ANC 5A submitted comments on proposed amendments to DC’s Comprehensive Plan. The submission incorporates comments submitted by myself and a couple of other residents. The ANC also repeated its request for more time for residents to respond to the proposed amendments.
One item that did make it into the ANC’s submission is “Preserve the historical single-family style homes, with No apartments in North Michigan Park.” There was a bit of discussion on this topic at ANC meetings. The North Michigan Park residents in attendance felt strongly about this. It is a point of pride for them to say there are no apartments in North Michigan Park. I have always found this curious. I have mentioned before, the wholesale pushback against apartments is really puzzling because the same residents are fine with adding a drive-thru at the McDonald’s in that neighborhood. Adding a drive-thru where there was none before seems way more problematic than building one apartment building, but I do not live there so it does not have to make sense to me.
At the ANC’s special meeting on February 12, ANC Commissioner Gordon Fletcher (5A08) stated that North Michigan Park has always been a neighborhood of single family homes so it should stay that way and should not have to change. This sentiment is why I simply listen when people talk about affordable housing, inequity, and gentrification in DC because actions often do not match the narrative, which is a little more complicated than we often treat it. Zoning laws have historically been used to keep out people who are viewed as undesirable, whether that be based on race, religion, sexual orientation, socioeconomics, or other characteristics. In this case, desire to keep out housing voucher holders is clearly the motivating factor (though certainly voucher holders can also rent single family homes).
There is a discussion in this city right now about adding more housing. The mayor’s goal to add 36,000 units by 2025 is slogan-y and not super realisitic, but the point remains that the city does need more housing. The narrative is that it is residents west of the park who are going to be the big obstacle to getting more housing, including affordable housing. That may be true, but it is also single family homeowners generally all across the city who do not want their neighborhoods changing at all. People like what they like and they don’t like what they don’t like.
There are legitimate issues with increasing density. Without attendant upgrades to infrastructure, there are going to be problems. A firefighter who lives in the community noted that a whole new community has been created in Fort Lincoln and no new firehouses have been built so the response time to get to that part of the city could be better. Schools that are seen as desirable are already overcrowded. In addition, simply throwing up cheap housing or putting housing in ill-conceived places is going to create problems for residents who live in that housing.
Our public officials now have the uneviable task of reconciling competing priorities and interests in this planning document. One of their clear goals is getting something approved to address the delay in projects held up in litigation. I am pretty sure whatever the final document looks like, there will be plenty for people to like and dislike and many inconsistencies will remain.
Next Stop...Riggs Park 
> Adding a drive-thru where there was none before seems way more problematic than building one apartment building, but I do not live there so it does not have to make sense to me.
I can explain that one for you. The people who want a drive through either don’t live here currently, or they are older people who don’t walk.
regarding no new housing, these are people who aren’t that much different than those in upper NW that don’t want more density. It’s NIMBYism. “This city is too expensive” “damn gentrification” “the rent is too high”. But then they protest more housing density in their own neighborhood.
While it is nice to be all “single family homes” (it’s mainly duplexes but whatever), we shouldn’t preserve it just so we can benefit while the rest of the city is forced to make up the density difference. That’s very “I’m good, f them”.
In reality, if we don’t allow some higher density, we will never have the types of sit down restaurants and facilities the people desire.
At least the city has a by right zoning update to allow adding stories to existing homes and adding accessory dwellings so many of the homes here will ultimately just turn into condos, since we didn’t allow other options to develop.
Thank you for this detailed recap of Comprehensive Plan activities. It is reporting like this that keeps those who cannot make every meeting informed.
Preserving the single-family style homes in North Michigan Park (NMP) is much ado about nothing. There is little land available to develop into multi-family units within the borders of NMP. The borders are west along the B&O railroad tracks, north along Gallatin Street NE, east along 16th Street NE and south along Buchanan Street NE.
The only potential sites are the Salt Dome at 401 Farragut Street NE, Faith UCC Church at 4900 10th Street NE, Father Flanagan’s Boys Home at 4801 Sargent Road NE and the St. Anselm’s Abbey and White Friars Hall Schools. Even our newest developments, Ava Way and Fort Totten Mews, are single-family residents.
However, housing density can be increased by zoning changes that allow other housing options within NMP. Zoning is a tool! It can be helpful by congregating light industries together or detrimental by concentrating poverty.
Since the state of California leads the nation in so many things, a link to an article on California’s experience with zoning follows:
https://la.curbed.com/2018/9/10/17827982/single-family-houses-los-angeles-zoning-rules-explained