Goulet opposes Foxhall Elementary, MacArthur High

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone posted the following on the FCCA listserve this morning:

“Very early in the race I spoke with Frumin about both school plans. He was then--and he is today--against the Foxhall School and doesn't think it will ultimately happen.”

Is Frumin really against Foxhall?

Submit this question via his website. He answered mine almost immediately.

He literally wrote about it on his website. The link was already posted here.

I read it and have to hand it to the guy that he knows how to construct a position statement that takes so many positions that almost anybody can read it and find something that they agree (or disagree) with.

This is why I suggested writing to him. Push him on it directly.

DP...I wrote him about it and am satisfied with the response I received.

Care to share?

the parts of it that are of concern to me might be different than yours, and there are a lot of nuances, so better for you to reach out directly.

The difference between a candidate and an elected official is that a candidate can tailor their message to fit the audience. An elected official has to take an actual position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The person apparently responsible for the “Save Hardy Park. Say no to Tricia Duncan” signs posted to the Foxhall listserv that Matt Frumin will be holding a meet and greet hosted by one of the leaders of the “Save Hardy Park” campaign on June 5th.

I was planning to vote for him. If this is true, I’ll likely switch to Duncan. If anyone has more info, please post it.

That the FCCA is flipping out and covering the Ward in anti-Duncan propaganda is proof that she is the real deal. She sure as hell won’t be beholden to them if elected. She is the safe choice.

[Anonymous]

Judging by yard signs, the Foxhall NIMBYs are backing Phil Thomas. What is his stance on the schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Judging by yard signs, the Foxhall NIMBYs are backing Phil Thomas. What is his stance on the schools?

Oh wait till Glover Park finds out they will have to ship their kids over to foxhall. No more walking to school for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Monte Monash looks promising as a candidate.

Zero chance to win. I’m voting for Goulet. He’s the only one who is taking the soaring crime rate in ward 3 seriously

And the rest of the Council - you know, those who he will need to actually do anything at all - are going to take him seriously knowing that he got there through using questions about how to increase diversity in the Ward to complain about crime committed by African American voucher recipients? Having a council-member prone to racist tropes hasn’t worked out too well for Ward 8. It wouldn’t work out too well for Ward 3 either.

That's all you got against Goulet? This doesn't bother me in the least.

It doesn't bother you that his response to a question about how to attract and retain residents of color to Ward 3 was to {falsely} complain that all of the black residents in Ward 3 were on vouchers?

Sorry, why exactly does Ward 3 need to "attract and maintain" a higher percentage of Black and indigenous people? Not endorsing Goulet's response -- I'm asking a separate question. Why is the current demographic pie chart unacceptable, and to whom?

Are there other citywide efforts to "attract and maintain" more East Asians to Ward 8? Has Vince Gray been asked about what he's doing to "attract more Whites" to Ward 7?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Judging by yard signs, the Foxhall NIMBYs are backing Phil Thomas. What is his stance on the schools?

The same as his stance on every issue: indecipherable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judging by yard signs, the Foxhall NIMBYs are backing Phil Thomas. What is his stance on the schools?

Oh wait till Glover Park finds out they will have to ship their kids over to foxhall. No more walking to school for you.

Lay off the crack, bro / broette.

[Anonymous]

David Grosso just endorsed Goulet. That seals the deal for me: anyone but Goulet!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Monte Monash looks promising as a candidate.

Zero chance to win. I’m voting for Goulet. He’s the only one who is taking the soaring crime rate in ward 3 seriously

And the rest of the Council - you know, those who he will need to actually do anything at all - are going to take him seriously knowing that he got there through using questions about how to increase diversity in the Ward to complain about crime committed by African American voucher recipients? Having a council-member prone to racist tropes hasn’t worked out too well for Ward 8. It wouldn’t work out too well for Ward 3 either.

That's all you got against Goulet? This doesn't bother me in the least.

It doesn't bother you that his response to a question about how to attract and retain residents of color to Ward 3 was to {falsely} complain that all of the black residents in Ward 3 were on vouchers?

Sorry, why exactly does Ward 3 need to "attract and maintain" a higher percentage of Black and indigenous people? Not endorsing Goulet's response -- I'm asking a separate question. Why is the current demographic pie chart unacceptable, and to whom?

Are there other citywide efforts to "attract and maintain" more East Asians to Ward 8? Has Vince Gray been asked about what he's doing to "attract more Whites" to Ward 7?

There is a strong sentiment that the racial covenants and zoning in Ward 3 has created an imbalance over the last century and that to rectify, there needs to be more housing and more affordable housing.

And yes, other parts of the city have been adding more market rate housing.

[Anonymous]

Despite the recent betrayal, the FCCAs are doubling down:

"The person who becomes the Ward 3 council member will have an enormous influence over whether the city builds a school on Hardy Park. This election, which takes place on June 21 but has early and absentee voting options, is critical to the future of Hardy Park.

You are receiving this email because you have indicated an interest in preserving Hardy Park's open space for current and future generations. Many candidates vocally support building a school on Hardy Park, including the candidate endorsed by Mary Cheh (just as Mary Cheh herself supported locating a school there).

On the contrary, Eric Goulet has indicated his support to find alternative sites for new schools, preserving Hardy Park open space and the new park renovations. Mr. Goulet says:

"DC's plan to pack 750 to 1,000 high school students in a school previously capped at 500 with little to no transportation infrastructure is a recipe for failure. This is an example of poorly developed public policy with good intentions, but little chance of success. Further, the proposal to build a new Foxhall Elementary School on top of Hardy Park takes away precious green space. There is a smarter approach."

The Washington Post has endorsed Mr. Goulet for Ward 3, saying:

"The 19 years Mr. Goulet has spent in D.C. government — including as budget director, director of the D.C. Council Committee on Health, adviser in the Office of the Chief Financial Officer and to the attorney general — give him unparalleled expertise. More than any other candidate, Mr. Goulet has a grasp of the issues and an understanding of the financial realities that must be a part of any policy."

Please consider the fate of Hardy Park when you cast your vote in the coming weeks, and please consider supporting Eric Goulet. Thank you."

[Anonymous]

The FCCA is going to be as disappointed as a Bills fan after a Superbowl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The FCCA is going to be as disappointed as a Bills fan after a Superbowl.

Regardless of his stance on the schools (good luck pinning that down!), Goulet is insufferable. His responses to both of the mini-controversies make me want to puke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FCCA is going to be as disappointed as a Bills fan after a Superbowl.

Regardless of his stance on the schools (good luck pinning that down!), Goulet is insufferable. His responses to both of the mini-controversies make me want to puke.

Yeah, when he went all Kavanaugh and acted like he was the real victim was just too much to take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Monte Monash looks promising as a candidate.

Zero chance to win. I’m voting for Goulet. He’s the only one who is taking the soaring crime rate in ward 3 seriously

And the rest of the Council - you know, those who he will need to actually do anything at all - are going to take him seriously knowing that he got there through using questions about how to increase diversity in the Ward to complain about crime committed by African American voucher recipients? Having a council-member prone to racist tropes hasn’t worked out too well for Ward 8. It wouldn’t work out too well for Ward 3 either.

That's all you got against Goulet? This doesn't bother me in the least.

It doesn't bother you that his response to a question about how to attract and retain residents of color to Ward 3 was to {falsely} complain that all of the black residents in Ward 3 were on vouchers?

Sorry, why exactly does Ward 3 need to "attract and maintain" a higher percentage of Black and indigenous people? Not endorsing Goulet's response -- I'm asking a separate question. Why is the current demographic pie chart unacceptable, and to whom?

Are there other citywide efforts to "attract and maintain" more East Asians to Ward 8? Has Vince Gray been asked about what he's doing to "attract more Whites" to Ward 7?

There is a strong sentiment that the racial covenants and zoning in Ward 3 has created an imbalance over the last century and that to rectify, there needs to be more housing and more affordable housing.

And yes, other parts of the city have been adding more market rate housing.

There will always be the Have-Nots that want a subsided buy into the Haves. It's the most expensive area of the city but still easy to get in, just pay up. Most nice things are hoarded utilizing a power imbalance at the time, that is sort of life. redistribution will undercut the principle of ownership as the have-nots will always be ok with reshuffling the deck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Monte Monash looks promising as a candidate.

Zero chance to win. I’m voting for Goulet. He’s the only one who is taking the soaring crime rate in ward 3 seriously

And the rest of the Council - you know, those who he will need to actually do anything at all - are going to take him seriously knowing that he got there through using questions about how to increase diversity in the Ward to complain about crime committed by African American voucher recipients? Having a council-member prone to racist tropes hasn’t worked out too well for Ward 8. It wouldn’t work out too well for Ward 3 either.

That's all you got against Goulet? This doesn't bother me in the least.

It doesn't bother you that his response to a question about how to attract and retain residents of color to Ward 3 was to {falsely} complain that all of the black residents in Ward 3 were on vouchers?

Sorry, why exactly does Ward 3 need to "attract and maintain" a higher percentage of Black and indigenous people? Not endorsing Goulet's response -- I'm asking a separate question. Why is the current demographic pie chart unacceptable, and to whom?

Are there other citywide efforts to "attract and maintain" more East Asians to Ward 8? Has Vince Gray been asked about what he's doing to "attract more Whites" to Ward 7?

There is a strong sentiment that the racial covenants and zoning in Ward 3 has created an imbalance over the last century and that to rectify, there needs to be more housing and more affordable housing.

And yes, other parts of the city have been adding more market rate housing.

There will always be the Have-Nots that want a subsided buy into the Haves. It's the most expensive area of the city but still easy to get in, just pay up. Most nice things are hoarded utilizing a power imbalance at the time, that is sort of life. redistribution will undercut the principle of ownership as the have-nots will always be ok with reshuffling the deck.

Do you know the history of Tenleytown African American communities being razed?