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:GGW is a shell of what it used to be. There’s a lot less content on the site now. I think they’ve hit some funding problems as the YIMBY movement became more progressive and started embracing things like rent control.

Yes, it's a bad sad to see their decline. I think the decline of blogs generally hurt them. Even disagreeing, I enjoyed the well-written articles and the old comment section. Good history lessons for those new to DC.

I disagree slightly in the exact issue: I think young urbanists (which I'm not) are interested in both YIMBY and progressive political views outside rent control and the such. GGWash tried generally (and failed many times) to restrict itself to housing issues. The demand just isn't there.

They have funding issues because Alpert turned off the money spigot when he left, and they can't count on the same 40 supporter lemmings to float them forever. They stopped accepting money directly from developers after (rightly) realizing it was a horrible look, though they're still clearly astroturfing for developers because their board is full of them. It's all a grift.

Most of their recurring donors were commenters and when they turned off comments because they got too lazy to continue to delete everything that was even mildly critical of GGW or their policies, those folks stopped donating at the same levels.

It started as a pro-transit, anti-highway expansion, and pro-TOD blog. It morphed into something else entirely that became so unappealing that it cause even Alpert to run away.

Unless Nadeau can get the council to agree to fund her GGW subsidy bill, I cannot imagine that they have more than a few years left with a business model where they rely on free labor for nearly all of their operations while whatever resources they have goes to their small group of paid labor who don’t produce anything.

Turning off comments because they hated being fact-checked was truly hilarious. It's the same reason DCist turned off comments: The comments pretty consistently pointed out flaws/errors/stenography/outright lies in their reporting.

Both sites have seen their web traffic plunge.

Former 3C commissioner Jimmy Dubois is probably the main reason GGWash turned their comments off. He took them hilariously to task.

He along with the Smart Growth Trump guy on the ANC redistricting task force are the main reason why the ANC districts got so gerrymandered and led to the situation today.

Okay. Name 5 anc districts that you think were gerrymandered, please.

Bueller? Bueller?

Woodley Pk/Cleveland Pk ANC. They split up the neighborhood into two ANCs and manipulated the districts, against overwhelming public opposition.

The aligned the ANCs to be closer to the corridors. There is no reason someone who lives a block off Wisc Ave should have a direct ANC influence over what happens on CT Ave.

That isn't gerrymandering, fwiw.

People in Cleveland Park, whether they live on Connecticut Avenue or not, use the library, frequent the neighborhood serving retailers , and eat at the restaurants. They look forward to seeing a film again at the historic Uptown if it doesn’t become just another mixed/use development. For the entire neighborhood, the Connecticut strip is the commercial heart of this “village on the city” — not just some some urban planning “corridor”

People in Cleveland park SFHs also pay high property taxes and are less transient than those living in buildings. As such, they deserve to have a strong voice in the developments of their neighborhood, including the commercial strips.


But recapping the thread above, you're basically saying that some bike lane/building density radicals became bedfellows with rapacious big developers, who hid behind the bike bros in effort to obscure their greed.

Your first paragraph is basically “More affluent people *deserve* to have more power and influence.” Does that argument extend for you beyond local bike lane questions? I hold you apply it to national politics?

Go ask your donors and get back to me.

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:GGW is a shell of what it used to be. There’s a lot less content on the site now. I think they’ve hit some funding problems as the YIMBY movement became more progressive and started embracing things like rent control.

Yes, it's a bad sad to see their decline. I think the decline of blogs generally hurt them. Even disagreeing, I enjoyed the well-written articles and the old comment section. Good history lessons for those new to DC.

I disagree slightly in the exact issue: I think young urbanists (which I'm not) are interested in both YIMBY and progressive political views outside rent control and the such. GGWash tried generally (and failed many times) to restrict itself to housing issues. The demand just isn't there.

They have funding issues because Alpert turned off the money spigot when he left, and they can't count on the same 40 supporter lemmings to float them forever. They stopped accepting money directly from developers after (rightly) realizing it was a horrible look, though they're still clearly astroturfing for developers because their board is full of them. It's all a grift.

Most of their recurring donors were commenters and when they turned off comments because they got too lazy to continue to delete everything that was even mildly critical of GGW or their policies, those folks stopped donating at the same levels.

It started as a pro-transit, anti-highway expansion, and pro-TOD blog. It morphed into something else entirely that became so unappealing that it cause even Alpert to run away.

Unless Nadeau can get the council to agree to fund her GGW subsidy bill, I cannot imagine that they have more than a few years left with a business model where they rely on free labor for nearly all of their operations while whatever resources they have goes to their small group of paid labor who don’t produce anything.

Turning off comments because they hated being fact-checked was truly hilarious. It's the same reason DCist turned off comments: The comments pretty consistently pointed out flaws/errors/stenography/outright lies in their reporting.

Both sites have seen their web traffic plunge.

Former 3C commissioner Jimmy Dubois is probably the main reason GGWash turned their comments off. He took them hilariously to task.

He along with the Smart Growth Trump guy on the ANC redistricting task force are the main reason why the ANC districts got so gerrymandered and led to the situation today.

Okay. Name 5 anc districts that you think were gerrymandered, please.

Bueller? Bueller?

Woodley Pk/Cleveland Pk ANC. They split up the neighborhood into two ANCs and manipulated the districts, against overwhelming public opposition.

The aligned the ANCs to be closer to the corridors. There is no reason someone who lives a block off Wisc Ave should have a direct ANC influence over what happens on CT Ave.

That isn't gerrymandering, fwiw.

People in Cleveland Park, whether they live on Connecticut Avenue or not, use the library, frequent the neighborhood serving retailers , and eat at the restaurants. They look forward to seeing a film again at the historic Uptown if it doesn’t become just another mixed/use development. For the entire neighborhood, the Connecticut strip is the commercial heart of this “village on the city” — not just some some urban planning “corridor”

People in Cleveland park SFHs also pay high property taxes and are less transient than those living in buildings. As such, they deserve to have a strong voice in the developments of their neighborhood, including the commercial strips.


But recapping the thread above, you're basically saying that some bike lane/building density radicals became bedfellows with rapacious big developers, who hid behind the bike bros in effort to obscure their greed.

Your first paragraph is basically “More affluent people *deserve* to have more power and influence.” Does that argument extend for you beyond local bike lane questions? I hold you apply it to national politics?

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:

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:GGW’s failing is that no developer ever said “I’m going to build a whole bunch of houses so that prices go down and I don’t make too much money.” Developers want less regulation so that they have to negotiate less frequently and so that they’re not on the hook to pay for infrastructure improvements needed by their projects. This way they can boost profit margins. Never will the savings be passed onto customers.

That’s not true! Smart Growth says that fewer regulations, like eliminating parking requirements, will bring more affordable housing. How dare you impugn the development community by suggesting that they are simply pocketing the savings. That’s not very welcoming.

I truly cannot imagine anybody thinking that this is a witty or clever takedown.

Yet, it’s actually quite true. It’s a deregulation movement that also wants to remove fire codes, both for buildings and for road designs to be wide enough to accommodate ladder trucks.

This is laughably wrong.

It’s never clear to me if you folks are liars or ignorant.

https://ggwash.org/view/84964/how-single-staircase-buildings-could-impact-virginias-housing-market

https://ggwash.org/view/81190/does-size-matter-when-it-comes-to-fire-trucks-dc-fire-takes-a-newer-model-for-a-spin

The second article does not in any way advocate for making roads too narrow for fire trucks.

The first piece (which explicitly states it does not necessarily reflect the views of GGW) does not advocate for getting rid of fire codes.

Sincerely, this is a sad defense.

If your takeaway from reading those two articles is that "smart growthers want to get rid of fire codes and make streets too small for fire trucks," then there's no reason to keep engaging with you. You're clearly not approaching this in good faith and just want to invent wild conspiracy theories like some kind of Trump cultist.

I was willing to entertain that you folks are just blinkered idealists but unfortunately it’s clear that you’re mendacious liars.

I don’t know why you want to change building codes to allow for buildings that are less safe from fires or are so intently motivated to preventing ladder trucks from saving people from fires when they do occur, but these are your beliefs.

If you were honest, you would argue that all of this is overkill and unnecessary and that these codes and requirements are not needed. Instead you are just lying.

This is par for the course behavior from the GGWash urbanist crowd. I am not sure who you think you’re fooling though.

What the heck are you talking about?

Why do you want to deregulate building codes to allow single stair buildings that are generally not allowed due to fire safety?

Why do think that streets should not be designed to be wide enough for large fire trucks, including ladder trucks, and that fire departments should use smaller trucks to fight fires?

These are your issues, not mine.

Where in that article or on this thread has anyone said that streets should not be wide enough for large fire trucks?

And if there is an innovation that allows for as effective trucks that are smaller and more efficient, why would you not support it?

*sigh*

So are you arguing for narrow roads and against large emergency vehicles or not?

I am for roads that accommodate effective safety vehicles. And I think it would be great if there were smaller safety vehicles so that we could make roads smaller.

There is no logical inconsistency here.

The fact that you cannot honestly articulate your view because you know it sounds so bad is why you folks are just mendacious liars.

Where do ladder trucks fit in? Am I not allowed to have a ladder truck save my life in case my apartment catches fire because it’s against your aesthetic vision?

Absolutely ridiculous that this is your policy platform.

How is it that ladder trucks in Europe are a fraction of the size as the US but just as effective?

Thank you for at least acknowledging your argument. But here is a tip, there are many reasons why the experienced urbanists point to Asia instead of Europe. A big one is that many European companies supply emergency vehicles in the US and as a result, German or French ladder trucks are not any smaller than their American cousins. And yes, that means that all high rise development in France and Germany also has access wide enough for these vehicles.
https://rosenbaueramerica.com/

Untrue

https://www.fireapparatusmagazine.com/fire-apparatus/fire-apparatus-united-states-vs-europe/

You don’t even bother to read the links that you post, which is comical. It says that several trucks, including ladder trucks, are even bigger in Europe.

Why are you going to such lengths to cause Americans to die in fires?

The primary point of BOTH links is that trucks are smaller in Europe. Do you dispute that?

You dont bother reading what you post because facts are not something that interest you.

“6 Straight-stick aerials, such as this Eureka Springs (AR) Fire Department rig built by Pierce Manufacturing Inc., are typically shorter than their European counterparts but are tasked with more jobs”

“7 While articulated boom platforms are used widely in Europe, they also are popular with some North American fire departments, such as this 115-foot T-Rex built by Rosenbauer for Guelph”

Have something else to lie about now?

The primary point of both links is that trucks in Europe are in general smaller than in the US.

Next time read your links first friend.

Here’s some hard truth. You are beholden to an extremist libertarian ideology that prioritizes your aesthetic preferences over the public good, including public safety.

It’s why it’s unpopular and why you lie so much about your beliefs.

I genuinely cannot decide if you are serious or just messing with me.

“ Sam Itani, vice president of international and government sales for E-ONE, says that in Europe fire apparatus are more compact than comparable vehicles in North America. “The European apparatus is shorter, narrower, and tighter in design than what we see here,” Itani says. “In the United States, we usually have larger, wider roads and highways, so we don’t need the tighter designs in most cases.”

The problem with you is that you just refuse to read anything.

The link says that pump trucks are generally smaller but ladder trucks and larger and more prevalent in Europe. The latter is precisely to service large apartments.

You want to design streets in DC to prevent access for ladder trucks to service large apartments.

It would be comical if it wasn’t so serious.

The link says the exact opposite of the bolded:

Barwick says that most of the European aerials she has seen are smaller than their U.S. counterparts. “Europe keeps its aerial units quite small, likely because of the street limitations and the building heights and construction,” she says, “and are used mostly as a ladder for rescue. In the U.S., we put a lot of equipment on our aerials that is used for fire suppression up high, rescue, and ventilation, which is why U.S. aerials are so much larger, longer, heavier, and often on tandem rear axles.”

“7 While articulated boom platforms are used widely in Europe, they also are popular with some North American fire departments, such as this 115-foot T-Rex built by Rosenbauer for Guelph”

Do you think that a reference to a 115 foot articulated *ladder*being used in North America somehow proves that aerial *trucks* in Europe are bigger than the US?

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:

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:GGW’s failing is that no developer ever said “I’m going to build a whole bunch of houses so that prices go down and I don’t make too much money.” Developers want less regulation so that they have to negotiate less frequently and so that they’re not on the hook to pay for infrastructure improvements needed by their projects. This way they can boost profit margins. Never will the savings be passed onto customers.

That’s not true! Smart Growth says that fewer regulations, like eliminating parking requirements, will bring more affordable housing. How dare you impugn the development community by suggesting that they are simply pocketing the savings. That’s not very welcoming.

I truly cannot imagine anybody thinking that this is a witty or clever takedown.

Yet, it’s actually quite true. It’s a deregulation movement that also wants to remove fire codes, both for buildings and for road designs to be wide enough to accommodate ladder trucks.

This is laughably wrong.

It’s never clear to me if you folks are liars or ignorant.

https://ggwash.org/view/84964/how-single-staircase-buildings-could-impact-virginias-housing-market

https://ggwash.org/view/81190/does-size-matter-when-it-comes-to-fire-trucks-dc-fire-takes-a-newer-model-for-a-spin

The second article does not in any way advocate for making roads too narrow for fire trucks.

The first piece (which explicitly states it does not necessarily reflect the views of GGW) does not advocate for getting rid of fire codes.

Sincerely, this is a sad defense.

If your takeaway from reading those two articles is that "smart growthers want to get rid of fire codes and make streets too small for fire trucks," then there's no reason to keep engaging with you. You're clearly not approaching this in good faith and just want to invent wild conspiracy theories like some kind of Trump cultist.

I was willing to entertain that you folks are just blinkered idealists but unfortunately it’s clear that you’re mendacious liars.

I don’t know why you want to change building codes to allow for buildings that are less safe from fires or are so intently motivated to preventing ladder trucks from saving people from fires when they do occur, but these are your beliefs.

If you were honest, you would argue that all of this is overkill and unnecessary and that these codes and requirements are not needed. Instead you are just lying.

This is par for the course behavior from the GGWash urbanist crowd. I am not sure who you think you’re fooling though.

What the heck are you talking about?

Why do you want to deregulate building codes to allow single stair buildings that are generally not allowed due to fire safety?

Why do think that streets should not be designed to be wide enough for large fire trucks, including ladder trucks, and that fire departments should use smaller trucks to fight fires?

These are your issues, not mine.

Where in that article or on this thread has anyone said that streets should not be wide enough for large fire trucks?

And if there is an innovation that allows for as effective trucks that are smaller and more efficient, why would you not support it?

*sigh*

So are you arguing for narrow roads and against large emergency vehicles or not?

I am for roads that accommodate effective safety vehicles. And I think it would be great if there were smaller safety vehicles so that we could make roads smaller.

There is no logical inconsistency here.

The fact that you cannot honestly articulate your view because you know it sounds so bad is why you folks are just mendacious liars.

Where do ladder trucks fit in? Am I not allowed to have a ladder truck save my life in case my apartment catches fire because it’s against your aesthetic vision?

Absolutely ridiculous that this is your policy platform.

How is it that ladder trucks in Europe are a fraction of the size as the US but just as effective?

Thank you for at least acknowledging your argument. But here is a tip, there are many reasons why the experienced urbanists point to Asia instead of Europe. A big one is that many European companies supply emergency vehicles in the US and as a result, German or French ladder trucks are not any smaller than their American cousins. And yes, that means that all high rise development in France and Germany also has access wide enough for these vehicles.
https://rosenbaueramerica.com/

Untrue

https://www.fireapparatusmagazine.com/fire-apparatus/fire-apparatus-united-states-vs-europe/

You don’t even bother to read the links that you post, which is comical. It says that several trucks, including ladder trucks, are even bigger in Europe.

Why are you going to such lengths to cause Americans to die in fires?

The primary point of BOTH links is that trucks are smaller in Europe. Do you dispute that?

You dont bother reading what you post because facts are not something that interest you.

“6 Straight-stick aerials, such as this Eureka Springs (AR) Fire Department rig built by Pierce Manufacturing Inc., are typically shorter than their European counterparts but are tasked with more jobs”

“7 While articulated boom platforms are used widely in Europe, they also are popular with some North American fire departments, such as this 115-foot T-Rex built by Rosenbauer for Guelph”

Have something else to lie about now?

The primary point of both links is that trucks in Europe are in general smaller than in the US.

Next time read your links first friend.

Here’s some hard truth. You are beholden to an extremist libertarian ideology that prioritizes your aesthetic preferences over the public good, including public safety.

It’s why it’s unpopular and why you lie so much about your beliefs.

I genuinely cannot decide if you are serious or just messing with me.

“ Sam Itani, vice president of international and government sales for E-ONE, says that in Europe fire apparatus are more compact than comparable vehicles in North America. “The European apparatus is shorter, narrower, and tighter in design than what we see here,” Itani says. “In the United States, we usually have larger, wider roads and highways, so we don’t need the tighter designs in most cases.”

The problem with you is that you just refuse to read anything.

The link says that pump trucks are generally smaller but ladder trucks and larger and more prevalent in Europe. The latter is precisely to service large apartments.

You want to design streets in DC to prevent access for ladder trucks to service large apartments.

It would be comical if it wasn’t so serious.

The link says the exact opposite of the bolded:

Barwick says that most of the European aerials she has seen are smaller than their U.S. counterparts. “Europe keeps its aerial units quite small, likely because of the street limitations and the building heights and construction,” she says, “and are used mostly as a ladder for rescue. In the U.S., we put a lot of equipment on our aerials that is used for fire suppression up high, rescue, and ventilation, which is why U.S. aerials are so much larger, longer, heavier, and often on tandem rear axles.”

“7 While articulated boom platforms are used widely in Europe, they also are popular with some North American fire departments, such as this 115-foot T-Rex built by Rosenbauer for Guelph”

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW’s failing is that no developer ever said “I’m going to build a whole bunch of houses so that prices go down and I don’t make too much money.” Developers want less regulation so that they have to negotiate less frequently and so that they’re not on the hook to pay for infrastructure improvements needed by their projects. This way they can boost profit margins. Never will the savings be passed onto customers.

That’s not true! Smart Growth says that fewer regulations, like eliminating parking requirements, will bring more affordable housing. How dare you impugn the development community by suggesting that they are simply pocketing the savings. That’s not very welcoming.

I truly cannot imagine anybody thinking that this is a witty or clever takedown.

Yet, it’s actually quite true. It’s a deregulation movement that also wants to remove fire codes, both for buildings and for road designs to be wide enough to accommodate ladder trucks.

This is laughably wrong.

It’s never clear to me if you folks are liars or ignorant.

https://ggwash.org/view/84964/how-single-staircase-buildings-could-impact-virginias-housing-market

https://ggwash.org/view/81190/does-size-matter-when-it-comes-to-fire-trucks-dc-fire-takes-a-newer-model-for-a-spin

The second article does not in any way advocate for making roads too narrow for fire trucks.

The first piece (which explicitly states it does not necessarily reflect the views of GGW) does not advocate for getting rid of fire codes.

Sincerely, this is a sad defense.

If your takeaway from reading those two articles is that "smart growthers want to get rid of fire codes and make streets too small for fire trucks," then there's no reason to keep engaging with you. You're clearly not approaching this in good faith and just want to invent wild conspiracy theories like some kind of Trump cultist.

I was willing to entertain that you folks are just blinkered idealists but unfortunately it’s clear that you’re mendacious liars.

I don’t know why you want to change building codes to allow for buildings that are less safe from fires or are so intently motivated to preventing ladder trucks from saving people from fires when they do occur, but these are your beliefs.

If you were honest, you would argue that all of this is overkill and unnecessary and that these codes and requirements are not needed. Instead you are just lying.

This is par for the course behavior from the GGWash urbanist crowd. I am not sure who you think you’re fooling though.

What the heck are you talking about?

Why do you want to deregulate building codes to allow single stair buildings that are generally not allowed due to fire safety?

Why do think that streets should not be designed to be wide enough for large fire trucks, including ladder trucks, and that fire departments should use smaller trucks to fight fires?

These are your issues, not mine.

Where in that article or on this thread has anyone said that streets should not be wide enough for large fire trucks?

And if there is an innovation that allows for as effective trucks that are smaller and more efficient, why would you not support it?

*sigh*

So are you arguing for narrow roads and against large emergency vehicles or not?

I am for roads that accommodate effective safety vehicles. And I think it would be great if there were smaller safety vehicles so that we could make roads smaller.

There is no logical inconsistency here.

The fact that you cannot honestly articulate your view because you know it sounds so bad is why you folks are just mendacious liars.

Where do ladder trucks fit in? Am I not allowed to have a ladder truck save my life in case my apartment catches fire because it’s against your aesthetic vision?

Absolutely ridiculous that this is your policy platform.

How is it that ladder trucks in Europe are a fraction of the size as the US but just as effective?

Thank you for at least acknowledging your argument. But here is a tip, there are many reasons why the experienced urbanists point to Asia instead of Europe. A big one is that many European companies supply emergency vehicles in the US and as a result, German or French ladder trucks are not any smaller than their American cousins. And yes, that means that all high rise development in France and Germany also has access wide enough for these vehicles.
https://rosenbaueramerica.com/

Untrue

https://www.fireapparatusmagazine.com/fire-apparatus/fire-apparatus-united-states-vs-europe/

You don’t even bother to read the links that you post, which is comical. It says that several trucks, including ladder trucks, are even bigger in Europe.

Why are you going to such lengths to cause Americans to die in fires?

The primary point of BOTH links is that trucks are smaller in Europe. Do you dispute that?

You dont bother reading what you post because facts are not something that interest you.

“6 Straight-stick aerials, such as this Eureka Springs (AR) Fire Department rig built by Pierce Manufacturing Inc., are typically shorter than their European counterparts but are tasked with more jobs”

“7 While articulated boom platforms are used widely in Europe, they also are popular with some North American fire departments, such as this 115-foot T-Rex built by Rosenbauer for Guelph”

Have something else to lie about now?

The primary point of both links is that trucks in Europe are in general smaller than in the US.

Next time read your links first friend.

Here’s some hard truth. You are beholden to an extremist libertarian ideology that prioritizes your aesthetic preferences over the public good, including public safety.

It’s why it’s unpopular and why you lie so much about your beliefs.

I genuinely cannot decide if you are serious or just messing with me.

“ Sam Itani, vice president of international and government sales for E-ONE, says that in Europe fire apparatus are more compact than comparable vehicles in North America. “The European apparatus is shorter, narrower, and tighter in design than what we see here,” Itani says. “In the United States, we usually have larger, wider roads and highways, so we don’t need the tighter designs in most cases.”

The problem with you is that you just refuse to read anything.

The link says that pump trucks are generally smaller but ladder trucks and larger and more prevalent in Europe. The latter is precisely to service large apartments.

You want to design streets in DC to prevent access for ladder trucks to service large apartments.

It would be comical if it wasn’t so serious.

The link says the exact opposite of the bolded:

Barwick says that most of the European aerials she has seen are smaller than their U.S. counterparts. “Europe keeps its aerial units quite small, likely because of the street limitations and the building heights and construction,” she says, “and are used mostly as a ladder for rescue. In the U.S., we put a lot of equipment on our aerials that is used for fire suppression up high, rescue, and ventilation, which is why U.S. aerials are so much larger, longer, heavier, and often on tandem rear axles.”

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW’s failing is that no developer ever said “I’m going to build a whole bunch of houses so that prices go down and I don’t make too much money.” Developers want less regulation so that they have to negotiate less frequently and so that they’re not on the hook to pay for infrastructure improvements needed by their projects. This way they can boost profit margins. Never will the savings be passed onto customers.

That’s not true! Smart Growth says that fewer regulations, like eliminating parking requirements, will bring more affordable housing. How dare you impugn the development community by suggesting that they are simply pocketing the savings. That’s not very welcoming.

I truly cannot imagine anybody thinking that this is a witty or clever takedown.

Yet, it’s actually quite true. It’s a deregulation movement that also wants to remove fire codes, both for buildings and for road designs to be wide enough to accommodate ladder trucks.

This is laughably wrong.

It’s never clear to me if you folks are liars or ignorant.

https://ggwash.org/view/84964/how-single-staircase-buildings-could-impact-virginias-housing-market

https://ggwash.org/view/81190/does-size-matter-when-it-comes-to-fire-trucks-dc-fire-takes-a-newer-model-for-a-spin

The second article does not in any way advocate for making roads too narrow for fire trucks.

The first piece (which explicitly states it does not necessarily reflect the views of GGW) does not advocate for getting rid of fire codes.

Sincerely, this is a sad defense.

If your takeaway from reading those two articles is that "smart growthers want to get rid of fire codes and make streets too small for fire trucks," then there's no reason to keep engaging with you. You're clearly not approaching this in good faith and just want to invent wild conspiracy theories like some kind of Trump cultist.

I was willing to entertain that you folks are just blinkered idealists but unfortunately it’s clear that you’re mendacious liars.

I don’t know why you want to change building codes to allow for buildings that are less safe from fires or are so intently motivated to preventing ladder trucks from saving people from fires when they do occur, but these are your beliefs.

If you were honest, you would argue that all of this is overkill and unnecessary and that these codes and requirements are not needed. Instead you are just lying.

This is par for the course behavior from the GGWash urbanist crowd. I am not sure who you think you’re fooling though.

What the heck are you talking about?

Why do you want to deregulate building codes to allow single stair buildings that are generally not allowed due to fire safety?

Why do think that streets should not be designed to be wide enough for large fire trucks, including ladder trucks, and that fire departments should use smaller trucks to fight fires?

These are your issues, not mine.

Where in that article or on this thread has anyone said that streets should not be wide enough for large fire trucks?

And if there is an innovation that allows for as effective trucks that are smaller and more efficient, why would you not support it?

*sigh*

So are you arguing for narrow roads and against large emergency vehicles or not?

I am for roads that accommodate effective safety vehicles. And I think it would be great if there were smaller safety vehicles so that we could make roads smaller.

There is no logical inconsistency here.

The fact that you cannot honestly articulate your view because you know it sounds so bad is why you folks are just mendacious liars.

Where do ladder trucks fit in? Am I not allowed to have a ladder truck save my life in case my apartment catches fire because it’s against your aesthetic vision?

Absolutely ridiculous that this is your policy platform.

How is it that ladder trucks in Europe are a fraction of the size as the US but just as effective?

Thank you for at least acknowledging your argument. But here is a tip, there are many reasons why the experienced urbanists point to Asia instead of Europe. A big one is that many European companies supply emergency vehicles in the US and as a result, German or French ladder trucks are not any smaller than their American cousins. And yes, that means that all high rise development in France and Germany also has access wide enough for these vehicles.
https://rosenbaueramerica.com/

Untrue

https://www.fireapparatusmagazine.com/fire-apparatus/fire-apparatus-united-states-vs-europe/

You don’t even bother to read the links that you post, which is comical. It says that several trucks, including ladder trucks, are even bigger in Europe.

Why are you going to such lengths to cause Americans to die in fires?

The primary point of BOTH links is that trucks are smaller in Europe. Do you dispute that?

You dont bother reading what you post because facts are not something that interest you.

“6 Straight-stick aerials, such as this Eureka Springs (AR) Fire Department rig built by Pierce Manufacturing Inc., are typically shorter than their European counterparts but are tasked with more jobs”

“7 While articulated boom platforms are used widely in Europe, they also are popular with some North American fire departments, such as this 115-foot T-Rex built by Rosenbauer for Guelph”

Have something else to lie about now?

The primary point of both links is that trucks in Europe are in general smaller than in the US.

Next time read your links first friend.

Here’s some hard truth. You are beholden to an extremist libertarian ideology that prioritizes your aesthetic preferences over the public good, including public safety.

It’s why it’s unpopular and why you lie so much about your beliefs.

I genuinely cannot decide if you are serious or just messing with me.

“ Sam Itani, vice president of international and government sales for E-ONE, says that in Europe fire apparatus are more compact than comparable vehicles in North America. “The European apparatus is shorter, narrower, and tighter in design than what we see here,” Itani says. “In the United States, we usually have larger, wider roads and highways, so we don’t need the tighter designs in most cases.”

The problem with you is that you just refuse to read anything.

The link says that pump trucks are generally smaller but ladder trucks and larger and more prevalent in Europe. The latter is precisely to service large apartments.

You want to design streets in DC to prevent access for ladder trucks to service large apartments.

It would be comical if it wasn’t so serious.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW’s failing is that no developer ever said “I’m going to build a whole bunch of houses so that prices go down and I don’t make too much money.” Developers want less regulation so that they have to negotiate less frequently and so that they’re not on the hook to pay for infrastructure improvements needed by their projects. This way they can boost profit margins. Never will the savings be passed onto customers.

That’s not true! Smart Growth says that fewer regulations, like eliminating parking requirements, will bring more affordable housing. How dare you impugn the development community by suggesting that they are simply pocketing the savings. That’s not very welcoming.

I truly cannot imagine anybody thinking that this is a witty or clever takedown.

Yet, it’s actually quite true. It’s a deregulation movement that also wants to remove fire codes, both for buildings and for road designs to be wide enough to accommodate ladder trucks.

This is laughably wrong.

It’s never clear to me if you folks are liars or ignorant.

https://ggwash.org/view/84964/how-single-staircase-buildings-could-impact-virginias-housing-market

https://ggwash.org/view/81190/does-size-matter-when-it-comes-to-fire-trucks-dc-fire-takes-a-newer-model-for-a-spin

The second article does not in any way advocate for making roads too narrow for fire trucks.

The first piece (which explicitly states it does not necessarily reflect the views of GGW) does not advocate for getting rid of fire codes.

Sincerely, this is a sad defense.

If your takeaway from reading those two articles is that "smart growthers want to get rid of fire codes and make streets too small for fire trucks," then there's no reason to keep engaging with you. You're clearly not approaching this in good faith and just want to invent wild conspiracy theories like some kind of Trump cultist.

I was willing to entertain that you folks are just blinkered idealists but unfortunately it’s clear that you’re mendacious liars.

I don’t know why you want to change building codes to allow for buildings that are less safe from fires or are so intently motivated to preventing ladder trucks from saving people from fires when they do occur, but these are your beliefs.

If you were honest, you would argue that all of this is overkill and unnecessary and that these codes and requirements are not needed. Instead you are just lying.

This is par for the course behavior from the GGWash urbanist crowd. I am not sure who you think you’re fooling though.

What the heck are you talking about?

Why do you want to deregulate building codes to allow single stair buildings that are generally not allowed due to fire safety?

Why do think that streets should not be designed to be wide enough for large fire trucks, including ladder trucks, and that fire departments should use smaller trucks to fight fires?

These are your issues, not mine.

Where in that article or on this thread has anyone said that streets should not be wide enough for large fire trucks?

And if there is an innovation that allows for as effective trucks that are smaller and more efficient, why would you not support it?

*sigh*

So are you arguing for narrow roads and against large emergency vehicles or not?

I am for roads that accommodate effective safety vehicles. And I think it would be great if there were smaller safety vehicles so that we could make roads smaller.

There is no logical inconsistency here.

The fact that you cannot honestly articulate your view because you know it sounds so bad is why you folks are just mendacious liars.

Where do ladder trucks fit in? Am I not allowed to have a ladder truck save my life in case my apartment catches fire because it’s against your aesthetic vision?

Absolutely ridiculous that this is your policy platform.

How is it that ladder trucks in Europe are a fraction of the size as the US but just as effective?

Thank you for at least acknowledging your argument. But here is a tip, there are many reasons why the experienced urbanists point to Asia instead of Europe. A big one is that many European companies supply emergency vehicles in the US and as a result, German or French ladder trucks are not any smaller than their American cousins. And yes, that means that all high rise development in France and Germany also has access wide enough for these vehicles.
https://rosenbaueramerica.com/

Untrue

https://www.fireapparatusmagazine.com/fire-apparatus/fire-apparatus-united-states-vs-europe/

You don’t even bother to read the links that you post, which is comical. It says that several trucks, including ladder trucks, are even bigger in Europe.

Why are you going to such lengths to cause Americans to die in fires?

The primary point of BOTH links is that trucks are smaller in Europe. Do you dispute that?

You dont bother reading what you post because facts are not something that interest you.

“6 Straight-stick aerials, such as this Eureka Springs (AR) Fire Department rig built by Pierce Manufacturing Inc., are typically shorter than their European counterparts but are tasked with more jobs”

“7 While articulated boom platforms are used widely in Europe, they also are popular with some North American fire departments, such as this 115-foot T-Rex built by Rosenbauer for Guelph”

Have something else to lie about now?

The primary point of both links is that trucks in Europe are in general smaller than in the US.

Next time read your links first friend.

Here’s some hard truth. You are beholden to an extremist libertarian ideology that prioritizes your aesthetic preferences over the public good, including public safety.

It’s why it’s unpopular and why you lie so much about your beliefs.

I genuinely cannot decide if you are serious or just messing with me.

“ Sam Itani, vice president of international and government sales for E-ONE, says that in Europe fire apparatus are more compact than comparable vehicles in North America. “The European apparatus is shorter, narrower, and tighter in design than what we see here,” Itani says. “In the United States, we usually have larger, wider roads and highways, so we don’t need the tighter designs in most cases.”

The problem with you is that you just refuse to read anything.

The link says that pump trucks are generally smaller but ladder trucks and larger and more prevalent in Europe. The latter is precisely to service large apartments.

You want to design streets in DC to prevent access for ladder trucks to service large apartments.

It would be comical if it wasn’t so serious.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW’s failing is that no developer ever said “I’m going to build a whole bunch of houses so that prices go down and I don’t make too much money.” Developers want less regulation so that they have to negotiate less frequently and so that they’re not on the hook to pay for infrastructure improvements needed by their projects. This way they can boost profit margins. Never will the savings be passed onto customers.

That’s not true! Smart Growth says that fewer regulations, like eliminating parking requirements, will bring more affordable housing. How dare you impugn the development community by suggesting that they are simply pocketing the savings. That’s not very welcoming.

I truly cannot imagine anybody thinking that this is a witty or clever takedown.

Yet, it’s actually quite true. It’s a deregulation movement that also wants to remove fire codes, both for buildings and for road designs to be wide enough to accommodate ladder trucks.

This is laughably wrong.

It’s never clear to me if you folks are liars or ignorant.

https://ggwash.org/view/84964/how-single-staircase-buildings-could-impact-virginias-housing-market

https://ggwash.org/view/81190/does-size-matter-when-it-comes-to-fire-trucks-dc-fire-takes-a-newer-model-for-a-spin

The second article does not in any way advocate for making roads too narrow for fire trucks.

The first piece (which explicitly states it does not necessarily reflect the views of GGW) does not advocate for getting rid of fire codes.

Sincerely, this is a sad defense.

If your takeaway from reading those two articles is that "smart growthers want to get rid of fire codes and make streets too small for fire trucks," then there's no reason to keep engaging with you. You're clearly not approaching this in good faith and just want to invent wild conspiracy theories like some kind of Trump cultist.

I was willing to entertain that you folks are just blinkered idealists but unfortunately it’s clear that you’re mendacious liars.

I don’t know why you want to change building codes to allow for buildings that are less safe from fires or are so intently motivated to preventing ladder trucks from saving people from fires when they do occur, but these are your beliefs.

If you were honest, you would argue that all of this is overkill and unnecessary and that these codes and requirements are not needed. Instead you are just lying.

This is par for the course behavior from the GGWash urbanist crowd. I am not sure who you think you’re fooling though.

What the heck are you talking about?

Why do you want to deregulate building codes to allow single stair buildings that are generally not allowed due to fire safety?

Why do think that streets should not be designed to be wide enough for large fire trucks, including ladder trucks, and that fire departments should use smaller trucks to fight fires?

These are your issues, not mine.

Where in that article or on this thread has anyone said that streets should not be wide enough for large fire trucks?

And if there is an innovation that allows for as effective trucks that are smaller and more efficient, why would you not support it?

*sigh*

So are you arguing for narrow roads and against large emergency vehicles or not?

I am for roads that accommodate effective safety vehicles. And I think it would be great if there were smaller safety vehicles so that we could make roads smaller.

There is no logical inconsistency here.

The fact that you cannot honestly articulate your view because you know it sounds so bad is why you folks are just mendacious liars.

Where do ladder trucks fit in? Am I not allowed to have a ladder truck save my life in case my apartment catches fire because it’s against your aesthetic vision?

Absolutely ridiculous that this is your policy platform.

How is it that ladder trucks in Europe are a fraction of the size as the US but just as effective?

Thank you for at least acknowledging your argument. But here is a tip, there are many reasons why the experienced urbanists point to Asia instead of Europe. A big one is that many European companies supply emergency vehicles in the US and as a result, German or French ladder trucks are not any smaller than their American cousins. And yes, that means that all high rise development in France and Germany also has access wide enough for these vehicles.
https://rosenbaueramerica.com/

Untrue

https://www.fireapparatusmagazine.com/fire-apparatus/fire-apparatus-united-states-vs-europe/

You don’t even bother to read the links that you post, which is comical. It says that several trucks, including ladder trucks, are even bigger in Europe.

Why are you going to such lengths to cause Americans to die in fires?

The primary point of BOTH links is that trucks are smaller in Europe. Do you dispute that?

You dont bother reading what you post because facts are not something that interest you.

“6 Straight-stick aerials, such as this Eureka Springs (AR) Fire Department rig built by Pierce Manufacturing Inc., are typically shorter than their European counterparts but are tasked with more jobs”

“7 While articulated boom platforms are used widely in Europe, they also are popular with some North American fire departments, such as this 115-foot T-Rex built by Rosenbauer for Guelph”

Have something else to lie about now?

The primary point of both links is that trucks in Europe are in general smaller than in the US.

Next time read your links first friend.

Here’s some hard truth. You are beholden to an extremist libertarian ideology that prioritizes your aesthetic preferences over the public good, including public safety.

It’s why it’s unpopular and why you lie so much about your beliefs.

I genuinely cannot decide if you are serious or just messing with me.

“ Sam Itani, vice president of international and government sales for E-ONE, says that in Europe fire apparatus are more compact than comparable vehicles in North America. “The European apparatus is shorter, narrower, and tighter in design than what we see here,” Itani says. “In the United States, we usually have larger, wider roads and highways, so we don’t need the tighter designs in most cases.”

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW’s failing is that no developer ever said “I’m going to build a whole bunch of houses so that prices go down and I don’t make too much money.” Developers want less regulation so that they have to negotiate less frequently and so that they’re not on the hook to pay for infrastructure improvements needed by their projects. This way they can boost profit margins. Never will the savings be passed onto customers.

That’s not true! Smart Growth says that fewer regulations, like eliminating parking requirements, will bring more affordable housing. How dare you impugn the development community by suggesting that they are simply pocketing the savings. That’s not very welcoming.

I truly cannot imagine anybody thinking that this is a witty or clever takedown.

Yet, it’s actually quite true. It’s a deregulation movement that also wants to remove fire codes, both for buildings and for road designs to be wide enough to accommodate ladder trucks.

This is laughably wrong.

It’s never clear to me if you folks are liars or ignorant.

https://ggwash.org/view/84964/how-single-staircase-buildings-could-impact-virginias-housing-market

https://ggwash.org/view/81190/does-size-matter-when-it-comes-to-fire-trucks-dc-fire-takes-a-newer-model-for-a-spin

The second article does not in any way advocate for making roads too narrow for fire trucks.

The first piece (which explicitly states it does not necessarily reflect the views of GGW) does not advocate for getting rid of fire codes.

Sincerely, this is a sad defense.

If your takeaway from reading those two articles is that "smart growthers want to get rid of fire codes and make streets too small for fire trucks," then there's no reason to keep engaging with you. You're clearly not approaching this in good faith and just want to invent wild conspiracy theories like some kind of Trump cultist.

I was willing to entertain that you folks are just blinkered idealists but unfortunately it’s clear that you’re mendacious liars.

I don’t know why you want to change building codes to allow for buildings that are less safe from fires or are so intently motivated to preventing ladder trucks from saving people from fires when they do occur, but these are your beliefs.

If you were honest, you would argue that all of this is overkill and unnecessary and that these codes and requirements are not needed. Instead you are just lying.

This is par for the course behavior from the GGWash urbanist crowd. I am not sure who you think you’re fooling though.

What the heck are you talking about?

Why do you want to deregulate building codes to allow single stair buildings that are generally not allowed due to fire safety?

Why do think that streets should not be designed to be wide enough for large fire trucks, including ladder trucks, and that fire departments should use smaller trucks to fight fires?

These are your issues, not mine.

Where in that article or on this thread has anyone said that streets should not be wide enough for large fire trucks?

And if there is an innovation that allows for as effective trucks that are smaller and more efficient, why would you not support it?

*sigh*

So are you arguing for narrow roads and against large emergency vehicles or not?

I am for roads that accommodate effective safety vehicles. And I think it would be great if there were smaller safety vehicles so that we could make roads smaller.

There is no logical inconsistency here.

The fact that you cannot honestly articulate your view because you know it sounds so bad is why you folks are just mendacious liars.

Where do ladder trucks fit in? Am I not allowed to have a ladder truck save my life in case my apartment catches fire because it’s against your aesthetic vision?

Absolutely ridiculous that this is your policy platform.

How is it that ladder trucks in Europe are a fraction of the size as the US but just as effective?

Thank you for at least acknowledging your argument. But here is a tip, there are many reasons why the experienced urbanists point to Asia instead of Europe. A big one is that many European companies supply emergency vehicles in the US and as a result, German or French ladder trucks are not any smaller than their American cousins. And yes, that means that all high rise development in France and Germany also has access wide enough for these vehicles.
https://rosenbaueramerica.com/

Untrue

https://www.fireapparatusmagazine.com/fire-apparatus/fire-apparatus-united-states-vs-europe/

You don’t even bother to read the links that you post, which is comical. It says that several trucks, including ladder trucks, are even bigger in Europe.

Why are you going to such lengths to cause Americans to die in fires?

The primary point of BOTH links is that trucks are smaller in Europe. Do you dispute that?

You dont bother reading what you post because facts are not something that interest you.

“6 Straight-stick aerials, such as this Eureka Springs (AR) Fire Department rig built by Pierce Manufacturing Inc., are typically shorter than their European counterparts but are tasked with more jobs”

“7 While articulated boom platforms are used widely in Europe, they also are popular with some North American fire departments, such as this 115-foot T-Rex built by Rosenbauer for Guelph”

Have something else to lie about now?

The primary point of both links is that trucks in Europe are in general smaller than in the US.

Next time read your links first friend.

Here’s some hard truth. You are beholden to an extremist libertarian ideology that prioritizes your aesthetic preferences over the public good, including public safety.

It’s why it’s unpopular and why you lie so much about your beliefs.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW’s failing is that no developer ever said “I’m going to build a whole bunch of houses so that prices go down and I don’t make too much money.” Developers want less regulation so that they have to negotiate less frequently and so that they’re not on the hook to pay for infrastructure improvements needed by their projects. This way they can boost profit margins. Never will the savings be passed onto customers.

That’s not true! Smart Growth says that fewer regulations, like eliminating parking requirements, will bring more affordable housing. How dare you impugn the development community by suggesting that they are simply pocketing the savings. That’s not very welcoming.

I truly cannot imagine anybody thinking that this is a witty or clever takedown.

Yet, it’s actually quite true. It’s a deregulation movement that also wants to remove fire codes, both for buildings and for road designs to be wide enough to accommodate ladder trucks.

This is laughably wrong.

It’s never clear to me if you folks are liars or ignorant.

https://ggwash.org/view/84964/how-single-staircase-buildings-could-impact-virginias-housing-market

https://ggwash.org/view/81190/does-size-matter-when-it-comes-to-fire-trucks-dc-fire-takes-a-newer-model-for-a-spin

The second article does not in any way advocate for making roads too narrow for fire trucks.

The first piece (which explicitly states it does not necessarily reflect the views of GGW) does not advocate for getting rid of fire codes.

Sincerely, this is a sad defense.

If your takeaway from reading those two articles is that "smart growthers want to get rid of fire codes and make streets too small for fire trucks," then there's no reason to keep engaging with you. You're clearly not approaching this in good faith and just want to invent wild conspiracy theories like some kind of Trump cultist.

I was willing to entertain that you folks are just blinkered idealists but unfortunately it’s clear that you’re mendacious liars.

I don’t know why you want to change building codes to allow for buildings that are less safe from fires or are so intently motivated to preventing ladder trucks from saving people from fires when they do occur, but these are your beliefs.

If you were honest, you would argue that all of this is overkill and unnecessary and that these codes and requirements are not needed. Instead you are just lying.

This is par for the course behavior from the GGWash urbanist crowd. I am not sure who you think you’re fooling though.

What the heck are you talking about?

Why do you want to deregulate building codes to allow single stair buildings that are generally not allowed due to fire safety?

Why do think that streets should not be designed to be wide enough for large fire trucks, including ladder trucks, and that fire departments should use smaller trucks to fight fires?

These are your issues, not mine.

Where in that article or on this thread has anyone said that streets should not be wide enough for large fire trucks?

And if there is an innovation that allows for as effective trucks that are smaller and more efficient, why would you not support it?

*sigh*

So are you arguing for narrow roads and against large emergency vehicles or not?

I am for roads that accommodate effective safety vehicles. And I think it would be great if there were smaller safety vehicles so that we could make roads smaller.

There is no logical inconsistency here.

The fact that you cannot honestly articulate your view because you know it sounds so bad is why you folks are just mendacious liars.

Where do ladder trucks fit in? Am I not allowed to have a ladder truck save my life in case my apartment catches fire because it’s against your aesthetic vision?

Absolutely ridiculous that this is your policy platform.

How is it that ladder trucks in Europe are a fraction of the size as the US but just as effective?

Thank you for at least acknowledging your argument. But here is a tip, there are many reasons why the experienced urbanists point to Asia instead of Europe. A big one is that many European companies supply emergency vehicles in the US and as a result, German or French ladder trucks are not any smaller than their American cousins. And yes, that means that all high rise development in France and Germany also has access wide enough for these vehicles.
https://rosenbaueramerica.com/

Untrue

https://www.fireapparatusmagazine.com/fire-apparatus/fire-apparatus-united-states-vs-europe/

You don’t even bother to read the links that you post, which is comical. It says that several trucks, including ladder trucks, are even bigger in Europe.

Why are you going to such lengths to cause Americans to die in fires?

The primary point of BOTH links is that trucks are smaller in Europe. Do you dispute that?

You dont bother reading what you post because facts are not something that interest you.

“6 Straight-stick aerials, such as this Eureka Springs (AR) Fire Department rig built by Pierce Manufacturing Inc., are typically shorter than their European counterparts but are tasked with more jobs”

“7 While articulated boom platforms are used widely in Europe, they also are popular with some North American fire departments, such as this 115-foot T-Rex built by Rosenbauer for Guelph”

Have something else to lie about now?

The primary point of both links is that trucks in Europe are in general smaller than in the US.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW’s failing is that no developer ever said “I’m going to build a whole bunch of houses so that prices go down and I don’t make too much money.” Developers want less regulation so that they have to negotiate less frequently and so that they’re not on the hook to pay for infrastructure improvements needed by their projects. This way they can boost profit margins. Never will the savings be passed onto customers.

That’s not true! Smart Growth says that fewer regulations, like eliminating parking requirements, will bring more affordable housing. How dare you impugn the development community by suggesting that they are simply pocketing the savings. That’s not very welcoming.

I truly cannot imagine anybody thinking that this is a witty or clever takedown.

Yet, it’s actually quite true. It’s a deregulation movement that also wants to remove fire codes, both for buildings and for road designs to be wide enough to accommodate ladder trucks.

This is laughably wrong.

It’s never clear to me if you folks are liars or ignorant.

https://ggwash.org/view/84964/how-single-staircase-buildings-could-impact-virginias-housing-market

https://ggwash.org/view/81190/does-size-matter-when-it-comes-to-fire-trucks-dc-fire-takes-a-newer-model-for-a-spin

The second article does not in any way advocate for making roads too narrow for fire trucks.

The first piece (which explicitly states it does not necessarily reflect the views of GGW) does not advocate for getting rid of fire codes.

Sincerely, this is a sad defense.

If your takeaway from reading those two articles is that "smart growthers want to get rid of fire codes and make streets too small for fire trucks," then there's no reason to keep engaging with you. You're clearly not approaching this in good faith and just want to invent wild conspiracy theories like some kind of Trump cultist.

I was willing to entertain that you folks are just blinkered idealists but unfortunately it’s clear that you’re mendacious liars.

I don’t know why you want to change building codes to allow for buildings that are less safe from fires or are so intently motivated to preventing ladder trucks from saving people from fires when they do occur, but these are your beliefs.

If you were honest, you would argue that all of this is overkill and unnecessary and that these codes and requirements are not needed. Instead you are just lying.

This is par for the course behavior from the GGWash urbanist crowd. I am not sure who you think you’re fooling though.

What the heck are you talking about?

Why do you want to deregulate building codes to allow single stair buildings that are generally not allowed due to fire safety?

Why do think that streets should not be designed to be wide enough for large fire trucks, including ladder trucks, and that fire departments should use smaller trucks to fight fires?

These are your issues, not mine.

Where in that article or on this thread has anyone said that streets should not be wide enough for large fire trucks?

And if there is an innovation that allows for as effective trucks that are smaller and more efficient, why would you not support it?

*sigh*

So are you arguing for narrow roads and against large emergency vehicles or not?

I am for roads that accommodate effective safety vehicles. And I think it would be great if there were smaller safety vehicles so that we could make roads smaller.

There is no logical inconsistency here.

The fact that you cannot honestly articulate your view because you know it sounds so bad is why you folks are just mendacious liars.

Where do ladder trucks fit in? Am I not allowed to have a ladder truck save my life in case my apartment catches fire because it’s against your aesthetic vision?

Absolutely ridiculous that this is your policy platform.

How is it that ladder trucks in Europe are a fraction of the size as the US but just as effective?

Thank you for at least acknowledging your argument. But here is a tip, there are many reasons why the experienced urbanists point to Asia instead of Europe. A big one is that many European companies supply emergency vehicles in the US and as a result, German or French ladder trucks are not any smaller than their American cousins. And yes, that means that all high rise development in France and Germany also has access wide enough for these vehicles.
https://rosenbaueramerica.com/

Untrue

https://www.fireapparatusmagazine.com/fire-apparatus/fire-apparatus-united-states-vs-europe/

You don’t even bother to read the links that you post, which is comical. It says that several trucks, including ladder trucks, are even bigger in Europe.

Why are you going to such lengths to cause Americans to die in fires?

The primary point of BOTH links is that trucks are smaller in Europe. Do you dispute that?

You dont bother reading what you post because facts are not something that interest you.

“6 Straight-stick aerials, such as this Eureka Springs (AR) Fire Department rig built by Pierce Manufacturing Inc., are typically shorter than their European counterparts but are tasked with more jobs”

“7 While articulated boom platforms are used widely in Europe, they also are popular with some North American fire departments, such as this 115-foot T-Rex built by Rosenbauer for Guelph”

Have something else to lie about now?

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW’s failing is that no developer ever said “I’m going to build a whole bunch of houses so that prices go down and I don’t make too much money.” Developers want less regulation so that they have to negotiate less frequently and so that they’re not on the hook to pay for infrastructure improvements needed by their projects. This way they can boost profit margins. Never will the savings be passed onto customers.

That’s not true! Smart Growth says that fewer regulations, like eliminating parking requirements, will bring more affordable housing. How dare you impugn the development community by suggesting that they are simply pocketing the savings. That’s not very welcoming.

I truly cannot imagine anybody thinking that this is a witty or clever takedown.

Yet, it’s actually quite true. It’s a deregulation movement that also wants to remove fire codes, both for buildings and for road designs to be wide enough to accommodate ladder trucks.

This is laughably wrong.

It’s never clear to me if you folks are liars or ignorant.

https://ggwash.org/view/84964/how-single-staircase-buildings-could-impact-virginias-housing-market

https://ggwash.org/view/81190/does-size-matter-when-it-comes-to-fire-trucks-dc-fire-takes-a-newer-model-for-a-spin

The second article does not in any way advocate for making roads too narrow for fire trucks.

The first piece (which explicitly states it does not necessarily reflect the views of GGW) does not advocate for getting rid of fire codes.

Sincerely, this is a sad defense.

If your takeaway from reading those two articles is that "smart growthers want to get rid of fire codes and make streets too small for fire trucks," then there's no reason to keep engaging with you. You're clearly not approaching this in good faith and just want to invent wild conspiracy theories like some kind of Trump cultist.

I was willing to entertain that you folks are just blinkered idealists but unfortunately it’s clear that you’re mendacious liars.

I don’t know why you want to change building codes to allow for buildings that are less safe from fires or are so intently motivated to preventing ladder trucks from saving people from fires when they do occur, but these are your beliefs.

If you were honest, you would argue that all of this is overkill and unnecessary and that these codes and requirements are not needed. Instead you are just lying.

This is par for the course behavior from the GGWash urbanist crowd. I am not sure who you think you’re fooling though.

What the heck are you talking about?

Why do you want to deregulate building codes to allow single stair buildings that are generally not allowed due to fire safety?

Why do think that streets should not be designed to be wide enough for large fire trucks, including ladder trucks, and that fire departments should use smaller trucks to fight fires?

These are your issues, not mine.

Where in that article or on this thread has anyone said that streets should not be wide enough for large fire trucks?

And if there is an innovation that allows for as effective trucks that are smaller and more efficient, why would you not support it?

*sigh*

So are you arguing for narrow roads and against large emergency vehicles or not?

I am for roads that accommodate effective safety vehicles. And I think it would be great if there were smaller safety vehicles so that we could make roads smaller.

There is no logical inconsistency here.

The fact that you cannot honestly articulate your view because you know it sounds so bad is why you folks are just mendacious liars.

Where do ladder trucks fit in? Am I not allowed to have a ladder truck save my life in case my apartment catches fire because it’s against your aesthetic vision?

Absolutely ridiculous that this is your policy platform.

How is it that ladder trucks in Europe are a fraction of the size as the US but just as effective?

Thank you for at least acknowledging your argument. But here is a tip, there are many reasons why the experienced urbanists point to Asia instead of Europe. A big one is that many European companies supply emergency vehicles in the US and as a result, German or French ladder trucks are not any smaller than their American cousins. And yes, that means that all high rise development in France and Germany also has access wide enough for these vehicles.
https://rosenbaueramerica.com/

Untrue

https://www.fireapparatusmagazine.com/fire-apparatus/fire-apparatus-united-states-vs-europe/

You don’t even bother to read the links that you post, which is comical. It says that several trucks, including ladder trucks, are even bigger in Europe.

Why are you going to such lengths to cause Americans to die in fires?

The primary point of BOTH links is that trucks are smaller in Europe. Do you dispute that?

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW’s failing is that no developer ever said “I’m going to build a whole bunch of houses so that prices go down and I don’t make too much money.” Developers want less regulation so that they have to negotiate less frequently and so that they’re not on the hook to pay for infrastructure improvements needed by their projects. This way they can boost profit margins. Never will the savings be passed onto customers.

That’s not true! Smart Growth says that fewer regulations, like eliminating parking requirements, will bring more affordable housing. How dare you impugn the development community by suggesting that they are simply pocketing the savings. That’s not very welcoming.

I truly cannot imagine anybody thinking that this is a witty or clever takedown.

Yet, it’s actually quite true. It’s a deregulation movement that also wants to remove fire codes, both for buildings and for road designs to be wide enough to accommodate ladder trucks.

This is laughably wrong.

It’s never clear to me if you folks are liars or ignorant.

https://ggwash.org/view/84964/how-single-staircase-buildings-could-impact-virginias-housing-market

https://ggwash.org/view/81190/does-size-matter-when-it-comes-to-fire-trucks-dc-fire-takes-a-newer-model-for-a-spin

The second article does not in any way advocate for making roads too narrow for fire trucks.

The first piece (which explicitly states it does not necessarily reflect the views of GGW) does not advocate for getting rid of fire codes.

Sincerely, this is a sad defense.

If your takeaway from reading those two articles is that "smart growthers want to get rid of fire codes and make streets too small for fire trucks," then there's no reason to keep engaging with you. You're clearly not approaching this in good faith and just want to invent wild conspiracy theories like some kind of Trump cultist.

I was willing to entertain that you folks are just blinkered idealists but unfortunately it’s clear that you’re mendacious liars.

I don’t know why you want to change building codes to allow for buildings that are less safe from fires or are so intently motivated to preventing ladder trucks from saving people from fires when they do occur, but these are your beliefs.

If you were honest, you would argue that all of this is overkill and unnecessary and that these codes and requirements are not needed. Instead you are just lying.

This is par for the course behavior from the GGWash urbanist crowd. I am not sure who you think you’re fooling though.

What the heck are you talking about?

Why do you want to deregulate building codes to allow single stair buildings that are generally not allowed due to fire safety?

Why do think that streets should not be designed to be wide enough for large fire trucks, including ladder trucks, and that fire departments should use smaller trucks to fight fires?

These are your issues, not mine.

Where in that article or on this thread has anyone said that streets should not be wide enough for large fire trucks?

And if there is an innovation that allows for as effective trucks that are smaller and more efficient, why would you not support it?

*sigh*

So are you arguing for narrow roads and against large emergency vehicles or not?

I am for roads that accommodate effective safety vehicles. And I think it would be great if there were smaller safety vehicles so that we could make roads smaller.

There is no logical inconsistency here.

The fact that you cannot honestly articulate your view because you know it sounds so bad is why you folks are just mendacious liars.

Where do ladder trucks fit in? Am I not allowed to have a ladder truck save my life in case my apartment catches fire because it’s against your aesthetic vision?

Absolutely ridiculous that this is your policy platform.

How is it that ladder trucks in Europe are a fraction of the size as the US but just as effective?

Thank you for at least acknowledging your argument. But here is a tip, there are many reasons why the experienced urbanists point to Asia instead of Europe. A big one is that many European companies supply emergency vehicles in the US and as a result, German or French ladder trucks are not any smaller than their American cousins. And yes, that means that all high rise development in France and Germany also has access wide enough for these vehicles.
https://rosenbaueramerica.com/

Untrue

https://www.fireapparatusmagazine.com/fire-apparatus/fire-apparatus-united-states-vs-europe/

You don’t even bother to read the links that you post, which is comical. It says that several trucks, including ladder trucks, are even bigger in Europe.

Why are you going to such lengths to cause Americans to die in fires?

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW’s failing is that no developer ever said “I’m going to build a whole bunch of houses so that prices go down and I don’t make too much money.” Developers want less regulation so that they have to negotiate less frequently and so that they’re not on the hook to pay for infrastructure improvements needed by their projects. This way they can boost profit margins. Never will the savings be passed onto customers.

That’s not true! Smart Growth says that fewer regulations, like eliminating parking requirements, will bring more affordable housing. How dare you impugn the development community by suggesting that they are simply pocketing the savings. That’s not very welcoming.

I truly cannot imagine anybody thinking that this is a witty or clever takedown.

Yet, it’s actually quite true. It’s a deregulation movement that also wants to remove fire codes, both for buildings and for road designs to be wide enough to accommodate ladder trucks.

This is laughably wrong.

It’s never clear to me if you folks are liars or ignorant.

https://ggwash.org/view/84964/how-single-staircase-buildings-could-impact-virginias-housing-market

https://ggwash.org/view/81190/does-size-matter-when-it-comes-to-fire-trucks-dc-fire-takes-a-newer-model-for-a-spin

The second article does not in any way advocate for making roads too narrow for fire trucks.

The first piece (which explicitly states it does not necessarily reflect the views of GGW) does not advocate for getting rid of fire codes.

Sincerely, this is a sad defense.

If your takeaway from reading those two articles is that "smart growthers want to get rid of fire codes and make streets too small for fire trucks," then there's no reason to keep engaging with you. You're clearly not approaching this in good faith and just want to invent wild conspiracy theories like some kind of Trump cultist.

I was willing to entertain that you folks are just blinkered idealists but unfortunately it’s clear that you’re mendacious liars.

I don’t know why you want to change building codes to allow for buildings that are less safe from fires or are so intently motivated to preventing ladder trucks from saving people from fires when they do occur, but these are your beliefs.

If you were honest, you would argue that all of this is overkill and unnecessary and that these codes and requirements are not needed. Instead you are just lying.

This is par for the course behavior from the GGWash urbanist crowd. I am not sure who you think you’re fooling though.

What the heck are you talking about?

Why do you want to deregulate building codes to allow single stair buildings that are generally not allowed due to fire safety?

Why do think that streets should not be designed to be wide enough for large fire trucks, including ladder trucks, and that fire departments should use smaller trucks to fight fires?

These are your issues, not mine.

Where in that article or on this thread has anyone said that streets should not be wide enough for large fire trucks?

And if there is an innovation that allows for as effective trucks that are smaller and more efficient, why would you not support it?

*sigh*

So are you arguing for narrow roads and against large emergency vehicles or not?

I am for roads that accommodate effective safety vehicles. And I think it would be great if there were smaller safety vehicles so that we could make roads smaller.

There is no logical inconsistency here.

The fact that you cannot honestly articulate your view because you know it sounds so bad is why you folks are just mendacious liars.

Where do ladder trucks fit in? Am I not allowed to have a ladder truck save my life in case my apartment catches fire because it’s against your aesthetic vision?

Absolutely ridiculous that this is your policy platform.

How is it that ladder trucks in Europe are a fraction of the size as the US but just as effective?

Thank you for at least acknowledging your argument. But here is a tip, there are many reasons why the experienced urbanists point to Asia instead of Europe. A big one is that many European companies supply emergency vehicles in the US and as a result, German or French ladder trucks are not any smaller than their American cousins. And yes, that means that all high rise development in France and Germany also has access wide enough for these vehicles.
https://rosenbaueramerica.com/

Untrue

https://www.fireapparatusmagazine.com/fire-apparatus/fire-apparatus-united-states-vs-europe/

You don’t even bother to read the links that you post, which is comical. It says that several trucks, including ladder trucks, are even bigger in Europe.

Why are you going to such lengths to cause Americans to die in fires?

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW’s failing is that no developer ever said “I’m going to build a whole bunch of houses so that prices go down and I don’t make too much money.” Developers want less regulation so that they have to negotiate less frequently and so that they’re not on the hook to pay for infrastructure improvements needed by their projects. This way they can boost profit margins. Never will the savings be passed onto customers.

That’s not true! Smart Growth says that fewer regulations, like eliminating parking requirements, will bring more affordable housing. How dare you impugn the development community by suggesting that they are simply pocketing the savings. That’s not very welcoming.

I truly cannot imagine anybody thinking that this is a witty or clever takedown.

Yet, it’s actually quite true. It’s a deregulation movement that also wants to remove fire codes, both for buildings and for road designs to be wide enough to accommodate ladder trucks.

This is laughably wrong.

It’s never clear to me if you folks are liars or ignorant.

https://ggwash.org/view/84964/how-single-staircase-buildings-could-impact-virginias-housing-market

https://ggwash.org/view/81190/does-size-matter-when-it-comes-to-fire-trucks-dc-fire-takes-a-newer-model-for-a-spin

The second article does not in any way advocate for making roads too narrow for fire trucks.

The first piece (which explicitly states it does not necessarily reflect the views of GGW) does not advocate for getting rid of fire codes.

Sincerely, this is a sad defense.

If your takeaway from reading those two articles is that "smart growthers want to get rid of fire codes and make streets too small for fire trucks," then there's no reason to keep engaging with you. You're clearly not approaching this in good faith and just want to invent wild conspiracy theories like some kind of Trump cultist.

I was willing to entertain that you folks are just blinkered idealists but unfortunately it’s clear that you’re mendacious liars.

I don’t know why you want to change building codes to allow for buildings that are less safe from fires or are so intently motivated to preventing ladder trucks from saving people from fires when they do occur, but these are your beliefs.

If you were honest, you would argue that all of this is overkill and unnecessary and that these codes and requirements are not needed. Instead you are just lying.

This is par for the course behavior from the GGWash urbanist crowd. I am not sure who you think you’re fooling though.

What the heck are you talking about?

Why do you want to deregulate building codes to allow single stair buildings that are generally not allowed due to fire safety?

Why do think that streets should not be designed to be wide enough for large fire trucks, including ladder trucks, and that fire departments should use smaller trucks to fight fires?

These are your issues, not mine.

Where in that article or on this thread has anyone said that streets should not be wide enough for large fire trucks?

And if there is an innovation that allows for as effective trucks that are smaller and more efficient, why would you not support it?

*sigh*

So are you arguing for narrow roads and against large emergency vehicles or not?

I am for roads that accommodate effective safety vehicles. And I think it would be great if there were smaller safety vehicles so that we could make roads smaller.

There is no logical inconsistency here.

The fact that you cannot honestly articulate your view because you know it sounds so bad is why you folks are just mendacious liars.

Where do ladder trucks fit in? Am I not allowed to have a ladder truck save my life in case my apartment catches fire because it’s against your aesthetic vision?

Absolutely ridiculous that this is your policy platform.

How is it that ladder trucks in Europe are a fraction of the size as the US but just as effective?

Thank you for at least acknowledging your argument. But here is a tip, there are many reasons why the experienced urbanists point to Asia instead of Europe. A big one is that many European companies supply emergency vehicles in the US and as a result, German or French ladder trucks are not any smaller than their American cousins. And yes, that means that all high rise development in France and Germany also has access wide enough for these vehicles.
https://rosenbaueramerica.com/

Untrue

https://www.fireapparatusmagazine.com/fire-apparatus/fire-apparatus-united-states-vs-europe/