Opponents of 6th Street bike lane overwhelm meeting, called early due to crowding

I was late to tonight's East Side Bike Lane open house, and when I got there I could barely get in to the foyer, let alone the meeting room. I waited as one by one, people overwhelmed by the hot stuffy air - or just with better things to do - left the room. Many people brought their children with them, and just in front of me a girl about 8 years old was visibly falling asleep on her feet, so her mother escorted her out. With the attrition I was eventually able to get into the room.

The first speaker I heard, and I was surprised there even were speakers at what was billed as an open house*, said he was a minister at one of the churches. The first thing I heard from him was "You know that when you see bike lanes and you see Whole Foods and you see Harris Teeter and....uh... Chipotle, well I know that's not for me" to a chorus of agreement and applause, and I knew things were going badly. He went on to say that they were the ones who lived there when the neighborhood was dangerous, and that now that "everyone is smiling" there are other people who want to move in. 

Church members filled about 85% of the space, and they had a lot of issues with the bike lanes on 6th, they even wore stickers that said "No bike lanes on 6th Street." 

One person expressed concern that the bike lane was being built exclusively next to African-American and Hispanic churches and implied that this was intentional. "They ain't extending that lane to the Sixth and I Synagogue" one woman next to me said knowingly as her friend agreed [That's incorrect, BTW]

There were questions about why 6th Street was even being considered, which DDOT's Sam Zimbabwe dutifully tried to explain (there is no continuous north-south bike facility west of 11th and some of the streets in the study area are inappropriate for various reasons). One woman pointed out that it can take her an hour an a half to get home on 6th when there is an event, "without bike lanes. Can you imagine what it would be like with bike lanes." Just for good measure she added that she pays taxes and votes - "in every election" - and that she lives "here", unlike people who live outside of the community "and just want their commute to be better." [Which does sound a little like the I-66 debate, but I think many of the people who want bike lanes in Shaw do actually live in Shaw]

There was some consternation about the lack of a No Build Alternative (which DDOT promised to include next time) and accusations that DDOT had already decided what it was going to do. One woman expressed concern that this meeting was being held so late in the process and that DDOT hadn't done enough to ask people what they wanted. Another speaker a few minutes later complained that the churches and their leaders had been telling DDOT they don't want bike lanes for months, but that DDOT wasn't listening.

Some speakers were a little more - cranky. One man wanted to know "Who is running the back room deals, since we're the ones paying your salary and we're the ones supposed to be telling you what to do. You've gotten this far ahead and created this much literature and we don't know a thing about it." Another asked how a bike lane or a street would "relate to the acquisition of the property and wealth of the African-American community."

Some cyclists spoke up for the bike lanes, saying that they too live in the neighborhood, pay taxes and vote and that they want bike lanes. Greg Billing of WABA offered to meet with any and all to find a workable compromise, but made it clear that WABA believes these bike lanes are important - for the sake of safety - and noted that 6th Street had been the location of 12 bike-car crashes over the last year. Sam Zimbabwe and Darren Buck of DDOT made the same offer and gave out their phone numbers and email addresses. 

Thankfully, the police showed up and said there were too many people in the room for safety. One of the church leaders said that it would be wrong to ask some people to leave the room while the meeting went on and that the only right thing to do was to end it. Zimbabwe agreed and put the meeting out of it's misery.

DDOT promised to have another meeting in the future, in a larger venue. 

*I was told DDOT wanted an open house, where people would stop at stations and interact with staff 1-on-1, but that the early part of the meeting was a discussion about procedure and so that plan was dropped early on.  

Comments

[jeffb]

Pulling my comment up from previous thread.

Well I attempted to go to the DDOT presentation tonight but a large crowd turned out - easily could have filled a room 3 times larger than what they had.

Many people had stickers on their coats proclaiming NO to the idea of bike lanes on 6th.

Many cyclists also were there.

Because of the crowd all I could do was pick up some handouts, a new bike map (yea!) and leave. Wasn't able to hear anything or see any of the presentation boards that had been set up.

Of the 4 alternatives DDOT is considering I have to say Alternative 2 - the 6th street protected bike lane - makes the most sense to me.

Reasons why:
Alt 1 - 5th & 6th doesn't give cyclists protected space on 5th above NY Ave.

Alt 3 - Second favorite - but it follows the scheme of 15th with a single bidirectional bike lane. This is substandard compromised bike infra!

Alt 4 - 9th street is too far west and, again, a single lane bidirectional proposal.

I'm a resident of the area and another reason I favor the 6th street alternative is that I hope it will calm traffic. Today many cars treat 6th street as a highway.

In my daily walks I'd rank it as #1 or #2 (possibly after NY ave) most dangerous street that I cross.

[jeffb]

The first speaker I heard, and I was surprised there even were speakers at what was billed as an open house*, said he was a minister at one of the churches. The first thing I heard from him was "You know that when you see bike lanes and you see Whole Foods and you see Harris Teeter and....uh... Chipotle, well I know that's not for me"

So very sad. Creating public streets that are safe for everybody shouldn't be opposed with diatribes of "its us against them"!

Church members filled about 85% of the space

How many public parking spaces would HoP potentially loose use for Sunday parking? Seems strange that so many people would be upset of a handful of lost spaces unless this is about something else. (Hint - see above).

There was some consternation about the lack of a No Build Alternative (which DDOT promised to include next time)

DDOT already getting shaky :( The no build "alternative" has been the status quo for decades. What DDOT and the Mayor need to state is that bike accommodation is a necessary component to a healthy city and needs to be addressed on every street in some fashion. Downtown streets - such as in this area - should always have bike lanes just as they have sidewalks.

[Wlerik]

“If you have the law, hammer the law. If you have the facts, hammer the facts. If you have neither the law nor the facts, hammer the table”.

[Wlerik]

This old legal adage sums up the opposition. They have strongly held beliefs, but little else of substance.

[DE]

When a speaker complains that grocery stores like Harris Teeter are going in (don't some residents complain about a lack of grocery stores, such as east of the Anacostia?), and people cheer, then you know you are dealing with pure demagoguery. Facts, such as stats that show that bike lanes will make the streets safer, will fall on deaf ears. With any luck, DDOT can stick to facts, but the political pressure is going to be intense now to do the wrong thing. The story got picked up by the Post, and the headline mentions "racial tensions."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/10/23/can-some-big-d-c-churches-fight-off-a-bike-lane-they-are-bringing-large-crowds-to-try/

[mick]

"Facts, such as stats that show that bike lanes will make the streets safer, will fall on deaf ears."

There are plenty of deaf ears to go around for everybody.

"The audience was nearly all African American and nearly all opposed to the bike lanes. When one opponent asked her bike lane compatriots to stand up to show DDOT staff their opposition to the lanes, nearly the entire room joined her. 'Are you getting this visual?' she said."

The deafness evident here is that the church filled the room -- and will probably carry any votes should it come to that. This is the primary fact to be reckoned with here.

This issue has become a symbol for the resentment against gentrification. A bit of conciliation will go a long way...

[CBGB]

When I drive, which is rare, 6th Street is great. The lights are timed well and you can haul ass north or south. The design of the road is encouraging this behavior. We heard the same crap with 15th street which functioned much in the same way: it was a speedway. Which is great when you are driving and don't notice that there are pedestrians and cyclists nearby who might not fare well if you swerve into them at 40mph.

[washcycle]

No mick, I don't think it will. I don't even think it will go a little of the way. I will list the acceptable options according to the anti-bike lane group below:

1. No bike lanes on any of the streets

That is the end of the list. There was talk of coming together to find a solution - but it all came from the side of bike lane proponents. The other side made divisive speeches about how African-Americans don't go to Chipotle (which is ridiculous) or about how this is a plan to take churches away from them.

When their side wasn't talking, they didn't listen but rather talked among themselves. One guy called Zimbabwe unintelligent.

They are not going to compromise. They are not to accept any change. An infinite amount of conciliation will not move the needle at all.

[DE]

Conciliation is absolutely the wrong solution here. This is an important fight because it will have ramifications down the road for other infrastructure. I do urge respect though. No one on the pro-cycling side should say anything that can be taken as even the slightest bit racist.

[drumz]

The church doesn't want reconciliation. There are compromises (not even bad ones like allowing parking in the bike lane on sundays).

But they simply aren't interested in working with DDOT. They immediately went nuclear.

[mick]

We're not talking to them; we are talking to DDOT, and the pols. Reasonableness appeals to them, and makes the zealots on the other side of this issue look, well, zealous.

Your witness of the eight-year-old falling asleep seems to miss the point -- what motivates a mother, who probably should be at home, to drag her daughter to a hot, boring, and stupid (for an eight-year-old) meeting? You can bet that mother votes; and she is the one we are trying to reach. Most of the people that go to these churches are also quite reasonable. So a little reasonableness will soften their stance too.

The churches have an incredible advantage. They fill up every Sunday with Parishioners that are donating 10% of their income. These people come to hear a message, which the church provides. Compared to that, what is WABA?

Marion Barry understood that the conservative voter heart in DC lay in these churches. These are the people that make up the backbone of society -- they hold most of the jobs in DC, and send their kids to school. He spoke at them often. That is how he won so many elections, in spite of his dismissal from the mainstream press.

[Crickey7]

I'm a big conciliator, but not this time. Either the City makes transportation plans on the basis of public policy, or on raw politics. I applaud the churches for bringing that particular decision making point to the fore.

Because I think they have massively overplayed their hand.

[jeffb]

what motivates a mother, who probably should be at home, to drag her daughter to a hot, boring, and stupid (for an eight-year-old) meeting?

It probably wasn't anything to do with the matter at hand - parking and safe streets.

It appears the church purposefully crowded the room to shut down any discussion. The demagoguery, as reported by washcycle, from a minister is what is motivating the parishioners.

[mick]

"The demagoguery, as reported by washcycle, from a minister is what is motivating the parishioners. "

so you think that mother is too stupid to know any better? I see.

[DE]

Mick, where did jeffb say anything about that mother being too stupid to know any better? You are simply trying to attribute condescension where there is none.

However, as reported by Washcycle, those attending applauded the minister's demagoguery. They are either being manipulated, or they are complicit in the manipulation. Probably the latter.

[washcycle]

So a little reasonableness will soften their stance too.

I have seen nothing to support this claim.

[mick]

"where did jeffb say anything about that mother being too stupid to know any better"

That is the nut of the argument -- it assumes that those that follow demagogues are not sophisticated enough to see through their manipulation. It is a dismissal -- like the way the press treated Marion Barry -- and it disrespects them. (it is close, BTW, to Godwins law)

[jeffb]

Sorry mick - try again. To cheer pronouncements that the church is in an existentialist crisis informs me that we're no longer talking about parking and street safety.

[DaveS]

We're not talking to them; we are talking to DDOT, and the pols. Reasonableness appeals to them, and makes the zealots on the other side of this issue look, well, zealous.

I'm slightly confused with the name calling here, so I'll assume the "zealot" label goes on cyclists and the people who oppose change because they'll lose parking, who are not interested in compromise, the "reasonable" ones?

[mick]

jeffb -- Regarding the existential crisis, I doubt that you know any better than they; so you can try again too.

[jeffb]

Is this zealotry?
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/looselips/2015/10/22/pastors-6th-street-bike-lanes-a-cancer-that-will-destroy-church/

"We consider it a threat to our existence,"

[I'd] rather "die standing than die not fighting [them]."

“If you see a cancer, you don’t wait until it gets to your address,"

These are all statements from the ministers.

[DE]

mick, misrepresenting or oversimplifying another's argument and then arguing with that oversimplification is a common gambit of someone who can't win the argument on merit. But for the life of me, I can't even figure out what you're trying to argue here. That cyclists should accept the status quo because?

[83b]

Last week no one was ready to agree with me when I said:

"And the comments above from churchmember illustrate well why I think cycling advocates need to acknowledge that this is a fight and to approach it as such. Thankfully, given the demographic trends, it's one our opponents are going to lose, and badly. Another church on H St NE just announced this week that it's being razed for condo development.

If they're going to advance already-disproven arguments about lack of demand and word-salad diatribes about ancestry and "entitlement," then it's not worth engaging with them in good faith, because we are not getting the same in return."

How are we feeling this week?

[mick]

DE -- conciliation and reasonableness will get the needed bike lanes, just not all of the places and all of the times we want.

We need the churches on our side. Setting up a fight with them, we lose -- they have the votes. Seek common ground, and avoid a fight.

[mick]

83b, the demographic argument is weak.
1. It assume that at some point in the distant future the bicyclists will have the upper hand. But that does not help us now.
2. The 20-something demographic bump in DC will get older too, and as it does, those people will get married and have kids and drive more and bike less. Also with time the bump will become more diffuse, as young adults move to the suburbs in pursuit of schools. The boom will end, if no other reason that the rent is too high.

[DE]

Okay. Although I disagree. I don't see that cyclists have set up a fight with the churches, and I don't see that conciliation gets us anywhere but against the curb. But I do think respect and reasonableness are in order, even if the church members, as judged by this meeting, don't practice it themselves.

[jeffb]

@Mick
read Posted by: jeffb | October 23, 2015 at 10:59 AM

I rest my case.

[washcycle]

We should be reasonable and seek compromise, because that's what we should always do. But I hold out no hope that this will soften their position. It might sway DDOT or their bosses, but that isn't the reason to behave in such a fashion. We should just be civil. And I think, so far, bike lane advocates have been.

mick, do you feel bike lane advocates are being unreasonable or confrontational?

[mick]

jeffb, selecting the most extreme arguments from the church (even if they were from the pastor), and portraying them as representative of the body as a whole, is a distortion of issue. Then taking those arguments and dismissing the majority of voters that may agree with the essence of the church's position is an oversimplification.

And it does get new bike lanes built.

[Crickey7]

Re getting older

Two (three?) words: electric-assist motor.

[mick]

washcycle, I have read a lot of comments about this widely reported meeting. Many of the comments from the bicyclists are just as dismissive, zealous, and unreasonable as those from the church. Not all.

I was hoping to turn down the heat and add to the light. I think that is the way forward.

[jeffb]

@mick
selecting the most extreme arguments from the church (even if they were from the pastor), and portraying them as representative of the body as a whole, is a distortion of issue.

Those were the ONLY arguments made by the pastors unless you want to throw in the ridiculous legal mumble jumbo letter to DDOT claiming constitutional harassment.

Then taking those arguments and dismissing the majority of voters

What voters? This was a DDOT informational meeting not an election. A meeting which wasn't able to be conducted due to the actions of the church members.

mick -Here's a hint - if you are going to defend the church please try it with cogent reasoning and stop misrepresenting everything I say.

[DE]

Judging by the comments from the meeting, it is already too late to get the churches on our side. However, I do make a point of pointing out in most articles like that in the Post that bike lanes actually benefit other road users as well by calming traffic somewhat on a road like 6th street. This means it's actually a benefit for churchgoers, who presumably have to walk from their cars to the church and don't want to be hit by a 40-mph car. Perhaps a churchgoer or two could get behind that. I don't think it will be much.

At least some of the anti-church comments on the Post about that meeting are from people who just don't like churches. I would not assume these people are all cyclists.

[washcycle]

Many of the comments from the bicyclists are just as dismissive, zealous, and unreasonable as those from the church.

Well, I can't really know what your advocating for, without knowing what you're advocating against. Any examples?

[Crickey7]

In general, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the professional judgment of the City's transportation planners ought to take precedence over the desire of any parties to have car storage provided by the city free of cost.

[83b]

@Mick: Actually DC voters support the city's efforts to increase the number of bike lanes by a 2:1 ratio. It's MD churchgoers who are opposed.

[jeffb]

Responding to DE
bike lanes actually benefit other road users as well by calming traffic

I would have liked to have seen a 7th street alternative in the mix. I'm disappointed it was eliminated (not that that would change any of the church's opposition).

I think a bike lane on 7th would be better for cyclists. However, I live in the area and I agree that a lane on 6th would bring much needed traffic calming to that street. It is flat out dangerous trying to cross it as a pedestrian.

[Jonathan Krall]

If this argument is about safe streets, then all the facts favor the bike lane.

If this argument is about changes to DC that have been displacing parishioners, then the negotiation needs to be enlarged.

I get that the churchgoers are frustrated. I get that they feel that DC has been beating up on them. But taking that frustration out on cyclists simply because they think they can prevail just gives the church a chance to be the bully for a change.

In any case, the common perception that the bicycling community is small and weak is wrong and now we have a yet another massive fight over bike lanes.

This reminds me of the King St fight in Alexandria, where the people on the wrong side of the facts were rich people who were frustrated over not getting their way all the time. The difference is that the churchgoers almost certainly have a legit complaint about the way DC is changing overall.

Stopping the bike lanes would be a symbolic victory for the churches. I'd prefer that the conversation be enlarged so that the churchgoers could get a real victory instead. There must be something that they want other than preservation of parking places.

[jeffb]

@DE
Judging by the comments from the meeting, it is already too late to get the churches on our side.

Have to sadly agree. When someone goes nuclear on day one useful discussion has ended (and never really started).

Don't know where it goes from here.

[mick]

"without knowing what you're advocating against. Any examples?"

Jamming bike lanes this down the throat of the church is a bad idea. Have DDOT reps meet privately with the Pastor, and in that meeting, suggest other things DDOT can do to help the parking crunch. Point out how this will help them with their relations with the neighbors. Give up the bike for angle parking on Sunday, because six-days-a-week bike lanes are better than no-days-a-week bike lanes.

Give up on on the idea that this is all about "transportation policy." Sounding too wonky will fail at the ballot, which the Council members know all too well. Show that this is about accommodating the needs of *all* voters, some of whom need to drive to church -- it don't work to bike to church in your best clothes when the weather is hot. And some of whom bike to work, for pleasure or to save money.

83b: regarding the supposed 2:1 support -- an online poll does not represent who actually votes. Most non-bicyclists are fairly indifferent to this issue.

[washcycle]

Have DDOT reps meet privately with the Pastor, and in that meeting, suggest other things DDOT can do to help the parking crunch.Point out how this will help them with their relations with the neighbors.

They've done this. Many times. The church leaders have been involved in this for over two years now.

Give up the bike for angle parking on Sunday, because six-days-a-week bike lanes are better than no-days-a-week bike lanes.

DDOT has offered this and almost every bike-lane supporter has been willing to do this.

But this isn't what I was asking for. What I'm asking for is examples of bike-lane supporters being unreasonable.

[mick]

"examples of bike-lane supporters being unreasonable."

I have pointed this out in my remarks above. Being dismissive, describing church members as followers of demagoguery, are examples. Insisting that the concerns of the church be ignored and build the lanes, is another.

[washcycle]

No, you've defined unreasonable. I'm looking for a concrete example of a supporter who is doing that.

[mick]

washcycle: I am not comfortable calling out specific posters.

[DE]

"Insisting that the concerns of the church be ignored and build the lanes"

That's not being unreasonable, that's simply wanting bike infrastructure. Since the church appears to want no lanes--they have specified no concerns other than not wanting them at all--it's either build the lanes and ignore the concerns of the church, or don't build lanes and ignore the concerns of everyone else. The church appears to not be interested in compromise.

Several at the Post article suggested building the lanes and allowing parking on Sundays. That would necessitate changing the design from a protected facility, but that would be an example of a compromise. Not building them at all isn't a compromise; it's giving up.

[JDAntos]

UHOP is also in the business of selling upscale high-end condos on 6th Street NW. That's an interesting twist.

http://www.uhopproperties.com/#!bailey-brownstone-ii/c1ryo

[Crickey7]

I'm not quite sure why it's DDOT's responsibility to fix the church's parking problems, which BTW are far greater than this handful of parking spaces. Other churches have had the same problem, and come up with solutions. Why are we rewarding this church for its stubborn insistence on making others fix a problem they created?

[actor1]

sounds very much like a recent dispute in the brookland neighborhood, concerning 'brookland's finest' & next-door churches. the then-'reigning' anc rep, c. steptoe, went to the 'converted' row-house 'churches' (emphasis mine), & asked for petitions to be signed, specifically mentioning the difficulty in parking. these were then taken to abc approval meetings, wherein the protestors were asked to list their residences. most every name on the petitions listed a maryland address. among the biggest concerns: parking loss (on a public street), noise (ever walk by a church on sun. morning?), & the unspoken threat of gentrification (because a new business that creates jobs is a horrible thing). in this instance w/ u.h.o.p., it sure smells like it's a case of "we were here already & we're going to fight this because this is how we've always done it". can someone from out of state/the district file a complaint against the city for parking woes, at, say, verizon center? change means change.

[cyclistinthecity]

"UHOP is also in the business of selling upscale high-end condos on 6th Street NW. That's an interesting twist.

http://www.uhopproperties.com/#!bailey-brownstone-ii/c1ryo"

I wonder how many of the churchgoers are aware of the institution catering to the very gentrifiers about which they claim concern.

Here's a juicy one from UHOP properties:

Unit 301
2B/1BA, 900 square feet
$2,850.00

That looks like a white gentrifier property to me.

[DE]

On the political front, Popville has quoted at-large council member David Garber as politely saying that churches should not get special treatment that others don't get*. That's promising potential cover for DDOT.

*paraphrased--entire statement at the link.

http://www.popville.com/2015/10/attending-church-does-not-make-you-more-entitled-to-public-roads/

[DAR]

@DE

David Garber isn't a council member. He's running for a seat.

[DE]

@DAR--quite right, thanks.

[Crickey7]

Vincent Orange would throw his grandmother and her wheelchair under the bus for two more votes.

[Velo Guy]

This debate is very much like the bike debate that has been taking place in Old Town Alexandria for years. Unfortunately the squeaky wheel gets the oil in Old Town so now Alexandria Police are targeting and ticketing bicyclists around the city.

The bicycle community in DC has to stand up to this short sighted demagoguery (dare I say thuggery) and demand DDOT provide safe transportation infrastructure to all its tax payers, which includes bikers.

[DaveS]

Crikey, VO would never sacrifice those two votes for only two other votes. (Yes, the chair gets a vote - but only to break ties.)