Those g** d*** developers

The subtext in the anti-Purple Line organizing is now that pro-transit advocates are shills for developers that want to get rich(er). See the letters to the editor in Saturday's Post, in "As the Purple Line Moves Forward . . . " as well as comments in the blog entry last week on the Purple Line.

Grace Palladino of Bethesda writes:

Did anyone expect that Michael D. Madden, the Maryland Transit Administration's project manager on the Purple Line study, would not come up with the numbers needed to push the Purple Line? Isn't that his job? ["Trips on Purple Line Rail Projected at 68,000 Daily," Metro, May 30].

While politicians cited "better service to lower-income workers" who can't afford cars, and the article mentioned "slow and unreliable buses," neither raised the issue of developers' interest in the project. Until The Post investigates this issue, the story belongs on the editorial page, not in the Metro section.

It's true that to maximize the benefits of faster transit, density is in order. Since one of the absolutely grossest intersections in the Washington region is New Hampshire Avenue and University Boulevard, I would welcome denser redevelopment in that area.

But transit and land development has always been connected, probably from the first days of shipping and of course with the creation of railroads. I mean, doesn't _everyone_ who has ever taken American history any time during the grades 1 to 12 remember the story of the development of the transcontinental railroad and how it was funded?

In the DC region, I find the story of the development of Chevy Chase by Senator Newlands and others particularly interesting. They built a streetcar line up what is now Connecticut Avenue to make the land at Chevy Chase sellable. As part of the franchise they were required to build the actual street of Connecticut Avenue, not to mention a bridge over Rock Creek Park.

Similarly, in 1872, Henry Willard and his partners built the Columbia Horse Car Railway (streetcar) from 15th and H Streets NE to downtown, in order to be able to better sell land he owned in northeast DC.

The history of urbanity is the history of transportation.

But sure, some groups love developers more than others (like the Coalition for Smarter Growth), or at least are better at getting funding from developers than I ever have been... Action Committee for Transit is hardly a well-funded organization, so I can't imagine there's much in the way of $ in it for them.

I just love the hypocrisy. I wish that the people accusing the pro-transit people of cooking the books or accepting money or being shills would in turn disclose their own conflicts of interest.