The Bethesda-based developer, EYA, was pre-selected by DC's corrupt Office of Planning and Economic Development. There was no competitive process where developers presented ideas and bids. Instead, there was some dance where development teams were asked to submit notional ideas. Not surprisingly, the developer that gave the most in campaign contributions to Harry Thomas and Barrie Daneker were given exclusive rights to develop this public space, with no need for specifics, and certainly no mention of what the costs would be.

No one knows how many low-income tenement buildings will be included when the Council finally weighs in during the transfer of this public space to the Maryland developer. No one knows how many check cashing stores will take up residence. No one knows whether the neighborhood will have a Safeway or a Murrays. None of this matters to the Bethesda-based developer. They are counting on the City to transfer the land to them so they can re-sell it to whomever they like.

I don't blame the developer for holding "listening sessions" where Stronghold and Bloomingdale residents were told to hold their questions while listening to all the BS from the developers. But, I am amazed that Daneker and Harry Thomas, without anyone knowing what the final plan will look like, are already in strong support of whatever the Bethesda-based developer wants to do.

We've seen the developers plan, with virtually no contiguous park space and massive high-rise office building and low-income tenement buildings. If you live in Stronghold, you should take a picture of the sunsets you see now, because that sky will be gone if Harry Thomas and Barrie Daneker have their way with this public property. As our elected representatives, should they be demanding a better deal on our behalf?

Getting a lot of loud, influential people on your side does not constitute "overwhelming" support. And when someone uses misleading information in an attempt to dispel the other side's "misleading information", that tells us how weak and insubstantial his arguments are.

No matter what Commissioner Danneker sees when he looks at it (based on his statement, only from a distance), McMillan IS a historical landmark - and has been for at least 20 years.

We are only STEWARDS of these. They are not meant to be consumed - or even utilized - by just a few generations. If we cannot afford to make them safe for the public to use as parks, recreational sites, museums, or educational purposes in our own lifetimes, we are obliged to leave them alone.

In years to come, when we're in the full throes of the global water crisis which is now imminent, this move will be seen exactly for what it was: post real-estate boom vasocongestion (to use the medical term).

Instead of coming up with a carefully thought out, environmentally conscious, wholesome historical monument to the water (and other natural resources) we once had - and wasted on precisely this type of gratuitous, unsustainable, decadent development - we are engaging in a last ditch attempt to squeeze out one more drop of profit using an obsolete formula that, a few years ago, made a few people really rich, really fast.

DC doesn't need any more mixed-used developments. We cannot find well-heeled-enough tenants for the ones we already have. And taxpayers cannot afford any more public-private partnerships. Why should we take on a big risk for a tiny gain (which never pays off as advertised anyway) just so investors can take on a smaller risk while aiming for a big gain?

Okay, for argument's sake, let's say it's true that businesses can't succeed without taxpayer support. If that's the case, shouldn't we re-evaluate the validity of such an unhealthy economic system before we go broke trying to prop it up?

People WILL pay for a place to stay undeveloped ... they're just not the SAME people. This is especially true for unique sites, and McMillan is nothing if not unique.

DC, especially this part of DC, DOES need a green, peaceful spot with a fabulous view and cool breezes. It needs an atypical destination, somewhere people - residents and visitors - can meet outside to socialize, can stage family photos against a natural backdrop that couldn't be anywhere but DC (and not tourist DC, but OUR DC).

It needs a place where smaller groups who can't afford the Mall can stage events - say, a rennaissance faire, a neighborhood arts show, or a community festival. If it appeals to bigger, richer groups who simply want a place that is fresh and unusual but also has CHARACTER, that's fine too. It needs a way to educate the public - young, old and in-between - about water and water treatment ... and its history. This will become more and more important in the decades to come as the world squabbles over water (especially potable water).

If we had a place like this, economic growth would occur around it naturally and gradually. Instead of a few people profiting over a relatively short time, a lot of people would benefit economically over a longer period. The value of their homes would increase, small retail sections would blossom, and the value of their homes would increase more. The area would become known as a good place in which to grow up, to live, to invest, to go to school, to retire.

We do NOT need yet another generic development like we see throughout every other US city. I'm betting many people voiced initial support for this project only because they want McMillan made accessible to them, and this is the only option they were offered.

Most people aren't going to fight what they perceive as a "done deal", and if I'm not mistaken, the first proposal for developing McMillan was an unsolicited piece former Council member Vincent Orange submitted without ever considering an alternative.

If anything screams "personal agenda", it's stuff like that ... NOT fighting for something that's good for everyone, those of us who are alive and those yet to be born. Ultimately, this site belongs to the future - not to the relatively few living individuals who have found (or, if we unite and manage to prevail, only THINK they've found) a sure-fire formula for profit during a development-enraptured age.

McMillan is NOT an abandoned parking lot. Numerous locations on the Rhode Island and Georgia Avenue corridors are in need of in-fill projects. Let those projects be built in those commercial zones.

McMillan is a one-of-a-kind architectural and technological wonder. It is a Public Health Landmark, responsible for virtually eradicating water-borne illnesses from the District. It is located in an area pathetically devoid of community amenities -- and smack in the center of numerous large-scale development projects. It is the ONE PLACE in our area that could provide outdoor recreation and gathering space for the neighboring communities.

We have an opportunity to create a DESTINATION, unique to DC, serving the neighborhoods, enhancing the economy, providing a legacy.

BTW it's Commissioner Daneker for the public!

EYA was not selected by the city to develope the site and it was not a public process.

the McMillan site was never an industrial site. It was a water filteration site/park. It was designated a park by Willam Taft and it was designate a park by the US Congress. It was also designated to be used as a park/open space in the Comprehensive Plan for the last 30 years. The Plan was amendement to include mix use development including park/open space.

Residents have walked on the site and the Bloomingdale civic Association had picnics on the site in the 1980's.