[Mintwood-place] ANC likely to vote on the First Church of Christ Scientist hotel project this Wednesday
Cashion's Eat Place
cashionseatplace at gmail.com
Mon Mar 5 18:27:15 EST 2012
I'm sorry, Mary, I should have been more clear: I am not speaking on
behalf of the BID or it's membership. Rather, I wanted to make sure
that I was being as transparent as possible about my position on the BID
both presently and in the past.
I also did not intend to imply that all members of the community should
agree on issues that have the potential for such far-reaching and long
lasting-impact on the landscape of Adams Morgan. I believe healthy
discussion and debate are necessary ingredients to agree on a course of
action that will best improve the neighborhood in the long-term.
I should also mention that I live on the corner of Euclid and Ontario
Road and would be directly impacted from the development and existence
of the hotel. Likewise, when I lived on Champlain Street for 3 years, I
was directly impacted by the development of several large scale condos
that, in my opinion, already started to change the face of Adams Morgan.
In response to your concern regarding the lasting effects of increased
delivery trucks, traffic, etc, I would imagine that members of the
community that live on those streets would learn to adjust the way
community members on 17th Street did when Harris-Teeter was developed.
Or like those on Ontario Rd and Lanier Place did when the Safeway, CVS,
and other establishments were being developed at the time. I imagine
that must have been quite an adjustment.
Furthermore, as many have pointed out the increased (and increasing)
population density of Adams Morgan (and DC as a whole) cannot be
denied. In all likelihood, the trend will continue. Perhaps that is a
fact that we should all be willing to consider as the future. And it
turn, perhaps it would be more constructive to invest in making the
transition as efficient as possible, much the way other neighborhoods
and cities have? I'm convinced that this will never be something that
everyone can agree on, but worth consideration.
As to your specific questions about how/why the BID has arrived at its
position of support for the project, I would never assume that my voice
speaks for the organization, as a whole. In fact, I would never
personally make the assumption that every member of the BID is in full
support of the project- that is something that I do not know.
Your specific questions would be more appropriately addressed by the BID
board, as a whole. The monthly meetings are held each 2nd Thursday of
the month. These meetings are open to the public and are usually held
at the police station on V street at 5pm.
I hope that I clarified any ambiguity I may have left anyone with in my
last email, but if not, please feel free to contact me directly or via
this forum.
Your neighbor,
Justin Abad
Cashion's Eat Place
202.797.1819
https://twitter.com/#!/cashionseatplce
Cashion's Eat Place
202.797.1819
https://twitter.com/#!/cashionseatplce
On 3/5/12 3:33 PM, maryjbelcher at comcast.net wrote:
>
> Hi Justin:
>
> It's good to hear your perspective as a business owner. I, too, am an
> Adams Morgan resident and business owner, although my business doesn't
> rely on foot traffic in the neighborhood. Also, I fully agree with
> you that the clearest ideas are best shared in a mutually respectful
> environment.
>
> That doesn't mean we can't disagree.
>
> I'm very interested in how the Adams Morgan Partnership Business
> Improvement District has analyzed the potential impact of the
> hotel and presented those findings to its business-owning members.
>
> Have BID members asked themselves: If I lived on Champlain or Euclid
> street, would I want a 10-story hotel on my block? Despite the
> temporary inconvenience of construction, would I want a hotel and its
> constant stream of delivery trucks and guest and employee traffic on
> my narrow street? Should Adams Morgan businesses seek "big impact"
> from the transient population of a large hotel, or, by creating a more
> diverse business district, become more reliant on neighborhood and
> city residents?
>
> How has the BID arrived at its position of support for this project?
>
> --Has the BID done an objective analysis of how a hotel will affect
> foot traffic in the neighborhood?
>
> --Has the BID examined the impact that hotels elsewhere in the city
> have on neighborhood businesses?
>
> --Has the BID examined closely the promises made by the developers for
> job creation? Does the BID agree that in the developer's promise of
> the creation of 565 jobs, there might be something askew in the fact
> that the developer's job-creation assessment includes 135 "trainers"
> in the gym an annual salaries of $105,000; and 8 trainers in the spa
> an annual salaries of $124,800? Does the BID find the other
> job-creation numbers in the developer's analysis realistic?
>
> Anyone wishing to read any of the hotel developer's plans and analyses
> can see them on the ANC-1-C website at:
> http://www.anc1c.org/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=category&id=16:proposed-hotel-at-first-church-of-christ-scientist&Itemid=76
> <http://www.anc1c.org/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=category&id=16:proposed-hotel-at-first-church-of-christ-scientist&Itemid=76>
>
> -- Mary Belcher
>
> 1869 Mintwood
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From: *"A.M. Wine Shoppe" <am.wineshoppe at gmail.com>
> *To: *"John Cloud" <john.cloud666 at yahoo.com>
> *Cc: *ahhjlh at verizon.net, "Denis James" <denisjames at verizon.net>,
> maryjbelcher at comcast.net, "Cynthia Pols" <polscm at aol.com>, "mintwood
> place" <mintwood-place at lists.mutualaid.org>
> *Sent: *Monday, March 5, 2012 1:00:39 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [Mintwood-place] ANC likely to vote on the First Church
> of Christ Scientist hotel project this Wednesday
>
> I think it is wise for all members of the community to share their
> thoughts, ideas, and support/concerns about the proposed hotel project
> at the ANC meeting.
>
> However, I do not see how emails with decisive and abrasive tones
> serve any practical function for constructive and civil discourse.
>
> As a small business owner of two locations in Adams Morgan (Cashion's
> Eat Place and A.M. Wine Shoppe), as well as a 9 year resident of the
> community, I personally believe the hotel project's potential positive
> impact will outweigh the initial inconvenience it will cause.
>
> Likewise, I also agree that it will change the landscape of Adams
> Morgan- but it is my opinion, for the better. If Foxhall partners
> continue to proceed with rational community concerns in mind, than I
> think the Hotel has the potential to serve as a daytime anchor for
> other retail businesses in the neighborhood and ultimately help change
> the public's perception of Adams Morgan for the better.
>
> Again, these are my personal opinions as a resident and small business
> owner in the community.
>
> For the sake of full disclosure I also want to make clear that I am a
> member of the Adams Morgan BID and public record will show that I have
> voted in support of the Hotel in the past (and all things being equal,
> plan to do so in the future).
>
> Both support and protest to this project, I believe, share a common
> root: what do "I" believe is best for "our" community. If we keep
> that in mind, perhaps we will have more constructive conversation and
> find common ground moving forward...
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Justin Abad
>
> ---
> Proprietor, Community Member
> Cashion's Eat Place & A.M. Wine Shoppe
>
> On 3/5/2012 10:25 AM, John Cloud wrote:
>
> Re: "The church has made it clear that if the project fails and
> there is no landmark, they will likely tear the church down. It
> is quite possible that on that site an even larger building will
> emerge".
>
> Hotel boosters don't do their cause any good by threatening
> blackmail, in which the community is warned to give in to this
> specific mega-development plan, lest we get something completely
> undefined but even worse in response. That just makes no sense at
> all. The reality is that the District long ago declared the main
> purpose of the area of the Reed-Cook Overlay was to to be
> residential housing and the kinds of small businesses that
> complemented residents in living in that neighborhood. That is the
> zoning in place right now. I think the great majority of the
> people who live in or adjacent to the overlay would thoroughly
> agree with that plan, if they were ever asked.
>
> But the point is, we were never asked. The Admo Millionaires
> Hotel has been thrust upon the 'hood from the top down, starting
> with the developers and the integrity-challenged DC Council,
> especially Councilman Graham. But this also includes the
> relatively spineless ANC-1C, chaired by a Graham employee with an
> obvious conflict of interest (Wilson Reynolds) who has never
> recused himself once from any vote over the hotel. Since the
> ANC-1C has approved the hotel scheme at every single previous
> stage it was put before them, I wouldn't get my hopes up too high
> that somehow they are miraculously going to see the light now.
>
> What will doom the hotel scheme is: (1) the very old law of
> Location, Location, Location, which is to say the entire scheme is
> just a really dumb idea for what to do at Champlain and Euclid
> Streets in that neighborhood, and (2) it's hard to see how the
> scheme can continue if it loses its great champion, Councilman
> Graham, who might be indicted any day now. In that context, the
> ANC-1C is just little grass blades shaking in the breeze. Just
> show up at the meeting and blow on them and watch them bend.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* "ahhjlh at verizon.net" <ahhjlh at verizon.net>
> *To:* Denis James <denisjames at verizon.net>;
> "maryjbelcher at comcast.net" <maryjbelcher at comcast.net>; 'Cynthia
> Pols' <polscm at aol.com>
> *Cc:* 'mintwood place' <mintwood-place at lists.mutualaid.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, March 5, 2012 9:23 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Mintwood-place] ANC likely to vote on the First
> Church of Christ Scientist hotel project this Wednesday
>
> The church has made it clear that if the project fails and there
> is no landmark, they will likely tear the church down. It is
> quite possible that on that site an even larger building will
> emerge, and we will lose another reminder of the history of our
> neighborhood and a very well-designed roman style church. Things
> are not easy, and neither are choices, but the church is important
> and the possible future scenario worse. Ann Hargrove
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Denis James <denisjames at verizon.net>
> *To:* maryjbelcher at comcast.net; 'Cynthia Pols' <polscm at aol.com>
> *Cc:* 'mintwood place' <mintwood-place at lists.mutualaid.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, March 5, 2012 9:04 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Mintwood-place] ANC likely to vote on the
> First Church of Christ Scientist hotel project this Wednesday
>
> Mary is correct. The owners of the Church building, the
> congregation of that branch of the Church of Christ Scientist,
> don't want the building "Landmarked" until approval of the
> whole project is forthcoming. That approval would enable their
> big payday. If the approval is something less than what has
> been requested, and the potential "profits" aren't a
> certainty, the Church may pull out of the deal. Thus, they
> don't want to be saddled with the Landmark status, which may
> limit what can be done with the property.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:*mintwood-place-bounces at lists.mutualaid.org
> [mailto:mintwood-place-bounces at lists.mutualaid.org] *On Behalf
> Of *maryjbelcher at comcast.net
> *Sent:* Monday, March 05, 2012 8:22 AM
> *To:* Cynthia Pols
> *Cc:* mintwood place
> *Subject:* Re: [Mintwood-place] ANC likely to vote on the
> First Church of Christ Scientist hotel project this Wednesday
> Hi Cynthia & Mintwood List:
> You are correct in noting that the ANC is voting on a measure
> related to the First Church of Christ Scientist "Church-Hotel"
> at its upcoming meeting this Wednesday night, March 7, at 7
> p.m. at Mary's Center. But the ANC is voting on the _design
> concept _of the hotel, not whether it should be
> historically landmarked. (The historic-landmarking issue is
> down the road a ways.)
> This upcoming ANC vote is very important, however, because if
> the ANC gives its nod to the "design" of the hotel--most
> notably its height and mass--this approval will carry weight
> when the church-hotel design-concept matter goes before the
> Historic Preservation Review Board later this month (on
> Thursday, March 22). In fact, the question of the design of
> the hotel is a more important matter for the ANC to take a
> position on than whether the church deserve historic
> designation: The design of the hotel will change the
> residential, low-rise character of Champlain and Euclid
> streets forever, and it will be our several-member ANC helping
> make that decision on our behalf.
> //There is great difference of opinion in the neighborhood
> about whether this hotel is a good idea for Adams Morgan.
> But there is no question, design-wise, that the 10-story hotel
> will tower over everything else in its midst, and it will
> out-mass every other building in the Reed-Cooke section of
> Adams Morgan.//
> Now the pro-hotel folks can go crazy with my comments on this
> listserv. Have at it, everybody! You can't change the fact
> that this is a giant building being squeezed into an
> intersection of two very narrow residential streets. And you
> can't change the fact that this upcoming ANC meeting is very
> important, although you know that the controversy tends to
> cause people to shut down and lose interest.
> Thanks, Cynthia, for letting the neighbors know about this
> upcoming ANC meeting on Wednesday night. It's time for
> everybody to show up at Wednesday night,
> Mary Belcher
> 1869 Mintwood
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: *"Cynthia Pols" <polscm at aol.com>
> *To: *"mintwood place" <mintwood-place at lists.mutualaid.org>
> *Sent: *Monday, March 5, 2012 12:48:40 AM
> *Subject: *[Mintwood-place] ANC likely to vote on the First
> Church of Christ Scientist hotel project this Wednesday
>
> Our advisory neighborhood commission, ANC 1C, is scheduled to
> meet this Wednesday (March 7) at 7PM in the Mary's Center
> building (the pink building) on 2355 Ontario Road. On the
> agenda is possible support of designation of the First Church
> of Christ Scientist church building as an historic landmark.
> People who have concerns about the proposed hotel project to
> be built in connection with the pending request for landmark
> status for the church should consider attending this meeting
> to voice those concerns and otherwise convey their concerns.
> */It is likely that the ANC will vote at this meeting on
> whether to support the developers' request for landmark
> designation for the church (as it is to be developed through
> the hotel project) and, in doing so, will be voting to approve
> (or disapprove) the developers' proposal as it currently
> stands, including the size and height of the proposed hotel
> building./*
> The meeting begins at 7PM but it is probably o.k. to arrive a
> few minutes late as several other items are scheduled to
> precede the hotel discussion, including an update on the 18th
> Street construction project, and are likely to take up some time.
> The church item is listed on the agenda for the meeting as
> item VII.C.1 and entitled "Review by ANC 1C of First Church of
> Christ Scientists Application for Historic Designation before
> the Historic Planning Review Board (HPRB)." Here is a link to
> the agenda for the March 7 ANC meeting.
> http://www.anc1c.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=68&Itemid=77
> <http://www.anc1c.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=68&Itemid=77>
> The hotel developers revised and updated their plans in late
> January in response to criticisms received at the November 15,
> 2011, meeting of the Zoning Commission (ZC). At that meeting,
> the ZC decided to "set down" the developers' "planned unit
> development" (PUD) application for redevelopment of the church
> and an adjacent property that presently contains the City
> Paper offices and several other offices. The ZC voted in favor
> of "setting down" the PUD application for consideration at the
> commission level in spite of negative recommendations made
> about the proposal by the District's Office of Planning. (The
> standard process is for PUD applications to be reviewed and
> revised at the staff level and then presented to the ZC for
> final approval in relatively polished form; in this case ,
> there are many issues unresolved that would have to be dealt
> with in a less structured way at the commission level.) Among
> other things, the professional planners at the Office of
> Planning deemed the height of the proposed hotel to be
> excessive for the neighborhood and the application to be
> flawed in numerous other ways.
> Here is a link to a video of the Zoning Commission's Nov 15,
> 2011, discussion of the developers' PUD application and
> decision to "set down" the application for disposition:
> http://view.liveindexer.com/ViewIndexSessionSLMQ.aspx?indexPointSKU=SHCxj82tLP2HHyUmjLVbRw%3d%3d
> Go to this link to download and see the developers' latest plans:
> http://adamsmorganhistorichotel.com/index.php/home
> As you can see in the latest plans, the developers still plan
> to construct a large hotel just behind (and attached to) the
> church that will be significantly taller than the church
> building and will loom large over it and the immediate
> neighborhood. While the developers revised their plans
> following the Nov 15 ZC meeting, they elected not to reduce
> the height of the building in any meaningful way (it went from
> something like 96 feet to something like 94 feet in the latest
> plans even though several of the zoning commissioners made
> clear at the Nov 15 meeting that they expected the developers
> to revise the plans by reducing the height of the building by
> eliminating a floor or two.
> The hotel project is apparently on the March 22 agenda of DC's
> Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) for "conceptual
> review" for possible designation as an historic landmark based
> on the revised plans by the hotel developer for the building.
> Go to this website for the agenda for this meeting:
> http://planning.dc.gov/DC/Planning/Historic+Preservation/About+HPO+&+HPRB/Who+We+Are/Historic+Preservation+Review+Board/Agendas+and+Reports/HPRB,+March+22,+2012
> <http://planning.dc.gov/DC/Planning/Historic+Preservation/About+HPO+&+HPRB/Who+We+Are/Historic+Preservation+Review+Board/Agendas+and+Reports/HPRB,+March+22,+2012>
> If you cannot attend Wednesday's ANC meeting and would like to
> convey your concerns to any and all ANC members, here is a
> link containing their names and contact info:
> http://www.anc1c.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=25&Itemid=62
> <http://www.anc1c.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=25&Itemid=62>
> Like most community residents, I would like to see the church
> building preserved and used for new purposes that will enhance
> the neighborhood. I was initially attracted to the hotel and
> am not necessarily unalterably opposed to the idea of a hotel
> (if properly scaled and dimensioned and if more is done to
> preserve its interior) but believe that perhaps we are missing
> out on an opportunity to turn the church building into a much
> more valuable community asset such as a library/community
> center that would not depend on appending a large-sized hotel
> to the church.
> Please feel free to contact me if you would like additional
> information.
> */Cynthia M. Pols/*
> */1862 Mintwood Place, NW/**/- # 304/*
> */Washington/**/, DC 20009/*
> */202-328-0654/*
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mintwood-place mailing list
> Mintwood-place at lists.mutualaid.org
> http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/mintwood-place
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mintwood-place mailing list
> Mintwood-place at lists.mutualaid.org
> <mailto:Mintwood-place at lists.mutualaid.org>
> http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/mintwood-place
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mintwood-place mailing list
> Mintwood-place at lists.mutualaid.org
> <mailto:Mintwood-place at lists.mutualaid.org>
> http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/mintwood-place
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mintwood-place mailing list
> Mintwood-place at lists.mutualaid.org
> http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/mintwood-place
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mintwood-place mailing list
> Mintwood-place at lists.mutualaid.org
> http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/mintwood-place
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mutualaid.org/pipermail/mintwood-place/attachments/20120305/ba0ef5e9/attachment.html>
More information about the Mintwood-place
mailing list