upzoning: what will it really change?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The city started building protected bike lanes in 2009. You'd think after almost 15 years and spending who knows how many billions of dollars, if biking was going to catch on, it would have caught on by now. It seems like a failed experiment.

You keep saying this over and over, but bike ridership has exploded.

“exploded” means what to you exactly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems insane that we spend billions of dollars on bike lanes that almost no one uses. At the same time, we allow a subway system that everyone used to use to fall into disrepair because we don't want to spend the money needed to maintain it. The subway *used* to move more people around every single day than all the people who use the bikes lane in five years.

Your rantings have stopped making sense.
Metro is working on its system as we speak, and bike lanes are already full downtown, and filling up quickly as they get built in the rest of the city.

Which bike lanes are “full”? The most heavily used bike infrastructure in DC, according to DDOT, is the Anacostia River Trail, the Metropolitan Branch Trail and the Maine Avenue bike lane and all three have peak utilization on weekends for leisure/recreation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems insane that we spend billions of dollars on bike lanes that almost no one uses. At the same time, we allow a subway system that everyone used to use to fall into disrepair because we don't want to spend the money needed to maintain it. The subway *used* to move more people around every single day than all the people who use the bikes lane in five years.

Where do you get that $billions for bike lanes number? I assume it's just bluster?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no rational argument against upzoning. Everything comes down to selfishness, entitlement, classism, and racism.

No matter what dog whistles or code words they use, there is not a single argument that is not ultimately based on keeping less wealthy people and minorities out of their neighborhoods, gatekeeping who can live/drive/walk in their neighborhood, or the most asinine of all, seriously believing that they should be allowed to tell people what they can or can't do with their property because they don't like having to look at it.

Presumably, you favor gentrification, because gentrification and upzoning have the same end result-forced changes against the wishes of the actual residents. As for selfishness and entitlement, upzoning advocates are exactly that. I want to live in a certain neighborhood, even though I can't afford it. So, lets change the laws, to allow me to afford to live there. That is called entitlement. As for racism, anybody can live wherever they can afford. Latter is called reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no rational argument against upzoning. Everything comes down to selfishness, entitlement, classism, and racism.

No matter what dog whistles or code words they use, there is not a single argument that is not ultimately based on keeping less wealthy people and minorities out of their neighborhoods, gatekeeping who can live/drive/walk in their neighborhood, or the most asinine of all, seriously believing that they should be allowed to tell people what they can or can't do with their property because they don't like having to look at it.

Presumably, you favor gentrification, because gentrification and upzoning have the same end result-forced changes against the wishes of the actual residents. As for selfishness and entitlement, upzoning advocates are exactly that. I want to live in a certain neighborhood, even though I can't afford it. So, lets change the laws, to allow me to afford to live there. That is called entitlement. As for racism, anybody can live wherever they can afford. Latter is called reality.

ITA, and I don't understand how upzoning can make more desirable places more affordable. It's not what happens. The price per sq. ft remains the same or even gets higher as luxury homes are built, more amenities are built. Amenities and more choices of luxury apartments attract more people. More buyers/renters cause housing costs to rise in an area. The only thing that depresses housing costs is making the neighborhood less desirable to live in and driving buyers/renters away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no rational argument against upzoning. Everything comes down to selfishness, entitlement, classism, and racism.

No matter what dog whistles or code words they use, there is not a single argument that is not ultimately based on keeping less wealthy people and minorities out of their neighborhoods, gatekeeping who can live/drive/walk in their neighborhood, or the most asinine of all, seriously believing that they should be allowed to tell people what they can or can't do with their property because they don't like having to look at it.

Presumably, you favor gentrification, because gentrification and upzoning have the same end result-forced changes against the wishes of the actual residents. As for selfishness and entitlement, upzoning advocates are exactly that. I want to live in a certain neighborhood, even though I can't afford it. So, lets change the laws, to allow me to afford to live there. That is called entitlement. As for racism, anybody can live wherever they can afford. Latter is called reality.

ITA, and I don't understand how upzoning can make more desirable places more affordable. It's not what happens. The price per sq. ft remains the same or even gets higher as luxury homes are built, more amenities are built. Amenities and more choices of luxury apartments attract more people. More buyers/renters cause housing costs to rise in an area. The only thing that depresses housing costs is making the neighborhood less desirable to live in and driving buyers/renters away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no rational argument against upzoning. Everything comes down to selfishness, entitlement, classism, and racism.

No matter what dog whistles or code words they use, there is not a single argument that is not ultimately based on keeping less wealthy people and minorities out of their neighborhoods, gatekeeping who can live/drive/walk in their neighborhood, or the most asinine of all, seriously believing that they should be allowed to tell people what they can or can't do with their property because they don't like having to look at it.

Presumably, you favor gentrification, because gentrification and upzoning have the same end result-forced changes against the wishes of the actual residents. As for selfishness and entitlement, upzoning advocates are exactly that. I want to live in a certain neighborhood, even though I can't afford it. So, lets change the laws, to allow me to afford to live there. That is called entitlement. As for racism, anybody can live wherever they can afford. Latter is called reality.

ITA, and I don't understand how upzoning can make more desirable places more affordable. It's not what happens. The price per sq. ft remains the same or even gets higher as luxury homes are built, more amenities are built. Amenities and more choices of luxury apartments attract more people. More buyers/renters cause housing costs to rise in an area. The only thing that depresses housing costs is making the neighborhood less desirable to live in and driving buyers/renters away.

I guess eventually upzoning will achieve this

[Anonymous]

Upzoning is designed to make cities less desirable. It's about Washington DC in Ikeatown.