Three Member Voting Bloc on ANC 6B Frustrates Unanimity on Hine: ANC 6B Passes Recommendation on Hine to HPRB on 6 – 3 Vote
by Larry Janezich
In a long and sometimes contentious meeting last night at Brent Elementary school, ANC 6B voted 6-3 to pass a lengthy document communicating its recommendations on the Hine project to the Historic Preservation Review Board. The Board will meet to review the project tomorrow (Thursday, April 28).
Voting against the resolution were Commissioners Garrison, Oldenburg, and Metzger.
Voting for the Resolution: ANC6b Chair Glick, Commissioners Campbell, Frishberg, Pate, Critchfield and Flahaven.
The result and lack of unanimity came as a bitter disappointment to several Commissioners who had worked to forge a document which they hoped would receive the support of the entire commission.
One Commissioner, Ivan Frishberg, expressed his dismay that he had spent three hours with Garrison, Oldenburg, and Metzger on Easter Sunday attempting to assuage their concerns and produce a workable compromise. A commissioner noted that a draft of the entire resolution had been out there for ten days, and noted that Commissioner Oldenburg had only submitted written comments 12 hours ago.
Commissioner Brian Pate also expressed his disappointment, noting the amount of effort that had gone into attempting to reach a compromise, and the Commission’s success at “staving off inappropriate amendments.” Other Commissioners proposed amendments that did not pass, like Francis Campbell, but they nevertheless voted for the final product. Campbell said the project was too big and needs to go back to the drawing board for more refinement and he was not happy in any “way, shape, or form” with the project.
The minority voting bloc engineered many changes to the document and met with success on more than half of the amendments they offered, but nevertheless they decided vote against it in the end.
Commissioner Brian Flahaven said the resolution was “not my ideal,” but that he would support it in the spirit of compromise, given the time, the number of communications, and the energy that had gone into the effort. He said that he would “focus on the things that he liked in the resolution, instead of the things he didn’t like.”
Garrison, in contrast, said though the resolution had been improved, “in the end, there are still aspects in the resolution I do not agree with.” Metzger said the resolution had not been changed to the point where he could support it. Oldenburg, who had offered the greatest number of successful amendments said, “the resolution doesn’t represent what my constituents tell me,” and declared her opposition to it. Many of her amendments seemed to be favorable to the developer, or – as she admitted – were “cribbed from the Restoration Society recommendation.” It was not otherwise clear which constituents she was referring to.
As a result, last night’s lengthy meeting thus resulted in what was in many ways a watered down document which still will not be presented to the city with the authority of a unanimous ANC vote.
A final copy of the Resolution can be viewed here: http://www.anc6b.org/library.html