 |
CPCA Listserv Message
September 18, 2009
Collins Roth
At
the candidates forum a question was asked about background on Advocates
for Wisconsin Avenue Renewal (AWARE), a group in which many of the
members of the Reform Slate running for office in the current CPCA
elections were involved. Since the forum, Mr. Chelen, while calling for
civil discourse, has taken to pejoratively calling our slate the Aware
Slate. I thought I would take the time to give a brief history or
AWARE, its goals, its methods and its membership. Perhaps in this
fashion I can make clear that while the members of the Reform Slate
were involved in AWARE, and are proud of its role in supporting the
Giant PUD application, our decision to run for office and our goals as
related to CPCA are not affiliated with or endorsed by Advocates for
Wisconsin Avenue Renewal.
The history of AWARE is fairly easy to trace through the listserv and
other widely circulated documents. AWARE was initiated Oct 30, 2008
with an open invitation to join at a neighbor's house to discuss
support for the Giant (Source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cleveland-park/message/51534).
By Nov 7, with little further urging, 100 people had signed on to the
email mailing list (the closest thing AWARE has to being a "member").
On Nov 21, an online poll was used to pick its name (polling was also
used to better understand people's interests, area of residence,
willingness to help, etc) and AWARE was born.
The published notes on its first meeting sum up AWARE's goal well:
We
agreed our goal is solely to express support for rapid approval of the
PUD application. Many of those present have specific concerns about the
project, and are aware of legitimate concerns expressed by neighbors.
It was agreed that we should focus on our common goal of an improved
grocery store, revitalized shopping, and other benefits of the project
rather than be divided by our disparate desires for specific
modifications. Therefore, this group will focus on rapid approval and
leave individual members or constituencies to seek their desired
modifications separately." ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cleveland-park/message/51710)
I am struck how close this falls to the rationale put forward by the
Unity Team running for CPCA office in terms of the proper way to form a
group consensus (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CPCA/message/278)
ten months later. AWARE strove to represent a single position -
community support for the Giant PUD overall. It recognized that the
view was highly simplified as any group message needs to be. But it
felt that this view needed to be represented. It recognized that
participants in AWARE continued to seek modifications to the PUD (Trudy
Reeves being a notable example in seeking parking allocation for the
benefit of Mclean Gardens) and did not oppose those actions.
AWARE was also confronted by participants who thought it did not go far
enough in advocating further density in the proposal. Again, AWARE did
not adopt their positions, but did try to stop individuals articulating
their views to the zoning commission (ZC) or elsewhere. Finally, AWARE
recognized that other neighbors had legitimate concerns about the
project. Two individuals who were a part of opposition parties to the
PUD attended the kick off meeting and would have been welcome to stay
involved, but both withdrew their support soon thereafter. AWARE's view
in this regard was articulated at the DCZC hearing on April 23, 2008 in
response to a cross examination question from one such neighbor:
"We
definitely sympathize with the people who live close to the
construction. You know, I put myself in those people's shoes and say
what if my house was there? And I would probably do much of what you
and your neighbors have done which is to come here and advocate my
position." ( http://dcoz.dc.gov/trans/090423zc.pdf
pg 108 lines 11-17 ).
This sympathy was also reflected in AWARE's decision to cross examine
only two parties participating in the DCBZ hearing and to focus that
cross examination almost exclusively on the breadth of their support
and claims to represent the community (rather than the merits of their
objections). AWARE never intended to be a structured organization,
never raised dues, nor is it a citizen's association or a 501(c)3, as
it was not contemplated to have a life beyond the Giant issue. The
singular focus is represented in its name - Advocates of Wisconsin
Avenue Renewal. AWARE never had formal officers; although Jeff Davies
clearly led the group and a group of 15-20 people, including myself,
were very active in support of its efforts. Most participants, myself
included, met fellow supporters for the first time at that Nov 7
meeting. The backgrounds, motivations and interests of those parties
and AWARE supporters generally are as diverse as NW Washington.
However, the accusation leveled in a NorthWest Current Viewpoint
article by Mr. Bruce Beckner (www.files.me.com/collins.roth/cvtdid)
that AWARE had a "financial interest in making Cleveland Park more
"development friendly"" and misled AWARE supporters is both insulting
and false. Importantly, the supporters included people from the entire
area affected by the Giant redevelopment not just Cleveland Park. After
all, the Giant itself is on the west edge of Cleveland Park (and
outside the area as defined by the CPCA), and many adjoining
neighborhoods have a stake in its future.
After the first meeting, AWARE supporters met only three more times as
a group. Two were coordination meetings of the petition and hearing
preparation at neighbors' homes, reviews of which were circulated to
the group's mailing list, and the fourth an open community event in
front of the Giant to educate people on the application which was
publicized on the CP listserv (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cleveland-park/message/52444).
AWARE made transparency a critical piece of its process. While holding
no statutory obligation, it published notes on its meetings, shared its
email list with its members, etc. The names, emails and, if available,
addresses of participants and supporters were regularly shared with the
list beginning on Nov 7, 2008. AWARE made no attempt to muzzle any of
its supporters, many of whom expressed personal opinions throughout the
process on the listserv and presumably private conversations. AWARE's
CP listserv posts, and email list were available to all who subscribed,
allowing discussion between members at any time. The majority of that
communication related to soliciting support for the Giant application
(an example from the listserv- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cleveland-park/message/56843
and the chain of the mailing list (http://files.me.com/collins.roth/kzlhs9).
Counter to what Mr. Beckner has written, AWARE never took a position on
speed bumps, sidewalks, overlays, etc because, as the name implies, it
was not in its mandate.
In grand total, AWARE produced only three official documents and one
official statement. These were:
This is the history
of AWARE - no more, no less. It was a grass roots movement supported by
many people in and around the Giant PUD. Were it not for the continuing
appeal process (http://files.me.com/collins.roth/abbewd) launched by
opponents of the Giant PUD, AWARE as an organization would no longer be
relevant.
The
CPCA Election Committee asked candidates to "speak positively to their
own qualifications and vision for the future of Cleveland Park and the
CPCA, to refrain from personal commentary on other candidates or on
past and present officers of the CPCA, and from revisiting contested
versions of CPCA history," (http://www.clevelandparkisus.org/election_rules.htm) I have tried to do
so during this process. I am sorry to dip into the past with this
review, however, the repeated innuendo and questioning of AWARE
required it.
I
hope this post will help us move on. I doubt I have changed anyone's
mind here, but I hope I have filled in some gaps. I won't deny that
parties both affiliated and unaffiliated with AWARE likely stated their
arguments for the Giant or against the opposition to the Giant in tones
that might be called uncivil and could have caused offense. I am sorry
for that. But labeling those views to AWARE is unfair. Labeling the
Reform Slate as the same thing as AWARE is equally improper.
We
could debate the subtleties of "Yes-but", "Yes", "No-but" and "No" or
how one defines "consensus" forever without convincing anyone. Lets
move on and talk about real issues in which we all have a shared stake.
|
 |
