Wednesday, August 17, 2011

ANC 6E: W6TF Proposed Map

The below is the proposed Single Member District boundaries from the W6TF. This map will serve as the basis for recommendations proposing to change either the ANC or SMD boundaries at the September 19 W6TF meeting. To the extent alternative recommendations are submitted to the task force in advance of that meeting, they will be added to this post for discussion.

W6TF Approved Boundaries for ANC 6E


6E01, shown in red = 2,006
6E02, shown in orange = 1,895
6E03, shown in green = 1,884
6E04, shown in light blue = 1,820
6E05, shown in dark blue = 1,988
6E06, shown in purple = 1,916
6E07, shown in magenta = 1,884
Total 6E population = 13,393

The below is the first recommendation from the W6TF 6E Subgroup to modify the initially approved ANC 6E/6C boundaries to have 6E acquire census blocks south of Mass Ave to provide addition population for more balanced SMDs. It is important to note these alternatives have not been approved by the W6TF.


Alternative Recommendation #1 , adjusted 6C/6E border



6E01, shown in red = 1,963
6E02, shown in orange = 1,895
6E03, shown in green = 1,927
6E04, shown in light blue = 1,983
6E05, shown in dark blue = 1,988
6E06, shown in purple = 1,916
6E07, shown in magenta = 2,002
Total 6E population = 13,674

Alternative Recommendation #2. This proposed ANC 6E SMD boundary recommendation was received from Mr. Rickey Williams, resident in the new ANC 6E.

























Alternative Recommendation #3.
This proposed ANC 6E SMD boundary recommendation was approved by ANC 2C at their September meeting.



6E01, shown in red = 2,006
6E02, shown in orange = 1,895
6E03, shown in green = 1,884
6E04, shown in light blue = 1,983
6E05, shown in dark blue = 1,988
6E06, shown in purple = 1,916
6E07, shown in magenta = 2,004
Total 6E population = 13,676

8 comments:

  1. with this boundary, it is possible to draw the borders all in conformity to 1900-2100, this map seeks to keep the 2 SMDs to the north as status quo as possible. But, a big change to those lines is intriguing, and would have the added bonus of keeping Marion Street in one SMD. divide them via Rhode island to R street and it becomes rather elegant. Also, the triangle could be a bit more spread out to achieve diversity of representation. draw the line straight down K street. you could even put the western tip into 6E04 for fun...I'd love to know what other neighbors think.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 6E01 should be everything north of Rhode Island Avenue. this keeps marion st united.
    6E02 should be everything from P St North to Rhode island avenue
    6E03 should have O St Market, kennedy rec and Bundy in addition to 1301, 1330, washington apartments and most UHOP properties
    6E04 should have 2nd NW Coops, the chimney, the north side of NY Avenue AND the 400 block of ny avenue on the south. NOT sursum corda.
    6E05 should almost stay as proposed except for the the 400 block of NY avenue(southside)
    6E06 should be sursum corda, hobson condo's, tyler house and NW 1
    6E07 should be as proposed and
    6E08 should be south of Mass ave with Louisiana Avenue on the East and 395 on the west to include the massive shelter at 2nd and NW and Georgetown law center.

    someone from stanton park SHOULD NOT HAVE AN smd in Northwest. these are two very different and distinctive neighbohoods. stanton park folks shop at eastern market. the HOMELESS from the shelter at 2nd and D shop at CityVista.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I like both maps. It's a real shame you could not keep the Marion St Neighbors in one SMD and respect that community, but they will at least have two commissioners to officially address their concerns. The fabulous KIPP Schools (north of P btwn 5th & NJ Ave) will have management over the Bundy Athletic Fields for the next 10 years or so keeping those in the same SMD makes abundant sense.

    Great work. Thank you!

    Moulton

    ReplyDelete
  4. According to your own guidelines, making 7th St the border and adding the Marion Street block back to 6E02 should make sense since both CityMarket at O and Addison Square (Kelsey Gardens) are both set to really break ground in the not to distant future.

    6E01, shown in red = 1,963
    6E02, shown in orange = 1,895

    W6TF Redistricting Guidelines
    6. Take likely population growth into account in setting ANC and SMD boundaries. This may mean creating SMDs with populations on the low end of the acceptable range

    ReplyDelete
  5. for the record, let me say, in my opinion it is clear from these proposed boundaries that certain existing factions are favored over others. i am not a member of ANY neighborhood association nor have an agenda other than good transparent governance. my map design would have eliminated ALL favoritism and kept stanton park out of our neighborhood decision making process. i accept the fact that my map would create 8 SMD's in 6E and 5 SMD's in 6C.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @richard 446

    Enough with the Stanton Park bashing. Someone in 6C can just as easily say that they don't want anyone from Shaw involved in the neighborhood decision making process around Union Station.

    We're all Ward 6 residents, and the border has to be somewhere. I don't live in Stanton Park or Shaw, but I certainly respect my neighbors that do.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Si and Richard 446:
    I think realigning the SMDs that comprise most of the core of the historic Shaw neighborhood along an east/west axis would go a long way toward better representation of all residents on the ANC.
    For the past 10 years, the neighborhood has been divided to a large extent by 7th St. marking most of the boundry between 01 and 02 creating an SMD on the west largely focused on commercial and commercial development issues and one on the east largely focused on residential issues. If it is possible to change that so that each SMD is more well rounded and that would faciltate a more well rounded sense of the neighborhood as a whole, I think we should.

    ReplyDelete
  8. For the record: The vote on Alternative Recommendation #3 at the ANC2C meeting September 6 was 2 in favor, 1 opposed, 1 abstention.
    Technically, by the rules, the vote carried. But not in the spirit, nor the practice, of representing a TRUE majority.

    ReplyDelete