EDITORIAL/OPINION

Send Your Feedback, Questions or Concerns, Tips and Suggestions to editorial@georgetowner.com or call 202-338-4833

A Question of Balance:

EXPANDED SIDEWALKS AND STREATERIES

The pandemic threw many challenges at us. Besides the sadness of deaths and serious illness, small businesses -- whether retail, restaurant or hospitality -- were also among the weakened or lost. As the practice of social distancing and being safer by moving more activities outdoors took hold, the concept of outdoor dining and shopping in Georgetown gained traction. Business owners could be rescued and some of the joys of dining or checking out merchandise could be returned.

Today, in our tight town, most sidewalks in front of businesses have expanded from their former curbs one lane into the street. This is not a new idea. It first emerged in Georgetown years ago as a plan to open up space for pedestrians along the commercial strip of M Street. The pandemic simply sped up the process.

There were lively discussions –– put on by the Georgetown Business Improvement District (BID) –– about expanded sidewalks, streateries or street decks a couple of weeks ago. During the remote chat, the issue of loss of parking spaces (200 or more) was front and center, with at least three negative effects: discouraging shoppers or diners from driving to Georgetown, pushing noisy visitors deeper into the normally quiet residential streets and resulting in a few decks empty or a gray blob.

As for most restaurants and shops, they seem to have adapted quickly and continue to make their areas more aesthetically appealing as the pilot project continues. It is important to remember all of this is officially temporary –– until the end of the year. Still, many are giving streateries the thumbs up overall and want them to stay.

Georgetown BID Director of Planning and Economic Development Jamie Scott told The Georgetowner last month that its online survey on whether people liked or disliked streateries-expanded sidewalks appeared to be 50-50 from early samples. He added at the chat: “We don’t have to wait until December to make changes when it comes to parking vs. expanded sidewalks. The design of the project is intended to allow modifications during the course of the pilot.”

Between June 21 – 27, the BID conducted surveys on the sidewalk extension program and have promised results “in the coming weeks.” An additional round of surveys will be conducted in September. “We know that there will be a period of adjustment for everyone and we’re committed to making this program work for Georgetown,” they say on their website.

At the BID talk, Georgetown leaders, such as former Georgetown-Burleith Advisory Neighborhood Commissioners Tom Birch, Ron Lewis, Bill Starrels and Monica Roaché, came down against expanded sidewalks for the simple sake of expanded sidewalks. Roaché’s comments seemed incisive: “I don’t feel safe eating in the streateries with cars going by so close. And I don’t see people using the expanded sidewalks. What saddens me is we have lost the beauty.” Others at the meeting spoke up about traffic congestion and the implications for public safety caused by the evacuation route of Wisconsin Ave. losing car lanes.

We’re still learning, and this is still a project –– and the pandemic is still here. Let’s see what the surveys tell us. And, where the expanded sidewalk decks make no sense, let’s remove them. We can be very selective about the placement of streateries in front of restaurants. And let’s not make this new restaurant and retail opportunity yet another war against cars, as it sometimes appears with parts of the D.C. government and those who consider the real needs of drivers and not just the bicycle set.

From the strictures and pain of 2020 - 2021 should emerge a stronger, more vibrant local economy, along with a more beautiful commercial district. We have more work to do.

Homelessness: How would you solve it?

YOUR OPINION MATTERS. Post your response. Facebook.com/TheGeorgetowner

Letters to the Editor

SIDEWALK WIDENING: A RESTAURANT LAND GRAB?

It’s time to take the veil off this “sidewalk widening” plan and call it what it really is: a “private restaurant land grab of limited public space.”

Notwithstanding Mr. Jones’ rosy article [“Busting Myths About Georgetown Parking,” June 2021], taking away 200 “swing” spaces in Georgetown will undoubtedly make parking in the residential areas worse than it already is. Mr. Jones states that there are 4,041 residential spaces in Georgetown out of 6,000 to 7,000 total spaces, and he blithely notes their availability for nonresidents for up to two hours. However, those residential spaces are already being clogged with non-D.C. cars parking there. Go take a look.

Mr. Jones’s math suggests there are only 2,000 to 3,000 non-residential spaces available for tourists and visitors. Many of those are in business garages and are already accounted for. So, by taking away 200 spaces, the “streateries” are in reality taking away well over 10% of the “swing” spaces available for tourists (not 2.5% as Mr. Jones would have us believe). If you think 200 is a small number, consider what it would cost to build 200 parking spaces in Georgetown.

This is not a “sidewalk widening” project; it’s a “restaurant land grab.” The sidewalks won’t be wider and non-restaurants won’t really benefit unless they’re hanging racks of clothes next to the street. Indeed, walking will be harder as pedestrians bump into restaurant servers. And, in the same issue of The Georgetowner, the editorial not only suggested that new parking rules should be imposed on the residents but they should also subsidize this “land grab” with their tax dollars.

In summary, the restaurants want to take away essential parking, adversely impact the local neighborhoods, impose new parking rules on the residents and also have the local residents pay for the cost of this disruption. I say no.

– Peter L. Baumbusch 34th Street

THE GEORGETOWN BID SHOULD ALLOW RESIDENTS TO RECLAIM PARKING

The article, “Busting Myths About Georgetown Parking,” ignores the 45year history of conflict between residents and businesses and paints an unrealistic picture that the current parking situation in residential Georgetown is without controversy.

Indeed, the article says the belief that “Residents and Businesses Are at Odds Over Parking” is a myth. The fact is, however, business interests have continuously opposed and stymied all attempts by residents to restrict business parking on residential streets since 1976, when the District passed a new law establishing the “Residential Parking Program” for all residential areas in the city.

At that time, the “Georgetown Association of Businessmen” sued the District to prevent the law from taking effect. A similar suit filed in Arlington, Virginia was placed on a judicial fast track and reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1977. The Supreme Court held that Arlington had every right to discriminate against nonresidents and to restrict residential streets for parking by residents only, Arlington County Board v. Richards, 434 U.S. 5 (1977). As a result, the suit by the Georgetown Association of Businessmen was dismissed, and the right of residents to have their streets used solely for residential purposes was beyond further legal challenge.

Ten years later in l986, after an extensive study, the District issued a “Georgetown Parking Plan” which stated: “It is well established District policy that public parking spaces abutting residential land uses should be available for use by the residents; while public parking spaces abutting commercial, or government buildings should be available for people going to those buildings.” The business interests, however, continued their opposition and the plan was never implemented. A similar major effort by residents in 1997 to obtain permit-only parking for at least one side of the residential streets was again completely stymied by the business organizations.

Currently, the Georgetown BID still takes the position that their customers and employees should have free two-hour and all-night parking even though many residents cannot find parking near their own homes. In 2018, the BID even proposed that the city institute paid parking on the first block of every residential street abutting Wisconsin and M St. (with residents excepted). The residents eventually defeated that unlawful proposal.

Over the past 20 years, the District government has established “residential permit parking only” in many other residential neighborhoods like Georgetown. Georgetown residents, however, are still saddled with an ancient system that unlawfully accommodates two-hour free business parking on all residential streets. Since the last parking battle in 2018, the Georgetown ANC and the Citizens Association of Georgetown have apparently neglected their responsibilities for promoting the interests of Georgetown’s 14,000 residents. It is time that they once again forcefully seek implementation of “permit only residential parking” in Georgetown.

The Georgetown BID has 3,800 commercial parking spaces and 1,000 metered spaces on the street, which -- together with public transportation and ride sharing -- are fully sufficient to accommodate all business activities in Georgetown. Therefore, the BID should end its 40-year opposition to “permit residential parking only” and allow residents to reclaim the 4000 parking spaces in front of their homes solely for residential use.

– Don W. Crockett Q Street