Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No so. The jewelry stores, the watch repair, the shoe store, the arts district, the kids activities. What happens to them?

...they continue what they have been doing for the past 2 years?

They continue to struggle. Including the shoe store.

The shoe store is struggling because it's no longer possible for one car at a time to drive and park at the metered space in front of the store?

Yes. The shoe store is struggling because no one can see it to know it exists unless you are aimlessly walking around, which would not be a shoe store customer in any case.

But people aimlessly driving around would be shoe store customers?

The sheer ignorant arrogance of people like you bothers me the most. Here is what the business community, who support anything that makes them more money had to say about Woodmont Avenue.

“Federal Realty Investment Trust, which owns the buildings along Woodmont, said in a letter to Elrich that being able to drive by a highly visible destination is the most important element of successful street retail, which is the expectation for retail stores and restaurants on Woodmont Avenue.”

FRIT can say all kinds of things, but we don't necessarily have to believe everything they say. Retailers generally tend to vastly overestimate the proportion of their customers who arrive by car.

The developers contradict themselves all the time. When they’re talking to the urbanists/YIMBYs, they’re all about walking, biking, and affordability. When they talk to their investors, they’re all about driving prices as high as possible and doing whatever it takes to produce that outcome. Which story is more consistent with what they actually do? The one they tell in community meetings or the one they file with the SEC? Trigger warning for the YIMBYs: it’s the second one because people can go to jail over that one. You’ve been useful idiots in helping developers get some deregulation but in case you haven’t noticed none of what you’ve suggested has actually worked and your guy at planning did such a good job running it that the whole board had to resign and no projects could get approved for two months.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No so. The jewelry stores, the watch repair, the shoe store, the arts district, the kids activities. What happens to them?

...they continue what they have been doing for the past 2 years?

They continue to struggle. Including the shoe store.

The shoe store is struggling because it's no longer possible for one car at a time to drive and park at the metered space in front of the store?

Yes. The shoe store is struggling because no one can see it to know it exists unless you are aimlessly walking around, which would not be a shoe store customer in any case.

But people aimlessly driving around would be shoe store customers?

The sheer ignorant arrogance of people like you bothers me the most. Here is what the business community, who support anything that makes them more money had to say about Woodmont Avenue.

“Federal Realty Investment Trust, which owns the buildings along Woodmont, said in a letter to Elrich that being able to drive by a highly visible destination is the most important element of successful street retail, which is the expectation for retail stores and restaurants on Woodmont Avenue.”

FRIT can say all kinds of things, but we don't necessarily have to believe everything they say. Retailers generally tend to vastly overestimate the proportion of their customers who arrive by car.

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:No so. The jewelry stores, the watch repair, the shoe store, the arts district, the kids activities. What happens to them?

...they continue what they have been doing for the past 2 years?

They continue to struggle. Including the shoe store.

The shoe store is struggling because it's no longer possible for one car at a time to drive and park at the metered space in front of the store?

Yes. The shoe store is struggling because no one can see it to know it exists unless you are aimlessly walking around, which would not be a shoe store customer in any case.

But people aimlessly driving around would be shoe store customers?

The sheer ignorant arrogance of people like you bothers me the most. Here is what the business community, who support anything that makes them more money had to say about Woodmont Avenue.

“Federal Realty Investment Trust, which owns the buildings along Woodmont, said in a letter to Elrich that being able to drive by a highly visible destination is the most important element of successful street retail, which is the expectation for retail stores and restaurants on Woodmont Avenue.”

FRIT can say all kinds of things, but we don't necessarily have to believe everything they say. Retailers generally tend to vastly overestimate the proportion of their customers who arrive by car.

FRIT is a sophisticated company with $8 billion in assets focused on solely on maximizing profits of their real estate holdings. They couldn’t care less about bike lanes, they only care about profit. The fact that you’re so arrogant as to presume that you know better than them is astonishing. What’s your qualifications to challenge them?

They are welcome to make whatever profit-maximizing legal decisions they want to make for the properties they own. However, they don't own Norfolk Avenue. Norfolk Avenue is a public street.

It’s going to be a fun street when all of the restaurants and shops eventually close and it gets taken over by vagrants. I am not sure how that’s in the public interest. I assume that you fancy yourself an “urbanist” but you don’t even have a clue about the history of the failure of “pedestrian malls” in this country. I’m not sure how you survive on a day to day basis being so utterly arrogant while eschewing actual knowledge and expertise. Good luck in life!

FRIT is a sophisticated company with $8 billion in assets focused solely on maximizing profits of their real estate holdings. I'm sure that they will be able to figure out how to use their buildings so as to keep out vagrants.

You want FRIT to police public property like Peterson in Silver Spring. That’s working out well. In fact, Ellsworth is so awful that it’s evidence enough of how pedestrianization is a massive failure in our own county. You’re absolutely clueless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No so. The jewelry stores, the watch repair, the shoe store, the arts district, the kids activities. What happens to them?

...they continue what they have been doing for the past 2 years?

They continue to struggle. Including the shoe store.

The shoe store is struggling because it's no longer possible for one car at a time to drive and park at the metered space in front of the store?

Yes. The shoe store is struggling because no one can see it to know it exists unless you are aimlessly walking around, which would not be a shoe store customer in any case.

But people aimlessly driving around would be shoe store customers?

The sheer ignorant arrogance of people like you bothers me the most. Here is what the business community, who support anything that makes them more money had to say about Woodmont Avenue.

“Federal Realty Investment Trust, which owns the buildings along Woodmont, said in a letter to Elrich that being able to drive by a highly visible destination is the most important element of successful street retail, which is the expectation for retail stores and restaurants on Woodmont Avenue.”

FRIT can say all kinds of things, but we don't necessarily have to believe everything they say. Retailers generally tend to vastly overestimate the proportion of their customers who arrive by car.

FRIT is a sophisticated company with $8 billion in assets focused on solely on maximizing profits of their real estate holdings. They couldn’t care less about bike lanes, they only care about profit. The fact that you’re so arrogant as to presume that you know better than them is astonishing. What’s your qualifications to challenge them?

They are welcome to make whatever profit-maximizing legal decisions they want to make for the properties they own. However, they don't own Norfolk Avenue. Norfolk Avenue is a public street.

It’s going to be a fun street when all of the restaurants and shops eventually close and it gets taken over by vagrants. I am not sure how that’s in the public interest. I assume that you fancy yourself an “urbanist” but you don’t even have a clue about the history of the failure of “pedestrian malls” in this country. I’m not sure how you survive on a day to day basis being so utterly arrogant while eschewing actual knowledge and expertise. Good luck in life!

FRIT is a sophisticated company with $8 billion in assets focused solely on maximizing profits of their real estate holdings. I'm sure that they will be able to figure out how to use their buildings so as to keep out vagrants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No so. The jewelry stores, the watch repair, the shoe store, the arts district, the kids activities. What happens to them?

...they continue what they have been doing for the past 2 years?

They continue to struggle. Including the shoe store.

The shoe store is struggling because it's no longer possible for one car at a time to drive and park at the metered space in front of the store?

Yes. The shoe store is struggling because no one can see it to know it exists unless you are aimlessly walking around, which would not be a shoe store customer in any case.

But people aimlessly driving around would be shoe store customers?

The sheer ignorant arrogance of people like you bothers me the most. Here is what the business community, who support anything that makes them more money had to say about Woodmont Avenue.

“Federal Realty Investment Trust, which owns the buildings along Woodmont, said in a letter to Elrich that being able to drive by a highly visible destination is the most important element of successful street retail, which is the expectation for retail stores and restaurants on Woodmont Avenue.”

FRIT can say all kinds of things, but we don't necessarily have to believe everything they say. Retailers generally tend to vastly overestimate the proportion of their customers who arrive by car.

FRIT is a sophisticated company with $8 billion in assets focused on solely on maximizing profits of their real estate holdings. They couldn’t care less about bike lanes, they only care about profit. The fact that you’re so arrogant as to presume that you know better than them is astonishing. What’s your qualifications to challenge them?

They are welcome to make whatever profit-maximizing legal decisions they want to make for the properties they own. However, they don't own Norfolk Avenue. Norfolk Avenue is a public street.

It’s going to be a fun street when all of the restaurants and shops eventually close and it gets taken over by vagrants. I am not sure how that’s in the public interest. I assume that you fancy yourself an “urbanist” but you don’t even have a clue about the history of the failure of “pedestrian malls” in this country. I’m not sure how you survive on a day to day basis being so utterly arrogant while eschewing actual knowledge and expertise. Good luck in life!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No so. The jewelry stores, the watch repair, the shoe store, the arts district, the kids activities. What happens to them?

...they continue what they have been doing for the past 2 years?

They continue to struggle. Including the shoe store.

The shoe store is struggling because it's no longer possible for one car at a time to drive and park at the metered space in front of the store?

Yes. The shoe store is struggling because no one can see it to know it exists unless you are aimlessly walking around, which would not be a shoe store customer in any case.

But people aimlessly driving around would be shoe store customers?

The sheer ignorant arrogance of people like you bothers me the most. Here is what the business community, who support anything that makes them more money had to say about Woodmont Avenue.

“Federal Realty Investment Trust, which owns the buildings along Woodmont, said in a letter to Elrich that being able to drive by a highly visible destination is the most important element of successful street retail, which is the expectation for retail stores and restaurants on Woodmont Avenue.”

FRIT can say all kinds of things, but we don't necessarily have to believe everything they say. Retailers generally tend to vastly overestimate the proportion of their customers who arrive by car.

FRIT is a sophisticated company with $8 billion in assets focused on solely on maximizing profits of their real estate holdings. They couldn’t care less about bike lanes, they only care about profit. The fact that you’re so arrogant as to presume that you know better than them is astonishing. What’s your qualifications to challenge them?

They are welcome to make whatever profit-maximizing legal decisions they want to make for the properties they own. However, they don't own Norfolk Avenue. Norfolk Avenue is a public street.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No so. The jewelry stores, the watch repair, the shoe store, the arts district, the kids activities. What happens to them?

...they continue what they have been doing for the past 2 years?

They continue to struggle. Including the shoe store.

The shoe store is struggling because it's no longer possible for one car at a time to drive and park at the metered space in front of the store?

Yes. The shoe store is struggling because no one can see it to know it exists unless you are aimlessly walking around, which would not be a shoe store customer in any case.

But people aimlessly driving around would be shoe store customers?

The sheer ignorant arrogance of people like you bothers me the most. Here is what the business community, who support anything that makes them more money had to say about Woodmont Avenue.

“Federal Realty Investment Trust, which owns the buildings along Woodmont, said in a letter to Elrich that being able to drive by a highly visible destination is the most important element of successful street retail, which is the expectation for retail stores and restaurants on Woodmont Avenue.”

FRIT can say all kinds of things, but we don't necessarily have to believe everything they say. Retailers generally tend to vastly overestimate the proportion of their customers who arrive by car.

FRIT is a sophisticated company with $8 billion in assets focused on solely on maximizing profits of their real estate holdings. They couldn’t care less about bike lanes, they only care about profit. The fact that you’re so arrogant as to presume that you know better than them is astonishing. What’s your qualifications to challenge them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No so. The jewelry stores, the watch repair, the shoe store, the arts district, the kids activities. What happens to them?

...they continue what they have been doing for the past 2 years?

They continue to struggle. Including the shoe store.

The shoe store is struggling because it's no longer possible for one car at a time to drive and park at the metered space in front of the store?

Yes. The shoe store is struggling because no one can see it to know it exists unless you are aimlessly walking around, which would not be a shoe store customer in any case.

But people aimlessly driving around would be shoe store customers?

The sheer ignorant arrogance of people like you bothers me the most. Here is what the business community, who support anything that makes them more money had to say about Woodmont Avenue.

“Federal Realty Investment Trust, which owns the buildings along Woodmont, said in a letter to Elrich that being able to drive by a highly visible destination is the most important element of successful street retail, which is the expectation for retail stores and restaurants on Woodmont Avenue.”

FRIT can say all kinds of things, but we don't necessarily have to believe everything they say. Retailers generally tend to vastly overestimate the proportion of their customers who arrive by car.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No so. The jewelry stores, the watch repair, the shoe store, the arts district, the kids activities. What happens to them?

...they continue what they have been doing for the past 2 years?

They continue to struggle. Including the shoe store.

The shoe store is struggling because it's no longer possible for one car at a time to drive and park at the metered space in front of the store?

Yes. The shoe store is struggling because no one can see it to know it exists unless you are aimlessly walking around, which would not be a shoe store customer in any case.

But people aimlessly driving around would be shoe store customers?

The sheer ignorant arrogance of people like you bothers me the most. Here is what the business community, who support anything that makes them more money had to say about Woodmont Avenue.

“Federal Realty Investment Trust, which owns the buildings along Woodmont, said in a letter to Elrich that being able to drive by a highly visible destination is the most important element of successful street retail, which is the expectation for retail stores and restaurants on Woodmont Avenue.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No so. The jewelry stores, the watch repair, the shoe store, the arts district, the kids activities. What happens to them?

...they continue what they have been doing for the past 2 years?

They continue to struggle. Including the shoe store.

The shoe store is struggling because it's no longer possible for one car at a time to drive and park at the metered space in front of the store?

Yes. The shoe store is struggling because no one can see it to know it exists unless you are aimlessly walking around, which would not be a shoe store customer in any case.

But people aimlessly driving around would be shoe store customers?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No so. The jewelry stores, the watch repair, the shoe store, the arts district, the kids activities. What happens to them?

...they continue what they have been doing for the past 2 years?

They continue to struggle. Including the shoe store.

The shoe store is struggling because it's no longer possible for one car at a time to drive and park at the metered space in front of the store?

Yes. The shoe store is struggling because no one can see it to know it exists unless you are aimlessly walking around, which would not be a shoe store customer in any case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No so. The jewelry stores, the watch repair, the shoe store, the arts district, the kids activities. What happens to them?

...they continue what they have been doing for the past 2 years?

They continue to struggle. Including the shoe store.

The shoe store is struggling because it's no longer possible for one car at a time to drive and park at the metered space in front of the store?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These stores will not survive the redevelopment.

What redevelopment?

Take the survey. That is clearly for redevelopment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These stores will not survive the redevelopment.

What redevelopment?

Anonymous wrote:These stores will not survive the redevelopment.