Re-posted from the Cleveland Park Listserv:
What happens when the reliability of electrical service is uncertain and what happens when new technology is introduced by utility companies? In 2011, AARP DC will take up these issues by exploring solutions to improve reliability, providing information on smart meter installation and operation, and giving DC residents the opportunity to raise concerns.
What: Reliable Electric Service and Smart Meters
Panelists: AARP, Office of the People’s Counsel, Pepco, and the Public Service
Commission
When: March 30, from 6:00 - 7:30pm
Where: Tenleytown Library, 4450 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Washington, DC
All DC residents are invited. Light refreshments will be served.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Thursday, March 24, 2011
2010 Census and Ward 3
The Washington Post has announced the results of the 2010 Census for the District of Columbia. The GreaterGreaterWashington Blog has a very good analysis of the results.
The overriding question for Ward 3 will be what, if any changes come as a result of this count. On the one hand, it may be that any shifts in Ward boundaries may be surround only the wards which need to have population adjustments as defined. On the other hand, shifting borders in several wards may mean that all wards will have changes.
In 2000, Woodley Park was divided, with the portion east of Connecticut Avenue ending up in Ward 1. Similarly in Chevy Chase, the areas east of Broadbranch Road were moved into Ward 4.
The DC Council, particularly Jack Evans and Phil Mendelson, will have the most to say about this process.
EDIT: GGW has created an application that will allow one to test out different options. There is also an ANC feature.
The overriding question for Ward 3 will be what, if any changes come as a result of this count. On the one hand, it may be that any shifts in Ward boundaries may be surround only the wards which need to have population adjustments as defined. On the other hand, shifting borders in several wards may mean that all wards will have changes.
In 2000, Woodley Park was divided, with the portion east of Connecticut Avenue ending up in Ward 1. Similarly in Chevy Chase, the areas east of Broadbranch Road were moved into Ward 4.
The DC Council, particularly Jack Evans and Phil Mendelson, will have the most to say about this process.
EDIT: GGW has created an application that will allow one to test out different options. There is also an ANC feature.
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
March 14th: Connecticut Avenue Design Charrette
From the DC Office of Planning:
Residents and other stakeholders are invited to participate in the upcoming Design Charrette for open space along Connecticut Avenue from Albemarle to Tilden Street.
When: March 14th, 2011
Where: University of the District of Columbia; 2nd floor of Building 38, Windows
Lounge
Charrette program:
3:30-4:00 Project Presentation
4:00-5:30 1stBreak-out design session
5:30-6:00 Break
6:00-6:30 Presentation of results of first break out design session
6:30-8:00 2ndBreak-out design session
8:00-8:30 Summarize and wrap up
How can you contribute? Come share ideas, design solutions,place-making ideas, mobility suggestions. You can drop in at any time during the charrette/design workshop,or you can actively participate in a full design breakout session or both(they will build on each-other);or just attend the 8pm summary and wrap-up.
This Design Charette is part of the Connecticut Avenue Van Ness-UDC metro Commercial Corridor Enhancement Study process led by the District Office of Planning, funded by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Government, and in partnership with the UDC Sustainability Initiative and the UDC School of Architecture.
For more information on this project, please contact:
Andrea Limauro at the DC Office of Planning.
202–4427605
Andrea.limauro@dc.gov
www.planning.dc.gov
Residents and other stakeholders are invited to participate in the upcoming Design Charrette for open space along Connecticut Avenue from Albemarle to Tilden Street.
When: March 14th, 2011
Where: University of the District of Columbia; 2nd floor of Building 38, Windows
Lounge
Charrette program:
3:30-4:00 Project Presentation
4:00-5:30 1stBreak-out design session
5:30-6:00 Break
6:00-6:30 Presentation of results of first break out design session
6:30-8:00 2ndBreak-out design session
8:00-8:30 Summarize and wrap up
How can you contribute? Come share ideas, design solutions,place-making ideas, mobility suggestions. You can drop in at any time during the charrette/design workshop,or you can actively participate in a full design breakout session or both(they will build on each-other);or just attend the 8pm summary and wrap-up.
This Design Charette is part of the Connecticut Avenue Van Ness-UDC metro Commercial Corridor Enhancement Study process led by the District Office of Planning, funded by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Government, and in partnership with the UDC Sustainability Initiative and the UDC School of Architecture.
For more information on this project, please contact:
Andrea Limauro at the DC Office of Planning.
202–4427605
Andrea.limauro@dc.gov
www.planning.dc.gov
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
DDOT Releases Livability Plan
After 9 months of community input and study, DDOT has released the "Livability" plan for Rock Creek West 2. The study area includes parts of Friendship Heights, Tenleytown, AU Park and Chevy Chase.
In sum, there are some great new features detailed including alterations to Ft. Drive and Nevada Avenue, a HAWK signal at Northampton and Connecticut Avenue, and several miles of "bicycle boulevards".
The study was executed in conjunction with the affected ANCs and Connecticut Avenue Pedestrian Action.
In sum, there are some great new features detailed including alterations to Ft. Drive and Nevada Avenue, a HAWK signal at Northampton and Connecticut Avenue, and several miles of "bicycle boulevards".
The study was executed in conjunction with the affected ANCs and Connecticut Avenue Pedestrian Action.
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
New AU Campus Plans
From a posting on the Tenleytown Listserv. This will no doubt garner much discussion about the future shape and form of both the Spring Valley and Wisconsin Avenue corridors. There is a real opportunity to work with American University to catalyze these areas, while at the same time addressing the issue of student group homes throughout the communities. However, stark opposition will simply, at best, maintain the status quo and push the discussion into future campus plans. The community should consider how colleges and universities nationwide have been economic growth engines for their communities and think creatively about how American University can be a community asset and focal point.
Dear Tenleytown and AU Park Neighbors:
We are writing to let you know that American University has proposed to move its law school to the Tenley campus, which is located Nebraska Avenue and Yuma Street. Under the proposed 2011 Campus Plan, available on AU's website, the law school would also expand from 1,700 to 2,000 students, plus an estimated 500 faculty and staff. The property is the current home of the University's Washington Semester program, with a small resident
population estimated at 300 students.
Unlike the location of the current law school, the Tenley site is zoned for residential use. AU purchased the Tenley property in 1986 and proposed to build a new law school there, but zoning problems and fierce opposition by the neighborhood forced AU to abandon the project and sign an agreement to limit future expansion.
When we first heard of the latest proposal last spring, the neighbors adjacent to the property re-formed the Tenley Campus Neighbors Association (TCNA). Our starting proposition is simple--what was a bad idea for the neighborhood in 1986 is probably still a bad idea today.
Despite serious reservations about the entire project, our group has diligently attempted to engage AU in constructive dialogue over the last year. Although we have been successful in getting AU to consider our input on the design aspects, the statements in the draft Plan suggesting neighborhood "buy-in" are misleading. The fundamental issues with developing the Tenley site in 1986—traffic, parking, density, historic preservation concerns etc. have still not been addressed by AU, nor are they adequately addressed in the current draft campus plan.
TCNA has the following specific objections to the draft plan:
Traffic and Parking—AU now plans to more than quintuple the number of students and personnel using the site to 2,500 people. The most obvious consequence is that there is simply no way to accommodate the additional traffic and parking pressures in our neighborhood. The current students on the site do not drive.
With regard to parking, AU proposes an underground parking lot with 400 to 500 places, but many of these spots would be used by faculty and staff. Even if half the campus population used Metro (a very optimistic scenario given that, according to AU, only 10% use Metro now), where will the extra 1,250 or so additional cars park? And since the law school is will be a 24/7 operation, many students will be parking after
the Zone 3 parking restrictions lapse.
If even more parking is built, where will all that extra traffic go? The proposed law school will contribute to further gridlock on Wisconsin and Nebraska, forcing even more commuter traffic to cut through our neighborhood.
Future Development. The AU campus plan indicates that new buildings will only be erected on the east side of the property near Nebraska Avenue. But AU has also announced plans to raze certain historically sensitive properties on the west side of the property. This suggests that AU's ultimate intention is to develop the important green space on the western part of the property, which intrudes deeply into our
neighborhood. AU should commit to a plan now for the west side of the property that minimizes its impact on the neighborhood. Some community uses, such as a tennis court or park, are a possibility.
Other Neighborhood Impacts. Any benefit of moving the law school must be weighed carefully against the costs to the neighborhood. AU claims that moving the law school will lead to the "re-vitalization" of the Tenley corridor. There is ZERO evidence that this will be the case. Many AU students, including law students, already visit this area. In fact, more gridlock and parking problems may actually have a negative economic
impact on local merchants. And more "group houses" and a massive new construction project will certainly diminish our property values.
To be sure, AU's proposal will impact Tenleytown and your quality of life. We suggest you take the following actions:
1. Please write or e-mail your ANC representative and City Councilmember Mary Cheh to express your views.
AU intends to submit their plan to the DC Zoning Commission in March. Your elected ANC representatives have an important voice in the DC zoning process. Please write them now, highlighting the following likely issues:
* Too many students and faculty (increased from under 500 to 2000 students, plus 500 additional faculty and staff)
* Noise (including group houses)
* Traffic
* Parking
* Historic preservation concerns
* Other objectionable conditions
Dear Tenleytown and AU Park Neighbors:
We are writing to let you know that American University has proposed to move its law school to the Tenley campus, which is located Nebraska Avenue and Yuma Street. Under the proposed 2011 Campus Plan, available on AU's website, the law school would also expand from 1,700 to 2,000 students, plus an estimated 500 faculty and staff. The property is the current home of the University's Washington Semester program, with a small resident
population estimated at 300 students.
Unlike the location of the current law school, the Tenley site is zoned for residential use. AU purchased the Tenley property in 1986 and proposed to build a new law school there, but zoning problems and fierce opposition by the neighborhood forced AU to abandon the project and sign an agreement to limit future expansion.
When we first heard of the latest proposal last spring, the neighbors adjacent to the property re-formed the Tenley Campus Neighbors Association (TCNA). Our starting proposition is simple--what was a bad idea for the neighborhood in 1986 is probably still a bad idea today.
Despite serious reservations about the entire project, our group has diligently attempted to engage AU in constructive dialogue over the last year. Although we have been successful in getting AU to consider our input on the design aspects, the statements in the draft Plan suggesting neighborhood "buy-in" are misleading. The fundamental issues with developing the Tenley site in 1986—traffic, parking, density, historic preservation concerns etc. have still not been addressed by AU, nor are they adequately addressed in the current draft campus plan.
TCNA has the following specific objections to the draft plan:
Traffic and Parking—AU now plans to more than quintuple the number of students and personnel using the site to 2,500 people. The most obvious consequence is that there is simply no way to accommodate the additional traffic and parking pressures in our neighborhood. The current students on the site do not drive.
With regard to parking, AU proposes an underground parking lot with 400 to 500 places, but many of these spots would be used by faculty and staff. Even if half the campus population used Metro (a very optimistic scenario given that, according to AU, only 10% use Metro now), where will the extra 1,250 or so additional cars park? And since the law school is will be a 24/7 operation, many students will be parking after
the Zone 3 parking restrictions lapse.
If even more parking is built, where will all that extra traffic go? The proposed law school will contribute to further gridlock on Wisconsin and Nebraska, forcing even more commuter traffic to cut through our neighborhood.
Future Development. The AU campus plan indicates that new buildings will only be erected on the east side of the property near Nebraska Avenue. But AU has also announced plans to raze certain historically sensitive properties on the west side of the property. This suggests that AU's ultimate intention is to develop the important green space on the western part of the property, which intrudes deeply into our
neighborhood. AU should commit to a plan now for the west side of the property that minimizes its impact on the neighborhood. Some community uses, such as a tennis court or park, are a possibility.
Other Neighborhood Impacts. Any benefit of moving the law school must be weighed carefully against the costs to the neighborhood. AU claims that moving the law school will lead to the "re-vitalization" of the Tenley corridor. There is ZERO evidence that this will be the case. Many AU students, including law students, already visit this area. In fact, more gridlock and parking problems may actually have a negative economic
impact on local merchants. And more "group houses" and a massive new construction project will certainly diminish our property values.
To be sure, AU's proposal will impact Tenleytown and your quality of life. We suggest you take the following actions:
1. Please write or e-mail your ANC representative and City Councilmember Mary Cheh to express your views.
AU intends to submit their plan to the DC Zoning Commission in March. Your elected ANC representatives have an important voice in the DC zoning process. Please write them now, highlighting the following likely issues:
* Too many students and faculty (increased from under 500 to 2000 students, plus 500 additional faculty and staff)
* Noise (including group houses)
* Traffic
* Parking
* Historic preservation concerns
* Other objectionable conditions
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Tenley Library Opens on Monday
DC Metro Urban Diary has shared a sneak preview of the new Tenley-Friendship Library, which opens on Monday, January 24, 2011.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Curious Tenley-Janney PPP Update
The following message from Friendship Heights residents David Frankel was posted on the Chevy Chase Listserv:
In July and December 2009, I filed two separate but related Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with the DC Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (ODMPED) to learn more about the Fenty Administration's plans for adding a residential tower on top of the proposed Tenley-Friendship Neighborhood Library and on the adjacent Janney Elementary School soccer field.
The first FOIA request encompassed documents created between February 1 and July 17, 2009. The second request covered documents created between July 17 and December 4, 2009. ODMPED did not take my FOIA requests seriously.
They provided very little information in response to my first FOIA request -- all late -- and they completely ignored my second FOIA request. I therefore retained an attorney to represent me in two separate lawsuits against ODMPED. The first case was filed in October 2009 and the second case was filed in January 2010.
This litigation has been very time consuming and expensive. I am financing it on my own and have not sought or received any contributions from anyone. The judges in both cases have issued rulings requiring ODMPED to do more extensive searches and turn over documents, portions of documents and an index of documents ODMPED refuses to release. Those indices, known as "Vaughn" indices, show that ODMPED continues to stonewall and resist production of the most important documents.
Through this time consuming process, I've learned and shared with the community that the Fenty Administration spent $991,000 in taxpayer funds to add structural supports to the western one-third of the Library to allow for the future construction of a possible residential tower as described in the first paragraph above. We know that the design of the Library was modified to eliminate windows on the western side, overlooking the Janney soccer field. That explains the bunker-like appearance of the western one-third of the Library, which contrasts so starkly with the glass shell that characterizes the remaining two-thirds of the Library.
We also know from a presentation at a recent Advisory Neighborhood Commission 3E meeting that the Janney Elementary School modernization plans have been modified to move the soccer field from its original location between the Library and the historic Janney building to a location adjacent to single family homes at Janney's rear (south side) -- much to the dismay and alarm of those residential property owners who are rightly concerned about the level of soccer game noise that an official from the Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization conceded at the ANC meeting.
While I do not know the whole situation yet, it appears that the key document or documents relating to the city's plans for our Library and Janney's soccer field are one or more reports prepared by Jair Lynch Development Partners. Taxpayers paid $28,000 for these reports (in addition to the $991,000 for the Library's structural supports).
Last week, ODMPED produced to me a hard-to-make-out diagram from a Jair Lynch report depicting the proposed residential tower. My attorney asked his opposing counsel to produce a better quality version which he received Tuesday, January 11 -- in color. To my knowledge, this is the first time anyone outside of the executive branch of the DC government has seen a diagram of the proposed residential tower. It depicts a nine story building that would contain 122 residential units. The 90 foot residential tower is measured from the Janney soccer field and not from Wisconsin Avenue. Since the site slopes downward from the school to Wisconsin Avenue, the building would be much higher than 90 feet measured from the Wisconsin Avenue elevation. In addition, the 90 foot height does not include the 18 or so feet the zoning regulation allow for a mechanical penthouse on top of the building.
The drawings provided to me also depict two or three levels of underground parking beneath the residential tower and the Janney soccer field, but not beneath the Library. It appears that access would be from the driveway on the north side of Saint Ann's Church property but that is something I am not completely sure of at this time.
The drawings depict the residential tower taking up a substantial portion of the Janney soccer field. If they were drawn to scale, someone should be able to figure out the soccer field displacement.
Last week, ODMPED produced to me another very heavily-redacted document that will interest the Janney community. A July 24, 2009 Jair Lynch letter to ODMPED contained this statement with respect to the proposed residential tower: "This site is also in close proximity to American University which will make it a popular housing choice for students." While this statement may be true with respect to college students, it may not be so true with respect to Janney parents, teachers and staff.
Here (PDF) is the color drawing I received Tuesday, January 11
At the outset of this litigation I said I would share my findings with the community. There is still a long way to go here. It continues to amaze me that our government -- the government we elect and fund -- is so reticent to share information with its citizens on a subject that is so central to its purpose.
In this case, our government refuses to release documents relating to its plans to develop our Library and Janne's soccer field. Whether anyone thinks the concept of a 90 foot 122 residential unit tower is a good one or a terrible one, I would hope we can agree that all DC residents have a right to see these plans and engage in a spirited, civil debate about their costs and benefits.
With kind regards,
David P. Frankel
Friendship Heights, DC
A couple of thoughts on this.
First, unless there is private sector confidentiality involved, thee is little to no reason why these documents should have remained outside of the initial FOIA requests.
Second, there were schematics and proposals throughout this process that suggested moving the soccer field from the small area near Albemarle Street to the rear of the Janney property. Indeed, had the original proposals passed muster from those who were opposing this process, the parking for the residential component, the library and the faculty could have been combined and/or shared. Thus the side note that the parking would not be under or associated with the library is disingenuous.
Third, the suggestion of complaint of noise associated with the soccer field is another red-herring. There is/was already a soccer field on the property which has been used by youth teams for years. Thus, there is already the related traffic, parking and noise. And really, how much noise is there for a soccer game, particularly as compared to the former playground, which had unregulated usage? Those darned kids making that noise.
Fourth, given the potential nature of the building, the additional red-herring of proximity to American University is puzzling. As it is, residents near the University complain that they don't want new dorms on the potential south-side development. The idea that undergrads are throwing beer-bash keg parties during elementary school hours is somewhat of a reach. Even still, this structure would likely house graduate and law students, if it houses students at all. Whether this potential structure becomes private residences (and new DC Taxpayers) or are university students (who can also support the retail on Wisconsin Avenue), either way, it would be a welcome addition to most people who are attuned to this subject.
Fifth, the author indicates that the 90 foot "tower" would be measured from Albemarle Street rather than Wisconsin Avenue. Because the elevation slopes down to Wisconsin Avenue, the residential structure would appear much taller. However, there are many examples of such a phenomenon throughout the city. Any measurement beyond the legal requirement of Albemarle Street would be subjective.
Had the community worked together with the city, rather than tossing obstacles at every turn, the suggested $5 Million costs associated with faculty parking garage currently borne by DC Taxpayers would have been absorbed by the developers. The final result probably would have been a more cohesive renovation and construction process for the redevelopment of that area. Instead, there has been needless waste of taxpayer money, additional costs absorbed by DC Taxpayers, and potentially additional construction fatigue thrust upon the Janney community.
In July and December 2009, I filed two separate but related Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with the DC Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (ODMPED) to learn more about the Fenty Administration's plans for adding a residential tower on top of the proposed Tenley-Friendship Neighborhood Library and on the adjacent Janney Elementary School soccer field.
The first FOIA request encompassed documents created between February 1 and July 17, 2009. The second request covered documents created between July 17 and December 4, 2009. ODMPED did not take my FOIA requests seriously.
They provided very little information in response to my first FOIA request -- all late -- and they completely ignored my second FOIA request. I therefore retained an attorney to represent me in two separate lawsuits against ODMPED. The first case was filed in October 2009 and the second case was filed in January 2010.
This litigation has been very time consuming and expensive. I am financing it on my own and have not sought or received any contributions from anyone. The judges in both cases have issued rulings requiring ODMPED to do more extensive searches and turn over documents, portions of documents and an index of documents ODMPED refuses to release. Those indices, known as "Vaughn" indices, show that ODMPED continues to stonewall and resist production of the most important documents.
Through this time consuming process, I've learned and shared with the community that the Fenty Administration spent $991,000 in taxpayer funds to add structural supports to the western one-third of the Library to allow for the future construction of a possible residential tower as described in the first paragraph above. We know that the design of the Library was modified to eliminate windows on the western side, overlooking the Janney soccer field. That explains the bunker-like appearance of the western one-third of the Library, which contrasts so starkly with the glass shell that characterizes the remaining two-thirds of the Library.
We also know from a presentation at a recent Advisory Neighborhood Commission 3E meeting that the Janney Elementary School modernization plans have been modified to move the soccer field from its original location between the Library and the historic Janney building to a location adjacent to single family homes at Janney's rear (south side) -- much to the dismay and alarm of those residential property owners who are rightly concerned about the level of soccer game noise that an official from the Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization conceded at the ANC meeting.
While I do not know the whole situation yet, it appears that the key document or documents relating to the city's plans for our Library and Janney's soccer field are one or more reports prepared by Jair Lynch Development Partners. Taxpayers paid $28,000 for these reports (in addition to the $991,000 for the Library's structural supports).
Last week, ODMPED produced to me a hard-to-make-out diagram from a Jair Lynch report depicting the proposed residential tower. My attorney asked his opposing counsel to produce a better quality version which he received Tuesday, January 11 -- in color. To my knowledge, this is the first time anyone outside of the executive branch of the DC government has seen a diagram of the proposed residential tower. It depicts a nine story building that would contain 122 residential units. The 90 foot residential tower is measured from the Janney soccer field and not from Wisconsin Avenue. Since the site slopes downward from the school to Wisconsin Avenue, the building would be much higher than 90 feet measured from the Wisconsin Avenue elevation. In addition, the 90 foot height does not include the 18 or so feet the zoning regulation allow for a mechanical penthouse on top of the building.
The drawings provided to me also depict two or three levels of underground parking beneath the residential tower and the Janney soccer field, but not beneath the Library. It appears that access would be from the driveway on the north side of Saint Ann's Church property but that is something I am not completely sure of at this time.
The drawings depict the residential tower taking up a substantial portion of the Janney soccer field. If they were drawn to scale, someone should be able to figure out the soccer field displacement.
Last week, ODMPED produced to me another very heavily-redacted document that will interest the Janney community. A July 24, 2009 Jair Lynch letter to ODMPED contained this statement with respect to the proposed residential tower: "This site is also in close proximity to American University which will make it a popular housing choice for students." While this statement may be true with respect to college students, it may not be so true with respect to Janney parents, teachers and staff.
Here (PDF) is the color drawing I received Tuesday, January 11
At the outset of this litigation I said I would share my findings with the community. There is still a long way to go here. It continues to amaze me that our government -- the government we elect and fund -- is so reticent to share information with its citizens on a subject that is so central to its purpose.
In this case, our government refuses to release documents relating to its plans to develop our Library and Janne's soccer field. Whether anyone thinks the concept of a 90 foot 122 residential unit tower is a good one or a terrible one, I would hope we can agree that all DC residents have a right to see these plans and engage in a spirited, civil debate about their costs and benefits.
With kind regards,
David P. Frankel
Friendship Heights, DC
A couple of thoughts on this.
First, unless there is private sector confidentiality involved, thee is little to no reason why these documents should have remained outside of the initial FOIA requests.
Second, there were schematics and proposals throughout this process that suggested moving the soccer field from the small area near Albemarle Street to the rear of the Janney property. Indeed, had the original proposals passed muster from those who were opposing this process, the parking for the residential component, the library and the faculty could have been combined and/or shared. Thus the side note that the parking would not be under or associated with the library is disingenuous.
Third, the suggestion of complaint of noise associated with the soccer field is another red-herring. There is/was already a soccer field on the property which has been used by youth teams for years. Thus, there is already the related traffic, parking and noise. And really, how much noise is there for a soccer game, particularly as compared to the former playground, which had unregulated usage? Those darned kids making that noise.
Fourth, given the potential nature of the building, the additional red-herring of proximity to American University is puzzling. As it is, residents near the University complain that they don't want new dorms on the potential south-side development. The idea that undergrads are throwing beer-bash keg parties during elementary school hours is somewhat of a reach. Even still, this structure would likely house graduate and law students, if it houses students at all. Whether this potential structure becomes private residences (and new DC Taxpayers) or are university students (who can also support the retail on Wisconsin Avenue), either way, it would be a welcome addition to most people who are attuned to this subject.
Fifth, the author indicates that the 90 foot "tower" would be measured from Albemarle Street rather than Wisconsin Avenue. Because the elevation slopes down to Wisconsin Avenue, the residential structure would appear much taller. However, there are many examples of such a phenomenon throughout the city. Any measurement beyond the legal requirement of Albemarle Street would be subjective.
Had the community worked together with the city, rather than tossing obstacles at every turn, the suggested $5 Million costs associated with faculty parking garage currently borne by DC Taxpayers would have been absorbed by the developers. The final result probably would have been a more cohesive renovation and construction process for the redevelopment of that area. Instead, there has been needless waste of taxpayer money, additional costs absorbed by DC Taxpayers, and potentially additional construction fatigue thrust upon the Janney community.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Klingle "Valley" Moving Forward
After years, almost two decades, of discussion, debate, and acrimony across several neighborhoods, it appears that the city is close to a resolution with Klingle Road. Some residents wanted the road to be restored and upgraded from its 1990 condition. Others suggested a bike/hike trail while a third group suggested a compromise.
As suggested, there were several options considered, with a dedicated trail (option C in this link) as the preferred alternative.
Given the technical variables associated with the different options, the proposed solution appears to be a good result.
As suggested, there were several options considered, with a dedicated trail (option C in this link) as the preferred alternative.
Given the technical variables associated with the different options, the proposed solution appears to be a good result.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Cheh Injured in Fall
According to reports, Councilmember Mary Cheh suffered injuries to her arm while running. The required surgery will force her to miss a budget vote, but more important are the good wishes to a speedy recovery.
Friday, December 17, 2010
DDOT Unveils Ward 3 Plans
The final recommendations have been released by DDOT for areas in and around upper northwest. The areas under study include Friendship Heights, Tenleytown, AU Park and Chevy Chase.
Interestingly, many of the improvements feature the addition of more bike sharrows, bike lanes and other facilities to slow the speed of traffic. The addition of bike lanes for Nevada Avenue and Brandywine suggest the need to work with the National Park Service to improve conditions on Broad Branch Road between Linnean and Beech Drive.
DDOT is seeking comments on this report.
Interestingly, many of the improvements feature the addition of more bike sharrows, bike lanes and other facilities to slow the speed of traffic. The addition of bike lanes for Nevada Avenue and Brandywine suggest the need to work with the National Park Service to improve conditions on Broad Branch Road between Linnean and Beech Drive.
DDOT is seeking comments on this report.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Ward 3 Dems Opposes Obama Platform
A city-wide debate about the future roles of DC Office of Planning Director Harriet Tregoning and DDOT Director Gabe Klein has yielded an interesting development courtesy of the Ward 3 Dems.
An entry on the Greater Greater Washington Blog shares a letter penned by Ward 3 Dems Chairman Tom Smith. The crux of the letter is that Mayor-Elect Gray should pass on reappointing these two directors because of the lack of transparency each has fostered in their agencies. The Greater Greater Washington blog has specifics as to measures each has taken to be more open and transparent in their activities.
However, for the head of the Ward 3 Dems to take this position when the vast majority of voters supported Adrian Fenty and the policies his administration deployed seems so out of touch with the democratic voters the Committee is supposed to represent.
Let Mayor-Elect Gray know of your position.
An entry on the Greater Greater Washington Blog shares a letter penned by Ward 3 Dems Chairman Tom Smith. The crux of the letter is that Mayor-Elect Gray should pass on reappointing these two directors because of the lack of transparency each has fostered in their agencies. The Greater Greater Washington blog has specifics as to measures each has taken to be more open and transparent in their activities.
However, for the head of the Ward 3 Dems to take this position when the vast majority of voters supported Adrian Fenty and the policies his administration deployed seems so out of touch with the democratic voters the Committee is supposed to represent.
Let Mayor-Elect Gray know of your position.
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
Ward 3 ANC results
There were a number of contested Advisory Neighborhood Commission elections in Ward 3. Here are the unofficial results:
3B02: Jackie Blumenthal 84%
3C03: Anne-Marie Bairstow 65%
3D01: Kent Slowinski 53%
3D06: Ann Heuer 66%
3D09: Ann Haas 66%
3E01: Beverly Sklover 57%
3E04: Tom Quinn 55%
3F01: Adam Tope 50%
3G07: Henry Griffin 76%
3B02: Jackie Blumenthal 84%
3C03: Anne-Marie Bairstow 65%
3D01: Kent Slowinski 53%
3D06: Ann Heuer 66%
3D09: Ann Haas 66%
3E01: Beverly Sklover 57%
3E04: Tom Quinn 55%
3F01: Adam Tope 50%
3G07: Henry Griffin 76%
Monday, November 01, 2010
ANC 3E 04 Race
Interesting that ANC 3E04 candidate Sally Greenberg has finally decided to join the digital world by introducing herself to the Chevy Chase Community Listserv. It would be nice if she were to also join the Tenleytown Listserv so she can participate with her core supporters.
Maybe the community can hear from the candidate rather than her surrogates?
Maybe the community can hear from the candidate rather than her surrogates?
Saturday, October 30, 2010
A Voice 4 U Video
The students at American University have produced a video to support the two candidates for ANC 3D.
Ever since the Greater Greater Washington endorsements of Ward 3 ANC candidates were announced, there has been a spirited discussion on the Tenleytown listserv centered around the open ANC 3E04 race between Sally Greenberg and Tom Quinn.
Ms. Greenberg and her "endorsers" (where have these endorsements been published?) seem to be for Smart Growth, but their version of it appears to be different than what Greater Greater Washington and Ward 3 Vision embrace. According to one Ward 3 Vision leader, Ms. Greenberg has not been active in any of the Smart Growth touchpoints in the Ward:
I received Sally Greenberg's literature as well, and from her one sentence on Smart Growth, I cannot discern her views on the issue at all. In her "Goals for Our Community" section, the only thing she includes about Smart Growth is a one sentence bullet -- "Smart growth, i.e., development which balances the needs of business with the concerns of the neighborhood. That sentence is so vague as to be meaningless and also does not address any of the basic elements of Smart Growth.
Since she includes Smart Growth as a goal, I would be interested in hearing more from her about how she defines Smart Growth; what her views were about some of the specific projects over the past few years in which Smart Growth has been part of the discussion -- e.g., the Akridge project, the Tenley Library / Janney School PPP, the Safeway redevelopment, etc.; and what her involvement was with any of those projects or any other Smart Growth issues in the neighborhood. (I have been reasonably active in neighborhood issues and am not aware that I have encountered her in public meetings, hearings, etc., so her views are a blank slate to me.)
Given that the stewards of the alphabet soup of community associations seem to be exuberant supporters of Ms. Greenberg, and given that Ms. Greenberg appears to not even take the trouble to join the neighborhood listserv, much less participate in any of the key community issues in the past, it makes it difficult to assess any sense of where this candidate stands on issue of importance to voters in this Single Member District.
ANC candidates should be active in their communities and at a minimum, have the time and concern for their future constituents to participate in an open digital forum (where available) to demonstrate their accessibility and knowledge and positions on important issues. Ms. Greenberg, to date, has not demonstrated any such concern, and hijacking a charged term like "smart growth" in an attempt to paint themselves as something they appear not to be is disingenuous.
Ms. Greenberg and her "endorsers" (where have these endorsements been published?) seem to be for Smart Growth, but their version of it appears to be different than what Greater Greater Washington and Ward 3 Vision embrace. According to one Ward 3 Vision leader, Ms. Greenberg has not been active in any of the Smart Growth touchpoints in the Ward:
I received Sally Greenberg's literature as well, and from her one sentence on Smart Growth, I cannot discern her views on the issue at all. In her "Goals for Our Community" section, the only thing she includes about Smart Growth is a one sentence bullet -- "Smart growth, i.e., development which balances the needs of business with the concerns of the neighborhood. That sentence is so vague as to be meaningless and also does not address any of the basic elements of Smart Growth.
Since she includes Smart Growth as a goal, I would be interested in hearing more from her about how she defines Smart Growth; what her views were about some of the specific projects over the past few years in which Smart Growth has been part of the discussion -- e.g., the Akridge project, the Tenley Library / Janney School PPP, the Safeway redevelopment, etc.; and what her involvement was with any of those projects or any other Smart Growth issues in the neighborhood. (I have been reasonably active in neighborhood issues and am not aware that I have encountered her in public meetings, hearings, etc., so her views are a blank slate to me.)
Given that the stewards of the alphabet soup of community associations seem to be exuberant supporters of Ms. Greenberg, and given that Ms. Greenberg appears to not even take the trouble to join the neighborhood listserv, much less participate in any of the key community issues in the past, it makes it difficult to assess any sense of where this candidate stands on issue of importance to voters in this Single Member District.
ANC candidates should be active in their communities and at a minimum, have the time and concern for their future constituents to participate in an open digital forum (where available) to demonstrate their accessibility and knowledge and positions on important issues. Ms. Greenberg, to date, has not demonstrated any such concern, and hijacking a charged term like "smart growth" in an attempt to paint themselves as something they appear not to be is disingenuous.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
DDOT Livability Study Update
DDOT has released (PDF) the feedback collected during the second public meeting of the Rock Creek West 2 livability study.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
GreaterGreaterWashington Ward 3 ANC Endorsements
Monday, October 25, 2010
Hedgepath 'likes" Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell
Loose Lips notes the irony that Ward 3 Republican candidate David Hedgepath is a fan of erstwhile Republican starlets, Sarah Palin and Christine "I am a Constitutional Scholar, or not" O'Donnell.
I wonder how Ward 3 Democrats would feel about bringing Ms. Palin to stump in Palisades?
I wonder how Ward 3 Democrats would feel about bringing Ms. Palin to stump in Palisades?
Hedgepath owes Back Taxes
According to Washington Post reporter Mike DuBonis, Republican Ward 3 candidate David Hedgepath owes over $10,000 of back taxes to the Internal Revenue Service.
How is that for good Republican fiscal constraint?
How is that for good Republican fiscal constraint?
Friday, October 22, 2010
The Mysterious Mr. Hedgepath
The Washington Post surprisingly has endorsed Republican Ward 3 Council candidate David Hedgepath. Given this elevation of legitimacy to the republican candidate, it is time that voters find out more about him.
Tenleytown activist Nelson Jacobson has challenged the Republican with a series of questions to help voters get to know him. It is time for Mr. Hedgepath, if he is to be taken seriously, to respond:
On the Work level:
Are you are a lawyer or Litigation Support Services staffer?
What kind of legal work do you do. Are you a lawyer working on contracts or support staff working on contracts.
Please provide a complete resume of your professional experience.
To follow up with that question, Have you ever worked on a case that involved suing the District of Columbia?
Your bio says that you are now a member of the DC Bar, however you graduated from law school sometime ago, right? Is there a reason why there was a delay?
Have you ever appeared in a DC Court and if so what kind of clients did you represent?
On the personal level:
You have been in DC for a while I am sure that you have a long voting record could you please share it. If you missed a few votes why?
Do you belong to any community groups in your neighborhood.
Do you volunteer at your kids schools on any committees, and have you been involved in any local nonprofits or serve on any boards or group that are active in DC.
Prior to your entry to the Council race, did you ever attend an ANC meeting, a Community Association meeting or other community event? If so, when. If not, why not?
On the Job:
What your best skill do you have that makes you our choice in Ward 3 for public service.
Do you have issues that you are going to tackle as the Ward 3 representative and what Ward 3 issues do you think need tackling?
On issues name then, and what groups will bring together that are already not working on them to fix it.
If we need to raise taxes to pay our city bills which ones would you favor and why?
Not sure if your aware of it but, (The campaign site says that DC schools Test
scores have risen under Rhee) only 3 schools in Ward3 are passing NCLB. How do you rectify this error? Are you aware that scores were down in the most recent cycle? How do you rectify this error?
How would you change this or did you think it's acceptable that as other Wards test scores increase ours have not and what are you going to do different? To buy your premise some other wards schools had to be much higher
You supported Adrian Fenty in the Mayoral election. Do you support his economic development, procurement and budgeting policies?
What tools do police and fireman need that they don't have your site says they need them. Could you supply some specifics?
What committees do you think your going to be able to be assigned too if elected?
You said you will leave your current job and be on the council full time; So are you taking a pay cut or getting a pay raise.
Considering Mary Cheh ran against nine people in her first election we know more about her then needed. BTW who did you vote for in that election.
Tenleytown activist Nelson Jacobson has challenged the Republican with a series of questions to help voters get to know him. It is time for Mr. Hedgepath, if he is to be taken seriously, to respond:
On the Work level:
Are you are a lawyer or Litigation Support Services staffer?
What kind of legal work do you do. Are you a lawyer working on contracts or support staff working on contracts.
Please provide a complete resume of your professional experience.
To follow up with that question, Have you ever worked on a case that involved suing the District of Columbia?
Your bio says that you are now a member of the DC Bar, however you graduated from law school sometime ago, right? Is there a reason why there was a delay?
Have you ever appeared in a DC Court and if so what kind of clients did you represent?
On the personal level:
You have been in DC for a while I am sure that you have a long voting record could you please share it. If you missed a few votes why?
Do you belong to any community groups in your neighborhood.
Do you volunteer at your kids schools on any committees, and have you been involved in any local nonprofits or serve on any boards or group that are active in DC.
Prior to your entry to the Council race, did you ever attend an ANC meeting, a Community Association meeting or other community event? If so, when. If not, why not?
On the Job:
What your best skill do you have that makes you our choice in Ward 3 for public service.
Do you have issues that you are going to tackle as the Ward 3 representative and what Ward 3 issues do you think need tackling?
On issues name then, and what groups will bring together that are already not working on them to fix it.
If we need to raise taxes to pay our city bills which ones would you favor and why?
Not sure if your aware of it but, (The campaign site says that DC schools Test
scores have risen under Rhee) only 3 schools in Ward3 are passing NCLB. How do you rectify this error? Are you aware that scores were down in the most recent cycle? How do you rectify this error?
How would you change this or did you think it's acceptable that as other Wards test scores increase ours have not and what are you going to do different? To buy your premise some other wards schools had to be much higher
You supported Adrian Fenty in the Mayoral election. Do you support his economic development, procurement and budgeting policies?
What tools do police and fireman need that they don't have your site says they need them. Could you supply some specifics?
What committees do you think your going to be able to be assigned too if elected?
You said you will leave your current job and be on the council full time; So are you taking a pay cut or getting a pay raise.
Considering Mary Cheh ran against nine people in her first election we know more about her then needed. BTW who did you vote for in that election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)