Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They didn't attack the business, they were giving the finger to a sign that promoted unsafe streets.

When elected officials show up outside to mock a business they do not agree with it is most definitely an attack and a veiled threat. Especially when one of the commissioners an hour later specifically threatens business licensing. This is beyond the pale and certainly grounds for censure if not outright recall.

The commission can make that threat, but the ANC and more specifically a single commissioner, does not have that mandate, authority or power.

Making any threat like that regardless whether they have the authority to carry it out is an abuse of power and those individuals should be removed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They didn't attack the business, they were giving the finger to a sign that promoted unsafe streets.

When elected officials show up outside to mock a business they do not agree with it is most definitely an attack and a veiled threat. Especially when one of the commissioners an hour later specifically threatens business licensing. This is beyond the pale and certainly grounds for censure if not outright recall.

The commission can make that threat, but the ANC and more specifically a single commissioner, does not have that mandate, authority or power.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They didn't attack the business, they were giving the finger to a sign that promoted unsafe streets.

When elected officials show up outside to mock a business they do not agree with it is most definitely an attack and a veiled threat. Especially when one of the commissioners an hour later specifically threatens business licensing. This is beyond the pale and certainly grounds for censure if not outright recall.

Then run a recall.

Seriously, nothing will be good enough. It is bad enough that you all take on a miltiant stance against a green form of transportation in an era where educated people are trying to reduce greenhouse gases and provide safer alternatives to driving cars everywhere, but then these people apologized and you don't accept the apology.

Move on. The bike lanes are happening and your fighting a decision that has already been made is degrading the social fabric. They are mad because you want them to kill themselves trying to get to a store. How about YOU act gracefully, accept the decision that has been made and work to make the renovation of the Connecticut Avenue as safe and efficient for all users as possible.

Look in the mirror, you started this by disregarding the will of the people in the community and taking a stance that imposes the will of the minority of the people on to the majority.

If it was really that important, you would have run for ANC yourself or made sure that others who agreed with you put in for these races. But you didn't because you know that those candidates would have lost.

Anonymous wrote:They didn't attack the business, they were giving the finger to a sign that promoted unsafe streets.

When elected officials show up outside to mock a business they do not agree with it is most definitely an attack and a veiled threat. Especially when one of the commissioners an hour later specifically threatens business licensing. This is beyond the pale and certainly grounds for censure if not outright recall.

They didn't attack the business, they were giving the finger to a sign that promoted unsafe streets.

It’s funny how that tweet was out there for two weeks without an “apology.” Then about 5 minutes after someone posts the DCBOEE recall procedure the “apologies” start to trickle in. Cowards, all of them. The nerve to attack a 65 year old small business when they have been in the neighborhood for five minutes and will leave if they are able to get a job that pays well enough to get them out of their apartments.

Anonymous wrote:If someone told me that the mode of transportation that I use is "less" than the average and didn't want to help people like me be able to access business and amenities safely, I would be upset too.

Are the pictures of people being angry inappropriate? Yes.
Is the anger justified? Yes.

Maybe the people belittling the proposals for bike infrastructure should understand how others perceive THEIR words and actions.

Blocking safety measures for others is selfish and is just as belittling as a picture of people giving the bird to a sign.

The difference? One of these actions can result in injury or death. The other, hurt feelings.

You fail to see that there are safety issues on the side streets and Reno Rd too. Cars flip on streets other than Connecticut Ave. Children are run over on streets other than Connecticut Ave. Pushing even more cars off of Connecticut is no solution unless you are totally myopic and care only about that one artery, which seems to be the case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If someone told me that the mode of transportation that I use is "less" than the average and didn't want to help people like me be able to access business and amenities safely, I would be upset too.

Are the pictures of people being angry inappropriate? Yes.
Is the anger justified? Yes.

Maybe the people belittling the proposals for bike infrastructure should understand how others perceive THEIR words and actions.

Blocking safety measures for others is selfish and is just as belittling as a picture of people giving the bird to a sign.

The difference? One of these actions can result in injury or death. The other, hurt feelings.

If only there were buses that people could easily attach their bikes to. Or, better yet, an underground train system. Sniff. Sniff.

And this is why people have started resorting to middle fingers.

Most of the people in the neighborhood on the side of the businesses. Comrade got way out over his skis.

Facts matter. "most of the people" in your mind live in single family homes. Those homes comprise 20% of the people but take up 80% of the land. The other 80% of the people, most of whom are not on the listservs, live on Connecticut Avenue or Ordway Gardens or Quebec House, or other large buildings not single family homes.

So if you get our of your single family, auto-centric bubble, you will understand, there are A LOT of people who walk and bike to the things you drive to. And there are more of them than you.

I lived in Quebec House when I was young and dumb and in my 20s. It was a great place to live, despite the horrible rodent infestation. But I would never have thought to tell long time property owners what was best for their neighborhood. When I was young you had to earn trophies. Not like this current generation. It’s embarrassing.

I was you at one time. I had every right to my voice in the neighborhood as anyone else. It shouldn't matter where you live, or what your lifestyle is, we live in an open society where every voice should matter. That is expressed through elections. Just because you chose not to participate now, doesn't mean others agree with you in that outlook.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If someone told me that the mode of transportation that I use is "less" than the average and didn't want to help people like me be able to access business and amenities safely, I would be upset too.

Are the pictures of people being angry inappropriate? Yes.
Is the anger justified? Yes.

Maybe the people belittling the proposals for bike infrastructure should understand how others perceive THEIR words and actions.

Blocking safety measures for others is selfish and is just as belittling as a picture of people giving the bird to a sign.

The difference? One of these actions can result in injury or death. The other, hurt feelings.

If only there were buses that people could easily attach their bikes to. Or, better yet, an underground train system. Sniff. Sniff.

And this is why people have started resorting to middle fingers.

Most of the people in the neighborhood on the side of the businesses. Comrade got way out over his skis.

Facts matter. "most of the people" in your mind live in single family homes. Those homes comprise 20% of the people but take up 80% of the land. The other 80% of the people, most of whom are not on the listservs, live on Connecticut Avenue or Ordway Gardens or Quebec House, or other large buildings not single family homes.

So if you get our of your single family, auto-centric bubble, you will understand, there are A LOT of people who walk and bike to the things you drive to. And there are more of them than you.

I lived in Quebec House when I was young and dumb and in my 20s. It was a great place to live, despite the horrible rodent infestation. But I would never have thought to tell long time property owners what was best for their neighborhood. When I was young you had to earn trophies. Not like this current generation. It’s embarrassing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If someone told me that the mode of transportation that I use is "less" than the average and didn't want to help people like me be able to access business and amenities safely, I would be upset too.

Are the pictures of people being angry inappropriate? Yes.
Is the anger justified? Yes.

Maybe the people belittling the proposals for bike infrastructure should understand how others perceive THEIR words and actions.

Blocking safety measures for others is selfish and is just as belittling as a picture of people giving the bird to a sign.

The difference? One of these actions can result in injury or death. The other, hurt feelings.

If only there were buses that people could easily attach their bikes to. Or, better yet, an underground train system. Sniff. Sniff.

And this is why people have started resorting to middle fingers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If someone told me that the mode of transportation that I use is "less" than the average and didn't want to help people like me be able to access business and amenities safely, I would be upset too.

Are the pictures of people being angry inappropriate? Yes.
Is the anger justified? Yes.

Maybe the people belittling the proposals for bike infrastructure should understand how others perceive THEIR words and actions.

Blocking safety measures for others is selfish and is just as belittling as a picture of people giving the bird to a sign.

The difference? One of these actions can result in injury or death. The other, hurt feelings.

If only there were buses that people could easily attach their bikes to. Or, better yet, an underground train system. Sniff. Sniff.

Putting a bike on an infrequent L bus is not the same as, you know, being able to just ride to the location. Safely.

Anonymous wrote:If someone told me that the mode of transportation that I use is "less" than the average and didn't want to help people like me be able to access business and amenities safely, I would be upset too.

Are the pictures of people being angry inappropriate? Yes.
Is the anger justified? Yes.

Maybe the people belittling the proposals for bike infrastructure should understand how others perceive THEIR words and actions.

Blocking safety measures for others is selfish and is just as belittling as a picture of people giving the bird to a sign.

The difference? One of these actions can result in injury or death. The other, hurt feelings.

If only there were buses that people could easily attach their bikes to. Or, better yet, an underground train system. Sniff. Sniff.

If someone told me that the mode of transportation that I use is "less" than the average and didn't want to help people like me be able to access business and amenities safely, I would be upset too.

Are the pictures of people being angry inappropriate? Yes.
Is the anger justified? Yes.

Maybe the people belittling the proposals for bike infrastructure should understand how others perceive THEIR words and actions.

Blocking safety measures for others is selfish and is just as belittling as a picture of people giving the bird to a sign.

The difference? One of these actions can result in injury or death. The other, hurt feelings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I don't agree with the image, I do think that the people who are opposing the bike lanes are basically telling a sizable percentage of their neighbors that they don't care if there is safe access to neigborhood amenities.

Maybe the "opposition" should take a look in the mirror and understand what would prompt people to display such anger.

I think the opposition wants to meet in the middle: increased traffic enforcement, HAWKs, dedicated bus lanes, better bike amenities at Metro stations. The bike crowd wants it all.

That isn't what option C, the ones the ANCs, Mayor and Councilmember all already supported. You aren't getting this....the decision has already been made. There will be bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue.

It appears that the I’ll timed picture of the ANC reps attacking a local small business has increased awareness of this proposal. Stay tuned.

They weren't attacking a small business. They were attacking a campaign of "No" for safer street infrastructure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I don't agree with the image, I do think that the people who are opposing the bike lanes are basically telling a sizable percentage of their neighbors that they don't care if there is safe access to neigborhood amenities.

Maybe the "opposition" should take a look in the mirror and understand what would prompt people to display such anger.

Maybe some people opposing bike lanes on CT Ave are concerned about thousands more cars speeding up the neighborhood side streets, streets even less equipped to serve as major arteries for MD commuters, as they are intentionally diverted from CT Ave to smaller residential streets on a daily basis. There won’t be fewer cars. They’ll just be speeding on different streets. Does that cross the minds of the bike lane advocates and neighborhood reps giving the finger, or laughing as colleagues give the finger, to a local business and their constituents who have a different view on the issue?

Ah yes, more typical whataboutism with built in logical incongruencies. What about all those thousands of cars going through side streets (something which DDOT is looking to install hardened infrastructure to discourage)? Side streets which aren't able to handle that volume which will congest them. But somehow they will be congested and speeding through at the same time.

There will be fewer cars. *Some* people will shift mode of transpiration. All? No, but a significant number isn't even needed - congestion is an exponential. Removing 1 car from the road is worth more traffic easing than removing the next car and so forth and so on. Removing 100 cars an hour and you're talking about the taking 25% of Reno road traffic out.