Petar for Ward 3: Endorsed by the Washington Post (Update)

[Anonymous]

I saw signs that say vote for Petar to make roads better.

Are roads the biggest issue in the ward or the city?

That is strange.

[Anonymous]

I’m still annoyed with Mary cheh over her backing of prop 77. She completely betrayed her ward 3 constituents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is your family from Bulgaria?

Why not? Bugarians have experience with toppling autocratic, out of touch, central-planner comrades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m still annoyed with Mary cheh over her backing of prop 77. She completely betrayed her ward 3 constituents.

Most of the city voters support the initiative and the fact is, she tried to find a middle ground. I am not sure why that is a bad thing.

[Anonymous]

So all the Hearst Park NIMBYs are strongly voting for Petar. So if you want an outdoor pool west of Rock Creek Park, please vote for Cheh.

[Anonymous]

Broadstroaking any concern with a single label is terribly dismissive and divisive.

Anonymous wrote:So all the Hearst Park NIMBYs are strongly voting for Petar. So if you want an outdoor pool west of Rock Creek Park, please vote for Cheh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Broadstroaking any concern with a single label is terribly dismissive and divisive.

Anonymous wrote:So all the Hearst Park NIMBYs are strongly voting for Petar. So if you want an outdoor pool west of Rock Creek Park, please vote for Cheh.

I don't know what the hell you are trying to say but I specifically asked Petar about the pool and he said DC has other fiscal priorities and he would defund the pool. I was very much undecided about who I'd be voting for but his stance on the pool settled it for me.

[Anonymous]

The people who live near Hearst Park have a listserv. It is made quite clear on the listserv that those who have spoken to Petar are convinced that he is opposed to the pool and they should all support him because of this.

If Petar has a different opinion, then he should let people know. He started this thread and made himself accessible, but has ignored this question.

For the rest of the taxpayers in Ward 3 who haven't yet voted, I think it is important to know where this candidate is on this issue.

Cheh has been hearing it for 3 terms that the people of the Ward want an outdoor pool like every other ward and community in the city. She has listened and is trying to deliver.

If the people of North Cleveland Park want to make this an issue, then the person challenging Cheh needs to make a public declaration about it.

For the 50 or so people who live in the area of Idaho and Quebec, there are 20,000 who live just beyond who want a pool and there are another 50,000 in the Ward who also likely support a pool.

So yes, it is important and the public should be aware of it. If Petar wants to defund it, then he should make that abundantly clear.

The idea that there are "needs" and we cannot afford a pool in the Ward is silly. Is school overcrowding an issue? Of course it is, but defunding a pool is not going to solve it. Changing the boundaries will. Does he have the political courage to suggest it?

if not, it is just campaign rhetoric to put another Bowser "yes man" on the Council - and the good people of North Cleveland Park are falling for it.

Face it, why would someone who is part of the Green Team be opposed to the Mayor once in office?

They won't. Given the money that flows from developers and the construction industry to the Mayor, why would a new facility eventually be opposed by Petar?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Cheh has been hearing it for 3 terms that the people of the Ward want an outdoor pool like every other ward and community in the city. She has listened and is trying to deliver.

God I hate that line of reasoning. You'd almost think we have to go through passport control to enter another ward. Ward boundaries are imaginary lines. There are large parts of Ward 3 that are closer to another ward than they are to Hearst.

Should residents everywhere in the city have high-quality, convenient recreational facilities? Absolutely. Do they have to be in the same ward? Absolutely not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Cheh has been hearing it for 3 terms that the people of the Ward want an outdoor pool like every other ward and community in the city. She has listened and is trying to deliver.

God I hate that line of reasoning. You'd almost think we have to go through passport control to enter another ward. Ward boundaries are imaginary lines. There are large parts of Ward 3 that are closer to another ward than they are to Hearst.

Should residents everywhere in the city have high-quality, convenient recreational facilities? Absolutely. Do they have to be in the same ward? Absolutely not.

And yet, look at a map, there are huge swaths of areas west of Rock Creek Park that are not close to Jelleff or Takoma. Hearst will help serve those areas. Or do you not understand that?

See the map here: https://dpr.dc.gov/page/outdoor-pools

See that big huge area in the NW part of the city with no blue dots?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a good solution for the southern part of the Ward, but it doesn't help the Mann/Janney/Murch => Deal => Wilson issue.

Mann feeds to Hardy.

Deal has six feeder schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Cheh has been hearing it for 3 terms that the people of the Ward want an outdoor pool like every other ward and community in the city. She has listened and is trying to deliver.

God I hate that line of reasoning. You'd almost think we have to go through passport control to enter another ward. Ward boundaries are imaginary lines. There are large parts of Ward 3 that are closer to another ward than they are to Hearst.

Should residents everywhere in the city have high-quality, convenient recreational facilities? Absolutely. Do they have to be in the same ward? Absolutely not.

And yet, look at a map, there are huge swaths of areas west of Rock Creek Park that are not close to Jelleff or Takoma. Hearst will help serve those areas. Or do you not understand that?

See the map here: https://dpr.dc.gov/page/outdoor-pools

See that big huge area in the NW part of the city with no blue dots?

Wow, that is a pretty stark picture.

[Anonymous]

So why should the residents of the Ward, which is most of that blank area, be without a service that the rest of the taxpaying residents of the city have?

So for a political candidate to come out against it to curry what amounts to a handful of votes relative to those who have been asking for this, is crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Cheh has been hearing it for 3 terms that the people of the Ward want an outdoor pool like every other ward and community in the city. She has listened and is trying to deliver.

God I hate that line of reasoning. You'd almost think we have to go through passport control to enter another ward. Ward boundaries are imaginary lines. There are large parts of Ward 3 that are closer to another ward than they are to Hearst.

Should residents everywhere in the city have high-quality, convenient recreational facilities? Absolutely. Do they have to be in the same ward? Absolutely not.

And yet, look at a map, there are huge swaths of areas west of Rock Creek Park that are not close to Jelleff or Takoma. Hearst will help serve those areas. Or do you not understand that?

See the map here: https://dpr.dc.gov/page/outdoor-pools

See that big huge area in the NW part of the city with no blue dots?

Just as there are large parts of Ward 3 that are closer to Jelleff, Volta or Upshur than they are to Hearst.

What that map tells me is that it's not at all a Ward 3 issue. There are large parts of Wards 1, 4 and 5 that are equally underserved. There is no pool anywhere in the city north of the Upshur pool. In fact, you can draw a line on that map through the geographic center of DC at 4th and L NW -- splitting the city in half by area -- with 16 pools on one side of the line and six on the other.

Casting the problem as "Ward 3 lacks an outdoor pool" mischaracterizes the problem. It's really that the pools that exist are poorly distributed, with the northern third of the city completely lacking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So why should the residents of the Ward, which is most of that blank area, be without a service that the rest of the taxpaying residents of the city have?

So for a political candidate to come out against it to curry what amounts to a handful of votes relative to those who have been asking for this, is crazy.

You're acting like the residents of the ward who don't live nearby will somehow benefit simply by virtue of being in the same ward. Ward boundaries are imaginary, invisible lines that change every ten years.