If I was a local constituent who favored progress on the elements laid out in ZFH Phase 2 - just to take an example that will likely be a key decision point in the upcoming Council term - I'd say Gaskins. If on the other hand I favored not moving forward with those elements, I'd say Jackson. Said more shortly, depends on the constituents and needs. |
John Chapman. You may not agree with him but he is super honest about his thought process and cares deeply about constituent feedback. |
Jackson’s policy views are very divergent from Silberberg’s. So what exactly is the basis for comparison? |
Thank you. Fair and helpful. |
Ok, but no reason to call fellow Dems racist and MAGA because they do not agree with you on issues surrounding development. Also given the support from right wing orgs and developers, I am not sure everyone agrees that supporting these proposals make you more progressive. I know supporters like to paint it that way, but not everyone liberal shares those views. |
He is good about that. Do you know if he’s also considering joining the mayoral race? |
No idea. I think he considered it in the past, but given Wilson is going to support Gaskins, I doubt he will go against the Dem machine. |
In terms of local issues that are the purview of the city council, I'd put Jackson to the left of Silberberg and to the right of Gaskins. I don't mean that as an insult, just my observation on their votes, comments, and inclinations to change. |
PP here, I didn't call anyone racist or MAGA, but I found ZFH/ZFA support to be a progressive agenda (which both Gaskins and Jackson supported! But I believe Gaskins supported it more zealously and would be more likely to lean in on further reforms going forward). It's OK to disagree and make arguments to the contrary. No offense intended. |
Sorry, PP I didn’t mean you. I was going back to my prior posts about Wilson’s supporters lobbing insults at everyone who disagrees with them (or Wilson) on local issues. |
It’s the “I just met you, but I’m in love,” ruse. Normally between a rich widow and a handsome charlatan, Gaskins uses the same ploy with Alexandria. Go to her campaign website and look at all of the organizations she’s supposedly involved with. The details tell the story. Moves to the city, rushes to sign up for as much as she can to *sound* involved, and runs for council. How long did she live here when she ran? She’s not the first to pursue this cheap political climbing tactic. Alexandria is being used as a stepping stone in her political career, and I have no interest in being used. I’d hope next person in the role plans to stick around long enough to endure the policies they work to put in place. Highly doubtful that describes this candidate. |
She is definitely not the most available. My group asked to meet with her twice over two issues (ZFH and Duke Street) and both times she canceled last minute. |
I don’t know if it is accurate to describe positions on Alexandria issues as left or right. I think Jackson has shown more inclination to oppose at times urban vision of Alexandria represented by Wilson and more willingness to be swayed by loud groups like BIBA. This is why Jackson is compared with Silberberg. As many pointed out, her voting record in the end hasn’t been that different from Gaskins. Gaskins, to me, is consistent with Wilson, et al.’s policy positions. She seems like she has a good temperament and not to be disdainful of opposing views like Wilson. I would like to learn more about her. I agree with the comments on John Chapman above - I may not always agree with him but he seems like he is clear with his views but engages meaningfully with those with differing views. |
NP here. I wish he would. He is a pretty nice person and seems to take his city council job and its responsibilities seriously. |
I know Amy personally and I don’t think she is swayed by loud groups like BIBA. But I think when she does hear concerns coming from several different constituents groups, she pays attention. Alison was completely swayed by groups like BIBA and was very hard to pin down on issues. She also had a hard core Republican base which made everything about her questionable. Amy is a lifelong, active Dem. Not even comparable. |