Anonymous wrote:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Awkward question. In the post COVID world, does DC need more housing? Our population is shrinking and downtown DC is hollowing out. Isn’t the better solution to convert vacant offices downtown to housing? That way you avoid the need for these ridiculous bike lanes on major thoroughfares, you keep downtown viable, and you preserve modest single family home neighborhoods.

I think in theory this makes a ton of sense, and is great from a preservation and environmental perspective, but I'm not sure of the profitability stripping and retrofitting those buildings vs building new. Like going from office to residential, you need more than one kitchen and bathroom per floor (unless each floor is its own massive unit, maybe, but even then you need *different* kitchen and bath facilities). That's a ton of plumbing, just to start!

I think the conversion of family sized dwellings to 1 and 2 bedroom condos only is harmful, but I would love to see more 3-4 bed options in upzoned areas. It's not a binary choice between 1 bedrooms for new grads and single family detached homes for families. Just look at the many, many double stacked townhomes popping up around MoCo.

The city should offer tax incentives for downtown residential conversion. The city has a vested interest in preventing downtown from becoming a ghost town both to preserve the tax base and for public safety. These tax incentives may actually end up being revenue neutral when you consider the cost of the CT Ave bike lanes and the business closures they will cause. It makes total sense to do this, except the Mayor will have to weather the temper tantrum the bike community will have.

Muriel versus the lycra-nauts! I can't wait!

A small business owner in Cleveland Park announced last week that he was closing his store of 30 years specifically because the proposed bike lanes would make it impossible economically to continue. More will follow, sadly.

Very sad. And ridiculous given how few people actually use all these bike lanes.

The only thing that's sad about this story is how spectacularly stupid this business owner must be to close their store over bike lanes. There is approximately a 0% chance installing bike lanes "would make it impossible economically to continue" and in the infinitesimally small chance it actually does then they have nobody to blame but themselves for operating such a ridiculously terrible business model that losing a couple parking spaces that they never even owned in the first place forces them to close their business.

Incredible that you know more about this persons business than they do. What arrogance.

+1. I saw on Twitter that the 20 something ANC commissioner was chirping at the 30 year business owner about his business. The nerve of that kid. I’m not even sure the kid has an actual job yet he thinks he’s somehow qualified to open his mouth? How many jobs has be created? Has he ever had to make a payroll? Of course not. My god, his parents must be mortified.

What is the business? And who is the commissioner?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Awkward question. In the post COVID world, does DC need more housing? Our population is shrinking and downtown DC is hollowing out. Isn’t the better solution to convert vacant offices downtown to housing? That way you avoid the need for these ridiculous bike lanes on major thoroughfares, you keep downtown viable, and you preserve modest single family home neighborhoods.

I think in theory this makes a ton of sense, and is great from a preservation and environmental perspective, but I'm not sure of the profitability stripping and retrofitting those buildings vs building new. Like going from office to residential, you need more than one kitchen and bathroom per floor (unless each floor is its own massive unit, maybe, but even then you need *different* kitchen and bath facilities). That's a ton of plumbing, just to start!

I think the conversion of family sized dwellings to 1 and 2 bedroom condos only is harmful, but I would love to see more 3-4 bed options in upzoned areas. It's not a binary choice between 1 bedrooms for new grads and single family detached homes for families. Just look at the many, many double stacked townhomes popping up around MoCo.

The city should offer tax incentives for downtown residential conversion. The city has a vested interest in preventing downtown from becoming a ghost town both to preserve the tax base and for public safety. These tax incentives may actually end up being revenue neutral when you consider the cost of the CT Ave bike lanes and the business closures they will cause. It makes total sense to do this, except the Mayor will have to weather the temper tantrum the bike community will have.

Muriel versus the lycra-nauts! I can't wait!

A small business owner in Cleveland Park announced last week that he was closing his store of 30 years specifically because the proposed bike lanes would make it impossible economically to continue. More will follow, sadly.

Very sad. And ridiculous given how few people actually use all these bike lanes.

The only thing that's sad about this story is how spectacularly stupid this business owner must be to close their store over bike lanes. There is approximately a 0% chance installing bike lanes "would make it impossible economically to continue" and in the infinitesimally small chance it actually does then they have nobody to blame but themselves for operating such a ridiculously terrible business model that losing a couple parking spaces that they never even owned in the first place forces them to close their business.

Incredible that you know more about this persons business than they do. What arrogance.

+1. I saw on Twitter that the 20 something ANC commissioner was chirping at the 30 year business owner about his business. The nerve of that kid. I’m not even sure the kid has an actual job yet he thinks he’s somehow qualified to open his mouth? How many jobs has be created? Has he ever had to make a payroll? Of course not. My god, his parents must be mortified.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Awkward question. In the post COVID world, does DC need more housing? Our population is shrinking and downtown DC is hollowing out. Isn’t the better solution to convert vacant offices downtown to housing? That way you avoid the need for these ridiculous bike lanes on major thoroughfares, you keep downtown viable, and you preserve modest single family home neighborhoods.

I think in theory this makes a ton of sense, and is great from a preservation and environmental perspective, but I'm not sure of the profitability stripping and retrofitting those buildings vs building new. Like going from office to residential, you need more than one kitchen and bathroom per floor (unless each floor is its own massive unit, maybe, but even then you need *different* kitchen and bath facilities). That's a ton of plumbing, just to start!

I think the conversion of family sized dwellings to 1 and 2 bedroom condos only is harmful, but I would love to see more 3-4 bed options in upzoned areas. It's not a binary choice between 1 bedrooms for new grads and single family detached homes for families. Just look at the many, many double stacked townhomes popping up around MoCo.

The city should offer tax incentives for downtown residential conversion. The city has a vested interest in preventing downtown from becoming a ghost town both to preserve the tax base and for public safety. These tax incentives may actually end up being revenue neutral when you consider the cost of the CT Ave bike lanes and the business closures they will cause. It makes total sense to do this, except the Mayor will have to weather the temper tantrum the bike community will have.

Muriel versus the lycra-nauts! I can't wait!

A small business owner in Cleveland Park announced last week that he was closing his store of 30 years specifically because the proposed bike lanes would make it impossible economically to continue. More will follow, sadly.

Very sad. And ridiculous given how few people actually use all these bike lanes.

The only thing that's sad about this story is how spectacularly stupid this business owner must be to close their store over bike lanes. There is approximately a 0% chance installing bike lanes "would make it impossible economically to continue" and in the infinitesimally small chance it actually does then they have nobody to blame but themselves for operating such a ridiculously terrible business model that losing a couple parking spaces that they never even owned in the first place forces them to close their business.

If he's managed to stay in business for 30 years, turning a profit and being able to make payroll, he must know what he's doing.

This is what bike lanes do -- they make it harder for people to get around the city. If traffic is terrible and parking is hard, people aren't going to switch to bikes. They'll just go somewhere else, where it isn't such a pain to move around.

What they do is block curb access. Plenty of businesses (and people) require curb access to survive.

I have nothing against bike lanes but also understand how important curb access is. Put the bike lanes up the middle of the street like on Pennsylvania Avenue and it’s no problem.

Or stop building bike lanes. It is incredible how much of our limited transportation resources we dedicate to the minuscule number of bicyclists. The goal of a transportation system should be to move as many people around as efficiently as possible.

+1 We have a mass transit system for a reason. Its easy to pop your bike on a bus or metro train. Why the need for bikes lanes?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Awkward question. In the post COVID world, does DC need more housing? Our population is shrinking and downtown DC is hollowing out. Isn’t the better solution to convert vacant offices downtown to housing? That way you avoid the need for these ridiculous bike lanes on major thoroughfares, you keep downtown viable, and you preserve modest single family home neighborhoods.

I think in theory this makes a ton of sense, and is great from a preservation and environmental perspective, but I'm not sure of the profitability stripping and retrofitting those buildings vs building new. Like going from office to residential, you need more than one kitchen and bathroom per floor (unless each floor is its own massive unit, maybe, but even then you need *different* kitchen and bath facilities). That's a ton of plumbing, just to start!

I think the conversion of family sized dwellings to 1 and 2 bedroom condos only is harmful, but I would love to see more 3-4 bed options in upzoned areas. It's not a binary choice between 1 bedrooms for new grads and single family detached homes for families. Just look at the many, many double stacked townhomes popping up around MoCo.

The city should offer tax incentives for downtown residential conversion. The city has a vested interest in preventing downtown from becoming a ghost town both to preserve the tax base and for public safety. These tax incentives may actually end up being revenue neutral when you consider the cost of the CT Ave bike lanes and the business closures they will cause. It makes total sense to do this, except the Mayor will have to weather the temper tantrum the bike community will have.

Muriel versus the lycra-nauts! I can't wait!

A small business owner in Cleveland Park announced last week that he was closing his store of 30 years specifically because the proposed bike lanes would make it impossible economically to continue. More will follow, sadly.

Very sad. And ridiculous given how few people actually use all these bike lanes.

The only thing that's sad about this story is how spectacularly stupid this business owner must be to close their store over bike lanes. There is approximately a 0% chance installing bike lanes "would make it impossible economically to continue" and in the infinitesimally small chance it actually does then they have nobody to blame but themselves for operating such a ridiculously terrible business model that losing a couple parking spaces that they never even owned in the first place forces them to close their business.

Incredible that you know more about this persons business than they do. What arrogance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Awkward question. In the post COVID world, does DC need more housing? Our population is shrinking and downtown DC is hollowing out. Isn’t the better solution to convert vacant offices downtown to housing? That way you avoid the need for these ridiculous bike lanes on major thoroughfares, you keep downtown viable, and you preserve modest single family home neighborhoods.

I think in theory this makes a ton of sense, and is great from a preservation and environmental perspective, but I'm not sure of the profitability stripping and retrofitting those buildings vs building new. Like going from office to residential, you need more than one kitchen and bathroom per floor (unless each floor is its own massive unit, maybe, but even then you need *different* kitchen and bath facilities). That's a ton of plumbing, just to start!

I think the conversion of family sized dwellings to 1 and 2 bedroom condos only is harmful, but I would love to see more 3-4 bed options in upzoned areas. It's not a binary choice between 1 bedrooms for new grads and single family detached homes for families. Just look at the many, many double stacked townhomes popping up around MoCo.

The city should offer tax incentives for downtown residential conversion. The city has a vested interest in preventing downtown from becoming a ghost town both to preserve the tax base and for public safety. These tax incentives may actually end up being revenue neutral when you consider the cost of the CT Ave bike lanes and the business closures they will cause. It makes total sense to do this, except the Mayor will have to weather the temper tantrum the bike community will have.

Muriel versus the lycra-nauts! I can't wait!

A small business owner in Cleveland Park announced last week that he was closing his store of 30 years specifically because the proposed bike lanes would make it impossible economically to continue. More will follow, sadly.

Very sad. And ridiculous given how few people actually use all these bike lanes.

The only thing that's sad about this story is how spectacularly stupid this business owner must be to close their store over bike lanes. There is approximately a 0% chance installing bike lanes "would make it impossible economically to continue" and in the infinitesimally small chance it actually does then they have nobody to blame but themselves for operating such a ridiculously terrible business model that losing a couple parking spaces that they never even owned in the first place forces them to close their business.

If he's managed to stay in business for 30 years, turning a profit and being able to make payroll, he must know what he's doing.

This is what bike lanes do -- they make it harder for people to get around the city. If traffic is terrible and parking is hard, people aren't going to switch to bikes. They'll just go somewhere else, where it isn't such a pain to move around.

What they do is block curb access. Plenty of businesses (and people) require curb access to survive.

I have nothing against bike lanes but also understand how important curb access is. Put the bike lanes up the middle of the street like on Pennsylvania Avenue and it’s no problem.

Or stop building bike lanes. It is incredible how much of our limited transportation resources we dedicate to the minuscule number of bicyclists. The goal of a transportation system should be to move as many people around as efficiently as possible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Awkward question. In the post COVID world, does DC need more housing? Our population is shrinking and downtown DC is hollowing out. Isn’t the better solution to convert vacant offices downtown to housing? That way you avoid the need for these ridiculous bike lanes on major thoroughfares, you keep downtown viable, and you preserve modest single family home neighborhoods.

I think in theory this makes a ton of sense, and is great from a preservation and environmental perspective, but I'm not sure of the profitability stripping and retrofitting those buildings vs building new. Like going from office to residential, you need more than one kitchen and bathroom per floor (unless each floor is its own massive unit, maybe, but even then you need *different* kitchen and bath facilities). That's a ton of plumbing, just to start!

I think the conversion of family sized dwellings to 1 and 2 bedroom condos only is harmful, but I would love to see more 3-4 bed options in upzoned areas. It's not a binary choice between 1 bedrooms for new grads and single family detached homes for families. Just look at the many, many double stacked townhomes popping up around MoCo.

The city should offer tax incentives for downtown residential conversion. The city has a vested interest in preventing downtown from becoming a ghost town both to preserve the tax base and for public safety. These tax incentives may actually end up being revenue neutral when you consider the cost of the CT Ave bike lanes and the business closures they will cause. It makes total sense to do this, except the Mayor will have to weather the temper tantrum the bike community will have.

Muriel versus the lycra-nauts! I can't wait!

A small business owner in Cleveland Park announced last week that he was closing his store of 30 years specifically because the proposed bike lanes would make it impossible economically to continue. More will follow, sadly.

Very sad. And ridiculous given how few people actually use all these bike lanes.

The only thing that's sad about this story is how spectacularly stupid this business owner must be to close their store over bike lanes. There is approximately a 0% chance installing bike lanes "would make it impossible economically to continue" and in the infinitesimally small chance it actually does then they have nobody to blame but themselves for operating such a ridiculously terrible business model that losing a couple parking spaces that they never even owned in the first place forces them to close their business.

If he's managed to stay in business for 30 years, turning a profit and being able to make payroll, he must know what he's doing.

This is what bike lanes do -- they make it harder for people to get around the city. If traffic is terrible and parking is hard, people aren't going to switch to bikes. They'll just go somewhere else, where it isn't such a pain to move around.

What they do is block curb access. Plenty of businesses (and people) require curb access to survive.

I have nothing against bike lanes but also understand how important curb access is. Put the bike lanes up the middle of the street like on Pennsylvania Avenue and it’s no problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Awkward question. In the post COVID world, does DC need more housing? Our population is shrinking and downtown DC is hollowing out. Isn’t the better solution to convert vacant offices downtown to housing? That way you avoid the need for these ridiculous bike lanes on major thoroughfares, you keep downtown viable, and you preserve modest single family home neighborhoods.

I think in theory this makes a ton of sense, and is great from a preservation and environmental perspective, but I'm not sure of the profitability stripping and retrofitting those buildings vs building new. Like going from office to residential, you need more than one kitchen and bathroom per floor (unless each floor is its own massive unit, maybe, but even then you need *different* kitchen and bath facilities). That's a ton of plumbing, just to start!

I think the conversion of family sized dwellings to 1 and 2 bedroom condos only is harmful, but I would love to see more 3-4 bed options in upzoned areas. It's not a binary choice between 1 bedrooms for new grads and single family detached homes for families. Just look at the many, many double stacked townhomes popping up around MoCo.

The city should offer tax incentives for downtown residential conversion. The city has a vested interest in preventing downtown from becoming a ghost town both to preserve the tax base and for public safety. These tax incentives may actually end up being revenue neutral when you consider the cost of the CT Ave bike lanes and the business closures they will cause. It makes total sense to do this, except the Mayor will have to weather the temper tantrum the bike community will have.

Muriel versus the lycra-nauts! I can't wait!

A small business owner in Cleveland Park announced last week that he was closing his store of 30 years specifically because the proposed bike lanes would make it impossible economically to continue. More will follow, sadly.

Very sad. And ridiculous given how few people actually use all these bike lanes.

The only thing that's sad about this story is how spectacularly stupid this business owner must be to close their store over bike lanes. There is approximately a 0% chance installing bike lanes "would make it impossible economically to continue" and in the infinitesimally small chance it actually does then they have nobody to blame but themselves for operating such a ridiculously terrible business model that losing a couple parking spaces that they never even owned in the first place forces them to close their business.

If he's managed to stay in business for 30 years, turning a profit and being able to make payroll, he must know what he's doing.

This is what bike lanes do -- they make it harder for people to get around the city. If traffic is terrible and parking is hard, people aren't going to switch to bikes. They'll just go somewhere else, where it isn't such a pain to move around.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Awkward question. In the post COVID world, does DC need more housing? Our population is shrinking and downtown DC is hollowing out. Isn’t the better solution to convert vacant offices downtown to housing? That way you avoid the need for these ridiculous bike lanes on major thoroughfares, you keep downtown viable, and you preserve modest single family home neighborhoods.

I think in theory this makes a ton of sense, and is great from a preservation and environmental perspective, but I'm not sure of the profitability stripping and retrofitting those buildings vs building new. Like going from office to residential, you need more than one kitchen and bathroom per floor (unless each floor is its own massive unit, maybe, but even then you need *different* kitchen and bath facilities). That's a ton of plumbing, just to start!

I think the conversion of family sized dwellings to 1 and 2 bedroom condos only is harmful, but I would love to see more 3-4 bed options in upzoned areas. It's not a binary choice between 1 bedrooms for new grads and single family detached homes for families. Just look at the many, many double stacked townhomes popping up around MoCo.

The city should offer tax incentives for downtown residential conversion. The city has a vested interest in preventing downtown from becoming a ghost town both to preserve the tax base and for public safety. These tax incentives may actually end up being revenue neutral when you consider the cost of the CT Ave bike lanes and the business closures they will cause. It makes total sense to do this, except the Mayor will have to weather the temper tantrum the bike community will have.

Muriel versus the lycra-nauts! I can't wait!

A small business owner in Cleveland Park announced last week that he was closing his store of 30 years specifically because the proposed bike lanes would make it impossible economically to continue. More will follow, sadly.

Very sad. And ridiculous given how few people actually use all these bike lanes.

The only thing that's sad about this story is how spectacularly stupid this business owner must be to close their store over bike lanes. There is approximately a 0% chance installing bike lanes "would make it impossible economically to continue" and in the infinitesimally small chance it actually does then they have nobody to blame but themselves for operating such a ridiculously terrible business model that losing a couple parking spaces that they never even owned in the first place forces them to close their business.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Awkward question. In the post COVID world, does DC need more housing? Our population is shrinking and downtown DC is hollowing out. Isn’t the better solution to convert vacant offices downtown to housing? That way you avoid the need for these ridiculous bike lanes on major thoroughfares, you keep downtown viable, and you preserve modest single family home neighborhoods.

I think in theory this makes a ton of sense, and is great from a preservation and environmental perspective, but I'm not sure of the profitability stripping and retrofitting those buildings vs building new. Like going from office to residential, you need more than one kitchen and bathroom per floor (unless each floor is its own massive unit, maybe, but even then you need *different* kitchen and bath facilities). That's a ton of plumbing, just to start!

I think the conversion of family sized dwellings to 1 and 2 bedroom condos only is harmful, but I would love to see more 3-4 bed options in upzoned areas. It's not a binary choice between 1 bedrooms for new grads and single family detached homes for families. Just look at the many, many double stacked townhomes popping up around MoCo.

The city should offer tax incentives for downtown residential conversion. The city has a vested interest in preventing downtown from becoming a ghost town both to preserve the tax base and for public safety. These tax incentives may actually end up being revenue neutral when you consider the cost of the CT Ave bike lanes and the business closures they will cause. It makes total sense to do this, except the Mayor will have to weather the temper tantrum the bike community will have.

Muriel versus the lycra-nauts! I can't wait!

A small business owner in Cleveland Park announced last week that he was closing his store of 30 years specifically because the proposed bike lanes would make it impossible economically to continue. More will follow, sadly.

Very sad. And ridiculous given how few people actually use all these bike lanes.

The only thing that's sad about this story is how spectacularly stupid this business owner must be to close their store over bike lanes. There is approximately a 0% chance installing bike lanes "would make it impossible economically to continue" and in the infinitesimally small chance it actually does then they have nobody to blame but themselves for operating such a ridiculously terrible business model that losing a couple parking spaces that they never even owned in the first place forces them to close their business.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Awkward question. In the post COVID world, does DC need more housing? Our population is shrinking and downtown DC is hollowing out. Isn’t the better solution to convert vacant offices downtown to housing? That way you avoid the need for these ridiculous bike lanes on major thoroughfares, you keep downtown viable, and you preserve modest single family home neighborhoods.

I think in theory this makes a ton of sense, and is great from a preservation and environmental perspective, but I'm not sure of the profitability stripping and retrofitting those buildings vs building new. Like going from office to residential, you need more than one kitchen and bathroom per floor (unless each floor is its own massive unit, maybe, but even then you need *different* kitchen and bath facilities). That's a ton of plumbing, just to start!

I think the conversion of family sized dwellings to 1 and 2 bedroom condos only is harmful, but I would love to see more 3-4 bed options in upzoned areas. It's not a binary choice between 1 bedrooms for new grads and single family detached homes for families. Just look at the many, many double stacked townhomes popping up around MoCo.

The city should offer tax incentives for downtown residential conversion. The city has a vested interest in preventing downtown from becoming a ghost town both to preserve the tax base and for public safety. These tax incentives may actually end up being revenue neutral when you consider the cost of the CT Ave bike lanes and the business closures they will cause. It makes total sense to do this, except the Mayor will have to weather the temper tantrum the bike community will have.

Muriel versus the lycra-nauts! I can't wait!

A small business owner in Cleveland Park announced last week that he was closing his store of 30 years specifically because the proposed bike lanes would make it impossible economically to continue. More will follow, sadly.

Very sad. And ridiculous given how few people actually use all these bike lanes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Awkward question. In the post COVID world, does DC need more housing? Our population is shrinking and downtown DC is hollowing out. Isn’t the better solution to convert vacant offices downtown to housing? That way you avoid the need for these ridiculous bike lanes on major thoroughfares, you keep downtown viable, and you preserve modest single family home neighborhoods.

I think in theory this makes a ton of sense, and is great from a preservation and environmental perspective, but I'm not sure of the profitability stripping and retrofitting those buildings vs building new. Like going from office to residential, you need more than one kitchen and bathroom per floor (unless each floor is its own massive unit, maybe, but even then you need *different* kitchen and bath facilities). That's a ton of plumbing, just to start!

I think the conversion of family sized dwellings to 1 and 2 bedroom condos only is harmful, but I would love to see more 3-4 bed options in upzoned areas. It's not a binary choice between 1 bedrooms for new grads and single family detached homes for families. Just look at the many, many double stacked townhomes popping up around MoCo.

The city should offer tax incentives for downtown residential conversion. The city has a vested interest in preventing downtown from becoming a ghost town both to preserve the tax base and for public safety. These tax incentives may actually end up being revenue neutral when you consider the cost of the CT Ave bike lanes and the business closures they will cause. It makes total sense to do this, except the Mayor will have to weather the temper tantrum the bike community will have.

Muriel versus the lycra-nauts! I can't wait!

A small business owner in Cleveland Park announced last week that he was closing his store of 30 years specifically because the proposed bike lanes would make it impossible economically to continue. More will follow, sadly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Upzoning is the natural course of growth in urban and semiurban areas. Once it’s no longer practical to build out — because it takes people too far away from infrastructure, jobs, and amenities — you build up. Fighting upzoning is silly.

2. Whatever is built as a result of upzoning will usually be more expensive than whatever end-of-life structure it replaces on a per-unit basis. That’s what happens when there’s investment. You get nicer stuff that costs more. We should embrace that rather than fighting it. From a builder’s standpoint, there’s also a decision about whether to build multifamily or single family. Single family may yield higher margins even when it’s not the best use of the land.

3. No. 2 won’t happen on a large scale without structural reform in the housing market. Builders make more money with less risk when there’s a shortage. They’re very sensitive to price and stop building in a given area at the first sign prices are flattening. That’s not to say they don’t misread the market sometimes, but usually when they misread the market they create a shortage, not a surplus. Sitting on underutilized land must be made more expensive through taxes and fees. You never hear the urbanists talk about this one because they’re part of an astroturf movement and this would obviously cut into developers’ profits.

4. We’ll never fix the housing market because the developers and homeowners who hold influence over elected officials both profit from shortage.

1. DC is shrinking, not growing. This will accelerate in the coming years.

2/3 There are currently 2000 units of “nicer stuff” already in the pipeline in Ward 3. We need to see if the demand is there before adding to a potential glut.

4. The housing market is now balanced in DC and it’s a buyers market in many places in the country. The buyers market in cheaper COL areas will cause more people to leave DC.

This is classic DC ready, fire, aim. The mayor has no plan to fix overcrowded Ward 3 schools and she is packing the CT and WI corridors with homeless people. Now she wants to destroy single family neighbors? Not this day.

Anonymous wrote:1. Upzoning is the natural course of growth in urban and semiurban areas. Once it’s no longer practical to build out — because it takes people too far away from infrastructure, jobs, and amenities — you build up. Fighting upzoning is silly.

2. Whatever is built as a result of upzoning will usually be more expensive than whatever end-of-life structure it replaces on a per-unit basis. That’s what happens when there’s investment. You get nicer stuff that costs more. We should embrace that rather than fighting it. From a builder’s standpoint, there’s also a decision about whether to build multifamily or single family. Single family may yield higher margins even when it’s not the best use of the land.

3. No. 2 won’t happen on a large scale without structural reform in the housing market. Builders make more money with less risk when there’s a shortage. They’re very sensitive to price and stop building in a given area at the first sign prices are flattening. That’s not to say they don’t misread the market sometimes, but usually when they misread the market they create a shortage, not a surplus. Sitting on underutilized land must be made more expensive through taxes and fees. You never hear the urbanists talk about this one because they’re part of an astroturf movement and this would obviously cut into developers’ profits.

4. We’ll never fix the housing market because the developers and homeowners who hold influence over elected officials both profit from shortage.