According to a Loose Lips report, there is an extensive paper trail for the actions and exploits of MPD Chief designee Cathy Lanier. One has direct implications from an investigation by Councilperson elect Mary Cheh:
Court proceedings and D.C. Council hearings led by Ward 3 Councilmember Kathy Patterson would eventually force out the truth and spur new legislation to prevent such incidents from ever happening again. In January 2005, the city paid out $425,000 to seven Pershing Park victims, part of a settlement that also required a letter of apology from Ramsey to the plaintiffs.
Ward 3 Councilmember-elect Mary Cheh plans to probe Lanier's involvement in the demonstrations when she comes before the council for confirmation. “I do want to return to that whole event,” says Cheh, who served as a special counsel when the Judiciary Commmittee investigated the mass arrests in Pershing Park. She has a few questions for Lanier: “Did anything about those processes strike you as unusual or inappropriate?” As for Lanier's boast that she tried the hogtie on herself, Cheh isn't overly impressed. “Did she put them on and sit on a mat for 12 or even 24 hours?” Cheh asks.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Suspicious Packages closes Ellington Bridge
All for a pillowcase.
I guess it is better to be safe than sorry!
I guess it is better to be safe than sorry!
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Chevy Chase Historic District
After roughly 15 years of study and evaluation, the Historic Chevy Chase (DC) is looking to join the ranks of Cleveland Park and Woodley Park as historic districts within the Ward.
A recent mailing circulated to affected homeowners outlines the benefits of the proposed historic district by "ensuring that the many qualities that make Chevy Chase, DC livable and unique will remain long after we're gone".
The proposed district is divided into 5 zones, roughly described as between Western Avenue to the North, Harrison Street to the south, Chevy Chase Parkway to the east and 41st Street to the West. These neighborhoods were platted between 1907 and 1918 and generally developed between 1907 and the 1930's. Much of the area was created by the Chevy Chase Land Company, which was also responsible for the street car to Chevy Chase Circle, as well as the Chevy Chase, MD development across Western Avenue. 2007 marks the centennial of the original platting of the neighborhood.
In addition to the announced meeting on December 5th, both ANC 3E and 3G will hold public discussion on the proposal before the submission is finalized.
Citizens will also be able to appear before the Historic Preservation Review Board before the nomination to comment on its merits.
This is a long time in coming, with a lot of hard work by dedicated Chevy Chase residents!
A recent mailing circulated to affected homeowners outlines the benefits of the proposed historic district by "ensuring that the many qualities that make Chevy Chase, DC livable and unique will remain long after we're gone".
The proposed district is divided into 5 zones, roughly described as between Western Avenue to the North, Harrison Street to the south, Chevy Chase Parkway to the east and 41st Street to the West. These neighborhoods were platted between 1907 and 1918 and generally developed between 1907 and the 1930's. Much of the area was created by the Chevy Chase Land Company, which was also responsible for the street car to Chevy Chase Circle, as well as the Chevy Chase, MD development across Western Avenue. 2007 marks the centennial of the original platting of the neighborhood.
In addition to the announced meeting on December 5th, both ANC 3E and 3G will hold public discussion on the proposal before the submission is finalized.
Citizens will also be able to appear before the Historic Preservation Review Board before the nomination to comment on its merits.
This is a long time in coming, with a lot of hard work by dedicated Chevy Chase residents!
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Shoemaker -- the last chapter?
On the Chevy Chase Community Listserv, the majority and minority letters to the BZA were posted. They are reported here in their entirety. The ANC also recieved official notice of the withdrawl of the submission by the Fund for American Studies.
MAJORITY LETTER
RE: BZA Application No. 17542 Application of Elizabeth R. Shoemaker Homes, on behalf of The Fund for American Studies, for a SPECIAL EXCEPTION pursuant to 11 DCMR Section 3104 of the Zoning Regulations for a change of a nonconforming use under Subsection 203.1 or in the alternative, pursuant to 11 DCMR Section 3104.2 a VARIANCE from the use provisions to allow a dormitory under Section 201.1, in the R-1-A District at 2701 Military Road, NW (Square 2305, Lot 83).
Dear Mr. Griffis:
At the ANC 3/4 G’s regularly scheduled meeting of Monday November 13, 2006, which was publicized in the Northwest Current, and on the Chevy Chase Listserv (more than 1700 members), the Commissioners of the ANC 3/4G by vote of 5 for to 2 against (a quorum being four) to deny the request for SPECIAL EXCEPTION under Section 3104 and in the alternative denied the request for a VARIANCE under Section 3103.2.
During a meeting with the community, at which more than one hundred nearby neighbors attended, objections to the variance and special exception were raised which included, but were not limited to the following:
1. Ms. Anna Shoemaker clearly expressed her intent when she wrote in her will in 1927, that she wanted to build a home for unmarried, low income women over the age of 60 so they would have a place to live and to be cared for in their own community in their old age. It took decades for her dream to become a reality, but in 1951, The
Elizabeth Shoemaker Home opened on the corner of Military Road and 27th Street. The Home was named for Anna’s mother (Elizabeth). The Home has been an important neighbor in our community, representing an excellent option for our low-income female neighbors when they need to give up their homes and find another place in which to live. It is truly a community facility. For fifty-five years, it has served the community as a quiet neighbor waiting with open doors to welcome those in need. It is so quiet, that most people in the neighborhood had no idea of its
existence.
2. The Home’s property was originally zoned for single family dwellings. In 1949, the Zoning Commission and the Board of Zoning Adjustment approved changing the zoning map and use of the home as a residence for elderly woman despite neighborhood opposition. The property’s zoning status was subsequently changed to R-1-A.
3. R-l-A status permits matter-of-right development of single-family residential uses for detached dwellings with a minimum lot width of 75 feet, a minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet, a maximum lot occupancy of 40% for residential use and 60% for church and public school use, and a maximum height of three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. The R-1-A status mentions Embassies, Public Schools and Chanceries, and other
uses for no more than eight (8) persons. There is mention of dorms in R-1 zoning, but only when part of a campus plan of a college or university. This strongly suggests that dorms should be located on a college campus in R-1 areas, where they can be closely monitored by college authorities, and not located in isolated residential neighborhoods as proposed by the applicant.
4. Variance: Petitioner requests a Variance under Section 3103.2. Under that Section 3103.2, three conditions must exist in order to grant a variance:
First: The property must be unique because of its size, shape, topography, or other extraordinary or exceptional situation or condition inherent in the Property. There is nothing unique about the Home’s property. It is very similar to other homes for the aged in the area. It would present no problem for another home to take over the operation of this location as a convalescent/nursing home. Other convalescent homes have expressed interest in obtaining the Shoemaker Home to continue using the Home for that purpose. In the alternative, there is nothing unique about the property that would not lend itself to Single Family Dwellings being built at that location staying within the R-1-A zoning plan.
Second: The Applicant must demonstrate that it will encounter practical ifficulty if the Zoning Regulations are strictly applied. There would be no difficulty keeping the property as a Home for the Aged, or removing the Home and replacing it with Single Family Dwellings. Either alternative would be possible without a variance, and preferable to a dorm at this location. There are other interested parties who would be willing either to take over the Home as a center for senior citizens, or
develop it for single-family houses. There are no practical difficulties here.
Third: The Applicant must show that the requested variance will not result in substantial detriment to the public good or the zone plan. The Zone Plan calls for Single Family Dwellings. It does not call for dormitories. The homeowners who purchased their homes across the street and next door to the Elizabeth Shoemaker Home did so with the knowledge of the quiet neighbor the Home represented for 55 years. They did not purchase their homes with a dorm in mind.
5. Special Exception: Under Section 2003.1, the applicant requested a special exception to permit a change in a nonconforming use. First, under the Zoning Regulations, it is unclear if there is a nonconforming use, because the zoning regulations provide that a use lawfully in existence at the time of the adoption of the zoning regulations “that would hereafter require special exception approval from
the BZA shall not be deemed a nonconforming use.”
Secondly, in reviewing about 20 BZA decisions over 40 years, we discovered that the BZA has used Section 2003.1 to allow deminimus use changes such as grocery store use to grocery store plus delicatessen. There was not a single case that came close in magnitude to the proposed zoning swap proposed by the applicant.
In addition, Section 200.2 of the Zoning Regulations states that “. . . nonconformities may not be enlarged upon, expanded, or extended nor may they be used as a basis for adding other structures or uses prohibited elsewhere in the same district. Clearly converting a 27-bed nursing home to a 60-bed college dormitory is a substantial increase in use. In addition, the applicant will be adding classroom and lecture uses.
Finally, Section 2003.2, the purposed use must not adversely affect the present character or future development of the surrounding area, the proposed use must not create any deleterious external effects, such as, but not limited to, noise, traffic, parking and loading considerations, illumination, vibration, odor, and design and siting effect (2003.3). And when located in a residential district, the proposed use should be either a dwelling, flat, apartment house, or a neighborhood facility (2003.5).
The peace and quiet of this neighborhood will suffer detriment from the moving in and moving out on a semester basis of 54 to 60 young adults, the nightly coming and going of young adults at this location, and the additional seminars and parties the Fund will sponsor, as described in its application, during which alcohol will be served, especially during the summer when many of these events could be held outdoors.
Mass transportation ? already overcrowded and limited ? will be impacted by 54 to 60 students waiting to board a bus at the same time in the morning. These students will be competing for the limited space on public transportation with current homeowners in the area.
There is no college campus in the vicinity, and public transportation to local colleges is not at all direct. It will take more than an hour in each direction for students to reach Georgetown University from the Home and return each day. Arriving at internship locations not located near public transportation from this location also will be difficult, leading to students driving themselves in their own cars. Parking spaces are limited in this area, and students, their friends and families, lecturers and guests of Fund-sponsored parties will be using those spaces. Though
the Fund has stated that they will discourage students from bringing their cars to Washington, there is no way to enforce this assurance. Streets in this area of DC are not zoned, and there would be no way to enforce this prohibition. Neighbors would suffer the loss of their parking spaces to the students, lecturers, and attendees at the parties organized by the Fund.
Daily deliveries for the dorm will be made to the rear of the property, according to the Application (page 4), however the driveway at the rear is very steep and winding ? unsuitable for delivery trucks. All deliveries would be made to the front of the Home as they have been in the past, further disturbing the neighbors.
The Applicant states (page 5 - 6) that “The Applicant’s proposed use is similar in nature to the previous use as convalescent/nursing home. . ..” There is no way one can say that the residents within a convalescent/nursing home are in any way similar in nature to young adult college students. The populations of each group are unique and in no way similar.
This area is zoned for single family dwellings, and, other than homes for senior living, and day schools, there are no other facilities that would disturb the peace and quiet of this neighborhood. There are no college campuses in the area that would justify a college dorm.
The definition of a community facility includes those facilities that contribute to the benefit of the community. This dorm will bring no significant benefit to the community. Had this property been offered to the public for sale, it could have been sold for single family housing. This would be revenue producing land in the way of property taxes, income taxes, and revenue for our schools. It would be a short term disruption from building noises and truck and van traffic, but once the houses were
built, we would have limited disruption to the community and would remain
within the R-1-A zoning plan. This dorm and its students will not be adding to the community good. They will not be taxpayers or voters in our community. They will be enjoying the use of what our taxes offer, but they will be adding strain to the services offered the community e.g., trash collection, water use, energy use, police protection, public transportation, and others without contributing one cent to this pool of public services. It will not be a community facility.
Specific crime sometimes associated with Dorm life could be present in a neighborhood where it was not before. There are four-times the numbers of officers assigned to the Georgetown dorm area as there are in all other non-dorm areas. The Police Service Area (PSA 201) officers are limited in number. More officers would need to be hired to handle the additional student population concentrated in this single family dwelling zoned area.
6. Property value around The Shoemaker Home may be devalued. When we buy a home, we have certain expectations for the community in where we are purchasing our home. When those living across the street and next to The Shoemaker Home bought their homes, they knew what they were buying. They understood that there would be an occasional ambulance coming to the building, but other than that, they were not expecting any noise, and they have not experienced any noise from the home for the past 55 years. They knew about St. Johns and that school children would be present
during the morning and afternoon hours, and that there would be occasional football and other sport games, but that was the known and the expected. All noise and disturbance from that facility is over prior to bedtime. When they purchased their homes, they did not expect to beliving across from a dormitory. This use is neither permitted by the zoning plan, nor expected in the community and would change significantly the make-up of our neighborhood. Future purchasers of these properties
would have very different assumptions about the community in which they would be living. This could seriously decrease the value of these neighboring properties.
7. In their application, the Fund promises not to alter the exterior of the property:
The Applicant states (at page 4) that the “. . . proposed use will not require any alternations to the Property. Except for exterior upkeep of the building and landscaping, the building will maintain its current appearance.” In later documents, Applicant states under the heading Prohibition on Expansion of Building (flyer attached to this letter) that “[t]he existing building shall not be extended or expanded without further approval of the Board.” This statement merely commits that they will not expand the facility until such time as they decide to expand the
building. We have experience with this type of non-committal statement in our community. In recent years, Ingleside, the Methodist Home, Knollwood and Sunrise have all expanded their operations in our neighborhood.
8. Finally, according to Section 2003.5: “when located in a residential district, the proposed use should be either a dwelling, flat, apartment house, or neighborhood facility.” A dwelling is defined by the zoning regulations as a one-family dwelling. An apartment house is any building in which there are three or more apartments. An apartment is defined as one or more habitable rooms with kitchen and bathroom facilities under the control of the occupants of the room. A flat is a two-family house. A neighborhood facility is a small neighborhood store. The applicant
contends that a dormitory is not strictly a dwelling or apartment house. We agree. The applicant further contends that a dormitory is a cross between a dwelling and an apartment house. WE disagree. We don’t believe that you can average two buildings under the zoning regulations and come up with a third that is different in use and structure and claim that you have met conditions contained in Section 2003.5.
In summary, in its application, The Fund states that (page 5) “No substantial adverse impact or detriment to the public good will result if the variance to allow the requested lot occupancy is granted.” ANC 3/4G strongly disagrees with this statement for all of the reasons stated above. Such use would seriously change the residential nature of our community, and is not permitted under the R-1-A zoning plan. We believe there is overwhelming neighborhood sentiment to continue using the Home as a community based-residential facility for seniors. Doing so also would conform with the Draft DC Comprehensive Plan which emphasizes the substantial increase in the demand for senior housing anticipated for the years ahead.
For the above reasons, ANC 3/4G recommends denial of the application of The Shoemaker Home for either a special exception or variance.
ANC 3/4G appoints Commissioner Samantha Nolan to represent this ANC at any and all hearings relating to this application for special exception and/or variance.
Sincerely,
Robert Gordon
Chair
ANC 3/4G
MINORITY LETTER
STATEMENT OF ANC COMMISSIONERS ROBERT GORDON AND
JERRY LEVINE (NOVEMBER 13, 2006) re: Sale of the Shoemaker Home (the “Home”) to the Fund for American Studies (the “Fund”) We support the sale of the Shoemaker Home to the Fund and the applications of the Fund to the BZA for a special exception or variance to permit student dormitory housing on the site for the following
reasons:
1. The Home has the clear right to contract to sell the property to the Fund and the Fund is now the sole party having exclusive sale rights to the property. The Fund must operate the property in accordance with all zoning requirements but in order to conduct its student program, it is requesting a special exception or variance to continue the current multiple dwelling use. The contract between the Home and the Fund is the only contract before the ANC, so that alternative prospective or proposed
uses of the property for single family homes or any form of elderly services (or for that matter, any other alternative uses), are irrelevant to the pending proceedings.
2. The property already has a nonconforming use and under zoning regulations, that nonconforming use may be changed to another permitted use, such as the student housing one proposed here, so long as it does not adversely affect the present character or future development of the surrounding area. We are mindful and respectful of neighbors’ concerns, but we do not believe that the use of the site for student dormitory housing can automatically be assumed to adversely affect the surrounding area. Moreover, the building on the site will be used on an “as is”
basis without the need for reconstruction.
3. Under zoning regulations, the proposed use may not create any deleterious external effects such as noise, traffic, parking and loading considerations, illumination, vibration, odor or design and siting effects. In this case, we do not believe that there is any actual evidence (as opposed to speculation) that the proposed use will fail any of these regulatory standards.
4. The site and proposed use may either be considered a “dwelling”, “apartment” or “neighborhood facility” within the intent of the zoning regulations, and in any case, the site and use would qualify, in our view, for a variance as to this requirement, to the extent legally necessary.
5. There is ample basis for granting a variance in this case because the property is unique in the sense of having an exceptional or inherent condition. The existing 27 bed elderly facility, designed for multiple living units and common space meals, can be easily converted to a 54 student configuration utilizing the same existing “as is” structure without the need for substantial renovation. Without the requested
relief, if zoning regulations were strictly applied, the purchaser of the property would encounter the practical difficulty of not being able to operate the student housing dormitory that is essential to the Fund’s program.
6. The requested variance also would not, in our view, result in substantial detriment to the public good or the zone plan. Potential adverse effects on the area seem to us to be speculative and/or minimal. Very few homes are close to the site. Any use of the patio area will be at the rear of the site and deliveries will be made to back of the property. The students will be spending most of their time away from the property attending classes or internship positions and in any event,
while on the property, will be professionally supervised. The Fund has agreed to a set of strict conditions for the students and their residential use of the property, including a ban on most all cars, alcohol, loud parties, overnight guests and the like. Minimal impacts on public transportation and traffic are expected. A neighborhood liaison committee will be established to deal with any potential problem areas that might arise vis-à-vis the neighbors or neighborhood, and police and other remedies are available if needed.
7. It appears to us that to date the Fund has proceeded in good faith by adopting a set of clear and strict policies that will reasonably assure that the Fund and its students living on the property will be good neighbors to the community.
8. The students will bring vibrancy and diversity to the neighborhood. We do not think it fair to presume that the students will misbehave and fail to adhere to the conditions established by the Fund for their dormitory occupancy. We therefore see no significant reason to deny these students the opportunity to live in the terrific Chevy Chase neighborhood.
ROBERT GORDON, ANC 3/4G CHAIR
JERRY LEVINE, ANC 3/4G VICE CHAIR
November 13, 2006
MAJORITY LETTER
RE: BZA Application No. 17542 Application of Elizabeth R. Shoemaker Homes, on behalf of The Fund for American Studies, for a SPECIAL EXCEPTION pursuant to 11 DCMR Section 3104 of the Zoning Regulations for a change of a nonconforming use under Subsection 203.1 or in the alternative, pursuant to 11 DCMR Section 3104.2 a VARIANCE from the use provisions to allow a dormitory under Section 201.1, in the R-1-A District at 2701 Military Road, NW (Square 2305, Lot 83).
Dear Mr. Griffis:
At the ANC 3/4 G’s regularly scheduled meeting of Monday November 13, 2006, which was publicized in the Northwest Current, and on the Chevy Chase Listserv (more than 1700 members), the Commissioners of the ANC 3/4G by vote of 5 for to 2 against (a quorum being four) to deny the request for SPECIAL EXCEPTION under Section 3104 and in the alternative denied the request for a VARIANCE under Section 3103.2.
During a meeting with the community, at which more than one hundred nearby neighbors attended, objections to the variance and special exception were raised which included, but were not limited to the following:
1. Ms. Anna Shoemaker clearly expressed her intent when she wrote in her will in 1927, that she wanted to build a home for unmarried, low income women over the age of 60 so they would have a place to live and to be cared for in their own community in their old age. It took decades for her dream to become a reality, but in 1951, The
Elizabeth Shoemaker Home opened on the corner of Military Road and 27th Street. The Home was named for Anna’s mother (Elizabeth). The Home has been an important neighbor in our community, representing an excellent option for our low-income female neighbors when they need to give up their homes and find another place in which to live. It is truly a community facility. For fifty-five years, it has served the community as a quiet neighbor waiting with open doors to welcome those in need. It is so quiet, that most people in the neighborhood had no idea of its
existence.
2. The Home’s property was originally zoned for single family dwellings. In 1949, the Zoning Commission and the Board of Zoning Adjustment approved changing the zoning map and use of the home as a residence for elderly woman despite neighborhood opposition. The property’s zoning status was subsequently changed to R-1-A.
3. R-l-A status permits matter-of-right development of single-family residential uses for detached dwellings with a minimum lot width of 75 feet, a minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet, a maximum lot occupancy of 40% for residential use and 60% for church and public school use, and a maximum height of three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. The R-1-A status mentions Embassies, Public Schools and Chanceries, and other
uses for no more than eight (8) persons. There is mention of dorms in R-1 zoning, but only when part of a campus plan of a college or university. This strongly suggests that dorms should be located on a college campus in R-1 areas, where they can be closely monitored by college authorities, and not located in isolated residential neighborhoods as proposed by the applicant.
4. Variance: Petitioner requests a Variance under Section 3103.2. Under that Section 3103.2, three conditions must exist in order to grant a variance:
First: The property must be unique because of its size, shape, topography, or other extraordinary or exceptional situation or condition inherent in the Property. There is nothing unique about the Home’s property. It is very similar to other homes for the aged in the area. It would present no problem for another home to take over the operation of this location as a convalescent/nursing home. Other convalescent homes have expressed interest in obtaining the Shoemaker Home to continue using the Home for that purpose. In the alternative, there is nothing unique about the property that would not lend itself to Single Family Dwellings being built at that location staying within the R-1-A zoning plan.
Second: The Applicant must demonstrate that it will encounter practical ifficulty if the Zoning Regulations are strictly applied. There would be no difficulty keeping the property as a Home for the Aged, or removing the Home and replacing it with Single Family Dwellings. Either alternative would be possible without a variance, and preferable to a dorm at this location. There are other interested parties who would be willing either to take over the Home as a center for senior citizens, or
develop it for single-family houses. There are no practical difficulties here.
Third: The Applicant must show that the requested variance will not result in substantial detriment to the public good or the zone plan. The Zone Plan calls for Single Family Dwellings. It does not call for dormitories. The homeowners who purchased their homes across the street and next door to the Elizabeth Shoemaker Home did so with the knowledge of the quiet neighbor the Home represented for 55 years. They did not purchase their homes with a dorm in mind.
5. Special Exception: Under Section 2003.1, the applicant requested a special exception to permit a change in a nonconforming use. First, under the Zoning Regulations, it is unclear if there is a nonconforming use, because the zoning regulations provide that a use lawfully in existence at the time of the adoption of the zoning regulations “that would hereafter require special exception approval from
the BZA shall not be deemed a nonconforming use.”
Secondly, in reviewing about 20 BZA decisions over 40 years, we discovered that the BZA has used Section 2003.1 to allow deminimus use changes such as grocery store use to grocery store plus delicatessen. There was not a single case that came close in magnitude to the proposed zoning swap proposed by the applicant.
In addition, Section 200.2 of the Zoning Regulations states that “. . . nonconformities may not be enlarged upon, expanded, or extended nor may they be used as a basis for adding other structures or uses prohibited elsewhere in the same district. Clearly converting a 27-bed nursing home to a 60-bed college dormitory is a substantial increase in use. In addition, the applicant will be adding classroom and lecture uses.
Finally, Section 2003.2, the purposed use must not adversely affect the present character or future development of the surrounding area, the proposed use must not create any deleterious external effects, such as, but not limited to, noise, traffic, parking and loading considerations, illumination, vibration, odor, and design and siting effect (2003.3). And when located in a residential district, the proposed use should be either a dwelling, flat, apartment house, or a neighborhood facility (2003.5).
The peace and quiet of this neighborhood will suffer detriment from the moving in and moving out on a semester basis of 54 to 60 young adults, the nightly coming and going of young adults at this location, and the additional seminars and parties the Fund will sponsor, as described in its application, during which alcohol will be served, especially during the summer when many of these events could be held outdoors.
Mass transportation ? already overcrowded and limited ? will be impacted by 54 to 60 students waiting to board a bus at the same time in the morning. These students will be competing for the limited space on public transportation with current homeowners in the area.
There is no college campus in the vicinity, and public transportation to local colleges is not at all direct. It will take more than an hour in each direction for students to reach Georgetown University from the Home and return each day. Arriving at internship locations not located near public transportation from this location also will be difficult, leading to students driving themselves in their own cars. Parking spaces are limited in this area, and students, their friends and families, lecturers and guests of Fund-sponsored parties will be using those spaces. Though
the Fund has stated that they will discourage students from bringing their cars to Washington, there is no way to enforce this assurance. Streets in this area of DC are not zoned, and there would be no way to enforce this prohibition. Neighbors would suffer the loss of their parking spaces to the students, lecturers, and attendees at the parties organized by the Fund.
Daily deliveries for the dorm will be made to the rear of the property, according to the Application (page 4), however the driveway at the rear is very steep and winding ? unsuitable for delivery trucks. All deliveries would be made to the front of the Home as they have been in the past, further disturbing the neighbors.
The Applicant states (page 5 - 6) that “The Applicant’s proposed use is similar in nature to the previous use as convalescent/nursing home. . ..” There is no way one can say that the residents within a convalescent/nursing home are in any way similar in nature to young adult college students. The populations of each group are unique and in no way similar.
This area is zoned for single family dwellings, and, other than homes for senior living, and day schools, there are no other facilities that would disturb the peace and quiet of this neighborhood. There are no college campuses in the area that would justify a college dorm.
The definition of a community facility includes those facilities that contribute to the benefit of the community. This dorm will bring no significant benefit to the community. Had this property been offered to the public for sale, it could have been sold for single family housing. This would be revenue producing land in the way of property taxes, income taxes, and revenue for our schools. It would be a short term disruption from building noises and truck and van traffic, but once the houses were
built, we would have limited disruption to the community and would remain
within the R-1-A zoning plan. This dorm and its students will not be adding to the community good. They will not be taxpayers or voters in our community. They will be enjoying the use of what our taxes offer, but they will be adding strain to the services offered the community e.g., trash collection, water use, energy use, police protection, public transportation, and others without contributing one cent to this pool of public services. It will not be a community facility.
Specific crime sometimes associated with Dorm life could be present in a neighborhood where it was not before. There are four-times the numbers of officers assigned to the Georgetown dorm area as there are in all other non-dorm areas. The Police Service Area (PSA 201) officers are limited in number. More officers would need to be hired to handle the additional student population concentrated in this single family dwelling zoned area.
6. Property value around The Shoemaker Home may be devalued. When we buy a home, we have certain expectations for the community in where we are purchasing our home. When those living across the street and next to The Shoemaker Home bought their homes, they knew what they were buying. They understood that there would be an occasional ambulance coming to the building, but other than that, they were not expecting any noise, and they have not experienced any noise from the home for the past 55 years. They knew about St. Johns and that school children would be present
during the morning and afternoon hours, and that there would be occasional football and other sport games, but that was the known and the expected. All noise and disturbance from that facility is over prior to bedtime. When they purchased their homes, they did not expect to beliving across from a dormitory. This use is neither permitted by the zoning plan, nor expected in the community and would change significantly the make-up of our neighborhood. Future purchasers of these properties
would have very different assumptions about the community in which they would be living. This could seriously decrease the value of these neighboring properties.
7. In their application, the Fund promises not to alter the exterior of the property:
The Applicant states (at page 4) that the “. . . proposed use will not require any alternations to the Property. Except for exterior upkeep of the building and landscaping, the building will maintain its current appearance.” In later documents, Applicant states under the heading Prohibition on Expansion of Building (flyer attached to this letter) that “[t]he existing building shall not be extended or expanded without further approval of the Board.” This statement merely commits that they will not expand the facility until such time as they decide to expand the
building. We have experience with this type of non-committal statement in our community. In recent years, Ingleside, the Methodist Home, Knollwood and Sunrise have all expanded their operations in our neighborhood.
8. Finally, according to Section 2003.5: “when located in a residential district, the proposed use should be either a dwelling, flat, apartment house, or neighborhood facility.” A dwelling is defined by the zoning regulations as a one-family dwelling. An apartment house is any building in which there are three or more apartments. An apartment is defined as one or more habitable rooms with kitchen and bathroom facilities under the control of the occupants of the room. A flat is a two-family house. A neighborhood facility is a small neighborhood store. The applicant
contends that a dormitory is not strictly a dwelling or apartment house. We agree. The applicant further contends that a dormitory is a cross between a dwelling and an apartment house. WE disagree. We don’t believe that you can average two buildings under the zoning regulations and come up with a third that is different in use and structure and claim that you have met conditions contained in Section 2003.5.
In summary, in its application, The Fund states that (page 5) “No substantial adverse impact or detriment to the public good will result if the variance to allow the requested lot occupancy is granted.” ANC 3/4G strongly disagrees with this statement for all of the reasons stated above. Such use would seriously change the residential nature of our community, and is not permitted under the R-1-A zoning plan. We believe there is overwhelming neighborhood sentiment to continue using the Home as a community based-residential facility for seniors. Doing so also would conform with the Draft DC Comprehensive Plan which emphasizes the substantial increase in the demand for senior housing anticipated for the years ahead.
For the above reasons, ANC 3/4G recommends denial of the application of The Shoemaker Home for either a special exception or variance.
ANC 3/4G appoints Commissioner Samantha Nolan to represent this ANC at any and all hearings relating to this application for special exception and/or variance.
Sincerely,
Robert Gordon
Chair
ANC 3/4G
MINORITY LETTER
STATEMENT OF ANC COMMISSIONERS ROBERT GORDON AND
JERRY LEVINE (NOVEMBER 13, 2006) re: Sale of the Shoemaker Home (the “Home”) to the Fund for American Studies (the “Fund”) We support the sale of the Shoemaker Home to the Fund and the applications of the Fund to the BZA for a special exception or variance to permit student dormitory housing on the site for the following
reasons:
1. The Home has the clear right to contract to sell the property to the Fund and the Fund is now the sole party having exclusive sale rights to the property. The Fund must operate the property in accordance with all zoning requirements but in order to conduct its student program, it is requesting a special exception or variance to continue the current multiple dwelling use. The contract between the Home and the Fund is the only contract before the ANC, so that alternative prospective or proposed
uses of the property for single family homes or any form of elderly services (or for that matter, any other alternative uses), are irrelevant to the pending proceedings.
2. The property already has a nonconforming use and under zoning regulations, that nonconforming use may be changed to another permitted use, such as the student housing one proposed here, so long as it does not adversely affect the present character or future development of the surrounding area. We are mindful and respectful of neighbors’ concerns, but we do not believe that the use of the site for student dormitory housing can automatically be assumed to adversely affect the surrounding area. Moreover, the building on the site will be used on an “as is”
basis without the need for reconstruction.
3. Under zoning regulations, the proposed use may not create any deleterious external effects such as noise, traffic, parking and loading considerations, illumination, vibration, odor or design and siting effects. In this case, we do not believe that there is any actual evidence (as opposed to speculation) that the proposed use will fail any of these regulatory standards.
4. The site and proposed use may either be considered a “dwelling”, “apartment” or “neighborhood facility” within the intent of the zoning regulations, and in any case, the site and use would qualify, in our view, for a variance as to this requirement, to the extent legally necessary.
5. There is ample basis for granting a variance in this case because the property is unique in the sense of having an exceptional or inherent condition. The existing 27 bed elderly facility, designed for multiple living units and common space meals, can be easily converted to a 54 student configuration utilizing the same existing “as is” structure without the need for substantial renovation. Without the requested
relief, if zoning regulations were strictly applied, the purchaser of the property would encounter the practical difficulty of not being able to operate the student housing dormitory that is essential to the Fund’s program.
6. The requested variance also would not, in our view, result in substantial detriment to the public good or the zone plan. Potential adverse effects on the area seem to us to be speculative and/or minimal. Very few homes are close to the site. Any use of the patio area will be at the rear of the site and deliveries will be made to back of the property. The students will be spending most of their time away from the property attending classes or internship positions and in any event,
while on the property, will be professionally supervised. The Fund has agreed to a set of strict conditions for the students and their residential use of the property, including a ban on most all cars, alcohol, loud parties, overnight guests and the like. Minimal impacts on public transportation and traffic are expected. A neighborhood liaison committee will be established to deal with any potential problem areas that might arise vis-à-vis the neighbors or neighborhood, and police and other remedies are available if needed.
7. It appears to us that to date the Fund has proceeded in good faith by adopting a set of clear and strict policies that will reasonably assure that the Fund and its students living on the property will be good neighbors to the community.
8. The students will bring vibrancy and diversity to the neighborhood. We do not think it fair to presume that the students will misbehave and fail to adhere to the conditions established by the Fund for their dormitory occupancy. We therefore see no significant reason to deny these students the opportunity to live in the terrific Chevy Chase neighborhood.
ROBERT GORDON, ANC 3/4G CHAIR
JERRY LEVINE, ANC 3/4G VICE CHAIR
November 13, 2006
Monday, November 20, 2006
Rosenbaum family sues DC
The survivors of Chevy Chase resident David Rosenbaum have sued the District of Columbia and Howard University for $20 Million citing negligence as a contributing factor to the NY Times reporters untimely death.
According to the Associated Press, the family is taking this action "...a way that we can put some pressure on both the city and on Howard University Hospital to fix the things that are broken".
Indeed, missteps from MPD, EMS and the hospital apparently lead to an utter lack of treatment for Mr. Rosenbaum.
According to the Associated Press, the family is taking this action "...a way that we can put some pressure on both the city and on Howard University Hospital to fix the things that are broken".
Indeed, missteps from MPD, EMS and the hospital apparently lead to an utter lack of treatment for Mr. Rosenbaum.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Ward 3 Dems to receive new leadership
Dear Ward 3 Democrat-
I a’m writing to let you know that I will not be standing for reelection as Chair of the Ward 3 Democratic Committee. I want to send this note out now to give others who might be interested in the job enough time to decide and to mount a campaign for the December 12th elections.
When I ran two years ago, I had several goals: I wanted to re-invigorate the Committee with new people; I wanted to utilize our standing committees to participate in the work of the Ward Committee and I wanted to make our meetings more interesting and relevant for our members and the community.
While the 2004 committee election was drawn out due to challenges, I look back on the last two years as largely accomplishing those goals; although as with any organization more could be done.
The committee added new delegates during a mid-term caucus. We also attracted new people to attend our meetings, many of whom attended last week’s caucus. We adopted a By-laws change that expanded the number of delegates to run the committee in order to create more opportunities for people to get involved in the committee.
We re-invigorated our standing committees that had been largely inactive. The Issues/program committee developed positions on consumer protections from electricity deregulation, the comprehensive plan, the Iraq war and the Alito Supreme Court nomination. The By-laws Committee undertook a major rewrite of our By-laws. The Voter Registration Committee undertook a voter registration drive this year aimed at new residents to Ward 3 and others not registered.
During our meetings, we heard from the vice-Chair of the Democratic National Committee, nationally recognized pollsters on the 2004 election, national experts in foreign policy on Iraq policy, local experts on the citys health care system, on the DC schools and the DC education compact and on the process around the Comprehensive Plan.
We also held successful Candidate Forums for Mayor, Council Chair and Council At-large, the Board of Education President and two for the Ward 3 Council candidates.
While I ha’ve enjoyed working with everyone on the Committee and my fellow Ward Chairs, I have found the time commitment that the position requires has had an impact on my other commitments including my professional work. With the Democrats taking over Congress, I have been asked to increase the important work of the Campaign for College Affordability that I started during the last Congress. I have also been active in Mayor-elect Fentys transition and, in particular, want to continue helping to develop Adrian Fentys health policies. I have also organized, the Fair Elections Legal Network, a new organization of election lawyers that will play an increasingly important role in protecting the right to vote for many traditionally under-participating constituencies that have been targeted by conservative initiatives aimed at suppressing the vote.
It was good to see so many new faces at last weeks caucus. I hope that means many more hands being willing to shoulder the work of the Committee. I also hope the new delegates see the benefit of working with existing members, including electing them as at-large members in order to create an inclusive committee that represents both new energy and experience.
As a delegate, I will continue to participate and look forward to working with the leadership that is chosen to move the Committee forward.
Thanks for the privilege to serve as Chair.
Sincerely,
Bob Brandon
Ward Three Democratic Committee
I a’m writing to let you know that I will not be standing for reelection as Chair of the Ward 3 Democratic Committee. I want to send this note out now to give others who might be interested in the job enough time to decide and to mount a campaign for the December 12th elections.
When I ran two years ago, I had several goals: I wanted to re-invigorate the Committee with new people; I wanted to utilize our standing committees to participate in the work of the Ward Committee and I wanted to make our meetings more interesting and relevant for our members and the community.
While the 2004 committee election was drawn out due to challenges, I look back on the last two years as largely accomplishing those goals; although as with any organization more could be done.
The committee added new delegates during a mid-term caucus. We also attracted new people to attend our meetings, many of whom attended last week’s caucus. We adopted a By-laws change that expanded the number of delegates to run the committee in order to create more opportunities for people to get involved in the committee.
We re-invigorated our standing committees that had been largely inactive. The Issues/program committee developed positions on consumer protections from electricity deregulation, the comprehensive plan, the Iraq war and the Alito Supreme Court nomination. The By-laws Committee undertook a major rewrite of our By-laws. The Voter Registration Committee undertook a voter registration drive this year aimed at new residents to Ward 3 and others not registered.
During our meetings, we heard from the vice-Chair of the Democratic National Committee, nationally recognized pollsters on the 2004 election, national experts in foreign policy on Iraq policy, local experts on the citys health care system, on the DC schools and the DC education compact and on the process around the Comprehensive Plan.
We also held successful Candidate Forums for Mayor, Council Chair and Council At-large, the Board of Education President and two for the Ward 3 Council candidates.
While I ha’ve enjoyed working with everyone on the Committee and my fellow Ward Chairs, I have found the time commitment that the position requires has had an impact on my other commitments including my professional work. With the Democrats taking over Congress, I have been asked to increase the important work of the Campaign for College Affordability that I started during the last Congress. I have also been active in Mayor-elect Fentys transition and, in particular, want to continue helping to develop Adrian Fentys health policies. I have also organized, the Fair Elections Legal Network, a new organization of election lawyers that will play an increasingly important role in protecting the right to vote for many traditionally under-participating constituencies that have been targeted by conservative initiatives aimed at suppressing the vote.
It was good to see so many new faces at last weeks caucus. I hope that means many more hands being willing to shoulder the work of the Committee. I also hope the new delegates see the benefit of working with existing members, including electing them as at-large members in order to create an inclusive committee that represents both new energy and experience.
As a delegate, I will continue to participate and look forward to working with the leadership that is chosen to move the Committee forward.
Thanks for the privilege to serve as Chair.
Sincerely,
Bob Brandon
Ward Three Democratic Committee
Shoemaker House part three
Posted by ANC Commissioner Samantha Nolan:
I just received a copy of a letter from the attorneys for The Fund for American Studies addressed to the Office of Zoning, withdrawing the BZA Application No. 17542 for Special Exception and/or Variance at the Shoemaker Home.
We'll have to see if this means they are amending their submission, or reconsidering the purchase of the property.
To be continued....
I just received a copy of a letter from the attorneys for The Fund for American Studies addressed to the Office of Zoning, withdrawing the BZA Application No. 17542 for Special Exception and/or Variance at the Shoemaker Home.
We'll have to see if this means they are amending their submission, or reconsidering the purchase of the property.
To be continued....
Mayor Elect holds transition forums
Ideas to Action Fenty Transition Town Halls: Mayor-elect Adrian Fenty is hosting these town hall meetings to hear from residents about what needs to happen to ensure that DC is a world class city.
DECEMBER 5, 2006
Ward 3 Town Hall Meeting
4200 Connecticut Ave Bldg 47--Gym, 6:30-9pm,
Contact Jason Washington 202-478-9212
DECEMBER 5, 2006
Ward 3 Town Hall Meeting
4200 Connecticut Ave Bldg 47--Gym, 6:30-9pm,
Contact Jason Washington 202-478-9212
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Tenant Forum today
Understanding Your Tenant Rights
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Maret School
3000 Cathedral Avenue, NW
10 am – 3 pm
Agenda
Opening Remarks:
Johanna Shreve, Chief Tenant Advocate
Deborah Jane Lindeman, ANC 3C
Lisa Goldstein, Ward 3 Tenant Advisory Council
Morning Sessions:
Rent Control and What It Means to You.
Time: 10:30 a.m. -12:15 p.m.
Speaker: Keith Anderson, District of Columbia
Acting Rent Administrator
The Ins and Outs of Unit Inspections
Times: 10:30-11:15 a.m. –and-- 11:30 a.m.-12:15 p.m.
Speaker: Larry Carr, Program Manager - DCRA, Neighborhood
Stabilization Program
Tenant Opportunity to Purchase (TOPA)
Time: 10:30-12:15 p.m.
Speaker: Lauren Pair, Program Manager - DCRA Sales and Conversion
Department
Break 12:15-12:45 p.m.
Afternoon Sessions:
Tenant Petition
Time: 1- 1:45 p.m.
Speaker: Johanna Shreve, Office of the Tenant Advocate - Acting
Chief Tenant Advocate
Rent Control and What it Means to You.
Time: 1:00 -2:30 p.m.
Speaker: Keith Anderson, District of Columbia Rent Administrator
Legal Clinic
Time: All Day
Attorney Representatives:
-Elizabeth Figueroa, Blumenthal & Shanley 10:30 a.m. – 11:45 a.m.
-Ann Marie Hay, Executive Director 1:00 – 2:30 p.m.
-D.C. Law Students in Court Program, Inc.
NOTE: All sessions will take place in classrooms that surround the
atrium area of the Academic Center on the Maret Campus.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Maret School
3000 Cathedral Avenue, NW
10 am – 3 pm
Agenda
Opening Remarks:
Johanna Shreve, Chief Tenant Advocate
Deborah Jane Lindeman, ANC 3C
Lisa Goldstein, Ward 3 Tenant Advisory Council
Morning Sessions:
Rent Control and What It Means to You.
Time: 10:30 a.m. -12:15 p.m.
Speaker: Keith Anderson, District of Columbia
Acting Rent Administrator
The Ins and Outs of Unit Inspections
Times: 10:30-11:15 a.m. –and-- 11:30 a.m.-12:15 p.m.
Speaker: Larry Carr, Program Manager - DCRA, Neighborhood
Stabilization Program
Tenant Opportunity to Purchase (TOPA)
Time: 10:30-12:15 p.m.
Speaker: Lauren Pair, Program Manager - DCRA Sales and Conversion
Department
Break 12:15-12:45 p.m.
Afternoon Sessions:
Tenant Petition
Time: 1- 1:45 p.m.
Speaker: Johanna Shreve, Office of the Tenant Advocate - Acting
Chief Tenant Advocate
Rent Control and What it Means to You.
Time: 1:00 -2:30 p.m.
Speaker: Keith Anderson, District of Columbia Rent Administrator
Legal Clinic
Time: All Day
Attorney Representatives:
-Elizabeth Figueroa, Blumenthal & Shanley 10:30 a.m. – 11:45 a.m.
-Ann Marie Hay, Executive Director 1:00 – 2:30 p.m.
-D.C. Law Students in Court Program, Inc.
NOTE: All sessions will take place in classrooms that surround the
atrium area of the Academic Center on the Maret Campus.
Friday, November 17, 2006
ANC results
There were a host of write-in candidacies in Ward 3 for uncontested ANC seats. Results:
3C07 Richard Rothblum
3D02 Elisabeth (Lisa) Spector
3E02 Talia Primor
3F01 Susan Banta
3F03 Jane Solomon
3F05 Mital Gandhi
3F06 Cathy Wiss
3C07 Richard Rothblum
3D02 Elisabeth (Lisa) Spector
3E02 Talia Primor
3F01 Susan Banta
3F03 Jane Solomon
3F05 Mital Gandhi
3F06 Cathy Wiss
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Shoemaker House part two
In a continuation of the saga of the Shoemaker House from a previous post, to no surprise, the ANC 3/4G passed a resolution against the proposal for The Fund for American Studies to gain a zoning exception for an intern residence in Chevy Chase.
What was a bit of a surprise is that while the vote was 5-2, the ANC is going to send two different letters to the BZA, one for the majority, and one for the minority opinion.
ANC 3G Commissioner and Vice-Chair Jerry Levine posted the following to the Chevy Chase Community Listserv which was co-signed by Chair Robert Gordon:
We support the sale of the Shoemaker Home to the Fund and the applications of the Fund to the BZA for a special exception or variance to permit student dormitory housing on the site for the following reasons:
1. The Home has the clear right to contract to sell the property to the Fund and the Fund is now the sole party having exclusive sale rights to the property. The Fund must operate the property in accordance with all zoning requirements but in order to conduct its student program, it is requesting a special exception or variance to continue the current multiple dwelling use. The contract between the Home and the Fund is the only contract before the ANC, so that alternative prospective or proposed uses of the property for single family homes or any form of elderly services (or for that matter, any other alternative uses), are irrelevant to the pending proceedings.
2. The property already has a nonconforming use and under zoning regulations, that nonconforming use may be changed to another permitted use, such as the student housing one proposed here, so long as it does not adversely affect the present character or future development of the surrounding area. We are mindful and respectful of neighbors' concerns, but we do not believe that the use of the site for student dormitory housing can automatically be assumed to adversely affect the surrounding area. Moreover, the building on the site will be used on an "as is" basis without the need for reconstruction.
3. Under zoning regulations, the proposed use may not create any deleterious external effects such as noise, traffic, parking and loading considerations, illumination, vibration, odor or design and siting effects. In this case, we do not believe that there is any actual evidence (as opposed to speculation) that the proposed use will fail any of these regulatory standards.
4. The site and proposed use may either be considered a "dwelling", "apartment" or "neighborhood facility" within the intent of the zoning regulations, and in any case, the site and use would qualify, in our view, for a variance as to this requirement, to the extent legally necessary.
5. There is ample basis for granting a variance in this case because the property is unique in the sense of having an exceptional or inherent condition. The existing 27 bed elderly facility, designed for multiple living units and common space meals, can be easily converted to a 54 student configuration utilizing the same existing "as is" structure without the need for substantial renovation. Without the requested relief, if zoning regulations were strictly applied, the purchaser of the property would encounter the practical difficulty of not being able to operate the student housing dormitory that is essential to the Fund's program.
6. The requested variance also would not, in our view, result in substantial detriment to the public good or the zone plan. Potential adverse effects on the area seem to us to be speculative and/or minimal. Very few homes are close to the site. Any use of the patio area will be at the rear of the site and deliveries will be made to back of the property. The students will be spending most of their time away from the property attending classes or internship positions and in any event, while on the property, will be professionally supervised. The Fund has agreed to a set of strict conditions for the students and their residential use of the property, including a ban on most all cars, alcohol, loud parties, overnight guests and the like. Minimal impacts on public transportation and traffic are expected. A neighborhood liaison committee will be established to deal with any potential problem areas that might arise vis-a-vis the neighbors or neighborhood, and police and other remedies are available if needed.
7. It appears to us that to date the Fund has proceeded in good faith by adopting a set of clear and strict policies that will reasonably assure that the Fund and its students living on the property will be good neighbors to the community.
8. The students will bring vibrancy and diversity to the neighborhood. We do not think it fair to presume that the students will misbehave and fail to adhere to the conditions established by the Fund for their dormitory occupancy. We therefore see no significant reason to deny these students the opportunity to live in the terrific Chevy Chase neighborhood.
It will be interesting to see how the BZA takes this case - if they consider they potential actions of the future residents, or the legalistic explanations as presented by Levine and Gordon.
To be continued....
What was a bit of a surprise is that while the vote was 5-2, the ANC is going to send two different letters to the BZA, one for the majority, and one for the minority opinion.
ANC 3G Commissioner and Vice-Chair Jerry Levine posted the following to the Chevy Chase Community Listserv which was co-signed by Chair Robert Gordon:
We support the sale of the Shoemaker Home to the Fund and the applications of the Fund to the BZA for a special exception or variance to permit student dormitory housing on the site for the following reasons:
1. The Home has the clear right to contract to sell the property to the Fund and the Fund is now the sole party having exclusive sale rights to the property. The Fund must operate the property in accordance with all zoning requirements but in order to conduct its student program, it is requesting a special exception or variance to continue the current multiple dwelling use. The contract between the Home and the Fund is the only contract before the ANC, so that alternative prospective or proposed uses of the property for single family homes or any form of elderly services (or for that matter, any other alternative uses), are irrelevant to the pending proceedings.
2. The property already has a nonconforming use and under zoning regulations, that nonconforming use may be changed to another permitted use, such as the student housing one proposed here, so long as it does not adversely affect the present character or future development of the surrounding area. We are mindful and respectful of neighbors' concerns, but we do not believe that the use of the site for student dormitory housing can automatically be assumed to adversely affect the surrounding area. Moreover, the building on the site will be used on an "as is" basis without the need for reconstruction.
3. Under zoning regulations, the proposed use may not create any deleterious external effects such as noise, traffic, parking and loading considerations, illumination, vibration, odor or design and siting effects. In this case, we do not believe that there is any actual evidence (as opposed to speculation) that the proposed use will fail any of these regulatory standards.
4. The site and proposed use may either be considered a "dwelling", "apartment" or "neighborhood facility" within the intent of the zoning regulations, and in any case, the site and use would qualify, in our view, for a variance as to this requirement, to the extent legally necessary.
5. There is ample basis for granting a variance in this case because the property is unique in the sense of having an exceptional or inherent condition. The existing 27 bed elderly facility, designed for multiple living units and common space meals, can be easily converted to a 54 student configuration utilizing the same existing "as is" structure without the need for substantial renovation. Without the requested relief, if zoning regulations were strictly applied, the purchaser of the property would encounter the practical difficulty of not being able to operate the student housing dormitory that is essential to the Fund's program.
6. The requested variance also would not, in our view, result in substantial detriment to the public good or the zone plan. Potential adverse effects on the area seem to us to be speculative and/or minimal. Very few homes are close to the site. Any use of the patio area will be at the rear of the site and deliveries will be made to back of the property. The students will be spending most of their time away from the property attending classes or internship positions and in any event, while on the property, will be professionally supervised. The Fund has agreed to a set of strict conditions for the students and their residential use of the property, including a ban on most all cars, alcohol, loud parties, overnight guests and the like. Minimal impacts on public transportation and traffic are expected. A neighborhood liaison committee will be established to deal with any potential problem areas that might arise vis-a-vis the neighbors or neighborhood, and police and other remedies are available if needed.
7. It appears to us that to date the Fund has proceeded in good faith by adopting a set of clear and strict policies that will reasonably assure that the Fund and its students living on the property will be good neighbors to the community.
8. The students will bring vibrancy and diversity to the neighborhood. We do not think it fair to presume that the students will misbehave and fail to adhere to the conditions established by the Fund for their dormitory occupancy. We therefore see no significant reason to deny these students the opportunity to live in the terrific Chevy Chase neighborhood.
It will be interesting to see how the BZA takes this case - if they consider they potential actions of the future residents, or the legalistic explanations as presented by Levine and Gordon.
To be continued....
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Ward 3 Democratic Caucus
The biennial Ward 3 Democratic Caucus was held at St. Columbas. In a turnout unprecendented for such an event, there were a few hotly contested delegate precincts, and for the first time in a while, most of the delegate positions are actually filled.
Results of the caucus should be available later this week.
Results of the caucus should be available later this week.
NY Times provides blueprint
Recent stories in the New York Times have provided an insight into what could be.
A Sunday Real Estate section article discusses the effect of lowering requirements for parking in new development. Indeed, the practices being employed in New York seem to be an indicator of proposals in the yet-to-be-adopted DC Comp Plan. This was also featured by local commentator Richard Layman.
A second article discusses mixed-use development associated with public libraries. I am not sure what happened to the plan to do this with the Tenley DCPL Branch, but there is a similar project happening in Marshall Heights (Ward 7). What would it take to get our Tenley Library back? Layman covered this one too.
A Sunday Real Estate section article discusses the effect of lowering requirements for parking in new development. Indeed, the practices being employed in New York seem to be an indicator of proposals in the yet-to-be-adopted DC Comp Plan. This was also featured by local commentator Richard Layman.
A second article discusses mixed-use development associated with public libraries. I am not sure what happened to the plan to do this with the Tenley DCPL Branch, but there is a similar project happening in Marshall Heights (Ward 7). What would it take to get our Tenley Library back? Layman covered this one too.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Loss of an icon: Farewell Austin Grill
Just a week after announcing the sale of the small, local Austin Grill chain to Thompson Hospitality of Herndon, VA, the vaunted original Austin Grill in Glover Park has closed.
I am glad that suburbanites (Gallery Place store notwithstanding) and others in various cities will be able to enjoy our own brand of Tex-Mex, but it is sad nonetheless to see AG close.
I am glad that suburbanites (Gallery Place store notwithstanding) and others in various cities will be able to enjoy our own brand of Tex-Mex, but it is sad nonetheless to see AG close.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Republicans buoyed by Competitive Election
The Washington Times reports this morning the glory of competitive races in the November General election:
In Ward 3, where Republicans ran one of their strongest candidates, voter turnout appeared to be lower than in 2002, but the number of residents voting Republican appeared to increase.
Prep school teacher Theresa Conroy received 28 percent of the vote against Democrat candidate Mary M. Cheh, a law professor at George Washington University.
Mrs. Conroy's campaign was buoyed by Ward 3 Democrats who crossed party lines because of Mrs. Cheh's support for development plans in Northwest neighborhoods.
Mrs. Conroy raised more than $31,600 and received about 400 more votes than the 2002 Republican candidate, Eric Rojo.
"I thought it was very heartening that many Democrats crossed party lines to vote for me," said Mrs. Conroy, 54. "Many of the Democrats did say 'I've never voted for a Republican in my life.' "
So according to this article, there were about 400 "crossover democrats" if one uses the 2002 result as an indicator. This 400 votes would represent the tiny, vocal "anti-development" group that has caused an excess of lost opportunities for economic expansion in Ward 3. This is obviously not a scientific conclusion, but the numbers are the numbers.
In my opinion, the contested ANC write-in races will demonstrate a better barometer of this point of view.
In Ward 3, where Republicans ran one of their strongest candidates, voter turnout appeared to be lower than in 2002, but the number of residents voting Republican appeared to increase.
Prep school teacher Theresa Conroy received 28 percent of the vote against Democrat candidate Mary M. Cheh, a law professor at George Washington University.
Mrs. Conroy's campaign was buoyed by Ward 3 Democrats who crossed party lines because of Mrs. Cheh's support for development plans in Northwest neighborhoods.
Mrs. Conroy raised more than $31,600 and received about 400 more votes than the 2002 Republican candidate, Eric Rojo.
"I thought it was very heartening that many Democrats crossed party lines to vote for me," said Mrs. Conroy, 54. "Many of the Democrats did say 'I've never voted for a Republican in my life.' "
So according to this article, there were about 400 "crossover democrats" if one uses the 2002 result as an indicator. This 400 votes would represent the tiny, vocal "anti-development" group that has caused an excess of lost opportunities for economic expansion in Ward 3. This is obviously not a scientific conclusion, but the numbers are the numbers.
In my opinion, the contested ANC write-in races will demonstrate a better barometer of this point of view.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Shoemaker House part one
This will probably be the first of several posts on the subject, as the story advances from its current state through resolution.
The Shoemaker Hone is a legacy elder care facility located on Military Road, next to St. John's, While this is a Ward 4 issue, there is discussion about the resolution of the disposal of the property and its impact on Military Road, Chevy Chase, DC and the decisions by ANC3/4G.
The organization decided to cease operations and sell the property. The apparent successful bidder is The Fund for American Studies (TFAS), an exchange program which brings undergraduates and graduate students to Washington for a semester. There may also be summer programs. Much of the exchange is with Georgetown University. Because of the current zoning, the matter will have to come before the DC Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) in order to receive a "special exception" to legally operate as a residential college facility in a single family neighborhood.
There has been much discussion about this on the Chevy Chase Listserv with most of the nearby neighbors fearful of having a "college dorm" in their midst. One of the primary issues is the lack of direct transportation to GU for the students.
ANC 3/4 G Chair Robert Gordon, and Vice Chair Jerry Levine have tacitly expressed support for the Fund during the October 23rd meeting, drawing ire from residents who packed the Chevy Chase Center for the monthly Commission meeting.
The ANC will take this up again on November 13th.
The Shoemaker Hone is a legacy elder care facility located on Military Road, next to St. John's, While this is a Ward 4 issue, there is discussion about the resolution of the disposal of the property and its impact on Military Road, Chevy Chase, DC and the decisions by ANC3/4G.
The organization decided to cease operations and sell the property. The apparent successful bidder is The Fund for American Studies (TFAS), an exchange program which brings undergraduates and graduate students to Washington for a semester. There may also be summer programs. Much of the exchange is with Georgetown University. Because of the current zoning, the matter will have to come before the DC Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) in order to receive a "special exception" to legally operate as a residential college facility in a single family neighborhood.
There has been much discussion about this on the Chevy Chase Listserv with most of the nearby neighbors fearful of having a "college dorm" in their midst. One of the primary issues is the lack of direct transportation to GU for the students.
ANC 3/4 G Chair Robert Gordon, and Vice Chair Jerry Levine have tacitly expressed support for the Fund during the October 23rd meeting, drawing ire from residents who packed the Chevy Chase Center for the monthly Commission meeting.
The ANC will take this up again on November 13th.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Washington Post on the Tenley firehouse
By Petula Dvorak
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 9, 2006; DZ01
The quaint old firehouse was still, a century after it was first built, just big enough to serve what was once the rural outpost of Tenleytown.
But fire department officials stoked the flames of ardent neighborhood preservationists in 2002 with plans to raze the 1901 Italianate revival-style structure on Wisconsin Avenue to make room for the larger equipment needed to fight the fires that came with larger houses and more people.
The battle that ensued ultimately redefined the historic preservation process in the District and cleared the way for a $13 million project to renovate several aging firehouses. Last Saturday, the fire department unveiled the first of the projects to be completed, a new state-of-the-art Tenleytown station, which houses Engine 20.
"The fact is, when you call 911 because you have chest pains, you don't want to hear it took us several minutes longer to get to you because we had to drive slowly through the old, historic doors," said Alan Etter, D.C. Fire and Emergency Medical Services spokesman.
Yet, Etter said, the clash made fire officials more sensitive to the value of preserving the uniqueness of the department's history. The new Tenleytown firehouse, for example, was built around the three walls and roof of the old firehouse. The $5.5 million renovation project even preserved the old brass poles that are a hallmark of old firehouses, though firefighters no longer use them.
The other four firehouses slated for renovations also will retain some of their old character.
"We're very sensitive about the desires of the community," Etter said. "We listen to what people have to say. We're all about tradition, and we want to preserve these old buildings as well."
Both sides seem satisfied that they have worked out a viable solution for the future, a feat hardly imaginable when the values of historic preservation first clashed with the realities of contemporary firefighting over the old Tenleytown station four years ago. Scores of preservationists protested when the fire department announced plans to raze the historic structure, which had been designed by the architect of the vice president's mansion.
The critics had the backing of the D.C. Preservation League, which had recently placed all of Washington's pre-World War II firehouses on its most-endangered list.
"They are significant not only for their architectural merits and diversity but also for their socioeconomic impacts on their neighborhoods, as the firehouses spurred subsequent residential and commercial development," the preservation league wrote in its 1999 report on the city's most endangered places.
After several hours of testimony in a heated community meeting in 2002, the Historic Preservation Review Board voted unanimously to designate Engine Company 20 a historic landmark in the D.C. Inventory of Historic Sites. It was untouchable by bulldozers and wreckers.
This was one of the few instances, the fire department and many residents argued, that public safety could be endangered in the name of preservation.
The firehouse had ventilation designed to handle the odor of horses that pulled water tanks not the diesel engines that now fume in the parking bays. The bay doors were adequate for the horse but left only one inch on either side of today's massive rescue and pumper trucks. The firefighter's living quarters were an afterthought.
The Tenleytown project was a harbinger for other problems to come, as the fire department began reevaluating the worsening condition of several other firehouses. As neighbors and the fire department clashed in a series of heated meetings, the preservation board stepped in.
"The Tenleytown firehouse was the building that did bring up that issue of tension between public safety and historic preservation," said David Maloney, D.C.'s deputy state historic preservation officer.
After several months of debate, an architectural solution was drafted that saved three walls and the roof of the old firehouse. That set the precedent that now allows historic preservation laws to make an exception for firehouses across the District.
"In the case of firehouses, we realized that we should loosen the provisions of the [preservation] law," Maloney said. "The legislation now has a special process for firehouses."
Since Tenleytown, the Historic Preservation Office has worked with the fire department on the other projects, Maloney said. When Engine 25 at 3203 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE undergoes a $1.7 million renovation this year, it will retain many of its historic features, including an observation tower once used for spotting fires. According to the state preservation landmark report, it was one of the city's largest and most innovative firehouses when it was built.
Similar considerations will be taken on a string of other renovations underway this year: Engine 17 at 1227 Monroe St. NE in Brookland will undergo a $1.7 million renovation; Engine 9 at 1617 U St. NW will have a $2.2 million overhaul; and Engine 28 at 3522 Connecticut Ave. NW will have a $1.5 million facelift.
"A lot of these buildings are charming," Maloney said. "Since Tenleytown, the process has worked well. The community, the firefighters, everyone will be very proud of these buildings."
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 9, 2006; DZ01
The quaint old firehouse was still, a century after it was first built, just big enough to serve what was once the rural outpost of Tenleytown.
But fire department officials stoked the flames of ardent neighborhood preservationists in 2002 with plans to raze the 1901 Italianate revival-style structure on Wisconsin Avenue to make room for the larger equipment needed to fight the fires that came with larger houses and more people.
The battle that ensued ultimately redefined the historic preservation process in the District and cleared the way for a $13 million project to renovate several aging firehouses. Last Saturday, the fire department unveiled the first of the projects to be completed, a new state-of-the-art Tenleytown station, which houses Engine 20.
"The fact is, when you call 911 because you have chest pains, you don't want to hear it took us several minutes longer to get to you because we had to drive slowly through the old, historic doors," said Alan Etter, D.C. Fire and Emergency Medical Services spokesman.
Yet, Etter said, the clash made fire officials more sensitive to the value of preserving the uniqueness of the department's history. The new Tenleytown firehouse, for example, was built around the three walls and roof of the old firehouse. The $5.5 million renovation project even preserved the old brass poles that are a hallmark of old firehouses, though firefighters no longer use them.
The other four firehouses slated for renovations also will retain some of their old character.
"We're very sensitive about the desires of the community," Etter said. "We listen to what people have to say. We're all about tradition, and we want to preserve these old buildings as well."
Both sides seem satisfied that they have worked out a viable solution for the future, a feat hardly imaginable when the values of historic preservation first clashed with the realities of contemporary firefighting over the old Tenleytown station four years ago. Scores of preservationists protested when the fire department announced plans to raze the historic structure, which had been designed by the architect of the vice president's mansion.
The critics had the backing of the D.C. Preservation League, which had recently placed all of Washington's pre-World War II firehouses on its most-endangered list.
"They are significant not only for their architectural merits and diversity but also for their socioeconomic impacts on their neighborhoods, as the firehouses spurred subsequent residential and commercial development," the preservation league wrote in its 1999 report on the city's most endangered places.
After several hours of testimony in a heated community meeting in 2002, the Historic Preservation Review Board voted unanimously to designate Engine Company 20 a historic landmark in the D.C. Inventory of Historic Sites. It was untouchable by bulldozers and wreckers.
This was one of the few instances, the fire department and many residents argued, that public safety could be endangered in the name of preservation.
The firehouse had ventilation designed to handle the odor of horses that pulled water tanks not the diesel engines that now fume in the parking bays. The bay doors were adequate for the horse but left only one inch on either side of today's massive rescue and pumper trucks. The firefighter's living quarters were an afterthought.
The Tenleytown project was a harbinger for other problems to come, as the fire department began reevaluating the worsening condition of several other firehouses. As neighbors and the fire department clashed in a series of heated meetings, the preservation board stepped in.
"The Tenleytown firehouse was the building that did bring up that issue of tension between public safety and historic preservation," said David Maloney, D.C.'s deputy state historic preservation officer.
After several months of debate, an architectural solution was drafted that saved three walls and the roof of the old firehouse. That set the precedent that now allows historic preservation laws to make an exception for firehouses across the District.
"In the case of firehouses, we realized that we should loosen the provisions of the [preservation] law," Maloney said. "The legislation now has a special process for firehouses."
Since Tenleytown, the Historic Preservation Office has worked with the fire department on the other projects, Maloney said. When Engine 25 at 3203 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE undergoes a $1.7 million renovation this year, it will retain many of its historic features, including an observation tower once used for spotting fires. According to the state preservation landmark report, it was one of the city's largest and most innovative firehouses when it was built.
Similar considerations will be taken on a string of other renovations underway this year: Engine 17 at 1227 Monroe St. NE in Brookland will undergo a $1.7 million renovation; Engine 9 at 1617 U St. NW will have a $2.2 million overhaul; and Engine 28 at 3522 Connecticut Ave. NW will have a $1.5 million facelift.
"A lot of these buildings are charming," Maloney said. "Since Tenleytown, the process has worked well. The community, the firefighters, everyone will be very proud of these buildings."
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Precinct Run Down
This may be a sneak peak to the to be determined ANC Races?
7 (Hardy -- Palisades)
Cheh 402 66%
Conroy 204 33%
8 (Palisades Rec Center)
Cheh 949 64%
Conroy 512 35%
9 (Metropolitan - Spring Valley)
Cheh 390 55%
Conroy 306 44%
10 (Horace Mann)
Cheh 736 68%
Conroy 342 31%
11 (Union Headquarters -- Glover Park)
Cheh 1044 74%
Conroy 355 25%
12 (St. Sophia's -- Mass Ave Heights)
Cheh 178 54%
Conroy 147 45%
26 (Oyster)
Cheh 940 78%
Conroy 264 22%
27 (Eaton)
Cheh 873 74%
Conroy 289 24%
28 (Annunciation - Cathedral Heights)
Cheh 885 69%
Conroy 379 30%
29 (2nd District MPD)
Cheh 419 75%
Conroy 133 24%
30 (Janney)
Cheh 509 66%
Conroy 255 33%
31 (St Columbas)
Cheh 927 70%
Conroy 387 30%
32 (Wesley Methodist -- South Chevy Chase)
Cheh 923 71%
Conroy 364 28%
33 (Murch)
Cheh 1028 75%
Conroy 316 23%
34 (Burke)
Cheh 1179 79%
Conroy 314 21%
50 (Chevy Chase Community Center)
Cheh 819 73%
Conroy 288 26%
138 (Capital Memorial Adventist Church)
Cheh 793 78%
Conroy 222 22%
7 (Hardy -- Palisades)
Cheh 402 66%
Conroy 204 33%
8 (Palisades Rec Center)
Cheh 949 64%
Conroy 512 35%
9 (Metropolitan - Spring Valley)
Cheh 390 55%
Conroy 306 44%
10 (Horace Mann)
Cheh 736 68%
Conroy 342 31%
11 (Union Headquarters -- Glover Park)
Cheh 1044 74%
Conroy 355 25%
12 (St. Sophia's -- Mass Ave Heights)
Cheh 178 54%
Conroy 147 45%
26 (Oyster)
Cheh 940 78%
Conroy 264 22%
27 (Eaton)
Cheh 873 74%
Conroy 289 24%
28 (Annunciation - Cathedral Heights)
Cheh 885 69%
Conroy 379 30%
29 (2nd District MPD)
Cheh 419 75%
Conroy 133 24%
30 (Janney)
Cheh 509 66%
Conroy 255 33%
31 (St Columbas)
Cheh 927 70%
Conroy 387 30%
32 (Wesley Methodist -- South Chevy Chase)
Cheh 923 71%
Conroy 364 28%
33 (Murch)
Cheh 1028 75%
Conroy 316 23%
34 (Burke)
Cheh 1179 79%
Conroy 314 21%
50 (Chevy Chase Community Center)
Cheh 819 73%
Conroy 288 26%
138 (Capital Memorial Adventist Church)
Cheh 793 78%
Conroy 222 22%
Election Aftermath: Washington Post
Council members and political activists have expressed concern about the gender makeup of the incoming council. Cheh and council member Carol Schwartz (R-At Large) could be the only women on the council, which had seven women less than a decade ago.
. . . . .
Cheh, Thomas and Wells campaigned on pledges to work for better schools and smart development in their wards. There was talk in recent weeks about upsets in Wards 3 and 6, with Republicans and independents hoping to make gains. In Ward 3, Cheh, a George Washington University law professor, faced a last-minute e-mail and mailing campaign by a small but organized group of Democrats backing Republican Theresa Conroy.
Cheh said the election results showed that voters rejected the group's tactics. "I'm really, really happy to vanquish a negative campaign against me," Cheh said. "I can't wait to get to work."
. . . . .
Cheh, Thomas and Wells campaigned on pledges to work for better schools and smart development in their wards. There was talk in recent weeks about upsets in Wards 3 and 6, with Republicans and independents hoping to make gains. In Ward 3, Cheh, a George Washington University law professor, faced a last-minute e-mail and mailing campaign by a small but organized group of Democrats backing Republican Theresa Conroy.
Cheh said the election results showed that voters rejected the group's tactics. "I'm really, really happy to vanquish a negative campaign against me," Cheh said. "I can't wait to get to work."
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Election Notes
Marc Fisher:
Ward 3 ex-pat in Philly:
Marc,
It looks like Mary Cheh isn't having too much trouble tonight. Your thoughts?
Marc Fisher: She's won the Ward 3 council seat with well more than 70 percent of the vote, verifying the Democratic primary result and yet again showing the DC government and city voters that the NIMBY, anti-development forces in upper Northwest can make noise, but represent only a tiny but loud minority. The effort by some Dems to rally around anti-development Republican Theresa Conroy amounted to nothing.
Posted 10:43 p.m., 11.7.2006
Results as compared to previous years:
Mary Cheh 71% (12,991-5,077) compares to previous years as follows:
Kathy Patterson won with 78% in 2002 (17,000 to 4600)
Kathy Patterson won with 98% in 1998 (no competitor)
Kathy Patterson won with 77% in 1994 (21,000 to 6,000)
Ward 3 ex-pat in Philly:
Marc,
It looks like Mary Cheh isn't having too much trouble tonight. Your thoughts?
Marc Fisher: She's won the Ward 3 council seat with well more than 70 percent of the vote, verifying the Democratic primary result and yet again showing the DC government and city voters that the NIMBY, anti-development forces in upper Northwest can make noise, but represent only a tiny but loud minority. The effort by some Dems to rally around anti-development Republican Theresa Conroy amounted to nothing.
Posted 10:43 p.m., 11.7.2006
Results as compared to previous years:
Mary Cheh 71% (12,991-5,077) compares to previous years as follows:
Kathy Patterson won with 78% in 2002 (17,000 to 4600)
Kathy Patterson won with 98% in 1998 (no competitor)
Kathy Patterson won with 77% in 1994 (21,000 to 6,000)
Midday Election Day update
After surveying several polling stations around the Ward, it appears as if turnout is moderate. There has been a lot of activity around ANC races, as write-in candidates emerged in several 3F and 3D races. How ironic would the local election be if it turned on ANC races to provide impetus for turnout?
Cheh and Conroy supporters and poll workers were present at the precincts I visited. The large posters which demonized Democrat Mary Cheh were actually removed by Conroy workers at one station, due to complaints from voters regarding its negative connotations.
The weather is calling for rain later today, so turnout may be suppressed in the evenings.
Get out and vote everyone!
Cheh and Conroy supporters and poll workers were present at the precincts I visited. The large posters which demonized Democrat Mary Cheh were actually removed by Conroy workers at one station, due to complaints from voters regarding its negative connotations.
The weather is calling for rain later today, so turnout may be suppressed in the evenings.
Get out and vote everyone!
Monday, November 06, 2006
Ed Cowan review of the last stand in Ward 3
The following is a review by local commentor, Ed Cowan on the Warde 3 debate from Friday, November 3rd:
In an hour of brisk verbal slugging, the candidates for the Ward 3 seat on the DC Council, Mary Cheh, Democrat, and Theresa Conroy, Republican, debated each other at the Washington International Church on River Road Friday evening.
Some Ward 3 Democrats—at least 44 who circulated a letter, and probably more—have endorsed Conroy, imparting a sense of contest in a ward that typically elects Democrats.
The dissident Democrats fear that Cheh supports more development—especially on upper Wisconsin Avenue—than they would like. Inevitably, development was the hot-button issue Friday night, and each candidate had friends in the audience
who applauded her or jeered her opponent.
The candidates hurled barbs at each other. Cheh was the more aggressive, seeking to associate Conroy with President Bush and asking questions designed to highlight her own expertise in law and embarrass Conroy. Tossing off figures on
criminal recidivism, Chey challenged Conroy to offer a remedy. Without elaboration, Conroy replied, “job training” and “adult education.”
When the debate turned to education, Conroy, who teaches an advanced-placement course in comparative politics at Georgetown Visitation Preparatory School, jibed at Cheh, “I don’t need to read reports or studies.”
In closing, Cheh unlimbered her big gun, that Conroy was “an anti-abortion Republican.” [Sound of groans and a voter who called out, “What’s that got to do with it?”] Later, Conroy confirmed that she is “pro-life.”
Cheh, the fluent, voluble constitutional law professor at George Washington University, rattled off lists of positions and policies and may have been the more skillful debater. Occasionally, however, she came across as defensive, especially on development. To rebut accusations that her advocacy of “smart growth” means she is aligned with developers, she draped herself in environmental buzzwords, e.g. “green buildings,” “walkable,” “livable” and “mass transit.” She charged that “Conroy and her surrogates” had misrepresented her views.
Cheh acknowledged that she favored “a modest bump-up” of buildings and density in Friendship Heights. She argued that constructing residential units adjacent to the Jenifer Street Metro entrance—a property now occupied by a car dealership—made sense. And she sought to tar Conroy with an anti-Bush brush, causing Conroy to reply, “I’m not a spoiler of the environment, by any means, because I’m a Republican.”
Conroy declared that present zoning affords “adequate headroom” for growth. This referred to the debate under way on a proposed Comprehensive Plan, which Cheh supports and Conroy and her backers dislike. Conroy called for a new study of development, one not influenced by developers.
On climate change, Conroy said she favored “actions that don’t raise costs.” The debate descended at least once into the petty, with the question: What have you done to save energy?
A few minutes into the debate, confusion erupted about the format, and the moderator, Barbara Yeomans of the League of Women Voters, lost control. On the complicated back-and-forth format, Yeomans took instruction from Cheh’s campaign manager, Claire Bloch, evidently the designer of the format. Before long, similar confusion occurred twice more.
Other sponsors of the debate included several ANCs and several neighborhood associations. Carolyn Sherman, an ANC commissioner, chaired the proceedings.
Other topics:
Fiscal Management and Taxes
Conroy opened by saying she favored reducing DC income tax rates “over time,” but she offered no details. She wanted the District to “pay down debt” and she would “look at” business taxes and regulation to see if they were excessive.
She said the law that lets property taxes rise by as much as 10 percent a year “was not a good one,” but she did not say how she would change it. She endorsed the property-tax class action suit brought by Peter Craig of Cleveland Park, a complaint that a trial court has found had merit. She said the District should drop its appeal from a trial court verdict for the plaintiffs, return $15 million of overpayments and change the method of assessment challenged by Craig. Cheh did not discuss the Craig suit.
Cheh disputed an assertion by Conroy that she, Cheh, had said at a forum that she would raise taxes. “I have never called for raising taxes,” Cheh declared. “I’m not interested in raising taxes.” She said advocating tax reduction was “irresponsible” because of the “structural deficit” in DC’s finances and what she called the “degrading” of infrastructure—roads, schools, libraries, community centers—as a consequence of balancing the budget and raising the city’s bond rating. Cheh argued that the District needed more residents and businesses to expand its tax revenues to offset the “structural deficit” and to pay for more spending.
On property taxes, Cheh said she favored “targeted” relief on property taxes for people on “fixed incomes” and for renters and possibly struggling small businesses. That left the impression that she would be content to see property taxes on homes rise annually under the 10 percent cap.
In the most startling statement of the evening, Conroy said “we should look at lifting property tax exemptions for nonprofit educational institutions.” Presumably that would include Georgetown Visitation and G.W.U. Conroy did not elaborate on this unorthodox view and Cheh did not question it.
Education
Cheh favored taking administration of the public schools—property management, payroll, etc.—away from the Superintendent and assigning it to the mayor’s office, leaving the Superintendent to focus solely on instruction and curriculum. She wanted to “train and reward good teachers, get rid of bad teachers.” She favored “fulltime” pre-kindergarden instruction in public schools. She said Congress had forced vouchers “down the throat” of DC. -
Conroy used education as the fulcrum for accusing Cheh of having a conflict of interest because of her affiliation with G.W.U. Cheh has said that she would go on teaching her constitutional law course, which she has repeatedly said requires only three hours a week. In the past, council members have taught on the side, she said, citing former members Dave Clarke, Charlene Drew Jarvis and Kevin Chavous.
With heat, Cheh asserted “there is no conflict of interest.” She would not benefit personally from any real estate acquisitions G.W.U. might make, she said. She was a tenured professor, meaning that she had job security and could vote independently.
“My opponent does not have a law degree,” she added.
She challenged Conroy to state her plans to accelerate modernization of schools and to say how she would pay for it.
“I certainly wouldn’t pay for it by excessive development in Ward 3,” Conroy shot back.
Public Safety
Conroy said DC needs more police and surveillance cameras and rehabilitation for minor drug offenses. Cheh said DC needed not more officers but “better deployment” that would get cops “out of cars.” She would “come down hard on assault, robbery” and “vacuum up guns.” She did not explain how she would do that and did not discuss the view that gun buy-backs bring in only a small fraction of weapons in the community, chiefly old, unworkable pieces.
Cheh called for “a complete overhaul” of the Emergency Medical Service, which is part of the Fire Department, and the replacement of fire chief Adrian Thompson. She said chief Charles Ramsey of the Metropolitan Police Department had done “a mixed job” and she would not “shed a tear” if he were replaced by the next mayor. Conroy said Ramsey had “done an adequate job.” (Ramsey let it be known this week that he was prepared to move on.)
Cheh made a point of saying that “many” in her family had done police work and that her sister’s husband “was killed in the line of duty.” As if to show further that even though an academic she does not live in an ivy-covered tower, Cheh told a story about how her brother, a roofer, took pride in his work.
She said she wanted to serve on the Council’s Judiciary Committee. She has already worked for that committee as a consultant to its former chairman, Kathy Patterson, who supports Cheh and who came to the meeting.
In closing, Conroy adverted to her earlier statements in support of advisory neighborhood commissions, pledged to be “an independent voice” who “would not be bothered by special interests” and who had no “conflict of interest.” She said she had raised legitimate questions about Cheh.
In her close, Cheh accused Conroy of having changed her position on development opportunistically and of favoring vouchers. Cheh said “I’ve run a positive campaign.”
In an hour of brisk verbal slugging, the candidates for the Ward 3 seat on the DC Council, Mary Cheh, Democrat, and Theresa Conroy, Republican, debated each other at the Washington International Church on River Road Friday evening.
Some Ward 3 Democrats—at least 44 who circulated a letter, and probably more—have endorsed Conroy, imparting a sense of contest in a ward that typically elects Democrats.
The dissident Democrats fear that Cheh supports more development—especially on upper Wisconsin Avenue—than they would like. Inevitably, development was the hot-button issue Friday night, and each candidate had friends in the audience
who applauded her or jeered her opponent.
The candidates hurled barbs at each other. Cheh was the more aggressive, seeking to associate Conroy with President Bush and asking questions designed to highlight her own expertise in law and embarrass Conroy. Tossing off figures on
criminal recidivism, Chey challenged Conroy to offer a remedy. Without elaboration, Conroy replied, “job training” and “adult education.”
When the debate turned to education, Conroy, who teaches an advanced-placement course in comparative politics at Georgetown Visitation Preparatory School, jibed at Cheh, “I don’t need to read reports or studies.”
In closing, Cheh unlimbered her big gun, that Conroy was “an anti-abortion Republican.” [Sound of groans and a voter who called out, “What’s that got to do with it?”] Later, Conroy confirmed that she is “pro-life.”
Cheh, the fluent, voluble constitutional law professor at George Washington University, rattled off lists of positions and policies and may have been the more skillful debater. Occasionally, however, she came across as defensive, especially on development. To rebut accusations that her advocacy of “smart growth” means she is aligned with developers, she draped herself in environmental buzzwords, e.g. “green buildings,” “walkable,” “livable” and “mass transit.” She charged that “Conroy and her surrogates” had misrepresented her views.
Cheh acknowledged that she favored “a modest bump-up” of buildings and density in Friendship Heights. She argued that constructing residential units adjacent to the Jenifer Street Metro entrance—a property now occupied by a car dealership—made sense. And she sought to tar Conroy with an anti-Bush brush, causing Conroy to reply, “I’m not a spoiler of the environment, by any means, because I’m a Republican.”
Conroy declared that present zoning affords “adequate headroom” for growth. This referred to the debate under way on a proposed Comprehensive Plan, which Cheh supports and Conroy and her backers dislike. Conroy called for a new study of development, one not influenced by developers.
On climate change, Conroy said she favored “actions that don’t raise costs.” The debate descended at least once into the petty, with the question: What have you done to save energy?
A few minutes into the debate, confusion erupted about the format, and the moderator, Barbara Yeomans of the League of Women Voters, lost control. On the complicated back-and-forth format, Yeomans took instruction from Cheh’s campaign manager, Claire Bloch, evidently the designer of the format. Before long, similar confusion occurred twice more.
Other sponsors of the debate included several ANCs and several neighborhood associations. Carolyn Sherman, an ANC commissioner, chaired the proceedings.
Other topics:
Fiscal Management and Taxes
Conroy opened by saying she favored reducing DC income tax rates “over time,” but she offered no details. She wanted the District to “pay down debt” and she would “look at” business taxes and regulation to see if they were excessive.
She said the law that lets property taxes rise by as much as 10 percent a year “was not a good one,” but she did not say how she would change it. She endorsed the property-tax class action suit brought by Peter Craig of Cleveland Park, a complaint that a trial court has found had merit. She said the District should drop its appeal from a trial court verdict for the plaintiffs, return $15 million of overpayments and change the method of assessment challenged by Craig. Cheh did not discuss the Craig suit.
Cheh disputed an assertion by Conroy that she, Cheh, had said at a forum that she would raise taxes. “I have never called for raising taxes,” Cheh declared. “I’m not interested in raising taxes.” She said advocating tax reduction was “irresponsible” because of the “structural deficit” in DC’s finances and what she called the “degrading” of infrastructure—roads, schools, libraries, community centers—as a consequence of balancing the budget and raising the city’s bond rating. Cheh argued that the District needed more residents and businesses to expand its tax revenues to offset the “structural deficit” and to pay for more spending.
On property taxes, Cheh said she favored “targeted” relief on property taxes for people on “fixed incomes” and for renters and possibly struggling small businesses. That left the impression that she would be content to see property taxes on homes rise annually under the 10 percent cap.
In the most startling statement of the evening, Conroy said “we should look at lifting property tax exemptions for nonprofit educational institutions.” Presumably that would include Georgetown Visitation and G.W.U. Conroy did not elaborate on this unorthodox view and Cheh did not question it.
Education
Cheh favored taking administration of the public schools—property management, payroll, etc.—away from the Superintendent and assigning it to the mayor’s office, leaving the Superintendent to focus solely on instruction and curriculum. She wanted to “train and reward good teachers, get rid of bad teachers.” She favored “fulltime” pre-kindergarden instruction in public schools. She said Congress had forced vouchers “down the throat” of DC. -
Conroy used education as the fulcrum for accusing Cheh of having a conflict of interest because of her affiliation with G.W.U. Cheh has said that she would go on teaching her constitutional law course, which she has repeatedly said requires only three hours a week. In the past, council members have taught on the side, she said, citing former members Dave Clarke, Charlene Drew Jarvis and Kevin Chavous.
With heat, Cheh asserted “there is no conflict of interest.” She would not benefit personally from any real estate acquisitions G.W.U. might make, she said. She was a tenured professor, meaning that she had job security and could vote independently.
“My opponent does not have a law degree,” she added.
She challenged Conroy to state her plans to accelerate modernization of schools and to say how she would pay for it.
“I certainly wouldn’t pay for it by excessive development in Ward 3,” Conroy shot back.
Public Safety
Conroy said DC needs more police and surveillance cameras and rehabilitation for minor drug offenses. Cheh said DC needed not more officers but “better deployment” that would get cops “out of cars.” She would “come down hard on assault, robbery” and “vacuum up guns.” She did not explain how she would do that and did not discuss the view that gun buy-backs bring in only a small fraction of weapons in the community, chiefly old, unworkable pieces.
Cheh called for “a complete overhaul” of the Emergency Medical Service, which is part of the Fire Department, and the replacement of fire chief Adrian Thompson. She said chief Charles Ramsey of the Metropolitan Police Department had done “a mixed job” and she would not “shed a tear” if he were replaced by the next mayor. Conroy said Ramsey had “done an adequate job.” (Ramsey let it be known this week that he was prepared to move on.)
Cheh made a point of saying that “many” in her family had done police work and that her sister’s husband “was killed in the line of duty.” As if to show further that even though an academic she does not live in an ivy-covered tower, Cheh told a story about how her brother, a roofer, took pride in his work.
She said she wanted to serve on the Council’s Judiciary Committee. She has already worked for that committee as a consultant to its former chairman, Kathy Patterson, who supports Cheh and who came to the meeting.
In closing, Conroy adverted to her earlier statements in support of advisory neighborhood commissions, pledged to be “an independent voice” who “would not be bothered by special interests” and who had no “conflict of interest.” She said she had raised legitimate questions about Cheh.
In her close, Cheh accused Conroy of having changed her position on development opportunistically and of favoring vouchers. Cheh said “I’ve run a positive campaign.”
Saturday, November 04, 2006
DC Examiner on Cheh, Fenty and Schools
Courtney Mabeus, The Examiner
Nov 4, 2006
WASHINGTON - As she describes it, Democrat Mary Cheh’s Ward 3 Council candidacy is simply a right place, right time matter and a culmination of smaller realizations added up during her three decades in the District.
Cheh, a law professor at George Washington University, watched as the District teetered on the edge of financial ruin in the 1980s and ’90s and saw it surge back again under outgoing Mayor Anthony Williams.
With her daughters now grown, and a new mayor and several new faces guaranteed on the Council, 56-year-old Cheh decided to run after being energized by years of pro bono work as a city legal reformer.
“Those of us who have been here a long time, we know how bad things can get,” said Cheh, who moved to Washington with her journalist husband in 1976.
“We know where danger lies. ... Now there’s going to be the biggest change in the city governance since Home Rule, with a new mayor, five members of the council and, with many of us, a memory of those times before Mayor Williams.”
But, Cheh, who is passionate about assuring the efficiency of the District’s finances, approaches politics more like a policy wonk than a glad hander who knows everyone who steps off Metro.
She seems genuinely surprised that she won every precinct in her nine candidate Sept. 13 primary.
“It seemed like there were so many people,” Cheh said. “They were all, you know, credible, strong legitimate contenders. Most of them did have prior political experience. I thought I could win, I thought I could lose. I didn’t think I could win everywhere.”
In largely-affluent Ward 3, where Democrats outnumber Republicans 3-to-1, Cheh is expected to handily beat Republican Theresa Conroy in Tuesday’s election.
Cheh, who still has her native New Jersey accent, wants to bring more recreational opportunities to her ward and is receptive to a mayoral takeover of the District schools system.
“We can’t, and haven’t been able for decades, run a school system that gives kids a real opportunity sometimes to even get a job when they’re out,” Cheh said.
“How can that be? It boggles the mind. There are these other schools system where they’ve been able to figure it out, why can’t we? It’s a moral question as much as it is a practical question.”
Part of the Washington DC Examiner's 2006 election coverage.
Nov 4, 2006
WASHINGTON - As she describes it, Democrat Mary Cheh’s Ward 3 Council candidacy is simply a right place, right time matter and a culmination of smaller realizations added up during her three decades in the District.
Cheh, a law professor at George Washington University, watched as the District teetered on the edge of financial ruin in the 1980s and ’90s and saw it surge back again under outgoing Mayor Anthony Williams.
With her daughters now grown, and a new mayor and several new faces guaranteed on the Council, 56-year-old Cheh decided to run after being energized by years of pro bono work as a city legal reformer.
“Those of us who have been here a long time, we know how bad things can get,” said Cheh, who moved to Washington with her journalist husband in 1976.
“We know where danger lies. ... Now there’s going to be the biggest change in the city governance since Home Rule, with a new mayor, five members of the council and, with many of us, a memory of those times before Mayor Williams.”
But, Cheh, who is passionate about assuring the efficiency of the District’s finances, approaches politics more like a policy wonk than a glad hander who knows everyone who steps off Metro.
She seems genuinely surprised that she won every precinct in her nine candidate Sept. 13 primary.
“It seemed like there were so many people,” Cheh said. “They were all, you know, credible, strong legitimate contenders. Most of them did have prior political experience. I thought I could win, I thought I could lose. I didn’t think I could win everywhere.”
In largely-affluent Ward 3, where Democrats outnumber Republicans 3-to-1, Cheh is expected to handily beat Republican Theresa Conroy in Tuesday’s election.
Cheh, who still has her native New Jersey accent, wants to bring more recreational opportunities to her ward and is receptive to a mayoral takeover of the District schools system.
“We can’t, and haven’t been able for decades, run a school system that gives kids a real opportunity sometimes to even get a job when they’re out,” Cheh said.
“How can that be? It boggles the mind. There are these other schools system where they’ve been able to figure it out, why can’t we? It’s a moral question as much as it is a practical question.”
Part of the Washington DC Examiner's 2006 election coverage.
Washington Post on Development and Ward 3 Race
Some Democrats Cross Party Lines Over Development
By Nikita Stewart
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 4, 2006; Page B04
Some members of the Democratic Party are trying to influence future neighborhood development by backing the Republican candidate over Democrat Mary M. Cheh in Tuesday's election for the Ward 3 D.C. Council seat.
Cheh, a law professor at George Washington University, won the Democratic primary in September with 44 percent of the vote in a nine-way race. But in recent weeks, Republican Theresa Conroy has been endorsed by a group of Democrats who say they like her stance on development in the ward and fear that Cheh does not know enough about the community.
Mary Rowse, a former Advisory Neighborhood commissioner and a Democrat, said 42 Democrats signed a letter in support of Conroy that went out to more than 20,000 Democratic voters this week.
"We have met with Theresa and know that her vision much more closely mirrors ours than the Democratic candidate," the Oct. 30 letter reads. "Professor Cheh, while intelligent and articulate, has not shown that she has the community experience or the willingness to learn and listen that are the basic requirements for representing Ward 3."
The letter also says that "electing Mary Cheh will likely get us higher density development on all our major corridors."
Cheh, 56, said she has reached out to the community. "I think I counted that I had 50 house parties since I got into this in April," she said. "I've been on thousands of porches and in living rooms."
She also said she has not changed her views on development and still advocates "smart growth" around Metro stations -- a concept that some Tenleytown residents are opposing on Wisconsin Avenue NW.
On her campaign Web site, Conroy, 55, lists "unrestrained development in residential neighborhoods" as her first concern.
Despite the Democrats' letter of support, Conroy has an uphill battle against Cheh. About 63 percent of registered voters in Ward 3 are Democrats; Republicans account for 16 percent. In the primaries, Cheh received 6,642 votes; Conroy, who was unopposed, received 577 votes.
Still, Conroy, a teacher at Georgetown Visitation Preparatory School, is trying to run a competitive campaign with mailings, signs and automated phone calls this weekend.
Conroy said she knew that some Democrats were planning to back her but that she has been surprised at the level of support. She said she is fielding several calls a day from people who have received the letter. "I never dreamed that all these people would call me," Conroy said.
Cheh said that she remains confident of victory and that her views match those of the majority of Ward 3 voters. "I don't expect to get every Democratic vote, and she, as a lifelong Republican, won't get every Republican vote," she said. "I had Republicans tell me that they've already voted for me absentee."
By Nikita Stewart
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 4, 2006; Page B04
Some members of the Democratic Party are trying to influence future neighborhood development by backing the Republican candidate over Democrat Mary M. Cheh in Tuesday's election for the Ward 3 D.C. Council seat.
Cheh, a law professor at George Washington University, won the Democratic primary in September with 44 percent of the vote in a nine-way race. But in recent weeks, Republican Theresa Conroy has been endorsed by a group of Democrats who say they like her stance on development in the ward and fear that Cheh does not know enough about the community.
Mary Rowse, a former Advisory Neighborhood commissioner and a Democrat, said 42 Democrats signed a letter in support of Conroy that went out to more than 20,000 Democratic voters this week.
"We have met with Theresa and know that her vision much more closely mirrors ours than the Democratic candidate," the Oct. 30 letter reads. "Professor Cheh, while intelligent and articulate, has not shown that she has the community experience or the willingness to learn and listen that are the basic requirements for representing Ward 3."
The letter also says that "electing Mary Cheh will likely get us higher density development on all our major corridors."
Cheh, 56, said she has reached out to the community. "I think I counted that I had 50 house parties since I got into this in April," she said. "I've been on thousands of porches and in living rooms."
She also said she has not changed her views on development and still advocates "smart growth" around Metro stations -- a concept that some Tenleytown residents are opposing on Wisconsin Avenue NW.
On her campaign Web site, Conroy, 55, lists "unrestrained development in residential neighborhoods" as her first concern.
Despite the Democrats' letter of support, Conroy has an uphill battle against Cheh. About 63 percent of registered voters in Ward 3 are Democrats; Republicans account for 16 percent. In the primaries, Cheh received 6,642 votes; Conroy, who was unopposed, received 577 votes.
Still, Conroy, a teacher at Georgetown Visitation Preparatory School, is trying to run a competitive campaign with mailings, signs and automated phone calls this weekend.
Conroy said she knew that some Democrats were planning to back her but that she has been surprised at the level of support. She said she is fielding several calls a day from people who have received the letter. "I never dreamed that all these people would call me," Conroy said.
Cheh said that she remains confident of victory and that her views match those of the majority of Ward 3 voters. "I don't expect to get every Democratic vote, and she, as a lifelong Republican, won't get every Republican vote," she said. "I had Republicans tell me that they've already voted for me absentee."
Friday, November 03, 2006
Cheh v Conroy: This sums it up
Tonight was the big, final showdown sponsored generally by the Conroy supporters. There are two episodes from the proceedings which symbolize the entire evening.
Episode 1: In her rebuttal question, Mary Cheh summarized the school modernization timetable of 2019 as unacceptable, and offered to speed the modernization for Ward 3 schools. She asked Conroy if she agreed with that premise, and if so, how would she pay for it? Response: Not with overdevelopment in Ward 3.
No substance on education, school modernization, budgetary issues. Nothing she could think of off the top of her head.
Episode 2: In her closing statement, Mary Cheh cited the City Paper analysis of Theresa Conroy as "the latest darling of the NIMBY crowd that opposes development in Tenleytown. Conroy is a bona fide anti-abortion Republican. Let her take the NIMBY case to the zoning commission". This drew cat calls from some of those in attendance. Why? In my opinion, because the democrats for Conroy do not want to face the pact they have made with this candidate. They are so focused on the single issue of development that everything else should be damned.
Episode 1: In her rebuttal question, Mary Cheh summarized the school modernization timetable of 2019 as unacceptable, and offered to speed the modernization for Ward 3 schools. She asked Conroy if she agreed with that premise, and if so, how would she pay for it? Response: Not with overdevelopment in Ward 3.
No substance on education, school modernization, budgetary issues. Nothing she could think of off the top of her head.
Episode 2: In her closing statement, Mary Cheh cited the City Paper analysis of Theresa Conroy as "the latest darling of the NIMBY crowd that opposes development in Tenleytown. Conroy is a bona fide anti-abortion Republican. Let her take the NIMBY case to the zoning commission". This drew cat calls from some of those in attendance. Why? In my opinion, because the democrats for Conroy do not want to face the pact they have made with this candidate. They are so focused on the single issue of development that everything else should be damned.
Lessons learned from the primary season
I would have thought that the level of complaint regarding anonymous robo-calls, phone polling and other intrusions into everyday life (Yard signs in piblic psaces, excessive mailings etc.) would have taught the candidates that voters will get their information as they see fit and do not want to be bothered in the precious spare time each of us enjoys.
I have had the pleasure of multiple robo-push polls from the Conroy camp over the last two days.
Thanks you very much, Ms. Conroy (calls to the Cheh campaign confirmed neither they, nor any of their supporters commissioned any such activity, and Google searches on the purported company behind the calls were fruitless).
I have had the pleasure of multiple robo-push polls from the Conroy camp over the last two days.
Thanks you very much, Ms. Conroy (calls to the Cheh campaign confirmed neither they, nor any of their supporters commissioned any such activity, and Google searches on the purported company behind the calls were fruitless).
Wash Times: Devlopment Drives Election
By Amy Doolittle
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published November 3, 2006
Development plans for Northwest neighborhoods have emerged as a key issue in the race for the Ward 3 seat on the D.C. Council between Democrat Mary M. Cheh and Republican Theresa Conroy.
In a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans 9-to-1, Mrs. Cheh has a clear advantage over Mrs. Conroy. However, she has drawn criticism for supporting a citywide development plan that calls for more housing near already dense Metro stops and major thoroughfares such as Connecticut and Wisconsin avenues.
Critics also say she supports bringing the plan before the council for hearings, instead of returning it to the community for further comment.
Her supporters say the council process will allow for community input, but opponents say testimony is not enough.
"The more I heard from Mary Cheh and the more I heard about her, the more alarmed I became," said Peter Espenchied, a Cleveland Park Democrat who now supports Mrs. Conroy. "In general, I'm a liberal, [but] I'm voting for Theresa because of this development issue."
The plan would be a map for citywide development over the next 20 years.
"I've said from the very beginning that I support transit-oriented development and increased activity along our corridors," Mrs. Cheh said. "I think there's going to be growth no matter what. So we need to grow smart. I want to preserve our neighborhood and at the same time have lively, walkable corridors."
Despite the overwhelming Democratic majority, Mrs. Conroy's supporters think she can win. They point to Democratic divisions from nine candidates in the September primary and say Mrs. Conroy can get votes from those who oppose the city's development plan.
"The development is a big issue," Mrs. Conroy said. "I testified before city council about that. Many of the neighbors want to be able to give input. ... People support me because of my development stance."
The city's Republican Party has organized fundraisers for Mrs. Conroy's campaign. Records filed Oct. 10 with the D.C. Office of Campaign Finance show that she has $26,394 on hand, compared with $92,394 for Mrs. Cheh.
Mrs. Cheh teaches at George Washington University, one of the biggest developers in some sections of Northwest, but she said her support for the comprehensive plan and ties to school do not make her pro-development.
"There are now, and there have been for some time, for some reason, a very tiny but loud group of people who don't want to see any change," Mrs. Cheh said. "I understand on some level that they're afraid of change. And I understand on some level that they're afraid of what the city must do. But I'm hoping we can sit down and figure out how to fix that part of the corridor without the sort of shrill hysterics that they attach to me. I think it's quite reasonable and it's in the common good."
Susan Banta, a Cleveland Park resident who supports Mrs. Cheh, said she is surprised that the debate has become so heated.
"She's not calling for massive development," Mrs. Banta said. "I think that's misinformation."
Mrs. Cheh has the support of current Ward 3 Council member Kathy Patterson, a Democrat who did not run for re-election.
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published November 3, 2006
Development plans for Northwest neighborhoods have emerged as a key issue in the race for the Ward 3 seat on the D.C. Council between Democrat Mary M. Cheh and Republican Theresa Conroy.
In a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans 9-to-1, Mrs. Cheh has a clear advantage over Mrs. Conroy. However, she has drawn criticism for supporting a citywide development plan that calls for more housing near already dense Metro stops and major thoroughfares such as Connecticut and Wisconsin avenues.
Critics also say she supports bringing the plan before the council for hearings, instead of returning it to the community for further comment.
Her supporters say the council process will allow for community input, but opponents say testimony is not enough.
"The more I heard from Mary Cheh and the more I heard about her, the more alarmed I became," said Peter Espenchied, a Cleveland Park Democrat who now supports Mrs. Conroy. "In general, I'm a liberal, [but] I'm voting for Theresa because of this development issue."
The plan would be a map for citywide development over the next 20 years.
"I've said from the very beginning that I support transit-oriented development and increased activity along our corridors," Mrs. Cheh said. "I think there's going to be growth no matter what. So we need to grow smart. I want to preserve our neighborhood and at the same time have lively, walkable corridors."
Despite the overwhelming Democratic majority, Mrs. Conroy's supporters think she can win. They point to Democratic divisions from nine candidates in the September primary and say Mrs. Conroy can get votes from those who oppose the city's development plan.
"The development is a big issue," Mrs. Conroy said. "I testified before city council about that. Many of the neighbors want to be able to give input. ... People support me because of my development stance."
The city's Republican Party has organized fundraisers for Mrs. Conroy's campaign. Records filed Oct. 10 with the D.C. Office of Campaign Finance show that she has $26,394 on hand, compared with $92,394 for Mrs. Cheh.
Mrs. Cheh teaches at George Washington University, one of the biggest developers in some sections of Northwest, but she said her support for the comprehensive plan and ties to school do not make her pro-development.
"There are now, and there have been for some time, for some reason, a very tiny but loud group of people who don't want to see any change," Mrs. Cheh said. "I understand on some level that they're afraid of change. And I understand on some level that they're afraid of what the city must do. But I'm hoping we can sit down and figure out how to fix that part of the corridor without the sort of shrill hysterics that they attach to me. I think it's quite reasonable and it's in the common good."
Susan Banta, a Cleveland Park resident who supports Mrs. Cheh, said she is surprised that the debate has become so heated.
"She's not calling for massive development," Mrs. Banta said. "I think that's misinformation."
Mrs. Cheh has the support of current Ward 3 Council member Kathy Patterson, a Democrat who did not run for re-election.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
The problem with the ANC System
In reviewing the list of candidates for the various Ward 3 ANC seats, I am struck by how many open seats and uncontested races exist.
Out of 42 seats up for election from ANC 3B to ANC 3/4G (some of the seats are technically in other Wards, but I am including them all for this purpose):
9 are open seats with no candidates on the ballot
27 are uncontested, generally incumbants
6 have more than one candidate
A whopping 14% of the seats have contested races. There is simply little interest in this volunteer job, and generally the people willing to do it have the time, and some sort of agenda. The agenda in question may, or may not be in the best interests of the broader community.
Out of 42 seats up for election from ANC 3B to ANC 3/4G (some of the seats are technically in other Wards, but I am including them all for this purpose):
9 are open seats with no candidates on the ballot
27 are uncontested, generally incumbants
6 have more than one candidate
A whopping 14% of the seats have contested races. There is simply little interest in this volunteer job, and generally the people willing to do it have the time, and some sort of agenda. The agenda in question may, or may not be in the best interests of the broader community.
City Paper General Election Endorsements
Ward 3 D.C. Council
For some reason, the political chatterers want to make a race of the contest between Republican Theresa Conroy and Democrat Mary Cheh, mostly because Conroy is the latest darling of the NIMBY crowd that opposes development in Tenleytown. Conroy is a bona fide anti-abortion Republican. Let her take the NIMBY case to the zoning commission. Stick with Cheh.
For some reason, the political chatterers want to make a race of the contest between Republican Theresa Conroy and Democrat Mary Cheh, mostly because Conroy is the latest darling of the NIMBY crowd that opposes development in Tenleytown. Conroy is a bona fide anti-abortion Republican. Let her take the NIMBY case to the zoning commission. Stick with Cheh.
Wash Times latest on the Ward 3 race
(Note, Yard signs in public spaces are illegal, among other issues of inaccuracies in this un-bylined article)
Republican Theresa Conroy has five days left to persuade the overwhelmingly blue voters of Ward 3 that she offers a viable alternative to the developer-friendly Mary Cheh, the Democratic nominee heavily favored to earn a seat on the D.C. Council.
Mrs. Conroy and Ms. Cheh will debate one last time tomorrow night, starting at 7 at the Washington International Church on River Road.
Mrs. Conroy also plans to walk the neighborhoods of Ward 3 in the coming days and talk the talk of a candidate who has felt a sense of momentum in her previously improbable bid to upset a Democratic candidate in what is essentially a one-party city.
"I would say my campaign has continued to generate a lot of excitement," she said yesterday by telephone. "People are calling wanting signs to put up in their yards, and they want literature that highlights my positions. Nothing has dampened the enthusiasm, except the occasional person who says I can't win because of the registration numbers." Those numbers are fairly stark for a Republican candidate. Of the nearly 40,000 registered voters in Ward 3, 31,720 are registered Democrats and 8,230 are registered Republicans.
Mrs. Conroy suspects those numbers are somewhat misleading because of the inclination of centrists to register as Democrats in order to have a vote in the party primary, which usually determines the winners in the general election.
If the turnout Tuesday is similar to 2002 -- when Democrat Kathy Patterson (who is not running for re-election) secured 17,045 votes to Eric Rojo's 4,642 -- Mrs. Conroy figures she needs to energize the Republican base and siphon off a considerable number of Democratic loyalists to claim victory.
Mrs. Conroy already has earned the backing of a group called the "Ward 3 Democrats for Conroy." The 42-member coalition mailed out a four-page letter to voters this week that touts her positions on growth, her decision to be a full-time member of the D.C. Council and her willingness to listen to the various advisory neighborhood commissions and civic associations.
The coalition also notes Ms. Cheh's plan to remain a professor at George Washington University while serving on the D.C. Council, which could pose a conflict of interest any time business concerning her principal employer comes before the 13-member body. If so, Ms. Cheh has promised to recuse herself, a gesture that would leave Ward 3 without representation.
Mrs. Conroy says that she has noticed a growing acceptance of her candidacy, a sense that her first political foray has advanced from distant hope to genuine. Her aides have planted her yellow political signs all across Ward 3 and continue to work the subway stops.
Mrs. Conroy is finding that voters recognize the benefits of a two-party system and the need to have opposing viewpoints.
"I've gotten those phone calls where the person says, 'I'm 62 years old, and I've never voted for a Republican candidate in my life,' " Mrs. Conroy said. "Then they ask: 'Can you bring me over three yard signs?' " Mrs. Conroy has been showered with animosity on occasion, as if this 55-year-old educator is somehow a misguided rebel who has no real stake in Ward 3 and the Cathedral Heights neighborhood she calls home.
Of course, being a Republican qualifies as being fiercely independent in a city that prays at the altar of the left.
Mrs. Conroy has been amused on occasion by those who have decided to ignore the group pressure of the left, if only in this election.
"People will come over to me, then kind of whisper, 'I'm going to vote for you in the election,' " she said.
Mrs. Conroy also has been amused by the attempt to link her to the national Republican Party and the war in Iraq, as if the D.C. Council works on Capitol Hill instead of in the Wilson Building.
"I don't yet have the feeling we're losing," she said. "There's excitement, even among Democrats." And Mrs. Conroy has five days left to orchestrate the unlikely.
Copyright © 2006 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
Republican Theresa Conroy has five days left to persuade the overwhelmingly blue voters of Ward 3 that she offers a viable alternative to the developer-friendly Mary Cheh, the Democratic nominee heavily favored to earn a seat on the D.C. Council.
Mrs. Conroy and Ms. Cheh will debate one last time tomorrow night, starting at 7 at the Washington International Church on River Road.
Mrs. Conroy also plans to walk the neighborhoods of Ward 3 in the coming days and talk the talk of a candidate who has felt a sense of momentum in her previously improbable bid to upset a Democratic candidate in what is essentially a one-party city.
"I would say my campaign has continued to generate a lot of excitement," she said yesterday by telephone. "People are calling wanting signs to put up in their yards, and they want literature that highlights my positions. Nothing has dampened the enthusiasm, except the occasional person who says I can't win because of the registration numbers." Those numbers are fairly stark for a Republican candidate. Of the nearly 40,000 registered voters in Ward 3, 31,720 are registered Democrats and 8,230 are registered Republicans.
Mrs. Conroy suspects those numbers are somewhat misleading because of the inclination of centrists to register as Democrats in order to have a vote in the party primary, which usually determines the winners in the general election.
If the turnout Tuesday is similar to 2002 -- when Democrat Kathy Patterson (who is not running for re-election) secured 17,045 votes to Eric Rojo's 4,642 -- Mrs. Conroy figures she needs to energize the Republican base and siphon off a considerable number of Democratic loyalists to claim victory.
Mrs. Conroy already has earned the backing of a group called the "Ward 3 Democrats for Conroy." The 42-member coalition mailed out a four-page letter to voters this week that touts her positions on growth, her decision to be a full-time member of the D.C. Council and her willingness to listen to the various advisory neighborhood commissions and civic associations.
The coalition also notes Ms. Cheh's plan to remain a professor at George Washington University while serving on the D.C. Council, which could pose a conflict of interest any time business concerning her principal employer comes before the 13-member body. If so, Ms. Cheh has promised to recuse herself, a gesture that would leave Ward 3 without representation.
Mrs. Conroy says that she has noticed a growing acceptance of her candidacy, a sense that her first political foray has advanced from distant hope to genuine. Her aides have planted her yellow political signs all across Ward 3 and continue to work the subway stops.
Mrs. Conroy is finding that voters recognize the benefits of a two-party system and the need to have opposing viewpoints.
"I've gotten those phone calls where the person says, 'I'm 62 years old, and I've never voted for a Republican candidate in my life,' " Mrs. Conroy said. "Then they ask: 'Can you bring me over three yard signs?' " Mrs. Conroy has been showered with animosity on occasion, as if this 55-year-old educator is somehow a misguided rebel who has no real stake in Ward 3 and the Cathedral Heights neighborhood she calls home.
Of course, being a Republican qualifies as being fiercely independent in a city that prays at the altar of the left.
Mrs. Conroy has been amused on occasion by those who have decided to ignore the group pressure of the left, if only in this election.
"People will come over to me, then kind of whisper, 'I'm going to vote for you in the election,' " she said.
Mrs. Conroy also has been amused by the attempt to link her to the national Republican Party and the war in Iraq, as if the D.C. Council works on Capitol Hill instead of in the Wilson Building.
"I don't yet have the feeling we're losing," she said. "There's excitement, even among Democrats." And Mrs. Conroy has five days left to orchestrate the unlikely.
Copyright © 2006 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Whither the Uptown Theater?
In a recent blog entry Washington Post Columnist Marc Fisher opines about the state of the Uptown Theater, the grande dame of Cleveland Park, and district cinema houses.
Can the Uptown become an independent theater a la the Avalon?
The problem is, the art deco structure is landmarked both for its architecture and it use, meaning as I understand it, it always will need to be a theater. What happens if there are no takers?
This, on the heels of the NW Current reporting that the AMC Theater at 4000 Wisconsin Avenue is slated to close soon.
Can the Uptown become an independent theater a la the Avalon?
The problem is, the art deco structure is landmarked both for its architecture and it use, meaning as I understand it, it always will need to be a theater. What happens if there are no takers?
This, on the heels of the NW Current reporting that the AMC Theater at 4000 Wisconsin Avenue is slated to close soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)