Cleveland Park Citizens Association

Reform Slate and AWARE

The inter-relationship of the Reform Slate and AWARE - a history.

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:

a petition eventually signed by 400 supporters of approval of the Giant PUD (wording of the petition - http://files.me.com/collins.roth/drokyb)
a brochure describing AWARE and providing background on the PUD - http://files.me.com/collins.roth/7eqycr
a filing with the ZC asking for party status (Exhibit 86 of DC ZC case 08-15)
Jeff Davis and Ann Large also testified publicly on behalf of AWARE at the ZC meeting (http://dcoz.dc.gov/trans/090423zc.pdf pages 75-91).

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.

More Information at www.ReformSlate.org