This map version does not reflect a decision of the W6TF. The W6TF has not made any ANC or SMD boundary decisions. This Ward 6 ANC boundary proposal is from Joe Fengler and Cody Rice. That being said, this map offers an ANC 6C (green) that is expanded to an area that will support 7 commissioners by taking a portion of the current 6A (orange) between 7th and 8th St NE north of H St NE, as well as moving south into 6B (light blue), specifically most of 6B01 and part of 6B02 (north of North Carolina Ave SE). The population loss in the current 6B is offset by shifting all of Capitol Quarters from 6D (dark blue). A new ANC 6E (red) contains most areas in the NW quadrant. Kingman Park is added to 6A. All commissions have either 7 or 9 commissioners.
6A = 18,111 (9 commissioners)
6B = 17,974 (9 commissioners)
6C = 14,059 (7 commissioners)
6D = 13,683 (7 commissioners)
6E = 14,185 (7 commissioners)
The elephant in the room is the expansion of ANC 6C south of East Capitol Street into what is currently ANC 6B. One solution could be to move the ANC 6C line down to Independence Avenue with a sliding southeastern boundary of North Carolina Avenue versus what is proposed in the map (six SMDs). Or hold to the East Capitol line (5 SMDs). This would mean that ANC 6C would have less than seven SMDs. And given all the Ward 6 equities, that may be an acceptable outcome (under the rule, don't let math drive the redistricting).
However, my concern is creating an ANC that is roughly half the size of other ANCs -- that would mean creating an ANC that would have half the financial resources of other ANCs. Given all the input on the blog, I am very interested in hearing from ANC 6C on what they think their boarders should be. In fairness, we started our listening tour with ANC 6C and we have heard several potential boundary maps without following up with them. Depending on ANC 6C input, I could entertain this new alternative to build a Ward 6 redistricting map that bends, but not breaks, the existing ANC boundaries.
Also, I would welcome additional input from the 6D community on moving the Capitol Quarters from 6D to 6B. Honestly, I have heard arguments for and against this option both in ANC 6B and ANC 6B. And I would welcome additional comments regarding extending the 6B boundary to include the baseball stadium. It is clear to me that ANC 6D is facing tremendous development opportunities on the waterfront. Given the "plans" for the baseball stadium area have been largely decided, it seems that putting the baseball stadium under 6B would facilitate the developing efforts to build strong linkages with Barracks Row.
I realize that no one proposal will have all the answers. In my opinion, this proposal offers the best starting point for discussing a Ward 6 redistricting plan that attempts to preserve the existing community relationships (status quo - with minor changes) while adjusting for organic population growth and the changes in the NW part of Ward 6. Again, my opinion, if the existing ANC boundaries are sacrosanct, than that could push the W6TF into considering bolder plans that could lead to a fundamental alteration of existing boundaries (example, Pate and Ronnenberg). Options I am not opposed to, but would hope to avoid.
Finally, I decided to put my personal thoughts on this blog entry. My role on Wednesday evening will be to facilitate the will of the W6TF. In my experience, it is hard to chair a meeting while actively arguing for one particular solution. I have complete confidence in the members Council Member Wells selected to volunteer for this task force to "argue" for the best outcome for Ward 6. If not for anything else, tomorrow's meeting will be better than what is on TV. See you then.
Please don't disenfranchise Capitol Quarter residents by cutting us off from all the commercial development (Yards, Canal Park) that will greatly impact our quality of life and property values. If you insist on splitting our Near Southeast neighborhood (and the Capper PUD) across ANCs, at least take the border down to the river so that the commissioners have an incentive to work across ANCs on the commercial development along the river and CQ could have some voice. It would be much better, though, if you'd just keep ourNear Southeast neighborhood together.
ReplyDeleteAgree on keeping Capitol Quarter as a part of the Washington Riverfront area. Our development is directly tied to the development in this area. Carving CQ out is not the right answer. Either have 6B extend to the Ballpark or leave CQ in 6D. We are just over 1/2 way settled and our residents do not have a large voice yet. But most are moving to the area due to the new development, not 8th street.
ReplyDeleteJoe: The map drawn by you and Cody Rice offers one of the best solutions to the ANC redistricting problems. Your plans as outlined in the map clearly show that you are thinking outside the box and are taking into account the reality of new and expanding neighborhoods such as those represented in NOMA and around Union Station within Ward 6 which go beyond the old Capitol Hill focus.
ReplyDeleteAs a member of the 2001 ANC task force, we orginally proposed moving part of what became SMD 6B01 into ANC 6D following the 3rd St. SE boundary north to Independence Ave. SE. The howls from the then Ward 6 Councilmember caused a hasty retreat from this idea. Glad to see that some think this remains a viable option.
Unless there is a compelling reason beyond Mr. Wells voicing past support for moving the baseball stadium into ANC 6B, I would leave the baseball stadium and area south of M St. SE in ANC 6D. It has worked well with ANC 6D taking the lead and working to protect the interests of both SW and SE residents. As they say if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.
All in all, I think this map represents an excellent solution to the ANC redistricting options. ANC 6A and ANC 6C continue to take the lead in developing H St. NE while the Hilleast community (for better or worse) remains connected to ANC 6B.
Frank Zampatori
18th & Mass. Ave. SE
Please don't split Capitol Quarter from the waterfront development. I think that having Near Southeast in 6B makes sense, as we are tied commercially and socially with Barracks Row and Capitol Hill more than Southwest. But what I do not think is a good idea is to have CQ in an ANC completely separate from the rest of Near Southeast and the development south of M. I would rather have us remain in 6D if that is the choice required.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteJust a note that I removed what appeared to be a duplicate comment from the same commenter.
ReplyDelete-Cody Rice, W6TF
If the two top goals are to produce ANCs with more balanced populations and to minimize change of current ANC boundaries, this is a far, far better solution than the Status Quo Plus/Stephens plan I had originally proposed. When I presented my plan I mentioned a second/revised version could be produced and this is the type of second version I would have proposed. Glad Fengler/Rice put this proposal forward.
ReplyDeleteOf course, this plan will be politically unpopular with many current residents of 6B who made it clear they would loudly, persistently and effectively fight to keep any significant change in 6B afar. Good work.
Near SE residents that say they associate with Capitol Hill and shop and eat there are correct. They do. So does SW. But the ANC boundaries will not impact association and shopping preferences. Those considerations are irrelevant here. Boundary changes will impact the huge development/waterfront/transportation issues now facing us. Near SE and SW need to maximize our ANC planning coordination and efficiency and keep ANC 6D together.
ReplyDeleteJoe and Cody,
ReplyDeleteThanks for this version - this is the first I have seen it, and none of the TF members at the August 15 mtg with ANC6C said anything about this. That's disappointing.
This gives the residents just north of East Capitol a much better connection with Eastern Market which most consider the center of our neighborhood.
I strongly recommend that North capitol remain the dividing line between 6C and 6E. it is truly a dividing line of neighborhoods. Folks in Shaw and NW really don't have a dog in the Union Station development fight it does not loom over them, like it does the neighbors east of the tracks - the idea to give 6E squares with NO population just to have a say in US dev. really seems to be the definition of 'gerrymandering' Not something the task Forces wants, I'm sure.
Thanks,
Bill Crews, ANC 6C Commissioner (SMD 6C07)