Neighbors opposing Phoenix Bikes proposed new facility

As a long-time member of the drunk community, I much prefer public bathrooms over peeing all over neighborhood lawns.:rolleyes:

How many of us use a car to pick up a purchased bicycle or to bring a bicycle in for repair? I’d guess almost all of us. So I think more than three spaces would be a good idea unless there’s ample parking on the street. But the anti-proposal flyer is the source of the three parking space figure. Is that accurate? A number of trees can be planted equal to the number of trees removed but the amount of undeveloped acreage (forest? adjacent to wooded park?) would be reduced. I think Phoenix is a great resource and in need of a larger facility and I support this proposal but these concerns should not be trivialized. Lock the bathroom at night.

@ShawnoftheDread 70828 wrote:

I prefer the opposite. All must deal with my drunken belligerence in its many and varied forms.

Generally from a distance of 6-8 feet

@Kolohe 70831 wrote:

I’ll admit, I’m kinda ambivalent on this project. It’s difficult for me to come up with a good heuristic that specifies why certain charities can get this kind of consideration, but others can’t. i.e. you’re not going to be able to grant county land to everyone who asks for it – or even who’s deserving – so you’re going to need a system. And the system for this is ‘having board membership in common’

Is there another bike/pedestrian charity (so, with a synergy to a major bike/pedestrian trail) with a good track record of providing public service in Arlington that you’d like to propose instead? Preferably a project that would provide amenities/services to trail users?

This ridiculous save-the-trees argument is a pathetic attempt to greenwash criticism that boils down to keeping out “those people” and free car storage. I hope supporters from Arlington show up to the next meeting.

@Kolohe 70831 wrote:

I’ll admit, I’m kinda ambivalent on this project. It’s difficult for me to come up with a good heuristic that specifies why certain charities can get this kind of consideration, but others can’t. i.e. you’re not going to be able to grant county land to everyone who asks for it – or even who’s deserving – so you’re going to need a system. And the system for this is ‘having board membership in common’

(and that’s putting aside the fact that cutting down a bunch a trees on the side what is arguably the most environmental blighted 2-3 blocks in the county is kinda quirky is a negative way)

I don’t know the exact details, but from what I understand Phoenix Bikes is supported quite a bit by Arlington County: http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/parksrecreation/teens/programs/page59427.aspx

@mstone 70848 wrote:

Is there another bike/pedestrian charity (so, with a synergy to a major bike/pedestrian trail) with a good track record of providing public service in Arlington that you’d like to propose instead? Preferably a project that would provide amenities/services to trail users?

This ridiculous save-the-trees argument is a pathetic attempt to greenwash criticism that boils down to keeping out “those people” and free car storage. I hope supporters from Arlington show up to the next meeting.

That’s not really a fair response to Kolohe’s post and concerns*. There’s nothing automatically and inherently better about a “bike/pedestrian charity (so, with a synergy to a major bike/pedestrian trail) … that would provide amenities/services to trail users?” over other types of charities (homeless shelters, food banks, arts centers, other types of community centers, medical centers, etc, etc). I don’t live in Arlington County, I have no idea how they decide on government support to various charities, but it is a fair question to ask. You might know the answer, and the answer might be that they have a rigorous evaluation process already set up that works well for the county and that has already vetted Phoenix and this project (or some similar answer). But some other charity doesn’t have to be proposing to do the exact same thing in order to be a competitor for government support.

*It might be a fair response to the flyer. OMG, lights on until 9pm! Public restrooms!!! It is not a fair response to Kolohe.

@acl 70866 wrote:

That’s not really a fair response to Kolohe’s post and concerns*. There’s nothing automatically and inherently better about a “bike/pedestrian charity (so, with a synergy to a major bike/pedestrian trail) … that would provide amenities/services to trail users?” over other types of charities (homeless shelters, food banks, arts centers, other types of community centers, medical centers, etc, etc).

I think it’s a reasonable thing to consider when trying to decide what to do with county land that happens to be right on a trail. The county already provides things like bathrooms & water at various spots, so this seems like a good way to provide those facilities at this location as well as getting additional benefits for a program that already gets county support as a useful thing for kids to do. (Most places are eager for ways to keep kids from being idle on the street.) So in context, I think it’s reasonable to ask what better charity one has in mind if someone wants to criticize the choice of charity.