Congratulations Mayor Fenty for preserving crime on R Street. Way to make the city safe for criminals.

by Redline SOS on Nov 16, 2010 8:36 am • link • report

Hey, I know that parking garage!

by Lydia DePillis on Nov 16, 2010 8:36 am • link • report

So, increasing a tax on private parking garages is OK, but the increased meter rates on street parking was a big campaign item for Gray - how can he explain this logical disconnect?

by Alex B. on Nov 16, 2010 8:49 am • link • report

A nail salon, a cell phone store, and a pet store. What exactly were they expecting under a Safeway? Tiffany's and a Fro-Yo?

by OX4 on Nov 16, 2010 8:56 am • link • report

Alex,

Easy, street parking is for the people, garage parking is for the rich.

by RJ on Nov 16, 2010 9:00 am • link • report

I'll chime in, and add that the NoMA BID is indeed fantastic, along with the efforts of ANC 6C04.

Unfortunately, there's almost no market-rate housing there. The existing condos in the neighborhood are outrageously expensive. They could cut the prices in half, and still not have to worry about crime.

by andrew on Nov 16, 2010 9:06 am • link • report

That R street article is a shame. It's one of the reasons I don't have much sympathy for the Gentrification is bad crowd. The gay men had as much right to live on that block as a black family in a rural deep south town. I lived on that block for nearly 10 years and had been taunted for the color of my skin. Proof once again equal, no matter how we come out.

by Thayer-D on Nov 16, 2010 9:08 am • link • report

The R Street article isn't surprising - MPD clearly underreports most black-on-white hate crimes b/c it's not worth the extra paperwork and the added attention.

Can you imagine the political uproar if a group of white youths had repeatedly beaten up a black man simply for daring to live in "their" building?

It would be non-stop on the news, politicians would demand immediate action, the police would be flooding the streets, and the Department of Justice would be launching investigations.

But when it's a group of black youth doing it to a gay white man, there's no attention and the police's advice is that he should walk on the other side of the street.

Remind me again why gentrification is a bad thing when dealing with sociopaths like this?

by Fritz on Nov 16, 2010 9:55 am • link • report

@Fritz: Life is so tough being white.

by Tim on Nov 16, 2010 10:19 am • link • report

A big part of making downtown walkable and urban is putting the parking for offices and residential underground. It makes it viable for surface lots to be developed.

Unless they limited the tax to private *commercial* garages this would not just be the commuter tax that everyone seems so anxious to back door into.

by Paul on Nov 16, 2010 10:20 am • link • report

@Lydia DePhillis:
Yeah, I just saw that garage a few weeks ago! Small world, eh?

by Matt Johnson on Nov 16, 2010 10:21 am • link • report

@Tim, I think I understand your meaning but your comment easily and justifiably sounds like you are saying the assault and battery committed against those men isn't important b/c they're white (or gay?). The police reaction to the crime, which is what Fritz was reacting to, sends that message.

by Tina on Nov 16, 2010 10:41 am • link • report

@Tim: Life would be less tough with less d-bags.

by Fritz on Nov 16, 2010 10:42 am • link • report

The R St apartment story is exactly why I'm opposed to government interfering with the market.

It reminds me of the story from last summer where black youths were throwing rocks at white families near the Potomac Gardens complex on Capitol Hill.

The government is obviously not protecting all of its citizens equally; I'd rather the market price them out of the neighborhood.

by mch on Nov 16, 2010 10:45 am • link • report

"Unfortunately, there's almost no market-rate housing there. The existing condos in the neighborhood are outrageously expensive. They could cut the prices in half, and still not have to worry about crime."

It sounds like the housing is indeed market-rate, its just that you can't afford the market.

by spookiness on Nov 16, 2010 10:55 am • link • report

@spookiness

I do suppose that's how you define "market rate." However, you can buy a rather large house in Near Northeast for considerably less than those condos. I don't understand what demographic they're trying to cater to. You could buy a very nice house in the same part of town, or buy a condo in a nicer part of town for the same amount of money.

Near Southeast is pretty much the same way, but has arguably fewer currently-existing amenities.

by andrew on Nov 16, 2010 11:04 am • link • report

Two white, gay men who moved into two of a small number of market-rate units in otherwise affordable 1400 block of R Street, NW...

Again, this is the problem when talking about "affordable housing" "IZ", etc, etc...

So, what does "otherwise affordable" housing mean? The linked TBD story says there are are a small number of market-rate units, but that the majority of this development is reserved for folks with "less than 60% of area median". In other words, households making anything from nothing all the way up to $40k.

Again, it's exactly this kind of thing that undermines the case for "affordable housing". The argument is "teachers and cops need somewhere to live"; the reality is a mob of poor people attacking gay people.

We really, really need to stop calling this "affordable housing" if we want to hold on to *any* level of support for these policies going forward. The city is trending more and more middle class. We have to be extremely careful about how we cultivate support for such policies in the near future. Otherwise, they're not going to be around for much longer.

by oboe on Nov 16, 2010 11:16 am • link • report

Isn't a bit disingenuous for Gray to say the parking tax hasn't been raised since the 1970s? It's a rate not a flat tax, so as parking prices increase so does the amount of tax paid. And will increasing it really balance the budget?

How about instead of raising the parking tax impose a new parking space fee of $15/space (or some other amount). Apply it not only to commercial garages but also to RPPs.

by ah on Nov 16, 2010 11:16 am • link • report

Shouldn't Petco do it New York style and put all the puppy-mill dogs on display in the windows?

by ah on Nov 16, 2010 11:17 am • link • report

@andrew

"market rate" is a term that is only useful when defining "market rate" vs. "below market rate." There is no such thing as "above market rate" housing - if something is too expensive for the market to bear, then it will remain unconsumed until either the price is lowered or the market prices rise to meet it.

"Below market rate" is housing that requires some kind of direct subsidy/zoning to keep it there - vouchers, requirements for X number of units at Y price, etc. "Market rate" is anything that doesn't need that.

by MLD on Nov 16, 2010 11:25 am • link • report

Increasing taxes on parking spaces is a good idea, but the devil is in the details.

You have to find a way to limit it to downtown garages. And yes, it should include "free" parking. (That parking isn't free. An employer pays for it)

But what you don't want to include is 75% of the district; a 7-11 or other small store where they have 2-3 spots for employees. That makes no sense.

And there is a significant negative blowback to jobs. I've seen any number of small tech companies in an incubation stage start off in the District, but as soon as they need more employees move out to Tysons. Rent is cheaper there are you're not paying $300 a month in parking.

That being said, there is some upwards room for underground parking downtown to go up.

by charlie on Nov 16, 2010 11:37 am • link • report

@andrew:

you can buy a rather large house in Near Northeast for considerably less than those condos. I don't understand what demographic they're trying to cater to.

I'd imagine it's the demographic that values the ability to walk to Logan Circle, 14th, the Whole Foods, etc...

You can buy three large houses in NE for the price of a tiny house in Georgetown. Of course, then you wouldn't be living in Georgetown.

by oboe on Nov 16, 2010 11:38 am • link • report

Best put by Monty Hoffman at the public presentation of the SW Waterfront project concerning the requirement for affordable housing and a possible pitch for work-force housing: "Well, currently, I guess the best way to put it is, we have affordable units planned and unaffordable units planned. Work-force would be somewhere in the middle."

I am an attorney and could never afford to live on the new SW Waterfront. But plenty of "poor folk" will be living there.

by Glenn on Nov 16, 2010 12:01 pm • link • report

@oboe I was talking about the places in NoMA which *is* in Northeast. My point was that new dwellings with the term "Luxury Apartment" attached to them have an extreme price premium attached to them, compared to older buildings that, in many cases have been refurbished to offer similar amenities.

I didn't mean to conflate this observation with the other ongoing conversation about gentrification in the Logan Circle area, although I suppose that it's somewhat relevant to that discussion as well -- "Affordable Housing" stipulations in large developments leave very little room for middle-class workers, never provide enough supply to meet the demand, and potentially may increase crime.

I was "lucky" enough to be offered one of the few low-income units in the Loree Grand (on K St NE, just outside of NoMA). Not only could I not afford the rent; I also happened to make too much money to qualify for it. The only stipulation under which somebody could live in that unit would have required them to spend half of their salary on rent alone.

I don't profess to have solutions to any of these problems, but it is a problem that will require a fair solution. "Pushing" low-income populations into neighboring areas does not reduce crime overall.

by andrew on Nov 16, 2010 12:11 pm • link • report

oboe: I can scarcely afford to live at the market rate, but I can't afford not to live in the District, either. I happen to be gay and working poor, but in a circumstance like that I'd be treated as if I were a wealthy, insurgent "gentrifier" in my own neighborhood. And if I moved to northern Virginia - where I've never lived - our domestic partnership would be nullified. Even if we moved to Maryland, my partner's contract to work with the DC Government would likely be voided.

Speaking of which, he has frequently skirted these sorts of attacks in Howard Town. Visitors from other neighborhoods exhort him to GTFO of "their" neighborhood even though they don't live there, and he's rented there for a decade. And this frustration, Tim, isn't borne out of bourgeois HRC-gay "OMG blek peepl" histrionics like John Aravosis complaining about how homicide "isn't supposed to happen" in Georgetown (as if it were "supposed to" happen east of the River). It's about being pre-judged in a way that threatens our lives. (This isn't even getting into out gay black men or transsexuals who are much more frequently bashed by straight patriarchal black men than white gay men are.)

by J.D. Hammond on Nov 16, 2010 2:32 pm • link • report

@Fritz, Can you imagine the political uproar if a group of white youths had repeatedly beaten up a black man simply for daring to live in "their" building?

It would be non-stop on the news, politicians would demand immediate action, the police would be flooding the streets, and the Department of Justice would be launching investigations.

But when it's a group of black youth doing it to a gay white man, there's no attention and the police's advice is that he should walk on the other side of the street.

Remind me again why gentrification is a bad thing when dealing with sociopaths like this?

So this is a race thing? You think? In 2008, a black gay male was attacked and later died from an "incident" involving yet another case of the "black youth" you refer to. The victim was near a logan circle club, accused of grabbing the assailants crotch, attempted to run and apparently knocked unconscious - never to recover. The little demon who did it received a simple assault charge and should be out of jail now.

Do you recall the streets of DC being flooded, politicians calling for heads to roll, or the DOJ's involvement in this crime? I don't and live here in the city.

Considering the above, maybe the issue is about sexuality moreso than race?

by HogWash on Nov 16, 2010 3:01 pm • link • report

I wish there was some sort of "three strikes" law in place for residents of "affordable" housing. As in, we (the city) will provide you with an affordable place to live providing you're a decent, law-abiding citizen who respects the neighbors. Three crimes = See you later. Go find somewhere else to call home - you'll have forfeited your privileges to live here on the taxpayers' dime.

There are PLENTY of poor people out there who would do just about anything to get their foot in the door at 14th & R - Poor people who would respect their neighbors and contribute more to society than crime, intimidation, or harassment. Get THOSE people here - kick the trash to the curb.

by Josh C. on Nov 16, 2010 3:27 pm • link • report

@ Hogwash,
I think you're right that there is virulent homophobia in parts of the black community, but any white person who's casually strolled through a black low income community is accutly aware of the racial tension. To be fair though there are working class communities regardless of race that would behave antagonistically towards anyone that is seen as different. Wierd to say, but unfortunatley for race relations, we don't have any white working class communities, so it seems one sided. I just wish our schools and politicians would accnowledge the scientific fact that +/- 10% of all human populations are homosexual, and therefore any prejudice will not be tolerated. This type of resentment will never disappear entirely, but every public official should come straight out and demand protection of all of our citizens, or else the bullies win.

by Thayer-D on Nov 16, 2010 3:28 pm • link • report

Oh ho! And, just as predicted, they want queer residents to "get out" [of] a neighborhood they claim to possess but don't even actually live in:

"Neither of these men actually lives inside the complex they allegedly policed against gay men. Speight listed his address with the courts on Riggs Street, a block north of R; Olden listed an address in Capitol Heights, Md. (OldenÂ’s attorney declined comment on the case; SpeightÂ’s attorney did not return a request)."

So predictable.

by J.D. Hammond on Nov 16, 2010 3:29 pm • link • report

Side note:

I realize in *this* particular incident, the residents of the building in question were not the perpetrators of the crime... I was speaking strictly in general terms.

by Josh C. on Nov 16, 2010 3:35 pm • link • report

is "otherwise affordable" a euphemism for section-8 housing?

by pete on Nov 16, 2010 5:55 pm • link • report

I was "lucky" enough to be offered one of the few low-income units...I also happened to make too much money to qualify for it.

I don't get this. How is it you were offered the unit if you didn't qualify?

by Mohammed on Nov 17, 2010 11:51 am • link • report