Posts about Anti Neighbors

The campaign against Stanley uses language more politic than Mrs. Crenca's, but the hostility to urbanism is the same. The county's Civic Federation, in its letter demanding Stanley's resignation, said that the county is "comprised of suburban communities, more densely developed transit centers, and rural areas." Aren't downtown Bethesda and Silver Spring, which have long since turned urban, part of the county too?

Councilmember Marc Elrich charges (in the article that triggered the controversy) that Stanley wants to "make roads so bad people only use transit." This is the language of the "war on cars" that we hear whenever motorists are asked to make the slightest concessions to pedestrians and bicyclists.

The county benefits from open debate over land use, planning, and transportation. Land use policies affect income groups differently. For example, limits on the supply of new housing are more popular among owners who bought long ago than among renters and those trying to save up a down payment.

Focusing on the substance of policy rather than personalities can bring the entire population into discussions that too often include only developers and long-time homeowners. This gives newer and less affluent members of the community a chance to challenge policies that put them at a disadvantage.

Despite the wishes of Stanley's critics, the county is already changing, and it will continue to evolve. The question is, how should the county adapt? Should we embrace demographic and cultural trends that allow us to build more livable communities, or should we stand firm against change until we are overwhelmed by it?

Rollin Stanley's resignation would slow the effort to plan for a better future. But it will not stop change itself.

Tregoning hasn't pushed much on development plans on Wisconsin Avenue, partly because a bolder plan under prior planning director Ellen McCarthy riled up neighborhood activists who then pushed Fenty to replace McCarthy. That didn't stop them from also trying to get rid of Tregoning when Mayor Gray came to town, though.

Another critic, at least for a while, was Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development Victor Hoskins, who wasn't sure he supported OP's approach to historic preservation. A fascinating email DePillis acquired through FOIA shows that Hoskins worried about "an unreasonable level of desire to keep things the same" in some preservation decisions.

Those decisions come mainly from the Historic Preservation Review Board, whose members the mayor appoints. At a confirmation hearing, several people warned that recent Gray appointee Nancy Metzger takes more of a "keep things the same" view.

The Council just confirmed 6 appointees, only 2 of whom are reappointments, so we will soon see what balance the new board strikes between "keep things the same" and helping the city grow and change.

On the zoning update, the Office of Planning has tread very lightly on policy changes, to the point that many commenters and bloggers criticized them as "too timid."

At a recent Federation of Citizens' Associations meeting, many local activists (almost all from Ward 3) railed against the zoning update, but the fact is that it does almost everything skeptics want. It takes great pains to keep single-family home neighborhoods essentially unchanged; the new "corner store" rules, for instance, won't apply there. Some side setback requirements are actually getting larger. And so on.

The other policy changes aim to achieve exact Committee of 100's stated goal: "safeguarding and advancing Washington's historic distinction, natural beauty and overall livability." Tregoning has upheld historic preservation's strong role in DC planning. OP proposed Green Area Ratio largely to promote natural beauty, along with environmental sustainability.

As for livability, corner stores, accessory dwellings and reducing mandates to build unnecessary parking lots all enhance livability. In fact, nearly every decision from OP and every speech Tregoning makes has livability at the core. When Tregoning pushes back against DMPED, it's usually when a development project neglects livability in its quest to get a project in the ground.

Nevertheless, many neighborhood activists continue to push back forcefully against OP. They might want to consider that had they succeeded in replacing Tregoning, or if Hoskins got his way, the policy outcomes might be even less to their liking.

Elsewhere, the City of Takoma Park has been working to facilitate mixed commercial and residential space along the University and New Hampshire Avenue corridors to make more housing and affordable housing available on mass transit and future Purple line routes. These are developments that take advantage of underutilized commercial and retail space to build new capacity and energy into an area—and new housing.

In both cases, the City is supporting more density where it makes sense. In fact, if you actually watch the video about Melbourne, Australia's urban development plans that Alex Steffen refers to, they did precisely what Takoma Park has been promoting—Melbourne avoided developing on any green space or historic areas and reused vacant commercial and retail to get more housing density.

And in reference to the claims of Takoma Park pushing poor people out, we have great data from the Community Indicators Project that shows just the opposite. We have a higher proportion of low and moderate income families than the rest of Montgomery County—34 percent of our households are low income compared to 19 percent for the County and the average rent for a vacant unit in Takoma Park was more than $400/month cheaper than the County.

Part of this is because since 1980, the City has had a rent stabilization policy in place that has been an effective way to keep rents down and not without sacrifice from other residents who end up paying a higher property tax burden.

The point is, not all development is progressive and if you look a little deeper, you will see a lot more evidence that Takoma Park knows how to balance quality of life, diversity and development far better than Mr. Reed suggests.

We know that dense cities are both environmentally better and dramatically more equitable places. Walkable neighborhoods are better than the suburbs for people with a wide range of incomes, and what happens in cities that don't grow is that they gentrify and poor people are pushed out. Trying to fight change makes you less sustainable and more unfair.

Sometimes, standing in front of bulldozers is the right thing to do. It's likely that Takoma Park wouldn't have become a sought-after place to live if it were carved up by highways. And sometimes it's harmful, like the efforts of some residents to block a housing development adjacent to the Takoma Metro station back in 2007.

Well-designed urban infill development in places like Old Town Takoma can get people out of their cars and bring customers to the area's struggling local businesses, which presumably are progressive ideals. Not allowing development to happen effectively enables all of the things progressives say they don't want, such as more driving, more gentrification, more suburban sprawl, and more destruction of farmland.

Greater density would in fact support progressive causes, according to Takoma Park resident Victor Reinoso. He says that there would be more progressive businesses, such as the TPSS Grocery Coop, and the ones that exist would get more business, if his neighbors didn't oppose greater density at every juncture.

Not all progress is bad. It's the mark of a true progressive when they can tell the difference.

In addition to increasing park space and including a new museum, the proposal approved by the planning commission addresses flooding problems and allows for better pedestrian access, and it does all of this within the current low-building heights and architectural care that characterize Old Town. Further, it uses a public-private financing approach that takes much of the economic burden off of taxpayers.

There are ideas in the alternative concept that merit consideration. For example, council should evaluate the appropriate number of hotels allowed along the waterfront, as well as work to prevent privatization of the remaining waterfront with more townhomes.

Encouraging adaptive re-use of historic spaces is important. And the idea of a waterfront not-for-profit that raises funds to improve and take care of the waterfront is a good one. But the sheer audacity of spending proposed in the alternative concept makes this a budget issue.

In addition to land purchases, the alternative would use funds to build and operate a maritime museum, which would allegedly attract thousands of people a day paying up to $5 per person.

This idea fails any basic test of reasonableness as evidenced by the failed maritime museum in New York, our fiscally challenged Carlyle House and Torpedo Factory, and the reality that no city museum has been able to pay for itself with an admission charge. To speak nothing of the impact of thousands of daily visitors attempting to park around Union Street.

Proponents of the alternative say that their plan will attract people and tax dollars to Old Town. It likely would. But the planning commission proposal would as well.

In fact, opponents once criticized the commission recommendation by saying more visitors to Old Town was a bad idea, raising concerns about traffic. They also once professed concerns about costs in the planning commission plan. Now they want to spend millions more and need a higher number of visitors to make up lost tax revenues and pay for their enormous borrowing binge. Their proposal contradicts their own arguments.

After 5 years of budget cuts, with our nation's lackluster economy, the council has to carefully manage city resources. The city manager recently asked departments to suggest up to 6 percent cuts in their budgets. Staff reductions and cuts over the years have already strained city services.

New city open space funding was killed by the recession. Our combined sewer system in Old Town needs hundreds of millions to fix. Library services have been reduced. Parks like Ft. Ward, Windmill Hill, and Four Mile Run, city pools and other public infrastructure have unfunded maintenance needs. We must improve fire and emergency services so residents on the west-end are treated as quickly as those on the east. And our police department can't sustain more cuts without diminishing services.

"Just borrow the money," some say. But they fail to consider the significant new taxes required for the bond payments or the impact of borrowing on our city's AAA credit rating. Or the risk that new borrowing undermines school and transportation needs.

We have a multi-year plan to add classrooms for our growing student population; it requires new funds each year. We will likely need even more to address continued crowding. And transportation and Metro costs continue to burden our city as state and federal funds vanish.

In short, we can't put basic needs on hold in exchange for a Quixotic quest for a few acres of land on the waterfront.

"Just get a grant," some say. There is no easy money from foundations and conservation organizations. I've talked to the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority. Funds for land conservation are scarce, and existing funds are prioritized for less expensive and much larger swaths of land outside the Beltway.

I'd welcome any private citizens or groups that want to raise or donate funds to buy waterfront land. Anybody interested can contribute to the city open space account or can buy land themselves.

By working with the planning commission framework, we can have a waterfront that is a pleasure to walk along and visit without an extravagant waterfront spending spree. Opponents are entitled to hold the view that their proposed spending is a higher priority than education, public safety or transportation. Or that the city should do it all by raising taxes to be among the highest in the region. Or that the city should abandon its AAA credit rating to make the alternative work.

But they should be clear about what they want to give up and who it will impact. There are no free lunches. Not even on the waterfront.

Our current Breakfast Link editors are looking to move on from curating the links each day. Meanwhile, many of our contributors now use Twitter, and can submit or curate items through that service.

We decided to try creating a links post collaboratively, by building the post from tweets contributors and readers sent in to a new Twitter account, @GGWashTips, plus some from our regular tip queue. This is the result.

Have a tip for the tweets? Tweet it to @GGWashTips.

Want to edit the Breakfast Links in either the old style or this one? Email us at info@ggwash.org.

It seems clear at this point that there are probably no concessions the university could make that would satisfy the Citizens Association of Georgetown (CAG), the Burleith Citizens Association (BCA), or ANC leadership, short of building enough housing for 100% of undergraduate students. That would be an extremely difficult and expensive proposition for the university, and it's not clear where this housing could go.

The opponents' position suggests that the very presence of students in the neighborhood is an insurmountable problem. This ignores the many positives that students bring to the community, and the fact that many non-student residents choose to live in Georgetown because of its liveliness and urban density. My wife and I feel safe walking home at night knowing there are other people walking about. Without the presence of so many students in the neighborhood the streets would be emptier, and would feel darker and less safe.

Students in the neighborhood are not inherently a problem. The real issue is bad behavior from some students, and what steps the university should take to mitigate those specific negative impacts. That is the sort of conversation that could happen, and that the planning process should encourage. Unfortunately, it hasn't.

Instead, positions have become entrenched and opposing sides treat each other as enemies. For example, the university established the Student Neighborhood Assistance Program (SNAP) to respond to neighborhood issues, but residents have encouraged neighbors to avoid SNAP and call 911 for any student-related problem, then say that SNAP is ineffective and cite the rising number of 911 calls as evidence of worsening behavior.

As a Georgetown resident and a Hoya alum, I think we deserve a better dialogue. But how do we get to a more meaningful conversation?

Structural changes may be necessary.

Campus plans are reviewed every 10 years. The very nature this 10-year cycle leads to brinkmanship and negativity. Some people feel that they have no leverage with the university in the intervening 9 years, and that they must obtain a decade's worth of concessions all at once. Universities think the same way. They increase their focus on town-gown issues in the years leading up to a campus plan hearing, and sometimes don't treat intervening years as seriously.

Also, like in many local political issues, the loudest voices have the most impact. People with extra time, or who feel particularly aggrieved, become the main voices of the neighborhood, while the larger number of everyday people goes unheard. I have spoken personally to many neighbors, and while many have specific concerns about student behavior or Georgetown, none of them suggest the extreme position of the opposition groups (and the DC Office of Planning) of pushing 100% of students onto campus.

This is a difficult problem. It may take some experimentation on the part of the city to determine if a better process is possible. Here are a few ides.

Option #1: Abolish the 10-year campus plan process entirely.

With the rewrite of the city's zoning plan, DC could determine which development projects or campus issues should be subject to zoning review, and use the regular public hearing process for them. While doing this would remove some of the long-term planning conversations, it would also remove some of the once-a-decade brinkmanship, which would ensure more frequent conversations between universities and neighborhoods.

Option #2: Create a college and university category in the zoning code.

The current zoning code classifies colleges and universities as residential areas and requires a "special exception" for any non-residential use. This is despite the fact that many of these institutions were established decades or centuries before the zoning laws, and have never been primarily residential. Undergraduate students represent around 10% of the city's total population, but the zoning code treats them as abnormal, and frames discussions of university expansion as having an inherently adverse impact.

The creation of a specific zoning category for colleges and universities would allow a larger discussion of the positives these institutions bring to the city, what negative impacts they may create, and the proper roles and responsibilities of universities in 21st century Washington.

A new category would be particularly helpful given the number of universities that have been opening buildings in the District lately, whether for "semester-in-DC" or more comprehensive educational programs.

Option #3: Broaden the conversation about the campus plan.

Several meetings were held in the run-up to the zoning commission hearings, but a small number of people have controlled the debate. Ideally more people should be brought into the conversation. Rather than allowing public opinion to be filtered through the parties directly in support or opposition, perhaps a citywide body such as the Office of Planning should be holding town halls to get more broad public input.

Option #4: Broaden the involved parties.

Universities are integral parts of their communities in many ways. They may offer library or gym memberships, allow for auditing of classes, or open some lectures to the general public. More such efforts by the university to directly connect students with non-student neighbors would begin to build the relationships and trust that are necessary for more positive outcomes. Rather than thinking of universities as an "other" to be opposed, neighbors might be more inclined to look for mutually beneficial solutions.

I have lived in Georgetown for the better part of the past 15 years. I hold undergraduate and graduate degrees from Georgetown University. We can do better. We deserve better. Let's make it happen.