Proposed Capital Bikeshare Locations opposed by Bluemont Civic Association – vote

[sjclaeys]

I posted about this yesterday. Here is something from the opposition that I came across:

It appears that the Capital Bikeshare organization has decided to put out a survey on the location on the proposed Bikeshare station on Bluemont Junction Trail and on Harrison Street (Proposed Custis Trail location). They put out this survey notification taped to the post on the Bikeshare station behind our local fire station. (Photo Enclosed) It appears that the neighborhood that would be affected by the location of the Harrison Street Bikeshare station was not invited to take the survey only those that use the Bikeshare station in back of the fire station. As far as I can tell none of the neighbors on Harrison Street were notified. Needless to say this survey would be extremely biased and not reflect the wishes of the neighborhood on Harrison Street.

It appears that the Capitol Bikeshare organization is willfully excluding the neighborhood that they propose as a location. To say this is unprofessional is an understatement. We cannot let this happen.

Please go to the following web page: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1aR-f4O8_EbqstxMATZKESsyI-7kMLuC9l2KaGeguNT0/viewform?c=0&w=1
The one on the flyer does not work; however, I received this from a Bluemont resident that got the corrected URL.

Please fill out the general questions with the recommended responses

The Street you live on

If you ever used Capital Bikeshare (biased question)

Do you like this location – Hit the radio button “No”

Why do you feel this way: Some suggested responses:
1. The location of the proposed station places the bike renters at a safety risk from the flow of traffic on Harrison Street.
2. Bike renters will park their cars in from of single family residences, thus changing the completion on the neighborhood and causing parking complications.
3. The Bikeshare station is ugly and does not fit into a single family residence neighborhood.

Any other thoughts about this site or Capital Bikeshare in general? A suggested response:
As recommended at the last Bluemont Civic Association meeting consider locating a station 1/4 mile west down Fairfax Drive at the junction of Westover Park and Bon Air Park.

[rcannon100]

Oh that is funny. That has to be about as unobtrusive a location as possible.

Like I said, if they dont want it, I have a great recommendation about where CABI can place the station.

[mstone]

So basically people whining about parking? I’ve seen this movie before.

[scoot]

@sjclaeys 114136 wrote:

Please fill out the general questions with the recommended responses

Just curious: How are these “recommended responses” being communicated to the intended responders? Email to residents?

Any other thoughts about this site or Capital Bikeshare in general? A suggested response:
As recommended at the last Bluemont Civic Association meeting consider locating a station 1/4 mile west down Fairfax Drive at the junction of Westover Park and Bon Air Park.

Fact check: The Underpass of Eternal Darkness (which is what I assume they mean by the “junction of Westover Park and Bon Air Park”) is 2500 feet from the proposed station on Harrison Street.

IMO, Harrison Street overpass is the ideal location for a CaBi station in that area. It maximizes both east-west and north-south connectivity.

[sjclaeys]

@scoot 114149 wrote:

Just curious: How are these “recommended responses” being communicated to the intended responders? Email to residents?

I was an email that went out to residents, though I do not live in Bluemont. I hope that sharing this encourages forum members in Bluemont to get involved and to let ArlCo know about the nature of the opposition.

[baiskeli]

@Kolohe 114111 wrote:

Every part of Bluemont is either in close proximity to single family residences, or in the no-go area of the old rail right away green space. Every. Square. Inch.

No. There are places in Bluemont where a station could go that would be further away from single-family residences than at that location. It’s a matter of feet, not of the general character of the neighborhood.

“Change in neighborhood appearance”. *That’s* the general nature of the neighborhood. I also suppose that nobody in Bluemont has ever had their garbage or yard waste picked up since county incorporation, since they don’t like “trucks” servicing their neighborhood.

I agree that this is a silly objection.

So tell me again how awsomesauce the bluemont civic association is? Again, the same peeps that opposed the W&OD connection 15 years ago? “Oh, but we didn’t like it because it wasn’t perfect” is the excuse now for that. What will be the excuse 15 years from now?

I didn’t say it was awesome. I said you are overreacting. I mean, come on – racism. That’s what you opened with.

Reasonable people can disagree. Let’s not immediately start with the same old “if someone disagrees with exactly where I want a bike facility they’re a bunch of evil racist bastards.” That doesn’t work.

[dasgeh]

@83(b) 114122 wrote:

I’ve run into a variation on this problem several times during negotiations with lawyers and business people in a particular country. First you’re presented a detailed issues list. As those issues get negotiated and resolved, the other side starts raising unrelated new issues. The tactic is clearly designed to wear down opposition and run out the clock until you concede on key deal points. There aren’t always easy answers for how to handle them, but I do know (from bitter experience) that you don’t win by mudwrestling with pigs…

I’ve been stuck in this country for the past month. UGH.

[baiskeli]

@83(b) 114122 wrote:

I generally agree wholeheartedly, but I also think that there is a strong tendency among clever individuals (or at least individuals who think they’re being clever) to dress up NIMBYism with very reasonable sounding complaints that are, in actuality, distractions and wholly unrelated to the issue at hand.

Yes, but if you’ve ever been to a civic association meeting, you can read between the lines of these resolutions and see what happened:

– members of many different minds voiced different concerns
– they wrote up a resolution on the spot by listing all the concerns so nobody was left out

So some of the concerns that are stupid are thrown in with legitimate ones. And that gives people on the other side the opportunity to focus only on the stupid ones, as we see on this forum.

As for NIMBYism, that’s a way overused term. It was used against cyclists or like-minded people who oppose building or widening roads. It was probably used against those who opposed the plan – and there was a plan – to build a highway in the Bluemont Junction Trail and W&OD ROW. It’s okay to oppose something in your backyard if you wouldn’t want it in anyone else’s backyard either.

I’ve run into a variation on this problem several times during negotiations with lawyers and business people in a particular country. First you’re presented a detailed issues list. As those issues get negotiated and resolved, the other side starts raising unrelated new issues. The tactic is clearly designed to wear down opposition and run out the clock until you concede on key deal points. There aren’t always easy answers for how to handle them, but I do know (from bitter experience) that you don’t win by mudwrestling with pigs…

But we are all pigs ourselves – we live in the community as well as riding bikes in it. For me, as a member of the Bluemont neighborhood and BCA who lives right on the trail, this is a great example of why it’s not just us-vs.-them, and why we need to start from respect – and NEVER EVER put thoughts in other people’s heads or attribute motives to them we have no evidence of (speaking in general terms, not to you).

[baiskeli]

@Steve O 114128 wrote:

I have watched people who are very good at this (not me) deal with this this way:

“I understand you have outlined four issues that concern you about this ________ issue. If those four issues were addressed to your satisfaction, would this issue be resolved for you?”
When they say yes, then hold them to it. If they say no, then ask what are the other issues that would need to be resolved. Finalize the list: “If these issues were addressed to your satisfaction, would you then be willing to move forward?”.

If you are able to resolve all of the issues, then they have no room to throw out new red herrings, because they already agreed that those issues comprised the totality of their concerns.

Of course, it may be impossible to “resolve to their satisfaction,” since they won’t be satisfied with anything. But at least with this strategy you can expose any hypocrisy they may have.

See, now that’s how you do it.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 114133 wrote:

That can work in a bilateral negotiation, but not in a public debate like this–there will always be another person who can claim they weren’t part of that deal. Also, it only works if the points are things you can give up and still have a viable project.

But that’s what the civic association is for–to make it bilateral. If BCA is happy, it’s over. Some random guy who doesn’t like it won’t matter any more. The point is to win an agreement, not to convince every single person in a public debate to think your way. That won’t ever happen.

[baiskeli]

@OneEighth 114132 wrote:

The way forward is simple and self-evident. Thunderdome.

This will be my ride:

[dasgeh]

@sjclaeys 114136 wrote:

Please go to the following web page: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1aR-f4O8_EbqstxMATZKESsyI-7kMLuC9l2KaGeguNT0/viewform?c=0&w=1[/quote]

I have some suggested responses:
Why do you feel this way?

Quote:

Having a station on Harrison is a great addition to the CaBi network. Harrison is a good north-south connector in the Arlington bike network, and having a station here will benefit cyclists traveling both to the area south of I-66 (to Wilson Boulevard, Ballston, etc), and to the north (Lee Harrison shops, Virginia Hospital Center via 16th Street).

Additionally, Harrison Street will benefit from the traffic calming aspects of having more bikes on the road.

Any other thoughts about this site or Capital Bikeshare in general?

Quote:

CaBi is great for Arlington. Building the network throughout the County is crucial for the success of the entire system. Locating stations throughout the County makes the entire system stronger and serves all users of the system, not only those in the immediate neighborhood of the station.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 114162 wrote:

But that’s what the civic association is for–to make it bilateral. If BCA is happy, it’s over. Some random guy who doesn’t like it won’t matter any more. The point is to win an agreement, not to convince every single person in a public debate to think your way. That won’t ever happen.

Uh-huh. So if you convince the BCA, there will never be a “Friends of Keeping Children Safe” to drag the fight out even longer. There is value in community input, but there’s also value in having an effective government that can make decisions. It’s a balance, and one that’s all too easily disrupted by people who know how to wield delaying tactics. The end result is very often that the original plan is implemented, but with much higher costs than should have been necessary.

If your theory about a bunch of unrelated crap being lumped together into a resolution is correct, why didn’t BCA do the hard work of actually coming up with a reasonable resolution?

Edit to add: it’s also the case that a civic association helps to spread out the effort of monitoring a community’s interests, and allows the community to speak with a louder voice, but a private civic association can’t guarantee a “bilateral” agreement with a local government, because the residents who choose to not join the association (or those who are members but disagree with the association’s position) have not given up their own right of access to government. Virginia localities generally offer a great deal of deference to civic associations, but still have to make their own decisions.

[lordofthemark]

Its too bad Arlington can’t use their money to fund CaBi stations in Alexandria instead. Lots of places here where I am sure there will be no opposition, but the City is constrained by money.

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 114166 wrote:

Edit to add: it’s also the case that a civic association helps to spread out the effort of monitoring a community’s interests, and allows the community to speak with a louder voice, but a private civic association can’t guarantee a “bilateral” agreement with a local government, because the residents who choose to not join the association (or those who are members but disagree with the association’s position) have not given up their own right of access to government. Virginia localities generally offer a great deal of deference to civic associations, but still have to make their own decisions.

It is my experience, in Fairfax and in Alexandria, that civic associations typically represent the most “nimbyist” POVs within the community (at least within the bounds of sanity) so that if you do get a CA signoff, you are done. I am thinking of RSUs in Fairfax (local affordable housing groups supported, CAs opposed) the King Street Bike lanes (the all powerful bike lobby and the City staff supported, CA opposed) etc, etc. Giving the CAs a veto can lead to bad public policy (and typically ignoring the concerns of renters, as well as geographically wider concerns) but I am not aware of any place where the relevant CAs signed off and the hold outs managed to block something.

[Author]

Posts