Reply to Alexandria Mayor Race

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Alexandria Mayor Race"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

Sounds like this is a market rate building, so yeah, a problem given that landlords can upgrade and raise rents by right, so denser development is the only way to get committed AH units.  If the landlord violated code that is up to staff to address, I don't know wha t happened with your complaint.

but of course my point was merely that the debate (which has been vigorous on AH) might actually have taken up some of their time, along with many other issues.

It does seem we are becoming polarized and its harder and harder to engage with each other. [b]I am trying to respond in good faith however. [/b]  [/quote]

You say you are responding in good faith yet have been incredibly dismissive of just how bad this is or how badly people feel towards the City.

City allows landlords to allow buildings to fall into disrepair while tenants are still there paying rent because the landlord wants to redevelop?  Well yea, that happens is your response.  Do you understand how dismissive that is and how that leads directly into "yep, city sure as shootin doesn't care about AH"?

And your response "I mean I know that to you the question of the southern entrance to the metro station is huge" - again, so unbelievably dismissive about a situation that is a BIG FREAKIN DEAL to people.  I don't even LIVE in PY and I'm impacted by this and upset about it.  And a new metro station IS a huge deal for the City of Alexandria.  But your responding by acting like people are nuts for thinking the council, mayor, and vice mayor shirked their duty by not doing anything to get citizens informed about the changes.

Look, you obviously are pro VM.  Maybe you know him personally and know him to be a good man.  But he, along with the rest of the people involved, massively messed up here.  And pretending they didn't isn't doing him any good.  This is a moment for a come to god, We Messed Up And We're Sorry response, not "why are you so mad, bruh?"[/quote]

Excuse me. I think the City needs to enfore code, of course. If a building owner is violating code and the City is ignoring it that is a big deal, but I think I would have heard about. If the landlord is not in violation than there probably IS nothing the City can do about it. Unethical of the landlord, but I am not here to judge (unnamed) landlords. rather to discuss the upcoming election.

And, I think the change to PY is unfortunate, [b]but AFAICT not the City's fault.  And I am not sure communicating that in 2018 instead of June 2017 IS a big deal.[/b]  Though I also am far more optimistic about how the station will work for south PY than others are. [/quote]

It's the city's fault.  And widely communicating it right away (which the city could have done) would have prevented any claim that the city committed a fraud.  
[/quote]

The change is the City's fault?  How?  The bids came in too high, and there was nothing else they could cut without bigger consequences.  Or are we back to not communicating is the City's fault. See the conflation of different things - anger at the substance, the claims about a "coverup" and the conflation of errors by City staff with with dishonesty by CMs' is one of the reasons I am so put off by the angry people here. It seems of a piece with the kind of free association anger that charecterizes so many vocal people in the City. [/quote]

What did the city do to make sure people were informed of the change?  Can you tell me one thing they did to push FOR the release of information rather than against it?[/quote]

HOw does that respond to my comment?  That is about the failure to push back on public information,  not about the substance of the change itself.  And IF staff erred in not pushing back (but maybe they pushed back but not in writing?  I don't know) still no evidence that CMs knew they did not.

There seems to be a lot of jumping from "Jinks misunderstood the NDA and didnt push on WMATA" to "its Smedberg's fault we don't have a second entrance".

In a city where we have so many other big issues I don't think the first point rises to very much.  The second seems wholely unsupported by the evidence, even in the absence of a detailed response.[/quote]

[b]You're rather unsuccessfully trying to make it seem as if people are blaming the city for the change to the southern entrance [/b]when in reality, people are blaming the city for not working to make that information public as soon as possible.  No one here is claiming the city is the one that killed the southern entrance, we're saying that the city didn't do enough/anything to make that change public knowledge.  So in my response, I'm just changing the conversation back to what people are actually complaining about - the failure on the part of the city was about not getting this information out there to the citizens.  The change to the project was WMATAs call, the secrecy around it is looking increasingly like the city's.  [/quote]

[i][b]It's the city's fault. [/b]And widely communicating it right away (which the city could have done) would have prevented any claim that the city committed a fraud. 
[/i]

PP said its the City's fault. I realize there are different anon posters here.  But given the nature of the rhetoric, I can hardly blame PP for confusing the the issue of secrecy with the issue of the change itself.

Thank you though for saying increasingingly looking - I think we agree that nothing is yet proven from these documents.  Though it does look worse for Mr Jinks and staff than it did yesterday.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics