Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I have no issue with changing demographics in neighborhoods. Upzoning should allow all typed of new residents, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes, bike lanes in NYC really resulted in huge outflows of population! Lol.

[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.

There are also a lot of people who were born on 3rd base and have no clue of the privilege they have lived to make it to home plate.

Most people living in SFHs in Upper Northwest work long hours & spent many years in school.

[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.

I think the most amazing aspect of this whole process has been watching all these daytime NGO, nonprofit, professors, and government workers who become armchair business tycoons at night and offer nonstop business advice and commentary. I mean you’ve made it your profession to NOT make money, yet that doesn’t stop you from telling actual successful businessmen how to do their jobs. It’s just fascinating to watch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s funny that folks want to keep arguing pro- and con- when that’s totally irrelevant at this point.

Folks may as well relax until 2025 when the design is complete 12 months late and costs have escalated 5x and DC’s budget is back to being deep in the red. That’s when the real argument starts. There’s no point arguing about something now that has a 50/50 chance of being vaporware.

This was all totally foreseeable back in January, unless you are part of the middle finger bike lane crowd.

It is honestly hilarious how people can be in such denial to the point of burning their own reputations in the process. Dollars to donuts these bike lanes may have actually happened if it wasn’t for the behavior of certain ANC commissioners.

[Anonymous]

Very true. The ANC's "take no prisoners" approach to policy making needs to end. It's not productive if you want progress. Don't mock constituents; talk with them. Seek compromise, and stop following the orders of the shadow commissioner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Very true. The ANC's "take no prisoners" approach to policy making needs to end. It's not productive if you want progress. Don't mock constituents; talk with them. Seek compromise, and stop following the orders of the shadow commissioner.

Can I add: don't lie, don't exaggerate, and don't insult.

[Anonymous]

I've been pleasantly surprised at ANC 3C this term. I thought they would be much worse.

[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.

There are also a lot of people who were born on 3rd base and have no clue of the privilege they have lived to make it to home plate.

Most people living in SFHs in Upper Northwest work long hours & spent many years in school.

This doesn’t really contradict the idea of being born on third base. I work long hours, but I was still born into a wealthy UMC family. One doesn’t negate the other at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Data released earlier this week by the U.S. Census shows that D.C. took in 103,982 new residents between April 2010 and July 2019, growing by more than 17% over the decade — faster than any of the 50 states or Puerto Rico.

The data shows that in April 2010 there were 601,723 residents in the city. By July 2019, the population grew to 705,749. That’s higher than at any point since the 1970s, when D.C.’s population started a swift decline from its historic high of more than 800,000 residents in the 1950s. By 2000, there were just over 570,000 residents in the city.
https://wamu.org/story/20/01/03/d-c-added-100000-residents-over-the-last-decade-but-growth-is-slowing/

DC is forecasted to increase to 987,200 residents by 2045.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Data released earlier this week by the U.S. Census shows that D.C. took in 103,982 new residents between April 2010 and July 2019, growing by more than 17% over the decade — faster than any of the 50 states or Puerto Rico.

The data shows that in April 2010 there were 601,723 residents in the city. By July 2019, the population grew to 705,749. That’s higher than at any point since the 1970s, when D.C.’s population started a swift decline from its historic high of more than 800,000 residents in the 1950s. By 2000, there were just over 570,000 residents in the city.
https://wamu.org/story/20/01/03/d-c-added-100000-residents-over-the-last-decade-but-growth-is-slowing/

DC is forecasted to increase to 987,200 residents by 2045.

Come on. It does not help anyone to pretend that known outdated projections mean anything. 2019 was pre-pandemic and DC has not rebounded because of work from home. 2010-2019 was also an era of unprecedented economic growth spurred by 0% interest rates. Now we have 5% interest rates and a pending recession. Lastly that projection assumes the same rate of growth as 2010-2019 but growth is not linear and there are serious barriers to increased growth, among them the lack of quality secondary schools. 2023 is not 2019.

[Anonymous]

Who is the shadow commissioner?

In a time of budget cuts to schools, glad this is being slowed. Investing in kids is good for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes, bike lanes in NYC really resulted in huge outflows of population! Lol.

DC's population is around 8% of NYC's. Comparing the two is a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Data released earlier this week by the U.S. Census shows that D.C. took in 103,982 new residents between April 2010 and July 2019, growing by more than 17% over the decade — faster than any of the 50 states or Puerto Rico.

The data shows that in April 2010 there were 601,723 residents in the city. By July 2019, the population grew to 705,749. That’s higher than at any point since the 1970s, when D.C.’s population started a swift decline from its historic high of more than 800,000 residents in the 1950s. By 2000, there were just over 570,000 residents in the city.
https://wamu.org/story/20/01/03/d-c-added-100000-residents-over-the-last-decade-but-growth-is-slowing/

DC is forecasted to increase to 987,200 residents by 2045.

Wake up. You're sharing data from last decade and a WAMU story from January, 2020. The landscape is radically different today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Data released earlier this week by the U.S. Census shows that D.C. took in 103,982 new residents between April 2010 and July 2019, growing by more than 17% over the decade — faster than any of the 50 states or Puerto Rico.

The data shows that in April 2010 there were 601,723 residents in the city. By July 2019, the population grew to 705,749. That’s higher than at any point since the 1970s, when D.C.’s population started a swift decline from its historic high of more than 800,000 residents in the 1950s. By 2000, there were just over 570,000 residents in the city.
https://wamu.org/story/20/01/03/d-c-added-100000-residents-over-the-last-decade-but-growth-is-slowing/

DC is forecasted to increase to 987,200 residents by 2045.

Again, there are currently 4000+ houses and apartments currently for sale or rent in DC alone. Plus, thousands more in the close in suburbs. There is no housing shortage.