I'm a ward 4 rez, but at a glance based on what I know about each of these neighborhoods, this just makes a whole lot of common sense. I'd be curious to hear what the objections would be to a plan like this.

by Steve D on Nov 2, 2011 11:05 am  

Thanks to the authors for their work on this. I do wonder about some of the Brookland/Woodridge decisions.

Why did y'all choose to put the upper right 'blue' SMD (upper edgewood?) not included in the Brookland ANC? That area has lots of residents who actually think they live in Brookland and feel very connected to Brookland. I think it might improve the map to move that SMD into the 'green' ANC.

Beyond that, some of the purple ANCs have me wondering. Why does the purple SMD with 2018 residents wrap around the one with 1979?

Also, I wish that Rhode Island Avenue were used as more of a defining line. I live in one of the purple areas that is south of South Dakota and north of Rhode Island, and I feel more connected to Brookland than Langdon. It's also strange there is a two-block square that is east of 18th Street (ie Woodridge) that's in the 'green' ANC.

But overall, I think this map is a drastic improvement from the other two we've seen.

Thanks for your work, authors!

by Nolan on Nov 2, 2011 11:22 am  

Nolan: Thanks for the feedback. I hope we get a LOT more. The more residents who comment on this, the better.

To answer some of your questions. First, we certainly don't see this as a "final" map. Everything is open for discussion, and we'd like to think that this map is something that gives us a better chance of getting closer to a consensus.

The "upper Edgewood" SMD could certainly move to the "green" ANC. If there was strong support from people in that neck of the woods to be moved, then I'd see no problem with that. We drew the line as it is because we saw the railroad tracks as a very solid dividing line. We think this is better than previous plans that drew the line down 8th Street, leaving the buildings in the narrow strip between 8th and the tracks in a different SMD or ANC than all the rest of their neighbors on the western side.

The SMD with 2018 residents came into being mostly because it was difficult to get a solid SMD in the area east of South Dakota Avenue and north of Fort Lincoln. There just aren't enough people there to put into one SMD, so more area had to be included to get up to 2000 people.

We thought that creating the SMD with 1979 residents worked because, instead of using Rhode Island Avenue as a dividing line, we used it as a focus point here. That area has the potential (with it's great building stock) to be the commercial hub of "downtown Woodridge," and we thought that keeping it united in one SMD made some sense. The two-block part of Woodridge that is in the SMD with 2012 residents is just another example of having to do our best to get close to the 2000 person requirement.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Nov 2, 2011 11:35 am  

Thanks, Geoff.

I certainly see where you're coming from in making Rhode Island Avenue a focal point instead of a dividing line. I suppose it could be argued either way, kind of a subjective thing.

I didn't realize the other maps had 8th St NE as the dividing line and NOT the railroad tracks. I just assumed it was the tracks. I'd love to hear what those 'upper Edgewood' residents think, either way.

by Nolan on Nov 2, 2011 11:39 am  

Howdy neighbor. I'm in the other little purple tumor north of RI Ave. In fact, my neighbors across two streets would be in the green lumps, and I would be purple.

I, too, feel more connected to Brookland than to Langdon. That's in no small part because RI Ave as it is right now is a blight on what is otherwise a pretty nice neighborhood. I would love to get some businesses that serve the neighborhood in there, or even on 18th by Burroughs. I guess I see the logic of drawing our ANC around it, but, with few exceptions, that strip is so hopeless. It will ultimately take a lot more than redrawing an ANC to turn it around.

All-in-all, though: not bad!

by J on Nov 2, 2011 11:43 am  

I should point this out as well:

For whatever reason, the census block that includes the area between North Capitol and 1st Street NW, north of Rhode Island Avenue and south of U Street, also includes the houses north of U Street to V Street along North Capitol (you can see that on the map above where the strange appendage runs up from the SMD drawn south of U Street). If that block is split (this is the only block we would advocate splitting) and those houses were included with the other houses north of U Street (which makes logical sense), that SMD would probably be much closer to 1900 residents.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Nov 2, 2011 11:48 am  

J -- There's a group of folks trying to work on Rhode Island Ave. Sing up on the website and take the survey of services you'd like to see on RIA. We'll be using that to (hopefully) attract new business to the area:

www.friendsofria.org

Or just come to the Brookland/Woodridge Community Happy Hour this Thursday (at Lace, 2214 Rhode Island Ave NE). There will be lots of FriendsofRIA folks there.

by Nolan on Nov 2, 2011 11:49 am  

Nolan- I think the northern portion of Edgewood should be left with the other parts. I think there are just as many residents in that nook that identify with Edgewood as those that don't. From talking with some of the residents that live in that area, they aren't to pleased with how OP and developers are seemingly trying to rebrand their neighborhood.

I'm sure there are other adjustments that can be made to the plan, but for the most part it fixes the errors created in the last task force plan and respects the numbers and redistricting objectives.

by Tim on Nov 2, 2011 12:00 pm  

As an Edgewood resident I think that this map is great except that Edgewood (all 3 SMDs) should be moved into the Brookland one. Many times we are left out of discussions with developments or projects because everyone prefers the "Brookland brand" even when they are in Edgewood. I live closer to the Rhode Island Ave side of Edgewood and most of my neighbors feel more of a partnership with Brookland. Most of the neighbors that I know closer to CUA think they do live in Brookland. The cemetary and Rhode Island Ave form more natural barriers.

This would also make all the ANCs more even in size. Right now you have ANC 5B with 10 SMDs and ANC 5C with 6 SMDs and the rest have 7 SMDs. If Edgewood was united with Brookland it would have 9 SMDs and all of the rest would have 7 SMDs. That would also be nice to have odd numbers for voting.

by Sally on Nov 2, 2011 12:36 pm  

I agree with Nolan's point. I think Rhode island Avenue is clear dividing line, and those purple notches don't feel right. Folks in the those areas do seem to identify more with Brookland and Woodridge than Langdon.

I think both Nolan and Tim are correct on "Upper Edgewood" It can really go either way. Since it will include some that self identify with Brookland it might make sense to include it. However the Neighborhood cluster division goes right down the "tracks" so maybe makes sense to respect it in the new ANC plan. I'm on the fence.

Though I think including the 2030 bit in the green ANC also seems a little off. Would it make more sense to include it with one of the other ANCs that border Eastern Ave?

Overall i like the direction and gets rid of the notch around 5b04 that was there in final "plan".

The other thing that I am not sure on is the dividing line between 1984 and 2014. I still think splitting Monroe Street doesn't make sense, and not sure about it going up 13th. It creates a weird pocket of streets between 13th and the Monastery.

I think maybe some combination of the "final" map and this one might be the right answer for the Brookland section anyway.

by Brookland Avenue on Nov 2, 2011 12:36 pm  

I have what I guess is a philosophical question regarding imminent future residents. The "Noma West" development in Eckington is being built on Harry Thomas Way in the ANC with 2100. Once it's completed and populated in a few years, this would potentially dilute that ANC's voting power (per person) for the next 8-10 years (until the next redistricting), even though it's already near the upper end of the population distribution you've set up.

So my question is whether and how much imminent residential construction should come into play when drawing up ANCs. On the larger ward-scale, I understand not really paying it much attention, but on this granular of a level, it seems like it would have much greater effect.

My take: I know we can't take purely speculative buildings into account - at least not with any precision - but on residential developments that are already under construction, it makes a certain amount of sense to account for the future residents in the population counts. I'm not sure how much this will affect the boundaries, but it's something I'd be interested to hear other takes on.

by The AMT on Nov 2, 2011 12:43 pm  

The AMT: While it seems like a good idea to take into account current residential construction, that's explicitly unallowed by the law. The only numbers that can be used are the numbers provided by the Census. In actuality, they're already dated, as they provide a snapshot of how things were in April of 2010. We have to play by that rule, for better or worse.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Nov 2, 2011 12:55 pm  

I'm in Carver Langston and I couldn't understand the Task Force plan to both split up our tiny neighborhood and separate one half from Trinidad. There is almost no cohesion with the neighbors to our north, mostly because there is not a lot of walkability up Bladensburg Ave. once you pass Mount Olivet. I very much appreciate this plan and Thomas' plan, which keep us together with our Trinidad neighbors.

by Katie on Nov 2, 2011 2:10 pm  

Goph: Fair enough. Thanks for the response. Also: good job on the map - I'm in Truxton Circle/Hanover-Bates, and you all have the most reasonable map I've seen for Ward 5 thusfar.

by The AMT on Nov 2, 2011 2:13 pm  

Maps! Finally! With streets, no less!

I'm still studying Brookland, but so far I definitely prefer that the Rhode Island Avenue boundary extends all the way to the RR tracks instead of the previous carve-out created at 13th Street. Big improvement for neighborhood cohesiveness. I also like the way you've moved the western boundary to the RR tracks instead of down the middle of 8th Street.

Thanks for taking the time to do this. What a service you've provided.

by Caroline in Brookland on Nov 2, 2011 4:07 pm  

I cant speak for any other neighborhood, but how dare you try to split up the Michigan Park Community. the greater Michigan Park community is composed of three sections. the south end that runs along Michigan Avenue, generally referred to as Michigan Park. The east end that borders Michigan Avenue known as Queens Chapel, and the north end most commonly referred to as North Michigan Park. We are ONE neighborhood, ONE community. Always has been and always will be. You are not fooling anyone with this ploy to divide us along what you assume is the border between the affluent lighter side and the lower economic darker side of this neighborhood. Clearly you dont have a clue as to who we really are. This is like taking us back some seventy years when this neighborhood was created. It would be one thing to split us up into different SMD's but you trying to divide us into different ANC's. Thats a horse of another color. And a Trojan horse as that. I would suggest you go back to the drawing board and leave my neighborhood alone.
Greater Michigan Park is ONE neighborhood, ONE community.
And as we used to say "You Better Recognize!!!"

by Cynthia M. Reid on Nov 2, 2011 4:31 pm  

Cynthia M. Reid: As I've stated to others in the comments, this map was put together as a means to continue the discussion about redistricting in the ward. We're not operating under any assumption that this must be adopted "as is."

I'm sorry that you see a racial and nefarious aspect to the map drawn here. I assure you that is not the case. We didn't take anything into account other than the numbers of people living on each block.

It's worth noting that the area along Michigan Avenue between South Dakota Avenue and Eastern Avenue is placed in identical SMDs in both this plan and the latest plan from the councilmember's office.

Ideally, I think Michigan Avenue would make an elegant dividing line for separating areas north and south of it, but that would preclude the ability to create SMDs with populations that come close to the recommended population size.

I would like to hear more about the division of Michigan Park into three sub-neighborhoods, as you describe them. We all benefit when we learn more about our city.

I'd encourage you to come to the final task force meeting when it is announced, and you can express your concerns in that forum.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Nov 2, 2011 4:55 pm  

Mr. Hatchard

The issue isn’t the SMD boundaries. I happen to like the new SMD boundaries as proposed by the Task Force.
They finally got that part right, at least when it comes to my neighborhood.
The issue is your dividing my neighborhood into different “ANC” boundaries.
I know my neighborhood and I can see clearly on the map where you drew the “ANC” lines.

I am a former ANC Commissioner and a community leader and advocate. I have been preaching for the last decade of the attempts to
separate North Michigan Park out of our neighborhood cluster. And here you go. You are not the first and you won’t be the last.

Let me make it clear hear. I am by no means suggesting that there is some racial element or intent here.
It is all about Economics, Class and a changing Demographic. So please don’t go there with me or try to minimize my voice in this discussion
as some racist tripe. I would like to assume we are all far to intelligent for that.

I would ask at this juncture from looking at or map. What makes you think North Michigan Park has more in common by way of electorate,
traffic patterns/habits, commercial corridors, recreation facilities, education/daycare facilities, religious institutions with the residents on the other side of
Ft. Totten Station and Park (N. Capital Corridor) than with the residents of Queens Chapel and Michigan Park (south). The residents we have shared all of these variables with since our inception.

You seem to validate my point in that you don’t know this neighborhood. You see lines on a map not the family, personality and flavor of a community.
Dividing us into different ANC’s minimizes this neighborhood’s common singular voice in the only legal authority our City provides us as a neighborhood and community.

Cynthia Reid

by Cynthia Reid on Nov 2, 2011 8:49 pm  

Cynthia Reid: I'm not attempting to minimize your voice whatsoever. As I said, I'm encouraging you to come to the public Task Force meeting that will be held to discuss this soon. The councilmember's office should be announcing that any day now. For what it's worth, there were many people involved in drafting this map, though I'm certainly speaking for myself here to you right now. Please bring your concerns to the meeting when it happens. I hope we'll end up with a result that everyone in Ward 5 believes is fair.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Nov 2, 2011 9:37 pm  

@Cynthia Reid - you wrote this:
"You are not fooling anyone with this ploy to divide us along what you assume is the border between the affluent lighter side and the lower economic darker side of this neighborhood."

Its not unreasonable for a reader to interpret your use of the terms "lighter" and "darker" as references to ethnic or racial demographic characteristics. If that's not what you meant, then what did you mean? Were you referencing people's moods?

YOU are the one who criticized this map by assuming dividing lines were drawn on the "... border between the affluent lighter side and the lower economic darker side of this neighborhood."

G. H. did his best in a polite way to point out the divisions were based on population density and not race/ethnicity/SES, (or, as you put it, "lighter and darker"). You then jumped all over him in an impolite way denying that you ever suggested the map was drawn up based on "lighter" and "darker". You accused him of "try[ing] to minimize my voice" when he addressed your expressed concern that the lines may have been drawn, once again in your words, "between the affluent lighter side and the lower economic darker side"

You made two ugly accusations, first that the borders were drawn "between the affluent lighter side and the lower economic darker side" and second that G.H. attempted to "minimize" your "voice" when he attempted to address this concern.

Whatever your message may be, you have presented yourself as someone who denies your own words and attacks others unjustly. This distracts substantially from your message.

by distracted by nonsense on Nov 3, 2011 12:01 am  

I live in Bloomingdale and support this revised plan. From my perspective, it makes a lot of sense. Great work!

by Patrick on Nov 3, 2011 11:14 am  

I'm along Florida in the Trinidad neighborhood and support any plan that keeps the areas just north of Florida and Benning together.

by Robin on Nov 3, 2011 2:16 pm  

Cynthia: I understand that you feel besieged by what you perceive as attempts to separate the constituent parts of your neighborhood, but I honestly think this was a good faith effort by the authors to put together what they thought was the best possible solution to the redistricting issue. Their goal, as Geoff said, is to push the conversation forward, not to say "this is the end." I don't think there's any animus involved - no attempts to break apart your community or anybody else's. First and foremost, I think, they want to get things right in the end.

It would help the conversation if you could provide some suggestions as to a better way to put the SMDs of your neighborhood into the same ANC - for instance, in which ANC would the three sub-neighborhoods best fit together? Which neighborhoods outside of Michigan Park does the neighborhood share the most culturally/institutionally/housing stock-wise/etc.? This is the kind of information that would probably help Geoff, Geovani, Tim, etc. (not to mention the Task Force and CM Thomas) draw up equitable and effective boundaries for everybody.

by The AMT on Nov 3, 2011 2:39 pm