Fill Out Old Hebrew Home Survey by Friday, July 18 “to gather feedback on the % of mix income housing units at the site”

1125 Spring Road, NW

From DGS:

“Dear 1125 Spring Road Community,

Thank you for attending our, The Department of General Services (DGS) and DC Housing Authority (DCHA), community meeting concerning the redevelop of the 1125 Spring Road site. The Surplus Hearing was held on Tuesday, June 17, 2014 and was the first step in the disposition process which allowed us engage residents and to receive public comments.

We understand there are a number of concerns referencing this project to include the appropriate mix of income levels to include in this project. It is important to note that once the surplus of the Hebrew Nursing Home and the Paul Robeson School is completed, the site will be made available for DCHA to develop.

At this time, a Housing Development comprised of mixed income levels that include Workforce Development, Permanent Supportive, and likely Market Rate Housing as well as senior housing is being considered. The exact mix of housing has yet to be determined. As the project continues to develop there will be future opportunities for community members to provide additional input.

In the interim, DGS has developed a survey to gather residents feedback on the percentage of mix income housing units residents would prefer be developed at the site. We ask that you take the survey by the cob Friday, July 18, 2014 and please feel free to share this link with your family and neighbors.

We have also posted on our DGS website the Surplus Hearing presentation from June 17, Meeting Minutes and a copy of the Sign-In Sheet.

We continue to encourage constituents in both Wards 4 + 1 to forward any concerns they may have regarding this project to our attention.”

15 Comment

  • This survey is not the best written. It’s not clear if the first question about affordable housing is meant to then be broken down into smaller sets after? Also, the 0, 10, 25, 60, 100% options are odd. The survey would be better constructed if it actually used a formula that made you add up the percentages of each part. As its written, someone could go through and say that everything should be 60%.

  • as a resident of the area, please no more low income housing in the area. we have enough problems with the existing housing on 14th st and georgia ave.

    • I totally agree. I don’t mind a small (~15%) set aside for subsidized, but there needs to be some legitimate market rate properties in this area.

  • That survey is so incredibly whack.0, 10, 25, 60, and 100%? WTF?
    Survey monkey actually allows you to design a survey table where you can allocate 100% across the categories so that it adds up to 100%. This is basic survey design.
    That said, it seems like this survey was purposely designed to give muddied results.

  • The survey is pretty poorly designed, but everyone who’s interested in this issue should fill it out. Better to give DGS some feedback via a poorly designed survey than for them to claim that there were no “community objections” to their plan.

  • While I appreciate the outreach via the Internet, The results cannot possibly be taken as anything approaching representative of the community in any way.

    The poll is not a random sample of residents. It targets those most likely to have Internet connection, and most likely to be monitoring social media/email.

    It is entirely anonymous. It is open to everyone in the world with an Internet connection, apparently trusting the poll taker to self identify residency(!!!)

    It is open to ballot stuffing, I could probably proxy in to vote multiple times on multiple IP addresses. Or a whole bunch on one, I don’t know because I felt it would not be moral to try.

    As others have pointed out, it is curiously worded, giving an “interesting” choices for results.

    • Agreed with all of the points above about the survey’s flaws, but it’s better than nothing.
      Until people at the June 17 meeting at Petworth Library pressed DGS to survey residents, DGS seemed to think that that meeting by itself constituted a sufficient chance for “community feedback”… which was ludicrous.
      The meeting was only an hour and ten minutes. (It was listed as 6:30-8:30, but curiously, DGS seemed to think the ending time was supposed to be 7:30). There were about 60 people there, only about 10 of whom had a chance to speak… and there was no way of knowing whether those 10 voices accurately represented the 60 attendees (let alone all of the area residents), or just the ANCs and the most assertive individuals.
      So at least the survey offers _some_ opportunity for neighbors to provide feedback.

  • Very amateurish survey. Embarrassing in fact. A high school student could do better.

  • This survey does not capture the concerns of the neighbors, either at the meeting held with residents at the Petworth Library, at ANC meetings, or in follow-on discussions. Here are my principles:

    — Create a sustained tax base to better serve DC’s disadvantaged population (these revenues must be used to break the cycle of poverty, a la the Harlem Children’s Zone)
    — Pursue non-market distorting solutions (the best solution to housing is to increase supply – and this helps everybody; for set-asides for the disadvantaged, use vouchers)
    — Use zoning regulations to provide required set-asides for the disadvantaged using proven models (pursue mixed income models)
    — Respect neighbors by limiting height, sustaining reasonable set-backs from property lines, and adequate parking based on hard data from Park Place, the Swift, and Three Trees apartment buildings
    — Require an adequate number of units be designed for families

    The fronts of 1125 and 1131 must be sustained for the historical meaning. All else can go. I would like to see row houses where the Robeson school is (like behind Park Place), and then a modern apartment building covering the lots containing the existing structures at 1125 and 1131 that integrates the historical facades.

    Why is this the right approach?

    — It supplies mixed income opportunities to give people an opportunity to succeed.
    — It requires no tax-payer subsidy and establishes sustained tax revenues
    — It increases housing supply to keep down costs while providing additional family housing
    — It brings new children to the neighborhood to sustain the efforts to improve Raymond Elementary

  • Big +1 to “From attending the meetings about this, it seems clear that if there isn’t significant resistance from the community, this will be surplussed to DCHA and they will create a 100% LIHTC housing, building up to 200 units. And, of course, there are interlopers from outside the immediate neighborhoods who are advocated for this for other political reasons. But ward one, and Columbia Heights specifically, has more than its fair share of public housing.”
    The community needs to speak up, or DGS is going to plow right ahead with the DCHA/100% low-income housing plan.

  • This is a biased and horribly written survey meant to skew the results. The majority of adjacent residents are pushing for 80% market rate and 20% affordable housing. There is no option for that. At this point, the City is likely considering it for “permanent supportive” housing (ie moving folks from DC General homeless shelter). I don;t trust this at all and I am very concerned that the ANC Commissioner does not push for the community process to happen. Please let your Council member and ANC commissioner know if you are unhappy with how this is moving forward. So many lies…

  • It seems like DCHA is trying to push this through during the window in which Ward 1 has no proper representation on the City Council. Lame duck Graham has limited power to push his residents’ interests (and apparently even less of an inclination to do so than in the past). Presumptive future Council member Nadeau hasn’t even been elected yet, so she has no official means of advocating for her (potentially) future constituents. At-large Council members are the only option in reality, and they are getting demands from all over the city that they’re trying to balance and, as observed in another comment, many of those demands are in direct opposition to the interests of the community that this project will directly impact.

    The totally sloppy survey less than 48 hours after the last meeting seems to be more evidence that DCHA wants to get this signed and sealed ASAP. Bravo to them for picking an opportune time to push through an unpopular initiative.

    • Sorry, misread the article that there was a meeting this Tuesday… so a month after the meeting, but it’s still a dreadful survey and the rest of my comment stands.

Comments are closed.