Rosemary's Bistro Blocking Connecticut Avenue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've never eaten at Rosemary's Bistro and have been stuck in traffic at this intersection a bunch since the pandemic while trying to drive to or from some kids' event or run an errand, as I live within a mile from there. But... I have to say, I can't bring myself to care whether they're blocking the street.

I don't think "I have been personally inconvenienced a few times" is a good basis to make public policy decisions, and I don't really see this as likely to cause major harm for anyone. So why not let it stay as is?

Because the number of people it affects by blocking a lane is far greater than the number of people it serves. Because it has an unfair advantage over other businesses that are not permitted to operate in a traffic lane. Because it is an eyesore. Because it does not meet the streetery program standards. Because in six weeks it's going to too cold for it to be in use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've never eaten at Rosemary's Bistro and have been stuck in traffic at this intersection a bunch since the pandemic while trying to drive to or from some kids' event or run an errand, as I live within a mile from there. But... I have to say, I can't bring myself to care whether they're blocking the street.

I don't think "I have been personally inconvenienced a few times" is a good basis to make public policy decisions, and I don't really see this as likely to cause major harm for anyone. So why not let it stay as is?

Because the number of people it affects by blocking a lane is far greater than the number of people it serves. Because it has an unfair advantage over other businesses that are not permitted to operate in a traffic lane. Because it is an eyesore. Because it does not meet the streetery program standards. Because in six weeks it's going to too cold for it to be in use.

Yes to all of this. Hope this eyesore of a public urinal is removed soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've never eaten at Rosemary's Bistro and have been stuck in traffic at this intersection a bunch since the pandemic while trying to drive to or from some kids' event or run an errand, as I live within a mile from there. But... I have to say, I can't bring myself to care whether they're blocking the street.

I don't think "I have been personally inconvenienced a few times" is a good basis to make public policy decisions, and I don't really see this as likely to cause major harm for anyone. So why not let it stay as is?

Because the number of people it affects by blocking a lane is far greater than the number of people it serves. Because it has an unfair advantage over other businesses that are not permitted to operate in a traffic lane. Because it is an eyesore. Because it does not meet the streetery program standards. Because in six weeks it's going to too cold for it to be in use.

Yes to all of this. Hope this eyesore of a public urinal is removed soon.

If you stop being a toddler and pissing on it, then it's just an eyesore that will likely be removed soon. Grow up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Streeteries should not be in the travel lanes of major arterial roads.

Guess what! Because the streetery is there, it's not a travel lane anymore!

That's some quality squatter's logic there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've never eaten at Rosemary's Bistro and have been stuck in traffic at this intersection a bunch since the pandemic while trying to drive to or from some kids' event or run an errand, as I live within a mile from there. But... I have to say, I can't bring myself to care whether they're blocking the street.

I don't think "I have been personally inconvenienced a few times" is a good basis to make public policy decisions, and I don't really see this as likely to cause major harm for anyone. So why not let it stay as is?

Because the number of people it affects by blocking a lane is far greater than the number of people it serves. Because it has an unfair advantage over other businesses that are not permitted to operate in a traffic lane. Because it is an eyesore. Because it does not meet the streetery program standards. Because in six weeks it's going to too cold for it to be in use.

What monthly rent does the business pay to use public space ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've never eaten at Rosemary's Bistro and have been stuck in traffic at this intersection a bunch since the pandemic while trying to drive to or from some kids' event or run an errand, as I live within a mile from there. But... I have to say, I can't bring myself to care whether they're blocking the street.

I don't think "I have been personally inconvenienced a few times" is a good basis to make public policy decisions, and I don't really see this as likely to cause major harm for anyone. So why not let it stay as is?

Because the number of people it affects by blocking a lane is far greater than the number of people it serves. Because it has an unfair advantage over other businesses that are not permitted to operate in a traffic lane. Because it is an eyesore. Because it does not meet the streetery program standards. Because in six weeks it's going to too cold for it to be in use.

What monthly rent does the business pay to use public space ?

$0

It was an emergency pandemic measure to help save restaurants from going under.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've never eaten at Rosemary's Bistro and have been stuck in traffic at this intersection a bunch since the pandemic while trying to drive to or from some kids' event or run an errand, as I live within a mile from there. But... I have to say, I can't bring myself to care whether they're blocking the street.

I don't think "I have been personally inconvenienced a few times" is a good basis to make public policy decisions, and I don't really see this as likely to cause major harm for anyone. So why not let it stay as is?

Because the number of people it affects by blocking a lane is far greater than the number of people it serves. Because it has an unfair advantage over other businesses that are not permitted to operate in a traffic lane. Because it is an eyesore. Because it does not meet the streetery program standards. Because in six weeks it's going to too cold for it to be in use.

Because of the safety hazard it presents for morning rush hour. The time of day when most accidents occur off of the intersection where the most accidents occurr in that area.

[Anonymous]

Discussion in WashingtonPost https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/10/09/regulating-covid-streateries/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've never eaten at Rosemary's Bistro and have been stuck in traffic at this intersection a bunch since the pandemic while trying to drive to or from some kids' event or run an errand, as I live within a mile from there. But... I have to say, I can't bring myself to care whether they're blocking the street.

I don't think "I have been personally inconvenienced a few times" is a good basis to make public policy decisions, and I don't really see this as likely to cause major harm for anyone. So why not let it stay as is?

Because the number of people it affects by blocking a lane is far greater than the number of people it serves. Because it has an unfair advantage over other businesses that are not permitted to operate in a traffic lane. Because it is an eyesore. Because it does not meet the streetery program standards. Because in six weeks it's going to too cold for it to be in use.

I have to wonder who can defend it for 30 pages. There's such a slim number of people who a) own it or b) go there. Nobody else would defend it for 30 pages. Must be lots of sockpuppeting from the owner. I find that pathetic and disgraceful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've never eaten at Rosemary's Bistro and have been stuck in traffic at this intersection a bunch since the pandemic while trying to drive to or from some kids' event or run an errand, as I live within a mile from there. But... I have to say, I can't bring myself to care whether they're blocking the street.

I don't think "I have been personally inconvenienced a few times" is a good basis to make public policy decisions, and I don't really see this as likely to cause major harm for anyone. So why not let it stay as is?

Because the number of people it affects by blocking a lane is far greater than the number of people it serves. Because it has an unfair advantage over other businesses that are not permitted to operate in a traffic lane. Because it is an eyesore. Because it does not meet the streetery program standards. Because in six weeks it's going to too cold for it to be in use.

I have to wonder who can defend it for 30 pages. There's such a slim number of people who a) own it or b) go there. Nobody else would defend it for 30 pages. Must be lots of sockpuppeting from the owner. I find that pathetic and disgraceful.

Same type of people who keep arguing against it. People with an opinion who never actually do anything.

[Anonymous]

I see in the article the owner of Rosemary thinking he'd have to close if it went away. But the inside is nearly always empty, so people would just eat indoors, right? I really like the restaurant and always eat inside anyway. But does anyone really bypass a neighborhood restaurant they like just because they can't eat in traffic? There is normal sidewalk outdoor seating there too, after all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see in the article the owner of Rosemary thinking he'd have to close if it went away. But the inside is nearly always empty, so people would just eat indoors, right? I really like the restaurant and always eat inside anyway. But does anyone really bypass a neighborhood restaurant they like just because they can't eat in traffic? There is normal sidewalk outdoor seating there too, after all.

Yes this is true, although I’m not a fan of their food. They have outdoor seating, like other restaurants on the block and do not need a lane in the street.

[Anonymous]

The Rosemary's Bistro people insist that they will go under without putting tables on the street under a tarp because their elderly clientele won't eat inside due to Covid fears?? That's ridiculous. Go to Politics & Prose across the street any day of the week, it's packed with elderly people who are perfectly comfortable being indoors now that we are YEARS past the pandemic.

And even if it were true, the city shouldn't ignore its own regulations - which prohibit streeteries on arterial roads - just because it pads the bottom line of the restauarant. It's an eyesore and traffic hazard and apparently it's hurting the other businesses on the block. Why is the DC govt helping one business at the expense of others?

[Anonymous]

Thanks for linking the article. I may have missed it, but do they address the fact that there is already outside seating for Rosemary's? I'm confused about why they need the extra few tables on the street when there is already quite a bit of seating out front?

[Anonymous]

Considering how empty their streetery usually is, even in beautiful weather, I find their claims that they need it to stay in business to be extremely dubious. And it entirely becomes a unused roadblock from November through at least April.