Would you support a referendum requiring local government people like council members to use public transit

[Anonymous]

To get to official business? Given all the local governments in the dc area are so anti car?

[Anonymous]

Ha! No, but I would support a referendum banning them from purchasing Escalades, Suburbans, Expeditions, Cybertrucks and R1s.

[Anonymous]

Yes. And I would support a PAC that only helps elect council members that use public transport.

[Anonymous]

Yes, good idea. Make them put their money where their mouths are, and require them to be in the office.

Can we find out who drives to work everyday, or wfh most days? They are hypocrites.

[Anonymous]

I would support an end to all local government take-home cars except police. Let’s start there. My neighbor spends his day at one park but drives his giant parks truck 40 minutes each way every day. I’m sure the truck gets more miles from commuting than working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would support an end to all local government take-home cars except police. Let’s start there. My neighbor spends his day at one park but drives his giant parks truck 40 minutes each way every day. I’m sure the truck gets more miles from commuting than working.

Totally agree in concept. I work for local government and have actually done a review of mission-appropriate take-home vehicles.

A blanket ban is a little DOGE-like. Claiming efficiency while actually causing more inefficiency. But periodic reviews of take home assignments and use, coupled with smart policy, is one real way to help decrease inefficiencies and costs.

For example, mobile response social workers will be able to make more calls if they can start their day from home in their take-home vehicle, rather than going into the office to pick up a work vehicle. Then returning to the office to drop off the car. This matters if they are traveling to 5 calls a day (averaging 1-2 hours on each call). But it is not appropriate if they travel to 3-5 calls a week. That's why periodic review is necessary.

[Anonymous]

I’m not local, but I think any local government staff in any supervisory or management role at all (i.e. everyone except the lowest level of all departments) and certainly any elected official should be forced to use public transit whenever possible. And by possible I mean look at the rules for kids’ school buses - if they say kids who live less than a mile from school need to walk then it should be “possible” for staff to walk that far to get to public transit from their homes and/or to their offices on the other side. They should absolutely be forced to be affected by the policies that they are making decisions about for the rest of us - whether that’s transit schedules or crime policies. And that should be the case all across the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would support an end to all local government take-home cars except police. Let’s start there. My neighbor spends his day at one park but drives his giant parks truck 40 minutes each way every day. I’m sure the truck gets more miles from commuting than working.

Totally agree in concept. I work for local government and have actually done a review of mission-appropriate take-home vehicles.

A blanket ban is a little DOGE-like. Claiming efficiency while actually causing more inefficiency. But periodic reviews of take home assignments and use, coupled with smart policy, is one real way to help decrease inefficiencies and costs.

For example, mobile response social workers will be able to make more calls if they can start their day from home in their take-home vehicle, rather than going into the office to pick up a work vehicle. Then returning to the office to drop off the car. This matters if they are traveling to 5 calls a day (averaging 1-2 hours on each call). But it is not appropriate if they travel to 3-5 calls a week. That's why periodic review is necessary.

But then some workers will a car and others won't. That not fair because the workers are not being treated equally.

[Anonymous]

No. Stupid idea. But so is being anti car.

[Anonymous]

No, because DC public transport is generally not adequate for large parts of the city. I would love public transport but it would double my commute time living and working in DC. Until metro stops are expanded, this is a no go.

[Anonymous]

And that their kids use local schools and not private.

[Anonymous]

No, I’m not a commie Democrat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would support an end to all local government take-home cars except police. Let’s start there. My neighbor spends his day at one park but drives his giant parks truck 40 minutes each way every day. I’m sure the truck gets more miles from commuting than working.

Totally agree in concept. I work for local government and have actually done a review of mission-appropriate take-home vehicles.

A blanket ban is a little DOGE-like. Claiming efficiency while actually causing more inefficiency. But periodic reviews of take home assignments and use, coupled with smart policy, is one real way to help decrease inefficiencies and costs.

For example, mobile response social workers will be able to make more calls if they can start their day from home in their take-home vehicle, rather than going into the office to pick up a work vehicle. Then returning to the office to drop off the car. This matters if they are traveling to 5 calls a day (averaging 1-2 hours on each call). But it is not appropriate if they travel to 3-5 calls a week. That's why periodic review is necessary.

But then some workers will a car and others won't. That not fair because the workers are not being treated equally.

If you design a policy based on objective measures such as work load, distance traveled, etc., then yes, it's treating people fairly. These shouldn't be considered perks but necessary tools for job performance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would support an end to all local government take-home cars except police. Let’s start there. My neighbor spends his day at one park but drives his giant parks truck 40 minutes each way every day. I’m sure the truck gets more miles from commuting than working.

Totally agree in concept. I work for local government and have actually done a review of mission-appropriate take-home vehicles.

A blanket ban is a little DOGE-like. Claiming efficiency while actually causing more inefficiency. But periodic reviews of take home assignments and use, coupled with smart policy, is one real way to help decrease inefficiencies and costs.

For example, mobile response social workers will be able to make more calls if they can start their day from home in their take-home vehicle, rather than going into the office to pick up a work vehicle. Then returning to the office to drop off the car. This matters if they are traveling to 5 calls a day (averaging 1-2 hours on each call). But it is not appropriate if they travel to 3-5 calls a week. That's why periodic review is necessary.

But then some workers will a car and others won't. That not fair because the workers are not being treated equally.

If you design a policy based on objective measures such as work load, distance traveled, etc., then yes, it's treating people fairly. These shouldn't be considered perks but necessary tools for job performance.

All employees have the same workload. No employee is more capable than another. The distance traveled is based on the random assignment of cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would support an end to all local government take-home cars except police. Let’s start there. My neighbor spends his day at one park but drives his giant parks truck 40 minutes each way every day. I’m sure the truck gets more miles from commuting than working.

Totally agree in concept. I work for local government and have actually done a review of mission-appropriate take-home vehicles.

A blanket ban is a little DOGE-like. Claiming efficiency while actually causing more inefficiency. But periodic reviews of take home assignments and use, coupled with smart policy, is one real way to help decrease inefficiencies and costs.

For example, mobile response social workers will be able to make more calls if they can start their day from home in their take-home vehicle, rather than going into the office to pick up a work vehicle. Then returning to the office to drop off the car. This matters if they are traveling to 5 calls a day (averaging 1-2 hours on each call). But it is not appropriate if they travel to 3-5 calls a week. That's why periodic review is necessary.

But then some workers will a car and others won't. That not fair because the workers are not being treated equally.

If you design a policy based on objective measures such as work load, distance traveled, etc., then yes, it's treating people fairly. These shouldn't be considered perks but necessary tools for job performance.

All employees have the same workload. No employee is more capable than another. The distance traveled is based on the random assignment of cases.

Not true and you know it. Stop trolling