Wow, job centers impact the types of residents near them!

I wonder how things would be different if the NIST and the US DOE were still in the District rather than Gaithersberg? Or if all of the "black" defense agencies were closer to Crystal City/Pentagon City rather than the Dulles Corridor?

by William on Oct 18, 2010 9:03 am • link • report

The no-turns period at 7th and H is a bit restrictive. I can understand prohibiting left turns, but right turns should still be allowed.

by Froggie on Oct 18, 2010 9:22 am • link • report

Wow. That Primal Fitness discussion at the ANC was even more ridiculous than the linked blog post made it out to be -- neighbors were concerned that the gym users would damage the structural integrity of nearby buildings by lifting weights.

And, really, Primal is the only gym remotely near this neighborhood, now that Results has closed. (Things are even worse over in Northeast, where there are virtually no gyms to speak of)

by andrew on Oct 18, 2010 9:34 am • link • report

The lady in the storefront next to gym hates Primal Fitness and will make mountains out of any molehill. She's had her B&M convenience store there for 25+ years. She has friends in the neighborhood and can always trot supporters of hers to ANC or neighborhood meetings to make ludicrous claims against the gym.

When you enter her convenience store you only step into a foyer. The cashier booth and *ALL* the merchandise is behind the security partition. Even items as mundane as fabric softener. Maybe there was a time when the neighborhood conditions warranted this. But with the Safeway opening four blocks away and crime dramatically down she should have redesigned her layout. People with options aren't going to choose to shop at the store where they can't even browse the product. Too bad she focuses on petty grudges instead of her future.

by Paul on Oct 18, 2010 9:56 am • link • report

If the ladies in skimpy clothing would like to jog in my neighborhood they're welcome. My wife will probably say the same for the fellas in skimpy clothing.

by jcm on Oct 18, 2010 10:06 am • link • report

Gym:

Frankly I dont want to see either a woman with a sports bra and booty shorts or a bare chested dude with shorts on; that is indecent and should not be accepted anywhere except for the beach.

Perhaps they can come to some type of agreements t shirt and knee-length shorts

by kk on Oct 18, 2010 11:21 am • link • report

kk-there's a solution: avert your eyes.

by Tina on Oct 18, 2010 11:26 am • link • report

@ Tina

You can not avert you eyes everywhere take walking across the street, up/down steps etc there are times when you can not.

There is also another solution dress decent and dont dress like a whore; there is no reason why someone needs to wear tight fitting clothing, short clothing or minimal clothing while working out.

by kk on Oct 18, 2010 11:34 am • link • report

According to the law, it isn't indecent. If you don't want to see skin, move somewhere cold. Or to the middle east.

by Nate on Oct 18, 2010 11:35 am • link • report

kk, I am sorry i wasn't aware we lived in 18th century quaker village

by Mike on Oct 18, 2010 11:41 am • link • report

sounds like kk has some body issues maybe he or she should be hitting the gym

by Mike on Oct 18, 2010 11:42 am • link • report

@kk

Whether you think it is indecent or not is largely irrelevant. The point is that it has nothing to do with the gym. People will jog around in whatever clothes they feel like wearing with or without a gym there.

That's part of the larger complaint about ANCs meddling in things they have no authority over. This is similar to some of the terms they've argued for in voluntary agreements for liquor licenses - essentially holding bar owners hostage to address larger issues they have absolutely no control over and no legal mechanism to enforce.

by Alex B. on Oct 18, 2010 11:45 am • link • report

@ Mike

I go to the gym and I would never dress in any indecent manner.

I just believe people should not be showing off their body in public whatever you do in private or in this case inside of a gym is fine as long as I dont have to see it.

As far as the Quaker comment go look at the way people dressed 30 years ago across the country and compare it to now dressing has gone down hill and people wear beach attire in public. There is no reason for someone to try to be sexy while working out that is not the purpose of working it is to say fit and that can be done without wearing shorts that barely cover your ass and a sports bra.

by kk on Oct 18, 2010 11:49 am • link • report

@ Alex

I understand but a gym can mandate the clothing that its members wear while in there.

An on average how often do people in the warmer parts of the country (excluding beach areas or coastal cities with a beach) go out shirtless and with just shirts (for men) or sports bra and shorts at the buttocks or just below the buttocks (for woman)

by kk on Oct 18, 2010 11:53 am • link • report

I think you meant Shaker, not Quaker.

Either way, if people dressed like that in the upper midwest, they would rename it Smurfville.

by William on Oct 18, 2010 11:55 am • link • report

@kk

I understand but a gym can mandate the clothing that its members wear while in there.

Sure, a gym can require that of its members. The point is that an ANC (or any public body) cannot require that of a gym. There is no legal basis to do so. Nor should there be, in my opinion.

The other issue is that the concern about indecent dress has nothing to do with this particular gym at all. Even if the ANC did apply a dress code to this particular gym's patrons (which, again, is illegal and should be unenforceable), I highly doubt such a restriction would actually solve the 'problem' people complain about. Somehow, I doubt all of the scantily-clad runners out there are members of this particular gym...

by Alex B. on Oct 18, 2010 12:00 pm • link • report

kk, why is it decent to go shirtless to the beach but not walking around town?

Seriously.

by Neil Flanagan on Oct 18, 2010 12:04 pm • link • report

Re: Primal fitness

As Citizen Chair of the ANC 6C Committee which has been working on the issues with the gym and neighbors, we know that we can't dictate what people wear outside the gym to run - we have no say so (nor should we) in what people are wearing when they do their jogging/walking/etc. The primary issue with the Gym is that it has been operating for the past three years without a certificate of occupancy and no zoning exemptions to place a gym in a residentially zoned building, but they have been paying commercial taxes to DC. We are trying to work out issues with the immediate neighbor on sound and vibration but need to be able to separate the noise and shock from the heavily traveled New York Avenue and what is actually coming from the gym. The "running half naked through the street" is merely a sound-byte and only distracts from the real legal issues between Primal Fitness and the District. It sure worked didn't it ... the author got you to read his story.

by RobA on Oct 18, 2010 12:15 pm • link • report

dress like a whore

what are you - the Taliban?

by andy on Oct 18, 2010 12:30 pm • link • report

@kk, I suggest you stay indoors and draw your shades the next two Sundays when 50,000 scantily clad runners will take over the city for the Army Ten-Miler and Marine Corps Marathon.

The gall they have to wear technical clothing while engaging in a sport... And on a Sunday, no less!

Sigh.

by rallycap on Oct 18, 2010 12:47 pm • link • report

Regarding the Barnes Dance issue, the "No Turns" restrictions are widely ignored and it's a real problem. But the pedestrian cycles also haven't been set up in a proper "Barnes Dance" fashion either. Normally, a Barnes Dance intersection allows crossing in all six directions at one time for a slightly extended period and prohibits crossing in any direction at all other times. This way drivers are allowed to make their turns without pedestrian interference (assuming the pedestrians obey the signals) and pedestrians are allowed to cross without driver interference (and let's be realistic, "No Turn on Red" restrictions are hardly anything new to urban drivers). DC opted for a different setup at 7th & H. When H Street traffic has a green light, pedestrians walking along H Street also get a "Walk" signal. Ditto when 7th Street traffic has a green light. The all-way pedestrian cycle reduces the amount of time drivers have to get through the intersection, so the "No Turns" restriction was introduced to attempt to keep the traffic moving (i.e., so that traffic wouldn't back up while someone waits to turn across the crosswalk). The real solution to the problem is to allow right turns (a "No Left Turn" restriction is entirely appropriate) but to change the pedestrian cycle to a proper Barnes Dance cycle whereby no crossing is permitted outside of the all-way pedestrian cycle. That way vehicular traffic's opportunity to get through the intersection is maximized, but pedestrians' opportunity to cross without interference from vehicular traffic is also preserved.

Problem is--and I think this may be one reason for DC using a different light cycle there--we all know DC-area pedestrians think "Don't Walk" doesn't apply to them. At that particular intersection, it could work quite well if people were willing to play by the rules. But if people don't obey the lights, the system falls apart.

by Rich on Oct 18, 2010 12:57 pm • link • report

So kk, you think cops should be giving out tickets to scantily clad runners jogging on the National Mall or on residential streets? I've jogged the Lake Trail in Chicago and saw plenty of "scantily clad" runners there too. And in South Florida, there is no way to be comfortable out running except shirtless for men and sports bra for women.

Next you'll tell us cyclists shouldn't wear those snug lycra shorts.

I suggest you move to Saudi Arabia. you'd fit right in.

by lou on Oct 18, 2010 1:02 pm • link • report

@ kk: Frankly I dont want to see either a woman with a sports bra and booty shorts or a bare chested dude with shorts on; that is indecent and should not be accepted anywhere except for the beach.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I wonder if you can motivate why your opinion should be accepted by others. What about my opinion? And the opinion of the lightly dressed joggers?

For the record: My opinion is that attractive people should by all means run around as lightly dressed as possible, while ugly people should definitively not - I know, very subjective, but it's just an opinion.

by Jasper on Oct 18, 2010 1:31 pm • link • report

I'm with kk. I believe everyone should be forced to tailor their behavior to match my personal preferences. I mean, you should see the number of dirty whores I see running around town wearing red. Absolutely disgusting.

Don't even get me started on lip gloss. Or women driving unescorted.

by oboe on Oct 18, 2010 1:33 pm • link • report

Shameless hussies flaunting their gym-toned bodies. Why, it just gives a decent person the vapors.

by ksu499 on Oct 18, 2010 1:38 pm • link • report

Nothing like hipster snark in response to someone's community concerns.

Meanwhile, you totally missed the headline which implies that the future of the region is lying outside the Beltway. You know, people with real skills as opposed to close-in liberal arts majors.

by MPC on Oct 18, 2010 2:28 pm • link • report

Meanwhile, you totally missed the headline which implies that the future of the region is lying outside the Beltway. You know, people with real skills as opposed to close-in liberal arts majors.

yes because everyone knows that the federal government and all the associated and ancillary regulatory businesses are going to be moving to Prince William County next year as soon as they put in some crossing signals and crosswalks

by andy on Oct 18, 2010 2:47 pm • link • report

Meanwhile, you totally missed the headline which implies that the future of the region is lying outside the Beltway. You know, people with real skills as opposed to close-in liberal arts majors.

@MPC

There are various reasons for that, and it's by no means specific to DC. There are virtually no (non-computational or non-theoretical) science/engineering/technology jobs located in big cities anywhere.

A lot of this has to do with high real-estate prices, the corporate world's unwillingness to adequately fund their R&D departments, and the low wages that these workers earn, (coupled with cripplingly-high student loan debts).

And, yes. This is an issue, and nobody in a position of power will do anything about it anytime soon.

by andrew on Oct 18, 2010 2:52 pm • link • report

On the contrary, MPC - the very first comment in the thread nails the true reason behind the split.

Who would have thought that when you put law firms downtown and science labs in the suburbs that the lawyers will live in the city while the scientists opt to live near their work.

But that kind of observation doesn't lend itself to a snarky comment.

by Alex B. on Oct 18, 2010 2:53 pm • link • report

Funny, seems to me getting someone to pay you enough to buy DC real estate even though you've got nothing but a liberal arts degree is a "real skill". :)

by oboe on Oct 18, 2010 3:06 pm • link • report

If one's goal is to get scantily clad joggers off of the street, shouldn't one support opening MORE gyms?

by tom veil on Oct 18, 2010 3:12 pm • link • report

But that kind of observation doesn't lend itself to a snarky comment.

That's just defeatism.

by oboe on Oct 18, 2010 3:16 pm • link • report

Scantily clad ladies jogging about? I must be living in the wrong neighborhood.

by Bossi on Oct 18, 2010 4:39 pm • link • report

Rich, DC did the right thing when setting up their barnes dance.

What you propose is to get pedestrians out of the way, because they're a nuisance.

No, pedestrians first. If it takes a driver longer to make a right turn, so be it. Theyre inside a climate controlled environment with radio. They can deal with waiting for an extra light cycle or making a turn at the next block.

by JJJ on Oct 18, 2010 4:47 pm • link • report

Well, I count me as one of the hard science types who lives inside the beltway even though I commute (by bike) through all three jurisdictions to my lab just outside the beltway in MD. It really is like a whole other world there, and I would change jobs in a second if I could find a comparable position downtown somewhere, if only for the variety available for lunch!

There is no way that I would move outside of the beltway, no matter how many scantily clad women were running around there, though.

by dcbrewer on Oct 18, 2010 9:53 pm • link • report

"there is no reason why someone needs to wear tight fitting clothing, short clothing or minimal clothing while working out."

How true. Why just the other day I went for a jog in my loose, flowing ankle-length skirt, and only tripped 20 times - a new record! Then I went to yoga class in my baggy t-shirt, I'm sure no one minded when it fell over my face in shoulder stand. A nice 1/2 hour working out on the stationary cycle in my jeans - no worries, the saddle sores will heal in no time and I avoided the evil spandex.

If only it were still summer so I could run my usual 5 miles wearing long sleeves and full length pants. I do so love being rehydrated by those cute EMTs after I pass out from heatstroke!

by Erica on Oct 19, 2010 2:26 am • link • report

I think we may need to divert a unit or two from Helmand to ANC6C and kk's jurisdiction: a new brand of Taliban lunacy has broken out in our midst, and just in time for the AUSA "conference".

by copperred on Oct 19, 2010 4:00 am • link • report

"What you propose is to get pedestrians out of the way, because they're a nuisance."

Wrong. You didn't read what I said. What I was saying is that the intersection should be designed so that ALL users get through more quickly. I know there is a mindless anti-car mindset among some people here who thing that anything that doesn't involve solely walking is evil and must be banned, but I think that's an unrealistic and short-sighted attitude. My point was that I think it's reasonable to demand that EVERYONE (drivers AND pedestrians) play by the rules in order to speed the trip through the intersection for everyone. In return for the diagonal crossing--which speeds the trip through the intersection by eliminating the need to wait at two crossing lights as you cross in an "L"-shaped pattern--the pedestrian waits a little longer at the other end because the signs say "Don't Walk" all the way around. Meantime, in return for the ability to make right turns on green (I think banning lefts there is a good idea, as there are no left turn lanes, and I think banning right on red is needed if you do a Barnes Dance), drivers have to wait through multiple red-light sequences. But when anyone, driver or pedestrian, gets to go, he's ensured that he can go without encountering driver-pedestrian conflicts (again, if people would obey the rules).

DC got it wrong on this one.

by Rich on Oct 19, 2010 9:00 am • link • report

Funny that the noise of weights is considered more disruptive than a fire fire engines roaring out with sirens blaring at all hours of the day...

by John M on Oct 25, 2010 6:03 pm • link • report