UPDATE: Alexandria City Council approved plans Saturday to construct a new affordable housing complex at the corner of E. Reed Avenue and Route 1 with a vote that was conducted twice, after the two dissenting council members asked to vote again so they could support it

by RJ on Jan 16, 2013 9:08 am • link • report

The Circulator shutdown is very annoying. The Navy Yard route is the only one that goes through the restricted zone, and it would be very easy to reroute it to 3rd St for the day.

by Tom Veil on Jan 16, 2013 9:11 am • link • report

RJ: This is the same project? Why did the 2 change their mind? Is there a link to something about that?

by David Alpert on Jan 16, 2013 9:23 am • link • report

So residents on Lynnhaven want the city to preserve their way of life at the cost of screwing over people who can't otherwise afford housing in their neighborhood which will soon be walking distance to a metro station and BRT/Streetcar.

And it's not even a case of parking/no parking!

by drumz on Jan 16, 2013 9:26 am • link • report

Obama takes one step for DC rights

The fact that this is somehow newsworthy is a sign of how far DCs statehood has to go. In stead of whining to POTUS about his car tags, how about getting something meaningful done? How about getting some support for Norton's bill, even if only in words?

by Jasper on Jan 16, 2013 9:28 am • link • report

DA

I think I saw something - they wanted to vote for the free parking, but not be on record as being against the project itself, IIRC. Not sure where I saw it.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jan 16, 2013 9:29 am • link • report

That the biggest "victory" the DC rights advocates can claim is symbolic license plates and a twenty year old bill should be proof that it's time for a new direction and even new leadership to take up the fight.

by Jeff on Jan 16, 2013 9:30 am • link • report

David, yes here it is.

http://delray.patch.com/articles/on-second-vote-silberberg-chapman-support-affordable-housing-project

by RJ on Jan 16, 2013 9:33 am • link • report

David, it's also here on the Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/when-no-means-yes/2013/01/12/30b754c4-5cf5-11e2-88d0-c4cf65c3ad15_story.html

by Kevin Beekman on Jan 16, 2013 9:42 am • link • report

It's kind of absurd to have street parking in a city without some kind of regional parking pass program. Just grandfather in anyone who already lives there and make everyone new pay.

by Alan B. on Jan 16, 2013 10:02 am • link • report

Obama gets new license plates? Whoopee!! And he and democrats contribution to the debate has been what again?

If the apartment community is separate from the parking lot...then I don't see what the issue is. Charge 'em for parking and the people who end up parking on the street...I assume...would be doing so just like everyone else who decline to pay for residential parking.

No Erika Murphy, TOD is not the new black and it's time for people to stop making such ridiculously stupid comparisons. There is no such thing as a new black, white, asian, hispanic anything. Ugh....

Wells running for Mayor? I don't look forward to having the 2010 debate over again but as sure as nights fall, it's inevitable. Class/race wars all over again. *sigh*

by HogWash on Jan 16, 2013 10:05 am • link • report

HogWash, the phrase "the new black" is about fashion not race...

by Alan B. on Jan 16, 2013 10:11 am • link • report

Alan B.
Isn't your scheme kind of what's been approved? The new lot will be paid parking first the residents of that particular building and any spots left over people can rent those.

Besides, just because one was getting something for free doesn't mean they're entitled to it being free in perpetuity. We already have a perverse motivation in preventing new people from moving into a neighborhood for a variety of reasons.

by drumz on Jan 16, 2013 10:15 am • link • report

HogWash, the phrase "the new black" is about fashion not race...

Thanks. I assume it means different things among different quarters

by HogWash on Jan 16, 2013 10:16 am • link • report

"Our BRT is not going to get them to their job."

That's precisely the problem with the affordable housing question in Alexandra. And the problem with the new West End plan. As far as I can tell (and I'd appreciate a correction if I'm wrong), there's been no effort to add transit on top of the severe build-up planned for the western part of the city. Perhaps an extra bus line or two, but nothing that's going to deal with the increase in people and traffic. Besides which, people in affordable housing really should be ENCOURAGED to use mass transit...so, you know, put the housing in a situation where it won't be difficult for them.

by Ser Amantio di Nicolao on Jan 16, 2013 10:16 am • link • report

Here's the transit plan for the Beauregard Area:
http://alexandriava.gov/beauregard/default.aspx?id=54408

"Van Dorn Street/Beauregard Street (Corridor C) —This corridor would run along Beauregard Street and Van Dorn Street in an approximately east/west direction. On the north, the corridor has the potential to tie to Columbia Pike, Fairfax County, and the Pentagon area. On the south, the corridor would directly connect to the Van Dorn Street Metrorail station. Key destinations along the corridor include the Van Dorn Street Metrorail station, Landmark Mall/Van Dorn Street commercial areas, Kingstowne, the Mark Center (and BRAC-133 site), Shirlington, and the Pentagon.

by Kevin Beekman on Jan 16, 2013 10:21 am • link • report

It seems that the real problem with the Alexandria plan is that street parking is apparently a free-for-all. The option should be for car-owning residents to pay for parking in their building or pay for a city parking permit. If street parking is free, of course they're going to choose the free parking over the paid.

by Colleen on Jan 16, 2013 10:27 am • link • report

I think my actually agree. My point was more that the problem wasn't only solvable by giving residents of the new building free parking and that that only solves the issue for those people anyway. Regarding grandfathering existing residents, I think you can argue that people who moved there did so with certain expectations, at the very least they should get some kind of preference when it comes to parking in the long term. New residents will move in with a clear picture of what the situation is and will be able to make decisions in their own best interest. Existing residents don't have a monopoly but I don't understand the attitude that they don't deserve some extra consideration at least.

by Alan B. on Jan 16, 2013 10:28 am • link • report

*[We may actually agree]

by Alan B. on Jan 16, 2013 10:28 am • link • report

@HogWash, "the new black" is indeed a reference from the fashion world, now almost always used tongue-in-cheek. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_new_black has a good history.

by cminus on Jan 16, 2013 10:31 am • link • report

"HogWash, the phrase "the new black" is about fashion not race...
Thanks. I assume it means different things among different quarters"

maybe, but if you click to the article, its pretty clear the author means TOD is fashionable, the default development option, whatever. I do not see how it could be read as a reference to race.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jan 16, 2013 10:33 am • link • report

There is a huge plan to address transit through the Potomac Yard metro station development and the Potomac Yard transitway project along (wait for it) Potomac Ave and Rt 1. http://www.ccpytransit.com/maps.htm. Anyway there is an existing bus route that goes right by the planned building.

by Alan B. on Jan 16, 2013 10:34 am • link • report

Alan B.,
They certainly deserve consideration but that doesn't mean that the consideration means that the status quo is preserved in perpetuity.

If my apartment complex decided I have to now pay for my water bill I'd be upset but I wouldn't see as an assault on my basic human rights like most discussions of street parking seem to devolve into.

by drumz on Jan 16, 2013 10:35 am • link • report

This is what Alexandria City Council actually said on the matter (from the meeting minutes):

Remove item 25A. [which required free parking]

A new condition to read: "Upon full occupancy, in the event that there are available residential parking spaces, the applicant may lease those parking spaces to neighboring residents. Residents of East Reed Multifamily will have priority for the leasing of parking in the building."

An addition of condition 89(b) stating "That limited parking is available for lease within the development. The availability of residential street parking in the adjacent neighborhood should not be expected."

Included is a request that the City Manager amend the existing effort to analyze the right turn lane to include analysis and a recommendation on the following parking and traffic mitigation efforts: implementation of a residential parking district; implementation of a restricted overnight parking district; creation of additional street parking on Reed Avenue; other changes to the intersection of Jefferson Davis Highway and Reed Avenue--including light timing and turn restrictions; street sweeping occurs twice a week, and it should talk with the community about continuing that.

http://alexandria.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=53&clip_id=2340

by Kevin Beekman on Jan 16, 2013 10:37 am • link • report

I see your point, drumz. But if it makes the difference between what is unimplementable and what is politically palatable and assuming in the long term it produces desired results, I don't see the problem. I'm pretty sure none of the residents will be there in perpetuity and I would guess that those staying in their home for more than 20 years would be in the minority.

by Alan B. on Jan 16, 2013 10:41 am • link • report

On DC statehood, why not just let DC vote with Maryland? It's geographically in Maryland and culturally quite similar, although that's true for NOVA also, go figure.

I'm surprised Tea Partiers aren't all over this trampling of the Constitution!

by Thayer-D on Jan 16, 2013 10:44 am • link • report

@jasper, the DC voting rights "movement" is utetrly dysfunctional. Meaningful means pissing off people, and they're not inclined to do that because they like rubbing elbows in the halls of power and feeling important. but, hey, check out our Taxation Without Representation t-shirts!

@jeff, I completely agree. Some of thsoe folks have been "fighting" for a long time and have absolutely nothing to show for it. How many millions has the city given to voting rights organizations (there's one in particular) over the years? And what do they have to show for it?

by Birdie on Jan 16, 2013 10:44 am • link • report

Thayer-D,
I think the problem with retrocession (or pseudo-retrocession like you suggest) is that we've now had 200+ years of separate identities that neither side would be comfortable shedding or assuming. There is a certain sentiment of "get over it" that does exist but then we could say that to any other number of independence struggles across the world.

I'm generally very much against referendums but I think when it comes to questions of independence or statehood then it should be up to the people. And I think its fairly clear that the people of D.C. want their own statehood and not retrocession (I could be wrong).

by drumz on Jan 16, 2013 10:47 am • link • report

Cminus, thanks! I first remember hearing it during the late 80's/90's when being "black/dark" became en vogue.

I do not see how it could be read as a reference to race.

Thanks! I assume it means different things among different quarters

That the biggest "victory" the DC rights advocates can claim is symbolic license plates and a twenty year old bill should be proof that it's time for a new direction and even new leadership to take up the fight.

I agree in part. But I don't think new leadership nor a new direction will matter. We have a progressive (of sorts) democrat white house and congress. They have shown absolutely zero interest in supporting DC voting rights. If we can't get it now...we won't get it until we elect a Republican president who is in favor of it.

by HogWash on Jan 16, 2013 11:10 am • link • report

RE: Urban planning words

The one that makes me cringe is "vibrant", although I suppose it really is more of a marketers term. Sounds very forced.

by Watcher on Jan 16, 2013 11:41 am • link • report

@HogWash, enough with the race baiting already. You may "assume it means different things among different quarters," but it doesn't, which you know perfectly well. You should try being constructive for a change.

by Joe on Jan 16, 2013 1:33 pm • link • report

If I won the lottery, I'd pay Alpert however much money he needs to ban HogWash from this site.

Her comments are painful to read grammatically/content-wise, and it's all bomb-throwing anyways.

This site is about TOD and making the DCMSA a greater place to live, but all HogWash seems to care about is gentrification bringing in "the wrong element" and skewing every discussion towards race.

Shame on you.

by MJB on Jan 16, 2013 1:44 pm • link • report

Now all they have to do is fix that right lane on SB Rt 1 by Reed Ave, by either making it a right turn only lane onto Reed (unlikely given what I've seen of the site plans), or just cutting it off before those apartments (or all the way back at the 4MR bridge).

by Kolohe on Jan 16, 2013 2:19 pm • link • report

Kolohe,

As I mentioned above, the Council approval included:

" amend the existing effort to analyze the right turn lane to include analysis and a recommendation on the following parking and traffic mitigation efforts..."

The City is looking at that right now. And the AHC project was altered to accommodate the lane if the City desired to build it. From the discussion on Saturday, I think it's likely to happen at this point.

by Kevin Beekman on Jan 16, 2013 2:24 pm • link • report

@drumz: I think that Thayer-D is referring to re-enfranchisement, not retrocession.

Re-enfranchisement is simply a restoration of the federal voting rights that Congress took away from residents of the District of Columbia in 1800, thereby providing the same Congressional representation that residents of any other federal enclave have, i.e., a Congressman for DC plus sharing Maryland's Senators.

Sharing your Senators with Maryland would hardly take away your identity, would it? Aside from the fact that Baltimore also shares is Senators with western Maryland with which it has little in common: Throughout the nation, state legislative districts are regularly gerrymandered to a far greater extent, so that small towns are in 2 or even 3 districts while sharing legislators with rural areas far away.

After having no Senator for such a long time, it seems quite farfetched to suggest that DC would lose its identity if it was represented in the US Senate by the Senators from Maryland.

Some Maryland voters might be annoyed to see their vote diluted somewhat, but Maryland would still be an average sized Senatorial district. The Democrats would not mind the Senate seat being a bit safer, while Republicans have written off the Maryland Senate seat anyway.

The premise for re-enfranchisement is not that DC residents prefer it over statehood, but rather that statehood has less than a 1/100 chance of being enacted during the next 50-100 years, while re-enfranchisement probably has a 50% chance of being enacted within a decade if DC pushed hard for it and negotiated intelligently.

by Jim Titus on Jan 16, 2013 2:41 pm • link • report

I didn't realize there was a specific term, thanks.

Anyway, I don't live in D.C. and while my preference would be for statehood I'd still say that's up for D.C. voters to decide.

Like you said, it's been 200 years since DC was created. That is a significant difference to the people who lived on both sides of that border no matter how arbitrary it might seem to others who live further out.

This is a situation relatively unique. The only real precedents we have are the 1846 retrocession to Va. and then the Civil War which tore Va. in two.

So you could have a ballot with multiple options.

Full Statehood
Retrocession
Enfranchiesment
Any other option

and figure out if everyone in DC actually doesn't care about whether their senator is from Maryland or not.

But again, the real difficulty is convincing the government to actually let the people decide this one so if it's a choice between taking re-enfranchisement vs. nothing then it may be best.

by drumz on Jan 16, 2013 3:00 pm • link • report

Umm... sorry, Joe, but it has been used for race before too. It was originally a fashion term, but it is not uncommon for it to refer to skin color also in a tongue in cheek manner. Instead of attacking the multiple posts explaining the term, Hogwash moved on, thanked the posters for the background and even referenced usage without saying the article implied that again.

by selxic on Jan 16, 2013 3:12 pm • link • report

@Jim Titus

There was no "taking away of rights" in 1800. The District did not exist as a separate territory before then so it was not distinct from Maryland/Virginia. There were no "District residents," they were residents of MD/VA before the Organic Act.

You keep bringing this up like there was some arrangement for DC residents to vote in Maryland before 1800 but that is not the case since the District didn't exist.

by MLD on Jan 16, 2013 3:17 pm • link • report

@MLD: The people living in Georgetown certainly had their voting rights taken away. They had the right to vote for Maryland Senate until the statute was passed, and after the statute, they had no such rights. Had that statute not taken those voting rights away, they could have continued to vote. Hence I think it is accurate to say that the statute dis-enfranchised these voters (and all who now live in the District.)

I guess you don't like the shorthand of saying that the statute disenfranchised District voters. Does this distinction matter substantively? Or do you think I am overstating the practicality be implying that it has been done before as if all the details have been worked out. If that's your point, I agree that all of the details for how to not disenfranchise District voters were not worked out--because they were disenfranchised instead.

@drumz: I'd say that the DC voters adopted statehood by referendum in the 1980s. Maybe a useful approach would be yes-no on all the options, and then legislators could pursue any other options that win. Re-enfranchisement does not preclude either statehood or retrocession, for example.

Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress the same power over the District as over people who live on military bases

by Jim Titus on Jan 16, 2013 3:59 pm • link • report

@selxic

No, it has not. Provide evidence to the contrary. Others have provided evidence to show the phrase is not racist and never has been.

Until then, I'm holding the position that "selxic" is a racist term as well.

by MJB on Jan 16, 2013 4:05 pm • link • report

Mr. Beekman, thanks, sorry I didn't read more carefully. The latest on the plans I had heard before today was from this DC Mud post http://dcmud.blogspot.com/2012/04/affordable-housing-complex-delayed.html

by Kolohe on Jan 16, 2013 4:10 pm • link • report

@Jim Titus
You're right that there was "taking away of rights" and disenfranchisement and that's my error.

The people living in Georgetown certainly had their voting rights taken away. They had the right to vote for Maryland Senate until the statute was passed, and after the statute, they had no such rights.

Correct, because they lived in Georgetown, MD before the law was passed, and afterwards they lived in Georgetown, DC. Just as any territory given from one state to another would have their voting districts changed. The clear difference being that DC had no voting rights, but it is still the same situation.

Or do you think I am overstating the practicality be implying that it has been done before as if all the details have been worked out.

This. You are implying that a situation existed that did not exist - District residents voting in Maryland. This situation did not exist because there was no such thing as the District (therefore district residents), because the Organic Act had not been passed yet.

You imply that something was "taken away" as if it can just as easily be given back. What you're proposing is effectively retrocession with all the issues therein. Is there any precedent at all for having residents vote in multiple jurisdictions?

by MLD on Jan 16, 2013 4:18 pm • link • report

Kolohe,

DCMud posted an update later:
http://dcmud.blogspot.com/2012/11/alexandria-affordable-housing-complex.html

AHC has quite a bit more info here:
http://ahcinc.org/EastReedAvenue.html

But the turn lane is not assured, only the process by which it will be discussed.

by Kevin Beekman on Jan 16, 2013 4:34 pm • link • report

@HogWash, enough with the race baiting already.You may "assume it means different things among different quarters," but it doesn't, which you know perfectly well. You should try being constructive for a change.

No need to run and report this nor MJB's. I'm just happy that neither were deleted as it shows the level of "goodness" that bleeds from the mouths of some.

But to address this foolishness: Since when has disagreeing with the use of "the new black" (regardless of the intent) ever been indication of race-baiting? I'll tell you. Not ever. This is simply a tool used by folk, usually nonblack to convince others that any discussion of "race" (where they disagree) is actually race-baiting. It's no different than the Tea Partiers who suggest that anytime Obama focuses on race is actually him showing racial preferences. This is an old trick.

Although it's common for many people here to tell me (the lone guttersnipe) what I do and don't know...should and shouldn't say..believe and don't believe, suggesting that the phrase has different meanings in different quarters should have sufficed. It didn't and oh well. I'm sure it's some nearby spike you can impale you and your thoughts upon.

If I won the lottery, I'd pay Alpert however much money he needs to ban HogWash from this site.

And if you did, I would rather you do something constructive rather than spending your money to ban an online personality. But go ahead...do you.

Her comments are painful to read grammatically/content-wise, and it's all bomb-throwing anyways.

Her is a he. I don't respond to posts I consider painful reads. I just skip them. I would suggest the same for you but it likely won't work since you will always want to know Hog's point of view.

This site is about TOD and making the DCMSA a greater place to live, but all HogWash seems to care about is gentrification bringing in "the wrong element" and skewing every discussion towards race.

Way to introduce GGW to yet another urban legend. I challenge you and anyone who would agree w/the silliness you posted to find ONE (JUST ONE) GGW story where I've made issue of gentrification bringing in the wrong element. JUST ONE! You won't find it and if I didn't believe it would be deleted, I would call you out as a silly bold-faced l***. But then I'm sure those who support your attacks would be offended, especially if I suggested you joined your wide-stanced stall buddy and find the nearest spike.

Hogwash moved on, thanked the posters for the background and even referenced usage without saying the article implied that again.

Thanks and of course I did. But when the angle from which you view me and my fellow guttersnipes is on high, this is the end result.

by HogWash on Jan 16, 2013 4:44 pm • link • report

Simple solution to statehood: Give DC back to Maryland.

Unlike Virginia, DC fits right in with MD politically, geographically, and culturally. DC won't get its own senator, but Del. Holmes-Norton would be their voting rep. in the House. Most DC residents support retrocession.

Would Maryland take DC? Maybe not 30 years ago when it was a basically a large ghetto populated by crackheads (including the mayor). Now, DC is gentrifying at an amazing rate and would be a healthy economic asset. The median household income (and tax rev.) is skyrocketing and may soon even match Maryland's (which is the highest in the nation).

The biggest problem with DC is the still sh#tty public school system. Maybe MD could just take everything west of the Anacostia and leave the rest...

by K Street on Jan 16, 2013 4:52 pm • link • report

Others have provided evidence to show the phrase is not racist and never has been.

And didn't I just say it's a tool used by folks to suggest any discussion about race..is race-baiting. Hey, did you hang your Obama effigy in time for the inauguration?

Here's a test. Who in this post EVER insinuated that "the new black" was a racist term? Certainly not me and it's silly to suggest otherwise. This is just another example of people reading what they want to see and really believe.

by HogWash on Jan 16, 2013 4:53 pm • link • report

@hogwash

No Erika Murphy, TOD is not the new black and it's time for people to stop making such ridiculously stupid comparisons. There is no such thing as a new black, white, asian, hispanic anything. Ugh....

WHAT SAY YE TO THIS, THEN????

Check & mate. I feel like this whole discussion really is illuminating some poster's way of thinking, but *maybe* not in the way you think, Mr. HogWash.

(PS I'm saying your rants make you look like you're off your meds)

by MJB on Jan 16, 2013 5:06 pm • link • report

No Erika Murphy, TOD is not the new black and it's time for people to stop making such ridiculously stupid comparisons. There is no such thing as a new black, white, asian, hispanic anything. Ugh.

And the fact you consider THAT race baiting (of all things) speaks volumes.

by HogWash on Jan 16, 2013 5:29 pm • link • report

Oh guys lighten up. It's definitely not a racial term (except possibly in some specific circles) in this context, but it wasn't a totally unthinkable interpretation either. We all have our reading comprehension fails now and again.

by Alan B. on Jan 16, 2013 5:52 pm • link • report

@MLD: If I implied the things that you think I have implied, then I have implied things that I do not believe.

I agree that re-enfranchisement will have it's challenges, but I don't think the relevant standard of comparison is the ease with which residents of the District of Columbia were disenfranchised. There weren't very many. Rather the standard ought to be the feasibility of restoring the right to Congressional representation and otherwise leaving the District unchanged, compared to retrocession or statehood.

I think re-enfranchisement is far more feasible than either of the other two approaches. Congress will not enact statehood in our lifetimes, and I think we agree that DC would rather remain under the jurisdiction of Congress than become part of Maryland.

It is simply wrong to say that the re-enfranchisement option is "effectively retrocession with all the issues therein." Under re-enfranchisement, the District retains its current form of government under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress. Under retrocession, the District of Columbia becomes a city within the state of Maryland, pays taxes to Maryland, votes for the Maryland Governor and Legislature, and becomes subject to the statutes of Maryland.

Perhaps you could directly articulate your substantive concerns? Lots of residents vote in multiple jurisdictions. For example, residents of towns in Maryland vote for town officials, county officials, state officials, and President--as well as legislators from districts whose boundaries do not follow jurisdictional borders. Compared with that, adding US Senator to the District of Columbia ballot twice every six years seems pretty simple.

by JimT on Jan 16, 2013 6:02 pm • link • report

It's definitely not a racial term (except possibly in some specific circles) in this context.

I agree. I'm not sure if it's ever been "racial" even in specific circles. Go figure

by HogWash on Jan 16, 2013 8:46 pm • link • report

Every four years there is an Inauguration and every time WMATA does terrible with explaining any info about buses. When reading the info about buses on WMATA site makes no damn sense.

The map shows a termination point for routes but does not say in which way are these buses coming from. Nor do they give suggestions for people who are not going to the Inauguration on how to get around some have to work I for one and I bet many others and it is a disservice to riders that have to go to work that day to give no details about what is happening on the buses.

by kk on Jan 16, 2013 9:25 pm • link • report

MJB, I'm not sure what you're responding to or if you accidentally used my name, but I have reported that post. Likewise, I also never said anything was racist. Things can be racial without being racist.

by selxic on Jan 17, 2013 8:13 am • link • report

Why does the Presidential limo have DC plates anyway? Plenty of vehicles have federal plates of some form, so why not the Beast?

by Adam F on Jan 17, 2013 12:53 pm • link • report

I think JimT's logic is air tight. I know some in VA will chafe at DC becoming part of MD, but if getting the voting rights is the main issue, that's the most expedient way of doing it. Plus, try redesigning the flag with 51 stars!
It always comes back to design.

by Thayer-D on Jan 17, 2013 2:40 pm • link • report