Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the city's policy is to build as much housing as possible, to accommodate more people, but reduce the capacity of roads to handle their cars?

Can we do the opposite?

Make people's lives better by making it easier to get around, and discourage more people from moving here?

You should visit Houston sometime. Massive roads down there. Lots of low density housing. You should love it.

you know dc is one of the most densely populated cities in the western hemisphere, right?

The point was that the poster seems to want DC to be a very different city. The city they seem to want is probably best represented by Houston, which builds massive freeways just for the hell of it. I moved to DC because I like density and I like being able to get around without driving everywhere. Other people like that about DC too.

"the city they seem to want."

sweetie, i'm the pp and ive been in dc longer than you've been alive. I know you just moved here from shitty town, indiana and you have all the answers and know all about life in the big city, but maybe you should keep quiet and let the adults talk.

The "adults" are the ones who brought us the car-dependent auto-centric neighborhoods. It has proven to be a disaster in terms of land use, ecology and environmental sustainability, much less transportation policy. As such, you might want to sit this one out and let the rest of us implement something that works for the broader society and not the single family homeowners who take up more space with their inefecient use of land and public space with their inefficient auto-centric built environment.

Horse and buggies for all. It's more enviromentally friendly and efficient than bikes. It is even made of entirely renewable resources!

[Anonymous]

Come on, we all know that the original poster is a liar. Everyone in the neighborhood has know about this for nearly 2 year. If they haven't that means they just moved here last week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:all this for the city's least popular method of transportation. it would be great if the city focused less on bikes and more on ways of getting around that significant numbers of people actually use.

If less people drove cars, more able-bodied people would be alive today, climate variability would be less, the projected annual temperature increase would be less, our governments would have more money to give back to the population in tax cuts or to spend on productive social programs, and more people would have more time to spend on productive endeavors rather than being stuck in traffic. But yet we should be encouraging people to drive more, right?

But I like my car, and plan to continue using it in DC.

That's nice. And when your grandchildren ask you why all the glaciers disappeared and what you did to help make the world they inherit a slightly more livable place, you can tell them that you drove all around a city that is perfectly navigable by transit, bike, and/or foot and strenuously advocated against transportation solutions designed to reduce climate emissions and make the city's streets safer for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Come on, we all know that the original poster is a liar. Everyone in the neighborhood has know about this for nearly 2 year. If they haven't that means they just moved here last week.

Someone in a small town in Macedonia is really enjoying themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Come on, we all know that the original poster is a liar. Everyone in the neighborhood has know about this for nearly 2 year. If they haven't that means they just moved here last week.

No we didn't. But more of us keep finding out and are shocked by how stupid an idea it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:all this for the city's least popular method of transportation. it would be great if the city focused less on bikes and more on ways of getting around that significant numbers of people actually use.

If less people drove cars, more able-bodied people would be alive today, climate variability would be less, the projected annual temperature increase would be less, our governments would have more money to give back to the population in tax cuts or to spend on productive social programs, and more people would have more time to spend on productive endeavors rather than being stuck in traffic. But yet we should be encouraging people to drive more, right?

But I like my car, and plan to continue using it in DC.

That's nice. And when your grandchildren ask you why all the glaciers disappeared and what you did to help make the world they inherit a slightly more livable place, you can tell them that you drove all around a city that is perfectly navigable by transit, bike, and/or foot and strenuously advocated against transportation solutions designed to reduce climate emissions and make the city's streets safer for everyone.

I will tell them I stood up to liars, bullies and narcissists who had convinced themselves that they were trying to help but in the end onlyade things worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the city's policy is to build as much housing as possible, to accommodate more people, but reduce the capacity of roads to handle their cars?

Can we do the opposite?

Make people's lives better by making it easier to get around, and discourage more people from moving here?

You should visit Houston sometime. Massive roads down there. Lots of low density housing. You should love it.

you know dc is one of the most densely populated cities in the western hemisphere, right?

The point was that the poster seems to want DC to be a very different city. The city they seem to want is probably best represented by Houston, which builds massive freeways just for the hell of it. I moved to DC because I like density and I like being able to get around without driving everywhere. Other people like that about DC too.

"the city they seem to want."

sweetie, i'm the pp and ive been in dc longer than you've been alive. I know you just moved here from shitty town, indiana and you have all the answers and know all about life in the big city, but maybe you should keep quiet and let the adults talk.

The "adults" are the ones who brought us the car-dependent auto-centric neighborhoods. It has proven to be a disaster in terms of land use, ecology and environmental sustainability, much less transportation policy. As such, you might want to sit this one out and let the rest of us implement something that works for the broader society and not the single family homeowners who take up more space with their inefecient use of land and public space with their inefficient auto-centric built environment.

Horse and buggies for all. It's more enviromentally friendly and efficient than bikes. It is even made of entirely renewable resources!

No they aren't because of the food and manure. That is why paved roads were built for bikes before cars came along. The horses and buggies did not prompt thta infrastructure investment. Bikes did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come on, we all know that the original poster is a liar. Everyone in the neighborhood has know about this for nearly 2 year. If they haven't that means they just moved here last week.

No we didn't. But more of us keep finding out and are shocked by how stupid an idea it is.

You really had to be living under a rock to not have heard about this.

[Anonymous]

Can we oppose the drunk homeless people that now hang out on Connecticut ave since Bowser dumped them there with no mental health or recovery services?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:all this for the city's least popular method of transportation. it would be great if the city focused less on bikes and more on ways of getting around that significant numbers of people actually use.

If less people drove cars, more able-bodied people would be alive today, climate variability would be less, the projected annual temperature increase would be less, our governments would have more money to give back to the population in tax cuts or to spend on productive social programs, and more people would have more time to spend on productive endeavors rather than being stuck in traffic. But yet we should be encouraging people to drive more, right?

But I like my car, and plan to continue using it in DC.

That's nice. And when your grandchildren ask you why all the glaciers disappeared and what you did to help make the world they inherit a slightly more livable place, you can tell them that you drove all around a city that is perfectly navigable by transit, bike, and/or foot and strenuously advocated against transportation solutions designed to reduce climate emissions and make the city's streets safer for everyone.

I will tell them I stood up to liars, bullies and narcissists who had convinced themselves that they were trying to help but in the end onlyade things worse.

+

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the city's policy is to build as much housing as possible, to accommodate more people, but reduce the capacity of roads to handle their cars?

Can we do the opposite?

Make people's lives better by making it easier to get around, and discourage more people from moving here?

You should visit Houston sometime. Massive roads down there. Lots of low density housing. You should love it.

you know dc is one of the most densely populated cities in the western hemisphere, right?

The point was that the poster seems to want DC to be a very different city. The city they seem to want is probably best represented by Houston, which builds massive freeways just for the hell of it. I moved to DC because I like density and I like being able to get around without driving everywhere. Other people like that about DC too.

"the city they seem to want."

sweetie, i'm the pp and ive been in dc longer than you've been alive. I know you just moved here from shitty town, indiana and you have all the answers and know all about life in the big city, but maybe you should keep quiet and let the adults talk.

The "adults" are the ones who brought us the car-dependent auto-centric neighborhoods. It has proven to be a disaster in terms of land use, ecology and environmental sustainability, much less transportation policy. As such, you might want to sit this one out and let the rest of us implement something that works for the broader society and not the single family homeowners who take up more space with their inefecient use of land and public space with their inefficient auto-centric built environment.

Horse and buggies for all. It's more enviromentally friendly and efficient than bikes. It is even made of entirely renewable resources!

No they aren't because of the food and manure. That is why paved roads were built for bikes before cars came along. The horses and buggies did not prompt thta infrastructure investment. Bikes did.

We need the manure to replenish our top soil and we will need to expand rooftop, vertical and community gardens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:all this for the city's least popular method of transportation. it would be great if the city focused less on bikes and more on ways of getting around that significant numbers of people actually use.

If less people drove cars, more able-bodied people would be alive today, climate variability would be less, the projected annual temperature increase would be less, our governments would have more money to give back to the population in tax cuts or to spend on productive social programs, and more people would have more time to spend on productive endeavors rather than being stuck in traffic. But yet we should be encouraging people to drive more, right?

But I like my car, and plan to continue using it in DC.

No one is telling you you can't. We just want the same thing for bikes - a place to ride that is safe and easily accessible to the shops and stores we want to support.

What are the licensing, helmeting and speed limit rules going to be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the city's policy is to build as much housing as possible, to accommodate more people, but reduce the capacity of roads to handle their cars?

Can we do the opposite?

Make people's lives better by making it easier to get around, and discourage more people from moving here?

You should visit Houston sometime. Massive roads down there. Lots of low density housing. You should love it.

you know dc is one of the most densely populated cities in the western hemisphere, right?

The point was that the poster seems to want DC to be a very different city. The city they seem to want is probably best represented by Houston, which builds massive freeways just for the hell of it. I moved to DC because I like density and I like being able to get around without driving everywhere. Other people like that about DC too.

"the city they seem to want."

sweetie, i'm the pp and ive been in dc longer than you've been alive. I know you just moved here from shitty town, indiana and you have all the answers and know all about life in the big city, but maybe you should keep quiet and let the adults talk.

The "adults" are the ones who brought us the car-dependent auto-centric neighborhoods. It has proven to be a disaster in terms of land use, ecology and environmental sustainability, much less transportation policy. As such, you might want to sit this one out and let the rest of us implement something that works for the broader society and not the single family homeowners who take up more space with their inefecient use of land and public space with their inefficient auto-centric built environment.

NP. Except the adults in the room who own single family homes in the District make more money, pay more in taxes and essentially keep this city going. You realize that without ys your city goes to sh*t, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the city's policy is to build as much housing as possible, to accommodate more people, but reduce the capacity of roads to handle their cars?

Can we do the opposite?

Make people's lives better by making it easier to get around, and discourage more people from moving here?

You should visit Houston sometime. Massive roads down there. Lots of low density housing. You should love it.

you know dc is one of the most densely populated cities in the western hemisphere, right?

The point was that the poster seems to want DC to be a very different city. The city they seem to want is probably best represented by Houston, which builds massive freeways just for the hell of it. I moved to DC because I like density and I like being able to get around without driving everywhere. Other people like that about DC too.

"the city they seem to want."

sweetie, i'm the pp and ive been in dc longer than you've been alive. I know you just moved here from shitty town, indiana and you have all the answers and know all about life in the big city, but maybe you should keep quiet and let the adults talk.

The "adults" are the ones who brought us the car-dependent auto-centric neighborhoods. It has proven to be a disaster in terms of land use, ecology and environmental sustainability, much less transportation policy. As such, you might want to sit this one out and let the rest of us implement something that works for the broader society and not the single family homeowners who take up more space with their inefecient use of land and public space with their inefficient auto-centric built environment.

NP. Except the adults in the room who own single family homes in the District make more money, pay more in taxes and essentially keep this city going. You realize that without ys your city goes to sh*t, right?

How utterly pathetic can you get? Just because you own a SFH doesn't make you any better - or give your voice any more importance - than those who don't. Those drunk homeless people you complain about have the same vote you do. You are not better than them or anyone else. I'm embarrassed to share a city with you. It's folk that you that give us - Ward 3 homeowners - a bad name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the city's policy is to build as much housing as possible, to accommodate more people, but reduce the capacity of roads to handle their cars?

Can we do the opposite?

Make people's lives better by making it easier to get around, and discourage more people from moving here?

You should visit Houston sometime. Massive roads down there. Lots of low density housing. You should love it.

you know dc is one of the most densely populated cities in the western hemisphere, right?

The point was that the poster seems to want DC to be a very different city. The city they seem to want is probably best represented by Houston, which builds massive freeways just for the hell of it. I moved to DC because I like density and I like being able to get around without driving everywhere. Other people like that about DC too.

"the city they seem to want."

sweetie, i'm the pp and ive been in dc longer than you've been alive. I know you just moved here from shitty town, indiana and you have all the answers and know all about life in the big city, but maybe you should keep quiet and let the adults talk.

The "adults" are the ones who brought us the car-dependent auto-centric neighborhoods. It has proven to be a disaster in terms of land use, ecology and environmental sustainability, much less transportation policy. As such, you might want to sit this one out and let the rest of us implement something that works for the broader society and not the single family homeowners who take up more space with their inefecient use of land and public space with their inefficient auto-centric built environment.

NP. Except the adults in the room who own single family homes in the District make more money, pay more in taxes and essentially keep this city going. You realize that without ys your city goes to sh*t, right?

How utterly pathetic can you get? Just because you own a SFH doesn't make you any better - or give your voice any more importance - than those who don't. Those drunk homeless people you complain about have the same vote you do. You are not better than them or anyone else. I'm embarrassed to share a city with you. It's folk that you that give us - Ward 3 homeowners - a bad name.

Actually i was a NP and never mentioned homeless but hey, newsflash, homeless people don’t vote.