Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP: What is this really about? What are the issues that some in CP feel like they wouldn't be able to get their way on if they were put in one ANC versus another?

It started with Cheh working through a process many considered rigged where the outcome was designed to limit representation of SF homeowners.

The people who politically benefit and their ideological comrades are now crying foul that those who would have had their representation dimished have been successfully able to restore some of it through a compromise.

This is how politics works and it people don’t understand it and it makes them upset.

I disagree with this characterization.

In the 2012 cycle, the Ward 3 Task Force was charged with more of a focus on the corridors. It did what it could at the time, but there were structural issues with census tracts preventing doing more than what was done.

In this cycle, without having self-interested ANC Commissioenrs on the Task Force, as they were in 2012, the Task Force was able to create the ANC 3A and re-focus more appropriately was had been started in 2012.

The ONLY people complaining about the map ultimately proposed by the three At-Large Councilmembers who are charged with impartially overseeing this process, are from the Cleveland Park NIMBYs and Mendelson, whose political career was spawned from that ilk, catered to them wholly.

The new map proposed by Mendelson has illegal outsized Single Member Districts, and splits neighborhoods more egregiously than any map proposed by the Task Force.

I guess it is okay to split neighborhoods as long as it isn't Cleveland Park.

“without having self-interested ANC Commissioners” just explained everything that was wrong with the process and why it was necessary for a final compromise to be brokered.

If it started with an inclusive process from the beginning it would have resulted in an outcome with legitimacy.

If you believe that the compromise is illegal then I hope that you sue. That’s what courts are for.

The ANC Commissioners were involved in 2012, not this year.

That’s exactly the point and the problem. Critics felt that selection of the people involved was not representative and therefore the outcome lacked legitimacy.

It was fully legitimate. Councilmember Cheh has discretion to compose the group of residents volunteering for this service.

You would think that with her experience that she would have done a better job ensuring that all constituencies were well represented to ensure that the process had legitimacy. Instead of complaining about Mendelson, you really should be complaining about Cheh running a shoddy process that had to be fixed like this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP: What is this really about? What are the issues that some in CP feel like they wouldn't be able to get their way on if they were put in one ANC versus another?

It started with Cheh working through a process many considered rigged where the outcome was designed to limit representation of SF homeowners.

The people who politically benefit and their ideological comrades are now crying foul that those who would have had their representation dimished have been successfully able to restore some of it through a compromise.

This is how politics works and it people don’t understand it and it makes them upset.

I disagree with this characterization.

In the 2012 cycle, the Ward 3 Task Force was charged with more of a focus on the corridors. It did what it could at the time, but there were structural issues with census tracts preventing doing more than what was done.

In this cycle, without having self-interested ANC Commissioenrs on the Task Force, as they were in 2012, the Task Force was able to create the ANC 3A and re-focus more appropriately was had been started in 2012.

The ONLY people complaining about the map ultimately proposed by the three At-Large Councilmembers who are charged with impartially overseeing this process, are from the Cleveland Park NIMBYs and Mendelson, whose political career was spawned from that ilk, catered to them wholly.

The new map proposed by Mendelson has illegal outsized Single Member Districts, and splits neighborhoods more egregiously than any map proposed by the Task Force.

I guess it is okay to split neighborhoods as long as it isn't Cleveland Park.

“without having self-interested ANC Commissioners” just explained everything that was wrong with the process and why it was necessary for a final compromise to be brokered.

If it started with an inclusive process from the beginning it would have resulted in an outcome with legitimacy.

If you believe that the compromise is illegal then I hope that you sue. That’s what courts are for.

The ANC Commissioners were involved in 2012, not this year.

That’s exactly the point and the problem. Critics felt that selection of the people involved was not representative and therefore the outcome lacked legitimacy.

Critics are just upset they weren't making the lines. The fact is, there is representation from across the Ward on the task force. They actually analyzed the numbers and drew lines that worked within both the letter and spirit of the law. What Mendelson submitted is simply illegal according to the statute. It should be rejected on form and process.

And now you’re upset because your people didn’t get to make the lines that you thought would favor you. It seems that you may be learning for the first time in your life how political compromise works and I guess you don’t like it. You may want to get used to it or not get involved in local politics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP: What is this really about? What are the issues that some in CP feel like they wouldn't be able to get their way on if they were put in one ANC versus another?

It started with Cheh working through a process many considered rigged where the outcome was designed to limit representation of SF homeowners.

The people who politically benefit and their ideological comrades are now crying foul that those who would have had their representation dimished have been successfully able to restore some of it through a compromise.

This is how politics works and it people don’t understand it and it makes them upset.

I disagree with this characterization.

In the 2012 cycle, the Ward 3 Task Force was charged with more of a focus on the corridors. It did what it could at the time, but there were structural issues with census tracts preventing doing more than what was done.

In this cycle, without having self-interested ANC Commissioenrs on the Task Force, as they were in 2012, the Task Force was able to create the ANC 3A and re-focus more appropriately was had been started in 2012.

The ONLY people complaining about the map ultimately proposed by the three At-Large Councilmembers who are charged with impartially overseeing this process, are from the Cleveland Park NIMBYs and Mendelson, whose political career was spawned from that ilk, catered to them wholly.

The new map proposed by Mendelson has illegal outsized Single Member Districts, and splits neighborhoods more egregiously than any map proposed by the Task Force.

I guess it is okay to split neighborhoods as long as it isn't Cleveland Park.

“without having self-interested ANC Commissioners” just explained everything that was wrong with the process and why it was necessary for a final compromise to be brokered.

If it started with an inclusive process from the beginning it would have resulted in an outcome with legitimacy.

If you believe that the compromise is illegal then I hope that you sue. That’s what courts are for.

The ANC Commissioners were involved in 2012, not this year.

That’s exactly the point and the problem. Critics felt that selection of the people involved was not representative and therefore the outcome lacked legitimacy.

It was fully legitimate. Councilmember Cheh has discretion to compose the group of residents volunteering for this service.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP: What is this really about? What are the issues that some in CP feel like they wouldn't be able to get their way on if they were put in one ANC versus another?

It started with Cheh working through a process many considered rigged where the outcome was designed to limit representation of SF homeowners.

The people who politically benefit and their ideological comrades are now crying foul that those who would have had their representation dimished have been successfully able to restore some of it through a compromise.

This is how politics works and it people don’t understand it and it makes them upset.

I disagree with this characterization.

In the 2012 cycle, the Ward 3 Task Force was charged with more of a focus on the corridors. It did what it could at the time, but there were structural issues with census tracts preventing doing more than what was done.

In this cycle, without having self-interested ANC Commissioenrs on the Task Force, as they were in 2012, the Task Force was able to create the ANC 3A and re-focus more appropriately was had been started in 2012.

The ONLY people complaining about the map ultimately proposed by the three At-Large Councilmembers who are charged with impartially overseeing this process, are from the Cleveland Park NIMBYs and Mendelson, whose political career was spawned from that ilk, catered to them wholly.

The new map proposed by Mendelson has illegal outsized Single Member Districts, and splits neighborhoods more egregiously than any map proposed by the Task Force.

I guess it is okay to split neighborhoods as long as it isn't Cleveland Park.

“without having self-interested ANC Commissioners” just explained everything that was wrong with the process and why it was necessary for a final compromise to be brokered.

If it started with an inclusive process from the beginning it would have resulted in an outcome with legitimacy.

If you believe that the compromise is illegal then I hope that you sue. That’s what courts are for.

The ANC Commissioners were involved in 2012, not this year.

That’s exactly the point and the problem. Critics felt that selection of the people involved was not representative and therefore the outcome lacked legitimacy.

Critics are just upset they weren't making the lines. The fact is, there is representation from across the Ward on the task force. They actually analyzed the numbers and drew lines that worked within both the letter and spirit of the law. What Mendelson submitted is simply illegal according to the statute. It should be rejected on form and process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP: What is this really about? What are the issues that some in CP feel like they wouldn't be able to get their way on if they were put in one ANC versus another?

It started with Cheh working through a process many considered rigged where the outcome was designed to limit representation of SF homeowners.

The people who politically benefit and their ideological comrades are now crying foul that those who would have had their representation dimished have been successfully able to restore some of it through a compromise.

This is how politics works and it people don’t understand it and it makes them upset.

I disagree with this characterization.

In the 2012 cycle, the Ward 3 Task Force was charged with more of a focus on the corridors. It did what it could at the time, but there were structural issues with census tracts preventing doing more than what was done.

In this cycle, without having self-interested ANC Commissioenrs on the Task Force, as they were in 2012, the Task Force was able to create the ANC 3A and re-focus more appropriately was had been started in 2012.

The ONLY people complaining about the map ultimately proposed by the three At-Large Councilmembers who are charged with impartially overseeing this process, are from the Cleveland Park NIMBYs and Mendelson, whose political career was spawned from that ilk, catered to them wholly.

The new map proposed by Mendelson has illegal outsized Single Member Districts, and splits neighborhoods more egregiously than any map proposed by the Task Force.

I guess it is okay to split neighborhoods as long as it isn't Cleveland Park.

“without having self-interested ANC Commissioners” just explained everything that was wrong with the process and why it was necessary for a final compromise to be brokered.

If it started with an inclusive process from the beginning it would have resulted in an outcome with legitimacy.

If you believe that the compromise is illegal then I hope that you sue. That’s what courts are for.

The ANC Commissioners were involved in 2012, not this year.

That’s exactly the point and the problem. Critics felt that selection of the people involved was not representative and therefore the outcome lacked legitimacy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP: What is this really about? What are the issues that some in CP feel like they wouldn't be able to get their way on if they were put in one ANC versus another?

It started with Cheh working through a process many considered rigged where the outcome was designed to limit representation of SF homeowners.

The people who politically benefit and their ideological comrades are now crying foul that those who would have had their representation dimished have been successfully able to restore some of it through a compromise.

This is how politics works and it people don’t understand it and it makes them upset.

I disagree with this characterization.

In the 2012 cycle, the Ward 3 Task Force was charged with more of a focus on the corridors. It did what it could at the time, but there were structural issues with census tracts preventing doing more than what was done.

In this cycle, without having self-interested ANC Commissioenrs on the Task Force, as they were in 2012, the Task Force was able to create the ANC 3A and re-focus more appropriately was had been started in 2012.

The ONLY people complaining about the map ultimately proposed by the three At-Large Councilmembers who are charged with impartially overseeing this process, are from the Cleveland Park NIMBYs and Mendelson, whose political career was spawned from that ilk, catered to them wholly.

The new map proposed by Mendelson has illegal outsized Single Member Districts, and splits neighborhoods more egregiously than any map proposed by the Task Force.

I guess it is okay to split neighborhoods as long as it isn't Cleveland Park.

“without having self-interested ANC Commissioners” just explained everything that was wrong with the process and why it was necessary for a final compromise to be brokered.

If it started with an inclusive process from the beginning it would have resulted in an outcome with legitimacy.

If you believe that the compromise is illegal then I hope that you sue. That’s what courts are for.

The ANC Commissioners were involved in 2012, not this year.

That’s exactly the point and the problem. Critics felt that selection of the people involved was not representative and therefore the outcome lacked legitimacy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP: What is this really about? What are the issues that some in CP feel like they wouldn't be able to get their way on if they were put in one ANC versus another?

It started with Cheh working through a process many considered rigged where the outcome was designed to limit representation of SF homeowners.

The people who politically benefit and their ideological comrades are now crying foul that those who would have had their representation dimished have been successfully able to restore some of it through a compromise.

This is how politics works and it people don’t understand it and it makes them upset.

I disagree with this characterization.

In the 2012 cycle, the Ward 3 Task Force was charged with more of a focus on the corridors. It did what it could at the time, but there were structural issues with census tracts preventing doing more than what was done.

In this cycle, without having self-interested ANC Commissioenrs on the Task Force, as they were in 2012, the Task Force was able to create the ANC 3A and re-focus more appropriately was had been started in 2012.

The ONLY people complaining about the map ultimately proposed by the three At-Large Councilmembers who are charged with impartially overseeing this process, are from the Cleveland Park NIMBYs and Mendelson, whose political career was spawned from that ilk, catered to them wholly.

The new map proposed by Mendelson has illegal outsized Single Member Districts, and splits neighborhoods more egregiously than any map proposed by the Task Force.

I guess it is okay to split neighborhoods as long as it isn't Cleveland Park.

“without having self-interested ANC Commissioners” just explained everything that was wrong with the process and why it was necessary for a final compromise to be brokered.

If it started with an inclusive process from the beginning it would have resulted in an outcome with legitimacy.

If you believe that the compromise is illegal then I hope that you sue. That’s what courts are for.

The ANC Commissioners were involved in 2012, not this year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP: What is this really about? What are the issues that some in CP feel like they wouldn't be able to get their way on if they were put in one ANC versus another?

It started with Cheh working through a process many considered rigged where the outcome was designed to limit representation of SF homeowners.

The people who politically benefit and their ideological comrades are now crying foul that those who would have had their representation dimished have been successfully able to restore some of it through a compromise.

This is how politics works and it people don’t understand it and it makes them upset.

I disagree with this characterization.

In the 2012 cycle, the Ward 3 Task Force was charged with more of a focus on the corridors. It did what it could at the time, but there were structural issues with census tracts preventing doing more than what was done.

In this cycle, without having self-interested ANC Commissioenrs on the Task Force, as they were in 2012, the Task Force was able to create the ANC 3A and re-focus more appropriately was had been started in 2012.

The ONLY people complaining about the map ultimately proposed by the three At-Large Councilmembers who are charged with impartially overseeing this process, are from the Cleveland Park NIMBYs and Mendelson, whose political career was spawned from that ilk, catered to them wholly.

The new map proposed by Mendelson has illegal outsized Single Member Districts, and splits neighborhoods more egregiously than any map proposed by the Task Force.

I guess it is okay to split neighborhoods as long as it isn't Cleveland Park.

“without having self-interested ANC Commissioners” just explained everything that was wrong with the process and why it was necessary for a final compromise to be brokered.

If it started with an inclusive process from the beginning it would have resulted in an outcome with legitimacy.

If you believe that the compromise is illegal then I hope that you sue. That’s what courts are for.

Silverman offered a compromise. Mendelson's isn't a compromise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP: What is this really about? What are the issues that some in CP feel like they wouldn't be able to get their way on if they were put in one ANC versus another?

It started with Cheh working through a process many considered rigged where the outcome was designed to limit representation of SF homeowners.

The people who politically benefit and their ideological comrades are now crying foul that those who would have had their representation dimished have been successfully able to restore some of it through a compromise.

This is how politics works and it people don’t understand it and it makes them upset.

I disagree with this characterization.

In the 2012 cycle, the Ward 3 Task Force was charged with more of a focus on the corridors. It did what it could at the time, but there were structural issues with census tracts preventing doing more than what was done.

In this cycle, without having self-interested ANC Commissioenrs on the Task Force, as they were in 2012, the Task Force was able to create the ANC 3A and re-focus more appropriately was had been started in 2012.

The ONLY people complaining about the map ultimately proposed by the three At-Large Councilmembers who are charged with impartially overseeing this process, are from the Cleveland Park NIMBYs and Mendelson, whose political career was spawned from that ilk, catered to them wholly.

The new map proposed by Mendelson has illegal outsized Single Member Districts, and splits neighborhoods more egregiously than any map proposed by the Task Force.

I guess it is okay to split neighborhoods as long as it isn't Cleveland Park.

“without having self-interested ANC Commissioners” just explained everything that was wrong with the process and why it was necessary for a final compromise to be brokered.

If it started with an inclusive process from the beginning it would have resulted in an outcome with legitimacy.

If you believe that the compromise is illegal then I hope that you sue. That’s what courts are for.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP: What is this really about? What are the issues that some in CP feel like they wouldn't be able to get their way on if they were put in one ANC versus another?

It started with Cheh working through a process many considered rigged where the outcome was designed to limit representation of SF homeowners.

The people who politically benefit and their ideological comrades are now crying foul that those who would have had their representation dimished have been successfully able to restore some of it through a compromise.

This is how politics works and it people don’t understand it and it makes them upset.

I disagree with this characterization.

In the 2012 cycle, the Ward 3 Task Force was charged with more of a focus on the corridors. It did what it could at the time, but there were structural issues with census tracts preventing doing more than what was done.

In this cycle, without having self-interested ANC Commissioenrs on the Task Force, as they were in 2012, the Task Force was able to create the ANC 3A and re-focus more appropriately was had been started in 2012.

The ONLY people complaining about the map ultimately proposed by the three At-Large Councilmembers who are charged with impartially overseeing this process, are from the Cleveland Park NIMBYs and Mendelson, whose political career was spawned from that ilk, catered to them wholly.

The new map proposed by Mendelson has illegal outsized Single Member Districts, and splits neighborhoods more egregiously than any map proposed by the Task Force.

I guess it is okay to split neighborhoods as long as it isn't Cleveland Park.

“without having self-interested ANC Commissioners” just explained everything that was wrong with the process and why it was necessary for a final compromise to be brokered.

If it started with an inclusive process from the beginning it would have resulted in an outcome with legitimacy.

If you believe that the compromise is illegal then I hope that you sue. That’s what courts are for.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP: What is this really about? What are the issues that some in CP feel like they wouldn't be able to get their way on if they were put in one ANC versus another?

It started with Cheh working through a process many considered rigged where the outcome was designed to limit representation of SF homeowners.

The people who politically benefit and their ideological comrades are now crying foul that those who would have had their representation dimished have been successfully able to restore some of it through a compromise.

This is how politics works and it people don’t understand it and it makes them upset.

I disagree with this characterization.

In the 2012 cycle, the Ward 3 Task Force was charged with more of a focus on the corridors. It did what it could at the time, but there were structural issues with census tracts preventing doing more than what was done.

In this cycle, without having self-interested ANC Commissioenrs on the Task Force, as they were in 2012, the Task Force was able to create the ANC 3A and re-focus more appropriately was had been started in 2012.

The ONLY people complaining about the map ultimately proposed by the three At-Large Councilmembers who are charged with impartially overseeing this process, are from the Cleveland Park NIMBYs and Mendelson, whose political career was spawned from that ilk, catered to them wholly.

The new map proposed by Mendelson has illegal outsized Single Member Districts, and splits neighborhoods more egregiously than any map proposed by the Task Force.

I guess it is okay to split neighborhoods as long as it isn't Cleveland Park.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Phil Mendelson releases a revised map at 10:20 on a Friday night. A map that doesn't conform to the law, nor the process. Why? To cater to his 30 years ago base of Cleveland Park NIMBYs.

And then....Eric Goulet, the supposed endorsed candidate of the Chamber of Commerce and businesses...goes and supports it. So I guess this is what we can expect from Goulet? 11th hour meddling that caters to the highly privileged?

How hard is it for Goulet to not write tweets that make him look like a complete ass. Every single one is so bad that I could swear that they were from a parody account made to mock local politicians who take themselves and their feelings far too seriously.

Your complaints are seriously over board. I think you need to cope.

What is overboard is a candidate thinking that a last minute, unvetted and illegal change to the redistricting maps is both thoughtful and transparent.

Why are you defending it?

Yes. You need to get some perspective. It sounds like you are just whining because you cannot get your way and don’t like compromises.

Here’s a tip: Goulet doesn’t sound like a parody for supporting a compromise. You sound ridiculous for making it sound like Mendelson is commuting human rights abuses and Goulet is applauding it. I recommend getting a grip.

Mendelson is bypassing 5 months of work by hundreds of volunteers to offer a map only supported by Cleveland Park NIMBYs. The map has several single member districts that are too large and thus are illegal according to the redistricting statue. If anyone is whining about not getting their way, it the old guard in Cleveland Park who went to Mendelson to get this new map, and Goulet is fully supporting it.

This is what I’m talking about. You didn’t get your way and don’t like the compromise so you whine. You don’t seem to understand politics.

Step 1: the process that resulted in the map submitted to the Council
Step 2: the Map proposed by the Council, which was a compromise from the one submitted by the Task Force
Step 3: Cleveland Park NIMBYs complained to Mendelson
Step 4: Mendelson proposes a new map that is illegal

Who are the whiners?

The whiner is you and you are still doing it.

So you think that Mendelson autocratically cramming an unvetted and illegal map on to the residents of Ward 3 is perfectly acceptable? And Goulet is fine with it as well.

Bully for you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP: What is this really about? What are the issues that some in CP feel like they wouldn't be able to get their way on if they were put in one ANC versus another?

It started with Cheh working through a process many considered rigged where the outcome was designed to limit representation of SF homeowners.

The people who politically benefit and their ideological comrades are now crying foul that those who would have had their representation dimished have been successfully able to restore some of it through a compromise.

This is how politics works and it people don’t understand it and it makes them upset.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Phil Mendelson releases a revised map at 10:20 on a Friday night. A map that doesn't conform to the law, nor the process. Why? To cater to his 30 years ago base of Cleveland Park NIMBYs.

And then....Eric Goulet, the supposed endorsed candidate of the Chamber of Commerce and businesses...goes and supports it. So I guess this is what we can expect from Goulet? 11th hour meddling that caters to the highly privileged?

How hard is it for Goulet to not write tweets that make him look like a complete ass. Every single one is so bad that I could swear that they were from a parody account made to mock local politicians who take themselves and their feelings far too seriously.

Your complaints are seriously over board. I think you need to cope.

What is overboard is a candidate thinking that a last minute, unvetted and illegal change to the redistricting maps is both thoughtful and transparent.

Why are you defending it?

Yes. You need to get some perspective. It sounds like you are just whining because you cannot get your way and don’t like compromises.

Here’s a tip: Goulet doesn’t sound like a parody for supporting a compromise. You sound ridiculous for making it sound like Mendelson is commuting human rights abuses and Goulet is applauding it. I recommend getting a grip.

Mendelson is bypassing 5 months of work by hundreds of volunteers to offer a map only supported by Cleveland Park NIMBYs. The map has several single member districts that are too large and thus are illegal according to the redistricting statue. If anyone is whining about not getting their way, it the old guard in Cleveland Park who went to Mendelson to get this new map, and Goulet is fully supporting it.

This is what I’m talking about. You didn’t get your way and don’t like the compromise so you whine. You don’t seem to understand politics.

Step 1: the process that resulted in the map submitted to the Council
Step 2: the Map proposed by the Council, which was a compromise from the one submitted by the Task Force
Step 3: Cleveland Park NIMBYs complained to Mendelson
Step 4: Mendelson proposes a new map that is illegal

Who are the whiners?

The whiner is you and you are still doing it.