Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Massive”

I’m just here to see whether the Justin’s traffic jam folks are going to freak out even when the plan is this mild…

Wow. "Massive" apparently means "a few tweaks here and there." Who knew!

No one following the issue apparently (on both sides!). Both the city and council made it sound like a significant revamp was needed to resolve the housing crisis. Are you making fun of constituents for responding to what they were told?

Also, as with the bonus height density proposal, the devil may still be in the details. Developers are very good about finding loopholes and pushing the limits of what is allowable (see: every McMansion in ALX that uses FAR exclusions to build massive homes).

A significant revamp is needed, to address the housing crisis. This is not a significant revamp.

Turns out paving paradise and putting up massive housing blocks is not a step the planning commission was willing to take. Also turns out no developer is going to construct a costly high rise when 1/3 units need to be affordable and the land does not lend itself to underground parking. Even if a developer buys my detached SFH to build a duplex, those units would need to over $1.5 million each for any profit. Economics are a b&$c! Land is finite around here and expensive because it is.

This is Alexandria. Paradise has already been paved.

I have to laugh at people who argue, on the one hand, that a policy proposal to allow X would be a disaster because X would be a disaster, and on the other hand, that the policy proposal to allow X would not actually result in X.

If you own a single-unit house, guess what? Your property value will increase if you're allowed to build a duplex on your property.

And that won't do anything to make housing more affordable. So what's the point? The ancillary detriments - overcrowded schools and infrastructure - may not be worth it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Massive”

I’m just here to see whether the Justin’s traffic jam folks are going to freak out even when the plan is this mild…

Wow. "Massive" apparently means "a few tweaks here and there." Who knew!

No one following the issue apparently (on both sides!). Both the city and council made it sound like a significant revamp was needed to resolve the housing crisis. Are you making fun of constituents for responding to what they were told?

Also, as with the bonus height density proposal, the devil may still be in the details. Developers are very good about finding loopholes and pushing the limits of what is allowable (see: every McMansion in ALX that uses FAR exclusions to build massive homes).

A significant revamp is needed, to address the housing crisis. This is not a significant revamp.

There is no housing crisis. It's manufactured problem for political goals.

The west end is full of dense, high rise buildings that are at 50% capacity. How anyone can scream crisis when they are literally hundreds and hundreds of vacant units right now is all the proof you need that this isn't about housing.

You don't say.

I do. Notice how council says absolutely nothing about this? Notice how Justin completely avoids any discussion about the vacant housing stock? Odd, huh?

Seems if you were really worried about there not being enough housing available, you'd somehow manage to eventually discuss the 15 story, half empty apartment buildings sitting all over the city.

15-story half-empty apartment buildings all over the city! Oh my!

And how do you know that they're at 50% capacity?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Massive”

I’m just here to see whether the Justin’s traffic jam folks are going to freak out even when the plan is this mild…

Wow. "Massive" apparently means "a few tweaks here and there." Who knew!

No one following the issue apparently (on both sides!). Both the city and council made it sound like a significant revamp was needed to resolve the housing crisis. Are you making fun of constituents for responding to what they were told?

Also, as with the bonus height density proposal, the devil may still be in the details. Developers are very good about finding loopholes and pushing the limits of what is allowable (see: every McMansion in ALX that uses FAR exclusions to build massive homes).

A significant revamp is needed, to address the housing crisis. This is not a significant revamp.

There is no housing crisis. It's manufactured problem for political goals.

The west end is full of dense, high rise buildings that are at 50% capacity. How anyone can scream crisis when they are literally hundreds and hundreds of vacant units right now is all the proof you need that this isn't about housing.

You don't say.

I do. Notice how council says absolutely nothing about this? Notice how Justin completely avoids any discussion about the vacant housing stock? Odd, huh?

Seems if you were really worried about there not being enough housing available, you'd somehow manage to eventually discuss the 15 story, half empty apartment buildings sitting all over the city.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Massive”

I’m just here to see whether the Justin’s traffic jam folks are going to freak out even when the plan is this mild…

Wow. "Massive" apparently means "a few tweaks here and there." Who knew!

No one following the issue apparently (on both sides!). Both the city and council made it sound like a significant revamp was needed to resolve the housing crisis. Are you making fun of constituents for responding to what they were told?

Also, as with the bonus height density proposal, the devil may still be in the details. Developers are very good about finding loopholes and pushing the limits of what is allowable (see: every McMansion in ALX that uses FAR exclusions to build massive homes).

A significant revamp is needed, to address the housing crisis. This is not a significant revamp.

There is no housing crisis. It's manufactured problem for political goals.

The west end is full of dense, high rise buildings that are at 50% capacity. How anyone can scream crisis when they are literally hundreds and hundreds of vacant units right now is all the proof you need that this isn't about housing.

You don't say.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Massive”

I’m just here to see whether the Justin’s traffic jam folks are going to freak out even when the plan is this mild…

Wow. "Massive" apparently means "a few tweaks here and there." Who knew!

No one following the issue apparently (on both sides!). Both the city and council made it sound like a significant revamp was needed to resolve the housing crisis. Are you making fun of constituents for responding to what they were told?

Also, as with the bonus height density proposal, the devil may still be in the details. Developers are very good about finding loopholes and pushing the limits of what is allowable (see: every McMansion in ALX that uses FAR exclusions to build massive homes).

A significant revamp is needed, to address the housing crisis. This is not a significant revamp.

Turns out paving paradise and putting up massive housing blocks is not a step the planning commission was willing to take. Also turns out no developer is going to construct a costly high rise when 1/3 units need to be affordable and the land does not lend itself to underground parking. Even if a developer buys my detached SFH to build a duplex, those units would need to over $1.5 million each for any profit. Economics are a b&$c! Land is finite around here and expensive because it is.

This is Alexandria. Paradise has already been paved.

I have to laugh at people who argue, on the one hand, that a policy proposal to allow X would be a disaster because X would be a disaster, and on the other hand, that the policy proposal to allow X would not actually result in X.

If you own a single-unit house, guess what? Your property value will increase if you're allowed to build a duplex on your property.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Massive”

I’m just here to see whether the Justin’s traffic jam folks are going to freak out even when the plan is this mild…

Wow. "Massive" apparently means "a few tweaks here and there." Who knew!

No one following the issue apparently (on both sides!). Both the city and council made it sound like a significant revamp was needed to resolve the housing crisis. Are you making fun of constituents for responding to what they were told?

Also, as with the bonus height density proposal, the devil may still be in the details. Developers are very good about finding loopholes and pushing the limits of what is allowable (see: every McMansion in ALX that uses FAR exclusions to build massive homes).

A significant revamp is needed, to address the housing crisis. This is not a significant revamp.

There is no housing crisis. It's manufactured problem for political goals.

The west end is full of dense, high rise buildings that are at 50% capacity. How anyone can scream crisis when they are literally hundreds and hundreds of vacant units right now is all the proof you need that this isn't about housing.

Posters don't seem to have ANY knowledge of affordable housing development, financing and construction. NONE. The majority of developers do not build affordable housing. Entities that do this are 501c3s, often religious based, that are able to afford building these types of structures because they are granted tax-exempt financing (tax credits that they sell on the secondary/tertiary market, loans financed with ARHA bonds, HUD program grants, etc). There are significant federal restrictions (in particular IRS and HUD). Then when these structures are built, you need to certify who can qualify to live in them, and many times that certification is done annually, so there is an ongoing relationship.

You average Joe or Jane developer is not doing this. This is public finance affordable housing (whether it is Section 8, workforce housing, senior housing, multifamily, etc).

Putting a bunch of ADUs in the neighborhood isn't doing this. Upzoning isn't going to motivate some developer to put in a six flex that they will then sell as a condo or rent as apartments to missing middle people. Posters are incredibly ignorant here. Public finance is a niche and clearly so many people need a real education on how it works, and how it has historically worked successfully and when it has not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Massive”

I’m just here to see whether the Justin’s traffic jam folks are going to freak out even when the plan is this mild…

Wow. "Massive" apparently means "a few tweaks here and there." Who knew!

No one following the issue apparently (on both sides!). Both the city and council made it sound like a significant revamp was needed to resolve the housing crisis. Are you making fun of constituents for responding to what they were told?

Also, as with the bonus height density proposal, the devil may still be in the details. Developers are very good about finding loopholes and pushing the limits of what is allowable (see: every McMansion in ALX that uses FAR exclusions to build massive homes).

A significant revamp is needed, to address the housing crisis. This is not a significant revamp.

Turns out paving paradise and putting up massive housing blocks is not a step the planning commission was willing to take. Also turns out no developer is going to construct a costly high rise when 1/3 units need to be affordable and the land does not lend itself to underground parking. Even if a developer buys my detached SFH to build a duplex, those units would need to over $1.5 million each for any profit. Economics are a b&$c! Land is finite around here and expensive because it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^ "Right decision" is subjective. The City literally took an area (Seminary from Howard to Quaker) without a high KSI rate and put in the road diet. Meanwhile, the part of Seminary that was actually dangerous three years ago (see the KSI rate) is still dangerous today. Some folks think it's interesting that the area near Jim Durham and his wealthy bike bros got the improvements while the majority POC area between Howard and Dawes on Seminary got zilch.

What they did was right, AND they should do more of it in more places.

Well you've convinced me with that argument full of salient details.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Massive”

I’m just here to see whether the Justin’s traffic jam folks are going to freak out even when the plan is this mild…

Wow. "Massive" apparently means "a few tweaks here and there." Who knew!

No one following the issue apparently (on both sides!). Both the city and council made it sound like a significant revamp was needed to resolve the housing crisis. Are you making fun of constituents for responding to what they were told?

Also, as with the bonus height density proposal, the devil may still be in the details. Developers are very good about finding loopholes and pushing the limits of what is allowable (see: every McMansion in ALX that uses FAR exclusions to build massive homes).

A significant revamp is needed, to address the housing crisis. This is not a significant revamp.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Massive”

I’m just here to see whether the Justin’s traffic jam folks are going to freak out even when the plan is this mild…

Wow. "Massive" apparently means "a few tweaks here and there." Who knew!

No one following the issue apparently (on both sides!). Both the city and council made it sound like a significant revamp was needed to resolve the housing crisis. Are you making fun of constituents for responding to what they were told?

Also, as with the bonus height density proposal, the devil may still be in the details. Developers are very good about finding loopholes and pushing the limits of what is allowable (see: every McMansion in ALX that uses FAR exclusions to build massive homes).

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:The schools have been overcapacity for years the roads are impossible to travel on now in the city. City officials have seriously lost their minds. When city council was asked about class sizes and overcapacity issues years ago and asked what their plans are with all the 10 newish affordable housing buildings the literally sat there and blinked. You can't make this incompetence up.

Impossible, you say? So everyone is just sitting at home? Or, if you mean impossible to travel on by car, how come there are so many cars on the roads?

Hey go back to posting hour bike lobby crap on AlxNow. You know the roads are crowded.

My daughter ended up with a daily drop off occupational therapy appointment every day Mon-Fri this summer at a location where I needed to go up duke st, then over and up seminary road. I did the round trip drive twice daily all summer and not once did I see a single bike in the bike lanes. Honest to god, not a single bike even though the times I was driving varied and often included am or pm rush hour. What an absolute waste and cause of more vehicle congestion.

I bike on Seminary all the time. I fly right past the cars sitting in traffic. Probably why you didn't see me is because you weren't paying attention, which drivers never do.

I call BS on this one. I live off Seminary, there are rarely cars sitting in traffic and if they are, they're trying to turn left on to St. Stephen's. There are also small backups going north/west on Seminary right before the Howard intersection.

Double BS. Sounds like the geezer who got the bike lanes built on Seminary Rd. because he worried about his grandkids riding their bikes a few blocks to his house. The kids moved so he is looking for reasons to keep the bike lanes. His original argument was based on blind people not being able to safely cross Seminary Rd. in the "heavy traffic."

Durham's daughter and grandkids moved closer to him. They are no further away from Seminary than they used to be.

NP here. They live closer, and are still off of Seminary. Durham is the ultimate mansplainer who thinks his legacy and his calling from God are to get bike lanes everywhere possible. He’s here to save us. He cannot understand how his visions or options are not the best choice, ever. He had his blind friends from the charity he works with (biking with the blind) call and write in support of that seminary bike lane and to get the crosswalk in front of his house claiming they’re too scared and it’s too dangerous for them to cross the street there; despite the fact they’re never crossing the street there because they don’t live at the seminary or EHS or even in Alexandria. It’s special interest to the core. It’s such BS. His daughters told me he had them do that. They can’t keep their mouths shut.

More than two years later, city officials say they made the right decision. A report shows that:

Speeds decreased slightly but did not display a noticeable difference.
Traffic did not appear to divert to neighborhood streets, with one exception: Vehicle volumes on Ft. Williams Parkway saw an increase in both directions of 12 to 33 percent.
Peak period travel times on Seminary Road decreased by 35 to 60 seconds. Reductions eastbound were marginally greater than trips traveling west.
Bicycle ridership on the road increased. Pedestrian usage decreased.
The percentage of drivers traveling more than 35 mph on the roadway has decreased significantly.

A few high-profile, high-speed crashes on the roadway have damaged pedestrian infrastructure, and the city is working to get new equipment, again, to replace that damaged by cars.

The one thing the city wanted — a sidewalk on the north side of the road outside the Virginia Theological Seminary — has proved cost-prohibitive. The Virginia Dept. of Transportation denied funding for the sidewalk, and the city has not come up with the $1 million it would cost to install it.

They were fixing those little curbs on the edge of the bike lanes this morning. Dave at the Exxon Station on Duke St. said that people routinely come to him because they have hit one of those bumpers and damaged a tire. The white pylons are frequently hit. I saw a runner trip on one about a week ago and he stopped himself before falling into the car lane. of course the speed limit has been reduced. You have to maneuver around all the bike infrastructure not to damage your car.

Sounds like it was effective, then. That's good.

Sounds like it was effective at costing money that could have been used for needed high school programs

You can avoid damaging your car by driving more slowly and carefully.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The schools have been overcapacity for years the roads are impossible to travel on now in the city. City officials have seriously lost their minds. When city council was asked about class sizes and overcapacity issues years ago and asked what their plans are with all the 10 newish affordable housing buildings the literally sat there and blinked. You can't make this incompetence up.

Impossible, you say? So everyone is just sitting at home? Or, if you mean impossible to travel on by car, how come there are so many cars on the roads?

Hey go back to posting hour bike lobby crap on AlxNow. You know the roads are crowded.

My daughter ended up with a daily drop off occupational therapy appointment every day Mon-Fri this summer at a location where I needed to go up duke st, then over and up seminary road. I did the round trip drive twice daily all summer and not once did I see a single bike in the bike lanes. Honest to god, not a single bike even though the times I was driving varied and often included am or pm rush hour. What an absolute waste and cause of more vehicle congestion.

I bike on Seminary all the time. I fly right past the cars sitting in traffic. Probably why you didn't see me is because you weren't paying attention, which drivers never do.

I call BS on this one. I live off Seminary, there are rarely cars sitting in traffic and if they are, they're trying to turn left on to St. Stephen's. There are also small backups going north/west on Seminary right before the Howard intersection.

Double BS. Sounds like the geezer who got the bike lanes built on Seminary Rd. because he worried about his grandkids riding their bikes a few blocks to his house. The kids moved so he is looking for reasons to keep the bike lanes. His original argument was based on blind people not being able to safely cross Seminary Rd. in the "heavy traffic."

Durham's daughter and grandkids moved closer to him. They are no further away from Seminary than they used to be.

NP here. They live closer, and are still off of Seminary. Durham is the ultimate mansplainer who thinks his legacy and his calling from God are to get bike lanes everywhere possible. He’s here to save us. He cannot understand how his visions or options are not the best choice, ever. He had his blind friends from the charity he works with (biking with the blind) call and write in support of that seminary bike lane and to get the crosswalk in front of his house claiming they’re too scared and it’s too dangerous for them to cross the street there; despite the fact they’re never crossing the street there because they don’t live at the seminary or EHS or even in Alexandria. It’s special interest to the core. It’s such BS. His daughters told me he had them do that. They can’t keep their mouths shut.

More than two years later, city officials say they made the right decision. A report shows that:

Speeds decreased slightly but did not display a noticeable difference.
Traffic did not appear to divert to neighborhood streets, with one exception: Vehicle volumes on Ft. Williams Parkway saw an increase in both directions of 12 to 33 percent.
Peak period travel times on Seminary Road decreased by 35 to 60 seconds. Reductions eastbound were marginally greater than trips traveling west.
Bicycle ridership on the road increased. Pedestrian usage decreased.
The percentage of drivers traveling more than 35 mph on the roadway has decreased significantly.

A few high-profile, high-speed crashes on the roadway have damaged pedestrian infrastructure, and the city is working to get new equipment, again, to replace that damaged by cars.

The one thing the city wanted — a sidewalk on the north side of the road outside the Virginia Theological Seminary — has proved cost-prohibitive. The Virginia Dept. of Transportation denied funding for the sidewalk, and the city has not come up with the $1 million it would cost to install it.

They were fixing those little curbs on the edge of the bike lanes this morning. Dave at the Exxon Station on Duke St. said that people routinely come to him because they have hit one of those bumpers and damaged a tire. The white pylons are frequently hit. I saw a runner trip on one about a week ago and he stopped himself before falling into the car lane. of course the speed limit has been reduced. You have to maneuver around all the bike infrastructure not to damage your car.

Sounds like it was effective, then. That's good.

Sounds like it was effective at costing money that could have been used for needed high school programs

Anonymous wrote:“Massive”

I’m just here to see whether the Justin’s traffic jam folks are going to freak out even when the plan is this mild…

Wow. "Massive" apparently means "a few tweaks here and there." Who knew!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The schools have been overcapacity for years the roads are impossible to travel on now in the city. City officials have seriously lost their minds. When city council was asked about class sizes and overcapacity issues years ago and asked what their plans are with all the 10 newish affordable housing buildings the literally sat there and blinked. You can't make this incompetence up.

Impossible, you say? So everyone is just sitting at home? Or, if you mean impossible to travel on by car, how come there are so many cars on the roads?

Hey go back to posting hour bike lobby crap on AlxNow. You know the roads are crowded.

My daughter ended up with a daily drop off occupational therapy appointment every day Mon-Fri this summer at a location where I needed to go up duke st, then over and up seminary road. I did the round trip drive twice daily all summer and not once did I see a single bike in the bike lanes. Honest to god, not a single bike even though the times I was driving varied and often included am or pm rush hour. What an absolute waste and cause of more vehicle congestion.

I bike on Seminary all the time. I fly right past the cars sitting in traffic. Probably why you didn't see me is because you weren't paying attention, which drivers never do.

I call BS on this one. I live off Seminary, there are rarely cars sitting in traffic and if they are, they're trying to turn left on to St. Stephen's. There are also small backups going north/west on Seminary right before the Howard intersection.

Double BS. Sounds like the geezer who got the bike lanes built on Seminary Rd. because he worried about his grandkids riding their bikes a few blocks to his house. The kids moved so he is looking for reasons to keep the bike lanes. His original argument was based on blind people not being able to safely cross Seminary Rd. in the "heavy traffic."

Durham's daughter and grandkids moved closer to him. They are no further away from Seminary than they used to be.

NP here. They live closer, and are still off of Seminary. Durham is the ultimate mansplainer who thinks his legacy and his calling from God are to get bike lanes everywhere possible. He’s here to save us. He cannot understand how his visions or options are not the best choice, ever. He had his blind friends from the charity he works with (biking with the blind) call and write in support of that seminary bike lane and to get the crosswalk in front of his house claiming they’re too scared and it’s too dangerous for them to cross the street there; despite the fact they’re never crossing the street there because they don’t live at the seminary or EHS or even in Alexandria. It’s special interest to the core. It’s such BS. His daughters told me he had them do that. They can’t keep their mouths shut.

More than two years later, city officials say they made the right decision. A report shows that:

Speeds decreased slightly but did not display a noticeable difference.
Traffic did not appear to divert to neighborhood streets, with one exception: Vehicle volumes on Ft. Williams Parkway saw an increase in both directions of 12 to 33 percent.
Peak period travel times on Seminary Road decreased by 35 to 60 seconds. Reductions eastbound were marginally greater than trips traveling west.
Bicycle ridership on the road increased. Pedestrian usage decreased.
The percentage of drivers traveling more than 35 mph on the roadway has decreased significantly.

A few high-profile, high-speed crashes on the roadway have damaged pedestrian infrastructure, and the city is working to get new equipment, again, to replace that damaged by cars.

The one thing the city wanted — a sidewalk on the north side of the road outside the Virginia Theological Seminary — has proved cost-prohibitive. The Virginia Dept. of Transportation denied funding for the sidewalk, and the city has not come up with the $1 million it would cost to install it.

“ Bicycle ridership on the road increased.”

So two bikes rode there in the past 2 years vs. the one bike from years before?