Cheh's Ward 3 ANC Gerrymandering

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the text of the amendment:

"This amendment to the Chairman’s ANS simply replaces the Chairman’s language amending the
Ward 3 section of the redistricting bill with the original compromise devised by the
Subcommittee, the Ward 3 Councilmember, and the Ward 3 Redistricting Task Force. It also
addresses one small issue that all groups, including the Chairman, the Task Force, and the
Subcommittee, view as appropriate: incorporating the small Woodland-Normanstone
neighborhood into one SMD. It supports the wishes of the larger Ward 3 community."

It’s disingenuous for Mary Cheh to state that it supports the wishes of the larger Ward 3 community when public comments from the community (whether in the task force record, the Council record, public meetings convened by the Council) have been overwhelmingly against the task force map and the division of established neighborhoods in particular. It is telling that Cheh did not even bother to attend the first Council redistricting hearing and didn’t show up for any of the several public meetings that Mendelson, Bonds, and Silverman convened in Cheh’s own ward.

It will be interesting to see what becomes of the community backlash. There is a strong possibility that this power grab ends up backfiring if the rest is that CP SF homeowners get more engaged.

LOL. No there isn’t. The people who care about ANC boundaries are already engaged. Everyone else will go about their business and never even know who their ANC rep is.

People are pretty aware of who Pagats, Siddiqui, Fink, Finley, etc are. It is doubtful that they will win re-election to an ANC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the text of the amendment:

"This amendment to the Chairman’s ANS simply replaces the Chairman’s language amending the
Ward 3 section of the redistricting bill with the original compromise devised by the
Subcommittee, the Ward 3 Councilmember, and the Ward 3 Redistricting Task Force. It also
addresses one small issue that all groups, including the Chairman, the Task Force, and the
Subcommittee, view as appropriate: incorporating the small Woodland-Normanstone
neighborhood into one SMD. It supports the wishes of the larger Ward 3 community."

It’s disingenuous for Mary Cheh to state that it supports the wishes of the larger Ward 3 community when public comments from the community (whether in the task force record, the Council record, public meetings convened by the Council) have been overwhelmingly against the task force map and the division of established neighborhoods in particular. It is telling that Cheh did not even bother to attend the first Council redistricting hearing and didn’t show up for any of the several public meetings that Mendelson, Bonds, and Silverman convened in Cheh’s own ward.

This is false. The comments from SOME people in Cleveland Park were ovehwelmingly against, but most of the comments supported the corridor focus and the creation of a new Commission.

Where is your evidence of this? This is flat “disinformatsiya.” The facts are the facts. Written comments in the public record were 6 to 1 against the split of Cleveland Park and in favor of keeping neighborhoods together. Comments overall against the talk force map were even higher, including the crazy carve out of AU from the ANC representing the adjacent neighborhoods. Comment cards and statements at the Council meetings in the ward (one had 200 people) were overwhelmingly against the task force map. According to council staff, the Ward 3 map generated more opposition than any other ANC redistricting issue in the city.

Get over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the text of the amendment:

"This amendment to the Chairman’s ANS simply replaces the Chairman’s language amending the
Ward 3 section of the redistricting bill with the original compromise devised by the
Subcommittee, the Ward 3 Councilmember, and the Ward 3 Redistricting Task Force. It also
addresses one small issue that all groups, including the Chairman, the Task Force, and the
Subcommittee, view as appropriate: incorporating the small Woodland-Normanstone
neighborhood into one SMD. It supports the wishes of the larger Ward 3 community."

It’s disingenuous for Mary Cheh to state that it supports the wishes of the larger Ward 3 community when public comments from the community (whether in the task force record, the Council record, public meetings convened by the Council) have been overwhelmingly against the task force map and the division of established neighborhoods in particular. It is telling that Cheh did not even bother to attend the first Council redistricting hearing and didn’t show up for any of the several public meetings that Mendelson, Bonds, and Silverman convened in Cheh’s own ward.

This is false. The comments from SOME people in Cleveland Park were ovehwelmingly against, but most of the comments supported the corridor focus and the creation of a new Commission.

Where is your evidence of this? This is flat “disinformatsiya.” The facts are the facts. Written comments in the public record were 6 to 1 against the split of Cleveland Park and in favor of keeping neighborhoods together. Comments overall against the talk force map were even higher, including the crazy carve out of AU from the ANC representing the adjacent neighborhoods. Comment cards and statements at the Council meetings in the ward (one had 200 people) were overwhelmingly against the task force map. According to council staff, the Ward 3 map generated more opposition than any other ANC redistricting issue in the city.

Get over it.

It’s not easy to get over when a vested interest hijacks participatory democracy. Eh, Tovarischch?

[Anonymous]

The only attempted hijacking was by Mendelson and the Cleveland Park NIMBYs.

[Anonymous]

When Cheh hands over the redistricting pen to an experienced GOP political operative with his own agenda and who worked for Trump and Manafort, don’t expect an exactly democratic process or result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the text of the amendment:

"This amendment to the Chairman’s ANS simply replaces the Chairman’s language amending the
Ward 3 section of the redistricting bill with the original compromise devised by the
Subcommittee, the Ward 3 Councilmember, and the Ward 3 Redistricting Task Force. It also
addresses one small issue that all groups, including the Chairman, the Task Force, and the
Subcommittee, view as appropriate: incorporating the small Woodland-Normanstone
neighborhood into one SMD. It supports the wishes of the larger Ward 3 community."

It’s disingenuous for Mary Cheh to state that it supports the wishes of the larger Ward 3 community when public comments from the community (whether in the task force record, the Council record, public meetings convened by the Council) have been overwhelmingly against the task force map and the division of established neighborhoods in particular. It is telling that Cheh did not even bother to attend the first Council redistricting hearing and didn’t show up for any of the several public meetings that Mendelson, Bonds, and Silverman convened in Cheh’s own ward.

It will be interesting to see what becomes of the community backlash. There is a strong possibility that this power grab ends up backfiring if the rest is that CP SF homeowners get more engaged.

LOL. No there isn’t. The people who care about ANC boundaries are already engaged. Everyone else will go about their business and never even know who their ANC rep is.

People are pretty aware of who Pagats, Siddiqui, Fink, Finley, etc are. It is doubtful that they will win re-election to an ANC.

If Fink and Pagats run again, their new districts make them unassailable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the text of the amendment:

"This amendment to the Chairman’s ANS simply replaces the Chairman’s language amending the
Ward 3 section of the redistricting bill with the original compromise devised by the
Subcommittee, the Ward 3 Councilmember, and the Ward 3 Redistricting Task Force. It also
addresses one small issue that all groups, including the Chairman, the Task Force, and the
Subcommittee, view as appropriate: incorporating the small Woodland-Normanstone
neighborhood into one SMD. It supports the wishes of the larger Ward 3 community."

It’s disingenuous for Mary Cheh to state that it supports the wishes of the larger Ward 3 community when public comments from the community (whether in the task force record, the Council record, public meetings convened by the Council) have been overwhelmingly against the task force map and the division of established neighborhoods in particular. It is telling that Cheh did not even bother to attend the first Council redistricting hearing and didn’t show up for any of the several public meetings that Mendelson, Bonds, and Silverman convened in Cheh’s own ward.

It will be interesting to see what becomes of the community backlash. There is a strong possibility that this power grab ends up backfiring if the rest is that CP SF homeowners get more engaged.

LOL. No there isn’t. The people who care about ANC boundaries are already engaged. Everyone else will go about their business and never even know who their ANC rep is.

People are pretty aware of who Pagats, Siddiqui, Fink, Finley, etc are. It is doubtful that they will win re-election to an ANC.

If Fink and Pagats run again, their new districts make them unassailable.

That was clearly the gerrymandering intent of the Smart Growth task force group, because both commissioners otherwise have serious challenges. Pagats seems lacking in the maturity and intellect departments and Fink is a lazy ANC commissioner. He is best known, when he attends meetings at all, for appearing on Zoom meetings only to vote and then promptly leave. The performance of both in the Wardman Marriott property saga was embarrassing to their constituents and damaged the ANC’s reputation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
That was clearly the gerrymandering intent of the Smart Growth task force group

Fink has the densest district in 3C. There really isn't a way to carve it up such that his building isn't the population centerpiece.

Pagats could potentially be vulnerable to a Kennedy-Warren challenger, but that is unlikely to change the outcomes on 3C.

The Mendo map could have made a completely urbanist 3C, especially given the organizing prowess of Cleveland Park Smart Growth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the text of the amendment:

"This amendment to the Chairman’s ANS simply replaces the Chairman’s language amending the
Ward 3 section of the redistricting bill with the original compromise devised by the
Subcommittee, the Ward 3 Councilmember, and the Ward 3 Redistricting Task Force. It also
addresses one small issue that all groups, including the Chairman, the Task Force, and the
Subcommittee, view as appropriate: incorporating the small Woodland-Normanstone
neighborhood into one SMD. It supports the wishes of the larger Ward 3 community."

It’s disingenuous for Mary Cheh to state that it supports the wishes of the larger Ward 3 community when public comments from the community (whether in the task force record, the Council record, public meetings convened by the Council) have been overwhelmingly against the task force map and the division of established neighborhoods in particular. It is telling that Cheh did not even bother to attend the first Council redistricting hearing and didn’t show up for any of the several public meetings that Mendelson, Bonds, and Silverman convened in Cheh’s own ward.

It will be interesting to see what becomes of the community backlash. There is a strong possibility that this power grab ends up backfiring if the rest is that CP SF homeowners get more engaged.

LOL. No there isn’t. The people who care about ANC boundaries are already engaged. Everyone else will go about their business and never even know who their ANC rep is.

People are pretty aware of who Pagats, Siddiqui, Fink, Finley, etc are. It is doubtful that they will win re-election to an ANC.

If Fink and Pagats run again, their new districts make them unassailable.

That was clearly the gerrymandering intent of the Smart Growth task force group, because both commissioners otherwise have serious challenges. Pagats seems lacking in the maturity and intellect departments and Fink is a lazy ANC commissioner. He is best known, when he attends meetings at all, for appearing on Zoom meetings only to vote and then promptly leave. The performance of both in the Wardman Marriott property saga was embarrassing to their constituents and damaged the ANC’s reputation.

God forbid that people who live in buildings on corridors be able to vote for other people who live in buildings on corridors.

Have you ever stopped to think about how the ANCs have been tilted to single family property owners for the last 40 years and what impact that might have had on issues in the area?

[Anonymous]

Has Mary Cheh posted the final ANC map that was her amendment? It seems highly irregular to pass an amended map without anyone being able to understand what it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What happened is not "gerrymandering"

The people who love closest to Wisconsin Avenue will now be part of an ANC that is focused on Wisconsin Avenue. That is the opposite of gerrymadering.

It never made sense that an ANC Commissioenr who lives across the street from the Cathedral had oversight of Connecticut Avenue.

The change fixes that to a degree. Now, the people who live closest to each corridor will have a say in what happens on those corridors. This is a good thing.

Yes, but a person who lives directly across 34th Street from John Eaton and sends children there now has no say in what happens at John Eaton (or NCRC or Cleveland Park Club). Ditto for someone on the other side of 34th wrt Macomb Playground (or the Cathedral Schools or the Hearst pool). A neighborhood is more than its commercial boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has Mary Cheh posted the final ANC map that was her amendment? It seems highly irregular to pass an amended map without anyone being able to understand what it is.

Yes, as someone who lives on 34th Street, I'd really like to know which ANC I now belong to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the text of the amendment:

"This amendment to the Chairman’s ANS simply replaces the Chairman’s language amending the
Ward 3 section of the redistricting bill with the original compromise devised by the
Subcommittee, the Ward 3 Councilmember, and the Ward 3 Redistricting Task Force. It also
addresses one small issue that all groups, including the Chairman, the Task Force, and the
Subcommittee, view as appropriate: incorporating the small Woodland-Normanstone
neighborhood into one SMD. It supports the wishes of the larger Ward 3 community."

It’s disingenuous for Mary Cheh to state that it supports the wishes of the larger Ward 3 community when public comments from the community (whether in the task force record, the Council record, public meetings convened by the Council) have been overwhelmingly against the task force map and the division of established neighborhoods in particular. It is telling that Cheh did not even bother to attend the first Council redistricting hearing and didn’t show up for any of the several public meetings that Mendelson, Bonds, and Silverman convened in Cheh’s own ward.

It will be interesting to see what becomes of the community backlash. There is a strong possibility that this power grab ends up backfiring if the rest is that CP SF homeowners get more engaged.

LOL. No there isn’t. The people who care about ANC boundaries are already engaged. Everyone else will go about their business and never even know who their ANC rep is.

People are pretty aware of who Pagats, Siddiqui, Fink, Finley, etc are. It is doubtful that they will win re-election to an ANC.

If Fink and Pagats run again, their new districts make them unassailable.

That was clearly the gerrymandering intent of the Smart Growth task force group, because both commissioners otherwise have serious challenges. Pagats seems lacking in the maturity and intellect departments and Fink is a lazy ANC commissioner. He is best known, when he attends meetings at all, for appearing on Zoom meetings only to vote and then promptly leave. The performance of both in the Wardman Marriott property saga was embarrassing to their constituents and damaged the ANC’s reputation.

God forbid that people who live in buildings on corridors be able to vote for other people who live in buildings on corridors.

Have you ever stopped to think about how the ANCs have been tilted to single family property owners for the last 40 years and what impact that might have had on issues in the area?

How exactly are ANCs tilted to SFH property owners? As has been pointed out, 7 out of 9 ANC 3C commissioners reside in multifamily buildings (including Beau Finley when he is not residing at his SFH in Maryland). One commissioner lives in an auxiliary dwelling unit. Only one commissioner actually lives in a SFH in DC. Surely the Smart Growth spin machine can do better than this? LOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s blatant gerrymandering to cut out the voices- voters and ANC reps - who are interested in more reasonable growth in Cleveland Park. Members of the Task Force have not been shy about sharing their pro-development agendas and undermining historic preservation in Cleveland Park for years. People whose views differ volunteered for the Task Force and were rejected. The folks behind the gerrymandering don’t like the opinions held by many of the voters who live in homes between Wisconsin and Connecticut so their solution is to cut half of them out of having any say about what happens in Cleveland Park below Reno Toad/34th St. It doesn’t seem to bother the Task Force members that citizens being cut out send their kids to the public school on 34th St and will no longer have an ANC rep who has a vote over what happens at the school, or the traffic surrounding the school. (The Task Force member who lives in Cleveland Park sends his kids to private school). The Cleveland Park citizens being cut out rely on the fire station and Metro on Connecticut Ave and frequent the stores and restaurants in Connecticut Ave. The Task Force is severing a long established and cohesive neighborhood for their own selfish political agenda. Sheer stupidity.

And greed. The principal architect of the gerrymandering, Mr Ward, has worked for clients like the Trump campaign, Paul Manafort, JUUL, the ex-President who fled to Russia during the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, etc. His website states that he creates advocacy groups and develops public strategies on behalf of his clients. He formed Cleveland Park Smart Growth (unincorporated and does not disclose its finances) which supports candidates, including himself and one of the other task force members for the ANC and Beau Finley for Council. Shaping electoral districts that are more likely will elect pro-Smart Growth candidates to the ANC (given “great weight” under DC law in planning, zoning and historic preservation decisions) is a huge win for undisclosed development interests in Ward 3.

Wow, talk about deranged. You are just making up a grab bag of stuff to smear someone who has a relatively minor local zoning quibble with you. Are you OK in the head? I can suggest some good people if you need to talk to somebody/get deprogramming help. We are there for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What happened is not "gerrymandering"

The people who love closest to Wisconsin Avenue will now be part of an ANC that is focused on Wisconsin Avenue. That is the opposite of gerrymadering.

It never made sense that an ANC Commissioenr who lives across the street from the Cathedral had oversight of Connecticut Avenue.

The change fixes that to a degree. Now, the people who live closest to each corridor will have a say in what happens on those corridors. This is a good thing.

Yes, but a person who lives directly across 34th Street from John Eaton and sends children there now has no say in what happens at John Eaton (or NCRC or Cleveland Park Club). Ditto for someone on the other side of 34th wrt Macomb Playground (or the Cathedral Schools or the Hearst pool). A neighborhood is more than its commercial boundaries.

If your bad logic holds, then you have no say in anything regarding Hardy Middle School because you don't live in the ANC where Hardy is located, despite Eaton being in its feeder pattern.

3C just passed a resolution about Hardy, even though Hardy isn't in 3C. Was there shock and horror? No there was not. You can have a say on Eaton even if you don't live in the ANC that covers it - just attend the public meeting and/or write the commissioners. Or, get your own commissioner to do that.