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

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote: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.

He actually was endorsed by the Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-posts-endorsements-for-dc-council/2018/10/19/25b8afa2-d303-11e8-8c22-fa2ef74bd6d6_story.html

"But we think voters in Ward 3 should consider Petar A. Dimtchev, the independent challenging Mary M. Cheh (D)."

[Anonymous]

Sorry Jeff, I don't think "consider" is an endorsement.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry Jeff, I don't think "consider" is an endorsement.

The headline on the article was, "The Post’s endorsements for D.C. Council". It's clearly an endorsement. It may be hedged a bit only because they know that Cheh is an overwhelming favorite.

[Anonymous]

To the pool haters.

Splash.

[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 Lately, her historically high energy level seems to have been replaced by a certain boredom.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.

And that's fine, but where does Cheh listen? She just decides, before the agencies have had a chance to consider and weigh options, much less before the public has had a chance to weigh in. Look at the Ward 3 homeless shelter. Cheh decided on the location, and rushed it through in an omnibus hearing to approve all shelters in less than 15 days. Again, with a pool at Hearst, she just decided because there was an open funding proposal to improve the park. No analysis of comparative locations and which one made the most sense. In fact, DPR and the Mayor's office made very clear (even the Mayor herself said as much at a public meeting), that the location was a Cheh diktat, not an agency recommendation. So now the agencies are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole -- squeeze a small pool into a small park without totally impacting certain other recreational uses and without killing legacy trees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And that's fine, but where does Cheh listen? She just decides, before the agencies have had a chance to consider and weigh options, much less before the public has had a chance to weigh in. Look at the Ward 3 homeless shelter. Cheh decided on the location, and rushed it through in an omnibus hearing to approve all shelters in less than 15 days. Again, with a pool at Hearst, she just decided because there was an open funding proposal to improve the park. No analysis of comparative locations and which one made the most sense. In fact, DPR and the Mayor's office made very clear (even the Mayor herself said as much at a public meeting), that the location was a Cheh diktat, not an agency recommendation. So now the agencies are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole -- squeeze a small pool into a small park without totally impacting certain other recreational uses and without killing legacy trees.

On the homeless shelter, your version of events is pretty warped. The Mayor was ready to give a sweetheart deal to a developer to shoehorn a shelter into a location that it was neither zoned for, nor fiscally responsible. The Mayor chose that location with ZERO consultation. Cheh identified an alternative on DC owner property and saved the city millions of dollars. I take it you live in Carthedral Heights or McLean Gardens. I get it. But it's over, deal with it.

On the pool, it is something Ward 3 voters have asked for for decades. They tried to get one a Palisades - not central enough; they tried at Turtle Park - baseball families trumped the pool families in the neighborhood debate. They tried at Guy Mason, but it was too close to Jelleff and didn't make sense. When Hearst came up, it became the logical choice.

DC doesn't own Ft. Reno - or can I come over and build something on your property?

So like the homeless shelter, it is done. The community spoke, the funds are appropriated and in a couple of years, we will all have a wonderful community pool to talk to with our kids.

Thank you Mary Cheh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
And that's fine, but where does Cheh listen? She just decides, before the agencies have had a chance to consider and weigh options, much less before the public has had a chance to weigh in. Look at the Ward 3 homeless shelter. Cheh decided on the location, and rushed it through in an omnibus hearing to approve all shelters in less than 15 days. Again, with a pool at Hearst, she just decided because there was an open funding proposal to improve the park. No analysis of comparative locations and which one made the most sense. In fact, DPR and the Mayor's office made very clear (even the Mayor herself said as much at a public meeting), that the location was a Cheh diktat, not an agency recommendation. So now the agencies are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole -- squeeze a small pool into a small park without totally impacting certain other recreational uses and without killing legacy trees.

There is a 200 page thread about the Hearst Pool.

From the latest designs, there are no legacy trees being lost, there will be a seldom used tennis court replaced by the pool, which is the same size as the other DPR pools. They aren't shoehorning anything. But if you want to use Trumpian distortions to try to make your case, go for it, but it doesn't add to your credibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And that's fine, but where does Cheh listen? She just decides, before the agencies have had a chance to consider and weigh options, much less before the public has had a chance to weigh in. Look at the Ward 3 homeless shelter. Cheh decided on the location, and rushed it through in an omnibus hearing to approve all shelters in less than 15 days. Again, with a pool at Hearst, she just decided because there was an open funding proposal to improve the park. No analysis of comparative locations and which one made the most sense. In fact, DPR and the Mayor's office made very clear (even the Mayor herself said as much at a public meeting), that the location was a Cheh diktat, not an agency recommendation. So now the agencies are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole -- squeeze a small pool into a small park without totally impacting certain other recreational uses and without killing legacy trees.

Please. Stop. Beating. The. Dead. Horse. That. Is. The. Hearst. Pool.

There were years of public meetings about this pool. And DPR did in fact look at alternative sites on DPR properties which is usually, unsurprisingly, where DPR uses go. And the pool opponents all know this.

I get that you are unhappy they didn't waste time trying to get cooperation out of NPS to use NPS land but everyone who is active on neighborhood level things in DC knows what a monumental waste of time that effort would have been for DPR to pursue putting a pool on NPS land.

Hearst is a very good location for a pool.

Just because you are unhappy with the outcome does not mean there was a process problem here.

As I have written previously in the endless discussion about the pool we have been talking about getting a pool in Ward 3 for 9 years now. 9 years.

Please stop spreading lies with all of this non-sense about legacy trees which aren't impacted and lack of agency recommendation which isn't true.

What is particularly frustrating about the criticism of Cheh is the specific reason it took so long to get to where we are on Hearst is Cheh humored the NIMBY neighbors by sending repeated letters asking that all of their specious questions be answered - if she hadn't done that we might have had a pool this past summer.

So stuff it Rodman and Quebec Street residents - you are nasty and selfish people and also sore losers at this point and most people in Ward 3 disagree with your selfish take on public processes and public land.

[Anonymous]

DP - not 9 years, this goes back to the 1970's when Polly Shackleton was the Councilmember.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And that's fine, but where does Cheh listen? She just decides, before the agencies have had a chance to consider and weigh options, much less before the public has had a chance to weigh in. Look at the Ward 3 homeless shelter. Cheh decided on the location, and rushed it through in an omnibus hearing to approve all shelters in less than 15 days. Again, with a pool at Hearst, she just decided because there was an open funding proposal to improve the park. No analysis of comparative locations and which one made the most sense. In fact, DPR and the Mayor's office made very clear (even the Mayor herself said as much at a public meeting), that the location was a Cheh diktat, not an agency recommendation. So now the agencies are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole -- squeeze a small pool into a small park without totally impacting certain other recreational uses and without killing legacy trees.

On the homeless shelter, your version of events is pretty warped. The Mayor was ready to give a sweetheart deal to a developer to shoehorn a shelter into a location that it was neither zoned for, nor fiscally responsible. The Mayor chose that location with ZERO consultation. Cheh identified an alternative on DC owner property and saved the city millions of dollars. I take it you live in Carthedral Heights or McLean Gardens. I get it. But it's over, deal with it.

On the pool, it is something Ward 3 voters have asked for for decades. They tried to get one a Palisades - not central enough; they tried at Turtle Park - baseball families trumped the pool families in the neighborhood debate. They tried at Guy Mason, but it was too close to Jelleff and didn't make sense. When Hearst came up, it became the logical choice.

DC doesn't own Ft. Reno - or can I come over and build something on your property?

So like the homeless shelter, it is done. The community spoke, the funds are appropriated and in a couple of years, we will all have a wonderful community pool to talk to with our kids.

Thank you Mary Cheh.

PP, TY for explaining the back story on the shelter. The city would have paid a developer to build the shelter, paid someone to run the shelter, and then have nothing to show for it when the "lease" with the developer expired as ownership of the land and the building would have reverted to the developer. Most likely scenario: the developer would have closed the shelter at the end of the lease, then transformed the building/property into condos, which would have been in violation of local zoning for single family homes. Cheh did indeed save the city money by building the shelter on city property, limiting further cronyism on the part of Bowser's campaign donors, ooops, developers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the pool haters.

Splash.

Anyone else up for joining me in re-enacting the Caddyshack pool scene once it opens?

Come on, folks: CANNONBALL!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the pool haters.

Splash.

More like...

Plop.

The Hearst pool won't be much bigger than a porcelain bowl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the pool haters.

Splash.

Anyone else up for joining me in re-enacting the Caddyshack pool scene once it opens?

Come on, folks: CANNONBALL!

Ha! The cannonball wave will spill up over the slopes of Quebec and 37th, against which the pool will be tightly wedged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And that's fine, but where does Cheh listen? She just decides, before the agencies have had a chance to consider and weigh options, much less before the public has had a chance to weigh in. Look at the Ward 3 homeless shelter. Cheh decided on the location, and rushed it through in an omnibus hearing to approve all shelters in less than 15 days. Again, with a pool at Hearst, she just decided because there was an open funding proposal to improve the park. No analysis of comparative locations and which one made the most sense. In fact, DPR and the Mayor's office made very clear (even the Mayor herself said as much at a public meeting), that the location was a Cheh diktat, not an agency recommendation. So now the agencies are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole -- squeeze a small pool into a small park without totally impacting certain other recreational uses and without killing legacy trees.

There is a 200 page thread about the Hearst Pool.

From the latest designs, there are no legacy trees being lost, there will be a seldom used tennis court replaced by the pool, which is the same size as the other DPR pools. They aren't shoehorning anything. But if you want to use Trumpian distortions to try to make your case, go for it, but it doesn't add to your credibility.

Can't wait for the Hearst kiddie pool to open. Problem is, it will be in shadow all of the time -- unless DPR cuts down all the surrounding trees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And that's fine, but where does Cheh listen? She just decides, before the agencies have had a chance to consider and weigh options, much less before the public has had a chance to weigh in. Look at the Ward 3 homeless shelter. Cheh decided on the location, and rushed it through in an omnibus hearing to approve all shelters in less than 15 days. Again, with a pool at Hearst, she just decided because there was an open funding proposal to improve the park. No analysis of comparative locations and which one made the most sense. In fact, DPR and the Mayor's office made very clear (even the Mayor herself said as much at a public meeting), that the location was a Cheh diktat, not an agency recommendation. So now the agencies are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole -- squeeze a small pool into a small park without totally impacting certain other recreational uses and without killing legacy trees.

There is a 200 page thread about the Hearst Pool.

From the latest designs, there are no legacy trees being lost, there will be a seldom used tennis court replaced by the pool, which is the same size as the other DPR pools. They aren't shoehorning anything. But if you want to use Trumpian distortions to try to make your case, go for it, but it doesn't add to your credibility.

Can't wait for the Hearst kiddie pool to open. Problem is, it will be in shadow all of the time -- unless DPR cuts down all the surrounding trees.

Given how hot it is in the direct sun during the summer, this is actually a good thing.