Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

because there's no reason that our neighborhoods should mostly be zoned only for $1 million-plus single family homes, especially near transit and commercial corridors.

No reason, really now? One reason off the top of my head is that SFH owners like me really like living in SFH neighborhoods! They're pretty, they have beautiful yards here in Ward 3. It's relatively quiet. We have big trees in our own yards, that play host to urban wildlife. Kids can play soccer in the backyard. I have a giant wraparound porch that isn't possible in a rowhouse or condo. We have big gardens in our big yards. We can pull up in front of our house and unload heavy groceries, animals coming home from the vet, an elderly relative ...

Did I mention it's quieter than Shaw?

There are very few poor people who've made poor life choices wandering on the streets. Or living on the streets. Our dogs have big green lush yards to play in. Many of us have pools and climbing structures. More flowering trees than in dense neighborhoods.

People who've made a lifetime of bad choices are priced out of the vicinity! So their drama doesn't spill over into our lives, much. Making Conn Ave the new Welfare Valley is changing that for those who live close to the Ave, though. Some of us prefer civility over diversity if forced to choose a type of neighbor you want.

Mostly, it's quieter, calmer, more lush and greener than DC's dense neighborhoods.

Believe it or not, changing the zoning in currently SFH-only neighborhoods would not mean your existing SFH with a giant porch has to suddenly turn into an apartment building! I like living in a house with a yard, too. But I don’t see how having a small apartment building or rowhouse nearby would be a problem. (Also, my SFH neighborhood has semi-detached row houses already.) Also, there’s no reason you need to cut down trees to build apartment buildings if the trees are, say, between the curb and the sidewalk, where a huge number of trees in Ward 3 already are. This isn’t about making you change your current life at all; it’s about making it possible for people to buy or rent a small apartment somewhere near you if they want to.

Did you just respond to yourself?

[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.

They do hate SFH dwellers. They are very personal about it. Better people have got to run. The ANC3C commissioners need to be voted out.

The problem is that the Ward 3 SFH owners pay the bills, as they generally are upper income professionals earning, say, top 10% compensation. Losing them means losing your tax base. And, yes, they want a SFH in a neighborhood of SFHs. DC has plenty of space. What is bizarre is why the City does not focus on developments in Wards 7 and 8.

the bolded was written by someone who has clearly never been to Wards 7 or 8 and has no idea how much the city has focused on development there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dc is delaying the Connecticut avenue bike project because of all the opposition. Yay!

When a major restaurateur and employer speaks, any reasonable mayor will listen. Even over the hysterical cackling of the spandex crowd.

Let's understand here in context. The restaurateur in question has a successful place on M Street, where the M Street bike lanes pass in front of his highly successful establishment. He also has two places on the Cleveland Park Service lane and is lobbying to keep the service lane closed to cars so he can continue to have the 100 or so free seats outdoors, thus expanding his ability to serve more customers in public space.

So opposing the bike lanes is sheer hypocrisy on his part, and the so-called "spandex" crowd called him out for it in pretty astonishing numbers.

[Anonymous]

https://www.axios.com/local/washington-dc/2023/04/05/dc-connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-designs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dc is delaying the Connecticut avenue bike project because of all the opposition. Yay!

When a major restaurateur and employer speaks, any reasonable mayor will listen. Even over the hysterical cackling of the spandex crowd.

Let's understand here in context. The restaurateur in question has a successful place on M Street, where the M Street bike lanes pass in front of his highly successful establishment. He also has two places on the Cleveland Park Service lane and is lobbying to keep the service lane closed to cars so he can continue to have the 100 or so free seats outdoors, thus expanding his ability to serve more customers in public space.

So opposing the bike lanes is sheer hypocrisy on his part, and the so-called "spandex" crowd called him out for it in pretty astonishing numbers.

So he knows firsthand that bike lanes aren't widely used and don't increase business?

What about Comet? What's the excuse for that one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

because there's no reason that our neighborhoods should mostly be zoned only for $1 million-plus single family homes, especially near transit and commercial corridors.

No reason, really now? One reason off the top of my head is that SFH owners like me really like living in SFH neighborhoods! They're pretty, they have beautiful yards here in Ward 3. It's relatively quiet. We have big trees in our own yards, that play host to urban wildlife. Kids can play soccer in the backyard. I have a giant wraparound porch that isn't possible in a rowhouse or condo. We have big gardens in our big yards. We can pull up in front of our house and unload heavy groceries, animals coming home from the vet, an elderly relative ...

Did I mention it's quieter than Shaw?

There are very few poor people who've made poor life choices wandering on the streets. Or living on the streets. Our dogs have big green lush yards to play in. Many of us have pools and climbing structures. More flowering trees than in dense neighborhoods.

People who've made a lifetime of bad choices are priced out of the vicinity! So their drama doesn't spill over into our lives, much. Making Conn Ave the new Welfare Valley is changing that for those who live close to the Ave, though. Some of us prefer civility over diversity if forced to choose a type of neighbor you want.

Mostly, it's quieter, calmer, more lush and greener than DC's dense neighborhoods.

Believe it or not, changing the zoning in currently SFH-only neighborhoods would not mean your existing SFH with a giant porch has to suddenly turn into an apartment building! I like living in a house with a yard, too. But I don’t see how having a small apartment building or rowhouse nearby would be a problem. (Also, my SFH neighborhood has semi-detached row houses already.) Also, there’s no reason you need to cut down trees to build apartment buildings if the trees are, say, between the curb and the sidewalk, where a huge number of trees in Ward 3 already are. This isn’t about making you change your current life at all; it’s about making it possible for people to buy or rent a small apartment somewhere near you if they want to.

Did you just respond to yourself?

No, I responded to the person who objected to densifying Ward 3 because they like their current house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dc is delaying the Connecticut avenue bike project because of all the opposition. Yay!

Window dressing. They’ll do it in the end.

Pfft. They couldn’t even do Safe Streets. This is never going to happen

Of course it is. It’s less complex than the C St road diet. Traffic calming will happen on Conn Ave because it is too wide.

[Anonymous]

It is true that not everyone can afford a home on a leafy street in Ward 3. I doubt my kids will be able to do so. But that doesn't mean I want to build crummy pop-ups all over the neighborhood to cheapen it up, nor would my kids want that. My kids will make appropriate choices based on lifestyle, the careers they choose, and income levels. I don't think people who want a house in cleveland park will settle for a cheaper condo though. More likely to find a house elsewhere. And that's ok. And there are lots of houses for sale and apartments for rent in Ward 3. Supply is not the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

because there's no reason that our neighborhoods should mostly be zoned only for $1 million-plus single family homes, especially near transit and commercial corridors.

No reason, really now? One reason off the top of my head is that SFH owners like me really like living in SFH neighborhoods! They're pretty, they have beautiful yards here in Ward 3. It's relatively quiet. We have big trees in our own yards, that play host to urban wildlife. Kids can play soccer in the backyard. I have a giant wraparound porch that isn't possible in a rowhouse or condo. We have big gardens in our big yards. We can pull up in front of our house and unload heavy groceries, animals coming home from the vet, an elderly relative ...

Did I mention it's quieter than Shaw?

There are very few poor people who've made poor life choices wandering on the streets. Or living on the streets. Our dogs have big green lush yards to play in. Many of us have pools and climbing structures. More flowering trees than in dense neighborhoods.

People who've made a lifetime of bad choices are priced out of the vicinity! So their drama doesn't spill over into our lives, much. Making Conn Ave the new Welfare Valley is changing that for those who live close to the Ave, though. Some of us prefer civility over diversity if forced to choose a type of neighbor you want.

Mostly, it's quieter, calmer, more lush and greener than DC's dense neighborhoods.

Try to make your trolling less obvious.

I am no troll. This is really how I feel and can rarely say out loud. Luckily, this topic rarely comes up IRL and if it does, I am typically surrounded by like-minded people at the dinner table. I’m a gen x long time SFH owner who lives a few blocks east or west of Reno. I honestly don’t give a $h!t that some people who want to live in my neighborhood can’t afford to do so. I doubt the people living on q cliff overlooking the Pacific care that I can’t afford their block.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is true that not everyone can afford a home on a leafy street in Ward 3. I doubt my kids will be able to do so. But that doesn't mean I want to build crummy pop-ups all over the neighborhood to cheapen it up, nor would my kids want that. My kids will make appropriate choices based on lifestyle, the careers they choose, and income levels. I don't think people who want a house in cleveland park will settle for a cheaper condo though. More likely to find a house elsewhere. And that's ok. And there are lots of houses for sale and apartments for rent in Ward 3. Supply is not the issue.

+1. No, not everyone can afford to live in Ward 3, or at least the SFH portions of Ward 3. And this is fine and is reality. Welcome to the real world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is true that not everyone can afford a home on a leafy street in Ward 3. I doubt my kids will be able to do so. But that doesn't mean I want to build crummy pop-ups all over the neighborhood to cheapen it up, nor would my kids want that. My kids will make appropriate choices based on lifestyle, the careers they choose, and income levels. I don't think people who want a house in cleveland park will settle for a cheaper condo though. More likely to find a house elsewhere. And that's ok. And there are lots of houses for sale and apartments for rent in Ward 3. Supply is not the issue.

+1. No, not everyone can afford to live in Ward 3, or at least the SFH portions of Ward 3. And this is fine and is reality. Welcome to the real world.

Ok well - since you’re so comfortable with the government power to tell people what to do with their private property for your benefit, you should also understand why the government will exercise its power to change *public* space for other people’s benefit. Or do you think you are entitled to control both public and private property use?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

because there's no reason that our neighborhoods should mostly be zoned only for $1 million-plus single family homes, especially near transit and commercial corridors.

No reason, really now? One reason off the top of my head is that SFH owners like me really like living in SFH neighborhoods! They're pretty, they have beautiful yards here in Ward 3. It's relatively quiet. We have big trees in our own yards, that play host to urban wildlife. Kids can play soccer in the backyard. I have a giant wraparound porch that isn't possible in a rowhouse or condo. We have big gardens in our big yards. We can pull up in front of our house and unload heavy groceries, animals coming home from the vet, an elderly relative ...

Did I mention it's quieter than Shaw?

There are very few poor people who've made poor life choices wandering on the streets. Or living on the streets. Our dogs have big green lush yards to play in. Many of us have pools and climbing structures. More flowering trees than in dense neighborhoods.

People who've made a lifetime of bad choices are priced out of the vicinity! So their drama doesn't spill over into our lives, much. Making Conn Ave the new Welfare Valley is changing that for those who live close to the Ave, though. Some of us prefer civility over diversity if forced to choose a type of neighbor you want.

Mostly, it's quieter, calmer, more lush and greener than DC's dense neighborhoods.

Believe it or not, changing the zoning in currently SFH-only neighborhoods would not mean your existing SFH with a giant porch has to suddenly turn into an apartment building! I like living in a house with a yard, too. But I don’t see how having a small apartment building or rowhouse nearby would be a problem. (Also, my SFH neighborhood has semi-detached row houses already.) Also, there’s no reason you need to cut down trees to build apartment buildings if the trees are, say, between the curb and the sidewalk, where a huge number of trees in Ward 3 already are. This isn’t about making you change your current life at all; it’s about making it possible for people to buy or rent a small apartment somewhere near you if they want to.

Did you just respond to yourself?

No, I responded to the person who objected to densifying Ward 3 because they like their current house.

I object to radical densification of Ward 3. A few more condos or apartment buildings along Connect, Mass, or Wisconsin would be fine. But reducing or eliminating or discouraging SFH is unnecessary and counterproductive. It will simply drive people out of DC. DC has lost population over the last several years, and DC has never recovered from the early 1950s when DC had roughly 800K residents. DC needs residents who can afford to buy SFHs. They are the tax base, and are why DC has thrived economically over the last few decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is true that not everyone can afford a home on a leafy street in Ward 3. I doubt my kids will be able to do so. But that doesn't mean I want to build crummy pop-ups all over the neighborhood to cheapen it up, nor would my kids want that. My kids will make appropriate choices based on lifestyle, the careers they choose, and income levels. I don't think people who want a house in cleveland park will settle for a cheaper condo though. More likely to find a house elsewhere. And that's ok. And there are lots of houses for sale and apartments for rent in Ward 3. Supply is not the issue.

+1. No, not everyone can afford to live in Ward 3, or at least the SFH portions of Ward 3. And this is fine and is reality. Welcome to the real world.

Ok well - since you’re so comfortable with the government power to tell people what to do with their private property for your benefit, you should also understand why the government will exercise its power to change *public* space for other people’s benefit. Or do you think you are entitled to control both public and private property use?

Since you appear to support upzoning, I presume you also support gentrification. Both involve changing the character of neighborhoods against the wishes of the residents of those neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

NYC is learning the lesson that you should not chase your tax base out of the city. Especially important now that many people can choose where to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

because there's no reason that our neighborhoods should mostly be zoned only for $1 million-plus single family homes, especially near transit and commercial corridors.

No reason, really now? One reason off the top of my head is that SFH owners like me really like living in SFH neighborhoods! They're pretty, they have beautiful yards here in Ward 3. It's relatively quiet. We have big trees in our own yards, that play host to urban wildlife. Kids can play soccer in the backyard. I have a giant wraparound porch that isn't possible in a rowhouse or condo. We have big gardens in our big yards. We can pull up in front of our house and unload heavy groceries, animals coming home from the vet, an elderly relative ...

Did I mention it's quieter than Shaw?

There are very few poor people who've made poor life choices wandering on the streets. Or living on the streets. Our dogs have big green lush yards to play in. Many of us have pools and climbing structures. More flowering trees than in dense neighborhoods.

People who've made a lifetime of bad choices are priced out of the vicinity! So their drama doesn't spill over into our lives, much. Making Conn Ave the new Welfare Valley is changing that for those who live close to the Ave, though. Some of us prefer civility over diversity if forced to choose a type of neighbor you want.

Mostly, it's quieter, calmer, more lush and greener than DC's dense neighborhoods.

+1 million