More on "capitalist tools"

Forbes Magazine's slogan is "the capitalist tool." The driving force for capitalism at the local level is real estate development and construction (cf. the old Regardie's Magazine for an equivalent of Forbes at the local level). Tom Ramstack's column in the Washington Times the other day about a proposed housing and retail development on the south side of the 200 block of H Street NE left out a significant item. See "Project stalled by bid to 'upzone'."

Dreyfus' proposed upzoning would add about a $70 million increase in the value of the property. I believe that in return they proposed less than $500,000 of "community" amenities. Why shouldn't this kind of grant of wealth receive a significant proportion of the increased value in return? In other words, instead of a 1/140 return how about 10% to 20% -- $7 million to $14 million.

The entire community amenities negotiating process is understructured--like a lot of the economic development "practices, processes, and procedures" in the city--and I often believe this is deliberate, in order to reduce the out of pocket cost to developers.

Here's my general thinking about the process:

Variable treatment of communities, based either upon the extranormal market and political power of the applicant, or the power and resources (or lack thereof) able to be commanded by community organizations, Advisory Neighborhood Commissions, and other stakeholders given party status, is a matter of great distress.

To the average citizen participant in such processes, it appears that the processes of defining benefits and negotiating the benefits are for the most part unstructured. And citizens do not have access to many of the meetings conducted by various DC Government agencies in relation to such matters.

I believe that this is a violation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which provides to all citizens "equal protection under the law." Note that the attorneys with whom we have communicated about this argument state that such cases are difficult to prove.

However, there is no question that the process is easily gamed and for the most part, citizens and neighborhoods are the poorer for it.

See attachment A for an extended discussion of this issue, and a suggested framework for approaching negotiations. Note that the suggested typology of three types of benefits as laid out in the document has since been modified.

The typology would now be:

a. National or broad policy objectives (such as green architecture, which should be considered basic good business practices undeserving of extra consideration during review within the Zoning process);

b. City-wide (such as DC resident employment targets--also should be considered basic business practices undeserving of extra consideration during review within the Zoning process);

c. Neighborhood (such as donations to public space and facilities, neighborhood organizations);

d. Micro-area (benefits proferred in the immediate area of the project, especially physical improvements to the streetscape).

Amenities proffers should be focused on having long-term physical, economic, and social structural impact, rather than short term ephemeral impact.