Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s pretty chilling to see all these ANC commissioners publicly threatening the same restaurants that may appear before them for liquor licenses and construction permits. This should concern everyone.

Which ANC commissioners are threatening the restaurants?

Gawain Kripke has stated that he will no longer eat at the restaurants whose owner came out against the bike lanes. Sauleh Siddiqui has encouraged people to eat at other restaurants. Elected officials boycotting local businesses that disagree with them. How far we have fallen as a society! I oppose the bike lanes but I would never boycott Medium Rare or Indique because I value local businesses. How can they represent constituents with this behavior?

Those aren't threats and they also wouldn't be grounds to oppose a liquor license or any other matter before the city. If those restaurants said they wouldn't serve people of color, would you be objecting to the Commissioners actions?

No . . . because race is a protected class and it is illegal to refuse to serve people on the basis of race. I would expect the city to shut down such a business. Last I checked, it is not illegal to oppose bike lanes.

So people should only get to boycott commercial enterprises that do illegal things? Otherwise, people are required to patronize these commercial enterprises?

Nope. People make choices all the time about where to shop/dine. I was pointing out the difference between the two scenarios. I do think it is unwise for elected officials to use their power to encourage constituents to boycott businesses. This is a De Santis tactic, and I don't like to see it in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My vote personally would be ban bikes on Connecticut but ban cars on Reno and make it bikes only.

You realize the whole point is not only accessing downtown but for internneighborhood mobility, right? I mean, how does one get to a place like Vace if they don't ride on Connecticut Avenue? And all those houses that have driveways on Reno Road, how will that work?

Well, you could bike to the corner of Connecticut and Macomb, lock your bike there, and then walk across the street to Vace. The houses on Reno with driveways are more of an issue, but at least some of them also seem to have alley access behind the house.

And here I thought the bike lanes were bad because they would make it harder for people to patronize the stores and restaurants on Connecticut Ave...

Exactly, the opposition, many of them Maryland residents, want to make it easier for their commute and harder for those of us who live here to patronize our commercial areas.

Not to be too pendantic but keeping things the way they are does not make anything easier or harder. It makes it the same.

There's just not enough demand to support such a radical experiment. Less than 1% bike on Connecticut. We're shutting down circulator routes to save $7 million because not enough people use them. But its ridership numbers are exponentially higher and its cost is multiples less than the bike lane idea. It makes no logical sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My vote personally would be ban bikes on Connecticut but ban cars on Reno and make it bikes only.

You realize the whole point is not only accessing downtown but for internneighborhood mobility, right? I mean, how does one get to a place like Vace if they don't ride on Connecticut Avenue? And all those houses that have driveways on Reno Road, how will that work?

Well, you could bike to the corner of Connecticut and Macomb, lock your bike there, and then walk across the street to Vace. The houses on Reno with driveways are more of an issue, but at least some of them also seem to have alley access behind the house.

And here I thought the bike lanes were bad because they would make it harder for people to patronize the stores and restaurants on Connecticut Ave...

Exactly, the opposition, many of them Maryland residents, want to make it easier for their commute and harder for those of us who live here to patronize our commercial areas.

Not to be too pendantic but keeping things the way they are does not make anything easier or harder. It makes it the same.

There's just not enough demand to support such a radical experiment. Less than 1% bike on Connecticut. We're shutting down circulator routes to save $7 million because not enough people use them. But its ridership numbers are exponentially higher and its cost is multiples less than the bike lane idea. It makes no logical sense.

We shouldn't build a bridge across the river because currently only a few people are swimming across it. Building a bridge would be a radical experiment. It makes no logical sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s pretty chilling to see all these ANC commissioners publicly threatening the same restaurants that may appear before them for liquor licenses and construction permits. This should concern everyone.

Which ANC commissioners are threatening the restaurants?

Gawain Kripke has stated that he will no longer eat at the restaurants whose owner came out against the bike lanes. Sauleh Siddiqui has encouraged people to eat at other restaurants. Elected officials boycotting local businesses that disagree with them. How far we have fallen as a society! I oppose the bike lanes but I would never boycott Medium Rare or Indique because I value local businesses. How can they represent constituents with this behavior?

Those aren't threats and they also wouldn't be grounds to oppose a liquor license or any other matter before the city. If those restaurants said they wouldn't serve people of color, would you be objecting to the Commissioners actions?

No . . . because race is a protected class and it is illegal to refuse to serve people on the basis of race. I would expect the city to shut down such a business. Last I checked, it is not illegal to oppose bike lanes.

So people should only get to boycott commercial enterprises that do illegal things? Otherwise, people are required to patronize these commercial enterprises?

Nope. People make choices all the time about where to shop/dine. I was pointing out the difference between the two scenarios. I do think it is unwise for elected officials to use their power to encourage constituents to boycott businesses. This is a De Santis tactic, and I don't like to see it in DC.

The power of an ANC commissioner...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The power of an ANC commissioner...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My vote personally would be ban bikes on Connecticut but ban cars on Reno and make it bikes only.

You realize the whole point is not only accessing downtown but for internneighborhood mobility, right? I mean, how does one get to a place like Vace if they don't ride on Connecticut Avenue? And all those houses that have driveways on Reno Road, how will that work?

Well, you could bike to the corner of Connecticut and Macomb, lock your bike there, and then walk across the street to Vace. The houses on Reno with driveways are more of an issue, but at least some of them also seem to have alley access behind the house.

And here I thought the bike lanes were bad because they would make it harder for people to patronize the stores and restaurants on Connecticut Ave...

Exactly, the opposition, many of them Maryland residents, want to make it easier for their commute and harder for those of us who live here to patronize our commercial areas.

Not to be too pendantic but keeping things the way they are does not make anything easier or harder. It makes it the same.

There's just not enough demand to support such a radical experiment. Less than 1% bike on Connecticut. We're shutting down circulator routes to save $7 million because not enough people use them. But its ridership numbers are exponentially higher and its cost is multiples less than the bike lane idea. It makes no logical sense.

We shouldn't build a bridge across the river because currently only a few people are swimming across it. Building a bridge would be a radical experiment. It makes no logical sense.

Bridges are built based on actual demand

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My vote personally would be ban bikes on Connecticut but ban cars on Reno and make it bikes only.

You realize the whole point is not only accessing downtown but for internneighborhood mobility, right? I mean, how does one get to a place like Vace if they don't ride on Connecticut Avenue? And all those houses that have driveways on Reno Road, how will that work?

Well, you could bike to the corner of Connecticut and Macomb, lock your bike there, and then walk across the street to Vace. The houses on Reno with driveways are more of an issue, but at least some of them also seem to have alley access behind the house.

And here I thought the bike lanes were bad because they would make it harder for people to patronize the stores and restaurants on Connecticut Ave...

Exactly, the opposition, many of them Maryland residents, want to make it easier for their commute and harder for those of us who live here to patronize our commercial areas.

Not to be too pendantic but keeping things the way they are does not make anything easier or harder. It makes it the same.

There's just not enough demand to support such a radical experiment. Less than 1% bike on Connecticut. We're shutting down circulator routes to save $7 million because not enough people use them. But its ridership numbers are exponentially higher and its cost is multiples less than the bike lane idea. It makes no logical sense.

We shouldn't build a bridge across the river because currently only a few people are swimming across it. Building a bridge would be a radical experiment. It makes no logical sense.

Bridges are built based on actual demand

Meaning, people demanding that a bridge be built? Similar to the way people are demanding that bike lanes be built?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My vote personally would be ban bikes on Connecticut but ban cars on Reno and make it bikes only.

You realize the whole point is not only accessing downtown but for internneighborhood mobility, right? I mean, how does one get to a place like Vace if they don't ride on Connecticut Avenue? And all those houses that have driveways on Reno Road, how will that work?

Well, you could bike to the corner of Connecticut and Macomb, lock your bike there, and then walk across the street to Vace. The houses on Reno with driveways are more of an issue, but at least some of them also seem to have alley access behind the house.

And here I thought the bike lanes were bad because they would make it harder for people to patronize the stores and restaurants on Connecticut Ave...

Exactly, the opposition, many of them Maryland residents, want to make it easier for their commute and harder for those of us who live here to patronize our commercial areas.

Not to be too pendantic but keeping things the way they are does not make anything easier or harder. It makes it the same.

There's just not enough demand to support such a radical experiment. Less than 1% bike on Connecticut. We're shutting down circulator routes to save $7 million because not enough people use them. But its ridership numbers are exponentially higher and its cost is multiples less than the bike lane idea. It makes no logical sense.

We shouldn't build a bridge across the river because currently only a few people are swimming across it. Building a bridge would be a radical experiment. It makes no logical sense.

Bridges are built based on actual demand

Meaning, people demanding that a bridge be built? Similar to the way people are demanding that bike lanes be built?

No. Based on shown use and volume. Entrepreneurial ferry and boat crossings usually preceded bridges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My vote personally would be ban bikes on Connecticut but ban cars on Reno and make it bikes only.

You realize the whole point is not only accessing downtown but for internneighborhood mobility, right? I mean, how does one get to a place like Vace if they don't ride on Connecticut Avenue? And all those houses that have driveways on Reno Road, how will that work?

Well, you could bike to the corner of Connecticut and Macomb, lock your bike there, and then walk across the street to Vace. The houses on Reno with driveways are more of an issue, but at least some of them also seem to have alley access behind the house.

And here I thought the bike lanes were bad because they would make it harder for people to patronize the stores and restaurants on Connecticut Ave...

Exactly, the opposition, many of them Maryland residents, want to make it easier for their commute and harder for those of us who live here to patronize our commercial areas.

Not to be too pendantic but keeping things the way they are does not make anything easier or harder. It makes it the same.

There's just not enough demand to support such a radical experiment. Less than 1% bike on Connecticut. We're shutting down circulator routes to save $7 million because not enough people use them. But its ridership numbers are exponentially higher and its cost is multiples less than the bike lane idea. It makes no logical sense.

We shouldn't build a bridge across the river because currently only a few people are swimming across it. Building a bridge would be a radical experiment. It makes no logical sense.

Bridges are built based on actual demand

Meaning, people demanding that a bridge be built? Similar to the way people are demanding that bike lanes be built?

No. Based on shown use and volume. Entrepreneurial ferry and boat crossings usually preceded bridges.

Oh, similar to the way some people are biking on Connecticut Avenue even though it's (currently) so awful to bike on. So we're good!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My vote personally would be ban bikes on Connecticut but ban cars on Reno and make it bikes only.

You realize the whole point is not only accessing downtown but for internneighborhood mobility, right? I mean, how does one get to a place like Vace if they don't ride on Connecticut Avenue? And all those houses that have driveways on Reno Road, how will that work?

Well, you could bike to the corner of Connecticut and Macomb, lock your bike there, and then walk across the street to Vace. The houses on Reno with driveways are more of an issue, but at least some of them also seem to have alley access behind the house.

And here I thought the bike lanes were bad because they would make it harder for people to patronize the stores and restaurants on Connecticut Ave...

Exactly, the opposition, many of them Maryland residents, want to make it easier for their commute and harder for those of us who live here to patronize our commercial areas.

Not to be too pendantic but keeping things the way they are does not make anything easier or harder. It makes it the same.

There's just not enough demand to support such a radical experiment. Less than 1% bike on Connecticut. We're shutting down circulator routes to save $7 million because not enough people use them. But its ridership numbers are exponentially higher and its cost is multiples less than the bike lane idea. It makes no logical sense.

We shouldn't build a bridge across the river because currently only a few people are swimming across it. Building a bridge would be a radical experiment. It makes no logical sense.

Bridges are built based on actual demand

Meaning, people demanding that a bridge be built? Similar to the way people are demanding that bike lanes be built?

No. Based on shown use and volume. Entrepreneurial ferry and boat crossings usually preceded bridges.

Oh, similar to the way some people are biking on Connecticut Avenue even though it's (currently) so awful to bike on. So we're good!

Less than 1%. Get that number to 5% and you would have a point. Alternatively, if bicycle volume was exceptionally high on Rock Creek/Beach Drive then a second route might be worthwhile. The basic truth is that there isn't anywhere close to the demand needed to justify this proposal in either fiscal or policy terms.

But to put it in the absurdist terms you seem to prefer. Some people commute by canoe and kayak on the Potomac. Should we spend millions of dollars, remove bridges and radically redesign our transportation infrastructure for them?

[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:My vote personally would be ban bikes on Connecticut but ban cars on Reno and make it bikes only.

You realize the whole point is not only accessing downtown but for internneighborhood mobility, right? I mean, how does one get to a place like Vace if they don't ride on Connecticut Avenue? And all those houses that have driveways on Reno Road, how will that work?

Well, you could bike to the corner of Connecticut and Macomb, lock your bike there, and then walk across the street to Vace. The houses on Reno with driveways are more of an issue, but at least some of them also seem to have alley access behind the house.

And here I thought the bike lanes were bad because they would make it harder for people to patronize the stores and restaurants on Connecticut Ave...

Exactly, the opposition, many of them Maryland residents, want to make it easier for their commute and harder for those of us who live here to patronize our commercial areas.

Not to be too pendantic but keeping things the way they are does not make anything easier or harder. It makes it the same.

There's just not enough demand to support such a radical experiment. Less than 1% bike on Connecticut. We're shutting down circulator routes to save $7 million because not enough people use them. But its ridership numbers are exponentially higher and its cost is multiples less than the bike lane idea. It makes no logical sense.

We shouldn't build a bridge across the river because currently only a few people are swimming across it. Building a bridge would be a radical experiment. It makes no logical sense.

Bridges are built based on actual demand

Meaning, people demanding that a bridge be built? Similar to the way people are demanding that bike lanes be built?

No. Based on shown use and volume. Entrepreneurial ferry and boat crossings usually preceded bridges.

Oh, similar to the way some people are biking on Connecticut Avenue even though it's (currently) so awful to bike on. So we're good!

Less than 1%. Get that number to 5% and you would have a point. Alternatively, if bicycle volume was exceptionally high on Rock Creek/Beach Drive then a second route might be worthwhile. The basic truth is that there isn't anywhere close to the demand needed to justify this proposal in either fiscal or policy terms.

But to put it in the absurdist terms you seem to prefer. Some people commute by canoe and kayak on the Potomac. Should we spend millions of dollars, remove bridges and radically redesign our transportation infrastructure for them?

"I oppose building bike infrastructure" is a shorter way to say what you just said, and avoids the logical flaws in your post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s pretty chilling to see all these ANC commissioners publicly threatening the same restaurants that may appear before them for liquor licenses and construction permits. This should concern everyone.

Which ANC commissioners are threatening the restaurants?

Gawain Kripke has stated that he will no longer eat at the restaurants whose owner came out against the bike lanes. Sauleh Siddiqui has encouraged people to eat at other restaurants. Elected officials boycotting local businesses that disagree with them. How far we have fallen as a society! I oppose the bike lanes but I would never boycott Medium Rare or Indique because I value local businesses. How can they represent constituents with this behavior?

Boycotts are "threats" now?

There is a lot of history here. And this weeks tweets show that these ANCs have learned nothing since they were publicly humiliated for flipping off a long standing CP business on election night. These ANCs are packed with socialist nonprofit workers and academics that wouldn’t know the first thing about how to run a successful business but are always quick to offer business advice. My god their parents would be mortified if they found out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s pretty chilling to see all these ANC commissioners publicly threatening the same restaurants that may appear before them for liquor licenses and construction permits. This should concern everyone.

Which ANC commissioners are threatening the restaurants?

Gawain Kripke has stated that he will no longer eat at the restaurants whose owner came out against the bike lanes. Sauleh Siddiqui has encouraged people to eat at other restaurants. Elected officials boycotting local businesses that disagree with them. How far we have fallen as a society! I oppose the bike lanes but I would never boycott Medium Rare or Indique because I value local businesses. How can they represent constituents with this behavior?

Boycotts are "threats" now?

“Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANCs) play an important role in the licensing process through their recommendations and abilities to protest liquor licenses. The Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (Board) is required by law to give great weight to the resolutions and support letters filed by affected ANCs as part of their protest to the following:

Issuance or renewal of a license.
Approval of a substantial change in the nature of operations as determined by the Board under the DC Official Code Title 25, Section 404.
Renewal of a new owner license.
Transfer of a license to a new location.

An affected ANC that has resolutions regarding these issues must file comments at least 7 calendar days before the date of a Board hearing. An applicant for an ABC license may respond to the ANC’s recommendation at the protest hearing”

https://abca.dc.gov/page/advisory-neighborhood-commissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s pretty chilling to see all these ANC commissioners publicly threatening the same restaurants that may appear before them for liquor licenses and construction permits. This should concern everyone.

Which ANC commissioners are threatening the restaurants?

Gawain Kripke has stated that he will no longer eat at the restaurants whose owner came out against the bike lanes. Sauleh Siddiqui has encouraged people to eat at other restaurants. Elected officials boycotting local businesses that disagree with them. How far we have fallen as a society! I oppose the bike lanes but I would never boycott Medium Rare or Indique because I value local businesses. How can they represent constituents with this behavior?

Boycotts are "threats" now?

“Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANCs) play an important role in the licensing process through their recommendations and abilities to protest liquor licenses. The Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (Board) is required by law to give great weight to the resolutions and support letters filed by affected ANCs as part of their protest to the following:

Issuance or renewal of a license.
Approval of a substantial change in the nature of operations as determined by the Board under the DC Official Code Title 25, Section 404.
Renewal of a new owner license.
Transfer of a license to a new location.

An affected ANC that has resolutions regarding these issues must file comments at least 7 calendar days before the date of a Board hearing. An applicant for an ABC license may respond to the ANC’s recommendation at the protest hearing”

https://abca.dc.gov/page/advisory-neighborhood-commissions

The individual ANC commissioners saying they won't personally patronize a business isn't the same as the ANC taking action against the business's liquor license (and I suspect a lot of people who have no problem with the former would object strenuously to the latter, including me).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s pretty chilling to see all these ANC commissioners publicly threatening the same restaurants that may appear before them for liquor licenses and construction permits. This should concern everyone.

Which ANC commissioners are threatening the restaurants?

Gawain Kripke has stated that he will no longer eat at the restaurants whose owner came out against the bike lanes. Sauleh Siddiqui has encouraged people to eat at other restaurants. Elected officials boycotting local businesses that disagree with them. How far we have fallen as a society! I oppose the bike lanes but I would never boycott Medium Rare or Indique because I value local businesses. How can they represent constituents with this behavior?

Boycotts are "threats" now?

“Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANCs) play an important role in the licensing process through their recommendations and abilities to protest liquor licenses. The Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (Board) is required by law to give great weight to the resolutions and support letters filed by affected ANCs as part of their protest to the following:

Issuance or renewal of a license.
Approval of a substantial change in the nature of operations as determined by the Board under the DC Official Code Title 25, Section 404.
Renewal of a new owner license.
Transfer of a license to a new location.

An affected ANC that has resolutions regarding these issues must file comments at least 7 calendar days before the date of a Board hearing. An applicant for an ABC license may respond to the ANC’s recommendation at the protest hearing”

https://abca.dc.gov/page/advisory-neighborhood-commissions

With these strongman tactics it’s surprising that over 120 businesses still had the courage to sign the petition in opposition to the bike lanes. I suspect many more businesses are opposed but don’t want their licensing threatened. The Council needs to reign in these unethical officials.