@charlie: it appears that the ANC gets to tout this deal as "standing up for the long term residents," but in reality it is meaningless. Good for a reelection campaign. Nice score for Douglas, a deal that makes them look like they are doing everything to encourage car-free lifestyles, but in fact changes nothing. Everybody wins.

In ten years, long after most people have forgotten about this, some resident will petition DDOT and get the RPPs for that building. They will be granted and nobody will notice.

by goldfish on Oct 15, 2012 2:40 pm • link • report

@seer: guy who sued over the Akridge project has been involved in a lawsuit for literally years over the Janney PPP mixed-use development trying to get his legal fees paid

Has he been paid? -- a cautionary tale that proves my point. Damn few are fool enough to bring this lawsuit, and of those, even fewer are going to win. And the residents will get their RPPs.

by goldfish on Oct 15, 2012 2:45 pm • link • report

It doesn't look like one resident can petition DDOT to get RPPs -- the petition itself says it has to be signed by the majority of residents on the block, along with other criteria.

by iana on Oct 15, 2012 2:46 pm • link • report

I believe goldfish but I still don't understand how a building by itself gets into RPP.

RPP is done by petition of the residentially-zoned portion of a block. We've recently been through this in petitioning to extend the hours in my block. How exactly does a building in the commercial zone petition by itself to join the residential zone's RPP?

by Tom Coumaris on Oct 15, 2012 2:48 pm • link • report

@iana, if nobody lives on the block (likely as it is all commercial), then all the petitioner has to do is get the majority of residents of that building. If I lived there, I certainly would sign it.

by goldfish on Oct 15, 2012 2:49 pm • link • report

@goldfish, and yet he continues to sue. A cautionary tale for developers who might believe that Tenleytown residents won't sue the living daylights out of them if there is an attorney fees clause.

by Seer on Oct 15, 2012 2:51 pm • link • report

Ben -- Do you still live in this house? I ask because I noticed on IZIS that the 500 footer notice sent to you at your Brandywine address was forwarded to a residential address in MD. While I recognize that as an adjacent property owner you have a stake in what happens at the Babe's site, it's a different stake than a citizen-resident. So are you actually a Tenletown (or even DC) resident at this point?

by Curious on Oct 15, 2012 2:53 pm • link • report

@Seer, developers have staff to handle cranks. It is cost of doing business, and such people are easily brushed aside by professionals.

by goldfish on Oct 15, 2012 2:54 pm • link • report

@goldfish, the District of Columbia has more staff than the developers to handle cranks, and they don't care if judges threaten them, either. http://bit.ly/SWvvYW and yet still the crank you mention (you're word) continues to sue DC.

by Seer on Oct 15, 2012 3:01 pm • link • report

@Seer, see the memorandum of understanding: "The Parties understand that the ANC may enter into contracts but may not initiate suit in DC courts."

The ANC cannot bring suit, and since there is no DC law to back up the agreement between ANC and Douglas, neither can the city. Only an ANC resident can bring suit.

by goldfish on Oct 15, 2012 3:06 pm • link • report

@goldfish, I have no idea what you are talking about. I meant that the crank you mention keeps suing DC, and they keep throwing the kitchen sink at him, and he keeps suing. There is nothing a developer could throw at him that DC could not. DC is legendary for wearing plaintiffs down.

by Seer on Oct 15, 2012 3:08 pm • link • report

Curious - tenleytown is not part of DC. It is an autonomous microstate with its own laws, much like the Vatican or Andorra.

by aaa on Oct 15, 2012 3:11 pm • link • report

"@Seer, developers have staff to handle cranks. It is cost of doing business, and such people are easily brushed aside by professionals"

except this would be a very legitimate case. You seem to be engaged in circular reasoning - this case needs a super hot lawyer to win, cause its a weak case, and its a weak case cause no one would pursue it.

it looks to me like its an open and shut case, to the point where douglas would be embarassed to contest something so obvious, and where even a weak lawyer would win over even strong counsel for Douglas.

PLUS it would be all over the blogs including this one, and the news media would pick it up, and the pols, etc.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 15, 2012 3:14 pm • link • report

@Seer, The memorandum of understanding is the legal contract between ANC 3E and the developer. Here is the link, copied from the article we have been discussing. I quoted recital F.

Again, the article points out that there is no DC law to back up the RPP agreement between ANC and a developer. So the city cannot bring suit.

by goldfish on Oct 15, 2012 3:19 pm • link • report

Evidently RPP has a loophole concerning commercial zones that needs to be closed. Either the law is deficient or DDOT's interpretation is a problem.

We have a new 125 unit building on my block that is in the commercial zone and DDOT assured us that it could not get into RPP. I'm concerned now.

by Tom Coumaris on Oct 15, 2012 3:27 pm • link • report

@seer, I'm not talking about he city bringing suit. I'm talking about the crank, lets call him DF, who is not deterred by DC's scorched earth approach to lawsuits. I guess you will just keep making believe that you don't understand what I am saying.

by Seer on Oct 15, 2012 3:27 pm • link • report

@AWitC: let us continue that line of thought. An ANC resident files suit because Douglas is not enforcing its "no-RPP" clause in its lease with a one or all of its tenants. Presume Douglas looses. What does it loose? Certainly the judge in the case cannot evict the tenant, which is a landlord-tenant dispute, or have any other sanction on this person. Moreover, certainly Douglas cannot win an eviction of this tenant (and probably would not try to evict in any case).

This whole deal is meaningless, because there is no way to enforce what the tenant does. Nice lawyerly writing, but a waste of paper.

by goldfish on Oct 15, 2012 3:28 pm • link • report

"Moreover, certainly Douglas cannot win an eviction of this tenant"

why not?

"Presume Douglas looses. What does it loose? "

$10,000 dollars I thought. Each time? Rinse and repeat?

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 15, 2012 3:31 pm • link • report

@goldfish, you are just making this up! You said there is no precedent, then you say that "certainly the judge in the case. . ." and "certainly Douglas cannot win an eviction. . ." Which is it? Certainty, with precedent, or unprecedented, with no certainty?

by Seer on Oct 15, 2012 3:31 pm • link • report

@AWalker, I'm leaving this to you. Goldfish is perfectly happy to contradict herself over and over again. This is a waste of bytes.

by Seer on Oct 15, 2012 3:34 pm • link • report

@AWitC: the $10k is award only after Douglas loses three times. And by the time that happens, there would be many times that spent on legal fees, on both sides of the issue. The money from this judgement goes to charity, the recipient of which is decided by the ANC, NOT the suit plaintiff(s).

Do you see why nobody is going to file suit?

by goldfish on Oct 15, 2012 3:39 pm • link • report

The MOU specifies that the plaintiffs can collect their legal fees as well as the $10k.

by David Alpert on Oct 15, 2012 4:01 pm • link • report

@Mr Alpert: the plaintiffs get the legal fees but NOT the $10k.

A resident of ANC 3E that substantially prevails in a Suit shall be entitled to an award of its reasonable attorney's fees. Furthermore, if Douglas loses three or more Suits, it shall be required to donate $10,000 to a non-profit organization identified by the ANC for each subsequent Suit it loses.

So besides legal fees, the plaintiff gets nothing. No profit here.

Nobody is going to put this sort of time and effort into a lawsuit for nothing.

by goldfish on Oct 15, 2012 4:16 pm • link • report

"Nobody is going to put this sort of time and effort into a lawsuit for nothing."

Is it really beyond conception that someone would do something because they believe it to be RIGHT, even if its NOT profitable to them?

If this attitude had held in 1776, London would still be oure capital.

by IsntThisCityNamedWashington? on Oct 15, 2012 4:21 pm • link • report

@ITCNW: This is about PARKING.

Not "taxation without representation" (unfortunately), nor forbiding Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, nor for dissolving Representative Houses repeatedly, nor for refusing assent to laws, nor for keeping among us standing armies in times of peace, nor for ...

by goldfish on Oct 15, 2012 4:28 pm • link • report

And its about filing a suit, not risking your life (either in battle or to a hangman's noose as a traitor) nor even about spending years with the army at massive cost to one's fortune. Its a lawsuit, a minor one.

by IsntThisCityNamedWashington? on Oct 15, 2012 5:03 pm • link • report

I think what the "Anti-parking" people are missing here is this isn't an argument about street parking. It is one about private contracts mediating the public space, and whether those contracts are enforceable..

And in the short term, yes. The incentives for the tenants --which have access to 20 off site spaces -- to organize and petiion for street parking are pretty minimal. What is the lifespan of a tenant -- 18 months? 2 years? Much easier to move out.

In the long term, as I stated before, it is just a land grab by existing single family homeowners, and not a real positive win for urbanism.

by charlie on Oct 15, 2012 5:50 pm • link • report

@charlie
I agree with you that the contracts as written make it unlikely that tenants of this building will get RPP in the short-medium term. I agree with goldfish that there possibly is a [somewhat difficult and risky] avenue for residents in the future to get RPP.

Can private contracts regulate public space? In this case, it seems so and if it's just a one-off, then maybe that's OK. But if every new building comes with a 'No RPP' clause, then that will further undermine the legitimacy of the RPP program. It's contentious that local residents get special privileges to a public space (ie RPP parking), but to further slice the eligible group into different classes of local residents, who have greater or lesser access to that public space, introduces inconsistency that risks making the entire scheme a joke.

by renegade09 on Oct 15, 2012 6:03 pm • link • report

I don't live in the area, so don't have a dog in this fight, but my first thought was, who are these people. I mean, they talk about all these new residents that would be moving in and creating all this parking demand and yadda yadda. How many of them were actually born in that part of Washington and grew up in that part of Washington. The way this town is, I would be willing to bet not many. All of them were new at some point. So just because they were there before anybody that now may want to move in, they get to decide what a private developer can or can't do, and can stop someone from getting a permit they are legally allowed to get? As long as they have their parking spot? Of course, the price tag of this place will probably be way above little old me living in Northeast.

I'm not an advocate for or against car-free living, I just think that situation is a little out of control.

by Nickyp on Oct 15, 2012 9:27 pm • link • report

I agree with renegade09, and had a similar feeling that Nickyp had. I totally agree that less use of cars is a very good thing. But this isn't about the neighbors being all green and everything. It's NIMBYism trying to find a way to get transit-encouraging people behind their cause. If having no ability to get a parking permit were such a great thing, why aren't all these folks saying it should apply to everyone? And, frankly, policies should apply to everyone unless there were some good reason they shouldn't.

This situation reminds me of Takoma Park opposition to developing the *parking lot* (yes, plus a grassy area with half a dozen trees) around the Takoma Metro. And, yes, I live in Takoma Park. But the TP example is moe eggregious. Not only is it in a different jurisdiction (outside of the state, in fact!), but two of the arguments are that it would create impervious surface, and that the parking is needed to save DC from cars. Um, that parking lot seems like a lot of impervious surface to me. And, I have never seen it more than half full.

I find it very disheartening that pro-transit people are rallying around a flag of NIMBYs at least most of whom I assume are quite happy keeping their cars and hopping in those cars whenever they want to.

by EMD on Oct 15, 2012 10:41 pm • link • report

Where's the controversy?

There's no reason to force developers to build parking they may not want or need. If there is a demand for parking in any area that give people an option of car-free living, we'll see more parking garages and lots.

Let the market decide--abolish these minimum parking requirements that are not environmentally conscious and limit development and housing options. If parking is built in the structure, people who rent there will PAY for it with higher rent, regardless of whether they have an automobile. By not building it, this gives potential renters a way to opt-out of paying for something they're not using.

by Daniel on Oct 16, 2012 1:50 am • link • report

I agree that this is about the current residents trying to keep what they have and preventing newer residents from having the same, all while pretending to be simply pro-transit. I have been car-free since 2003 (though not in Tenley)and have generally been able to get where I want to go. Although the increasing deterioration of Metro service makes that harder and harder, I currently have no desire to have a car again. That being said, I would never ever rent an apartment where I was permanently prevented from the RPP system, including even the right to petition to join the RPP. We talk plenty on GGW about the conflict between old residents and new residents in 'gentrifying' neighborhoods - this is just a tactic that lawyer-packed affluent neighbohorhoods can use to codify the distinction between old and new.

by DC20009 on Oct 16, 2012 10:30 am • link • report

The prime bone of contention...

Prime bone?

The current building is 100% structurally sound...

100%? How about just structurally sound.

Some people may indeed try to get around such prohibitions,

Unneeded. Your next sentence makes that point.

Ugh.

http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Well-30th-Anniversary-Edition/dp/0060891548

by JJJ on Oct 16, 2012 11:38 am • link • report

JJJ:

Way to add to the conversation.

Next time you attempt to cite portions of an article for comment, you might want to try using some punctuation.

http://www.amazon.com/Merriam-Websters-Guide-Punctuation-Style-Merriam-Webster/dp/0877799210

by XYZ on Oct 16, 2012 2:20 pm • link • report

I am sure that many opponents are not opposed to science or "experiments" in development methods, but deeply distrust Jemal, the convicted felon. The circular discussion of the "car free" aspect of the experiment is, of course, misguided. The experiment is not in any way "car free," it is merely "RPP free." To be "car free," the leases should prohibit ownership of a four-wheeled passenger vehicle for the duration of the tenancy. Having read approximately four hundred landlord-tenant decisions issued by DC courts, I feel comfortable in opining that the latter prohibition would certainly be enforceable by the landlord. The absence of such a prohibition in the proposed leases proves Jemal suckered the ANC.

by Green Eyeshade on Oct 17, 2012 12:25 pm • link • report

why would the ANC want to prevent someone who owned a car and parked it in a private garage (or for that matter, in west virginia) from living there?

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 17, 2012 12:31 pm • link • report

@AWalker: The purpose of a "car free" experiment is to bring in residents without cars. It's not a "car free" experiment if the new residents own cars, because if they own cars they aren't "car free." The ANC presumably thinks it is conducting an "experiment" in how to prevent addition of cars to a specific geographic area. You could ask the ANC why it wants to prevent the addition of cars. Could you think of a few reasons?

by Green Eyeshade on Oct 17, 2012 12:44 pm • link • report

Having read approximately four hundred landlord-tenant decisions issued by DC courts, I feel comfortable in opining that the latter prohibition would certainly be enforceable by the landlord.

It would be more convincing (and nice) if you could back that up somehow.

But I am reminded of a certain phone call I made to the police about owning a firearm, long before the Heller decision (note that I am NOT a lawyer). Policewoman said 'it is illegal for a District resident to own a gun.' Later spoke with a real DC criminal defense lawyer about it -- he said the crime occurs with 'posession of a firearm within the district.' Note the distinction between 'posession' and 'ownership,' and where it occurs. Also note that the DC police did not know the law.

So by analogy, how could a landlord prevent a resident from owning a car that never touches the landlord's property?

by goldfish on Oct 18, 2012 12:53 am • link • report

Charlie brings up the DC Court not wanting to evict. Remember Brianna Blackmon!

Representative Tom Delay of Texas was outraged to see that an innocent child, Briana Blackmon, was allowed by the Chief DC Court Judge Rufus King, to be lost and murdered. Tom Delay wanted to prevent this from happening again by creating a separate Family Court. Judge King and Court Administrator Ann E. Wicks were uninterested. Tom Delay said he was going to fund it and give money for staff and facilities and all of a sudden Judge King and Wicks were interested.

Tom Delay was wined and dined to pursue the legislation but not create a separate Family Court but keep it in the DC Courts (Wicks, Judge King and a guy with the last name Delaney). Congress agreed but the Budget Office of the (BOM) of the President wanted budgets separated for the Family Court so that they could mind the store. So King hired Leigh Satterfield to run the Family Court and watch its budget to make sure that what happended to Briana did not happen again. The budgets in the DC Court were required to separate the Family Court money that Tom Delay required.

What happened? Judge Eric Washington of the DC Court of Appeals had a palace built for the Court of Appeals with Family Court money. Judge Satterfield used it as a campaigner tool to become Chief Judge of the the Court. Judge Eric Washington and Judge Leigh Satterfield have emasculated the Family Court budgets. When the Family Court Act of 2001 was passed http://www.dcwatch.com/courts/010921.htm you could look at the DC Courts budget and see the separation of the funds Tom Delay required. When Tom Delay passed away, Eric Washington, Leigh Satterfield, Ann E. Wicks and a guy named (he runs the Superior Court) took the Family Court money and distributed it to places where Tom Delaney did not want it to go (Judicial functions, pay increase, facilities not realted to Brianna).

Brianna Blackmon died in vain. Eric washington, Leigh satterfied and Anne E. Wicks have stolen the money that Tom Delay got to help children like them. Ask them:

- From 2001 to 20012, how much money went to the part of their budget that Tom Delay got for them that was called the Family Court?

- Why did Judge washington take this money that could have heloped people like Briana and build a palace (the DC Court of Appeals Building in DC)?

- Why has Leigh satterfield, who was aasked to start the Family Court, allowed the amount of money Tom Delay ordered for Briana to go to his parties, training sessions, and buildings that have nothing to do with the Family Court?

- Show us where the money went, at the detailed level, how much Tom Delay gave the falimly court and what it has now. Explain why Washington, Satterfield, and Wicks took money for Briana that was in the family court organization and gave it to other parts of the court.

Auster budget for 2013? Stop the stealing from Briana's legacy. Ask Tom Delay.

by Randy Terry Delaney on Oct 23, 2012 8:52 pm • link • report