Jack's Opinions
(This is from my anti-homeowner association period. It sums up my sentiments on certain zoning & covenants. Our new house is in an older neighborhood with big lots and no restrictive covenants!)
It is unfortunate that Montgomery County is considering zoning changes that would drastically limit the size of pre-1954 homes on smaller lots. The changes would greatly hinder remodeling efforts throughout the county, and could lead to the decline of thriving inner neighborhoods as residents seek larger lots. Zoning proponents cite the need to preserve "neighborhood charm" and prevent homes that are "out of character" with their own, but such qualities are truly in the eye of the beholder.
I personally love to walk through a neighborhood full of unique houses and varied architecture. And I'm quite charmed if my neighbors are simply neighborly. The emphasis on neighborhood opinion over personal rights is especially disturbing.
One strength of our culture is our respect for personal freedom and our tolerance of individual views and tastes, even those with which we don't agree. Yet I see a disturbing trend in the Washington area of communities saying "If your neighbors don't like it, you can't do it." Th e proposed zoning changes would take this to the extreme by allowing one group of residents to impose their tastes on the entire county. At the rate we're going, I see homeowners of the next century struggling to make their mark in a stifling culture of conformity. Zoning laws, covenants, and over-zealous neighbors may make it almost impossible for anyone to transform their home into something that truly suits their own needs and tastes.
(This is Dr. Gridlock's July 23 column in the Post. The topic was hiking-biking paths. My letter is quoted).
If I ever want to get a dramatic surge in Dr. Gridlock mail, all I have to do is write about hiking-biking paths and bicyclists. There is a culture out there so committed to using these trails -- for commuting and for recreation -- that I wonder if area transportation departments shouldn't be more inclined to strengthen our trail system and make it more inviting to commuters.
Dr. Gridlock carried a letter July 9 from a trail user deploring the lack of courtesy of some who pass others without signaling their intention. He asked if trail users want a warning and, if so, whether they prefer that he use a bell or shout, "Passing on the left," or whatever.
Terence McArdle, who helps with the Dr. Gridlock mail, reported that we had 150 e-mail messages alone the weekend after the column ran. Rather than try and pick a few letters, I'll summarize the points made in them as follows:
Going over all those communiques, I was reminded that governments in our area are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to create car-pool express lanes, yet hiking-biking commuters are better for our transportation system -- no vehicles on our roads, no pollution. I wonder whether we are doing enough to encourage this form of transportation. What can Dr. Gridlock do?
Now, I'll leave this subject today with yet one more trail etiquette question, sent in as a response to the last one:
Beware of (Unleashed) Dogs
Dear Dr. Gridlock:
As a cyclist, I find that the biggest hazard on area bike paths is not roller bladers, joggers or broken glass, but rather the chance of collision with an unleashed dog.
Every time I ride Rock Creek Park from Rockville into D.C., I'll see a half-dozen thoughtless individuals walking leashless dogs along the paved trail or the part of Beach Drive that is closed to cars.
On a couple of occasions, I've had sauntering dogs take a sudden step into my path, forcing me to stop suddenly or veer aside. The few times I've said something, the responses ranged from, "Oh, he won't bite," to [expletives deleted].
Some dog owners just don't seem to get it. A few signs warning of the danger to cyclists and dogs alike, combined with enforcement of leash laws, would certainly help.
JACK COCHRANE
Bethesda
Dr. Gridlock has a dog. She is loved, loving and loyal. I wouldn't take her to a place where she could get hit -- with or without a leash.
Hiking-biking paths AND dogs. Your thoughts?
(More followed on other topics).
I wish that one of the many news stories talking about "aggressive driving" would bother to define the term. The latest Post article on the subject ("Drivers Call Aggression Top Danger On Beltway", April 27) used the term 14 times while quoting a study in which individuals were asked to comment on aggressive driving as a cause of accidents. But I was left wondering exactly what sort of behavior the study covered. The Post article used the terms "road rage" and "combative driving" as synonyms for aggressive driving, seemingly limiting the term to refer to those angry and vengeful drivers who try to do battle on the road. But then the article refers "tailgating, speeding, and other forms of aggressive driving" which makes me think of mere reckless driving. To add to the confusion, aggressive driving at one time meant simply the the level of boldness required to drive on city streets. I suppose the important thing is that all forms of dangerous driving be stopped, but it might help if we could clearly define what we're talking about.
Lately, your newspaper has been using the tongue-twister "Westfield Shoppingtown Montgomery Mall" to refer to the big shopping center on Democracy Boulevard. You might save ink and confusion if you used the term people actually know: "Montgomery Mall."
The stripmallesque "Westfield Shoppingtown" moniker is a corporate invention with no local significance. Indeed, the geographically meaningless "Westfield" appears larger on the mall’s sign than "Montgomery."
We may not be able to change Westfield’s marketing strategy, but The Gazette can at least use the name that all county residents use. Or will your paper start calling Interstate 270 the Dwight D. Eisenhower Highway?
Home