DC Council is pro-development

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem isn't that they want to build housing, the problem is that there is not any follow on plan. How to manage the resulting problems with traffic, over crowded schools, parking, etc.

It's "yes" to development but no planning for anything more than the developer's projects.

One weird trick to stop stressing out about traffic and parking.... stop driving your damn car everywhere!

Personal vehicles shouldn’t even be allowed in the city limits at all. That will never happen, but I give zero f***s about making life easier for MD car commuters by limiting development so they can have low traffic and easy parking.

Ah, but ask a DC developer who is seek a waiver from meager zoning requirements to provide off street parking whether they will covenant that the residents will not get RPP street parking, to avoid an additional burden on overtaxed streets. The theory, according to smart growth advocates, is that if a developer saves the cost of building off street parking, substantial savings can be passed on to renters and buyers in the form of lower prices. That affordability discount is worth any inconvenience that new renters or buyers may face in being ineligible for RPP. This is what Arlington County and many other jurisdictions require for parking-less or parking-lite development projects. It also encouraged new residents in such developments to use transit that the developer touts in favor of regulatory relief. But if you ask a DC developer if they will commit to no RPP in exchange for relief from providing off-street parking, they hem and haw, look down at their well-cobbled (non-transit using) shoes and simply try to dodge the question.

Oh not this again. Arlington does not have the equivalent of DC's ward wide RPP. Arlington has specific RPP zones, mostly walking distance to metro stops. Most of Arlington is NOT within an RPP zone. So you just exclude the new building address from the RPP zone. In DC the legal mechanism would be more problematic.

Also Arlington is looking at changing their RPP program. https://www.arlnow.com/2019/11/20/residential-parking-changes-on-the-way-its-going-to-be-a-doozy/

In general the desire to exclude new apts from RPP programs shows what a giveaway they are - the value of the permit far exceeds the cost.

It would be better to determine the number of permits an area can sustain, and then sell them to the highest bidder, wherever they live. If that is considered harmful to poorer long time residents, you could grandfather them in - and then give those residents the right to sell their permits to whomever they want.

What does not make sense is to cap the number of cars from the new buildings, while allowing SFH owners to park their cars on the street for a low price, so they can use their garages for storage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem isn't that they want to build housing, the problem is that there is not any follow on plan. How to manage the resulting problems with traffic, over crowded schools, parking, etc.

It's "yes" to development but no planning for anything more than the developer's projects.

The only way for the District to grow is through more density. That is what developers do, so ya, unless we want a stagnant economy, what do you propose?

That said, the traffic isn't DC residents, it is MD and VA commuters. Maybe invest more in mass transit to address that issue. Maybe invest more more bike infrastructure to address that issue. There is finite parking which is mostly underutilized. Building MORE parking just attracts more cars. You complain about "traffic" but want more auto-inducing parking? That doesn't make sense.

The school overcrowding can be solved by redrawing boundaries. Want to take a look at the 50+ page threads on that topic?

What does this even mean? This is the sort of empty rhetoric we always get when it comes to people arguing for more density.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem isn't that they want to build housing, the problem is that there is not any follow on plan. How to manage the resulting problems with traffic, over crowded schools, parking, etc.

It's "yes" to development but no planning for anything more than the developer's projects.

One weird trick to stop stressing out about traffic and parking.... stop driving your damn car everywhere!

Personal vehicles shouldn’t even be allowed in the city limits at all. That will never happen, but I give zero f***s about making life easier for MD car commuters by limiting development so they can have low traffic and easy parking.

It would probably be easier, and make more people happy, to just get rid of all the bike lanes.

AMEN

I suspect most people in D.C. hate the bike lanes.

Opinion polls don't show that - most DC residents are smart enough to understand reducing driving benefits everyone including people who drive. It is suburbanites who have made bad housing choices who are mostly pissed that they can't drive as fast as they want to who complain.

In any case DC literally has a few miles of protected bike lanes so getting rid of them will accomplish nothing and just put more cars on the roads.

Bike lanes encourage stupidity. I see people on two wheels taking incredible risks with their lives, as if their little helmets are going to make a difference if they're hit by a 2,000 pound car.

I'm surprised there isn't more debate about whether it's a good idea to add bike lanes in a city that has legalized marijuana. The city is encouraging more people to ride bikes at the same time that the number of drivers who are stoned out of their minds is probably at an all time high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem isn't that they want to build housing, the problem is that there is not any follow on plan. How to manage the resulting problems with traffic, over crowded schools, parking, etc.

It's "yes" to development but no planning for anything more than the developer's projects.

The only way for the District to grow is through more density. That is what developers do, so ya, unless we want a stagnant economy, what do you propose?

That said, the traffic isn't DC residents, it is MD and VA commuters. Maybe invest more in mass transit to address that issue. Maybe invest more more bike infrastructure to address that issue. There is finite parking which is mostly underutilized. Building MORE parking just attracts more cars. You complain about "traffic" but want more auto-inducing parking? That doesn't make sense.

The school overcrowding can be solved by redrawing boundaries. Want to take a look at the 50+ page threads on that topic?

What does this even mean? This is the sort of empty rhetoric we always get when it comes to people arguing for more density.

It means what it says. DC can have a growing economy or a static economy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem isn't that they want to build housing, the problem is that there is not any follow on plan. How to manage the resulting problems with traffic, over crowded schools, parking, etc.

It's "yes" to development but no planning for anything more than the developer's projects.

The only way for the District to grow is through more density. That is what developers do, so ya, unless we want a stagnant economy, what do you propose?

That said, the traffic isn't DC residents, it is MD and VA commuters. Maybe invest more in mass transit to address that issue. Maybe invest more more bike infrastructure to address that issue. There is finite parking which is mostly underutilized. Building MORE parking just attracts more cars. You complain about "traffic" but want more auto-inducing parking? That doesn't make sense.

The school overcrowding can be solved by redrawing boundaries. Want to take a look at the 50+ page threads on that topic?

What does this even mean? This is the sort of empty rhetoric we always get when it comes to people arguing for more density.

It means what it says. DC can have a growing economy or a static economy.

that is 100 percent absurd. whether DC grows or not has literally nothing to do with increasing density. this is the kind of pseudo-economic theories we always here from the upzoning zealots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem isn't that they want to build housing, the problem is that there is not any follow on plan. How to manage the resulting problems with traffic, over crowded schools, parking, etc.

It's "yes" to development but no planning for anything more than the developer's projects.

One weird trick to stop stressing out about traffic and parking.... stop driving your damn car everywhere!

Personal vehicles shouldn’t even be allowed in the city limits at all. That will never happen, but I give zero f***s about making life easier for MD car commuters by limiting development so they can have low traffic and easy parking.

It would probably be easier, and make more people happy, to just get rid of all the bike lanes.

AMEN

I suspect most people in D.C. hate the bike lanes.

Opinion polls don't show that - most DC residents are smart enough to understand reducing driving benefits everyone including people who drive. It is suburbanites who have made bad housing choices who are mostly pissed that they can't drive as fast as they want to who complain.

In any case DC literally has a few miles of protected bike lanes so getting rid of them will accomplish nothing and just put more cars on the roads.

Bike lanes encourage stupidity. I see people on two wheels taking incredible risks with their lives, as if their little helmets are going to make a difference if they're hit by a 2,000 pound car.

I'm surprised there isn't more debate about whether it's a good idea to add bike lanes in a city that has legalized marijuana. The city is encouraging more people to ride bikes at the same time that the number of drivers who are stoned out of their minds is probably at an all time high.

WTF? Congrats on finally coming up with a NEW reason to oppose bike lanes.

Though it would seem to me this is more of a reason to get people out of cars. And to add more protected infrastructure for bikes and walkers.

[Anonymous]

One place in Northwest DC that could definitely use more development and density is at the Tenleytown library site. They built the library with reinforced pilings so that housing could be added on top later. That time is now. DC owns the site so it would be perfect to add eight floors or so of subsidized public housing. This would both add vibrant density and affordable housing in a desirable area. There also may be room to have a modest sized homeless shelter on site, so that AU Park/Tenley can take care of the growing homeless population there. All of this should fit on the library site, or at most 45 or 50 feet of the Janney property might need to be used, no more than the width of a typical AU Park lot. This would be A win-win by putting truly affordable housing on a site that the DC government already owns, and giving new residence direct access to one of the best elementary schools in the city. How do we turn this idea into action?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem isn't that they want to build housing, the problem is that there is not any follow on plan. How to manage the resulting problems with traffic, over crowded schools, parking, etc.

It's "yes" to development but no planning for anything more than the developer's projects.

The only way for the District to grow is through more density. That is what developers do, so ya, unless we want a stagnant economy, what do you propose?

That said, the traffic isn't DC residents, it is MD and VA commuters. Maybe invest more in mass transit to address that issue. Maybe invest more more bike infrastructure to address that issue. There is finite parking which is mostly underutilized. Building MORE parking just attracts more cars. You complain about "traffic" but want more auto-inducing parking? That doesn't make sense.

The school overcrowding can be solved by redrawing boundaries. Want to take a look at the 50+ page threads on that topic?

What does this even mean? This is the sort of empty rhetoric we always get when it comes to people arguing for more density.

It means what it says. DC can have a growing economy or a static economy.

that is 100 percent absurd. whether DC grows or not has literally nothing to do with increasing density. this is the kind of pseudo-economic theories we always here from the upzoning zealots.

NP on this thread, and that is just patently absurd. We get it, you want your neighborhood of SFHs full of white families to remain exactly the same as it has been since 1960. It will not, and no one else has to humor your ridiculous entitlement.

[Anonymous]

PP, that's incorrect. A neighborhood has 'voice' and can advocate. Do you not know this? It is called democracy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem isn't that they want to build housing, the problem is that there is not any follow on plan. How to manage the resulting problems with traffic, over crowded schools, parking, etc.

It's "yes" to development but no planning for anything more than the developer's projects.

The only way for the District to grow is through more density. That is what developers do, so ya, unless we want a stagnant economy, what do you propose?

That said, the traffic isn't DC residents, it is MD and VA commuters. Maybe invest more in mass transit to address that issue. Maybe invest more more bike infrastructure to address that issue. There is finite parking which is mostly underutilized. Building MORE parking just attracts more cars. You complain about "traffic" but want more auto-inducing parking? That doesn't make sense.

The school overcrowding can be solved by redrawing boundaries. Want to take a look at the 50+ page threads on that topic?

What does this even mean? This is the sort of empty rhetoric we always get when it comes to people arguing for more density.

It means what it says. DC can have a growing economy or a static economy.

that is 100 percent absurd. whether DC grows or not has literally nothing to do with increasing density. this is the kind of pseudo-economic theories we always here from the upzoning zealots.

NP on this thread, and that is just patently absurd. We get it, you want your neighborhood of SFHs full of white families to remain exactly the same as it has been since 1960. It will not, and no one else has to humor your ridiculous entitlement.

At least our neighbors as you describe them don’t go wilding, looting and shooting by the National Zoo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem isn't that they want to build housing, the problem is that there is not any follow on plan. How to manage the resulting problems with traffic, over crowded schools, parking, etc.

It's "yes" to development but no planning for anything more than the developer's projects.

The only way for the District to grow is through more density. That is what developers do, so ya, unless we want a stagnant economy, what do you propose?

That said, the traffic isn't DC residents, it is MD and VA commuters. Maybe invest more in mass transit to address that issue. Maybe invest more more bike infrastructure to address that issue. There is finite parking which is mostly underutilized. Building MORE parking just attracts more cars. You complain about "traffic" but want more auto-inducing parking? That doesn't make sense.

The school overcrowding can be solved by redrawing boundaries. Want to take a look at the 50+ page threads on that topic?

What does this even mean? This is the sort of empty rhetoric we always get when it comes to people arguing for more density.

It means what it says. DC can have a growing economy or a static economy.

that is 100 percent absurd. whether DC grows or not has literally nothing to do with increasing density. this is the kind of pseudo-economic theories we always here from the upzoning zealots.

NP on this thread, and that is just patently absurd. We get it, you want your neighborhood of SFHs full of white families to remain exactly the same as it has been since 1960. It will not, and no one else has to humor your ridiculous entitlement.

At least our neighbors as you describe them don’t go wilding, looting and shooting by the National Zoo.

Wait what?

You think new housing in affluent areas is going to lead to more crime near the National Zoo?

[Anonymous]

Most property crime in NW DC is not committed by the residents of single family homes there. Just sayin'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most property crime in NW DC is not committed by the residents of single family homes there. Just sayin'

Ummm so one of us is confused then or maybe one of us is just an ignorant & insecure racist.

If property crime is being committed by people who live outside of NW DC then wouldn't it make sense to add more residents to NW DC since they don't commit crimes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most property crime in NW DC is not committed by the residents of single family homes there. Just sayin'

Ummm so one of us is confused then or maybe one of us is just an ignorant & insecure racist.

If property crime is being committed by people who live outside of NW DC then wouldn't it make sense to add more residents to NW DC since they don't commit crimes?

There was a great lab experiment recently. The Second District recently released the crime statistics for the PSAs in Ward 3. There’s been a significant spike in the area around Sedgwick Gardens, which started taking a lot of Sect 8,vouchers in the last two years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most property crime in NW DC is not committed by the residents of single family homes there. Just sayin'

Ummm so one of us is confused then or maybe one of us is just an ignorant & insecure racist.

If property crime is being committed by people who live outside of NW DC then wouldn't it make sense to add more residents to NW DC since they don't commit crimes?

There was a great lab experiment recently. The Second District recently released the crime statistics for the PSAs in Ward 3. There’s been a significant spike in the area around Sedgwick Gardens, which started taking a lot of Sect 8,vouchers in the last two years.

Citation?

In any case that is a 70 year old building so what does that have to do with this subject of this thread?