johnbrownbody t1_j66cycg wrote

Again, the city makes money off of the tax revenue and if your issue is that money was provided to businesses to help set up streeteries (if true), the alternative was that businesses would not exist because people were not doing indoor dining. Then you could have parked right next to these empty storefronts.


johnbrownbody t1_j65bn6p wrote

>Oh, so you don't find that statement to be true?

What part of "your pet grievance" do you not understand? Also just because you aren't involved in your community or understand how people involved in their community engage with these issues doesn't mean people don't care. This is a complex idea for you, but again based on your post history, you don't have much insight here so it's always good to spell out obvious things for people who dont know any better.

>So yeah, I stand by my statement, and I'm flattered that you care so much about my words

Whatever it takes to make yourself feel better. Sure.


johnbrownbody t1_j64uosj wrote

>people who would pay to share parking are getting too subsidized?

Yes they are, parking in cities is massively subsidized. If you want to park in a private lot you would pay significantly more than Street city parking. A good clue that parking is very subsidized.

>We don’t make money off the spots, the restaurants do

Do you think restaurants pay more tax if they make more money? They do. And yes, the restaurants also pay for the spots themselves.


johnbrownbody t1_j64ro61 wrote

Businesses get that space for the cost of parking for the entire year AFAIK. That's how it worked during the pandemic.

There will / should still be disabled parking spots for accessibility purposes.

Now your argument is about accessibility not cost, which I pointed out is a bad one. Accessibility wise yes we should make the city accessible to all. Those who need to drive for disability purposes as well as those who cannot drive due to disabilities or other reasons. But the argument that streeteries or other uses for parking are somehow worse than your car getting a massive subsidy to sit in public spaces is easily refuted.


johnbrownbody t1_j64jh2o wrote

You can post up at a massively subsidized parking spot (or free in some spots) where your private property will sit on public space for a nominal and inexpensive fee when that land could be much more effectively used to generate tax revenue or beautify the city. Streeteries pay a nominal fee and generate a nice spot for people to spend money which generates tax revenue. Dedicated bus lanes instead of parking spots allow for the efficient movement of people to and from places of businesses. I can go on.


johnbrownbody t1_j5zaur3 wrote

> Yeah but not with ugly tents that all they do is sell expensive alcohol.

Lots of businesses and cafes have streeteries.

> If you going to go the “oh the people have the right to reclaim the streets” then this is not the way to turn it into a money cow for alcohol and Vice.

It's a cash cow for the city and for small businesses, and it's great for people to enjoy spending time outside in the open air.

We should definitely also reclaim parking spots with more bike lanes, enforced bus lanes, and green spaces, but to claim that "all they do is sell expensive alcohol... and vice" is ridiculous and factually incorrect.


johnbrownbody t1_j2bml6x wrote

> D.C. police said the incident occurred after a member of the Secret Service pulled the driver over on 14th Street and New York Avenue in Northwest around 4:30 p.m.

> While trying to escape, the driver drove through an intersection, struck a vehicle, and then hit two women who police said were crossing the street. The driver stayed in the area after the collision and was subsequently taken into custody. 

> Officials have revealed that both women were transported to local hospitals where one of them was later pronounced dead. The other victim is currently in critical condition, police said. 



johnbrownbody t1_j0gjkop wrote

> the addition of more luxury apartments will artificially push up the average rate of rentals and will raise continue to make all units in the city less affordable.

Having more units available will mean lower market prices all else equal..

I cannot parse the second half of your sentence, but if you are arguing that having more units will make units less affordable, I (and the relevant literature) disagree that building more units makes units more expensive.

There are 24 more affordable housing units in the city if this conversion occurs, sounds like it'll make a big difference for some people directly and there is strong evidence that adding more units has spillover effects on rents in other buildings. Supply and demand!