Soooo, how is high-density looking to everyone now?

[Anonymous]

Sort of new poster here--

Isn't the whole point of studying this "report/recommendation" NOW, and raising questions NOW, to get ahead of eventual legislation? SOON, though shrouded in mystery exactly when, the Mayor is going to ask the Council to take up her bally-hooed Comp Plan in legislation. And this Comp Plan is not accompanied by a report/recommendation that was published to her website after and alongside the original Comp Plan.

Let's just be clear here--if I publish something to my website as a companion piece to a platform paper, I am endorsing it. If the Mayor does the same on her website, she is endorsing it as well.

So I would presume that both the Comp Plan and the report/recommendation are what she also wants legislated this fall. What else is a person to presume?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sort of new poster here--

Isn't the whole point of studying this "report/recommendation" NOW, and raising questions NOW, to get ahead of eventual legislation? SOON, though shrouded in mystery exactly when, the Mayor is going to ask the Council to take up her bally-hooed Comp Plan in legislation. And this Comp Plan is not accompanied by a report/recommendation that was published to her website after and alongside the original Comp Plan.

Let's just be clear here--if I publish something to my website as a companion piece to a platform paper, I am endorsing it. If the Mayor does the same on her website, she is endorsing it as well.

So I would presume that both the Comp Plan and the report/recommendation are what she also wants legislated this fall. What else is a person to presume?

Sorry, ^ is now accompanied

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sort of new poster here--

Isn't the whole point of studying this "report/recommendation" NOW, and raising questions NOW, to get ahead of eventual legislation? SOON, though shrouded in mystery exactly when, the Mayor is going to ask the Council to take up her bally-hooed Comp Plan in legislation. And this Comp Plan is not accompanied by a report/recommendation that was published to her website after and alongside the original Comp Plan.

Let's just be clear here--if I publish something to my website as a companion piece to a platform paper, I am endorsing it. If the Mayor does the same on her website, she is endorsing it as well.

So I would presume that both the Comp Plan and the report/recommendation are what she also wants legislated this fall. What else is a person to presume?

What one should presume is that a report is a report and a proposal is a proposal.

Where I work and in the world of laws they are distinctly different things even when generated by the same person or department covering related subject matters.

On DCUM where this thread has veered off into crazy land someone continues to posit that they are somehow the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sort of new poster here--

Isn't the whole point of studying this "report/recommendation" NOW, and raising questions NOW, to get ahead of eventual legislation? SOON, though shrouded in mystery exactly when, the Mayor is going to ask the Council to take up her bally-hooed Comp Plan in legislation. And this Comp Plan is not accompanied by a report/recommendation that was published to her website after and alongside the original Comp Plan.

Let's just be clear here--if I publish something to my website as a companion piece to a platform paper, I am endorsing it. If the Mayor does the same on her website, she is endorsing it as well.

So I would presume that both the Comp Plan and the report/recommendation are what she also wants legislated this fall. What else is a person to presume?

What one should presume is that a report is a report and a proposal is a proposal.

Where I work and in the world of laws they are distinctly different things even when generated by the same person or department covering related subject matters.

On DCUM where this thread has veered off into crazy land someone continues to posit that they are somehow the same thing.

No... This is D. C. the land of the crazy. The scope is far beyond DCUM. 😁

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sort of new poster here--

Isn't the whole point of studying this "report/recommendation" NOW, and raising questions NOW, to get ahead of eventual legislation? SOON, though shrouded in mystery exactly when, the Mayor is going to ask the Council to take up her bally-hooed Comp Plan in legislation. And this Comp Plan is not accompanied by a report/recommendation that was published to her website after and alongside the original Comp Plan.

Let's just be clear here--if I publish something to my website as a companion piece to a platform paper, I am endorsing it. If the Mayor does the same on her website, she is endorsing it as well.

So I would presume that both the Comp Plan and the report/recommendation are what she also wants legislated this fall. What else is a person to presume?

What one should presume is that a report is a report and a proposal is a proposal.

Where I work and in the world of laws they are distinctly different things even when generated by the same person or department covering related subject matters.

On DCUM where this thread has veered off into crazy land someone continues to posit that they are somehow the same thing.

Why does this remind me so much of "I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major-General"

Look-it, we are not letting the Mayor off the hook for her goal to pave Ward 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Why does this remind me so much of "I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major-General"

Look-it, we are not letting the Mayor off the hook for her goal to pave Ward 3.

Or her opposition to having a brighter moon. Ward 3 needs a brighter moon! Brighter moon now for Ward 3!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sort of new poster here--

Isn't the whole point of studying this "report/recommendation" NOW, and raising questions NOW, to get ahead of eventual legislation? SOON, though shrouded in mystery exactly when, the Mayor is going to ask the Council to take up her bally-hooed Comp Plan in legislation. And this Comp Plan is not accompanied by a report/recommendation that was published to her website after and alongside the original Comp Plan.

Let's just be clear here--if I publish something to my website as a companion piece to a platform paper, I am endorsing it. If the Mayor does the same on her website, she is endorsing it as well.

So I would presume that both the Comp Plan and the report/recommendation are what she also wants legislated this fall. What else is a person to presume?

What one should presume is that a report is a report and a proposal is a proposal.

Where I work and in the world of laws they are distinctly different things even when generated by the same person or department covering related subject matters.

On DCUM where this thread has veered off into crazy land someone continues to posit that they are somehow the same thing.

Why does this remind me so much of "I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major-General"

Look-it, we are not letting the Mayor off the hook for her goal to pave Ward 3.

Who will save Ward 3 from gentrification and preserve its surface parking lots!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why does this remind me so much of "I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major-General"

Look-it, we are not letting the Mayor off the hook for her goal to pave Ward 3.

Or her opposition to having a brighter moon. Ward 3 needs a brighter moon! Brighter moon now for Ward 3!

But not brighter street lights, please. The new model Cobra lights seem better suited to I -395 and seem jarring on residential local streets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

OMG this is truly nuts.

And I am not a lawyer just someone who understands how laws get enacted in DC and let me tell you it isn't rocket science though it is akin to sausage being made.

For "gentle density" to become policy in DC it needs to be incorporated into legislation.

Currently there is no legislative proposal that incorporates "gentle density."

If you believe there is a proposal or that it is incorporated somewhere in the proposal DCOP sent to DC Council more than a month ago to update the Comp Plan please provide a citation for where it is in that legislation.

Otherwise all we have is a report with recommendations and you can repeat it all you want that it is a formal proposal but that will never make it true.

Hmmm...NOBODY ever said that there was legislation to incorporate 'gentle density'. Everybody has maintained that the Comp Plan and the Single Family Zoning report both 'propose' and 'recommend' gentle density. I believe even the steps have been enumerated here.

So now that you have thrown your little tantrum and moved the goal posts again, are we going to get down to the discussion you proposed or are you going to 'conflate' (to use your term) COVID treatments with housing policy? (technically you probably can continue conflating because the thread is about how COVID may impact density planning)

So all in for replacing the vape shop with a COVID therapeutics Shoppe?

Note, however, that the proposed FLUM amendments designate a demarcated local plan area for an area from Friendship Heights south to the Cathedral and including several blocks east and west of Wisconsin Ave - with much overlap on the recommended transit-oriented gentle density recommendation in this area. The detail in the FLUM amendments indicate that it would give administrative authority to DC agencies (ie, OP) to enact changes like more density in SFH zones. So there is a hidden backdoor to enact some gentle density through the Comp Plan amendments and FLUM changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why does this remind me so much of "I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major-General"

Look-it, we are not letting the Mayor off the hook for her goal to pave Ward 3.

Or her opposition to having a brighter moon. Ward 3 needs a brighter moon! Brighter moon now for Ward 3!

But not brighter street lights, please. The new model Cobra lights seem better suited to I -395 and seem jarring on residential local streets.

The brightness isn't the issue there, it's the color temperature. The high color temperature LED lights make everything look like a lightning flash in a horror movie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OMG this is truly nuts.

And I am not a lawyer just someone who understands how laws get enacted in DC and let me tell you it isn't rocket science though it is akin to sausage being made.

For "gentle density" to become policy in DC it needs to be incorporated into legislation.

Currently there is no legislative proposal that incorporates "gentle density."

If you believe there is a proposal or that it is incorporated somewhere in the proposal DCOP sent to DC Council more than a month ago to update the Comp Plan please provide a citation for where it is in that legislation.

Otherwise all we have is a report with recommendations and you can repeat it all you want that it is a formal proposal but that will never make it true.

Hmmm...NOBODY ever said that there was legislation to incorporate 'gentle density'. Everybody has maintained that the Comp Plan and the Single Family Zoning report both 'propose' and 'recommend' gentle density. I believe even the steps have been enumerated here.

So now that you have thrown your little tantrum and moved the goal posts again, are we going to get down to the discussion you proposed or are you going to 'conflate' (to use your term) COVID treatments with housing policy? (technically you probably can continue conflating because the thread is about how COVID may impact density planning)

So all in for replacing the vape shop with a COVID therapeutics Shoppe?

Note, however, that the proposed FLUM amendments designate a demarcated local plan area for an area from Friendship Heights south to the Cathedral and including several blocks east and west of Wisconsin Ave - with much overlap on the recommended transit-oriented gentle density recommendation in this area. The detail in the FLUM amendments indicate that it would give administrative authority to DC agencies (ie, OP) to enact changes like more density in SFH zones. So there is a hidden backdoor to enact some gentle density through the Comp Plan amendments and FLUM changes.

Finally on page 72 you've unmasked the conspiracy! You WILL be able to save Ward 3 from gentrification and preserve its surface parking lots!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why does this remind me so much of "I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major-General"

Look-it, we are not letting the Mayor off the hook for her goal to pave Ward 3.

Or her opposition to having a brighter moon. Ward 3 needs a brighter moon! Brighter moon now for Ward 3!

But not brighter street lights, please. The new model Cobra lights seem better suited to I -395 and seem jarring on residential local streets.

The brightness isn't the issue there, it's the color temperature. The high color temperature LED lights make everything look like a lightning flash in a horror movie.

Now you remind me of this...

"Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe."

Don't worry, we have our eye on the Mayor and her plans/proposals/recommendations/reports for Ward 3. No matter how much nonsense you spout or flak you throw in the air, by day or by streetlight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why does this remind me so much of "I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major-General"

Look-it, we are not letting the Mayor off the hook for her goal to pave Ward 3.

Or her opposition to having a brighter moon. Ward 3 needs a brighter moon! Brighter moon now for Ward 3!

But not brighter street lights, please. The new model Cobra lights seem better suited to I -395 and seem jarring on residential local streets.

The brightness isn't the issue there, it's the color temperature. The high color temperature LED lights make everything look like a lightning flash in a horror movie.

I'll bite. Before you install a swath of new street lights, aren't they validated for things like color temperature in the environment. I remember reading stories about the damage done to the astronomers in Arizona when they changed the color of their street lights and they washed out the observatory optics. I just would have thought that before ddot purchased a batch of street lights, they might know what color they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why does this remind me so much of "I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major-General"

Look-it, we are not letting the Mayor off the hook for her goal to pave Ward 3.

Or her opposition to having a brighter moon. Ward 3 needs a brighter moon! Brighter moon now for Ward 3!

But not brighter street lights, please. The new model Cobra lights seem better suited to I -395 and seem jarring on residential local streets.

The brightness isn't the issue there, it's the color temperature. The high color temperature LED lights make everything look like a lightning flash in a horror movie.

Now you remind me of this...

"Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe."

Don't worry, we have our eye on the Mayor and her plans/proposals/recommendations/reports for Ward 3. No matter how much nonsense you spout or flak you throw in the air, by day or by streetlight.

I really don't know what to tell you. Color temperature for LED lights is a thing, it's measured in Kelvins, and the high-color-temperature blue-white LEDs are what people don't like. But if you don't want to educate yourself on the subject, then you're free to remain ignorant. Have at it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why does this remind me so much of "I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major-General"

Look-it, we are not letting the Mayor off the hook for her goal to pave Ward 3.

Or her opposition to having a brighter moon. Ward 3 needs a brighter moon! Brighter moon now for Ward 3!

But not brighter street lights, please. The new model Cobra lights seem better suited to I -395 and seem jarring on residential local streets.

The brightness isn't the issue there, it's the color temperature. The high color temperature LED lights make everything look like a lightning flash in a horror movie.

I'll bite. Before you install a swath of new street lights, aren't they validated for things like color temperature in the environment. I remember reading stories about the damage done to the astronomers in Arizona when they changed the color of their street lights and they washed out the observatory optics. I just would have thought that before ddot purchased a batch of street lights, they might know what color they are.

I don't know about DDOT specifically, but in general: no, they're not. A DOT will put in the standard blue-white LED bulbs unless there's a reason not to. For example, if somebody has asked them to put in a warmer bulb. So ask them to. The magic words are "less than 3000K".