Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$52

What is this about, how is this thread making money for WABA?

A poster vowed to donate $1 to WABA for each page over 100.

The Washington Area Bicyclist Association is a scam. If you look at its tax filings, you'll see almost its entire $2 million budget comes from taxpayer money. Basically, the D.C. government pays WABA to lobby the DC government. Great use of tax dollars (and is this even legal?).

You might also ask why, if the public is so in favor of bike lanes, why WABA is incapable of supporting itself. Out of its $2 million in revenue, just $108,000 came from its members' dues. Sure looks like they're having trouble finding people to support them.

No, it wouldn't be legal, and at the same time, if you looked at the public filings that ALL legitimate non-profits make, you would know that they don't do this. WABA gets grants from the DC government to conduct educational programs in schools and for adults- how to ride safely, how to change tires, how to maintain the equipment etc.

The money they use for lobbying comes from donations and other sources, AS SHOWN ON THEIR FORMS.

So let's stop with the lying, it really undermines your arguments.

"Educational programs." Orwell would have loved your euphemisms. The entire purpose of WABA is to lobby for bike lanes. Pretty evident by their own Web site where they urge people to contact the government about specific infrastructure projects. No one in the history of Washington D.C. has turned to WABA to learn how to ride a bike.

still don't understand why a group lobbying for bike lanes in a city where the public is supposedly clamoring for bike lanes raises so little money from its members. $108,000 in total? there are girl scout troops that do better than that.

What you’re showing is that the notion of a well-resourced and powerful “bike lobby” is nothing but a ridiculous fiction. I care a lot about bike lanes, but have never contributed any money to WABA and have no intentions of doing so. What do I need them for when I can show up at an ANC meeting or write to my Councilmember?

DP but WABA is very well financed, just not by members. They receive millions from DDOT, the real estate industry, and have also received funds from WMATA.

Why, if bikes and bike lanes are as unpopular with real people as people here claim, would the real estate industry be financing WABA? Real estate developers want to sell housing. If no one wants bike stuff as an amenity, there's not much point in subsidizing the bike lobby.

Developers are funding WABA in order to gain support for upzoning. It's standard greenwashing. Remenber that this Connecticut Ave plan is concurrent with efforts to upzone the same area. That's the quid pro quo. Upzoning for bike lanes. That's what's so appalling about what the ANCs did. They traded upzoning for bike lanes. Not increased mass transit
Not increased school capacity. Not increased emergency services. But bike lanes.

Developers don't care about bike lanes. They just want to be able to build at a higher density (which equals higher profit). It's a great deal for them. The bike lane proponents take all the blame and lead to density fight for them because the two are intertwined.

Surely the developers are powerful enough to just get what they want without needing a bunch of (as this thread has it) fat white guys in spandex advocating for an unrelated policy to make it happen, though. Again, if bike lanes and upzoning are both so unpopular, why would this trade have even worked?

ANCs have leverage over zoning and as a PP mentioned there are requiremwnts regarding parking that they want waived.

Developers want to build less parking and at higher density. They use bicyclists to push for that in exchange for bike lanes.

It is also better development and sustainability to have higher density and less parking. Gee....

Only if you like more congestion, less safety and circling for parking spaces near your house.

Underground parking garages are a very efficient use of space for everyone except developers.

They're a very expensive use of space -- developers don't just eat the cost of parking, either, the end result of requiring underground parking spots is that housing costs more. That's not good for anyone EXCEPT developers.

Underground parking does cost a lot but no developers do not benefit. The profit is on the units not the parking. Each parking space reduces the profit of the developer. The people that benefit from undervround parling are the neighbors and community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the WABA contracts include paying someone $150,000 per year, rising to $180,000 to be a “bicycle ambassador” which includes hanging out and riding around trails and bike lanes for 20 hours per week. How is this not corruption?

https://contracts.ocp.dc.gov/contracts/attachments/Q1c3NTQ3MsKmQmFzZSBQZXJpb2TCpnszRTM4NkU4Qy1BRDQ3LTQ1MUMtQTlBNC05Qzk0OEI3MEY3ODF9

That money is not an individual, it is for many. There are several bike ambassadors.

Lying is an interesting choice but too often a common one for cyclists, even when the facts are readily available. Here is from the contract at the link.

https://waba.org/details/bike-ambassadors/

Note the plural? Volunteers incur costs. The program covers their collective costs. Is this really that hard to grasp?

Volunteers incur what costs exactly?

Equipment/supplies, materials, background checks, insurance... Are you a contractor? Or just a manufacturer of outrage?

Volunteers are not contractors. Please describe and identify the duties of a “volunteer Bike Ambassador” that would incur any of these costs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the WABA contracts include paying someone $150,000 per year, rising to $180,000 to be a “bicycle ambassador” which includes hanging out and riding around trails and bike lanes for 20 hours per week. How is this not corruption?

https://contracts.ocp.dc.gov/contracts/attachments/Q1c3NTQ3MsKmQmFzZSBQZXJpb2TCpnszRTM4NkU4Qy1BRDQ3LTQ1MUMtQTlBNC05Qzk0OEI3MEY3ODF9

That money is not an individual, it is for many. There are several bike ambassadors.

Lying is an interesting choice but too often a common one for cyclists, even when the facts are readily available. Here is from the contract at the link.

https://waba.org/details/bike-ambassadors/

Note the plural? Volunteers incur costs. The program covers their collective costs. Is this really that hard to grasp?

Volunteers incur what costs exactly?

Equipment/supplies, materials, background checks, insurance... Are you a contractor? Or just a manufacturer of outrage?

Volunteers are not contractors. Please describe and identify the duties of a “volunteer Bike Ambassador” that would incur any of these costs?

It’s thoroughly exhausting to attempt to reason with someone (ie, you) who will always twist whatever facts are present in service of their pre-ordained conclusion. If you think you have identified a case of fraud, bring it to the attention of the relevant authorities and/or the media. But if the best you can offer is a serious of outlandish accusations, stop wasting everyone’s time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the WABA contracts include paying someone $150,000 per year, rising to $180,000 to be a “bicycle ambassador” which includes hanging out and riding around trails and bike lanes for 20 hours per week. How is this not corruption?

https://contracts.ocp.dc.gov/contracts/attachments/Q1c3NTQ3MsKmQmFzZSBQZXJpb2TCpnszRTM4NkU4Qy1BRDQ3LTQ1MUMtQTlBNC05Qzk0OEI3MEY3ODF9

That money is not an individual, it is for many. There are several bike ambassadors.

Lying is an interesting choice but too often a common one for cyclists, even when the facts are readily available. Here is from the contract at the link.

https://waba.org/details/bike-ambassadors/

Note the plural? Volunteers incur costs. The program covers their collective costs. Is this really that hard to grasp?

Volunteers incur what costs exactly?

Equipment/supplies, materials, background checks, insurance... Are you a contractor? Or just a manufacturer of outrage?

Volunteers are not contractors. Please describe and identify the duties of a “volunteer Bike Ambassador” that would incur any of these costs?

If the contractor is on the line for managing the full scope, then they have to pay for materials for the volunteers. As a simple example, they may need to wear hi-viz vests. That's a cost that the contractor pays.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of the WABA contracts include paying someone $150,000 per year, rising to $180,000 to be a “bicycle ambassador” which includes hanging out and riding around trails and bike lanes for 20 hours per week. How is this not corruption?

https://contracts.ocp.dc.gov/contracts/attachments/Q1c3NTQ3MsKmQmFzZSBQZXJpb2TCpnszRTM4NkU4Qy1BRDQ3LTQ1MUMtQTlBNC05Qzk0OEI3MEY3ODF9

We're paying them $1,102.50 per bicycle on top of everything else. What the hell, these are bikes for 8 year olds and we don't get to keep them.

At these prices it would be inordinately cheaper to just give every 8 year old a bike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$52

What is this about, how is this thread making money for WABA?

A poster vowed to donate $1 to WABA for each page over 100.

The Washington Area Bicyclist Association is a scam. If you look at its tax filings, you'll see almost its entire $2 million budget comes from taxpayer money. Basically, the D.C. government pays WABA to lobby the DC government. Great use of tax dollars (and is this even legal?).

You might also ask why, if the public is so in favor of bike lanes, why WABA is incapable of supporting itself. Out of its $2 million in revenue, just $108,000 came from its members' dues. Sure looks like they're having trouble finding people to support them.

No, it wouldn't be legal, and at the same time, if you looked at the public filings that ALL legitimate non-profits make, you would know that they don't do this. WABA gets grants from the DC government to conduct educational programs in schools and for adults- how to ride safely, how to change tires, how to maintain the equipment etc.

The money they use for lobbying comes from donations and other sources, AS SHOWN ON THEIR FORMS.

So let's stop with the lying, it really undermines your arguments.

"Educational programs." Orwell would have loved your euphemisms. The entire purpose of WABA is to lobby for bike lanes. Pretty evident by their own Web site where they urge people to contact the government about specific infrastructure projects. No one in the history of Washington D.C. has turned to WABA to learn how to ride a bike.

At our DCPS school, the second-graders have a unit on bike-riding in PE every year that involves bringing dozens of bikes to the school and instructing the kids to ride them. So... every year, people in Washington, D.C., turn to WABA to help kids learn how to ride a bike.

That is an A+ fig leaf.

I have never heard of any parent relying on school to teach their kids to ride bikes but forcing kids to sit through a WABA presentation is an excellent way to pretend they are not a lobbying organization on the public dole.

Do these schools not have gym teachers? I don't understand why schools would have to outsource this.

It makes zero sense. DCPS does not go hire outside groups every time it wants to teach kids about soccer or basketball or baseball or anything else.

Just read the post at 14:48.

14:48 only says that WABA doesn't do any instruction because that's done by the gym teachers. Another post said WABA only supplies the bikes. Is that it? Because that's even worse. It would be quite a boondoggle if the city was paying WABA millions of dollars to lend $50 bikes to schools.

Almost all of WABA's $2 million budget comes from the government. They only collect about $100,000 from membership dues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the WABA contracts include paying someone $150,000 per year, rising to $180,000 to be a “bicycle ambassador” which includes hanging out and riding around trails and bike lanes for 20 hours per week. How is this not corruption?

https://contracts.ocp.dc.gov/contracts/attachments/Q1c3NTQ3MsKmQmFzZSBQZXJpb2TCpnszRTM4NkU4Qy1BRDQ3LTQ1MUMtQTlBNC05Qzk0OEI3MEY3ODF9

That money is not an individual, it is for many. There are several bike ambassadors.

Lying is an interesting choice but too often a common one for cyclists, even when the facts are readily available. Here is from the contract at the link.

https://waba.org/details/bike-ambassadors/

Note the plural? Volunteers incur costs. The program covers their collective costs. Is this really that hard to grasp?

Volunteers incur what costs exactly?

Equipment/supplies, materials, background checks, insurance... Are you a contractor? Or just a manufacturer of outrage?

Volunteers are not contractors. Please describe and identify the duties of a “volunteer Bike Ambassador” that would incur any of these costs?

If the contractor is on the line for managing the full scope, then they have to pay for materials for the volunteers. As a simple example, they may need to wear hi-viz vests. That's a cost that the contractor pays.

The materials are a aeparate line item. $2.75 per pamphlet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the WABA contracts include paying someone $150,000 per year, rising to $180,000 to be a “bicycle ambassador” which includes hanging out and riding around trails and bike lanes for 20 hours per week. How is this not corruption?

https://contracts.ocp.dc.gov/contracts/attachments/Q1c3NTQ3MsKmQmFzZSBQZXJpb2TCpnszRTM4NkU4Qy1BRDQ3LTQ1MUMtQTlBNC05Qzk0OEI3MEY3ODF9

That money is not an individual, it is for many. There are several bike ambassadors.

Lying is an interesting choice but too often a common one for cyclists, even when the facts are readily available. Here is from the contract at the link.

https://waba.org/details/bike-ambassadors/

Note the plural? Volunteers incur costs. The program covers their collective costs. Is this really that hard to grasp?

Volunteers incur what costs exactly?

Equipment/supplies, materials, background checks, insurance... Are you a contractor? Or just a manufacturer of outrage?

Volunteers are not contractors. Please describe and identify the duties of a “volunteer Bike Ambassador” that would incur any of these costs?

It’s thoroughly exhausting to attempt to reason with someone (ie, you) who will always twist whatever facts are present in service of their pre-ordained conclusion. If you think you have identified a case of fraud, bring it to the attention of the relevant authorities and/or the media. But if the best you can offer is a serious of outlandish accusations, stop wasting everyone’s time.

Maybe you should read the documents firat bedore reflexively defending them.

It's all there in black and white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the WABA contracts include paying someone $150,000 per year, rising to $180,000 to be a “bicycle ambassador” which includes hanging out and riding around trails and bike lanes for 20 hours per week. How is this not corruption?

https://contracts.ocp.dc.gov/contracts/attachments/Q1c3NTQ3MsKmQmFzZSBQZXJpb2TCpnszRTM4NkU4Qy1BRDQ3LTQ1MUMtQTlBNC05Qzk0OEI3MEY3ODF9

We're paying them $1,102.50 per bicycle on top of everything else. What the hell, these are bikes for 8 year olds and we don't get to keep them.

At these prices it would be inordinately cheaper to just give every 8 year old a bike.

The classic 18" BMX Mongoose costs $115 per bike. That's insane

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the WABA contracts include paying someone $150,000 per year, rising to $180,000 to be a “bicycle ambassador” which includes hanging out and riding around trails and bike lanes for 20 hours per week. How is this not corruption?

https://contracts.ocp.dc.gov/contracts/attachments/Q1c3NTQ3MsKmQmFzZSBQZXJpb2TCpnszRTM4NkU4Qy1BRDQ3LTQ1MUMtQTlBNC05Qzk0OEI3MEY3ODF9

That money is not an individual, it is for many. There are several bike ambassadors.

Lying is an interesting choice but too often a common one for cyclists, even when the facts are readily available. Here is from the contract at the link.

https://waba.org/details/bike-ambassadors/

Note the plural? Volunteers incur costs. The program covers their collective costs. Is this really that hard to grasp?

Volunteers incur what costs exactly?

Equipment/supplies, materials, background checks, insurance... Are you a contractor? Or just a manufacturer of outrage?

Volunteers are not contractors. Please describe and identify the duties of a “volunteer Bike Ambassador” that would incur any of these costs?

If the contractor is on the line for managing the full scope, then they have to pay for materials for the volunteers. As a simple example, they may need to wear hi-viz vests. That's a cost that the contractor pays.

A high res vest costs $10 retail

[Anonymous]

To recap:

1. The lion's share of the Washington Area Bicyclist Association's $2 million budget comes from the D.C. government. Very few people actually donate to them. Membership dues amount to about $100,000.

2. WABA appears to be illegally using this taxpayer money to lobby the DC government on bike lanes.

3. WABA says it's not just lobbying, that it has an educational mission too. But that educational mission appears to boil down to renting $100 bikes for children in PE classes at school to the city at more than $1,000 a pop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the WABA contracts include paying someone $150,000 per year, rising to $180,000 to be a “bicycle ambassador” which includes hanging out and riding around trails and bike lanes for 20 hours per week. How is this not corruption?

https://contracts.ocp.dc.gov/contracts/attachments/Q1c3NTQ3MsKmQmFzZSBQZXJpb2TCpnszRTM4NkU4Qy1BRDQ3LTQ1MUMtQTlBNC05Qzk0OEI3MEY3ODF9

We're paying them $1,102.50 per bicycle on top of everything else. What the hell, these are bikes for 8 year olds and we don't get to keep them.

At these prices it would be inordinately cheaper to just give every 8 year old a bike.

You will doubtlessly a long and illustrious career exposing waste in government contracting. Just wait until you start going through the defense budget. You will look back on those days when got worked up about a $1,000 bicycle in astonishment that you ever could have been so impressionable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the WABA contracts include paying someone $150,000 per year, rising to $180,000 to be a “bicycle ambassador” which includes hanging out and riding around trails and bike lanes for 20 hours per week. How is this not corruption?

https://contracts.ocp.dc.gov/contracts/attachments/Q1c3NTQ3MsKmQmFzZSBQZXJpb2TCpnszRTM4NkU4Qy1BRDQ3LTQ1MUMtQTlBNC05Qzk0OEI3MEY3ODF9

We're paying them $1,102.50 per bicycle on top of everything else. What the hell, these are bikes for 8 year olds and we don't get to keep them.

At these prices it would be inordinately cheaper to just give every 8 year old a bike.

You will doubtlessly a long and illustrious career exposing waste in government contracting. Just wait until you start going through the defense budget. You will look back on those days when got worked up about a $1,000 bicycle in astonishment that you ever could have been so impressionable.

You're defending this with a whataboutism about Pentagon procurement?

FYI an industrial grade adult bike is less than $500 through GSA Global Supply

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$52

What is this about, how is this thread making money for WABA?

A poster vowed to donate $1 to WABA for each page over 100.

The Washington Area Bicyclist Association is a scam. If you look at its tax filings, you'll see almost its entire $2 million budget comes from taxpayer money. Basically, the D.C. government pays WABA to lobby the DC government. Great use of tax dollars (and is this even legal?).

You might also ask why, if the public is so in favor of bike lanes, why WABA is incapable of supporting itself. Out of its $2 million in revenue, just $108,000 came from its members' dues. Sure looks like they're having trouble finding people to support them.

No, it wouldn't be legal, and at the same time, if you looked at the public filings that ALL legitimate non-profits make, you would know that they don't do this. WABA gets grants from the DC government to conduct educational programs in schools and for adults- how to ride safely, how to change tires, how to maintain the equipment etc.

The money they use for lobbying comes from donations and other sources, AS SHOWN ON THEIR FORMS.

So let's stop with the lying, it really undermines your arguments.

"Educational programs." Orwell would have loved your euphemisms. The entire purpose of WABA is to lobby for bike lanes. Pretty evident by their own Web site where they urge people to contact the government about specific infrastructure projects. No one in the history of Washington D.C. has turned to WABA to learn how to ride a bike.

still don't understand why a group lobbying for bike lanes in a city where the public is supposedly clamoring for bike lanes raises so little money from its members. $108,000 in total? there are girl scout troops that do better than that.

What you’re showing is that the notion of a well-resourced and powerful “bike lobby” is nothing but a ridiculous fiction. I care a lot about bike lanes, but have never contributed any money to WABA and have no intentions of doing so. What do I need them for when I can show up at an ANC meeting or write to my Councilmember?

DP but WABA is very well financed, just not by members. They receive millions from DDOT, the real estate industry, and have also received funds from WMATA.

Why, if bikes and bike lanes are as unpopular with real people as people here claim, would the real estate industry be financing WABA? Real estate developers want to sell housing. If no one wants bike stuff as an amenity, there's not much point in subsidizing the bike lobby.

Developers are funding WABA in order to gain support for upzoning. It's standard greenwashing. Remenber that this Connecticut Ave plan is concurrent with efforts to upzone the same area. That's the quid pro quo. Upzoning for bike lanes. That's what's so appalling about what the ANCs did. They traded upzoning for bike lanes. Not increased mass transit
Not increased school capacity. Not increased emergency services. But bike lanes.

Developers don't care about bike lanes. They just want to be able to build at a higher density (which equals higher profit). It's a great deal for them. The bike lane proponents take all the blame and lead to density fight for them because the two are intertwined.

Surely the developers are powerful enough to just get what they want without needing a bunch of (as this thread has it) fat white guys in spandex advocating for an unrelated policy to make it happen, though. Again, if bike lanes and upzoning are both so unpopular, why would this trade have even worked?

ANCs have leverage over zoning and as a PP mentioned there are requiremwnts regarding parking that they want waived.

Developers want to build less parking and at higher density. They use bicyclists to push for that in exchange for bike lanes.

It is also better development and sustainability to have higher density and less parking. Gee....

Only if you like more congestion, less safety and circling for parking spaces near your house.

Underground parking garages are a very efficient use of space for everyone except developers.

They're a very expensive use of space -- developers don't just eat the cost of parking, either, the end result of requiring underground parking spots is that housing costs more. That's not good for anyone EXCEPT developers.

Underground parking does cost a lot but no developers do not benefit. The profit is on the units not the parking. Each parking space reduces the profit of the developer. The people that benefit from undervround parling are the neighbors and community.

The parking spaces only reduce the profits for the developers if the developers don't roll the cost of each parking space into the costs of the units. Which, if they're not idiots, they probably do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To recap:

1. The lion's share of the Washington Area Bicyclist Association's $2 million budget comes from the D.C. government. Very few people actually donate to them. Membership dues amount to about $100,000.

2. WABA appears to be illegally using this taxpayer money to lobby the DC government on bike lanes.

3. WABA says it's not just lobbying, that it has an educational mission too. But that educational mission appears to boil down to renting $100 bikes for children in PE classes at school to the city at more than $1,000 a pop.

And therefore... there shouldn't be bike lanes? How does this relate to whether it could be safer to bike on Connecticut Avenue, exactly? I don't really care how WABA gets or spends its money; I suspect it's not quite as baroquely nefarious as you're making it out to be here, but I also don't have the time or interest in reading through all the contracts you posted above in the thread. You have yet to demonstrate part 2 above other than to assert it, though.

I still can't understand how this conspiracy is supposed to have worked, where an organization you think is crooked and represents no real people's actual interests somehow persuaded elected officials to agree to a plan you claim no one in the city wants, in exchange for something else you claim no one in the city wants, i.e., increased density, which is not actually a part of the Connecticut Avenue bike lane project. Is it not possible that in fact, a simpler explanation here is correct, which is that more people than you think actually do want this to happen?