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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mary Cheh has done an excellent job in Ward 3 since she was elected in 2006. I lived in Ward 3 long before she was elected. She has a broad view of what needs to be done and her office is always super responsive to constituents.

Petar seems like a nice guy but he has not knocked on my door or called me and I know absolutely nothing about him other than the youtube video I saw here. That is troubling in and of itself.

I want someone who is engaged and interested in more than "infrastructure."

Best of luck to both but Mary has my vote.

I disagree. My experience is that if you agree with Cheh, fine. But she does not listen to her constituents. She thinks she's the smartest person in the room (news flash: that's usually not the case) and that she always knows best. Perhaps this is her law professor personality. This tendency seems to have gotten worse the longer that she has stayed in office. Lately, her historically high energy level seems to have been replaced by a certain boredom. Combined with her natural arrogance, this is not a good combination. So I'm voting for change = Petar.

Is there a difference between "listening" and agreeing? Take the pool for example. She listened to her constituents who have been asking for an outdoor pool in the area for years. She listened to them, got the money and the city is going to move forward with it. Is it necessary to agree with the residents near Hearst who don't want the pool near "their" park? It is publicly owned land and the city that controls it has decided that is where a pool is going to go. A lot of people support it and a few don't. Is she supposed to agree with the relative few who don't to deny the residents of the broader area the amenity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Will people who live in Kent go to Jelleff to swim? Probably not. Will they go to Hearst? More likely.
Will people who live in AU Park go to Jelleff to swim? Probably not. Will they go to Hearst? More likely.
Will people who live in Chevy Chase, DC go to Jelleff to swim? Probably not. Will they go to Hearst? More likely.
Will people who live in Palisades go to Jelleff to swim? Probably not. Will they go to Hearst? More likely.

Should I keep going?

And maybe I am making the point for those who are opposed to the pool. They don't want these fellow DC residents going to "their" neighobrhood even though they use Turle Park, Palisades Park, Lafayette Park, Livingson Park etc.

and they will drive. Not exactly green, is it?

Most will probably walk or bike. It is pretty centrally located and easy to get to without driving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mary Cheh has done an excellent job in Ward 3 since she was elected in 2006. I lived in Ward 3 long before she was elected. She has a broad view of what needs to be done and her office is always super responsive to constituents.

Petar seems like a nice guy but he has not knocked on my door or called me and I know absolutely nothing about him other than the youtube video I saw here. That is troubling in and of itself.

I want someone who is engaged and interested in more than "infrastructure."

Best of luck to both but Mary has my vote.

I disagree. My experience is that if you agree with Cheh, fine. But she does not listen to her constituents. She thinks she's the smartest person in the room (news flash: that's usually not the case) and that she always knows best. Perhaps this is her law professor personality. This tendency seems to have gotten worse the longer that she has stayed in office. Lately, her historically high energy level seems to have been replaced by a certain boredom. Combined with her natural arrogance, this is not a good combination. So I'm voting for change = Petar.

That has been my experience as well, although she has come around on some issues.

But I'm not voting for Petar. I met him, nice enough guy, but he's obviously unqualified. I want to voice my dissatisfaction with Cheh but electing Petar would be a disaster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mary Cheh has done an excellent job in Ward 3 since she was elected in 2006. I lived in Ward 3 long before she was elected. She has a broad view of what needs to be done and her office is always super responsive to constituents.

Petar seems like a nice guy but he has not knocked on my door or called me and I know absolutely nothing about him other than the youtube video I saw here. That is troubling in and of itself.

I want someone who is engaged and interested in more than "infrastructure."

Best of luck to both but Mary has my vote.

I disagree. My experience is that if you agree with Cheh, fine. But she does not listen to her constituents. She thinks she's the smartest person in the room (news flash: that's usually not the case) and that she always knows best. Perhaps this is her law professor personality. This tendency seems to have gotten worse the longer that she has stayed in office. Lately, her historically high energy level seems to have been replaced by a certain boredom. Combined with her natural arrogance, this is not a good combination. So I'm voting for change = Petar.

Is there a difference between "listening" and agreeing? Take the pool for example. She listened to her constituents who have been asking for an outdoor pool in the area for years. She listened to them, got the money and the city is going to move forward with it. Is it necessary to agree with the residents near Hearst who don't want the pool near "their" park? It is publicly owned land and the city that controls it has decided that is where a pool is going to go. A lot of people support it and a few don't. Is she supposed to agree with the relative few who don't to deny the residents of the broader area the amenity?

DP: Yes, listening, does not mean agreeing. It means taking the time and making sure you know where everyone is coming from, weigh the opinions, consider the facts and options, and have the ability to then move forward with a reasoned basis for your decision. There will always be someone who isn't happy, and that person can vote their disapproval if they are a one issue voter. Most people are not one issue voters, though, so even if you win some/lose some, the process, ethics, and integrity are important considerations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mary Cheh has done an excellent job in Ward 3 since she was elected in 2006. I lived in Ward 3 long before she was elected. She has a broad view of what needs to be done and her office is always super responsive to constituents.

Petar seems like a nice guy but he has not knocked on my door or called me and I know absolutely nothing about him other than the youtube video I saw here. That is troubling in and of itself.

I want someone who is engaged and interested in more than "infrastructure."

Best of luck to both but Mary has my vote.

I disagree. My experience is that if you agree with Cheh, fine. But she does not listen to her constituents. She thinks she's the smartest person in the room (news flash: that's usually not the case) and that she always knows best. Perhaps this is her law professor personality. This tendency seems to have gotten worse the longer that she has stayed in office. Lately, her historically high energy level seems to have been replaced by a certain boredom. Combined with her natural arrogance, this is not a good combination. So I'm voting for change = Petar.

Is there a difference between "listening" and agreeing? Take the pool for example. She listened to her constituents who have been asking for an outdoor pool in the area for years. She listened to them, got the money and the city is going to move forward with it. Is it necessary to agree with the residents near Hearst who don't want the pool near "their" park? It is publicly owned land and the city that controls it has decided that is where a pool is going to go. A lot of people support it and a few don't. Is she supposed to agree with the relative few who don't to deny the residents of the broader area the amenity?

DP: Yes, listening, does not mean agreeing. It means taking the time and making sure you know where everyone is coming from, weigh the opinions, consider the facts and options, and have the ability to then move forward with a reasoned basis for your decision. There will always be someone who isn't happy, and that person can vote their disapproval if they are a one issue voter. Most people are not one issue voters, though, so even if you win some/lose some, the process, ethics, and integrity are important considerations.

Well put.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Will people who live in Kent go to Jelleff to swim? Probably not. Will they go to Hearst? More likely.
Will people who live in AU Park go to Jelleff to swim? Probably not. Will they go to Hearst? More likely.
Will people who live in Chevy Chase, DC go to Jelleff to swim? Probably not. Will they go to Hearst? More likely.
Will people who live in Palisades go to Jelleff to swim? Probably not. Will they go to Hearst? More likely.

Should I keep going?

And maybe I am making the point for those who are opposed to the pool. They don't want these fellow DC residents going to "their" neighobrhood even though they use Turle Park, Palisades Park, Lafayette Park, Livingson Park etc.

and they will drive. Not exactly green, is it?

Most will probably walk or bike. It is pretty centrally located and easy to get to without driving.

It's really a stretch to say that Hearst is easy to get to without driving from Kent, AU Park, Chevy Chase or Palisades. It's awfully far to walk, and there are lots of bike-unfriendly streets in every direction. I can't imagine taking kids on bikes down Connecticut or Wisconsin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Will people who live in Kent go to Jelleff to swim? Probably not. Will they go to Hearst? More likely.
Will people who live in AU Park go to Jelleff to swim? Probably not. Will they go to Hearst? More likely.
Will people who live in Chevy Chase, DC go to Jelleff to swim? Probably not. Will they go to Hearst? More likely.
Will people who live in Palisades go to Jelleff to swim? Probably not. Will they go to Hearst? More likely.

Should I keep going?

And maybe I am making the point for those who are opposed to the pool. They don't want these fellow DC residents going to "their" neighobrhood even though they use Turle Park, Palisades Park, Lafayette Park, Livingson Park etc.

and they will drive. Not exactly green, is it?

Most will probably walk or bike. It is pretty centrally located and easy to get to without driving.

Thanks for the Greater Greater Washington view - as blogged from mommy's basement

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Will people who live in Kent go to Jelleff to swim? Probably not. Will they go to Hearst? More likely.
Will people who live in AU Park go to Jelleff to swim? Probably not. Will they go to Hearst? More likely.
Will people who live in Chevy Chase, DC go to Jelleff to swim? Probably not. Will they go to Hearst? More likely.
Will people who live in Palisades go to Jelleff to swim? Probably not. Will they go to Hearst? More likely.

Should I keep going?

And maybe I am making the point for those who are opposed to the pool. They don't want these fellow DC residents going to "their" neighobrhood even though they use Turle Park, Palisades Park, Lafayette Park, Livingson Park etc.

and they will drive. Not exactly green, is it?

Most will probably walk or bike. It is pretty centrally located and easy to get to without driving.

It's really a stretch to say that Hearst is easy to get to without driving from Kent, AU Park, Chevy Chase or Palisades. It's awfully far to walk, and there are lots of bike-unfriendly streets in every direction. I can't imagine taking kids on bikes down Connecticut or Wisconsin.

No it is not a stretch. It is very easy to walk or bike to Hearst from AU Park, Tenleytown, Forest Hills/Van Ness and obviously Cleveland Park. It is most definitely not easy to bike or walk from any of those neighborhoods to an existing outdoor pool. The pool is also very close to the trail head for the Klingle Trail which connects to Rock Creek park and all of the neighborhoods along it. And the Hearst pool is also easily reachable on public transportation. But even for the people who will drive it is much better for the environment and for congestion if they have much shorter drives to wherever they are going. Either way this is a dumb discussion as this mercilessly is a settled issue so long as Petar doesn't win this election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Will people who live in Kent go to Jelleff to swim? Probably not. Will they go to Hearst? More likely.
Will people who live in AU Park go to Jelleff to swim? Probably not. Will they go to Hearst? More likely.
Will people who live in Chevy Chase, DC go to Jelleff to swim? Probably not. Will they go to Hearst? More likely.
Will people who live in Palisades go to Jelleff to swim? Probably not. Will they go to Hearst? More likely.

Should I keep going?

And maybe I am making the point for those who are opposed to the pool. They don't want these fellow DC residents going to "their" neighobrhood even though they use Turle Park, Palisades Park, Lafayette Park, Livingson Park etc.

and they will drive. Not exactly green, is it?

Most will probably walk or bike. It is pretty centrally located and easy to get to without driving.

Thanks for the Greater Greater Washington view - as blogged from mommy's basement

Just because you are too lazy to do anything other than drive everywhere doesn't mean others won't make different choices - in fact many people in our region already do. FWIW most of the GGW crowd are well educated and gainfully employed professionals unlike what appears to be the bitter SAHM's and wannabee RHOP crowd on here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Will people who live in Kent go to Jelleff to swim? Probably not. Will they go to Hearst? More likely.
Will people who live in AU Park go to Jelleff to swim? Probably not. Will they go to Hearst? More likely.
Will people who live in Chevy Chase, DC go to Jelleff to swim? Probably not. Will they go to Hearst? More likely.
Will people who live in Palisades go to Jelleff to swim? Probably not. Will they go to Hearst? More likely.

Should I keep going?

And maybe I am making the point for those who are opposed to the pool. They don't want these fellow DC residents going to "their" neighobrhood even though they use Turle Park, Palisades Park, Lafayette Park, Livingson Park etc.

and they will drive. Not exactly green, is it?

Most will probably walk or bike. It is pretty centrally located and easy to get to without driving.

It's really a stretch to say that Hearst is easy to get to without driving from Kent, AU Park, Chevy Chase or Palisades. It's awfully far to walk, and there are lots of bike-unfriendly streets in every direction. I can't imagine taking kids on bikes down Connecticut or Wisconsin.

37th Street is literally the signed bike corridor north-south from Chevy Chase to Woodley Park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Will people who live in Kent go to Jelleff to swim? Probably not. Will they go to Hearst? More likely.
Will people who live in AU Park go to Jelleff to swim? Probably not. Will they go to Hearst? More likely.
Will people who live in Chevy Chase, DC go to Jelleff to swim? Probably not. Will they go to Hearst? More likely.
Will people who live in Palisades go to Jelleff to swim? Probably not. Will they go to Hearst? More likely.

Should I keep going?

And maybe I am making the point for those who are opposed to the pool. They don't want these fellow DC residents going to "their" neighobrhood even though they use Turle Park, Palisades Park, Lafayette Park, Livingson Park etc.

and they will drive. Not exactly green, is it?

Most will probably walk or bike. It is pretty centrally located and easy to get to without driving.

It's really a stretch to say that Hearst is easy to get to without driving from Kent, AU Park, Chevy Chase or Palisades. It's awfully far to walk, and there are lots of bike-unfriendly streets in every direction. I can't imagine taking kids on bikes down Connecticut or Wisconsin.

Palisades - 15 minute bike ride.
Chevy Chase - 5 minute bike ride
AU Park, depending on where, anywhere from 3 minutes to 10 minute by bike.

Have you never biked here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Will people who live in Kent go to Jelleff to swim? Probably not. Will they go to Hearst? More likely.
Will people who live in AU Park go to Jelleff to swim? Probably not. Will they go to Hearst? More likely.
Will people who live in Chevy Chase, DC go to Jelleff to swim? Probably not. Will they go to Hearst? More likely.
Will people who live in Palisades go to Jelleff to swim? Probably not. Will they go to Hearst? More likely.

Should I keep going?

And maybe I am making the point for those who are opposed to the pool. They don't want these fellow DC residents going to "their" neighobrhood even though they use Turle Park, Palisades Park, Lafayette Park, Livingson Park etc.

and they will drive. Not exactly green, is it?

Most will probably walk or bike. It is pretty centrally located and easy to get to without driving.

It's really a stretch to say that Hearst is easy to get to without driving from Kent, AU Park, Chevy Chase or Palisades. It's awfully far to walk, and there are lots of bike-unfriendly streets in every direction. I can't imagine taking kids on bikes down Connecticut or Wisconsin.

Palisades - 15 minute bike ride.
Chevy Chase - 5 minute bike ride
AU Park, depending on where, anywhere from 3 minutes to 10 minute by bike.

Have you never biked here?

Google Maps begs to differ with your times. Let's just look at Palisades. A fair "average" Palisades address is the rec center, 5200 Sherier Place. Google Maps says the shortest bike route to Hearst is 21 minutes. That's going Arizona Avenue to Nebraska Avenue to Van Ness to 37th. Arizona and Nebraska are major arterials with no bike lanes and spotty sidewalks, you have to navigate Ward Circle. Van Ness has bike lanes for part of the way but it's a busy cross-town route. Plus there's an elevation gain of 282 feet -- that hill up Arizona is a killer. I've biked that route many times, but I'm a confident and experienced adult cyclist, this is no route for kids or for a family heading off to the pool wearing flip-flops and toting pool toys. Most kids would not be safe coming down the Arizona hill on the way home, I've hit 35+mph on that stretch without pedaling.

Google also offers a longer route which avoids a lot of the busy streets by going up 49th street. You still have to cross New Mexico, Massachusetts and Wisconsin. And to get to 49th you have to go along MacArthur Boulevard, which is a major arterial with no bike facilities. There is the same 282 foot elevation gain, and the 49th street hill is steeper in spots than the Arizona hill. This route takes 25 minutes. Again, this is not a route for inexperienced cyclists.

Jelleff pool, BTW, is 18 minutes by bike from the same location per Google Maps, and Volta is 15 minutes.

This just shows the ridiculousness of referring to the Hearst site as a "Ward 3" pool. It's not going to serve the whole ward, it's going to serve people in the immediate vicinity. Which is fine, neighborhood-based facilities are smart urbanism. But just call it what it is.

[Anonymous]

You are really stretching.

[Anonymous]

Dear Petar,

Contrary to your initial post in this thread and your campaign signs, you were not "endorsed" by the Washington Post. If this is how you are going to conduct yourself as a public figure, then please find another jurisdiction. the voters in DC actually read things including the Washington Post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are really stretching.

You make a bunch of stuff up, I rebut it with facts, and I'm the one stretching?