Fw: Ward 5 Democrats Oppose Land Grab that includes Armed Forces Retirement Home, Washington Hospital Center and the New York Avenue Recreation Center.

[thomas...@aol.com]

We applaud the Ward 5 political, community and civic leaders who came together as ONE united voice to stop the unwarranted Redistricting land grab in Ward 5 and to made the will of the Ward 5 residents known.  Congratulations on a job well done!!

Happy holiday and Merry Christmas to all of you and your families.

Hazel Thomas, Board Chair

Premier Community Development Corp. 

From: Ward 5 Democrats <ward5dcd...@gmail.com>
Date: December 21, 2021 at 9:07:56 AM EST

Subject: Ward 5 Democrats Oppose Land Grab that includes Armed Forces Retirement Home, Washington Hospital Center and the New York Avenue Recreation Center.

Dear Council Members:

 

At the December 13, 2021 meeting of the Ward 5 Democrats Executive Committee, Ward 5 Democrats Parliamentarian, Hazel Thomas made a motion that was seconded by Ward 5 Democrats Committeeman Harry Thomas Jr. that changing the Redistricting boundaries of Ward 5 would be tantamount to an unjustifiable land grab that is both unnecessary and not in keeping with the regulations governing Redistricting. 

Therefore, we strongly support and endorse the amendment proposed by Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie and the Ward 5 leadership that the current boundaries of Ward 5 remain untouched in accordance with the guidelines of the U.S. Census. This land grab includes Armed Forces Retirement Home, Washington Hospital Center and the New York Avenue Recreation Center.   

 

RATIONALE:  Redistricting requires that all eight wards of the District of Columbia have a range of equal distribution of population.  Wards 1,2,3,4 and 5 do not require boundary changes because they are within an acceptable range of population growth.  Only Wards 6, 7 and 8 require population adjustments to meet the requirements of the Redistricting law – not Ward 5.  The Redistricting Act of 2021 as passed by the Council Committee, goes far beyond the scope, purpose and law mandated for Redistricting.  In addition, the Council Office of Racial Equity has determined that the Act as presented would have a disproportionate racial impact on Ward 5.

 

We ask that you give due consideration to the united voices of the Ward 5 civic, political, and community leaders who are opposed to a Ward 5 boundary change and not be swayed by ONE resident of Ward 1 who proposed the unwarranted, “land grab” based on projected commercial development rather than population change which is the legal basis for Redistricting. 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Gordon Fletcher

Chairman

Ward 5 Democrats

[VINCENT ORANGE]

How Ward 5 Remained In Tact as reported by Washington City Paper

Top of the agenda was the second and final vote on the new D.C. ward map, the product of a once-every-decade process of redrawing boundaries in the District according to the most recent census numbers. While the first Council vote (11-1) on Dec. 7 made it seem like the new boundaries were a sure thing, there was more passionate discussion than expected on Tuesday.

The most hotly contested map change during the first vote—moving two thinly populated parcels that include the Armed Forces Retirement Home and Washington Hospital Center from Ward 5 to Ward 1—was reversed in yesterday’s vote. On Dec. 7, Ward 5 Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie’s attempt to keep the parcels in his ward failed on a 6-6 vote (Ward 7 Councilmember Vince Gray did not join either meeting as he recovers from a small stroke). On Tuesday, Ward 2 Councilmember Brooke Pinto switched her vote to a “yes” and secured a win for McDuffie. Her change of mind came after Ward 5 residents lobbied for their ward to benefit from future development planned near the Armed Forces Retirement Home.

It’s not a true D.C. Council meeting without some awkwardness. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson prompted confusion from his colleagues, including Ward 8 Councilmember Trayon White and At-Large Councilmember Anita Bonds, when he brought up some changes to the redistricting “engrossment” document. The amendment states that areas in Wards 7 and 8 located west of the Anacostia River will be assigned to residential permit parking zone 6. A more technical correction came when referring to a boundary between Wards 6 and 7 at the Anacostia River, which will go “southwesterly” instead of “southeasterly.” Clarifying these changes derailed discussion for the length of a comedic break, in hindsight a respite for the charged dialogue that followed.

After arguments from McDuffie and Ward 1 Councilmember Brianne Nadeau on the Ward 5 parcels at play—and a reminder from Bonds that “the census is about population, not land”—At-Large Councilmember Elissa Silverman, who chairs the redistricting subcommittee, mapped out the most recent “emotional rhetoric” attached to the amendment.

The “quietness” from Ward 5 residents around the issue of the Armed Forces Retirement Home during the subcommittee process was in stark contrast to how vocal residents of the ward were about other issues, Silverman said. She described hearing an immediate “uproar” from Ward 4 and 5 residents after a ward map draft put more of the Lamond-Riggs neighborhood in Ward 4, and seeing a huge turnout of Lamond-Riggs residents on a Zoom call with Ward 4 Councilmember Janeese Lewis George a few days later. Silverman also described how “the discussion on the listservs went nuts” after the Ward 7 Democrats presented maps in a subcommittee hearing that would have moved the Ward 7 boundary into Ward 5 neighborhoods Fort Lincoln and Carver Langston. The lull around the AFRH changed after the subcommittee vote, according to Silverman, when Ward 5 residents expressed strong feelings about keeping the AFRH, as well as the New York Avenue NW playground, in their ward.

After the first Council vote on the amendment, Silverman, Nadeau, and Pinto faced accusations of a land grab, Silverman said. Silverman was referring to an email addressed to Mayor Muriel Bowser sent Monday night by Vincent Orange, who is running for the Ward 5 councilmember seat he held from 1999 to 2007. The email, signed by 35 Ward 5 residents and ANC commissioners, referenced a “land grab … for economically motivated reasons ” that includes the AFRH, Washington Hospital Center, and the New York Avenue playground. Responding to City Paper’s request for clarification about Silverman’s comments at Tuesday’s hearing, Silverman questioned why the email singled out her and her White colleagues. The subcommittee vote for the citizen map draft that would have included such boundary changes was a mixed vote that included Black councilmembers, she pointed out.

Two Ward 5 residents also brought to her attention discussions where anti-Semitic language from some residents targeted her and Nadeau, Silverman said. She linked the issue with the anti-Semitism of a recent incident at Watkins Elementary School, in which third-graders were instructed to reenact scenes from the Holocaust, before concluding that she would be voting against McDuffie’s attempt to keep the parcels in his ward.

If you were wondering what the anti-Semitic acts and language Siverman cited has to do with McDuffie’s amendment, you weren’t the only one. McDuffie jumped in to express his sympathy for his Jewish colleagues and further condemn anti-Semitism. He then asked that the Council bring the discussion back to the issue of redistricting before reiterating that Ward 5 has been  a community of interest for the AFRH site for decades. “All you need to do is talk to the residents that live in Pleasant Hills, Stronghold, Park Place, and all the other communities,” he said. “The work that they've done needs to be held up, understanding how important it is to the future of the ward.” The chairman then chimed in to get the vote back on track.

“What Councilmember Silverman brought up was appropriate, but it is not the subject of this amendment,” said Mendelson. “We need to be focused on the amendment before us and not events at Watkins or similar such behavior that we find deplorable.”

On a call with City Paper after the hearing, Silverman clarified that she had previously voted to move the land parcels to Ward 1 due to a convincing “community of interest” argument the subcommittee had heard, not anything to do with recent events. But, she said, discussions on the issue had become so “[in]tolerant of race and religion” that she felt it was important to address this problem ahead of the vote.

Lewis George had something to add to Silverman’s point before the vote. Her Jewish colleagues aren’t the only ones who deserve an apology amid the deluge of “extremely personal and disrespectful” emails, calls, and texts that also targeted her and other freshman councilmembers, she said. When asked for further details after the legislative meeting, Lewis George’s office declined to comment so as “not to elevate rhetoric that’s been disrespectful and vitriolic.”

“I do think there needs to be a conversation … moving forward, about when advocacy … becomes … borderline bullying behavior,” Lewis George said.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 24, 2021, at 1:11 PM, 'Thomas...@aol.com' via WardFive <ward...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



<Ward 5 Democrats Oppose Land Grab.png>

--
--
Ward...@googlegroups.com is open to WardFive residents for community discussion and information sharing.
 
To post to this group, send email to ward...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to wardfive+u...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wardfive?hl=en

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WardFive" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wardfive+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/wardfive/1366018784.575214.1640369441141%40mail.yahoo.com.

<Ward 5 Democrats Oppose Land Grab.png>