Is DC anti-development?

I would argue not. And in fact, many developers will say that it is faster to get projects through DC than it is in the suburbs.

Deputy Mayor Neal Albert spoke to developers last week about this issue, according to "D.C. Deputy Mayor Neil Albert urges builders to oppose anti-development legislation" from the Washington Business Journal. He seems to think that DC could be doing better, listing examples: Volkswagen; Hilton Hotels; and the DC United soccer team, of companies goint to the suburbs.

But these are bad examples. Hilton never looked at DC properties (I know this for a fact). I think it's likely the same thing was true of Volkswagen. Hilton didn't want to pay more than $41/s.f. for office space. I don't know what the prevailing rates are in DC for space downtown or in NoMA, it's probably higher.

The soccer team too is a tough issue. There are a lot of reasons why it might be better to let them go to PG, plus given the recent change in tune there, it's not fully clear that DC United will lead, not if PG County has to pony up tens of millions of dollars. (See "Team Now Asking Pr. George's to Pay Part" from the Post.)

From the WBJ article:

The real estate community needs to be more vocal in opposing anti-development actions by the D.C. Council or risk encountering a more burdensome business climate, Deputy Mayor Neil Albert told members of the D.C. Building Industry Association Thursday.

Albert, speaking before hundreds of real estate professionals at the National Press Club, said real estate companies must help District officials “understand what it is that affects the way that you do business” as the industry tries to emerge from the recession.

We know what the problems are. (1) Lack of financing, especially because of the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers. (2) the cost of new construction is high, making new space expensive to lease. (3) new space is more expensive to lease than old space. (4) lack of demand, business shrinkage and failure due to the recession; (5) overhang of available property, making prices go down; (6) not to mention too much construction of speculative projects which adds more marketable space in a shrinking market.

I don't know what speechifying is going to do to change the fact that commercial real estate financing is almost impossible to get right now.

Now, for economic reasons, I can see it being reasonable to discuss the height limit, which is why office space in DC is at a premium compared to suburban jurisdictions. The suburbs also have a more specific and rigorous system for dealing with companies seeking space (i.e., organizations like the Fairfax County Economic Development Authority) and multiple sources of funds (i.e., state monies).

Maybe instead of a helter-skelter system of the Deputy Mayor's Office, all the individual councilmembers who can be tapped for tax abatements, the DC Economic Partnership, and the BIDs, the system could be regularized, instead of being one big casino for the best connected.