Anonymous wrote:Doesn't the council get to vote on Mendelson's map, and Silverman's map? There's no dictatorship, no anything, it's just politics (both maps!).

Contact your council member with how you want the vote to go. Though I don't know what interest the non-Ward 3 council members have.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you are saying that Mendelson's map is a compromise? Who did he consult? How is it legal? What is the compromise? His map is basically taking what exists today and making 3 ANCs larger with illegally Single Member Districts. How is that a good solution?

How do you know that map is “illegal”? Are you a lawyer?

It’s a good political compromise precisely because it makes no one happy. That’s how politics works.

The compromise map is the one that Silverman proposed. The one that Mendleson proposed is more like the status quo, only worse Why is it ok to have three ANCs that span the entire areas between Connectiticut and Wisconsin Avenues, and from Glover Park to Tenleytown? Why not have the areas of focus where people actually live, rather than letting one or two ANC COmmissioners have purview over huges areas that impact thousands of people they are not anything close to neighborhos with'?

So it’s “illegal” because you don’t like it?

I don’t think that’s how the law works.

It's illegal because there are single member districts that are both above and below the staturory mandates. Read the law and look at Mendelson's maps. They are prima facia illegal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you are saying that Mendelson's map is a compromise? Who did he consult? How is it legal? What is the compromise? His map is basically taking what exists today and making 3 ANCs larger with illegally Single Member Districts. How is that a good solution?

How do you know that map is “illegal”? Are you a lawyer?

It’s a good political compromise precisely because it makes no one happy. That’s how politics works.

The compromise map is the one that Silverman proposed. The one that Mendleson proposed is more like the status quo, only worse Why is it ok to have three ANCs that span the entire areas between Connectiticut and Wisconsin Avenues, and from Glover Park to Tenleytown? Why not have the areas of focus where people actually live, rather than letting one or two ANC COmmissioners have purview over huges areas that impact thousands of people they are not anything close to neighborhos with'?

So it’s “illegal” because you don’t like it?

I don’t think that’s how the law works.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you are saying that Mendelson's map is a compromise? Who did he consult? How is it legal? What is the compromise? His map is basically taking what exists today and making 3 ANCs larger with illegally Single Member Districts. How is that a good solution?

How do you know that map is “illegal”? Are you a lawyer?

It’s a good political compromise precisely because it makes no one happy. That’s how politics works.

The compromise map is the one that Silverman proposed. The one that Mendleson proposed is more like the status quo, only worse Why is it ok to have three ANCs that span the entire areas between Connectiticut and Wisconsin Avenues, and from Glover Park to Tenleytown? Why not have the areas of focus where people actually live, rather than letting one or two ANC COmmissioners have purview over huges areas that impact thousands of people they are not anything close to neighborhos with'?

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't the council get to vote on Mendelson's map, and Silverman's map? There's no dictatorship, no anything, it's just politics (both maps!).

Contact your council member with how you want the vote to go. Though I don't know what interest the non-Ward 3 council members have.

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.

But what are the actual issues this affects?

It’s about representation on ANCs. The “issues” are those of relevance to ANCs.

There seems to be a studious effort to avoid talking about the issues.

In general, ANC's don't have a lot of power. However, the one capability they do have is to obstruct things. If you want your neighborhood frozen in time, to reflect the say it was in some past "golden era," the ANC can help. However, the less hyper-local a commission is, the less likely it is to act that way. So the NIMBY's in Foxhall Village don't like being part of a larger ANC that isn't so parochial, and the NIMBY's in Cleveland Park want to all be in the same commission so they can dominate it.

Or you can flip that sentiment around and conclude that people with opposing views wanted to create geographic boundaries of representation that they could dominate.

You pretend that any one position is better than the other. If you are position neutral, then you see it is just about power and who executes it. From that perspective, it’s should’ve been obvious to you that you could not engage in an orchestrated power grab without expecting push back. And the reality is that the process by which this power grab was conducted was so obliviously illegitimate that the outcome could not stand.

If you’re smart, this should serve as a political lesson for you that you could learn a lot from. First and foremost, we don’t live in a dictatorship and that’s a good thing. So you need to learn how to work with people you disagree with in order to achieve the outcomes you want. And most of the time, the changes that you seek will be incremental because that’s how politics works and that’s a good thing.

In retrospect, you should be relieved that our democratic systems did not let you execute what you were trying to accomplish. Because imagine these systems are value neutral, so you must imagine that other people who have different views than you would be able to exploit them just as well.

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.

But what are the actual issues this affects?

It’s about representation on ANCs. The “issues” are those of relevance to ANCs.

There seems to be a studious effort to avoid talking about the issues.

In general, ANC's don't have a lot of power. However, the one capability they do have is to obstruct things. If you want your neighborhood frozen in time, to reflect the say it was in some past "golden era," the ANC can help. However, the less hyper-local a commission is, the less likely it is to act that way. So the NIMBY's in Foxhall Village don't like being part of a larger ANC that isn't so parochial, and the NIMBY's in Cleveland Park want to all be in the same commission so they can dominate it.

Or you can flip that sentiment around and conclude that people with opposing views wanted to create geographic boundaries of representation that they could dominate.

You pretend that any one position is better than the other. If you are position neutral, then you see it is just about power and who executes it. From that perspective, it’s should’ve been obvious to you that you could not engage in an orchestrated power grab without expecting push back. And the reality is that the process by which this power grab was conducted was so obliviously illegitimate that the outcome could not stand.

If you’re smart, this should serve as a political lesson for you that you could learn a lot from. First and foremost, we don’t live in a dictatorship and that’s a good thing. So you need to learn how to work with people you disagree with in order to achieve the outcomes you want. And most of the time, the changes that you seek will be incremental because that’s how politics works and that’s a good thing.

In retrospect, you should be relieved that our democratic systems did not let you execute what you were trying to accomplish. Because imagine these systems are value neutral, so you must imagine that other people who have different views than you would be able to exploit them just as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you are saying that Mendelson's map is a compromise? Who did he consult? How is it legal? What is the compromise? His map is basically taking what exists today and making 3 ANCs larger with illegally Single Member Districts. How is that a good solution?

How do you know that map is “illegal”? Are you a lawyer?

It’s a good political compromise precisely because it makes no one happy. That’s how politics works.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you are saying that Mendelson's map is a compromise? Who did he consult? How is it legal? What is the compromise? His map is basically taking what exists today and making 3 ANCs larger with illegally Single Member Districts. How is that a good solution?

How do you know that map is “illegal”? Are you a lawyer?

It’s a good political compromise precisely because it makes no one happy. That’s how politics works.

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.

But what are the actual issues this affects?

It’s about representation on ANCs. The “issues” are those of relevance to ANCs.

There seems to be a studious effort to avoid talking about the issues.

In general, ANC's don't have a lot of power. However, the one capability they do have is to obstruct things. If you want your neighborhood frozen in time, to reflect the say it was in some past "golden era," the ANC can help. However, the less hyper-local a commission is, the less likely it is to act that way. So the NIMBY's in Foxhall Village don't like being part of a larger ANC that isn't so parochial, and the NIMBY's in Cleveland Park want to all be in the same commission so they can dominate it.

Or you can flip that sentiment around and conclude that people with opposing views wanted to create geographic boundaries of representation that they could dominate.

You pretend that any one position is better than the other. If you are position neutral, then you see it is just about power and who executes it. From that perspective, it’s should’ve been obvious to you that you could not engage in an orchestrated power grab without expecting push back. And the reality is that the process by which this power grab was conducted was so obliviously illegitimate that the outcome could not stand.

If you’re smart, this should serve as a political lesson for you that you could learn a lot from. First and foremost, we don’t live in a dictatorship and that’s a good thing. So you need to learn how to work with people you disagree with in order to achieve the outcomes you want. And most of the time, the changes that you seek will be incremental because that’s how politics works and that’s a good thing.

In retrospect, you should be relieved that our democratic systems did not let you execute what you were trying to accomplish. Because imagine these systems are value neutral, so you must imagine that other people who have different views than you would be able to exploit them just as well.

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.

But what are the actual issues this affects?

It’s about representation on ANCs. The “issues” are those of relevance to ANCs.

There seems to be a studious effort to avoid talking about the issues.

In general, ANC's don't have a lot of power. However, the one capability they do have is to obstruct things. If you want your neighborhood frozen in time, to reflect the say it was in some past "golden era," the ANC can help. However, the less hyper-local a commission is, the less likely it is to act that way. So the NIMBY's in Foxhall Village don't like being part of a larger ANC that isn't so parochial, and the NIMBY's in Cleveland Park want to all be in the same commission so they can dominate it.

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.

But what are the actual issues this affects?

It’s about representation on ANCs. The “issues” are those of relevance to ANCs.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you are saying that Mendelson's map is a compromise? Who did he consult? How is it legal? What is the compromise? His map is basically taking what exists today and making 3 ANCs larger with illegally Single Member Districts. How is that a good solution?