Greater Greater Washington

Report a Comment

Agree that the whole party status thing should be looked at. A civic organization shouldn't automatically get party status anymore than another organization, but the Zoning Commission's findings of party status are very loose. In the Giant case, for example, the ZC gave the AWARE group party status even though it was hard to distinguish its interests from those of the general public. The ZC standard for party status is an interest that "would likely be more significantly, distinctively, or uniquely affected in character or kind by the proposed zoning action that those of other persons in the general public." (Indeed, by claiming to represent the Nixonian "silent majority," by definition it was claiming to represent the general public, which undercuts the argument for party status.) Not to mention, AWARE's membership included folks who live some distance from the PUD site (e.g., Woodley Park, Forest Hills, Chevy Chase DC.) Heck, if the Giant PUD were proposed for Forest Hills, I'd probably think it was pretty nifty too, as I wouldn't be impacted in the slightest.

by AEO on May 27, 2009 9:40 am • link • report

Does this comment violate Greater Greater Washington's comment policy? If so, you can report it using this form and an editor will take a look.

What is the major reason you believe the comment violates the policy?
Comment is spam.
Comment attacks other individuals personally.
Comment criticizes the level of knowledge of another commenter or contributor.
Comment discourages others from posting their ideas.
Commenter is impersonating someone else.
Comment uses profanity or abusive language.
Comment advocates violent acts or harm to another.
Comment was posted in multiple areas of the site.
Comment is arguing about the comment policy.
Other:

Your name:
Your email:

Administrator page • spam