Anonymous wrote:I support CP staying just like it is--nice tree canopy, beautiful dwellings. I don't live there, but love strolling through and appreciate the friendly waves and how nicely maintained it is. If thats NIMBYism, let there be mroe!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You might win more of them over if you stopped calling the SFH owners in historic Cleveland Park entitled racists. Sounds like you don’t actually know many of them.

Not sure who this is directed to. I don't see anyone calling them racists.

Anonymous wrote:And yet, the people who live in the SFH's are demanding they have more sway over the ANCs and demand that everyone conform to their suburban lifestyles and have for the past 40 years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

This was 70 years ago. How does it apply to rules about door knobs today? I'm genuinely curious. I'm guessing in CP, as in other neighborhoods, there are houses 'handed down' from then. Based on the number of sales signs I see, I'm also guessing not that many. But if you have stats please share.

There is nothing about historic preservation that regulates door knobs. When you type in extreme hyperbole, your arguments lose credibility.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You might win more of them over if you stopped calling the SFH owners in historic Cleveland Park entitled racists. Sounds like you don’t actually know many of them.

Not sure who this is directed to. I don't see anyone calling them racists.

Anonymous wrote:You might win more of them over if you stopped calling the SFH owners in historic Cleveland Park entitled racists. Sounds like you don’t actually know many of them.

Anonymous wrote:And yet, the people who live in the SFH's are demanding they have more sway over the ANCs and demand that everyone conform to their suburban lifestyles and have for the past 40 years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

This was 70 years ago. How does it apply to rules about door knobs today? I'm genuinely curious. I'm guessing in CP, as in other neighborhoods, there are houses 'handed down' from then. Based on the number of sales signs I see, I'm also guessing not that many. But if you have stats please share.

Among other things, historic preservation is a barrier to entry and a barrier to new construction, raising the cost of home maintenance for existing owners but, more importantly, greatly increasing the entry cost for prospecting neighbors. And old, dilapidated Sears house must stay a Sears house instead of being replaced by a duplex, for example.

what now? where are these old dilapidated sears homes in the district? most historic zones in the district are not dilapidated as I can see, and have plenty of buyers of all races who are interested in the neighborhood historic feel. This is quite a stretch. There are plenty of nonhistorically zoned areas in the District where you can put up your condos/duplexes. And plenty of neighborhoods where there is a palatable entry cost for prospective neighbors who can do whatever they like to old dilapidated houses in terms of fixer uppers. It seems like what offends you about historic zoning is you can't raze buildings for multi-families whereas in other neighborhoods you can?

Translation: stop complaining. You can live in a stabby-zone with inadequate education options near a metro, or in a non-stabby-zone with solid education far away from a metro. But Cleveland Park -- non-stabby, solid education, on metro -- is closed. Why is a centrally located Metro station in the District the least used of them?

The Cleveland park historic district is the size of a quarter. Why are you obsessed with it? Those of us who live near it basically use it as a park, a nice place to walk dogs and kids and admire the pretty houses. You seem to have a huge *-on for historic CP which has negligible impact on people living in stabby or non-stabby areas. Do you not recognize how many duplexes and apartment buildings there are adjacent to this tiny historic district, like all the apartment buildings in Woodley Park and Conn Ave and Wisconsin Ave? But that's not enough for you--you want to knock down a miniscule historic district because metro? Weird.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

This was 70 years ago. How does it apply to rules about door knobs today? I'm genuinely curious. I'm guessing in CP, as in other neighborhoods, there are houses 'handed down' from then. Based on the number of sales signs I see, I'm also guessing not that many. But if you have stats please share.

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.

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.