I went to my local ANC meeting yesterday, partly to talk to my commissioner about the houses next door and what's been done about them, but mainly to see what's roiling the community.
And there's lots roiling. A little about that after the jump, but more about a single incident, where a commissioner entered a resolution in a way that many felt was jumping the gun on the issue. And this raised a very fundamental question in me: When is it right to go ahead and introduce legislation, and when should you go ahead and carefully prepare the ground.
My impression is that this question doesn't exist on the right. Cosgrove and co introduce whatever pops into their heads, and Rush and co elbow each other out of the way to be the first to praise it. On the left, there seems to be a much more circumspect attitude.
My question to you: Which is the right way?
More details about this, plus a poll, after the jump.
The evening was filled with the usual concerns and complaints. Mainly parking, of course (I think that 70% of every local - ie neighborhood - issue I've ever run into is somehow related to parking) but also a presentation by
dc-votes, a presentation by someone seeking to recall our councilmember (oddly enough, on every second issue, the commissioners mentioned having spoken to said councilmember, so somehow the charge of 'being unavailable' rang a bit false) another one by someone who wants to knock down a gas station and replace it with condos and a presentation by someone from the DC DOT about parking around RFK stadium when the Nationals start playing there.
But the most interesting item, and the one that brings me to the point of this diary, on the agenda was the introduction of a resolution to punish VA for its anti-gay stance (they want to ban not only gay marriage and civil unions, but all contracts that would give any two people marriage- or civil union-like coverage) Of course, it's not explicitly anti-VA, but rather gives, whenever goods and services are being bought by DC, preference to companies that operate out of states with pro-gay policies.
This resolution caused a fair amout of discomfort amongst the commissioners. Which isn't too surprising. The comments from the audience were mixed. Some gave it a hearty thumbsup, while others said that a whole coalition of gay/lesbian groups had been meeting about this for months and attempting to craft some sort of resolution that would address this matter. The worry here is that, since DC is ultimately controlled by Congress, that voting for something like this would cause the rightwing in Congress to come down on DC like a ton of bricks.
In the end, the resolution was tabled, much to everyone's relief, I sensed.
But I was left with a very fundamental question: Should a commissioner (and remember, this is one four ANCs in one of 8 wards in DC, not exactly a hotbed of power) go ahead and introduce anything that he or she feels, and damn the consequences or should they wait until there's some sort of unity and alignment within the movement before proceeding?
Obviously, by simply going ahead, you set a precedent. You draw a line in the sand.
On the other hand, by getting buy-in, you know that there will be people by your side when you do make your stand, which isn't a bad thing.