 |
Mount Pleasant DC Forum
Discussion about the Mount Pleasant Neighborhood
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jack
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 4429
Location: 19th & Lamont
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 2:02 pm Post subject: May business meeting |
 |
|
The May business meeting of the Mount Pleasant ANC will be on Tuesday evening, May 3, 7:00 pm, La Casa Community Center, 3166 Mt Pleasant Street.
On the preliminary agenda (subject to change):
Open Resource Web Site (Gregg, Rich)
Long Range Planning (Gregg, Wayne)
Forums (Gregg): Focus Forum on Affordable Housing, May 16
Simultaneous interpretation of meetings and ADA-compliant audio
Extension of the Single Sales Moratorium in Mount Pleasant
Formation of Shopping District Committee
Signage of legal parking boundaries
Revision of parking to intersection minimum distance
Traffic study for Mount Pleasant
DDOT conflict of interest policy
ANC vacancy-filling election procedures
Records recovery and evaluation |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bill
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jack, can you go into more detail (who, what, where and why) about these 3 agenda items?
Thank you. Bill
Extension of the Single Sales Moratorium in Mount Pleasant
Formation of Shopping District Committee
Signage of legal parking boundaries |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jack
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 4429
Location: 19th & Lamont
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:14 pm Post subject: May agenda |
|
|
| Bill wrote: | Jack, can you go into more detail (who, what, where and why) about these 3 agenda items?
Thank you. Bill
Extension of the Single Sales Moratorium in Mount Pleasant
Formation of Shopping District Committee
Signage of legal parking boundaries |
Sure --
At the ABC Board hearing on April 20, the Board asked if our resolution, calling for an extension of the single sales moratorium "and" a study of its effects, was an "exclusive and" -- that is, was the ANC's support for the extension contingent upon the study. I had no answer at the time, because this was not made clear at the April meeting. Since then we have resolved that ambiguity, and this item on the agenda is to make that explicit: yes, the endorsement of the extension is contingent upon the execution of a study of the effects of the moratorium.
A Shopping District Committee will be formed, consisting of the Commissioners whose districts cover the Mount Pleasant Street business corridor.
Signage of legal parking boundaries is being suggested -- so that people know where the legal limits are, instead of having to remember what the rules are and estimate distances. You're supposed to know that it's 40 feet to an intersection, 25 feet to a stop sign. People are discovering this lately, due to an overzealous Parking Enforcement officer who is issuing tickets for even small intrusions on these legal distances. (I wish we could get P.E. Aide Streater to be more reasonable, but have found no way to accomplish that.)
BTW, high on my agenda is reducing the minimum distance from 40 feet to 25 feet, in residential areas. The 40-foot rule is absurd. Unfortunately, DC Council did that, and only DC Council can change it.
-- Jack |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Since then we have resolved that ambiguity, and this item on the agenda is to make that explicit: yes, the endorsement of the extension is contingent upon the execution of a study of the effects of the moratorium. |
How can you "resolve that ambiguity" when such items needs to be "resolved" before a public meeting and not in secrecy?
Second, I was told by a store clerk that the ABC Board told the ANC it was not going to do a study. Can you explain your point if you already know that?
| Quote: | | A Shopping District Committee will be formed, consisting of the Commissioners whose districts cover the Mount Pleasant Street business corridor. |
You answered the Who. Why is it being formed? What is the purpose of this Committee; what will this committee do?; why a committee, etc.? Isn't this a Mainstreet function? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jack
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 4429
Location: 19th & Lamont
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 5:41 pm Post subject: ANC May agenda |
|
|
| Bill wrote: | | How can you "resolve that ambiguity" when such items needs to be "resolved" before a public meeting and not in secrecy? |
The ABC Board required an answer by April 30, so the individual Commissioners are clarifying their positions to the ABC Board. We will also take this up at the May public meeting; that's why it's on the agenda.
| Bill wrote: | | Second, I was told by a store clerk that the ABC Board told the ANC it was not going to do a study. Can you explain your point if you already know that? |
We're hoping that they will assist us in arranging a study through, perhaps, APRA. There's also talk of a university-sponsored study. The DC Government ought to be interested in this issue, because it pertains not just to Mount Pleasant, but to other neighborhoods where single-sales bans are proposed.
| Bill wrote: | | You answered the Who. Why is it being formed? What is the purpose of this Committee; what will this committee do?; why a committee, etc.? Isn't this a Mainstreet function? |
Good questions, but I'm not the right one to answer them. This is Gregg Edwards' proposal, and I'm sure he'll provide answers, if not here, then at the meeting.
-- Jack |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So what you are saying, Jack, is that the ANC really didn't know what it voting on when it voted on the extension of the moratorium and a study.
???? 
| Quote: | | Resolved, that ANC 1D requests the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board to extend the moratorium on specific single sales containers of alcohol AND to use this extension period to examine and study the overall impact, importance and extent the moratorium has played in the changing social landscape of Mount Pleasant Street, and to provide the legally required proof of the continuing need for the moratorium in Mount Pleasant. |
The resolution reads that you request the board to extend the moratorium *and* during that time of the extension to do a study. Since it is the community's responsibility (and not the ABC Board) to provide any "proof" of continuing the need of a moratorium, and the Board doesn't do studies, it sounds to me that this ANC can only advise on the extension.
Where does your resolution imply otherwise?
Bill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jack
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 4429
Location: 19th & Lamont
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 8:35 pm Post subject: Single Sales resolution |
|
|
| Bill wrote: | | So what you are saying, Jack, is that the ANC really didn't know what it voting on when it voted on the extension of the moratorium and a study. |
No, the problem is in the very restrictive instructions given me in testifying about this resolution to the ABC Board. My instructions from the Commission were quite restrictive: that that “the Chair be authorized to write a written testimony and a letter containing that testimony to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board in support of, but not going beyond, the content of the resolution”. Hence, when called upon by the ABC Board to resolve the ambiguity, I felt compelled to refrain from asserting my own interpretation of the text. Since I could not "go beyond the content of the resolution", I was unable to say anything that the resolution did not itself explicitly state.
Hence, when questioned by the Board as to the precise meaning of the "and" clause, I could only note that the text was, indeed, subject to differing interpretations. I certainly wanted to say that, in my opinion, the meaning was that the extension would be supported only if there was a study. But, given the tight restrictions of my instructions from the Commission, I could not say that. Thus, we were instructed to resolve the ambiguity amongst ourselves, and return a clarification to the Board.
Maybe I shouldn't have interpreted my instructions from the Commission so restrictively. As it happens, I could have said yes, the study and the extension were inseparably linked, and no one would have complained. But I thought that that would have exceeded my instructions.
-- Jack |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
