Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does it even matter what the decision is? 4000 views here alone; any chance to calm down the traffic (of which there was very little) is now gone forever.

So thanks to the populist mob that boasts of creating more unsafe conditions for kids and senior citizens by driving traffic to a residential neighborhood. That’s a little sick.

Utter bullshit.
The unsafe conditions for kids and senior citizens are a consequence of the choice to not have SIDEWALKS.
The LOCAL TRAFFIC of landscaping trucks, construction trucks, delivery trucks, without sidewalks make it impossible for parents to even consider allowing their children to walk on University Terrace.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does it even matter what the decision is? 4000 views here alone; any chance to calm down the traffic (of which there was very little) is now gone forever.

So thanks to the populist mob that boasts of creating more unsafe conditions for kids and senior citizens by driving traffic to a residential neighborhood. That’s a little sick.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does it even matter what the decision is? 4000 views here alone; any chance to calm down the traffic (of which there was very little) is now gone forever.

So thanks to the populist mob that boasts of creating more unsafe conditions for kids and senior citizens by driving traffic to a residential neighborhood. That’s a little sick.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does it even matter what the decision is? 4000 views here alone; any chance to calm down the traffic (of which there was very little) is now gone forever.

So thanks to the populist mob that boasts of creating more unsafe conditions for kids and senior citizens by driving traffic to a residential neighborhood. That’s a little sick.

A residential neighborhood which fought tooth and nail against sidewalks. Let's not pretend this is about safety

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New idea: how about a usage tax for the public land on properties without a sidewalk in front? Or we could just mark the area so people know where to walk and have their dogs poop.

The property lines all over the neighborhood are a total mess. Take a look and you will find public land where private land should be and vice versa. The city is losing millions in tax revenue by not aligning the paper boundaries with the actual boundaries while also being prevented from installing sidewalks in places that desperately need them because there is not setback between the road and private property (parts of Foxhall Rd.). Realign them, give everyone who gets more land a tax holiday on the addition for a few years, and problem is solved with no fuss.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does it even matter what the decision is? 4000 views here alone; any chance to calm down the traffic (of which there was very little) is now gone forever.

So thanks to the populist mob that boasts of creating more unsafe conditions for kids and senior citizens by driving traffic to a residential neighborhood. That’s a little sick.

Anonymous wrote:Does it even matter what the decision is? 4000 views here alone; any chance to calm down the traffic (of which there was very little) is now gone forever.

Anonymous wrote:New idea: how about a usage tax for the public land on properties without a sidewalk in front? Or we could just mark the area so people know where to walk and have their dogs poop.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it’s really what the headline says. It’s privatization, it’s not enforceable. There was minimum traffic, now there’ll be a lot more even just out of spite or because 3,000 plus eyeballs were on it.

The lawsuits this neighborhood has been bringing and the rules they’ve been writing for themselves are despicable. It’s really abhorrent to the point that I don’t even begrudge the low flying planes, and 70+dbs every 90 seconds. The streets are holding on to the last vestiges their historical reputation while being victims of their own legend — park your millions in Woodland, Woodley, Mass Ave Heights

The overbuilding, the flight path, the sewage problem, the run off, the no sidewalks… more is the pity

The worst part is that it still won't be self for children to walk independently because it still won't have sidewalks and it still will have at least a couple of landscaping or construction trucks on any given day.

There should be a rule that if a street does not have sidewalks, and is opposed to them, then any claims that something is needed for safety should be rejected out of hand.

The issue with sidewalks is that there are some in flexible bureaucrats in the DC government to take a very restricted view of what is required for a sidewalk. They insist for example that new sidewalks should be 7 or 8 feet wide to allow 2 wheelchairs to pass easily. While this may make sense on K Street it is ridiculous on a side street in Forest Hills or Palisades. There three or 4th foot sidewalks makes sense. Environmental considerations such as preserving the tree canopy and permeable space are also important.

A wheelchair is not 4' wide. I don't believe you are being fully truthfull.

Cars aren't 10' wide, yet somehow DC considers the minimum safe width for a road to be 20'.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it’s really what the headline says. It’s privatization, it’s not enforceable. There was minimum traffic, now there’ll be a lot more even just out of spite or because 3,000 plus eyeballs were on it.

The lawsuits this neighborhood has been bringing and the rules they’ve been writing for themselves are despicable. It’s really abhorrent to the point that I don’t even begrudge the low flying planes, and 70+dbs every 90 seconds. The streets are holding on to the last vestiges their historical reputation while being victims of their own legend — park your millions in Woodland, Woodley, Mass Ave Heights

The overbuilding, the flight path, the sewage problem, the run off, the no sidewalks… more is the pity

The worst part is that it still won't be self for children to walk independently because it still won't have sidewalks and it still will have at least a couple of landscaping or construction trucks on any given day.

There should be a rule that if a street does not have sidewalks, and is opposed to them, then any claims that something is needed for safety should be rejected out of hand.

The issue with sidewalks is that there are some in flexible bureaucrats in the DC government to take a very restricted view of what is required for a sidewalk. They insist for example that new sidewalks should be 7 or 8 feet wide to allow 2 wheelchairs to pass easily. While this may make sense on K Street it is ridiculous on a side street in Forest Hills or Palisades. There three or 4th foot sidewalks makes sense. Environmental considerations such as preserving the tree canopy and permeable space are also important.

A wheelchair is not 4' wide. I don't believe you are being fully truthfull.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the suburbanization of the city, which is pretty funny.

So your opinion is that city residence are not entitled to safe streets?! Is that only a suburban privilege?

This has nothing to do with safety. It's about putting the convenience of the street's residence above the convenience of their neighbors.

Speed humps are about slowing cars that have been speeding on streets. There is nothing convenient about them, and they do not deter the volume of car traffic on the streets.