Don't be fooled, Shaw bike lane opposition isn't about gentrification

DDOT announced the time and place for the next meeting of the Eastern Downtown Protected Bike Lanes study. It will be Saturday, February 6th from noon to 4pm at the KIPP DC WILL Academy-Auditorium. The study considered four alternatives which will be presented along with the No-Build alternative.

The first meeting was, to say the least, contentious. Many people showed up in opposition to the bike lanes, expressing a wide range of concerns, including traffic impacts, perceived process failures, corruption and, yes, gentrification. Some people merely stood up to say that they didn't want bike lanes. While the opposition was entirely black - because the churches that oppose it are - those in support were not. Nonetheless, the media that attended almost exclusively focused on the "black vs white" and "churches oppose bike lanes because of gentrification" takes on the meeting. But if you were there, and I was (and I recorded it), that would be the more sensational part of the story, but not an accurate representation of the meeting. Most people who opposed the bike lanes said nothing about displacement or gentrification and the only people who did were leaders of the churches.

Here's the thing, I don't see why anyone would believe the church leaders on this issue. They've proven that they will say anything. Less than a month prior, leader of the United House of Prayer tried to say that the bike lanes infringed on their religious freedom, deprived them of equal protection under the law and represented a conspiracy to drive African-American churches out of they city. For this, they were roundly ridiculed, not just in the local media but nationally and internationally. Which is likely why we didn't hear any of that nonsense at the meeting. Instead, they changed tacks, choosing to state that bike lanes are part of a pattern of displacement and represent gentrification - and that this is what they oppose (though oddly it was not mentioned in their earlier letter to the city). Perhaps they had read the article about this issue on the Peopleforbikes blog. Had that not worked, they probably would have thrown something else at the wall to see if it would stick. But in several years, this was the first time they had made this case. They were more honest in 2014 when they said that 

the United House of Prayer conducts it worship services from this National Headquarters location all 7 days of each week, and this 6th Street location also hosts national gatherings, at intervals throughout the year. Each day, daily worship begins with Sunrise Service at 6:00AM; continue with Noon-Day Services; and, then, come to 7:30PM Gospel Services. With the frequency of weddings and funerals that proceed from this location along the 6th Street NW corridor, with their attendant automobile processions, any introduction into this mix, of Bicycle Lanes and/or Bicycle Infrastructure, would be UNSTAINABLE, along this 6th Street, NW, corridor.

Unfortunately, people who would normally support bike lanes, but also sympathize and identify with those who are impacted by gentrification, ate it up with a spoon. Aimee Custis of the Coalition for Smart Growth wrote at GGW

When I try to put myself in UHOP's shoes, I can begin to see some of the fear, and frustration with a changing city and changing times that's causing them to act that way. If they know they won't be listed to because of their skin color, maybe something else we value in this country—freedom of religion—WILL be listened to.

For just a moment today, let's set aside the arguments against the bike lanes, and talk of religion and taxes and everything else. Let's try to understand the underlying why of our neighbors (whether they live in the District, or in Maryland, or wherever) making these arguments.

OK, lets.

It's parking. Something Custis doesn't even mention in her post (though it is tagged "church parking") The idea that they aren't listened to doesn't even hold water, because they have been pushing the city and neighbors around FOR YEARS. Here's something from an article in 1997

Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officials say it's not the law—it's not even official police policy—but they try to accommodate the city's churches by allowing their members to double-park ticket-free on Sundays. "There's no set policy that they don't get tickets," says 1st District Sgt. Brian Murphy, articulating the religious corollary to MPD's zero-tolerance policy. "We just try to take into consideration that they're going to church. When it's a church function, we try to locate the people and get them to move their cars first before we give any tickets."

The driver of the Volkswagen, who has lived on 6th Street for 11 years, later said that while the House of Prayer attendees repeatedly inconvenience him, he has never complained to the authorities for fear of incurring the wrath of the "Saints," as some of the neighbors like to call them. "The church is very powerful," he said, which also explains why he didn't want his name in the paper.

That doesn't sound like people who are being ignored. The last time someone tried to crack down on church parking - in 2006 - it was Mayor Williams and he quickly backtracked on that when the churches flexed their muscles. Despite the fact that an earlier task force had determined that "Currently, parking standards as they relate to “double parking” enforcement on Sundays is deliberately unobserved. This accommodation has been made for religious services, however, it adversely affects residents who reside near religious establishments." So in these cases it was the people in the community who were being harmed and the churches that were benefiting.

In 2013, when the city extended residential parking permit requirements to Sundays - after residents petitioned for them to do so - former DDOT Director Terry Bellamy approved extended diagonal parking for the United House of Prayer located at 601 M Street NW, from 3pm to 9pm, on Sundays. Again, this doesn't sound like a group that isn't listened to.

It's not like the churches in Shaw represent locals, as Martin Di Caro points out "Many of New Bethel’s roughly 850 members live outside D.C." So, how can gentrification of a neighborhood they don't live in really be the problem?

Still, the MSM followed suit and just took the "black people oppose bike lanes because of gentrification" story and ran with it. The post wrote an article "Why are bike lanes such heated symbols of gentrification?" which tried to paint a national trend onto one quote from one pastor that didn't even have to do with gentrification. 

Then David Rotenstein wrote an article which while frequently acknowledging the parking issue, seems to believe that below the surface of this it is really about symbolism and gentrification.

Bike lane proponents frequently don’t see beneath the paved street surfaces and building facades and they don’t easily grasp the symbolic significance bike lanes embody. Opponents, on the other hand, use the public engagement processes urban planning affords stakeholders to mount vigorous objections to encroaching change that historically has resulted in displacement. 

An understanding of history in Shaw and other urban areas where seemingly innocuous painted lines are proposed could help more urbanists like Custis see what other stakeholders are saying. Without context, urbanists like the GGW writer who replied to my email query will continue to make assertions based in assumptions, not historical fact. 

The historical fact is that UHOP has always been kind of selfish about parking. And despite all of the history, it really is just about parking. 

Matin Di Caro wrote later

As a practical matter, some Shaw residents view the District Department of Transportation’s bike lane proposals as a major disruption to traffic flow as well as parking. Conceptual design drawings show a lane currently used by cars erased by bike lanes on either 6th Street or 9th Street.

But at DDOT’s first public meeting on the project, the issues of race, economics, and displacement overwhelmed any concerns about sharing the roads with bike riders.

That's now how the meeting went when I was there and the premise that this is about gentrification is again built on the same quote from the same one person.

“I would remind you of the limitations in parking that have already been imposed on churches in the form of the enhanced residential [permit parking] plan,” Nutall said.

Three years ago, the District approved changes to parking rules in Shaw that reserved spaces on one side of each street to residents only.

“It’s a plan that literally limited parking in and around churches — in many cases to half of what it was — without the opportunity for church engagement and involvement and input,” Nutall said.

Moreover, Nutall contends the rapid redevelopment of Shaw, where single-family homes have become multi-unit condos without abundant on-site parking, has increased the demand for scarce spaces.

So it's not about bike lanes bringing gentrification, the gentrification is already there, and the churches didn't bus people to zoning commission hearing to oppose condos or Chipotles or Whole Foods when that gentrification was happening. This is about public space, and how people who don't live there, but feel they have a historic claim to it, are fighting to keep their preferred use of it - same as it's always been. When Emily Badger writes "Why didn't anyone paint bike lanes until the new people moved in?" the answer in this case is that the churches, with all of their power, wouldn't have let them.

Comments

[cyclistinthecity]

The people from these churches may have once lived in DC but they sure left as quickly as they could during the time that the city suffered. They don't care about quality of life in the city in the least since they didn't care to work to improve the city when they had their chance.

It's all about parking.

[Brett Young]

Address of next meeting is
421 P St NW
Washington, DC 20001
https://goo.gl/maps/HqXo3umstJ32

[ACyclistInThePortCity]

I think you are oversimplifying. The church leadership may be concerned about parking, not gentrification. That does not mean the membership has not been persuaded that gentrification is an issue. That is why when we move forward on this (which we should) we should do so with sensitivity. Ms Custis did not say to not implement the lanes, but to listen. Similarly WABA has, I think, approached the discussion with sensitivity.

As for power, context matters. DC was the only "state" with a black majority, exercising state powers since home rule. Prior to home rule it was run like a colony. Many people remember that. And yes, a lot of the people who remember that live in Maryland - but have personal ties to the District, including relatives who still live there, and they not only attend church in the District, but through the church engage in social service provision that helps District residents (most poor, mostly black District residents)

I was not at the meeting, and I will take your word few there talked about gentrification (perhaps there is a transcript on line?) I see little to lose, and much to gain, by WABAs approach, which AFAICT has avoided public confrontation with the churches, and with CSG's approach, which has included a focus on committed affordable housing in tandem with densification and improvement.

[ACyclistInThePortCity]

Cycling

I think the church members left at a variety of different times. I have no reason to think they did not work to improve it, and IIUC they continue to work to improve it (by their lights) now.

I reread the Aimee Custis piece. I see nothing objectionable in it. I think this discussion points up much that was right in it - the period when black churches had great power, which to WashCycle indicates that black people were not ignored, is seen by many blacks as a needed remediation and recompense for generations when blacks had little or no power in DC (and elsewhere)

Also the reference to religion and taxes - some of the discourse, including in comments on GGW, has involved a lashing out against religion in general, that is very uncomfortable for the many people of faith who bike. There is a lot of anger and rhetorical escalation.

It is possible to be firm on policy positions without being disagreeable, though that may not be a fashionable approach in 2016.

[cyclistinthecity]

ACyclistInThePortCity:

After hearing some of the rhetoric fired by the bike lane opponents at the first meeting, it will be very difficult for me to provide a modicum of sympathy for their position.

If they didn't threaten to run people over, yell at people who had been injured while riding their bikes in that neighborhood, double park all over the area thus inconveniencing actual residents, and display the virulent homophobia that is all too common in protestant churches, I may have felt differently.

Until then, they can expect zero sympathy from me.

[DE]

On one side we have law-abiding citizens who are looking for safer streets to get around on so they aren't killed or injured by motorists.

On the other side we have a group using specious reasoning and inflammatory rhetoric to try to keep a parking exception.

That is all there is to it, imhmfo. Group B loses from a benefit to society standpoint, and I have no sympathy because of the tactics they have used. Might still work though.

[washcycle]

I also find the anti-church/anti-religion comments uncomfortable. My main complaint about the Custis piece is that she seems to be saying "Let's ignore all the facts, and then imagine that things are different than they are. Now, wouldn't you feel differently?" Which, of course, I would. But we don't live in a fantasy land where these churchgoers needs are ignored or where their motives are indubitably genuine or where the factual basis of arguments against the bike lanes are irrelevant. So, this is more a thought experiment.

Empathy and an understanding of the history would be more productive if the churches seemed willing to compromise, but they've been saying the same thing for three years now - No Bike facilities at all. And they've refused to talk to the media at all times. I don't really believe that there is something we could just "understand" that would solve all this. It would be great to have a conversation, and I applaud WABA and CSG for working on that, but I don't want people to believe that this is about anything more than it is - even if certain groups need to pretend that it is for political reasons.

[ACyclistInThePortCity]

"Empathy and an understanding of the history would be more productive if the churches seemed willing to compromise, "

Empathy and understanding are good for us all generally. Even if they have no political impact. And they just might have an impact on other issues (some of great importance to CSG) even if they have no impact on Shaw bike lanes. And expressing that empathy and understanding, just might help advance Shaw bike lanes, by influencing general DC public opinion, and the Council and maybe even members of the churches in question, even if the leaders of the churches have no interest in compromise.

"I don't want people to believe that this is about anything more than it is"

I have no objection to pointing out the almost exclusive concern for parking on the part of the church leadership, or the extent to which parking was the main topic at the earlier meeting. I think Amy's points stand though, which was a call for general civility, empathy and understanding.

I think talking about the power of the churches (inviting a discourse on historical black power and lack of it), complaining their members live in Md (inviting a a discourse on displacement) etc are not helpful to our cause.

Perhaps Amy's piece could have been worded better. It will still not hurt our cause - while this post, quoted out of context by people of ill will, just might.

but they've been saying the same thing for three years now - No Bike facilities at all. And they've refused to talk to the media at all times. I don't really believe that there is something we could just "understand" that would solve all this. It would be great to have a conversation, and I applaud WABA and CSG for working on that, but I don't want people to believe that this is about anything more than it is - even if certain groups need to pretend that it is for political reasons.

[Crickey7]

United House of Prayer chose a location for their regional activities in Shaw. It's not, and never was, a church organically emerging from the community it happens to be located in. I totally get that Shaw was devastated by years of crushing poverty and crime, and now gentrification is rooting out the last vestiges of its original population, but UHOP is a poor spokesman for Shaw. It's every bit the interloper that the people they trucked in for the meeting claims the gentrifiers are. Layer that on top of the blatant falsehoods, racially divisive rhetoric and utter disregard for the current residents of Shaw that UHOP promotes, and I find sympathy for their position a stretch.

[JR]

It's a bike lane on a relatively wide road (We're not talking about medieval streets here) that would still leave room for cars, pedestrians, and car parking, just not diagonal car parking. There is no reasonable argument against it.

[Richard Layman]

as someone who has been involved in these kinds of dynamics, arguments before, in my comments on the Custis piece in GGW, I made the point that with "legacy residents", and hell I've lived here now for 28+ years, "empathy and understanding" is supposed to go only one way, theirs.

Nice post.

Also see http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2015/10/reprint-churches-community-religion-and.html

[washcycle]

Empathy and understanding are good for us all generally.

Good yes. Productive - not always.

[contrarian]

I lived between 6th and 7th streets in Shaw for years. This posting coincides with my observations of UHOP, it's all about the parking. (We used to call them "United House of Parking.")

I'll add that the parking wasn't even all about the parking. On a Sunday it was not uncommon to see double-parked cars even though there were legal street spots available on the same block. It was about demonstrating impunity.

[Wanderer]

The fear that bike lanes are symbols/harbingers of gentrification is not unique to DC. It was a huge issue in Portland, and in other places. I think anyone seeking to introduce a bike lane--however meritorious--in a historically black neighborhood would do well to treat the issue respectfully and seriously.

[Zack Rules]

Even though 6th St has the most curb cuts (which in mind makes it the worst option, 40+ with PBL on either side), this post makes me want them there out of spite!

[Curmudgeonly but still riding]

If UHOP was a business, say a restaurant or retail location, how would DDOT interact with them? I ask this because I really don't know DDOT's policies. As a Christian who rides a bicycle, I am disturbed by any 'church' that behaves in a threatening manner to others. I would not tolerate it in my own church, and I'm sad that the members of UHOP follow and support that kind of leadership in people who are supposed to be teaching a very different paradigm.

[oboe]

I made the point that with "legacy residents", and hell I've lived here now for 28+ years, "empathy and understanding" is supposed to go only one way, theirs.

This bears repeating. I think the main reason that Aimee Custis' piece was poorly received by some was its incredibly patronizing tone. I think most of us empathize with DC's black churches. That doesn't mean we can't disagree with their goals, or point out when they're being (to put it charitably) disingenuous.

If these were white evangelical churches pulling this shit they'd be getting 1000 times the vitriol.

[Michael Forster]

Well-said, David. I think bending over backwards to listen and empathize with every opposition to bike lanes is counter-productive. Some people just don't think it's right to change space designated for autos to space designated for bikes, and will grasp at every possible straw to make their argument against them. You cannot empathize with someone who is rationalizing away either 1) self-interested opposition, or 2) a visceral negative reaction based on the idea that is just not "fair" or "right" since cars have been the natural order of things throughout their life.

[Jeffb]

On occasion I used to ride past the UHOP church on M St on my commute home. Their appropriation of the road space for parking wasn't limited to Sundays. Sometimes I'd find the street blocked by double parked cars all around the church forcing rush hour traffic into single filing down the block (and me onto the sidewalk to bypass the jam).

[oboe]

I was reading Tom Lewis' "Washington" last night and came across this awesome passage:

Faced with hardship, many of the needy turned to evangelists and storefront churches, some suspect, some sincere, that opened in Washington. Among the suspect was the black evangelist Charles Emanuel Grace, who arrived in 1927 from New Bedford, Massachusetts, where he had sold patent medicines and preached the gospel. Called "Daddy" or "Sweet Daddy" by his followers, Grace proclaimed himself "Boyfriend of the World," established his first United House of Prayer for All People in Washington at Sixth and M streets, and installed himself in a seventeen-room house at Logan Circle. Washington became the hub for Grace's United House of Prayer churches, which he established along the Atlantic seaboard from Boston to Savannah and later in the Midwest. He preached extemporaneously and fervently in services that included singing, shrieking, weeping, and speaking in tongues on the part of his believers. He reached out to the poor and desperate, and he baptized hundreds at a time with a fire hose.

Grace was also fond of teasing out the idea that he was indeed God. "I never said I was God," he told his believers, "but you cannot prove to me that I am not." Often donning a ten-gallon hat, a pince-nez, a multicolored cutaway coat, and a chartreuse vest, Grace cut a singular figure in the capital. He had bejeweled fingers and wrists, as well as six-inch fingernails that were painted red, white, and blue.

(https://books.google.com/books?id=KvcqCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT342)

[Smedley Burkhart]

...and thus does a Dionysian human sacrifice/cannibalism cult lead to J.S. Bach's oratorio and Chartres.