Cheh's Ward 3 ANC Gerrymandering

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If everyone has equal standing regardless, why bother to change the boundaries at all?

You may need to write this down somewhere for later reference - the boundaries needed to change because population changed.

Actually the population changed rather little in ANC 3C, particularly in Woodley and Cleveland Park. Population shifts based on the 2020 census easily could have been adjusted before without radical gerrymandering. The task force cited anticipated future population growth at City Ridge and Upton/ Van Ness, but future population growth is not a basis in the stature for redistricting. Only the last census is. Yet another example of how the runaway task force exceeded their authority to substitute their own policy preferences for the statute (and ignored other requirements like keeping cohesive neighborhoods together under a single ANC).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is what I find hilarious, the 'smart growth' people were trying to be civic minded. They knew that the old 3C was simply too big and that the new 2000+ people coming into the middle Wisconsin area would simply overwhelm the system - which they controlled. Now we can quibble at the exact dividing line, but honestly it is absurd to have people on CT ave dealing with stuff on WI ave. Sure the new map isn't perfect, but I'm not sure a perfect map is possible given the goal to make relatively equal sized ANCs. This seems pretty good.

Also I don't think many of the SMD people in the new 3C are at a big risk, they have more friends in their reasonably priced condo buildings than the annoying shouty single family owners in their multi-million dollar homes. Honestly, I'll vote to keep mine around; they are pretty much our only chance of keeping businesses around. They'll never be enough parking for car-oriented development (there simply isn't enough land unless you demolish all the single family homes), so I love the pivot to bikes and walking.

So the task force and Mary Cheh drew a single member district thst is a block wide but 1.5 miles long. So someone who lives, say, southeast of the VP’s residence will have the same commissioner as someone on Rodman Street, when their neighborhood issues and concerns are totally different. That would be like having someone who lives west of AU having a say on what happens at Connecticut and Macomb. Why is it “absurd” to have the Cleveland Park neighbirhood (which extends from Wisconsin across Connecticut Ave) in the same ANC , yet support a final map that has such a nonsensical SMD?

It turns out when you have low density housing and tons of institutional/park land, land gets very very big. Honestly, they could have allocated 75% of that land to any of the nearby SMDs, but census blocks are often weirdly defined. Now compare this to the Mendo map, that had a four 1.5 mile long SMDs (as opposed to one now)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If everyone has equal standing regardless, why bother to change the boundaries at all?

You may need to write this down somewhere for later reference - the boundaries needed to change because population changed.

Actually the population changed rather little in ANC 3C, particularly in Woodley and Cleveland Park. Population shifts based on the 2020 census easily could have been adjusted before without radical gerrymandering. The task force cited anticipated future population growth at City Ridge and Upton/ Van Ness, but future population growth is not a basis in the stature for redistricting. Only the last census is. Yet another example of how the runaway task force exceeded their authority to substitute their own policy preferences for the statute (and ignored other requirements like keeping cohesive neighborhoods together under a single ANC).

What gerrymander? What group is being helped/hurt here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Don’t worry. Cleveland Park Smart Growth and it’s partner Ward 3 Vision (Redistricting Tsar Ward is on the boards of both) will next turn their attention to making 34th Street a commercial, denser mixed-use corridor.

Good. I wish there was at least a corner store nearby. Not sure why people get a veto on what their neighbor does with their own property. If they want to build a few apartments, why shouldn't they? It is their land.

DC Smart Growth “Urbanist” definition =Trumpy Ayn Rand conservatives who spin progressive-sounding language to advance special economic interests.

Wait, so wanting a convenient corner store to grab some milk or a coffee is the the same as being a trumpy rand nutjob? Wow talk about a big jump in logic. No wonder Cheh decided to reject people like you and your wishes.

“Not sure why people get a veto on what their neighbor does with their own property. If they want to build a few apartments, why shouldn't they? It is their land.”

That’s called Ayn Rand Libertarian thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If everyone has equal standing regardless, why bother to change the boundaries at all?

You may need to write this down somewhere for later reference - the boundaries needed to change because population changed.

Actually the population changed rather little in ANC 3C, particularly in Woodley and Cleveland Park. Population shifts based on the 2020 census easily could have been adjusted before without radical gerrymandering. The task force cited anticipated future population growth at City Ridge and Upton/ Van Ness, but future population growth is not a basis in the stature for redistricting. Only the last census is. Yet another example of how the runaway task force exceeded their authority to substitute their own policy preferences for the statute (and ignored other requirements like keeping cohesive neighborhoods together under a single ANC).

Finley's SMD was over the statutory limit of 2000 +/-10% and thus needed to change. Macwood's and Finley's SMDs violated the "don't split census blocks" guidelines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If everyone has equal standing regardless, why bother to change the boundaries at all?

You may need to write this down somewhere for later reference - the boundaries needed to change because population changed.

Actually the population changed rather little in ANC 3C, particularly in Woodley and Cleveland Park. Population shifts based on the 2020 census easily could have been adjusted before without radical gerrymandering. The task force cited anticipated future population growth at City Ridge and Upton/ Van Ness, but future population growth is not a basis in the stature for redistricting. Only the last census is. Yet another example of how the runaway task force exceeded their authority to substitute their own policy preferences for the statute (and ignored other requirements like keeping cohesive neighborhoods together under a single ANC).

Finley's SMD was over the statutory limit of 2000 +/-10% and thus needed to change. Macwood's and Finley's SMDs violated the "don't split census blocks" guidelines.

32 of the existing 39 SMDs were out of compliance with Census population requirements. You cannot look at one individually. Fixing one just makes the others worse unless you do it holistically.

[Anonymous]

The ANC map in place for the last decade places the block of apartment buildings on the west side of Conn. Avenue north of porter st in ANC3F, which is centered on Van Ness. The placement of these people out of Cleveland Park is what allowed the single family houses close to Wisconsin to remain in CP ANC. This was the 2012 gerrymandering that the current effort was addressing. The new map extends CP ANC further north.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If everyone has equal standing regardless, why bother to change the boundaries at all?

You may need to write this down somewhere for later reference - the boundaries needed to change because population changed.

Actually the population changed rather little in ANC 3C, particularly in Woodley and Cleveland Park. Population shifts based on the 2020 census easily could have been adjusted before without radical gerrymandering. The task force cited anticipated future population growth at City Ridge and Upton/ Van Ness, but future population growth is not a basis in the stature for redistricting. Only the last census is. Yet another example of how the runaway task force exceeded their authority to substitute their own policy preferences for the statute (and ignored other requirements like keeping cohesive neighborhoods together under a single ANC).

Finley's SMD was over the statutory limit of 2000 +/-10% and thus needed to change. Macwood's and Finley's SMDs violated the "don't split census blocks" guidelines.

Finley is not a top-tier candidate & looks like a loser in the DC Council race. Could he try to run again for the ANC?

[Anonymous]

I thought my neighbors were crazily invested in the outcome of the Ward 6 redistricting (although my house was not at risk of being redistricted, so I understand that I don't have their perspective... and I might have flipped out if they tried to redistrict me to Trayvon White)... These Ward 3 ANC wars make my neighbors look calm!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So does this mean that residents in the new 3A will a continue to have a “great weight” say through their ANC commissioners in transportation issues or development on Connecticut Avenue?

No. And that is the point. Why should people in Cathedral Heights have a say as to what happens on Connecticut Avenue?

[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.

A line needs to be drawn somewhere. In matters of zoning, anyone within 200 feet of say, John Eaton, would be given status. As such, BOTH ANCs would be at the table.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If everyone has equal standing regardless, why bother to change the boundaries at all?

You may need to write this down somewhere for later reference - the boundaries needed to change because population changed.

Actually the population changed rather little in ANC 3C, particularly in Woodley and Cleveland Park. Population shifts based on the 2020 census easily could have been adjusted before without radical gerrymandering. The task force cited anticipated future population growth at City Ridge and Upton/ Van Ness, but future population growth is not a basis in the stature for redistricting. Only the last census is. Yet another example of how the runaway task force exceeded their authority to substitute their own policy preferences for the statute (and ignored other requirements like keeping cohesive neighborhoods together under a single ANC).

What gerrymander? What group is being helped/hurt here?

One of the leading council candidates has said that the task force’s intent was clear in ANC 3C to “disenfranchise” people who live on blocks that are predominantly SFH. The other leading candidate also came out against the task force map, as did another candidate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not everyone stalks their ANC Commissioners or cares enough to have that much infromation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A line needs to be drawn somewhere. In matters of zoning, anyone within 200 feet of say, John Eaton, would be given status. As such, BOTH ANCs would be at the table.

Nice try. Public schools are not subject to Zoning or BZA review, the way private schools are. John Eaton got renovated in no insubstantial part because of the dogged work by the ANC commissioner for the school, who today represents much of Cleveland Park in a single SMD. As of 2023, even raised crosswalks next to Eaton will require parents and neighbors to work through two ANCs and multiple commissioners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not everyone stalks their ANC Commissioners or cares enough to have that much infromation.

Not stalking, truth checking. Cleveland Park has a lot of educated people who care about keeping the neighborhood together. The ANC lists commissioners’ addresses on the ANC website. You don’t think that lies about people who live in buildings supposedly having no voice at the ANC will go unchallenged, do you? People aren’t that stupid.