Hysterical Society, more like it.

Anonymous wrote:the final salvo

Note that this lady is on the Board of Directors of the Cleveland Park Historical Society. She isn't just any old unhinged neighbor.

Between her, the old lying guy from Foxhall Village, and that gentleman who appeared to complain about students frequenting the Starbucks near his house, it was a banner day for the crazies.

the final salvo

You may think the task force is silly and disagree with their process, but how exactly is this gerrymandering? Nearly all the ANC/SMDs, with the exception of the AU campus are majority rich and white.

Hold Tricia Duncan accountable. This is how she will run a Council Office - just like Cheh, disdain for the public.

Once again the appointed Ward 3 gerrymandering task force demonstrated their disregard of public opinion and simple process by their actions this week. They released their report on Tuesday morning then then voted to adopt it (with a dissent) on Tuesday evening, but allowed no public comment on their report at the meeting. The task force report endorses the splitting up of Ward 3 neighborhoods, despite the fact that the vast majority of written submissions in the task force record favored keeping neighborhoods intact. Instead, the task force substituted their own agenda to center ANCs on commercial corridors and planning areas, something that exceeded their remit and that no other task force in any other ward has done. This undemocratic result is not surprising, when three of the task force members are connected to a single interest advocacy group.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I call BS. What support do you have for your statement? Neighborhoods that have been pushing back against the Smart Growth/Task Force gerrymandering have opposed breaking up their neighborhoods and excluding their voices from the ANCs that focus on issues on their neighborhoods. No one is demanding "more sway." But they don't want effectively to be gerrymandered out of their neighborhoods.

Stop the split, and just say no to Trumpy gerrymandering in Ward 3!

Fourteen pages in and you still haven't realized that "gerrymandering" doesn't mean what you think it does?

The definition of gerrymandering is seeking to achieve a political result by manipulating the boundaries of an electoral constituency.

That’s exactly the purpose behind the Smart Growth group’s plan to redistrict Ward 3 ANCs. (How were three individuals connected with one Smart Growth advocacy group appointed to the task force anyway?!) Their gerrymandering scheme splits up cohesive neighborhoods that have been represented by one ANC since the Home Rule Act created ANCs and realigns them around major arterial roads and administrative planning areas where Smart Growth wants increased development density. Their means is to divide and dilute neighborhood voices and the aim is pretty clear: to elect ANC commissioners who will rubber-stamp the aggressive development agenda pushed by the Smart Growth lobby and the DC Office of Planning which is aligned with that lobby. Parts of neighborhoods that today are within one ANC and represented by one commissioner will be split among at least ANCs and multiple commissioners under the Smart Growth gerrymandering. Some blocks would be divided among as many as three different SMDs. One proposed new SMD will be only one block wide in certain blocks yet extend over 1.6 miles, spanning several neighborhoods served by four different public elementary schools. Other proposed SMDs are redrawn in bizarre shapes around the residences of Smart Growth-aligned incumbents to create favorable electoral districts for them. It’s beyond baffling that Councilmember Cheh’s office gave so much latitutde over Ward 3 ANC redistricting to a Trump-Manafort political consultant whose agenda is to advance the interests of Smart Growth development clients.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The chairman of Cleveland Park Smart Growth, who is also the principal force behind the Ward 3 Task Force redistricting plan, has been claiming for some time that Cleveland Park's historic district somehow perpetuates racial exclusion. This is pretty rich, considering that Fabrizio Ward was the top pollster for Donald Trump. And his polling work with Manafort and Kilimnik to help a Putin puppet return to power in Ukraine doesn't exactly say "inclusion" and "equity", either. What is the Russian word for chutzpah?

There is a difference between saying that the zoning and historic districts are rooted in racism and exclusionary tactics and calling current residents racist, which no one has actually done, despite the claims here to the contrary. Fact: the zoning and covenants are rooted in racism. Does that mean we should continue with the racist zoning practices that keep people out? The covenants were banned. Why not also adjust the zoning?

Says the developer…. Fact: I have witnessed accusations of racism made toward and about current CP historic SFH residents as a group when they take a position that doesn’t align with the CP smart growth pro-density, pro-developer agenda several times in different contexts. It does not win over thoughtful people to your cause.

Yes, the R word and the environment emotionally appeal to their green and woke supporters . Developers will be long gone when ward 3 is paved over with luxury condos.

Seems like the same induviduals, groups and aligned ANC Commissioners support any kind of development whether doubling a SFH, cutting down trees, building on green space. It seems inconsistent on the environmental side.

This again - what green space has been built on in Ward 3?

What trees have been cut down in Ward 3 to enable new development?

Just recently, two ANC commissioners asked the Hist Preservation Review Board to pause a developer's application to redevelop the Marriott Wardman property. The developer plans to build more-or-less in the area of the closed hotel and keep the green space along Woodley Rd. that is used by school groups and the community. The two ANC commissioners didn't raise arguments related to the HPRB's purview, but they did state that they are pro-Smart Growth and urged that the developer build 2x or 3x the proposed number of units, including on the Woodley green. Such environmentalism! The HPRB kept asking them to discuss the historic elements rather than espouse their personal views for dense development.

Here is the recording of the HPRB hearing. The two ANC commissioners come across as unprepared, disengaged with the issue before the board, and explicitly offering their own views rather than those of the constituents that they are supposed represent. Mr. Fink even suggests that the ANC is not a forum for community engagement. If Woodley Park residents listen to their two commissioners "in action," they likely will have serious questions about whether these commissioners are doing their job.

Proposed Marriott Wardman Development

02:45:00 ANC Commissioner Pagats
03:03:00 ANC Commissioner Fink

https://play.champds.com/dczoning/event/325

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And you think tear downs and McMansions are something smart growth advocates support?

The ANC Commissioners who support smart growth also seem to support expansion of SFHs whenever a developer or homeowner wants to make a SFH larger. When you double the footprint of a SFH and double it’s price it is even less affordable or within reach to interested buyers.

No, the support the addition of ADU's which broaden the rental opportunity, in places like Cleveland Park, that are transit rich. I don't see Smart Growth advocates supporting SFH expansion to larger SFH writ large.

Some Smart Growthers are libertarian, property rights-types. In their view, while big development is better, any development is good, and government, historic districts and community groups should just get out of the way.

LOL, no. If you look at the strictures around Smart Growth, it is actually integrated with very tight principals - look at the transects associated with the Congress for New Urbanism as an example. And yes, Smart Growth and Historic Preservation can go hand in hand. The pattern of development on Connecticut Avenue is a strong example - though not the surface parking lot at the Park-N-Shop.

Cleveland Park Smart Growth, the virtual "organization" chaired by the author of the Ward 3 redistricting plan, recently held a program on development in Ward 3. The moderator at one point invited the panelists to agree with the proposition that historic preservation precludes change and perpetuates exclusion. One of the panelists, who heads the Montgomery County planning department, flatly disagreed and said "historic preservation is not the enemy" of affordable housing or economic development. Based on her experience in various cities, she pointed out how historic preservation can be a tool for thoughtful community development. The panel moderator was visibly uncomfortable and looked as if he had been stricken, like a Russia TV anchor after someone has blurted the truth out loud.

I wish more cp smart growthers thought like she does instead of making it so divisive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And you think tear downs and McMansions are something smart growth advocates support?

The ANC Commissioners who support smart growth also seem to support expansion of SFHs whenever a developer or homeowner wants to make a SFH larger. When you double the footprint of a SFH and double it’s price it is even less affordable or within reach to interested buyers.

No, the support the addition of ADU's which broaden the rental opportunity, in places like Cleveland Park, that are transit rich. I don't see Smart Growth advocates supporting SFH expansion to larger SFH writ large.

Some Smart Growthers are libertarian, property rights-types. In their view, while big development is better, any development is good, and government, historic districts and community groups should just get out of the way.

LOL, no. If you look at the strictures around Smart Growth, it is actually integrated with very tight principals - look at the transects associated with the Congress for New Urbanism as an example. And yes, Smart Growth and Historic Preservation can go hand in hand. The pattern of development on Connecticut Avenue is a strong example - though not the surface parking lot at the Park-N-Shop.

Cleveland Park Smart Growth, the virtual "organization" chaired by the author of the Ward 3 redistricting plan, recently held a program on development in Ward 3. The moderator at one point invited the panelists to agree with the proposition that historic preservation precludes change and perpetuates exclusion. One of the panelists, who heads the Montgomery County planning department, flatly disagreed and said "historic preservation is not the enemy" of affordable housing or economic development. Based on her experience in various cities, she pointed out how historic preservation can be a tool for thoughtful community development. The panel moderator was visibly uncomfortable and looked as if he had been stricken, like a Russia TV anchor after someone has blurted the truth out loud.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And you think tear downs and McMansions are something smart growth advocates support?

The ANC Commissioners who support smart growth also seem to support expansion of SFHs whenever a developer or homeowner wants to make a SFH larger. When you double the footprint of a SFH and double it’s price it is even less affordable or within reach to interested buyers.

No, the support the addition of ADU's which broaden the rental opportunity, in places like Cleveland Park, that are transit rich. I don't see Smart Growth advocates supporting SFH expansion to larger SFH writ large.

Then you have not been paying attention.

Please share where Greater Greater Washington, the Coalition for Smarter Growth or Ward 3 Vision has advocated for the expansion of a single family house project that doesn't include an ADU.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And you think tear downs and McMansions are something smart growth advocates support?

The ANC Commissioners who support smart growth also seem to support expansion of SFHs whenever a developer or homeowner wants to make a SFH larger. When you double the footprint of a SFH and double it’s price it is even less affordable or within reach to interested buyers.

No, the support the addition of ADU's which broaden the rental opportunity, in places like Cleveland Park, that are transit rich. I don't see Smart Growth advocates supporting SFH expansion to larger SFH writ large.

Then you have not been paying attention.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And you think tear downs and McMansions are something smart growth advocates support?

The ANC Commissioners who support smart growth also seem to support expansion of SFHs whenever a developer or homeowner wants to make a SFH larger. When you double the footprint of a SFH and double it’s price it is even less affordable or within reach to interested buyers.

No, the support the addition of ADU's which broaden the rental opportunity, in places like Cleveland Park, that are transit rich. I don't see Smart Growth advocates supporting SFH expansion to larger SFH writ large.

Some Smart Growthers are libertarian, property rights-types. In their view, while big development is better, any development is good, and government, historic districts and community groups should just get out of the way.

LOL, no. If you look at the strictures around Smart Growth, it is actually integrated with very tight principals - look at the transects associated with the Congress for New Urbanism as an example. And yes, Smart Growth and Historic Preservation can go hand in hand. The pattern of development on Connecticut Avenue is a strong example - though not the surface parking lot at the Park-N-Shop.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I call BS. What support do you have for your statement? Neighborhoods that have been pushing back against the Smart Growth/Task Force gerrymandering have opposed breaking up their neighborhoods and excluding their voices from the ANCs that focus on issues on their neighborhoods. No one is demanding "more sway." But they don't want effectively to be gerrymandered out of their neighborhoods.

Stop the split, and just say no to Trumpy gerrymandering in Ward 3!

Fourteen pages in and you still haven't realized that "gerrymandering" doesn't mean what you think it does?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The chairman of Cleveland Park Smart Growth, who is also the principal force behind the Ward 3 Task Force redistricting plan, has been claiming for some time that Cleveland Park's historic district somehow perpetuates racial exclusion. This is pretty rich, considering that Fabrizio Ward was the top pollster for Donald Trump. And his polling work with Manafort and Kilimnik to help a Putin puppet return to power in Ukraine doesn't exactly say "inclusion" and "equity", either. What is the Russian word for chutzpah?

There is a difference between saying that the zoning and historic districts are rooted in racism and exclusionary tactics and calling current residents racist, which no one has actually done, despite the claims here to the contrary. Fact: the zoning and covenants are rooted in racism. Does that mean we should continue with the racist zoning practices that keep people out? The covenants were banned. Why not also adjust the zoning?

Says the developer…. Fact: I have witnessed accusations of racism made toward and about current CP historic SFH residents as a group when they take a position that doesn’t align with the CP smart growth pro-density, pro-developer agenda several times in different contexts. It does not win over thoughtful people to your cause.

Yes, the R word and the environment emotionally appeal to their green and woke supporters . Developers will be long gone when ward 3 is paved over with luxury condos.

Seems like the same induviduals, groups and aligned ANC Commissioners support any kind of development whether doubling a SFH, cutting down trees, building on green space. It seems inconsistent on the environmental side.

This again - what green space has been built on in Ward 3?

What trees have been cut down in Ward 3 to enable new development?

Just recently, two ANC commissioners asked the Hist Preservation Review Board to pause a developer's application to redevelop the Marriott Wardman property. The developer plans to build more-or-less in the area of the closed hotel and keep the green space along Woodley Rd. that is used by school groups and the community. The two ANC commissioners didn't raise arguments related to the HPRB's purview, but they did state that they are pro-Smart Growth and urged that the developer build 2x or 3x the proposed number of units, including on the Woodley green. Such environmentalism! The HPRB kept asking them to discuss the historic elements rather than espouse their personal views for dense development.

Asked and answered!