Re: [BloomingdaleActionList] Support a McMillan Petition Drive

We'll simply have to agree to disagree.


------Original Message------
From: Todd <todd20036@gmail.com>
To: <bloomingdaleactionlist@googlegroups.com>
Date: Sunday, April 28, 2013 5:42:03 PM GMT-0400
Subject: Re: [BloomingdaleActionList] Support a McMillan Petition Drive

The time for alternative proposals was in 2006 when the city was looking
for a developer for the site. Friends of McMillan and others who share
their vision should have worked to build a consortium of developers who are
focused on the types of plans they desire. I'm sure there are many
companies who focus on historic preservation and adaption who could have
led such a team (like the guy who spearheaded the High Line). If this
didn't happen, then we can't blame the city and VMP. If this did happen
but the other consortium wasn't chosen, then that would reflect the city's
desire and direction for the site.

Once a development firm/consortium was chosen, then the city should be
focused on working that group. In government contracting, once you make an
award, you don't then seek alternate plans from competitors. And only so
much of a contract is FOIA-able. Yes, we should be able to get the general
contract terms and scope of work, but the financial details other than the
total price is proprietary and confidential. This is standard for
government contracting. If you could FOIA financial details of contracts
with private firms, then every company would FOIA their competitors'
contracts to see their financial structure and details. The financial
details of these contracts are always confidential, and they should be.

The $50M the city is providing for development of this site is because of
the very high cost of remediation. The site was designed for sand
filtration, and much of the infrastructure is deteriorating (as noted in
the Catholic plan). The high cost of securing this site for development of
any form (even as just a park) would be a total barrier to any development
company taking on this site, which is why the city is providing support (as
it's in the best interest of the city to have this property be active and
not dormant). Any developer would need this support (even to do the
Catholic plan). It is standard practice for municipalities to provide
financial support for these types of projects, along with baseball stadiums
and other economic development activities.

For those who want additional park land nearby, I'd recommend:
--advocating for opening up the McMillan Reservoir for public use. You can
read about Seattle's plan for their reservoir here:
http://www.seattle.gov/parks/projects/west_seattle_reservoir/ The McMillan
Reservoir site can't be commercially developed due to the underground water
holding tanks, but it can support park land for public use.
--advocating for the 25% park portion of the sand filtration site to be as
innovative and cool as possible. I think we can all agree having a park
area that is a destination park (like the NYC Highline) would be a great
asset to the area.






On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Patrick Hudak <patrickhudak@gmail.com>wrote:

> Here's my view:
>
> 1. The city is supplying the developers with over $50 million in taxpayer
> dollars to build something that destroys the historic integrity of the site
> without considering alternative proposals. How do we know another plan
> wouldn't be of higher quality, better serve the needs of the surrounding
> communities and be more economically viable?
>
> 2. The city entered into an exclusive rights agreement with VMP to build
> the development if VMP's plan is accepted. *The city has refused to make
> the details of the agreement public, despite our FOIA request*. I've
> lived in the DC area long enough to know something here just ain't right.
> If this plan is such a great deal, why is the city unwilling to make the
> details of the current agreement public or consider alternative proposals?
>
> 3. I've also been told the city will not explain how it has calculated
> its numbers on the benefits of the development, and there has not been an
> independent analysis. Why not?
>
> 4. Students at Catholic University have proposed a plan that deserves a
> serious look, which the city will not give it:
> http://www.mcmillanpark.com/ The Collage City plan includes the
> amenities many folks want while proposing very creative and world-class
> ideas for adaptive reuse of the site. Again, why the rush to build
> mediocrity? Who is benefiting from this agreement?
>
> 5. The High Line in NY was never intended to be used as a garden or
> promenade, and I doubt that all of its economic benefits can be directly
> quantified.
>
> 6. The current plan destroys nearly all of the underground cells, and
> it's unclear to what extent even the remaining cells will be permanently
> preserved and open to the public.
>
> 7. It's untrue that we have to choose between amenities and quality
> design.
>
> I'd like for someone to explain why the city will not 1.) consider
> alternative proposals, like that of Collage City 2.) come clean with the
> deal it has with the developer and 3.) explain how it's coming up with its
> numbers.
>
> Patrick
>
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Todd <todd20036@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Part of the issue I have is that most of the 90+ acres of the historic
>> site as described in the brochures (a calculation that includes the
>> multiple layers of the park) were never intended for public use (the
>> underground chambers were designed for sand, not people). Maintaining
>> some portion of the underground structures never meant for public use to
>> showcase sand filtration history is fine, but I haven't seen any indication
>> that maintaining most of them and making them available for human use is
>> feasible from a financial or structural standpoint. They weren't meant for
>> people and you definitely can't build anything on top of them as is.
>>
>> The current public use square footage of the lot is 25 sq ft. (not 90)
>> The current plan puts aside over 6 acres for a park--over 25% of the
>> surface space. So right now the split is 75/25. And if you take into
>> account the portion being dedicated to new housing, then less than 50% of
>> the site is being commercially developed (non-housing or park). I've been
>> to Tyson's corner, and it definitely doesn't have 25% of the space
>> dedicated to park land. ;-) But as I said before, I think having office
>> space, retail, restaurants, and a grocery store, etc., at the site will be
>> great for the neighborhood (economically and quality of life). We can
>> walk up the street instead of driving to Harris Teeter and other places.
>> Would I also be fine with more of it being park? Sure. And I think the
>> Historic Preservation Review Board can push the current plan in that
>> direction.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Patrick <patrickhudak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know anyone who wants the status quo to remain. Everyone I've
>>> spoken with once the site returned to public use.
>>>
>>> The DC government, VMP and some of their supporters are peddling a false
>>> choice between 90% destruction of a historic site and the building of
>>> something the HPRB has described as Tysons Corner or Rosslyn.
>>>
>>> Our petition asks them to slow down, reject the VMP propsal and consider
>>> alternative proposals with various degrees of development.
>>>
>>> Again, it's a lie that we have to choose between the current poor
>>> proposal and amenities.
>>>
>>> Sent from my Droid Charge on Verizon 4G LTE
>>>
>>> ------Original Message------
>>> From: Todd Phillips <todd20036@gmail.com>
>>> To: "bloomingdaleactionlist@googlegroups.com" <
>>> bloomingdaleactionlist@googlegroups.com>
>>> Cc: "friends-of-mcmillan-park@googlegroups.com" <
>>> friends-of-mcmillan-park@googlegroups.com>,"
>>> bloomingdaleactionlist@googlegroups.com" <
>>> bloomingdaleactionlist@googlegroups.com>
>>> Date: Saturday, April 27, 2013 11:46:18 AM GMT-0400
>>> Subject: Re: [BloomingdaleActionList] Support a McMillan Petition Drive
>>>
>>> I think park land is a great asset, but most urban parks like Central
>>> Park and the National Mall have high-density development all around them.
>>> Bloomingdale doesn't have that (rightly so as it's a residential
>>> neighborhood for the most part). That's why w/o some development in
>>> McMillian there won't be any significant additional tourism revenue--there
>>> have to be businesses for tourists and visitors to spend their money at.
>>> W/o new businesses there is really no big economic benefit to the area--no
>>> new jobs, no new places for investment, etc. Of course property values may
>>> go up, but that only benefits a small set of homeowners.
>>>
>>> We are all clamoring for new restaurants and businesses. I haven't seen
>>> anyone complaining about Red Hen for example. :-) So out of a 92 acre park
>>> it certainly seems reasonable to have some development that offers services
>>> and amenities we all seem to want. 1st and RI can only support so many new
>>> places.
>>>
>>> Though I agree it would be great to have our own Meridian Hill park or
>>> something equivalent nearby along with new retail, restaurants and some
>>> local employment. Some folks may be even able to walk to work at a local
>>> office building. I think it would be great for Bloomingdale to offer that
>>> option. A park alone only meets one need in the neighborhood. A park plus
>>> reasonable development can meet several neighborhood needs.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 27, 2013, at 11:15 AM, Eric S <eschultzdc@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > I have not had a chance to read all of the associated emails, so my
>>> comments are not fully informed. I need some further guidance on why park
>>> land is not valuable. Great cities have great parks. Look at central park
>>> in new York city. Mcmillian was designed to be a city park for Washington.
>>> Why does it need to be developed? Are there other parks in the city that
>>> we should consider turning into condos and office buildings? Why can't the
>>> park be restored and we put the development in the historic underground
>>> cells? The national mall is worn out because so many people use it. NoMa
>>> is screaming for parks. They have none and the people moving in are
>>> organizing to petition the city for park land.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > How does the development of mcmillian help the neighbors with traffic,
>>> congestion, water run off, etc? Who will benefit from the development?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Perhaps these questions have already been addressed and I've not read
>>> them yet. Thanks, Eric
>>> >
>>> > From: Miriam <miriamg123@gmail.com>
>>> >
>>> > Reply-To: <friends-of-mcmillan-park@googlegroups.com>
>>> >
>>> > Date: Friday, April 26, 2013 9:56 PM
>>> >
>>> > To: "friends-of-mcmillan-park@googlegroups.com" <
>>> friends-of-mcmillan-park@googlegroups.com>
>>> >
>>> > Cc: "friends-of-mcmillan-park@googlegroups.com" <
>>> friends-of-mcmillan-park@googlegroups.com>, Todd Phillips <
>>> todd20036@gmail.com>, "bloomingdaleactionlist@googlegroups.com" <
>>> bloomingdaleactionlist@googlegroups.com>
>>> >
>>> > Subject: Re: [BloomingdaleActionList] Support a McMillan Petition Drive
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Patrick
>>> >
>>> > You need to look at our proposal and understand it.
>>> >
>>> > The city only wants the developer driven maximize development scheme
>>> >
>>> > Their latest plan copies our design because we have a smart solution
>>> to the site and they don't .
>>> >
>>> > our alternative vision for the future that builds upon the past.
>>> >
>>> > An all preservation scheme is unrealistic and does not inspiring
>>> anyone but the hard core.
>>> >
>>> > It is seen as only negative energy and gives them the monopoly on
>>> positive energy.
>>> >
>>> > I will be happy to update you.
>>> >
>>> > Miriam
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Sent from my iPhone
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Apr 26, 2013, at 7:08 PM, Patrick Hudak <patrickhudak@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Thanks Miriam. Is it being considered by the city?
>>> >
>>> > On Apr 26, 2013 7:03 PM, "Miriam" <miriamg123@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > That is incorrect.
>>> >
>>> > We have developed a community based alternative that is fully fleshed
>>> out.
>>> >
>>> > See www.McMillanPark.com
>>> >
>>> > Miriam
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Sent from my iPhone
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Apr 26, 2013, at 5:29 PM, "Patrick" <patrickhudak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > > Your point is exactly right. The city has not called for a proposal
>>> that examines the alternative to destruction of a historic site or the
>>> adaptive reuses of other cities. Therefore, we have nothing to compare the
>>> VMP proposal to and are left with a false choice between no development and
>>> nearly total destruction.
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > DC is sitting on a large financial surplus and development is off
>>> and running at record speed all around us. Why the rush to destroy a unique
>>> historic treasure? We're simply saying slow down and examine all
>>> possibilities.
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > Sent from my Droid Charge on Verizon 4G LTE
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > ------Original Message------
>>> >
>>> > > From: Todd Phillips <todd20036@gmail.com>
>>> >
>>> > > To: "bloomingdaleactionlist@googlegroups.com" <
>>> bloomingdaleactionlist@googlegroups.com>
>>> >
>>> > > Cc: "bloomingdaleactionlist@googlegroups.com" <
>>> bloomingdaleactionlist@googlegroups.com>,"
>>> friends-of-mcmillan-park@googlegroups.com" <
>>> friends-of-mcmillan-park@googlegroups.com>
>>> >
>>> > > Date: Friday, April 26, 2013 5:11:00 PM GMT-0400
>>> >
>>> > > Subject: Re: [BloomingdaleActionList] Support a McMillan Petition
>>> Drive
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > But the gist of my question was whether there has been a financial
>>> analysis to determine the viability of the restoring the park in a way that
>>> meets your stated objectives...i.e., what are the costs of restoring the
>>> park and preserving the original above- and below-ground structures with
>>> limited commercial development.
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > I wouldn't want to waste time pushing for something that can never
>>> happen financially. Otherwise it's going to end up fenced and off limits
>>> for a long time.
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > On Apr 26, 2013, at 4:47 PM, Patrick Hudak <patrickhudak@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >> Todd,
>>> >
>>> > >>
>>> >
>>> > >> I'm not sure I understand your question. The current proposal by
>>> VMP -- the only proposal on the table -- does not envision tourism revenue,
>>> for example. Are you wondering how much subsidy the DC Government is
>>> providing to this private business should they get the contract?
>>> >
>>> > >>
>>> >
>>> > >> I think the fact sheet is clear: the Friends of McMillan is not
>>> proposing a specific alternative plan. We are urging the city to 1.)
>>> reject the current plan and 2.) call for a proposal that develops the site
>>> approriately for a historic site and park.
>>> >
>>> > >>
>>> >
>>> > >> We can't compare numbers because the city has not entertained
>>> alterntive plans... and that's a large part of the problem.
>>> >
>>> > >>
>>> >
>>> > >>
>>> >
>>> > >> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Todd Phillips <todd20036@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >>> Is there a financial analysis based on this plan/vision outlining
>>> the costs of restoration/development, sources of funding to meet these
>>> costs, projected sources of tourism revenue, etc?
>>> >
>>> > >>>
>>> >
>>> > >>> I didn't see any of this in the fact sheet.
>>> >
>>> > >>>
>>> >
>>> > >>> On Apr 26, 2013, at 4:25 PM, Patrick Hudak <patrickhudak@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >>>
>>> >
>>> > >>>> Bloomingdale Action List,
>>> >
>>> > >>>>
>>> >
>>> > >>>> As I'm sure most of you know, the city is considering a proposal
>>> to develop the McMillan Reservoir Park Historic District. Although
>>> returning the site to productive use by DC's residents and visitors is a
>>> goal we all share, the current plan will demolish about 90% of the historic
>>> structures. In fact, the Historic Preservation Review Board's (HPRB)
>>> members criticized -- politely but pointedly -- the plan at yesterday's
>>> meeting for being more appropriate for "Tyson's Corner or Rosslyn" than
>>> McMillan, destroying the historic fabric of the site, and turning the few
>>> remaining historic elements into "tombstones of what was there." You can
>>> watch the HPRB's meeting here:
>>> >
>>> > >>>>
>>> >
>>> > >>>>
>>> http://view.liveindexer.com/ViewIndexSessionSL.aspx?indexPointSKU=0enrXEJP8odZMDqrKQxXfQ%3d%3d
>>> >
>>> > >>>>
>>> >
>>> > >>>> We in Friends of McMillan Park (http://friendsofmcmillan.org/)
>>> are considering launching a petition drive to let the Mayor,
>>> Councilmembers, and HPRB know that 1.) we support development that is 2.)
>>> appropriate for a historic site and park. I'm attaching a Fact Sheet (in
>>> color and B&W) and petition sheet for your review.
>>> >
>>> > >>>>
>>> >
>>> > >>>> We are looking for volunteers to commit to gathering at least 25
>>> signatures each on the petition. So far, we have commitments from 6 people
>>> totalling 250 signatures. (Some have committed to more than 25.) I'm
>>> confident that with several more people helping (asking friends, family,
>>> coworkers, strangers in DC) we can easily hit over 1000 people while
>>> educating folks around town about the beautiful and historic site many know
>>> nothing about.
>>> >
>>> > >>>>
>>> >
>>> > >>>> Please consider making a commitment to collect 25 signatures.
>>> We've already developed the materials (the fact sheet and petition) for
>>> you, and we're finding that most people are very eager to see the historic
>>> site developed in a way that preserves its history.
>>> >
>>> > >>>>
>>> >
>>> > >>>> Again, no one wants the status quo. However, demolishing 90% of
>>> such a historic and beautiful treasure to create our own "Tyson's Corner or
>>> Rosslyn" is simply too much. Yet, if we are to avoid this fate, we must
>>> make our views known.
>>> >
>>> > >>>>
>>> >
>>> > >>>> Please let me know if you're willing to help.
>>> >
>>> > >>>>
>>> >
>>> > >>>> Thank you
>>> >
>>> > >>>>
>>> >
>>> > >>>> Patrick
>>> >
>>> > >>>>
>>> >
>>> > >>>>
>>> >
>>> > >>>> --
>>> >
>>> > >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>>> Google Groups "Bloomingdale Action List" group.
>>> >
>>> > >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>>> send an email to bloomingdaleactionlist+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> >
>>> > >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>> >
>>> > >>>>
>>> >
>>> > >>>>
>>> >
>>> > >>>> <FactSheetColor - 4-23-13.docx>
>>> >
>>> > >>>> <FactSheet - 4-23-13.docx>
>>> >
>>> > >>>> <Petition - 4-23-13.docx>
>>> >
>>> > >>>
>>> >
>>> > >>> --
>>> >
>>> > >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Bloomingdale Action List" group.
>>> >
>>> > >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>>> send an email to bloomingdaleactionlist+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> >
>>> > >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>> >
>>> > >>
>>> >
>>> > >> --
>>> >
>>> > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Bloomingdale Action List" group.
>>> >
>>> > >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>>> send an email to bloomingdaleactionlist+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> >
>>> > >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>> >
>>> > >>
>>> >
>>> > >>
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > --
>>> >
>>> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Bloomingdale Action List" group.
>>> >
>>> > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>>> send an email to bloomingdaleactionlist+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> >
>>> > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > --
>>> >
>>> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Friends of McMillan Park" group.
>>> >
>>> > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>>> send an email to friends-of-mcmillan-park+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> >
>>> > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> >
>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Friends of McMillan Park" group.
>>> >
>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to friends-of-mcmillan-park+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> >
>>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> >
>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Friends of McMillan Park" group.
>>> >
>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to friends-of-mcmillan-park+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> >
>>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> >
>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Friends of McMillan Park" group.
>>> >
>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to friends-of-mcmillan-park+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> >
>>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Bloomingdale Action List" group.
>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to bloomingdaleactionlist+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Bloomingdale Action List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to bloomingdaleactionlist+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Bloomingdale Action List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to bloomingdaleactionlist+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Bloomingdale Action List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to bloomingdaleactionlist+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Bloomingdale Action List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to bloomingdaleactionlist+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bloomingdale Action List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bloomingdaleactionlist+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bloomingdale Action List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bloomingdaleactionlist+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.