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.

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Montanaro 0mi on August 21, 2013 at 11:19pm

Just because they've filed a lawsuit doesn't mean they will win. The article states that the rack is in the public way. They may have no leg to stand on and are just hoping that by huffing and puffing the city will avoid the confrontation and remove or relocate the rack.

It might help if you can provide some input. How far is it from the owners' building? Can you document traffic flow in the area? If it's busy enough to warrant a Divvy station, perhaps there's already plenty of foot traffic and trash that needs to be cleaned up. Do the bikes get used (are there frequently open spaces)? You might be able to do that remotely using the Divvy app. Is there a lot of commercial space in the area? Maybe there is an alternative location the city could use where the neighbors would appreciate it more. I agree with h' that the journalist who wrote the article might be the best way to get your voice heard, unless you know a lawyer who can write a friend of the court brief for you pro bono. :-)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by william on August 21, 2013 at 11:54pm

They'll lose.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lisa Curcio on August 22, 2013 at 12:30am

They have a long way to go with that lawsuit. Public support for the station in a way that the city is aware of it might be a contributing factor to a decision to fight rather than give in and move it. The other motivation for the city to fight is that if they give in they will be flooded with these types of lawsuits, and it will be cheaper to respond to one and--one hopes--win by having it dismissed than to repeatedly respond to lawsuits. All of you social media types, let the city know you want the station there!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brendan Kevenides on August 22, 2013 at 3:00am

+1

Lisa Curcio 6.5 mi said:

They have a long way to go with that lawsuit. Public support for the station in a way that the city is aware of it might be a contributing factor to a decision to fight rather than give in and move it. The other motivation for the city to fight is that if they give in they will be flooded with these types of lawsuits, and it will be cheaper to respond to one and--one hopes--win by having it dismissed than to repeatedly respond to lawsuits. All of you social media types, let the city know you want the station there!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on August 22, 2013 at 3:06am

+2 Speak up everywhere you can in support of that station - to the journalist who wrote the article, your alderman, Divvy, on social media, etc. Encourage other folks who want that station to do likewise.

Brendan Kevenides said:

+1

Lisa Curcio 6.5 mi said:

They have a long way to go with that lawsuit. Public support for the station in a way that the city is aware of it might be a contributing factor to a decision to fight rather than give in and move it. The other motivation for the city to fight is that if they give in they will be flooded with these types of lawsuits, and it will be cheaper to respond to one and--one hopes--win by having it dismissed than to repeatedly respond to lawsuits. All of you social media types, let the city know you want the station there!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Amanda W on August 22, 2013 at 3:19am

Thanks everyone for the suggestions! Sorry, I was a little hyperbolic with the title of this post; I erroneously thought that the NIMBYs actually managed to block the station from being installed (hadn't stopped by, but I looked at the Divvy map and didn't see a marker for the station). I walked past it this morning and saw that the bicycles were indeed there in all their lovely baby-blue glory. You are all probably right that this lawsuit will do nothing but embarrass the people bringing it forward, but in the meantime I have contacted the author of the article and my alderman, and posted about it to my Facebook page. I will keep on spreading the word. Thanks again!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Casey Carnes on August 22, 2013 at 3:25am

Unfortunately, this isn't a new issue to bikeshare programs. At least in NY the judge rejected the injunction. But then again, Mr. Kolin is a lawyer, lets hope he doesn't know the right judge...

http://gothamist.com/2013/04/30/west_village_nimbys_file_futile_law...

But I can see their point, look how obtrusive these docks are!! Jeez! :)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tim S on August 22, 2013 at 3:26am

I like that the majority of the comments on the Trib site are positive.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Montanaro 0mi on August 22, 2013 at 3:28am

Amanda W said:

You are all probably right that this lawsuit will do nothing but embarrass the people bringing it forward....

They are lawyers. "Embarrass" is probably not in their vocabulary. :-)

(With my sincerest apologies to all the nice biking lawyers on The Chainlink.)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lisa Curcio on August 22, 2013 at 3:30am

Also notable that the attorney president of the condominium association filed the lawsuit in the name of a corporation pro se which means no attorney filed the lawsuit. Corporations need attorneys to file lawsuits.