Anti Neighbors - Greater Greater Washington

Sued for blocking development

Mon, 13 May 2013 08:40:00 EDT

Some Southwest condo residents filed a landmark application to try to block development in their complex, but a developer threatened a lawsuit, since the condo owners agreed to allow development there when they bought their units. Another group also applied for landmark status. (City Paper)

Comment

Even more anti-Purple Line candidate wins

Thu, 09 May 2013 08:20:00 EDT

by David Alpert

The challenger who thinks the Town of Chevy Chase isn't fighting the Purple Line hard enough, John Bickerman, won a seat on the town council. He wants the town to pay a consultant who would lobby the Federal Transit Administration against funding the line. (BethesdaNow)

Comment

Who's the most anti-growth?

Tue, 07 May 2013 08:47:00 EDT

by David Alpert

The Town of Chevy Chase votes today for council. The one challenger says the already anti-Purple Line incumbents haven't done enough to try to obstruct the line or development around it. (Patch, Bethesda Now)

Comment

Ward 3 Democrats forget mission, fixate on parking

Thu, 02 May 2013 12:24:00 EDT

by Steve Seelig

A Republican, Patrick Mara, just got the most votes in DC's Ward 3 in a special election. Leaders of the Ward 3 Democratic Committee, an organization formed "to support and elect Democratic candidates for local and national office," meanwhile, were more concerned with ramming through a resolution against the DC zoning rewrite's parking proposals.

Photo by Mr Thinktank on Flickr.

This resolution claims that the DC Office of Planning has no data to back up its recommendations to eliminate minimum parking requirements near transit or for new single-family homes and small residential buildings, and reduce them for schools. It implies without any basis that the zoning rewrite will actually take away parking.

The Ward 3 Dem leaders behind this resolution are now going around claiming that this reflects the views of Democrats in Ward 3. In reality, it represents only the views of 23 out of 94 delegates in the group. Its supporters used procedural maneuvers to ensure it would pass without delegates even getting to debate the merits of the issue.

The task force

Last fall, resident John Chelen, an avowed opponent of the zoning rewrite, approached Ward 3 Democrats chairperson Shelly Tomkin. He had already formed a "task force" made up of about 7 people who opposed the zoning rewrite and some who had publicly testified against it. Chelen suggested to Tomkin that the task force put together a white paper on the subject, supposedly to inform the delegates of the pros and cons of the proposals.

Chelen testified against the rewrite process on October 5, 2012, asking the DC Council to step in and essentially require the Office of Planning to restart the 5-year project. This came before his task force had issued any paper on the merits of the zoning rewrite and before the organization's broader membership had debated the issues or adopted any resolution.

Tomkin approved this task force without including any members with differing points of view. When word got out about the task force from Chelen's testimony, Ward 3 Democratic Committee delegate Ellen Bass and another resident insisted that Chelen include them to give some balance (although even after a 3rd resident joined later, they were a minority of the members). Chelen, after substantial initial delay, permitted them to join.

The group's "white paper" purported to be a fact-based analysis of the Office of Planning's policy recommendations on parking. But not surprisingly, the report contained only "facts" that supported the anti-rewrite position and unsupported assertions about the horribles that will result if DC adopts the proposals. Yet Tomkin distributed it to the Committee delegates as an objective statement of the "pros and cons" of the proposals without any caveat about dissenters on the task force.

For example, there is no mention of the environmental concerns about car use and vehicle congestion. The report cites no data to back up assertions like these:

In most instances, current parking requirements are substantially less than likely parking need that would be generated by use, so current requirements only partially mitigate the impact of spillover parking.

Elimination of minimum parking requirements on transit zones will result in spillover parking in residential neighborhoods near Metro stations

Elimination of minimum parking requirements ... will result in people who live near transit zones or downtown to walk blocks from their car to their home ...

The rewrite will reduce parking requirements for schools, hotels, and churches. [In fact, all the rewrite proposes to do is base the requirement on square footage rather than factors that change over time like number of seats, rooms and employees.]

The paper also reflected a clear anti-zoning rewrite bias. It contained arguments attacking the OP proposals which it called "Stated Justifications." According to Bass, she had prepared a more balanced draft, but then 2 avowed opponents of the parking proposals reworked it. She and two other members who did not agree with the paper prepared their own "Alternative Analysis," which Bass said she had to distribute to Committee delegates herself.

The resolution

Chelen then presented a resolution condemning OP's parking proposals at the Ward 3 Dems' April 11 meeting. It states, among other things, that the "parking proposals adversely will affect residents, businesses and the vibrancy of the city," that they "do not reflect community preferences," and that they are "not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan."

These are at best opinion statements not supported by data in the "white paper." For one thing, the zoning task force did not assess the community preference beyond its own membership of 10 or so people, and 3 of those people did not agree that the parking proposals would be detrimental. As for the Comprehensive Plan, this too would prove without basis, as soon became clear.

The first order of business on April 11 was a lengthy debate on whether attending members could vote in place of absent delegates, as the Committee Bylaws clearly permit. After much discussion, Tomkin thought better of denying these members their vote, but because of the time it took to resolve this issue, and Tomkin's decision to let an unrelated speaker give his presentation first, delegates grew impatient and some left before the late vote.

Furthermore, procedural shenanigans by the resolution's supporters ensured there would be no floor debate on its substance. Yes, on a very contentious issue that has divided many in Ward 3, and on a resolution that says policies "are not supported by data," there was no actual discussion about those facts. While the resolution purported to reflect "community preferences," community members never had a chance to talk about their preferences.

Tom Smith, an ANC commissioner and Committee delegate, did insist on asking Chelen how many parking places in Ward 3 would be eliminated if the rewrite went through. Chelen responded that he did not know and did not have any examples he could cite, but he was sure it would happen.

Afterwards, Chairperson Tomkin issued a statement in "themail," claiming that the resolution "was approved in a vote by a broad majority taken April 11." This careful wording obscures the reality that just 23 people voted in favor, a small proportion of the 94 Committee delegates and hardly a majority of the Ward 3 Democratic Committee. In fact, fewer than half the delegates (only about 44 people) even bothered to attend the April 11 meeting. By the time the resolution came up for a vote after 9:30 pm, there was barely a quorum present, and only about 30 delegates even voted.

The resolution does not speak for Democrats in Ward 3

The vote total is important because Chelen is pushing other organizations, such as the Cleveland Park Citizen's Association to adopt a similar resolution. He intends to bring this resolution to the DC Council as reflecting the views of Ward 3.

But his hyperbole is overblown and inaccurate. On the Chevy Chase listserv, he stated, "The resolution passed by a supermajority vote [of the Ward 3 Dems], a telling sign of community resistance to the ill-considered and over-reaching proposals made by the Office of Planning."

Ironically, despite the claim that the minimum parking proposals are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the very next day after the Ward 3 Dems vote, the Zoning Commission approved the Babes Billiards PUD, a mixed-use building in what would be a transit zone near a Metro station that would not have on-site parking. The PUD order cited 23 policies within the Comprehensive Plan that support a development with no on-site parking, beginning on page 11.

Being a neophyte at these political meetings, but not in life itself, I expected that a few motivated individuals could move the needle on getting things done through sheer guile and force of will. I was surprised, however, how an organization named the Ward 3 Democratic Committee could permit such a clearly non-democratic process, push through a white paper without even hearing dissenting viewpoints.

Today, the "white paper" is still not available on the Ward 3 Democrats' website, although it is available online, along with the "Alternative Analysis" from the 3 task force members who did not agree with the paper Chelen and Tomkin distributed. Instead of alienating Democrats by letting the group be a tool of those who want to advance a specific agenda on a non-partisan issue, the Ward 3 Democratic Committee ought to focus on its actual electoral mission.

88 comments

Bikeshare is a good deal for Alexandria

Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:31:00 EDT

by Jonathan Krall

Alexandria's City Council will soon decide whether to expand Capital Bikeshare in the city. Opponents claim that bikeshare is a waste of money that should be spent on other things, but ridership and revenue are exceeding expectations.

Photo by afagen on Flickr.

On May 6, the council will vote to fund an 8-station expansion, doubling the local CaBi fleet, and add CaBi operating funds to the city budget. However, some say that Alexandria is not getting a good deal. City Council members say privately that these residents have fixated on CaBi as the place to cut the budget in favor of their own causes.

The person leading this charge is Kathryn Papp, who has a history of opposing bicycles in Old Town. Papp argued last year that "adding bikes increases congestion" by slowing down cars. Now, she is presenting straw-man arguments against CaBi expansion.

"Every other city uses dedicated sponsors to cover operating costs, but not Alexandria," she states in a letter to the Alexandria Gazette-Packet on April 12, citing New York's Citibank-sponsored Citibike, which is still under construction. Papp notes that Alexandria also no longer receives federal grants to pay for bikeshare and will instead use $50,000 in development impact fees and $70,000 in revenue from real estate taxes.

In another letter to the Alexandria Times, Papp questions whether the city should pay for a service operated by Alta, a private company, in partnership with Alexandria, Arlington and DC. She claims that a financial dispute between Bixi, Alta's equipment maker, and the city of Montreal and a lawsuit from Bixi's software vendor makes Alta unfit to work with. Instead, she proposes that Alexandria use CaBi funds to reverse a proposed cut in library hours.

Conflating the problems of Bixi with Alta, the private company that operates CaBi, ignores the real question of whether it's actually working for Alexandria.

Alexandria is getting the same deal as Arlington, DC, and other cities with bikeshare systems. Like Denver's B-Cycle and Boston's Hubway, CaBi is a public-private partnership in which the city owns the equipment and contracts out operations to a for-profit company.

As with Minneapolis' Nice Ride system, CaBi lists a number of major sponsors on its website, though Nice Ride covers its operating costs with user fees and sponsored stations. Capital Bikeshare could partner with a corporate sponsor, but it's a regional system, and all of the jurisdictions involved should make that decision together.

Despite what Papp says, Capital Bikeshare also saves money. Capital costs of the proposed eight-station expansion are about that of a single DASH bus. Operating costs per ride are well under a dollar for CaBi, versus over a dollar for Metrorail and over two dollars for DASH. System-wide, CaBi moves about 8,000 people per day, almost as many as the 11,000 that DASH moves.

Papp complains that CaBi will get some financial support from local taxes, but Alexandria recently chose to dedicate 2.2¢ of its real estate tax rate to a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), including 3 designated transit corridors and supporting infrastructure for biking and walking. Given that 2 of the 4 busiest Alexandria CaBi stations serve nearby Metro stations, CaBi clearly fits in with the program's stated goals.

Besides, Alexandria can't simply move the funds to support libraries. TIP money must be spent on transportation, and since it's a new program, raiding TIP funds for libraries would only weaken it as a funding source. Just as CaBi is a transportation service that should be evaluated in the context of Alexandria's transportation program, libraries are a social service that should be evaluated in the context of Alexandria's other social services.

Capital Bikeshare has proven its worth to Alexandria, but a few detractors want to discredit this valuable service. The City Council should listen to the facts and support bikeshare funding. They will be voting on the budget next Monday; you can contact them here and voice your support.

40 comments

Townhouses win approval in Silver Spring

Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:11:00 EDT

by Dan Reed

Yesterday, the Montgomery County Planning Board unanimously voted to approve the controversial Chelsea Court townhouse development near downtown Silver Spring. The vote ends a 3-year fight between local builder EYA and a group of neighbors who said the project was too dense and would harm the environment.

Photo by the author.

The vote allows EYA to build 63 townhouses, including 8 Moderately-Priced Dwelling Units for low-income households. It will restore a historic house on the site of the Chelsea School, located on Pershing Drive one block north of downtown Silver Spring.

The private, special-needs school first announced their plans to close and sell their 5-acre campus in May 2010. Most of the school's students live in the District or Prince George's County, and administrators want to focus on teaching them at public schools closer to home.

History of neighborhood opposition

Site plan of Chelsea Court.

Neighbors in the surrounding Seven Oaks-Evanswood Citizens Association, or SOECA, have strongly opposed Chelsea Court from the beginning. They worried about traffic and density and said that townhouses didn't belong in a "single-family neighborhood", especially when the property was only zoned for single-family homes.

The Planning Board approved rezoning the land for townhouses in 2011, but it was rejected by the County Council, who said EYA's proposal for 77 homes was too dense. The Council eventually granted the rezoning for a reduced number of houses last year. Neighbor Thomas DeCaro filed a suit against the county saying they acted illegally, but the case was dismissed.

More recently, SOECA argued that Chelsea Court violates state and county environmental laws. A consultant hired by the neighborhood says EYA ignored Environmental Site Design requirements to preserve natural features. Opponents say cutting down the property's mature trees and removing its steep slopes will cause runoff into a stream buried below Ellsworth Drive.

In a letter to County Councilmember Valerie Ervin, SOECA president Jean Cavanaugh urged her to "take all steps necessary" to ensure that Chelsea Court incorporated ESD "without regard to the possible loss of development intensity."

However, officials from the county's Department of Permitting Services say the site's natural slope was already removed to create sports fields for the school decades ago. "I understand that you may not agree and that you have expressed significant opposition to the project," replied DPS director Diane Schwartz-Jones. "In our opinion, the applicant has complied with the standards spelled out in the Montgomery County Code and with [Maryland Department of the Environment] standards."

EYA willingly makes changes

The townhouses will be designed to blend in with surrounding homes.

According to this planning staff report, EYA's latest design includes several changes in response to neighbor concerns. They've agreed to provide more parking than required, move a private road serving the new houses and restrict turns to or from it to discourage through traffic in a neighborhood where most streets are already blocked off.

In keeping with existing houses in the neighborhood, EYA's townhomes will be only 2 or 3 stories tall, as opposed to the 4-story homes they normally build elsewhere. Townhouses facing Springvale Road will be designed to look like single-family homes in order to blend in with existing homes across the street, while a double row of trees will shield them from sight.

Meanwhile, 51% of the property will be preserved as open space, including small courtyards between the rows of houses and two pocket parks. This figure also includes the private yard of the 150-year-old Riggs-Thompson House, which the school is currently using. EYA will turn it back into a single-family house. Planners say this counts because the house's yard contributes to "a general appearance of openness."

At yesterday's meeting, 18 residents gave testimony about the project, including several supporters who noted EYA's responsiveness to their suggestions. "I'm pleased to see what EYA has crafted and look forward to the development coming to fruition," said Robert Bacon, who lives a few blocks away.

More density in Silver Spring is environmentally and economically sustainable

Allowing more people to live near downtown Silver Spring is the "green" solution.

It's not surprising that neighbors don't want to see trees cut down to build Chelsea Court, but this property isn't a virgin forest. It's a school campus that's already been cleared and built on. Building here is the environmentally responsible thing to do because it reduces the pressure to build in actual environmentally-sensitive areas.

Chelsea Court is also located in an urban area a short walk from one of the region's biggest jobs, shopping and transit hubs. 60% of downtown Silver Spring residents already get to work without a car. Meanwhile, an independent study of EYA developments, including ones in Silver Spring, found that their residents walk more and drive less. Building more homes here means more people get to do the same, reducing their energy use.

But for all of the environmental benefits of being here, Silver Spring is an increasingly expensive place to live, due to the high cost of land and the expense of a 3-year-long permitting process. At an Urban Land Institute talk last summer, EYA partner AJ Jackson said that the time and money they've spent trying to get Chelsea Court built could add $50,000 to the price of each home.

Neighbors might say that maximizing density means bigger profits for EYA, but in reality, it means EYA can spread the cost of land and permitting over more homes, making them less expensive. $50,000 may not seem like a lot, but it means fewer people can afford to live in Silver Spring.

While people deserve a say in what happens in their community, the bitter and vitriolic fight over Chelsea Court sets a bad example for future projects. Not only does it create bad blood, but it encourages destructive suburban sprawl and makes Silver Spring a less affordable place to live.

We have to find a way to have a constructive dialogue about development, because this community's going to grow and change whether we like it or not. In the meantime, Chelsea Court has been approved. Not everyone will be happy with the Planning Board's decision, but they made the right one. Now it's time to get this project built.

41 comments

A neighborhood is about people, not buildings

Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:12:00 EDT

by Ryan Arnold

When opponents of redevelopment say they want to protect the character of their neighborhood, what does that mean? A petition, circulated by activists in Arlington's Bluemont neighborhood who oppose a mixed-use Safeway, suggests it's mainly about the height of buildings.

Preliminary rendering of Safeway's proposed new building on Wilson Boulevard.
Image from Silverwood Companies.

The document, entitled, "Keep Safeway Site at 35 Feet High or Less," says, "taller commercial and residential structures would violate the scope, scale and values of the community."

Why are they wrong? Because the character of a neighborhood is not defined by the height of its buildings, but by the spirit of its people. The real question is this: What kind of neighborhood do Bluemont residents want? Do we want to be an inclusive, welcoming community, or do we want to be the kind of place that tries to keep newcomers out?

The Bluemont Safeway is on Wilson Boulevard, about a ¾-mile walk from Ballston Metro. Last year, Safeway announced their intention to redevelop the decades-old store and its large parking lot. Current plans call for the new building to occupy the entire site, with parking underground and 160 predominantly 1-bedroom rental apartments on top, according to developer Mark Silverwood.

The region needs more housing in the right places

The Washington region has folks who commute to DC from as far as West Virginia. Their daily journey illustrates a variety of serious problems we say we care about: affordable housing, suburban sprawl, oil consumption, high emissions, and traffic. When a commercial landowner seeks to add significant housing to a single-use site, they're offering an opportunity to help solve all those problems.

Bluemont residents are pretty close to the center of our region. As such, we use less energy and produce less pollution per person than people farther out in the suburbs. We're closer to a whole array of cultural and economic resources. We can be proud of those advantages. They're a big part of why people want to live here.

If we say "no" to new housing, the people we've kept out will do one of two things. They'll move further out into the suburbs, contributing to the loss of farmland and wildlife habitat, driving and polluting more to get to the center from way out there. Or they'll bid up prices to move into one of our scarce housing units; less affluent residents will be pushed out over time. That's why Arlington neighborhoods like ours need to provide more housing. We have a chance to do that.

The proposal promotes real community values

If we care about widely shared values like land conservation, energy conservation, pollution reduction, and affordable housing, then Bluemont residents should support Safeway's proposal. It's good for the region, and sets a positive example for others to follow.

It's also good for the community itself. Aesthetically, it will be a tremendous improvement. The existing store presents a featureless brick wall to Wilson Boulevard, and its parking lot is a bleak void in the fabric of the neighborhood.

The existing store on Wilson Boulevard, seen from west (left) and east (right). Photos by the author.

The new store will create a superior pedestrian experience, with ample shop windows and no curb cuts along Wilson. The apartments, a housing type new to the neighborhood, will allow long-time residents to remain active in the community as they outgrow the yardwork and stairs of typical 2-story houses.

The proposal isn't perfect, of course. Neighbors have suggested allowing customers of nearby businesses to share the new garage, a move that would help make the area's sidewalks safer and more appealing for foot traffic. Smaller-scale "liner" shops and restaurants along Wilson would also make the place a more vibrant destination for nearby residents.

At a recent public meeting organized by the Bluemont Civic Association, Safeway representative Avis Black explained that the geometry of the rather narrow site precludes additional stores, although outdoor cafe seating appears likely.

Neighborhood group plans to vote this week

This Wednesday, Bluemont Civic Association members will vote, choosing between 3 statements of BCA's position on the redevelopment. The first 2 options oppose Safeway's proposal, essentially on the grounds that it's "excessively tall," according to the group's April newsletter. The third option, revealed in an e-mail over the weekend, states support for Safeway's proposal "under certain conditions."

The Association should work with Safeway in a spirit of cooperation, not conflict. One day, when they write about the character of our neighborhood, let's make sure they say that we recognized a good thing when we saw it, that we found a way to make it even better—and that we were an inclusive, welcoming community.

120 comments

Politics, not good sense, drive Portland parking minimums

Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:06:00 EDT

by Abigail Zenner

Opponents of DC's zoning update are touting news that Portland, Oregon is re-instituting parking minimums. They claim the Portland case proves eliminating minimums doesn't work. But it actually shows how sometimes leaders bow to political pressure and resident fears, even for a bad (popular) solution instead of a better (less understood) one.

SE Divison Street in Portland. Photo by Matt Kowal on Flickr.

Portland removed parking minimums in many neighborhoods with high-frequency bus lines in the 1980s. Recently, residents in the Richmond neighborhood pushed to reinstate some parking minimums after plans came to light for a new 81-unit building without off-street parking.

Many neighbors were frightened that the new building could make parking on street more difficult. It's an election year, and candidates wanted to cultivate votes from active residents in the area. They gave those residents what they wanted. Unfortunately for Portland, those residents skipped over a much better policy tool: on-street parking permits.

As Dick VanderHart explains in the Portland Mercury, the neighborhood has a vibrant nightlife which attracted new visitors to the area. Those visitors compete with residents for parking. Curbside parking is free at all times.

Residents can request residential permits to limit visitor parking and overnight parking. Last year, the city created a "mini" parking district program so individual neighborhoods can create new small parking districts, but so far, none have requested one.

Perhaps that's because it's not really hard to park there. In a Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (BPS) survey, most residents said that they usually park on the street 1-2 blocks from their homes and most spend little time looking for parking.

It isn't clear that a parking problem exists in Portland today. Plus, building more off-street parking will not do anything about visitors patronizing the new bars and cafes in the area. That's especially true as long as parking is free on every street in the area. No matter how much garage parking new buildings have, many people will find it more convenient and cheaper to park on the street until the city limits on-street parking or charges for it.

This closely parallels issues in DC. In many neighborhoods, it's becoming more difficult to park. We have parking minimums, but they clearly aren't preventing this. The solution is not to cling tenaciously to parking minimums, but to set up a better system that actually manages on-street spaces.

The Portland zoning code didn't fail. Instead, the residents didn't or couldn't use other parking management tools. We don't know yet if switching the code back will improve matters for unhappy residents—the vote just happened last week—but it's unlikely.

The new Portland policy require one space per 5 units for buildings with 30-40 units, one per 4 for buildings of 41-50 units, and one per 3 for buildings over 51 units. If the developer puts in bike parking and car sharing, they can relieve some of the requirement.

Perhaps because of the impending election, Portland's council may have acted hastily. The city was also working on other policies to deal with parking through basic transportation demand management measures, but that proposal was not finished in time for the council vote.

Opponents have been complaining most strongly about the DC proposal to exempt residential buildings of up to 10 units from parking requirements citywide. Portland still exempts buildings up to 3 times that size.

Plus, while many tout Portland as a transit mecca for its pioneering streetcars and other policies, the percentage of trips by transit here is triple that of Portland, which has no subway at all. TriMet has cut service in recent years, while WMATA has not. DC neighborhoods whose residents consider their transit fairly meager still have a lot of transit by the standards of many parts of Portland.

Portland's parking experience is not proof that parking minimums are necessary. Instead, it shows that politics can get in the way of good parking policy. Just because politicians in one city had a knee-jerk but nonsensical reaction to a certain neighborhood's complaints does not mean DC should do the same.

41 comments

Meet the parking anger

Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:33:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Meet the Press's David Gregory got upset because people were parking in front of his house in the Palisades. The traffic was for a charity fundraising event nearby. (Post)

Comment

Little houses on the hillside

Fri, 12 Apr 2013 08:19:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

Kenyan McDuffie does not support a development of tiny houses in the Stronghold neighborhood. Is it because some residents were parking in the alley lot where the houses now stand? (City Paper)

Comment

Growth causes angst

Tue, 09 Apr 2013 08:58:00 EDT

by David Alpert

A resident emails Michael Neibauer to complain about houses becoming condos or apartments and wants DC to suspend building permits, primarily because it's becoming harder to park. (WBJ)

Comment

5333 gets permits

Fri, 05 Apr 2013 08:50:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Despite fierce opposition, the Cafritz apartment building proposal at 5333 Connecticut Avenue got permits to begin construction for the matter-of-right project, including an all-glass facade which was pretty universally panned. (WBJ)

Comment

Let ANCs talk more?

Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:55:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Mary Cheh wants to give ANCs an official chance to weigh in on large buildings. Her idea wouldn't give them a veto, but would force city officials to respond to their concerns. (City Paper)

Comment

No renting your house short term

Fri, 29 Mar 2013 08:48:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Crestwood residents aren't happy with a house that rents out to visitors through vacation rental websites. The law agrees; short-term rentals require a property to be licensed as a hotel. (DCist)

Comment

Capital Bikeshare introduces new 5-day pass (Mar 14, 2011)
Congo withdraws curb cut requests (Feb 10, 2011)
Epic Ward 3 zoning update meeting Tuesday night (Jan 7, 2013)
Then and Now: The Leiter House (Apr 13, 2009)
Term limits are a dangerous policy (Apr 6, 2011)

What is Muriel Bowser for?

Mon, 25 Mar 2013 14:46:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Muriel Bowser kicked off her campaign this weekend, and as usual for a campaign kickoff, had a lot of inspirational-sounding phrases but few specifics of what she would do as mayor. As residents start to evaluate her, they need to ask for clarity about her views.

Photo by Wayan Vota on Flickr.

These are especially important questions for Bowser, because she has not taken clear stances on many issues while on the Council. That's an approach that can pay off strategically, since you avoid angering any constituency, but voters and reporters need to insist on specifics.

Here are a few questions reporters could ask:

Will Bowser affirm Mayor Gray's sustainability plan? If not, what would she change?

Bowser said in her speech, "We settled into managing the status quo, riding the success of our past instead of shaping the landscape of our future."

I'd like to see DC move faster on many things, but Mayor Gray just put out a very strong plan that shapes the landscape of our future in some extremely critical ways. Will she maintain the same goals and targets from the sustainability plan, change, or abandon them?

We could ask the same about other good plans, like the economic development strategy. A lot of planning has happened, and while Bowser derided "task forces" (many of which, indeed, often lead to little), there has been some really good planning in the last few years. Would she implement or scrap these plans?

What isn't the District doing today that it should be?

Bowser said that, because of scandals, DC has lost "our focus, our momentum, our need to think big and act swiftly." She said, "We need a change." That's what every candidate says. The logical follow-up needs to be, what change?

Being ethical is an absolute necessity, but it's only a foundation. What big thinking should DC swiftly act upon? How would a DC after a 4-year or 8-year Bowser mayoralty look different than it does today or would under a Gray or Wells mayoralty?

How should we manage growth?

Bowser told the Washington Post that how to "manage growth" would be a centerpiece of her campaign:

You'll find that a lot of people who have lived here for a long time—white and black—feel like that the growth is pushing them out or causing prices to go up, the senior citizens to get hurt. How do we manage it to the point that D.C. is welcoming to people who have lived here for five decades or people who have lived here for five months?

That's all true. I look forward to seeing Bowser's ideas for helping the District grow without displacing existing residents. A lot of people believe that the most important thing to do to avoid displacing residents is to add more housing, but Bowser is only okay with accessory dwellings in basements and not in carriage houses, for instance.

Thus far, in most of her statements on the council, she's shown a bias toward managing the growth by not wanting to have a whole lot change from the way things are today. Most of the time when I've interacted with her on a piece of legislation, she's "concerned" about a particular type of change because some of her constituents are "concerned."

Bowser doesn't want to make people shovel their sidewalks, didn't want bus parking in her ward but doesn't want any buses cut, and so on. Is everything fine the way it is? If so, what is the "urgency" she mentioned? Urgency to do what?

A big test of a leader is not what they will do when all residents are clamoring for action—everyone wants the trash picked up on time or potholes filled, for instance—but when residents are divided, or the loudest voices oppose a change that might be best for the city as a whole. That's where you need to know a leader's values and beliefs.

Mike DeBonis and Nikita Stewart wrote that "Bowser is open to attacks that her résumé and legislative record are thin compared with those of her potential council challengers." Personally, I'm not as concerned about her résumé or record per se. I'm interested to hear, however, what she really believes and would do as mayor. So far, she hasn't made that clear, and we need to know in order to form opinions.

What other questions would you like asked to better understand Bowser's positions?

74 comments

A road with a view

Mon, 25 Mar 2013 08:26:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

Alexandria plans to spend $125,000 to build models of the Potomac Yard Metro Station to gauge the visual impact from the George Washington Parkway and assuage resident opposition. (The Arlandrian)

Comment

Potomac Yard Metro opponents cite GW Parkway purity (Apr 24, 2012)
Alexandria weighing Metro station alternatives (Jun 3, 2009)
Alexandria anxious for Potomac Yard Metro in 2016 (Jan 28, 2011)
Potomac Yard group debates Metro location and auto-oriented principles (Feb 18, 2009)
Hope remains for Potomac Yard Metro west of CSX tracks (Oct 28, 2011)

Vehicular cyclists fight bike lane

Wed, 20 Mar 2013 10:17:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Somerville, a city next to Boston, wants a protected bicycle lane, but residents who don't want to lose parking are getting help from die-hard vehicular cyclists who oppose any dedicated bicycle infrastructure. (Streetsblog)

Comment

Mendelson grills accessory dwelling opponents

Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:21:00 EDT

by Abigail Zenner

After being postponed a day because of the threat of snow, the marathon 7-hour oversight of the Office of Planning almost entirely revolved around the same controversial subject as the last 4-5 years: the zoning update.

DC Council Chairman Phil Mendelson at the hearing.

Council Chairman Phil Mendelson asked tough questions of people on both sides of the issue. At first, he wondered how some people could say the Office of Planning did plenty of public outreach while others complained it was lacking, but later in the hearing, he began to realize that no amount of communication would satisfy opponents.

Councilmember Muriel Bowser (ward 4), meanwhile, breezed in at the end to voice opposition to a number of elements of the zoning update, but misunderstood some key provisions around accessory dwellings.

"What am I missing here?"

Many people testified, including representatives from Ward 3 Vision and other supporters of the zoning update, but there were many opponents as well.

After hearing many complaints about proposals to allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and how threatening they would be to the character of neighborhoods, Chairman Mendelson tried to figure out what is so bad about having one in your neighborhood.

He calculated how many could fit in a block, then noted that not every property owner would want one. He asked Justine Kingham, "What am I missing here?"

When Kingham said that the issue is letting neighbors have a say in whether someone rents out a room in their house, Mendelson wondered aloud why it is anyone's business but the resident's own. "But should my neighbors decide whether I want somebody, one person coming in and out of the basement of my house or should I? Because that can be subjective."

Kingham then suggested that the Office of Planning limit the number of people who can live in an ADU, raising the specter of 5 "students" sharing a garage. In fact, there are limits: a main house plus an ADU can have only a maximum of 6 people combined.

Bowser: Enlarging ADUs is the problem

After all of the members of the public testified, Councilmember Bowser spoke about the good work that OP did in her ward but also raised concerns about some aspects of the zoning update, including effects of removing parking minimums and allowing corner stores by right.

Bowser opposes allowing accessory dwellings in existing detached garages. She said the reason is because people who live in them will want to enlarge them. Planning Director Harriet Tregoning pointed out, however, that under the proposed rules enlarging an exterior ADU will indeed require a special exception.

Bowser responded that she still thinks the Board of Zoning Adjustment will bias its decisions toward allowing people to expand ADUs once created, and therefore she still wants to have a longer process with hearings to create an external ADU in the first place.

Of course, no discussion of the zoning update would be complete without Linda Schmitt. In her vehement testimony, she said that the Office of Planning is trying to "remake every ward and every neighborhood," that her organization is not racist, and that a public input process that involves 700 people plus using Twitter isn't enough.

You can watch the entire hearing here.

47 comments

Murals popular, except on the Hill

Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:28:00 EDT

by David Alpert

A DC program that invites artists to paint murals on blank walls gets rave reviews for helping neighborhoods, but people on Capitol Hill oppose a mural on Barracks Row. (Elevation DC, Capitol Hill Corner)

Comment

Let's cover blank walls with public murals (Aug 17, 2010)
Hill ANC races may turn entirely on Hine, but oughtn't (Oct 23, 2012)
Hill East changes tune on commercial strip (Dec 26, 2012)
Art installation temporarily brightens T Street (Oct 15, 2012)
Hine supporters do live on Capitol Hill (Jun 1, 2012)

Waterfront defended

Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:28:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Alexandria's waterfront plan actually only adds 2% to the allowed building on the waterfront. The current and former planning commission chairs refute several myths about the waterfront controversy. (Old Town Patch, Thad)

Comment

It is time to embrace Alexandria's waterfront plan (Dec 12, 2011)
Should East Falls Church have a waterfront? (Jun 11, 2010)
Breaking: Alexandria coal power plant to close next year (Aug 30, 2011)
Alexandria wants new Metro stations (Feb 5, 2008)
A DC Planning Commission? (Mar 17, 2008)

Chevy Chase Lake plan compromises on density

Fri, 01 Mar 2013 11:46:00 EDT

by Dan Reed

The disagreement over what should happen in Chevy Chase Lake wasn't surprising: developers wanted taller buildings and higher density, while neighbors wanted the opposite. What's surprising is that both sides found a compromise in the Chevy Chase Lake Sector Plan, now going before the Montgomery County Council.

Chevy Chase Lake today. Photo by thisisbossi on Flickr.

Located on Connecticut Avenue just south of the Beltway, Chevy Chase Lake was originally an amusement park at the turn of the 20th century, built by developer and Senator Francis Newlands at the end of the streetcar line he built down Connecticut to downtown DC. Newlands also used the streetcar to draw homebuyers to several neighborhoods he built along Connecticut Avenue, including Chevy Chase.

The lake, the amusement park and the streetcar are all gone, and in their place are a couple of strip malls, some garden apartments, and a lot of traffic on Connecticut.

The Montgomery County Planning Department recently finished work on a sector plan for Chevy Chase Lake in anticipation of the Purple Line, which when built will have a stop there. They envision creating a compact, but dense neighborhood around the station, with housing, shops and a new urban park, and a stretch of Connecticut Avenue into a real main street.

Disagreement over future of Chevy Chase Lake

The Chevy Chase Land Company's 2011 vision for Chevy Chase Lake.

However, the size and scale of that neighborhood was up for debate. In 2011, the Chevy Chase Land Company, which was originally founded by Senator Newlands and still owns several offices and shops in Chevy Chase Lake, proposed building up to 4 million square feet of new development there, including up to 3,000 new homes and several buildings up to 19 stories tall.

Transit advocates supported their vision, arguing that concentrating housing around the future Purple Line will help alleviate congestion in the future, but some neighbors were upset about the amount of development, fearing it would cause traffic. They found common ground with county planners, who sought a more nuanced approach to development in Chevy Chase Lake.

"There is no transit system in the world that creates 18-story buildings at every transit stop," wrote then-planning director Rollin Stanley. "Not every transit station has to be downtown Silver Spring or Bethesda. In reality, the best transit systems have a very diverse network of transit stops."

What Chevy Chase Land Company proposes today. Image courtesy of the Chevy Chase Land Company.

The resulting plan, which was approved by the Planning Board in January, calls for 2.2 million square feet of new development, including about 1,300 new homes, in the entire commercial district. Most of it won't be built until after the Purple Line is funded and built; until then, most properties would either stay the same or be allowed slightly more density than there is today.

Instead of 19-story buildings throughout the commercial district, there would be 3 buildings between 100 and 150 feet tall adjacent to the Purple Line station. Elsewhere, building heights would be restricted to 55 to 80 feet, while townhouses would form a transition to adjacent single-family homes.

Connecticut Avenue would transform from a traffic sewer into a main street, with on-street parking, new traffic signals, and sidewalks with streetscaping. New bike paths, trails and improved connections to the Capital Crescent Trail would knit the commercial center into the community, making up for the area's disconnected street network.

Mid-rise buildings and a plaza would replace the Chevy Chase Lake Shopping Center.

Meanwhile, the Chevy Chase Land Company's plans have shrunk, to just 1.5 million square feet of development and fewer than 900 apartments, and split into three phases. The first, which would occur before construction of the Purple Line, would replace the Chevy Chase Lake Shopping Center at Connecticut Avenue and Manor Road with 3 buildings containing a mix of apartments and retail space around a half-acre park.

Once the Purple Line is built, later phases would replace their headquarters building at Connecticut Avenue and Chevy Chase Lake Drive and the Lake West shopping center across the street with additional retail, apartments and townhouses, and a new headquarters.

Neighbors use Purple Line to discourage development

The Purple Line and the Capital Crescent Trail in Chevy Chase.

While this is much less than what the Land Company first wanted, not everyone's satisfied. Some neighbors formed a group called Don't Flood the Lake, raising concerns about traffic and calling the plan "wildly out of scale with the area." They also question whether we should allow new development around the Purple Line when there's no money for it yet.

It's unclear whether this group has any connection with Save the Trail, an anti-Purple Line group that's campaigning against funding for the Purple Line and other transportation projects. But not building the Purple Line or development associated with it won't fix traffic. No Purple Line means people have fewer alternatives to driving, while no new housing in Chevy Chase means people working next door in Bethesda, one of the region's largest job centers, have to commute from further away.

1,300 new homes in Chevy Chase Lake will be far less of a burden on Connecticut Avenue than the influx of thousands of workers, patients and visitors who currently drive on Connecticut Avenue to the new Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda.

Single-family homes and mid-rise buildings coexist in Chevy Chase, DC. Why not in Chevy Chase Lake?

Besides, the scale proposed at Chevy Chase Lake isn't much different than what Senator Newlands built around streetcar stops just a few miles down Connecticut Avenue in Chevy Chase, DC: mid- to high-rise apartments interspersed with shops and offices and steps away from quiet streets lined with single-family homes. If this could work a century ago, why can't it work today?

Traffic is a big issue in Greater Washington and will continue to be so as the region grows. Yet the answer, in Chevy Chase Lake or any other neighborhood, isn't to stop anyone new from moving there. If neighbors don't want to see more traffic on Connecticut Avenue, they should join groups like Get Maryland Moving to ensure that the Purple Line gets the funding it needs.

And they should support the Chevy Chase Lake Sector Plan, which will not only give them a great town center within walking distance and allow others to live in a place where they don't have to drive everywhere.

The Montgomery County Council will hold a public hearing on the Chevy Chase Lake Sector Plan on Tuesday, March 5 at 7:30 pm. To sign up to testify or to send written comments, visit the County Council's website.

26 comments