This is one of those circumstances with politics that just sucks - 2 needs to shrink, 7 needs to grow and 6 is caught in the middle. It sucks, plain and simple. And since the Council seems to be working under the philosophy of "move as few people as possible" it does look like only three areas are going to be moved - Shaw to 6, Hill East to 7 and Fairlawn to 8.

But aside from this redistricting process - have any of the Councilmembers expressed interest or a desire to change the way this is done and have a broader discussion for the future. I was around DC in 2000, but from what I've heard it was a fairly contentious process as well. Shouldn't we have learned? Or is this one of those situations where yes, it sucks, but it only sucks for about a year or so and then you just learn to deal with it? It seems like Chevy Chase is fine in Ward 4 now and Hill East will be fine in 7. And if Wards 7 and 8 continue to shrink it may well wind up that in 2020, all of Cap Hill ends up in Ward 7.

by Shipsa01 on May 25, 2011 11:00 am • link • report

Correction - should have read: I wasn't around in 2000.

by Shipsa01 on May 25, 2011 11:01 am • link • report

I'm a hill resident who is very sad about this. My house is safely in Ward 6, but I'm disappointed that our community might be broken up. Residents of Capitol Hill have worked very hard to establish a real sense of identity for people who live on the hill. This dividing line is a major regression to a few years back when there was an invisible line (i.e. don't go east of 13th st, etc...). Since that time the neighborhood has flourished and there are no lines. Why break up the most logical ward in the entire city?

by MJ on May 25, 2011 11:12 am • link • report

@Shipsa01

To answer your question "...is this one of those situations where yes, it sucks, but only sucks for about a year or so and then you just learn to deal with it?", I believe the answer in this situation is most certainly no. The impacts on schools and other community institutions is long-lasting and even if Hill East were to be moved back to Ward 6 in 2020, the momentum that has been gained will be set back considerably.

I believe Kingman Park's experience, which moved from 6 to 7 in 2000 and still longs to be back in 6, is more apt than the Chevy Chase example. This isn't a one year issue.

by Mark on May 25, 2011 11:20 am • link • report

@MJ
totally agree. I live in rosedale a block west of 17th, which may become the new dividing line for wards 6 and 7. This area, the greater capitol hill area, is a real gem. I love the people, I love the houses, the parks, the market, H St., barracks row, the congressional cemetery, even walking over to a DC United game at RFK in all its shabby glory is a real treat. This is really a close knit community that has worked hard to establish a singular identity and improve the quality of life over here and to tear it apart just seems like a huge step backward.

by Ro on May 25, 2011 11:29 am • link • report

Since when have neighborhoods been defined by a Ward? That's what ANCs are for ... and ANCs don't need to be in toto in one single ward ... they can be split. I can't think of another part of town where the entire Ward would consider itself one neighborhood. Can this really be the case in the areas under the Ward 6 Councilmember?

by Lance on May 25, 2011 11:32 am • link • report

Being flipped back and forth between Wards also damages the relationships that have to be established with the councilmember and his or her staff. It takes time to build those up, and flipping back and forth ends up wasting a lot of community resources to establish (or reestablish) those ties. And if it was a contentious switch, the new councilmember is likely not going to be favoriably disposed to those who fought so hard to stay out of their new Ward.

Any idea when the maps are to be released today?

by Moose on May 25, 2011 11:35 am • link • report

@Lance

ANCs cannot overlap wards, they reside within wards. Source: http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/wards&ancs

by Mark on May 25, 2011 11:48 am • link • report

No, I completely understand. I happen to sit on the board of the Mt. Vernon Square Neighborhood Association and if you look at our neighborhood on a map, we fall across Wards 2, 5 and 6. And at every meeting we have, it becomes a bear trying to get reps from each of the three wards for Councilmembers, ANCs, police offices, etc etc etc.

by Shipsa01 on May 25, 2011 11:49 am • link • report

Mark: False. ANC 3/4G covers Chevy Chase DC in both Ward 3 and 4. ANC 3C covers the part of Woodley Park that's in Ward 1. And SW federal center and East Potomac Park are in ANC 6D but in Ward 2.

So certainly ANCs 6B and 6C could become 6/7B and 6/7C and cover all of the Hill or even re-incorporate Kingman Park. Alexander might not go for that, though.

by David Alpert on May 25, 2011 11:51 am • link • report

My bad.

by Mark on May 25, 2011 11:56 am • link • report

One example: For six years, Capitol Hill Public School Parent Organization and Capitol Hill Community Foundation have been hard at work at improving all schools in W6: Brand new school libraries, pre-K programs, and now new programs at Eliot-Hine and reinvigorating Eastern High School. Yes, these efforts benefit people across Ward boundaries--most of the kids currently at Eliot-Hine or planning to attend Eastern HS next fall are from W7 or W8 families. So right now, the effort benefits W7 and W8, and in a few years, will benefit families from W7, W8 and W6.

Would it have been easier or harder to get all Capitol Hill public school parents and the Community Foundation to support a focus on Eliot-Hine and Eastern if E-H and Eastern HS were in W7?

Schools are just one example. There are others (Res 13 redevelopment, transportation issues around 17th St SE) where 6-10 years or more of community efforts across W6 have yielded benefits throughout W6 and beyond.

Why risk that by arbitrarily drawing a boundary precisely this side of Eastern HS and Eliot-Hine?

Here's a question: Suppose Carver-Langston moved to W7 instead of Hill East. What community-driven efforts similar to W6 schools efforts and Res 13 efforts are underway in Carver-Langston that would be similarly jeopardized? I know Wal-Mart's coming to that neighborhood, but Wal-Mart development seems more top-down than community-driven, and therefore will continue wherever the line is drawn. Are you sure the beneficial efforts focused now on Eliot-Hine and Eastern HS and Res. 13 and the 17th Street SE speedway will continue if this political line is drawn?

by Trulee Pist on May 25, 2011 11:57 am • link • report

As a Ward 7 resident, I'd like to offer a different perspective. I live in Hillcrest/Fairfax Village. I have a great community with my neighbors. We've fought to get drug dealers off our streets, we have community clean-ups, we fight for our schools (Beers and Winston), and we work hard to improve our quality of life. In addition we work with our neighbors in the north (Deanwood, Capitol View, etc) to create community connections between neighborhoods. We have monthly community dinners at Thai Orchid Kitchen to support a business owned by a Ward 7 residents and to break bread over a meal. We have progressive voices that fight for better bus service and bike infrastructure.

We are not part of your "established singular identity" as Ro points out. However, we have the same concerns about quality of life and we fight like heck for what we believe in.

I don't see it as splitting your neighborhood up. I see it as an opportunity to forge new bonds (while maintaining existing bonds) with the progressive voices in Ward 7. I welcome you with open arms and would love to have new voices in Ward 7's future.

by Veronica O. Davis (Ms V) on May 25, 2011 12:17 pm • link • report

Despite all the openness around this process, it really comes down to behind-the-scenes horse-trading within the DC Council.

Hopefully this exercise will teach Capitol Hill residents to consider encouraging a Ward 6 resident to run for an at-large seat or possibly Chair or even Mayor; and for more residents to support and vote for such a candidate. More Ward 6 voices in DC Government would indeed help in situations like this.

For such a politically savy neighborhood as the name implies, it is unfortunate that there is no neighborhood political will - beyond one councilmember and ANCs - to leverage our own interests more.

The other option, if Hill East indeed goes to Ward 7, is for a new Ward 7 candidate to run for office, representing the "River West" neighborhood - and for neighboring residents to vote en masse.

But scenarios would clearly require a lot of motivation - that would need to last beyond rallies and legislative flare-ups.

Good luck.

by To Hill and Back on May 25, 2011 12:52 pm • link • report

@Mark, I can't fault you for thinking that ANCs must reside within wards. It's a common misconception that has been fostered by the Ward Councilmembers who like to think of the ANCs as 'their' ANCs. In fact, the ANCs stand separate from the Wards (and the Council) in that they, like the Council, get their authority directly from the Home Rule Charter. You might call them a '4th branch' of the DC government ... with their 'power' being the 'advisory' aspect of their role.

Incidentally, I've long argued that ANCs should stop being given numbers (which not coincidentally start with the Ward number) and instead be defined (and permanently linked) to neighborhoods. For example, instead of ANC2B, the Dupont Circle ANC would simply be called that 'Dupont Circle ANC', and come redistricting time their boundaries would remain unchanged ... and not be affected with the ward boundaries changing around them. The only rule by which ANC are affected is that their Single Member Districts (the seat of the commissioner) are supposed to be 'around 2,000 people'. But even that is not an inviolate rule. I use to chair an ANC with 2 commissioners ... each representing about 1,200 people. It made sense as an ANC because it represented a neighborhood ... with only about 2,400 people ... a neighborhood as defined by its political institutions (e.g., it's citizens' association and its historic presevation association), it's other designations (e.g., it was counterminous with a historic district), it's geography (it's outside the L'Enfant City separated from it by Florida Ave. ... the old Boundary Street ... and by a park and a major avenue on another side); its historic development (it got put in the place of what had been a large estate up through the early 20th century), etc.

My point is that we should let our ANCs function as the neighborhoods or 'towns' within DC ... and that can only happen if we align their political boundaries with their already existing historic, civic, and commercial boundaries. By moving them around every 10 years either due to changing ANC boudaries o changing Ward boundaries we really do create unnessary problems since 'who is that neighborhoood' changes for legal reasons ... even if not for practical reasons. (For example, who gets to represent the ANC in ABC matters if the ANC that signed to a V.A. no longer exists in the same form? I signed on to voluntary agreements as ANC-1D back before our ANC got transferred to Ward 2 and became ANC-2D ... Bank accounts had to be changed ... etc. because legal identity had changed... And of course, we often got mail from the 'old' ANC-2D which had previously existed in a different part of town ...)

Bottom line is that we really don't need to be mixing neighborhood politics into Ward redistricting. If we allow the ANCs to really represent neighborhoods (as intended in the homerule charter) and stop letting the Ward Councilmembers treat them like their ward subdivisions, all these fears of Ward boundaries (real and imagined) go away. After all, how ofter do you hear a Virignian or a Marylander complain about being shifted around from one state legislative district to another. Do they even know what the 'name' of their legislative district is? No ... But they do know what the name of their 'town' is and since it's name, and political boundaries, stay the same irrespective of Census results, they still know who they are and can work together to get what they want. And at that point having 2 state reps (or 2 Ward Councilmembers in our case) at their disposal instead of only 1 becomes nothing less than an asset ...

by Lance on May 25, 2011 12:53 pm • link • report

@Lance

So long as ANCs are elected offices and SMDs are defined as representing a set number of people, the lines will have to be re-drawn every ten years, just like every other legislative district in the country.

by Alex B. on May 25, 2011 1:04 pm • link • report

Can someone explain the reports of redrawing the 6/7 boundary at 17th St. and putting Eastern HS in 7? According to the "likely map" http://redistricting.greatergreaterwashington.org/#11330-w11zd8od there are two precincts to be moved, neither containing Eastern, and the only 17th St. boundary is between Potomac and Pennsylvania Aves (68.04).

by Liam on May 25, 2011 1:36 pm • link • report

There is a simple solution to this. In stead of moving borders slightly every ten years, just wipe the map clean every year and start from scratch. In fact, it might be good if wards changed significantly every once in a while (10 years). It would shake up the nepotistic power that many CMs have within their word.

by Jasper on May 25, 2011 1:38 pm • link • report

As a Ward 7 resident, specifically, downtown ward 7 I welcome the addition of determined and inspired people to our neighborhood. We are fighting like the army over here to clean things up. I realize the frustration you may feel in that you won't be able to take part in the benefits your community is getting, such as respect. But understand this, Ward 7 is changing as well, there are plenty of people over here that want exactly what's going on in Ward 6 and we are working for it....hard. I suggest that you stop complaining and spend that same amount of time giving input to developing Ward 7 that you did Ward 6. It appears that you feel comfortable letting other parts of the city suffer so it's a little fitting that all of the sudden you are feeling the same sense of 'disrespect' that we are feeling. You all were just fine when East of the River was a dumping ground for the deliquents you didn't want. Now you find yourself reeping what you sow. Puhlease. If you contributed to the clean up of your neighborhood, you can do it again. If you are truly interested in working to improve the neighborhood, it shouldn't matter what neighborhood should it? Anyway, you are welcome to continue your efforts to clean up the neighborhood with us. Because no matter how much you try to hold us down, there won't be any revitalization without us. On that you can be sure.

by WhoSaidWhat on May 25, 2011 1:46 pm • link • report

In addition, anyone wanted to run against Council Member Alexander in order to improve the conditions of Ward 7 would be welcome. If we all band together, we can get rid of her and elect a Tommy Wells to really get things turned around over here. Just a thought. We need a fighter, right now we have none.

by WhoSaidWhat on May 25, 2011 1:50 pm • link • report

Alternately, we could assign a "dumping zone" in each Ward that would be ceded to a councilmember outside of the zone's "natural" Ward. For example, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with giving Ward 7 control of Reservation 13 and the RFK site. It doesn't necessarily have to end up a "no-cost" dumping ground where Ward 7 residents and their elected representatives can dump their garbage, hold drag races, and the like.

But we should strive for reciprocity: give Ward 6 control of some high profile area of what's currently Ward 7. That way, if somehow Reservation 13 does end up being a dumping ground, Ward 6 can retaliate. You give us drag racing every weekend, we give you a lead smelter.

Think of it as mutually assured destruction, local style.

by oboe on May 25, 2011 1:52 pm • link • report

Liam: That's not really an accurate map. My tool only let people change individual Census tracts, because it would take forever if you had to move every block and Census tracts are a good unit to use. DeBonis made his map using my tool because it was convenient. But the Council can draw them on a block by block level.

by David Alpert on May 25, 2011 1:54 pm • link • report

You all were just fine when East of the River was a dumping ground for the deliquents you didn't want. Now you find yourself reeping what you sow. Puhlease.

This offers an almost pitch-perfect example of the problems at play: Show me a "dumping ground" East of the River that is anything whatsoever like the massed concentration of dysfunction at Reservation 13, and we can talk. There is no such place.

So instead what we've got is spite, conjecture, and a thinly veiled desire to "stick it to those uppity Hilleast folks". They *have* been the city's dumping ground for the last twenty years. But now here comes WhoSaidWhat to really teach them the meaning of "disrespect."

I don't live in the affected area, but I understand why folks there are apprehensive.

by oboe on May 25, 2011 2:02 pm • link • report

After all, how ofter do you hear a Virignian or a Marylander complain about being shifted around from one state legislative district to another.

DC Wards are the equivalent of MD counties. But you're right: I can't imagine a Marylander complaining about being shifted from Montgomery County to Prince George's County. What a ludicrous idea!

by oboe on May 25, 2011 2:05 pm • link • report

I never said anything about 'sticking it to the uppity Hilleast folks'. What I said is if you want to work for improvement in the neighborhood, it shouldn't matter which one. In fact, I started my post by welcoming them. I don't know anything about Reservation 13 being a dumping ground, I thought that was supposedly under development. But according to you and your not so thinly veiled attempt to throw darts, since it's a dumping ground and you want to give it to Ward 7 you really proved my point.

by WhoSaidWhat on May 25, 2011 2:16 pm • link • report

Oboe, what makes you say wards are the equivalent of counties? They have no government of their own, their boundaries change regularly, they are districts for the our legislature, they have numbers rather than names, lots of people don't know which ward they live in. All these characteristics are distinctly un-county-like.

by Keith Ivey on May 25, 2011 2:26 pm • link • report

It appears that you feel comfortable letting other parts of the city suffer so it's a little fitting that all of the sudden you are feeling the same sense of 'disrespect' that we are feeling. You all were just fine when East of the River was a dumping ground for the deliquents you didn't want. Now you find yourself reeping what you sow. Puhlease.

Sorry, but it's hard to interpret this passage as anything other than gloating at the prospect of a "fall from grace." Folks who live bounded on three sides by RFK, Res 13, and Potomac Gardens have been getting crapped on by the city for decades. The idea that they've been "comfortable letting other parts of the city suffer" is just wrong in every way.

by oboe on May 25, 2011 2:29 pm • link • report

@Keith,

True as far as the legislative body goes. But for DC residents, their Council Member is pretty much the only advocate they have--at any level of government. What their Council Member chooses to focus on, who he chooses to pressure in the bureaucracy, the overall quality of constituent services...all of these things are incredibly important. Lance's point that "Well, the ANC should take care of this stuff" is nice, but pure fantasy. They have no clout.

Wells was elected by folks in Ward 6 because he strikes a good balance between social justice, "new urbanist" issues, and great constituent support.

As @WhoSaidWhat put it in is more measured second comment, there's a big, big difference between Wells and Alexander--in fact, it could be the difference between a ward renaissance and further stagnation. Redistricting is not simply a reapportionment of political boundaries. This stuff has real-world repercussions.

Let's take the issue of high-speed commuter traffic through Ward 6: this is a signature issue for Wells for obvious reasons. It's not clear that a Council Member who's constituency overwhelmingly lives in an environment that's suburban in character has any interest in calming commuter traffic between Ward 7 and downtown. In fact, one could make quite the opposite case.

It would be great if the sliver of residents in Hilleast could swing the election and elect "Ward 7 Tommy Wells", but the numbers just don't favor it.

Anyway, to your question, No, the Ward is not structured exactly like a county, but yes it is the most important and influential unit of governance in our "state".

by oboe on May 25, 2011 2:43 pm • link • report

Once upon a day, Wards 6, 7, and 8 were all East of the Anacostia. Gradually, Ward 6 crept West , dividing and then consuming Capitol Hill. That round of Ward changes on the Hill did not cause ruin, so why should anyone expect this round of changes should.

by dcseain on May 25, 2011 2:53 pm • link • report

David Alpert: Thanks for the explanation. Is there somewhere (on GGW or elsewhere) that has an accurate map of the proposed ward boundaries, overlaid on a street map? I have a hard time thinking about how wards look without a map.

by Liam on May 25, 2011 2:57 pm • link • report

@Alex So long as ANCs are elected offices and SMDs are defined as representing a set number of people, the lines will have to be re-drawn every ten years, just like every other legislative district in the country.

Not really ... for 2 reasons ... First the SMDs are 'supposed' to be about 2,000 people ... but they don't need to be. As I mentioned, my SMD only had something like 1,200 people in it. Secondly, ANCs are nothing more than a grouping SMDs. A neighborhoood like Dupont has 8 commissioners in it (each representing 'about 2000 people') and totalling something like 16,000 inhabitants (8 times 2,000). But another neighborhood may be smaller with only about a population of 10,000 ... getting them only 5 commissioners. Provided that 2,000 per SMD is not a hard and fast rule (which it's not) than there would never be a reason to ever change an ANC boundary. And even if you did want to hold closer to that 2,000 number than they did with my SMD, the boudary changes required to get it to work would still be minimal.

No, the truth is that the only reason ANC boundaries have had to change in the past is to align themselves with a Ward Councilmember ... and NOT because of Census reasons.

by Lance on May 25, 2011 3:00 pm • link • report

?

Where exactly is "downtown Ward 7?"

And come on, we all know that a good bit of the opposition is because of where the proposed move is - not simply against the idea of moving.

BTW, I'm not really buying the "we built our neighborhood/cohesive" argument. Isn't is still the same neighborhood?

by HogWash on May 25, 2011 3:00 pm • link • report

Oh also,

What isn't the Ward 7 rep doing that she should. Or better yet, why does Ward 7 need a Tommy Wells?

by HogWash on May 25, 2011 3:02 pm • link • report

Of course Ward 7 is interested in traffic calming. I am right now trying to figure out how to get a bike route that will make the commute into Capitol Hill via East Capitol Street safe. There are plenty of residents that would LOVE to bike to work, but it's not safe. And downtown Ward 7 is not suburban, it is exactly like Kingman Park, in fact, it's more urban as it has stores etc. that you can walk to. We are trying to get the street cars to dock at Minn. Ave metro and we are being stopped every which way. Again, as I said in my original post, we welcome anyone interested in helping the neighborhood, but we aren't going to be disregarded and made to feel like we dont' count and we are making changes either. Trust me when I say, plenty of us don't want Alexander and her uninvolved dimwitted self representing us either. We would love to change the curriculum of our elementary schools in order to better prepare our students for high school. We want the same thing east of the river as west of the river does. I don't know where all this "we are going to change every part of the city except east of the river" mentality came from. If RFK can change it's name to Kingman Park and develop community ties, so can areas east of the river. Believe me, RFK was nothing nice just a few years ago. So if it can chnange, why don't people feel downtown ward 7 can? If they fear it's the people, you need to come to a few meetings. We are fighting for improvements too. People feel like the river is a natural divider, but we aren't sitting down for that anymore. Come to some of our community meetings and see what's going on; you may be surprised.

by WhoSaidWhat on May 25, 2011 3:09 pm • link • report

If ANCs are supposed to represent a neighborhood, someone please explain the crazy ANC 2C boundaries? PQ is split in 2 Wards & ANCs, so is MVSQ. I think its inevitable Shaw is going to get chopped up even more...revamping the ANC boundaries will be very interesting.

With regard to Hill East, I think someone else asked this but according to the census tract in question, Eastern high is to the west (the boundary is 19th, not 17th). They dont need to go over to 17th to make the numbers work. Is that accurate?

Councilmembers aren't there for life. Well maybe Jack Evans lol.

by Si Kailian on May 25, 2011 3:13 pm • link • report

"One example: For six years, Capitol Hill Public School Parent Organization and Capitol Hill Community Foundation have been hard at work at improving all schools in W6: Brand new school libraries, pre-K programs, and now new programs at Eliot-Hine and reinvigorating Eastern High School." - Trulee Pist

Perhaps if the improvement made to the schools were shared all over and not just where it would benefit one neighborhood, then the boundary wouldn't be so detrimental. I take your objection as a sign that the positive impact your post says it would have had on Ward 7 residents wasn't so great or else it wouldn't the boundary change wouldn't be seen as harmful.

by WhoSaidWhat on May 25, 2011 3:24 pm • link • report

Dcseain - you mentioned that EOTR used to be Wards 6, 7 and 8. Is there any place that has historical maps to see how changes have been made in the past?

My one recommendation for the future of redistricting: the committee should be made up of the the at-large members - or at least not chaired by a member that has a "personal stake" in the outcome. Could you imagine if Wells was in charge instead of Evans? Or if Barry? SW Waterfront and Ballpark area would be in 8.

by Shipsa01 on May 25, 2011 3:29 pm • link • report

This is all about color and socio-economics. Why else would people care which ward they lived in? It wouldn't change the character of your neighborhood or what city services you receive.

The pretentious whites of "Hill East" (the capitol hill wannabe) simply can't stand the idea of being ASSOCIATED with the mostly black, poorer ward 7.

Well, there are just as many pretentious blacks in Ward 7 (i.e. Penn Branch, Westover, Hillcrest, Fort Dupont and Benning Heights) with bigger homes and yards than yours, who would never want to be associated with "Hill East" either.

So get over it!

by Wunderlust on May 25, 2011 3:33 pm • link • report

Holy moly, apparently I (and Mr Shipsa01) live closer to the US Capitol than Hill east. Well blow me down.

by Si Kailian on May 25, 2011 3:43 pm • link • report

@ Wunderlust

Those big homes and yards are in less walkable and transit oriented communities, making them less valuable to most constituents of Ward 6 and clearly the overall housing market. Comparatively, those Ward 7 McMansions are worth far less than the small rowhomes and postage stamp lawns of Ward 6.

Should be an interesting 10 years ahead for us all to be in the same playground!

by To Hill and Back on May 25, 2011 4:03 pm • link • report

@Wunderlust--perhaps in your mind it is all about color and socio-economics, but some pretentious whites like myself are opposed to this change because it just doesn't make sense. I don't care what color my neighbors are or how much money they make. I do care that our city leaders make these important decisions in a thoughtful way and that CLEARLY is not being done at all. I'm pretty sure they just drew this option out of a hat.

@WhoSaidWhat--the improvements that have happened in our schools and community are the result of internal determination, not because the DC fairy godmother decided to help our neighborhood and screw other neighborhoods.

by MJ on May 25, 2011 4:14 pm • link • report

"One example: For six years, Capitol Hill Public School Parent Organization and Capitol Hill Community Foundation have been hard at work at improving all schools in W6: Brand new school libraries, pre-K programs, and now new programs at Eliot-Hine and reinvigorating Eastern High School." - Trulee Pist

If these schools/programs become ward 7 schools/programs would Capital Hill Public School Parent Organization and Capital Community Foundation stop efforts to improve them?

by dan on May 25, 2011 4:18 pm • link • report

@MJ
I don't believe in fairy godmothers, but if that post proved a point to you fine. Hope the internal determination is still there; looks like you are going to need it. See you at the next COMMUNITY meeting.

by WhoSaidWhat on May 25, 2011 4:22 pm • link • report

Riiight, MJ, this isn't being done in a thoughtful manner at all. And with CM Evans in charge, moving Shaw to 6, Hill East to 7 and Fairlawn to 8 really seems like it was done 'out of a hat' with no thought at all. I'm sure just moving 7 into 5 and 5 around into 2 (Shaw) would be much more thoughtful - you know, keep all the people of "other" socio-economic groups together. That's CLEARLY a better solution; G-d forbid we don't upset poor poor Capital Hill.

The problem is - Evans solution was done in a thoughtful manner - trying to upset the fewest areas possible (and since he was in charge, he got rid of what he wanted; Tommy could have been appointed or someone else). It just happens to be a solution that you don't like. But it wasn't done 'out of hat.'

by Shipsa01 on May 25, 2011 4:26 pm • link • report

Shaw to Ward 6!

Come on Council, Make it Happen! It's the right thing to do. I'm usually a critic, but I applaud Councilmember Jack Evans' leadership and willingness to sacrifice and make the hard thoughtful choices in this case.

ANCs are NOT supposed to represent neighborhoods, they are supposed to represent the 2,000+ odd people in their district (when they are engaged with their district neighbors and functioning properly and don't go off the reservation working for their own blind political ambitions). Neighborhoods are separate from ANC Districts and better represented by civic and neighborhood associations.

Like Police Districts and Parking Zones it's best that these areas don't have the same boundaries so that egomaniac electeds don't have total control over your quality of life.

by CCCA Prez on May 25, 2011 4:40 pm • link • report

@Shipsa01--you make a good point that no matter what the proposed solution, some people, somewhere will be unhappy. I'm saying this seems poorly thought out because it is illogical. The other options are simply less disruptive to existing communities. For you to make an assertion about keeping "other" people together is a very unfair and sad way of projecting your own feelings onto others. Think whatever you want; that's purely emotional (and without any basis but your own.) But from a practical and factual standpoint, this proposal is shoddy. So you can post hateful things all day long and demonize Ward 6 residents who oppose this plan, but that doesn't change the fact that the plan sucks.

Why am I even writing this? Minds are made up, and some of those minds seem instinctively hostile.

by MJ on May 25, 2011 4:42 pm • link • report

Nice choice of words "instinctively". I think we know the real instinct.

by WhoSaidWhat on May 25, 2011 4:52 pm • link • report

How is the plan illogical? The only reason it seems illogical is because it cuts off a sliver (the far Eastern part) of a neighborhood that claims as its boundaries the entire SE area of DC proper. Does that seem logical? Would it be better if SW went to Ward 8?

Shaw to 6, Hill East to 7 and Fairlawn to 8. Simple, easy, and painless (to all except MJ) Three moves that satisfy the requirements. Done and done.

by Shipsa01 on May 25, 2011 4:55 pm • link • report

Every 10 years, I am reminded why I am so glad to live dead center in Ward 1.

by greent on May 25, 2011 5:08 pm • link • report

Separating areas from Ward 6, like removing embers from a fire, will extinguish the flame. Hill East has not been what you percieve today for very long - and there is still a lot of fragility. We fought long and hard to improve, and residents are still healing from many of the wounds from those battles. What my neighbors in Wards 7 and 8 need are resources and governance that enable and lead them to kindle their own permanent flames of empowerment and growth. These areas are overflowing with resources and opportunity, and to intimate that these residents are unable to take advantage of this potential should be offensive. Allow these citizens to retain their identity and their pride – this cannot be accomplished by artificially diluting them with populations that are geographically disconnected. Use the flexibility provided by law to restore logical boundaries within our city, and provide financial and political support to ignite the necessary fires of change and improvement in those areas in need, specifically Wards 7 and 8, so that all DC residents may benefit from what the city can offer while still retaining the individual character that has grown to make each of our Wards unique and extraordinary.

Currently, 7 is viewed as needing support. This sentiment will disappear if their population is artificially increased. Leave 7 alone, and it will place Ward 7 in a position of urgent priority in the city, providing rationale for additional resources and attention to improve neighborhoods and schools and promote and support increased business opportunities.

Shaw (portion) to 5, Kingman to 6, Fairlawn to 8. Propose a citywide goal to bolster population within 7.

by LongTermHillEast on May 25, 2011 5:44 pm • link • report

The real mystery is why move Ward 7 boundary all the way to 17th? If you just move Res 13 (really just the jail)from 6 to 7, there is enough population to make the numbers work. This is exactly what the GGW redistricting map showed. Not all the way to 17th (which would actually split census tracts - contrary to what the law recommends doing). So I repeat my question: what is behind the unnecessary shift of the boundary all the way to 17th?

by Inquiring on May 25, 2011 5:58 pm • link • report

LTHE - by law, 7 needs to grow. The city can't just artificially 'leave them alone.'

by shipsa01 on May 25, 2011 6:35 pm • link • report

Exactly, Inquiring. Could be a bargaining strategy, first go for 17th, then back off to 19th as the middle ground.

by Si Kailian on May 25, 2011 6:45 pm • link • report

shipsa01 - So I've heard. Then I read the code. I've just barely had enough administrative law to be dangerous, so understand that precedence and political will are also important factors, but here is the basis:

DC ST § 1-1011.01 paragraph (c) The Council shall divide the District into 8 compact and contiguous election wards, each of which shall be approximately equal in population size.

Note that "compact and contiguous" do not have caveats, whereas "equal in population size" is qualified by "approximately," and this is not further defined within the paragraph. Interpretation - "compact and contiguous" are absolute requirements, "equal in population" is secondary.

DC ST § 1-1011.01 paragraph (f) No redistricting plan or proposed amendment to a redistricting plan shall result in district populations with a deviation range more than 10% or a relative deviation greater than plus-or-minus 5%, unless the deviation results from the limitations of census geography or from the promotion of a rational public policy, including but not limited to respect for the political geography of the District, the natural geography of the District, neighborhood cohesiveness, or the development of compact and contiguous districts.

Here is the closest thing to a definition of "approximately." Note that "plus-or-minus 5%" is far from unqualified, and in fact the language expressly allows for deviations based on issues of geography and neighborhood cohesiveness. Note also the "including but not limited to" part that would allow for even broader interpretation. Generally, it is understood that such language would not be included as part of an Official Code without purpose. Since the ceding of land west of the Potomac River back to Virginia in the mid 19th century, the Anacostia River is arguably the most significant remaining geographical obstacle in Washington DC. It is not difficult to see that splitting an area by the river could rationally be interpreted as a clear violation of the requirement in paragraph (c) and option in paragraph (f) that election wards be “contiguous.” You only need to go as far as the Kingman area to see and hear the consequences of this kind of division, and can rationally conclude why the drafters of the Official Code may have included this caveat in two places. Secondly, though an assessment of “neighborhood cohesiveness” would admittedly be mostly subjective, anyone who has been in the shoes of a “Hill East” resident for more than a few years understands clearly why this is significant.

So, stripping out the politics, the Official Code supports that, ideally, population in each Ward would be equal, but leaves room for understanding that this is not always possible or in the best interest of the citizens, and falls way short of mandating that Wards shrink or grow.

by LongTermHillEast on May 25, 2011 9:53 pm • link • report

@LongTermHillEast

Kingman Park sued during the last redistricting process. They did not win.

I don't think your legal interpretation passes muster.

by Alex B. on May 25, 2011 10:03 pm • link • report

Alex B. - Thanks for the reminder. I have heard of the Kingman Park lawsuit and that they did not win, though I admit I have not seen the transcripts so do not know what the actual argument or ruling was. My argument is that, contrary to what many seem to believe or have tried to imply, "equal in population" or even "plus-or-minus 5%" are not technical slam-dunks. I will concede that it would be politically improbable in this city to get a rational ruling on what might constitute an adequate geographical obstacle (and would guess that is why Kingman lost), and it is unlikely that there is any rubric by which any politician in this city would be willing or able to consider neighborhood cohesiveness. So, this may render toothless, but does not otherwise negate the fact, that the Official Code includes that part of DC ST § 1-1011.01 paragraph (f) following the word "unless."

Okay, just for grins, how about this. DC ST § 1-1011.01 paragraph (f) refers to a "deviation range" more than 10% or a "relative deviation" greater than plus-or-minus 5%. The items in quotes are reserved mathematical terms, and I’m not so sure the council is calculating correctly. The code never refers to an average of the overall census number, but instead requires calculations be made using district (Ward) populations. In my experience a range is calculated by subtracting the smallest number from the biggest number. Dividing the smallest number into the range, then multiplying by 100, will give a percentage deviation. This calculation for the district populations is 13.015%. Ouch! However, note that the code says "or" between the two options, which technically means the criteria is met if either calculation falls within the required parameters. A relative deviation is calculated by dividing the standard deviation of the set by the numerical average. For the district populations this yields 4.12%! Bingo! 4.12 is less than 5.00 - criteria met, no change required. Thanks for playing. Actually, this method provides for greater flexibility and makes the system more difficult to “game.” Note that moving 3000 residents from Ward 2 to Ward 5 yields 9.33% and 3.61%, respectively. There's the slam-dunk! Who’s buying drinks?

I do realize that, since this may have been miscalculated in the past, it is politically more salient to be consistent than it is to be correct.

by LongTermHillEast on May 26, 2011 3:01 am • link • report

Once again, too little too late. A rally the night before? Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, that sends a strong message to our government leaders, NOT! Rallies the night before a report is released and arrests of council members on Pennsylvania Avenue that do nothing but waste police resources, ugh.

If people are going to protest and do civil disobedience, how about they try to make it relevant and actually something that means something?

by Mike Rogers on May 26, 2011 9:47 am • link • report

Once again, too little too late. A rally the night before? Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, that sends a strong message to our government leaders, NOT!

The fact that Eastern HS and Eliot MS were both kept in Ward 6 pretty much invalidates your point. For all the talk of RFK/Res 13, the school issue was the point that the majority of Ward 6 voters were going to go to the mattresses over.

They got what they wanted.

by oboe on May 26, 2011 10:04 am • link • report

@Mike Rogers

I disagree. I believe the rally did far more than "nothing". From all that I've read, the boundary had been set at 17th with no caveats. Last minute negotiations kept the Eastern and Hine school in Ward 6. While this is far less than Ward 6 wanted (at least far less than I wanted as a Ward 6er), it does show that the subcommittee was listening.

Now, on to a bigger fight with the whole council. To the author's point, Hill East residents have mobilized and I'm sure all council members will be hearing from them as the process continues. Despite your cynicism, our mobilization is having an impact.

by Mark on May 26, 2011 10:08 am • link • report

@ To Hill and Back

The big ward 7 homes are valued less because they are in majority black neighborhoods, regardless of your opinion. Many ward 3 neighborhoods aren't "walkable" but cost much more than your "Hill East" homes. So "walkability" has nothing to do with home prices in DC....it has to do with what kind of people want to live there and what they are willing to pay to live there.

@ MJ

The imaginary ward boundaries are being revised because of shifts in population...that's all the sense it needs to make. There aren't enough people east of the river to make 2 wards similar in population to the others, therefore the remainder must come from SOMEWHERE west of the river. Do you get it now?

by Wunderlust on May 26, 2011 12:03 pm • link • report

@Wanderlust -- housing prices are driven by school quality, plain and simple. Bad schools (EotR)-->low real estate values; good schools (W3)-->high real estate values. The turn around of the schools in W6 has everything to do with the increase of property values there.

by goldfish on May 26, 2011 1:33 pm • link • report

@Wunderlust:

The big ward 7 homes are valued less because they are in majority black neighborhoods, regardless of your opinion. Many ward 3 neighborhoods aren't "walkable" but cost much more than your "Hill East" homes. So "walkability" has nothing to do with home prices in DC....

Has nothing to do with "black neighborhoods" and everything to do with the schools, economic class of the residents, the crime rate, and, yes, "walkability" issues: Ward 2 may lack density just as Ward 7 does, but there are more things to walk *to*. And traffic is certainly a bit calmer.

by oboe on May 26, 2011 2:35 pm • link • report

Clearly there are a myriad of issues which determine housing prices. Of those, I'm sure the racial demographic of the area does have "something" to do w/it.

There are places in Ward 7 that I can't afford just as those in Ward 3. There are areas of Ward 7 that have very low crime rates just as those in Ward 7. I'm not so sure that the performance of n'hood schools are the driving force behind high real estate assessments although I'm open to reading more concrete data to support this notion.

There are places in Ward 3 that are as inaccessible to "things to walk to" as those in Ward 7. There are pockets in each where they reflect each other. Then those that don't. I don't know if traffic is necessarily any "calmer" in Ward 3 than 7. The major thoroughfares in each, Penn Ave and Wisconsin are often snarled with traffic.

by HogWash on May 26, 2011 3:36 pm • link • report

@Hogwash -- When I was buying some years ago you could easily account for the difference in prices between "good" and "bad" neighborhood houses by the costs of sending two kids to private school. Assuming you are the sort of person with the means to choose, in the W3 neighborhood you can send your kids to public schools, but EotR they will need to go to private school at $20-25k/year/child. The $45k ($3750/month) is roughly the difference in the monthly mortgage payment between houses, all other things -- crime rate, house size, distance to downtown employment -- being equal.

by goldfish on May 26, 2011 4:04 pm • link • report

@oboe and goldfish

Ward 7 schools are run by the same school district as ward 3 schools, so your point is moot. The only difference between ward 7 and ward 3 schools are the demographics of the students and teachers.

The wealthiest send their kids to the best private schools, wherever they're located. There are people in Ward 3 who send their kids outside their ward to Gonzaga. Or friends of mine who live in Ward 2 but send their kids to a private school in Ward 3, for instance.

@oboe

As to "walkability" I compared some Ward 7 neighborhoods with some ward 3 neighborhoods, not Ward 2.

And the neighborhoods in ward 7 I mentioned have very low crime rates compared to most others in the city, including "Hill East." In these neigborhoods, one can "walk" to parks, rec. centers, tennis courts, bus stops, schools (both public and private), churches, a library, shopping centers, (and some to Naylor Road metro station) etc.

You shouldn't give your narrow opinion about things you don't know!

by Wunderlust on May 27, 2011 3:15 am • link • report

LTHE FTW!

by Trulee Pist on May 28, 2011 2:46 am • link • report

LTHE, you say moving 3000 from W2 to W5 meets both mathematical criteria? Wouldn't that be a superior solution to moving 9000+ into and out of W6?

What are the chances you'll show up with large sign or whiteboard with the calculations:

Wednesday, June 1, 2011 at 6:00 PM

Subcommittee On Redistricting Will Hold A Public Roundtable For Residents To Offer Opinions

John A. Wilson Building, Council Chamber- Room 500
1350 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Those who wish to testify should contact Carol Sadler at (202) 724-8198 or csadler@dccouncil.us, and provide your name, organizational affiliation, and title of organization by 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 31, 2011.

Witnesses should bring 20 copies of their written testimony to the hearing. Additional written statements are encouraged and will be made part of the official record. The official record will close ten days following the conclusion of the hearing.

Tuesday, June 7, 2011, 10:00 AM

Council Of The District Of Columbia Will Have A First Vote On The Proposed Redistricting Plan
John A. Wilson Building, Council Chamber- Room 500
1350 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

by Trulee Pist on May 29, 2011 1:18 pm • link • report

20 Copies? Seriously? Have these people not yet heard of the computer?

by Michael on May 29, 2011 3:16 pm • link • report

Trulee – Chances that I’ll show up are good, but sans calcs. In light of what we’ve recently gleaned from the redistricting subcommittee’s recommendation itself, my sign might be a variation of “Jackmandered is not compact and separated by a mile of wasteland is not contiguous.” I’ll suggest that in a milieu where so many could be so easily convinced that 2 plus 2 equals 5 for large values of 2, a sign reading “You’ve misinterpreted the statistical notion of a relative deviation” does not make for a good sound bite. Truth is, the redistricting committee’s recommended changes result in a solution that meets my interpretation of the criteria, and the prospect that this interpretation would have allowed them to not make any changes would be systemically ignored. In the spirit of Rahm Emanuel ("Never let a serious crisis go to waste.") I’m guessing the CM’s are not looking for someone to provide them an out, especially since they seem to like what they’ve done for themselves as a result of their self inflicted dilemma. Where the calcs could come in handy is given an opportunity to counter the argument that the poor, helpless individuals on the redistricting subcommittee did what they did because the law gave them no other choice.

Ours is a difficult situation because the misinterpretations are so entrenched, there are so many with ulterior motives who are willing to continue propagating them, and in our current culture truth and logic are too often trumped by plurality.

by LongTermHillEast on May 30, 2011 1:38 am • link • report

In our current culture truth and logic are too often trumped by plurality, and I'd add, our current Council lets the precedent of error shadow the mathematical truth that shines from the language of the law. So, thanks for the calcs.

I think I'll send those calculations to Mendelson, if you don't mind, in response to the email he sent the HillEast listserve. I want to congratulate him for being able to inject a little levity into the conversation--he says he's responding by listserve because he's received too many emails from HillEast to answer, ha ha, after having accepted one amendment to the W2-W6 boundary as a result of one email and accepting another amendment to the W6-W7 boundary based on one phone call to a resident of W6 who does not happen to be an elected official. I assume he's making an ironic joke. What a card.

by Trulee Pist on May 30, 2011 8:48 pm • link • report