|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| INTERSECT-
Newsletter of the Washington Regional Network for Livable Communities
Volume 8 Number 5 For back issues of Intersect, visit www.washingtonregion.net/html/newsletter.html
Summary: |
| WRN Forum: Changing Federal Housing Policies and Local Impacts with Sheila Crowley, President, National Low Income Housing Coalition Dec. 8, 2004 6 p.m. Refreshments; 6:30 p.m. Program John A. Wilson Building 1350 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Room 412 The huge low-income housing projects of earlier years are being dismantled, and the federal government has made money available for vouchers and new HOPE VI mixed-income housing. Now the federal government has scheduled earlier-than-expected foreclosures on Section 8 buildings and reduced the number of vouchers it will fund. D.C. alone has some 10,000 subsidized units that face expiration or foreclosure in the next few years. Cities across the country face similar problems. Our speaker will provide insight into federal policies, trends and politics and how they impact the local level. RSVP (attendance only): WRN, 202-244-1105, or staff@washingtonregion.net. Enter building at the rear, bring a photo I.D. Closest Metro station: Metro Center & Federal Triangle. The WRN Housing Forum Series is sponsored by the Enterprise Foundation. |
| Developer Lawsuit Threatens Arlington?s Housing Guidelines and Metro Corridor Development By Stephen Wade A case challenging Arlington County?s affordable housing guidelines went to trial in November. WRN, along with five other groups, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case supporting the county?s housing and development policies. The case against Arlington was heard on Nov. 17. The lawsuit challenged the county?s 10 percent affordable housing guidelines and its negotiated site plan process that have resulted in Arlington?s urban village development along its two Metro corridors. This negotiated process has for more than 40 years enabled Arlington County to develop as a national model in transit-oriented development. While the Apartment and Office Building Association (AOBA) and the Northern Virginia Apartment Association were not given standing as plaintiffs in the legal challenge, developer Kansas-Lincoln, L.C., a property owner near the Virginia Square Metro Station, was allowed to take the county to court over the ?Affordable Housing Guidelines for Site Plan Projects? adopted in April. The developer argued that since Virginia is a Dillon Rule state -- meaning that local jurisdiction authority must be explicitly granted by the commonwealth?s General Assembly -- the 10 percent Affordable Housing Guidelines are outside of Arlington County?s authority. Further, the county is only allowed to negotiate with developers on a voluntary basis and affordable housing has become, in practice, mandatory for developers. During the trial, Arlington County Manager Ron Carlee, and Susan Bell, Director of the Community Planning, Housing and Development Department, testified that the negotiated site plan process, which is unique to Arlington County in Virginia, is voluntary and that the 10 percent Affordable Housing Guidelines for Site Plan Projects are truly just guidelines. Steven Fuller, a regional economist from George Mason University, was also a witness for the county. His analysis showed, within the larger picture of affordable housing shortfalls in Arlington, that commercial development generated a need for affordable housing. Kansas-Lincoln attempted to strike his entire testimony from the case, arguing that the case had nothing to do with the need for affordable housing in Arlington and dealt only with Arlington?s local authority to negotiate for that housing. During closing arguments, after first arguing that this case simply had to do with the affordable housing portion of the site plan process, the developer expanded its argument by asserting that Arlington County should be using conditional rezoning and the proffer system to negotiate development as authorized by the state, and used in more suburban counties with existing lower density zones. Arlington?s site plan process already provides zoning for high density development if a developer opts to undergo a special exception site plan process. ?The lawsuit not only challenges the affordable housing guidelines, it threatens to stop transit-oriented development in the Metro corridors if the entire site plan process is undermined. We don?t think this is what the developers meant to do,? said Cheryl Cort, Executive Director of WRN. Also joining in the brief was the Coalition for Smarter Growth. ?Arlington has led the way in showing how successful transit-oriented development can be and now the county is responsibly making sure everyone can live there. With this lawsuit against the County, the development industry is attacking the very approach that has brought them success and profit as they develop in the Metro corridors. The 10 percent affordable housing is an appropriate guideline. It also represents a fair contribution in exchange for developers? realization of tremendous increases in density and profits,? said Stewart Schwartz, executive director for Coalition for Smarter Growth. Along with WRN and Coalition for Smarter Growth, the other groups joining in filing the brief were: Arlington Interfaith Council, Arlington New Directions Coalition, Buyers and Renters Arlington Voice, Catholics for Housing, Inc., Coalition for Smarter Growth. Jason Rylander, an Arlington attorney who specializes in land use law, wrote the brief. The Arlington Chamber of Commerce has endorsed the lawsuit against the county. The Judge said she expects to make a decision before Christmas. |
| Housing Campaign Launched in D.C.:
Inclusionary Zoning Proposed as Next Big Step in New Policies By Cheryl Cort In November, a diverse coalition of more than 50 groups proposed to the D.C. Zoning Commission a zoning text amendment to require that most private residential development set aside a certain percentage of new housing units as a affordable. Council Chair Linda Cropp, along with a majority of councilmembers, also introduced a resolution in support of a mandatory inclusionary zoning program mirroring the language of the text amendment. Because land use powers rest largely with the Zoning Commission and not the D.C. Council, housing advocates chose to introduce a zoning amendment to the Zoning Commission. Speaking at a WRN forum on Nov. 16, a representative of the group, D.C. Campaign for Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning, Nina Dastur of the Center for Community Change explained that the policy has three goals: (1) maximize the number of affordable units produced, (2) reach to the deepest level of affordability possible, and (3) balance the cost to developers with compensation from density bonuses and other non-monetary benefits. Dastur explained that this proposal is based on review of similar programs, generally called ?inclusionary zoning,? from more than 100 jurisdictions throughout the country, including Montgomery County. One of the chief benefits identified from such programs is the economic integration that allows moderate income families to live in buildings and communities alongside more affluent neighbors. The Campaign?s proposed text amendment specifies that between 7.5-15 percent of new housing units in development projects with more than 10 units will be set aside as affordable to families earning below 80 percent area median income (AMI) or $64,000 per year for a family of four. Half of these units would be built for families at 50 percent AMI and half at 80 percent AMI. Forty percent of the inclusionary units would also be available for purchase by the D.C. Housing Authority or a qualified non-profit in order to add additional subsidies to offer housing to even lower income households. The policy would apply to new construction for sale or rent, and substantial rehabilitation. In exchange for the affordable units, developers would obtain a 20 percent density bonus by-right. Dastur explained that policy would apply to areas of the city where a 20 percent density bonus is available. These areas are where a gap exists between the Comprehensive Plan stated goals and the underlying zoning allowing for a density increase. Also speaking at the Nov. 16 forum was John McIlwain, Senior Resident Fellow for Housing with the Urban Land Institute, a developer organization, who endorsed the principles in the text amendment. McIlwain begin his remarks by saying that housing affordability ?is a serious problem that is only getting worse.? He said that inclusionary zoning is a complex policy where the details are significant, but that such approaches are seen to be working effectively in Montgomery and Fairfax Counties, among other jurisdictions. Inclusionary zoning is one of many tools needed to produce more affordable housing, according to McIlwain. McIlwain said that he believes that a mandatory program is better than a voluntary one because the rules for the development process can be clearer. He said that the developers desire as much certainty as possible given all the risk and unknown variables in a development process, especially urban infill development. McIlwain dismissed constitutional questions about whether such affordable housing requirements constituted a taking of private property. While not giving a legal opinion, he guessed that such a proposal would withstand a legal challenge. McIlwain cautioned developers against opposing the proposal because it is not perfect. He believes that it is a reasonable proposal, and a reasonable place to begin a substantive discussion about what will work for housing advocates and the building industry. The key to success, he explained, is to balance the interest of providing more affordable housing with not slowing down the building boom currently taking place in the District. At the WRN forum, Deputy Director of D.C. Office of Planning (DCOP) Ellen McCarthy presented the DCOP?s plans for a voluntary inclusionary program but said that much of the analysis currently being conducted by a consultant would be information needed for either a voluntary or mandatory program. She said that DCOP decided to move forward with a voluntary program because she believed there was at least agreement for an incentive-based approach. Also, in recent years, DCOP has negotiated several Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) where affordable housing was one of the amenities provided by the developer in exchange for increased density. McCarthy said that one approach being considered by DCOP is to give higher densities allowed under a PUD process by-right if a certain amount of affordable housing is provided. This incentive would permit a developer to avoid the often lengthy delay associated with a PUD process. DCOP is pursing an assessment of the best approach to creating a voluntary program that provides sufficient incentive to produce some affordable housing but doesn?t give a windfall to developers. Dastur was critical of DCOP?s pursuit of a voluntary rather than mandatory program. According to Dastur, national studies have shown that voluntary programs have produced little affordable housing. In fact, several jurisdictions have recently switched from voluntary to mandatory programs, including Cambridge, Mass.; Irvine, Calif.; and Boulder, Colo. Dastur argued that one of the most significant contributions made through inclusionary zoning is that it is economically efficient way to achieve the social goal of increasing the supply of affordable housing because it uses density bonuses to compensate developers for added costs at little expense to the government. In a hot real estate market, Dastur explained, extreme measures would be needed to entice developers to build affordable units, making the program economically inefficient. On Nov. 17, the D.C. Campaign for Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning hosted a kick-off event with Councilmembers Linda Cropp and Jim Graham, along with representatives from the 50-plus endorsing organizations. The Zoning Commission is anticipated to refer the proposed text amendment to DCOP for review and recommendation. DCOP has already indicated that it would like to review its voluntary program being developed by a consultant, which will not be ready for many months, along with the mandatory program proposed by the housing advocates. Dastur and McIlwain expressed hope that the proposed text amendment can move forward without added delay. D.C. Council Chair Cropp is holding a public roundtable by the Committee of the Whole on the Council Resolution endorsing a mandatory inclusionary zoning program on Dec. 8 at 2:30 pm at the Wilson Building, 1350 Pennsylvania Ave., NW. To speak, contact Aretha Latta at 202-724-8196 or alotta@dccouncil.us. For more information about the Campaign for Inclusionary Zoning, see: www.dciz.com. To view the ?Sense of the Council in Support of Inclusionary Zoning Requirements Resolution of 2004,? see: http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/images/00001/20041116145038.pdf |
| D.C.?s Different Neighborhoods: How a Comprehensive Housing Strategy Can Help By Cheryl Cort At an Oct. 20 WRN Forum, community leaders discussed the needs, changes and prospects for improving D.C.?s different neighborhoods. Representatives from Ward 8, one of the poorest parts of the city and Shaw, a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood near downtown and the new convention center, expressed similar concerns about escalating real estate values that thwart non-profits from purchasing and redeveloping properties for moderate and lower income families. Martha Davis, Director of Shaw Housing Initiatives for the Manna Community Development Corporation (Manna CDC) discussed the significant displacement occurring among long-time residents in the Shaw neighborhood. Shaw has experienced dramatic increases in housing prices and rents that have made housing costs out of reach for many working-class families. Displacement effects of price increases, however, are difficult to document, according to Davis. Anecdotal evidence strongly suggests significant displacement among renters. Pre-payment of federally subsidized Section 8 housing contracts have led to dramatic increases in rent and conversion of affordable rental buildings to high-end rental and condo buildings, Davis said. Individual houses that have been rented to lower income families for 30 years are also being sold due to the upturn in the real estate market. Manna CDC is addressing these challenges by working to support tenants? efforts to renew federal Section 8 contracts that subsidize rents for low-income families. Davis said that Manna CDC has promoted ?equitable development? of public land ? asking that 30 percent of new housing be affordable to low- and very low-income families. Davis said that the city should closely track Section 8 contract expirations so that residents can be given timely assistance to save their homes. Davis said there are several cases where tenants successfully bought their buildings and converted them to limited equity cooperatives. The escalating prices in Columbia Heights and Shaw neighborhoods argued for land banking east of the Anacostia River, said Retta Gilliam, executive director of the East of the River Community Development Corporation (CDC), working in Ward 8. Gilliam said that land speculators have bought up significant portions of Ward 8 and are driving up land prices. According to Gilliam, housing units purchased for rehabilitation are costing $30,000-50,000 per unit. A few years ago, they could be purchased for $2,500 to $5,000. While housing prices have climbed, Gilliam lamented that commercial development continues to lag, offering few amenities to Ward 8 residents. Reinforcing the observations of the neighborhood-based panelists, Oramenta Newsome, Director of the Washington, D.C., Office of Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), said, ?market forces will not take care of certain populations.? Newsome emphasized that as someone who has worked to support non-profit building in neglected neighborhoods for 20 years, she believes a comprehensive housing strategy needs to create equitable development such that a janitor?s family can live next to a K Street lawyer and feel comfortable. The only way to create communities of choice, where people of all incomes can live in desirable neighborhoods, is to sustain a strong non-profit sector. Newsome said that LISC works to preserve affordable housing so that low-income long-time residents can stay. Newsome also said that all the elements that provide supportive services such as child care, senior centers and youth programs, are essential to maintaining the diversity of the neighborhood, and must be invested in, along with affordable housing. These services also face strong displacement pressures from the real estate market. |
| Development Proposals Undermine Loudoun County?s Comprehensive Plan By Stephen Wade Developers, including several that made significant financial contributions to elect new board members last year, have asked Loudoun County to substantially increase the density for 20 different projects mostly in Eastern and Central Loudoun. Their requests would change the County?s existing comprehensive plan that guides the location, amount, and type of new development in the county. If approved, the 20 proposals would add at least 42,000 units (on about 10,000 acres) to the 39,000 units that are already approved but not yet built. Together, these development proposals would double the number of households in Loudoun County, currently at 83,000. On Oct. 6, a network of smart growth, conservation and civic groups released a map detailing the location and impact of the 20 proposed development projects. The group?s initial analysis, based on data from Loudoun County and the Virginia Department of Transportation, indicates that the 20 proposals would generate at least 400,000 additional car trips each day. This is equivalent to 14 times all daily trips on Route 50 or almost six times the daily trips on traffic-choked Route 7. The development would also attract an additional 23,000 school children. ?[Plans for 42,000 more houses] would be a traffic disaster for not only Loudoun County, but for Prince William and Fairfax. All Northern Virginia residents and businesses would feel the impact,? noted Stewart Schwartz, executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth. Several developers who made significant financial contributions to elect new board members last year are among those pushing for expedited approval of the 42,000 houses. Greenvest, a developer who was cited in the Washington Post (8/17/2003) as actively engaging in the campaigns last fall, is now the largest speculative landowner in Loudoun County, with about 5,500 acres. The company represents almost 35 percent (12-15,000) of the 42,000 additional houses developers are proposing. ?The contribution of nearly a half million dollars does not entitle you to undo three years of citizen involvement in a legitimate comprehensive planning process. It is undemocratic,? said Andrea McGimsey with Campaign for Loudoun?s Future. ?These applications should be rejected. The developers can adhere to the legally adopted comprehensive plan and join citizens when it is time for the next regular plan review cycle.? Loudoun?s multi-year comprehensive planning process articulated the size, type and location of development that would be sustainable. However, the current proposals run counter to the consensus recommendations generated by that process. For more information, see: www.LoudounsFuture.org. |
| Montgomery Rapid Bus Plan Too Late for the State By Stephen Wade Six months ago, the Montgomery County Department of Public Works and Transportation began planning a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line along Veirs Mill Road, a four to six lane arterial road between downtown Wheaton and Rockville that carries about 55,000 vehicles and over 11,000 transit riders a day. BRT along Veirs Mill Road is estimated to cost as little as $20 million. BRT is a roadway-based rapid transit system that looks and feels much like rail. It offers high capacity rapid transit service that uses a combination of improvements to speed service, including dedicated travel lanes. By using roads, BRT does not require expensive tracks and other support infrastructure, potentially saving millions of dollars in capital investment costs. But according to the Montgomery Gazette, the county has run into a conflict with the state. The Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) already had plans to rebuild intersections along Veirs Mill to improve the flow of "general purpose" traffic. In opposition to the goals of BRT, the state approach on this roadway emphasizes moving cars rather than total number of people. "We tried working with them in terms of doing it to include buses," said Rob Kline, BRT project manager for the county?s public works department, as reported in the Montgomery Gazette. "They assessed it and said they couldn't get the improvements they needed for general-purpose traffic." State transportation engineers did consult with Montgomery County in their plans for changes to certain intersections along Veirs Mill. They agreed to include queue jumper lanes for buses, which will allow the buses to avoid traffic backups. Signals at the intersections will give priority and right-of-way to the buses. Also, enlarged passenger shelters with real-time arrival and departure information along the route will provide added safety and convenience for riders. However, at the intersection of Connecticut Avenue and Veirs Mill, state engineers refused to provide the same accommodations that would transform conventional bus into expedited service. MTA officials said that the state had already made plans without BRT, based on the previous administration?s transportation goals, and had even begun construction before the county came forward with its BRT idea. The planning and engineering processes were too far along to shift the state?s efforts to BRT on Veirs Mills Road. However, the 2002 comprehensive Regional Bus Study by the Metro transit authority identified Veirs Mill Road as the top priority for improved ?RapidBus? service. "Here you have a bus rapid transit project ready to go, and the state isn't implementing it," said Ben Ross, a member of Montgomery transit advocacy group Action Committee for Transit. "The Ehrlich administration only wants to talk about BRT; they don't want to do anything about it." Currently, the county is in the formal facility planning stage that should be completed by the summer. Kline said he hopes the county still will be able to implement at least part, if not all, of the original BRT strategy. |
| $1.5 billion Metro Matters Funded, Bonds Win Big in Arlington and Fairfax By Cheryl Cort At the Metro board meeting on Oct. 21, the transit agency cleared a major hurdle ? adopting a capital funding agreement for $3.3 billion for a six-year capital program that includes the previously unfunded $1.5 billion urgent priorities ?Metro Matters? rehabilitation, and railcar and bus purchase program. Although Metro member jurisdictions committed to providing their share of the increased funding in October, Arlington and Fairfax Counties committed to the funding contingent on winning approval from local voters for bond initiatives on the November ballot. The voters strongly supported both bond initiatives. Voters in Arlington approved the measure that will raise $18 million for Metro funding by 82 percent. In Fairfax County, voters approved a transportation bond that will allocate $100 million to Metro, provide another $50 million to intersection improvements, road widening and other projects, plus $5 million for pedestrian enhancements. The measure passed with a 76 percent yes vote. |
| Active Living by Design Grant Awarded to WRN-led Partnership A partnership led by WRN was awarded a small grant to work with residents and businesses at the Minnesota Avenue Metro station and the commercial district at Benning Road and Minnesota Avenue to foster a more pedestrian-friendly environment. The grant will be used to develop a ?Pedestrian Overlay? in Ward 7?s downtown, which will guide land use changes and street designs to ensure that the area is a pleasant and safe place to walk, shop and access transit. Joining WRN in the partnership is Marshall Heights Community Development Organization, D.C. Office of Planning, and D.C. Department of Transportation. The grant was awarded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation?s Active Living by Design Program which provides grant funding to enhance active living initiatives and support the continued expansion of the active living movement. |
| Metro Moves Back to Diesel with Bus Fleet Expansion
By Ray Minjares This year the Metro board decided to stop buying natural gas-powered buses and switch back to conventional diesel. At first glance this seems an odd move considering diesel vehicles are a primary contributor to ozone pollution in a region struggling to meet air quality standards. But a number of factors including a tight budget, strong ridership and a changing field of clean bus technologies help explain why natural gas buses are not taking over the streets. Four years ago the Metro Board made a decision in favor of public health and the environment to stop adding diesel-powered buses to its fleet. At that time, large transit agencies across the United States were taking a hard look at natural gas-powered buses for their clear and immediate emissions benefits. Transit agencies in New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, Atlanta, Dallas and others made the switch to natural gas and Washington, D.C., soon followed. At a routine meeting this May, the Metro Board discussed the next round of bus and infrastructure procurement. Board Chairman Robert Smith proposed outright abandonment of natural gas purchases in favor of diesel. Board members Chris Zimmerman and Jim Graham were clearly caught off guard. Smith had not prepared an explanation, showing his lack of attention to the issue. Fuel choice in the Washington area has become a public health matter and Metro has a large role to play, not just in reducing its own emissions, but also in providing transit service as an alternative to polluting, congested roadways. A positive outcome of Smith's proposal was a series of meetings to debate the issue, which revealed several issues that complicate a continuation of the natural gas bus purchase policy. The transit authority is struggling to maintain current service levels with its old buses, let alone expand to meet record levels of ridership. To fill bus replacements and to expand transit service, Metro has been buying natural gas-powered buses and installing new refueling infrastructure at higher cost (about $30,000 more per bus, plus a few million dollars per refueling station). Sticking with natural gas is a capital-intensive process during the transition phase. With just over 200 compressed natural gas (CNG) buses, Metro is still in this phase and will continue to be for a number of years. The same year Metro switched to natural gas-powered buses, then-EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whitman signed a sweeping regulation to require a 90 percent reduction in diesel engine emissions. What at the time seemed to diesel engine manufacturers like an overreaching government mandate probably saved them from going out of business. Today's diesel buses are substantially cleaner than they were in 2000. With new particulate trap devices and nitrogen oxide absorbers, some contend that the latest edition of diesel buses will be cleaner than their cleanest natural gas counterparts. Smith successfully convinced his fellow board members that diesel is again the right way to go for the Washington area. He bolstered his argument by saying, correctly, that replacing the oldest diesel buses with the cleanest models will by itself reduce diesel emissions significantly. But for those members still committed to the idea of having the "cleanest" buses on the road, the deal to move back to diesel included a surprising concession: Metro will purchase 100 hybrid-electric diesel buses. Arguably the smartest way to go, hybrid-electrics improve the emissions of any fuel through efficiency gains. Along with the latest particulate traps and high-tech gadgetry, diesel can become substantially cleaner and reduce fuel purchasing and maintenance costs overall. Although some might call it a risky move, Metro will be at the forefront of clean bus technology. |
| WRN Featured on TouchDC.org ? Contribute to WRN Online WRN was recently selected as one of the 55 featured area non-profits to be highlighted on the TouchDC.org?s online catalog of charitable organizations. The TouchDC.org web site is an online giving portal that provides access to more than 23,000 of the region?s non-profit organizations. Thanks to TouchDC.org, WRN now accepts donations online: go to www.washingtonregion.net, click on ?Donate Now? button at the bottom of the Web page. |
| Events Tuesday, Dec. 7, and Wednesday, Dec. 8: Council of Governments public forums on how alternative land-use and transportation scenarios might affect driving, congestion, transit use and quality of life in the Washington region. Dec. 7, 12-1:30 p.m., in Fair Lakes, Va. Meeting at the Peterson Companies organized by Bob Chase with the Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance. The meeting is open, but participants need to RSVP to John Swanson by Dec. 3. Dec. 8, 7:30-9 p.m., at the Activity Center at Bohrer Park, Summit Hill Farm, 506 South Frederick Avenue, Gaithersburg, Md. For more information, contact TPB staff member John Swanson, jswanson@mwcog.org or 202-962-3295. Wednesday, Dec. 15, 12:30-1:30 p.m.: Protecting Water Resources: Smart Growth and Low Impact Development. John Tippett, executive director of Friends of the Rappahannock, will present current best practices in the integration of low-impact development design techniques with smart growth projects. For more information: http://www.nbm.org/Events/Calendar/Lectures_Symposia.html. Wednesday, Dec. 15: Deadline for Smart Growth Alliance Project Recognition Program. See: http://washington.uli.org and click ?Smart Growth Alliance? or contact John Bailey at jbailey@uli.org or 202-624-7003. Jan. 4, 5 and 8: Intercounty Connector (ICC) Hearings in Greenbelt, Gaithersburg and Silver Spring. Maryland State Highway Administration will host three public hearings on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the Intercounty Connector Project. For more information: http://iccstudy.org Thank You's: WRN wishes to thank the following friends of WRN for their generous contributions: the Meyer, Cafritz, Robert Wood Johnson and The Enterprise Foundations; Sam Black, Alison Kolwaite, and Allen Greenberg. Intersect staff: Cheryl Cort, editor; Stephen Wade and Ray Minjares, contributing writers; Lyn Stoesen, editorial assistance. Washington Regional Network For Livable Communities (WRN) is a non-profit organization that advocates transportation investments, land use policies, and neighborhood designs that enhance existing communities and the environment of the Washington, D.C. Region. NEW! Phone: (202) 244-1105, Fax: (202) 244-4225, E-mail: staff@washingtonregion.net, NEW ADDRESS: 4000 Albemarle St, NW, Washington, D.C. 20016. Give online to WRN at: www.washingtonregion.net |
| Main Page
Newsletter
Programs
Events
Join Us! |