Monday, July 25, 2011

Shaw Proposal by Commissioner Padro

Message from Commissioner Padro to w6rd@gmail.com:

I've been actively engaging ANC 2C residents about their feelings
about the size of the redistricted commission since my return to town
earlier this week and the consensus I've gotten is that there is much
support for a smaller, rather than larger, number of SMDs going
forward.  A North Capitol Street eastern boundary has been supported
by no one I've spoken with.  Fourth Street or the freeway have been
the preferred eastern boundaries supported, except for the eastern
part of the 'chimney' north of New York Avenue.


Can you prepare a map that would have 10,000 people or five SMDs, by
adding to the ANC 2C blocks that are moving to Ward 6 the blocks south
of New York Avenue to Massachusetts Avenue (North side)?  The eastern
boundary south of New York Avenue would be Fourth Street between New
York and K Street, and Third Street between K Street and Massachusetts
Avenue.  Could that be ready for discussion tomorrow night?


Commissioner Padro's Map proposal has a total population of 10,099 residents, which at the macro level, would translate into five Single Member Districts.

(Fengler note:  If you look down two posts, you can see the current Shaw ANC under the new Ward 6 boundaries.  This provides a good visual from the as-is to the proposed to-be).

13 comments:

  1. Five Single member districts is far too few.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It should be noted that the main reason Councilmember Wells has avoided appointing current ANC Commissioners to the Ward6 Task Force is that it could at least create the perception that current commissioners might operate in the interest of preserving their ANC seats or authority on their Commission (as Councilmember Evans was accused of doing on the Ward redistricting committee). But it does not seem to be the case with Commissioner Padro's suggestions.

    Personally, I'd prefer at larger ANC, as equal in size as other Ward 6 Commissions as possible, so that each commission could carry the same amount of political weight. But I also prefer clean lines and respecting neighborhood interests.

    The boundaries should make sense when you walk on the street as well as from 3000ft above when possible.

    We may touch on redistricting briefly with Councilmember Wells at our Tuesday, July 26 CCCA meeting: http://www.CCCA-online.org/nextmeeting

    ReplyDelete
  3. I prefer a larger ANC encompassing more area.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I prefer a larger ANC. I think ANC6C should extend to the Union Station tracks. I like the comment from Martin that the boundaries make sense when you walk on the street.

    ReplyDelete
  5. i can see why someone who lives up in the northern most corners of shaw would advocate for a small ANC.

    where i live, 446 M...it makes sense to have an ANC larger and extend East toward the railroad tracks behind union station.

    sursum corda, tyler house, northwest # and Golden Rule apartments WERE in our ANC before 2000 census.

    with this proposed map of the Chairman, they would be in another ANC and we would have no influence on land use issues affecting air rights development for example and other issues in NOMA. for those of us down south and larger ANC makes sense. why should a resident of stanton park decide on liquor licenes near where i walk?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I also dont think the Triangle should be split. You all are talking about the "Shaw" ANC but I do want to point out that these areas are distinct (and sometimes overlapping neighborhoods. As Ms Mari (from the Truxton side of Shaw) has blogged about, Shaw encompasses the area from 13th to North Capitol, down to M Street. In practicality (and others are free to disagree) we've got sub-neighborhoods and enclaves that have their own borders like the "chimney" (kirby, 4th, N & NY) which is part of Mount Vernon Square (7th, 1st, N & NY) but also considered part of Truxton in Ward 5...it gets complicated. Personally I dont live in Shaw but I am in ANC 2C. Across NY Ave Mount Vernon Triangle is a distinct area bounded by NJ, NY & Mass, they have a CID. Many in this area may have issue with only sharing space with neighbors to the north. They have already been disconnected with similar area south of Mass Ave by Ward.

    I guess my point is if you have one meeting for - and call it- the "Shaw" area and intend for this to include MVSQ & the Triangle, the connection wont be made. Multiple monikers/additional meetings may be helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I would like to be very clear on this point: when Commissioner Padro states, "I've been actively engaging ANC 2C residents.....", he meant that he spoke with the residents of HIS SMD (ie., only his constituents), not all residents of ANC 2C. It seems his consituents, representing 1/4 of the Shaw ANC, would prefer a smaller ANC. So, he is not speaking for any of the residents outside of his SMD.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm unable to attend in person tonight, but I hope if it's possible for my voice to be heard via this short comment. I agree with Alex Padro's analysis and proposal. Overall, my thought is the smaller population and fewer SMD's the better.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Perhaps the map for the new boundaries for much of what is currently the ANC2C01 area should take into some small consideration the influx of new residents at CityMarket at O and Addison Sq (former Kelsey Gardens). Allow this area's SMD boundaries to be on the lowest acceptable range for now instead of something equal in size as the other local Shaw SMDs which wont see nearly as many new residential units in the next few years.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Comm. Alexander M. PadroJuly 25, 2011 at 3:43 PM

    Redistricting is based on the population when the 2010 census was conducted. There is no permissible consideration of future population trends.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I can't see a rationale for putting the I-395 Air Rights project in a different ANC from the Mount Vernon Triangle. We're the Ward 6 residents who are going to be most impacted by that project - not Capitol Hill.

    I also think 5 SMDs is far too few.

    ReplyDelete
  12. and i also agree with si. ANC2C is more than Shaw. to keep calling it Shaw is incorrect. Shaw is a portion of ANC2C.

    9 SMD's would be great.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I also think the 395 project should be where the Triangle is. No matter what you do the whole thing is going to have a weird shape due to the Ward boundaries but that's OK. there are still chunks of empty space.

    ReplyDelete