Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

the joke is the claim that traffic calming is causing people to flee from any city. it’s the opposite: DC started to work in earnest on it in the 2010s, a period that coincided with vibrant growth all over the city. people move to cities for urban amenities, which includes being able to get places car-free and safely. the Conn Ave protected lanes may or may not go in, but Conn Ave will get some kind of significant redesign. There will always be a hard-core of cranks that make a fuss, but agencies will learn how to deal with them along the way. More broadly, there is growing widespread acknowledgement that our procedural hurdles for public works have become unsustainable, so you can also expect DC to reform in that direction along with the rest of the nation. meanwhile voters continue to signal that they want better streets and transit, so elected officials will learn to ignore the noisy NIMBYs who are invariably helmed by loud eccentrics with little actual impact on elections. see: recall attempts in Ward 6.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

yes. to get people to move into DC and work downtown, we must facilitate them all driving in their cars as fast as possible!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

yes. to get people to move into DC and work downtown, we must facilitate them all driving in their cars as fast as possible!

No, but we certainly should not intentionally increase congestion.

[Anonymous]

Your reference to the "Trump playbook" is most ironic when the so-called "progressive" majority on the ANC 3C lets Donald Trump's campaign pollster lead them around by the nose. He's apparently moved on from Trump-Manafort world to flack for DC Smart Growth development interests, and he helps to shape the ANC's agenda and to write their resolutions.

That explains a lot of their tactics and rhetoric to be honest.

It’s astonishing how many times during a meeting that the commissioners will turn to him and ask him to explain the position they are taking or a resolution they wrote. The chair gets flummoxed by any comment that questions the logic behind a position, and she immediately throws it to him to answer. Nothing is happening on that commission without his say-so. Most of the commissioners are just his puppets.

This is accurate, and much of it is on the ANC's Youtube channel. They don't even try very hard to hide it. And it's not just the chair who gets flustered. When questions are posed by the community, it's apparent that several of the ANC commissioners don't have a firm grasp on the details in the very resolutions that they sponsor. So they turn to their mentor and the likely real author of the resolutions to bail them out. It can be funny at times but it's more often painful to watch. It's also quite concerning, because this extra "commissioner" seems to act like the ANC's shadow chairman, although he's not been elected to anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Your reference to the "Trump playbook" is most ironic when the so-called "progressive" majority on the ANC 3C lets Donald Trump's campaign pollster lead them around by the nose. He's apparently moved on from Trump-Manafort world to flack for DC Smart Growth development interests, and he helps to shape the ANC's agenda and to write their resolutions.

That explains a lot of their tactics and rhetoric to be honest.

It’s astonishing how many times during a meeting that the commissioners will turn to him and ask him to explain the position they are taking or a resolution they wrote. The chair gets flummoxed by any comment that questions the logic behind a position, and she immediately throws it to him to answer. Nothing is happening on that commission without his say-so. Most of the commissioners are just his puppets.

This is accurate, and much of it is on the ANC's Youtube channel. They don't even try very hard to hide it. And it's not just the chair who gets flustered. When questions are posed by the community, it's apparent that several of the ANC commissioners don't have a firm grasp on the details in the very resolutions that they sponsor. So they turn to their mentor and the likely real author of the resolutions to bail them out. It can be funny at times but it's more often painful to watch. It's also quite concerning, because this extra "commissioner" seems to act like the ANC's shadow chairman, although he's not been elected to anything.

+100.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

the joke is the claim that traffic calming is causing people to flee from any city. it’s the opposite: DC started to work in earnest on it in the 2010s, a period that coincided with vibrant growth all over the city. people move to cities for urban amenities, which includes being able to get places car-free and safely. the Conn Ave protected lanes may or may not go in, but Conn Ave will get some kind of significant redesign. There will always be a hard-core of cranks that make a fuss, but agencies will learn how to deal with them along the way. More broadly, there is growing widespread acknowledgement that our procedural hurdles for public works have become unsustainable, so you can also expect DC to reform in that direction along with the rest of the nation. meanwhile voters continue to signal that they want better streets and transit, so elected officials will learn to ignore the noisy NIMBYs who are invariably helmed by loud eccentrics with little actual impact on elections. see: recall attempts in Ward 6.

Cities that have implemented these measures in earnest have seen declines in population.

- DCs population is back at 2016 levels.
- Paris’s population has declined to the lowest level since the 19th century.

Meanwhile, Miami, Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, etc are some of the fastest growing places in America.

Let’s put this another way, who would voluntarily and intentionally use a x486 processor in their computer? No one.

More efficient transportation networks logically translate to economic growth because time is money and people don’t want to waste their time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is all correct. And it’s important to point out that the population growth rate has been slowing significantly over the past decade even prior to the pandemic. Slow and anemic population growth should already have been expected and anticipated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

the joke is the claim that traffic calming is causing people to flee from any city. it’s the opposite: DC started to work in earnest on it in the 2010s, a period that coincided with vibrant growth all over the city. people move to cities for urban amenities, which includes being able to get places car-free and safely. the Conn Ave protected lanes may or may not go in, but Conn Ave will get some kind of significant redesign. There will always be a hard-core of cranks that make a fuss, but agencies will learn how to deal with them along the way. More broadly, there is growing widespread acknowledgement that our procedural hurdles for public works have become unsustainable, so you can also expect DC to reform in that direction along with the rest of the nation. meanwhile voters continue to signal that they want better streets and transit, so elected officials will learn to ignore the noisy NIMBYs who are invariably helmed by loud eccentrics with little actual impact on elections. see: recall attempts in Ward 6.

Cities that have implemented these measures in earnest have seen declines in population.

- DCs population is back at 2016 levels.
- Paris’s population has declined to the lowest level since the 19th century.

Meanwhile, Miami, Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, etc are some of the fastest growing places in America.

Let’s put this another way, who would voluntarily and intentionally use a x486 processor in their computer? No one.

More efficient transportation networks logically translate to economic growth because time is money and people don’t want to waste their time.

You know what Houston has? Zero zoning! You think Houston traffic engineers would listen to the whining of “neighbors”
complaining about safety updates?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is all correct. And it’s important to point out that the population growth rate has been slowing significantly over the past decade even prior to the pandemic. Slow and anemic population growth should already have been expected and anticipated.

yes and it’s all due to traffic calming! lol.

listen. there are definitely questions to ask about DDOT plans. But when anti-reform advocates (aka NIMBY) make absurd arguments and giant leaps of logic, you do nothing to convince anyone. unsafe streets are not going to reverse population declines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

yes. to get people to move into DC and work downtown, we must facilitate them all driving in their cars as fast as possible!

No, but we certainly should not intentionally increase congestion.

There is already congestion. The idea is to give people options so they don't have to sit in it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

yes. to get people to move into DC and work downtown, we must facilitate them all driving in their cars as fast as possible!

No, but we certainly should not intentionally increase congestion.

There is already congestion. The idea is to give people options so they don't have to sit in it.

Just because congestion exists does not mean that it is a good idea to deliberately make it worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is all correct. And it’s important to point out that the population growth rate has been slowing significantly over the past decade even prior to the pandemic. Slow and anemic population growth should already have been expected and anticipated.

yes and it’s all due to traffic calming! lol.

listen. there are definitely questions to ask about DDOT plans. But when anti-reform advocates (aka NIMBY) make absurd arguments and giant leaps of logic, you do nothing to convince anyone. unsafe streets are not going to reverse population declines.

No one has done that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is all correct. And it’s important to point out that the population growth rate has been slowing significantly over the past decade even prior to the pandemic. Slow and anemic population growth should already have been expected and anticipated.

yes and it’s all due to traffic calming! lol.

listen. there are definitely questions to ask about DDOT plans. But when anti-reform advocates (aka NIMBY) make absurd arguments and giant leaps of logic, you do nothing to convince anyone. unsafe streets are not going to reverse population declines.

Bike lanes are great, but is it the smartest concept to put one of the most major arterial routes between Maryland and downtown Washington on a "road diet" and significantly constrain vehicle capacity? The reality is that will divert thru-traffic to other north-side like Reno-34th and also flush more traffic through side streets like Albermarle, Porter, Macomb, etc. Is it really fair to dismiss and denigrate DC residents who live on those streets, whose kids walk and bike along them, as "anti-reform advocates" and NIMBYs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is all correct. And it’s important to point out that the population growth rate has been slowing significantly over the past decade even prior to the pandemic. Slow and anemic population growth should already have been expected and anticipated.

yes and it’s all due to traffic calming! lol.

listen. there are definitely questions to ask about DDOT plans. But when anti-reform advocates (aka NIMBY) make absurd arguments and giant leaps of logic, you do nothing to convince anyone. unsafe streets are not going to reverse population declines.

No one has done that.

ha ha ha ha ha HA! have you read this thread?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is all correct. And it’s important to point out that the population growth rate has been slowing significantly over the past decade even prior to the pandemic. Slow and anemic population growth should already have been expected and anticipated.

yes and it’s all due to traffic calming! lol.

listen. there are definitely questions to ask about DDOT plans. But when anti-reform advocates (aka NIMBY) make absurd arguments and giant leaps of logic, you do nothing to convince anyone. unsafe streets are not going to reverse population declines.

Bike lanes are great, but is it the smartest concept to put one of the most major arterial routes between Maryland and downtown Washington on a "road diet" and significantly constrain vehicle capacity? The reality is that will divert thru-traffic to other north-side like Reno-34th and also flush more traffic through side streets like Albermarle, Porter, Macomb, etc. Is it really fair to dismiss and denigrate DC residents who live on those streets, whose kids walk and bike along them, as "anti-reform advocates" and NIMBYs?

No, I don’t denigrate the people who have legitimate questions about the impact on their surroundings. But their voices are absolutely drowned out by the conspiracy-theory NIMBY types who lie and distort constantly. Like q-anon level claims about DDOT conspiracies, bullying individual DDOT employees, making false and/or absurdly hyperbolic claims. Much of this on the ANC level driven by personal vendettas against neighbors.