Mary Cheh has turned Cleveland Park/Cleveland Park North into her personal political asset

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Covid 19 plus high density plus public transport sounds worrisome

Oh? Is coronavirus is more dangerous for people who live in apartments than for people who live in detached one-household houses?

I don't know. Do you think densely packed cities and only public mass transport options might be? I dunno.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Public street is not your street. The greenie in the apartment building pays the same taxes you do. Why are you entitled to public space that others are not?

What im opposed to is cars crawling the block . Existing folks have cars. Selling new units to people without cars seems reasonable. Telling them to battle it out in the streets does not. You are making a great case for e ,isting residents to oppose.any added density. Thanks

It isn't YOUR street. You are just showing your sense of entitlement.

Do what the residents have done on certain streets in Cleveland Park and the Palisades: lots of lots of speed bumps. That way, only local drivers will use those streets, not folks looking for a fast cut-thru!

What do speed bumps have to do with parking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Covid 19 plus high density plus public transport sounds worrisome

Oh? Is coronavirus is more dangerous for people who live in apartments than for people who live in detached one-household houses?

I don't know. Do you think densely packed cities and only public mass transport options might be? I dunno.

If you're looking to improve public health, more cars is really, really, really not the way to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Covid 19 plus high density plus public transport sounds worrisome

Oh? Is coronavirus is more dangerous for people who live in apartments than for people who live in detached one-household houses?

I don't know. Do you think densely packed cities and only public mass transport options might be? I dunno.

If you're looking to improve public health, more cars is really, really, really not the way to go.

I would think no cars isn't the way either. Probs need reasonable mix.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Covid 19 plus high density plus public transport sounds worrisome

Oh? Is coronavirus is more dangerous for people who live in apartments than for people who live in detached one-household houses?

I don't know. Do you think densely packed cities and only public mass transport options might be? I dunno.

If you're looking to improve public health, more cars is really, really, really not the way to go.

I would think no cars isn't the way either. Probs need reasonable mix.

Who is banning cars? Nobody. But greatly reducing car use in the city would greatly improve public health.

[Anonymous]

Thats really hyperbolic. Dc has very low air pollution and people already use lots of mixed travel. Greatly improve public health? Would you like the maid services to shlep from house to house with their vaccuums by bus? Im guessing whatever health benefits they accrue would be offset by exhaustion. What would have an impact on public health is cramming in more cars, as would happen with higher density. If each new resident of these apartments had a car, that would raise idling cars and air pollution in the city very quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thats really hyperbolic. Dc has very low air pollution and people already use lots of mixed travel. Greatly improve public health? Would you like the maid services to shlep from house to house with their vaccuums by bus? Im guessing whatever health benefits they accrue would be offset by exhaustion. What would have an impact on public health is cramming in more cars, as would happen with higher density. If each new resident of these apartments had a car, that would raise idling cars and air pollution in the city very quickly.

No, talking about the health benefits of fewer cars in DC is not hyperbolic. Talking about the effect on cleaning service workers if DC banned cars is hyperbolic, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Covid 19 plus high density plus public transport sounds worrisome

Oh? Is coronavirus is more dangerous for people who live in apartments than for people who live in detached one-household houses?

I don't know. Do you think densely packed cities and only public mass transport options might be? I dunno.

If you're looking to improve public health, more cars is really, really, really not the way to go.

I would think no cars isn't the way either. Probs need reasonable mix.

Who is banning cars? Nobody. But greatly reducing car use in the city would greatly improve public health.

So would preserving and enhancing the city’s tree canopy. But for some unexplained reason, the DC government recently clear-cut about 150 trees in Hearst Park!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Public street is not your street. The greenie in the apartment building pays the same taxes you do. Why are you entitled to public space that others are not?

What im opposed to is cars crawling the block . Existing folks have cars. Selling new units to people without cars seems reasonable. Telling them to battle it out in the streets does not. You are making a great case for e ,isting residents to oppose.any added density. Thanks

It isn't YOUR street. You are just showing your sense of entitlement.

Do what the residents have done on certain streets in Cleveland Park and the Palisades: lots of lots of speed bumps. That way, only local drivers will use those streets, not folks looking for a fast cut-thru!

What do speed bumps have to do with parking?

One thing DC needs to do is to make the RPP zones smaller and more localized. A ward-based sticker is simply ineffective and not very logical.

[Anonymous]

I live on a block that is not zoned. I cannot get a RPP. This has the effect of forcing me to shop outside my zone and go to MD or VA. I am not near a metro the closest metro is 1.3 miles away. Shrinking zones will have this effect-putting more people in cars or shopping outside the district.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thats really hyperbolic. Dc has very low air pollution and people already use lots of mixed travel. Greatly improve public health? Would you like the maid services to shlep from house to house with their vaccuums by bus? Im guessing whatever health benefits they accrue would be offset by exhaustion. What would have an impact on public health is cramming in more cars, as would happen with higher density. If each new resident of these apartments had a car, that would raise idling cars and air pollution in the city very quickly.

No, talking about the health benefits of fewer cars in DC is not hyperbolic. Talking about the effect on cleaning service workers if DC banned cars is hyperbolic, though.

Do you have any idea how clean dc air is compared to other cities? Ee have very good air quality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Covid 19 plus high density plus public transport sounds worrisome

Oh? Is coronavirus is more dangerous for people who live in apartments than for people who live in detached one-household houses?

I don't know. Do you think densely packed cities and only public mass transport options might be? I dunno.

If you're looking to improve public health, more cars is really, really, really not the way to go.

I would think no cars isn't the way either. Probs need reasonable mix.

Who is banning cars? Nobody. But greatly reducing car use in the city would greatly improve public health.

So would preserving and enhancing the city’s tree canopy. But for some unexplained reason, the DC government recently clear-cut about 150 trees in Hearst Park!

You keep posting this. They cut down and removed a bunch of weeds and weed trees that had been there forever. The whole area will be replanted with proper flora and stormwater mitigation plantings. See the plans, they are very nice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thats really hyperbolic. Dc has very low air pollution and people already use lots of mixed travel. Greatly improve public health? Would you like the maid services to shlep from house to house with their vaccuums by bus? Im guessing whatever health benefits they accrue would be offset by exhaustion. What would have an impact on public health is cramming in more cars, as would happen with higher density. If each new resident of these apartments had a car, that would raise idling cars and air pollution in the city very quickly.

No, talking about the health benefits of fewer cars in DC is not hyperbolic. Talking about the effect on cleaning service workers if DC banned cars is hyperbolic, though.

Do you have any idea how clean dc air is compared to other cities? Ee have very good air quality.

PP, that's silly. Let's aim higher than "better than cities with worse air quality." And let's talk about all of the other ways fewer cars would be better for public health.

[Anonymous]

DC has really good air quality. Surprisingly good. Why is this shocking to you? Dont you want to ground your public policy in actual fact?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC has really good air quality. Surprisingly good. Why is this shocking to you? Dont you want to ground your public policy in actual fact?

Tell that to the people who have asthma.

And the people who live next to highways.

And the people who live next to highways who have asthma.