“Whereas, the Bloomingdale Civic Association voted to support the Bloomingdale Historic designation nomination, Case 17-17, at a well publicized monthly meeting in March 2018, the BCA strongly requests that ANC5E respect the vote of the BCA membership by supporting the Bloomingdale Historic Designation nomination.”
14 comments:
I tweeted about this too, but can someone please explain why the BCA ran a post card voting effort and then ignored its results in favor of a much smaller vote on historic designation at the March meeting?
The post card vote was against historic designation and had many more respondents than people who voted at the March meeting.
Was the BCA always going to support historic designation no matter what people actually voted for?
It's very confusing, and frankly off-putting for the credibility of the BCA.
The majority of residents in the proposed historic district voted against this measure. So now the dues-paying members of the BCA have decided they should override the majority simply because they have so little to do they can attend BCA meetings? No thank you, Bertha. I'm fully prepared to testify to any official body that you do not have the support of the neighborhood on this. While I personally don't care, the effrontery and arrogance of this move is truly disturbing.
I'd say you should respect that vote of residents that responded to the survey rather that the vote of people who had time to attend the BCA meeting and pay dues. 10x as many people responded to that survey. Seems like a much stronger data point.
THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!
The blatant arragance and dismissiveness of these facts at that meeting by the leadership was a shock. I hope you attend tomights meeting.
Very DISAPPOINTING. BCA is witjout any credibility at thia point.
Here's what I submitted to my ANC member
Dear Commissioner Barnes:
I write to request that you respect the vote of the residents of Bloomingdale -- not the paying membership of the Bloomingdale Civic Association – and oppose the Historic Designation nomination for Bloomingdale.
As background, the Bloomingdale Civic Association undertook a costly mailing to Bloomingdale property owners, soliciting their position on whether to support a historic designation for our community. Because I think a historic designation is exclusionary, depress home values, and would hurt our community in the long-term, while providing no benefit, I took the time to send back a postcard opposing designation. The majority of my neighbors did as well, taking time to complete and mail a postcard: something not so frivolous in this day and age.
But the Bloomingdale Civic Association and its historically conservative, anti-progress leadership was dissatisfied, and thus put it up for a “vote” of paying members of the BCA – an inherently self-selective, conservative group. Outrageously, in their request that the ANC “Respect the position” of the BCA, they fail to include the initial vote tally – showing that a larger, more statistically significant sample, took the contrary position. The BCA does not elect the ANC; the residents of Bloomingdale do. The views of the association should not take precedence.
Moreover, Commissioner Bertha Holliday should be recused from this matter. By requesting the ANC “respect the position” of an association in which she serves as an officer of, she has an inherent conflict of interest.
Respectfully,
We also wrote our ANC (Horacio) who wrote us back to share the victorious 8-1 ANC vote against historic designation. He said next: "... we’ll send it to HPO, HPRB, Councilmember McDuffie, and other folks. Perhaps they’ll take it off their docket! If not, we need to show up when they hear the case."
There will be 45 days notice before the hearing at HPRB. Please follow along and share so the vote of the majority is represented.
Actually, I believe that it was unanimous ANC vote (9-0) against historic preservation.
Why has there been no follow-up post on the opposition that was voted on at the ANC meeting?
https://ggwash.org/view/67320/anc-votes-against-bloomingdale-historic-status-but-the-verdict-is-still-out
From GG Washington: Eight of the 10 commissioners voted for commissioner Sierra's resolution opposing historic status for Bloomingdale with one, commissioner Holliday, voting against it and one absent.
That is correct; however, 9 to 0 voted against Bertha's resolution in favor of historic district designation. Thus, that is opposing historic district. Since one Commissioner was absent, there were only 9 Commissioners present.
Thanks for posting the GGWashington article. It explains the process and warns that historic designation could still happen. This might be a great idea but it would certainly help to not rush, giving the community more time to hear the implications.
Gotcha, thanks.
Post a Comment