Greater Greater Washington

Retail


Residents speak against U Street liquor moratorium

Last night, ANCs 1B, 2B and 2F heard from residents and business owners at a joint town hall listening session on a proposed liquor license moratorium for U Street. The vast majority opposed the moratorium.


Photo by vincentgallegos on Flickr.

The community addressed this issue as recently as 2009, but the newly-formed Shaw-Dupont Citizens Alliance and the Residential Action Coalition have brought it back to the table, citing concerns about parking, crime and trash they believe arise from a concentration of liquor licenses in the area.

These issues are real, but other communities around the District offer proof that a moratorium is not the right way to address them.

Community leaders opposed to the moratorium presented a petition to the ANC leaders with more than 1,100 signatures. More than 150 people attended and 58 people spoke at the town hall. An overwhelming proportion, approximately 5 to 1, opposed the moratorium.

The crowd was as diverse as the community, with life-long residents and newcomers alike speaking in opposition to the moratorium. Fewer than 10 people spoke in support of the moratorium. Comments were impassioned, but civil.

According to the meeting announcement from the ANCs,

The moratorium, as proposed, would seek to prohibit all future liquor licenses with the exception of full service grocery stores, it seeks to cap CT and CN licenses as well, and has been requested to be a 5-year moratorium. The boundaries of the moratorium as proposed and filed with ABRA, extend 1800 feet in either direction from Ben's Chili Bowl. This goes north to Clifton Street, south to R Street, east to just before Georgia Avenue. between 7th and 8th streets, and west to just west of 16th Street. overlapping New Hampshire Avenue. NW.
The community discussed a liquor license moratorium for the neighborhood in 2009, when a committee of residents studied the "ARTS" zoning overlay for 14th and U streets and made recommendations to modify it. There were 8 public meetings, and the 27 area ANC commissioners advised increasing the number of liquor licenses in the area.

Moratorium brings harm in Adams Morgan

Business leaders in Adams Morgan are now preparing for an upcoming March 2014 review of the moratorium in their community. A major nightlife destination, Adams Morgan is often invoked as a sort of boogeyman for policy impacting commercial districts, a warning of what might happen on U Street if something is not done to curb issues of noise, trash and crime.

But along 18th Street, the heart of Adams Morgan, a moratorium means that the kinds of businesses that might actually mitigate some of these issueslike higher end restaurantsaren't able to move into vacant spaces unless they wish to purchase an existing liquor license, something that can cost up to $75,000 in the market the moratorium has created. In 2010, the Alcoholic Beverage Control board unanimously lifted a similar moratorium in Georgetown.

There are better solutions than a moratorium

Those of us who have served the U Street community understand that there are serious issues that need to be addressed as our commercial district continues to thrive. But a liquor license moratorium serves as a blunt instrument in a situation where more precision is needed.

There will certainly be cases when a proposed liquor establishment is not the right fit for the space it wishes to occupy. The community will often support an establishment but with certain caveats that can go in a legally-binding "settlement agreement," which serves as a rider to the liquor license. We already have tools to address these issues. But we also need to pursue long-term solutions to the other impacts when residents and businesses are situated so closely.

We should seek funding for hospitality initiatives that train and support business owners. We should support opportunities to create more daytime foot traffic that would support retailers such as offices or hotels. And we should come together around green initiatives that would reduce trash, noise and pollution.

A liquor license moratorium is not the solution to all of our problems. The community has spoken on this issue in the past as it did last night, and it's time to put it to rest so we can focus our attention on real solutions.

Real collaboration is what helped U Street begin to thrive more than 10 years ago and it is what will help us continue to grow in a way that fosters business growth while also making our neighborhood a great place to live.

Brianne Nadeau is the Vice-Chair of the Ward 1 Democrats, and was a Commissioner on ANC1B from 20062010. She is an active member of her prayer community, DC Minyan, and is a board member of Jews United for Justice. By day, she is an advisor to several non-profit organizations. Brianne resides on Belmont Street and has lived in Washington, DC since 2002. She is running for DC Council in Ward 1. 

Comments

Add a comment »

Did they lift the Georgetown one or abolish it? I thought once you get once of these you can't get rid of it.

Theoretically, if you created a market in these you could allocate them more efficiently. IN practice, the moratorium tends to keep crappy bars around longer as their asset goes up in price.

I ageee that Adams-Morgan (18th st) turned into a s***hole. Lots of lessons learned there. While it would be a disaster if U st turned into that, I think the bar to more interesting retail is the profusion of nail saloons, cell phone stores, and section 8 housing.

by charlie on Mar 21, 2013 10:29 am • linkreport

I think we are thinking about different U Streets, charlie. U Street has a great mix of retail and other uses. I mean obviously not all of them will cater to any one person - and I don't think it would be desirable if they did - but I definitely haven't noticed an overabundance of any of the things you listed. Frankly, I would be hard pressed to say where any of them are located on the corridor.

by Alan B. on Mar 21, 2013 10:41 am • linkreport

One of the opponents at last night's meeting said "Six people made us come here. It’s time to reform the system.” I couldn't agree more. As a homeowner and resident living in the heart of the proposed zone (the 1300 block of T Street), I am strongly opposed to the proposed moratorium.

by T Street on Mar 21, 2013 10:48 am • linkreport

One of my earliest blog entries is about the need to manage the night time economy way better, triggered by a planning initiative in Adams Morgan.

http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2005/03/dr-transit-offers-some-thoughts-on.html

I hate to admit I haven't read the BID Coalition's report on the night time economy.

http://www.dcbidcouncil.org/storage/Nighttime%20Economy%20Summit%20Report%20Feb%203%202012.pdf

Earlier in the week I learned that the UK allows a "late night levy" on night time establishments, to raise money to deal with the problems that they can cause, but I haven't written about it yet.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2012/9780111526309/contents

And awhile back came across a definitive bibliography on late night economy resources, although I can't seem to find the website at the moment.

In short, there are many resources to deal with this way better than we do, but by not reaching out beyond the limited experience within DC, we severely limit our ability to do way better.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/local-government-network/2012/nov/05/councils-manage-night-time-economy-drinking

http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/CommunityServices/CommunitySafety/Documents/24%20Hour%20City%20Policy.pdf

by Richard Layman on Mar 21, 2013 10:49 am • linkreport

In my personal opinion -- and as a resident of Adams Morgan - I think that the moratorium has not been harmful. A number of really great or decent restaurants have opened in the moratorium zone ... Mintwood Place (a James Beard semifinalist), Mellow Mushroom, TAAN, Sakuramen, Casa Oaxaca, Jack Rose, Southern Hospitality, and a number of smaller places such as Kogibow Bakery, Pleasant Pops Market, Otasty ... I could go on.

I really cannot say if the moratorium has directly contributed to Adams Morgan's slow rebirth, or is on the whole a great thing for the neighborhood -- but what I can say is that even with the moratorium in place, the area remains one of the most high-demand neighborhoods in the city, with a vibrant daytime and nighttime street scene, a lot of new development, and steadily high real estate prices. Truth is that the sort of "doom and gloom" predicted to befall neighborhoods in moratorium zones has not really come to pass.

by Scoot on Mar 21, 2013 10:51 am • linkreport

"I ageee that Adams-Morgan (18th st) turned into a sh*thole."

Charlie, what are you talking about? Rents there remain very high and it remains a highly desireable location for both residential and commercial rents.

by Cavan on Mar 21, 2013 11:04 am • linkreport

@charlie
I ageee that Adams-Morgan (18th st) turned into a shithole. Lots of lessons learned there.

This makes me wonder, when was the last time you were even in Adams Morgan? It's a crowded place late on weekend nights just like plenty of neighborhoods. But there are plenty of regular restaurants that many of us frequent and many of us like living there.

by MLD on Mar 21, 2013 11:08 am • linkreport

If the goal is to have more high-end places and mitigate negative externalities, they should institute an extra annual fee for each license in the area. The extra fees can go toward more security, cleanup crews, and community benefits like parks or transit/bikeshare. The extra fees also ensure that marginal establishments are not able to operate profitably, freeing up space for better establishments.

Instituting a moratorium just creates a huge payday for existing license holders since they can now sell their licenses for tons of money.

by Falls Church on Mar 21, 2013 11:12 am • linkreport

@FC +1 million

by Richard Layman on Mar 21, 2013 11:17 am • linkreport

This moratorium is so ridiculous especially the pleas for "more retail." In case the NIMBYs hadn't noticed, there is a bunch of retail on U St, a lot of it relatively new and well within this zone. Check out the block between 15th and 16th, tons of vintage shops, the comics store, spa, the crepe/gelato shop, service oriented businesses like the optometrist’s office, the State Farm insurance office etc.

Further east on U, again, inside the zone, Off Road Cycling has recently opened, there’s multiple tattoo shops, a new dry cleaner and yoga studio at 13th, several realtors and there’s still space sitting vacant. This seems like balanced development to me.

by DCUnionGuy on Mar 21, 2013 11:19 am • linkreport

Just like zoning requirements for parking do not solve issues with on-street parking management, a liquor license moratorium will not solve the problems of nightlife management.

If you want to solve the problem, you have to actually address the problem! The annual fee idea is one way, another would be a BID, there are lots of potential solutions to the issue.

But a moratorium a) won't solve the stated problem, and b) will introduce a lot more problems as unintended consequences.

by Alex B. on Mar 21, 2013 11:28 am • linkreport

@Charlie,

Georgetown amended moratorium to add seven licenses after a period of ~20 years.

by Michael Hamilton on Mar 21, 2013 11:30 am • linkreport

the license add on idea is interesting. How about a tax on liquor - or well, an additional tax on liquor in a particular zone that is dedicated to dealing with the problems. If the issue is general crime, trash etc rather than bars/restaurants displacing other retail, it seems like a tax on liquor might be better than a license fee.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 21, 2013 11:31 am • linkreport

How about a tax on liquor - or well, an additional tax on liquor in a particular zone that is dedicated to dealing with the problems.

I think the problem is not with the lack of funding available to solve these issues, but with the lack of politically viable solutions. A tax would enable a dedicated source of funding for solving these problems, but the funding would still need to be applied in an intelligent way. On the other hand, whatever marginal tax is levied on businesses would just be passed right on to the patron.

by Scoot on Mar 21, 2013 11:39 am • linkreport

Just as a comment/correction, the total of people speaking against the moratorium was 7:1, not 5:1. More importantly, those speaking for it consisted of all the listed members of the SDCA board on their website, plus spouses and partners. This moratorium is being driven by a handful of disgruntled residents who are in disagreement with the vast majority of their neighbors in the affected area.

by Circle Thomas on Mar 21, 2013 11:46 am • linkreport

In response to Thomas Circle, I'm cutting and pasting a comment on another blog on the make-up of the SDCA. Pretty extraordinary.

"Two SDCA officers (one of whom is the president) live at the same address. The Vice President and one of the board members also live at the same address. And the Treasurer and the other board member are long-time next door neighbors on Wallach Place. Thus, the leadership of the SDCA — which purports to speak for the 'neighborhood' — actually consists of only 5 households. Moreover, four of the five households receive something from the DC government that the large majority of their neighbors do not: substantial real property tax breaks. In some instances, SDCA officers and board members are paying less than 1/2 of the property taxes that newer residents such as myself are paying for similarly assessed properties. I’m fine with property tax breaks for lower or moderate income residents of our neighborhood who truly need it, but the leadership of the SDCA does not fall into this category. Case in point: Joan Sterling, the SDCA’s president, couldn’t make the last meeting of the ANC’s ABC committee because she was in Geneva on business. Why are we giving property tax breaks to world travelers, who then tell the rest of us that we can’t have what we want in our own neighborhood?"

by Interesting on Mar 21, 2013 11:56 am • linkreport

@Interesting: so instead of addressing and refuting their points, valid or not, you are going after their tax status? If ever there was an argument for anonymity, that is it.

by goldfish on Mar 21, 2013 12:21 pm • linkreport

@Interesting
In some instances, SDCA officers and board members are paying less than 1/2 of the property taxes that newer residents such as myself are paying for similarly assessed properties.

I'm against the moratorium but I can't see the point of personally attacking these people in this way. Is there some reason they pay less in property taxes?

Pointing out that it's 5 households worth of people is a valid criticism but this tax stuff seems A. without proof and B. irrelevant.

by MLD on Mar 21, 2013 12:28 pm • linkreport

Though it's certainly fair to tax business activity to mitigate the activity's negative externalities, adding yet another tax to U Street business has the situation backwords: the District collects more in tax revenue on U Street with a nightlife scene than without it.

U Street and other nightlife districts create several sources of tax revenue that ordinary commercial districts do not create:

  • "Premium" sales tax revenue of 10% (instead of the District's 6% sales tax) on all alcohol and restaurant meals.
  • Taxable business sales activity until last call, often 2 am, which is far longer than a clothing store stays open.
  • Commercial real estate taxes of $1.65 per $100 of assessed value ($1.85 for properties over $3M), as opposed to $0.85 per $100 for residential property. The more revenue a property can generate through its businesses, the higher its assessed value will rise. Thus, the higher the economic activity (i.e. a bar or restaurant as opposed to a low-margin clothing store), the higher the rent. The higher the rent, the higher the property value. The higher the property value, the higher the property tax revenue.
  • Greater capture of Maryland and Virginia consumer spending. Marylanders and Virginians are far more willing to come to U Street to open their wallets at bars than to shop for iPods, which they can already buy in Bethesda, Arlington, and Fairfax.

U Street businesses are already generating tax revenue above and beyond what typical retail districts create. When I hear a councilmember suggest that U Street businesses need to pay extra for more police, I'm skeptical.

by Eric F. on Mar 21, 2013 12:42 pm • linkreport

@MLD

The reason they pay less in property taxes is because of the limit on increases on property taxes. This was put into place to (presumably) help lower income people avoid HUGE property tax increases, in reality, it is helping people who paid $350,000 for a 3 BR on Wallach place in 2000 pay 1/2 as much as their neighbors who bought in 2013.

It is certainly relevant that 5 houses are trying to impose a moratorium on a huge neighborhood.

In regards to proof, it is very easy to look up how much each house pays in property taxes. Find the address, put it in here:

https://www.taxpayerservicecenter.com/RP_Search.jsp?search_type=Assessment

For example, I found that the person who owned my house paid a total of about $4,000 in property taxes from 2000-2010, and I am now paying $1,400 a year. Whether this is all irrelevant is another issue, and should be debated (VIGOROUSLY) when one of the idiots running for Mayor proposes to change the property tax max increase from 10 to 5, in an effort to win the "long-term-resident" vote. All these caps do is make sure that neighbors pay different amounts based on when they bought their house.

by Kyle-W on Mar 21, 2013 1:08 pm • linkreport

The reason they pay less in property taxes is because of the limit on increases on property taxes.

Then this is a tax policy issue people have with the council or the mayor, not something that should be used against individuals in a debate unrelated to that tax policy.

If you want to discredit them, then use the facts: it's a group of 10 people trying to portray themselves as the voice of the neighborhood and the meeting this week exposed them as nothing of the sort.

Smearing them with irrelevant criticism about tax policy is total amateur hour behavior. But unfortunately all too common in DC neighborhood politics.

by MLD on Mar 21, 2013 1:20 pm • linkreport

@MLD: "These people," as you put it, have put themselves out there. They've set up an "neighborhood" association and purport to speak for neighborhood residents. It's certainly appropriate to research exactly who this "neighborhood" association is, and when it turns out that this "neighborhood" association is actually little more than a band of relatives and friends who do not truly speak for the "neighborhood" that this be pointed out to the unaware. As for the tax breaks, I for one happen to think that a pre-requisite for shoving your views down your neighbors' throats is that you pay the same taxes as them -- if you can. These folks are clearly perfectly capable of paying the same taxes as the rest of us.

I'll tell you what -- give me a tax break and I'll support the moratorium.

by Interesting on Mar 21, 2013 1:26 pm • linkreport

I take umbrage to the fact that membership in the SDCA is restricted to a few blocks and that all other residents are prohibited from taking part in the so-called "neighborhood association."

by 13 and V on Mar 21, 2013 1:31 pm • linkreport

@Interesting
"These people," as you put it, have put themselves out there.
Absolutely true.
It's certainly appropriate to research exactly who this "neighborhood" association is, and when it turns out that this "neighborhood" association is actually little more than a band of relatives and friends who do not truly speak for the "neighborhood" that this be pointed out to the unaware.
Exactly what I said.
As for the tax breaks, I for one happen to think that a pre-requisite for shoving your views down your neighbors' throats is that you pay the same taxes as them -- if you can.
A noble position but I'm not sure what it has to do with them personally. They pay the taxes they are required to pay and that the city charges them. You act as if they are tax delinquents who requested favored status from the government. If you own a home with a mortgage you can take advantage of the mortgage interest tax deduction; those of us who rent cannot. There are plenty of other favored tax breaks around, I don't see you referencing the rest of them.

I'll tell you what -- give me a tax break and I'll support the moratorium.
Not sure why I would want that as I am against the moratorium.

All I am saying is that pointing out irrelevant things in an attempt to throw whatever you can at someone in the hope it sticks makes you look petty. There are plenty of non-petty reasons these people shouldn't be listened to - first and foremost that almost nobody agrees with them as we saw.

by MLD on Mar 21, 2013 1:44 pm • linkreport

@MLD

My apologies, I did not make clear that I don't believe their tax status/payments have any relevancy here.

I do think it is wildly outrageous that these groups are able to wield such outsized influence, and am happy to see them finally being called on it though.

by Kyle-W on Mar 21, 2013 1:56 pm • linkreport

"Pointing out irrelevant things in an attempt to throw whatever you can at someone in the hope it sticks makes you look petty."

I don't think it's irrelevant. To the contrary, I think it's further evidence of their self-interested -- rather than community -- mindset. The neighborhood develops, property values increase, and their taxes go up.

But you're free to disagree, as you have done.

by Interesting on Mar 21, 2013 1:58 pm • linkreport

the District collects more in tax revenue on U Street with a nightlife scene than without it.

The District also provides more services to U ST with a nightlife scene than without. If businesses don't want to pay the extra fee/tax, they can move a few blocks East to Florida in Ledroit Park or to 9th/7th streets in Shaw.

That said, if residents of U ST are totally happy with the present situation, there's really no need to change anything.

by Falls Church on Mar 21, 2013 2:07 pm • linkreport

As for the tax breaks, I for one happen to think that a pre-requisite for shoving your views down your neighbors' throats is that you pay the same taxes as them -- if you can.

What if I pay more property taxes than you do? Does that my opinion should be weighted more than yours? What about the renters in the neighborhood?

by Scoot on Mar 21, 2013 2:15 pm • linkreport

I'll respond one last time, and that's it. This is a side issue and not worth focusing on.

Any renter looking for an apartment near U Street to rent today and who doesn't qualify for rental assistance will pay market rent. Any buyer looking to buy on U Street today will pay "market" property taxes. So, as far as I'm concerned, they're even.

I have no problem with the DC government assisting people who need assistance with either subsidized rents or their taxes breaks.

The problem I have with these people is that they don't fall into either category, and I'll tell you what: they don't want any of us newcomers here, but when they sell, they'll sell to a newcomer and pocket the full profit that they make, not just the part that they paid taxes on. And, in the meatime, they'll make the rest of us miserable while paying less taxes.

by Interesting on Mar 21, 2013 2:32 pm • linkreport

To the contrary, I think it's further evidence of their self-interested -- rather than community -- mindset.
That could be the case but again what's the reason to believe they specifically requested that preference?

The neighborhood develops, property values increase, and their taxes go up.
That's an entirely separate issue from the assertion you made previously. And it is actually relevant and evidence of self-interest.

by MLD on Mar 21, 2013 2:38 pm • linkreport

I'll respond one last time, and that's it. This is a side issue and not worth focusing on.

You did not answer my question, but you're right, it is a side issue not worth focusing on -- however, you were the one who brought it up in the first place.

In my opinion, it should not matter how much taxes those people pay. Let's not play an "us versus them" game unless you are willing to concede that anyone who pays more property taxes than you do should have a bigger say in the neighborhood's direction.

If their concerns are valid and rational, then they deserve an audience with the ANC, just as anyone else -- regardless of their size, how much taxes they pay, or the makeup of their board. Did these people purport to speak for the entire community, or only for their own organization?

by Scoot on Mar 21, 2013 3:34 pm • linkreport

I'll tell you what: they don't want any of us newcomers here, but when they sell, they'll sell to a newcomer and pocket the full profit that they make, not just the part that they paid taxes on. And, in the meatime, they'll make the rest of us miserable while paying less taxes.

Then you should take issue with the homestead exemption and capped annual increases in general, not in regard to these individuals in particular. The inital comment made it sound like they were recieving some extra tax break specifically for them, but that is not the case - this is standard across the city.

Since it is standard across the city, it's not going to be a very effective argument in making the case against the moratorium. You're right, it's a side issue. So why bring it up?

by Alex B. on Mar 21, 2013 3:44 pm • linkreport

Darn . . . I'll take the bait one more time. I brought it up because it annoys me. Because THEY annoy me. Because I pay double their taxes and they're shoving their views down my throat. Ok? Can't a guy bitch a little on an anonymous blog?????

by Interesting on Mar 21, 2013 3:52 pm • linkreport

I feel your pain ;)

I guess some people thought this was actually coming in up in your ANC.

Also this blog does get some coverage from time to time, so some people may be a bit sensitive - there have been some (i think unfair) harsh things said about this blog, sometimes based on what commentors have said.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 21, 2013 4:00 pm • linkreport

@Interesting

I understand where you are coming from, but try not to let your emotions cloud your capacity for rational judgment.

by Scoot on Mar 21, 2013 4:31 pm • linkreport

Ugh. Now I have to respond again!

I don't think it's entirely irrational to get annoyed at neighbors who make plenty of money yet pay half my property taxes to presume to tell me what my newly-chosen neighborhood should look like and that my views should count less than theirs simply because they've lived here longer. And that, my friend, is absolutely what they think. No question about it.

by Interesting on Mar 21, 2013 4:48 pm • linkreport

@Interesting, I would be annoyed too. I think probably a bunch of readers who aren't commenting understand your annoyance. The primary annoyance is that this small group is very vocal and out front on the issue and claims to represent the majority view of the neighborhood, when there is evidence they don't. The rest of the details about these pushy busy-bodies is salt in that wound. That's how I see it.

by Tina on Mar 21, 2013 5:01 pm • linkreport

@Tina, extraordinarily well said and a good way to end this discussion.

by Interesting on Mar 21, 2013 5:05 pm • linkreport

The tax break they get is for investing in the neighborhood before it was a sure thing. The taxes are going up every year until they reach assessed value or the property is sold. During the boom of the 2000's property values tripled or quadrupled overnight, while incomes didn't. The 10% cap annually was instituted to protect residents who invested when this was the murder capital and vacant lots were all around.

There was no protection for commercial properties which did see taxes go through the roof. from in one case I remember it went from $8000 to $30,000 annually with no additional foot traffic and construction next door.

The commercial property tax was lowered to .95 cent per $100,000 assessed value for the first $3 million in value as a relief for small businesses in 2007 or 8, however the recession hit and Fenty raised it back to 1.70 before it could go into effect. We were hoping that reduction would have been in place and then we could have asked easily asked businesses to pay the .15 cent towards a BID, the rate in Cap Hill and Georgetown.

A tax break for preferred uses could be used as a business retention tool for the area. Attraction is not the issue. Trader Joes is coming. Retention is the challenge. What are those businesses we can't afford to lose. Also if people want the Apple Store, then make the city put it in the Reeves Building for $1 a year rent. The draw would feed the entire corridor and activate a dead building, paying for itself many times over.

by Scott P on Mar 21, 2013 7:01 pm • linkreport

Baloney. The tax break was applied everywhere in the city, from the ghetto in Anacostia to the most posh neighborhoods in upper northwest. There were never vacant lots in Spring Valley - it was always a "sure thing."

by Steve on Mar 21, 2013 7:59 pm • linkreport

It was applied everywhere, but the effect in Spring Valley was different and less pronounced than in other parts. It also had little effect on those areas that were not seeing major growth and were not of high value where there were only vacant lots.

However, as the city was coming out of receivership areas that had not seen any type of sustained growth for decades were all of a sudden parts being inflated by major development occurring. It provides a norming effect in those type of situations.

I leave it up to someone else to determine if the residential policy needs review given the current state of the city. However I will continue to advocate for serious tax reform for the purpose of retention of small business and to provide the services required to adapt and manage the growth .

The city has been milking revenue from this neighborhood for well over a decade, however services have not improved at the same level as value and taxes, particularly for the commercial area. I would like to see 10 cent sof the existing commercial property taxes put into a matching BID fund for management of the area and/or I would like to see the Reeves Building, Rec Center, Police Station, Grimke Building, and Garnett Patterson contribute in a BID formula, not just the businesses that we regulate.

If we had had a TIFF district in place here then we could have captured that value to use for attraction and retention, but that is coulda, woulda, shoulda. We can do some things now to make it easier for landlords who want to keep their existing small businesses but also experience the rewards of their investments. That is the role of the city if retail is what is needed to provide a healthy balance, its what they do for the big companies they want to keep or attract here.

by Scott P on Mar 21, 2013 8:32 pm • linkreport

[This comment has been deleted for violating the comment policy.]

by selxic on Mar 22, 2013 7:22 am • linkreport

I would like to add that the band of 5 households claiming to represent the whole neighborhood has deep roots in opposing all of the new and proposed developments planned for our neighborhood. They've fought every developer on height, massing, density, and design. They basically are against any new people moving into the area. They claim to want better retail options yet deny the area the density that would create demand for better retail. I urge everyone who feels passionately about this moratorium issue to also support the city and developers for any planned building to ensure we get the needed residents and help shape our neighborhood.

by Logan Res on Mar 23, 2013 10:49 am • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

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

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

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

or

Support Us

How can our region be greater?

DC Maryland Virginia Arlington Alexandria Montgomery Prince George's Fairfax Charles Prince William Loudoun Howard Anne Arundel Frederick Tysons Corner Baltimore Falls Church Fairfax City
CC BY-NC