Public Spaces
Anyone who disagrees with the Post is a "self-interested minority"
The self-interested minority at the Washington Post editorial page is urging the Council to build Klingle Road. Their arguments avoid almost any discussion of the merits of the issue. Like most of the opponents at the hearing, their main argument is: the Council voted before to rebuild the road, and so we should push on against all objections
Never mind that a majority of Council members, a majority of attendees at a hearing, and most of the emails I've seen on neighborhood email lists advocate for a park over an unneeded road. Anyone advocating for the environment must be "few but powerful". Few but powerful may better describe the Post editorial page; few, certainly, but hopefully not too powerful.
 | David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.   |
Comments
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- Can Loudoun grow while protecting its rural areas?
- Silver Spring mall could get massive facelift, new name
- ICC losing bus service in classic bait and switch
- WMATA launches "Short Trip" rail pass on SmarTrip
The problem is their definition of the greater good, not their (simplified) take on the process.
by Alex B. on May 12, 2008 9:20 am • link • report
It's the same in Montgomery County. East of Rock Creek Park, where I live, we don't have a lot of connections to the Bethesda/Rockville/I-270 corridor on the other side - for cars, buses, bicyclists, anything. Maybe three or four major roads spaced several miles apart. Ask someone in Rockville if they need to come east to Calverton or Burtonsville. Ask someone in Rockville where Calverton or Burtonsville IS. They wouldn't say we need more connections across the park the way I do.
So I don't know what the situation with Klingle Road is, but I really wouldn't discount the people who want/need this road to be re-opened on either side of the park. I'm not sure how many people think about this in terms of the environmental consequences either (not to belittle them) but rather an easier way to get to work, or shopping, etc.
by dan reed on May 12, 2008 11:27 pm • link • report
1)Access east-west. The mouth of the closed road overlaps another road, Porter St., that carries traffic east-west and is built and designed for heavy traffic use. The two roads (closed Klingle and Porter) run more or less parallel seperated by about 100 yrds of parkland for the half mile length of the creek bed/valley/closed road portion. The impression that there is no way across is false. People want a shortcut to save "minutes".
2) East vs. west. Historically proponents for the shortcut to bypass Porter St. pushed to characterize the debate as east vs. west or haves vs. have-nots. It's ugly and not true. There have always been people on both sides of the park who want to "save minutes" or save parkland. At the Roundtable hearing last week this truth was born out as citizens identified themselves and what city Ward they were from. Plus, there always have been and always will be compelling reasons for those west to travel east (Childrens Hosp, Target, Home Depot, U St, friends and family, etc.). DC isn't that big. Remember we're talking about a piece of road a half mile long.
3) Citizens wishes. At the Roundtable, as in every public hearing, the clear majority from all over the city favor a bike path in this valley. Again, Porter St. is literally a stones throw away and the impression that there is no way across is patently false. The issue for those who want the road is to save a few minutes, not access.
I clearly have a point of view but I think people unfamiliar with the area don't realize that Porter St. is right there adjacent to the closed road. Those of us nearby don't mention it to one another because we are aware Porter St. is there. That's one reason this is so contentious. It isn't about access. Porter St. provides access. Its about a shortcut vs. parkland in a steep creek valley. Road proponents try to make it sound like an access issue because that is a much more compelling argument. At Connecticut Ave. Porter St. is 1 block north of closed Klingle. The valley ends and Porter continues west to Wisconsin Ave.
by Bianchi on May 13, 2008 11:54 am • link • report
We should know that NIMBYs oppose all progress in the name of their property values.
by Scott on May 13, 2008 1:03 pm • link • report
by David Alpert on May 13, 2008 1:10 pm • link • report
Again, Porter St. is 100 yrds from the closed Klingle portion and many people, moral and immoral, traverse east and west on Porter everyday. Keeping "people" out of Cleveland Park seriously is not the motivation.
Besides, a bike path in Klingle Valley will invite people from all over to use it -- even people who get on the RC bike path in MD! I hope that happens because that might mean fewer of them are driving on Porter St.
by Bianchi on May 13, 2008 1:32 pm • link • report
by Bianchi on May 13, 2008 1:56 pm • link • report
Add a Comment