Fantastic!!!!

Welcome to the 21st Century!

by Steve P on Aug 1, 2008 6:50 am • link • report

Does anyone know how we can send in testimony - email address, tel number, web site - independently of this blog? Thanks.

by Fred on Aug 1, 2008 7:46 am • link • report

This hearing was only open to District residents, right? That's a bummer because I'd love to submit something. I didn't go to the hearing because I live in Maryland so I thought that I would not be free to testify.

I put this comment up at the risk of sounding stupid, because I feel as strongly about this as others on this blog. Too much "free" parking is the keystone of the car culture (and it's related pollutants). Take away "free" parking and happy motoring (to borrow a phrase from Kustler) becomes that much less subsidized and therefore omnipresent.

by Cavan on Aug 1, 2008 8:48 am • link • report

For folks from Arlington that feel like they missed out on the whole "performance parking" debate, we'll be having ours later this year. Hearings are scheduled before the Transportation and Planning Commissions, as well as the Board, in late November/Early December. I'll make sure to keep you posted.

See this post

by Michael on Aug 1, 2008 9:05 am • link • report

I'm said I wasn't able to make it - I ended up swamped at work, and with a ton of errands to run as I'm heading out of town tomorrow.

This is a great first step towards a good first step. Glad to hear the supporters were out in force. It's somewhat disconcerting that many of the commissioners were "hearing about many of the issues for the first time," but no time like the present to introduce them.

by Alex B. on Aug 1, 2008 9:58 am • link • report

That's _sad_ I wasn't able to make it. Need more coffee.

by Alex B. on Aug 1, 2008 9:59 am • link • report

TESTIMONY

Bring it in person or mail it to:

441 4th Street NW

Suite 200 South

Washington DC 20001

Reference Case No. 0806-2

Deadline: Record is open until August 29 at 3 pm.

by Pauline on Aug 1, 2008 11:40 am • link • report

David, isn't the purpose of a hearing to simply hear from people? In other words, I wasn't aware that we should have been expecting any kind of action from the commission last night.

That said, great to hear, and a shame I couldn't be there to see it.

by Adam on Aug 1, 2008 11:48 am • link • report

We weren't sure what to expect because this was the first of these zoning update hearings. But often at other ones (such as for a proposed map amendment rezoning a square) the Zoning Commission will determine a "proposed action".

by David Alpert on Aug 1, 2008 11:54 am • link • report

Is it possible to submit testimony via email? I know a bunch of people who are inclined to weigh in on the right side of this issue but are lazy and lack any history of local activism so I want to make things as easy as possible for them as I try to twist their arms and get them to add to the record.

by Matthew Yglesias on Aug 1, 2008 12:30 pm • link • report

David, I didn't view the hearing and only know what you had to say about it, but I am wondering on what basis you think "round one to us"? Is it on the basis of numbers of people testifying?

by Lance on Aug 1, 2008 1:11 pm • link • report

I was able to view a good portion of the hearing, and there were only 6 opponents covering about 20 minutes of testimony. The opponents were all from the Committee of 100 (except for perhaps Bill Crews and the last person at the very end). They purported themselves as from different neighborhood groups, but Barbara Zartman, George Clark and Marilyn Simon all work together on these issues.

It was also clear that there wasn't much substance to their opposition (Ms. Simon had the most, but without being able to see her presented exhibits, it was hard to full evaluate on the webcast).

The proponents on the other hand, were large in numbers, and provided a wide array of well thought out arguments for this proposal.

That is not to say that this should be a popularity contest based on he who has the most letters and speakers should prevail, but on the other hand, for a first evening in a long process, it was a great start.

I would rather be on this team than the other.

by William on Aug 1, 2008 1:39 pm • link • report

William, don't you think that the commissioners are more likely to give far far more weight to expert witnesses from diverse backgrounds who don't have a reason to be 'pro' or 'con' than to witnesses (irrespective of their number) who all represent a single group with a shared agenda? ... Especially if these expert witnesses have a long history with the commissioners?

by Lance on Aug 1, 2008 3:44 pm • link • report

OMG, I cannot believe how absurd this has become, Lance. Whatever the issue, whatever the commission, you are honestly now suggesting that there should be some neutrally-coagulated body of witnesses? Alpert turned people out, he rallied interested persons to a commission. That's what people have done for years in DC, it's just that there's a new group doing it, fast, efficiently, and it's scaring people. Tough.

by PuhLeez on Aug 1, 2008 3:50 pm • link • report

PuhLeez,

I am saying that the opponents were neutral ... and not affliated with any one "movement" as David's supporters appear to have been. I'd even hazard to guess that many share David's vision of a more walkable, more transit-oriented city with trams, etc. (I can tell you I do.) They just happen to be experts in the subject from having dealt with many different planning matters over the years, and(suprisingly)unanimously think this is a bad idea. Now, if I were on that commission, I think I'd give far more weight to these experts in the matter than to one group with a single focus ... no matter how many of them showed up for the hearing. It's not a "new guys" vs. "old guys" thing as you protray it. It's a number of interests and experiences in one corner saying "no", and a single, lone interest in the other saying "yes".

by Lance on Aug 1, 2008 4:16 pm • link • report

It is exactly old v new in the portrayal you just offered: opponents aren't really opponents, but experts who know better, to whom we should defer out of seniority. Right.

by PuhLeez on Aug 1, 2008 4:44 pm • link • report

Actually Lance, the opponents were all affiliated (or at least the key three opponents) with the "Committee of 100 on the Federal City" which, over time, has evolved into the queen bee NIMBY coalition for the city. this is an organization that is mostly comprised of the key anti-development, anti-transportation, anti-anything progressive activists in the city, so when you say they were neutral, you mean what exactly?

by William on Aug 1, 2008 5:18 pm • link • report

William,

LOL ... I'm a member of the Committee of 100 ... and your description of it shows how little you actually know about it. Its members come from a wide range of backgrounds (lawyers, architects, planning experts, former politicians including a former Councilmember, teachers, and many, many neighborhood activists, etc.) and have really only one thing in common ... a wish to see "responsible planning and land use in Washington, D.C."

You get invited to join the committee after you've demonstrated a commitment to these values via other projects/organizations in the District. For example, I had been a long time chair of my ANC and served on my neighborhood's historic preservation association's review committee before being invited to join. In effect, every single person invited to join the committee has been "a David" at some point --- Someone who cares enough about DC to get involved.

The Committee of 100 doesn't represent any particular viewpoint other than a responsible viewpoint going back to its foundings in 1923 by Frankin D. Roosevelt "to act as a force of conscience in the evolution of the nation's capital city."

Take a look at the website below. You might be surprised at what you find.

www.committeeof100.net

by Lance on Aug 1, 2008 6:00 pm • link • report

correction, the Committee of 100 was founded by Frederic A. Delano, FDR's uncle.

by Lance on Aug 1, 2008 6:05 pm • link • report

Is membership in a Masonic order required for Committee of 100 members?

I ask this because they generally hold their Christmas parties at the Perry Belmont Mansion/headquarters of the Order of the Eastern Star.

by Douglas Willinger on Aug 1, 2008 6:37 pm • link • report

Douglas, No. (I'm not a Mason.)

by Lance on Aug 1, 2008 6:46 pm • link • report

Lance: The Committee of 100 was founded with very noble goals and an excellent mission statement. It has done important work in the past, such as opposing freeway construction through our neighborhoods. However, the positions the Committee has chosen to take on key issues reflect a group increasingly out of touch with the city and what is really "responsible planning".

I know there is a diversity of viewpoints within the Committee, but the positions they have taken and the representatives they have sent to zoning meetings have consistently been anti-new residents, anti-walkability, anti-neighborhood retail, anti-children (because children make noise), anti-density even around Metro stations, and generally knee-jerk anti-change.

This is unfortunate, because the Committee could be a much more positive force for truly responsible planning, but has become out of touch. That's why we are independently organizing on behalf of responsible planning and land use in favor of the worthy reforms of parking and on other topics.

by David Alpert on Aug 2, 2008 12:16 pm • link • report

Lance,

Yes, I am all too familiar with the Committee of 100. I am friends with some members and some former members. There is a lot of internal frustration because the people generally sent to represent the organization are the same re-hashed people with the same anti-everything perspective David described in the previous post.

Sure, perhaps you are an exception, but when Marylin Simon, Barbara Zartman and George Clark are your public face, it doesn't bode well for the public perception of the views of the organization.

by William on Aug 2, 2008 12:30 pm • link • report

You make it sound like the Sandford Neighborhood Watch Alliance:

by Squalish on Aug 2, 2008 1:15 pm • link • report

David-

IIRC the "Committee of 100" was AGAINST the DuPont Circle underpass project when it was proposed and constructed.

Also, though that organization purports to be pro-McMillian Planesque, showing the South Capitol Mall on their website home page until a few months ago, they avoided mentioning it, including in their published meeting minutes regarding NCOC's "Extending the Legacy" program, where they nonetheless opposed that program in general.

by Douglas Willinger on Aug 2, 2008 1:58 pm • link • report

William, I think what you are interpreting as an "anti-everything perspective", is the Committee of 100's firm support for keeping Washington a low to medium density city ... a city where a 10 story granite monument remains a monument and doesn't simply become a bookend for a 40 or 100 story skyscraper. This means preserving our city's grand avenues and their "openess" as well as our relatively low-rise buildings ... which from the eye of the environmentalist must seem like a waste of resources. Washington isn't NYC and never should be. As wonderful as NYC is, Washington is definitely more monumental ... as the creators of the L'Enfant Plan and the McMillian Commission Plan intended.

by Lance on Aug 2, 2008 11:18 pm • link • report

The "Committee of 100" totally sold out the NCPC Extending the Legacy South Capitol Mall.

They certainly had "no problem" with that baseball stadium going up crammed against South Capitol Street.

My observations match that of the illustration posted above by Squalish, aka, no discussion nor debate nor reporting.

The "Committee of 100" IMHO is a grossly overrated organization!

by Douglas Willinger on Aug 2, 2008 11:55 pm • link • report

Lance,

I stand by my comments. In no way was I suggesting any action regarding height limits. Look at the record and the quotes from the three individuals regarding policy and development proposals over the last 10 + years.

This is an organization which has a great historical legacy but has faltered in recent years to become obsolete and marginalized. Unless the newer members step up and take the reigns of policy endorsements, the views of the 'old guard' and the preception I have expressed will continue.

by William on Aug 3, 2008 7:16 am • link • report

"They certainly had "no problem" with that baseball stadium going up crammed against South Capitol Street."

William, I wasn't yet associated with the C 100 at the time, but I remember hearing specifically at the time from members of the C 100 how the baseball stadium was NOT being located in accordance with either of the plans (i.e., that that location was a big mistake.)

by Lance on Aug 3, 2008 9:11 am • link • report

I think you mean to direct comments about the baseball stadium elsewhere, but while I think in the long run, the location is ok, I personally would rather have seen it approximately where the BTF building is at Florida and North Capitol.

by William on Aug 3, 2008 9:52 am • link • report

William,

Sorry, you're correct. I meant to direct to Douglas. Per the L'Enfant Plan, major gathering places such as this are supposed to be located in the major squares or at the end of a major avenue. Per the plans, RFK is correctly located being at the end of East Capitol Street ... hugging South Capitol, the Nationals Stadium is not. (Similarly, the National Cathedral is wrongly located ...)

by Lance on Aug 3, 2008 10:34 am • link • report

The "no problem" quote from the Committee of 100 IIRC may be found in their late 2002/early 2003 comments in response to the November 2002 stadium study.

AT this time, the western portion of the South Capitol Mall is still relatively feasible.

http://wwwsouthcapitolstreet.blogspot.com/2008/08/western-portion-of-south-capitol-mall_02.html

You are correct about the placement of RFK Stadium.

by Douglas Willinger on Aug 3, 2008 10:49 am • link • report

Douglas, Could you be remembering statments by the Federal City Council, rather than the Committee of 100 on the Federal City?

by JW on Aug 3, 2008 11:14 am • link • report

Here's the testimony from the C-100 related to the placement of the baseball stadium. From my reading, it appears that the District had proposed 5 sites and were trying to decide between the 5. The testimony says:

"Simply put, they got it backward. The first order should be to consider the existing planning context to determine

where a stadium would better facilitate achievement of goals for land use, urban design, preservation, economic

development and efficient infrastructure systems."

www.committeeof100.net/documents/testimony/2002-12-17_Baseball_Testimony.pdf

The closest it gets to any discussion of where the stadium ended up is a mention of an M Street SW location that the District was considering as one of its 5 options. But even thenm, it is discussed in terms of "Focus should immediately be given answering the unanswered questions (discussed above) for the remaining three candidates ..."

At least from this document, I don't see any evidence that the C-100 supported the current location. Perhaps JW is correct. A very quick Google search indicated that the Federal City Council was probably involved in the site selection of the stadium.

by Lance on Aug 3, 2008 12:09 pm • link • report

To David Alpert:

When you use my name in your writing, please try not to misinterpret what I say. I realize it makes it easier for you to distort views you find inconvenient. I see little that’s amusing, and less that is honorable. But facts, as they say, are stubborn things.

The current question about eliminating parking minimums affects new construction, even in historic districts that otherwise have no minimums. I referred to a sizable townhouse project built in the 80’s which, if constructed under your preferred “no minimum” approach, could have added 132 houses without parking (though not without cars). Those new cars would be parking on the streets, competing with the neighbors already residing in the area, and with the spillover from nearby nonresidential uses.

The same could be said of the construction of large residential or mixed-use buildings constructed in Georgetown in the last several decades between the C & O Canal and the river: The Paper Mill, The Flour Mill, the PEPCO building at 3303 Water, the Incinerator Building, and granddaddy of them all, Washington Harbour. All provided parking for their respective uses. Had they not done so, these residents would be competing with the employees and patrons of the restaurants and bars and shops of the Georgetown commercial zones.

Because I love Georgetown and its individual neighborhoods of character (to say nothing of its people), I object to proposals that would make Georgetowners’ lives more difficult, as does the Citizens Association of Georgetown.

Building new large-scale projects with inadequate (or, heaven help us, no) parking will do just this.

by Barbara Zartman on Aug 3, 2008 1:29 pm • link • report

David,

Using Barbara's examples of the buildings in Georgetown down by the canal which were all constructed with parking minimums, what do you believe would have occured if (1) there had been no minimums in effect and (2) there had been market priced street parking in effect?

Thanks,

Lance

by Lance on Aug 3, 2008 2:00 pm • link • report

Barbara,

I am a CAG member, and support all the great work that CAG does. I was unaware that CAG has taken a position on the parking recommendations of the Office of Planning.

I live one block from Wisconsin - a heavy parking spillover block - and I was convinced by the Office of Planning's arguments that these recommendations make sense. I testified to that effect on Thursday. What is CAG's response to OP's arguments in support of their recommendation? (Those most relevant to your concerns are below.)

(1) If large residential projects (like those between the Canal and the river) require parking, then developers will still build parking. Removing parking minimums merely prevents forced overbuilding of parking, which makes units less affordable and actually leads to more driving than would otherwise have occurred.

(2) Spillover into the neighborhood can be managed with market price parking, from which in-zone residents are exempt (and which I would certainly welcome on my block). The neighbors around Nationals Park apparently like this.

(3) The more parking we provide, the less employees & customers of businesses in Georgetown will choose to take transit and thus the more we devalue our transit investments. This relationship between increased parking and increased traffic is a principle of planning that repeated studies have demonstrated - in my mind, we just need to take the experts word on this. Particularly given the final recommendations of the Georgetown Transportation Study to build dedicated bus lanes on Wisconsin and M Streets, it seems that mandating commercial parking minimums will only devalue the investment in those lanes, and in transit generally.

Ken Archer

by Ken Archer on Aug 3, 2008 3:31 pm • link • report

The Citizens Association of Georgetown hasn't taken a position on parking minimums and neither has the Committee of 100. Ms Zartman just likes to pretend she's representing the official positions of organization when nothing of the sort is true.

Now who's using names?

by Eileen on Aug 3, 2008 3:44 pm • link • report

I wonder if the Friendship neighborhood Association and the Federation of Citizen Associations took positions on this issue, of if the three individuals in question are wrongfully testifying on behalf of their organizations?

There was no mistaking that Ms. Zartman was representing the Committee of 100. But Ms. Simon was represented on some neighborhood listservs as working on the Committee of 100 committee for these issues.

Perhaps someone should investigate who these people were actually representing in their testimony.

by William on Aug 3, 2008 4:11 pm • link • report

I just uploaded some info I had about the culprits behind that blockage of the South Capitol Mall by Nationals Stadium.

The Committee of 100 certainly did not object to its location, nor did they defend the South Capitol Mall.

See

http://wwwsouthcapitolstreet.blogspot.com/2006/04/who-got-involved-2002-efforts-to-bring.html

http://wwwsouthcapitolstreet.blogspot.com/2006/04/2002-south-capitol-stadium-committee.html

http://wwwsouthcapitolstreet.blogspot.com/2006/04/national-capital-planning.html

http://wwwsouthcapitolstreet.blogspot.com/

by Douglas Willinger on Aug 3, 2008 5:11 pm • link • report

Douglas,

I hadn't heard about the South Capitol Mall prior to your mentioning it. Is it part of the L'Enfant Plan or the McMillian Commission's Plan? Remember, the C-100 was founded to ensure the success of those plans. I may be wrong, but I thought South Capitol Street was intended to be a major avenue in the plans ... and not a Mall. Perhaps I am wrong.

by Lance on Aug 3, 2008 5:42 pm • link • report

Lance-

Try this:

http://wwwsouthcapitolstreet.blogspot.com/2007_12_01_archive.html

And if you like, read through the rest of my blog

http://wwwsouthcapitolstreet.blogspot.com

about what would have been the extension of the L'Enfant/McMillian plan presented by US NCPC's 1990s planning program "Extending the Legacy"

BTW- the L'Enfant plan had included a canal the "Y" along South Capitol Street. The Mall as we know it had ended at the Washington Monument, so the Extending the Legacy plan was a continuation of the McMillian plan's treatment of the L'Enfant Plan.

by Douglas Willinger on Aug 3, 2008 6:00 pm • link • report

To sweep responses to several posts in a single response:

• The Citizens Association of Georgetown took an official position at its July Board meeting to oppose the minimum/maximum formulation; there was one single vote in opposition. A letter outlining our position was submitted to the Office of Zoning and is in the file. It was on the basis of the Board’s vote that I wrote earlier. Eileen, smong others, should check those stubborn facts.

• Ken, the comment above should clarify that CAG has indeed taken a position on this. I sympathize with the impact of Wisconsin Avenue spillover traffic. There are arguments about market-price parking, but when the absolute number of parking spaces is as constrained as it is in Georgetown, there are no indicators that this will provide significant relief. Comparisons of the 52-weeks-a-year Georgetown experience and the limited number of individual nights that the Nationals play are not likely to offer reliable guidance.

During meetings of the working groups considering parking, several organizations have had no choice but to find the consultants’ analysis deeply flawed. Understanding of Washington neighborhoods was lacking. The one-size-fits-all approach to rulemaking blurred important (even stunning) differences among neighborhoods. Moreover, nowhere in the country (that OP can cite) have sweeping proposal like thee been adopted across entire jurisdictions – not even in Arlington, the closest jurisdiction deemed to share forward-looking policies.

• Douglas Willinger, whoever you are, you are relying on snippets of records to create an extremely distorted view of the work of the Committee of 100 on the Federal City. As to the stadium, the Committee initially considered general alternative sites for placement of the stadium; we preferred the site that is now home to BATF. When the current stadium site was identified as the potential permanent location, we met with Mark Tuohy and asked for a range of information. We chose to oppose the location for what it would do the plan for the South Capitol Street approach to the Capitol, for the closing of a L’Enfant Street, for design concerns, and other reasons.

C100’s commitment to the L’Enfant and McMillan plans has been consistent. It was our support that helped create the National Coalition to Save Our Mall, and we take pride in and offer support to all their subsequent achievements and leadership. We also point to our advocacy to protect the topographic bowl at the Armed Forced Retirement Home; in our advocacy for a continuous walkable green corridor from the Parkview neighborhoods around AFRH to McMillan, providing families in these neighborhoods with desired access to beautiful open space (including our consistent testimony before the National Capital Planning Commission). We also continue to fight for massive reduction to plans for development at St. Elizabeths in order to protect its portion of the topographic bowl, to preserve a National Historic Landmark (we had filed the nomination to designate the properties as NHLs).

This work is not in the past; it is as current as today.

Can we stop the sniping?

by Barbara Zartman on Aug 3, 2008 9:34 pm • link • report

From:

www.committeeof100.net/documents/testimony/2002-12-17_Baseball_Testimony.pdf

"Based upon our review, we suggest immediately abandoning further consideration of the Mt Vernon Triangle and Capitol North candidates. These locations clearly fail to meet planning context criteria as well as fall short on several other points as more further described below. Their continuing presence on the candidates list is a mistake and harmful distraction to finding a location that can achieve support and exhibit viability."

Can you please cite any "Committee of 100" documents to the contrary, nor any that indicates any opposition to the location of Nationals Stadium, nor support for the concept of a South Capitol promenade?

by Douglas Willinger on Aug 4, 2008 12:47 am • link • report

Barbara,

Thanks for the explanation. Why does the fact that market rate pricing is used only 12-15 nights per month around Nationals Park mean that it wouldn't work the other nights, or during the day? I completely agree that local conditions should be considered, and that is why I support removing parking minimums in Georgetown, where I have lived for 10 years. But what is it about the Nationals Park-area meters that indicates the same program would not work in Georgetown? (Also, I'd be interested in hearing CAG's reply to the other two questions I offered above about its opposition to OP's recommendations.)

Ken Archer

by Ken Archer on Aug 4, 2008 8:56 am • link • report

William, Friendship Neighborhood Association took a position on the parking proposals earlier this year, and before informing the Office of Zoning that I would be testifying on behalf of FNA, the text that I delivered at the July 31 hearing was approved by the FNA Board. I am also a member of the Committee of 100. The Committee of 100 is a group whose members advocate for responsible planning and land use in Washington, D.C. and have generally been active in planning issues both within their neighborhoods and citywide. It's therefore not surprising that C100 members may be testifying on behalf of the neighborhood associations in which they participate.

by Marilyn Simon on Aug 4, 2008 1:54 pm • link • report

Ms. Simon, please define "responsible planning and land use". It seems like at every turn, everything seems to be irresponsible in the minds of Committee of 100 members who often testify before the city.

by William on Aug 4, 2008 3:34 pm • link • report

Ken:

First, there are no parking minimums in Georgetown except for new construction or very sizable additions. Second, OP is not proposing to lift minimums for low-density and rowhouse areas. The specific language from the OP report’s Recommendation 1 is –

“Parking minimums will be maintained in those areas where there will remain the potential for spillover effects, specifically:

1. Non-residential uses in (predominantly) single-family and rowhouse areas

2. Retail, Office, Restaurant or Service uses in commercial corridors near

(predominantly) single-family and rowhouse zones.”

Third, many Georgetowners find parking meters objectionable for residential streets; the meters seem to say that the curbs in front of our houses are a public amenity for rent by anyone. This is inconsistent with policy indicating that residents should have priority for use of these spaces. You may disagree, but that is what our members have told us for years.

Regarding your other questions:

There has been no “forced overbuilding” of parking in the projects between the canal and the river. The current minimum for these areas is 1:4. A 200-unit building has been required to include 50 parking spaces. We are more concerned that developers who wish to provide parking for more of their units than the minimum will be forced to build fewer parking spaces than their market studies and funders believe are necessary.

These spaces in private residential buildings would not be available for employees or customers of Georgetown businesses and thus should not affect transportation choices.

It should also be noted that these private cars would not necessarily be the only (or even principal) means of travel for the residents, many of whom are inveterate walkers and users of buses, but who need a car for some of their regular activities.

As to bus-only lanes on Wisconsin Avenue, they have been proposed for many years. Perhaps the best question was asked of DDOT several years ago: On which side of Wisconsin are you planning to raze the buildings?

by Barbara Zartman on Aug 4, 2008 6:46 pm • link • report

Barbara:

There are better ways of obtaining additional vehicular road capacity:

http://cos-mobile.blogspot.com/2008/04/harvard-defeats-yale.html

http://cos-mobile.blogspot.com/2008_02_01_archive.html

Cheers!

Douglas A. Willinger

http://wwwsouthcapitolstreet.blogspot.com

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com

http://cos-mobile.blogspot.com

by Douglas Willinger on Aug 4, 2008 8:38 pm • link • report

Well, there is the balance. Wisconsin Ave is two lanes from Calvert to K Street. So which is better for the city, the status quo, or removing parking one the curb lanes for buses?

Having lived in Goergetown for several years in the mid-1990s, it is my experience that many of the issues affecting the quality of life there would be mitigated by better public transportation. This would minimize cars circling around seeking non-existent parking, it would then also eliminate the post bar-time shouts and squeals as drunken patrons seek their illegally parked cars, etc.

Cabs, buses, street cars, and even one day, Metro would all contribute extensively to the quality of life for Georgetown residents.

So no Ms. Zartman, you do not need to widen Wisconsin Avenue, you simply need to make choices about how people will conduct their business in an urban core.

by William on Aug 4, 2008 9:25 pm • link • report

Barbara: You say that CAG members find meters on residential streets objectionable. But has CAG asked people, for example, if they'd support meters with an exemption for residents? That sort of performance parking could make it easier for residents to park, not harder.

What about reducing the unlimited free parking to only cars registered in Georgetown, instead of all of Ward 2? I don't think it's fair that I can park as long as I want in Georgetown, or someone from Logan Circle or Mount Vernon Square, just because I am in the same ward. Has CAG asked members about that?

Have you asked CAG members if they'd be interested in being able to pay a few dollars to park on the street and know that by doing so they could find a space on their block without circling?

If you only ask members if they want to pay for parking or have it free, you'll get a predictable answer. But if the choice is between one difficulty (very limited availability) and another (payment) the answer might not be so simple.

by David Alpert on Aug 4, 2008 11:52 pm • link • report

Barbara:

The Committee of 100 OPPOSED Extending the Legacy back in the 1990s and even drafted a letter to then President Clinton asking him not to support it.

http://wwwsouthcapitolstreet.blogspot.com/2008/09/committee-of-100-opposed-extending.html

http://wwwsouthcapitolstreet.blogspot.com/2008/09/non-informative-e-groups-adopted-from.html

Do you have a copy to share? I have yet to find the actual letter text- only references to it in your organization's minutes.

Do you have anything to show where the Committee of 100 supported the greenway for South Capitol? I have followed this issue since Sept 2004 and have found zero indication that the Committee of 100 gave the greenway any support.

by Douglas Willinger on Sep 9, 2008 5:06 pm • link • report

Barbara:

We met at your Committee of 100's 2005 Christmas Party at the Perry Belmont Order of the Eastern Star mansion, where I handed out info on the South Capitol Mall issue.

http://wwwsouthcapitolstreet.blogspot.com/2008/09/appearances-of-power-ruminations.html

by Douglas Willinger on Sep 15, 2008 2:29 pm • link • report