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: 5191

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

But as documented by Streetsblog it was actually moved because its popularity necessitated more space for more docks: http://chi.streetsblog.org/2014/05/08/divvy-nimbys-long-nightmare-i...

Perhaps this was the reason.   The problem is that this is a "victory" for the NIMBY's and will now be used as precedent in the future to move stations.  If I were Divvy, I would absolutely refused to move this station until well after the "crises" had passed, and I likely would have given an unwritten message to the folks that if they just shut up, the station might well need to move later.   

Either that, or Divvy backed down and put up a "reason" for their decision to back  down.



Alex Z said:

But as documented by Streetsblog it was actually moved because its popularity necessitated more space for more docks: http://chi.streetsblog.org/2014/05/08/divvy-nimbys-long-nightmare-i...

Divvy moves stations all the time as they refine their system. I don't see this as a NIMBY win but as the system being refined. The new station accepts more bikes and is in the same area. It will serve the same population and will have a few more bikes. The object was not to stick it to the NIMBY Plaintiffs but was to maintain a Divvy station. Perhaps its win/win. If you want to see the couple punished think of the time and expense they have put on a case that is now moot. I don't understand how this move is precedent for anything but expanding the Divvy system. If there wasn't a better spot I would assume the station would still be in front  of the condo where it was when this issue began last year. 

ISTM the plaintiffs might claim it as a "win" (no matter why Divvy actually moved the dock), thus encouraging them to file more nuisance lawsuits.

According to court records, the case was dismissed by agreement on March 25, 2014 pursuant to a settlement agreement. 


Well, based on that I think my comment may not be so accurate. I have to think the two events are related in some way. Of course it is still quite possible that Divvy settled because they had an equally good or perhaps better station available and figured its better to settle than throw money at this. I will also assume that the deal is confidential. We can speculate all we want and they will not comment on our comments. It will remain to be seen what happens the next time a NIMBY objects to a station. 
Lisa Curcio 4.1 mi said:

According to court records, the case was dismissed by agreement on March 25, 2014 pursuant to a settlement agreement. 

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)

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.  

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

Marc

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

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service