The Board of Zoning Adjustment ruled yesterday that the 7-Eleven in the H Street Connection need not seek reclassification as a fast food restaurant (which would be a big deal under the overlay). Thus ends a rather contentious clash between the 7-Eleven and ANC 6A, that I occasionally heard referred to derisively as "the chicken bones wars." Though that certainly over symplified the issue, it was one of the most public sticking points. Hopefully now we can all move forward, and concentrate on being good neighbors, and improving H Street.
TBD has full coverage of the actual hearing.
81 comments:
What an utter waste of time. I'm not sure why 7-11 just didn't just show the ANC the proof that they are at under 15% in fast food sales.
I know it's not the ANC's right to demand proof that a business is within in the law, but it would have saved everyone a lot of time and effort, rather than hold a boring 3-hour long hearing! But of course the lawyers are happy, since they got paid for this waste of time.
The money would have been MUCH better spent on an anti-littering campaign!
Unfortunately, ANC 6A was prevented from presenting the majority of its case. We couldn't address the question of whether 7-Eleven was operating more than 15% of the store as a fast food establishment, but could only discuss whether the information contained in the plans showed this. That meant that we couldn't present evidence that customers purchased a high percentage of fast food items, which was the crux of our case.
Although I don't believe 7-Eleven misrepresented anything in their plans, there were legitimate questions that the ANC raised that the BZA didn't address like "What items are classified as fast food?", "How should the percentage of use be measured?" The Zoning Administrator clearly struggles with these issues and some of the bases for making these determinations contradict the zoning codes.
I also think that the Board's decision to prevent ANC 6A from testifying about current operations is unfortunate because it provides a strong incentive for futures businesses to say one thing on an application and do something else when the establishment opens to avoid the special exception process. The Board regards this as an "enforcement issue" for which the ANC has not ability to appeal.
The last point I would like to make is that on the one issue that were allowed to fully address, the ANC actually won. The Board agreed that DCRA erred when it issued a Certificate of Occupancy for a market, but we were prevented from making any future appeals based on the main issue of whether the fast food use was more than 15% of the total use.
Tom A,
ANC 6A did not pay for lawyers. It was a citizen volunteer effort.
Unfortunately, ANC 6A was prevented from presenting the majority of its case. We couldn't address the question of whether 7-Eleven was operating more than 15% of the store as a fast food establishment, but could only discuss whether the information contained in the plans showed this. That meant that we couldn't present evidence that customers purchased a high percentage of fast food items, which was the crux of our case.
Although I don't believe 7-Eleven misrepresented anything in their plans, there were legitimate questions that the ANC raised that the BZA didn't address like "What items are classified as fast food?", "How should the percentage of use be measured?" The Zoning Administrator clearly struggles with these issues and some of the bases for making these determinations contradict the zoning codes.
I also think that the Board's decision to prevent ANC 6A from testifying about current operations is unfortunate because it provides a strong incentive for futures businesses to say one thing on an application and do something else when the establishment opens to avoid the special exception process. The Board regards this as an "enforcement issue" for which the ANC has not ability to appeal.
The last point I would like to make is that on the one issue that were allowed to fully address, the ANC actually won. The Board agreed that DCRA erred when it issued a Certificate of Occupancy for a market, but we were prevented from making any future appeals based on the main issue of whether the fast food use was more than 15% of the total use.
Drew -- so, to make sure I understand what you're saying,
1) the ANC's claim was that regardless of what the 7-11 plans may have been, it was operating with >15% of its business as fast food;
2) that was the point of the case before the BZA;
3) once the case was before the BZA, the ANC wasn't allowed to present evidence that this was the case?
If I've got you right, above, then this seems bizarre. What's the point of bringing something before the BZA if, once there, you're not allowed to provide evidence to support your claim?
Or do I have what transpired wrong?
Translation: he didn't fully understand the rules of the hearing and showed up unprepared to make his case within the predetermined parameters of the hearing. No one prevented him from doing anything.
ding, ding. Winner, winner, chicken (bone) dinner.
it's not 7-11's fault if chicken bones tossed by their customers end up all over the landscape...just like it isnt family liquor's fault if cans, bottles, pee and shit generated from their customers end up in the alley directly behind their location. it's people not giving a shit that's the problem. aint no ANC voodoo gonna solve that
ro: since you're making an assertion, I'm sure you're capable of supporting that assertion with evidence?
Thanks in advance.
The TBD article has a couple of spots that are not as clear as they could be, but it seems from the article that the ANC did not familiarize itself with the established parameters of such a hearing, and basically brought a putty knife to a gun fight.
Either that, or the ANC just thought they were so special as to have the rules changed ad hoc for them and their oh so righteous cause.
reroute the bus lines which bring in the garbage from Wards 7&8 and watch littering and crime go down.
another failure for the ANC. Hooray!
Curmudgeon,
You're analysis is correct. The principal that one can only demonstrate that the Zoning Administrator made an error based on the information in the original plans is not in the zoning regulations, but is in one case in the case law (BZA Case #17439) which is not referenced by any other BZA case. That is why it was hard to find.
So, the implication of the BZA's decision is that if a future Studio 400 decides to open up a "music recording studio", you can't make the case that "Studio 400 isn't a music recording studio, its a nightclub" because that speaks to its current operation, not to the use they applied for. You have no ability to appeal the original C of O to the BZA. Your only hope is that DCRA revokes the C of O, but you can do nothing to compel them to do so. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but I am not a lawyer.
By this decision, DCRA has become much more powerful and BZA has greatly limited its oversight over DCRA.
One of the items I agree with the TBD article is that the hearing was tedious. But for all of those who want to watch, you can find it in a couple of days at: http://dcoz.dc.gov/services/OnDemandVideo.shtm
Or, you could put it another way. Namely,that the BZA has recognized its obligation to operate within its proper regulatory and jurisdictional sphere, a concept the ANC appears to have difficulty grasping, especially with regard to its own role and actions.
W/regard to the TBD article, it states that the "evidence that 7-Eleven came close to exceeding the 15 percent threshold on fast food, the board reasoned, while 'not insignificant,' still showed that fast food was 'clearly subordinate' to the convenience store's identity as a grocer."
This is a perplexing statement, as it does not appear that this was evidence that was properly before the BZA. Nonetheless, this strikes me as fundamentally undercutting this questionable crusade of "the little ANC that couldn't."
If it is true that the evidence showed that the 7-11 was only "close to exceeding" the threshold, what is your justification for pursuing the matter at all? That is to say, even putting aside the fact that the ANC was pursuing an almost entirely frivolous action, how do you explain attempting to negatively impact the operations of a business that the evidence establishes is not in fact exceeding the specified limit?
"Close to exceeding" = not exceeding. Color me perplexed and unimpressed.
tubbs wrote: the BZA has recognized its obligation to operate within its proper regulatory and jurisdictional sphere, a concept the ANC appears to have difficulty grasping, especially with regard to its own role and actions.
Could you provide a post-2003 example of ANC 6A operating outside its proper regulatory and jurisdictional sphere?
Thanks in adance.
yeah, the total kick in the balls it just got seems pretty darned clear to me.
I'm sorry, but that doesn't answer my question at all. Let me try it differently: in what way does this provide an example of the ANC acting "outside its proper regulatory and jurisdictional sphere"?
When you answer, keep in mind the following:
1. Strictly speaking, ANCs *have* no regulatory sphere. Their mandate is advisory. If it were regulatory, the ANC could simply shut down the 7-11 if they wished, which didn't happen. Instead, the ANC did what all active ANCs do: bring issues before city agencies and ask the city agencies to "give their opinions great weight", as the law explicitly stipulates. I'm asking you to explain why you think they acted in a regulatory fashion rather than an advisory one, and furthermore why this is any different from what all ANCs always do and always have done.
2. If by "jurisdiction" you meant topical jurisdiction, their advisory mandate tells them to raise with city agencies issues affecting their local neighborhoods regarding "traffic, parking, recreation, street improvements, liquor licenses, zoning, economic development, police protection, sanitation and trash collection, and the District's annual budget." So if you meant topical jurisdiction, I'm asking why you think none of these applies here.
3. OTOH, if by jurisdiction you meant geographic jurisdiction, the ANC law tasks the ANCs to deal with issues within their specified areas. The geographic jurisdiction of ANC 6A includes the south side of H Street NE from 8th Street NE all the way to 15th Street NE. The H Street Connection is encompassed by this area. So if that's what you meant, I'm asking why you think the 7-11 in question is outside of the jurisdiction of ANC 6A.
if their role is advisory, uopn what basis do they justify filing an appeal with the BZA?
and, you've made a rather sophomoric logical error in misconstruing my statement.
"the BZA has recognized its obligation to operate within its proper regulatory and jurisdictional sphere, a concept the ANC appears to have difficulty grasping, especially with regard to its own role and actions."
This statement merely states that the ANC has failed to grasp a concept, i.e., acting within proper boundaries. It in no way infers that I regard the ANC as having any actual authority whatsoever. Rather, it infers that they should adhere to their strictly advisory role, and refrain from instituting spurious actions that have no legal merit and are obviously fatally undercut by the evidence at hand.
So again, please educate me. Everything I've heard reported is that the ANC brought this appeal. Given its advisory role, how is this possible? At which ANC meeting was this decision agreed upon? Most fundamentally, why is the ANC, even assuming it has authority to do so, filing appeals that obviously have no merit? Finally, why was it grossly unaware of the rules/appellate jursdiction of the body to which it appealed? Impress me!
Interesting. It appears that the ANC voted on 9/9/10 to approve the appeal of the C of O. Mr. Alberti, according to the minutes, declared the ANC was "treading on new ground, challenging the C of O on the grounds of the amount of fast food that is being sold."
The appeal to BZA, as filed by Ronneberg on Sept. 27, identies him merely as an ANC 6A rep, and at the end, where the identity of the appelant or authorized agent is listed, it merely identifies Ronneberg, with no repeat reference to the ANC or his status as a rep.
D.C. Code 1-207.38 does not vest any authority in ANC's to take any legal action whatsoever. They are merely empowered to "advise" the D.C. Government.
As such, was this appeal filed simply in Ronneberg's personaly capacity, pursuant to a perhaps fundamentally improper overreach by the ANC?
I'm just looking into this, so given your apparent genius level intellect, please educate me. What is the basis for the ANC taking substantive legal action of this kind?
And, irrespective of what you can establish in riposte, the simple fact remains that these morons got their balls smashed into their throats.
Tubbs, while we're on the topic of "sophomoric", the word you were looking for was "implies," not "infers."
tubbs wrote: This statement merely states that the ANC has failed to grasp a concept, i.e., acting within proper boundaries. It in no way infers that I regard the ANC as having any actual authority whatsoever.
You didn't simply say the ANC had difficulty acting within proper boundaries. You defined those boundaries as regulatory and jurisdictional in nature.
You haven't addressed the jurisdictional question at all; but in answer to my question as to why you think their action was regulatory rather than advisory in nature, your answer seems to be "explain why you think it *wasn't*." That's not an answer. You made the assertion/allegation; the burden of supporting that assertion/allegation is on you.
Everything I've heard reported is that the ANC brought this appeal. Given its advisory role, how is this possible?
I don't understand why you think such an action is regulatory rather than advisory. The issue in question was a Certificate of Occupancy that had already been granted. The formal appeals process is the only mechanism by which such advice can possibly be "given great weight"; any advisory input of any type is otherwise completely irrelevant. It is for similar reasons that all ANCs routinely protest liquor licenses, file motions against unpermitted or improperly-permitted curb cuts, etc. That is the mechanism by which the ANCs provide the advisory info, and hearings/appeals/etc. are where the opinions of the ANC are "given great weight," as per the ANC law.
At which ANC meeting was this decision agreed upon?
The one on Thursday, September 9. The minutes can be found on the ANC website.
Most fundamentally, why is the ANC, even assuming it has authority to do so, filing appeals that obviously have no merit?
Well, clearly not "obviously," since even here, lots of people fell on both sides of the dispute. So your question seems ill-posed to me.
Finally, why was it grossly unaware of the rules/appellate jursdiction of the body to which it appealed?
Assuming this is true (I don't know if it is or isn't), I can't answer the question.
ah yes, of course. In my fervor I was "implicitly" referring to the "inference" that was ineptly drawn by the other fellow's misinterpretation of my implication! Now piss off, you little pedant.
Horace and Dickies= Chicken Bones
Major's Carry out= Chicken Bones
Crowns Fried Chicken= Chicken Bones
Danny's #1= Chicken Bones
Danny's #2= Chicken Bones
Popeye's= Chicken Bones
Sticky Rice on Weds= Chicken Bones
What is the point? H'st is a chicken factory... like it or not. 7-11 is here to stay... its much better than the one on 8th and Maryland and the cops will vouch for that. More cops in the areas means potentially less crimes so lets not drive them away and cry over spilled milk later on.
tubbs -- this is looking more and more like something you're not particularly interested in discussing civilly. I'm not interested otherwise, so I'll call it an afternoon. Cheers.
My interest is piqued, now. Filing formal administrative appeals of decisions/permits issued by governmental agencies is not advisory in any sense of the word; it's quintessentially legal in nature.
Did the ANC not "advise" the zoning administrator of its position on the matter prior to the issuance of the C of O? It seems clear from the statute that that is the proper time for the position of the ANC to be accorded any deference to which it is due.
Is it possible that these administrative appeals are, from a legal perspective, brought merely in the personal capacity of the ANC rep who signs the document, with the involvement of the ANC being little more than a formalistic legal fiction?
Do you have more concrete examples of such appeals having been filed by ANCs in other contexts?
Tubbs,
You are a typical blog commenter -- smart enough to use a computer to post comments, but not smart enough to do much else
I am not going to do all your work for you - but I'm happy to give you a hint.
The Office of Zoning has the zoning regulations online. Google (you know how to do that?) for the website. Look for the link that says zoning regulations. Click it. Read.
the specifics of zoning regs. are completely irrelevant to the matter at hand (i.e., legal standing of ANCs, ANC 6A misapprehension of appealable issues before BZA). Nice try though.
Hey Tubbs,
If it were improper for the ANC to file an appeal, don't you think the BZA, DCRA or 7-Eleven's attorney would have raised this issue?
It seems like you have a personal vendetta against Mr. Ronneberg. Could you in fact be the Franchise owner that generates endless container filled with crappy fast food?
Actually, the ANC's rights and responsibilities are laid out in the zoning regulations. But you have confirmed what I expected... you are just a blog commenter that is too lazy to read.
nah, because they could be just as incompetent as the ANC 6A reps. appear to be. I'm doing my own research! I'm making gravy without the lumps, baby!
well, I'm still making my way through the D.C. Code, which trumps regs. I'll let you know when I make my way down that far.
I for one am going to vote with my wallet - no more H Street 7-Eleven for me. If enough neighbors take our business elsewhere, I doubt they can survive on Maryland commuters and people taking the bus lines. My yard could sure use a rest from those pizza boxes
and, a quick detour to the zoning regs. thus far only reveals notification requirements entitled to the ANCs. Not through it yet, but we'll see! Such fun, and I love little apparatchiks who refuse to share knowledge they claim to have. Way to advance the substance of the debate! You rock!
Oh, I've learned so much today. The regs do indeed contemplate ANC appeals, at least indirectly, as DCMR 11-3180.1(3)waives the application fee for them. Conversley, D.C. Code 1-309.10(g) explicitly forbids them from following up any such administrative appeal by barring ANCs from filing any legal action in court.
Interestingly, the "great weight" due to ANC recommendations has been interpreted as extending only to their formal written proposals, giving Ronnebergs oral testimony at the BZA hearing no special status, evidently.
So I learned that, and I also learned that our ANC reps. couldn't familiarize them with the proper scope of their appeal and totally botched their case! Oh yeah. You might not like the cut of my jib, but it's the only one I've got, baby!
Why does 7-11 branded trash keep filling up my yard? said...
"... I doubt they can survive on Maryland commuters and people taking the bus lines."
Just say it... "those people." You anti-semite.
@tubbs
I think you may be getting hung-up with an overly narrow definition of "advise."
ANC 6A wasn't breaking any new ground in filing an appeal with BZA, any more than when they protest a liquor license with the ABC. Many other ANCs do the same and have for years.
The specified governmental authority for ANCs is to "advise the Council of the District of Columbia, the Mayor and each executive agency, and all independent agencies, boards and commissions of the government of the District of Columbia with respect to all proposed matters of District government policy including, but not limited to, decisions regarding planning, streets, recreation, social services programs, education, health, safety, budget, and sanitation which affect that Commission area."
The DC government is supposed to notify ANCs about a long list of actions, including "licenses, or permits affecting said Commission area" so the ANC can weigh in if it chooses.
On different occasions, the ANC has "advised" the Zoning Administrator that he may have issued a Certificate of Occupancy in error. When this has been unsuccessful, the ANC has "advised" the BZA of the same error.
So, to string it all together, the ANC is advising a board (the Board of Zoning Adjustment) of its belief that an agent of the Mayor/Executive (the Zoning Administrator) erred in issuing a license or permit (the Certificate of Occupancy).
The method for an ANC to advise BZA about errors by the Zoning Administrator is through an appeal. Per the zoning code, ANCs (and civic associations) can can file BZA appeals at no charge. The appeal is the mechanism that puts the issue in front of BZA for consideration.
You might not agree with the ANC's sense of priorities or the facts of the case, but the process was kosher.
thanks, but read above. I totally beat you to it, dude! And, like with citations and stuff!
and what's really awesome is that a civic association can sue but the ANC cant. How awesome is that? It's the political version of ejaculation denial. How emasculating it must feel.
Tubbs,
Does this have anything to do with a different zoning case that didn't go your way? The tone of your comments suggests to me that you have a beef that is unrelated to chicken.
@tubbs
Umm, you're welcome?
The disgust at discarded “chick bones” and accusations against “people taking bus lines” is what I find most disconcerting. The privileged mentality practiced by the newly minted H St. residents—the trustfunders and hipsters looking for new and edgy places to live and those who cannot afford homes in nicer neighborhoods—is offensive. You are all interlopers and your complaints are no different than suburban dwellers who complain when an undesirable moves next door.
It has long been demonstrated that interaction between people of various cultural backgrounds can positively or negatively shape the development of countries, cities and neighborhoods. You are no more than colonists in the Congo Free State, exploiting your newly settled territory at the expense of the people who have lived here long before you.
Don't get me wrong, you have a right to live here as much as the next person. But quit with the veiled racism that is prevalent among the white elite of H St, and quit your incessant whining at the actions and behavior of people who have lived here longer than you. Don't worry, you'll soon drive them away. Then you can have your Whole Foods, gastropubs and 7-Eleven customers who do not randomly discard chicken bones. Hopefully it will have the sterile, safe atmosphere of the U St. and 8th St. corridors. They've all gone, and we're back. The incredibly posh people.
My beef is totally unrelated to my chicken. If we can get to 50 comments before i start work, curmudgeon and tubbs get a free shot. Also curmudgy, xingu next week i think.
Tonyt
the pug
I like how people can constantly make veiled comments that border on bigotry if not outright racism. Yet, their posts remain and posts in which I highlight these ignorant remarks remain. harrumph.
For example, this post remains: reroute the bus lines which bring in the garbage from Wards 7&8 and watch littering and crime go down.
7:05,
I can't possibly monitor all the comments all the time (I do work outside of the blog), so stuff stays up until I get to it. And comments like that one, I'd prefer to just let the crowd deal with that stuff. If there's a personal attack, or something truly beyond the pale, I try to take those down as I see them.
I understand that you don't support personal attacks on the site. That said, you evidently believe referring to the blacks who ride the bus lines from Wards 7&8 garbage is tolerable. That comment is far more “beyond the pale” than the comments in my deleted post, which merely reminded the newly minted residents of H St. that they should have a bit more tolerance and understand that they chose to move to this neighborhood.
First, congrats 7-11 and the majority of the community. Keep up the good work. I hope the ANC will now move on to more important issues. Maybe the ANC should start a thread about "what issues the community would like to see addressed". I would of course say parking, the fast food joints on the north side of H between 7th and 8th not cleaning up the front of their stores, and vacant property law changes recommendations.
Second, inked, the blog is great. As you stated the crowd is pretty good at responding to issues of the insane minority.
Russ
post 44! Coemn on!
Let's help people get FREE SHOTS!
oops! I am sorry for the typos in the previous post.
are we at 50 yet?
If I had a zoning beef, I'd be complaining about a zoning administrator or the BZA.
Nah, my only beef is that I love chicken wings and loathe incompetence. Ignorance is ok. I was displaying ignorance earlier on until I got my research rocking and rolling and totally dropped knowledge on all the people who don't like chicken wings and the people who eat them.
That's the critical difference. I was ignorant on this issue when I started looking into it. People who claimed to know about it would not help, so I came up from behind like a citation dropping ninja.
I educated myself on this issue in a blog context. Something the ANC couldn't be bothered to do in advance of a formal legal proceeding. That right there is the difference, and that difference is incompetence.
I'm gonna go eat the hell out of some wings now. I'll be the white guy dropping the bones on the sidewalk. Maybe that'll be enough of a distinction for one of you lot to approach me, and the issue, directly.
oh, and thanks very much for the offer, Tony. I'll pay for my shots if I can bring in some wings. Heck, I'll bring some to share, and, just for you, I might even throw the bones and wrappers in the bin. Only for you though!
inked -- I am curious, though, why a long, topical post I made about 3:40pm or so that I checked twice (in honor of the season) to make sure was civil, had no insults or even snarkiness, etc., got deleted 20 minutes later, while the post I was replying to (and subsequent posts from the same poster) which were a lot nastier remain. Kinda weird. I don't care *that* much -- it was, after all, just arguing on the internet, about the biggest waste of time imaginable -- and it's your blog, so my surprise doesn't really matter. But I share Anon 6:59's confusion.
tony -- yay re: xingu. I never knew they had it next door, and your bar is cooler. And I haven't had a chance yet to ask you what you think about Benny getting the job.
Curmudgeon,
I didn't delete it. Sometimes Blogger yanks certain comments because it thinks they are spam. I'll see if it's in that bunch.
Curmudgeon,
Blogger apparently yanked 4 or 5 comments from this post as spam. They should be up now.
Curmudgeon,
let me know if it isn't there now, because I have absolutely not deleted a single comment from this thread. If a comment somehow really disappeared that's an issue that I'd like to investigate.
I really almost never delete comments (VERY RARE for non-spam). I have probably deleted fewer than 20 non-spam comments in the six years that I've been running Frozen Tropics. Like I said, I believe strongly in the ability of the community to balance out most stuff. I don't consider myself to be in the censorship business. So, seriously, PLEASE tell me if comments are getting lost somewhere.
I think they're all back, because the quality of the thread just went down a bit. Tubbs FTW!!!!!
inked -- thanks much! Sorry for the hassle.
Curmudegeon,
no problem. I'm personally shocked that it pulled so many comments. I'm trying to figure out how to turn that function off (it came on by itself). I'd rather have to go in and delete spam myself than have legit comments get pulled without my input. Plus, recent experience suggests that it doesn't pull based on racist language. I really don't get how it judges spam.
All this talk about the wings - but what type of sauce do they have? Have they dipped their feet into the mambo sauce market yet?
Anon6:29-
I don't understand why you find disgust at litter (chicken bones and all) and bused in crime disconcerning.I'm not white (I'm Black),don't have a trustfund,and am certainly not a hipster.I also don't like crime or trash on my streets, no matter what the color of the perpetrator happens to be.
The underlying problem is people who have absolutely no respect for common/public places throwing trash on the ground. Everyone is affected by this - who wants to live in a place where there is trash everywhere? And the fact of the matter is that people do come in via buses and start trouble. Remember last year when that young man was shot dead on H street while boarding a bus? Both he and the guy who shot him didn't even live in the area. We have enough heathens living in our area without busing in more, thank you very much. After living in VA for a long time, I've seen racism, both overt and veiled and if you think the topics discussed here are racist, then you are sheltered my friend.There is nothing "priviledged" about wanting to live in a clean, safe place - a place that everyone has a right to live in as you pointed out. So if everyone has an equal right to live here, then why don't concerned citizens have a right to voice complaints and push for changes in behavior of those who break the law without being called racists? I agree with them and am obviously not racist.
I'd also like to point out that DC wasn't always majority Black and the same things Blacks say now when others move in is probably an echo of what other races said about Blacks moving in before transplanting to other areas. Demographics of the world are always shifting. It happens.
Don't worry, you'll soon drive them away. Then you can have your Whole Foods, gastropubs and 7-Eleven customers who do not randomly discard chicken bones. Hopefully it will have the sterile, safe atmosphere of the U St. and 8th St. corridors. They've all gone, and we're back. The incredibly posh people.
I skimmed over the first part of your post, because you didn't seem to be doing much else than braying a bunch of platitudes about perfidious "newcomers" and sainted "oldtimers", but this caught my eye.
Are you saying someday soon we'll be free of dirt-bags who don't even have the self-respect not to foul their own nests? That would be awesome. Looking forward to the new "clean (i.e. sterile) safe atmosphere" for non- litter-pigs of all races and socio-economic classes. Can't come soon enough.
Maybe you'll find your urban paradise where you can "keep it real" ankle-deep in discarded food items and trash. Best of luck!
Two points on the "vield racism" discussion, as it seems to happen over and over again on this (and other) blogs.
1. While I certainly doubt anyone on this thread harbors any REAL racism (and I'm talking about hatred of another race based on their race alone), I would agree that if you are NOT a racist, painting a group of people who you KNOW are of only one race (the bus riders from PG) as "trash", probably doesn't help your cause.
--however--
2. Building on the "real" racism idea I hit on above, I am really tired of people branding negative statements about behavior and culture as being "racist". No one is saying that people are littering (or loitering or committing crimes or whatever other problems we speak about on this forum) BECAUSE they are black. Who would make such a stupid assertion?
What we (the new residents of the neighborhood) have a problem with is the individual and cultural behaviors we are encountering which aren't simply matters of cultural preference--trash, crime, etc. have nothing to do with racial "blackness". There's nothing inherent that prevents any person, regardless of race, from conducting themselves in society in a non-offensive manner towards others.
That there are people who refuse to act civilized in our community is discouraging. That they generally all happen to be of the same race is unfortunate. But its also not helpful to have people in our community apologize for those behaviors (and attack the critics) as "racist", implying that these behaviors were intrinsic in the genetic make up of the offenders. I mean, in that sense, who's really being racist??
Just glad this is all over and done with. But I suppose Commissioner Rosenberg should be aware of this, last weekend on tenth and F I came upon something strange after leaving the 711. It wasn't a pile of chicken wing bones, but a woman face down in the street near the gutter @ 3:00 AM. I called the police/DCFD and stayed on scene until that arrived. The woman was alive and apparently was beyond three sheets to the wind. She was well dressed in her 40s and seemed to live around there. I mention this, not because this BZA issue isn't important, but because it would seem more patrols are needed around there. Shortly before coming upon that lady, I was driving in to the 7-11 and saw a guy standing on the corner of 8th and H, he had on one of those hoodies that can be zipped up to form a mask. While he could have been there noble reasons, I kinda doubt it. I warned a biker about the guy so that he would be aware.
That there are people who refuse to act civilized in our community is discouraging. That they generally all happen to be of the same race is unfortunate. But its also not helpful to have people in our community apologize for those behaviors (and attack the critics) as "racist", implying that these behaviors were intrinsic in the genetic make up of the offenders. I mean, in that sense, who's really being racist??
This is a point that can't be hammered often enough. I'm frankly stunned that a call for decency and basic f-ing manners so often gets met on this board with charges of "racism."
'Cause, you know, throwing trash everywhere, getting wasted on malt liquor, and pissing in peoples yards is such a core part of the African American culture.
Sorry, but the folks here who defend shitty behavior as some sort of legitimate cultural expression are the real racists. Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations.
I got distracted, and drank those free shots my self. Cur, i'm a big fan of benny, but not sure how it's going to go. Robby, regarding the fallen woman and 7/11. It's intersting to note, that if shr got drunk at the pug, i could later be held responsible. So along the same lines, the sev, and other places are held responsible for trash. I guess it's easier to pass blame and not accept responsibilty.
Tonyt
the pug.
p. s. Not saying that's what happened with the young lady, just a hypothetical observstion i suppose.
Best quote I've seen on here in a while: "Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations."
Excellent.
Tonyt:
Was just saying Drew should also put energy in getting patrols in the surounding area. I don't know where she got drunk I just didn't want here freeze or get hit by a car trying to park.
Yes she is ultimately responsible for her actions, but I just figure when you see someome in need even if it's there own fault you try to help them.
I know the comment was Hypo, but i don't want to need for increased patrols to get lost in this. Wing wars are fine, but lets also dedicate time and treasure to other issues that may have a broader impact.
PS: While I've been a flame thrower in the past I don't understand how a wing war became a race war.
Let's just chill with all of that.
If I had a nickel for every time "socio-economic", "these people", or "animals" are used in a response to a problem in this neighborhood...
I wonder what the 7-Eleven near the Metro will sell. I doubt it can keep up with all the fast food options its neighbors have. Could that be a litmus test?
I've come around. I've had an epiphany. Drew and the ANC acolytes are right. It's completely futile to try to get black people to not throw things on the ground. Therefore our only option is to kill commerce. Can I still wear my Che shirt? I'm so confused.
Robby,
i agree you gotta help someone when they're down. Part of living in dc is helping your neighbor and making everything an issue of race. I was clumsily trying to point out the tendancy to duck personal responsibility and blame the easiest target. Trash, blame the store, drunken problem blame the bar. As those wear thin, blame race. Off to drink/work and try to raise some money for watkins elementary school.
Tonyt
the pug
Tubbs,
I think most people reading these comments strongly suspect you of being the 7-11 Franchisee. Who else would be so obsessed with the ANC's authority to file appeals and refer to the mundane sale of pizza slices and cigarettes as "commerce"?
Your store looks far more empty than the one on 8th and Maryland or Barracks Row. If it wasn't for Robby's (the "Mayor of the H Street 7-11") patronage, you might not have survived this long.
Your childish comments including the whole, "the ANC doesn't have the authority to appeal, wait, I spent 15 minutes looking into it, and they do have the authority!" to your most recent rant accusing the Mr. Ronneberg and the ANC of believing that "its completely futile to try to get black people to not throw things on the ground." means that I will never set foot in your store again, and I suspect others will do the same.
hmm. And I seriously suspect you of having sand in your vagina. I wonder which one of us is correct. One thing I do know for sure is you can get an ointment for it at a little shop at 8th and H.
Oh thank heaven, 7-11!!!
I cannot believe a 7-Eleven franchisee (Tubbs) would post this type of commentary. It is snarky, disrespectful, and completely uncalled for. No "small business person" with this kind of attitude deserves any business from the community. I plan to boycott the 7-Eleven and will tell my neighbors to do so as well.
Anonymity is such a wonderful freedom for us here, including "Annonymous", who poses the theory that Tubbs is the 7-Eleven franchisee. This same faulty assumption and false logic was used to ascertain, incorrectly, that the store was out-of-bounds in its sells of permitted "fast food" percentiles. The BZA hearing proved that guesswork on behalf of the ANC representative wrong. The owner of the 7-Eleven is far more upstanding and professional to gratify anonymous' assults with any form of reply. Perhaps this is a case of "spilled grapes", or rather, "spilled chicken wings"? Just as ANC commissioner Ronneberg was representing the view of a very tiny fraction of the population as a whole of his jusrisdiction (no poll was ever taken of all the citizens of his ANC), the opinions of all of us here, mine included, do not represent a democratically polled majority of the neighborhood citizens. I think, perhaps, Anonymous has already spoken to most of the folks he/she knows in the area concerning his/her views, and stated disdain for this particular business to them. Good luck on your boycott, and when you need something some night in an emergency, remember, don't step into the 7-Eleven!!! I trust that most individuals nearby are capable of seeing the benefits/downfalls of any and all of the businesses along H Street, and will make up their own minds to chosing the commerce of their choices. I'm just sorry the H Street neighborhood doesn't meet your expectations of Utopia.
--Richard
I don't want or expect Utopia. If I wanted Utopia, I wouldn't live on H Street. I accept the good and the bad like my neighbors do.
But I do want business owners that acknowledge our right--as a community--to have a say about our community and what happens in it. And to attack our right to have a say in community affairs and personally those leaders (Drew) who stand up for the public interest is really disturbing to me.
Tubbs (aka our 7-Eleven franchisee) has been crass and disrespectful when posters on this board have tried to hold a civil discussion. That speaks volumes about this 7-Eleven business and I'm very sincere when I say I will make sure that the people on my street understand that they shouldn't patronize the 7-
Eleven business-as a matter of principle.
Ooh! Can I start a rumor too? Robby's dating Kathy Henderson! Drama!
It's all good, fragile little Anonymous! I doubt you buy enough chicken wings to matter to the 7-11anyway. You can get ointments for all of your butt soreness from some organic homeopathic shop that will surely spring up. Hell, treat yourself to a wig while you're at it!
10:55,
I'm pretty sure that Tubbs is not affiliated with the local 7-Eleven. I know tones of people with strong opinions about the 7-Eleven/ANC thing, and those who fall on that side often voice similar sounding views to Tubbs. If you want to boycott a business, you might want to make sure it's for a reason actually associated with that business.
you're too logical and sane for your readers, Inked. I recall intimations a while back that this whole ANC/7-11 dispute was predicated upon posh gay dudes (ANC) not liking hairy gay dudes (7-11) treading on their urban development turf. I have no idea about that at all. All I know is I can buy thumbtacks and chicken wings at the 7-11. The chicken wings for eating, and the thumbtacks for pushing into my scroat while I gleefully read the impotent musings of Anonymous! I love our diverse neighborhood!
Post a Comment