In response to Greater Greater Washington’s questionnaire, candidates for Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner (ANC) seats across the District indicated where they stand on housing, transportation, and land use, and elaborated on those topics in their own words. As of this writing, GGWash’s Endorsements Committee has reviewed all the ANC questionnaires submitted by September 5, 2022, for the 2022 election, and has made its endorsement decisions for ANC races. These are the endorsements for Ward 2.

Are you a Ward 2 resident, but unsure of what commission or single member district you live in? Search your address in our interactive tool.

Looking for more information about GGWash’s endorsements? Our 2022 Elections Hub is your one-stop shop for questionnaires, candidate forum recordings, endorsements process details, and our endorsements themselves. Access the hub anytime from the “2022 Elections” link in the upper right corner of our homepage.

A few notes on process

Our ANC endorsement process is based on the same values and guidelines as our other endorsements this year, which you can read here. But ANC races are different in a few important ways.

ANCs serve, as the name suggests, in an advisory capacity, with almost no legal power over policy. Candidates for these roles can be newer to local politics and policy matters. At the same time, once in office, motivated, good-faith commissioners will learn a great deal about how change happens, and can quickly become effective advocates for the neighborhoods in which they live.

The role is also unpaid and can be demanding. This year, as in years past, there are a very high number of uncontested races or races with no candidate at all, particularly after the redistricting process this year added more single member districts. For most candidates, if you’d like to be an ANC, getting yourself on the ballot is enough to make it happen.

In light of these patterns, our Endorsements Committee took the following approach to endorsements decision-making:

• As in our previous endorsement processes, only candidates who submitted questionnaires were eligible for endorsement.
• As housing, transportation, and land use issues can vary from neighborhood to neighborhood, we took into mind the particulars and patterns of the parts of the District each candidate would represent, and the commissions on which they would serve, to help evaluate what we would consider indicative of constructive progress there. There’s no strict GGWash-endorsement formula or litmus test.
• Even candidates who are not perfectly aligned with all of GGWash’s issue areas can still be great commissioners with whom we look forward to working in good faith. The fact that such candidates responded to our questionnaire in pursuit of our endorsement is itself, in our view, an indication of openness to partnership. As such, in uncontested races in particular, we looked for opportunities for alignment and growth.
• We prioritized endorsing in contested ANC races—reflecting our commitment to endorsing in other contested races this cycle—in order to help voters with the real choices they have to make among the candidates available to them. In some instances, unfortunately, only one candidate in a contested race responded to our questionnaire. If we did not endorse the sole candidate in a contested race who responded to our questionnaire, it was because the candidate proclaimed significantly distinct views from those of GGWash.

With that framing in mind, let’s get to the endorsements!

Ward 2 ANC Endorsements

Key:✅ = endorsement; ❌ = no endorsement

ANC 2A

✅ 2A01: Yannik Omictin

Questionnaire, Twitter, no known contribution link
Contested: Yes 🥊 (Susana Barañano)

Some of Omictin’s answers are in conflict with each other, such as supporting more opportunities for housing in a Comp Plan rewrite while also preferring to limit the height of planned unit developments and expand historic districts. However, his record of engagement with unhoused residents in his SMD is notable, and he clearly identifies where bike and pedestrian connectivity in ANC 2A can be improved.

❌ 2A02: Write-ins encouraged

Contested? No, ⛵ (Jim Malec)

Malec’s responses to our questionnaire gave us relatively little to work with, focusing primarily on park space within his SMD, which casts some doubt on his commitment to increasing density, and offering few insights into his transportation views.

✅ 2A03: Trupti Patel

Questionnaire, Twitter, website, donate
Contested? No, ⛵

Patel, who we endorsed in 2020, is still supportive of increasing density to enable more inclusionary zoning units in PUDs and removing parking or travel lanes for bus priority and protected bike lane projects; we hope to see her return to ANC 2A. Contribute to Patel’s campaign here.

✅ 2A08: Jordan Nassar

Questionnaire, website, donate
Contested? No, ⛵

Nassar’s responses to our questionnaire display broad support for our stances on housing and transportation, and raise some meaningful 2A-specific issues, such as poor connectivity between Georgetown and K Street, and office-to-residential conversions. Contribute to Nassar’s campaign here.

ANC 2B

✅ 2B02: Jeff Rueckgauer

Questionnaire, Twitter, no known contribution link
Contested? No, ⛵

Rueckgauer matter-of-factly supports increased density in nearly all of his SMD, as well as protected bike lanes on Q and R Streets NW—a significant political lift in raucous ANC 2B that he’s well-equipped to lead.

✅ 2B03: Vincent E. Slatt

Questionnaire, Twitter, no known contribution link
Contested? No, ⛵

Slatt, whose answers to our questionnaire are consistently heartfelt, has arguably the best response among ANC 2B candidates about how to increase density there, writing that his ANC “has very few open spaces left for development, and historic preservation rules limit much of what can be done to existing structures; infill can happen with tear downs of existing, non-historic-designation buildings, or by adding carriage-house or alley dwellings to existing row houses; I support these projects and the relaxing of zoning codes to actively encourage this kind of development.”

❌ 2B04: Write-ins encouraged

Contested? No, ⛵ (China Dickerson)

More diverse representation would be welcome on ANC 2B, which Dickerson aptly notes has “traditionally been made up of white, high-income earners.” She expresses views that would make progress challenging, however, prioritizing parking above investments that make streets safer for transit riders and cyclists, and noting that she’d encourage developers to limit the height and density of planned unit developments—which are the best shots that Dupont has to house people who cannot afford the current cost of living there.

✅ 2B06: Matt Johnson

Questionnaire, Twitter, no known contribution link
Contested? No, ⛵

We’re thrilled that Johnson, who has volunteered for GGWash since its early days and is an expert transportation planner, is running, and endorse him with full confidence.

✅ 2B08: Zachary Adams

Questionnaire, Twitter, no known contribution link
Contested: Yes 🥊 (Thomas Reiter)

Adams, who says the most important issue in his neighborhood is making it “more inclusive: we need to undo racist and exclusionary zoning, increase housing density, and streets that favor people,” answers our multiple-choice questions—intended to test candidates’ commitment to such ideological statements—perfectly.

✅ 2B09: Christopher Davis

Questionnaire, no known contribution link
Contested? No, ⛵

While we hope that, should Davis be elected, he will think a bit more creatively about how to increase density in ANC 2B, we appreciate his involvement in Stead Park’s renovation and 2B’s planning, zoning, and transportation committee, and his car-free lifestyle.

ANC 2C

✅ 2C02: Rebecca Strauss

Questionnaire, Twitter, website, no known contribution link
Contested? No, ⛵

Strauss is involved in a bazillion things in her building, neighborhood, and the District, and we’d be glad to see her bring the lessons learned from her various engagements to ANC 2C. She clearly grasps that “if we want car traffic to move more freely AND increase bike safety/access, a better solution is removing parking spaces. Those should be the first to go.”

❌ 2C03: Write-ins encouraged

Contested? No, ⛵ (Thomas Lee)

We agree with the majority of Thomas Lee’s answers to our questionnaire, but can’t in good conscience endorse someone who frames homelessness foremost in terms of its imposition on housed residents, rather than compassion for unhoused residents; he describes unhoused constituents as “mentally ill homeless individuals accosting pedestrians, business travelers and tourists,” who “turn over trash bins in anger, litter, defecate and break store windows.”

ANC 2E

✅ 2E02: Topher Mathews

Questionnaire, Twitter, no known contribution link
Contested: Yes 🥊 (Patrick Clawson)

Mathews, who we endorsed in 2020, is a true standout among those who are highly engaged in Georgetown; he nails all of our questions, and provides a model response to considering a bus priority or bike lane project: “M St. is a challenge. You can make a strong case for a PBL on it. You can make a strong case for bus lanes on it. And you can make a strong case for wider sidewalks on it. But it would be very difficult to do all three. Right now we’re doing none of them. I would like to redesign M St. entirely and see how we can achieve at least one or two of these options. In either event, I support removing parking on M St. and designating a good chunk of the road space to either a PBL or bus priority lanes.”

✅ 2E07: Elizabeth Miller

Questionnaire, no known contribution link
Contested? No, ⛵

Miller, who we endorsed in 2020, indicates she’d minimize the height and density of a PUD (though she does state her excitement for such a project in upper Georgetown); plus, her claim that converting a street to one-way can circumvent the need to remove parking is well-intentioned but confused. But she does work hard, and is committed, and we’re happy to support consistency in ANC 2E.

ANC 2F

✅ 2F07: Brant J. Miller

Questionnaire, Twitter, no known contribution link
Contested? No, ⛵

Miller is all good on housing and land use, supporting greater density to enable more inclusionary zoning units in planned unit developments, and we agree adamantly with his assessment of the forthcoming bus priority project on 14th Street south of U Street: “While I believe the floating bus stop islands installed several years ago were an improvement over the then-existing conditions, the curb demand on the corridor (protected bike lanes, PUDU activity, important and consistent bus service, streateries) could be further improved. I would love to know more about DDOT’s ideas for how this can be executed in a way that enhances the existing bus service while better serving all modes and needs.”

ANC 2G

✅ 2G03: Alex Lopez

Questionnaire, Twitter, no known contribution link
Contested: Yes 🥊 (Sranda Watkins)

Lopez, who we endorsed in 2020, has since then displayed an intricate knowledge of housing and transportation in his ANC—formerly 6E, now 2G. With such a big switch, Lopez’s expertise will be necessary to a new ANC to effectively manage big changes in Shaw, including numerous PUDs and the 7th Street bus priority lane.

✅ 2G04: Steven McCarty

Questionnaire, Twitter, website, donate
Yes, 🥊 (Fred Hill, Amanda Gore)

McCarty, who envisions a future in which “all families and residents…feel safe and excited to walk our sidewalks, bike in our streets, and enjoy everything ANC 2G04 has to offer,” is full speed ahead with his support for the District’s bike priority plan, and is emphatic about closing Blagden Alley to cars. Contribute to McCarty’s campaign here.

❌ 2G05: Write-ins encouraged

Yes, 🥊 (Sheena Barry, Willie Doggett)

While Sheena Barry responded to our questionnaire, and addressed the burdens of new development while still supporting increased density, she does not extend the same sort of thoughtful consideration to protected bike lane projects, writing, “I would not support this plan. The bicycle priority plan does not consider the lives of the residents that already live and drive in the area. The bicycle priority plan does not take into account that several locations within my SMD have already taken away necessary residential parking to establish bike parking and bike lanes.” These responses suggest a disregard for residents who do ride bicycles, or who would if they felt it was safe, and eschew the significant safety and health benefits of shifting trips away from cars.

❌ 2G06: Write-ins encouraged

Contested? No, ⛵ (Rachelle Nigro)

Rachelle Nigro has represented her SMD for over a decade and earned a GGWash endorsement in 2020, but we cannot endorse her this year on the basis of her responses to our questionnaire, which show contradictory views on development and an unwillingness to support the removal of parking for bike and bus infrastructure. Additionally, in writing, “With all bike lanes there needs to be a balance between the community and bicyclists,” she implies that there are evidently no people on bikes to be had in 2G.

Paid for by Greater Greater Washington, 80 M St SE, Ste 100, Washington, DC 20003. A copy of our report is filed with the Director of Campaign Finance.