Matthew Frumin

My perception is that the GGW constituency is a passionate, well-informed cross-section of residents committed to pushing the District to become a much more vibrant,dynamic urban community with a focus on equity, accessibility, and environmentally-friendly policies. Clearly this is a constituency whose support matters to me. Meanwhile, I have a track record of actually getting projects done in a very difficult environment whether it be the Lisner project, Babe’s Billiards to the Tenley View or the AU Campus Plan bringing the law school to Tenleytown. In navigating each of those projects I have worked closely with neighbors to get them over the finish line. I am proud of all of that work, including the way in which I approached it, which I believe aligns with GGWs goals.

On land use, I would like to see the city purchase properties and use them to promote housing and affordable housing. I would like to see HANTA funded to make affordable housing projects in Ward 3 that much more viable. We need to strengthen Department of Buildings enforcement of code violations but also look for ways to support building renovations. We have an aging housing stock and can lose housing or quality housing as quickly as new housing is built if we do not reverse the decline in the condition of many of our buildings. On the transportation side, we need to strenthen WMATA and support building out our non-car infrastructure.

I would like to see aggressive implementation of the STEER Act to hold serial offenders accountable and send a message of accountablity. I work closely with neighbors and ANCs to pass on recommendations from those closest to the issues on how to improve safety. I and my team work closely with DDOT to track and try to address issues in the Ward.

The Council passed legislation to offer subsidies for the purchase of certain transit alternatives for lower income residents. We will need to do more in that space to incentivize and make accessible alternative modes of transportation.

We need to continuously strengthen bus service including by adding dedicated bus lanes, investing in 21st century buses and increasing service frequency and reliability. We also need to support other alternatives to car transit including bikes and Metrorail.

Through the oversight and budget processes and ongoing engagement on specific projects with DDOT and the Executive.

Through the oversight and budget processes as well as ongoing engagement on specific projects with DDOT, the Executive and WMATA.

See response to Question #33 above. For Question #35 below, none of the options fully capture my view. It is not that I would limit density only to certain areas. But neither would I endorse adding density everywhere. The Comp Plan process offers an opprtunity to consider again where densisity should and should not go and at what levels. Similalry, for Question #37, the HPRB should not opine on height and density for their own sake but should be able to take such issues into account to the extent that height or density impacts preservation of historic features. For Question #38, a historic district should not be deduced or eliminated solely on the basis that development was difficult in the area. If there was not a compelling justification for being designated, perhaps, but they should not be eliminated just because they make adding housing more difficult and every effort should be made to allow for development consistent with preservation goals. On Question #41, I do not support the elimination of parking minimums but do support mechanisms to have such requirements waived. My ANC approved an apartment building near a Metro and bus line with no on site parking. It was the right things to do in that setting.

I support adding housing on our commercial and transit corridors – Connecticut and Wisconsin Avenues as examples. Friendship Heights offers a major opportunity, and someday the Homeland Security site on the northeast corner of Nebraska and Massachusetts Avenues also can present opportunities. There no doubt will be other opportunities and I would like to see them pursued, but those are the biggest ones.

Apartments are allowed in all areas in the form of accessory dwelling units (ADUs). If the import of this question is do I support the elimination of single family zoning, I am not there which is why I answer "no" to question #32 below. I expect there will be a significant discussion around this issue in the upcoming Comp Plan process, and I will be curious to hear the arguments made in that process, including ideas like "gentle density" which I interpret as creating transition areas. In a similar spirit of clarity, in question #30, I indicate an openness to changes to the Construction Code. While I am open to changes, that answer is not an endorsement of the specific proposals in the predicate of the question. I would want to look at any proposals much more closely including receiving input from the Department of Buildings (DOB), Fire and Emergency Medical Services (FEMS), and other District agencies responsible for building safety.