We had a great meeting last night with ANC 6D. We are moving towards our last community listening meeting this coming Monday night with ANC 6B. The below is the list of potential questions for the meeing. Are there others? Do you want to provide an answer to any of the questions?? If so, post a comment. Regards, Joe Fengler
1) Do you feel that the current ANC boundaries represent your neighborhood?
2) Are there aspects of the current boundaries that present challenges because dissimilarity?
3) Should large residential buildings or complexes be dispersed among multiple SMDs?
4) Is the freeway the proper north-south dividing line? For example, is there an opportunity to move part of a western SMD to ANC 6D that uses the Third and/or Fourth street tunnels to “connect” the residents on both sides of the freeway?
5) Is East Capitol Street the proper north-south diving line? For example, is there an opportunity to move part of a western SMD to ANC 6C?
6) Do the residents living around the baseball stadium believe their community “core” is located in: (a) Barracks Row, (b) Waterfront Mall, (c) both, and/or (d) neither?
7) Should ANC 6B retain both Eastern Market, Barracks Row and the entire Pennsylvania corridor?
8) Since at least four of the existing SMDs exceed the 2,000 population target (not including 6B11), how many SMDs should the new ANC have? Nine? Ten? Eleven? Twelve? Does it matter?
i just want to express my opinion that SMD's should as best as they possibly can reflect the neighborhoods they are in. when i comes to large populated buildings the boundaries should not manipulated to please well intended social scientists who'd group a large building with a neighborhood that's several blocks away. i like natural logical boundaries not a creative boundaries that enable political agendas. if two large buildings are next to each other and almost reach the 2,000 mark then the immediate vacinity should be incorporated into the SMD. no more puzzles please. thanks. just my opinion, richard 446
ReplyDeleteDear Joe and W6TF:
ReplyDeleteIs it possible to name the options by a short descriptive name rather than by author in order to not personalize the debate similar to what you did with the Kings Option? The proponent can propose a name and you all can edit or rename as you deem appropriate. My proposal could be names the Status Quo Plus (or anything you propose) while I don't know what Drew would want name his proposal.
No need to debate this suggestion -- you in W6TF are free to decide to give descriptive names to options developed by W6TF while proposals made by the public get the name of the original proponent. Your call Just a suggestion.
I strongly oppose using the 4th Street "Tunnel" to move residents north of the Freeway to ANC6D. Residents of the area N of the freeway are generally oriented towards Marion Park, Eastern Market Metro, residents south of the Freeway to the Riverfront and Navy Yard Metro. If a divider is needed between ANC6B and 6D the freeway is more than adequate.
ReplyDeleteI strongly disagree with Mr. McEleney's position - the freeway is far less of a barrier than South Cap is. The rationale he posits is flatly wrong: we also orient toward Barracks Row and Eastern Market (at the moment) because the development within the southern reaches has not come into its own yet. I also think his mindset is short-sighted: we're talking about ANCs that will be with us for the next 10 years after all. With the advent of the Yards and Canal Park, I find it impossible to believe that the neighborhoods just on the other side of 695 will continue to orient exclusively east and north.
ReplyDeleteThe Capitol Quarter neighborhood should have a voice in development decisions that will affect traffic flowing through the neighborhood, property values and overall quality of life. My community “core” is currently split between Barracks Row and the area around the baseball stadium. But as development continues in Near Southeast, I expect our core would shift more toward the stadium area.
ReplyDelete