DC owns the building. "The people who live in the area" do not own the building. Also "more people equals a more polluted city" is - well, I don't even know what to say. Water pollution, air pollution, noise pollution, people pollution. In a city. Wow. |
*some* people who live in the area don't want it there are plenty of people who live in the area who do want it More people does not equal a more polluted city, particularly if said people are walking, bikin or using mass transit to get to work but nice coded racist language to assume that the "poors" who would be living there are "dirty" - that is a you problem. |
Ah, yes, if the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell. And your implicit assumption about my race is off the mark too. Since you can't deal with the evidence-based link that actually shows that commercial and residential buildings are the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the district (by far outstripping that produced by passenger vehicles for those reading along), you tried to throw in some sort of misguided race card because you have no facts on which to hang your argument. On your comment about "many" wanting bike lanes. It seems that those who don't want the bike lanes outstrip those who do, given the plan to go back to the drawing board on the lanes. The is little to no bike traffic on Connecticut Ave NW at any given time, suggesting the demand for the bike lanes is largely rooted in the figments of the bike lobby members' imaginations (and let's add the GGW ANC members for good measure). I won't even address your malicious attempt to twist words, so let's again stick to facts. The biggest greenhouse gas emitters in DC are commercial and residential buildings. So yeah, more people does equal to more pollution. And I don't think the Chevy Chase Library site is a realistic site for people to walk to work, as you suggest. Since when does affordable housing = "poors?" Affordable housing differs from low-income housing, which is apparently what you were referring to in very pejorative terms. Since when does "poors" = race? Your assumptions say so much about your own twisted biases. But again, when the facts don't o your way, pound the table and yell like hell. |
Again, this is a point made to refute those who say increased density is a "green move." It may be a lot things, but it's not green so stop trying to couch in that way. |
There is little bike traffic on CT Ave because it is a dangerous as EFF road to ride on. |
There is also little bike traffic because there is little bike traffic. |
Can someone also please explain about the housing density argument with respect to Ward 3?
Wards 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8 had lower populations than Ward 3 in the 2020 census. Ward 3's population was actually the third largest (behind 6 and 5). Ward 3 ranks 4th overall in terms of number of housing units. (Behind Wards 1, 2 and 6). Exactly why is more housing density needed? |
QFT |
If people felt safe to rid on it, they would. It isn't safe, ergo... |
It is geographically larger because there is lower density. the fact is, there is a lot of room to grow and the city need to spread affordable housing around to properties it owns, as it is the most cost effective way to generate new places where people who work in the city can afford to live. |
The M.O. of the Trumpers who shill for DC “Smart Growth” is to label all concerns as “racist.” How cynical and ironic. |
Because Ward 3 is labelled by the mayor’s office as a “high opportunity area.” Especially for developers’ windfall profits. |
It actually is green. People are not pollution, and there is nothing green about detached single-unit residential buildings in a city. |
It's not about housing density. |
Right on. ![]() |