Comments on Go to a zoning update meeting, ask OP to fill in the holes - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by goldfish

Fri, 04 Jan 2013 20:00:23 EDT

@David C: You are.

I refer you to my comment immediately before yours. Perhaps testiness is communicable?

And I am still marking time until I can collect from our ice cream bet.

Comment by Steve

Fri, 04 Jan 2013 11:16:40 EDT

@David A
Do you have specific talking points that we should try to convey?

Comment by David C

Fri, 04 Jan 2013 10:56:29 EDT

who is at fault?

You are. I look at charts and documents all day that don't add up or don't match. I just sent an email about two sets of numbers that don't match. You know what I didn't do? I didn't accuse that person of not doing their job or jump to the conclusion that they can't do arithmetic. I instead asked "These numbers don't match, is that an error or am I missing something?"

It's called being cordial (and it saves me the embarrassment of having to walk back a false accusation. Of course, I guess the alternative is just to reclassify my false accusation as a contribution, right?)

Comment by goldfish

Fri, 04 Jan 2013 10:46:23 EDT

@MLD Not every chart has to outline exactly how every number was derived.

Depends on how extraordinary the claims are, and if otherwise the data might be misinterpreted. Fail on both in this instance.

All that was necessary here was another row showing the number of residents of institutions that were to be subtracted from the total population.

Regarding snark: you are correct, that was over the top, and I am sorry for that.

Comment by MLD

Fri, 04 Jan 2013 10:37:09 EDT

@goldfish

Not every chart has to outline exactly how every number was derived. Every chart makes necessary tradeoffs between readability and data completeness. You took the incompleteness of the explanation to be a mistake and then extended that to insult everything OP puts out. Then, when presented with an explanation, you responded with more rude snark instead of eating your humble pie and being quiet. Not really the kind of constructive discourse I'm used to here.

Comment by goldfish

Fri, 04 Jan 2013 10:08:36 EDT

@David C: The terms used in the table were not explicitly defined and the arithmetic did not stand up to a simple check: who is at fault?

Comment by H Street LL

Thu, 03 Jan 2013 21:40:07 EDT

Hey - I don't always agree with Goldfish, but he/she is very articulate and is certainly deserving of respect.

Comment by Bob

Thu, 03 Jan 2013 21:13:06 EDT

[This comment has been deleted for violating the comment policy.]

Comment by David c

Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:42:59 EDT

Wow goldfish. No apology. You accused 0P of not knowing what they were talking about but it was you. And now you want to be congratulated. That takes balls

Comment by goldfish

Thu, 03 Jan 2013 15:53:03 EDT

@Ms Stern: It is nice to see that someone is paying attention. Nevertheless, I feel that the confusion in terms was important to clear up. I'll bill you for my contribution to this. ;)

So as long as I have your attention, perhaps you could clear up the DCPS's projection of a 55% increase in school age population in 10 years. Apparently this came from OP data. I find this hard to believe; do you have a citation to back this up?

Comment by Tanya Stern, Chief of Staff, OP

Thu, 03 Jan 2013 15:32:02 EDT

Regarding Goldfish's comment that the Office of Planning’s household size calculation is inaccurate: The calculations provided are correct. Average household size is calculated by not including "group quarters", which the Census Bureau's 2011 American Community Survey defines as “a place where people live or stay, in a group living arrangement that is owned or managed by an entity or organization providing housing and/or services for the residents.” Examples of group quarters are correctional facilities, student housing, military quarters, and homeless shelters. Please refer to http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/data_documentation/GroupDefinitions/2011GQ_Definitions.pdf for more information regarding group quarters.

Therefore, the formula OP used to calculate average household size is: Average Household Size = (Total Population less Group Quarters Population) divided by Number of Households.

Hence, the average household size for 2010 is calculated as follows: (601,723 – 40,021 = 561,702) divided by 266,707 = 2.106 which is approx. 2.11

Similarly, the average household size for 1950 is calculated as follows: (802,178 – 86,377 = 715,801) divided by 224,142 = 3.19

The Office of Planning takes very seriously its responsibility in providing accurate and timely data. Please visit www.zoningdc.org for more information regarding the zoning update.

Comment by goldfish

Thu, 03 Jan 2013 15:27:58 EDT

@Alex B: It is the responsibility of the writer to define the terms so that the reader can reproduce the data.

There is some funny math going on here. Apparently the number of "households" -- however it is defined -- is not the what is shown in the table. Your point does not change how "average" is defined, so regardless of how "household" is defined, the average household size is a straightforward calculation.

In either case, the bad arithmetic greatly undermines any arguments from the Office of Planning.

Comment by Alex B.

Thu, 03 Jan 2013 15:17:18 EDT

Goldfish, you should check on the definition of 'household' from the census bureau before you start bashing OP's arithmetic.

In short, not all people live in households. The census will denote them s 'group quarters' populations. Among those who do not count as households are those who live in military bases, jails, or in college dorms. And we have lots of those kinds of people in DC.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Thu, 03 Jan 2013 12:16:38 EDT

@Tom -

the corner stores, the ADU's, and the parking minimums for small buildings really don't seem like they would benefit large developers - and the need to go through a waiver process with an exchange for a proffer, seems like it would be particularly a hardship for small property owners (and a much easier process for large developers).

That leaves the parking minimums for large buildings - if the waiver process were smooth, and only involved suitable proffers that might be workeable.

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:50:48 EDT

DC never "bargains" in these type changes. It's always give-aways to developers (and liquor establishments in ABRA rule changes).

There are many smart growth ideas that could be bargained for in such a financial windfall to developers as doing away with parking minimums. Doing away with those minimums is a fine idea (IF new cars from them are excluded from RPP) but there's a laundry list of more minor desirable public benefits some of which could be bargained for.

In DC it seems the "bargain" is always for increased $ to politicians from those given the windfall.

Comment by goldfish

Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:45:58 EDT

The household table has errors.

1950 population: 802178; total number of households: 224172
--> average household size: 802178/224172 = 3.587
which differs from the number on table: 3.2

Likewise for 2010, 601723 (total pop)/ 266707 (total # HH)
= 2.256, which differs from the table number of 2.11

Come on, Office of Planning, do your arithmetic!

If these are the same people that are projecting a 55% increase in school age population, their figures are worthless!

Comment by Kyle-W

Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:31:46 EDT

I am going to the W3 and W4 meetings. Tenleytown should be an interesting meeting. The NIMBYS will certainly be out in full force talking about how DC we know is gone if this is approved. Hopefully I can get a chance to talk and be a voice of reason, in favor of these changes.

Comment by aaa

Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:28:50 EDT

Tenleytown NIMBYs will be out in full force I'm guessing.

Comment by MW

Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:20:22 EDT

@David
Keep fighting the good fight