Anonymous wrote:Covid 19 plus high density plus public transport sounds worrisome

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Public street is not your street. The greenie in the apartment building pays the same taxes you do. Why are you entitled to public space that others are not?

What im opposed to is cars crawling the block . Existing folks have cars. Selling new units to people without cars seems reasonable. Telling them to battle it out in the streets does not. You are making a great case for e ,isting residents to oppose.any added density. Thanks

It isn't YOUR street. You are just showing your sense of entitlement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Public street is not your street. The greenie in the apartment building pays the same taxes you do. Why are you entitled to public space that others are not?

What im opposed to is cars crawling the block . Existing folks have cars. Selling new units to people without cars seems reasonable. Telling them to battle it out in the streets does not. You are making a great case for e ,isting residents to oppose.any added density. Thanks

Existing residents generally have a good case for opposing additional housing, namely:

(1) I've got mine, and
(2) I like it just fine the way it is, so don't change it.

That doesn't mean there's a good public-policy case for opposing additional housing, though.

Thanks. The lack of consideration you show for quality of life isnwhy existing residents will fight new construction. Youve made your point amply. Obviously you will want everyone to fight over green space, sky, light, school seats and other livable city resources as well.

Dude. You just said exactly what I said. You live there, you like it how it is, you don't want it to change.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Public street is not your street. The greenie in the apartment building pays the same taxes you do. Why are you entitled to public space that others are not?

What im opposed to is cars crawling the block . Existing folks have cars. Selling new units to people without cars seems reasonable. Telling them to battle it out in the streets does not. You are making a great case for e ,isting residents to oppose.any added density. Thanks

Existing residents generally have a good case for opposing additional housing, namely:

(1) I've got mine, and
(2) I like it just fine the way it is, so don't change it.

That doesn't mean there's a good public-policy case for opposing additional housing, though.

Thanks. The lack of consideration you show for quality of life isnwhy existing residents will fight new construction. Youve made your point amply. Obviously you will want everyone to fight over green space, sky, light, school seats and other livable city resources as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Public street is not your street. The greenie in the apartment building pays the same taxes you do. Why are you entitled to public space that others are not?

What im opposed to is cars crawling the block . Existing folks have cars. Selling new units to people without cars seems reasonable. Telling them to battle it out in the streets does not. You are making a great case for e ,isting residents to oppose.any added density. Thanks

Existing residents generally have a good case for opposing additional housing, namely:

(1) I've got mine, and
(2) I like it just fine the way it is, so don't change it.

That doesn't mean there's a good public-policy case for opposing additional housing, though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Public street is not your street. The greenie in the apartment building pays the same taxes you do. Why are you entitled to public space that others are not?

What im opposed to is cars crawling the block . Existing folks have cars. Selling new units to people without cars seems reasonable. Telling them to battle it out in the streets does not. You are making a great case for e ,isting residents to oppose.any added density. Thanks

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Public street is not your street. The greenie in the apartment building pays the same taxes you do. Why are you entitled to public space that others are not?

What im opposed to is cars crawling the block . Existing folks have cars. Selling new units to people without cars seems reasonable. Telling them to battle it out in the streets does not. You are making a great case for e ,isting residents to oppose.any added density. Thanks

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You limit parking AND incentivize those other options.

If you build more garages, you get more cars. Its pretty simple.

One incentive is for DC to do what jurisdictions like Arlington do, which is to restrict RPP for residents of new buildings constructed without parking!or with reduced parking. That way, you eliminate the externality impact of large projects without parking placing even more demand on scarce street parking space and create incentives for transit use. Developers who seek relief from parking requirements say that in buildings built near transit corridors, residents won’t have cars and will take transit and use ride share, so this holds them accountable for that promise. Smart growth advocates contend that by eliminating off street parking requirements, building costs are reduced and passed along to buyers and tenants through more affordable housing prices, so notice of no RPP would seem to be a reasonable trade off for that price benefit.

DC already does that for the most part. However, I would ask, why should a resident of a house be treated differently than a resident of an apartment building? YOU don't own the street and YOU are not entitled to be able to park your car in front of your house. If you want your own parking spot, put one on your property or clear out the garage you are likely not using.

Because MY house was constructed with neighborhood planning and ample street side parking available, and now greenies want to cram in apartment buildings and businesses without parking which they claim will lessen driving. But they also want the new residents to bring cars and fight old residents for spaces? That seems contradictory. I thought the greenies goal was that the hip, new residents all embrace metro and busses and ride share and foot? Wasn't that one of their environmental claims?

Anonymous wrote:Public street is not your street. The greenie in the apartment building pays the same taxes you do. Why are you entitled to public space that others are not?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You limit parking AND incentivize those other options.

If you build more garages, you get more cars. Its pretty simple.

One incentive is for DC to do what jurisdictions like Arlington do, which is to restrict RPP for residents of new buildings constructed without parking!or with reduced parking. That way, you eliminate the externality impact of large projects without parking placing even more demand on scarce street parking space and create incentives for transit use. Developers who seek relief from parking requirements say that in buildings built near transit corridors, residents won’t have cars and will take transit and use ride share, so this holds them accountable for that promise. Smart growth advocates contend that by eliminating off street parking requirements, building costs are reduced and passed along to buyers and tenants through more affordable housing prices, so notice of no RPP would seem to be a reasonable trade off for that price benefit.

DC already does that for the most part. However, I would ask, why should a resident of a house be treated differently than a resident of an apartment building? YOU don't own the street and YOU are not entitled to be able to park your car in front of your house. If you want your own parking spot, put one on your property or clear out the garage you are likely not using.