Because parking in front of the church door is a religious right

[dasgeh]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/10/14/d-c-church-says-a-bike-lane-would-infringe-upon-its-constitutional-rights-of-religious-freedom/

AKA, if you set a bad precedent, you will regret it in the future

I wodner what they say to all the other people who park in the spots in front of the church and infringe on their religious rights.

Topic

[dasgeh]

@jabberwocky 126897 wrote:

To be fair, hiding behind religion to justify being a self-centered dick is pretty much what american christianity seems to be about, at least in my experience.

I’m sad that that is your experience. If you’re open to changing it, you’re welcome to come to my church (Clarendon Presbyterian, near Liberty Tavern, also hosts the Arlington Action Committee meetings, blesses bikes, etc).

[americancyclo]

I just now realized that the bike lanes will be around the corner from the church. not even in front of it! Also, most of the plans I’ve seen still include weekend/off-hours parking. How many spots will be removed in the surrounding five blocks?

[GovernorSilver]

@83(b) 126904 wrote:

To be clear, I have no animosity towards religion or churches generally. And, in fact, have been a member of my fair share of congregations.

I do have considerable, longstanding, negative feelings toward the specific group of DC churches—a considerable number of which surround my home—that, solely with respect to problems caused by their driving habits:
• Disregarded a disabled man’s pleas not to immobilize him for half of his weekend;
• Park illegally en masse on Sundays, especially around the entire perimeter of the park across the street from my house, which impedes sight lanes greatly and makes it dangerous for neighbors trying to cross the street to use the park (especially given the uptick in speeding at that time);
• Yelled at marathon runners, made grossly offensive statements directed at neighborhood residents, and double parked to block in scores of neighbors cars, when a highly-popular race prevented them from illegally parking around the park;
• Block off parking spots and bike lanes illegally using orange safety cones to create unpermitted loading zones (this occurs frequently, especially for funerals) and make frequent illegal U turns out of those zones;
• Double park in bike lanes, blocking in neighborhood resident’s cars (this also occurs frequently, especially for funerals);
• Honk at cyclists and pass us aggressively for not riding in those blocked bike lanes;
• Deploy uniformed security/parking attendants or parishioners in safety vests to intimidate neighborhood residents to stay out of legal parking spots;
• Convinced DDOT to grant angled parking on certain blocks on Sunday mornings, requiring local residents to adjust their own cars twice, first very early in the morning and again in the evenings; and
• Have succeeded in, or are attempting to, force the city to scuttle the building of, or to compromise the design of, cycling infrastructure that would make city residents safer.

Man, are these particular churches really churches or organized crime syndicates? It’s sad they get away with this unlawful behavior – I suppose it’s because of corruption in the DC government – “I scratch your back, you look the other way” kind of stuff.

[Brendan von Buckingham]

This post is not an endorsement or acceptance of any individual church action, just context and strategic opinion.

There were at least 3 different churches in the article and there are dozens more in the neighborhood. I’d be able to follow this thread more precisely if we started specifying which churches we’re talking about. Having worked with many of these churches as a community historian we should understand (at least a little) where they’re coming from. Some have been in Shaw 150 years. Some have chosen their Shaw location as their world headquarters (lots of denominations have headquarter churches in DC). While some small churches might move out of the city or die away, the bigger ones, the ones with political muscle, won’t.

Playing the RLUIPA card is community planning theater 101, they just jumped their cue early. RLUIPA claims are easy to make, almost never have merit the way they’re used, but sometimes are sufficient to cow a board or agency that doesn’t want the headache.

Strategically I’m a fan of “hit the enemy where they ain’t.” If you do that you have easier fights and eventually surround the enemy for the grand finale. There are lots of other streets that need bike lanes. Better to spend time and resources putting lanes there and come back to these lanes later. It’s just not worth the fight. Unless DDOT has already given WABA a double-secret handshake guarantee that these bike lanes are going in no matter what happens in the public meetings, churches beat bikes. That’s just the pecking order right now (see Metropolitan AME on M Street). This pecking order could eventually change, but not at this moment.

[Crickey7]

I think this is a battle being fought in the minds of DDOT right now. The churches indeed came out too strong too soon. UHOP’s tactics were so obviously ginned up and rather heavy handed, and were about as subtle as a brick. This had two impacts. First, taking any action that might be perceived as caving would be the equivalent of giving churches, or frankly any interest group, a playbook for how to manipulate future transportation policy decisions. Second, it had to work in the political arena because it was a political weapon. Had it worked, we would have seen sincere expressions of concern right away from Council members and, more importantly, the Mayor. That hasn’t really happened. There’s been even some modest blowback. That has to be giving DDOT some cover to do what they would have done anyway.

[mstone]

@Brendan von Buckingham 126937 wrote:

Strategically I’m a fan of “hit the enemy where they ain’t.” If you do that you have easier fights and eventually surround the enemy for the grand finale. There are lots of other streets that need bike lanes.

How many streets need bike lanes and have no special interests that don’t want bike lanes?

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 126995 wrote:

How many streets need bike lanes and have no special interests that don’t want bike lanes?

Eye Street SW SE. Has bike lanes, the plan shows PBLs, there is maybe one church on the way (I am oddly blanking out) and it’s small and may be planning on selling and probably no one else will fight, now that McDonald’shas sold to a developer. Do it now!

Really, not too many interests with the clout of the United House of Prayer for All People, supplemented by the other churches in that corridor.

[dasgeh]

I agree that cowing to a special interest sets a bad precedent for DDOT. OTOH, I am sympathetic to the point that, looking at the map, bike infrastructure serves only one segment of the population. Maybe if DDOT could get more PBLs on the other side of the Anacostia… Those may be in the works, which would be great.

[DSalovesh]

I keep saying this because it isn’t part of what I believe people are thinking:

Every road is most important to the people who aren’t already there.

The map of bikeway locations is heavy in the middle because it’s the most heavily ridden area no matter where those people live. The middle margins are a mix because some middles lead to more heavily ridden areas and some do not.

Building a bikeway network from the edges out is somewhere between a bad idea and impossible to get right.

What’s actually shameful is the lack of connectivity.

The volume from Deanwood to West End will always be small, and the case for adding bikeways won’t be obvious, but the status quo says the volume will always be close to zero. It’s shameful, but moreover, it’s correctable – and it HAS to be corrected before it makes any sense to build bikeways on the far side of the divide. What we have now tells people EotR that “we” are giving them one good place to cross the river (11th St.) and a lot of marginal or even bad places. With that as the offer, is it any wonder it’s so hard to build community support for adding bikeways Deanwoodians can’t imagine using?

[ginacico]

@lordofthemark 126890 wrote:

Because the rhetoric, and much of the feeling (at least among church members, even if the leadership is insincere) is not about the bike lane but about gentrification.

FTW

Why The Fight Over A Bike Lane In Shaw Isn’t About Biking

“I suspect that many within the bicycling community don’t understand or know the history of the faith community in the District of Columbia,” he said. “So let’s come to the table and let’s talk. Quite frankly, I don’t think that is the responsibility of the bicycle lobby. They do what they do. That’s the responsibility of the city to make sure that happens.”

[mstone]

@ginacico 128319 wrote:

FTW

Why The Fight Over A Bike Lane In Shaw Isn’t About Biking

“I suspect that many within the bicycling community don’t understand or know the history of the faith community in the District of Columbia,” he said. “So let’s come to the table and let’s talk”

I guess it isn’t clear to me why it’s valid to assert that our safety should be sacrificed for their unrelated concerns.

[Crickey7]

“We know that when you see bike lanes, when you see Whole Foods, when you see Harris Teeter, when you see Chipotles, and all of these different places, that’s nice establishments, but I know that’s not for me,” said Robert Price, a pastor at the United House of Prayer.

Hey, anyone who sees what a crappy job Whole Foods does at providing bike racks would conclude that’s not intended for cyclists, either. But they will validate your parking, for free.

[thucydides]

Gentrification is a genuine issue, I get that. But I don’t buy that the heat being directed against these bike lanes in these specific instances is really about gentrification. This is about MARYLAND residents wanting convenient parking.

[MFC]

@thucydides 128329 wrote:

Gentrification is a genuine issue, I get that. But I don’t buy that the heat being directed against these bike lanes in these specific instances is really about gentrification. This is about MARYLAND residents wanting convenient parking.

Being against bike lanes can be the latest form of NIMBY-ism.

[lordofthemark]

@thucydides 128329 wrote:

Gentrification is a genuine issue, I get that. But I don’t buy that the heat being directed against these bike lanes in these specific instances is really about gentrification. This is about MARYLAND residents wanting convenient parking.

1. Those Md residents have friends in the church who are DC residents 2. Many or most of those Md residents used to live in DC 3. At least a few of those Md residents see themselves as having been displaced from DC.

I guess it isn’t clear to me why it’s valid to assert that our safety should be sacrificed for their unrelated concerns.

It shouldn’t. But as I said above, while the concerns are, IMO, logically unrelated (mostly – there is at least some small causal linkage of improved neighborhood amenities to housing price increases, though I think that is a small aspect of rising RE prices, and the UHOP is somewhat hypocritical on the issue) they are gut emotionally related to many of the people on the other side of this issue. Is there anything to be lost by sitting down and talking? Who is the CM here BTW? Allen? Can he get involved and talk AH to them, while also defending the need for bike infra?

[Author]

Replies