Cheh's Ward 3 ANC Gerrymandering
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
As a general rule, single family homes are a net loser for cities and towns, their residents consume more in services than they pay in taxes. That's really what drives the whole "smart growth" movement, municipalities have a vested interest in land being used for its most productive purpose, which leads to higher tax revenues. That's typically commercial or high-density residential. The pattern that repeats over and over is that some suburban town allows a big single family home development, only to find a big hole in their budget when people move into those houses and need schools, fire and police, roads, sewers, trash collection, etc. |
Anonymous
|
The ANCs input is not binding on a by right development - they can't strip a property of what zoning provides. It is unclear what OP is specifically concerned about other than a voice to stop owners from exercising their rights to build on their own property within the current zoning laws.
Development is not inherently bad - holding it up as a power play just runs up development costs and makes it less likely you will get all of the cute shops and one off restaurants you like because by increasing the costs through delay the developer will be more likely to seek high rent/high credit chain tenants. It would be better to seek compromise and be realistic what the neighborhood would like to see included in a project rather than trying to claim increased density on an already urban highly trafficked corridor should be stopped. |
Anonymous
| The power play here is gerrymandering and stacking the task force with people who have one agenda. That’s not compromise. |
Anonymous
| I’m genuinely curious when a PP says that in the smart growth movement, “municipalities have a vested interest in land being used for its most productive purpose, which leads to higher tax revenues. That's typically commercial or high-density residential” how does the environment and environmental protections factor in to it all? Are any trees left standing? Waterways protected? Are the ANC Commissioners who approved the development behind a home in the ravine between Newark and Macomb Street smart growth devotees? |
Anonymous
| Having a retaining wall on a ravine....that actually holds the water on site, rather than running off into Rock Creek, is actually a positive for the environment. |
Anonymous
|
On Monday, February 14, 2022, D.C. Superior Court handed plaintiffs a victory in their fight against gentrification and displacement. The Court ruled that the 18 plaintiffs from across the city had demonstrated sufficient injury and evidence to bring their action against the Mayor's recently enacted DC Comprehensive Plan.
The Mayor's changes to the plan (passed by the Council in May 2021 and signed into law by the Mayor in August 2021) allows approximately 200 million square feet of new land and air rights development in the District, benefitting a select list of landowners and private developers. Plaintiffs living and working in areas of the city directly affected by the Future Land Use Map changes first filed their civil action in May 2021, the same day the City Council took their second vote to approve the Mayor's plan as shepherded through the DC City Council by current Council Chairman, Phil Mendelson. In fact, Mr. Mendelson publicly urged affected residents to sue the city. In denying the city's motion to dismiss the CompPlan lawsuit, the Court rested upon evidence (or lack thereof) that Mayor Bowser's Office of Planning (organized under the Deputy Mayor's Office of Planning and Economic Development [DMPED]) had not done the legally required impact studies associated with the Mayor's proposed changes. The record shows clearly that the city made no meaningful attempt to evaluate the effect of the substantial density changes on vulnerable DC communities and on the city's racial makeup and displacement pressures, on the environment, on capacities of local schools & clinics, and on already maxed-out public transportation systems and utilities. Plaintiffs pointed to the 60,000 Black folks displaced from DC over the past 20-years because of the consistently poor planning as well as recent numbers showing DC's high vacancy rates sitting conservatively at around 15% [2020 census | interactive DC diversity app | Vacancy stats 14.7% (Gtown/Wis Ave; Navy Yard 30+% vacant)] ''Today's ruling is a victory for all communities in the District,'' said Heather Benno, lawyer for plaintiffs. ''DC residents from around the city will not stand by as their communities are taken by developers who prioritize profit over our health, safety and well-being.'' This Superior Court decision follows on from deep concerns about planning and development as shared by current DC Attorney General, Karl Racine, recently on the Kojo Nnamdi show: Racine: ''I think the development arm of this city has acted intentionally with great purpose, and we see the result. The highest level of displacement of anywhere else in the United States of America. Now, the office of attorney general is free, free at last to act independently, and that's what we're going to do. We're going to work as hard as we can for the next 13 months to ensure that zoning laws and other actions actually don't hurt longtime DC residents and vulnerable people. And I look forward to crossing swords with the development arm of the government so that a court can decide what's fair and what's not.'' The Politics Hour, Dec., 17, 2021, at about 41min into the tape >> https://wamu.org/story/21/12/17/the-politics-hour-december-17-2021/ You can find pleadings for the DC Comprehensive Plan lawsuit by exploring the case files for Civil Action No. 2021 01651 at D.C. Superior Court. |
Anonymous
|
Wait, you think DC vulnerable communities are in Ward 3? You think this lawsuit has ANYTHING to do with Ward 3 development?
Did you even read the lawsuit and full decision? |
Anonymous
I’m a DP and I think you’re an idiot. First, everyone knows the Comp Plan is about upzoning Ward 3. Second, if you can read, it doesn’t just mention displacement but also mentions impacts to public infrastructure and services, such as schools and clinics. |
Anonymous
|
The Ward 3 Redictricting Commission approved a map last night that hadn't even been vetted to the public before the vote.
One of the Commission members is running for Council to replace Mary Cheh. If this is what she thinks is good or acceptable governance, she has another thing coming. |
Anonymous
|
The Ward 3 redistricting task force vote that took place this week has been voided, thanks to an outcry from DC residents, because the process was so flawed and lacking in transparency. The task force will vote again next week.
The maps they voted on at the meeting were not public. The task force published no agenda and have no advance warning to the public that a vote would take place. The maps are hosted on the private website of a task force member’s business. The one task force member who disagreed with various redistricting changes said she had not worked on the remapping of ANCs and was not included in that effort and in fact had no idea that the rest of the task force had been actively working on redrawing the maps. What is going on? She seemed to have been intentionally excluded by the other task force members because of her views. They will vote again next week but the result is preordained when you look at the makeup of the task force. Several of the task force members make no secret of their personal agendas and membership in or alignment with groups pushing for development of Connecticut Ave, Wisconsin Ave, and the residential side streets that run between Connecticut and Wisconsin. This redistricting effort will set the stage for their next steps and cut down and cut out the voices in support of more reasonable development. |
Anonymous
Who is organizing these voices? Who can we vote for to represent these voices? You are right, the developers have weaseled their way to actual voting power. They need to be stopped. |
Anonymous
There are zoning laws. Any new construction or renovation of existing buildings have to adhere to those laws. What constitutes reasonable versus unreasonable given the constructs in place? |
Anonymous
The DC Board of Zoning Adjustment is pro-developer. The BZA Chairperson is himself a developer. In its quasi-judicial role the BZA’s interpretation of the zoning laws is pro-development. Zoning laws are not set in stone. They can be amended and are in any event being loosely interpreted and sometimes ignored altogether. |
Anonymous
It doesn't seem like anyone not pro developer is in any position if power anymore. they've essentially "won"? Not because they have a better point of view, but because residents who may be less density driven aren't seeking out those positions, whereas the professional pro development crowd essentially targeted them as part of their development long term planning. What recourse now? |
Anonymous
| Join your neighborhood citizens association, list serve, historical society and similar groups to stay informed. Get to know your ANC Commissioners, attend ANC, task force, BZA, and other similar meetings (they are supposed to be public), engage with ANC Commissioners to judge for yourself if they seem informed, knowledgeable, balanced, helpful. What do they stand for? What are they saying on the listserve, in local press or elsewhere online. Encourage neighbors to get more informed too and if competent to run for ANC positions or for Mary Cheh’s seat or take on citizens association positions or positions in other local groups. Email your local representatives when you support or don’t support measures. Follow Greater Greater Washington and local Smart Growth sites to better understand who is involved and what they are about. |