Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: the idea of piloting the road reconfiguration, provided it could be done quickly and recognizing it would really only tell us about the impact on cars and not bikes.

It's unclear that the Save Connecticut Ave people have the capacity to understand this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: the idea of piloting the road reconfiguration, provided it could be done quickly and recognizing it would really only tell us about the impact on cars and not bikes.

It's unclear that the Save Connecticut Ave people have the capacity to understand this.

I mean, I think it's pretty clear that they do and that they (and Nick Ide) are just proposing it as a delay tactic. It's no different than all the B's the poor couple who wanted to split a 30,000 SQ ft plot into two in forest hills had to deal with. In fact, if you look at the people who are complaining about both Conn Ave and that split, you'll find a lot of folks in common.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: the idea of piloting the road reconfiguration, provided it could be done quickly and recognizing it would really only tell us about the impact on cars and not bikes.

It's unclear that the Save Connecticut Ave people have the capacity to understand this.

Nobody believes that there will be a 1000% increase in bicycling use. The point would be to get some reliable data on where the traffic displacement goes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: the idea of piloting the road reconfiguration, provided it could be done quickly and recognizing it would really only tell us about the impact on cars and not bikes.

It's unclear that the Save Connecticut Ave people have the capacity to understand this.

Nobody believes that there will be a 1000% increase in bicycling use. The point would be to get some reliable data on where the traffic displacement goes.

The data is reliable, or as reliable as is possible. Why do you think it isn't? Do you think the people posting here and on the neighborhood email groups are lying when they say that they would ride more on Connecticut Ave more if the bike lanes were built?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was a nice update

https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/news/connecticut-avenue-updates-ddot-walkthroughs-few-details-on-future-public-engagement-how-bikes-and-walkers-might-interact

"Piñeiro’s presentation also listed potential locations for DDOT traffic calming reviews on neighborhood streets due to concerns about cut-through traffic. Those include Reno Road at 41st Street, Chevy Chase Parkway, Nevada Avenue, Utah Avenue, Broad Branch Road/Beach Drive, Linnean Avenue and Albemarle Street."

Those are the streets that will bear the brunt of the impact of the displaced traffic and increased congestion.

Not a single location in Cleveland Park? DDOT is dumber than we thought.

Cleveland Park gets hurt but those streets get totally screwed. Reno and Beach will get almost all the displaced traffic and that's how traffic will get there. Ironically their ANCs are among the biggest cheerleaders and their ANCs almost all got an election challenger because of it.

34th St goes right through the heart of Cleveland Park alongside Eaton school. Several other schools are close by. The Bob Ward/Smart Growth majority on the Cleveland Park ANC also fell into line and voted for the Connecticut cluster$&@!. However, one incumbent seems vulnerable because of his cheerleading.

It is insane how many schools are directly in the line of fire. Yet they keep saying that this is about safety, that people were told and that it's wildly popular. Turns out it isn't,they weren't and it's not . What a surprise. Just wait until the solutions get unveiled. It will only get worse.

Macomb and Garfield will also get reamed.

Just keep on making stuff up . .

Please do explain what was made up.

Are schools not on those streets?
Is safety not a claimed reason?
Are people in those areas not upset?
Is the lack of communication from their ANC not one of the main issues?
Are Macomb and Garfield not going to get increased traffic because of this?

I am a DP, but the ANCs put out newsletters, agendas, emails listserv posts, social media posts, etc. If you weren't notified, that isn't their fault.

That really depends on the individual ANC doesn't it? Your experience is different than mine which is different from someone else. You do not know what any ANC did besides your own and even then you do not know if someone a few blocks from you gets the same level of service. So please, stop trying to claim something is true that you have no way of knowing. It is a fact that the main issue of contention in one of those races is the lack of communication from the ANC in question.

Which ANC failed its notice requirements? If you're in Cleveland Park, ANC 3C put out its bike lane resolution for public comment at least a week before its meeting.

No one has said that they didn't fulfill the technical requirements of a legal notice. There is a huge difference between legal notice, which is nothing more than stating on their website that a meeting is occurring, and actually informing people that something so important was happening.

The continued ultra-defensiveness, parsing about legal notice and haranguing reveal a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was a nice update

https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/news/connecticut-avenue-updates-ddot-walkthroughs-few-details-on-future-public-engagement-how-bikes-and-walkers-might-interact

"Piñeiro’s presentation also listed potential locations for DDOT traffic calming reviews on neighborhood streets due to concerns about cut-through traffic. Those include Reno Road at 41st Street, Chevy Chase Parkway, Nevada Avenue, Utah Avenue, Broad Branch Road/Beach Drive, Linnean Avenue and Albemarle Street."

Those are the streets that will bear the brunt of the impact of the displaced traffic and increased congestion.

Not a single location in Cleveland Park? DDOT is dumber than we thought.

Cleveland Park gets hurt but those streets get totally screwed. Reno and Beach will get almost all the displaced traffic and that's how traffic will get there. Ironically their ANCs are among the biggest cheerleaders and their ANCs almost all got an election challenger because of it.

34th St goes right through the heart of Cleveland Park alongside Eaton school. Several other schools are close by. The Bob Ward/Smart Growth majority on the Cleveland Park ANC also fell into line and voted for the Connecticut cluster$&@!. However, one incumbent seems vulnerable because of his cheerleading.

It is insane how many schools are directly in the line of fire. Yet they keep saying that this is about safety, that people were told and that it's wildly popular. Turns out it isn't,they weren't and it's not . What a surprise. Just wait until the solutions get unveiled. It will only get worse.

Macomb and Garfield will also get reamed.

Just keep on making stuff up . .

Please do explain what was made up.

Are schools not on those streets?
Is safety not a claimed reason?
Are people in those areas not upset?
Is the lack of communication from their ANC not one of the main issues?
Are Macomb and Garfield not going to get increased traffic because of this?

I am a DP, but the ANCs put out newsletters, agendas, emails listserv posts, social media posts, etc. If you weren't notified, that isn't their fault.

That really depends on the individual ANC doesn't it? Your experience is different than mine which is different from someone else. You do not know what any ANC did besides your own and even then you do not know if someone a few blocks from you gets the same level of service. So please, stop trying to claim something is true that you have no way of knowing. It is a fact that the main issue of contention in one of those races is the lack of communication from the ANC in question.

Which ANC failed its notice requirements? If you're in Cleveland Park, ANC 3C put out its bike lane resolution for public comment at least a week before its meeting.

No one has said that they didn't fulfill the technical requirements of a legal notice. There is a huge difference between legal notice, which is nothing more than stating on their website that a meeting is occurring, and actually informing people that something so important was happening.

The continued ultra-defensiveness, parsing about legal notice and haranguing reveal a lot.

the posted agendas and resolutions, which is more than what happened in the previous regime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was a nice update

https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/news/connecticut-avenue-updates-ddot-walkthroughs-few-details-on-future-public-engagement-how-bikes-and-walkers-might-interact

"Piñeiro’s presentation also listed potential locations for DDOT traffic calming reviews on neighborhood streets due to concerns about cut-through traffic. Those include Reno Road at 41st Street, Chevy Chase Parkway, Nevada Avenue, Utah Avenue, Broad Branch Road/Beach Drive, Linnean Avenue and Albemarle Street."

Those are the streets that will bear the brunt of the impact of the displaced traffic and increased congestion.

Not a single location in Cleveland Park? DDOT is dumber than we thought.

Cleveland Park gets hurt but those streets get totally screwed. Reno and Beach will get almost all the displaced traffic and that's how traffic will get there. Ironically their ANCs are among the biggest cheerleaders and their ANCs almost all got an election challenger because of it.

34th St goes right through the heart of Cleveland Park alongside Eaton school. Several other schools are close by. The Bob Ward/Smart Growth majority on the Cleveland Park ANC also fell into line and voted for the Connecticut cluster$&@!. However, one incumbent seems vulnerable because of his cheerleading.

It is insane how many schools are directly in the line of fire. Yet they keep saying that this is about safety, that people were told and that it's wildly popular. Turns out it isn't,they weren't and it's not . What a surprise. Just wait until the solutions get unveiled. It will only get worse.

Macomb and Garfield will also get reamed.

Just keep on making stuff up . .

Please do explain what was made up.

Are schools not on those streets?
Is safety not a claimed reason?
Are people in those areas not upset?
Is the lack of communication from their ANC not one of the main issues?
Are Macomb and Garfield not going to get increased traffic because of this?

I am a DP, but the ANCs put out newsletters, agendas, emails listserv posts, social media posts, etc. If you weren't notified, that isn't their fault.

That really depends on the individual ANC doesn't it? Your experience is different than mine which is different from someone else. You do not know what any ANC did besides your own and even then you do not know if someone a few blocks from you gets the same level of service. So please, stop trying to claim something is true that you have no way of knowing. It is a fact that the main issue of contention in one of those races is the lack of communication from the ANC in question.

Which ANC failed its notice requirements? If you're in Cleveland Park, ANC 3C put out its bike lane resolution for public comment at least a week before its meeting.

No one has said that they didn't fulfill the technical requirements of a legal notice. There is a huge difference between legal notice, which is nothing more than stating on their website that a meeting is occurring, and actually informing people that something so important was happening.

The continued ultra-defensiveness, parsing about legal notice and haranguing reveal a lot.

So you are admitting you received notice with links to agendas and resolutions and chose to ignore them? But are complaining about it now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: the idea of piloting the road reconfiguration, provided it could be done quickly and recognizing it would really only tell us about the impact on cars and not bikes.

It's unclear that the Save Connecticut Ave people have the capacity to understand this.

I mean, I think it's pretty clear that they do and that they (and Nick Ide) are just proposing it as a delay tactic. It's no different than all the B's the poor couple who wanted to split a 30,000 SQ ft plot into two in forest hills had to deal with. In fact, if you look at the people who are complaining about both Conn Ave and that split, you'll find a lot of folks in common.

I was thinking about something else in common: in Cleveland Park there is a huge overlap between the loudest proponents of constraining Connecticut Avenue, the Smart Growth lobby, and those who relentlessly pushed the ANC gerrymandering plan to split the neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: the idea of piloting the road reconfiguration, provided it could be done quickly and recognizing it would really only tell us about the impact on cars and not bikes.

It's unclear that the Save Connecticut Ave people have the capacity to understand this.

I mean, I think it's pretty clear that they do and that they (and Nick Ide) are just proposing it as a delay tactic. It's no different than all the B's the poor couple who wanted to split a 30,000 SQ ft plot into two in forest hills had to deal with. In fact, if you look at the people who are complaining about both Conn Ave and that split, you'll find a lot of folks in common.

I was thinking about something else in common: in Cleveland Park there is a huge overlap between the loudest proponents of constraining Connecticut Avenue, the Smart Growth lobby, and those who relentlessly pushed the ANC gerrymandering plan to split the neighborhood.

You mean "those who followed Council's redistricting directions to the letter and worked to undo prior gerrymandering." You can call it a gerrymander if you want, but doing so is sour grapes. It was completely legal redistricting that did not split census blocks, as required by law. The alternative maps your side presented didn't even take into account what would happen to the rest of Ward 3 if your preferred Cleveland Park gerrymander had been adopted. It wasn't until the third or fourth iteration, after oddly getting specific help from the Office of Planning, that you all could even get a map together that got the population numbers right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was a nice update

https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/news/connecticut-avenue-updates-ddot-walkthroughs-few-details-on-future-public-engagement-how-bikes-and-walkers-might-interact

"Piñeiro’s presentation also listed potential locations for DDOT traffic calming reviews on neighborhood streets due to concerns about cut-through traffic. Those include Reno Road at 41st Street, Chevy Chase Parkway, Nevada Avenue, Utah Avenue, Broad Branch Road/Beach Drive, Linnean Avenue and Albemarle Street."

Those are the streets that will bear the brunt of the impact of the displaced traffic and increased congestion.

Not a single location in Cleveland Park? DDOT is dumber than we thought.

Cleveland Park gets hurt but those streets get totally screwed. Reno and Beach will get almost all the displaced traffic and that's how traffic will get there. Ironically their ANCs are among the biggest cheerleaders and their ANCs almost all got an election challenger because of it.

34th St goes right through the heart of Cleveland Park alongside Eaton school. Several other schools are close by. The Bob Ward/Smart Growth majority on the Cleveland Park ANC also fell into line and voted for the Connecticut cluster$&@!. However, one incumbent seems vulnerable because of his cheerleading.

It is insane how many schools are directly in the line of fire. Yet they keep saying that this is about safety, that people were told and that it's wildly popular. Turns out it isn't,they weren't and it's not . What a surprise. Just wait until the solutions get unveiled. It will only get worse.

Macomb and Garfield will also get reamed.

Just keep on making stuff up . .

Please do explain what was made up.

Are schools not on those streets?
Is safety not a claimed reason?
Are people in those areas not upset?
Is the lack of communication from their ANC not one of the main issues?
Are Macomb and Garfield not going to get increased traffic because of this?

I am a DP, but the ANCs put out newsletters, agendas, emails listserv posts, social media posts, etc. If you weren't notified, that isn't their fault.

That really depends on the individual ANC doesn't it? Your experience is different than mine which is different from someone else. You do not know what any ANC did besides your own and even then you do not know if someone a few blocks from you gets the same level of service. So please, stop trying to claim something is true that you have no way of knowing. It is a fact that the main issue of contention in one of those races is the lack of communication from the ANC in question.

Which ANC failed its notice requirements? If you're in Cleveland Park, ANC 3C put out its bike lane resolution for public comment at least a week before its meeting.

No one has said that they didn't fulfill the technical requirements of a legal notice. There is a huge difference between legal notice, which is nothing more than stating on their website that a meeting is occurring, and actually informing people that something so important was happening.

The continued ultra-defensiveness, parsing about legal notice and haranguing reveal a lot.

the posted agendas and resolutions, which is more than what happened in the previous regime.

This iteration of 3C has had its bumps, but has been far more engaging with a wider swath of the neighborhood, significantly more transparent, and actually willing to listen to people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: the idea of piloting the road reconfiguration, provided it could be done quickly and recognizing it would really only tell us about the impact on cars and not bikes.

It's unclear that the Save Connecticut Ave people have the capacity to understand this.

I mean, I think it's pretty clear that they do and that they (and Nick Ide) are just proposing it as a delay tactic. It's no different than all the B's the poor couple who wanted to split a 30,000 SQ ft plot into two in forest hills had to deal with. In fact, if you look at the people who are complaining about both Conn Ave and that split, you'll find a lot of folks in common.

I was thinking about something else in common: in Cleveland Park there is a huge overlap between the loudest proponents of constraining Connecticut Avenue, the Smart Growth lobby, and those who relentlessly pushed the ANC gerrymandering plan to split the neighborhood.

You mean "those who followed Council's redistricting directions to the letter and worked to undo prior gerrymandering." You can call it a gerrymander if you want, but doing so is sour grapes. It was completely legal redistricting that did not split census blocks, as required by law. The alternative maps your side presented didn't even take into account what would happen to the rest of Ward 3 if your preferred Cleveland Park gerrymander had been adopted. It wasn't until the third or fourth iteration, after oddly getting specific help from the Office of Planning, that you all could even get a map together that got the population numbers right.

My side’s maps? Most folks in CP are aware of how the same small group got themselves appointed to write the rules and rig the game, all in the name of electing an ANC that would happily comply with their agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: the idea of piloting the road reconfiguration, provided it could be done quickly and recognizing it would really only tell us about the impact on cars and not bikes.

It's unclear that the Save Connecticut Ave people have the capacity to understand this.

I mean, I think it's pretty clear that they do and that they (and Nick Ide) are just proposing it as a delay tactic. It's no different than all the B's the poor couple who wanted to split a 30,000 SQ ft plot into two in forest hills had to deal with. In fact, if you look at the people who are complaining about both Conn Ave and that split, you'll find a lot of folks in common.

I was thinking about something else in common: in Cleveland Park there is a huge overlap between the loudest proponents of constraining Connecticut Avenue, the Smart Growth lobby, and those who relentlessly pushed the ANC gerrymandering plan to split the neighborhood.

You mean "those who followed Council's redistricting directions to the letter and worked to undo prior gerrymandering." You can call it a gerrymander if you want, but doing so is sour grapes. It was completely legal redistricting that did not split census blocks, as required by law. The alternative maps your side presented didn't even take into account what would happen to the rest of Ward 3 if your preferred Cleveland Park gerrymander had been adopted. It wasn't until the third or fourth iteration, after oddly getting specific help from the Office of Planning, that you all could even get a map together that got the population numbers right.

My side’s maps? Most folks in CP are aware of how the same small group got themselves appointed to write the rules and rig the game, all in the name of electing an ANC that would happily comply with their agenda.

Your side's maps - I say "your side" because you are labeling the perfectly legal and appropriate redistricting as "gerrymandering." Your side developed maps with help from OP that neglected all of Ward 3 outside of Cleveland Park. Then, when called on it, your side had to go full grievance merchants to find a handful of people in other ANCs that would support your side's maps that were purposefully drawn to maximize SFH voting power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: the idea of piloting the road reconfiguration, provided it could be done quickly and recognizing it would really only tell us about the impact on cars and not bikes.

It's unclear that the Save Connecticut Ave people have the capacity to understand this.

I mean, I think it's pretty clear that they do and that they (and Nick Ide) are just proposing it as a delay tactic. It's no different than all the B's the poor couple who wanted to split a 30,000 SQ ft plot into two in forest hills had to deal with. In fact, if you look at the people who are complaining about both Conn Ave and that split, you'll find a lot of folks in common.

I was thinking about something else in common: in Cleveland Park there is a huge overlap between the loudest proponents of constraining Connecticut Avenue, the Smart Growth lobby, and those who relentlessly pushed the ANC gerrymandering plan to split the neighborhood.

You mean "those who followed Council's redistricting directions to the letter and worked to undo prior gerrymandering." You can call it a gerrymander if you want, but doing so is sour grapes. It was completely legal redistricting that did not split census blocks, as required by law. The alternative maps your side presented didn't even take into account what would happen to the rest of Ward 3 if your preferred Cleveland Park gerrymander had been adopted. It wasn't until the third or fourth iteration, after oddly getting specific help from the Office of Planning, that you all could even get a map together that got the population numbers right.

Gerrymandering is legal. It's not moral or sound governance but it is legal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was a nice update

https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/news/connecticut-avenue-updates-ddot-walkthroughs-few-details-on-future-public-engagement-how-bikes-and-walkers-might-interact

"Piñeiro’s presentation also listed potential locations for DDOT traffic calming reviews on neighborhood streets due to concerns about cut-through traffic. Those include Reno Road at 41st Street, Chevy Chase Parkway, Nevada Avenue, Utah Avenue, Broad Branch Road/Beach Drive, Linnean Avenue and Albemarle Street."

Those are the streets that will bear the brunt of the impact of the displaced traffic and increased congestion.

Not a single location in Cleveland Park? DDOT is dumber than we thought.

Cleveland Park gets hurt but those streets get totally screwed. Reno and Beach will get almost all the displaced traffic and that's how traffic will get there. Ironically their ANCs are among the biggest cheerleaders and their ANCs almost all got an election challenger because of it.

34th St goes right through the heart of Cleveland Park alongside Eaton school. Several other schools are close by. The Bob Ward/Smart Growth majority on the Cleveland Park ANC also fell into line and voted for the Connecticut cluster$&@!. However, one incumbent seems vulnerable because of his cheerleading.

It is insane how many schools are directly in the line of fire. Yet they keep saying that this is about safety, that people were told and that it's wildly popular. Turns out it isn't,they weren't and it's not . What a surprise. Just wait until the solutions get unveiled. It will only get worse.

Macomb and Garfield will also get reamed.

Just keep on making stuff up . .

Please do explain what was made up.

Are schools not on those streets?
Is safety not a claimed reason?
Are people in those areas not upset?
Is the lack of communication from their ANC not one of the main issues?
Are Macomb and Garfield not going to get increased traffic because of this?

I am a DP, but the ANCs put out newsletters, agendas, emails listserv posts, social media posts, etc. If you weren't notified, that isn't their fault.

That really depends on the individual ANC doesn't it? Your experience is different than mine which is different from someone else. You do not know what any ANC did besides your own and even then you do not know if someone a few blocks from you gets the same level of service. So please, stop trying to claim something is true that you have no way of knowing. It is a fact that the main issue of contention in one of those races is the lack of communication from the ANC in question.

Which ANC failed its notice requirements? If you're in Cleveland Park, ANC 3C put out its bike lane resolution for public comment at least a week before its meeting.

No one has said that they didn't fulfill the technical requirements of a legal notice. There is a huge difference between legal notice, which is nothing more than stating on their website that a meeting is occurring, and actually informing people that something so important was happening.

The continued ultra-defensiveness, parsing about legal notice and haranguing reveal a lot.

So you are admitting you received notice with links to agendas and resolutions and chose to ignore them? But are complaining about it now?

Try reading and stop playing games. A classified ad in the City Paper would count as legal notice. That doesn't mean that anybody would see it unless they were specifically looking for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was a nice update

https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/news/connecticut-avenue-updates-ddot-walkthroughs-few-details-on-future-public-engagement-how-bikes-and-walkers-might-interact

"Piñeiro’s presentation also listed potential locations for DDOT traffic calming reviews on neighborhood streets due to concerns about cut-through traffic. Those include Reno Road at 41st Street, Chevy Chase Parkway, Nevada Avenue, Utah Avenue, Broad Branch Road/Beach Drive, Linnean Avenue and Albemarle Street."

Those are the streets that will bear the brunt of the impact of the displaced traffic and increased congestion.

Not a single location in Cleveland Park? DDOT is dumber than we thought.

Cleveland Park gets hurt but those streets get totally screwed. Reno and Beach will get almost all the displaced traffic and that's how traffic will get there. Ironically their ANCs are among the biggest cheerleaders and their ANCs almost all got an election challenger because of it.

34th St goes right through the heart of Cleveland Park alongside Eaton school. Several other schools are close by. The Bob Ward/Smart Growth majority on the Cleveland Park ANC also fell into line and voted for the Connecticut cluster$&@!. However, one incumbent seems vulnerable because of his cheerleading.

It is insane how many schools are directly in the line of fire. Yet they keep saying that this is about safety, that people were told and that it's wildly popular. Turns out it isn't,they weren't and it's not . What a surprise. Just wait until the solutions get unveiled. It will only get worse.

Macomb and Garfield will also get reamed.

Just keep on making stuff up . .

Please do explain what was made up.

Are schools not on those streets?
Is safety not a claimed reason?
Are people in those areas not upset?
Is the lack of communication from their ANC not one of the main issues?
Are Macomb and Garfield not going to get increased traffic because of this?

I am a DP, but the ANCs put out newsletters, agendas, emails listserv posts, social media posts, etc. If you weren't notified, that isn't their fault.

That really depends on the individual ANC doesn't it? Your experience is different than mine which is different from someone else. You do not know what any ANC did besides your own and even then you do not know if someone a few blocks from you gets the same level of service. So please, stop trying to claim something is true that you have no way of knowing. It is a fact that the main issue of contention in one of those races is the lack of communication from the ANC in question.

Which ANC failed its notice requirements? If you're in Cleveland Park, ANC 3C put out its bike lane resolution for public comment at least a week before its meeting.

No one has said that they didn't fulfill the technical requirements of a legal notice. There is a huge difference between legal notice, which is nothing more than stating on their website that a meeting is occurring, and actually informing people that something so important was happening.

The continued ultra-defensiveness, parsing about legal notice and haranguing reveal a lot.

So you are admitting you received notice with links to agendas and resolutions and chose to ignore them? But are complaining about it now?

Try reading and stop playing games. A classified ad in the City Paper would count as legal notice. That doesn't mean that anybody would see it unless they were specifically looking for it.

Try reading the law and stop playing games. A classified ad in the CityPaper would be insufficient on its own for notice.

Source: https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/1-309.11#(c)