What does a Bowser mayorship mean for DC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with Bowser is that she is a panderer. She will not have the backbone, I suspect, to back the smart forward-thinking people who have pushed bike lanes, transit, sustainability codes, etc. etc. She will cave to the loudest voices. At least that's what I'd be afraid of.

Pretty much this. Anything that had to do with progressive transportation reforms such as streetcars and bike lanes, she is opposed. Bus lane on 16th street, opposed. Sidewalks near Rock Creek Park? Opposed. If you are a candidate for the Office of Planning, DDOT or DDOE, would you take a job with a mayor who may not back you when the "unpopular" decisions need to be made? Would she hire a Gabe Kline or Harriet Tregoning as Fenty did? Would individuals like that want to work for her?

This is ridiculous. You know, the entire city is not urban. I live off of 16th Street and no, I don't want a bus lane. I would love to take the bus, but am I supposed to take 3 buses and a horse to drop off each kid in a different direction and then go to work? Give me a freakin' break.

Then don't take a bus. Problem solved.

There are hundreds/thousands of people who take buses on 16th Street whose trips would be more efficient if there was a bus lane. Should your need to use your car to take your trips trump the needs of the 50-60 people on each bus?

Yes.

Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem with Bowser is that she is a panderer. She will not have the backbone, I suspect, to back the smart forward-thinking people who have pushed bike lanes, transit, sustainability codes, etc. etc. She will cave to the loudest voices. At least that's what I'd be afraid of.

Excellent take, and exactly my thoughts. She didn't even have the fucking integrity to stand up for WMATA riders on the latest fare hike vote. She abstained as to "not look partial." What a fucking disgrace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw she said she'd keep Lanier. Haven't seen her say anything on Henderson yet.

yikes.

She strikes me as the second coming of Sharon Pratt Kelly - good intentions, no follow through. I hope I am wrong.

I'm not fan of Muriel but the city, itself, is on such better footing both financially and managerially that she can do too much harm. She'll probably decide to stay the course on most policies. I'm not anticipating any radical change (mostly because she doesn't have a lot of ideas).

hmmm, sounds familiar . It seems I remember hearing teh same said about Bush in 2000. Look what happened. It turned out choosing a Pres based on who you would rather have a beer with was a gross under- estimation of what was at stake.