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 Tim S on August 22, 2013 at 9:05am

Because Bikes generate hits on their site. Only things more controversial than bikes is abortion and guns.

Permalink Reply by Joe Ramos on August 22, 2013 at 9:17am

i saw this divvy rack yesterday and took one to work today since it did rain today.  i love the idea that it sits less than a block from my apt.  there is a lot of foot traffic in the area.  There is an underground bridge that leads to lake shore path that is a block away.  I hope it stays.  i will more than likely use it in the winter or rainy days.  

Permalink Reply by Steven Vance on August 22, 2013 at 10:01am

Lawsuit. Read it, it's very funny.

More details on Streetsblog Chicago.

Neither CDOT nor Alderman Cappleman would comment for my article and Cappleman's office referred me to the Law Department. 

Permalink Reply by Jeremy on August 22, 2013 at 10:07am

Good read on Streetsblog.  I would LOVE it if a rack went in next to my building, and only partly b/c it's the exact thing that would drive members of my building's board crazy. 

Permalink Reply by Julie Aberman (Hochstadter) on August 22, 2013 at 10:08am

yep. And it's making headlines everywhere..... 

Move on people... nothing to see here.

Skip Montanaro 12mi said:



JeffB (7+ miles) said:

That caught my attention too.  Made me wonder why an editor would devote any space to such a small, personal complaint

Slow news day? Need to keep the news dragon fed...

Permalink Reply by Jason W on August 22, 2013 at 10:14am

WTH kind of lawyer is this? A pretty bad one I would imagine.

"destruction of parkway improvements" huh? This isn't in the parkway.

There is "won't someone think of the children" all over

"WHEREFORE, Pine Grove prays this court:" Huh? prays?

I am not a lawyer, but isn't there supposed to be more that proves they have actual damages, or is that for the courtroom?

Permalink Reply by pceasy on August 22, 2013 at 10:17am

This is great. 3 less parking spots in my hood. 

Permalink Reply by Lisa Curcio on August 22, 2013 at 10:19am

First they have to plead an actual cause of action. . . .

As to praying, the clause is properly called a "prayer for relief", so that particular phrase, at least, is correct.

Permalink Reply by Jason W on August 22, 2013 at 10:19am

Hey wait a minute! Chicago is called the second city because it is the second city built upon this ground. The first one burned down in the great fire. Reporters started calling it the second city during the rebuilding efforts. CHICAGO IS SECOND TO NO ONE! Please adjust blog, thanks.

Oh, and thanks for posting this.

Steven Vance said:

Lawsuit. Read it, it's very funny.

More details on Streetsblog Chicago.

Neither CDOT nor Alderman Cappleman would comment for my article and Cappleman's office referred me to the Law Department. 

Permalink Reply by Jason W on August 22, 2013 at 10:20am

Wow, I didn't know that. Seems weird. Thanks.

Lisa Curcio 6.5 mi said:

First they have to plead an actual cause of action. . . .

As to praying, the clause is properly called a "prayer for relief", so that particular phrase, at least, is correct.

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on August 22, 2013 at 10:27am

You are wise to defer to Lisa's knowledge and judgment in these matters.

Jason W said:

Wow, I didn't know that. Seems weird. Thanks.

Lisa Curcio 6.5 mi said:

First they have to plead an actual cause of action. . . .

As to praying, the clause is properly called a "prayer for relief", so that particular phrase, at least, is correct.

Permalink Reply by BruceBikes on August 22, 2013 at 10:28am

From the lawsuit, I believe David F. Kolin ("Kolin") thought the Divvy station was going to be installed in the landscaped parkway with the bikes on the sidewalk facing his front door.  That's how I envisioned it too when I first read the article.  I can see how this would be vexing to most non-bikey people - lost investment in greenspace, users congregating a few steps from your door while they check out bikes, and cyclists riding down the sidewalk to get to the station.

Now that the station has been installed, it's clear it will not destroy Kolin's parkway.  It will not result in "strangers" milling on the sidewalk by his front door.  And it will not encourage people to bike on the sidewalk.

Kolin might still have a gripe about losing his sometime personal parking spot in front of his building, but I'd hope he withdraws the complaint now that he has all the facts.



Steven Vance said:

Lawsuit. Read it, it's very funny.

More details on Streetsblog Chicago.

Neither CDOT nor Alderman Cappleman would comment for my article and Cappleman's office referred me to the Law Department. 

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service