It is no secret that the Washington Hospital Center is the most dense commuter destination not served by fixed rail. This has been studied and documented by the DC Transportation Authority (see above). Since this is public property, we DC taxpayers should have a say regarding the circumstances under which the developer will profit from turning this public green space into low-income housing and eight story buildings (ka-ching!). It makes no sense to add ten thousand cars a day to one of the city's worst problem areas. Only now does the community have any clout whatsover in this "cooperative" process. If there is going to be such a massive, $1 billion taxpayer-subsidized project undertaken, we should insist on a fixed rail station serving the Hospital Center and Bloomingdale.
OK. I assume you would be in favor of drastically higher density on the development site to make the finances of paying for a rail line possible.
ReplyDeleteRight?
chicken, meet egg.
ReplyDeleteOr, I suppose you're just using rail as yet another piece of sh*t to throw at the wall and hope it sticks.
The density here already justifies a metro stop. That is why I cited the two studies that have already been commissioned. Actually, I would support moderately less development than that proposed, including a limit of three-story high residential, if a Metro were included.
ReplyDeleteSo just to be clear, you don't care about saving all the land as a park as long as there's a train? That's not what the header on this website says. Which is it?
ReplyDeleteYour arguments aren't consistent. It's clear you are using any rhetorical trick you can think of to try and get as little as possible built. You should be embarrassed.
Once it is developed, it is lost forever. If it is to be developed, it should be done in way that is smart. And, because it is PUBLIC property, development should benefit the public, NOT the pre-selected Bethesda developer who has no interest in the time and expense of adding a metro station.
ReplyDeleteSo, "just to be (more) clear" I would support smart development of this public space. The current plan does NOTHING to solve the transportation problems facing Bloomingdale. In fact, the developer's solution to add timed traffic lights so more traffic can travel higher speeds up and down First Street, Bloomingdale's Main Street, will wreck the neighborhood feel we now enjoy. The current plan dices up the property leaving almost zero usable park space, no bike/running trails, no playing fields, etc. If the city were in charge, and the profit motive became secondary to the public interest, a development plan that included fixed rail, doubled the park space and eliminated four-story high low-income housing projects would be an acceptable compromise. This plan is nothing close to that. Therefore, I am currently on the side of preserving all of this space until a plan that would benefit Bloomingdale is put forward.
Earlier you were complaining about traffic congestion. Now you're complaining about traffic moving faster.
ReplyDeleteYour random attacks on this project are beyond ridiculous. You clearly have a predetermined agenda and are looking for any excuse to support it.
It's no wonder folks don't take your concerns seriously.
If you lived here you would understand that congestion and speeding cars are both of concern. You can get in line with those who disagree and have started with the personal attacks against me. I don't need to rely on you to tell me how my neighbors feel about this project. There are some who support development, but very few of them support anything like the plan deom EYA. Then there are others who oppose any development at this time. There are others who only want it to be a park. We have been having heated discussions, but none have stooped to your level of making personal attacks. Are you part of the development team or were you just raised that way?
ReplyDeleteSaying your arguments are ridiculous and cannot be taken seriously is an attack on your arguments, not your person.
ReplyDeleteIn questioning how I've been raised, you're the only party here to have made it personal. Even if I had attacked your person, you certainly cannot claim any sort of moral high ground with *that* type of response.
Saying my "attacks" are "random" and "beyond ridiculous" and that I "clearly have a predetermined agenda" speak to my personal state of mind and have nothing to say about the points I was making. If you would like to argue those points, you should do so. We could start with why you think it is inconsistent to be against traffic congestion AND speeding traffic. What, pray tell, is "beyond ridiculous" about being against the Bethesda developer's vision of turning Bloomingdale's First Street into North Capitol by, as the developer has suggested, pulling the stop signs and replacing them with timed traffic lights? If you would like to continue making the developer's case, why don't you answer an argument with an argument rather than suggesting that I am an unstable person making "random," "beyond ridiculous" attacks?
ReplyDelete