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 1.

Are you a Ward 1 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 1 ANC Endorsements

Key:✅ = endorsement; ❌ = no endorsement

ANC 1A

✅ 1A01: Max Ewart

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

Ewart is clearly sensitive to how people experience cities, D.C., and his ANC. We’d like to see him return to his seat for a second term and continue to advocate for, as he writes in his questionnaire, “increased density and, where possible, deeply affordable housing, ideally on [District]-owned land.”

✅ 1A04: Jeremy Sherman

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

While Sherman’s narrative responses on housing are rocky—new housing is just as greatly needed in Ward 1 and ANC 1A as anywhere else, and prioritizing the preservation of green space in a rewrite of the Comprehensive Plan is not, in our perspective, ideal—he would encourage developers to maximize the height and density of a planned unit development to enable more inclusionary zoning units, and he’s spot-on about the need for a connected, protected network of bike lanes. Contribute to Sherman’s campaign here.

✅ 1A05: Stephen Coleman Kenny

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

Kenny is good on housing and land use, and great on transportation, skillfully explaining in his responses to our questionnaire how the gaps in bike lanes across Columbia Heights—solutions to which a commissioner can absolutely work with the District government to devise—make riding a bike less safe.

✅ 1A06: Ben Callanan (write-in)

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

Like some fellow 1A candidates, Callanan would prefer to preserve green space in a Comp Plan rewrite, but we value his support for removing parking and travel lanes for bus priority and protected bike lanes.

✅ 1A08: David Segall

Questionnaire, no known contribution link
Contested? No, ⛵

Segall is another 1A candidate who would prioritize green space over housing production in a Comp Plan rewrite. But, he states that he is running for ANC 1A08 to “respond to issues and concerns relevant to my community on a case-by-case basis,” which we hope he’ll use to advance his commendable beliefs that density should be increased on east-west thoroughfares and that bus-priority projects should be as sophisticated as possible.

✅ 1A10: Billy Easley

Questionnaire, Twitter, website, donate
Contested? Yes, 🥊 (Dotti Love Wade)

Easley nails every single response to our questionnaire, and his love for his neighborhood—and the people in it—is evident. We look forward to him charting the future in 1A10. Contribute to Easley’s campaign here.

ANC 1B

✅ 1B02: Sean Holihan

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

Holihan is a clear supporter of GGWash’s priorities. His enthusiasm for greater density so as to enable more inclusionary zoning units, and for protected bike and bus priority lanes, will complement 1B’s ongoing work on such projects.

✅ 1B04: Santiago Lakatos

Questionnaire, Twitter, website, donate
Contested: Yes 🥊 (Harry Quinton)

Lakatos’s responses to our questionnaire display a fluency in how affordable housing production actually works, how commissioners can encourage more of it, and his commitment to doing so. Though his opponent, Harry Quinton, is also strong (and, we hope, stays engaged as a resident) we’re favoring Lakatos, whose knowledge will be particularly valuable during the forthcoming redevelopments of th 1617 U Street, the Reeves Center, and the Housing Finance Agency’s headquarters. Contribute to Lakatos’ campaign here.

✅ 1B08: Sabel Harris

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

Harris, who we endorsed in 2020, has identified what’s needed to square some of the stress that can surround bus priority and protected bike lane projects—primarily, better arguments, and better data, from the District Department of Transportation. We look forward to her pursuing that information in her second term.

✅ 1B09: Tucker Jones

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

Jones’ essay-length responses to our questionnaire show he can get into the finer points of housing, transportation, and land use, and we look forward to seeing him put those insights to work in 1B09.

ANC 1C

✅ 1C02: Lee Dixon

Questionnaire, no known contribution link
Contested? No, ⛵

Dixon is not up to snuff on housing—opposing greater density in ANC 1C, and ranking preferences for streetscape improvements, public art, and direct cash payments over subsidized, income-restricted affordable housing in new discretionary developments—but he’s interested in making it safer and more comfortable to move around Adams Morgan, and, critically, supports the Columbia Road bus priority lane.

✅ 1C03: Peter Wood

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

Wood, who we endorsed in 2020, has led 1C03 with great enthusiasm, and his responses to our questionnaire show that he gets what commissioners can do. His commitment to pedestrian safety is crucial, as is his understanding that new housing production in Adams Morgan is likely going to require increasing the density of existing buildings. Contribute to Wood’s campaign here.

✅ 1C04: Joseph Van Wye

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

Van Wye correctly senses that ANC 1C is at a critical juncture when it comes to prioritizing walking, biking, and transit. He’d be a good addition to an ANC that we need to see back big transportation projects, including pedestrianizing 18th Street and bus/bike priority on Columbia Road.

✅ 1C05: Margaret Stevens

Questionnaire, website, no known contribution link
Contested: Yes 🥊 (Wilma B.Y. Young)

The beliefs expressed by Stevens and her opponent, Wilma B.Y. Young, are not in line with ours but, of the two, we’re endorsing Stevens, who, despite indicating that the District needs little to no new housing (!), appears to have the energy to serve as a commissioner. Amendments to the Future Land Use Map passed by the D.C. Council last year increased density along Columbia Road so, should Stevens—or Jones—be elected, there’s not much in the way of land-use changes to scrutinize but there will be transportation proposals requiring stewardship.

✅ 1C06: Lynda Laughlin

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

Laughlin is solid on housing, solid on transportation, and, insightfully, plans to “gather more information from [her] neighbors and constituents to make sure that [she is] hearing not just from the most vocal members of [her] area.”

✅ 1C07: Jake Faleschini

Questionnaire, Twitter, website, no known contribution link
Contested: Yes 🥊 (Nancy Shia)

Faleschini, who stepped up for the ANC 1C07 seat midway through 2021, has already proven himself capable of calmly managing an SMD known for anti-development activism. In that context, his support for more housing opportunities (“I am in favor of all housing production, but especially low and moderate income housing”) and better transportation options (“I have been a strong advocate for removing parking and/or travel lanes to increase space for public, bike, and other forms of multi-modal transit”) is especially notable.

ANC 1D

✅ 1D02: Hannah Grigg

Questionnaire, no known contribution link
Contested? No, ⛵

The Woodner is the city’s largest apartment building, and almost the size of a full SMD. In the past, it’s been represented by homeowners living in its shadow. Grigg, an active tenant organizer and Woodner resident, would, fittingly, represent the District’s largest constituency of renters.

✅ 1D05: Omar Parbhoo

Questionnaire, no known contribution link
Contested? No, ⛵

Parbhoo recognizes, albeit tentatively, that an increase to housing supply and improvements to transportation safety in Mount Pleasant will require disruptions to the status quo. We hope that he can use his “decade of experience in getting things done within large bureaucratic systems” to make his neighborhood safer for biking around with his toddler and for his constituents.

✅ 1D06: Angela Allison

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

We appreciate Allison’s openness to ideas of where to build new housing in her ANC, and her personal testimony to how small changes to bike or pedestrian safety can make considerable differences in the choices individuals might make. “Riding a bike,” she aptly observes, “should not be a brave thing to do.”

ANC 1E

❌ 1E02: Write-ins encouraged

Contested? No, ⛵ (Bobbie Lancaster)

Though Bobbie Lancaster responded to our questionnaire, she does not think density should be increased in ANC 1E, would encourage developers to limit the height and density of planned unit developments, would do little to prioritize any community benefits in a PUD, and does not support removing parking or travel lanes for bus priority or protected bike lane projects.

✅ 1E03: Michael Wray

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

While Wray’s proclivity for historic districts, and more of them, does impede his otherwise stellar record on advancing new transportation projects and new developments in his ANC, we are glad to see him running for a second term. His institutional knowledge will be important in getting 1E started on the right foot: He’s even proactively claimed a Twitter handle.

✅ 1E04: Rashida Brown

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

Brown embodies how a commissioner can sensitively reconcile the District’s plans for new projects with longtime residents’ legitimate concerns. While steadfastly supporting new affordable housing at Bruce Monroe and protected bike lanes on Kenyon Street, she’s proactively met her neighbors where they are.

✅ 1E06: Josh Jacobson

Questionnaire, Twitter, website, donate
Contested: Yes 🥊 (E. Gail Anderson Holness)

Jacobson, whose responses to our questionnaire are excellent across the board, has already jumped into organizing his neighbors around hyperlocal issues, and we’d love to see him bring that spirit to the new ANC 1E. Contribute to Jacobson’s campaign here.

✅ 1E07: Amanda Farnan

Questionnaire, Twitter, website, no known contribution link
Contested: Yes 🥊 (Brian Footer)

Farnan throws every ounce of herself into the role of commissioner; we also very much agree that “every CVS or coffee shop without apartments above it is a policy failure.”

Per our 2022 endorsement process, Chelsea Allinger, a member of the 2022 elections committee, was recused from ANC 1D endorsement decision-making.

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.