If students are forced to register as DC students in order to get parking privilleges, then they should also be eligible for DC resident tuition rates.

Instead of requiring them to establish residency DC should require people that domicile their car in DC to pay for a tax "sticker" the way Virginia does. I used quotes because Fairfax and other counties have done away with this sticker, but still require non-residents to purchase this.

by TGEoA on Apr 6, 2011 10:00 am • link • report

If students are forced to register as DC students in order to get parking privilleges, then they should also be eligible for DC resident tuition rates.

Not sure how these two things are linked. Could you elaborate?

by oboe on Apr 6, 2011 10:10 am • link • report

@oboe

Ooops, I meant if students are forced register as DC residents.

by TGEoA on Apr 6, 2011 10:14 am • link • report

Of course, each university has different rules on how they define residency for tuition purposes - and those rules are almost universally different from the legal definitions of residency for the purposes of, say, registering to vote locally, or registering one's car for an RPP sticker.

by Alex B. on Apr 6, 2011 10:23 am • link • report

Except for UDC aren't all the universities in DC private anyway? While I'm sure they have programs for kids who graduate from DCPS I don't think they'd allow a student to retroactively apply for something like that.

by Canaan on Apr 6, 2011 10:26 am • link • report

Jimmy Christmas...why do they need more than 270 parking spaces at the Hine site for only 149 units? On top of a Metro stop? In one of the most walkable neighborhoods in America? DCUSA you have some competition.

why is increased density in a neighborhood which has density enough, such good thing?

Oh brother.

by David C on Apr 6, 2011 10:42 am • link • report

@Canaan

Sure, but there are other reasons besides tuition that a student might want to keep their legal residence elsewhere - perhaps they value their political representation in Congress.

I brought up in-state tuition because these kinds of town-gown issues aren't unique to DC.

by Alex B. on Apr 6, 2011 10:48 am • link • report

Interesting link on CityCenter. The District is receiving $500,000 annual as rent for the property. That translates to $15M over the course of 30 years (i.e. the length of a standard mortgage.) Yet, for the condos alone the developer expects to bring in between $162M and $194.4M in sales revenue within a few years time. That's not counting the rent on the 458 apartments (about $1M a year for an avg rental of $2,000 per month) or the "185,000 square feet of retail, 515,000 square feet of offices and four levels of underground parking" whose revenues will unlikely dwarf the returns being brought in by the housing (condo/apartments).

Someone got a sweetheart deal here ...

by Lance on Apr 6, 2011 10:48 am • link • report

Alex,
I definitely understand that, I was rather responding to the assertion that being a DC resident could get you in state (for lack of a better term) tuition because the major schools here are all private. Thus nullifying any advantage that may have.

by Canaan on Apr 6, 2011 10:57 am • link • report

Right - my point is that many universities nullify that advantage anyway (in order to prevent students from paying one semester of out-state tuition, changing their residency, and then paying the lower, in-state rate).

I guess the point is that a student's choice for legal residency is a complicated decision based on a number of factors. Given the fact that most are still technically considered dependents, it's not a black and white issues, really.

by Alex B. on Apr 6, 2011 11:02 am • link • report

Someone got a sweetheart deal here ...

Don't forget tax revenue. If the developer is bringing in $194m in rent, they'll pay income and property tax on that.

by andrew on Apr 6, 2011 11:15 am • link • report

The 1000 sq. ft. condos at CityCenter strike me as a little large for downtown. The trend has been to small more affordable and energy efficient sizes. In the the 50's the average family of 4.3 lived in less than 1000 sq. ft.

Four levels of underground parking also seems excessive.

The rent to DC does seems very low by market standards. But then DC often gives land away and provides subsidies. It's not like we need money or anything.

by Tom Coumaris on Apr 6, 2011 11:21 am • link • report

There's an easy way to force everyone -- developers, the Office of Planning, etc. -- to be when honest when it comes to the appropriate level of off-street parking for dense residential or mixed-use development. While some developers want to build more off-street parking than may be necessary because they feel that's what new residents want, others seek to build less than zoning minimums, because off-street, particularly underground, parking is expensive.

OP and DDOT argue that if you build more off-stree parking, more people will drive, and less parking is needed in proximity to transit.

Existing residents fear that less off-street parking from more development will just mean more and more motorists competing for scarce on-street parking and allow developers to shift their parking costs on to public space.

So, what to do? In Arlington, to get permission to build less parking than minimums in transit-oriented zones, the developer has to covenant that the new project will not be eligible for the residential parking permit program. This has also been a provision in some PUD zoning orders in D.C. This way, the developer is forced to build a realistic amount of off-street parking, transit use is encouraged and the the added parking burden on adjacent streets is lessened (and a frequent issue in opposition to in-fill development is addressed).

And finally, raise the fees to obtain an RPP sticker, or at least have progressively rising fees for multiple cars registered to the same household address.

by Bob on Apr 6, 2011 11:26 am • link • report

@Andrew 'don't forget tax revenue. If the developer is bringing in $194m in rent, they'll pay income and property tax on that.'

That's a given. When I buy a property from someone (anyone) they don't figure in what extra taxes the government is going to be able to bring in. The government shouldn't either ... unless they really expect no one to want to build on this site and they'd get no tax revenue. Given it's location, I don't think that's in the realm of possibility ... so, increased tax revenue can't and shouldn't be viewed as 'extra rent' ... It's not.. And that's not even considering the fact that all those condos, apartments, retail, offices, parking garages will be costing the city money in terms of increased services. And isn't that what taxes are all about anyways? i.e.. to pay for municipal services. It's not like the developer's constructing a nice central park there that would increase demand on our already tight services budgets ...

Someone got quite a sweetheart deal here. This calls for an investigation.

by Lance on Apr 6, 2011 11:39 am • link • report

*It's not like the developer's constructing a nice central park there that would NOT
increase demand on our already tight services budgets ...

.

by Lance on Apr 6, 2011 11:41 am • link • report

@Lance. Yep, very sweetheart.

And given that, as we height people like to tell us, this is the last 10 acres of DC, I think ANY developer would have been happy to put up condos....

by charlie on Apr 6, 2011 11:42 am • link • report

@David C: "...why do they need more than 270 parking spaces at the Hine site for only 149 units? On top of a Metro stop? In one of the most walkable neighborhoods in America? "

I wasn't there last night, but let me speculate that it is the flea market vendors that need them. They drive in every Saturday and Sunday, and since they are carrying a quite lot, could never take Metro.

by goldfish on Apr 6, 2011 11:48 am • link • report

@Bob 'So, what to do? In Arlington, to get permission to build less parking than minimums in transit-oriented zones, the developer has to covenant that the new project will not be eligible for the residential parking permit program.

This is a good idea except it creates a 'second class resident' in a couple of ways. First there will always be resentment by the people buying/renting there as to why their neighbors can have parking and they can't. (And they'll probably successfully lobby their council one day to overturn the restriction.) Secondly, not all people will remain carless, childless, carefree forever ... Yet, these places where parking is not an option will forever be targeted to that one very very small demographic and be unable to change as the people living in there changes AND as the neighborood transitions along time. It's a bad idea. The rest of the country (and the world) are moving toward a 21st century norm where metroplexes are the 'one-city' and the most efficient means of getting people around is a combination of 'a little' mass transit and 'a lot' of personal transit. Keeping these residences stuck in an idealized version of the 19th century where people worked, played, ate within a few blocks of where they lived, is not doing anyone any favors.

by Lance on Apr 6, 2011 11:51 am • link • report

"And that's not even considering the fact that all those condos, apartments, retail, offices, parking garages will be costing the city money in terms of increased services."

Not that much. The biggest public expenditure is usually schools, and I highly doubt that married couples and 2.2 kids will be flocking to City Center and squirting out more. I can't see how this project would be a fiscal negative over the long haul.

by spookiness on Apr 6, 2011 11:54 am • link • report

goldfish, they reportedly need 100 spaces (which sounds like a lot. Looking at the Google maps "satellite" view - which happens to be taken on a flea market day - I count 45 vehicles parked there, but I'll go with it) that still leaves more than one space per rental unit.

In addition, I suspect there are other parking spaces and off-street lots that can be utilized that are not far away. Total waste.

by David C on Apr 6, 2011 11:55 am • link • report

@Lance
The rest of the country (and the world) are moving toward a 21st century norm where metroplexes are the 'one-city' and the most efficient means of getting people around is a combination of 'a little' mass transit and 'a lot' of personal transit

Umm, "citation please," as they say.

You know what's really not doing anyone any favors? Pretending that everyone is going to be able to have separate single-person car trips for every little thing when gas is $7 a gallon.

by MLD on Apr 6, 2011 11:58 am • link • report

goldfish and David C
take into consideration who we are dealing with when we talk about the CHRS- they are almost all elderly- and they all drive and want a suburban paradise in the city.
These people will not stop until there are 5 parking places for every man woman and criminal in the city. Parking is their main concern- other than keeping density to an absolute minimum. Yes- this is horrible- and it is right next to a metro station- and as such- should have an underground connection to metro- and much more density.CHRS will fight tooth and nail to keep out new people, streetcars, bicycles, and proper historic mixed use of corner buildings that are now all residential. The CHRS is not for historic preservation and they are NOT in favor of bringing back or preserving the urban infrastructure or urban fabric that works. They are all car-oriented IDIOTS.

by w on Apr 6, 2011 12:19 pm • link • report

re: racial breakdown of cyclists - the chart is wrong, because the biking percentage is non-hispanic whites and the population percentage is all whites. The actual white population is 66%. Meaning that the demographic breakdown does NOT match the population. [If you add up the red bars, you get 100%, but if you add up the gray bars you get 107%]

by David C on Apr 6, 2011 12:28 pm • link • report

Bear in mind that flea market vendors sell a lot of art and furniture. Dressers, paintings, that sort of thing. People that go there to buy these things cannot reasonably take Metro.

Also the main market is all food, and if you are more than a short walk away and buy more than a few dollars worth, many customers will need to drive. The lot behind Hines is now has one of those pay stations.

I happen to live near there, and the parking gets quite tight on Saturday and Sunday mornings when the weather is nice. Many residents I know use that time to run errands or go to soccer (with their cars), and there is fierce competition for parking with people displaying VA and MD tags. The affected area extends from 4th to 11th St and E. Cap to G, about 7x8 or 56 city blocks. Compared to that, 100 spaces does not sound like a lot.

by goldfish on Apr 6, 2011 12:36 pm • link • report

goldfish, I have a $1 off coupon to baskin-robbins that says that this lot will never be full.

by David C on Apr 6, 2011 12:53 pm • link • report

I'll take that bet; but "never" is a long time. Shall we give it a year after the project is complete?

by goldfish on Apr 6, 2011 1:00 pm • link • report

@David, doesn't w's comment: 'They are all car-oriented IDIOTS.' violate some GGW policy?

by Lance on Apr 6, 2011 1:01 pm • link • report

goldfish my grandparents - and their parents before them- were from the neighborhood and when they were kids no one had cars and everyone on CH & the Navy Yard took the streetcars. People also bicycled- no one had any problem with this at all until they took away the streetcars. You DO NOT NEED to drive or to park to get food at the eastern market. There are bike shares- and there is a new bike store that actually sells bikes with baskets- yes you can also use a bicycle to get groceries- and many people around the world do exactly this- but the old farts who live around eastern market, they all have 2-4 cars and want free parking rights as though it were some kind of constitutional entitlement. Yes- these people DO INDEED have a sense of entitlement- to parking rights. damned be everyone else who has to walk, cycle or take transit- this is just not good enough for these people.

by w on Apr 6, 2011 1:03 pm • link • report

1 year it is. I look forward to my discounted ice cream.

by David C on Apr 6, 2011 1:08 pm • link • report

@w -- Pish. The houses on my block were built in the early 20s. They have automobile garages, with fire-proof ceilings. Their model-T dimensions were too small for my miata.

by goldfish on Apr 6, 2011 1:20 pm • link • report

@goldfish @Lance @w @David C, the urge to increase parking came upon the developer during March, a period when the developer consulted with CHRS about these plans.

The 100 spots for vendors is probably a little hefty--remember, vendors alone will be allowed to drive onto C Street to drop off and set up their wares early on Sat-Sun, then drive their truck away until the end of the Sat-Sun fleamarkets. Many (by no means all) of the vendors make do with a standard sedan, or at most a minivan, for setting up shop on the weekends. No way vendors suck up 100 parking spots.

Also, the 7th Street truck entrance to the underground parking will have a "truck dock" that will also be reserved for about a dozen or so vendor trucks and vans.

Parking gets competitive on Sat-Sun when the weather's nice, so maybe a few parking spots underground for our out-of-neighborhood Eastern Market visitors are warranted. I can tell you from observation, however, that Eastern Market Metro delivers a lot of Sat-Sun visitors.

Finally, a lot of the 270-ish parking spaces already in the plans include parking for office workers, who won't need all their parking spaces on weekends.

As for weekday parking, some of the housing is for visiting Shakespeare actors, who generally don't bring their cars. Most of the rest of the residences are high end residential, which I suspect will include some of those unfortunate elderly multi-car households. A citywide tax to discourage that, in the form of a high-cost vehicle tag on the second and third car registered to a particular household would work wonders in this neighborhood.

Expanding past 270 parking spaces does not seem to me to be indicated at this time. If the developer does move way past 270 parking spaces, as they indicated they might last night, I'd like to take that "empty parking lot" bet, too. It will be excessive parking for this location.

by Trulee Pist on Apr 6, 2011 1:41 pm • link • report

@Lance:

I haven't penciled out the returns, but I will state your numbers fail to address any debt service. It's not like the developer is making me money out of thin air. The cost to build the project is outstanding.

by Rayful Edmond on Apr 6, 2011 1:43 pm • link • report

@w and @goldfish

In 1919, there were 6.7 million cars in the US, one for every 3-4 households. In 1929, there were 27 million cars, nearly one per household (or one for every five Americans).

I guess it all depends on how old your grandparents were, and whether or not Capitol Hill was ahead of or behind the national trend.

by Jacques on Apr 6, 2011 1:44 pm • link • report

@Truly -- how much are the condos selling for, like $500-800k? Of course these residents will have more than one car.

by goldfish on Apr 6, 2011 1:49 pm • link • report

The CityPlace thing is starting to reek.

If the developer is only renting the property then DC is keeping ownership of the property which makes the property tax exempt.

There are plenty of developers who would love to buy a 10-acre tract in the middle of DC and pay cash and be willing to pay property taxes. For a city $100million in debt wouldn't a check for say $100million occur to anyone?

Who negotiated this awful deal?

by Tom Coumaris on Apr 6, 2011 1:52 pm • link • report

@Tom Coumaris

All of the articles on CityCenter say the development will be paying plenty in taxes annually.

From the WaPo article linked in the original post:

The District is leasing the property to Hines-Archstone for $500,000 annually over a 99-year period and expects to collect about $30 million annually in taxes.

by Alex B. on Apr 6, 2011 2:06 pm • link • report

CH/Navy Yard was right there at the forefront in terms of urban mass transit- the NY-Gtwn streetcar was running in the 1860's.
The CHRS should NOT be in the business of general neighborhood policies- they are supposed to be concerned with "historic preservation"- but have obviously dropped this from their charter- if they have one that is.CHRS is an unelected body that purports to represent the area and yet they seem to have extremely parochial views that do not coincide with the interests of the city at large- or the neighborhood either. If they were actually concerned about historic preservation, they would be fighting for a receivership law that would confiscate or claim abandoned properties instead of allowing them to fall down- as was the case with a house on the 900 block of C st s.e. a few months ago. Instead- CHRS spends their time and efforts fighting streetcars, density, compllaining about young people, pushing parking, interfering in development proposals that have little if anything at all to do with historic preservation. They harass individual property owners and allow the architect of the capitol to do what they want- and allow rich lawyer types to add pop-ups at request and w/o hassle. They need to go. There needs to be a real neighborhood council / organization of some kind- not a group of old fogies who are not representative of the changing demographic, and dynamic quality of a 21st century city.

by w on Apr 6, 2011 2:11 pm • link • report

Take Rockefeller Center. The land was owned by Columbia, how much were the rents? And that was in 1930.

And really, why a rental rather than an outright sale?

by charlie on Apr 6, 2011 2:15 pm • link • report

@Truly -- how much are the condos selling for, like $500-800k? Of course these residents will have more than one car.

I know, right? Too bad. Tax 'em back into the 20th C.

by Trulee Pist on Apr 6, 2011 2:29 pm • link • report

Alex B.

I never believe those projections of tax as in the past they've never held up.

$500K rent over 30 years ($15M) equals what would be a purchase price with interest of under $7M. Subtract the lost property taxes from DC retaining ownership and we're not getting much for the land on the promise that they'll bring some other revenue.

Why not sell the land for $100M, pay for the streetcars, and have property taxes on the entire project coming in to support the operation of the streetcars?

Ordinary people have to pay market rate for their homes, have to pay market rate interest and have to pay full property taxes. It's about time some of these well-connected developers start chipping in likewise.

This isn't some undesirable area that DC has to subsidize development of. It's 10 acres in the middle of downtown.

by Tom Coumaris on Apr 6, 2011 2:32 pm • link • report

@Tom,

That's fine - but you implied that the development wouldn't pay taxes, and that's clearly not the case - even if you disagree with the projections.

by Alex B. on Apr 6, 2011 2:34 pm • link • report

@w--That was 820 C Street SE. See Liz Festa's write-up here.

by goldfish on Apr 6, 2011 2:42 pm • link • report

@w, 'goldfish my grandparents - and their parents before them- were from the neighborhood and when they were kids no one had cars and everyone on CH & the Navy Yard took the streetcars. People also bicycled- no one had any problem with this at all until they took away the streetcars.

And men at the time generally oned one or two suits which they wore everyday and women stayed home and cooked ... going all out on Sunday with something other than the usual vegetables stew or soup and cabbage.

People didn't have all fancy clothes, go out a lot to restaurants or (for the men) have to go far for work because there were no suburbs ...

Welcome to the 21st Century. And thank God for it.

by Lance on Apr 6, 2011 2:50 pm • link • report

@David Alpert ... now w is saying 'but the old farts who live around eastern market'

... it's actually more than the use of old farts that's offensive it's the entire put down of anyone who doesn't agree with his/her myoptic view.

by Lance on Apr 6, 2011 2:53 pm • link • report

RE: Student parking.

The idea makes sense ONLY if it applies to ALL temporary residents, like congress. They should have to make their residency also in DC.

by JJJJJ on Apr 6, 2011 3:05 pm • link • report

@Rayful Edmond 'It's not like the developer is making me money out of thin air. The cost to build the project is outstanding.'

Okay .. and who IS 'me'? ....

by Lance on Apr 6, 2011 3:06 pm • link • report

The cost to build the project is outstanding.

I know and I didn't mean to imply that land aquisition costs were the only costs to be incurred. There's of course the hard costs and soft costs ... and the site preparation costs ... and the financing costs ... and the list goes on. But one would expect the land aquisition costs, especially in that particular location, to be a significant part of the costs of that project. But they're actually so insignificant in the scheme of things that its like the developer got the land for nothing. Whick one might have countenanced 15 years ago when no one except the District wanted to build there ... but not today when it is a coveted location. Especially given that it was public land that could have served a higher and better use as 'open space' in what is becoming an overly dense area not in keeping with the open-sky, broad avenues with green aprons 'look' that is Washington. The last thing we need in that part of town is more development.

by Lance on Apr 6, 2011 3:12 pm • link • report

Sort of like the C100 opinion of anyone or entity that doesn't agree with theirs?

by William on Apr 6, 2011 3:16 pm • link • report

@Goldfish '@Truly -- how much are the condos selling for, like $500-800k? Of course these residents will have more than one car.

Far more than that ... the linked article above says:

'A 1,000-square-foot residential condominium would cost $750,000 to $900,000.

I'd guess that since these are luxury condos, the smaller units will be 1,000 sq ft and the larger ones closer to 2,500 sq ft ... so prices would be between $750K for the smallest units and $2.25 Million for the larger ones.

by Lance on Apr 6, 2011 3:18 pm • link • report

The last thing we need in that part of town is more development

Really? Last time I looked, that parcel was in the center of the city (hence the name). I know some prefer the open vistas and no change, but this city needs to maximize jobs and revenue. Is it a better investment to leave the land fallow, or worse, as blacktop, or to have the city coffers expand, and have opportunity for new residents (who pay taxes) and new employment opportunities for said existing and new residents?

If you aren't going to build in the heart of downtown, and you aren't going to raise height limits, then how do you expect the city to grow?

by William on Apr 6, 2011 3:21 pm • link • report

Actually Tom is absolutely correct about no property taxes being paid ... Unless you consider payment in lieu of taxes which are being used to pay off the construction on the site 'a tax.'

'The Payment in Lieu of Tax (PILOT) program is tied to properties that currently are exempt from property taxes, such as DC- or federally-owned land that is being converted to private use. The old Convention Center site is an example. Under PILOT, the property remains tax-exempt when it is converted to private use and the owner makes a payment in lieu of tax instead. The PILOT payments are used to support the private development on that land. (More specifically, the city issues bonds to support the development, and the PILOT payment is used to repay the bond.)

i.e., The City Issues bonds that don't get taxed at the federal level (i.e., the people getting the interest from the bonds don't pay taxes on that income) because municipal debt is exempt from federal taxation ... The revenue from the sale of the bonds is used to build the buildings. The developer gets the rents and sales profits from the buildings. And the City used the 'fees in lieu of taxes' to paydown the bonds. In essense, the developer pays nothing ... But collects all revenues. This is a sham.

http://www.dcfpi.org/meeting-dcs-challenges-maintaining-fiscal-discipline-reforming-economic-development-programs-to-promote-job-creation-and-fiscally-responsible-use-of-public-funds

by Lance on Apr 6, 2011 3:34 pm • link • report

"i.e., The City Issues bonds that don't get taxed at the federal level (i.e., the people getting the interest from the bonds don't pay taxes on that income) because municipal debt is exempt from federal taxation"

I forgot to mention that this means that the city can issue at a lower than market rate since the people getting the income don't need to pay tax on it. This is usually the reason for this kind of financing.

by Lance on Apr 6, 2011 3:41 pm • link • report

Lance, do you know of any other offers? This is only a sweetheart deal if someone was offering more. From an older article:

The project will generate 3,000 development-related jobs and 2,500 direct permanent jobs. It will also generate a projected $32 million a year in annual direct tax revenues. According to developers, the District will receive more than $200 million in consideration for the land as part of the land lease including a minimum of $28.5 million in lease payments, $55 million to provide affordable housing on site, and $48 million in payments for new infrastructure. Two new streets, I and 10th, will be constructed through the site.

If there is a scandal here, I'm sure that someone has written about it by now right? It's been 3 years since the deal was announced.

by David C on Apr 6, 2011 3:48 pm • link • report

@William 'If you aren't going to build in the heart of downtown, and you aren't going to raise height limits, then how do you expect the city to grow?

I guess no one should be building in Northeast? or NoMa? or near Southeast .. or East of the River? ... or for that matter in Herndon or Howard County. That's right, if we can't build it where it's already saturated then 'we' don't want to build it.

by Lance on Apr 6, 2011 3:51 pm • link • report

And William, in case you missed it, at least a couple of us (myself and Richard Lyman) yesterday observed that this city owned parcel of land would have served a better and higher purpose as a central DC Square (not owned by the feds) which could operate at the local 'central square' ... I.e., hosting our state fairs, the circus, all the festivals we have (and try to squeeze into 'freedom park' over the weekend nowadays).

by Lance on Apr 6, 2011 3:54 pm • link • report

If there is a scandal here, I'm sure that someone has written about it by now right? It's been 3 years since the deal was announced.

There's a mention of it in the Dupont Forum:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DupontForum/message/5778

by Lance on Apr 6, 2011 4:03 pm • link • report

I didn't see it there. I saw a lot of talk about Jack Evans and the Convention Center Hotel deal, which is on another piece of land.

And I was looking for something with a little bit more veracity than a message board.

Again, do you know of any of the other offers DC got at the time?

by David C on Apr 6, 2011 4:11 pm • link • report

Lance, I think NoMa is planned to be fully built out in a few years time. Not much more opportunity there.

Northeast has plenty of potential, but needs a streetcar connection to be a truly viable option or alternative.

However, this parcel in question is in the heart of downtown and has served as an overflow parking lot for the past several years. Sure an occasional circus or tennis match is nice, but there are plenty of venues for those activities already in the city. The last time I checked, there were all sorts of open spaces (you know, the ones extolled as part of the L'Enfant Plan?) in DC.

In a perfect world, I could see the type of use envisioned by you and Richard Layman, but this isn't a perfect world, and according to the vaunted L'Enfant Plan (the one the C100 insists is the panacea for the District) the parcel in question is designed to be developed parcel commercial/retail/residential use within the city grid.

I am not fully disagreeing with you, but I think there needs to be a little bit of economic reality here as well.

by William on Apr 6, 2011 4:29 pm • link • report

@David C ... Do you really not think people would be beating the door down for this central piece of property? To suggest that in this location, and in downtown DC's current state of being, that no one would want to purchase this land for even a $1 (which would be a dollar more than we're getting now) doesn't hold water.

by Lance on Apr 6, 2011 4:30 pm • link • report

@William 'The last time I checked, there were all sorts of open spaces (you know, the ones extolled as part of the L'Enfant Plan?) in DC.

Those are all federal parks with a federal purpose and federal rules governing their use. We need a local central square ... our equivalent of Montgomery County's fairgrounds ... a miniture Central Park ... or a New England town's 'town green' ... an all-purpose area in the 'Center of the City" for local Washington uses ... not a place to be shared with national protestors or national groups like the builders association and their display on the mall. Besides, did you not notice the nice open brake it gave to a city streetscape that is becoming more appropriate for NYC than for Washington. The area is already oversaturated. A little greenspace in the midst of all these tall buildings is a good thing.

by Lance on Apr 6, 2011 4:37 pm • link • report

Who negotiated this awful deal?

Anthony Williams

by Hattie McDaniel on Apr 6, 2011 4:38 pm • link • report

Lance, we're not getting a dollar for the land because we aren't selling it. We're leasing it. And in 100 years we'll still own the land, which we can sell at that time or lease again.

If you know of a better offer DC was given, I'd love to hear about it.

by David C on Apr 6, 2011 4:44 pm • link • report

David C

Do you know of any other offers DC solicited? I sure don't remember this ever being solicited or advertised openly. If it was solicited privately it was with so many conditions attached that only a few would be interested.

Anyone who couldn't get at minimum $100M cash for this property in today's market shouldn't be handling real estate. And we need that cash for a streetcar system. Plus we need less property-tax-exempt parcels.

Government is about making choices and I do not believe the amenities promised by this subsidized project are worth more than a streetcar line.

by Tom Coumaris on Apr 6, 2011 4:46 pm • link • report

Tom, no I don't know about a solicitation one way or the other. Nor do I know if this land is worth $100M in cash today. Though I do know we didn't lease it today. We leased it three years ago.

Here's the comparison

1. $100M + whatever tax revenue might be generated.
2. At least $28.5 million in rent, $55 million of affordable housing, and $48 million in payments for new infrastructure + $32million per year in tax revenue + we still own the land in 100 years and can sell it then.

I'm not convinced that 1 is so much better than 2, or that 1 was an option, or that 1 would be able to break ground today.

by David C on Apr 6, 2011 5:20 pm • link • report

Those are all federal parks with a federal purpose and federal rules governing their use. We need a local central square ... our equivalent of Montgomery County's fairgrounds ... a miniture Central Park ... or a New England town's 'town green' ... an all-purpose area in the 'Center of the City" for local Washington uses ...

This is a local square for local people!

Have to say, I'm not finding this line of argument super-compelling. Last time I checked, there were no shortage of DC local events throughout the year (e.g. street fairs, farmers markets, etc, etc...)

by oboe on Apr 6, 2011 6:09 pm • link • report

I think that the problem with CityPlace DC is it's really mediocre. Residential and commercial development of the site is good, but the design is architectural "generica" of the type one is seeing in Clarendon or near the ballpark in SE. Tony Williams wanted a civic feature like a new library. There is none here except for a pocket park on a triangular portion of the site. Even the central plaza -- which could have been more noteworthy -- feels in the renderings like it is not much wider than the street right of way. Disappointing, because given the wait, this could have been an opportunity to do something special. And because the city owns the land and controlled the RFP, we had the right to expect better.

by Bob on Apr 6, 2011 6:46 pm • link • report

I would never want to move but if DC would pay me $1M for my house and rent it back to me for $500/mo. for 99 years- they got a deal.

And if it costs $48M to reopen a block of 10th Street, I'm using that money to go into the street paving business.

by Tom Coumaris on Apr 6, 2011 7:07 pm • link • report

@David C 'Lance, we're not getting a dollar for the land because we aren't selling it. We're leasing it. And in 100 years we'll still own the land, which we can sell at that time or lease again.

So, under your theory landlords could give away their apartements for no rent for 100 years ... because they still own the land and can sell at that time or lease again ... for no money.

Have you considered going into the financial services industry? I'd sell to you!

by Lance on Apr 6, 2011 8:17 pm • link • report

@ Lance "Besides, did you not notice the nice open brake it gave to a city streetscape that is becoming more appropriate for NYC than for Washington. "

I've never met anyone who can wax so rhapsodically about the beauty of parking lots. First the old Social Safeway lot, and now this one. You certainly have a way with words, when it comes to pavement.

by Jacques on Apr 6, 2011 9:59 pm • link • report

So, under your theory landlords could give away their apartements for no rent for 100 years ... because they still own the land and can sell at that time or lease again ... for no money.

They could, but that would be bad business. Luckily that isn't what DC is doing. They are charging rent. And they're getting $58 in affordable housing and $48 million in infrastructure.

Tom, under your scenario you'd also have to make room for $550,000 in affordable housing in your place as well as perform $480,000 in neighborhood improvements and still pay $320,000 a year in taxes. Still interested?

by David C on Apr 6, 2011 11:40 pm • link • report