What the… The Whole Foods coming to Shaw Near 9:30 Club isn’t a Done Deal Yet!?!

965 Florida Ave, NW

Nothing is official until the doors actually open – this I think I am finally learning. Back in May we finally thought the Whole Foods coming to Shaw was officially official. Alas – the Washington Business Journal now reports:

“The North Shaw neighborhood could lose its Whole Foods Market before it even gets it if the D.C. Council doesn’t act to approve the development.

The sale price could be why Council Chairman Phil Mendelson hasn’t brought the issue up for a vote. During a hearing in early June, Mendelson and Councilwoman Mary Cheh expressed concerns with the proposed sale price of $1.4 million, citing a D.C. government appraisal of the property at $27 million.”

100 Comment

  • The tag for this post is perfect.

  • For $1.4m, I’d be looking to buy that lot as well! The Government’s assessed value sounds much closer to reality.

  • Please don’t let “North Shaw” become a thing.

  • Yeah, no way they should be able to buy a $27m property for $1.4m. That’s some serious BS. Let someone else develop it.

  • “At the time, Matt Robinson of MRP Realty explained that the sale price was reduced due to the requirement that 30 percent of the residential units at development, named The Griffith, be affordable. The original proposal was for 364 units, with 65 of those being set aside as affordable housing. That has been amended to 352 units, with 106 of them being affordable housing.”

    • Exactly. They adjusted the price for affordable units and because the rest go down in price because of that.

    • So just take the affordable housing units out of the agreement. ADUs have been a disaster in the district anyways.

    • Accountering

      This is getting ridiculous…. Not only are we spending unprecedented sums to build affordable housing, we are also spending money off the books, in the form of lower sale prices of district land. This parcel alone means we just spent an extra $25,000,000 on affordable housing this year.

      • That’s some weird accountering. I think it means that the district forewent property tax revenues on a $25m assessed value. That’s what, like 200k/year?

      • Mouse is right on this one. While I disagree with this one, saying we’re spending 25M in this fiscal year on the project is hyperbole. You should be amortizing that over the entire amount of time that housing will be affordable.
        On the other hand to calculate the complete cost you would also need to take into account the reduced property tax revenues as a result of the decrease in value of the property (and adjacent properties) as compared to what market rate housing would generate.

        • Accountering

          Ok, so we are spending $25,000,000, to get an asset that we can amortize over the life of the building. We lost $25,000,000 in revenue, and instead we get more affordable units. Not to mention the loss of property tax revenue, and income tax revenue from the foregone wealthier residents. There are a lot of factors of course.
          I am simply arguing that it is complete garbage to do this type of funny budget math. Put it in the budget (like the $200,000,000) and not by these weird minimum % numbers that wind up being a cost as well.

          • Accountering is right. We could have sold it at fair value for $27m, instead we’re selling it for about $1.5m. That is an actual cost. If we were a company, our net worth would be reduced by ~$25.5 million.
            By my math, that means we’re spending, what, $250,000 per affordable housing unit? Maybe that’s not bad value, but let’s be honest about what we’re doing.

    • That works out to over $235K per affordable unit. Seems really high to me. What costs would the developer pay per square foot to put up this building?

      • High-rises cost about $250/square foot to build. $235K covers just the construction costs on about 900 sq. ft.

        • FYI – the new income restricted units recently built are tiny and tend to max out at 2BR (which will probably be under 900 sq feet). The average ones I’m seeing in new buildings are studios at 350-400 sq feet and 1BRs at 550 sq feet. Not sure if there are statutory minimums for square footage demanded by the city. The low income apartments in this new building will be small.

    • Here are the reasons that the price was reduced to $1.5-million:

      1. This is the first property which is now subject to the 30% Affordable Housing requirement — for all city owned parcels — a regulatory provision approved by the DC Council over the last year, or so.
      2. The affordable housing requirement was approved AFTER this project was approved by the last Mayoral administration and much community effort in support of the project.
      3. At this very late last minute, to keep the deal together, with many years already into the negotiating and planning process, the developer agreed to change a substantial amount of the project to affordable housing — which is I believe will yield approximately 105 affordable units with an AMI of 30-50%! This is quite a win for the affordable housing advocates and should be supported by every single council member during the emergency vote for approval.
      4. While drastically changing the project to accommodate the very substantial amount of affordable housing, the developer will be losing a substantial amount of profit from: a. Loss of income on affordable housing units; b. The profit loss from the remaining residential units which will also be sold at a reduced market value. The reason for this is that DC law requires that the unit “finishes” for the affordable units be the same as for the market rate units. This will, in effect, reduce the “luxury level” for the market rate units prices — as the potential market pricing will be reduced with “less luxe finishes” throughout the building, and less than the market would bear if the finishes were all more luxury.
      5. Finally, several analyses, including one by the DC Fiscal Policy Institute, support this fair proposition, supported by the math).

      • Please see the DC Fiscal Policy Institute’s post in support of this developmental transaction: http://www.dcfpi.org/affordable-housing-could-be-coming-to-the-u-street-area-thanks-to-new-law

        • Accountering

          A post by the DCFPI (a partisan group that supports more spending on social services, in all cases) cannot be taken seriously here when the question is whether a project that creates affordable housing makes fiscal sense.
          This is like believing in the Republicans Voodoo economics where they get to create increased growth due to tax cuts. That is how we got the bush tax cuts and the deficit from. Or simpler, its like letting the fox guard the hen house.

          • The argument on whether “spending on affordable housing” makes fiscal sense is already lost. Sorry! The Bowser Administration has been elected partially by those wanting more affordable housing. So, in light of the several hundred million already approved for affordable housing this year as well as the “30% required affordable housing units on any DC owned parcel being sold”, the question is: how do we do affordable housing without creating the ghetto’s of yore and the its accompanied crew violence and crime? 965 Florida is a partial answer: it is not 100% affordable, and therefore of mixed economic residential use. While 30% is a bit high for my comfort — I’d prefer 20% — let’s hope that 30% does not meet the “social environment” threshold which will bring gun-fire on the residents who will be residing in this lot.

          • Agreed — I too was looking at the DCFPI’s website to see what their angle was, and they’re very much in favor of affordable housing. Not exactly neutral.

          • @9th Street Neighbor-

            It isn’t lost, as Mendelson and Cheh are proving. Bowser doesn’t run the council.

        • Yeah, despite their name, DCFPI is an advocacy group. Using a DCFPI post as a source in a social services debate is analogous to using an NRA post as a source to support the position that gun laws don’t work.

  • A 25M Dollar give away by the council and we don’t even get a 7-11 out of the deal?

  • At the ANC 1B meeting last night CM Nadeau gave a good overview of why the sales price lowered. It is, in short, because the city is pre-paying for ‘affordable’ housing in the development. And by affordable I mean the kind lowered to 50-80% of adjusted median income, not the housing vouchers/projects kind many associate with that term.

    That said, the developer is building many more affordable housing units which 1) costs money lost on those specific units and 2) lowers the overall price for other units in the development. Add it all up and it is easy to see how $27M gets down. And this is a perfect example of a way the DC government gets a project developed AND builds that affordable housing we so desperately need.

    Another of CM Nadeau’s big point last night was that it is fine for CMs Mendelson & Che to ask questions and ask for independent assessments to quantify the valuation. But what is not cool is them coming in at the last minute, after the developers and Whole Foods had negotiated a deal in good faith with other DC Government agencies, and derail it. That screws up all the work that the neighborhood, neighbors, agencies, etc. had put into this deal. They weren’t ignorant of this earlier – so why didn’t they object earlier?

    And lastly, because of the size of the space Whole Foods is set to occupy, it is highly unlikely that any other grocer will go in there. Others walked away from it because the size was too small and no one knows if others would step up to do it.

    Long story short, this is major BS to derail it last minute. A lot of us worked very hard to see this deal through. If it happens it sends a message to any other ward that the city council can choose to put a hold on deals at any minute. I hope folks who care about this will consider calling the council members and expressing their support for it going through.

    • Accountering

      I would disagree with you 100% that Shaw needs more affordable housing. The fact the city is blowing an extra $25,000,000 (on top of the $200,000,000) to cram more poverty in Shaw is ridiculous.

      • 80% AMI is hardly poverty. That’s over $60K for a single. And my guess is that it will be young, upwardly mobile professionals snatching them up at 80% AMI who won’t be means tested as their income moves higher.

        • I completely support this development, but this affordable housing deal seems like total bs. Why subsidize people to live a little closer to the city? 80% AMI is a completely reasonable salary, there are plenty of apartments available in the city that are affordable at that income level.
          This is essentially subsidizing a bunch of people who would otherwise rent a little further away in Petworth or 16th Street heights to live in a fancy building above a Whole Foods. And we’re doing it just because the mayor thinks affordable housing sounds good. Eliminate the ADUs and get this deal done.

        • CORRECTION: The AMI for this project is between 30 and 50%, which means that eligibility would provide for those with family incomes of between $32k and $85k.

          • And remember, income from social programs (section 8, social security disability, etc) counts towards “family income.” That’s the tricky little game they play with this. It’s sold as housing for police and teachers, but it’s not.

          • Here’s the 30/50/80 limits based on family size for DC. 30 and 50% are damn low.

          • That is a BIG difference.

          • Mail’s right. Landlords want tenants with steady guaranteed income, so most of the 30%-50% AMI units go to those with housing vouchers/SSDI/other government tranfer payments. The “teachers and cops” canard glosses over the fact that entry level salaries for MPD and DCPS teachers disqualify them for 60% AMI and below, and after a couple years of experience they’re over the 80% limit too.

          • “The “teachers and cops” canard glosses over the fact that entry level salaries for MPD and DCPS teachers disqualify them for 60% AMI and below, and after a couple years of experience they’re over the 80% limit too.”
            Once you add in overtime, these guys are pushing 6 figures pretty quickly.

          • And the fact that most “cops” want nothing to do with DC once they’re off-duty. If you were treated as most MPD officers are wouldn’t you prefer a suburban retreat to a cramped reminder of the crap that’s hurled your way on a daily basis?

        • You can find HUD’s AMI (Area Median Income) figures at:
          HUD defines 80% of AMI as “low income,” 50% as “very low income,” and 30% as “extremely low income.”
          For a 1-person household, 80% of the 2014 AMI is $59,920, 60% is $44,940, and 30% is $22,470. For a 4-person household, 80% of the 2014 AMI is $85,600, 60% of the 2014 AMI is $64,200, and 30% is $32,100.
          Styglan1dc, did the Councilmembers specifically say that they were planning for the affordable units in this building to be for people earning 50%-80% of the AMI? My recollection of the plan for the Old Hebrew Home was that the units were going to be for 30%-50% of AMI. (Or maybe it was 30%-60% of AMI.)

      • You clearly decided to gloss over my clear break in there to describe what affordable meant. This is more like housing for teachers and police officers, not welfare housing. But I think I might be arguing with the wrong commenter since it is clear you have your mind made up.

        • Are there occupational restrictions we don’t know about on this housing? If so you could make that clear. Even if it were, why should be pay for teachers and police officers to live in fancy new buildings above Whole Foods when they could afford apartments a mile up the road?
          Frankly, I don’t see much demand for urban apartments among that demographic in any case. This is a giveaway to upwardly mobile young people essentially because the word “affordable housing” is politically popular.

        • Accountering

          This is such a useless canard. Teachers and Police officers are paid quite well, and do not qualify for this 60% AMI housing. This stuff goes to people on vouchers, because the LLs know the checks will be consistent every month.

    • Accountering

      To your last suggestion, I do care about it, and just emailed my CM. We should not be spending money (off the books spending, in the form of reduced sales prices) on anything. This should ALL be budgeted, much like the soccer stadium is in the budget, this subsidy should be in the budget

      • +1000 to this point and your previous one about pushing more affordable housing into this part of town). I don’t care if Chen and Mendelson just walked in on this to blow it up. I didn’t know any of this about this deal either until just now. All this shady nonsense happening under our noses with zero publicity or communication about it.

        It’s ridiculous…insane really…to worry about affordable housing on top of a grocery store the people who qualify for affordable housing can’t afford to shop in. The way people solve these issues is mindblowing to me. Here, have a super cheap apartment at 30% the FMV and sorry you’ll have to travel a mile to find a grocery store you can afford to buy groceries in!

      • That sounds like a nice slogan — but when this came up in a WAMU series a while back, a few of the deals they cited would be puzzling to unbundle. For affordable dwelling units, it’s relatively easy to unbundle them: DCHA, for instance, could negotiate a bulk purchase of a 20% of the condos in a building before it’s built, at a discount and with specified finishes.

        But what about the Wharf, where the city gets substantial ground-level open space improvements (higher seawall, rebuilt marinas, riverwalk, streets, bike path, three plazas and one park) — but only because it was possible for a developer to build parking underneath? CityCenterDC works much the same way. I guess the city could “buy” the public spaces somehow, but that often ends up just capitalized into the land sale price.

    • “Another of CM Nadeau’s big point last night was that it is fine for CMs Mendelson & Che to ask questions and ask for independent assessments to quantify the valuation. But what is not cool is them coming in at the last minute, after the developers and Whole Foods had negotiated a deal in good faith with other DC Government agencies, and derail it.”

      This is pretty rich coming from Nadeau, considering she very pettily “came in at the last minute” and tried to derail the tax-cut plan, simply because it was negotiated before she took office and therefore she never got a chance to weigh in on it.

    • “That said, the developer is building many more affordable housing units which 1) costs money lost on those specific units and 2) lowers the overall price for other units in the development. Add it all up and it is easy to see how $27M gets down.”
      I could see it accounting for _some_ reduction in price… but not for reducing $27M to $1.4M. That’s ridiculous.
      I’m also not convinced that the presence of “affordable” units necessarily lowers the price for the other units… or if it does, not by a significant amount.

      • Or the commercial part of the lot…$1.4M to be able to put a Whole Foods in!? That’s a complete give away to the developer.

      • It’s not about lowering market-rate pricing. Mandating that nearly a third of the units have to rent at below market rates in perpetuity seriously reduces the value of the building’s future income stream. That’s reflected in the reduced site valuation.

        • To $1.4M? It’s still a giveaway. Period. People pay that for one single family rowhome two blocks away from there.

  • Nope, and still not North Shaw either.

  • Okay, lets suppose the rents on these affordable units will be $1,000 less a month than others ($1400 vs $2400). That works out to $12K/yr per unit or $1.272M/yr in total. Lets also suppose the ROI on this development is 20 years – that works out to approx $25M…or the discount in the land sale.
    I’m not saying that the price is right or wrong, but there needs to be a bit more investigation and logical reasoning in this rather than emotion and politics.

    • Your math is wrong.

      65 units. 12k per year per unit makes it 780k per year.

      Next, this is nominal dollars. You need to discount the future stream of payments to be in present value terms since the 25m reduction in sales price is a present value number. To put this another way, 25m reduced purchase prices invested at a safe 4% interest (very modest for this sum of money) is worth almost 55 million in year 20.

      This math used to get a 25m reduction in sales prices is, likely, indefensible.

      • I used the original number of affordable units, not the amended number, so your calculation (in purely nominal terms) is correct. (I won’t double-check.)

        My other point, the much larger point, about putting everything in present value terms is sound. That’s what makes this appear egregious.

        The ability to invest the $25m in reduced purchase price is massive. This is a giant giveaway on the basis of that number.

        • It would probably be helpful to look at the developer’s political contributions to shed a bit more sunshine on the issue.
          That is a stupidly large giveaway by the city and you know many people got paid.

        • I don’t quite understand your point on the present value calculation…also it’s not even remotely correct. So you’re saying…the $25m discount is ripping off the govt bc…if it earned 4% interest over 20 years it’d be worth $55mm…when?

          Present value is used to determine the present value of a series of future cash flow over a number of years… PV = total cash flow (ie if you got $1 a year over 10 years you’d plug in $10 here) / (1 + discount rate (in your example 4%)^payment period (10 years in my little example)

          Lot’s of armchair finance whizzes on Popville when it comes to the commercial development stories. Bottom line though, the whole ADU and other affordable programs are completely asinine. For every 1 person that lands one of these units there will be 30 turned away, and forced to contend with the market rate rental market which will get jacked up even more due to these stupid schemes.

          • @Actual RE Professional

            I work in finance. On the math side of finance, no less. (My PhD is in a statistical science.)

            The future value is the dual of present value. They can both be used to show anything. I was merely illustrating the point that the numbers about reduced rent are meaningless without discounting. A $1,000 per month reduction in a rental stream coming in in 20 years is worth practically nothing.

            It was pretty easy (i.e., I could do it in my head) to illustrate the difference between present value and future value with my example. 25m over 20 years at 4% is worth about $50-60m at the end of the horizon. This shows that a reduction in sales price of $25m is actually much, much larger than it appears because it takes place today. Conversely, the reduction in rental income is actually much, much smaller because it is spread out into the distant future.

          • Since you work in finance, you know your 4% return assumption is way too conservative. Makes this an even worse deal for the city.

          • 20 year Treasury is trading at 2.8%. I’d say 4% is generous enough. But please enlighten us if you know where we can get risk free yields greater than 5% for the next 20 years…..I’ll invest immediately!

          • @dno.

            No doubt. I was making the assumption that a 4% return on $25m is virtually risk-free.

          • @ The OP Anon

            If you have $25m to invest, I can likely point you in a few directions.

            You and I? We ain’t getting that type of return in the present interest rate environment without risk.

          • LOL @ RE Professional struggling to understand NPV calculations.
            FYI for everyone – n=1 is right. If anything 4% is an extremely generous discount rate. Anyone who thinks they can reliably get much more than that has no experience in finance.

          • @n=1

            Mmmm…you still have your concepts screwed up on this.

            That’d be like me saying “Whoa! That dollar you’re not going to pay me today is actually like me losing $2 because in 20 years I’d have $2 so I’m going to count it like I’m missing out on $2 now and ignore the fact 20 years hasn’t lapsed.”

            Either way, Andy’s analysis is correct. The true way the developer is looking at it is “Market cap rates (the return on investment a RE investor requires) for urban infill multifamily are 5%, the new product mix of 11 less units (352 instead of 364) and 40 more affordable is going to cost me $1.25mm in net annual income so $1.25 / 5% = $25mm. That is how the commercial real estate market works, which is all the developer cares about and how they probably arrived at their figure. Is the amount of hypothetical lost income fungible and open to interpretation? Of course it is.

            But the bogus analysis of really the govt is losing out on $40mm or that the future lost rental income is really minimal because you didn’t discount it (that’d also assume that there are zero increases in rent to keep pace with inflation) makes zero sense. They are losing out on $25mm, bc they are pushing a policy the reduced the income of the property and affected what market investors would pay.

            But congrats on your PhD in a statistical science, it makes you an authority on real estate valuation.

          • I take back the last part (where I’m being a douche about the Phd). I’d delete that part…but I don’t know how. Uncalled for…we’re talking about real estate valuation over the internet…no reason for name calling. Sorry!

          • @Actual RE Professional

            My point is simple: you need to put all costs and benefits in present value terms. As my example was intended to illustrate, this is not a minor adjustment.

            The lost rental income is a stream of payments coming in monthly for 20 years, say. Losing 1k per month amounts to a nominal loss of 240k over the 20 years. With a 5% discount rate, compounded monthly, halfway through (at month 120), the lost 1k is only worth about $600. In total, the present value of the discounted stream of lost rental income is about 150k, not 240k.

            The gain (to the firm) of a reduction of 25m occurs today. You need to compare the sum of the discounted lost rental streams to the reduction in sales price. Everything should be in present value terms.

            I’ll now genuflect before you. A further reply about your presumed background is beneath me.

          • And, by the way, there is a contradiction in the narrative being told.

            It appears that the original sales price was more like 25m. (I haven’t seen this anywhere, so it’s just speculation based upon what we’ve read.) This purchase price included plans for 65 low income units. (This is reported.)
            The sales price was reduced by 25m when an additional 40 units were specified.
            This means we should only be balancing the lost rental income on 40 units (not 106) against the reduction in sales price. The prior 65 units were already priced-in.

      • Accountering

        Lets not forget that the market rate units are worth less because of the affordable housing. Given the chance to rent/buy in a building that is 70/30 or 90/10 or 100/0, most everyone of means is going to choose the 90/10 or 100/0.

        • Even still, $1.4M for the lot looks like a MASSIVE giveaway.

          • Accountering

            I agree. I (personally… me) would take this lot for 1.4M, and put up this building. Even with the connections I have (somewhat limited, but could probably get the level of funding required for this deal based on this sweetheart sales price.
            Andie and I paid $500,000 for a shell a few blocks south of here on .015 acres, so yes, the 1.4M is still a large giveaway.
            I guess thats my problem with these – when it gets too complicated (See: Reeves Swap) the city winds up taking it in the pants. Just sell the thing for $27,000,000 and then spend that on affordable housing if you want. That $27,000,000 buys a lot of four-unit buildings.

          • @Accountering.

            Absolutely. All of your points are dead-on today. Make it a line-item and bring it above-board.

          • Agreed. The city keeps doing way too many sweetheart deal with for-profit entities.

        • Accountering, you are right on that point. With 30 percent mandated as “affordable” units, this inevitably has to bring down the quality/attractiveness of the remaining 70 percent- especially with the rule that all finishes have to be the same, regardless of whether it is an “affordable” unit or not. If we can agree that the ‘police and teachers’ thing is a false narrative, that begs the question of WHO will be filling these apartments. If they end up being people, who are perpetual wards of the state, you may find that the problems that accompany people who always get things for free don’t go away when you place them next to people who actually have to work for a living. There’s something to be said about an ownership society- is it any wonder that renters are more likely to abuse the walls and premises of their (temporary) homes compared to owners? When someone is getting it for free at the taxpayer’s expense, there is less investment in (a) their community, and (b) their own living spaces. Good luck to anyone who wants to live here. I’d consider it a gamble.

    • HaileUnlikely

      You all are trying too hard with the math. It doesn’t take a PhD statistician or a real estate professional to understand that selling this plot of land for roughly what nearby houses on lots the size of postage stamps go for is basically a giveaway.

  • And then there’s this article relating to how low-income boys actually do *worse* in mixed income housing! So maybe this whole mixed income housing rage is not actually a panacea to a lot of our problems… http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120827/study-low-income-boys-perform-worse-mixed-income-housing
    “But a new paper in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry suggests that mixed-income housing has its own problems, too. A team of researchers at Duke University found that low-income boys in mixed-income communities are more likely than their peers in uniformly poor neighborhoods to engage in anti-social behavior such as fighting, lying, and stealing. The greater the economic inequality in the neighborhood, the worse the low-income boys in this study fared.”

  • Help Save the Shaw Whole Foods!

    Email the DC council using this handy link: http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/2041/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=17139

  • OK, I take back my last part where I’m a dick and making snarky remarks about the PhD. I would delete that part but I don’t know how. Doesn’t add anything to the convo. So…I’m sorry.

    • @Actual RE professional

      No worries. I’m not offended. Saying things one regrets within 15 seconds is the hallmark of the internet. I do it with virtually every comment.

  • Hmmm…Ok my post with the dickish comment goes right through but now as I frantically try to post my regret and apology post and it won’t post. Don’t hate me! But I stand by my original analysis. Either way it’s moot and I think $1.4mm for a lot without accounting for all the costs to build is not as much of a “steal” as people think.

    • I’m curious, but doesn’t all of this assume that we all agree the city should be investing another $25M in affordable housing? I think the point above about bringing it into the budget makes sense. Does this $25M discount come off the line item for affordable housing in the city budget, or does it go on top of it? Is it just another $25M the taxpayer is spending? If it comes off the line item and you get more bang for your buck for affordable housing by doing it this way than just dumping $25M elsewhere, fine. But I doubt it is the case that this was budgeted for.

      And is this the best deal the city can get? If we all agree, hey we want a Whole Foods (or some alternative grocery store) plus affordable housing in that spot, would other developers give us a better deal? It’s hard for me to believe if you made the same deal for, let’s say, $4M for the lot, that some developer wouldn’t still jump at it.

    • Why would you do this? We’ve talked about this before

  • Can someone explain the ADU affordability please. let say for a 30% ADU ($32K salary), that person can only get approved for $100,000 ish Loan (with a 10% down payment).
    I have yet to see any ADU in the city for less than $250,000. Which will make it impossible for the ADU borrower ( be it at 30, 50, or 80) to qualify for?
    So the ADU units price are reduced but none of ADU borrower (30/50/80) can get approved for a loan to buy them? am I missing something?

  • From what I’ve seen this year, which makes me a little ill, a chunk of the $25M worth of affordable housing will be going to… the savvier or lesser ambitious yuppies. E.g. a 24-year old secretary, with zero hardships, who would rather live alone in a mixed income building than in a group house, and would rather stay a secretary than go to school a little longer, with still-involved well-to-do mom and dad out-of-town, able to support her should she have a higher than usual dry-cleaners bill. Is that not an awesome way for us to spend the city’s money. Families with true hardships who really need the help will need to get in line.

Comments are closed.