Alexandria Mayor Race

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

IF the Council and Mayor KNEW that the NDA was not binding (which I do not believe - based on the WAPO article I think that what WMATA told Jinks is different from what was in the email to the project engineer, and that all the elected based their behavior on what they heard from Jinks) then it suggests that both Silberberg and Wilson are equally culpable, ergo this has no bearing on the race for Mayor. At least the primary, as I presume if the GOP nominates anyone for November, that person will not be an incumbent member of the Council.

Both Silberberg and Wilson obviously assumed blindly, with no checking, that what Jinks told them was true: NDA was in force and binding. They always assume that what Jinks tells them is true. And sometimes it is.

But they both should have known better. And the one thing they should be able to agree on is, no more Jinks.

IF what Jinks told the WaPo is true, than Jinks was not lying, and checking with the individuals who spoke to Jinks would have given Wilson and Silberberg (and Smedberg, BTW) the same thing - that the NDA applied. Not clear to me that even with a lot of sniffing around WMATA, they would have hit the person who wrote the email saying it did not apply.

Certainly it would be good to know who at WMATA Jinks was in communication with, and in what format. Certainly that should be investigated before any personnel action is taken against Jinks or any of his subordinates, IMO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

IF the Council and Mayor KNEW that the NDA was not binding (which I do not believe - based on the WAPO article I think that what WMATA told Jinks is different from what was in the email to the project engineer, and that all the elected based their behavior on what they heard from Jinks) then it suggests that both Silberberg and Wilson are equally culpable, ergo this has no bearing on the race for Mayor. At least the primary, as I presume if the GOP nominates anyone for November, that person will not be an incumbent member of the Council.

Both Silberberg and Wilson obviously assumed blindly, with no checking, that what Jinks told them was true: NDA was in force and binding. They always assume that what Jinks tells them is true. And sometimes it is.

But they both should have known better. And the one thing they should be able to agree on is, no more Jinks.

IF what Jinks told the WaPo is true, than Jinks was not lying, and checking with the individuals who spoke to Jinks would have given Wilson and Silberberg (and Smedberg, BTW) the same thing - that the NDA applied. Not clear to me that even with a lot of sniffing around WMATA, they would have hit the person who wrote the email saying it did not apply.

Certainly it would be good to know who at WMATA Jinks was in communication with, and in what format. Certainly that should be investigated before any personnel action is taken against Jinks or any of his subordinates, IMO.

Before Jinks agreed that the NDA was binding, he should have read the damned thing and given it to the city attorney for an immediate and thorough scrub. Plainly, he did neither. As a result, he prejudiced the City's entire position on the project. Fire him. Now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

IF the Council and Mayor KNEW that the NDA was not binding (which I do not believe - based on the WAPO article I think that what WMATA told Jinks is different from what was in the email to the project engineer, and that all the elected based their behavior on what they heard from Jinks) then it suggests that both Silberberg and Wilson are equally culpable, ergo this has no bearing on the race for Mayor. At least the primary, as I presume if the GOP nominates anyone for November, that person will not be an incumbent member of the Council.

Both Silberberg and Wilson obviously assumed blindly, with no checking, that what Jinks told them was true: NDA was in force and binding. They always assume that what Jinks tells them is true. And sometimes it is.

But they both should have known better. And the one thing they should be able to agree on is, no more Jinks.

IF what Jinks told the WaPo is true, than Jinks was not lying, and checking with the individuals who spoke to Jinks would have given Wilson and Silberberg (and Smedberg, BTW) the same thing - that the NDA applied. Not clear to me that even with a lot of sniffing around WMATA, they would have hit the person who wrote the email saying it did not apply.

Certainly it would be good to know who at WMATA Jinks was in communication with, and in what format. Certainly that should be investigated before any personnel action is taken against Jinks or any of his subordinates, IMO.

Before Jinks agreed that the NDA was binding, he should have read the damned thing and given it to the city attorney for an immediate and thorough scrub. Plainly, he did neither. As a result, he prejudiced the City's entire position on the project. Fire him. Now.

No one should be fired before having a chance to explain what happened. No one. In the case of the City Manager, the entire Council should have a chance to question him, in open hearing. Perhaps ALSO in closed hearing, if legal issues require it.

The only reason I can imagine someone would insist on firing before that, is because they wish to make the nonfiring an issue in Tuesday's election.

Can he even be fired absent one or more sessions of the Council? I mean its the Council collectively that could do it, by vote. And there isn't a session between now and the primary, is there? Are you suggesting an emergency session?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

IF the Council and Mayor KNEW that the NDA was not binding (which I do not believe - based on the WAPO article I think that what WMATA told Jinks is different from what was in the email to the project engineer, and that all the elected based their behavior on what they heard from Jinks) then it suggests that both Silberberg and Wilson are equally culpable, ergo this has no bearing on the race for Mayor. At least the primary, as I presume if the GOP nominates anyone for November, that person will not be an incumbent member of the Council.

Both Silberberg and Wilson obviously assumed blindly, with no checking, that what Jinks told them was true: NDA was in force and binding. They always assume that what Jinks tells them is true. And sometimes it is.

But they both should have known better. And the one thing they should be able to agree on is, no more Jinks.

IF what Jinks told the WaPo is true, than Jinks was not lying, and checking with the individuals who spoke to Jinks would have given Wilson and Silberberg (and Smedberg, BTW) the same thing - that the NDA applied. Not clear to me that even with a lot of sniffing around WMATA, they would have hit the person who wrote the email saying it did not apply.

Certainly it would be good to know who at WMATA Jinks was in communication with, and in what format. Certainly that should be investigated before any personnel action is taken against Jinks or any of his subordinates, IMO.

Before Jinks agreed that the NDA was binding, he should have read the damned thing and given it to the city attorney for an immediate and thorough scrub. Plainly, he did neither. As a result, he prejudiced the City's entire position on the project. Fire him. Now.

No one should be fired before having a chance to explain what happened. No one. In the case of the City Manager, the entire Council should have a chance to question him, in open hearing. Perhaps ALSO in closed hearing, if legal issues require it.

The only reason I can imagine someone would insist on firing before that, is because they wish to make the nonfiring an issue in Tuesday's election.

Can he even be fired absent one or more sessions of the Council? I mean its the Council collectively that could do it, by vote. And there isn't a session between now and the primary, is there? Are you suggesting an emergency session?

Their campaigns for re-election do NOT override their duties. Yes, convene an emergency session. Fire him. Now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

IF the Council and Mayor KNEW that the NDA was not binding (which I do not believe - based on the WAPO article I think that what WMATA told Jinks is different from what was in the email to the project engineer, and that all the elected based their behavior on what they heard from Jinks) then it suggests that both Silberberg and Wilson are equally culpable, ergo this has no bearing on the race for Mayor. At least the primary, as I presume if the GOP nominates anyone for November, that person will not be an incumbent member of the Council.

Both Silberberg and Wilson obviously assumed blindly, with no checking, that what Jinks told them was true: NDA was in force and binding. They always assume that what Jinks tells them is true. And sometimes it is.

But they both should have known better. And the one thing they should be able to agree on is, no more Jinks.

IF what Jinks told the WaPo is true, than Jinks was not lying, and checking with the individuals who spoke to Jinks would have given Wilson and Silberberg (and Smedberg, BTW) the same thing - that the NDA applied. Not clear to me that even with a lot of sniffing around WMATA, they would have hit the person who wrote the email saying it did not apply.

Certainly it would be good to know who at WMATA Jinks was in communication with, and in what format. Certainly that should be investigated before any personnel action is taken against Jinks or any of his subordinates, IMO.

Before Jinks agreed that the NDA was binding, he should have read the damned thing and given it to the city attorney for an immediate and thorough scrub. Plainly, he did neither. As a result, he prejudiced the City's entire position on the project. Fire him. Now.

No one should be fired before having a chance to explain what happened. No one. In the case of the City Manager, the entire Council should have a chance to question him, in open hearing. Perhaps ALSO in closed hearing, if legal issues require it.

The only reason I can imagine someone would insist on firing before that, is because they wish to make the nonfiring an issue in Tuesday's election.

Can he even be fired absent one or more sessions of the Council? I mean its the Council collectively that could do it, by vote. And there isn't a session between now and the primary, is there? Are you suggesting an emergency session?

Their campaigns for re-election do NOT override their duties. Yes, convene an emergency session. Fire him. Now.

How is it an emergency? A few dozen people bought 900k houses that they would have paid 800K for? I mean really that should be the first and highest goal of the City Manager, not crime, not paving streets, not the health dept, not any of that, but making sure that the FACTS about whether houses currently on the market are 400 ft from a metro station for sure, or they are within 1200 feet (but PROBABLY will be about 400 ft) from a metro station, are known to home buyers. Failing to use his time to ascertain the exact status of the NDA on behalf of those home buyers is such a manifest betrayal, that he not only deserves to be fired, but he needs to be fired immediately, no time for an investigation, the Council should do a Saturday session in the midst of a campaign (good for the challengers, eh? Did Sen McConnell write this?) just to fire him before he can do more damage.

Gotcha.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:bump

Not much to bump. Nobody is talking about the FOIA release much, none of the local news outlets are discussing it, so outside of certain passionate groups of citizens, no one is paying attention. My guess is this won't have much impact next week. That's not to say there won't be some ramifications later on as more documents are released after contract award but it won't be "in time" for the primary.

Uhh, Washington Post is talking about it. This thing is about to blow up. You can expect Liar Wilson to start trying to get in front of it. Too late for bald boy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/alexandrians-battle-over-who-knew-what-when-in-potomac-yard-metro-cuts/2018/06/06/640d447c-68d0-11e8-bea7-c8eb28bc52b1_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.41b7a71c9375

I'm pretty pissed about the whole thing too, but I'm not sure how you lay it on Wilson more than the mayor and the rest of council. Seems like all of them share the blam here (and the city manager and whatever city lawyer gave them bad advice)

I am not at all convinced that its not entirely WMATA's fault.

Translation= I'm voting for Wilson and there's no fvck up he can be a part of that will deter me.

Translation = I am one of those people who says we need more parking and can't reduce car usage because metrorail is fvcked up, but I absolutely believe that WMATA is not talking about both sides of their collective mouths.

Hey, that's my line, PP! In any event, I concur.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

IF the Council and Mayor KNEW that the NDA was not binding (which I do not believe - based on the WAPO article I think that what WMATA told Jinks is different from what was in the email to the project engineer, and that all the elected based their behavior on what they heard from Jinks) then it suggests that both Silberberg and Wilson are equally culpable, ergo this has no bearing on the race for Mayor. At least the primary, as I presume if the GOP nominates anyone for November, that person will not be an incumbent member of the Council.

Both Silberberg and Wilson obviously assumed blindly, with no checking, that what Jinks told them was true: NDA was in force and binding. They always assume that what Jinks tells them is true. And sometimes it is.

But they both should have known better. And the one thing they should be able to agree on is, no more Jinks.

+1 and I still say that it's atrocious that there is no documentation of anyone from the city pushing back on WMATA in writing about the need for the change to the southern entrance to be kept from the public.

Even if WMATA was talking out both sides of their mouths and out their butts (which let's face it, it's WMATA, totally possible/probable), someone with the city should have pushed back and said "why can't we tell anyone about this major change?" But they didn't, because they didn't care or didn't want to deal with the fallout.

It is funny, isn't it, how we can see so clearly how reasonable people should act!?! Yet the fools running our city don't seem to get it. They don't seem to understand that they should be asking questions not blindly accepting what they're told. And now they are mad because the rest of us are clearly questioning them and their actions (or lack thereof). I'm willing to accept Silberberg's explanation because I don't see her acting with malfeasance. It really makes me mad that Wilson keeps trying to portray himself as such a good money man and strategic thinker yet he purposefully did not disclose. Either he knew and didn't say or he is way overselling his skills. Neither are a good look for him.

This is a total change-up for me. Two months ago I was completely behind Wilson. Now I can't wait to scrape the crud from my shoe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

IF the Council and Mayor KNEW that the NDA was not binding (which I do not believe - based on the WAPO article I think that what WMATA told Jinks is different from what was in the email to the project engineer, and that all the elected based their behavior on what they heard from Jinks) then it suggests that both Silberberg and Wilson are equally culpable, ergo this has no bearing on the race for Mayor. At least the primary, as I presume if the GOP nominates anyone for November, that person will not be an incumbent member of the Council.

Both Silberberg and Wilson obviously assumed blindly, with no checking, that what Jinks told them was true: NDA was in force and binding. They always assume that what Jinks tells them is true. And sometimes it is.

But they both should have known better. And the one thing they should be able to agree on is, no more Jinks.

IF what Jinks told the WaPo is true, than Jinks was not lying, and checking with the individuals who spoke to Jinks would have given Wilson and Silberberg (and Smedberg, BTW) the same thing - that the NDA applied. Not clear to me that even with a lot of sniffing around WMATA, they would have hit the person who wrote the email saying it did not apply.

Certainly it would be good to know who at WMATA Jinks was in communication with, and in what format. Certainly that should be investigated before any personnel action is taken against Jinks or any of his subordinates, IMO.

Before Jinks agreed that the NDA was binding, he should have read the damned thing and given it to the city attorney for an immediate and thorough scrub. Plainly, he did neither. As a result, he prejudiced the City's entire position on the project. Fire him. Now.

No one should be fired before having a chance to explain what happened. No one. In the case of the City Manager, the entire Council should have a chance to question him, in open hearing. Perhaps ALSO in closed hearing, if legal issues require it.

The only reason I can imagine someone would insist on firing before that, is because they wish to make the nonfiring an issue in Tuesday's election.

Can he even be fired absent one or more sessions of the Council? I mean its the Council collectively that could do it, by vote. And there isn't a session between now and the primary, is there? Are you suggesting an emergency session?

Their campaigns for re-election do NOT override their duties. Yes, convene an emergency session. Fire him. Now.

How is it an emergency? A few dozen people bought 900k houses that they would have paid 800K for? I mean really that should be the first and highest goal of the City Manager, not crime, not paving streets, not the health dept, not any of that, but making sure that the FACTS about whether houses currently on the market are 400 ft from a metro station for sure, or they are within 1200 feet (but PROBABLY will be about 400 ft) from a metro station, are known to home buyers. Failing to use his time to ascertain the exact status of the NDA on behalf of those home buyers is such a manifest betrayal, that he not only deserves to be fired, but he needs to be fired immediately, no time for an investigation, the Council should do a Saturday session in the midst of a campaign (good for the challengers, eh? Did Sen McConnell write this?) just to fire him before he can do more damage.

Gotcha.

Because he engaged in a cover-up. Because what he did resulted in hundreds of people being cheated. Because he has pushed disability access off for years. Because, even now, he hasn't fully come clean. Because this all represents a lousy attitude towards the public. Because, even during a primary election season, the city council is still supposed to do its job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

IF the Council and Mayor KNEW that the NDA was not binding (which I do not believe - based on the WAPO article I think that what WMATA told Jinks is different from what was in the email to the project engineer, and that all the elected based their behavior on what they heard from Jinks) then it suggests that both Silberberg and Wilson are equally culpable, ergo this has no bearing on the race for Mayor. At least the primary, as I presume if the GOP nominates anyone for November, that person will not be an incumbent member of the Council.

Both Silberberg and Wilson obviously assumed blindly, with no checking, that what Jinks told them was true: NDA was in force and binding. They always assume that what Jinks tells them is true. And sometimes it is.

But they both should have known better. And the one thing they should be able to agree on is, no more Jinks.

+1 and I still say that it's atrocious that there is no documentation of anyone from the city pushing back on WMATA in writing about the need for the change to the southern entrance to be kept from the public.

Even if WMATA was talking out both sides of their mouths and out their butts (which let's face it, it's WMATA, totally possible/probable), someone with the city should have pushed back and said "why can't we tell anyone about this major change?" But they didn't, because they didn't care or didn't want to deal with the fallout.

It is funny, isn't it, how we can see so clearly how reasonable people should act!?! Yet the fools running our city don't seem to get it. They don't seem to understand that they should be asking questions not blindly accepting what they're told. And now they are mad because the rest of us are clearly questioning them and their actions (or lack thereof). I'm willing to accept Silberberg's explanation because I don't see her acting with malfeasance. It really makes me mad that Wilson keeps trying to portray himself as such a good money man and strategic thinker yet he purposefully did not disclose. Either he knew and didn't say or he is way overselling his skills. Neither are a good look for him.

This is a total change-up for me. Two months ago I was completely behind Wilson. Now I can't wait to scrape the crud from my shoe.

Yep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

IF the Council and Mayor KNEW that the NDA was not binding (which I do not believe - based on the WAPO article I think that what WMATA told Jinks is different from what was in the email to the project engineer, and that all the elected based their behavior on what they heard from Jinks) then it suggests that both Silberberg and Wilson are equally culpable, ergo this has no bearing on the race for Mayor. At least the primary, as I presume if the GOP nominates anyone for November, that person will not be an incumbent member of the Council.

Both Silberberg and Wilson obviously assumed blindly, with no checking, that what Jinks told them was true: NDA was in force and binding. They always assume that what Jinks tells them is true. And sometimes it is.

But they both should have known better. And the one thing they should be able to agree on is, no more Jinks.

+1 and I still say that it's atrocious that there is no documentation of anyone from the city pushing back on WMATA in writing about the need for the change to the southern entrance to be kept from the public.

Even if WMATA was talking out both sides of their mouths and out their butts (which let's face it, it's WMATA, totally possible/probable), someone with the city should have pushed back and said "why can't we tell anyone about this major change?" But they didn't, because they didn't care or didn't want to deal with the fallout.

It is funny, isn't it, how we can see so clearly how reasonable people should act!?! Yet the fools running our city don't seem to get it. They don't seem to understand that they should be asking questions not blindly accepting what they're told. And now they are mad because the rest of us are clearly questioning them and their actions (or lack thereof). I'm willing to accept Silberberg's explanation because I don't see her acting with malfeasance. It really makes me mad that Wilson keeps trying to portray himself as such a good money man and strategic thinker yet he purposefully did not disclose. Either he knew and didn't say or he is way overselling his skills. Neither are a good look for him.

This is a total change-up for me. Two months ago I was completely behind Wilson. Now I can't wait to scrape the crud from my shoe.

So, I'm 99% sure you're actually a long time Allison fan, putting on a show, but I'll play along.

I attend or view many, many City meetings. Ivre watch her in action, and even had one on one conversaions with het. Silberberg is saying she didn't get that info, not because she didnt get it, but because when she got it, she was too ignorant and confused to understand it. It is PAINFUL to watch her try to comprehend the discussions happening around her. And don't call me a sexist jerk for calling her dim. I am a woman and there are plenty of intelligent women in government. She is not one of them.

The Potomac Yard situation is not great, but it is far from the catastrophe folks are trying to make it. Moreover, in no way whatsoever does AS come out of this looking "better" than the rest of the Council. I'm not planning to vote for all of the incumbents, but this is a desperate attempt to get Allison and odder non-incumbents in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

IF the Council and Mayor KNEW that the NDA was not binding (which I do not believe - based on the WAPO article I think that what WMATA told Jinks is different from what was in the email to the project engineer, and that all the elected based their behavior on what they heard from Jinks) then it suggests that both Silberberg and Wilson are equally culpable, ergo this has no bearing on the race for Mayor. At least the primary, as I presume if the GOP nominates anyone for November, that person will not be an incumbent member of the Council.

Both Silberberg and Wilson obviously assumed blindly, with no checking, that what Jinks told them was true: NDA was in force and binding. They always assume that what Jinks tells them is true. And sometimes it is.

But they both should have known better. And the one thing they should be able to agree on is, no more Jinks.

IF what Jinks told the WaPo is true, than Jinks was not lying, and checking with the individuals who spoke to Jinks would have given Wilson and Silberberg (and Smedberg, BTW) the same thing - that the NDA applied. Not clear to me that even with a lot of sniffing around WMATA, they would have hit the person who wrote the email saying it did not apply.

Certainly it would be good to know who at WMATA Jinks was in communication with, and in what format. Certainly that should be investigated before any personnel action is taken against Jinks or any of his subordinates, IMO.

Before Jinks agreed that the NDA was binding, he should have read the damned thing and given it to the city attorney for an immediate and thorough scrub. Plainly, he did neither. As a result, he prejudiced the City's entire position on the project. Fire him. Now.

No one should be fired before having a chance to explain what happened. No one. In the case of the City Manager, the entire Council should have a chance to question him, in open hearing. Perhaps ALSO in closed hearing, if legal issues require it.

The only reason I can imagine someone would insist on firing before that, is because they wish to make the nonfiring an issue in Tuesday's election.

Can he even be fired absent one or more sessions of the Council? I mean its the Council collectively that could do it, by vote. And there isn't a session between now and the primary, is there? Are you suggesting an emergency session?

Their campaigns for re-election do NOT override their duties. Yes, convene an emergency session. Fire him. Now.

How is it an emergency? A few dozen people bought 900k houses that they would have paid 800K for? I mean really that should be the first and highest goal of the City Manager, not crime, not paving streets, not the health dept, not any of that, but making sure that the FACTS about whether houses currently on the market are 400 ft from a metro station for sure, or they are within 1200 feet (but PROBABLY will be about 400 ft) from a metro station, are known to home buyers. Failing to use his time to ascertain the exact status of the NDA on behalf of those home buyers is such a manifest betrayal, that he not only deserves to be fired, but he needs to be fired immediately, no time for an investigation, the Council should do a Saturday session in the midst of a campaign (good for the challengers, eh? Did Sen McConnell write this?) just to fire him before he can do more damage.

Gotcha.

Because he engaged in a cover-up. Because what he did resulted in hundreds of people being cheated. Because he has pushed disability access off for years. Because, even now, he hasn't fully come clean. Because this all represents a lousy attitude towards the public. Because, even during a primary election season, the city council is still supposed to do its job.

This is the defining issue of all of the PYM fiasco for me. I believe that the City basically defrauded the association for the blind and I will not be happy until the association is made whole in some way. And it is completely unacceptable to say that they can just walk to the other entrance. The entire reason why they leased the building they did was for its access to the South entrance. I hope the association sues the pants off the City, WMATA and our elected officials who knew but didn't say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

+1 and I still say that it's atrocious that there is no documentation of anyone from the city pushing back on WMATA in writing about the need for the change to the southern entrance to be kept from the public.

Even if WMATA was talking out both sides of their mouths and out their butts (which let's face it, it's WMATA, totally possible/probable), someone with the city should have pushed back and said "why can't we tell anyone about this major change?" But they didn't, because they didn't care or didn't want to deal with the fallout.

It is funny, isn't it, how we can see so clearly how reasonable people should act!?! Yet the fools running our city don't seem to get it. They don't seem to understand that they should be asking questions not blindly accepting what they're told. And now they are mad because the rest of us are clearly questioning them and their actions (or lack thereof). I'm willing to accept Silberberg's explanation because I don't see her acting with malfeasance. It really makes me mad that Wilson keeps trying to portray himself as such a good money man and strategic thinker yet he purposefully did not disclose. Either he knew and didn't say or he is way overselling his skills. Neither are a good look for him.

This is a total change-up for me. Two months ago I was completely behind Wilson. Now I can't wait to scrape the crud from my shoe.

So, I'm 99% sure you're actually a long time Allison fan, putting on a show, but I'll play along.

I attend or view many, many City meetings. Ivre watch her in action, and even had one on one conversaions with het. Silberberg is saying she didn't get that info, not because she didnt get it, but because when she got it, she was too ignorant and confused to understand it. It is PAINFUL to watch her try to comprehend the discussions happening around her. And don't call me a sexist jerk for calling her dim. I am a woman and there are plenty of intelligent women in government. She is not one of them.

The Potomac Yard situation is not great, but it is far from the catastrophe folks are trying to make it. Moreover, in no way whatsoever does AS come out of this looking "better" than the rest of the Council. I'm not planning to vote for all of the incumbents, but this is a desperate attempt to get Allison and odder non-incumbents in.

Hhmmm, interesting post. You're claiming that I am a liar because your candidate Justin Wilson is a liar? Guess it is the company you keep.

You also seem to suffer from reading comprehension issues. Nowhere do I say that this is a catastrophe. What I do say repeatedly is that we were duped by elected officials who did not act responsibly and who did not uphold their responsibilities to their citizenry. I would much rather take clueless than dishonest. Justin Wilson is dishonest.

[Anonymous]

I'm not a fan overall but what I admire about Mayor Silberberg is that I think she is a good hearted person who cares about her town, her neighbors and about civility. I wish I saw more of that here from her supporters. I get being emotional about a close race but come on, these candidates are both good people. I think Wilson has a plan to bring development that will hopefully reduce some of the crime in my neighborhood, so he's the one I'm going to vote for.

[Anonymous]

What kills me about all this is how stubborn all the Wilson folks are. You can't defend how he behaved. The cover up is there in the emails. He's treading water until he addresses that.

We all get that Allison isn't Stephen Hawking. No one claimed she was. Then there's the whole thing about the VM driving the car 90% while the Mayor attends to outings etc. This was way more Justin's thing than Allison's and we all know it.

I'm watching this from a long game perspective. If Wilson apologizes now and ask forgiveness, it's 'over' for him. Absent that, he gets beat, and will shout his defense from the sidelines for the rest of his 'career'.

Anyway I've had some wine and LETS GO CAPS!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What kills me about all this is how stubborn all the Wilson folks are. You can't defend how he behaved. The cover up is there in the emails. He's treading water until he addresses that.

We all get that Allison isn't Stephen Hawking. No one claimed she was. Then there's the whole thing about the VM driving the car 90% while the Mayor attends to outings etc. This was way more Justin's thing than Allison's and we all know it.

I'm watching this from a long game perspective. If Wilson apologizes now and ask forgiveness, it's 'over' for him. Absent that, he gets beat, and will shout his defense from the sidelines for the rest of his 'career'.

Anyway I've had some wine and LETS GO CAPS!!!

ALL CAPS, ALL THE WAY!!! (and well said btw!)