Category Archives: Data

Development analysis, reporting, data sheets, surveys, facts.

100 MOR McMillan Projects

The DC Comprehensive Plan (“Comp Plan” or “Plan”) is a key legislative document that covers a range of topics, from economic development, housing, the environment, parks and community services, transportation, and more.

There are maps within the Comp Plan, the most important being the Future Land Use Map (FLUM).

The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) determines how DC will develop and grow as we move into the future and allows all residents and city planners to anticipate and prepare for development, no surprises!

The DC Office of Planning under the direction of the DC Mayor is now suggesting changes to the Comprehensive Plan, 1500-redlined pages of proposed amendments to the existing Plan policies and maps. They have delivered these proposed changes to the DC City Council to consider passing into law.

The Mayor put up a website to show the public (to a degree) the massive tome of amendments to the Plan. By the way, if you don’t speak or read English, you have been left completely out of the conversation.

On the Mayor’s Comp Plan website, there is a nifty maps page that was recently uploaded that uses a slider to let you see the proposed areas of the city where the Office of Planning wants to change future development, going up with bigger and denser buildings.

Sliding over the whole city and you see an array of properties that the Mayor seeks to upzone, aka upFLUM. What you don’t see are the numbers in square feet of how much density the mayor wants to allow to be developable as a “matter of right” (MOR).

In fact, no where on the Mayor’s Comprehensive Plan website will you find any facts relaying to the public that the proposed FLUM map changes equate to upzoning close to 200 million square feet of land and air rights.

As a friend suggests, the map changes show city officials essentially printing money for the landowners of these lucky properties being upFLUMed.

How did we get the numbers? A Socratic conversation with the director of the Office of Planning, Director Andrew Trueblood, and his staff by email.

The result of this conversation was a matrix showing the reality of the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan FLUM map, or almost 200 million square feet of proposed upzoning around the city.

This 200 million square feet of new habitable space and construction represents about what would be 100 “matter of right” McMillan Park projects.

Do you think this substantial change to the city’s built environment came with any impact assessments as required by the law? If you answered No, you’d be correct.

Why should we expect the Mayor’s Office of Planning actually do any “planning”? In fact the DC Council Chairman thinks planning is a popularity contest!

Read how the Office of Planning’s proposed changes to the Comp Plan is going to exacerbate displacement of Black folks in DC, click here.

Dog Whistle Planning

Assail the Street View

“Urbanists” are assailing a new project about gentrification that incorporates the views of the streets in communities undergoing displacement. Here’s the project.

In examining the criticism of this new gentrification-analysis (a project, not a study) by students at the University of California Merced, we see several key aspects of the “urbanist” take on development of major cities in the US:

  1. Pushing a dogmatic belief that building more market-rate studio and one bedrooms will trickle down housing costs and this “filtering” effect is the key way to get past a decade-long housing crisis.

  2. Fostering ambivalence in municipal planning that eschews substantial permanent impacts that more development has on existing neighbors and neighborhood services such as a need for increased schools, libraries, clinics, parks, transportation, utility infrastructure, etc.

  3. Believing that a #BuildMore housing policy (even if its largely expensive studios and one bedrooms) doesn’t need to take account of the resultant displacement of communities of color. That is, smart growth means having an absolute ambivalence to witnessing Black and Brown neighbors getting displaced and replaced by whiter new neighbors in almost all major US cities.

  4. Possessing a monolithic cultural approach to reshaping cities in that all people — newcomers and existing residents alike — are expected to squeeze into untested development paradigms. That is, the desire to live with more neighbors is paramount to all other planning considerations especially if these new neighbors are whiter and able to afford significantly higher housing costs in much smaller unit sizes, and can afford expensive food, coffee and beer, appreciate yoga, and have a small dog.

IN SERVICE TO THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY

The critique of the Street View gentrification project indeed has some merit as for it’s limited data scope and subjective definitions.

However, if you are going to slam a qualitative look at gentrification and ignore the quantitative studies and real results of the overarching #BuildMore planning policies that this student project is based on, then you are acting in service to displacement. See the studies below.

For example, how about the data sets used to support the $1Billion Washington, DC gentrification lawsuit on behalf of longtime Black DC residents and families. The fact that real world data like that demonstrated in this critical lawsuit isn’t being incorporated by “urbanists” in their policy analysis & advocacy is quite telling, perhaps even a dog whistle.

Choosing to cherry pick and attack the one limited Street View project and then not openly assail existing harmful public policy that is actually driving our neighbors out of our longterm homes only helps propel real estate speculation and the developers bottom-line. Is that what you really want to do?

KEY STUDIES SEEMINGLY IGNORED BY CITY PLANNERS & URBANISTS

This study shows a feast or famine situation with government investments in our communities, and “[H]ighlights how gentrification and cultural displacement have unfolded in American cities, while many low-income small towns and rural neighborhoods remain starved of investment.”

A Governing report says, “Neighborhoods gentrifying since 2000 recorded population increases and became whiter, with the share of non-Hispanic white residents increasing an average of 4.3 percentage points. Meanwhile, lower-income neighborhoods that failed to gentrify experienced slight population losses and saw the concentration of minorities increase. They have also experienced different economic fates: Average poverty rates climbed nearly 7 percent in already lower-income tracts that didn’t gentrify, while dropping slightly in gentrifying neighborhoods.”

Blavity & Buzzfeed: “A new study … shows an increasing rate of Black residents are being driven out of neighborhoods in the U.S. According to the data, Oakland, Washington D.C., Atlanta, New York City and Baltimore are among the cities that are especially impacted by gentrification.”

This 2000-2010 study says, “Washington, DC, residents don’t need census data to tell them what’s obvious in their neighborhoods: the city is changing dramatically. But numbers can give us context. They can show us how shifts in population are reshaping the city and can help us prepare for changes to come.”

The LegalAid society interprets recent a key displacement study, “Cultural displacement happens when there is “a rapid decline” in the number of minorities in an area as “white gentrifiers replace” minority residents. Both gentrification and cultural displacement have left a powerful imprint on DC over recent years.”

To the public investment issue, “So where do upwardly mobile creatives go as they begin to get priced out? They seek less expensive neighborhoods, where the cycle of displacement continues. “Now, people are looking at Anacostia like, ‘Oh, this is a place to come,’” Aristotle Theresa said. “And so, now the government starts injecting capital into the area, when they didn’t before.”

WaPo analysis, “Low-income residents are being pushed out of gentrifying neighborhoods at the highest rate in the country. The neighborhoods that have experienced the largest outflow of low-income residents, according to the study — places such as Logan Circle, Petworth and Columbia Heights — have an average walk score of 82.5 and an average transit score of 74.5.”

Non-profit Quarterly comments, “The displacement numbers seem low, but the authors used fairly narrow definitions of gentrification and displacement.”

WJLA: Local Small DC Business also getting crushed under gentrification. “When you invest in a place without investing in the people, what happens is you’re displacing people,” Jesse Van Tol, CEO of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC).

Georgetown Voice: “Gentrification isn’t just about the proliferation of pricey salad shops and craft breweries. According to a 2019 study, gentrification in D.C. has pushed more low-income residents out of their homes than almost anywhere else in the country. Between 2003 and 2013, 20,000 black residents were displaced from D.C.”

How about this study (from 2015) that defines gentrification not on a street view but on “a [census] tract’s median household income and median home value.”

Despite saying Gentrification is “beneficial” GGW cites studies that say, “A neighborhood out-mobility rate increase of a few percent on average, across gentrifying neighborhoods in the whole country, can mask what’s happening at the hyper-local scale. In certain neighborhoods, out-movement through displacement, whether direct or indirect, has likely been much higher.”

“In the District of Columbia, low-income residents are being pushed out of neighborhoods at some of the highest rates in the country, according to the Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity, which sought to track demographic and economic changes in neighborhoods in the 50 largest U.S. cities from 2000 to 2016.” https://housingis.org/resource/gentrification-dc-means

Housing Vacancy Crisis in DC

The DC Housing Crisis vs 30,000 Vacancies in DC. . . What is Going On?

The vacancy information for Washington, D.C. below is based on the 2019 American Housing Survey (AHS) which is conducted biennially by the U.S. Census.

This AHS survey asks landlords about vacancy status, resulting in this table below (Table: B25004) representing a timeframe of 60 months of collected data. There are also 1-year and 3-year estimates.

The Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) is the smallest level at which the survey reports data.

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs The American Community Survey (ACS) of the US Census provides estimates of vacant units by type of vacancy and calculates estimates of rental and homeowner vacancy rates. Surveys 3 million addresses per year (mandatory survey).

How can there be 30,000 vacant units when we have a housing crisis?

Thirty thousand vacant units counted! This fact destroys any assumption that building more luxury housing will eventually result in lower cost housing units trickling down in what growth supporters call, “Filtering.”

The D.C. Chief Financial Officer has a bit more of a conservative number of vacant housing units, 10,000. Either way, that’s thousands of vacant units existing pre-Covid that could house our homeless veterans, mothers, families, children, people who are facing homelessness, etc., especially now during the pandemic. See Vacant to Virus Reduction site.

Luxury Units Stay Empty Without Any Market Corrections

Luxury units for investment (lots of it foreign) results in developer demand for upzoning to increase buildable density without providing housing to be lived in. What is the good of new housing being kept uninhabited by investors? It stifles free market supply-and-demand and keeps prices of housing high, while allowing bankers and the construction industry to profit.

Empty housing units are also tax liabilities that can be written off by mega real estate speculators at the end of the year, equaling a form of income. Thus, the myth of the effect of supply-and-demand on housing is exposed as the tax write-offs for empty units completely nullifies any market corrections.

Foreign Investment in Luxury Housing Creates Exclusive New Communities in DC With High Vacancies

U.S. real estate remains attractive for illicit money from all over the world. In DC, that foreign money invests into planning officials follies, like the dramatic changes at Union Market in Northeast. #UnionMarketExclusive

It’s a stable investment that generally maintains or grows in value – and it gives corrupt oligarchs and dictators a potential escape route if they’re ousted from their home countries.

But this money drives out honest purchasers and makes cities hotbeds for dirty, unproductive cash. It turns cities and communities into commodities.

In one part of New York City, for example, the Census Bureau estimated that 30 percent of apartments are unoccupied most of the year.

Legislation is needed to require habitation of units built. After all, owners are not permitted to keep houses vacant on the streets of DC. Why should it be different with condo or apartment buildings?

COVID UPDATE JUNE 2020

COVID UPDATE AUG 2020

The Washingtonian, August 3, 2020 — NoMa and H Street apartments are experiencing an 8.2 percent vacancy rate, while developments in Navy Yard and Southwest are seeing 7.7 percent vacancy. The vacancy rates in those areas were less than 5 percent at the same time last year. District-wide, the average vacancy rate in luxury apartments is currently 6.8 percent, compared to 4.1 percent last year.

COVID UPDATE: OCT 2020

Myth Busting!

Housing: Supply & Demand MYTHBUSTING!

In a recent post to a popular DC listserve, there was this comment:

A new ADU (and ADUs at scale) will “contribute to affordability” in terms of adding supply, and thereby reducing the overall pressure for price appreciation and the concomitant pressure to convert existing lower priced housing to standards and expectations which satisfy higher priced segments of the market.

Richard Layman rlaymandc@yahoo.com, Saturday, February 1, 2020, Comment on Columbia Heights listserve columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com

The above intriguing comment seems to not consider the concept that #HousingIsNotACommodity and rather #HousingIsAHumanRight . . . right?

Moreover, the lack of a race and class analysis in pubic discussions around housing and jobs at this point is frustratingly maddening. Essentially, one can enjoy a “LIVABALE WALKABLE” city only if you are young, professional, single, and likely white.

Going to the facts spells that housing is a human need not a product and exposes this false sense that supply of any new housing relieves some kind of “pressure.”


First, let’s take a gander at the Income Gap analysis vis-a-vis housing costs in the City:
* https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2016/11/02/net-worth-of-white-households-in-d-c-region-is-81-times-greater-than-black-households/
* https://www.dcfpi.org/all/economic-inequality-in-dc-reflects-disparities-in-income-wages-wealth-and-economic-mobility-policy-solutions-should-too/

economic-inequality-blog-fig1-768x908.png

This means the posture of continuing to construct more and more of the status quo unaffordable housing for single wealthy professionals without an equally important push for getting longtime DC residents and Black families real jobs with real pay to be able to stay here during the modern day goldrush is simply ignorant and discriminatory. 

And, even if policy makers and the Mayor could wrangle some economic systems that actually helps longtime DC residents and families, there’s no way they will be implemented in a timely way to keep up or be substantial enough to help most people becoming more and more vulnerable to displacement. 

The HOT real estate market in DC is appreciating way too fast for most folks to keep up with rents, taxes, and housing costs generally:
* https://dc.curbed.com/washington-dc-market-reports
* https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2019/09/04/as-d-c-area-housing-market-booms-researchers-warn.html

Bottom-line, given the absolute real estate fire of the last decade and construction of tens of thousands of unaffordable single professional housing, there is absolutely no excuse that anyone should be pushing the idea that constructing any housing type at any cost is ok without a race and class analysis, especially considering the ballyhoo’d equitable development as expressed in Comp Plan Framework changes.


MORE FACTS THAT DISPEL SUPPLY & DEMAND MYTH:

NEW UNITS DON’T BRING PRICES DOWN

The DC Zoning Chair suitably explains as follows:

Tens of thousands of new largely luxury studios/1bedrooms have been built in DC, but prices keep going up and up and up:
* https://twitter.com/ecoylogy/status/1224692194277298179
* https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/z3bnme/tons-of-new-apartments-are-being-built-that-almost-no-one-can-afford

DC POPULATION GROWTH SLOWING DOWN

The influx of DC newcomers (old rhetoric: 1,000 new people a month as routinely expressed by Council Chairman Phil Mendelson) has become a trickle now, and in some months there’s more a net exit of people.
https://wamu.org/story/19/01/30/the-reason-d-c-s-once-dramatic-population-growth-is-slowing-down-and-why-thats-not-so-bad/

WE MUST ACCOUNT FOR THE CURRENTLY VACANT UNITS IN THE CITY

So what of the 30,000 vacant units according to the census, where the vacancy information gathered by the American Housing Survey (AHS) conducted biennially by the U.S. Census (more info about the survey below) shows this:

Screen Shot 2019-12-17 at 6.19.35 AM.png

This table (B25004) represents the 5-year estimate from the AHS for Washington, D.C.  This timeframe reflects 60 months of collected data and is the most reliable metric for estimating how many housing units fall into each of these categories.  There are also 1-year and 3-year estimates, explained here.  The Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) is the smallest level at which the survey reports data.

The substantial numbers of vacant units demonstrate how much foreign investment capital is parking itself in these new luxury buildings:
https://www.bisnow.com/washington-dc/news/capital-markets/foreign-investment-in-dc-expected-to-increase-next-year-102315

Empty units do not create successful inclusive DC communities.


The biggest purveyors of the supply & demand myth are the so-called urbanists — largely white single professionals moving back into the cities after their grandparents and parents failed suburban experience, or their cohorts from the mega-real estate industry. 

We’ve asked them to publicly debate these issues openly: David Alpert, Alex Baca, and Cheryl Cort.
* https://ggwash.org/about/staff-board
* https://www.smartergrowth.net/about/contactstaff/


In conclusion:

IF WE WANT A SUCCESSFUL INCLUSIVE CITY — THAT MEANS WE GOTTA HAVE POLICIES AND PEOPLE THAT ESPOUSE SUCH IDEALS, NOT JUST STATE THE RHETORIC. WE ALSO HAVE TO HAVE REAL FACTS AND PEOPLE-CENTERED ANALYSIS BEFORE US, NOT JUST REAL ESTATE DOGMA.

MW COG

MW COG SETS 2030 HOUSING NUMBERS

UPDATE ON SEP. 11, 2019, MEETING AT METRO WASHINGTON COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (COG) REGARDING HOUSING IN THE DMV THROUGH 2030

On September 11, 2019, the COG passed a joint resolution that sets into motion the coordination of housing preservation and production targets across the DMV. The goal: 320,000 new or preserved housing units by 2030, and of these 2/3 of the units should be considered “affordable.” Chair of the COG, DC City Councilmember, Robert White, emphasized that these units should be built to include 3+ bedroom units, aka family-sized units.

Find the COG documentation and resolution below:

* https://www.mwcog.org/newsroom/2019/09/11/officials-set-regional-housing-targets-call-for-collaboration-to-address-production-and-affordability-challenges/

============================
RESOLUTION R27-2019
============================

Major points:

  • 320K Housing Units Added 2020-2030 (an additional 75,000 units beyond units already forcast)
  • 75% of all new housing should be located in activity centers and around high activity transit (see definitions above)
  • 75% of all new housing should be “affordable” to lower- and moderate-income housing (see definitions above).
  • To share these goals to all constituents and set targets for each jurisdictions.
  • To work with non profit private and philathnropic entities to advance these goals

ROBERT WHITE — AYES UNANIMOUS RESOLUTION MWCOG R27-2019 PASSES SEP 11 2019

============================
DEFINITIONS
============================

In reviewing the resolution and information from the COG about the Housing Production targets please understand the following definitions as they can be interpreted:

  • Accessibility — Locating housing close to transportation, transit centers, or “activity centers.” This term has almost nothing to do with universal accessibility a principle of the disability advocacy community.
  • Affordable Housing — Housing that costs $2,500/m or less. There is no mention of bedroom sizes or housing costs as a percentage of one’s income. It is strictly the government setting levels of profit making, shifting market forces and volatility from the private sector onto the public.

============================
NEWS REPORTS
============================

Some news reports that came out after:

============================
OMISSIONS IN THE DISCUSSION
============================

The following are basic planning concepts that wasn’t discussed at all or just briefly by COG before passing the resolution:

  • Expiring Affordability — What is the duration of affordable covenants that may run with the land? Shouldn’t we be ensuring that any new or preserved affordable housing exist in perpetuity.  What’s the point of expiring affordable housing covenants?
  • Public / Universal Housing — The COG made no mention of the importance of public housing and public land while setting these housing targets.  Public housing is a permanent safety net to prevent homelessness.
  • Analysis of $2500/m — How realistic is it to say “affordable” housing set at $2,500 a month.  Doesn’t this just push the status quo?

============================
SOME QUOTES FROM THE COG MEETING
============================

* CHRISTIAN DORSEY, ARLINGTON, COG — “Ready and willing to do our part” “I love three simplistic targets” “This is a big setp for our region” “Our region has failed to effectively deal with housing” “Its complicated” “Roads are full of traffic” “Net effect people are harmed” “Targets are based on thoughtful analysis” “Provide accountability” “Concept of regionalism should not be understated” “lets get it done, im excited”

* DERRICK DAVIS, PG COUNTY, COG — “we explored, what the heck is ami” “no better place to be than the dmv” quotes victor hoskins … as a great thinker.  “messaging is absolutely important, crucial to drive home, to give politicos the right message to communicate with our folks”

* JOHN FOUST, FAIRFAX — “economic development critical” “Fairfax board has committed to 5,000 units over 15 years”

* NANCY NAVARRO, MOCO — asks about the “defintion of high impact areas” when referencing jbg report; emphasizes “social justice and racial equity”

* JUSTIN WILSON, ALEX — “addressing concerns about impacts such as overcrowding schools”

* BEV PERRY, DC — “more work needs to be done”

* KATE STEWART, TKPK — “Board Retreat was helpful” quotes Matthew Desmond “Its hard to argue that housing is not an fundamental human need” … “we’ve been echoing that sentiment” “this is an historic event today” “wants to partner with Mont County”

* RUTH ANDERSON, PRINCE WILLIAM, — “Cast vote in favor” “this will help us forge our comprehensive plan”

* SENATOR GEORGE BARKER, VA, “we gotta keep stepping things up” “things already happening that are pushing us in the right direction” “fairfax is doing a tremendous job in preservng affordable housing”

* BRIDGET NEWTON, ROCKVILLE — “i think this is wonderful what we are doing with housing” “something mr jackson said, taking over current garden style neighborhoods and that we need to build hi-rises — its a problem. its a quality of life issue, displacement of current families. there’s something to be said about having a balcony, to play outide, etc.” “we don’t need 2 types — hi rise or single family” “we need a mix of housing and therefore we lived in communities with all kinds of careers and picture, and we must look at the whole picture” “climate of fear — when people hear about more housing they immediate fear the impacts to roads and schools”

* TODD TURNER, PG — “impacts that come along with the housing” “what the pressure brings to things like infrastructure” “we have to be very careful about that”

* SHARON BULOVA, FAIRFAX — abt to introduce resolution “region forward compact in 2010” “we’ve had more success in the goals than we’ve realized” ** “our air is better” “we set targets to clean up our air, and we’ve done that.” “amazon — needs affordable housing” “we need to make sure weh have housing and quality of life for the industry we want to attract and retain in our region” “we want to create affordable housing for the folks we want to work here and live here”

===
end
===

Non Sui Juris: Who can you sue?

Non Sui Juris = can’t sue me!

While you can appeal administrative decisions by most agencies to the DC Court of Appeals, if you think an District agency and/or officials screwed you and your community over, or is about to, be prepared to know who you can sue when you are going to Superior Court or the Circuit Court in DC.


For more insight, see this case:
FOGGY BOTTOM v. DIST. COLUMBIA OFFICE OF PLANNING, 441 F. Supp.2d 84 (D.D.C. 2006).

From this case: As a preliminary matter, defendants assert that certain parties named in this suit are non sui juris, that is, that they lack the legal capacity to sue or be sued. Specifically, defendants argue, and the Court agrees, that agencies and departments of the District of Columbia government are not amenable to suit. See Community Housing Trust v. Dep’t of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, 257 F. Supp. 2d 208, 217 (D.D.C. 2003) (“The law is clear that `agencies and departments within the District of Columbia government are not suable as separate entities.'”) (quoting Does I through III v. District of Columbia, 238 F. Supp. 2d 212, 222 (D.D.C. 2002) (citations omitted)). The plaintiff’s claims against the District of Columbia Office of Planning, the District of Columbia Zoning Commission, the District of Columbia Department of Health and the District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs therefore will be dismissed from this case.

But what the Foggy Bottom community got right in their suit is the naming of the Mayor.  From the case:  The Mayor of the District of Columbia, Anthony Williams, sued in his official capacity, is a proper defendant, and the suit against Mayor Williams shall be treated as a suit against the District of Columbia. Arnold v. Moore, 980 F. Supp. 28, 36 (D.D.C. 1997) (“It is well settled that if the plaintiff is suing the defendants in their official capacities, the suit is to be treated as a suit against the District of Columbia.”). Thus, the Court may proceed to consider the merits of the claims against the District of Columbia itself (a named defendant) and the Mayor of the District of Columbia in his official capacity.


The naming of individuals carries to others under the Mayor too, like the DC Zoning Administrator.

The  acting  Zoning Administrator  for  the District  of  Columbia,   Olutoye    Bello,    sued   in    his    official    capacity,  is  a  proper defendant,  and  the  suit against  Bello  shall  be treated  as  a  suit against the  District  of  Columbia.  See  Kentucky  v.  Graham, 473  U.S.  159,  166 (1985); accord Arnold v. Moore, 980 F. Supp. 28, 36  (D.D.C. 1997)(“It   is   well   settled  that   if   the   plaintiff  is   suing   the  defendants   in   their  official   capacities, the suit is to be treated as a suit against the District of Columbia.”).  Thus,  this suit  may  proceed  against defendant Bello.   COMMUNITY HOUSING TRUST, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, et al., Defendants. No. CIV.A. 01-02120 (HHK). April 16, 2003


For more on Non sui juris, see this case, and this case, and google it!

 

Tax Increment Financing, It will TIF you off

Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is a municipal financial scheme whereby DC taxpayers fund and support private development projects throughout the city.

TIFs allow the diversion of taxes that would otherwise be generated by these new projects away from the city’s general budget for social needs (schools, parks, affordability, services, etc.), and instead these taxes are used to pay back private bankers whom authorized the TIF credit and municipal loan.

TIFs act as blank checks from the public to fund and externalize private development costs and is considered a form of corporate welfare.


Governments often use TIF resources to prepare land for development or redevelopment. In addition, governments may use TIF revenues to underwrite certain public structures, such as parking garages. If permissible under state statute, the construction of municipal facilities can be financed using TIF revenues. An Elected Official’s Guide to TAX INCREMENT FINANCING by Nicholas Greifer & The Government Finance Officers Association, July 2007.


The most recent District of Columbia TIF is for Union Market developers.

WARD 5 TIF

THE SOUTHWEST WATERFRONT aka WHARF TIF

The Living Social TIF Gift

TIFs as political hot potatoes, a DC neighborhood-level discussion in Bloomingdale in 2010.


Many of the District’s special deals have been very costly. In 2002, Gallery Place, a mixed-use transit-oriented development, received about $80 million in subsidies. To sell the TIF bonds for just this one project, DC had to pledge that incremental sales tax revenue from a much larger area would be made available if necessary. In 2006, another development in a quickly gentrifying neighborhood, the DC-USA mall project anchored by a Target store, received a $42 million TIF package. The District justified the deal in part by claiming it would enhance sales tax revenue in the surrounding neighborhood (DC has a problem with sales tax “leakage” to Maryland and Virginia), but DC has no method of tracking sales tax by location to determine if that worked. Good Jobs First, “Tracking Subsidies, Promoting Accountability in Economic Development,” Accountable USA – District of Columbia webpage.


ANALYSIS: Before [Baltimore] City Hall loved TIFs, it shunned them as bad policy

Tax Increment Financing: A comparison between Washington, D.C. and Chicago, by Jasson Perez, University of Illinois Chicago, 2015.

DCRA Threatens DC Property Owners; Lawsuits

Based on the recent Council hearings, it has become clear that the DC Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) has exposed DC taxpayers and property owners to negligence and serious injury with a lack of accountability from the Mayor and Council.

A review of the October 24, 2017, City Council hearing shows numerous cases of fraud and injury perpetrated by this agency and the director, Melinda Bolling, who was chosen to lead this agency by Mayor Bowser.

This follows on in a series of hearings that the Council acts out before the taxpayers, but does little else to enforce the laws or address accountability.

 

Using Law for Good & Bad

While the corporate “journalists” attack the character of local activists when they use the law to demand accountability for developments in the District, slumlords can use the law (Bankruptcy) to avoid accountability and dodge their ethical duty to provide clean and humane residential units to District residents.

That is, when activists use the law to protect their communities they get attacked in the press. When slumlords use the law to cover-up their negligence and assault on poor people and families, the monied classes get a pass.

#tiltedpress
#lawforgood
#legalaction

Changes to ZRR, Already

=================
TONIGHT, Sep 22, 6:30PM
=================

Tonight, Washington, DC, at the DC Zoning Commission, 441 4th Street NW, Suite 200 South, 6:30PM, Sep 22.

The Zoning Amendments Being Amended;
Ad hoc project for favored developer prompting consideration of substantial changes to the ZRR

Members of the Committee of 100 found that the Office of Planning was trying to define “substantial” changes to the ZRR as only “technical” changes.  There is a difference that requires a more public process for substantial changes.

Tonight, the DC Zoning Commission will be considering OP’s suggested changes, one which includes completely waiving the minimum area requirements for when developers request the city for a super variance, i.e. PUD applications.

EastBanc is asking the city for an entitlement to ignore the standards and rules regarding the minimum size of PUDs. However, the regs make clear that the Commission must not use their flexibility or discretion beyond what is allowable by law, which is why the Commission chose to have the hearing tonight.

08-06F :: https://app.dcoz.dc.gov/Content/Schedule/ZCCalendar.aspx

The public is welcome to testify, but it’s hard to imagine what OP’s rationale could be for a substantial change that could invite a PUD to be dropped anywhere in the city, especially without comprehensive planning direction.

Tonight, Sep 22, 6:30PM at the Zoning Commission Hearing Room, Suite 200 South
441 4th Street NW, WDC 20009
Judiciary Square Metro

===================
IN OTHER NEWS
===================

A report from the Hine School legal team tells favorably of efforts that resulted in the Deputy Mayor’s Office putting online a list of land abuse contracts between developers and DMPED.

Deputy Mayor’s Office Website with LDA’s >> http://dmped.dc.gov/node/1019962

There are noted issues, for example The Grimke School LDA Term Sheet reveals that the developer acquired the property for $25,000, while the appraisal indicates the property is valued at around $15-$20 million.

DC for Reasonable Development wishes if you have the time and interest to dig into the numbers of these contracts that affect DC taxpayer assets and the public interest and inform us of any perceived malfeasance.

Contact Chris: dc4reality@gmail.com || 202 810 2768

This information was delivered via Mr. Oliver Hall, Esquire, who will be speaking at the upcoming BreakingthroughPower.org conference starting September 26, 2016.