Ward 3 ANC Redistricting Task Force Meeting - Shared screen with speaker view
Who can see your viewing activity?
Abigail McLean (CM Cheh's Office)
RecapPublic Comments on Proposed ANC Boundary FrameworkTask Force Discussion/MotionsVotesSMD Presentation and DiscussionPlans for March 15 Meeting
CM Cheh said that she appointed the task force giving priority to racial and gender diversity. I don’t see it.
the budget s reflect the size of the ANC---the number of the people in an ANC
But shouldn't ANC reflect the schools etc.?
no legal reason to make ANCs the same size
Are there going to be hearings to the sub-committee? before the hearings before the counsil?
I would like to speak. Sondra Mills
I would like to make brief comments. Larry Freedman
I would like speak with Barr
What do the colors mean?
Has this map been shared with the public on the various neighborhood listservs before now?
Think Jerry said that you cannot create maps based on planned development. (No empty SMDs)
This 3A is oriented around Mass Ave not Wisconsin.
What is the precise logic of creating a super ANC 3C that is much larger than any other ANC being proposed?
thank you super TROY for handling this
Have any of you spoken to the AU students as the People’s proposal?
what is the eastern bboundary of 3E on this proposal
Steven, I believe ANC 3C is currently larger than this proposal. This would actually shrink 3C by one SMD.
This is the current situation. Which has cause there to be designated a historic parking lot in Spring Valley.
@Mike. I am aware of how it is now. This is much larger than the existing Task Force proposal.
It's less than one full SMD larger than the existing proposal
First, thanks to everyone for their hard work. It's not easy to balance all of these needs. My neighbors and I are in Cathedral Heights. We are unclear how this new plan "Another Way Forward" will impact our ability to influence developments and changes on Wisconsin Ave - which is one block away from all of our homes. Because of this, we ask that there is no vote tonight until we understand the details of these new proposals. We are not trying to be obstructionist, we would simply like to be brought up to speed, because we have always been attached to Cleveland Park and have had a good relationship navigating Wisconsin Ave.
This does not address many of the issues I have mentioned in past meetings regarding residents in McLean Gardens and nearby
The comment about the "historic parking lot in Spring Valley" shows the political motivation behind the current Task Force recommendation.
If WClarkson is asking about the Neighborhood Voice Map, we have tried to post it publicly. It was only completed into this morning, an incredibly demanding challenge to address in a week
I would echo the point made by Barr about the desire for the community to have the opportunity to engage. Glover Park was not engaged previously, and the Stoddert community would like to opportunity to do so. We appreciate the effort in the alternate proposal to keep Glover Park as it is currently - cohesive, walkable and with shared interests and logical geographic borders. (Lauren Welsh, Stoddert LSAT)
Regarding the size of ANC 3C under the Neighborhood Map, our goal is simply to keep neighborhoods in tact. An ANC crossing Wisconsin embracing all of Cleveland Park would also work with the southern areas of 3C including Woodley Park in a new separate ANC.
Thanks, Barr. Is the map presented tonight the same version as the one which was apparently uploaded to the mapping platform this morning?
I would second (or third) the request to delay the vote to ensure the community has the chance to react and give feedback. As someone who has lived in both Glover Park and in Foxhall/Macarthur in the past 3 years, the proposed boundaries impact both communities negatively. I would echo Lauren's point above that the community needs the chance to weigh in on the proposed boundaries given the potential logistical challenges proposed by the boundaries for children of the Stoddert/Foxhall communities. (Megan Rouhier, Stoddert PTO and LSAT, mother of 2, resident recently of both Glover Park and Foxhall/Macarthur)
Agree with Christopher Vaden that it doesn't make sense to put people west of Reno into 3/4G. I'm in 3/4G (in the "3" part),and I don't see a reason to create an additional Ward3 SMD there.
I agree, given the good faith work that neighbors, their representative associations are doing and the divergence of opinions, why can we not delay this until everyone has had a chance to really understand the plans and to provide relevant input to the task force.
On the 3G issue, please ask Jerry Malitz to explain as I believe this was based on his desire.
These are excellent points. There's never been an explanation for why 3G needs to take additional residents so as to get a 4th SMD.
Will the task force respond to any of these concerns/questions tonight? Or are they just letting people talk, but plan to vote and ignore all the concerns?
Janell Pagats ONLY speaks from her personal viewpoint, even when voting on the ANC
Thankfully, there is a public record of everyone's statements in the meeting recordings and chat transcripts
I agree with the remarks of Deborah Lind. It makes no sense to divide McLean Gardens into two ANC’s. I also agree that McLean Garden has always been closely aligned with Cleveland Park. Both neighborhoods share the same elementary school, John Eaton, both abut the same commercial district on Wisconsin Ave. Both have been involved in the same battles over the years..
Our dues our $20 per year, hard to see as a barrier to participation
Is each Ward 3 ANC required to vote up or down on these boundary maps?
I also agree that McLean Gardens should not be divided.
As someone who is part of both the Glover Park and Foxhall communities, we were not at all aware of any of these changes until yesterday - despite being part of key groups (PTO, LSAT, etc). This is 11th hour as a result of not being involved earlier, not for lack of being involved on our end (Megan Rouhier, Foxhall/Macarthur resident, Stoddert parent PTO, LSAT member)
Thank you Commissioner Pagats!!
Thank you so much Janelle. Your comments are much, much appreciated.
Janell, I have a ton of respect for your opinions, but the Task Force presented an unpublished map last week and voted on it minutes later, without opportunity for public review, feedback, and comment. Whatever else one thinks of the merits of that proposal, that's not any kind of good governance practice.
the person who just spoke (who is an anc rep?) is from another planet
On the ANC 3E/3G line, my specific concern is that the area between Western, 41st, and Military remain in AN3E. It's in Square 1743; about 43 homes. We are very engaged with Tenleytown/FH issues. Would love to engage with Jerry or anyone working on this who has been involved with the proposed change. LJFreedman1@gmail.com. Thanks!
Again, very thankful that this chat transcript will be part of the public record.
Another Glover Park resident who was not engaged and knows how important authentic community engagement is. We were not given a chance to weigh in (Janell mentioned this will be on the docket at an upcoming ANC3 meeting). It sounds like there are lots of concerns all over Ward 3 - I can only speak for myself and some folks on my block that would love a chance to be engaged now that this issue has come to our attention. Please delay a vote until proper engagement is had. Marie O’Hara (Stoddert parent PTO, LSAT member)
Will the spoken remarks tonight also be made part of the record in this process?
Well said, Mike. All discussions on the map that was voted on last week were offline. The opportunity for transparency begins now. I hope that the task force will embrace it. Please delay the vote, foster true community engagement and find a plan that people can rally around.
It seems to me (although I have no personal interest) that McClean Gardens should be kept together. Also the people who live near Wisc Ave. who were taken out of 3E into 3G should be returned to 3E - having been gerrymandered away from Wisc. Ave in 2010, I sympathize with residents further north (again I have no personal interest). Finally, keeping neighorhoods together and having uneven sized ANCs makes more sense than dividing neighorhoods to make ANC sizes even.
Leigh Ann Evanson
@Larry F, recordings, transcripts (include the chat) are available publicly, yes.
please do not tkat a vote tonight on amap that is so obviously flawed
I strongly object to the Task Force voting last week without having published maps well before the vote
In response to the statement from Janell, with all due respect, everything being public is not the same as engagement. I and others on this call from Glover Park and the Stoddert community are engaged, active and even pro-active members of our community. We are longtime residents and value our community and school. As far as I can tell the Glover Park list serve did not receive a notice of the redistricting meetings, aside from in the bottom of an email or in an attachment. And the TF rep for Glover Park was appointed to the TF 8 days before the vote last week. which makes it difficult for her to have a reasonable period of time for open dialogue prior to a vote. No one I know is impugning the motives of the members on the TF, or denying the hard work that goes into something like this, but I think we can all agree that community engagement is essential and better solutions happen when more voices are heard. (Lauren Welsh, Stoddert LSAT)
On the 3E/3G boundary, at least 3 task force members presented proposed maps 2 and 3 weeks ago that respected the traditional boundary. I have heard no explanation why the task force moved away from those proposals and voted on a map incorporating Chairman Malitz’s proposal to move 3E residents into an enlarged 3G.
Sadly, the fix has been in since the beginning. The task force is not interested in changing direction. Contact the DC Council members and ask them to reject the task force’s inevitable recommendation
Is the Neighborhood Voice map that was uploaded to the platform this morning the same as the one presented tonight? I believe Christopher V. raised this issue as well in his oral comments.
Leigh Ann Evanson
@Lauren. I went back and checked based on the assertion that has been repeated. On the gloverpark group.io listeserve, there have been weekly separate emails with a dedicated subject lines sent by Abigail McLean weekly since mid January
His is not a resident of Foxhall Village--he is lying
I am a resident of McLean Gardens and I oppose splitting McLean Gardens into two SMD's as is proposed in the Middle Wisconsin Ave. maps posted just yesterday. As is written in the Task Force's guidelines, "an SMD can fall below or above such preferred 1900-2100 range to the extent necessary to maintain a specific natural geography, neighborhood cohesiveness, or a certain compact or contiguous SMD area." This proposal harms the cohesiveness of our community...our neighborhood ….the first condominium association in the District of Columbia.
As I read the comments above, many folks are not against the changes in the boundary lines, rather the lack of transparency and feedback in advance of the vote. Please delay the vote until the community has a chance to review and react to the proposed changes.
He lives at the intersection of Reservior and Mac Arthur ---nobody has every considered this in Fxhall village
I am grateful to those who. worked under a short deadline to provide an alternative view of the life of the ANCs. Importantly, they provided a clear philosophy and rationale for their boundaries. They may not be perfect, but they have provided a clear view of how to keep neighborhoods and communities together based on common interests. I also congratulate those who actually live in neighborhoods who expressed the same view that shared community interests should be in the same ANC district. It is quite clear that there is widespread dismay for the Task Force’s last proposal and their lack of transparency. I do agree with those who recommend that a vote is delayed in light of tonight’s comments.
Andrew did not say he lives in FV. he said he considers himself part of the Foxhall community.
thid person has been misrepresenting himself as a "resident of Foxhall Village" incorrectly for a long time---he is lying
@Andrew- do you live within the FCCA boundaries? https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1mhQAtsieAapZnyusb1gfgPRmVoZDgTeb&ll=38.911422953246124%2C-77.08885178068849&z=16
w2illiam clarkson0-- does he live in Foxhall village? you are such a toal jerk
I agree no vote should be taken tonight in light of the widespread dissatisfaction with the TF’s map.
The FCCA boundaries are defined in our by-laws: “The FCCA shall be a rectangular area bounded by Glover-Archbold Park on the east and north, ending at Whitehaven Parkway, and south and west from Whitehaven Parkway to Canal Road returning east to Glover-Archbold Park.
also agree no vote should be taken tonight
Leigh Ann, I and others have also checked, and have been hard pressed to find prominent notice of the redistricting. And we have not had a TF member speak at our ANC meeting. And we realize the GP rep switched part way through this process, As the GP rep, we (Stoddert) would have very much wanted to opportunity to engage with you, and still look forward to that engagement.
The above is from the FCCA website. As Andrew described his address, he clearly is within those boundaries.
Also agree vote should e delayed
since when has Troy respected any of us?
I am amazed that people in this chat, including people who presented, find it necessary to call others names and make insinuations about anyone’s motives. I deeply appreciate the hard work of this task force and am supportive of the map that the task force approved last week.
+1 @David Harris
+2 @David Harris. The personal attacks are unseemly.
Agree, the vote needs to be delayed!
Katherine. You are not distinguishing yourself as a sober messenger for your cause.
Please delay this vote. It's clear that people haven't been informed. The result of vote will impact many and it's only fair that there is transparency in this process.
Katherine, I'm not sure how you would know exactly where I live. However, I'm afraid to say that various authoritative resources - including Google Maps, MapBox, and even the Foxhall Community Citizens Association - disagree with you. But you are also in the process making my point. What you think of as "Foxhall Village" differs from what others think of as "Foxhall Village". Constructing ANC boundaries that conform to all our collective perceptions of neighborhood boundaries is an impossibility.
I agree with the boundaries proposed in Barr’s map (the Coalition). Thank you.
Diane (she/her) Fort Gaines
I live in the Fort Gaines neighborhood, part of AU Park, and agree that the vote needs to be delayed. The presentation tonight is quite different from the previous map and it is clear that constituents need time to short through the various versions and provide public comment. Thank you for your service.
Given the many thoughtful concerns raised tonight, it would be prudent to delay the vote to allow for real discussion of other options, and to consider the arguments voiced by the many communities that would be impacted by this decision.
For the Observatory Circle/Massachusetts Avenue Heights neighborhood, the alternative map presented tonight by the Neighborhood Voice is a better alternative than the Task Force's map from last week. It keeps Observatory Circle/MAHCA closer to its relevant neighbors rather than lumping our neighborhood together with McLean Gardens and City Ridge, which are much further away up Wisconsin Avenue. Thank you for everyone's effort trying to sort this out.
The consensus here seems to be that the Task Force should delay their vote on the ANC boundary map. But will they have the courage to listen??
Many questions have been asked tonight that have gone unanswered. Delaying the vote would be the right thing to do.
Could a Task Force member address any rationale for moving the area bounded by Western, 41st, and Military from 3E to 3G? If not, and there is no rationale, I suggest that this minor revision be adopted by unanimous consent. Respectfully.
Katherine: I would sincerely request that you not accuse me of "lying" because I prefer to let Google Maps, MapBox, and the FCCA - rather than you - tell me which neighborhood I live in.
Troy's comment seems to encapsulate why neighborhoods should be kept intact, if the task force would apply to neighborhood residents the concepts he is applying to AU community members
that is absolutely NOT true
I would really like to know 1) who is representing the McLean Gardens neighborhood after the resignation of the Task Force member who developed the SMD map for Middle Wisconsin? 2) Mr. Ward, I look forward to hearing about "the problem with McLean Gardens?"
Well said Jimmy. Thank you for your thoughtful comments,
@WClarkson: "Foxhall Village" yes is a narrowly defined area that was developed together. Andrew has NEVER said he lives in "Foxhall Village." Let me repeat that for the people in the back: Andrew has never said he lives in "Foxhall Village." He has said he lives in the "Foxhall Neighborhood." There is no formal definition of the "Foxhall Neighborhood" but it is generally accepted that a) something called the Foxhall neighborhood exists; b) it's bigger than Foxhall Village; and c) where Andrew lives is inside of it.
WClarkson: There is the Foxhall Village Historic District and then there is Foxhall Village. The definition of Foxhall Village in Google Maps includes the Historic District but also everything east of MacArthur Blvd south of Whitehaven Pkwy.
Jimmy, I appreciate your comments.
Diane (she/her) Fort Gaines
Well said, Jimmy. I appreciate your comments.
Thank you, Jimmy
Ashley Patterson Beaty
Mary Alice Levine, thank you for your support of the alternative proposal presented this evening. I appreciate Bob Ward’s comments that the proposal, while iterative, offers opportunities for the Task Force to consider revisions to its proposed boundary map.
@barr weiner - wanted to respond to your earlier comment regarding $20 being a low barrier for entry into one of these organizations. As someone who is actively engaged and involved with a number of organizations in Ward 3 who are desperately trying to meet needs of those in Ward 3 who are in need of food aid $20 is a really big deal to them and they are residents of this community who deserve their voice heard.
Certainly welcome the task force scrutinizing the Neighborhood Voice proposal and glad to hear there might be opportunity to rationalize between the various proposals. But as Mary Alice said, ironically, the Task Force has now had the opportunity to more closely scrutinize a map quickly pulled together by a bunch of community groups than the public has had to scrutinize the Task Force's proposals at the SMD-level.
Nina Shiffrin Starin
I agree Jane re: the membership fee.
The larger point that we all - including Katherine - are making is that the Historic District is a distinct area that is formally recognized. The definition of "Foxhall Village" or the "Foxhall neighborhood" differs from person to person. There is a good case to keep the Historic District together in a single ANC. The case for keeping "Foxhall Village" (as defined by Katherine or anyone else) together is less compelling.
Respectfully, again, please delay the vote. It is not that we ignored postings regarding new maps, we did not see any posts regarding new maps.
@Nina and @Jane -- I've heard the term "poll tax" used to describe organizations that limit full participation to those who restrict full participation to those who pay a membership fee.
That is... not what a poll tax is.
The fact that the historic district residents already have processes and preservation laws that bind them means that they do not need to be bound by being in the same ANC.
without streets names how is anyone supposed to know what Jerry's proposal is?
Janell, you clearly believe everyone has a right to be heard. So, why do you oppose allowing everyone in the neighborhood to be in the ANC? It would be helpful if you would speak your mind about the substantive issues rather than try to encourage division in the community with comments like this.
Mike - I respect you too but we are going to need to go into the historic meaning of "citizens" association vs. "civic/community" association if you want to bring up "poll tax".
Barr - that's an absolute misrepresentation of Janell's comments
Thanks Janell, I know the history. Everybody who knows me knows where I stand on that particular issue.
A blank map is going to be an “amendment?” This doesn’t appear very prudent or meaningful to the audience.
Do you seriously think this discussion is comprehensible? Mary Alice Levine is probably speaking for most of us on this call.
The maps that have been on the TF website have been difficult to read, with hardly any visible street names. This map has no street names.
I agree with Richard.
This is an example of an incomprehensible map. The explanation is not making sense to anyone who doesn’t have an intimate understanding of the task force’s past work.
You are making a proposal and do not have the map before you? Prepared to share it with the public?
Kamolika: The new boundaries do NOT split the Historic District at all. The Historic District will be kept intact. This point is obfuscated those who oppose the new boundaries and who are trying to define "Foxhall Village" in a way that has no legal basis (and which contravenes the definitions used by the FCCA, Google Maps etc.).
The Task Force doesn't want to be comprehensible. It's clear they want to continue to be opaque so we'll lose interest
Despite so many members of the public asking you to delay a vote, the task force is going ahead? Now, the task force is not aware of the details of the map under consideration? Something not clear to the task force let alone the public.
Janet Adams Nash
This is a new development and highly confusing - even your task force members are confused!
I can appreciate Jerry wishing to change lines, but he is not providing us with any explanation why he would move these lines. There is no “rationale”.
It's so unfair to personalize it that way. They have been handed a very complicated task and these are the tools they have.
Please postpone any vote tonight. Any vote should be based on people being able to sit and compare accurate, detailed maps side by side. This redistricting is a decision that will impact people and neighborhoods for 10 years or more. Please give neighborhoods time to compare the proposed maps to existing maps before you vote.
Jerry is clearly explaining the changes and zooming in no the detailed map with the streets labeled. I’m not sure how much better they can do. These are unpaid volunteers with no budget.
Where is McLean Gardens on this map?
The changes to the AU Park boundary 'are minimal and do not address the concerns that have been expressed.
Please do not vote for this
What work is that that needs to be done?
The task force should be credited for showing iterative versions of previous maps - bringing the public along, fostering discussion. But the map that was approved last week and that is being discussed right now had major changes from previous versions. And, again, it was done offline. Take "Lower Wisconsin" - Foxhall Village was added. That doesn't build trust in the process. And it's creating this confusion, which benefits no one.
Creating the single-member districts
Janet Adams Nash
Why didn’t you post this amendment earlier?
Katherine: I'm not sure if you are actively reading the chat, but I was disturbed by your accusation that I am "lying" about where I live.
The task force should vote on the Neighborhood Voice Map.
I think it is improper to take people west of Reno in that triangle with Yuma and Veasey and put them connected to Conn. Ave. They elong connected to Wisc.
Agreed. Where is the vote on the Neighborhood Voice Map??
Diane (she/her) Fort Gaines
Yes, please clarify the status of the Neighborhood Voice Map
Which version of the Neighborhood Voice map? the one uploaded to the log-in required mapping platform this morning, or the one presented tonight?
WClarkson the version presented tonight is the same that is on the ESRI redistricting tool if you'd like to look at it more closely
So the version uploaded to the ESRI redistricting tool this morning has been modified to reflect the version presented tonight?
The Chair is making amendments without maps or street names but yet folks are criticizing the thoroughness of the Neighborhood Voice work.
Word of advice: Having pored over every census block on the map over the past week, if members of the TF haven't sketched out your SMDs yet, I can assure you they're not going to fit seamlessly within your framework as drawn, without adjustments on the margins.
Janet Adams Nash
I read that the TF was supposed to set the SMDs before the ANC boundaries were changed? Is this accurate?
When will the public be able to view the SMD? How much advance notice will be given to the public?
@WClarkson, to be clear, these were minor tweaks as we were working in real time with virtually no time, seeking to give the TF something specific to consider since substantive engagement with general principles raised by Ward residents and groups haven't occurred as yet.
Is there going to be a discussion of the Neighborhood Voice work at all? Is there going to be an effort to see if the Neighborhood Voice proposed map could be accommodated?
Who voted how?
First, I would like to thank the task force members. It certainly sounds like a lot of effort was put in, and that, as with most volunteer work, it has been a thankless task. Second, for the benefit of those of us who aren’t familiar with the current ANCs number/letters, could you please include on your map the number/letter designations, in addition to the names? Third, it does seem that the new map could do a better job of mirroring existing defined boundaries, such as school districts and neighborhoods. Thank you.
I am supportive of the TF creating the flexibility to make changes to this framework going forward with respect to moving SMDs, as the new amendment offered by Tricia should do. Thank you
@Barr Weiner: Maybe you have some appreciation for what the Task Force members have had to do. They are all volunteers, this isn't their job. It's complicated, it's technical, and a lot needs to be done in a short time. The accusations of nefariousness just sicken me. It's so unfair to the members of the Task Force.
@Nick Keenan, It really is a fair bit of work. The main challenge though is that they are not focusing on what they're tasked to focus on, which has dramatically complicated the whole process. We put in hundreds of hours this week among a few volunteers seeking input from many others in real time to try to help.
I was not someone who painstakingly put together the alternative map with many community associations. The proposal to ignore it seems to be a bit of political madness.
@ Bar Weiner. It seems to me they have focused on the population centers as the centers of the ANCs. Just because historically the boundaries were written by folks that wanted the boundaries to permit single family homes to have the most impact, does not mean it was right or should be sustained. So to state they did not focus on what they were required to is simply your opinion.
Other task forces held community meetings and actively sought opinions and feedback. Not in Ward 3.
@ Steven Seelig, actually it's not my opinion it's reflected expressly in guidelines for the redistricting process, which makes sense because it is the basis for the ANC system as established in the Home Rule Charter. Ask your Council members legislative director. CM Silverman's office readily agreed, and the guidelines were generated by her subcommittee that is overseeing this process. Keeping identifiable neighborhoods intact is a core principle. It's a fact.
Richard -- not agreeing with a proposal is not the same thing as ignoring a proposal.
Does the Council provide each Ward Task Force with a staff to assist in preparing these maps, or are they responsible for creating the maps themselves?
@ Bar Weiner. You continue to insist that you own the definition of neighborhood. You don’t and the apartment dwellers are part of the neighborhood, which you would decry.
@WClarkson, there's some support from CM Ward's office, but I think it's pretty limited. Abigail, who is on this meeting is fantastic. They are lucky to have her, though she certainly has a "day" job, that she presumably will have to get to in the morning
Kamolika - Agreed. But there must be an admission that they will examine the TF plan with the alternative plan.
What about the east campus dorms?
I don't understand the complaint that the task force has not "actively sought opinions and feedback." Our listserv has been bombarded with notices about these meetings, and hundreds of comments have been received. Not agreeing with someone is not the same as ignoring them.
Leigh Ann Evanson
@WCLarkson, Abigail manages the public facing work. The TF members have worked on the map independently to draw things. We have definitely collaboratively
Leigh Ann Evanson
@ Steven Seelig, I and CPCA completely support all residents having a voice in CP. Simply untrue that we or the current ANC for ANC 3C has the perspective you claim we do. It would be helpful if folks could stop distracting with that completely baseless narrative. It's not helping us work together to ensure everyone can be heard by an ANC that represents their neighborhood
Right, so task force members had to navigate the mapping tool themselves and spend countless hours preparing draft maps on their own time, just like other residents
@WClarkson, I think so
Barr thank you for your efforts.
@ Bar Weiner The reality is that CPCA wants to have a voice in development on both corridors. The folks who live closest to those corridors should have that voice. CPCA has a history of doing this. So please don’t call my comments baseless. CPCA is the reason people on the Avenues cannot have nice things.
+1 NIck. I just did a quick search in my email for notices about the Task Force. Abigail posted invitations on Jan 18, Feb 22 and March 1 (and maybe others that I deleted). Tricia Duncan posted the first pass of the maps on Jan 24. Katherine started weighing in on Feb 18 and has posted almost daily since. The idea that these meetings or the work of the TF has not been public is simply comical.You can agree or disagree with their outcomes, but you simply cannot say that they operated in secret.
Thanks to everyone has braved that software and taken the time try and piece this stuff together!
I agree. I don’t think Barr or any of those who support keeping Cleveland Park together want to deny a voice to apartment dwellers. We have always had apartment dwellers in ANC3C, and I want to continue to have those voices. I want to include all Cleveland Park voices in the ANC.
@WClarskon, it is easier if TF's work from input from the community to guide the process as other TFs seem to be doing, it helps to ensure you understand where communities are what happens in them, etc.
Barr - The best way to ensure that everyone can be heard by an ANC that represents their neighborhood is to create ANC boundaries that center the majority of people, which is exactly what the taskforce has aimed to do (see Jimmy's yellow house example from an earlier meeting)
@Kamolika Das, I have to disagree. Neighborhoods are defined by a population center of gravity. Neighborhoods are where they are with folks living around them in whatever pockets of density they may have. Safe to say that folks generally know what neighborhood they live in. Listening to them would really help.
@ maryannnash. Please, the analogy to all voices matter is what we hear currently when folks in charge don’t want those other voices heard. If you can’t choose your language more carefully, the conclusion would be that having all voices heard does marginalize those who live on the actual corridors.
Kamolika, I earnestly agree with you in principle. And deeply appreciate the Task Force making that a guiding focus. But I guess I'm struggling to see how the current makeup of 3C systematically under-represents residents of high-density communities in our neighborhood.
@mike. Because the voices of those far away would be heard just as loudly as those who live on the actual avenue. That seems fairly apparent when matters come to a vote.
@ Kamolika Das. oops, should have been a "not" in my first sentence, center of gravities aren't an established factor, it's a construct the TF has embraced, which might be helpful if it's unclear where there is a neighborhood, but its very clear in Cleveland Park and many places, again, just ask.
Barr - If neighborhoods are defined by a population center of gravity, then you'd have to admit that the majority of Cleveland Park residents reside east of Connecticut Ave., yet you argue that Cleveland Park’s center of gravity is further west. To quote my resignation letter, "I want to ensure that in our decision-making, we stick to facts about the centers of gravity rather than commenters’ biases, even if those commenters have a stronger, more unified voice."
@Barr Weiner constructive community input (as you've sought to provide), but not the public, personal attacks on individual TF members' integrity that others have resorted to.
Curious about how feedback is being/has been sought aside from email listservs? Many residents don’t consume information via this medium.
@Steven, at least 3C, 7 of the 8 current commissioners live in apartments or another multi-family dwelling. Almost all of them on the corridors. Which is great! I think it’s fantastic. But it's not evidence of a structural barrier.
I think it’s also unhelpful to view this as a zero-sum, us-or-them question – which is part of why I’ve struggled with the whole framing around the redistricting process. I live in a single-family home. My SMD is represented by a Commissioner who lives in an apartment. I think he does a great job of representing me and my neighbors. His role is to represent people, not building types and, in my opinion, he does a great job of it.
@ Kamolika Das, we aren't arguing the "center of gravity" is anywhere. We're just saying the neighborhood shouldn't be divided across ANCs. We live in and along two avenues, always have. The corridor concept just doesn't work as a basis for analysis here. Whole idea is for ANCs to represent neighborhoods where they are, not create them in a TF. If the TF could focus on cleaning up SMD numbers and keeping neighborhoods intact, we could really get something together that makes sense. Appreciate the engagement
For more compact SMDs for Palisades/SV/WH submitted to Task Force see >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-4R6L5GSmfPCM6RM8L2IaFVQVKdt864P/view?usp=sharing
Despite significant public criticism, task force approves the same map that they presented for the first time last week
Yet your idea of "neighborhood" isn't created in a vacuum. It clearly insinuates that apartment building residents in Cleveland Park aren't part of the neighborhood. And you're failing to acknowledge the fact that this status quo causes harm by diluting the voice of these residents and ignoring their interests.
It's clear it will take stronger appeals to the Council and possibly litigation to get the Task Force to listen to the voices that are trying to be heard here.
I really don't understand this idea that apartment residents aren't being heard. And people that live 5 blocks away from a commercial corridor have an equally valid interest in it.
@JohnHealy Litigation, really. For ANC’s that are advisory?
Mike - I agree with you that people who live 5 blocks away from a commercial corridor have an equally valid interest in it. Which is why the CPCA map that cuts the new ANC off on just one side of Wisconsin Ave doesn't make any sense.
@ Kamolika Das, Where in the Ward do you see this dilution? It isn't in Cleveland Park. This chat has plenty of explanation for why that is a false narrative for our neighborhood that seems to be used to divide neighbors rather than encourage them to hear each other and work together on neighborhood issues
@Kamolika-- I'm not sure I follow. The Neighborhood Voice map gives neighbors on both sides of Wisconsin an equal voice on the matters affecting that commercial corridor. There are innumerable places on any map where two ANCs will have a shared interest.
@ Bar etc. I don’t think that many of you understand basic voting at ANCs. If folks who live 10 blocks from a corridor have an equal vote as those who live on the corridor, this means the folks on the corridor have their vote diluted. If there is to be a development on an Avenue where those who live far away want a lot of parking, but those who live there do not, this enables the car centric to blunt those desires.
It's important to point out that the so-called "Neighborhood Voice" map is not a serious proposal because it doesn't conform with the requirements. Over ten of the SMD's in it are non-compliant.
Historically, CPCA has operated as, in effect, a homeowners association for single-family homeowners between the avenues. And, the most recent term notwithstanding, ANC 3C has, in the past, been perceived as more or less an extension of CPCA
+1 Steven. That's a really helpful explanation
@ Steven Seeling, it sounds like you're not talking about dilution but rather whether everyone who has an interest in a neighborhood element should have a say. Direct neighbors can have more of a voice in some processes than others who live farther away for some topics. But what happens on a major corridor matters to folks all over the neighborhood. Why should the folks who live on the corridor have a greater say?
So to clarify the amended map - the northern boundary of that portion of AU Park is now Brandywine, NOT 48th Street/ Western Ave - is that correct?
First, 5 blocks was just randomly tossed out, I meant the whole neighborhood. Second, those people that want parking because 1) they frequently go to the commercial area, and 2) some of them are too far to walk, they too should have a voice. It also isn't fair to dilute their voice, which is what you are advocating.
Barr - do you know what percentage of CPCA members are renters? Genuinely curious
@Kamolika - good question to Barr
We don't track that data. Probably should, I guess. Several of our Board members are.
@ Kamolika Das, Regarding CPCA, our basic mission calls for promoting and protecting diversity and vitality, and that isn't a new concept for us. In any case, the issue here isn't the merits of nonprofit groups but ability residents to be heard by an ANC representing their neighborhood. Hope that helps.
Secret: go to File/Open/Shared Plans in https://dcredistricting.esriemcs.com/redistricting/. Open the 150+ maps in the Shared Pans/Everyone folder. Pick a map at random and run the "Check Integrity" validation tool. See the errors present in many maps where people just gave up. It is not easy to make a map compliant with the districting requirements, by the changes required by increase and population shift. This is not to suggest any objection isn't valid. It is just to ask participants to consider they may be just as likely to be jousting with Descartes, Mobius, and da Vinci rather than ANC volunteers born hundreds of years later. Cheers, John
@ Barr Weiner We disagree completely. Single family, wealthy folks, do not get to tell people what to do in all cases. Perhaps historically they have. But those times need to end. Single family homeowners do not hav ether right to decide they can drive wherever they want, over the desires of those who live there. I am sure you would agree that Maryland drivers should not have a say of matters in the District. This is just like that. I am saddened that you said the quiet part our loud, but we all knew this was your position.
@ Janelle Pagat, we don't have those data handy, but know members include residents who live in apartments, including members of our board. But again, the issue here is not CPCA but ANC 3C and keeping neighborhoods intact as they are supposed to be in the redistricting process
The point is that McLean Gardens is a neighborhood.
Bob, this is, again, Lisa Mize. Speaking, again, as a resident and not President of the Board. Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Adam Hoyt is our ANC Rep. Can you discuss ideas for McLean Gardens with him?
Thank you Bob and Jimmy for presenting that section
@ Steven Seelig, I'm signing off, you're twisting my words. I completely disagree with your characterization of what I said.
I'd still really like to know that percentage, Barr. Whenever you get to it.
So Maryland drivers shouldn't have say, and single-family homeowners shouldn't either, in your view. Talk about a quiet part being said out loud. I see now what the ultimate game plan is in all this.
Please explain the reasons why 3G must balance with 4G, which is the reason some of 3E was taken by 3G. I don’t think people understand your reasoning Jerry
Barr hang in there. Thank you for being a thoughtful advocate for the community. Your levelheadedness is admirable.
@Michelle. Not every single family homeowner, just those that live far from the corridor.
Michele - no one is saying that SFH owners should not have say. The fact is that they basically guide ALL decision-making. As the saying goes, when you're used to privilege, equality feels like oppression
@Kamolika, that just isn't a fact-based statement -- at least not as far as 3C is concerned.
No one lives very far from a commercial corridor in this city. Kamolika, I completely disagree with your view that SFH owners guide all decision-making.
“Not a perfect solution” is an understatement. Currently the contiguous 3400-3600 blocks of Newark St between 34th and Wisconsin are represented in a single SMD in ANC 3C. This plan not only moves these blocks to a new ANC, it divides this short stretch of street among three different SMDs.
Why not continue to use Reno Road, as it been used all throughout the corridor. Only in the 3G cutout does this not hold
@barr & @mike - it would be helpful to all I think to get the membership numbers of the organizations that presented the map you put forward. Thank you for your work on this!
I have to sign off as well. Good luck to this incredible taskforce and thank you to CM Cheh's staff. I genuinely don't think people understand how much work goes into this and how difficult it is to create ANC and SMD boundaries that adhere to the set rules.
Kamolika - thank you for your work and service !!!
@Janell, CPCA doesn't track its membership by housing type. Doesn't matter to us. Anyone who lives within the boundary is welcome. Can't speak for other orgs.
Thank you Kamolika!
@mike - I was curious about membership numbers regardless of housing type.
Bob thanks for your responsive changes.