Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some guy on the Palisades listserv -- Gordon Kit -- blasted the neighborhood that placing an SMD boundary on his street would "destroy the community." These people are a travesty to live beside.

I wonder if anyone is actually swayed by these histrionics.

Kharkiv's community has been destroyed. Homs' community has been destroyed. Your community isn't being destroyed because you will have a different demoratically-elected official (with absolutely no official authority at that!) representing your SMD. Sheesh.

I sure wasn’t, and I’m on his street.

Troy Kravitz, whom I think is often too blunt, replied that Gordon was being just “a wee bit dramatic” in claiming an SMD border would destroy the community. He’s not wrong.

One man's "too blunt" is another man's not suffering fools gladly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some guy on the Palisades listserv -- Gordon Kit -- blasted the neighborhood that placing an SMD boundary on his street would "destroy the community." These people are a travesty to live beside.

I wonder if anyone is actually swayed by these histrionics.

Kharkiv's community has been destroyed. Homs' community has been destroyed. Your community isn't being destroyed because you will have a different demoratically-elected official (with absolutely no official authority at that!) representing your SMD. Sheesh.

I sure wasn’t, and I’m on his street.

Troy Kravitz, whom I think is often too blunt, replied that Gordon was being just “a wee bit dramatic” in claiming an SMD border would destroy the community. He’s not wrong.

Anonymous wrote:Some guy on the Palisades listserv -- Gordon Kit -- blasted the neighborhood that placing an SMD boundary on his street would "destroy the community." These people are a travesty to live beside.

I wonder if anyone is actually swayed by these histrionics.

Kharkiv's community has been destroyed. Homs' community has been destroyed. Your community isn't being destroyed because you will have a different demoratically-elected official (with absolutely no official authority at that!) representing your SMD. Sheesh.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or...people believe that continuing to pave over farms for single family housing as has been done for the last 80 years is a bad idea and as such, we should have more density in our center city area, taking advantage of existing infrastrucutre and affording the opportunity for people to live car-free or car light.

And then they undermine the public’s trust with a task force that ignores input from residents, gerrymanders, and operates with no transparency? It gives smart growth a bad name.

It’s shocking that Mary Cheh’s staff apparently didn’t do their due diligence and appointed someone to her Ward 3 task force who was doing polls to help “Putin’s puppet president” regain power in Ukraine. And then CM Cheh stood by while that task force appointee pushed forward a redistricting plan that is a complete departure from the DC redistricting principles and established practice. To say the least, it’s unfortunate timing for her when Ukraine reminds us every day that democracy really matters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CP Smart Growth and Task Force member Bob Ward’s efforts to cast anyone who cares about historic preservation as racist is offensive. There are historic districts throughout this city and people of all races and ethnicities who care about preserving historic architecture. But they beat that drum in their effort to silence liberal residents of historic districts who may get in the way of their development efforts.

But historical zoning is pretty clearly is anti-poor. Especially in DC.

Not sure that I understand your point. How does this relate to ANC redistricting? Should planning and zoning be eliminated? That wouldn’t be very progressive, that would be a giveaway to powerful development interests. Break up cohesive neighborhoods? How would that advance the principle of ensuring that districts are of roughly equal size? And how would adding more concrete canyons of costly condos address racial covenants that existed in DC 75 years ago?

Anonymous wrote:Some guy on the Palisades listserv -- Gordon Kit -- blasted the neighborhood that placing an SMD boundary on his street would "destroy the community." These people are a travesty to live beside.

That dude is such a d-bag. He’s been fighting sidewalks and pushing “neighbors-only” use of the public street. He is trying to privatize his public road.

No surprise it’s the same Gordon Kit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CP Smart Growth and Task Force member Bob Ward’s efforts to cast anyone who cares about historic preservation as racist is offensive. There are historic districts throughout this city and people of all races and ethnicities who care about preserving historic architecture. But they beat that drum in their effort to silence liberal residents of historic districts who may get in the way of their development efforts.

But historical zoning is pretty clearly is anti-poor. Especially in DC.

Nationwide, the advent of zoning coincided almost exactly with the striking down of racial covenants by the Supreme Court in 1948. Racial covenants were struck down in DC in 1950 and the first major zoning code was implemented in 1953.

Euclid was in 1926.

So, no.

Until 1917 most places in the US had racial bylaws that explicitly said where people of different races had to live. In 1917, in Buchanan v. Warley the Supreme Court struck down racial bylaws as violating the property rights of landowners. They ruled that discrimination wasn't illegal, but it couldn't be compelled. After Buchanan, for 30 years racial covenants on deeds were the preferred method of keeping neighborhoods single-race. In 1948, in Shelley v. Kraemer the Supreme Court struck down racially restrictive housing covenants as a violation of the 14th Amendment rights of those discriminated against.

In DC, about half of the housing had restrictive covenants in 1948. Three of the justices who heard the case recused themselves because their homes had restrictive covenants.

Yes, there was zoning before then. But it was after Shelley v Kraemer that there was a nationwide push to use zoning to "preserve neighborhood character."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the Tricia/Troy ploy failed and they reverted to a more reasonable map that is much closer to what the Community Associations all proposed.

I love the way Tricia is trying to take credit for this. She should be ashamed.

The current map proposal seems pretty good. I mean the older plan to combine Foxhall with Glover Park, when they are only connected by a poorly maintained path through the woods was pretty silly. It really makes you wonder what they were drinking during that meeting or if they knew what was going on.

Have you attended any of the meetings? They have to do something that is really, really hard: they have to create SMD districts that are between 1900 and 2100 people, and commissions consisting of an integer number of districts. They have to use census blocks. The districts have to be contiguous and compact.

Just making a map that satisfies these conditions is an intellectual challenge. Tellingly, the "Neighborhood Voice" folks tried to make a map that met those conditions, and failed.

Actually, the map they made wasn't bad. But the one the Task Force tried to ram through was actually pretty horrible. The one arrived at is much closer to the "Neighborhood Voice" than the dumpster fire that is the Palisades mafia headed by Tricia Duncan.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CP Smart Growth and Task Force member Bob Ward’s efforts to cast anyone who cares about historic preservation as racist is offensive. There are historic districts throughout this city and people of all races and ethnicities who care about preserving historic architecture. But they beat that drum in their effort to silence liberal residents of historic districts who may get in the way of their development efforts.

But historical zoning is pretty clearly is anti-poor. Especially in DC.

Nationwide, the advent of zoning coincided almost exactly with the striking down of racial covenants by the Supreme Court in 1948. Racial covenants were struck down in DC in 1950 and the first major zoning code was implemented in 1953.

Euclid was in 1926.

So, no.

Some guy on the Palisades listserv -- Gordon Kit -- blasted the neighborhood that placing an SMD boundary on his street would "destroy the community." These people are a travesty to live beside.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the Tricia/Troy ploy failed and they reverted to a more reasonable map that is much closer to what the Community Associations all proposed.

I love the way Tricia is trying to take credit for this. She should be ashamed.

The current map proposal seems pretty good. I mean the older plan to combine Foxhall with Glover Park, when they are only connected by a poorly maintained path through the woods was pretty silly. It really makes you wonder what they were drinking during that meeting or if they knew what was going on.

Have you attended any of the meetings? They have to do something that is really, really hard: they have to create SMD districts that are between 1900 and 2100 people, and commissions consisting of an integer number of districts. They have to use census blocks. The districts have to be contiguous and compact.

Just making a map that satisfies these conditions is an intellectual challenge. Tellingly, the "Neighborhood Voice" folks tried to make a map that met those conditions, and failed.

Hard? The Task Force is relishing this opportunity to cut up existing neighborhoods. They love what they’re doing. The results were all decided when they formed this biased group.

Get help. Your anger is obscuring your ability to process reality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the Tricia/Troy ploy failed and they reverted to a more reasonable map that is much closer to what the Community Associations all proposed.

I love the way Tricia is trying to take credit for this. She should be ashamed.

The current map proposal seems pretty good. I mean the older plan to combine Foxhall with Glover Park, when they are only connected by a poorly maintained path through the woods was pretty silly. It really makes you wonder what they were drinking during that meeting or if they knew what was going on.

Have you attended any of the meetings? They have to do something that is really, really hard: they have to create SMD districts that are between 1900 and 2100 people, and commissions consisting of an integer number of districts. They have to use census blocks. The districts have to be contiguous and compact.

Just making a map that satisfies these conditions is an intellectual challenge. Tellingly, the "Neighborhood Voice" folks tried to make a map that met those conditions, and failed.

Hard? The Task Force is relishing this opportunity to cut up existing neighborhoods. They love what they’re doing. The results were all decided when they formed this biased group.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the Tricia/Troy ploy failed and they reverted to a more reasonable map that is much closer to what the Community Associations all proposed.

I love the way Tricia is trying to take credit for this. She should be ashamed.

The current map proposal seems pretty good. I mean the older plan to combine Foxhall with Glover Park, when they are only connected by a poorly maintained path through the woods was pretty silly. It really makes you wonder what they were drinking during that meeting or if they knew what was going on.

Have you attended any of the meetings? They have to do something that is really, really hard: they have to create SMD districts that are between 1900 and 2100 people, and commissions consisting of an integer number of districts. They have to use census blocks. The districts have to be contiguous and compact.

Just making a map that satisfies these conditions is an intellectual challenge. Tellingly, the "Neighborhood Voice" folks tried to make a map that met those conditions, and failed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CP Smart Growth and Task Force member Bob Ward’s efforts to cast anyone who cares about historic preservation as racist is offensive. There are historic districts throughout this city and people of all races and ethnicities who care about preserving historic architecture. But they beat that drum in their effort to silence liberal residents of historic districts who may get in the way of their development efforts.

But historical zoning is pretty clearly is anti-poor. Especially in DC.

Nationwide, the advent of zoning coincided almost exactly with the striking down of racial covenants by the Supreme Court in 1948. Racial covenants were struck down in DC in 1950 and the first major zoning code was implemented in 1953.

Anonymous wrote:CP Smart Growth and Task Force member Bob Ward’s efforts to cast anyone who cares about historic preservation as racist is offensive. There are historic districts throughout this city and people of all races and ethnicities who care about preserving historic architecture. But they beat that drum in their effort to silence liberal residents of historic districts who may get in the way of their development efforts.

It’s not only offensive, it’s hypocritical. His business Fabrizio Ward was the top pollster for the Trump campaign in 2016 and again in 2020. This included focus-testing of campaign messages like Trump’s vow to “save” communities from building affordable housing. That’s about as dog-whistley as it gets.

Now it seems that ex-Trump & Manafort consultants are cynically using woke-sounding language to get DC to buy into the aggressive agenda of their developer clients. Most recently, Mr. Ward has used the Ward 3 task force as the platform to push his gerrymandering plan to break-up neighborhoods and elect more compliant ANC commissioners who will rubber-stamp this agenda.

As Obama used to say, don’t be bamboozled.