Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[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?

Narrator’s voice: “The ANCs don’t care about the SFHs and families on the side streets.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The bullying on the ANC level is by the strong pro-bike lane commissioners versus residents and particularly businesses that are concerned about the impact on customer parking near Connecticut Avenue. There was the unbelievable photo of five ANC commissioners on election night flipping off a Cleveland Park business that displayed a sign against the bike lanes. One wrote on Twitter, "We're doing bike lanes. F- the ops." Some of the ANC reps also have used social media to criticize local businesses that oppose their bike lane agenda while encouraging customer patronage of their more compliant restaurant competitors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Narrator’s voice: “The ANCs don’t care about the SFHs and families on the side streets.”

Families, including families who live in detached houses, on streets that are not Connecticut Avenue, will also benefit from improved non-car infrastructure on Connecticut Avenue.

[Anonymous]

Images that precede unfortunate events lmaooooo

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fs83CS1XoAAYu44.jpg

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Show those receipts.

The best you have is people making fun of spandex and an obviously exaggerated claim of $1b in spending.

[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.

Are you kidding? The "petition" and various blog posts are frought with half-lives and mistruths.

[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?

It may be one of YOUR most major routes but there are many routes in. And yes, having a bike lane where the businesses are so the customers can safely access said businesses are seen by cities all over the world as a good thing. It is only CT Ave which is somehow so unique, that this is an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It may be one of YOUR most major routes but there are many routes in. And yes, having a bike lane where the businesses are so the customers can safely access said businesses are seen by cities all over the world as a good thing. It is only CT Ave which is somehow so unique, that this is an issue.

It is hilarious to me that you are out here still posting generic talking points arguing about this like it matters. No one cares about your opinions. Not even the city. LOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you kidding? The "petition" and various blog posts are frought with half-lives and mistruths.

Name that tune

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The bullying on the ANC level is by the strong pro-bike lane commissioners versus residents and particularly businesses that are concerned about the impact on customer parking near Connecticut Avenue. There was the unbelievable photo of five ANC commissioners on election night flipping off a Cleveland Park business that displayed a sign against the bike lanes. One wrote on Twitter, "We're doing bike lanes. F- the ops." Some of the ANC reps also have used social media to criticize local businesses that oppose their bike lane agenda while encouraging customer patronage of their more compliant restaurant competitors.

that was admittedly bad and obnoxious, but far less delusional than the people who think every change to a street is a personal affront and a conspiracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Show those receipts.

The best you have is people making fun of spandex and an obviously exaggerated claim of $1b in spending.

read the whole thread dude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It may be one of YOUR most major routes but there are many routes in. And yes, having a bike lane where the businesses are so the customers can safely access said businesses are seen by cities all over the world as a good thing. It is only CT Ave which is somehow so unique, that this is an issue.

It is hilarious to me that you are out here still posting generic talking points arguing about this like it matters. No one cares about your opinions. Not even the city. LOL.

Yes you’re right, the only way to run a city is to prioritize cars and never change anything.

[Anonymous]

Honestly, it seems like the only place where the bike-lane opponents are winning is on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it seems like the only place where the bike-lane opponents are winning is on DCUM.

Nobody is completely opposed to bike lanes. There are appropriate places for bike lanes and inappropriate places for bike lanes. The minority of people who demand that their every whims are catered to are the ones who are now thankfully losing and it is good to see that the city is pulling back towards more sane policies that benefit the greater good. I would suggest to all of the cyclists that some introspection about their behavior may go a long way towards building coalitions for better transportation policy. “Do what I want or else you are murdering me and I will try to economically harm you” is not effective communication, particularly when you are a loud but ultimately very small minority of people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It may be one of YOUR most major routes but there are many routes in. And yes, having a bike lane where the businesses are so the customers can safely access said businesses are seen by cities all over the world as a good thing. It is only CT Ave which is somehow so unique, that this is an issue.

It is hilarious to me that you are out here still posting generic talking points arguing about this like it matters. No one cares about your opinions. Not even the city. LOL.

Yes you’re right, the only way to run a city is to prioritize cars and never change anything.

Cry more. I am sure that will help.