Chevy Chase Community Center Redevelopment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Really, any major zoning change should require a supermajority of support. Making neighborhood changes with 51% of support in either direction is short sighted.

+1000%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is pretty clear that the survey has way oversampled single family homeowners and as well as those over 60. In other words, this is pretty meaningless given the overall demographics of that area.

This is the demographics of that area...

Let people decide what happens in their backyard. Homeowners should also have a greater say given all the property tax that is collected from their homes..

so when voters vote for ANC Commissioners who want bike lanes almost unanimously up and down CT Ave, you want the city to intervene, but when a crappy survey suggests a very slight majority of respondents, who are but a small fraction of those who live in the area, are opposed to some new affordable housing, we should "let people decide what happens in their backyard"

I sense a touch of hyprocracy. Also, this is city owned land, so the city should decide what happens with it. Yes, the community should have input, but not a trump card.

ANC Commissioners are almost unanimously unopposed. Because no one cares about that office. Even if you call yourself “Commissioner” in your Twitter profile (which is sad and funny).

If no one cares, then no one should care that they passed unanimous resolutions in favor of safety on Connecticut Avenue, and yet, people are fighting the city on this, when a metric that is more meaningful than a poll that a small fraction of residents responded to, is the every-two-year election of neighborhood representatives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is pretty clear that the survey has way oversampled single family homeowners and as well as those over 60. In other words, this is pretty meaningless given the overall demographics of that area.

This is the demographics of that area...

Let people decide what happens in their backyard. Homeowners should also have a greater say given all the property tax that is collected from their homes..

Perhaps keeping a lock on single family only development in the area has contributed to those demographic patterns persisting over the last ... century ... where other parts of the city are far more diverse? Perhaps??

Aren’t there a number of apartment buildings in Chevy Chase DC, particularly Connecticut Ave including from Nebraska north to Maryland? This notion of a “lock on single family development” is a complete red herring.

There are more people who live in those buildings than in the single family homes. Yet, the SFH respondents dwarf the apartment renters in the survey results. Hence why the survey is totally meaningless.

First of all, who is to assume how people may respond to a survey based on their housing situation. Second, why wouldn’t folks on apartments respond?

There was a question in the survey. Maybe open the link in the OP of this thread to look.

And...why wouldn't they respond? They either didn't know or support the project and didn't care to respond. Who knows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Really, any major zoning change should require a supermajority of support. Making neighborhood changes with 51% of support in either direction is short sighted.

Then run for office on that platform.

In the real world, the proper process and law has been followed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really, any major zoning change should require a supermajority of support. Making neighborhood changes with 51% of support in either direction is short sighted.

Then run for office on that platform.

In the real world, the proper process and law has been followed.

Any process that has 49% of the people hating 51% of the people is bad government. But you do you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really, any major zoning change should require a supermajority of support. Making neighborhood changes with 51% of support in either direction is short sighted.

Then run for office on that platform.

In the real world, the proper process and law has been followed.

Any process that has 49% of the people hating 51% of the people is bad government. But you do you.

Not only is it bad policy it's also the exact opposite of what the role of an ANC is.

Also remember that these same people are opposed to any sort of neighborhood referendum on any of these issues. But as long as notices were posted in the classified section of El Tiempo and two telephone polls then it is a ok.

[Anonymous]

Many, many people seem uncomfortable with Bowser turning the Chevy Chase Library and park over to a crony developer in a “public private partnership” — to be vibrantly densified into the “Connecticut Corridor Civic Core.

Blech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is pretty clear that the survey has way oversampled single family homeowners and as well as those over 60. In other words, this is pretty meaningless given the overall demographics of that area.

This is the demographics of that area...

Let people decide what happens in their backyard. Homeowners should also have a greater say given all the property tax that is collected from their homes..

so when voters vote for ANC Commissioners who want bike lanes almost unanimously up and down CT Ave, you want the city to intervene, but when a crappy survey suggests a very slight majority of respondents, who are but a small fraction of those who live in the area, are opposed to some new affordable housing, we should "let people decide what happens in their backyard"

I sense a touch of hyprocracy. Also, this is city owned land, so the city should decide what happens with it. Yes, the community should have input, but not a trump card.

*Not majority, but plurality. There wasn't a majority consensus on that survey.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really, any major zoning change should require a supermajority of support. Making neighborhood changes with 51% of support in either direction is short sighted.

Then run for office on that platform.

In the real world, the proper process and law has been followed.

Any process that has 49% of the people hating 51% of the people is bad government. But you do you.

Not only is it bad policy it's also the exact opposite of what the role of an ANC is.

Also remember that these same people are opposed to any sort of neighborhood referendum on any of these issues. But as long as notices were posted in the classified section of El Tiempo and two telephone polls then it is a ok.

our laws and process are not established or set up for 'rule by referendum' - that is why we have ANCs and Councilmembers.

[Anonymous]

Most ANC races are uncontested, and even in the ones that are most people have absolutely no idea who their ANC rep is, what they do, and what their positions are.

The ANCs should be removed and the Council should be greatly expanded. Wyoming has 93 members in its legislature, Vermont 150, D.C. has 13. And D.C.'s council has the role of both a state legislature and a city council.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really, any major zoning change should require a supermajority of support. Making neighborhood changes with 51% of support in either direction is short sighted.

Then run for office on that platform.

In the real world, the proper process and law has been followed.

Any process that has 49% of the people hating 51% of the people is bad government. But you do you.

Not only is it bad policy it's also the exact opposite of what the role of an ANC is.

Also remember that these same people are opposed to any sort of neighborhood referendum on any of these issues. But as long as notices were posted in the classified section of El Tiempo and two telephone polls then it is a ok.

our laws and process are not established or set up for 'rule by referendum' - that is why we have ANCs and Councilmembers.

That's why we have Councilmembers and referendums. ANCs are not legislative bodies. Their purpose is to help citizens access government services not to make policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really, any major zoning change should require a supermajority of support. Making neighborhood changes with 51% of support in either direction is short sighted.

Then run for office on that platform.

In the real world, the proper process and law has been followed.

Any process that has 49% of the people hating 51% of the people is bad government. But you do you.

Not only is it bad policy it's also the exact opposite of what the role of an ANC is.

Also remember that these same people are opposed to any sort of neighborhood referendum on any of these issues. But as long as notices were posted in the classified section of El Tiempo and two telephone polls then it is a ok.

our laws and process are not established or set up for 'rule by referendum' - that is why we have ANCs and Councilmembers.

That's why we have Councilmembers and referendums. ANCs are not legislative bodies. Their purpose is to help citizens access government services not to make policy.

It's both, actually.

An ANC (Advisory Neighborhood Commission) is a non-partisan, neighborhood body each made up of locally elected representatives called Advisory Neighborhood Commissioners. They are a unique feature of the District's Home Rule Charter.

The Commissioners, who serve two-year terms without pay, are elected in November in even-numbered years (e.g. 2022). The ANCs were established to bring government closer to the people, and to bring the people closer to government.

In addition to providing people with a greater say in the matters that affect their neighborhoods, ANCs were intended to end the duplication of effort caused by the proliferation of special advisory groups.

https://anc.dc.gov/page/about-ancs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really, any major zoning change should require a supermajority of support. Making neighborhood changes with 51% of support in either direction is short sighted.

Then run for office on that platform.

In the real world, the proper process and law has been followed.

Any process that has 49% of the people hating 51% of the people is bad government. But you do you.

Not only is it bad policy it's also the exact opposite of what the role of an ANC is.

Also remember that these same people are opposed to any sort of neighborhood referendum on any of these issues. But as long as notices were posted in the classified section of El Tiempo and two telephone polls then it is a ok.

our laws and process are not established or set up for 'rule by referendum' - that is why we have ANCs and Councilmembers.

That's why we have Councilmembers and referendums. ANCs are not legislative bodies. Their purpose is to help citizens access government services not to make policy.

The purpose of the ANC is to get the leaves picked up on time and street lightbulbs replaced. The actual council didn’t want to deal with neighborhood gadfly’s so the ANCs were created to shield them from the grunt work. The current ANC commissioners somehow think they’ve been elected to the politburo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really, any major zoning change should require a supermajority of support. Making neighborhood changes with 51% of support in either direction is short sighted.

Then run for office on that platform.

In the real world, the proper process and law has been followed.

Any process that has 49% of the people hating 51% of the people is bad government. But you do you.

Not only is it bad policy it's also the exact opposite of what the role of an ANC is.

Also remember that these same people are opposed to any sort of neighborhood referendum on any of these issues. But as long as notices were posted in the classified section of El Tiempo and two telephone polls then it is a ok.

our laws and process are not established or set up for 'rule by referendum' - that is why we have ANCs and Councilmembers.

That's why we have Councilmembers and referendums. ANCs are not legislative bodies. Their purpose is to help citizens access government services not to make policy.

The purpose of the ANC is to get the leaves picked up on time and street lightbulbs replaced. The actual council didn’t want to deal with neighborhood gadfly’s so the ANCs were created to shield them from the grunt work. The current ANC commissioners somehow think they’ve been elected to the politburo.

No, those are DC government services.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really, any major zoning change should require a supermajority of support. Making neighborhood changes with 51% of support in either direction is short sighted.

Then run for office on that platform.

In the real world, the proper process and law has been followed.

Any process that has 49% of the people hating 51% of the people is bad government. But you do you.

Not only is it bad policy it's also the exact opposite of what the role of an ANC is.

Also remember that these same people are opposed to any sort of neighborhood referendum on any of these issues. But as long as notices were posted in the classified section of El Tiempo and two telephone polls then it is a ok.

our laws and process are not established or set up for 'rule by referendum' - that is why we have ANCs and Councilmembers.

That's why we have Councilmembers and referendums. ANCs are not legislative bodies. Their purpose is to help citizens access government services not to make policy.

The purpose of the ANC is to get the leaves picked up on time and street lightbulbs replaced. The actual council didn’t want to deal with neighborhood gadfly’s so the ANCs were created to shield them from the grunt work. The current ANC commissioners somehow think they’ve been elected to the politburo.

Some ANC commissioners act like they’re to the left of most communist politburo members.