NIMBYs invalidate my newly purchased Divvy membership

I'd been waiting to get my Divvy membership until stations popped up near me. I work in the suburbs, not downtown, so I mainly want a membership in order to more easily get to and from the train on those days when I don't feel like riding 22 miles roundtrip to work.

I finally bought my membership on Monday when I saw new stations opening up closer and closer to me. I was thrilled earlier today to read on Divvy's Twitter feed that a station is going up very close to me, on Addison and Pine Grove.

And then I read this: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-divvy-bike-sharing-lawsuit-2....

I'm furious. What can I (we) do to counter these NIMBY types? I think it's entirely unfair that a couple of cranky people can ruin bikeshare for my neighborhood.

Views: 5233

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by dan brown on May 12, 2014 at 8:36am

oh yeah right - 3 unit "ASS-OH-SEE-ATION" ??????   give me a break.

sounds like a kangaroo court fer sure...I wonder who casts the tie-breaking vote ? let's see....Hmmmmmm

DHB  (searching desparately for a box of barf bags before it's too late)

Permalink Reply by pat 5.5mi on May 12, 2014 at 8:48am

I rode past both the new and old stations today.  I'm not sure why the new location has less of a capacity constraint versus the old since there was room at the old location for expansion to the current size.  If this is a "refinement", something must have changed, or new shit must have come to light to make the old location sub optimal now.  The only relevant change that I've seen is that a handicapped spot was added across the street from the old station, and the major new piece of information is that the NIMBY plaintiffs didn't want it there.

Alternatively, maybe Divvy is using their database of subscriber addresses and their ride logs to relocate stations closer (or farther) from current users?

I still think that the NIMBY complaint was the primary factor in the relocation decision.  

Permalink Reply by Marc A. Irwin on May 12, 2014 at 11:56am

It's not their property, people just need to grow up.

Marc

Permalink Reply by Reboot Oxnard on May 12, 2014 at 10:30pm

Wouldn't that apply to both sides of the argument?

People regularly try to influence what goes on in their neighborhood, whether it involves public or private property. Whether that's good or bad seems predicated solely on whether or not you're on the winning or losing side of the argument.

If all politics is local, nothing is more political than what happens at your front door. NIMBY maybe the word for it but that only seems to be applied by people who aren't happy that they aren't getting to do what they want to do over the objections of the more local residents. If there are people in the community that want a Divvy station badly enough to have it at their front door, they're welcome to speak up. Otherwise, it's a balancing act between the needs of a community that may want the service nearby, just not too nearby.

I think it's a safe bet that Divvy backed out of this lawsuit - perhaps because it's money they'd rather not spend, perhaps because they want to maintain peace in the neighborhood, perhaps because somebody showed them photos of office Christmas party - who knows. They found another location nearby for a bigger rack so any concern from outside the community would seem to be misplaced.

Marc A. Irwin said:

It's not their property, people just need to grow up.

Marc

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service