Who is the best person to call to make your voice heard about blocking the split?

What can we do let the council know that it's a bad idea?

what is wrong with asking to have a livable city. More density makes the city less livable.

Smart Growth is so corrupt that the people who support it don't even realize they are dupes. I don't want to call them names, but its so incredibly frustrating that they drape themselves as do gooders when actually they are just front people for developers.

Anonymous wrote:the final salvo

The photo in the upper left of the You Tube video looks exactly like one of the ANC redistricting task force members, Bob Ward. It's rather surprising that an official task force member would decide to edit a video of Council testimony by various members of the public and then publish it on DCUM. Or maybe it's not so surprising, considering that Mr. Ward is also an experienced political consultant who operates at the "highest" levels of bare-knuckle politics (Trump campaign, Paul Manafort, etc). His longtime business partner @Fabrizio Ward even created the Willie Horton ad. How on earth did CM Mary Cheh think it was a good idea to appoint someone with this political baggage to the Ward 3 task force?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Smart growth is really bad for society. But it's great for developers

1) focusing development where there is infrastructure is good for the environment - it reduces dependence on driving cars and save valuable green space in the exurbs and rural areas
2) more density means more opportunity for housing where the jobs are


So....how is it bad for society?

More density creates LESS green space in cities. It only creates traffic, overcrowded classrooms and strained infrastructure. It's good for developers who want to make more money. The smart growth movement is grasstop political corruption.

If you have the same number of people, but they're housed more densely, then there's more undeveloped (aka "green") space. The opposite of density is sprawl.

Really? I can't tell if you are being naive or sarcastic. The first thing to go is green space. Buildings get bigger, sky gets blocked, green space gets turned into concrete and asphalt. More density is horrible for the already stressed urban environment. I don't know why people think it's a good thing to pile more and more people into smaller and smaller spaces. It's the opposite of healthy. Maybe more density for suburban areas can work. But DC, along with every other city in the U.S., is already struggling with its current infrastructure.

You're not getting at all what I'm saying. Let's put it into numbers. DC currently has about 700,000 residents and is just under 70 square miles, so it's density is about 10,000 residents per square mile. Dozens of world cities have densities over 40,000 per square mile. If the populated parts of DC had that density only a quarter of the city would need to be inhabited, the other three quarters could be green space. That would be much better for the environment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Smart growth is really bad for society. But it's great for developers

1) focusing development where there is infrastructure is good for the environment - it reduces dependence on driving cars and save valuable green space in the exurbs and rural areas
2) more density means more opportunity for housing where the jobs are


So....how is it bad for society?

More density creates LESS green space in cities. It only creates traffic, overcrowded classrooms and strained infrastructure. It's good for developers who want to make more money. The smart growth movement is grasstop political corruption.

If you have the same number of people, but they're housed more densely, then there's more undeveloped (aka "green") space. The opposite of density is sprawl.

Really? I can't tell if you are being naive or sarcastic. The first thing to go is green space. Buildings get bigger, sky gets blocked, green space gets turned into concrete and asphalt. More density is horrible for the already stressed urban environment. I don't know why people think it's a good thing to pile more and more people into smaller and smaller spaces. It's the opposite of healthy. Maybe more density for suburban areas can work. But DC, along with every other city in the U.S., is already struggling with its current infrastructure.

You all are talking past each other. Urban density is a good thing. It focuses infrastructure and resources and enables more rural green space. Yes, we need to preserve green space in our urban areas. DC is filled with parks, play areas, Rock Creek, Glover Archibald, Kennilworth and the river fronts - plenty of green space.

On macro level, "smart growth" addresses the major issues of our time.

One can debate the merits or fallacy of "smart growth." That isn't the issue here. The issue is how several persons directly connected with one advocacy organization (for smart growth) got themselves appointed to a Redistricting Task Force. The founder and chair of the group is one of these task force members. And then acted with carte blanche to proceed with their plan to carve up a neighborhood to shrink the ANC so many fewer residents would have a say on neighborhood development issues. In the process they also drew Single Member Districts that will be more favorable for certain incumbent commissioners who have been backed by the very same advocacy group. And they did all of this against the overwhelming weight of comments in the public record. That stinks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Smart growth is really bad for society. But it's great for developers

1) focusing development where there is infrastructure is good for the environment - it reduces dependence on driving cars and save valuable green space in the exurbs and rural areas
2) more density means more opportunity for housing where the jobs are


So....how is it bad for society?

More density creates LESS green space in cities. It only creates traffic, overcrowded classrooms and strained infrastructure. It's good for developers who want to make more money. The smart growth movement is grasstop political corruption.

If you have the same number of people, but they're housed more densely, then there's more undeveloped (aka "green") space. The opposite of density is sprawl.

Really? I can't tell if you are being naive or sarcastic. The first thing to go is green space. Buildings get bigger, sky gets blocked, green space gets turned into concrete and asphalt. More density is horrible for the already stressed urban environment. I don't know why people think it's a good thing to pile more and more people into smaller and smaller spaces. It's the opposite of healthy. Maybe more density for suburban areas can work. But DC, along with every other city in the U.S., is already struggling with its current infrastructure.

You all are talking past each other. Urban density is a good thing. It focuses infrastructure and resources and enables more rural green space. Yes, we need to preserve green space in our urban areas. DC is filled with parks, play areas, Rock Creek, Glover Archibald, Kennilworth and the river fronts - plenty of green space.

On macro level, "smart growth" addresses the major issues of our time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Smart growth is really bad for society. But it's great for developers

1) focusing development where there is infrastructure is good for the environment - it reduces dependence on driving cars and save valuable green space in the exurbs and rural areas
2) more density means more opportunity for housing where the jobs are


So....how is it bad for society?

More density creates LESS green space in cities. It only creates traffic, overcrowded classrooms and strained infrastructure. It's good for developers who want to make more money. The smart growth movement is grasstop political corruption.

If you have the same number of people, but they're housed more densely, then there's more undeveloped (aka "green") space. The opposite of density is sprawl.

Really? I can't tell if you are being naive or sarcastic. The first thing to go is green space. Buildings get bigger, sky gets blocked, green space gets turned into concrete and asphalt. More density is horrible for the already stressed urban environment. I don't know why people think it's a good thing to pile more and more people into smaller and smaller spaces. It's the opposite of healthy. Maybe more density for suburban areas can work. But DC, along with every other city in the U.S., is already struggling with its current infrastructure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Smart growth is really bad for society. But it's great for developers

1) focusing development where there is infrastructure is good for the environment - it reduces dependence on driving cars and save valuable green space in the exurbs and rural areas
2) more density means more opportunity for housing where the jobs are


So....how is it bad for society?

More density creates LESS green space in cities. It only creates traffic, overcrowded classrooms and strained infrastructure. It's good for developers who want to make more money. The smart growth movement is grasstop political corruption.

If you have the same number of people, but they're housed more densely, then there's more undeveloped (aka "green") space. The opposite of density is sprawl.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Smart growth is really bad for society. But it's great for developers

1) focusing development where there is infrastructure is good for the environment - it reduces dependence on driving cars and save valuable green space in the exurbs and rural areas
2) more density means more opportunity for housing where the jobs are


So....how is it bad for society?

More density creates LESS green space in cities. It only creates traffic, overcrowded classrooms and strained infrastructure. It's good for developers who want to make more money. The smart growth movement is grasstop political corruption.

Anonymous wrote:Smart growth is really bad for society. But it's great for developers

1) focusing development where there is infrastructure is good for the environment - it reduces dependence on driving cars and save valuable green space in the exurbs and rural areas
2) more density means more opportunity for housing where the jobs are


So....how is it bad for society?

Anonymous wrote:Smart growth is really bad for society. But it's great for developers

Counterpoint: the moon is made of cheese.

Smart growth is really bad for society. But it's great for developers

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's this guy: Ben Tessler. "Ben Tessler, a Wesley Heights real estate agent who co-founded the National Capital Tea Party Patriots"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI60l4ubMx0

This is also him:
https://projects.propublica.org/coronavirus/bailouts/loans/benjamin-m-tessler-1496248000
and here too
https://projects.propublica.org/coronavirus/bailouts/loans/benjamin-tessler-9015258707

Cognitive dissonance at its finest. That, or he is just full of crap.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's this guy: Ben Tessler. "Ben Tessler, a Wesley Heights real estate agent who co-founded the National Capital Tea Party Patriots"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI60l4ubMx0

This is also him:
https://projects.propublica.org/coronavirus/bailouts/loans/benjamin-m-tessler-1496248000
and here too
https://projects.propublica.org/coronavirus/bailouts/loans/benjamin-tessler-9015258707