Cheh's Ward 3 ANC Gerrymandering

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Historic preservation in DC has its roots in maintaining a status quo that is grounded in racist housing policies. That doesn't mean everyone who supports historic preservation is a racist, but you are taking Mr. Ward's words to an extreme that I don't recall him ever writing or saying.

This is interesting, Can you explain this claim in detail with examples, and then explain how it extends into 2022 when we are able to buy into DC neighborhoods regardless of skin color? thank you.

Learn about housing covenants that covered many of the DC single family home neighborhoods that are currently historic districts, and then take a look at every neighborhood complaint ab out new development where the term "neighborhood character" is cited repeatedly and often.

You said historic preservation has its roots in maintaining racist status quo. I thought it had its roots in ... historic preservation. I know it's a blessing and a curse for the folks who live there (like it's a pita to change a windowsill), but its nice for the rest of us to look at. I'm not sure what's 'racist' about historic preservation, and as someone who appreciates some history being preserved--including architectural and aesthetic--you are kind of alarming me by adding that to the -ism list. Can you explain a little better how historic preservation is racist? TY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CP Smart Growth and Task Force member Bob Ward’s efforts to cast anyone who cares about historic preservation as racist is offensive. There are historic districts throughout this city and people of all races and ethnicities who care about preserving historic architecture. But they beat that drum in their effort to silence liberal residents of historic districts who may get in the way of their development efforts.

But historical zoning is pretty clearly is anti-poor. Especially in DC.

Nationwide, the advent of zoning coincided almost exactly with the striking down of racial covenants by the Supreme Court in 1948. Racial covenants were struck down in DC in 1950 and the first major zoning code was implemented in 1953.

Euclid was in 1926.

So, no.

Until 1917 most places in the US had racial bylaws that explicitly said where people of different races had to live. In 1917, in Buchanan v. Warley the Supreme Court struck down racial bylaws as violating the property rights of landowners. They ruled that discrimination wasn't illegal, but it couldn't be compelled. After Buchanan, for 30 years racial covenants on deeds were the preferred method of keeping neighborhoods single-race. In 1948, in Shelley v. Kraemer the Supreme Court struck down racially restrictive housing covenants as a violation of the 14th Amendment rights of those discriminated against.

In DC, about half of the housing had restrictive covenants in 1948. Three of the justices who heard the case recused themselves because their homes had restrictive covenants.

Yes, there was zoning before then. But it was after Shelley v Kraemer that there was a nationwide push to use zoning to "preserve neighborhood character."

This was 70 years ago. How does it apply to rules about door knobs today? I'm genuinely curious. I'm guessing in CP, as in other neighborhoods, there are houses 'handed down' from then. Based on the number of sales signs I see, I'm also guessing not that many. But if you have stats please share.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CP Smart Growth and Task Force member Bob Ward’s efforts to cast anyone who cares about historic preservation as racist is offensive. There are historic districts throughout this city and people of all races and ethnicities who care about preserving historic architecture. But they beat that drum in their effort to silence liberal residents of historic districts who may get in the way of their development efforts.

But historical zoning is pretty clearly is anti-poor. Especially in DC.

Nationwide, the advent of zoning coincided almost exactly with the striking down of racial covenants by the Supreme Court in 1948. Racial covenants were struck down in DC in 1950 and the first major zoning code was implemented in 1953.

Euclid was in 1926.

So, no.

Until 1917 most places in the US had racial bylaws that explicitly said where people of different races had to live. In 1917, in Buchanan v. Warley the Supreme Court struck down racial bylaws as violating the property rights of landowners. They ruled that discrimination wasn't illegal, but it couldn't be compelled. After Buchanan, for 30 years racial covenants on deeds were the preferred method of keeping neighborhoods single-race. In 1948, in Shelley v. Kraemer the Supreme Court struck down racially restrictive housing covenants as a violation of the 14th Amendment rights of those discriminated against.

In DC, about half of the housing had restrictive covenants in 1948. Three of the justices who heard the case recused themselves because their homes had restrictive covenants.

Yes, there was zoning before then. But it was after Shelley v Kraemer that there was a nationwide push to use zoning to "preserve neighborhood character."

This was 70 years ago. How does it apply to rules about door knobs today? I'm genuinely curious. I'm guessing in CP, as in other neighborhoods, there are houses 'handed down' from then. Based on the number of sales signs I see, I'm also guessing not that many. But if you have stats please share.

Among other things, historic preservation is a barrier to entry and a barrier to new construction, raising the cost of home maintenance for existing owners but, more importantly, greatly increasing the entry cost for prospecting neighbors. And old, dilapidated Sears house must stay a Sears house instead of being replaced by a duplex, for example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CP Smart Growth and Task Force member Bob Ward’s efforts to cast anyone who cares about historic preservation as racist is offensive. There are historic districts throughout this city and people of all races and ethnicities who care about preserving historic architecture. But they beat that drum in their effort to silence liberal residents of historic districts who may get in the way of their development efforts.

But historical zoning is pretty clearly is anti-poor. Especially in DC.

Nationwide, the advent of zoning coincided almost exactly with the striking down of racial covenants by the Supreme Court in 1948. Racial covenants were struck down in DC in 1950 and the first major zoning code was implemented in 1953.

Euclid was in 1926.

So, no.

Until 1917 most places in the US had racial bylaws that explicitly said where people of different races had to live. In 1917, in Buchanan v. Warley the Supreme Court struck down racial bylaws as violating the property rights of landowners. They ruled that discrimination wasn't illegal, but it couldn't be compelled. After Buchanan, for 30 years racial covenants on deeds were the preferred method of keeping neighborhoods single-race. In 1948, in Shelley v. Kraemer the Supreme Court struck down racially restrictive housing covenants as a violation of the 14th Amendment rights of those discriminated against.

In DC, about half of the housing had restrictive covenants in 1948. Three of the justices who heard the case recused themselves because their homes had restrictive covenants.

Yes, there was zoning before then. But it was after Shelley v Kraemer that there was a nationwide push to use zoning to "preserve neighborhood character."

This was 70 years ago. How does it apply to rules about door knobs today? I'm genuinely curious. I'm guessing in CP, as in other neighborhoods, there are houses 'handed down' from then. Based on the number of sales signs I see, I'm also guessing not that many. But if you have stats please share.

Racial segregation didn't end in 1948. DC-based banks refused to lend contrary to covenants because they "didn't want trouble." This went on until the 1990's. Until 1990's title companies would still include racial covenants in their title searches, "for completeness." When I bought my first house in 1997 my bank had just settled a red-lining case with the DOJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Historic preservation in DC has its roots in maintaining a status quo that is grounded in racist housing policies. That doesn't mean everyone who supports historic preservation is a racist, but you are taking Mr. Ward's words to an extreme that I don't recall him ever writing or saying.

This is interesting, Can you explain this claim in detail with examples, and then explain how it extends into 2022 when we are able to buy into DC neighborhoods regardless of skin color? thank you.

Learn about housing covenants that covered many of the DC single family home neighborhoods that are currently historic districts, and then take a look at every neighborhood complaint ab out new development where the term "neighborhood character" is cited repeatedly and often.

You said historic preservation has its roots in maintaining racist status quo. I thought it had its roots in ... historic preservation. I know it's a blessing and a curse for the folks who live there (like it's a pita to change a windowsill), but its nice for the rest of us to look at. I'm not sure what's 'racist' about historic preservation, and as someone who appreciates some history being preserved--including architectural and aesthetic--you are kind of alarming me by adding that to the -ism list. Can you explain a little better how historic preservation is racist? TY.

This has already been explained earlier in the thread. If you wish to remain willingly ignorant, that's on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Historic preservation in DC has its roots in maintaining a status quo that is grounded in racist housing policies. That doesn't mean everyone who supports historic preservation is a racist, but you are taking Mr. Ward's words to an extreme that I don't recall him ever writing or saying.

This is interesting, Can you explain this claim in detail with examples, and then explain how it extends into 2022 when we are able to buy into DC neighborhoods regardless of skin color? thank you.

Learn about housing covenants that covered many of the DC single family home neighborhoods that are currently historic districts, and then take a look at every neighborhood complaint ab out new development where the term "neighborhood character" is cited repeatedly and often.

You said historic preservation has its roots in maintaining racist status quo. I thought it had its roots in ... historic preservation. I know it's a blessing and a curse for the folks who live there (like it's a pita to change a windowsill), but its nice for the rest of us to look at. I'm not sure what's 'racist' about historic preservation, and as someone who appreciates some history being preserved--including architectural and aesthetic--you are kind of alarming me by adding that to the -ism list. Can you explain a little better how historic preservation is racist? TY.

There is a through-line that runs from 19th century racial bylaws to restrictive covenants to redlining to zoning to historic preservation and home-owners associations. The courts would block one type of restriction, and a new one would pop up almost immediately. If you're not a part of the group being kept out it's easy to look at these and say they're innocent, just neighbors banding together to exercise their rights in a democracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CP Smart Growth and Task Force member Bob Ward’s efforts to cast anyone who cares about historic preservation as racist is offensive. There are historic districts throughout this city and people of all races and ethnicities who care about preserving historic architecture. But they beat that drum in their effort to silence liberal residents of historic districts who may get in the way of their development efforts.

But historical zoning is pretty clearly is anti-poor. Especially in DC.

Nationwide, the advent of zoning coincided almost exactly with the striking down of racial covenants by the Supreme Court in 1948. Racial covenants were struck down in DC in 1950 and the first major zoning code was implemented in 1953.

Euclid was in 1926.

So, no.

Until 1917 most places in the US had racial bylaws that explicitly said where people of different races had to live. In 1917, in Buchanan v. Warley the Supreme Court struck down racial bylaws as violating the property rights of landowners. They ruled that discrimination wasn't illegal, but it couldn't be compelled. After Buchanan, for 30 years racial covenants on deeds were the preferred method of keeping neighborhoods single-race. In 1948, in Shelley v. Kraemer the Supreme Court struck down racially restrictive housing covenants as a violation of the 14th Amendment rights of those discriminated against.

In DC, about half of the housing had restrictive covenants in 1948. Three of the justices who heard the case recused themselves because their homes had restrictive covenants.

Yes, there was zoning before then. But it was after Shelley v Kraemer that there was a nationwide push to use zoning to "preserve neighborhood character."

This was 70 years ago. How does it apply to rules about door knobs today? I'm genuinely curious. I'm guessing in CP, as in other neighborhoods, there are houses 'handed down' from then. Based on the number of sales signs I see, I'm also guessing not that many. But if you have stats please share.

Among other things, historic preservation is a barrier to entry and a barrier to new construction, raising the cost of home maintenance for existing owners but, more importantly, greatly increasing the entry cost for prospecting neighbors. And old, dilapidated Sears house must stay a Sears house instead of being replaced by a duplex, for example.

what now? where are these old dilapidated sears homes in the district? most historic zones in the district are not dilapidated as I can see, and have plenty of buyers of all races who are interested in the neighborhood historic feel. This is quite a stretch. There are plenty of nonhistorically zoned areas in the District where you can put up your condos/duplexes. And plenty of neighborhoods where there is a palatable entry cost for prospective neighbors who can do whatever they like to old dilapidated houses in terms of fixer uppers. It seems like what offends you about historic zoning is you can't raze buildings for multi-families whereas in other neighborhoods you can?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CP Smart Growth and Task Force member Bob Ward’s efforts to cast anyone who cares about historic preservation as racist is offensive. There are historic districts throughout this city and people of all races and ethnicities who care about preserving historic architecture. But they beat that drum in their effort to silence liberal residents of historic districts who may get in the way of their development efforts.

But historical zoning is pretty clearly is anti-poor. Especially in DC.

Nationwide, the advent of zoning coincided almost exactly with the striking down of racial covenants by the Supreme Court in 1948. Racial covenants were struck down in DC in 1950 and the first major zoning code was implemented in 1953.

Euclid was in 1926.

So, no.

Until 1917 most places in the US had racial bylaws that explicitly said where people of different races had to live. In 1917, in Buchanan v. Warley the Supreme Court struck down racial bylaws as violating the property rights of landowners. They ruled that discrimination wasn't illegal, but it couldn't be compelled. After Buchanan, for 30 years racial covenants on deeds were the preferred method of keeping neighborhoods single-race. In 1948, in Shelley v. Kraemer the Supreme Court struck down racially restrictive housing covenants as a violation of the 14th Amendment rights of those discriminated against.

In DC, about half of the housing had restrictive covenants in 1948. Three of the justices who heard the case recused themselves because their homes had restrictive covenants.

Yes, there was zoning before then. But it was after Shelley v Kraemer that there was a nationwide push to use zoning to "preserve neighborhood character."

This was 70 years ago. How does it apply to rules about door knobs today? I'm genuinely curious. I'm guessing in CP, as in other neighborhoods, there are houses 'handed down' from then. Based on the number of sales signs I see, I'm also guessing not that many. But if you have stats please share.

Among other things, historic preservation is a barrier to entry and a barrier to new construction, raising the cost of home maintenance for existing owners but, more importantly, greatly increasing the entry cost for prospecting neighbors. And old, dilapidated Sears house must stay a Sears house instead of being replaced by a duplex, for example.

what now? where are these old dilapidated sears homes in the district? most historic zones in the district are not dilapidated as I can see, and have plenty of buyers of all races who are interested in the neighborhood historic feel. This is quite a stretch. There are plenty of nonhistorically zoned areas in the District where you can put up your condos/duplexes. And plenty of neighborhoods where there is a palatable entry cost for prospective neighbors who can do whatever they like to old dilapidated houses in terms of fixer uppers. It seems like what offends you about historic zoning is you can't raze buildings for multi-families whereas in other neighborhoods you can?

Translation: stop complaining. You can live in a stabby-zone with inadequate education options near a metro, or in a non-stabby-zone with solid education far away from a metro. But Cleveland Park -- non-stabby, solid education, on metro -- is closed. Why is a centrally located Metro station in the District the least used of them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CP Smart Growth and Task Force member Bob Ward’s efforts to cast anyone who cares about historic preservation as racist is offensive. There are historic districts throughout this city and people of all races and ethnicities who care about preserving historic architecture. But they beat that drum in their effort to silence liberal residents of historic districts who may get in the way of their development efforts.

But historical zoning is pretty clearly is anti-poor. Especially in DC.

Nationwide, the advent of zoning coincided almost exactly with the striking down of racial covenants by the Supreme Court in 1948. Racial covenants were struck down in DC in 1950 and the first major zoning code was implemented in 1953.

Euclid was in 1926.

So, no.

Until 1917 most places in the US had racial bylaws that explicitly said where people of different races had to live. In 1917, in Buchanan v. Warley the Supreme Court struck down racial bylaws as violating the property rights of landowners. They ruled that discrimination wasn't illegal, but it couldn't be compelled. After Buchanan, for 30 years racial covenants on deeds were the preferred method of keeping neighborhoods single-race. In 1948, in Shelley v. Kraemer the Supreme Court struck down racially restrictive housing covenants as a violation of the 14th Amendment rights of those discriminated against.

In DC, about half of the housing had restrictive covenants in 1948. Three of the justices who heard the case recused themselves because their homes had restrictive covenants.

Yes, there was zoning before then. But it was after Shelley v Kraemer that there was a nationwide push to use zoning to "preserve neighborhood character."

This was 70 years ago. How does it apply to rules about door knobs today? I'm genuinely curious. I'm guessing in CP, as in other neighborhoods, there are houses 'handed down' from then. Based on the number of sales signs I see, I'm also guessing not that many. But if you have stats please share.

Among other things, historic preservation is a barrier to entry and a barrier to new construction, raising the cost of home maintenance for existing owners but, more importantly, greatly increasing the entry cost for prospecting neighbors. And old, dilapidated Sears house must stay a Sears house instead of being replaced by a duplex, for example.

what now? where are these old dilapidated sears homes in the district? most historic zones in the district are not dilapidated as I can see, and have plenty of buyers of all races who are interested in the neighborhood historic feel. This is quite a stretch. There are plenty of nonhistorically zoned areas in the District where you can put up your condos/duplexes. And plenty of neighborhoods where there is a palatable entry cost for prospective neighbors who can do whatever they like to old dilapidated houses in terms of fixer uppers. It seems like what offends you about historic zoning is you can't raze buildings for multi-families whereas in other neighborhoods you can?

Translation: stop complaining. You can live in a stabby-zone with inadequate education options near a metro, or in a non-stabby-zone with solid education far away from a metro. But Cleveland Park -- non-stabby, solid education, on metro -- is closed. Why is a centrally located Metro station in the District the least used of them?

You are genuinely not making sense. There is a plethora of housing on metro and with school availability in the District (which also lotteries for both public and public charter education and provides free public transport if you don't like your local optoon do you even livere here?)As to stabby/non-stabby - CP has had it's share if crime just like the whole city. There are no "non stabby" zones - something the Mayor, Council and DA need to work on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Historic preservation in DC has its roots in maintaining a status quo that is grounded in racist housing policies. That doesn't mean everyone who supports historic preservation is a racist, but you are taking Mr. Ward's words to an extreme that I don't recall him ever writing or saying.

This is interesting, Can you explain this claim in detail with examples, and then explain how it extends into 2022 when we are able to buy into DC neighborhoods regardless of skin color? thank you.

Learn about housing covenants that covered many of the DC single family home neighborhoods that are currently historic districts, and then take a look at every neighborhood complaint ab out new development where the term "neighborhood character" is cited repeatedly and often.

You said historic preservation has its roots in maintaining racist status quo. I thought it had its roots in ... historic preservation. I know it's a blessing and a curse for the folks who live there (like it's a pita to change a windowsill), but its nice for the rest of us to look at. I'm not sure what's 'racist' about historic preservation, and as someone who appreciates some history being preserved--including architectural and aesthetic--you are kind of alarming me by adding that to the -ism list. Can you explain a little better how historic preservation is racist? TY.

I highly recommend "The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America" by Richard Rothstein. He lays out the history. For a white guy it was eye-opening. I'm sure non-whites would just shrug and say, "yep, that's how it works."

https://www.amazon.com/Color-Law-Forgotten-Government-Segregated/dp/1631494538/ref=asc_df_1631494538/

There is a through-line that runs from 19th century racial bylaws to restrictive covenants to redlining to zoning to historic preservation and home-owners associations. The courts would block one type of restriction, and a new one would pop up almost immediately. If you're not a part of the group being kept out it's easy to look at these and say they're innocent, just neighbors banding together to exercise their rights in a democracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Janell Pagats the ANC 3C SMD 03 pro development Commissioner. Like a spoiled toddler. How did she get elected? We need some grown ups in the room.

Attacking someone's character in an anonymous online post vs volunteering your time to serve your community... Have you missed your snack time today?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CP Smart Growth and Task Force member Bob Ward’s efforts to cast anyone who cares about historic preservation as racist is offensive. There are historic districts throughout this city and people of all races and ethnicities who care about preserving historic architecture. But they beat that drum in their effort to silence liberal residents of historic districts who may get in the way of their development efforts.

But historical zoning is pretty clearly is anti-poor. Especially in DC.

Nationwide, the advent of zoning coincided almost exactly with the striking down of racial covenants by the Supreme Court in 1948. Racial covenants were struck down in DC in 1950 and the first major zoning code was implemented in 1953.

Euclid was in 1926.

So, no.

Until 1917 most places in the US had racial bylaws that explicitly said where people of different races had to live. In 1917, in Buchanan v. Warley the Supreme Court struck down racial bylaws as violating the property rights of landowners. They ruled that discrimination wasn't illegal, but it couldn't be compelled. After Buchanan, for 30 years racial covenants on deeds were the preferred method of keeping neighborhoods single-race. In 1948, in Shelley v. Kraemer the Supreme Court struck down racially restrictive housing covenants as a violation of the 14th Amendment rights of those discriminated against.

In DC, about half of the housing had restrictive covenants in 1948. Three of the justices who heard the case recused themselves because their homes had restrictive covenants.

Yes, there was zoning before then. But it was after Shelley v Kraemer that there was a nationwide push to use zoning to "preserve neighborhood character."

This was 70 years ago. How does it apply to rules about door knobs today? I'm genuinely curious. I'm guessing in CP, as in other neighborhoods, there are houses 'handed down' from then. Based on the number of sales signs I see, I'm also guessing not that many. But if you have stats please share.

Among other things, historic preservation is a barrier to entry and a barrier to new construction, raising the cost of home maintenance for existing owners but, more importantly, greatly increasing the entry cost for prospecting neighbors. And old, dilapidated Sears house must stay a Sears house instead of being replaced by a duplex, for example.

what now? where are these old dilapidated sears homes in the district? most historic zones in the district are not dilapidated as I can see, and have plenty of buyers of all races who are interested in the neighborhood historic feel. This is quite a stretch. There are plenty of nonhistorically zoned areas in the District where you can put up your condos/duplexes. And plenty of neighborhoods where there is a palatable entry cost for prospective neighbors who can do whatever they like to old dilapidated houses in terms of fixer uppers. It seems like what offends you about historic zoning is you can't raze buildings for multi-families whereas in other neighborhoods you can?

Translation: stop complaining. You can live in a stabby-zone with inadequate education options near a metro, or in a non-stabby-zone with solid education far away from a metro. But Cleveland Park -- non-stabby, solid education, on metro -- is closed. Why is a centrally located Metro station in the District the least used of them?

The Cleveland park historic district is the size of a quarter. Why are you obsessed with it? Those of us who live near it basically use it as a park, a nice place to walk dogs and kids and admire the pretty houses. You seem to have a huge *-on for historic CP which has negligible impact on people living in stabby or non-stabby areas. Do you not recognize how many duplexes and apartment buildings there are adjacent to this tiny historic district, like all the apartment buildings in Woodley Park and Conn Ave and Wisconsin Ave? But that's not enough for you--you want to knock down a miniscule historic district because metro? Weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CP Smart Growth and Task Force member Bob Ward’s efforts to cast anyone who cares about historic preservation as racist is offensive. There are historic districts throughout this city and people of all races and ethnicities who care about preserving historic architecture. But they beat that drum in their effort to silence liberal residents of historic districts who may get in the way of their development efforts.

But historical zoning is pretty clearly is anti-poor. Especially in DC.

Nationwide, the advent of zoning coincided almost exactly with the striking down of racial covenants by the Supreme Court in 1948. Racial covenants were struck down in DC in 1950 and the first major zoning code was implemented in 1953.

Euclid was in 1926.

So, no.

Until 1917 most places in the US had racial bylaws that explicitly said where people of different races had to live. In 1917, in Buchanan v. Warley the Supreme Court struck down racial bylaws as violating the property rights of landowners. They ruled that discrimination wasn't illegal, but it couldn't be compelled. After Buchanan, for 30 years racial covenants on deeds were the preferred method of keeping neighborhoods single-race. In 1948, in Shelley v. Kraemer the Supreme Court struck down racially restrictive housing covenants as a violation of the 14th Amendment rights of those discriminated against.

In DC, about half of the housing had restrictive covenants in 1948. Three of the justices who heard the case recused themselves because their homes had restrictive covenants.

Yes, there was zoning before then. But it was after Shelley v Kraemer that there was a nationwide push to use zoning to "preserve neighborhood character."

This was 70 years ago. How does it apply to rules about door knobs today? I'm genuinely curious. I'm guessing in CP, as in other neighborhoods, there are houses 'handed down' from then. Based on the number of sales signs I see, I'm also guessing not that many. But if you have stats please share.

There is nothing about historic preservation that regulates door knobs. When you type in extreme hyperbole, your arguments lose credibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CP Smart Growth and Task Force member Bob Ward’s efforts to cast anyone who cares about historic preservation as racist is offensive. There are historic districts throughout this city and people of all races and ethnicities who care about preserving historic architecture. But they beat that drum in their effort to silence liberal residents of historic districts who may get in the way of their development efforts.

But historical zoning is pretty clearly is anti-poor. Especially in DC.

Nationwide, the advent of zoning coincided almost exactly with the striking down of racial covenants by the Supreme Court in 1948. Racial covenants were struck down in DC in 1950 and the first major zoning code was implemented in 1953.

Euclid was in 1926.

So, no.

Until 1917 most places in the US had racial bylaws that explicitly said where people of different races had to live. In 1917, in Buchanan v. Warley the Supreme Court struck down racial bylaws as violating the property rights of landowners. They ruled that discrimination wasn't illegal, but it couldn't be compelled. After Buchanan, for 30 years racial covenants on deeds were the preferred method of keeping neighborhoods single-race. In 1948, in Shelley v. Kraemer the Supreme Court struck down racially restrictive housing covenants as a violation of the 14th Amendment rights of those discriminated against.

In DC, about half of the housing had restrictive covenants in 1948. Three of the justices who heard the case recused themselves because their homes had restrictive covenants.

Yes, there was zoning before then. But it was after Shelley v Kraemer that there was a nationwide push to use zoning to "preserve neighborhood character."

This was 70 years ago. How does it apply to rules about door knobs today? I'm genuinely curious. I'm guessing in CP, as in other neighborhoods, there are houses 'handed down' from then. Based on the number of sales signs I see, I'm also guessing not that many. But if you have stats please share.

There is nothing about historic preservation that regulates door knobs. When you type in extreme hyperbole, your arguments lose credibility.

You are taking a flip example waaay too seriously

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Historic preservation in DC has its roots in maintaining a status quo that is grounded in racist housing policies. That doesn't mean everyone who supports historic preservation is a racist, but you are taking Mr. Ward's words to an extreme that I don't recall him ever writing or saying.

This is interesting, Can you explain this claim in detail with examples, and then explain how it extends into 2022 when we are able to buy into DC neighborhoods regardless of skin color? thank you.

Learn about housing covenants that covered many of the DC single family home neighborhoods that are currently historic districts, and then take a look at every neighborhood complaint ab out new development where the term "neighborhood character" is cited repeatedly and often.

You said historic preservation has its roots in maintaining racist status quo. I thought it had its roots in ... historic preservation. I know it's a blessing and a curse for the folks who live there (like it's a pita to change a windowsill), but its nice for the rest of us to look at. I'm not sure what's 'racist' about historic preservation, and as someone who appreciates some history being preserved--including architectural and aesthetic--you are kind of alarming me by adding that to the -ism list. Can you explain a little better how historic preservation is racist? TY.

I think complaints today about changing “neighborhood character” are about the architecture in that historic houses and buildings are so much more attractive than McMansions and tear down rebuilds.