June 28, 2007
New Battle for Old Soldiers’ Home
The Armed Forces Retirement Home, also called the Old Soldiers’ Home, sparked a battle with area residents in late 2005 when it released plans for commercial and residential development of its bucolic estate in north-central Washington. Now, a community nonprofit is in the fray, fighting to create a park on a portion of the home’s land, closed to the public for over 50 years.
Officially established late last summer, Washington Central Parks wants to use the western edge of the Armed Forces Retirement Home to link Fort Totten Park to the north with McMillan Park and Reservoir to south, forming a unified network of trails and parks. The group’s vision is larger than just having a place to jog or ride a bike.
“There’s been a heavy push on the commercial development of the city over the past 10 years, and that’s fantastic, but it needs to be balanced with other needs that make a city a good place to live,” Reyn Anderson, co-founder of Washington Central Parks said. “Bring families in, get them to stick around, and that will strengthen the tax base.”
Washington Central Parks recently used a $3,500 grant from ANC 4C to hire architectural designer Lex Ulibarri to sketch ideas for the park. “At this point it seems like a good place to be talking about how (the land) could be used and coming up with good solutions for everybody,” Anderson added.
A good solution for the Armed Forces Retirement Home, however, would require a sufficient sum of money, something Washington Central Parks cannot currently offer.
“They haven’t come up with a way to pay for it,” said Chris Black, a consultant for the home.
Map image from washingtoncentralparks.org
The Armed Forces Retirement Home, which sits on 272 acres west of Catholic University and houses approximately 1,200 veterans, has been plagued by financial troubles and is leasing portions of its estate to fund improvements such as a new roof, an Alzheimer’s ward, and facilities to care for Iraq war veterans with severe disabilities.
Black said that leasing portions of the campus is the only way the Armed Forces Retirement Home will be able to meet the needs of its veteran residents. The home planned originally to lease the land being eyed by Washington Central Parks to commercial developers, though Black said it would be willing to lease the land for use as a public park if the price were right.
Luckily for Washington Central Parks, the Armed Forces Retirement Home has decided to develop less controversial sections of the campus first, buying the group time to hunt for much-needed funding. On March 26 the home chose from competing development proposals for the southeastern portion of the campus, selecting one that would create a 20-acre green space open to the public. The land designated for the park, however, does not border the residential neighborhoods to the west and would not connect McMillan and Fort Totten parks.
Washington Central Parks’s Anderson said the organization will be searching for funding in the coming months.
|
I don't understand how the Soldier's home is dire financial straits. Isn't it a federal facility? Do they have some sort of seperate funding source?
I live less than 3 blocks from the western edge of the home and it is a travesty that all of the open space is behind a barbed wire fence and off limits to all of the neighbors....I love the Washington Central Parks's vision and hope they're able to negotiate something agreeable to both the neighbors and the Soldier's home.
-Lazy Cake
“Bring families in, get them to stick around, and that will strengthen the tax base.”
When deciding on whether or not to leave the city, "absence of a unified network of trails" doesn't really enter into the equation. And it's not like North Capitol Street is the best place to go for a midnight jog. If they're really concerned about attracting and retaining families, they'd push for mandating affordable housing on the McMillan/brickworks site.
If they're really concerned about attracting and retaining families, they'd push for mandating affordable housing on the McMillan/brickworks site.
I'm unfamiliar with this "brickworks" site you speak of, please enlighten us Monkey.
Actually, quality of life concerns DO play a considerable role when a person or family is making decisions regarding where to live. This area was designed, built, and set aside for District residents to use and enjoy as DC's 'Central Park'. It may be hard to imagine how beautiful and what an attraction this park could become, as it has been cordoned off from the public since the riots. But, if returning this parkland to the people it belongs to--all of us--brings even a fraction of the relief, enjoyment, and beauty that Central Park gives back to NYC, it will have been well worth the effort.
I previously worked for GSA and did some work on this project. AFRH is funded through an appropriation, a tax on enlisted servicemen's pay (I believe the number was around $.50/paycheck) and interest generated from their capital account. Current revenue doesn't meet current costs, meaning they have to dip into the capital account to pay bills. But this then reduces the amount of revenue generated from the capital account, which means they have to dip further into said account, etc.
They propose to groundlease, not sell, a portion of the site, which is not publicly accessible to private developers, so that they can offer better service to their residents. The residents are retired enlisted servicemen that have served in the military for their career (I think they had to be active military for 25+ years). The money generated will also help pay bills at a sister site in Gulfport, MS that was badly damaged by Katrina.
I leave it up to you to decide which is more important: caring for people how worked their entire adult lives in service to our country, or neighbor residents who feel entitled to use the open land they see through a fence.
East of Mcmillan Resevoir, South of Children's Hospital, bounded by Michigan, North Cap, and 1st Street NW is an area the size of a couple football fields. It used to be a brickworks, like the one near the Arboretum in Northeast. The domed kilns are still visible, albeit crumbling. It's part of the Redevelopment Land Agency's portfolio of properties that they sit on for decades and do nothing with while waiting for property values to rise.
GSA has done a terrible job on this project, the AFRH has taken in more money than they have spent for the last 5 years and got a HUGE appropriations for the Gulfport site after Katrina. Plus, the soldiers who live at the home DO NOT want this land developed.
Washington Central Parks is a great idea that would really make this city come alive. Unlike condos, townhouse, and fancy restuarants a large open park is for everyone - regardless of socio-economic background
"Actually, quality of life concerns DO play a considerable role when a person or family is making decisions regarding where to live.
I agree wholeheartedly. But shouldn't we prioritize our quality of life issues? I loves me some greenspace, but if I don't feel safe in the place, what's the point? Witness abused greenspace, rough trade rendezvous, and fulltime shooting gallery Malcolm X Park circa 1990. It wasn't safe for drum and hack circles until the Park Service forced out the junkies and fixed the equipment.
Then there's the other quality of life issues like schools and affordable housing and finding decent retail where you don't have to drive half an hour to buy a goddamned can of beets. It would be nice if the District Government could chew gum and walk at the same time, but they've proven themselves incapable of even that.
We've already got Rock Creek Park what's choked with bikes and rollerblades on the weekends, as well as the Anacostia Waterfront Trail coming online. In the meantime, you've got families trying to decide whether they can afford to stay another year in DC, weather yet another property tax hike, and still have enough cash to put their kid in private school, or should they just bail and deal with some hell commute in the 'burbs.
DOG PARK!!!!
East of Mcmillan Resevoir, South of Children's Hospital, bounded by Michigan, North Cap, and 1st Street NW is an area the size of a couple football fields. It used to be a brickworks, like the one near the Arboretum in Northeast. The domed kilns are still visible, albeit crumbling.
Huh, I always thought those domes were part of some sort of processing for the reservoir that had something to do with the crappy taste of DC water. I didn't realize that was just open space, sitting there, unused.
monkeyerotica: I have to wonder if you live in the area or have been near that area at all recently to base this statement of "safeness" on something tangible and not just vague perceptions. I live directly across Rock Creek Church Road from the space in question and don't ever feel unsafe in my neighborhood. And I would think that anyone jogging in a wooded area at midnight anywhere in this city (with the exception of maybe the Capitol, White House, and Naval Observatory grounds) would be prepared to defend themselves and not assume they were safe simply due to geographic location.
"I leave it up to you to decide which is more important: caring for people how worked their entire adult lives in service to our country, or neighbor residents who feel entitled to use the open land they see through a fence."
Not sure that this is quite fair. You paint a picture of the two sides being diametrically opposed. I think the neighbors would simply like to be able to walk through a green space in the neighborhood that is currently fenced off. Nobody's talking about kicking the veterans off the property. None of the neighbors wants to diminish the quality of life the old soldiers currently enjoy.
Bottom line is that its possible to provide for veterans AND the people who have lived in the neighborhood for the last several decades.
-Lazy Cake
I always heard those domes were an old sand filtration plant for the city's water. But in any case, it's abandoned and should be developed.
justjack75 - So much for vague perceptions. As made abundently clear elswhere, there are certain neighborhoods in DC where certain people are less-than-welcome. Your mileage may vary. Close cover before striking.
Ex-GSA guest: What is the proposed duration of the ground lease for AFRH land? Are there automatic extensions at tenant option?
@ Lazy Cake
I wrote the post to which you are referring. The veterans also don't want to give the public access to the empty space that is there now. I've always felt the arguement over this site boiled down to a sense of entitlement. There is land that looks like a public park, so I (speaking as a neighborhood resident) should be able to access it. I've always rejected that argument.
Ex-GSA Guest:
You have a point, but conveniently ignore the fact that, prior to desegregation, that land was open to the- ahem- "general" public. It used to be in the public domain and, during these more enlightened times, it's reasonable to expect some portion of it to return to the public domain.
I worked on one of the non-winning development proposals for the AFRH site, and am amazed by the amount of disinformation floating out there. The ex-GSA guest's post is a great start toward explaining what's actually happening there on this project (and to answer Mike Licht's follow up, I think the proposals were all based on a 99-year ground lease). Here's a little more, especially in light of the Central Parks push:
Looking at the aerial photo in the post, the area being developed is mostly confined to the right (eastern) half of the gray section, near N. Capital and Irving (which is not parkland of any kind). Most of the left half of that gray area is historic pasture, and must remain undeveloped and become open to the public. What stands in the way of a real "network of parks" is the green area just left of the gray - it's AFRH's golf course, which is planned to remain fenced and private, even after development. I'm sure most folks across the street on Rock Creek Church Road want it to remain green, but as a private golf course, it doesn't really provide anything for the surrounding Community.
Park View and that part of Petworth are pretty safe from crime, aspecially the area around Park Place. A large park would only make it safer. Currently, its very popular for people to jog around the soldiers home, but it is lacking sidewalks in some areas. Look at Peidmont Park in Atlanta - that park alone is responsible for revitilization of that entire area. They built the park first, then people started buy homes and moving back...
@ Mike,
As I've not worked at GSA for almost 2 years, I can't answer that, but my guess is 50-99 year goundleases.
@ mlb,
True, but it hasn't been open to the public for 40 or so years, which means that the overwhelming majority of the neighbors have never set foot on the land. So they aren't giving up anything.
ME - Since you insist on confusing the issue by including facts let me just clue y'all in on one more. The talk on DCist often centers on how unwelcome White folks are made to feel in certain neighborhoods, but rarely is real housing discrimination mentioned around these parts. Past results are no guarantee of future performance. Always wear your seat belt.
DCist Jeff...some of us have been working on this for years - for civic reasons (not employment). Just because someone gets info through a corporate filter does not make them more enlightened than people who live in the area. Case in point, almost all my neighbors are seniors and very much used to access and use "Soldiers Home Park". Its reasonable for the young, athletic types who are moving in now to want greenspace in an area of town that is deemed "severely lacking" in greenspace. Obviously, if you've done work on this project you have a certain bias, and that lack perspective.
monkey: Regarding link one... of the 40 items listed 3 take place anywhere from 15-33 blocks away from the site, and as far as I can tell only 7 were actual in-person crimes of the type one might need to worry about if one were patronizing the proposed park. Seven in the past 2 years? And as for the second link, Columbia Heights is also a good 10 blocks away from the site in question. I'm not saying that living in a city doesn't mean having to put up with crime. But let's take a look at say Dupont Circle or Georgetown which had 40 crimes listed in the past 3-4 months.
For the record, I'm a gay white male, and have had most of my scariest and/or most crime-ridden times in areas such as Dupont Circle, Catholic University, Pentagon City, and heck I had my locker broken into at the WSC at Gallery Place. Crime CAN happen anywhere, it's a fact that one should come to terms with if you live in a moderately urban setting. Out of curiosity, did you stop going to the National Mall when it was having a crime spree?
As I've not worked at GSA for almost 2 years, I can't answer that, but my guess is 50-99 year goundleases.
Okay, this is another thing that's holding back development in DC. Anybody remember the Tivoli Theater? Robert Haft had an exclusive deal to develop it and proceeded to sit on the parcel for nearly two decades and did nothing. Why is the city parceling out these 99-year leases that cost the city millions to get out of when they go sour?
jj75 - I stopped going to the Mall when Capitol Hill security put up the useless roadblocks and checkpoints on Independence and Constitution. Besides, the sight of all that pasty cornfed flyover state flesh always made my skin crawl. Put that flesh behind a Segway and it's BYE BYE MALL FOR THIS MONKEY!
"@ mlb,
True, but it hasn't been open to the public for 40 or so years, which means that the overwhelming majority of the neighbors have never set foot on the land. So they aren't giving up anything."
I take a longer view and say: Sure they are- we all are. A mistake was made, and our society gave up a number of assets. This is merely one of them. Subsequent generations (us) are still suffering the consequences.
Who can argue against undoing the negative, reactionary, response to desegregation? In many ways, that's what a lot of our gentrification discussions center on.
Why is the city parceling out these 99-year leases that cost the city millions to get out of when they go sour?
Because those are much better for the developers who routinely force DC City gov't to bend over and grab its ankles.
Another little thing, not that any of us will be alive to care, but often these 99 year ground leases contain an option to renew for another 99 years.
When you're talking about two centuries, any distinctions between sale and lease grow less important. Not that I'm against this. I just expect robust community benefit to replace- more than replace, we want to do better, don't we?- what was given up.
@guest #22:
I don't disagree with you at all. And I could have clarified that my knowledge of Soldier's Home comes as much from living within jogging distance as it does from my recent work experience. I also know that, as always, there are lots of folks much more invested and familiar than I am. I just find that there is a lot of confusion about the project's current proposal, and wanted to clarify what we're talking about. The current plan calls for (someone correct me if I'm wrong here):
1) the SE chunk of land to be developed in the ground lease (from mostly utility buildings/roads now);
2) the pasture will be kept as greenspace, and opened to the public for the first time in decades;
3) the golf course and the northern half of the property remain unchanged, and inaccessible to the public;
4) two smaller areas west of the golf course along Rock Creek Church that were originally proposed for development have been tabled and plans are uncertain. Development there was vehemently opposed by Petworth neighbors (for good reason, IMO).
I follow this pretty closely as a citizen and a planner, especially now that my firm is no longer involved, and I think the development of the SE corner is a very good thing. I think most of the controversy, however, comes from the AFRH/neighborhood relationship. Soldier's Home is a really wonderful place (similar to National Cathedral grounds and the Franciscan Monastery in Brookland), and it would be great if the Home could find a way to remain financially and physically secure while allowing DC residents to share it's amenities. That's all I'm sayin.
HR - Point taken. My issue is that you'd end up having less housing discrimination if you had a healthier stock of affordable housing to begin with. The projects/dwellings/highrises in DC are an endangered species that isn't coming back. Landlords are opting out of taking housing vouchers. Meanwhile, you have condo sales plateauing and roads choking with families who took to the burbs rather than settle downtown. Yet here we argue that this particular neighborhood deserves jogging and bike trails just as much as Rock Creek Park does.
I don't think this is an either/or situation. Why can't they negotiate housing AND greenspace? Isn't that what the whole new urbanism crowd has been fetishizing for lo this past decade? Is this just a case of greedy developers versus treehuggers versus an inept city development office or is something else going on here? Because a 99 year lease is a long time be be stuck with the wrong decision.
Just to clarify some misinformation: McMillan was not a brickworks but was a slow sand filtration site until only a few decades ago. It was a huge leap in improving the water quality of the city and reducing disease (and the tech is still sound and used in many places in the world.) Problem was - it's S-L-O-W and labor intensive. I toured the site about a year ago and came away convinced that wholesale redevelopment was necessary. I'm in favor of saving open space, but that thing is a hazard as it is now. If the fences came down, it'd be a safety hazard. It is/was part of NCRC (though I'm not sure where that agency is now) and they wanted a mixed use development. I think cost of making the land safe to build on.
photos:
Sophiagrrl is right about that being a sand filtration plant. It was under the purview of the NCRC, but the projects belonging to that body, along with those of the Anacostia Waterfront Corporation, were recently placed under the authority of the mayor's office.
DCistJeff...it seems we do agree about quite a bit, but your point number 4 is the one that gets my blood boiling because it represents what a lot of people think, but just isn't true.
The 25 acres west of the golf course along Rock Creek Church is included in the plan they are submitting to NCPC for approval. It includes over 300,000 sf of apartments, and buildings as high as 80 ft (near Irving). That is the land that Washington Central Parks would like to get "part of" (if not all) for public greenspace. AFRH might say "we'll hold off on that section" but they are still seeking approval to develop that land in the plan. Now is the time to find a solution. WCP has a great idea of trading the 2 traffic circles on the eastern side of the campus - which make of 17 acres and are owned by the city - for the 20 acres (or at least some of) on the western side. Everyone wins!
sophiagrrl - Thanks for the clarification. By "hazard" do you mean an potentially environmental one that would require an EPA impact statement? I imagine years of filtering DC's detritus may leave some nasty toxic bong resin behind. Dunno if I'd want to live/jog over that.
Ryan - If what you're saying is true, NCRC needs to update their website. They're still proudly touting developments they have nothing to do with, which won't be a first for a DC agency.
As for Mcmillan, I want to know why I have to pay DC $20 for an 8-year-old document outlining the City's plan for development.
Monkey, that link you sent from crimeindc.org was only the crimes committed on Rock Creek Church Rd. There is no context to the surrounding area so its meaningless and misleading. If you click the Dupont Circle button, you'll see just the crimes around the circle. Should one then presume that the only crimes in DC occur around Kramerbooks and Krispy Kreme?
There is an incredible amount of history at that site. During hot summer days (like today) Abraham Lincoln would ride out to the Soldier's Home and use it as a summer White House. Before his plotted to kill the President, John Wilkes Booth's original plan was the kidnap Lincoln en route to the home and actually stalked Lincoln along the route but abandoned the plane when he realized that security around the President was tighter than he expected.
Chris - The context of the link was post #11. What context do you need? Socioeconomic breakdown of suspects? Shoe size?
And yes I'd have to agree that the service at Kramerbooks is indeed criminal. As for Krispy Kreme, the Lutherburger is licensed to kill in in the lower 48.
ME - I agree with you on both points; housing discrimination is (at least in part) a function of scarcity and this situation with the Soldier's home isn't a zero-sum equation. Obviously there is more than enough land on the Soldier's campus to accommodate everyone, but getting the groups past the myopic viewpoint that any concession they make to the others constitutes a loss of honor, manhood, and history seems to be the big sticking point.
As far as why we can't have housing and greenspace goes; IMHO the problem is simple economics. If a developer has a parcel of land that they're building on, once they have equipment, materials, and manpower in place to start building they don't want to give up the increasingly high marginal return they get as they keep putting up buildings. Greenspace is nice for the folks who live there, but it doesn't necessarily help the builder's bottom line.
This is the veteran's land -- THEY paid for it -- not the GSA, not the leadership at the AFRH, not Queen Norton and her corrupt band of DC Developers frothing at the mouth at the thought of access to this land, and not the neighbors of the home.
The idea of a park is of course nice -- but it should be the choice of the veteran's who paid for the land through deductions to their pay.
The former GSA employee who commented earlier (#5) is not being honest about the financial situation up there as the AFRH is running in the black currently. They base the need for development on "projected" needs in the future. When asked to see these numbers the COO of the AFRH refuses to show them -- leaving one to wonder what he is hiding.
He treats the residents like shit -- abuses his power -- and has been written up the DOD IG -- the fact that the decision to develop the VETERAN'S LAND is left to this bum scares the hell out of me and has the residents at the home mad as hell with the feeling that nobody at the DOD or in Congress cares for them.
Here's some info on the history of the Reservoir's sand filtration site: http://www.dcpreservation.org/endangered/2000/mcmillan.html
My clarification on hazard re McMillan Sand Filtration Site:
I'm no expert on the environmental hazards there. The process involved scrubbing the sand of impurities, so, in theory, the residues were removed frequently (though based on safety guidelines from a different century). I hear tell from an involved neighbor that developing that site would result in stormwater nightmares for adjacent neighborhoods, since the pervious land there filters, oh, a few million gallons easily (it was built to filter water, so that follows). MY use of hazard is based on it being a huge field full of 15+ foot drops built out of unreinforced concrete. Hazard as in, don't let your dog run there or your child near there. It's just plain ol dangerous. The tales of it being used as a public park are, I believe, inaccurate. I believe it was part of the City Beautiful Movement, but I'm more inclined to think the city fathers at the time rubber stamped it a "park" with a "promenade" but it was no more a public space back then than it is now.
Just so's folks know, I refer to the Filtration Plant ONLY. I do believe the Reservoir was a park and used by the public. They are side by side (with a water treatment plant in the middle) but they are VERy different spaces.
I think part of the confusion surrounding the issues of the 'Washington Central Parks' is that the original plan included at least three parks here: Fort Totten, Old Soldiers’ Home, and McMillan Park. It would be great if someone could point readers to resources regarding the history of the plan. Also, I thank the commenter regarding Lincoln & Booth--how interesting! I should think there are many other interesting events and anecdotes surrounding these areas.
Isn't a 99-year ground lease virtually perpetual ownership without the tax burdens? (tax lawyers - please correct me if I err).
Does anyone know the current status of this battle?
And if not, any idea where one could go to find out when, if ever, this space will become publicly accessible? Are there no resident's groups advocating for this? OR does the 99-yr lease issue make it an impossible battle to even engage?