Ward One Council Seat

[Anonymous]

Seems Jim is trying to go negative on her ethics now...

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/03/26/graham-fires-back-opponent-files-ethics-complaint/?utm_source=http://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/03/26/graham-fires-back-opponent-files-ethics-complaint/&utm_medium=Website&utm_campaign=RelatedLinksInside

"The complaint, which Graham released to the Washington Post, accuses Nadeau of underreporting her income in 2009 to enable her to be eligible for an interest-free city loan to purchase a condominium under a city program for low- to moderate-income residents.....

In his complaint, Graham charges that he observed what he believes to be “serious irregularities” and “perhaps fraud” in a loan application filed by Nadeau in which she allegedly failed to report that her income had increased from the time she initially applied for the loan two years earlier."

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Seems Jim is trying to go negative on her ethics now...

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/03/26/graham-fires-back-opponent-files-ethics-complaint/?utm_source=http://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/03/26/graham-fires-back-opponent-files-ethics-complaint/&utm_medium=Website&utm_campaign=RelatedLinksInside

"The complaint, which Graham released to the Washington Post, accuses Nadeau of underreporting her income in 2009 to enable her to be eligible for an interest-free city loan to purchase a condominium under a city program for low- to moderate-income residents.....

In his complaint, Graham charges that he observed what he believes to be “serious irregularities” and “perhaps fraud” in a loan application filed by Nadeau in which she allegedly failed to report that her income had increased from the time she initially applied for the loan two years earlier."

The Washington Post, to its credit, correctly explained why Graham was actually committing his own ethics violation by using Council resources to attack a political opponent:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dc-council-member-jim-graham-flings-dirt-at-his-opponent-brianne-nadeau/2014/03/26/66fa891a-b529-11e3-8cb6-284052554d74_story.html

"That Mr. Graham thinks nothing of using his office and its resources to try to find dirt on a political opponent and request an official investigation on such insubstantial grounds shows that he still doesn’t get what good government is about. We previously endorsed Ms. Nadeau as the better choice for Ward 1, and this episode only reinforces the correctness of that decision."

The entire issue is the difference between "salary" and "income". Nadeau's salary stayed the same over the two-year period in question. However, she received a bonus which led to an increase in income. Banks don't count bonuses when figuring eligibility for a mortgage. Nadeau was wrong to say that her "income" didn't increase, but the bottom line was the same -- her salary which is what was important didn't increase. I'm also not that thrilled with her tossing around her ANC title so cavalierly, but she has a fairly good explanation (not one I entirely accept, but one that I agree is reasonable). Regardless, Graham's use of Council resources in this sleazy effort are despicable and far worse than anything Nadeau did.

[Anonymous]

"That Mr. Graham thinks nothing of using his office and its resources to try to find dirt on a political opponent and request an official investigation on such insubstantial grounds shows that he still doesn’t get what good government is about. "

Is this an allegation or is there proof that he used his office to dig this up?

Anyway, it seems like a last ditch effort from Graham.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:"That Mr. Graham thinks nothing of using his office and its resources to try to find dirt on a political opponent and request an official investigation on such insubstantial grounds shows that he still doesn’t get what good government is about. "

Is this an allegation or is there proof that he used his office to dig this up?

Anyway, it seems like a last ditch effort from Graham.

He dug up constituent services emails from Nadeau and his own correspondence supporting her. The letter to the IG was on his Council letterhead. So, he obviously involved his Council staff in a political vendetta.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems Jim is trying to go negative on her ethics now...

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/03/26/graham-fires-back-opponent-files-ethics-complaint/?utm_source=http://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/03/26/graham-fires-back-opponent-files-ethics-complaint/&utm_medium=Website&utm_campaign=RelatedLinksInside

"The complaint, which Graham released to the Washington Post, accuses Nadeau of underreporting her income in 2009 to enable her to be eligible for an interest-free city loan to purchase a condominium under a city program for low- to moderate-income residents.....

In his complaint, Graham charges that he observed what he believes to be “serious irregularities” and “perhaps fraud” in a loan application filed by Nadeau in which she allegedly failed to report that her income had increased from the time she initially applied for the loan two years earlier."

The Washington Post, to its credit, correctly explained why Graham was actually committing his own ethics violation by using Council resources to attack a political opponent:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dc-council-member-jim-graham-flings-dirt-at-his-opponent-brianne-nadeau/2014/03/26/66fa891a-b529-11e3-8cb6-284052554d74_story.html

"That Mr. Graham thinks nothing of using his office and its resources to try to find dirt on a political opponent and request an official investigation on such insubstantial grounds shows that he still doesn’t get what good government is about. We previously endorsed Ms. Nadeau as the better choice for Ward 1, and this episode only reinforces the correctness of that decision."

The entire issue is the difference between "salary" and "income". Nadeau's salary stayed the same over the two-year period in question. However, she received a bonus which led to an increase in income. Banks don't count bonuses when figuring eligibility for a mortgage. Nadeau was wrong to say that her "income" didn't increase, but the bottom line was the same -- her salary which is what was important didn't increase. I'm also not that thrilled with her tossing around her ANC title so cavalierly, but she has a fairly good explanation (not one I entirely accept, but one that I agree is reasonable). Regardless, Graham's use of Council resources in this sleazy effort are despicable and far worse than anything Nadeau did.

OH COME ON, Jeff. I looked into this program myself when , as a single parent, I found our my son and I were aboutto be evicted becasue the ban was foreclosing on my land lord in 2007 ( he had been keeping my rent money and not paying the mortgage)

The income to qualify for mortgage assistance in this program, which Jim Graham co- FOUNDED, I believe was 55K a year. The assumption being that if you make more than 55K a year , you can save your own down payment by cutting living expenses. I argued that , as a single parent my income setting should be higher as 30K a year right off top was going to child care. They said , NO.

If she had the down payment money becasue she earned a bonus, she should use it , not ask for assistance while hiding money whetehr its bonus or weekly income its MONEY. Whetehr she was getting help form Mom and Dad, its money and she shoudl not hid eit and ask for help. That's undermines the public trust and it echoes teh way Breanne comes off as entitled and pushy.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
If she had the down payment money becasue she earned a bonus, she should use it , not ask for assistance while hiding money whetehr its bonus or weekly income its MONEY. Whetehr she was getting help form Mom and Dad, its money and she shoudl not hid eit and ask for help. That's undermines the public trust and it echoes teh way Breanne comes off as entitled and pushy.

In every one of your posts you make unsupported allegations. I don't know if you simply are careless or just don't mind being fact free. Either way, you have pretty much lost any credibility that you might have otherwise had. Nadeau didn't "hide" her bonus. If you see these documents which she released herself, you will see that she correctly reported her income:

http://briannefordc.com/hpap-documentation/

The first document was after the two-year delay and shows that she made $5,000 more than the second and third documents which were filed two years earlier. Everyone was aware of her 2007 income. The discrepancy was that the Urban League didn't realize the extra money was a bonus. Once that was clarified, they agreed to give her the full amount of the original commitment. BTW, even with the bonus, she didn't make more than $55K per year which you say is the cut-off.

If I was of a mind to support Graham -- which obviously I am not -- I could easily compose an argument in his favor based entirely on facts. It is very telling that you have to repeatedly resort to either outright false or factually unsupported allegations to oppose Nadeau.

[Anonymous]

Isn't she pro-neighborhood preference for charter schools?

[Anonymous]

So let's see---in 2009 Jim Graham had no problem exerting his influence to help an ANC Commissioner do something that he now claims was unethical and fraudulent. I love how his "ethics" are so---shall we say---transitory?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't she pro-neighborhood preference for charter schools?

According to this:

http://c3.thevoterguide.org/v/wamu14/race-detail.do?id=12719987

She is not, but Graham is.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was not aware of her connections to developers. I have met her and yes, she seems abrasive.

I understand that Graham has had questionable dealings, but if Nadeau is truly being bankrolled by developers, I have concerns that she would just turn around and do the same.

I'm not in love with Graham, but he does constituent services very well, and that's important in a city council member. If you can't even survive as an ANC rep, I have to question whether you can do an effective job at that as a council member.

But, obviously Nadeau has some strong supporters out there who see something they like. I guess I'll be reading over her website again to see if I can figure it out.

I just looked through Nadeau's and Graham's campaign finance reports. I think the alleged connection of Nadeau is a figment of the earlier poster's imagination, if not an outright lie. I didn't see any contributions to Nadeau from developers. I supposed there could have been some individual contributions from developers whose names I didn't recognize, but I'm familiar with many, if not most, of the developer LLCs and none of them gave her any money. In contrast, Graham's report was full of developer contributions including:

McCullough Construction LLC
Capital Construction Enterprises, INC
2436 18th Street Associates LP
Congressional North Associ LP
DC General Construction Inc
Its My Real Estate LLC
Jair Lynch
LEVEL 2 DEVELOPMENT LLC

This list may include some who are, strictly speaking, not developers. But, they are all involved in development. Moreover, Graham has received a ton of money from companies connected to gas and petroleum.

You can go to ocf.dc.gov yourself and check out the reports. No need to take my word for it (or the word of an anonymous poster who doesn't like the "girl" candidate).

Here you go, Jeff Steele:

Brianne Nadeau has received thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the big landlords in rent control zones near metro stations. These are the very areas of the city where the Office of Planning favors " luxury condo development". Tom Borger, President of Borger Management has given my opponent, Brianne Nadeau, exclusive, unprecedented access to Borger properties to solicit voters.

On the other hand, Jim Graham has, once again, been endorsed by the organization that looks out for renters -- TENAC (The DC Tenants' Advocacy Coalition).

[Anonymous]

Live in Mt Pleasant - I've gotten 4 door knockers and daily phone calls from Brianne's team (despite repeatedly telling them i was voting for her and please go "inform" other people who were undecided) - and that's just in the last week. By contrast, nothing whatsoever from Graham. I find that interesting.

The door knocker yesterday told me their internal polls show a 2% polling difference.

I'm voting Brianne in the primary. And Weaver in the general.

[Anonymous]

Graham is ineffective, prickly and -- judging by his ethical scrapes and those of his top staff, probably corrupt. Like other corrupt queens (and kings), it is time for him to be overthrown.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Here you go, Jeff Steele:

Brianne Nadeau has received thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the big landlords in rent control zones near metro stations. These are the very areas of the city where the Office of Planning favors " luxury condo development". Tom Borger, President of Borger Management has given my opponent, Brianne Nadeau, exclusive, unprecedented access to Borger properties to solicit voters.

Are you seriously quoting from JIM GRAHAM HIMSELF? I quote from Office of Campaign Finance reports and you quote from JIM GRAHAM??? Let me ask you, was this supposed to be a serious post or are you just trolling me? Jim Graham is the same guy who has used his official office to launch a political attack on his opponent. Jim Graham is who was offered a bribe by his chief of staff and acted like he had been offered a fish sandwich when he wasn't hungry. He didn't report the crime or take any disciplinary action against the guy. Jim Graham is the guy who threatened to withhold approval for a development project unless the developers played ball with him. Jim Graham is the guy you trust as a source of information and expect me to take you as anything more than a joke?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Here you go, Jeff Steele:

Brianne Nadeau has received thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the big landlords in rent control zones near metro stations. These are the very areas of the city where the Office of Planning favors " luxury condo development". Tom Borger, President of Borger Management has given my opponent, Brianne Nadeau, exclusive, unprecedented access to Borger properties to solicit voters.

Are you seriously quoting from JIM GRAHAM HIMSELF? I quote from Office of Campaign Finance reports and you quote from JIM GRAHAM??? Let me ask you, was this supposed to be a serious post or are you just trolling me? Jim Graham is the same guy who has used his official office to launch a political attack on his opponent. Jim Graham is who was offered a bribe by his chief of staff and acted like he had been offered a fish sandwich when he wasn't hungry. He didn't report the crime or take any disciplinary action against the guy. Jim Graham is the guy who threatened to withhold approval for a development project unless the developers played ball with him. Jim Graham is the guy you trust as a source of information and expect me to take you as anything more than a joke?

Jeff, you asked for data on Brianne's developer contributers. Now you have one exampe. You should source it fairly( look it up) , not redundantly repeat yourself.

I find it interesting that Brianne, who is basically just a 30 something PR person from the Robinawicz firm is so confident she is the next ward 1 councilperson. I don't like that she sent most of her mailings to under 30's. To me its a demographics based campaign of VERY LITTLE SUBSTANCE , the chief idea of which seems to be pretty vacuous, vote for me, I'm not Jim Graham…. Well, Jim Graham has done a hell of a lot for Ward 1 . So, to get my vote you better have some actual track record beyond, you know, " well our demographic studies tell us that if you are under 30 and I say this word 10 times, you respond ……. THAT is not a leader, that is demagoguery...

. Are you denying that a major owner of low income afforadable housing subject to rent control, but about to go "lux condo" with the OP's zoning re-write is a main supporter of Brianne ? Show the data is wrong or concede the point. Seems you would rather side step and that is VERY Telling.

[Anonymous]

Jeff, it is all part of the OP conspiracy theory.