Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And these ANC commissioners HATE single family home dwellers. At a meeting this week, the chair of 3C proposed getting rid of residential trash pick up for SFH dwellers.

I would like to think you are making this up, but based on past experiences, I’m afraid that it’s true. What’s the justification for it besides single family=evil?

If it's for equity/to save money, I would think that apartment complexes are actually much better positioned to negotiate trash contracts than single family homes. Maybe that's the issue - I've had trash contracts (that I paid for) with condos I've lived in in the past. Maybe she thinks single family homes should bear the same burden. The problem is that it doesn't make economic or administrative sense for individual taxpayers to negotiate trash collection contracts with garbage companies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And these ANC commissioners HATE single family home dwellers. At a meeting this week, the chair of 3C proposed getting rid of residential trash pick up for SFH dwellers.

Where does this person live? What do these residents need to do in their mind? Bring trash to the dump?

No. They want your neighbors to move and sell their houses to developers who will knock the houses down and build an apartment building. This is the long term plan. First bike lanes. Then the zoning changes to reduce the number of single family homes which they view as wasteful, just like they view children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It appears this thread has derailed, but driving down CT ave. all week the amount of double parking is ridiculous. Taking a lane away for bikes on top of the double parking is going to leave CT ave. having one lane in most stretches. How is the city allowing this to happen.

MPD no longer does traffic enforcement and DPW can't keep up with demand. I'd love to see DPW employees get a financial incentive for catching double-parked vehicles (along with substantially higher fines). The PU/DO zones only work if there is real enforcement against doubleparking.

Until the violations are enforced, everything needs to be off the table. There is a current problem that's only going to get worst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the restaurants believe they can operate a business with only customers who live within a mile or two, then more power to them. I doubt that's the case, which is why most oppose eliminating parking in favor of bike lanes.

Each neighborhood commercial area is losing like 20 spaces. If the 20 businesses rely on those 20 spaces to make the diffrerrence in their bottom line, then they are running too fine a razor's edge for profitability. Most customers are walking, biking, metro-ing or parking on a side street.

But they are losing those spaces at the corners to increase visibility and the turning lanes, no? Not for the bike lanes.

After bike lanes are installed, there will be parking on one side of the street only, not on both sides.

right but currently you can’t park on one side during rush hour

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And these ANC commissioners HATE single family home dwellers. At a meeting this week, the chair of 3C proposed getting rid of residential trash pick up for SFH dwellers.

I would like to think you are making this up, but based on past experiences, I’m afraid that it’s true. What’s the justification for it besides single family=evil?

If it's for equity/to save money, I would think that apartment complexes are actually much better positioned to negotiate trash contracts than single family homes. Maybe that's the issue - I've had trash contracts (that I paid for) with condos I've lived in in the past. Maybe she thinks single family homes should bear the same burden. The problem is that it doesn't make economic or administrative sense for individual taxpayers to negotiate trash collection contracts with garbage companies.

Apartment complexes already don't get municipal trash pickup, at least as far as I know from my own experience -- this proposal sounds like it makes absolutely no sense (and I say that as someone who thinks SFH-only zoning is a real problem and generally supports increasing density, even though I live in an SFH).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And these ANC commissioners HATE single family home dwellers. At a meeting this week, the chair of 3C proposed getting rid of residential trash pick up for SFH dwellers.

I would like to think you are making this up, but based on past experiences, I’m afraid that it’s true. What’s the justification for it besides single family=evil?

If it's for equity/to save money, I would think that apartment complexes are actually much better positioned to negotiate trash contracts than single family homes. Maybe that's the issue - I've had trash contracts (that I paid for) with condos I've lived in in the past. Maybe she thinks single family homes should bear the same burden. The problem is that it doesn't make economic or administrative sense for individual taxpayers to negotiate trash collection contracts with garbage companies.

Apartment complexes already don't get municipal trash pickup, at least as far as I know from my own experience -- this proposal sounds like it makes absolutely no sense (and I say that as someone who thinks SFH-only zoning is a real problem and generally supports increasing density, even though I live in an SFH).

Yes they do

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the restaurants believe they can operate a business with only customers who live within a mile or two, then more power to them. I doubt that's the case, which is why most oppose eliminating parking in favor of bike lanes.

Each neighborhood commercial area is losing like 20 spaces. If the 20 businesses rely on those 20 spaces to make the diffrerrence in their bottom line, then they are running too fine a razor's edge for profitability. Most customers are walking, biking, metro-ing or parking on a side street.

You clearly have no understanding of business. Many businesses, including restaurants, operate on slim margins, which is one reason why most restaurants fail.

Let's assume each business has one car of visitor(s) in it, so over the course of a three hour evening, there is maybe 1-2 cars of patrons for each business. Meanwhile, the restaurant is full of patrons - most of whom have walked or parked somewhere other than CT Ave.

If the bike lanes make it safer for bike patrons to support those businesses at the expense of 1-2 cars of patrons then good business would suggest that opposing the bike lanes are a really bad idea.

[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.

I and my family regularly eat at the restaurants along the Avenue in DC. If we can't drive and park, we are eating elsewhere. Pretty simple. I hear MD and VA have some good restaurants.

How often do you park on CT Ave proper? That is the real question. And I can say from decades of living in Ward 3 and supporting businesses on CT Ave, that I never park ON CT Ave to support those businesses.

I regularly park along CT Ave to do business there. Of course, I sometimes need to park on the side streets, which no doubt the neighbors like because it takes aware their parking spaces.

They aren't "their" parking spaces. They are public space. If they want to park in their spots, they should use the driveways and garages that most of them have, but don't use for that purpose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the restaurants believe they can operate a business with only customers who live within a mile or two, then more power to them. I doubt that's the case, which is why most oppose eliminating parking in favor of bike lanes.

Each neighborhood commercial area is losing like 20 spaces. If the 20 businesses rely on those 20 spaces to make the diffrerrence in their bottom line, then they are running too fine a razor's edge for profitability. Most customers are walking, biking, metro-ing or parking on a side street.

Side street parking that is already tight and already causes people to circle. Combine that with the increased congestion on both Connecticut and the side streets from removing traffic lanes and it gets even worse. Ironically the Uptown closing is a good thing for this plan because it reduces the amount of people circling for parking. The only way this plan works is if a bunch of businesses go belly up and the strip gets redeveloped to right size.

Really the only way this pipe dream plan works is if MPD dedicates a detachment of officers to ticket cars and trucks that will inevitably regularly park in the bike lanes as they do everywhere else in the city. Which is, of course, ironic because the bike lane crowd is also largely the defund the police crowd which is responsible for the sharp drop in number of officers needed to make their dream come true.

These will be protected bike lanes with a raised concrete barrier. Good luck for many vehicles to straddle them without damage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the restaurants believe they can operate a business with only customers who live within a mile or two, then more power to them. I doubt that's the case, which is why most oppose eliminating parking in favor of bike lanes.

Each neighborhood commercial area is losing like 20 spaces. If the 20 businesses rely on those 20 spaces to make the diffrerrence in their bottom line, then they are running too fine a razor's edge for profitability. Most customers are walking, biking, metro-ing or parking on a side street.

Side street parking that is already tight and already causes people to circle. Combine that with the increased congestion on both Connecticut and the side streets from removing traffic lanes and it gets even worse. Ironically the Uptown closing is a good thing for this plan because it reduces the amount of people circling for parking. The only way this plan works is if a bunch of businesses go belly up and the strip gets redeveloped to right size.

Really the only way this pipe dream plan works is if MPD dedicates a detachment of officers to ticket cars and trucks that will inevitably regularly park in the bike lanes as they do everywhere else in the city. Which is, of course, ironic because the bike lane crowd is also largely the defund the police crowd which is responsible for the sharp drop in number of officers needed to make their dream come true.

No, this is not true. The majority of the traffic safety (including bike lanes) people speak frequently about their frustration with lack of enforcement. Things like speed cameras and red light cameras come up frequently, as well as MPD failures to enforce. There are some transit advocates that are also police reform advocates, but there is far from a complete overlap.

Every ANC Commissioner that is pro bike lane was also a cheerleader for the pro-crime criminal code rewrite. Every one of them. 100% overlap.

The criminal code reform is hardly "pro-crime" - you are clearly taking a page out of the Trump playbook if you truly believe that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the restaurants believe they can operate a business with only customers who live within a mile or two, then more power to them. I doubt that's the case, which is why most oppose eliminating parking in favor of bike lanes.

Each neighborhood commercial area is losing like 20 spaces. If the 20 businesses rely on those 20 spaces to make the diffrerrence in their bottom line, then they are running too fine a razor's edge for profitability. Most customers are walking, biking, metro-ing or parking on a side street.

But they are losing those spaces at the corners to increase visibility and the turning lanes, no? Not for the bike lanes.

After bike lanes are installed, there will be parking on one side of the street only, not on both sides.

24/7 parking, with no rush hour restrictions, so a net bonus that doesn't exist today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the restaurants believe they can operate a business with only customers who live within a mile or two, then more power to them. I doubt that's the case, which is why most oppose eliminating parking in favor of bike lanes.

Each neighborhood commercial area is losing like 20 spaces. If the 20 businesses rely on those 20 spaces to make the diffrerrence in their bottom line, then they are running too fine a razor's edge for profitability. Most customers are walking, biking, metro-ing or parking on a side street.

You clearly have no understanding of business. Many businesses, including restaurants, operate on slim margins, which is one reason why most restaurants fail.

Let's assume each business has one car of visitor(s) in it, so over the course of a three hour evening, there is maybe 1-2 cars of patrons for each business. Meanwhile, the restaurant is full of patrons - most of whom have walked or parked somewhere other than CT Ave.

If the bike lanes make it safer for bike patrons to support those businesses at the expense of 1-2 cars of patrons then good business would suggest that opposing the bike lanes are a really bad idea.

Your assumptions are simply false. Having supported businesses along the Avenue for decades, I can say with some confidence that a sizable portion of their business depends on cars, whether Starbucks, restaurants, dry cleaners, book stores, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the restaurants believe they can operate a business with only customers who live within a mile or two, then more power to them. I doubt that's the case, which is why most oppose eliminating parking in favor of bike lanes.

Each neighborhood commercial area is losing like 20 spaces. If the 20 businesses rely on those 20 spaces to make the diffrerrence in their bottom line, then they are running too fine a razor's edge for profitability. Most customers are walking, biking, metro-ing or parking on a side street.

You clearly have no understanding of business. Many businesses, including restaurants, operate on slim margins, which is one reason why most restaurants fail.

Let's assume each business has one car of visitor(s) in it, so over the course of a three hour evening, there is maybe 1-2 cars of patrons for each business. Meanwhile, the restaurant is full of patrons - most of whom have walked or parked somewhere other than CT Ave.

If the bike lanes make it safer for bike patrons to support those businesses at the expense of 1-2 cars of patrons then good business would suggest that opposing the bike lanes are a really bad idea.

Your assumptions are simply false. Having supported businesses along the Avenue for decades, I can say with some confidence that a sizable portion of their business depends on cars, whether Starbucks, restaurants, dry cleaners, book stores, etc.

That's part of the plan (for at least a subset of the leading proponents).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And these ANC commissioners HATE single family home dwellers. At a meeting this week, the chair of 3C proposed getting rid of residential trash pick up for SFH dwellers.

I would like to think you are making this up, but based on past experiences, I’m afraid that it’s true. What’s the justification for it besides single family=evil?

If it's for equity/to save money, I would think that apartment complexes are actually much better positioned to negotiate trash contracts than single family homes. Maybe that's the issue - I've had trash contracts (that I paid for) with condos I've lived in in the past. Maybe she thinks single family homes should bear the same burden. The problem is that it doesn't make economic or administrative sense for individual taxpayers to negotiate trash collection contracts with garbage companies.

Apartment complexes already don't get municipal trash pickup, at least as far as I know from my own experience -- this proposal sounds like it makes absolutely no sense (and I say that as someone who thinks SFH-only zoning is a real problem and generally supports increasing density, even though I live in an SFH).

Yes they do

Not in DC if they are more than four units.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And these ANC commissioners HATE single family home dwellers. At a meeting this week, the chair of 3C proposed getting rid of residential trash pick up for SFH dwellers.

I would like to think you are making this up, but based on past experiences, I’m afraid that it’s true. What’s the justification for it besides single family=evil?

If it's for equity/to save money, I would think that apartment complexes are actually much better positioned to negotiate trash contracts than single family homes. Maybe that's the issue - I've had trash contracts (that I paid for) with condos I've lived in in the past. Maybe she thinks single family homes should bear the same burden. The problem is that it doesn't make economic or administrative sense for individual taxpayers to negotiate trash collection contracts with garbage companies.

Apartments/ condos do get credited some amount by DC in their property taxes for this though. Probably
Not enough to pay for the trash pickup but it basically acknowledges that SFH get a service that other tax payers don’t