I've got to wonder how many more doggie crap bags were sold in DC this year than last year.

by charlie on Jan 6, 2011 8:48 am • link • report

I would expect a bag tax to go nowhere in VA, it will likely be killed on a non-recorded vote in house subcommittee, with the republican members from Tazewell and Louisa counties voting "no" and the democratic member from Alexandria voting "yes".

by Michael Perkins on Jan 6, 2011 9:12 am • link • report

those were picked at random to illustrate the point that Northern Virginia doesn't own its own fate. I don't know who sits on the committee, actually.

by Michael Perkins on Jan 6, 2011 9:15 am • link • report

If we end up getting a station in subway at Dulles Airport it will likely end up looking like it was rehabilitated from something that was built 75 years ago.

by Sand Box John on Jan 6, 2011 9:39 am • link • report

Seattle's airport light rail station is an insanely long walk away from the terminal -- it has to be something like half a mile of trudging through a parking garage to get there. I can't imagine that it's that appealing an option to people who have alternatives, and I sincerely hope Dulles doesn't follow suit.

by Josh Fruhlinger on Jan 6, 2011 9:48 am • link • report

IMO, Metro should put a hold on the entire second phase of the project until MWAA agrees to a station alignment that's actually convenient to the terminal building.

After all, the airport is the main reason why the line is being built out past Tyson's!

by andrew on Jan 6, 2011 9:53 am • link • report

We still never figure out how many of the plastic bags in the river came from DC vs Maryland and Virginia nor did we stop other crap such as bottles, tires, natural stuff or paper (dont care if it decomposes it shouldn't be there)

For all we know 25% of bags in the river could have came from Maryland via areas just across the DC line and ended up in a DC sewer via human, animal or weather.

by kk on Jan 6, 2011 9:55 am • link • report

I wonder where the data on bag usage in the District comes from. I know most stores I go to don't charge for the bags. (I.e., reasonableness wins out after all.) If they're using 'sold bags' as their criteria, then they're completely off on the count.

by Lance on Jan 6, 2011 9:56 am • link • report

Metro is not building the line. MWAA is, and then Metro will be forced to take it over. Metro has no involvement in any of the decisions and can't stop construction on the line.

by David Alpert on Jan 6, 2011 9:57 am • link • report

"RAC votes to oppose bag searches"

Will it change anything?

Having switched upgraded in-town trips from Metro to CaBi it's been a while since I've used the subway, but yesterday evening I happened to take it, entering the system at Gallery Place.  This followed a recent increase in reports of passengers being attacked by hooligans there and at L'Enfant Plaza so it should have been reassuring to see WMATA security people out there distributing flyers.  In response to the attacks, to let customers know what they were going to do about the crime situation? 

Nope.  They were in defense of the bag search policy. 

Higher fares, lower reliability, everything dirty and broken, and now the guards have been diverted from basic policing to useless security theater.  As one who has ridden the system since inception I never thought I would give up on it, but having found something better I really don't miss the subway. 

by why put up with it? on Jan 6, 2011 9:59 am • link • report

Re CaBi in Georgetown:

To be fair, the ANC has been a pretty strong supporter of CaBi. The only time they strayed a bit is when they let a few nimby neighbors stop the placement of a station near the Car Barn. But even then, the location wasn't great (the sidewalk is too narrow) and the ANC simply asked the location be moved closer to the University, which is where DDOT wanted it in the first place. The ANC has been big supporters of CaBi.

Also, there were four locations approved on Monday. Ken presented on three: the Jackson School, Hyde-Addison, and the library. But Comm. Tom Birch (who bikes to work, by the way) added one more location to the resolution: the M St. sidewalk just west of the bridge over Rock Creek (I'm not sure there's space on the sidewalk itself, though, and the adjoining land is NPS-owned Rose Park).

by TM on Jan 6, 2011 10:06 am • link • report

Josh: much the same situation at the Lindbergh terminal at Minneapolis St. Paul Int'l. So the airport commission built a tram connecting the light rail to the outer edge of the terminal. Humphrey terminal doesn't have that problem...even though it's through a parking garage, it's a much closer walk.

Regarding the Virginia bill on bag fees, it should be noted that it was introduced by a delegate from Henrico County, not Northern Virginia. And he introduced the same legislation last year.

by Froggie on Jan 6, 2011 10:07 am • link • report

If MWAA doesnt' put the subway station close to the terminal, like it is at DCA, traveling tax-payer's will use "MWAA" as a four letter word! It's a BAD BAD idea to be cheap for such an important public transit link to IAD.

by Matt on Jan 6, 2011 10:12 am • link • report

In Seattle, there are plans to extend the train further south, that's probably a major factor as to why the station isn't closer to the terminal.

In Minneapolis, it's the same reason. Since the Lindbergh terminal is a mid-point station, the current location is about as close as you were going to get realistically. However, MSP does have a nice check-in and security checkpoint near the LRT station (so long as you're not checking baggage) that allows you to enter the airport and go through security right at the bridge between the C and G concourses. Likewise, you can exit security there, too - often a quicker route (again, if you do not have checked baggage).

by Alex B. on Jan 6, 2011 10:17 am • link • report

@andrew,

Your assumption that the airport was the "main reason" for building the line would be wrong, it is but one of the many reason.

The original incarnation of this project went only as far as a park and ride, bus and ride station in the median of the Dulles Access Road west of Leesburg Pike VA-7.

The bordings generated by the airport station will be a small fraction of total boardings generated by the 11 stations along the route.

by Sand Box John on Jan 6, 2011 10:23 am • link • report

@Sand Box John,

You are right...and one of the reasons I predict train ridership to the airport to be far below expectations is because of having to endure the 11 stops on the way.

by beatbox on Jan 6, 2011 10:26 am • link • report

@Lance - that is a critical question, because we can be pretty sure that the current bag figures are for taxable sales of bags and the old bag figures are reported by stores based on what they purchased (or something along those lines). Obviously stores aren't going to report how many bags they ordered any more.

by ah on Jan 6, 2011 10:29 am • link • report

@beatbox You are right...and one of the reasons I predict train ridership to the airport to be far below expectations is because of having to endure the 11 stops on the way.

Wouldn't it be possible for them to run express trains if they want ... Like the Acela does between DC and NYC where there are only a few stops? (I realize it might mean running less 'locals' until they can build another set of tracks on existing Orange line right of way ... But with the right scheduling tools, perhaps the impact of the locals would be minimal? It would be a matter of balancing needs ... )

by Lance on Jan 6, 2011 10:34 am • link • report

@ Lance You've already told us you do your shopping in Virginia to avoid the bag fee, so I'm not sure your anecdotes about the frequency of law breaking by stores are worth very much.

by jcm on Jan 6, 2011 10:36 am • link • report

You know, if I'm going to Dulles, I'm going to think long and hard about whether or not I want to take the super easy 2 stop 5A from L'Enfant, or the 11+ stop ride on the train all the way out there. For that matter, I wonder if they're going to scrap the 5A? If traffic is light, that's gotta be faster than the train with all those stops.

by Steve D on Jan 6, 2011 10:40 am • link • report

@jcm, The beauty about it all is that the fanatics who are foisting this on us, will never know for sure if what I'm saying is true ... since, they'll always be sure to have their cloth burquas, uh I mean bags, with them when they go shopping ;)

by Lance on Jan 6, 2011 10:41 am • link • report

That's great idea, Lance. Unfortunately, we went short-sighted on the entire Metro system and built only two tracks, making the running of true express trains either impossible or incredibly difficult on only 2 tracks.

by Steve D on Jan 6, 2011 10:42 am • link • report

@beatbox,

2 of those 11 stops are west of the airport, that being said the airport will still be a fraction of the total boardings.

by Sand Box John on Jan 6, 2011 10:43 am • link • report

True test of the bag tax is whether the Anacostia is cleaner. But it was never about the Anacostia, now was it? It was simply about using the Anacostia as the excuse for mandating social policy. At least the Tommy Tax supporters should acknowledge they engaged in nothing more than a bait and switch approach to social engineering.

And good for Kass going to Wells, although I wonder what pound of flesh Graham demanded to allow that to occur.

by Fritz on Jan 6, 2011 10:48 am • link • report

@ Lance, I believe I can speak for the fanatics who support the measure (since I am one) that none of us much care where you do your shopping, or whether you're telling the truth. The program is a demonstrable success.

by jcm on Jan 6, 2011 10:51 am • link • report

@Fritz:

What is the social engineering supposed to accomplish if not make the Anacostia cleaner?

by Steven Yates on Jan 6, 2011 10:51 am • link • report

Again Lance makes an anti-Muslim racist joke. Remind me again why he hasn't been banned?

by Reid on Jan 6, 2011 10:53 am • link • report

@ Fritz

A report on the Anacostia prepared two years ago found plastic bags made up about half of the trash in the river on the city's east side. This year, an environmental group that does an annual river cleanup said it collected a third as many bags as it did in 2009.

The head of a nonprofit watchdog group for the river said it's hard to explain that difference without looking to the bag bill.

"There's still trash in the river, but I do see fewer plastic bags," said Dottie Yunger, the executive director of Anacostia Riverkeeper./

by jcm on Jan 6, 2011 10:55 am • link • report

@Lance - It's too late to put extra tracks in for 'Express Trains' if the bridges and overpasses are already under construction (Go to VA, and they appear to be). If express trains were possible on Metro, they would have been implemented 20 years ago. I fear its a lost cause.

Re: Dulles. I'm sorry, but Dulles looks like a bad Salvidor Dali knockoff. There's no way the 'aesthetic' of Dulles trumps passenger convenience. It's a completely moronic position. An airport is transportation first, attractiveness second. Blending aesthetics into a functional building is the goal, not reducing functionality to achieve aesthetics. Put the terminals (train/plane) within an ADA recommended distance and let's be done with it.

Re: Bag Fee. Unless someone has a concrete analysis to say the bag fee is not working, they're just blowing smoke. If you want to question the analysis, do so before you assume the results were wrong.

Re: Historic Preservation. The linked article, however good or bad the points might be, is just another blog rant. People need to sign up for a UDC/MC/NoVa course on "effective communication" and 3 part essay. The first lesson is that calling someone a 'newcomer' as a way to argue a point makes you look foolish. If the reader never finishes the article, you've missed your opportunity to change their mind.

by Sense on Jan 6, 2011 10:57 am • link • report

@Reed, The enslavement of women in burquas is not a 'freedom of religion' issue ... and shame on you for trying to make it so. The French have correctly banned it and other civilized societies are sure to follow suit.

by Lance on Jan 6, 2011 11:02 am • link • report

The only thing really silly about the bag tax is paying for a bag to carry my new toaster at Bed Bath and Beyond because they also happen to sell Snickers bars.

by OX4 on Jan 6, 2011 11:04 am • link • report

@jcm, The program is a demonstrable success.

Again, it is not. It's not a success if the criteria is raising money to clean the Anacostia ... Less than half than what was expected actually came in ... AND I haven't heard of any plans to use it to clean the river yet ... have you? AND the fact that the bag Nazis haven't figured out a way to get an accurate count of bags actually used, similarly doesn't make it a 'success' ... no matter how you try to measure it. It's only been a success in that those with Nazi tendencies have been successfully sidelined into thinking they've been successful at imposing their own fanactical, but unusefull, ideas on others ...

by Lance on Jan 6, 2011 11:08 am • link • report

Oh Reid ... sorry if my insulting the Nazi's bothers you ...

by Lance on Jan 6, 2011 11:11 am • link • report

I'm not at all surprised that Lance and Fritz bother to dispute anything to do with the bag tax. I'm simply shocked any of us bother to respond.

by TimK on Jan 6, 2011 11:12 am • link • report

Lance, first you say Gabe Klein looks like a Muslim terrorist. Now you call pro-bag tax people fanatics, which then immediately triggers another Muslim reference from you. If you don't see the obvious racist associations you're making, then I feel sorry for you, but it doesn't mean we have to be subjected to it. Please take that crap back to France if you think it's so civilized.

by Reid on Jan 6, 2011 11:15 am • link • report

Yes, there's certainly nothing fascistic about laws mandating what people can and cannot wear.

by jfruh on Jan 6, 2011 11:20 am • link • report

Lance, if you think comparing people you disagree with on the bag tax with Nazis is an insult to Nazis, rather than, say, the millions of people killed by them, then you are obviously more lost to reason than I thought.

And having triggered Godwins Law, you've ended this fruitless discussion anyway.

by Reid on Jan 6, 2011 11:20 am • link • report

The reason some shops have been getting away with not charging for it is that it was barely enforced until recently. DC wanted to give the shops time to implement before cracking down. From what I'm hearing, the crackdowns are ramping up now.

by Nate on Jan 6, 2011 11:22 am • link • report

@ Lance The purpose of the law was not to raise money. The purpose was to discourage use of plastic bags. Here's the actual text:

BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, That this
act may be cited as the "Anacostia River Clean Up and Protection Act of 2009".

Sec. 2. Findings.
The Council of District of Columbia finds that:
(1) The widespread provision of carryout bags to consumers creates significant problems relating to their disposal and effect on the environment.
(2) plastic carryout bags are the largest single source of trash in the Anacostia River tributaries and of the three largest sources in the entire river.
(3) Plastic carryout bags clog sewer systems, and pose a risk to marine animals that ingest them or become entangled in them along the River.
(4) The Anacostia River soon will be subject to an Environmental Protection Agency mandated Total Maximum Daily Load (TDML), which sets the level of allowable pollution; exceeding this figure will result in severe fines for the District.
(5) There exists a need to discourage the use of single-use, disposable plastic and paper bags and encourage the use of reusable bags by consumers and retailers in order to minimize the impact of disposable bags on the Anacostia River, on the health and environment of the District and its residents, and on the District’s fiscal welfare.
(6) Other jurisdictions worldwide have seen a dramatic decrease in disposable bag use when small fees have been implemented that encourage consumers to choose reusable shopping bags.

Honestly, even for you, calling people who support this Nazis and Fanatics is bullshit. I expect lots of ignorance, unfounded assertions, and outright lies in your posts, but they ought to at least be courteous.

by jcm on Jan 6, 2011 11:23 am • link • report

@charlie The dog poop bags are filled with poop so they don't end up floating into our trees and rivers quite as much.

This important educational documentary tells it all:
http://youtu.be/GLgh9h2ePYw

Maybe we should have a requirement to put poop in all plastic bags, but as non-dog-owner I prefer paying the 5-cents and/or using my stylish cloth bag.

Virgina will oppose a bag tax because it has the word tax in it.

by Ward 1 Guy on Jan 6, 2011 11:45 am • link • report

@JCM; legislative intent is tricky, but clearly reading beyond the findings of a resolution is one step.

The key words in there are TDML. Plastic bags from DC aren't the problem in the Anacostia. They are, as the resolution states, coming from tributaries. Look at map. That means Maryland.

Plastic bags, however, do get into the combined storm-sewer systems in DC, and tend to jam up, which results in more overflows during storms, which means DC gets fined by the EPA. Looking at trash in the river isn't going to tell you whether the "reduction" part of the bag tax is working, you have to look at storm overflows.

And Lance is absolutely right this was primarily a revenue ploy. See how upset Alpert got when they tried to take the revenue away into the general fund -- as it should have been? Revenue is down from predicted, but up from where it was this earlier this year, which means people are adjusting their habits.

The numbers are very unreliable -- only large chains are probably reporting correctly -- almost every small store I know is giving bags away for free, or more likely pocketing the 5 cents in revenue.

A better way of taxing would be hit the wholesale sale of bags via a tax to make them more expensive to wholesales. Or course the Post and Examiner wold have a hissy fit since they are probably the largest purchasers of bags in the region.

@Ward 1 Guy; if you came across the river once in a while, you'd find Virginia LOVES taxes. Car tax for instance. The real answer is if Pocahontas approved it, Virginia probably likes it.

by charlie on Jan 6, 2011 12:05 pm • link • report

@Ward1 guy - thanks for that link. I hope you're wrong about VA, at least in the long term.

by Tina on Jan 6, 2011 12:09 pm • link • report

@charlie Before using David's reaction to the fund diversion as proof that the bag tax was primarily a revenue ploy you ought to go re-read that particular post.. Specifically the part where he wrote:

During the original bag debate, many naysayers said that this was just an attempt to raise some revenue through a hidden "tax." Supporters argued that this wasn't the purpose.

Instead, it aims to create an economic incentive for people to use reusable bags, taking advantage of the very high elasticity of bag demand based on price. And it's successfully reduced bag use by 50-80%.

David wasn't angry because he was worried about the loss of revenue for cleanup funds, he was angry because he worried the diversion would erode support for the program.

Do you have any evidence at all that the law was primarily a revenue ploy?

I agree that reducing the number of bags in the CSS is important. Do you have any reason to believe that bag are not being reduced in the CSS, while the Anacostia is seeing a drastic reduction?

by jcm on Jan 6, 2011 12:16 pm • link • report

Richard Layton's perspectiv on historic preservation is spot on, particularly when he writes:

"Even if people want to shop in a new Target store in Columbia Heights, or a Whole Foods Market in Dupont Circle, the reality is that people are attracted to living in DC primarily because of historic building stock, pedestrian-centric (and transit supportive) urban design, and identity and meaning derived from being in real places.

The funny thing about people like Yglesias is that likely they are relative newcomers to the city. They didn't live here before 2003, and it was not until 2003 that DC really "took off" in terms of there developing a new critical mass of developers wanting to build and people wanting to live in new housing.

Try living in DC for the one or two or three decades before 2003, when for the most part, people with choices didn't want to live in the city, where the quality of municipal services was under continual decline, mortgage interest rates were high, and crime especially the murder rate, was climbing.

Before 2003, the people who were keeping the city going were still "urban pioneers," from many decades--1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s--who took a chance on living in the city when national trends and local municipal mismanagement (on that note, see The Future Once Happened Here and Dream City: Race, Power, and the Decline of Washington DC) discouraged seemingly smart and rational people from choosing to live in the city. (Did we have to be a little bit crazy?)

They are the "hysterical preservationists" that people like Yglesias deride today. Hmm, talk about gratitude.

Historic preservationists are the people who gutted it out and saved the city for the new residents of today, who gladly consume today's more exciting and vibrant city as know it all conquerers.

It's easy to write an under-informed blog post, article, or book, or opine from your condominium window.

It's hard to get off your ass, and spend time and energy--years--working to improve your neighborhood or your city."

by Bob on Jan 6, 2011 12:26 pm • link • report

I've given up on Yglesias b/c so many of his posts - particularly his anti-regulatory rants - are poorly thought out and he rarely ever responds to the comments that point out his errors or illogic.

On the Tommy Tax, anyone that thinks that revenue will always be a sacred cow is delusional. Why should that revenue be any different than all the other special purpose revenue that's been swept into the General Fund by the Mayor and Council? I highly doubt next year's budget will leave any such revenue streams untouched.

The Tommy Tax is simply social engineering dressed up as being "for the environment". I'm not sure why pointing out that simple fact is causing so many to get so touchy.

by Fritz on Jan 6, 2011 12:58 pm • link • report

This seems like an appropriate time to refer to something Lance posted about a month ago:

"It rarely takes me more than 60 seconds to post a reply."

by Lance on Dec 7, 2010 1:26 am

Lance, we know you don't put much thought into your posts. No need to keep reinforcing the point.

by dcd on Jan 6, 2011 1:02 pm • link • report

The Tommy Tax is simply social engineering dressed up as being "for the environment". I'm not sure why pointing out that simple fact is causing so many to get so touchy.

Why do you treat environmentalism and social engineering as mutually exclusive purposes? Of course it's social engineering. It's social engineering with a goal of creating a society that uses fewer plastic bags, which means fewer bags in the river and fewer resources used.

Is "social engineering" supposed to be a bad thing? Virtually everything the government does by means of incentives and penalties -- mortgage interest tax deduction, etc. -- boils down to social engineering.

by jfruh on Jan 6, 2011 1:13 pm • link • report

@Fritz -I believe one can justifiably argue it was social engineering on the part of the stores to embed the cost of the plastic disposable bags into general merchandise costs and then "give" the bags away "free" at check-out. Were you as irritated by that manipulation as you seem to be by the effort to reduce use of the bags? There was never any question that the bag fee/tax was intended to change behavior. I guess you think calling that effort social engineering is more pejorative than "behavior change". Its the same thing. The goal was transparent from the start whereas the original manipulation of the stores' to "give" the bags away "free" was dishonest, in my opinion.

by Tina on Jan 6, 2011 1:21 pm • link • report

I just did the math. 80% reduction in plastic bag use.

Is anyone else blown away by how much behavior you can change with a *nickel*, A coin that most people wouldn't stoop down to pick up off the street?

by Ward 1 Guy on Jan 6, 2011 1:39 pm • link • report

@jfruh - Because the goal of the Tommy Tax was to get people to stop using plastic bags. But our liberal elite overlords couldn't sell it that way because it would get way too much pushback. So they came up with the "Save the Anacostia from plastic bags" angle, figuring no one will oppose stuff that's "for the environment." Now, is the main source of the Anacostia's pollution due to plastic bags from DC residents? Nope. But the actual facts don't matter when it's "for the environment." What matters is perception and how things make us feel. And "saving the Anacostia" makes us all feel good. Now, regardless of whether the Anacostia is actually any cleaner in 5 years' time is irrelevant; the Tommy Tax will never be repealed b/c it wasn't about actual Anacostia pollution, it was all about changing people's behavior. It was sold as something else, because that's the only way it could pass.

I reiterate the same point I've made multiple times on this topic: If, in 5 years' time, the Anacostia is still as polluted, will the Tommy Tax be declared to have failed in its intended purpose and repealed?

We all know the answer is clearly no. Is this really so difficult to acknowledge that it takes dozens of posts by the Tommy Tax supporters? I thought it was a clear enough statement of fact. Didn't realize it would touch such a sensitive nerve with folks who like "the right kind" of social engineering.

by Fritz on Jan 6, 2011 1:40 pm • link • report

Good point Fritz (1:40 pm) It makes me think that there'd probably be a bottle deposit law in DC right now if they had marketed it as a way to clean the Anacostia too. That idea was beaten down as a burden on poor people - the genius behind the bag tax was to couch it as a benefit to the river and the people who live near it or over it. Up until now I have thought the bag tax was silly, but now I have some grudging respect for it, or at least the politics that got it enacted. Do you suppose I am naive to ask if we will ever see a breakdown of how the $2M is spent to help the Anacostia, which certainly needs more work than simply putting fewer bags into it?

by ZZinDC on Jan 6, 2011 2:04 pm • link • report

@Ward 1 Guy

Virginia is one of a small number of states that taxes groceries (2.5 percent). That's a hefty $2.50 on every $100 of food. Virginia isn't against all taxes.

by Mitch Wander on Jan 6, 2011 2:13 pm • link • report

@Fritz

The purpose of making people use fewer bags is so that there are fewer plastic bags EVERYWHERE (in the Anacostia, on our streets, in the sewer system.) I don't understand why making people pay for something that pollutes as a whole should be so controversial.

You keep feigning outrage that people have a problem with what you're saying, "a clear statement of fact!" The reality is that you keep ignoring the fact that was posted above (workers cleaning up the river found fewer bags than before) and the fact that if people use fewer bags in total, then that's fewer bags that end up in a landfill or in a tree or in the sewer system.

You have yet to outline what exactly is your problem with the bag tax other than the scare-inducing charge of "social engineering," like it's some Soviet spectre. Every policy we make is social engineering in one way or another - you have yet to make a charge as to why this program actually harms anyone.

by MLD on Jan 6, 2011 2:16 pm • link • report

@Tina Were you as irritated by that manipulation as you seem to be by the effort to reduce use of the bags?

I'll answer for Fritz ... (at least MY opinion) .... Not in the least! It's completely one thing for a merchant to try to entice you to buy his product ('caveat emptor') ... You can always just say 'no' ... And entirely a whole other kettle of fish for a do-gooder government bureaucrat/elected official to strong arm the citizens to do something which has no real social or evironmental benefit in the least ... and is nothing but a sham at making them look good. Remember the soda tax? How much more Nanny state can you get than proposals like this ... ? Come on, wake up folks. You're being used and abused when pols play tricks like this on you.

by Lance on Jan 6, 2011 2:30 pm • link • report

Typical of transportation planners---when making any key decision, first step should be to rule out the best option.

IMHO the parking garage should clearly be a nonstarter. Either they have the money for underground, or they should put it above ground in front of the terminal, but far away is just nonsense.

by David desJardins on Jan 6, 2011 2:35 pm • link • report

@ Lance, I would much prefer lower grocery bills in exchange for using my own bag. I don't want a nanny merchant trying to force something on me I don't want (a plastic bag) in exchange for charging me more for something I need (food). Nazi merchants!

by Tina on Jan 6, 2011 2:35 pm • link • report

@Tina, So how do you feel about getting 'free' service in a store when you have to ask where something on a shelf is ... ? After all, the cost of your taking the clerk's time up is embedded in the cost of the items there. Should we just pass a law mandating that stores charge a nickel if someone has to ask about a question? How about your use of the heat in the store. I mean, maybe I'll wear my coat in that store ... and I'm only in there a couple minutes anyways ... Why should I have to pay for the cost to heat that store which gets embedded in the price of the products I buy there? And besides, encouraging the stores to spend less to heat their places would result in significant energy savings all around ... Do you see the falacy of the bag tax now ... ? How it's really all for show ...

by Lance on Jan 6, 2011 2:40 pm • link • report

Layman seems to specialize in missing the point, strawman arguments, and flat-out mischaracterization (such as putting the words "hysterical preservationists" in quotes, even though Yglesias doesn't use those words at all). Yglesias certainly didn't say or imply that obstructing development is the only purpose of historic preservation. Only that it is sometimes used that way, and this looks like an example.

Now, Layman could have made a different point, that the building is not in fact on the historic preservation list. That's a pretty compelling argument against Yglesias's position! But that would have required introducing some actual facts, not just ranting.

by David desJardins on Jan 6, 2011 2:44 pm • link • report

@ Lance-I'm an idiot for not seeing that similarity! Oh wait. I'm an idiot for responding to someone who made the absurd and deeply offensive comparison of the horrors of the nazi regime to an attempt at "do-gooding", that is, an attempt to try and reduce pollution in the world. Oh, and for responding to people who ignore "actual facts!" when the evidence contradicts their opinion. 55 million is the same number as 200 million? I suppose anyone who doesn't see that is a nazi.

by Tina on Jan 6, 2011 2:51 pm • link • report

I don't know what's more amusing, the number of instances of "Lance" on this page (why people still bother to respond to his trolling baffles me) or the 9 instances of "nazi".

by JJJJJ on Jan 6, 2011 3:49 pm • link • report

@JJJJJ-ok I contributed to it. I was trying to poke fun at Lance for his nazi reference.

by Tina on Jan 6, 2011 4:06 pm • link • report

Someone needs to tell Godwin that his law has been violated.

by Fritz on Jan 6, 2011 4:58 pm • link • report

I'm glad they decided not to disrupt the viewshed of the Dulles Terminal

by Lou on Jan 7, 2011 8:43 am • link • report