Keep it up, Mr McDuffie!

by goldfish on Jul 25, 2012 8:52 am • link • report

Zipcar is getting spanked. Then again, they got lazy with the free, then enormously discounted city parking spaces, and being the defacto car sharing biz in DC that had the favor of the DC Gov and didn't have to compete with anyone.

Still makes me laugh that zipcars ardent supporters never thought those public spaces would ever go for much more than the $200 a year zipcar was being charged, and they ended up going for $280 a month.

by anon on Jul 25, 2012 8:54 am • link • report

Car2go is also adding private parking lots.

CaBi and car2go have done more to transform transportation in DC than anything else in the past year.

And with both the more they expand the more successful they become as they are easier to use.

by Tom Coumaris on Jul 25, 2012 9:07 am • link • report

I wonder how much of Car2Go's expansion is because the program is so successful, and how much is because they're owned by Mercedes-Benz (which in turn owns smart), and MB needs to unload the dreadful little cars any way possible. Right now, the only thing propping smart sales in the US is Car2Go, and Mercedes-Benz is a full two, long years before a hopefully less craptastic replacement is ready to go to market.

by Circle Thomas on Jul 25, 2012 9:22 am • link • report

McDuffie prefers the Hopscotch Bridge as an interim storage site.

I'm not even sure I understand what this means.

by oboe on Jul 25, 2012 9:49 am • link • report

The Hopscotch bridge location would be a waste of money if Amtrak really needs that location for their HSR plans.

by NikolasM on Jul 25, 2012 9:57 am • link • report

I agree the smartcars are crap. We saw into the heart of Fenty when he drove one of those.

But Daimler's incentive isn't profit. They want to ship smartcars to the US to offset their S-class and other big tickets sales for CAFE requirements. Given the new fee structure, they can afford to take small loses on the crap cars.

While car2go has been a success, I have no idea whether they will build another smartcar. While the body is innovative, the CVT is just a disaster.

by charlie on Jul 25, 2012 10:02 am • link • report

McDuffle may not be sure what he means either by using the Hopscotch bridge as an "interim" storage site either. I thought DC DOT is looking to build a street car barn for maintenance and storage, the emphasis on maintenance.

According to the Wash Post, Amtrak will be unveiling their long range plans for DC Union Station this afternoon which will include the nearer term concourse expansion and the Next Gen HSR NEC concourse under Union station. That likely include plans for new tracks that would take away any available space for streetcar storage around the H street bridge. I expect it to be the subject of a GGW post with a lot of comments!

by AlanF on Jul 25, 2012 10:07 am • link • report

It's not really a CVT, charlie - it's a semi-automatic transmission. It has distinct gears, just no clutch. In auto mode, all it does is shift for you.

And no, it's not very good. In automatic mode, you have to get a feel for the car and lift the accelerator a bit at the shift points to keep things smooth.

by Alex B. on Jul 25, 2012 10:11 am • link • report

@alexB; wow, thanks, that is even worse.

The genius part of car2go is it shows that in certain circumstances a car is the most efficient form of transportation.

However, I do think they have some kinks to work out in terms of parking.

by charlie on Jul 25, 2012 10:17 am • link • report

I know it's been covered here before but I don't recall what the opposition is to the Springarm site. McDuffie criticizes the "training" aspect of the problem, while at the same time, admitting that his "alternative" doesn't present itself well either.

What is the issue with the springarm location? Is McDuffie really opposed to it or is he grandstanding?

by HogWash on Jul 25, 2012 10:19 am • link • report

LOL god those smartcars have the worst transmission of any car I have ever driven. Now I know why.

And for all the crap that Zipcar, Groupon, and other companies get for being "unsustainable" businesses, few seem to mention how Car2Go is basically a project to dump a crappy car that nobody wants and muck with CAFE standards at the same time!

That said, we use Car2Go sometimes. It costs slightly less than a cab and the parking is pretty easy (even in Adams Morgan where we live) since you can exploit people's bad parking jobs. It would be nice if you could park perpendicular to the sidewalk though the way the cars were designed to - that would make parking even easier! People must use the service as I rarely see cars sitting in a parking place for more than a day. Except for one instance where I saw one with a bunch of parking tickets sitting for a few days, notified the company via twitter, and was thanked because they had "lost" the vehicle. Whoops.

by MLD on Jul 25, 2012 10:26 am • link • report

I agree the car2go cars suck, but I love the service. Love it. With the recent increase in cab fare, a trip from Georgetown to Columbia Heights is always cheaper with a car2go than a cab - sometimes half the price.

MLD is right, it's pretty easy to exploit the bad parking habits of others. And people definitely use them, at least in the areas I frequent - at least twice, I've dwaddled makign a reservation and "lost" the car that was within a block or two of my location.

by dcd on Jul 25, 2012 10:33 am • link • report

@MLD

I think the concept is great, they just might need a different car to do it. If Daimler used their A-class compacts that they're planning on bringing to the US instead, that would be a huge difference.

I made the mistake of trying to take a Smart car onto the freeway once. The listed top speed is 70 mph, but it felt like a real struggle to get up to 55. I realize it's meant to be a 'city' car, but even so - cities in the US still have lots of highway infrastructure that needs navigating from time to time.

I've driven other small cars that work in that way just fine - the new Fiat 500s are actually a lot of fun to drive. The extra .4L of engine displacement and an actual transmission makes a huge difference.

by Alex B. on Jul 25, 2012 10:39 am • link • report

Yeah, the transmission is terrible, but honestly, the Smart cars seem decent enough for what they are. ("Semi-automatics" also don't need to be bad. My car was built in 1999, has one, and shifts smoothly as any other automatic.)

I wouldn't own one, but they're great for Car2Go's model. It's the first thing that's *really* convinced me that I might be able to get by in DC without a car. Just wish the trunk was a bit bigger...

Expand it to some of the suburbs, and it'll be even more useful.

by andrew on Jul 25, 2012 10:44 am • link • report

I have no idea where it came from but a month ago at my hotel (Parc 55) in San Francisco they had an electric car2go with logos plugged in at the valet parking area. I should have inquired, as car2go isn't even in SF yet.

They may be planning ahead to electrics.

by Tom Coumaris on Jul 25, 2012 10:49 am • link • report

What is the issue with the springarm location?

1. Inappropriate and improper use of land set aside for education;
2. Destruction of viewshed of only nice thing on Benning Rd; and
3. Better and more appropriate sites are available.

Reading the article, it seems that Mr. McDuffie has based his objections on #3.

by goldfish on Jul 25, 2012 10:52 am • link • report

@Hogwash - What is the issue with the springarm location?
Here is McDuffie's letter to Gray: http://www.scribd.com/doc/99609987/car-barn

@goldfish - 2. Destruction of viewshed of only nice thing on Benning Rd; and
Seriously?

by Thaps on Jul 25, 2012 10:55 am • link • report

@NikolasM "The Hopscotch bridge location would be a waste of money if Amtrak really needs that location for their HSR plans."

Amtrak will be using the hopscotch bridge (well, Akridge will be replacing it, anyway, for it's new Union Station development) and that's why DDOT had to scramble for another location for the car barn.

It would be great if years ago DDOT had actually planned for an Oklahoma Avenue Metro infill station with a direct-connect to the streetcar and new carbarn, but they didn't. If anything, maybe Springarn can be the interim site? Goldfish likes to promote areas east of the river on Benning, but they too have their problems (first and foremost is that there are no tracks east of the bridge, and that the best spot to put the carbarn is at the PEPCO site, which would require eminent domain over PEPCO property and negotiating with WMATA about its right-of-way). Ahh, planning; if only it had been done right the first time.

by Adam L on Jul 25, 2012 11:13 am • link • report

I love Car2Go, but it has a very limited utility to me since it is illegal to transport my child in it. I would love a system that used a slightly larger car with a backseat.

As for the quality of the cars, I agree that they have a terrible transmission. I'm somewhat surprised by that, actually, since I once rented a Smartcar in Europe and drove it from Bavaria to Lucerne through the Alps. It ran as well as a typical sedan, if not a little more peppy. I never felt uncomfortable the whole time I was on the autobahn. The US version must just be a lot crappier for some reason.

by TM on Jul 25, 2012 11:13 am • link • report

@Goldfish, Thanks!

Inappropriate and improper use of land set aside for education;

Is it "technically" improper or simple goes against individual expectation?

Destruction of viewshed of only nice thing on Benning Rd; and

Thanks to the streetcars, isn't the entire corridor undergoing a transformation? Maybe it won't be the only nice thing for long

Better and more appropriate sites are available.

Such as? McDuffie's "interesting" (putting it midly) alternative is the Hopscotch bridge. The problem is that he admits it will be an "interim" location which means that we'll still have to find a permanent one. Him criticizing the training idea as "underdeveloped" sounds off when his own alternative seems as underdeveloped.

He also suggest RFK. Why was/is that location not being considered?

WRT Car2Go. They just don't look safe to me. Like one accident can kill you.

by HogWash on Jul 25, 2012 11:22 am • link • report

Regarding the Union Station proposal, I'd be interested in seeing a cost breakdown for the $7 billion estimated cost. It's going to be a hard sell, and I'm interested in see how much of that money will go to new tunnels, tracks, building, amenities, air-rights development and so forth.

by Frank IBC on Jul 25, 2012 11:32 am • link • report

@HogWash

RFK could be considered, but I believe it would require an Act of Congress to transfer the land to the District. It is currently owned by the US governmet and is supposedly reserved for future "recreational" purposes.

by Adam L on Jul 25, 2012 11:36 am • link • report

2. Destruction of viewshed of only nice thing on Benning Rd; and

I'm not sure who pointed it out previously, but why do you think the barn can't be a good looking building? We've built them before. Is it possible that a high quality building could enhance the view?

3. Better and more appropriate sites are available.

Which sites? Where?

by thump on Jul 25, 2012 11:36 am • link • report

I love Car2Go, but it has a very limited utility to me since it is illegal to transport my child in it. I would love a system that used a slightly larger car with a backseat.

I'm pretty sure that if a car does not have a back seat, then it is legal to put a child in the front seat.

by JustMe on Jul 25, 2012 11:39 am • link • report

@Thaps: SERIOUSLY.

One of the things that has been overlooked in this debate is the symbolism. The Spingarm grounds are beautiful -- if neglected -- and many of the neighboring homeowners went there. DDOT wants to replace the open grass lawn with wires and tracks and fences and an utilitarian shed. And why are they building this? to satisfy the urbanist desires of myopic twits. So the new shed will be merde on a beautiful old school for the sake of the new urban elite.

I have not yet heard or seen anything that would make up for the loss of the beautiful grounds.

by goldfish on Jul 25, 2012 11:46 am • link • report

It's always funny to me that many people assume that segment of subcompacts get great fuel mileage, but they often are behind compact and even some mid-sized vehicles and are horrible rides.

by selxic on Jul 25, 2012 11:47 am • link • report

It's always funny to me that many people assume that segment of subcompacts get great fuel mileage, but they often are behind compact and even some mid-sized vehicles and are horrible rides.

Yes, I was expecting the Smart cars to be relatively inexpensive and give off-the-charts fuel economy, given their size, but they are neither. But that's not the point: who really cars about fuel economy or ride comfort when quickly zipping to the other side of town for a one-way-trip in a car you don't even own? I'd never want to drive an old Ford Crown Victoria, either, but I have no problem taking a ride in one when I need a cab.

by JustMe on Jul 25, 2012 11:50 am • link • report

Just out of curiosity, can anyone give a rough idea of what $7b would do for a metro overhaul? #dreaming

by MJ on Jul 25, 2012 11:50 am • link • report

I am super excited to see the Union Station rollout. Note that all sides will now have pedestrian entrances, which ties in perfect to the streetcar on H!

by H Street Landlord on Jul 25, 2012 11:52 am • link • report

@H Street Landlord

There are some Washington Post comments from users who thought that they were actually replacing Union Station's historic facade with the glass entrance that will actually be at the rear. Stupidity never fails to surprise me.

by Adam L on Jul 25, 2012 12:18 pm • link • report

@goldfish-Does the local community use that beautiful, but neglected, lawn currently for anything (BBQ's, games, etc)?

Many of the neighboring homeowners went there isn't really a great argument against building the barn.

Re: Myopic Twits-glad you went there, I'll let others respond to that gem.

The point stands that you should be arguing for more than a utilitarian shed! If you want something that looks good and is integrated, not only with the school but the surrounding neighborhood, than that is what you should advocate for. Just saying no no, not here isn't going to get you very far.

by thump on Jul 25, 2012 12:28 pm • link • report

@goldfish-I guess I should have asked what symbolism? I say that w/o a hint of snark or sarcasm, I just really don't know.

I'd also ask if you think that no one in the surrounding neighborhoods would be using the streetcar? If so, why?

by thump on Jul 25, 2012 12:30 pm • link • report

@MJ, WMATA is spending $5 billion on the 6 year capital improvement program, so it is not like the DC Metro system is not getting major maintenance work and new rolling stock.

$7 billion would probably pay for the cost of the proposed Blue Line re-route through Georgetown, along M street to Union Station and then back to the current Blue Line prior to crossing the Anacostia.

However, it should be noted that a first skim of the Amtrak press release on the Union Station plans includes a Phase 4 in 2028+ with a reference to a new Metrorail line. Amtrak has been working with WMATA, US DOT, MTA, and I would hope DDOT on the plan.

by AlanF on Jul 25, 2012 1:17 pm • link • report

@thump: Courtland Milloy's point in the "myopic twits" article is that much of this furniture that urbanists want are built without respect for the needs and desires of long term residents. Despite the jeers here and elsewhere, much of this remains true. And always has been and will be -- is why there are historic preservation laws, to address this issue.

Building an ugly maintenance facility on neglected school grounds exemplifies this.

If you want something that looks good and is integrated, not only with the school but the surrounding neighborhood, than that is what you should advocate for.

I accept your point that I should be more positive.

Clearly McDuffie's suggestion, under the H St bridge, will not work; but if you look, you will see I have suggested many other reasonable alternatives. However, "integrated with the neighborhood" on Benning Rd is not something I can take seriously, which is home to run-down housing projects, blighted gas stations and convenience stores, long vacant commercial property, and the (half-empty) Heckinger Mall.

by goldfish on Jul 25, 2012 1:20 pm • link • report

@Alan F

Exactly. This is a proposed $7 billion spread over decades. And yes, they have been working with all of them. If anybody is interested, the entire master plan is available here:

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/919/171/Washington-Union-Station-Master-Plan-201207.pdf

by Adam L on Jul 25, 2012 1:22 pm • link • report

@goldfish. My thoughts exactly. There are other sites (the blighted Hechinger Mall), it's just that they're not "easy." So, the Springarn site is just another exploding cigar blowing up in DDOT's face because they seem addicted to the quick, cheap and easy.

by Paul on Jul 25, 2012 1:37 pm • link • report

@AlanF: The Master Plan has this to say about a new Metro line:

Currently WMATA's busiest station, 68,000 metrorail passengers utilize Union Station each weekday. Today, the greatest points of congestion within the station surround the Metrorail’s access points. The Master Plan incorporates Metrorail’s near-term station improvements at the north mezzanine and provides a new pedestrian network at the Metrorail mezzanine level that offers convenient connections to all of the passenger concourses and to 1st Street and NoMa via the West Concourse. The Master Plan also recognizes that at some point in the future the Metrorail Red Line will reach its capacity at Union Station, and anticipates new Metrorail capacity serving Union Station. WMATA, operator of the Metrorail, has initiated long-range planning for a possible new line serving Union Station, but a preferred alignment has not yet been identified, and thus the Master Plan allows for future pedestrian connections to a new Metrorail station in any of several possible configurations.

by Gray on Jul 25, 2012 1:41 pm • link • report

@Paul
My thoughts exactly. There are other sites (the blighted Hechinger Mall), it's just that they're not "easy."

Uhh, that space may not look that good, but aren't there still stores there?

You can't throw out places as suggestions for "better" locations when there are already active uses there. It's not a "better" location if DDOT has to do years of negotiating and then pay fair market value (probably over that) to acquire the site.

The Spingarn site fulfills a lot of DDOT and DC's goals - DC already controls the property, the property is open and can be built on immediately, it's actually along the extant tracks, etc. The only other site that fulfills most of those criteria is the RFK lot. So if Ward 5 stakeholders are that interested in the car barn going there, maybe they should figure out who they can bring in who has some control over the RFK lot. They won't though, because personally I think the argument they want to have isn't over where to put the car barn but whether it and the streetcar service should exist at all.

@goldfish
much of this furniture that urbanists want are built without respect for the needs and desires of long term residents.

So what are the needs and desires of long-term residents? Seems to me long-term residents are clamoring for their neighborhoods to improve, for there to be more life in their neighborhoods and better businesses than Popeyes and an auto glass shop. So DC decides to invest a bunch of money to improve transit service (which thousands of people use on this corridor every day) and make the neighborhood more accessible so it can support more businesses. But still people are unhappy.

by MLD on Jul 25, 2012 2:12 pm • link • report

I think you sum up the sentiment well, MLD. People want change, without change. Like it or not, businesses have decided that Benning Road is not a place they want to locate right now. We can argue the demographics (mostly referring to socioeconomic status here...no biting my head off) of the neighborhood are not what they think they are, or that there are other benefits to locating along Benning as it currently exists, but that will ultimately sway few business leaders. Only visible change in infrastructure and development will sway them to move on in.

Historic car barns were so beautiful that people are paying multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars to live in a small condo in them these days, after fighting their destruction. It doesn't have to be a "shack" and it certainly doesn't have to be "blight."

Also, I thought that the barn's placement at Springarn was supposed to tie into a vocational education program at the school. That's one heck of a community benefit. I'm a massive believer in vocational education...it's one of the biggest missing links in our education system today, and is likely the key to providing access to well-paying jobs for thousands of *current* DC residents and their children.

by Ms. D on Jul 25, 2012 2:29 pm • link • report

DC has made a commitment recently to put up good public buildings - recent library projects have resulted in some beautiful buildings. The streetcar barn should be held to similar standards.

Also, I thought that the barn's placement at Springarn was supposed to tie into a vocational education program at the school. That's one heck of a community benefit. I'm a massive believer in vocational education...it's one of the biggest missing links in our education system today, and is likely the key to providing access to well-paying jobs for thousands of *current* DC residents and their children.

Don't tell that to goldfish, apparently he and possibly others believe it's just a trojan horse to let DDOT destroy the Spingarn lawn with the streetcar facility. Again it seems to me like "better education" is something people often want but when push comes to shove the promise of a potentially awesome program like this does nothing to sway people.

by MLD on Jul 25, 2012 2:59 pm • link • report

@MLD,

If you read the RFP for the private operator of the streetcar, which includes maintenance, it doesn't say anything about the vendor offering a job-training program for high-schoolers at the Springarn site, or anywhere else. So, is DDOT making vague promises it doesn't intend to deliver? If I missed it, I'll be happy to stand corrected.

http://app.ocp.dc.gov/pdf/DCKA-2012-I-0083_DCStreetcar_RFI_06-2012.pdf

by Paul on Jul 25, 2012 3:17 pm • link • report

Also, I thought that the barn's placement at Springarn was supposed to tie into a vocational education program at the school.

According to McDuffie, it's an underdeveloped plan. So that's also why Springarn isn't the best fit.

I'm wondering does McDuffie realize how he's coming across?

by HogWash on Jul 25, 2012 3:22 pm • link • report

DC has made a commitment recently to put up good public buildings - recent library projects have resulted in some beautiful buildings. The streetcar barn should be held to similar standards.

The maintenance shed could look like the Taj Mahal, but without the landscaping, it will always be just a shed. Since it must have a tangle of tracks and wires and chain-link fences, it can only be a shed.

by goldfish on Jul 25, 2012 3:40 pm • link • report

@goldfish:

Does it have to be a maintenance "shed" or can it be a streetcar barn? Must it have a "tangle" of tracks or can it have a series of green tracks? Does it have to be a chain-link fence or can it have a wrough iron fence?

I would think that if you're concerned with the issues you listed, you'd demand concessions that address the perceived failings. But it seems like you're simply opposed to any development on the high school grounds. Which is fine, but at least own up to it.

by 7r3y3r on Jul 25, 2012 7:17 pm • link • report

+1 McDuffie.

by Tom Coumaris on Jul 25, 2012 7:57 pm • link • report

@Hogwash, there are a couple of good posts on this issue here if you still have questions.

by David C on Jul 25, 2012 10:35 pm • link • report

@goldfish

1. Inappropriate and improper use of land set aside for education;

First of all, was this land "set aside" for education? Set aside by whom and when, and how was it to facilitate education? As for whether it is both inappropriate AND improper, that's really just an opinion. It's not like that is a fact.

3. Better and more appropriate sites are available.

Which places are better AND more appropriate? How much would it cost to move it to those places?

by David C on Jul 25, 2012 10:41 pm • link • report

Okay, so the vocational education planned for the Springarn car barn isn't fully-developed. It's still more developed than some half-baked "temporary" car barn at the Hopscotch Bridge, and has more potential than "interim" solutions.

I'd ask you to trust me on witnessing first-hand the destruction of vocational education in my hometown area. It's far easier and cheaper to develop an after-the-fact program than come up with a plan to get kids to a far-flung training center. You know why my brother was able to graduate from high school with an associate's degree from vocational education? Because my family had the means to provide him with a car to get to his training sessions. The kids who relied on the (school district-provided) bus to get them to their far-flung voc ed campus frequently missed classes or failed on tardies. Despite the fact that their tardiness was excusable, it wasn't constructive and wasn't tolerated. You know where the voc ed campus was when my MOM went to our high school? A block away, easy access for the not-college-bound crowd. Of course, that was before we decided that vocational education should be offered at one selected location in the entire COUNTY, because it's not our job to get kids out of high school with a marketable skill.

Do you know how much I pay for a good plumber? Enough said...

by Ms. D on Jul 25, 2012 11:12 pm • link • report

@7r3y3r: A rail yards is an ugly industrial use. There is no way have a streetcar maintenance shed without switches, wires, and tracks leading up to it. I cannot think of any such facility that has or could be made attractive.

I am opposed to using the Spingarm grounds for anything other than education purposes. The maintenance shed is an industrial use. If the school must be closed and the educational use of this property is not feasible, the site should be disposed of, following DC's well-established procedure for disposing surplus properties.

@David C: when DC obtained the property and built a school there, DC implicitly reserved the property for education. If the school needs to expand, the land is available to do so.

by goldfish on Jul 26, 2012 7:16 am • link • report

@goldfish: "when DC obtained the property and built a school there, DC implicitly reserved the property for education."

How do you gather that? Didn't DC just implicitly reserve the property for DC government purposes? Seems like that could include additional school buildings, transportation facilities, parks, and any number of other possible uses.

by Gray on Jul 26, 2012 8:21 am • link • report

when DC obtained the property and built a school there, DC implicitly reserved the property for education. If the school needs to expand, the land is available to do so.

That's some weak sauce right there.

by oboe on Jul 26, 2012 8:37 am • link • report

@oboe & @Gray: the reason why institutions have a campus is for future expansion. Hospitals, colleges, schools all expect to remain forever, because the job of healing the sick or educating children goes on in perpetuity. Moreover, the job gets larger as the population increases. So by establishing a several large educational campuses in NE back (I guess) in the 20s and 30s -- e.g., Eastern HS, Eliot, Spingarm -- DC expected more people to settle in this area and the educational facilities would need to be expanded accordingly. Thus, this land was indeed set aside for education.

So things changed and the expansion is not needed any time soon. But there is a huge need for school facilities from the charters. A charter could take over and expand, and fulfill DC's original intent of the property.

If an educational use cannot happen, I would rather have DDOT compete for it. Like it should -- surely a developer (such as Stanton/Easblanc)) could put up something appropriate that also provides tax earnings.

The ad-hoc planning streetcar is clearly the issue.

by goldfish on Jul 26, 2012 9:30 am • link • report

@Hogwash, there are a couple of good posts on this issue here if you still have questions.

Thanks! Now I'm really lost as to why McDuffie has taken this approach when it seems as if the options are very little.

Thus, this land was indeed set aside for education.

If the plans for vocational training become realized, why would you not consider that as part of the "education" component for the campus.

Also, considering the focus on fixing our schools and the whole charter debate, what exactly have you seen proposed or believe should be "expanded" on the Springarm site? It's already huge. I just don't see why they can't build an attractive barn that doesn't take away from the already blighted n'hoods surrounding it.

by HogWash on Jul 26, 2012 9:40 am • link • report

@Hogwash:

The "vocational training" touted here is window dressing.
1. DCPS has no plans to actually tie this to the courses it offers.
2. Such training is normally directed at trades, such as plumbing and electric. Some suggest that "streetcar maintenance" training could be applied to other large vehicle -- however, mechanic training for large vehicles is already offered.
3. Accordingly, this is actually a way to circumvent the objections that the campus be reserved for education: Put up large industrial facility; offer training to school children using the training courses that must be taught to new employees; presto! your industrial use is transformed to a school!

This would not pass the smell test if Pepco were building a power plant.

by goldfish on Jul 26, 2012 1:34 pm • link • report