By Guest Contributor, on June 24th, 2013 Cross-posted from WAMU by Julie Patel
No. 4 in the series: Deals for Developers, Cash for Campaigns
Development won the right to develop public land over two Metro stops after proposing one neighborhood receive a share of the property’s annual rental profit. The other would get 17,000 square feet of shops and restaurants.
Sweetening the deal for D.C.? The developer said no public subsidies were needed.
But years later, the developer scored a 20-year tax break worth millions of dollars. And the other proposed neighborhood benefits weren’t delivered.
What was delivered were campaign contributions to D.C. elected officials: more than $69,000 in the past decade, making Donatelli, along with its affiliates, among the top five contributors of 133 groups examined.
The Capper Carrollsburg project’s recreation center was demolished six years ago as part of a redevelopment and still hasn’t been replaced. (Photo courtesy of Anu Yadav)
Donatelli isn’t alone. A WAMU investigation of 110 D.C. developments that received $1.7 billion in subsidies found:
Flaws with benefits pledged for about half A third missed requirements on hiring local businesses, or the city didn’t have paperwork for them Another 15 percent downsized or delayed benefits, costing the city millions in lost revenue and others arguably didn’t need the subsidy in the first place Less than 5 percent of the subsidies approved were for the city’s poorest areas, wards 7 and 8. “They’re not bringing reinvestment to Anacostia but instead to places like Georgetown, K Street or Chinatown,” said Greg Leroy, executive director of Good Jobs First, an economic subsidies watchdog. “We’ve got to think strategically about where areas really need help. We can’t just think about who is writing the biggest checks.”
Developers receiving subsidies are typically required to provide public benefits such as jobs, affordable housing and parks. But the District didn’t track whether many of those benefits materialized. It has been slammed for it in several nationwide studies such as one last year by Pew Charitable Trusts, which found D.C. and 26 states do little or nothing to test the effectiveness of tax incentives to businesses.
“Who is benefiting is the ultimate question,” said Parisa Norouzi, executive director of Empower D.C. “What we’ve seen from a number of these…deals is that the developers are benefiting and the taxpayers certainly are not.”
CLICK HERE to read full post and listen to podcast.
By Guest Contributor, on June 16th, 2013 
Cross-posted from WAMU written by Martin Austermuhle
The following cross-post was suggested by Grassroots DC member Pam Johnson. Would long-time DC residents be more likely to stay in their homes? What do you think of this proposal? Let us know.
Row houses in DC’s Shaw Neighborhood.
As Washington, D.C.’s population increases and the housing market picks up again, some of the city’s long-time elderly residents run the risk of falling victim to increasing property taxes that they can’t afford to pay. Now a group of D.C. legislators wants to help them.
Council member Anita Bonds (D-At Large) today introduced a bill that would exempt certain elderly residents from paying property taxes on their homes. The bill’s provisions would limit the exemption to residents over the age of 75 who have lived in the city for more than 25 years and make less than $60,000 a year.
“This is an act that will ease the financial burden on them,” said Bonds, who argued that senior citizens can more easily fall victim to rising costs of living than other residents. She said that 11 percent of the city’s population is over the age of 65, and 19.7 percent of those fall below the poverty line, a higher proportion than in other age groups.
According to the D.C. Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Bonds’ bill would cost D.C. $16 million over four years. The city’s current residential property tax rate is $0.85 for every $100 of assessed value.
D.C. already offers some relief to certain homeowners—under the Low-Income Homeownership Exemption program, residents falling below certain income thresholds and living in homes costing less than $367,000 can apply for a five-year abatement from property taxes. Residents over the age of 65 can also qualify for a 50 percent property tax break.
Bonds picked up support from both council members Jack Evans (D-Ward 2) and Muriel Bowser (D-Ward 4), both of whom are running for mayor and have proposed similar measures in the past.
By Guest Contributor, on June 12th, 2013 
Cross-post from WAMU by Julie Patel and Patrick Maden
No. 3 in the series: Deals for Developers, Cash for Campaigns
Construction on the Marriott Marquis Convention Center Hotel on June 6, 2012. (Flickr photo by thisisbossi)
Seven years ago, during D.C.’s real estate boom, the District asked developers to submit proposals to build on public land in the Southwest waterfront area.
Dozens of developers lined up for a shot, forming 17 development teams in early 2006. They could potentially score the land and receive other subsidies but they’d have to provide affordable housing and meet other criteria.
That’s why controversy emerged when the winning team later wanted to relax affordable housing requirements.
What most people didn’t know is that months before the city’s economic development committee approved scaling back the affordable housing, five of the companies on the development team made nine campaign contributions, on the same day, to the chairman of the committee, then-Council Member Kwame Brown. The council approved the plan shortly after the committee vote.
A WAMU investigation found a dozen developers donated the most the year their subsidy was approved. In addition, the investigation identified ten cases in which campaign contributions were recorded as being made on the same day, to a single candidate, by three or more developers working jointly on subsidized projects. In some cases, the subsidies were proposed or approved around the same time.
Two of the 110 projects examined that received the largest subsidies — the Wharf and the convention center hotel — are among those with developers contributing on the same day and around the time legislation was proposed or approved.
“The timing of a contribution is important,” said Sheila Krumholz, with the Center for Responsive Politics. “There have been times when contributions have come in right around a vote, before a vote. That might be a kind of carrot. There might also be an element of reward if a vote is taken that favors a special interest or donor.”
The investigation also found 133 groups donated more than $2.5 million in campaign cash and received $1.7 billion in subsidies over the past decade
“Trust is undermined if money is being exchanged with patterns like the ones [WAMU has] discovered. It gives rise to reasonable suspicions,” said Dennis Thompson, a political philosophy professor at Harvard and director of the university’s Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics. “Is the subsidy going to the right person?”
CLICK HERE to read the whole story and listen to the podcast.
By Brenda Hayes, on June 10th, 2013 
Not fifteen minutes after leaving Potomac Gardens, where the second membership meeting of Grassroots DC was held, buoyed by the productivity that took place and possibilities for change that the organization holds, my joyous mood came to a screeching halt as I turned right onto 6th St from Florida Avenue. What greeted me as I drove north on 6th was the large warehouse formerly known as The Florida Avenue Market (D.C. Farmers Market) and is now, as the 10 foot letters herald from the building’s rooftop, The Union Market.
The familiar scenarios that accompanied the D.C. Farmers Market; the weekend flea market where you could find anything from a pair of wingtips to an old Delphonics 45 record, have been replaced by a white building; its starkness broken only by the bright orange awnings that hang above the market’s doors and windows.
The changes unfortunately don’t stop with the exterior revamps; the smells of freshly butchered meat, fried fish, the flickering fluorescent lights, have all been replaced by chandeliers, artwork, and a new patronage. There was a time when a customer of the market could by a whole pig, snout to tail, everything except the squeal, fresh greens, chittlins, fish, sauces, chow chow. More than the food, it was a community meeting place, a place to catch up with fellow Farmers Market customers, exchange cooking tips, and recipes, a place on which you could depend to have the items, ingredients you needed for family recipes that are typically passed from generation to generation. Today “The Union Market” offers its customers aged cheeses, chocolatiers, designer olive oils, free yoga classes and no visible signs of the authentic District of Columbia so many residents long for and whose passing we mourn.
More than the tactile and visual changes that gentrification brings, the intangible impacts of gentrification are just as destructive. Let’s examine a remark made by Jodie McLean the head of EDENS, the company that took over the D.C. Farmers Market. ” We want to be a part of a project in a truly authentic part of the city,” EDENS President Jodie McLean said. “The market is a storied part of D.C. We want to bring in high-quality, locally prepared fresh produce, meat, poultry and fish.” We want to be a part of a project in a truly authentic part of the city,” EDENS President Jodie McLean said. “The market is a storied part of D.C. We want to bring in high-quality, locally prepared fresh produce, meat, poultry and fish.” I’m not really certain what Mclean means by “authentic part of the city” as gentrification usually leaves little room for authenticity.
The idea that the produce, meats, and other products that the Farmers Market vendors offered weren’t of high quality, is at best an insult; this wholesale discounting of culture, history, and race are what I consider to be at the heart of gentrification. Though I would never claim to know the mind of real estate developers who are an integral part of the gentrification equation, the callous disregard for generations’ old communities and traditions seemingly make the process of displacing people at will more palatable to those doing the displacement.
Deciding on the issues and topics we would cover at Grassroots DC was part of the agenda at our meeting; at the top of the list of issues we plan to address is gentrification; stay tuned.
By Guest Contributor, on June 6th, 2013 
Cross-posted from WAMU by Patrick Madden
No. 2 in the series: Deals for Developers, Cash for Campaigns
Few developers were better at winning D.C.’s taxpayer-owned real estate than Blue Skye Construction and Donatelli Development. The two firms have won or partnered on a quarter of the land deals since 2008, a total of five projects that span the city.
The appraised value of all this public land, according to city records: $17.5 million.
The price paid by the developers to the city, a little more than a parking ticket: $88.
* Blue Skye’s owner Scottie Irving said his firm Blue Skye Construction was contracted for the project but is no longer involved.
The District government has given away more than $200 million of taxpayer-owned land to private developers over the past five years. The city sold or leased these surplus properties at deeply discounted prices. The firms winning these deals are required to build affordable housing and hire local businesses.
A WAMU investigation found that these properties often ended up in the hands of politically connected developers who donated handsomely to local campaigns, and the jobs promised by developers sometimes went to individuals with political ties to city officials.
CLICK HERE to read the whole story and listen to the podcast.
|
Subscribe to Blog via Email
|
Comments are closed 
