I did not see an overabundance of familiar faces at the Bundy Property meeting with OPM on July 9th, so I decided to share my personal notes. There are a few important conditions review. The Bundy property is actually owned by two agencies. The District of Columbia owns the southern half of the property and is in the process of renovating the property and building. This half of the property will be the future home of the District’s child advocacy and will provide centralized services to abused and neglected children. A limited portion of the District owned property will be paved and lined for parking.
The northern half of the property is owned by the U.S. Government. The only action the Federal government is taking on this property is to swap the title with the Government of the District of Columbia. At some date in the future, the title of this property will be handed over to the District’s Department of Parks and Recreation. The target date for this swap is before the end of the year. Over the next month, the District’s Office of Property Management will complete the required steps to calculate the required number of parking spots to support the amount of space inside the building. The final inside, “finished” space will range from 30,000 to 37,000 square feet. The OPM will make a reasonable effort to inform the SMD Commissioners near the property in Ward 2 and Ward 5 of this calculation. The OPM anticipates that the entire portion of the property owned by the Federal Government will not need to be maintained as parking.
At this point, there may be community interest in converting the final, surplus space into a child park, dog park, community garden, obstacle course, exercise area, tennis court, or something else. DPR does not own the property and cannot consider any petitions or applications. Associations and neighborhoods were encouraged to organize and collect their public interest on how to use the space.
Bates Area Civic Association 
Thanks Jon. Who spoke and what was the general audience sentiment?
Mostly people from OPM spoke. Reps from ANC2C, mayor’s office, Jack Evan’s office etc. were present. At least 50 people showed up, probably more. A few long time residents were surprised by the idea of the dog park – they thought tot lots should come first. It was pointed out plans for two tot lots nearby are already on the way – one is supposed to finish by the end of summer behind the KIPP school itself. At times got contentous – 2 or 3 people in particular seemed just really angry about the idea of a dog park, as in why dogs, what about kids, safety etc. A few supported using that whole lot for parking, so that resident street parking is not affected by employees and visitors of Safeshore. But mostly, the discussions focused on it will be used likely for some parking and probably some other type of community use. I think a lot of people who did support the dog park petition listened but simply were not interested in getting into a shouting match. A dog park application has already been filed with DPW and they legally have to consider the application once the land title transfer from the Feds takes place this fall. Part of that application process includes getting community input at that time. People interested in other uses of that land, such as tot lots etc., will need to get organized if that’s what they want.
Jon made a request to keep the ANC5C reps informed whatever happens and was practically shouted down by one very vocal lady, who demanded to know why, and implied whether they are kept in the loop should depend on whether residents there support the dog park or a diff use of the lot??!! Jon’s answer that, people here should be kept informed because they also vote and pay taxes and will likely use the lot whatever the final use is, got a round of applause.