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 Scotto 6.8 on August 22, 2013 at 10:45am

I'm going to make this my dock surfing stop on my way home tonight.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on August 22, 2013 at 10:48am

Be on the lookout for minors.

Scotto 6.8 said:

I'm going to make this my dock surfing stop on my way home tonight.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sarah D. on August 22, 2013 at 10:52am

HAhahahahaha!

Kevin C said:

Be on the lookout for minors.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by william on August 22, 2013 at 10:58am

here's one more article: http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20130822/lakeview/lawsuit-filed-over...

I'm really liking dnainfo for local reporting over tribune & suntimes, by the way.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Davo on August 22, 2013 at 11:13am

Im still confused, they do not state what damages were done to their property? Specifics aren't even mentioned in the suit. Being lawyers I would figure that more specifics would be outlined in a Lawsuit. Or can lawsuits be that vague? I do agree with the short notice and lack of communication about the project though.

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.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lisa Curcio on August 22, 2013 at 12:10pm

There are lawyers, and then there are lawyers.* Some lawyers do nothing but review contracts. Some lawyers have never written a complaint in their legal careers. Some write them all of the time and never figure out how to do it correctly. There are things they must do to have a proper complaint. Expect the City to say what you are saying except they will do it in legal jargon.

*The lawyers I know on the Chainlink are pretty good lawyers.

Davo said:

Im still confused, they do not state what damages were done to their property? Specifics aren't even mentioned in the suit. Being lawyers I would figure that more specifics would be outlined in a Lawsuit. Or can lawsuits be that vague? I do agree with the short notice and lack of communication about the project though.

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.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David P. on August 22, 2013 at 3:27pm

Lowering property values, the ultimate bourgeois fear.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lisa Curcio on August 22, 2013 at 3:35pm

I walked over and took a Divvy out to go to the meeting at the Nature Museum and then brought a Divvy back after the meeting. When I was checking a bike out at the Pine Grove station, a woman walking her dog came up to me to ask how it worked. She was interested in using it.

The station was about half full both times I was there. Bikes were not in the same location when I came back as they were in when I left. It is being used!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason W on August 23, 2013 at 4:17am

It burned the entire business district, and the homes on the more densely populated north side. The heavy industry on the south and west sides were spared. Much of the rest of the land that didn't burn were farms, and less densely populated areas.

h' 1.0 said:

How is it I've never heard this? Seems odd as only about 1/3 of the city actually burnt.

Jason W said:

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.

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.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lisa Curcio on August 23, 2013 at 6:02am

Chicago Daily Law Bulletin picked this up yesterday. There is a hearing scheduled today at 2:00 p.m. on the petition for temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. Anyone with time on their hands could go to courtroom 2502, Daley Center, Judge Kathleen Kennedy presiding, to see what happens.