Addressing Concerns of New Wisconsin Ave ANC

Since proposing a new ANC for the “Middle Wisconsin” area, the Task Force and area listservs have heard a variety of criticisms of the proposal. I wanted to address some of them and offer a differing point of view.

The Cleveland Park Historical Society sent out an email and posted on the Cleveland Park listserv:

Cleveland Park will suffer if important neighborhood matters involving our public elementary school, infrastructure, traffic, and environmental issues are no longer considered holistically. For example, if 34th Street is considered the neighborhood "border," how much more complicated will it be to get multiple ANCs to agree on traffic safety measures near John Eaton School? How will we comprehensively address significant runoff and infrastructure issues on the east side of Cleveland Park that originate up the hill on the west side of Cleveland Park? Will we still have consistent ANC focus on public safety, fire protection, the library and preserving the tree canopy in Cleveland Park?

This poster to the Cleveland Park listserv writes:

Having two or more ANCs means each would have to address these issues, requiring an ambitious degree of coordination among Commissioners across several ANCs, forcing residents to attend multiple ANC committee and regular Commission meetings, and adding to pressures on city officials, from the Board of Zoning Administration, Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration, DDoT, DCRA, etc., who would now be interacting with two or more sets of ANCs on the same matter.

Also, historic preservation concerns won’t just go away if the ANC is broken up. They will still have to be dealt with, which means more than one group of Commissioners, across several ANCs, will have to bring themselves up to speed on the relevant issues.

Breaking up the historic district sounds easy, but it’s going to produce greater bureaucratic inefficiencies, administrative headaches, and public confusion. Worse, it will dilute the community’s voice and weaken the cohesiveness of our neighborhoods.

First, yes, there will be issues that will require joint ANC collaboration, just as there are today. Drainage issues and the area’s topography know no political borders and will require collaboration, likely across three ANCs (3C, 3F and the New ANC on Wisconsin). The construction of Hearst Pool & Park is an obvious example of collaboration between ANC 3F, where the site is located, and ANC 3C which is where the site’s most immediate neighbors live. The commissioners of 3F01 and 3C05 have been in close contact. Note that this area and its neighbors would be united in the new Wisconsin Ave ANC.

ANCs collaborate in other ways such as the Connecticut Ave reversible lanes and bike lanes study, which has brought close cooperation between ANCs 3G, 3F and 3C. Our elementary school districts are split all over. ANC 3C is home to two elementary schools, Eaton and Oyster, but its residents are also in the attendance zones of Hearst (3F) and Stoddert (3B).

Other city agencies noted are not likely to require ANC collaboration in most cases. Unless a project seeking zoning relief is within proximity of property owners in an adjacent ANC, BZA cases will be handled by the ANC where the property is located, not both ANCs.

Similarly, ABRA (liquor) issues will be handled by the ANC where the business is located, and since they are found on our commercial corridors, they would be in the center of the ANC. Again, no need to involve more than one ANC. This would apply to most of the issues facing our commercial areas.

Any given historic preservation application would only require the time and attention of the ANC where the property is located. The Cleveland Park historic district is already split across two ANCs, 3F and 3C. Distributing the historic district more evenly across two ANCs actual has the benefit of cutting the HPRB workload of any one ANC essentially in half, freeing up time to focus on other issues. Task Force member Jimmy Dubois, a former 3C commissioner, noted that this outcome should be considered “a feature, not a bug.” And Task Force member Brian Flahaven, a former commissioner on Capitol Hill, noted that the Capitol Hill historic district spans three ANCs, and that functions fine.

On the point of diluting a community’s voice, one must step outside of reference frame of Cleveland Park to realize just how backwards that observation is. The voice of residents of the Wisconsin Ave corridor has been diluted for years. They have been carved up over no fewer than four ANCs and receive low priority from each. Once you acknowledge this wrong, the creation of the new ANC on Wisconsin Ave is an obvious necessity. The conversation then needs to home in on where the border to go. I have proposed an eastern border of Reno Rd/34th St because I think it makes sense. I know the Task Force will give due consideration to any other maps that the public would like to submit.

There are three ways to provide input to the Task Force:

1)      You can send an email to ward3ancredistricting@gmail.com

2)      You can post a comment for the public record using this form

3)      You can show up at our Tuesday meetings and make comments live (just show up and raise your hand).  Information on our meetings can be found here.