tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-745625607350497891.post2381171688391781596..comments2024-03-26T21:08:51.077-04:00Comments on All Life Is Local: Cleveland Park's Giant Supermarket Saga ContinuesPeggy Robinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09062998960273261177noreply@blogger.comBlogger92125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-745625607350497891.post-63349021165741979932011-10-10T12:35:32.788-04:002011-10-10T12:35:32.788-04:00Any news on the project?Any news on the project?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-745625607350497891.post-21036384330683660592010-10-22T19:04:22.120-04:002010-10-22T19:04:22.120-04:00I would submit that the CPCA election last year wa...I would submit that the CPCA election last year was a joke.<br /><br />Everyone knows that the previous Executive Committee was unwilling to share the membership list with all individuals running for office. Instead, the executive committee used the list to the benefit of the winning party.<br /><br />While members were identified and solicited (and given rides to vote), the AWARE groups was left to traditional campaigning, knocking on every door in the community, wasting time on residents who were not eligible to vote (by virtue of not being members).<br /><br />Everyone knows this, which is why the renewal for membership rates are down significantly. The CPCA leadership, including the current regime, have proven themselves to be a completely irrelevant organization with respect to being a legitimate voice for the community.<br /><br />At every turn. they have squandered the opportunity to really heal the wounds of this debate and bring the community together. UNITY indeed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-745625607350497891.post-21866099908674236012010-10-22T15:38:54.777-04:002010-10-22T15:38:54.777-04:00Ha ha ha. That's pretty funny - the US Constit...Ha ha ha. That's pretty funny - the US Constitution was written in 116 days and in 13 months the CPCA hasn't written a single word.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-745625607350497891.post-55204076696741622722010-10-22T14:53:15.485-04:002010-10-22T14:53:15.485-04:00Isn't another member of CPCA's executive c...Isn't another member of CPCA's executive committee a founder and principal spokesman for the pro-Giant AWARE group? CPCA seems like a pretty broad tent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-745625607350497891.post-83097763786731543232010-10-22T14:45:37.671-04:002010-10-22T14:45:37.671-04:00A revision of the CPCA's bylaws might include ...A revision of the CPCA's bylaws might include things like proxy voting and electronic voting, which would give more CPCA members an opportunity to have a voice in the organization. A revision of the bylaws might include no longer having the previous CPCA president on the executive committee, and that would possibly tilt the CPCA toward a more pro-Giant or neutral position. (Or maybe not, since one of the CPCA's executive committee members is a part to the anti-Giant lawsuit.)<br /><br />It just boggles my mind that in 13 months we've seen nothing from the CPCA. Not even a proposal. As I said before, the United States Constitution was written in 116 days.Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-745625607350497891.post-73097191804543320862010-10-22T13:46:22.617-04:002010-10-22T13:46:22.617-04:00How, exactly, do they have a veto on anything?
T...How, exactly, do they have a veto on anything? <br /><br />The zoning laws do contemplate as a fundamental concept that property owners living within some proximity to a project are disproporionately impacted, which is why it they may be eligible for party status in zoning proceedings.<br /><br />There are muliple avenues for persons with various points of view to weigh in, as parties, through local associations, through the ANC and by providing testimony to the zoning commission. Indeed, political bodies like the ANC and the zoning board are supposed to consider the interests of parties and the broader community (and apply the law) in making recommendations or decisions. What is objectionable is that some who apparently support Cathedral Commons without any conditions, who may already belong to another association and/or don't like the result of contested elections at CPCA (a voluntary association, for heavens sake!), now want to manipulate its boundaries to keep re-fighting the last election until their point of view prevails.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-745625607350497891.post-58706338977658140152010-10-22T13:15:55.629-04:002010-10-22T13:15:55.629-04:00@Anonymous 1:06 PM
Are you suggesting then that t...@Anonymous 1:06 PM<br /><br />Are you suggesting then that the people who live immediately next to this project should have a veto over it despite the many benefits that it would bring the broader community and the entire District? That is pretty much the definition of NIMBY.Bennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-745625607350497891.post-81462399478823429012010-10-22T13:06:57.262-04:002010-10-22T13:06:57.262-04:00@Mark--
When you say that "any revision"...@Mark--<br /><br />When you say that "any revision" of the bylaws "might open the door to a pro-Giant majority," do you mean by expanding CPCA's membership area? I totally get the concept that the farther away one lives from any high impact project, the less one's concern about the impact is. But there's a name for trying to alter voting boundaries to achieve a particular outcome, as you seem to propose -- it's called "gerrymandering," and assume that CPCA wants no part of that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-745625607350497891.post-84631567337901302852010-10-22T12:53:07.125-04:002010-10-22T12:53:07.125-04:00The non-revision of the CPCA's bylaws is very ...The non-revision of the CPCA's bylaws is very much related to the CPCA's position on the Giant. In 13 month's one would expect at least a draft of a new constitution. There's been lots of talk --and pages of "White Papers" about revising the bylaws-- but no action.<br /><br />The CPCA is not just overly ponderous, it's deliberately obstructionist when it comes to revising the bylaws. Any revision might open the door to a pro-Giant majority and leadership doesn't want that.Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-745625607350497891.post-8018122625244903112010-10-22T12:20:53.790-04:002010-10-22T12:20:53.790-04:00The by-laws and the position on Giant are two sepa...The by-laws and the position on Giant are two separate issues, right? I am a member of CPCA, but not really involved. I do know that CPCA dropped its opposition to Giant and they are not part of the appeal. What would you like them to do now? I'm not sure what the options are because they are no longer a party to the case. <br /><br />The by-law process has moved slowly, but I seem to recall a message asking for more participation in that process. By-law revision is pretty dull work, so it's probably hard to get the membership excited about it.<br /><br />The pro-Giant without conditions crowd was soundly defeated in the first election. Call it unfair if you wish, but literally hundreds of people came out to vote against the AWARE slat. I'm not sure how you translate that into a statement that only seven households object to the Giant. It's patently false. Lots of people support the appeal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-745625607350497891.post-77996416833090059812010-10-22T12:00:21.730-04:002010-10-22T12:00:21.730-04:00Two elections (though there's dispute over whe...Two elections (though there's dispute over whether the first one was fair), yes. But no progress at all on reforming the CPCA's bylaws and constitution. Just like on the Giant issue, the CPCA says one thing (we support a modern supermarket, we will revise our bylaws), but does something entirely different.<br /><br />It's been 13 months since the first CPCA election. It only took the Constitutional Convention 116 days to draft the United States Constitution.Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-745625607350497891.post-28790053319472908552010-10-22T11:48:46.609-04:002010-10-22T11:48:46.609-04:00@Mark,
In year that you refer to, there have, in ...@Mark,<br /><br />In year that you refer to, there have, in fact, been two CPCA elections. Your comment makes it sound like there haven't been any!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-745625607350497891.post-49731317651880450972010-10-22T11:24:34.352-04:002010-10-22T11:24:34.352-04:00The CPCA is a win-at-all-cost organization. I hav...The CPCA is a win-at-all-cost organization. I have to admire their cleverness, even though I disagree with the CPCA's tactics. It's been over a year since the CPCA leadership illegally canceled the election and they haven't reformed at all. The CPCA's constitution and bylaws haven't been revised, as promised. In fact there isn't even a proposed bylaw change on the table. Thirteen months and nothing. Why? Because the CPCA doesn't want to risk losing its anti-Giant position.Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-745625607350497891.post-38552295784934838622010-10-22T10:53:44.689-04:002010-10-22T10:53:44.689-04:00@ Jill
The CPCA doesn't "only exclude&qu...@ Jill<br /><br />The CPCA doesn't "only exclude" McLean Gardens. It has a defined voting membership area, posted on its website, which is roughtly contiguous with the CP hitoric district. Residents of the 3300 block of Idaho, who live next to where Giant wants the loading dock and clearly have acute concerns, aren't CPCA members either. McLean Gardens has its own association, whose board already weighed in on Cathedral Commons. Can I get to vote in that association, too?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-745625607350497891.post-29468622930457297552010-10-22T10:27:36.621-04:002010-10-22T10:27:36.621-04:00"I agree with Dan, the text of the lawsuit, f..."I agree with Dan, the text of the lawsuit, filed on behalf of the Wisconsin-Newark Neighborhood Coalition (WNNC), Ordway Neighbors and Idaho Neighbors (in all, probably 7 households) should be made public."<br /><br />This project will create dozens (perhaps a hundred) construction jobs when the unemployment rate in the District is 12.5 percent. The opponents of this project should be ashamed of themselves that someone is willing to invest millions of dollars into DC's economy, creating much-needed jobs, but they are continuing to delay this in order to preserve their 1950s vision of Wisconsin Avenue.Bennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-745625607350497891.post-49747771601696427642010-10-22T10:27:01.814-04:002010-10-22T10:27:01.814-04:00The CPCA claims to be inclusive, yet it excludes t...The CPCA claims to be inclusive, yet it excludes those of us who live in McLean Gardens, close to the Giant. The only reason that the CPCA prevents us from being voting members is because most people in McLean Gardens support the Giant's plans. Does the CPCA exclude other people because they live in a building or complex with its own association? No. The CPCA only excludes us McLean Gardens residents. The CPCA is about as anti-democratic as any organization can get, especially with it comes to the Giant.Jillnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-745625607350497891.post-85182874302621856902010-10-22T10:01:14.445-04:002010-10-22T10:01:14.445-04:00The people of McLean Gardens were able to weigh in...The people of McLean Gardens were able to weigh in through their own community association. They just were not allowed to weigh in TWICE! I am impacted by things that happen in McLean Gardens, but I don't think that gives me a right to join their community association. I can't join the Woodley Park Association either.<br /><br />We'll see what happens in the appeal. The court will consider whether the zoning board correctly applied the law in granting Giant such a significant waiver and approving the PUD. There are serious issues to be considered, and it is no longer just a popularity contest. If Giant wins, then new construction will begin early in 2012. If Giant loses, we'll go back to the drawing board. It is in everyone's interest to negotiate and get rid of this appeal. That negotiation involves the parties to the case, and CPCA is not one of them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-745625607350497891.post-50433162841067787432010-10-22T09:55:38.240-04:002010-10-22T09:55:38.240-04:00Clearly Giant believed in 2002 that the landmark a...Clearly Giant believed in 2002 that the landmark application was not frivolous and would go through. This is why they agreed to build an expanded, modern store within a defined footprint and open entrances on Wisconsin Avenue to be more pedestrian-friendly, in exchange for withdrawal of the application. Having entered into the agreement, then Giant just walked away from it, in the end pushing a two-block long development that vastly exceeded the parameters of what the agreement provided. Had Giant done what they agreed to, we would have had a modern grocery store several years ago. This is just like how they have reneged on public commitments to phase the project and keep neighborhood businesses in exchange for more height and density than allowed under zoning. Bait and switch is putting it very mildly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-745625607350497891.post-8913160887797118052010-10-22T09:18:58.650-04:002010-10-22T09:18:58.650-04:00That was 2002. This is 2010. In the intervening ye...That was 2002. This is 2010. In the intervening years, the CPCA canceled its election because it didn't want the anti-Giant side to win, as I said. The CPCA has put itself on the record as opposing the current project and continues to oppose the project. The CPCA still casts its lot with the anti-Giant crowd and stands against what the majority of neighbors want.<br /><br />I just looked up the CPCA's resolution on the Giant on its website, which starts, "The CPCA has represented the interests of the Cleveland Park neighborhood since 1911." In this case, the CPCA represents mostly likely less than 5% of the neighbors. And remember, the CPCA wouldn't even let the McLean Gardens residents join as voting members, even though people who live in McLean Gardens have a big stake in the Giant.Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-745625607350497891.post-26034315044133238142010-10-22T09:04:31.455-04:002010-10-22T09:04:31.455-04:00@8:51 I'm not exactly a fan of the CPCA's ...@8:51 I'm not exactly a fan of the CPCA's landmark petition, but I do think that Anonymous 8:27 is correct. The CPCA welcomed Giant in 2002, and negotiated an agreement for a great project. It was Giant that backed off several months later because of some well-publicized financial problems. When the company came back to the table many years later, the proposed development had doubled in size and that led to controversy You can't deny that Giant is responsible for a chunk of the delay here, and there was certainly some dishonesty on Giant's part as well.<br /><br />Giant has all the briefs - -both theirs and the opponents. Maybe some of the AWARE folks who worked with Giant should ask them to post the guts of the lawsuit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-745625607350497891.post-44452418338162860252010-10-22T08:51:40.759-04:002010-10-22T08:51:40.759-04:00It's the Cleveland Park Citizens Association t...It's the Cleveland Park Citizens Association that's the untrustworthy party. Trying to get landmark status for a building that's both ugly and unremarkable -- how ridiculous. Canceling their own election because they knew that the anti-Giant side would win. The CPCA also opposed the Giant's current plans before the zoning board.<br /><br />The CPCA continues to oppose the Giant's plans, even now. It has steadfastly refused to reverse or even modify its position. <br /><br />The CPCA broke the faith with both the Giant and the neighbors.<br /><br />The CPCA has opposed the Giant at every step of the process, despite its wishy washy public pronouncements about supporting a modern supermarket. Actions speak louder than words.Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-745625607350497891.post-72903002286210313372010-10-22T08:27:35.181-04:002010-10-22T08:27:35.181-04:00In fact Giant was supposed to have moved forward w...In fact Giant was supposed to have moved forward with a new store eight years ago. Let's go back to 2002, when Giant signed an agreement with the DC government and the local citizens association to move forward on a modern, new store, which would have been larger than the present facility but within a defined foot print that did not encroach with its loading facilities into a residential zone. After Giant signed that agreement, various people in the community reached out to Giant to move forward. When Giant finally did, they acted like they had never signed the 2002 agreement. Cathedral Commons vastly exceeds the foot print and scale of what was provided in that agreement, an agreement that Giant has simply chosen to ignore and walk away from.<br /><br />Intentional breach of contract, reneging on public commitments to the zoning board about phasing the project and keeping local businesses...Can anything Giant says be trusted?<br /><br />News Release for Immediate Release <br />May 6, 2002<br />Resolution Reached On Giant Food Expansion<br /><br />(Washington, DC) Mayor Anthony A. Williams announced today that a settlement has been reached in a long-running dispute over the expansion of the Giant Food store in the Cleveland Park neighborhood of the District. The Mayor praised the agreement between the Cleveland Park Citizens Association (CPCA) and Giant Food Stores, which was brokered by the DC Office of Planning, <br /><br />“This administration has always maintained that economic development and historic preservation can be achieved together,” said Mayor Williams. “I applaud the willingness of Giant and the Cleveland Park Citizens Association to sit down and work through their differences, and I congratulate the Office of Planning for negotiating the agreement. Finding common ground has been a primary focus of my administration.”<br /><br />In the agreement, CPCA has agreed to withdraw its application to the Historic Preservation Review Board to grant landmark status to the Friendship Shopping Center, a l950’s era, brick center that includes the Giant store at Wisconsin Avenue and Newark Street, NW. In return, Giant agreed to maintain operable entrances along the Wisconsin Avenue façade at the location of the former GC Murphy’s variety store, into which Giant is expanding, and to restore a former grand entrance at the corner of Wisconsin and Newark. <br /><br />“After lengthy negotiations with citizens in the area, we are delighted that we have reached an agreement,” said Barry Scher, vice president of public affairs for Giant Food. “We will be moving forward in an expedient manner to finalize the permit process with the District government and then begin to build a totally new store to serve the community.”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-745625607350497891.post-23141553107912964802010-10-21T22:52:14.666-04:002010-10-21T22:52:14.666-04:00It's like it's 1999 all over again.
The o...It's like it's 1999 all over again.<br /><br />The opponents, ironically are calling for Giant to move forward with plans it proposed and they opposed ten years ago.<br /><br />Then, they brought Giant to the table by filing one of the most ludicrous landmark applications ever developed.<br /><br />I agree with Dan, the text of the lawsuit, filed on behalf of the Wisconsin-Newark Neighborhood Coalition (WNNC), Ordway Neighbors and Idaho Neighbors (in all, probably 7 households) should be made public.<br /><br />And, with respect to the unscientific polling, indeed, it was running close to 96% in favor of Giant. While unscientific, it is still telling. I would argue that the Giant proposal really brought most of the community together.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-745625607350497891.post-56045905900683880332010-10-21T11:05:19.451-04:002010-10-21T11:05:19.451-04:00@Kim
Before making glib, conclusory statements ab...@Kim<br /><br />Before making glib, conclusory statements about what the "neighbors want," it might be useful to actually read the posting to which you are responding. In 2006 Giant's plan was for a three story north block building, as provided by existing zoning, plus a new supermarket in the south block. From 2006 to 2008, Giant's final plans for the north block grew by about 60%, and the number of proposed residences almost tripled. Significantly, the 2006 plan also did not have the loading dock access next to existing homes on Idaho, in a residential zone no less. There was no second loading dock next to the apartments on Macomb Street. Most large-scale projects, as you may know, are adjusted back, not repeatedly up-sized through the zoning process. So, yes, the reaction to the 2006 plan was generally positive, yet concerns grew as the size and direct impacts -- like the loading right next to existing residences -- grew. If you attended any of the large community meetings at Washington Hebrew or John Eaton School, you may recall that. <br /><br />My point is that with some relatively modest changes, including accepting the ANC's conditions which Giant spurned, Giant might be able to move this forward faster and with broader support. Their unwillingness to make even modest adjustments to reduce the most severe impacts and their backpeddling on public commitments (like to phase the project to keep existing businesses) are unproductive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-745625607350497891.post-73682445315759539412010-10-21T10:53:36.011-04:002010-10-21T10:53:36.011-04:00@ Anonymous You call for Giant to negotiate with i...@ Anonymous You call for Giant to negotiate with its opponents but the people who have filed the lawsuit won't even post it online. That makes me think that the suit is meritless. From everything I've read, Giant is moving forward with this project.Dannoreply@blogger.com