Cheh's Ward 3 ANC Gerrymandering

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some guy on the Palisades listserv -- Gordon Kit -- blasted the neighborhood that placing an SMD boundary on his street would "destroy the community." These people are a travesty to live beside.

That dude is such a d-bag. He’s been fighting sidewalks and pushing “neighbors-only” use of the public street. He is trying to privatize his public road.

No surprise it’s the same Gordon Kit.

Looks like he ran for ANC Commissioner some years ago in support of smart growth.

[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.

Actually, not many at all. But there are plenty of developers buying homes there to live in, or to say they plan to live in to keep neighbors off their back but really to flip

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lots of people pass through and use historic Cleveland Park each day. Macomb Park and Hearst parks are used every day by people who live all over the DMV. Hearst and John Eaton schools attract students from all over the District. Same with the places of worship, the other schools. There are many apartments and townhouses and a shelter in CP. It’s not all single family homes. The diversity of housing stock is one if the things that makes it interesting.

[Anonymous]

And yet, the people who live in the SFH's are demanding they have more sway over the ANCs and demand that everyone conform to their suburban lifestyles and have for the past 40 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And yet, the people who live in the SFH's are demanding they have more sway over the ANCs and demand that everyone conform to their suburban lifestyles and have for the past 40 years.

? I haven’t heard any SFH owners that are upset that only 1 of the 9 ANC Commissioners in Cleveland Park lives in a SFH. But I have heard apartment dwellers complain that apartment dwellers didn’t have representation.

[Anonymous]

They didn't until the last few years. And now, you see the Cleveland Parkers flexing their entitled muscles to try to maintain the status quo.

[Anonymous]

You might win more of them over if you stopped calling the SFH owners in historic Cleveland Park entitled racists. Sounds like you don’t actually know many of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You might win more of them over if you stopped calling the SFH owners in historic Cleveland Park entitled racists. Sounds like you don’t actually know many of them.

Not sure who this is directed to. I don't see anyone calling them racists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You might win more of them over if you stopped calling the SFH owners in historic Cleveland Park entitled racists. Sounds like you don’t actually know many of them.

Not sure who this is directed to. I don't see anyone calling them racists.

Reread this thread. Attend some CP ANC meetings and CP smart growth talks

[Anonymous]

I have never heard anyone call CP residents "entitled racists"

Plesae link an ANC meeting or CP Smart Growth discussion where this term was used to describe current residents.

[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.

Oh, you mean like the dude who squealed that moving the SMD dividing line to his street would "destroy the community?"

[Anonymous]

I support CP staying just like it is--nice tree canopy, beautiful dwellings. I don't live there, but love strolling through and appreciate the friendly waves and how nicely maintained it is. If thats NIMBYism, let there be mroe!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And yet, the people who live in the SFH's are demanding they have more sway over the ANCs and demand that everyone conform to their suburban lifestyles and have for the past 40 years.

I call BS. What support do you have for your statement? Neighborhoods that have been pushing back against the Smart Growth/Task Force gerrymandering have opposed breaking up their neighborhoods and excluding their voices from the ANCs that focus on issues on their neighborhoods. No one is demanding "more sway." But they don't want effectively to be gerrymandered out of their neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You might win more of them over if you stopped calling the SFH owners in historic Cleveland Park entitled racists. Sounds like you don’t actually know many of them.

Not sure who this is directed to. I don't see anyone calling them racists.

The chairman of Cleveland Park Smart Growth, who is also the principal force behind the Ward 3 Task Force redistricting plan, has been claiming for some time that Cleveland Park's historic district somehow perpetuates racial exclusion. This is pretty rich, considering that Fabrizio Ward was the top pollster for Donald Trump. And his polling work with Manafort and Kilimnik to help a Putin puppet return to power in Ukraine doesn't exactly say "inclusion" and "equity", either. What is the Russian word for chutzpah?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I support CP staying just like it is--nice tree canopy, beautiful dwellings. I don't live there, but love strolling through and appreciate the friendly waves and how nicely maintained it is. If thats NIMBYism, let there be mroe!

And nothing you describe has anything to do with ANC boundaries.