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:

Anonymous wrote:So let's close down all the roads to all cars and just have buses and bikes. Problem solved.

Except for that pesky need for supplies like food or anything any shops might sell.

Maybe it's a weird concept for you suburban commuters, but in most cities you don't actually need a car to go to the store.

You do understand that 1) the stores need roads to get their goods and 2) upper NW is not urban

Upper NW DC is urban. Good grief.

Many NW neighborhoods have a distinctly suburban feel, although the smart growth development lobby is fixated on trying to change that.

DC does have suburbs, but they are not in DC. Next you'll tell us that NYC isn't urban.

What fun word games you play. Upper NW is suburban and has always been so.

Upper NW used to be farmland, and before that, it was forest.

True. But I'll bet a lot of folks move to and stay in Upper NW for more suburban style neighborhoods. People looking for the full-on "Urbanist" experience have other choices in DC. Not every neighborhood needs to be upzoned to look like the Navy Yard or even Friendship Heights.

"the full-on 'Urbanist' experience", meaning life in a city?

Isn't Palisades the "village in the city"? Cleveland Pk calls itself that, too. Maybe "suburban in a city." But definitely not urban.

[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:So let's close down all the roads to all cars and just have buses and bikes. Problem solved.

Except for that pesky need for supplies like food or anything any shops might sell.

Maybe it's a weird concept for you suburban commuters, but in most cities you don't actually need a car to go to the store.

You do understand that 1) the stores need roads to get their goods and 2) upper NW is not urban

Upper NW DC is urban. Good grief.

Many NW neighborhoods have a distinctly suburban feel, although the smart growth development lobby is fixated on trying to change that.

DC does have suburbs, but they are not in DC. Next you'll tell us that NYC isn't urban.

What fun word games you play. Upper NW is suburban and has always been so.

Upper NW used to be farmland, and before that, it was forest.

True. But I'll bet a lot of folks move to and stay in Upper NW for more suburban style neighborhoods. People looking for the full-on "Urbanist" experience have other choices in DC. Not every neighborhood needs to be upzoned to look like the Navy Yard or even Friendship Heights.

"the full-on 'Urbanist' experience", meaning life in a city?

Isn't Palisades the "village in the city"? Cleveland Pk calls itself that, too. Maybe "suburban in a city." But definitely not urban.

In a city, but not urban. Right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let's close down all the roads to all cars and just have buses and bikes. Problem solved.

Except for that pesky need for supplies like food or anything any shops might sell.

Maybe it's a weird concept for you suburban commuters, but in most cities you don't actually need a car to go to the store.

You do understand that 1) the stores need roads to get their goods and 2) upper NW is not urban

Upper NW DC is urban. Good grief.

Many NW neighborhoods have a distinctly suburban feel, although the smart growth development lobby is fixated on trying to change that.

DC does have suburbs, but they are not in DC. Next you'll tell us that NYC isn't urban.

What fun word games you play. Upper NW is suburban and has always been so.

Upper NW used to be farmland, and before that, it was forest.

Yes, and then it was settled as a suburb of weekend homes for downtown.

Some of these areas in question don't even have sidewalks!

[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:So let's close down all the roads to all cars and just have buses and bikes. Problem solved.

Except for that pesky need for supplies like food or anything any shops might sell.

Maybe it's a weird concept for you suburban commuters, but in most cities you don't actually need a car to go to the store.

You do understand that 1) the stores need roads to get their goods and 2) upper NW is not urban

Upper NW DC is urban. Good grief.

Many NW neighborhoods have a distinctly suburban feel, although the smart growth development lobby is fixated on trying to change that.

DC does have suburbs, but they are not in DC. Next you'll tell us that NYC isn't urban.

What fun word games you play. Upper NW is suburban and has always been so.

Upper NW used to be farmland, and before that, it was forest.

True. But I'll bet a lot of folks move to and stay in Upper NW for more suburban style neighborhoods. People looking for the full-on "Urbanist" experience have other choices in DC. Not every neighborhood needs to be upzoned to look like the Navy Yard or even Friendship Heights.

"the full-on 'Urbanist' experience", meaning life in a city?

Isn't Palisades the "village in the city"? Cleveland Pk calls itself that, too. Maybe "suburban in a city." But definitely not urban.

In a city, but not urban. Right.

"Urban" does not refer to jurisdictional lines of political control. To term you are using is "municipality".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let's close down all the roads to all cars and just have buses and bikes. Problem solved.

Except for that pesky need for supplies like food or anything any shops might sell.

Maybe it's a weird concept for you suburban commuters, but in most cities you don't actually need a car to go to the store.

You do understand that 1) the stores need roads to get their goods and 2) upper NW is not urban

Upper NW DC is urban. Good grief.

Many NW neighborhoods have a distinctly suburban feel, although the smart growth development lobby is fixated on trying to change that.

DC does have suburbs, but they are not in DC. Next you'll tell us that NYC isn't urban.

What fun word games you play. Upper NW is suburban and has always been so.

Upper NW used to be farmland, and before that, it was forest.

Yes, and then it was settled as a suburb of weekend homes for downtown.

Some of these areas in question don't even have sidewalks!

It's high time they got sidewalks, then. They are in an urban area.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:So let's close down all the roads to all cars and just have buses and bikes. Problem solved.

Except for that pesky need for supplies like food or anything any shops might sell.

Maybe it's a weird concept for you suburban commuters, but in most cities you don't actually need a car to go to the store.

You do understand that 1) the stores need roads to get their goods and 2) upper NW is not urban

Upper NW DC is urban. Good grief.

Many NW neighborhoods have a distinctly suburban feel, although the smart growth development lobby is fixated on trying to change that.

DC does have suburbs, but they are not in DC. Next you'll tell us that NYC isn't urban.

What fun word games you play. Upper NW is suburban and has always been so.

Upper NW used to be farmland, and before that, it was forest.

True. But I'll bet a lot of folks move to and stay in Upper NW for more suburban style neighborhoods. People looking for the full-on "Urbanist" experience have other choices in DC. Not every neighborhood needs to be upzoned to look like the Navy Yard or even Friendship Heights.

"the full-on 'Urbanist' experience", meaning life in a city?

Isn't Palisades the "village in the city"? Cleveland Pk calls itself that, too. Maybe "suburban in a city." But definitely not urban.

In a city, but not urban. Right.

"Urban" does not refer to jurisdictional lines of political control. To term you are using is "municipality".

DC is a "municipality"?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let's close down all the roads to all cars and just have buses and bikes. Problem solved.

Except for that pesky need for supplies like food or anything any shops might sell.

Maybe it's a weird concept for you suburban commuters, but in most cities you don't actually need a car to go to the store.

You do understand that 1) the stores need roads to get their goods and 2) upper NW is not urban

Upper NW DC is urban. Good grief.

Many NW neighborhoods have a distinctly suburban feel, although the smart growth development lobby is fixated on trying to change that.

DC does have suburbs, but they are not in DC. Next you'll tell us that NYC isn't urban.

What fun word games you play. Upper NW is suburban and has always been so.

Upper NW used to be farmland, and before that, it was forest.

Yes, and then it was settled as a suburb of weekend homes for downtown.

Some of these areas in question don't even have sidewalks!

It's high time they got sidewalks, then. They are in an urban area.

Man, you need to get out on your electric cargo bike, more. These aren't urban neighborhoods, and most residents are pretty happy to keep them that way.

[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:So let's close down all the roads to all cars and just have buses and bikes. Problem solved.

Except for that pesky need for supplies like food or anything any shops might sell.

Maybe it's a weird concept for you suburban commuters, but in most cities you don't actually need a car to go to the store.

You do understand that 1) the stores need roads to get their goods and 2) upper NW is not urban

Upper NW DC is urban. Good grief.

Many NW neighborhoods have a distinctly suburban feel, although the smart growth development lobby is fixated on trying to change that.

DC does have suburbs, but they are not in DC. Next you'll tell us that NYC isn't urban.

What fun word games you play. Upper NW is suburban and has always been so.

Upper NW used to be farmland, and before that, it was forest.

Yes, and then it was settled as a suburb of weekend homes for downtown.

Some of these areas in question don't even have sidewalks!

It's high time they got sidewalks, then. They are in an urban area.

Man, you need to get out on your electric cargo bike, more. These aren't urban neighborhoods, and most residents are pretty happy to keep them that way.

You can keep asserting that these neighborhoods in DC are not urban, and I can keep giggling about it.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let's close down all the roads to all cars and just have buses and bikes. Problem solved.

Except for that pesky need for supplies like food or anything any shops might sell.

Maybe it's a weird concept for you suburban commuters, but in most cities you don't actually need a car to go to the store.

You do understand that 1) the stores need roads to get their goods and 2) upper NW is not urban

Upper NW DC is urban. Good grief.

Many NW neighborhoods have a distinctly suburban feel, although the smart growth development lobby is fixated on trying to change that.

DC does have suburbs, but they are not in DC. Next you'll tell us that NYC isn't urban.

What fun word games you play. Upper NW is suburban and has always been so.

Upper NW used to be farmland, and before that, it was forest.

True. But I'll bet a lot of folks move to and stay in Upper NW for more suburban style neighborhoods. People looking for the full-on "Urbanist" experience have other choices in DC. Not every neighborhood needs to be upzoned to look like the Navy Yard or even Friendship Heights.

"the full-on 'Urbanist' experience", meaning life in a city?

Isn't Palisades the "village in the city"? Cleveland Pk calls itself that, too. Maybe "suburban in a city." But definitely not urban.

In a city, but not urban. Right.

"Urban" does not refer to jurisdictional lines of political control. To term you are using is "municipality".

DC is a "municipality"?!

Yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let's close down all the roads to all cars and just have buses and bikes. Problem solved.

Except for that pesky need for supplies like food or anything any shops might sell.

Maybe it's a weird concept for you suburban commuters, but in most cities you don't actually need a car to go to the store.

You do understand that 1) the stores need roads to get their goods and 2) upper NW is not urban

Upper NW DC is urban. Good grief.

Many NW neighborhoods have a distinctly suburban feel, although the smart growth development lobby is fixated on trying to change that.

DC does have suburbs, but they are not in DC. Next you'll tell us that NYC isn't urban.

What fun word games you play. Upper NW is suburban and has always been so.

Upper NW used to be farmland, and before that, it was forest.

Yes, and then it was settled as a suburb of weekend homes for downtown.

Some of these areas in question don't even have sidewalks!

It's high time they got sidewalks, then. They are in an urban area.

Sounds like a good place to start instead of bike lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am surprised Ward 4 resident Lee Mayer who is leading the charge against the Conn Ave bike lanes associates himself with someone like Mark Rosenman, given Rosenman's history of bullying, specifically the CPCA meeting where Rosenman, during his speech while running for office, challenged an audience member about half his size to "step outside." Absolutely atrocious behavior. I don't trust any survey Rosenman has taken given his publicly shown willingness to intimidate those he disagrees with. I believe then-head of CPCA Ruth Caplan issued an apology at the time. The video was memoryholed by CPCA, indicating how ashamed the group was of Rosenman's actions.

Who is Mr Rosenman and what elected political office did he run for?

He ran for office within the Cleveland Park Citizens Association, which has recently and belatedly amended its name to the Cleveland Park Community Association. After his speech where he challenged a fellow member to "step outside" during his stump speech, he won election.

That's not exactly standing as a candidate for a political office. That said, why the snark about the CP Community Association, which according to the website has been operating as a civic group for over 100 years? The website also shows it is organized as a nonprofit with an elected board of directors. The website has the articles of incorporation and bylaws prominently posted, and indicates that the organization is funded from member dues of $30/year. This is quite the contrast with another area group, CP Smart Growth, which doesn't seem to have any articles or bylaws on the web. This group pumps out a lot of pro-smart growth content and seems to be constantly lobbying for more development, but its source of funding (like its governance) is opaque.

[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:So let's close down all the roads to all cars and just have buses and bikes. Problem solved.

Except for that pesky need for supplies like food or anything any shops might sell.

Maybe it's a weird concept for you suburban commuters, but in most cities you don't actually need a car to go to the store.

You do understand that 1) the stores need roads to get their goods and 2) upper NW is not urban

Upper NW DC is urban. Good grief.

Many NW neighborhoods have a distinctly suburban feel, although the smart growth development lobby is fixated on trying to change that.

DC does have suburbs, but they are not in DC. Next you'll tell us that NYC isn't urban.

What fun word games you play. Upper NW is suburban and has always been so.

Upper NW used to be farmland, and before that, it was forest.

Yes, and then it was settled as a suburb of weekend homes for downtown.

Some of these areas in question don't even have sidewalks!

It's high time they got sidewalks, then. They are in an urban area.

Man, you need to get out on your electric cargo bike, more. These aren't urban neighborhoods, and most residents are pretty happy to keep them that way.

If "urban" is an euphemism for rising crime, then let's concede the point: They are "urban."

You can keep asserting that these neighborhoods in DC are not urban, and I can keep giggling about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am surprised Ward 4 resident Lee Mayer who is leading the charge against the Conn Ave bike lanes associates himself with someone like Mark Rosenman, given Rosenman's history of bullying, specifically the CPCA meeting where Rosenman, during his speech while running for office, challenged an audience member about half his size to "step outside." Absolutely atrocious behavior. I don't trust any survey Rosenman has taken given his publicly shown willingness to intimidate those he disagrees with. I believe then-head of CPCA Ruth Caplan issued an apology at the time. The video was memoryholed by CPCA, indicating how ashamed the group was of Rosenman's actions.

Who is Mr Rosenman and what elected political office did he run for?

He ran for office within the Cleveland Park Citizens Association, which has recently and belatedly amended its name to the Cleveland Park Community Association. After his speech where he challenged a fellow member to "step outside" during his stump speech, he won election.

That's not exactly standing as a candidate for a political office. That said, why the snark about the CP Community Association, which according to the website has been operating as a civic group for over 100 years? The website also shows it is organized as a nonprofit with an elected board of directors. The website has the articles of incorporation and bylaws prominently posted, and indicates that the organization is funded from member dues of $30/year. This is quite the contrast with another area group, CP Smart Growth, which doesn't seem to have any articles or bylaws on the web. This group pumps out a lot of pro-smart growth content and seems to be constantly lobbying for more development, but its source of funding (like its governance) is opaque.

Maybe because it is a loose organization of residents who support a goal of inclusion and environmental sustainability and has no budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am surprised Ward 4 resident Lee Mayer who is leading the charge against the Conn Ave bike lanes associates himself with someone like Mark Rosenman, given Rosenman's history of bullying, specifically the CPCA meeting where Rosenman, during his speech while running for office, challenged an audience member about half his size to "step outside." Absolutely atrocious behavior. I don't trust any survey Rosenman has taken given his publicly shown willingness to intimidate those he disagrees with. I believe then-head of CPCA Ruth Caplan issued an apology at the time. The video was memoryholed by CPCA, indicating how ashamed the group was of Rosenman's actions.

Who is Mr Rosenman and what elected political office did he run for?

He ran for office within the Cleveland Park Citizens Association, which has recently and belatedly amended its name to the Cleveland Park Community Association. After his speech where he challenged a fellow member to "step outside" during his stump speech, he won election.

That's not exactly standing as a candidate for a political office. That said, why the snark about the CP Community Association, which according to the website has been operating as a civic group for over 100 years? The website also shows it is organized as a nonprofit with an elected board of directors. The website has the articles of incorporation and bylaws prominently posted, and indicates that the organization is funded from member dues of $30/year. This is quite the contrast with another area group, CP Smart Growth, which doesn't seem to have any articles or bylaws on the web. This group pumps out a lot of pro-smart growth content and seems to be constantly lobbying for more development, but its source of funding (like its governance) is opaque.

Maybe because it is a loose organization of residents who support a goal of inclusion and environmental sustainability and has no budget.

The group pushes out pro-development pieces prolifically and has had branded signs, stickers and swag. No budget? Nah. More like no transparency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If "urban" is an euphemism for rising crime, then let's concede the point: They are "urban."