tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post4730141630320678290..comments2024-03-25T18:50:15.135-04:00Comments on DCmud - The Urban Real Estate Digest of Washington DC: DC Bureaucrat Seeks Rich, Ambitious, Type-A Developer for LTRKenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08295461340042242438noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post-61750652075872877472007-08-23T20:26:00.000-04:002007-08-23T20:26:00.000-04:00And, whatever developer is chosen, they will be wa...And, whatever developer is chosen, they will be waiting quite a while.<BR/><BR/>First, DC doesn't own this land yet. DC has to meet certain conditions by the federal government before the title is released to DC government. Then, the National Park Service facilites currently on site have to be moved on DC's dime to another location within the city. Then, there is the environmental assessment and cleanup.<BR/><BR/>If DC is not prepared to cough up the infrastructure dollars needed to move this project forward in collaboration with whatever new developer is chosen, then DC is most certainly jumping the gun. And, my inner vibe is telling me that DC is not ready to do its part as a partner in such an area that is not on the A-List for location or desirability. A whole new infrastructure needs to be built before development can occur on this site. This will cost millions, even hundreds of millions alone. Do they expecs developers to swallow this cost and impose on them a 30% affordable housing mandate?<BR/><BR/>I hope DC is ready to do its part. I really do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post-14769216875066612612007-08-23T20:09:00.000-04:002007-08-23T20:09:00.000-04:00Ya, get used to it. You won't build on DC land th...Ya, get used to it. You won't build on DC land that was purchased from the government, or for which you seek zoning changes or any type of request from the city, without subsidizing a small group of homeowners. What is more troubling are the new IMZ rules, which basically say that everyone will be providing such subsidies. Whatever the benefits of providing affordable housing, to foist it upon developers is to put social policy on the backs of a very small minority. Costs will mostly get passed on to the landowner in the form of a reduced purchase price, or onto the community, when development doesn't happen because the demands shrink already shaky margins.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08295461340042242438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post-90013370712550725092007-08-23T17:11:00.000-04:002007-08-23T17:11:00.000-04:00Hey Ken,It is without a doubt an overly ambitions ...Hey Ken,<BR/><BR/>It is without a doubt an overly ambitions project. I was really looking forward to what the proposed DC United stadium was going to bring to the view & the area with MacFarlane (the owner) heading the project. Now with the new RFEI Fenty is requiring the "developer" to propose plans for the projects 150 acres, only allowing the developer to utilize 130 acres of the total site. What puzzles me is that he is imposing his 30% affordable housing mandate on the developer, thereby forcing the developer to forgo some profitability of the project to serve Fenty's causes. Dont get me wrong, I understand his requirement but to seek out international developers for the RFEI only to mandate several recently imposed restrictions on a property such as this seems a bit extreme.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com