Government - Greater Greater Washington

Now white and black people lose rights

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:54:00 EDT

People are understandably worried about massive government violations of the Fourth Amendment. If you're black in many cities, you've probably had your rights violated regularly for years by practices like New York's "stop and frisk," says Courtland Milloy. (Post)

Comment

And...

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:54:00 EDT

by David Alpert

H Street might get a Whole Foods, but where exactly still isn't clear. (City Paper) ... Behind the Randall School, metal and glass. (WBJ) ... Some Congressmen want to cut Amtrak, again. (WAMU) ... A dump truck hit a pedestrian at 4th and Mass, NW. (DCist)

Comment

People up, driving down

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:54:00 EDT

by David Alpert

The region's population has grown, but driving declined from 2005 to 2011, says a TPB report. Miles per person dropped 10% in outer suburbs and 5.6% in the core. (City Paper)

Comment

Community supports bike lanes around H Street

Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:57:00 EDT

by Tony Goodman

DC transportation officials would like to help cyclists avoid the streetcar tracks, heavy car traffic, and pedestrians along H Street NE. Yesterday, the transportation committees of both Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANCs) along H Street supported a plan to let cyclists ride in both directions on G and I Streets, while keeping car traffic one-way.

2-way Montreal bike traffic on a 1-way street for cars. Photo by Joe McCann.

G & I Streets NE are both one-way for cars and bicycles for their whole length from 2nd Street NE to their eastern ends, at Maryland and Florida Avenues in between 13th and 14th Streets. Each are 30 feet wide along most of their length, with a few 35-foot-wide blocks at the west ends. Even for the narrower sections, the current travel lane is 16 feet wide versus a typical 9-foot travel lane.

Bicycle planners from the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) created 4 options. All add painted sharrows in the primary direction of travel (west on I, and east on G). They differed on what to do about traffic in the opposite directon.

Make no further changes and keep bicycle travel only one-way
Maintain parallel parking on both sides of the street and add a contraflow bike lane on either side of the parked cars, depending on the road width
Convert parking to diagonal, back-in along only one side of the street with none on the other side; add a contraflow bike lane on either side of the parked cars depending on the road width
Allow 2-way traffic for both cars and bicycles.

The preferred option, 2. Drawing from DDOT.

The committees favored option 2, as did an informal audience poll. There are smaller sections similar to this option already in place on New Hampshire Avenue and R Street NE near the Metropolitan Branch Trail.

Any of these options could be mixed within the corridor, such that the wider blocks use different layouts or G & I receive different treatments. DDOT bike planner Mike Goodno presented one such hybrid option, "3A," which combined portions of options 2 & 3. This would eliminate only 7 parking spots, and was the second choice of the committees and in an audience poll.

Option 3A drawing by DDOT.

Each of the affected ANCs will take up this issue at their next full commission meetings, and DDOT will continue to refine these options and solicit community feedback. Ideally, DDOT will be able to install this new bicycle infrastructure sometime later this Summer or early Fall.

Disclosure: I am a commissioner for ANC 6C, but not a member of its transportation committee. I did not participate in the audience or committee votes.

19 comments

Talk bike lanes, safe streets

Tue, 18 Jun 2013 08:53:00 EDT

by David Alpert

There's a public meeting about Florida Avenue NE Wednesday night at Gallaudet (WashCycle) ... ANC 3D will talk New Mexico Avenue bike lanes on Monday, June 24. (Ward3DC)

Comment

Food trucks get compromise

Tue, 18 Jun 2013 08:53:00 EDT

by David Alpert

The DC Council may have reached a compromise on food truck regulations, which would still create defined vending zones, but let trucks operate more freely near the zones, and along narrower sidewalks. (WBJ)

Comment

Primary will stay a joke

Tue, 18 Jun 2013 08:53:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Muriel Bowser, David Catania, and Mary Cheh aren't willing to move the 2014 primary later than April 1. That date keeps the voting out of budget season, but could mean 9-month lame ducks if someone loses a reelection bid. (Post)

Comment

Simmons: Roads not rights

Tue, 18 Jun 2013 08:53:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Deborah Simmons thinks DC shouldn't spend $1 million to promote statehood until it spends billions on new road infrastructure that would speed up the commute for some people from Maryland. (Wash. Times)

Comment

"Gentrifiers" aren't all white

Tue, 18 Jun 2013 08:53:00 EDT

by David Alpert

A new report identifies "gentrifying" neighborhoods based on trends in property values. New residents are more affluent and often younger, but in several neighborhoods, they're same race as longtime residents. (WBJ)

Comment

House may scrap Ike design

Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:51:00 EDT

by David Alpert

A House committee wants to start over with a new design for the Eisenhower Memorial. The Eisenhower family has fiercely lobbied against Frank Gehry's design. (Examiner)

Comment

Is the council too powerful?

Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:51:00 EDT

by David Alpert

US Attorney Ron Machen thinks the DC Council needs to curb its influence over things that invite bribery, but several councilmembers say it's just the same as everyday "constituent service." (Post)

Comment

There is a (little) bike lobby

Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:51:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Dorothy Rabinowitz called the bicyle lobby "all-powerful," and it's not, but some are trying to lobby for bicycling. They're just way smaller than the auto lobby. (Politico)

Comment

Metro bag searches aren't always optional

Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:31:00 EDT

by Eric Fidler

If you refuse a bag search at a WMATA subway station, Metro Transit Police may follow you if you leave and even if you board a bus. That's what happened to me Tuesday morning in Shaw.

Photo by nevermindtheend on Flickr.

I entered the Shaw Metro station with a bag containing my lunch and my laptop. An officer waved me aside on the north mezzanine and told me to put my bag on the table for inspection. Stunned that I was being stopped without cause, I asked the officer if he had a warrant. He said that if I refused, I was "welcome to use another mode of transportation."

I refused the search, which is mostly about theatrics than actual security. I didn't want to enable what critics have labeled "security theater", the symbolic show of force to give the appearance of protection. In fact, WMATA admits that since they don't search every bag, it's really more about perception, providing "an additional visible layer of protection." Putting on a show is not a good reason to rummage through people's personal items and I didn't want to enable that behavior and belief.

By agreeing to an "optional" WMATA search, I was afraid I would also be inadvertently consenting to a search of my laptop, which would be an abusive and unreasonable intrusion for a transit agency. I wasn't sure if the officers were properly trained to know the nuances of what was and wasn't an appropriate search. How would you even argue with an officer who believes random bag checks at one station actually deter terrorism, anyway? It's like arguing the plot in a fiction novel: the very premise is that facts only partly matter.

Remembering reports that Metro Transit Police only set up searches at one entrance, I pointed to the south mezzanine and said, "I can use that entrance," and the officer said nothing. I left the north entrance to walk to the south entrance a block away.

As I descended the escalators to the south mezzanine, I spotted more officers in the distance. Realizing that the answer would probably be the same at this entrance. I calmly turned around and left, deciding to catch the bus instead.

Little did I know that Metro Transit Police would follow me there. I boarded the 70 bus, which runs above the Green and Yellow lines on 7th Street NW and SW. Two officers got on behind me. Their vests were marked with the word "Terrorism" (perhaps, "Anti-Terrorism" or "Counter-Terrorism", I don't remember which), so clearly they were not there to investigate a fist fight, theft, or fare evasion.

One officer took a seat and another stood, mostly watching his phone. Neither of them said anything to me.

Perhaps it was a coincidence, I thought. Why would police follow me for refusing a supposedly "optional" search, even after I was told I was "welcome to use another mode of transportation"? I was on another mode, after all.

When the bus reached H Street, where I intended to transfer to the Red Line, I paused a moment in my seat, to see what the officers were doing. They remained on the bus. I then got up and stood in line to leave the front of the bus. As I neared the front door, I looked back and noticed that one of the officers had left the back door of the bus and was standing outside.

To test if he was following me, I then sat down in a seat at the front of the bus, and the officer re-boarded the bus through the back door. The driver closed the doors and I asked her if she could reopen it so I could leave. She pushed the door mechanism, which reopened the front and the back door and I left the bus.

As I left the bus at the front door, the officer standing at the back door, partly hanging out the bus, waved and smiled at me through the glass of the rear open door. This act was about sending me a message: if you refuse a search, you will be followed, which is itself a form of intimidation.

WMATA's stated policy allows customers to refuse the allegedly optional search. "Customers who encounter a baggage checkpoint at a station entrance may choose not to enter the station if they would prefer not to submit their carry-ons for inspection," it says.

While you may be "welcome to use another mode of transportation," bag searches aren't really optional if Metro Transit Police follow you and deliberately make it known that they're following you.

167 comments

Redeveloping McMillan is the only way to save it

Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:12:00 EDT

by Malcolm Kenton

At a recent public hearing, neighbors of McMillan Sand Filtration Site renewed calls to make it a park. But the only way that can happen is by developing part of it as a neighborhood, and it's up to the DC Council to make it happen.

Rendering of the future McMillan Park. All images from VMP.

Residents filled a June 6 public hearing held by the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development to oppose plans to sell the derelict 25-acre site to Vision McMillan Partners, who will build homes, shops, offices and a park there. But others, including Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie and groups like the Coalition for Smarter Growth say it's the best way to bring McMillan back to life.

It would be prohibitively expensive just to make McMillan a park. Since the underground cells are made of unreinforced concrete, they would have to be demolished and rebuilt just to make them safe to enter. Allowing some private development will give the neighborhood new amenities while paying to keep the best of what's already there.

Plan preserves historic structures while creating new park

VMP's plan preserves all 24 of the plant's above-ground structures, including the vine-covered sand silos visible from North Capitol Street, along with 2 of the below-ground filtration cells. 2/3 of the site will remain open space, while the southern third will become an 8-acre public park with a pool, recreation center, and a community center with meeting rooms and an art gallery. VMP promises that this will be "one of the largest and best-designed public park spaces in the District."

Proposed site plan of McMillan redevelopment.

The historic buildings will become part of a new neighborhood with ~~about 800~~ 585 apartments and townhouses, half 10% of which will be set aside for families making between 50 and 80% of the area's median income. There will also be street-level, neighborhood-serving retail anchored by a 50,000-square-foot, full-service grocery store. Along Michigan Avenue, there will be taller office buildings with a medical focus, taking advantage of proximity to Washington Hospital Center across the street.

To make this happen, however, the DC Council must decide this fall whether to declare the land as surplus and "dispose" of it. They can do this either by selling it to VMP or granting it as-is to VMP under existing zoning, which wouldn't allow major redevelopment to occur. They could also divide the property and sell off the parts to different owners and under different zoning. They can do all of this in a single set of hearings and votes, and they should to ensure that this process happens as quickly and fairly as possible.

This rendering shows how new and old buildings will coexist at McMillan.

Throughout the summer and fall, the council will hold separate public hearings on whether to surplus McMillan and the details of VMP's plan. Meanwhile, the DC Historic Preservation Review Board is reviewing VMP's plan to redevelop the site with housing, shops, offices and an 8-acre park and will hold hearings about it this month and in September. They've already offered comments about the proposal and will make their recommendations before the end of the year.

Plan will improve stormwater collection, traffic

Groups like Friends of McMillan Park and the DC Chapter of the Sierra Club argued that McMillan is already a public space and should become a public park. However, one DMPED official I spoke to after the hearing said that the city can't afford to do the work necessary to make the site safe for public occupancy. If the District retains ownership, the site would most likely remain decrepit and fenced off indefinitely.

All 24 of the site's historic above-ground structures will be preserved.

Opponents maintain that the site's underground cells are needed to retain stormwater, mitigating the effects of frequent floods in Bloomingdale, which is downstream from McMillan. But DC Water already plans to replace two of the cells with water storage tanks, which will remain after redevelopment. Meanwhile, VMP has also promised to incorporate stormwater retention and buffers into the buildings and landscaping on the site, reducing stormwater runoff.

Another top complaint was traffic. Residents feel that the neighborhood's roads are already quite congested, especially at rush hour, and could not handle the extra trips generated by a major office, retail and residential center on the McMillan site. There is no question that the Washington Hospital Center, the city's largest non-government employer, needs better public transportation service, as it is not located near a Metro station.

Buildings will step down moving south from Michigan Avenue.

VMP plans to build a bus turnaround for shuttles between McMillan and the Brookland Metrorail station, which would operate until a planned streetcar line along Michigan Avenue is built. Moreover, North Capitol Street has been designated a Bus Priority Corridor, meaning that the city intends to make changes to the street design and traffic flows to permit faster and more frequent bus service. The development would also open new through streets across the McMillan site, improving traffic flow and connections within the larger neighborhood.

Ward 5 needs parks, but it needs housing too

Some opponents say that new development should happen elsewhere in Ward 5, like on vacant and abandoned lots along North Capitol Street or Rhode Island Avenue. While not enough resources have been dedicated to encouraging more infill development, there's no reason why that can't happen in combination with the redevelopment of McMillan.

Rendering of the completed McMillan Park.

It is true that Ward 5 needs more and higher-quality parks, recreation facilities, and community centers. But the surrounding neighborhoods and the city as a whole are growing and are need more affordable housing, as well as more diverse shopping and entertainment opportunities within walking or biking distance or a short transit ride.

VMP's current plan reflects the input of community members gathered over the course of several design charrettes that were open to the public. It satisfies the need for several types of amenities in this part of the city in a balanced way. It combines buildings that are in keeping with the surrounding neighborhoods with a large park, and preserves some of the historic filtration cells and all of the silos and brick regulator houses.

We have an opportunity to transform a decrepit former public works site that has been fenced off for over 70 years into a citywide destination: a vibrant and attractive new place to live, work, shop and play that serves many of the needs of residents in this part of DC while incorporating many reminders of its unique history. The Council shouldn't waste any time taking advantage of it, as an opportunity like this won't come again soon.

If you'd like to tell DMPED and the Council to surplus McMillan and allow VMP's plan to happen, you can contact them here. Comments must be received by June 20.

111 comments

Commuter buses escape fee

Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:26:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

A $5 surcharge for commuter buses entering the District likely won't make it into the final DC budget after 10 Congressmen from Maryland and Virginia objected. (Post)

Comment

How the population grows

Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:26:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

DC is getting younger and more white, Hispanic, and Asian. DC also has a higher percentage of women than any full state. (Post, Examiner)

Comment

Catania's reforms, part 2: Ending "social promotion"

Wed, 12 Jun 2013 13:16:00 EDT

by Rahul Mereand-Sinha

Image from PERDaily.

Last week, Councilmember David Catania announced 7 proposals to restructure operations at DC Public Schools (DCPS). Yesterday we looked at a bill that would give some schools extra money, and school principals control over their budgets. Another bill would discourage the practice of "social promotion."

What is WMATA's long-range financial plan?

Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:21:00 EDT

by David Alpert

The Washington Post, several bloggers, and many Metro riders have been hammering WMATA recently for being so opaque about its timetable for Metro Forward repairs. Besides leveling with riders about how long repairs are going to take, WMATA could build confidence by also being more forthcoming about how much money it will need in the long run.

Photo by Paul L on Flickr.

The constant refrain from CEO Richard Sarles about maintenance is, "it'll be done when it's done." As Dan Malouff wrote yesterday, that isn't good enough. "The more confident we are that this painful time will end someday, the better we can support Metro in the meantime," he said.

The same questions apply to WMATA's budget. Year after year, we find out that there's a shortfall, or maybe not; a fare hike has to go into effect, or maybe not. The budget precipitates a crisis where local jurisdictions have to come up with money or service cuts have to take effect.

Last April, I suggested a long-range financial and capital plan for Metro with specific information:

Until 20XX, Metro will be in "catch-up mode." After that, they'll be in "keep it working" mode.
During catch-up mode, Metro needs $x million in capital funds per year, increasing at a rate of x% per year. After that, they'll need $y million in keep it working mode (less than in catch-up mode).
If we can still afford the catch-up mode funding once Metro reaches a state of good repair, then we can start using the surplus to pay for some projects to deal with the high passenger loads that there will be by this time, like adding physical walkways between Metro Center and Gallery Place, new entrances at busy stations like Foggy Bottom, or new lines or tracks in the core.
If Metro doesn't get enough money in catch-up mode, then that mode will have to last longer. If it doesn't get enough in keep it working mode, then it may have to go back into catch-up mode.
In keep it working mode, to maintain the existing service, given wages, pensions, fuel, health care, and so on, Metro will have to increase its budget by z% each year. A certain percentage of that can come from riders, while jurisdictions should plan on increasing their Metro contributions by the remaining amount necessary to reach the z% per year.
In good years, Metro will use the extra money to top up its rainy day fund; in bad years, it'll spend money from that fund.

From talking to some WMATA employees, my understanding is that many but not all top leaders want to be able to project like this. Some of the information about asset lifecycles they have, while some they hope to collect. It's less clear how much consensus there is over how deeply to share the information with the public.

Along with revealing how much money the agency needs, there needs to be transparency about what we get for it. If the region keeps up funding maintenance, then we need to be able to know that, indeed, the system is maintaining a state of good repair. It's a two-way street: a good system will cost this much, but then residents can know they got a good system out of the deal.

More long-term budget information will also help leaders and riders know whether the pension obligations and other retirement benefits are unsustainable over the long run. If they are, we need to start finding ways now to keep paying good workers a living wage and ensuring they have health care, but with a package that WMATA and the region can keep affording for decades to come.

Without long-term budgeting, it's always too easy to shortchange the present. It's easy to skip out on keeping up state of good repair during an economic downturn, and then not make up the funds during a boom. Before 2008, WMATA's pension funds rose in value, so the agency didn't salt as much money away; that ultimately let jurisdictions spend less. Then, the funds dropped, and it had to come up with more money during the toughest times.

It's always easier to get through the immediate problems and push the long-term questions out of mind until they're imminent crises. Certainly that's what we do with road projects, too—as Strong Towns' Chuck Marohn keeps chronicling, few jurisdictions really plan for the lifecycle replacement costs of the new road infrastructure from a new subdivision. Someone else will deal with it later.

Metro took a big step forward by releasing its long-term vision for capital projects, like upgrading to 8-car trains and relieving the Rosslyn bottleneck. Now we know how much those should cost, and local governments can start thinking about how to pay for it. Now, we need the equivalent for the Metro Forward maintenance plan and the operating costs for all services. We need better data to make fully informed decisions.

The Metrorail system is one of our region's greatest assets. We have to keep it working for the long term. Riders need confidence that we will get past the immediate problems and avoid getting into this kind of hole again. Otherwise, even if Metro does regain rider confidence, it'll always be on the precipice of more crises that squander it again.

23 comments

Who won

Wed, 12 Jun 2013 08:53:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Ralph Northam and Mark Herring won the Democratic nominations for Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General in Virginia, while 2 Republican legislators who supported the gas tax shift lost to primary challengers. (Post)

Comment

Dan Reed debates BRT opponents

Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:15:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Greater Greater Washington staff editor Dan Reed appeared on Fox 5 to talk about Montgomery County's BRT plans along with opponent Paula Bienenfeld. Visually, even just the scene on set brings into sharp relief the changes the county is undergoing.

Image from Fox 5. Click to view segment.

The segment, starting with the anchor's introduction, seems to frame the issue around what this means for drivers. Reed talks about how BRT will move more people, and even those who don't ride the bus will benefit.

Bienenfeld, meanwhile, reads out the standard playbook of opposition. "We're not opposed to public transit," she assures everyone, before casting everything associated with transit as bad, such as devoting any space to bus stops. She also claims that having to cross a bus lane is unsafe for children. Reed later points out that crossing the regular car roadways is far more dangerous.

Bienenfeld criticizes the plan for not including things like Google self-driving cars, signalization, and "personal electric vehicles." Montgomery County already times its signals to move the most cars, even at the expense of those children walking and crossing the street, and none of the other options could move more people in fixed space.

Primarily, though, her objection is that "there was no public input" into the plan, which was created through "secret behind-the-scenes deals that have been cut." This seems astounding, given that a task force worked for a long time to create a plan, then released that plan a full year ago. Since then, county officials have refined and, in many cases, scaled back the plan, each time in full view of the public.

As Reed pointed out in the segment, this is still only a draft plan, with many more hearings yet to come. Unfortunately, people argue that there hasn't been enough input or a good enough public process almost no matter how long or short the public process actually is. This creates a "boy who cried wolf" effect for those times when government agencies really do try to ram a plan through with minimal public comment. The BRT plan is, at least thus far, not one of those cases.

One other argument from Bienenfeld rings particularly hollow: she argues that the plans "cram all the bus routes downcounty into underserved areas and lower-income, avoiding the wealthier parts of the county." Yet the bus routes include Wisconsin Avenue, which passes through some of the county's most affluent communities; most of the opposition has come from the neighborhoods between Bethesda and Friendship Heights.

41 comments

Catania's reforms, part 1: School funding and autonomy

Tue, 11 Jun 2013 09:42:00 EDT

by Rahul Mereand-Sinha

Photo by Nick Ares on Flickr.

Four days ago, Councilmember David Catania announced 7 proposals to restructure DC Public Schools' operations. I'll look at each of his proposals in turn, starting in this article with a proposal to change how much money each school receives, and who controls it.

Fix the laws

Tue, 11 Jun 2013 08:50:00 EDT

by David Alpert

A petition is asking the US DOT to make street standards that work for cities instead of just suburban arterials. ... A bipartisan group of Congressmen want to keep the transit benefit equal to the parking benefit, permanently. (Streetsblog)

Comment

Brown is guilty

Tue, 11 Jun 2013 08:50:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Former DC Councilmember Michael Brown pled guilty to accepting $50,000 in bribes, and will cooperate with investigations into moneyman Jeffrey Thompson. The FBI sting started when Brown asked an unnamed person to help him get money from contractors. (Post)

Comment

Who are you voting for, VA?

Tue, 11 Jun 2013 08:50:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Virginia Democrats will select nominees today for Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General. One Prince William voter chose the people who will build more roads instead of "places." (Post)

Comment

And...

Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:40:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Is Howard University in trouble? One trustee says so. (Post) ... Fragers gets a pop-up space while it rebuilds. (WAMU) ... Jack Evans repeatedly talks about DC's "rich tapestry" in launching his run for mayor. (DCist)

Comment

And...

Fri, 07 Jun 2013 08:30:00 EDT

by David Alpert

One consequence of the restaurant boom: it's hard to find good workers. (City Paper) ... Citibike struggles with software problems. (Reuters) ... Virginia's Republican Lt. Gov. nominee, E.W. Jackson, says yoga lets Satan invade your soul. (NY Mag)

Comment

Be careful accepting gifts

Fri, 07 Jun 2013 08:30:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

Former Councilmember Michael Brown will plead guilty to federal bribery charges that he accepted improper personal loans from undercover agents posing as small businessmen who wanted lobbying help. Meanwhile, Marion Barry may have accepted improper personal gifts from city contractors. (Post)

Comment

Libertarians for lighter trains

Fri, 07 Jun 2013 08:30:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

The libertarian-leaning Competitive Enterprise Institute is urging the Federal Railroad Administration to drop regulations that force US passenger railroads to buy unnecessarily heavy and expensive equipment. (jimble)

Comment

Weekend reading: Hauling freight (Jul 25, 2010)
Is Cato turning around? (Aug 19, 2010)
Still not inclusionary (Apr 10, 2009)
Can oversight help transit safety without hurting transit? (Nov 16, 2009)
FY11 budget threatens national high-speed rail network (Apr 14, 2011)

Pay your way

Fri, 07 Jun 2013 08:30:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

Fairfax and Loudoun Counties agreed to pay for some Silver Line expenses to ease tolls on the Dulles Toll Road, but now Fairfax wants to get state money to pay their share, and Loudoun County officials are not happy about it. (Examiner)

Comment

Can DC decouple growth and "parking pressures"?

Thu, 06 Jun 2013 11:40:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Councilmember Tommy Wells re-introduced legislation this week to let a developer of a new building promise that tenants can't get stickers to park on neighborhood streets, if they choose to offer such a guarantee to neighbors. Would this alleviate the parking angst that erupts over nearly every development project, like ongoing controversies in Columbia Heights and Mount Pleasant?

Harvard Street in Columbia Heights. Photo by Kent Boese.

In Tenleytown, the local Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) supported a new building with no underground parking last year, on the condition that new residents not be able to get residential parking stickers. That was fine with developer Douglas Jemal, but government agencies may not enforce this provision, leaving it entirely to the private agreement between Douglas Development and the ANC.

Neighborhood opposition to growth often revolves around traffic and parking. Even if a developer wants to market a new building to car-free and car-lite new residents, people worry that residents will bring cars anyway and park them on the street.

Building underground parking isn't a solution, either, because some people will still park on the street to save the monthly garage fee, and that underground parking means a lot of cars which add to traffic.

Just look at this message on PoPville's forum, from a resident in Columbia Heights. Some people have been double parking on Harvard Street, stopping emergency vehicles from getting through. Clearly, people should not double park and ought to get tickets, but the resident then went on to use this case to argue against a parking-free condo project:

The reason I'm asking is that a developer is seeking to build an 8 unit apartment building on Harvard Street, NW and they are asking the board of zoning to waive the parking requirements to have parking for their building. We submitted over 70 signatures and 10 letters of opposition today, but apparently the planning department is planning on supporting this application.
It is my feeling that worsening the parking problem on Harvard street will effectively cut off access to local hospitals for residents in Adams Morgan, Mount Pleasant, and Columbia Heights, and will make it impossible for the fire trucks in Adams Morgan to help out at fires east of 16th street.

It's not possible to solve a double parking problem by ensuring that there are 8 more parking spaces off street. The only solution, as many commenters pointed out, is to ensure that we enforce the double parking rules so that parked cars don't block emergency vehicles. Still, we know that the prospect of more residents makes people worry that parking on the street will get harder.

Meridian Hill Baptist Church. Photo by Mr. T in DC on Flickr.

Not far away, Mount Pleasant ANC Commissioner China Terrell worries about a development project at the former fire-ravaged Meridian Hill Baptist Church:

[The developers] want to build 75 condos in the church (mostly 1-bedroom units), with no on-site parking. Instead, homeowners would have the option of leasing parking spaces at DC USA in Columbia Heights. When this plan was introduced at the May 21 ANC meeting, residents were not supportive for obvious reasons. Increased parking and population pressures? The residents said no, thank you.

DC USA is just about 2 blocks from the church, so actually, parking off-street in that garage is probably a shorter walk than trying to find an on-street space in the neighborhood at busy times, where you might circle for a while and end up as far away.

It's bad policy to require parking in every new building, like the Harvard Street condos and this church, but it's also understandable that residents would worry about the impacts. There's an existing shared resource that's often scarce. People are used to consuming that resource.

One solution is to ensure that new growth doesn't impact the resource. We want new residents, but don't want parking pressure. Just like it doesn't affect neighbors whether a new building has a fitness center or not, or whether there are 2 bathrooms for 2 bedrooms versus just one, Wells' bill could let parking be another issue that's up to the building and its tenants rather than a neighborhood impact.

It ought to be a basic value we all share (though not everyone does) that we want to welcome new people into our neighborhoods. New residents mean more vitality for local businesses, more tax revenue to shore up our city's budget, more people on the street to make neighborhoods safe.

Some people are nervous about treating new residents differently from existing residents. Why should one group of people get to use the public space and not others, they ask? We already give existing residents a break on property taxes, for instance. On the other hand, we shouldn't say that new residents can't use a public park, or send kids to a school, even though sometimes people oppose adding neighbors because they fear those resources will get more crowded as well.

Unlike those, however, driving is just one of several methods of getting around. In a place like Mount Pleasant and Columbia Heights, there are many other alternatives, like Metro, buses, bicycling, and more. Some people still need to drive, but it's very reasonable to internalize that cost. If you want to drive, you will have to rent a place with a parking space, or rent a separate space at DC USA, or otherwise provide for this just as you pay for your bathroom space.

Wells' bill might not eliminate all opposition to growth. People will still also say they don't want to have to look at buildings, or don't want population in general. But trouble parking seems to be the biggest fear residents have from most projects. It doesn't need to be.

114 comments