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

[dasgeh]

Also, most of the changes that people see as gentrification don’t go out for public comment the way bike lanes do. So you have people who feel that they are being displaced, forced out of their home, or forced away from the church that they belong to because they were already forced out of their home near it, and the public comment for bike lanes is the space they have to voice their situation.

It sucks that bike lanes are one of the only places they have to make their voices heard. Maybe if there were another forum to talk generally about gentrification, we could get bike lanes out of the spot light.

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 128338 wrote:

It shouldn’t

Great, so once it’s clear that this doesn’t have anything do with bike lanes, stop talking about the bike lanes and just put them in. If people want to have a different conversation about a different thing, and have some policy proposal (that is, aren’t just idly bitching) then let’s have that conversation. FWIW, I don’t think bike lanes have causal relationship to housing price increases; they’re a trailing indicator that results from people moving into an area and demanding better infrastructure. The only sure way to keep housing prices low in a geographically desirable region is to redline an area as an underserved high-crime ghetto with crumbling infrastructure–and I don’t think there’s any kind of serious policy proposal that can come of that. Maybe I’m wrong, and there is a way forward–but let’s talk about that, instead of bike lanes.

[scoot]

@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.

Bingo. How much of a fight did they put up against Chipotle, Whole Foods, etc.?

[lordofthemark]

Great, so once it’s clear that this doesn’t have anything do with bike lanes, stop talking about the bike lanes and just put them in.

DDOT is not going to put bike lanes in without community feedback and input. If they do, they may endanger Council support for the program. What to do about this particular opposition is upto the Mayor and Council of DC. I think there are ways to listen to concerns (even irrelevant ones) and to patiently explain why the bike lanes are a separate issue from AH, that will not prevent putting in quality bike lanes.

If people want to have a different conversation about a different thing, and have some policy proposal (that is, aren’t just idly bitching) then let’s have that conversation.

You and I may think that they are separate conversations. Apparently some in the community do not. Some of them (or their friends and relations) vote in DC.

FWIW, I don’t think bike lanes have causal relationship to housing price increases; they’re a trailing indicator that results from people moving into an area and demanding better infrastructure.

In my opinion gentrification happens because the next neighborhood over has gotten too expensive and people look nearby. The presence of amenities probably adds to the momentum. Of all the amenities bike lanes are a minor one, but as Dasgeh points out, often the only one where there is a chance to kvetch in an official forum. (BTW, I would pay more to live near quality bike lanes, but I realize that I do not drive the market)

The only sure way to keep housing prices low in a geographically desirable region is to redline an area as an underserved high-crime ghetto with crumbling infrastructure–and I don’t think there’s any kind of serious policy proposal that can come of that.

There are ways to address displacement and housing affordability aside from keeping market housing prices low.

Maybe I’m wrong, and there is a way forward–but let’s talk about that, instead of bike lanes.

But the issues have already been mixed – maybe disingenuously by some, but apparently with resonance. I am not saying there should not be bike lanes here – or even that the bike lane design should be modified – but I don’t think this can be simply brute forced (or if it is, that will only worsen the issue elsewhere for the near future) What is called for is more deftness – CM Allen needs to reiterate that DC is focusing on AH, that AH in the area (not insignificant) will remain, that bike lanes will be distributed equitably across the District, that biking is for all (with reference to programs to make CaBi more usable for those without credit cards) that biking is already done by a racially and economically diverse group – that bike lanes can improve safety for cyclists and perhaps also for pedestrians – and that the District sympathizes with the church, its goals, and even its parking needs.

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 128354 wrote:

There are ways to address displacement and housing affordability aside from keeping market housing prices low

Ok, so demonstrate that’s the actual issue and then talk about a policy proposal implementing that thing. I’m not convinced that is the real issue, but go ahead and see if there’s community support for it.

But the issues have already been mixed – maybe disingenuously by some, but apparently with resonance. I am not saying there should not be bike lanes here – or even that the bike lane design should be modified – but I don’t think this can be simply brute forced (or if it is, that will only worsen the issue elsewhere for the near future) What is called for is more deftness – CM Allen needs to reiterate that DC is focusing on AH, that AH in the area (not insignificant) will remain, that bike lanes will be distributed equitably across the District, that biking is for all (with reference to programs to make CaBi more usable for those without credit cards) that biking is already done by a racially and economically diverse group – that bike lanes can improve safety for cyclists and perhaps also for pedestrians – and that the District sympathizes with the church, its goals, and even its parking needs.

And none of that will matter. Either DDOT will push the bike lanes in as a safety measure regardless of them being disingenuously mixed with some other undefined problem, or they’ll roll over. There isn’t an end here where the church just says “whoops, sorry about that, let’s go with the bike lanes”.

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 128358 wrote:

Ok, so demonstrate that’s the actual issue and then talk about a policy proposal implementing that thing. I’m not convinced that is the real issue, but go ahead and see if there’s community support for it.

But the issues have already been mixed – maybe disingenuously by some, but apparently with resonance. I am not saying there should not be bike lanes here – or even that the bike lane design should be modified – but I don’t think this can be simply brute forced (or if it is, that will only worsen the issue elsewhere for the near future) What is called for is more deftness – CM Allen needs to reiterate that DC is focusing on AH, that AH in the area (not insignificant) will remain, that bike lanes will be distributed equitably across the District, that biking is for all (with reference to programs to make CaBi more usable for those without credit cards) that biking is already done by a racially and economically diverse group – that bike lanes can improve safety for cyclists and perhaps also for pedestrians – and that the District sympathizes with the church, its goals, and even its parking needs.

And none of that will matter. Either DDOT will push the bike lanes in as a safety measure regardless of them being disingenuously mixed with some other undefined problem, or they’ll roll over. There isn’t an end here where the church just says “whoops, sorry about that, let’s go with the bike lanes”.

I think you are being (pardon) a little black and white here. Its not necessarily a matter of finding a magic powerpoint with a list of AH talking points that somehow gets the leaders of all the churches (there are several, not just UHOP) to say amen to bike lanes. It is a matter of showing that DC has listened, hears the concerns, and is addressing the concerns, sufficient to soften the opposition (which is non binary – both in that winning over some, but not all opponents helps, and getting any opponents to be less fervid in their opposition helps) , so that the Mayor and Council can then feel more comfortable giving DDOT go ahead on the bike lanes.

[83b]

The quotes from the pastors are absolute indecipherable word salad. I can’t imagine having to sit through one of their sermons and I most certainly would not be willing to waste time trying to have a conversation with them about the city’s transportation policies, much less something as complex as “gentrification.”

[lordofthemark]

A victory for patient outreach?

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/29656/a-church-in-shaw-thinks-bike-lanes-make-streets-safer/

Note there will be another open house this Saturday.

http://ddot.dc.gov/page/eastern-downtown-protected-bike-lane-study

[Riley Casey]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcelino_Manuel_da_Graca

@GovernorSilver 126910 wrote:

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.

[Author]

Posts