Park View, D.C.

The Hebrew Home for the Aged, 1125 Spring Rd., NW.

Last night at the Petworth Library, from 6:30 until about 8:00 pm, the Department of General Services (DGS) held a public meeting on the surplus process for 1125 Spring Road — better known as the former Hebrew Home for the Aged. As expected, there was a lot of community interest with about 67 community members in attendance. DGS’s Stephen Campbell was the primary speaker, with the DC Housing Authority’s Development Project Manager, Alastair Smith, also addressing questions.

The long and the short of the meeting is that all options for redeveloping the property are on the table for discussion at this time, according to Campbell. At the earliest, DGS could submit its surplus package to the DC Council in September or October for their 90 review process before the property is officially available for development.

While the meeting’s primary object was to discuss the need to surplus 1125 Spring Road and the Robeson School building to the east — much of the discussion focused on possible redevelopment of the primary structure, being the 8,500 sq. ft. historic Hebrew Home building. Still, the issue of redeveloping the site really took a back seat to the issue of the building’s proposed new use in support of affordable housing. In fact, I personally do not feel that I really got the full benefit of the presentation as residents took control of the meeting early by interrupting the meeting’s flow with questions. This in turn devolved into one large question and answer session well before the completion on the presentation. Still, I think I was able to glean some details from the conversation.

In essence, and as I’ve written before, the proposed direction the District is going is to investigate redeveloping the historic structure in support of affordable, workforce housing. Currently this means families making around $50,000 to $60,000 per year. The DC Housing Authority would be working on this project with a development partner, which in the end would own about 99% of the development. It was stated more than once that what is being proposed is not public housing. In part, the purpose of the meeting was to hear community feedback and suggestions so that DGS, the DC Housing Authority, and ultimately the DC Council could determine what the right mix of housing will be for the property.

In discussing the types of housing possible for the site, Campbell stated that everything was on the table including senior housing, family housing, and perhaps some upper income housing in about ninety 1- and 2-bedroom units. I was able to get recognized at this point and emphasized that perhaps a lower density of 70-80 units — as was presented to ANC1A in April 2014 — would be better and strongly advocated for some larger units containing 3- or 4-bedrooms. Personally, I can’t emphasis enough the need for affordable family sized units in the community. I also advocated for senior housing as we need a diversity of affordable housing types in the community that will allow seniors to age in their communities even if they can no longer age in their homes.

Earlier in the meeting one community member suggested that DGS conduct a survey of residents so that they had actual data to work from. While I agree that this would be great to have, I also question how the information would be presented in a survey, and what process would be employed so that the feedback was of value. For example, I had a sense that “affordable housing” had several meanings among those in attendance. There would also need to be definitions within the survey to ensure that all participants understood the questions similarly. Lastly, I have questions about the geographic distribution of such a survey and how those on the other side of the digital divide would be able to participate.

(Hebrew Home from 11th Street looking north)

The surplussing of District owned property occurs after it has been determined that the District no longer has a use for a property. In this case, there is no governmental use for the property — aside from the La Casa building at 1131 Spring Road which will continue to be DC owned. The property is currently zoned residential, thus suggesting the residential uses under consideration.

One theme I heard and that was inferred from the comments — largely through several references to Park Morton — was a fear that the property will support low income or public housing. Conversely, one resident spoke up near the end of the meeting in support of low and moderate income housing (although they prefaced their comment with a statement that what they were about to say was probably not going to be popular with many in the room). There was also one resident who stated that they would like to see the property be developed into a charter school.

What was clear to me by the end of the meeting was this:

• There needs to be additional community meetings focused on this development so that the outcome is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood (I suggested using Raymond Recreation as a more centrally located option);
• There needs to be better outreach to the residents who will be most impacted by development of this site;
• There needs to be a better understanding on how the Robeson school site may be redeveloped and what that development may look like;
• ANCs 1A & 4C need to provide solid leadership on this issue and organize the community meetings to ensure that the entire community is represented on this issue, and not just those that could travel to the Petworth Library; and,
• Ultimately, the ANCs will need to consider the position of the community and take up resolutions advocating for what is best for the District of Columbia as a whole.

In summation, there is a lot of work still to do here.