Mary Cheh backs Tricia Duncan for Ward 3 Councilmember

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is totally unfair of me, but it's sticking the back of my head. I don't trust the Palisades candidates to represent the Ward as a whole. After all, they chose to live in the Palisades which is not like the rest of the city/ward at all.

They want to live in a house on a large plot of land, away from neighbors, not use public transit, and drive all the time. It's also true about some of the further reaches of NW far away from Connecticut and Wisconsin. Do they understand what the rest of us want? The average ward 3 person lives near one of the main drags in an apartment or small house, possibly attached.

Again, unfair. Why are there so many candidates from the Palisades!

Not unfair at all. For me, the people who chose to live in Palisades chose to live on an island. Minimal public transportation, no public/subisidized housing - totally insulated from the rest of the city. Frankly, I think it takes a lot of hubris to be a Palisades resident, and think "oh hey, I head the Palisades Citizens Association so I am qualified to be a Councilmember: or "Hey I did my job for the city so I deserve to be a Councilmember" - NFW, these people have no tangible relevance to what the rest of us in the Ward or city want with city functions. Zero.

So for me, it is a matter of picking among the most viable of who remains. From there, the choice is easy, even if he isn't my top choice in the race.

This is silly. Tricia has done a lot as PCA President and through previous advocacy to address the issues you are complaining about. If she was a NIMBY, I’d agree with you, but she’s not. Only by progressive people moving into these areas and taking leadership roles can things change. For her efforts, Tricia has endured plenty of abuse from the NIMBYs. If you somehow believe that this makes her less qualified than someone who happens - by virtue of whatever circumstances - to live in a neighborhood where there is less scope to effect progressive change, then I’d encourage you to reevaluate your priorities.

Yes, she is leff qualified. Others in the race have concrete results in these areas. Ben Bergman led on the Tunlaw bike lanes; Beau Finley lead on CT Ave bike lanes and more density in Cleveland Park and Matt Frumin helped with the AU Law School and led on Wilson and Deal renovations as well as the Lisner affordable housing project. These people have TANGIBLE results. Tricia has a community association. Big whoop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that Goulet is an outlier among his fellow candidates. Supporting a football stadium, and being a shill for the Chamber of Commerce is a horrible look.

I will be supporting Frumin, because I think he has the most organic support in the Ward and has the best chance of ensuring that Goulet doesn't win.

Frumin has solid credentials but his campaign has been disappointing to many who know him well and had higher hopes. He didn't lose a lot of time in pandering to the Foxhall NIMBYs by offering to pursue alternatives to Foxhall Elementary that he knows (or at least should know) have been tried and were found to be infeasible. The leader of the Save Hardy Park campaign had a Frumin sign on his yard before he replaced with a Goulet sign following their meet-and-greet last Friday. Then there's this silly stuff with the ice rink. Frumin's trying to be everyone to everybody, which makes it very hard to know what he would do if he was elected.

I actually read Frumin's description of the Foxhall situation, and my sense is that he feels there are alternatives to wasting money on boondoggle facilities and splitting up Glover Park. If the Foxhall people, who all appear to be going to the Goulet camp, feel that is aligned, that is their perrogative, but in talking to him, it is clear Frumin was at that place long before Cheh even pulled out of the race. You can ask others in the Ward 3 education community, many of them oppose this solution.

Saying there are alternatives without naming them is like Nixon's "secret plan" to end the Vietnam War.

In the debate over Foxhall, you have people on one side who say, "there must be a better location." These are people who haven't spent any time looking at alternatives, and many of whom have only the barest notion of how DCPS works or even what a neighborhood public school is. On the other side you have people saying "this location may not be great but it's the best we have." Those tend to be people who have spend years and in some cases decades working on public education issues.

How are you getting 1000 high school students and the 400 staff and faculty, as well as another 500 elementary school kids into and out of a 2 block area that is already over congested with cars, every morning and afternoon, when there is no real public transportation and no other safe passage?

By adding bus routes. Metro runs bus routes specifically for DCPS schools. For example, I'd run a bus route from Farragut North to the school. Google Maps says it's a 6-minute drive over the Whitehurst Freeway. According to Metro it's a 12 minute train ride from Farragut to Tenleytown, so for anyone coming from the east on the Red Line that's a shorter trip than going to Deal or Jackson Reed. Now, it's going to take more than one bus to move that many kids, which is good because it means you can have multiple bus lines. Run another from the Cleveland Park Metro, across Newark to Wisconsin, down Wisconsin to Reservoir and across on Reservoir. Then beef up the D6 on MacArthur.

I'd also fix up the Trolley Trail so that would be an option for kids coming from the east or west.

Georgetown University opposes the trolley trail and NIMBY neighbors oppose it too. Good luck getting those reversed. And the roads are already a mess - adding buses just adds to the mess. It will take a significiant re-work of public road space to create a program that would work for what you are suggesting.

The NIMBY opposition to the schools is much larger than to the trail, so if the schools get built the trail should be a breeze.

I disagree that buses add to the mess. Buses are a way out of the mess, not just for students but for the whole neighborhood. I know there are people in Palisades who are deeply afraid of being more connected to the rest of the city, but I'm not one of them, I think it's a good thing. And new schools would be a way of making it happen.

You are in the very deep minority. Maybe you should have run for Council than Tricia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is totally unfair of me, but it's sticking the back of my head. I don't trust the Palisades candidates to represent the Ward as a whole. After all, they chose to live in the Palisades which is not like the rest of the city/ward at all.

They want to live in a house on a large plot of land, away from neighbors, not use public transit, and drive all the time. It's also true about some of the further reaches of NW far away from Connecticut and Wisconsin. Do they understand what the rest of us want? The average ward 3 person lives near one of the main drags in an apartment or small house, possibly attached.

Again, unfair. Why are there so many candidates from the Palisades!

Not unfair at all. For me, the people who chose to live in Palisades chose to live on an island. Minimal public transportation, no public/subisidized housing - totally insulated from the rest of the city. Frankly, I think it takes a lot of hubris to be a Palisades resident, and think "oh hey, I head the Palisades Citizens Association so I am qualified to be a Councilmember: or "Hey I did my job for the city so I deserve to be a Councilmember" - NFW, these people have no tangible relevance to what the rest of us in the Ward or city want with city functions. Zero.

So for me, it is a matter of picking among the most viable of who remains. From there, the choice is easy, even if he isn't my top choice in the race.

This is silly. Tricia has done a lot as PCA President and through previous advocacy to address the issues you are complaining about. If she was a NIMBY, I’d agree with you, but she’s not. Only by progressive people moving into these areas and taking leadership roles can things change. For her efforts, Tricia has endured plenty of abuse from the NIMBYs. If you somehow believe that this makes her less qualified than someone who happens - by virtue of whatever circumstances - to live in a neighborhood where there is less scope to effect progressive change, then I’d encourage you to reevaluate your priorities.

Yes, she is leff qualified. Others in the race have concrete results in these areas. Ben Bergman led on the Tunlaw bike lanes; Beau Finley lead on CT Ave bike lanes and more density in Cleveland Park and Matt Frumin helped with the AU Law School and led on Wilson and Deal renovations as well as the Lisner affordable housing project. These people have TANGIBLE results. Tricia has a community association. Big whoop.

Ben Bergman did not do anything. He wasn't even on the ANC when the commission debated and voted on the bike lanes. His role is nil on this issue.

[Anonymous]

https://twitter.com/ricebilldc/status/1529081012361232384?s=21&t=WBVfy_5xI8BjHbiREst9mg

Seems like the Palisades NIMBYs are very scared of a Duncan victory due to her unwavering support for building a new school at Hardy Park. Goulet and Frumin have both cratered to pandering to this group during their events and social media posts. I don’t know if what Frumin has told NIMBYs about his apprehension for the new schools is what he actually believes or is just a play to get elected, but Tricia is by far the most pro-building (of both schools and housing) of the leading three candidates in this race. Ward 3 has serious issues with our overcrowding, and she is the only of the three candidates who has refused to yield on the issue of new schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Seems like the Palisades NIMBYs are very scared of a Duncan victory due to her unwavering support for building a new school at Hardy Park. Goulet and Frumin have both cratered to pandering to this group during their events and social media posts. I don’t know if what Frumin has told NIMBYs about his apprehension for the new schools is what he actually believes or is just a play to get elected, but Tricia is by far the most pro-building (of both schools and housing) of the leading three candidates in this race. Ward 3 has serious issues with our overcrowding, and she is the only of the three candidates who has refused to yield on the issue of new schools.

He seems to be pretty clear about his views here. Did you even go to his website?

https://fruminforward3.com/food-for-thought-new-schools/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

https://twitter.com/ricebilldc/status/1529081012361232384?s=21&t=WBVfy_5xI8BjHbiREst9mg

Seems like the Palisades NIMBYs are very scared of a Duncan victory due to her unwavering support for building a new school at Hardy Park. Goulet and Frumin have both cratered to pandering to this group during their events and social media posts. I don’t know if what Frumin has told NIMBYs about his apprehension for the new schools is what he actually believes or is just a play to get elected, but Tricia is by far the most pro-building (of both schools and housing) of the leading three candidates in this race. Ward 3 has serious issues with our overcrowding, and she is the only of the three candidates who has refused to yield on the issue of new schools.

This. Is. Amazing.

"With funding secured, the next challenge came from residents of Foxhall Village on October 7th who decided that the location of the school should be moved back to Reservoir Road, expressing concern that the school’s playground would “attract an undesirable class of children which live[d] near the village but not in it,” resulting in a feared depreciation of real estate values. The Foxhall Village Citizens’ Association supported the residents and went on record October 12th urging that the location of the school be changed."

“Foxhall Village School Opposed.” The Evening Star, October 7, 1932, p. A11.

https://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/op/publication/attachments/Rose%20Hardy%20School%20Nomination_0.pdf, page 11 of a document written by Robert Avery and the FCCA Board.

THESE PEOPLE WANT TO ELECT JIM CROW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

https://twitter.com/ricebilldc/status/1529081012361232384?s=21&t=WBVfy_5xI8BjHbiREst9mg

Seems like the Palisades NIMBYs are very scared of a Duncan victory due to her unwavering support for building a new school at Hardy Park. Goulet and Frumin have both cratered to pandering to this group during their events and social media posts. I don’t know if what Frumin has told NIMBYs about his apprehension for the new schools is what he actually believes or is just a play to get elected, but Tricia is by far the most pro-building (of both schools and housing) of the leading three candidates in this race. Ward 3 has serious issues with our overcrowding, and she is the only of the three candidates who has refused to yield on the issue of new schools.

This. Is. Amazing.

"With funding secured, the next challenge came from residents of Foxhall Village on October 7th who decided that the location of the school should be moved back to Reservoir Road, expressing concern that the school’s playground would “attract an undesirable class of children which live[d] near the village but not in it,” resulting in a feared depreciation of real estate values. The Foxhall Village Citizens’ Association supported the residents and went on record October 12th urging that the location of the school be changed."

“Foxhall Village School Opposed.” The Evening Star, October 7, 1932, p. A11.

https://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/op/publication/attachments/Rose%20Hardy%20School%20Nomination_0.pdf, page 11 of a document written by Robert Avery and the FCCA Board.

THESE PEOPLE WANT TO ELECT JIM CROW.

Read this response thread. It's gold, Jerry, gold.

[twitter]https://twitter.com/TriciaForWard3/status/1529103081866158084
[/twitter]

[Anonymous]

Two great days for Tricia Duncan. First, the backing from the incumbent. Second, a group led by an individual who broadcasts his misogyny to the entire world starts campaigning against her. I had my doubts that she was the leading candidate before I saw this, but no more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is totally unfair of me, but it's sticking the back of my head. I don't trust the Palisades candidates to represent the Ward as a whole. After all, they chose to live in the Palisades which is not like the rest of the city/ward at all.

They want to live in a house on a large plot of land, away from neighbors, not use public transit, and drive all the time. It's also true about some of the further reaches of NW far away from Connecticut and Wisconsin. Do they understand what the rest of us want? The average ward 3 person lives near one of the main drags in an apartment or small house, possibly attached.

Again, unfair. Why are there so many candidates from the Palisades!

Not unfair at all. For me, the people who chose to live in Palisades chose to live on an island. Minimal public transportation, no public/subisidized housing - totally insulated from the rest of the city. Frankly, I think it takes a lot of hubris to be a Palisades resident, and think "oh hey, I head the Palisades Citizens Association so I am qualified to be a Councilmember: or "Hey I did my job for the city so I deserve to be a Councilmember" - NFW, these people have no tangible relevance to what the rest of us in the Ward or city want with city functions. Zero.

So for me, it is a matter of picking among the most viable of who remains. From there, the choice is easy, even if he isn't my top choice in the race.

This is silly. Tricia has done a lot as PCA President and through previous advocacy to address the issues you are complaining about. If she was a NIMBY, I’d agree with you, but she’s not. Only by progressive people moving into these areas and taking leadership roles can things change. For her efforts, Tricia has endured plenty of abuse from the NIMBYs. If you somehow believe that this makes her less qualified than someone who happens - by virtue of whatever circumstances - to live in a neighborhood where there is less scope to effect progressive change, then I’d encourage you to reevaluate your priorities.

Yes, she is leff qualified. Others in the race have concrete results in these areas. Ben Bergman led on the Tunlaw bike lanes; Beau Finley lead on CT Ave bike lanes and more density in Cleveland Park and Matt Frumin helped with the AU Law School and led on Wilson and Deal renovations as well as the Lisner affordable housing project. These people have TANGIBLE results. Tricia has a community association. Big whoop.

Is the FCCA coming after Bergman, Finley or Frumin? No. They are coming after Tricia: https://twitter.com/TriciaForWard3/status/1529103081866158084. Why? Because she is the only candidate who has a track record of taking on the worst NIMBYs in the ward. And because she’s a woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Seems like the Palisades NIMBYs are very scared of a Duncan victory due to her unwavering support for building a new school at Hardy Park. Goulet and Frumin have both cratered to pandering to this group during their events and social media posts. I don’t know if what Frumin has told NIMBYs about his apprehension for the new schools is what he actually believes or is just a play to get elected, but Tricia is by far the most pro-building (of both schools and housing) of the leading three candidates in this race. Ward 3 has serious issues with our overcrowding, and she is the only of the three candidates who has refused to yield on the issue of new schools.

He seems to be pretty clear about his views here. Did you even go to his website?

https://fruminforward3.com/food-for-thought-new-schools/

He literally says in this post that building a school at Hardy Park is rushed and that we need to figure out how the new Foxhall HS would interfere with the “fabric of the community” it is being built in. It’s not a strong statement of opposition, but we finally have a solution (which may be imperfect) and he wants to hold up this process which has already taken up the better part of a decade to look at all other options. It is not a strong statement of support.

[Anonymous]

The better solution would be to end the Cheh crony deal that the Lab School got and let DCPS use its existing facility. But Cheh would never have supported that. Any new Councilmember will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The better solution would be to end the Cheh crony deal that the Lab School got and let DCPS use its existing facility. But Cheh would never have supported that. Any new Councilmember will.

Say what now? The "crony deal" was the mayor's and was supported - by both words and actions - by the FCCA (who support Frumin and Goulet). Cheh strongly opposed it at every stage and, after it was announced, requested that the DC AG review its legality. Duncan was active in the "Keep Old Hardy Public" campaign that advocated for Old Hardy to be given back to DCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The better solution would be to end the Cheh crony deal that the Lab School got and let DCPS use its existing facility. But Cheh would never have supported that. Any new Councilmember will.

Say what now? The "crony deal" was the mayor's and was supported - by both words and actions - by the FCCA (who support Frumin and Goulet). Cheh strongly opposed it at every stage and, after it was announced, requested that the DC AG review its legality. Duncan was active in the "Keep Old Hardy Public" campaign that advocated for Old Hardy to be given back to DCPS.

Not a Cheh fan here, but this is accurate. She was highly critical of this deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The better solution would be to end the Cheh crony deal that the Lab School got and let DCPS use its existing facility. But Cheh would never have supported that. Any new Councilmember will.

Say what now? The "crony deal" was the mayor's and was supported - by both words and actions - by the FCCA (who support Frumin and Goulet). Cheh strongly opposed it at every stage and, after it was announced, requested that the DC AG review its legality. Duncan was active in the "Keep Old Hardy Public" campaign that advocated for Old Hardy to be given back to DCPS.

Cheh was lobbied by one of her closest advisors to get the deal in the first place. Do you even know what you are saying?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The better solution would be to end the Cheh crony deal that the Lab School got and let DCPS use its existing facility. But Cheh would never have supported that. Any new Councilmember will.

Say what now? The "crony deal" was the mayor's and was supported - by both words and actions - by the FCCA (who support Frumin and Goulet). Cheh strongly opposed it at every stage and, after it was announced, requested that the DC AG review its legality. Duncan was active in the "Keep Old Hardy Public" campaign that advocated for Old Hardy to be given back to DCPS.

Cheh was lobbied by one of her closest advisors to get the deal in the first place. Do you even know what you are saying?

His name? It's OK, we're all anonymous here.