What an interesting week we are going to have on the topic of transit! Route 1 residents, hold yourself in readiness.First, tonight there will be a gathering to dispense information the City has not yet officially shared with citizens. (Doesn't this sound like déjà vu all over again?)
The Regional Transportation Mobility Public Participation Forum will be held at the Lee Center Exhibit Hall (1106 Jefferson Street) beginning at 7 p.m. and will feature speakers from the Metropolitan Council of Governments' Transportation Planning Board. Their presentations will focus on what regional transportation initiatives have already been agreed upon by regional governments like the City of Alexandria.
The Federation of Civic Associations, the Old Town Civic Association, the Upper King Street Neighborhood Association and In My Opinion (a newsletter produced by local activist Julie Crenshaw Van Fleet) are sponsoring the event.
Then two days later, we have the City's official presentation, hastily thrown together once the cat was out of the bag about the COG forum.
The City's forum features the usual suspects, including Mayor William D. Euille, Transportation and Environmental Services Director Rich Baier, Ad Hoc Transportation Task Force Chairman Larry Robinson, and our good buddy Justin Wilson, chairman of the DASH Board. (If you will recall, Mr. Wilson is the Alexandria Democratic Committee treasurer who in print told Andrew Macdonald to shut up already about the Braddock Road plan.)
The City's forum will take place from 7 to 9 p.m. on Thursday, April 19, at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Madison Building Auditorium, located at 600 Dulany St.
And as they used to say back in college, let's compare and contrast what these players have to say.
40 comments:
Frankly, I can't believe that the City would even consider allowing transit on Rt. 1. I don't live anywhere near Rt. 1 and have no dog in this fight. However, as an objective observer, I can see it's obviously a horrendous idea, given the fact that it's filled with antique residences right on the street. It boggles my mind that the City would even consider this, when Washington Street is an OBVIOUS choice for transit, given its commercial nature.
I really don't get their reasoning. I mean, even though it's a bad idea, I can see why they would want dense development near Braddock Road. I just don't see any reason why they would choose to put transit on rt. 1 over Washington Street.
The primary reason they want to use Route 1 is to give Potomac Yard residents a way through the projects up on the north side.
They know few if any people from Potomac Greens and what will be Potomac Yard are going to walk Route 1, due to both crime and due to distance, so they figured they would give them a bus route down Route 1 into Old Town. Thats why they cant use Washington; there is no link from Washington to Potomac Greens and Potomac Yard (unless they reconfigure Slaters and/or Bashford)
City knows that new Potomac Yard residents arent going to walk Route 1 over a bridge (or under a bridge) through a high crime, questionable neighborhood to get to the Metro or King St. So they just bus them through it.
Who said these clowns arent smart?
The primary reason they want to use Route 1 is to give Potomac Yard residents a way through the projects up on the north side.
They know few if any people from Potomac Greens and what will be Potomac Yard are going to walk Route 1, due to both crime and due to distance, so they figured they would give them a bus route down Route 1 into Old Town. Thats why they cant use Washington; there is no link from Washington to Potomac Greens and Potomac Yard (unless they reconfigure Slaters and/or Bashford)
City knows that new Potomac Yard residents arent going to walk Route 1 over a bridge (or under a bridge) through a high crime, questionable neighborhood to get to the Metro or King St. So they just bus them through it.
Who said these clowns arent smart?
"The primary reason they want to use Route 1 is to give Potomac Yard residents a way through the projects up on the north side."
I'm still not understanding. While nobody wants to have to go through the projects, if BRT is going to link up at Braddock Road metro, it has to go through the projects, whether it's eventual route is on Rt. 1 or Washington thru Old Town.
But I still can't see a single reason why they would choose Rt 1 through Old Town, rather than Washington. I don't see one good reason.
The only way to save Parker Gray and Braddock Metro neighborhoods from gridlock and promote the concept of safe pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods near Braddock Metro is to divert commuter traffic (bound for the beltway or the Wilson Bridge) to a by-pass that follows the railroad through town.
Then Route One will have a chance to remain functional as a local street for the purpose of use by residents who live here, as a neighborhood street. It's Route One that kills our vision of a "vibrant" neighborhood friendly to pedestrians. And most of this traffic doesn't want to be stuck in our neighborhood, they just want to get through it and get outa here. If this becomes one of the Parker Gray/Braddock Road plan pillars, we could all rally to support it.
"I'm still not understanding. While nobody wants to have to go through the projects, if BRT is going to link up at Braddock Road metro, it has to go through the projects, whether it's eventual route is on Rt. 1 or Washington thru Old Town."
Exactly, it does that. But rather than having Yard or Greens residents walk that route, they will be shuttled through it on a bus. So they wont have to walk through the housing projects...they can just take a bus down to the King St area, or if they are going to take the Metro to work, the Braddock Metro, or even down to Belvoir or to Crystal City.
But we get the shaft with BRT because we have a neighborhood no one wants to walk through.
"It's Route One that kills our vision of a "vibrant" neighborhood friendly to pedestrians. And most of this traffic doesn't want to be stuck in our neighborhood, they just want to get through it and get outa here. If this becomes one of the Parker Gray/Braddock Road plan pillars, we could all rally to support it."
First of all, its not Route 1 that kills the neighborhood vibrancy; its the projects. Route 1 goes through King St and people are walking around there. If you took away Route 1, we still would not have a vibrant walkable livable neighborhood. If you took away the projects and had a BRT on Route 1, you still would have a vibrant, livable neighborhood.
As for traffic, i would agree they dont want to be stuck here, but its primarily because there is nothing on Route 1 for anyone to see or do. One aspect of the Plan I can understand (and even then its still somewhat circumspect) is the City's desire to put retail on Route 1, as a way to get commuters to perhaps stop and walk around the neighborhood (probably also to put retail on a major street to cut down on robbery attempts)
The problem of course, if where would they park. To me, Route 1 is a problem and BRT makes it worse, but Route 1 does not kill neighborhood vibrancy. Adkins and Bland and the Spa Court do.
"They know few if any people from Potomac Greens and what will be Potomac Yard are going to walk Route 1, due to both crime and due to distance, so they figured they would give them a bus route down Route 1 into Old Town. Thats why they cant use Washington; there is no link from Washington to Potomac Greens and Potomac Yard (unless they reconfigure Slaters and/or Bashford)".
Nice, the lack of a functioning artery to and from Monroe, Slaters, Bashford and Washington was designed to keep the problems in PG in PG, hence, why after the change we can take Braddock to get to the Y (for example).
Now we get to transit down route 1, its like a really bad novel.
New Slogan: Parker Gray: Containing the Cities Problems for Decades!
FYI--the next meeting of the ICCA is scheduled for May 9, 7:30-9pm at the Durant Center.
I understand that it costs $10 to join. As ineffectual or even corrupt as we may feel the organization is, perhaps it's worth the bucks for us to start participating and perhaps to take it over. If nothing else, it might be another marker that the city had better take us seriously.
See the Post "Get There" blog at this link: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/getthere/2007/04/road_rail_projects_in_pipeline.html?hpid=news-col-blogs
It includes the following:
"-- Potomac Yard Transitway: This is the 2.5-mile Alexandria segment of a transitway from Braddock Road Metro station to Four Mile Run that eventually would run to the Pentagon. Cost estimate is $18.1 million and completion date is 2011."
What's the route?
"Route 1 does not kill neighborhood vibrancy.Adkins and Bland and the Spa Court do."
Parker Gray = Historic black community.
Adkins = Black males hanging out on street corners. Bland = Black males hanging out on street corners. Barbershop on Queen st. = Black males hanging out on street corners.
I knew where I was moving to when I came here, I don't think most you who complain on this blog did.
11 1/2 years walking around the streets here and have never had a problem. I guess I've just been luck for all this time?
I saw on the City's website that there was a community meeting on the 16th with "Glebe Park Redevelopment Stakeholders Group" and ARHA and Staff to discuss ARHA proposals within Glebe Park.
Did anyone make it to this meeting? I'm wondering if there is any new info about the Bland project.
"it's worth the bucks for us to start participating and perhaps to take it over. If nothing else, it might be another marker that the city had better take us seriously."
Finally!!!! Thats what I'm talking about.
"I knew where I was moving to when I came here, I don't think most you who complain on this blog did.
"
I thought I was moving to a gentrifying community that was 5 blocks from the City's economic heart and was on its way up.
I never realized the City had used this community for years as the local dumping ground for its containment policy, or that the City would basically ignore all evidence to the contrary about the failure of public housing in the USA.
Oh by the way:
Adkins - hanging out on street corners = ILLEGAL
Bland - hanging out on street corners = ILLEGAL
Hanging out on street corners and harassing Metro commuters= ILLEGAL
"-- Potomac Yard Transitway: This is the 2.5-mile Alexandria segment of a transitway from Braddock Road Metro station to Four Mile Run that eventually would run to the Pentagon. Cost estimate is $18.1 million and completion date is 2011."
What's the route?
The route OUGHT to be a new dedicated throughway to take traffic through and away from Parker Gray AND Braddock Metro, and ship it off to Fort Belvoir and 495. Save Jeff Davis and all of Route One for residents who live and work here. You will find that 90% of the traffic on Route One at rush hours is NOT LOCAL traffic ! And who is going to "stop and shop" during rush hour...? Just use some common sense please. Congestion and Density are every bit the main problems of the Braddock Road Plan, and I admit Adkins and Bland need to be addressed as well. But even if these latter problems are removed, the neighborhoods are still a mess with too much Density and over-crowding. Rats go down with a sinking ship, and TOO MUCH DENSITY is going to sink this ship!!!
"Adkins - hanging out on street corners = ILLEGAL
Bland - hanging out on street corners = ILLEGAL"
Trust me when I tell you I hate seeing this too
I don't mean to sound insipid, but when has standing on a street corner become a violation of the law?
I was told by city officials that loitering laws in va were deemed unconstitutional by judges and wern't enforced.
Have I again been misled?
NORTHERN VIRGINIA CHAPTER, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, Defendant, 747 F.Supp. 324, Sept. 27, 1990.
Suit was brought challenging the constitutionality of an ordinance proscribing loitering for the purpose of engaging in unlawful drug transactions. Upon cross motions for summary judgment, the District Court, Hilton, J., held that city ordinance prohibiting loitering for purpose of engaging in unlawful drug transactions, which delineated seven circumstances that unequivocally manifest an unlawful purpose, was unconstitutionally overbroad because it criminalized a substantial amount of constitutionally protected activities.
"I thought I was moving to a gentrifying community that was 5 blocks from the City's economic heart and was on its way up."
Well, it IS a community of many income levels and backgrounds, and it IS on its way up. Except when the City has its foot on our neck.
Oh, and is that what the realtor intimated? Rumor has it that a couple of years ago, one of them was saying Atkins would be demolished within months.
Mine did not, but having been a City kid for 20 years, seeing blacks and whites on the same street didn't tell me PG was treated like a second-rate neighborhood by its own government. For example, the houses on Route 1 USED to have front yards, until the City took them for Route 1.
Too bad - not counting damage due to trash, crime and City staff, it's a good place to live. We can walk to King Street (unlike Del Ray), and we do not constantly fear basement flooding (unlike Del Ray and Old Town).
"Suit was brought challenging the constitutionality of an ordinance proscribing loitering for the purpose of engaging in unlawful drug transactions. Upon cross motions for summary judgment, the District Court, Hilton, J., held that city ordinance prohibiting loitering for purpose of engaging in unlawful drug transactions, which delineated seven circumstances that unequivocally manifest an unlawful purpose, was unconstitutionally overbroad because it criminalized a substantial amount of constitutionally protected activities."
Thanks for the post, but I have know idea what this is trying to say.
Is there a lawyer reading this that can explain what this means? Is it legal or illegal to loiter according to this?
Has there been any cases since 1990 "common law" or "case law" that have a different opinion?
Table 1
School District Total Students
Students with Free or Reduced Price Lunch
Percentages
Alexandria-10,026 4,986 49.73%
Arlington -18,456 6,244 33.83
Fairfax-161,090 32,187 19.98
"I found this thread amusing only in that we have a teacher complaining about her pay and benefits while the City bureaucrats scream that the schools dont have enough money.
Um ok, 2 questions then:
1. If we are spending 18,000+ per student, where is all the money going?"
For the teacher, thats where the rest of your salary is going, which also answers question 1 for this poster as well.
"11 1/2 years walking around the streets here and have never had a problem. "
Oh yeah, which route, the scenic Montgomery route or the tourist-friendly Spa Court route?
"I guess I've just been luck for all this time?
"
I am sure this is what the numerous assault and robbery victims in our area were saying prior to those events happening.
Maybe P&Z could just hand out magic charm bracelets as our new and improved 2007 BM Plan.
Guess Melvin and William et thel ARHA employees use the Internet on taxpayer time.
"I don't mean to sound insipid, but when has standing on a street corner become a violation of the law?
"
Its not against the law to stand on a street corner.
Its against the law to stand on a street corner in front of a sign that says "NO TRESPASSING OR LOITERING" when you dont live in the house you are standing in front of and you werent invited to be there and you were banned from the property by the cops for selling drugs but you keep getting invited back by problem tenants who could care less about their neighbors in the housing projects and who cant be evicted because ARHA doesnt seem to care.
There, the problems of Adkins and Bland wrapped all up in a bundle....
"unconstitutionally overbroad because it criminalized a substantial amount of constitutionally protected activities"
nothing wrong with standing outside at Adkins hanging out.
wrong when you harass Metro commuters, smoke chronic, throw 40 bottles everywhere, yell at 3 AM in the morning, blast loud music all night, or invite banned guests to the party.
There, did I break it down for the public housing apologist contingent of the blog?
"wrong when you harass Metro commuters, smoke chronic, throw 40 bottles everywhere, yell at 3 AM in the morning, blast loud music all night, or invite banned guests to the party."
Not every person does this and not every person that lives at adkins or bland is a thug. Are they not allowed to hang out in front of their homes?
Sidewalks and street corners are public property available for any citizen to stand on whether the public likes it or not.
Period.
Now what does any of this have to do with "Transportation Doubleheader"?
Glebe park project lost the first round of its tax credit application which means Bland and Glebe have to be re-thought. ARHA isn't getting the financing help it wanted from teh State. Supposedly, there were too many other stronger applications.
Krupicka told me at the public meeting last week that BRT, if we do it, should go from Braddock to Washington Street and avoid the neighborhoods along Rt. 1. He said something about Washington Street making more sense since it is a retail and commercial strip and that way the BRT can serve tourists (try to keep them out of cars), north old town residents, etc. Is this worth pushing?
"Not every person does this and not every person that lives at adkins or bland is a thug."
Explain to me how this makes the neighborhood walkable and livable.
Do you not think its reasonable, with the high African-American crime rate in our City, for Metro commuters to be somewhat unnerved by groups of young black males hanging out on the sidewalk hurling f-bombs?
"Are they not allowed to hang out in front of their homes? "
"
Always and forever. No one ever complains about this. What people complain about is people hanging out in front of their homes at 2 AM making lots of noise.
Send me your address and I will be happy to bring 4 friends over to re-enact the scene for u.
"Sidewalks and street corners are public property available for any citizen to stand on whether the public likes it or not.
Period.
Now what does any of this have to do with "Transportation Doubleheader"?
"
What does it have to do with Transportation?
HUH?
What good is the Plan if people are afraid to walk around the nieghborhood? Isnt that why we are getting all this density? To make the neighborhood more walkable by encouraging people to walk to the Metro? If people see groups loitering in front of Adkins, and Adkins has a reputation for crime (as admitted by the ARHA chairman), then why would people walk? Wouldnt they just drive to where they have to go?
There is nothing wrong with standing out on sidewalks and street corners, as long as you dont harass Metro commuters, smoke bud, drink 40's and throw them on the street, or do so at 3 AM in the morning while making loud noise.
If I did any of these things on the sideaalk in front of your house, you probably would be a little upset.
Its amazing the depths that public housing apologists go to in order to defend everything and anything about public housing. If I loiter in front of the Mayors house or Ludwigs or Melvins house, I am going to go to jail. Apparently in Bland or Adkins city and state laws dont apply.
"Its against the law to stand on a street corner in front of a sign that says "NO TRESPASSING OR LOITERING" when you dont live in the house you are standing in front of and you werent invited to be there and you were banned from the property by the cops"
Like another I am not sure what exactly this conversation has to do with transportation but perhaps a history lesson is in order. Years ago the city operated on the assumption that five neighborhoods were especially plaqued with crime and drug problems, thus deserving special police protection. The inner city was one of the five neighborhoods. To make a long saga short, one of the legal issues we five neighborhoods tackled was the city's loitering law. If memory serves application of the law differs when comparing the interior perimeters of public housing compounds (an ARHA ownership issue) with public streets. The Council debate proved a battle royal, it became a civil rights debate, but in the end I acknowledged that public streets posed a different problem and instead created what is now known as the city's No Trespassing program.
The No Trespassing program requires that a resident or business post a No Trespassing sign obviously, sometimes several signs, on their property. The owner must also sign a written contract with the police department confirming that if, given the presence of the sign, an officer takes legal action in the owner's absence the owner will be present (take time off from work) to help prosecute the officer's case in court. The posted signs included: No Trespassing, No Littering, No Prostitution and No Drugs. We insisted on the contract because officers often felt the lack of property owner's involvement a deal breaker.
With regard to the No Trespassing signs, an officer is not able to arrest someone just for standing on the sidewalk in front your house, but can arrest someone for sitting on your front stoop. The No Littering sign covers the literal of paper, bottles and sputum. The latter two are obvious. And boom boxes are covered by the noise ordinances.
I am not aware of any instance in which homeowner's successfully posted a No Loitering sign.
"Sidewalks and street corners are public property available for any citizen to stand on whether the public likes it or not."
Oh really, then can I stand in front of your house and drink a Old E?
The Growler is not going to post any more comments on the loitering thread. Enough already.
However, the Cranky One would like to hear more from the poster who stated that EYA's tax credit application for Glebe Park did not make the first cut.
That's pretty serious, as the impetus for redeveloping Glebe Park was a $6 million mortgage that may be foreclosed.
Does that mean the whole issue of Glebe Park, Bland and Adkins is back in play?
"Glebe park project lost the first round of its tax credit application which means Bland and Glebe have to be re-thought. ARHA isn't getting the financing help it wanted from teh State. Supposedly, there were too many other stronger applications. "
I was not the poster, but reading that, I can see one of three things happening:
1. ARHA lets HUD foreclose and sell the property.
2. ARHA sells one of its remaining solvent properties to finance the reconstruction of Glebe. That would open up Adkins or Bland for sale.
3. The dreaded option: ARHA asks the City for a bailout to salvage and rebuild Glebe Park. I hope as a neighborhood we will all fight this, as this directly affects the Braddock Metro Plan.
Other than that, I cant see anything else they can do. Feds wont help them.
Based on that rejection, they will most likely ask the City to cover the 3.7 million in lost tax credits, as well as the 3.9 million in loans they need for Bland. So the Housing Trust Fund will essentially go kaput for the year.
If the City says no, they would either have to take over the property and renovate it, as well as pay the mortgage, which means kaput to this years budget, or sell it to a private developer, the best optino but one that would "violate" Resolution 830.
The Examiner had an article on the figures used:
"ARHA is proposing to redevelop Glebe Park in two phases. The state tax credit would provide $3.7 million in up-front cash for the first phase, renovating 12 units and building 28 new ones on Old Dominion Boulevard. The second phase on West Glebe Road will build 48 new apartments and rehabilitate 12 apartments.
“That funding is really key,” Alexandria Housing Division Chief Mildrilyn Davis said. “It’ll be back to the drawing board if they don’t get it.”
To go forward, the project also needs land use and zoning approval as well as a city loan of up to $3.9 million in May. A letter of support wouldn’t commit the city, Hartmann wrote.
"
The poster is correct (at least it seems) VHDA released their prelimiary rankings for the applications here:
http://www.vhda.com/vhda_com/
apps/DocumentLibrary/
document_load.asp?docid=1790
As you can see, Old Dominion (Glebe Park) scored the lowest for the Northern Virginia Pool. That doesnt necessarily mean they dont get the money, just that the tax credit application was not very good and it will need some revisement. Essentially as of now (if I am reading it correctly) ARHA would get 400,000 in tax credits for the project from 3 separate pools, which leaves them about 2.5 million short.
Here is the tax credit schedule. Now its ARHA's turn to respond and comment to the preliminary ranking.
http://www.vhda.com/vhda_com/
apps/DocumentLibrary/
document_load.asp?docid=1696
You can also register to look at their applications here:
https://www.vhda.org/VHDA_Apps/TaxCreditApps/TCRegistration.asp
As an aside, the Potomac Yard fire station affordbale housing site did not fare much better 2nd lowest).
As another aside, why is Herb Cooper Levy and Arbelo Apartments on this ranking list? Did he apply for tax credits as well (they rejected him)
“11 1/2 years walking around the streets here and have never had a problem.”
I’m happy for you.
Almost exactly eleven and a half years ago, I was attacked and beaten one evening while walking home from the Braddock Road Metro station on the path—our city calls it a “linear park”--between Braddock Road and the King Street Metro Station. A lady in the Colecroft townhouses heard a noise outside her window. She looked out and saw a bunch of teenagers beating a man on the ground. She screamed at them and grabbed her phone to call 911. The attackers ran away when she started screaming. She probably saved my life. After that, I had two separate sessions in intensive care and I missed three months of work. I was blessed to have a loving wife, an unbelievably supportive employer, and great health insurance.
The Alexandria police and Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office did an amazing job finding and prosecuting the offenders. They didn’t have much to start with because, as a result of my fractured skull, I couldn’t remember anything about the attack. The lady who saved me by screaming couldn’t give a description much more specific than that it was a group of black teenagers. She was some distance away and it was dark.
The police started by going to the Alexandria public schools. They asked, “Do you know any kids who could have done this?” Shockingly, they got a list of some twenty names.
Detectives started talking to those people and their friends. They hoped someone had bragged to someone else about what they had done. Sadly for our society but happily for me, their strategy worked.
Four teenagers were ultimately implicated. Three were charged at the outset. (There wasn’t enough evidence to charge the fourth one at first, but shortly thereafter he whacked someone else in a robbery by Yates Automotive and got prosecuted for that.) One of the three was acquitted in the juvenile court. The other two were transferred to adult court (circuit court) and convicted of felonies. The first of them to go to trial was convicted of “unlawful wounding” and sentenced to five years – the most the judge could give. The second one tried was convicted of “aggravated malicious wounding” and got 30 years, 15 suspended. Based on evidence that came out during the circuit court trials, the fourth one was eventually persuaded to plead guilty to a juvenile court offense in my case. He’d be locked up until he was 21.
Three parts of our local government—the police, the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office and the local courts—were very effective in my case. We’re all fortunate to have such competent professionals in those positions. And then there is ARHA.
Some or all of the thugs lived in Alexandria public housing in our area. I believe it was Adkins. In the months after the attack, I started paying close attention to news articles about crime in and around public housing. After reading one touting new rules that were said to make it easy to evict tenants connected with criminals, I called ARHA to find out how they apply those rules in specific cases. I had been feeling empowered by the sympathy and respect that I got from the other parts of our government. I was very naive. I came away with the impression that the people at ARHA do not practice what they preach. I’m also reasonably certain that the attack on me didn’t count against their statistics because it didn’t occur on their property.
The cost of the current system of public housing involves much more than just tax dollars. Many of the people who live in the projects are themselves innocent victims of the system’s decay. I don’t have any sympathy for the thugs who attacked me, but I have to believe that those kids’ lives might well have turned out differently if they had been housed in a more widely dispersed system of public housing.
The city can do better.
Lets ee
2.5 + 3.9 = 6.4 million.
This "lets go to the City for the money" attitude is out of control among all the social service agencies and the school board.
If they dont have the money, they need to sell off a property and get over it. We dont have the money to pay for the constant financial difficulties of our local housing agency. Plus if they went to vouchers we wouldnt even be having this discussion.
Sorry to veer off from transportation but I am tired of the fact that public housing and its attendant problems (social, financial, educational, etc..) always end up being the main problem in the Inner City. The city is going to ask us to fund with City taxpayer dollars that whic hwe dont want in the Inner city.
I love it.
wow - do you still live in the area?
"Glebe park project lost the first round of its tax credit application which means Bland and Glebe have to be re-thought. ARHA isn't getting the financing help it wanted from teh State. Supposedly, there were too many other stronger applications."
What a shock. Krupicka saw through that application in about 5 minutes. 210 public housing units and 6 market rate units is not a strong application. And where was Macdonald during that Council meeting? Probably asleep.....
Anyhoo, with that said, there is not much wiggle room to rethink this without going into the City Loan well or "rethinking" 830. I highly doubt even this rejection will make the ARHA chair and Mr. Miller change their ways....I expect the May Council docket to include the loan request.
"Krupicka told me at the public meeting last week that BRT, if we do it, should go from Braddock to Washington Street and avoid the neighborhoods along Rt. 1. He said something about Washington Street making more sense since it is a retail and commercial strip and that way the BRT can serve tourists (try to keep them out of cars), north old town residents, etc. Is this worth pushing?"
He said the same thing to me and also mentioned that their would be a city/ARHA advisory group pulled together on the redevelopment of Bland to get more involvement and input for the neighborhood.
He asked for names of folks that would be interested in being recommended to serve and then later said that these recommendations would come from the civic associations?
I emailed Patricia Schubert and she said the issue would be discussed at the May ICCA meeting. This may provide a good opportunity to get some new voices into the mix.
Post a Comment