Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never met the man, but could it be that that was top of his mind because he gets an earful in Foxhall on those buildings at Q? It was the #1 topic for months for the prospective constituency. Until the schools. So I’m not jumping to any conclusions

But on the schools. Why so much pushback? Who doesn’t want a school? This is like another Safeway. What’s with this neighborhood?! Don’t they have plane noise to worry about?

Do you really want to go down that rabbit hole? But you ask an honest question and so I'll do my best to give you an honest answer.

There are probably not more than a dozen or so people who are leading the charge to oppose the schools. More in thr community are opposed, but this is based on misinformation spread by those original dozen.

The original dozen are largely white, elderly, and upper middle class. They have lived in the neighborhood for decades and view it as an enclave for white upper middle class people. They do not like the idea of their neighborhood changing, both because they romanticize the past and are threatened by notions of de-gentrification.

That is what the opposition to the schools is about. It has nothing to do with a park. Before the current proposal was put forth, the same people very publicly opposed a campaign that would have transferred the public building back to DCPS so that it could be used as a park. They were very explicit that the reason they did this us because they were scared that the park could be used as a public high school.

The original dozen could give a damn about the public elementary school. What they don't want is a public high school. They look at the Wilson / J-R high school and how rowdy they think the kids are and say they don't want that in their neighborhood. They are very explicit about that.

If you ask them, what they want (and what Goulet is falsely promising them) is for the old GDS site to be used as an elementary school and the high school to be moved somewhere else other than their neighborhood. Once MacArthur HS actually opens, much of the opposition to Foxhall ES will go away because they don't really care about it or the park.

It's base NIMBYism, but it's also tied in with whats going on in the apartments off Q street. They see the changes there and think that having a high school will accelerate those changes. That is, the neighborhood is being de-gentrified. To them, that's an existential threat to their way of life.

I live on the apartments on Q and Macarthur. There are 2 apartments that are receiving vouchers. The cops were coming there daily.
As of the last few months things have calmed down.

NOBODY wants crime on Macarthur

Agree that nobody wants crime. But is a new elementary school at Foxhall going to lead to crime? Do you ever go a couple of miles up MacArthur to Key Elementary? Are the mean streets around it a hotbed of lawlessness?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never met the man, but could it be that that was top of his mind because he gets an earful in Foxhall on those buildings at Q? It was the #1 topic for months for the prospective constituency. Until the schools. So I’m not jumping to any conclusions

But on the schools. Why so much pushback? Who doesn’t want a school? This is like another Safeway. What’s with this neighborhood?! Don’t they have plane noise to worry about?

Do you really want to go down that rabbit hole? But you ask an honest question and so I'll do my best to give you an honest answer.

There are probably not more than a dozen or so people who are leading the charge to oppose the schools. More in thr community are opposed, but this is based on misinformation spread by those original dozen.

The original dozen are largely white, elderly, and upper middle class. They have lived in the neighborhood for decades and view it as an enclave for white upper middle class people. They do not like the idea of their neighborhood changing, both because they romanticize the past and are threatened by notions of de-gentrification.

That is what the opposition to the schools is about. It has nothing to do with a park. Before the current proposal was put forth, the same people very publicly opposed a campaign that would have transferred the public building back to DCPS so that it could be used as a park. They were very explicit that the reason they did this us because they were scared that the park could be used as a public high school.

The original dozen could give a damn about the public elementary school. What they don't want is a public high school. They look at the Wilson / J-R high school and how rowdy they think the kids are and say they don't want that in their neighborhood. They are very explicit about that.

If you ask them, what they want (and what Goulet is falsely promising them) is for the old GDS site to be used as an elementary school and the high school to be moved somewhere else other than their neighborhood. Once MacArthur HS actually opens, much of the opposition to Foxhall ES will go away because they don't really care about it or the park.

It's base NIMBYism, but it's also tied in with whats going on in the apartments off Q street. They see the changes there and think that having a high school will accelerate those changes. That is, the neighborhood is being de-gentrified. To them, that's an existential threat to their way of life.

I live on the apartments on Q and Macarthur. There are 2 apartments that are receiving vouchers. The cops were coming there daily.
As of the last few months things have calmed down.

NOBODY wants crime on Macarthur

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never met the man, but could it be that that was top of his mind because he gets an earful in Foxhall on those buildings at Q? It was the #1 topic for months for the prospective constituency. Until the schools. So I’m not jumping to any conclusions

But on the schools. Why so much pushback? Who doesn’t want a school? This is like another Safeway. What’s with this neighborhood?! Don’t they have plane noise to worry about?

Do you really want to go down that rabbit hole? But you ask an honest question and so I'll do my best to give you an honest answer.

There are probably not more than a dozen or so people who are leading the charge to oppose the schools. More in thr community are opposed, but this is based on misinformation spread by those original dozen.

The original dozen are largely white, elderly, and upper middle class. They have lived in the neighborhood for decades and view it as an enclave for white upper middle class people. They do not like the idea of their neighborhood changing, both because they romanticize the past and are threatened by notions of de-gentrification.

That is what the opposition to the schools is about. It has nothing to do with a park. Before the current proposal was put forth, the same people very publicly opposed a campaign that would have transferred the public building back to DCPS so that it could be used as a park. They were very explicit that the reason they did this us because they were scared that the park could be used as a public high school.

The original dozen could give a damn about the public elementary school. What they don't want is a public high school. They look at the Wilson / J-R high school and how rowdy they think the kids are and say they don't want that in their neighborhood. They are very explicit about that.

If you ask them, what they want (and what Goulet is falsely promising them) is for the old GDS site to be used as an elementary school and the high school to be moved somewhere else other than their neighborhood. Once MacArthur HS actually opens, much of the opposition to Foxhall ES will go away because they don't really care about it or the park.

It's base NIMBYism, but it's also tied in with whats going on in the apartments off Q street. They see the changes there and think that having a high school will accelerate those changes. That is, the neighborhood is being de-gentrified. To them, that's an existential threat to their way of life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was the question:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1527304661597683716

This was the answer:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1526981806859223040

Maybe someone can be so kind as to transcrube it all so that we can collectively dissect it.

I don't think it was a good answer to the question but YMMV.

omg. THAT is what they are trying to smear him with? He gave a really good, non-racist answer. Seriously wtf.

If this is the answer everyone is complaining about, DCUM's own Jeff Steele and a lot of other people owe Goulet an apology.

That is not his full answer. It is cut off at the end and doesn't include his allegation that black voucher recipients are a source of crime. That's why we deserve that the Chamber of Commerce release the entire video.

Seems really shitty of you, Jeff. Goulet is presenting a pretty sensitive description of the issue. For you to accuse him of later veering into some awful racist thing when you can't even tell us what he said is just gross. You're just lying and slinging mud here, Jeff. Is that the purpose of DCUM? To lie about candidates you don't like?

I would love to be able to provide an exact quote, but due to the cover-up being staged by Goulet and the Chamber of Commerce, I can't. It is pretty shocking that you are such a staunch supporter of suppressing the facts. You and I both know that I am not lying. Is it your position that Goulet didn't mention crime in his answer?

lol Jeff. there is no cover up Goulet posted a clip of the first part of his answer, and is on the record elsewhere with the second supposedly offensive part of his answer.

Fine, as I said above, we can both agree that Goulet replied to a question about racial and economic diversity by discussing black voucher recipients being a source of crime. This is what I've been saying all along and getting called a liar for my efforts. But, now it turns out that you agree this is what happened. Now you are also agreeing that the video that some posters are claiming exonerates him doesn't include crucial parts of his answer.

Yes, you are still dissembling.

He responded to a long, multi-part question about what he would do to increase racial and economic diversity in Ward 3 by addressing the fact that the primary government program to create that diversity, vouchers, is failing to provide proper supports to recipients, resulting in their inability to access jobs and mental health care, and resulting in increased crime in the buildings. The most you can criticize him for is that his answer is a criticism instead of an affirmative policy proposal.

That's what I've been saying. His reaction to increasing diversity was to focus entirely on black voucher recipients who he thinks cause crime. Why didn't he mention middle class, upper middle class, or wealthy black residents and what could be done to attract them to Ward 3? Does diversity only mean poor and black to him?

He was asked specifically about low-income african american residents and he responded by critiquing the program designed to bring low income residents to W3. So now you think he should have been talking about the black UMC? well you would not like that answer either, because it’s about schools and the lack of academic rigor and lack of discipline at Deal and JH.

No, he was asked about diversifying the Ward and responded with low income blacks on vouchers.

That’s not what the question was. The question was posted up thread. Why lie?

Look, even if he said something racist no one actually cares because the quality of the other candidates is so low.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was the question:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1527304661597683716

This was the answer:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1526981806859223040

Maybe someone can be so kind as to transcrube it all so that we can collectively dissect it.

I don't think it was a good answer to the question but YMMV.

omg. THAT is what they are trying to smear him with? He gave a really good, non-racist answer. Seriously wtf.

If this is the answer everyone is complaining about, DCUM's own Jeff Steele and a lot of other people owe Goulet an apology.

That is not his full answer. It is cut off at the end and doesn't include his allegation that black voucher recipients are a source of crime. That's why we deserve that the Chamber of Commerce release the entire video.

Seems really shitty of you, Jeff. Goulet is presenting a pretty sensitive description of the issue. For you to accuse him of later veering into some awful racist thing when you can't even tell us what he said is just gross. You're just lying and slinging mud here, Jeff. Is that the purpose of DCUM? To lie about candidates you don't like?

I would love to be able to provide an exact quote, but due to the cover-up being staged by Goulet and the Chamber of Commerce, I can't. It is pretty shocking that you are such a staunch supporter of suppressing the facts. You and I both know that I am not lying. Is it your position that Goulet didn't mention crime in his answer?

lol Jeff. there is no cover up Goulet posted a clip of the first part of his answer, and is on the record elsewhere with the second supposedly offensive part of his answer.

Fine, as I said above, we can both agree that Goulet replied to a question about racial and economic diversity by discussing black voucher recipients being a source of crime. This is what I've been saying all along and getting called a liar for my efforts. But, now it turns out that you agree this is what happened. Now you are also agreeing that the video that some posters are claiming exonerates him doesn't include crucial parts of his answer.

Yes, you are still dissembling.

He responded to a long, multi-part question about what he would do to increase racial and economic diversity in Ward 3 by addressing the fact that the primary government program to create that diversity, vouchers, is failing to provide proper supports to recipients, resulting in their inability to access jobs and mental health care, and resulting in increased crime in the buildings. The most you can criticize him for is that his answer is a criticism instead of an affirmative policy proposal.

That's what I've been saying. His reaction to increasing diversity was to focus entirely on black voucher recipients who he thinks cause crime. Why didn't he mention middle class, upper middle class, or wealthy black residents and what could be done to attract them to Ward 3? Does diversity only mean poor and black to him?

He was asked specifically about low-income african american residents and he responded by critiquing the program designed to bring low income residents to W3. So now you think he should have been talking about the black UMC? well you would not like that answer either, because it’s about schools and the lack of academic rigor and lack of discipline at Deal and JH.

No, he was asked about diversifying the Ward and responded with low income blacks on vouchers.

That’s not what the question was. The question was posted up thread. Why lie?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never met the man, but could it be that that was top of his mind because he gets an earful in Foxhall on those buildings at Q? It was the #1 topic for months for the prospective constituency. Until the schools. So I’m not jumping to any conclusions

But on the schools. Why so much pushback? Who doesn’t want a school? This is like another Safeway. What’s with this neighborhood?! Don’t they have plane noise to worry about?

Do you really want to go down that rabbit hole? But you ask an honest question and so I'll do my best to give you an honest answer.

There are probably not more than a dozen or so people who are leading the charge to oppose the schools. More in thr community are opposed, but this is based on misinformation spread by those original dozen.

The original dozen are largely white, elderly, and upper middle class. They have lived in the neighborhood for decades and view it as an enclave for white upper middle class people. They do not like the idea of their neighborhood changing, both because they romanticize the past and are threatened by notions of de-gentrification.

That is what the opposition to the schools is about. It has nothing to do with a park. Before the current proposal was put forth, the same people very publicly opposed a campaign that would have transferred the public building back to DCPS so that it could be used as a park. They were very explicit that the reason they did this us because they were scared that the park could be used as a public high school.

The original dozen could give a damn about the public elementary school. What they don't want is a public high school. They look at the Wilson / J-R high school and how rowdy they think the kids are and say they don't want that in their neighborhood. They are very explicit about that.

If you ask them, what they want (and what Goulet is falsely promising them) is for the old GDS site to be used as an elementary school and the high school to be moved somewhere else other than their neighborhood. Once MacArthur HS actually opens, much of the opposition to Foxhall ES will go away because they don't really care about it or the park.

It's base NIMBYism, but it's also tied in with whats going on in the apartments off Q street. They see the changes there and think that having a high school will accelerate those changes. That is, the neighborhood is being de-gentrified. To them, that's an existential threat to their way of life.

Excellent summary.

My kids are out of college now, but when they were little they used to play soccer at that park. The neighbors were brutal. I laugh now when I see them wax poetic about how if the school is built kids won't be able to play soccer there any more. Boo hoo. You hated the kids playing soccer when they were there.

For years their website had a note that any use of the park by ten or more people requires a permit. "This includes birthday parties." Imagine the kind of curmudgeon who would bust up a five-year-old's birthday party at the park because they didn't have a permit. That's who you're dealing with.

Do you remember when their website had that note? I wonder if we can find it via the Wayback Machine or such. It would be very valuable to put their current concerns in the context of their past behavior.

Rules and Permits for Field Use
A permit is required for the use of any DPR facility under the following situations.

For more than 10 people for an hour or more
For organized leagues
For special events (including children’s parties on the playground!)
To make a reservation of a multipurpose room

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never met the man, but could it be that that was top of his mind because he gets an earful in Foxhall on those buildings at Q? It was the #1 topic for months for the prospective constituency. Until the schools. So I’m not jumping to any conclusions

But on the schools. Why so much pushback? Who doesn’t want a school? This is like another Safeway. What’s with this neighborhood?! Don’t they have plane noise to worry about?

Do you really want to go down that rabbit hole? But you ask an honest question and so I'll do my best to give you an honest answer.

There are probably not more than a dozen or so people who are leading the charge to oppose the schools. More in thr community are opposed, but this is based on misinformation spread by those original dozen.

The original dozen are largely white, elderly, and upper middle class. They have lived in the neighborhood for decades and view it as an enclave for white upper middle class people. They do not like the idea of their neighborhood changing, both because they romanticize the past and are threatened by notions of de-gentrification.

That is what the opposition to the schools is about. It has nothing to do with a park. Before the current proposal was put forth, the same people very publicly opposed a campaign that would have transferred the public building back to DCPS so that it could be used as a park. They were very explicit that the reason they did this us because they were scared that the park could be used as a public high school.

The original dozen could give a damn about the public elementary school. What they don't want is a public high school. They look at the Wilson / J-R high school and how rowdy they think the kids are and say they don't want that in their neighborhood. They are very explicit about that.

If you ask them, what they want (and what Goulet is falsely promising them) is for the old GDS site to be used as an elementary school and the high school to be moved somewhere else other than their neighborhood. Once MacArthur HS actually opens, much of the opposition to Foxhall ES will go away because they don't really care about it or the park.

It's base NIMBYism, but it's also tied in with whats going on in the apartments off Q street. They see the changes there and think that having a high school will accelerate those changes. That is, the neighborhood is being de-gentrified. To them, that's an existential threat to their way of life.

Excellent summary.

My kids are out of college now, but when they were little they used to play soccer at that park. The neighbors were brutal. I laugh now when I see them wax poetic about how if the school is built kids won't be able to play soccer there any more. Boo hoo. You hated the kids playing soccer when they were there.

For years their website had a note that any use of the park by ten or more people requires a permit. "This includes birthday parties." Imagine the kind of curmudgeon who would bust up a five-year-old's birthday party at the park because they didn't have a permit. That's who you're dealing with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was the question:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1527304661597683716

This was the answer:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1526981806859223040

Maybe someone can be so kind as to transcrube it all so that we can collectively dissect it.

I don't think it was a good answer to the question but YMMV.

omg. THAT is what they are trying to smear him with? He gave a really good, non-racist answer. Seriously wtf.

If this is the answer everyone is complaining about, DCUM's own Jeff Steele and a lot of other people owe Goulet an apology.

That is not his full answer. It is cut off at the end and doesn't include his allegation that black voucher recipients are a source of crime. That's why we deserve that the Chamber of Commerce release the entire video.

Seems really shitty of you, Jeff. Goulet is presenting a pretty sensitive description of the issue. For you to accuse him of later veering into some awful racist thing when you can't even tell us what he said is just gross. You're just lying and slinging mud here, Jeff. Is that the purpose of DCUM? To lie about candidates you don't like?

I would love to be able to provide an exact quote, but due to the cover-up being staged by Goulet and the Chamber of Commerce, I can't. It is pretty shocking that you are such a staunch supporter of suppressing the facts. You and I both know that I am not lying. Is it your position that Goulet didn't mention crime in his answer?

lol Jeff. there is no cover up Goulet posted a clip of the first part of his answer, and is on the record elsewhere with the second supposedly offensive part of his answer.

Fine, as I said above, we can both agree that Goulet replied to a question about racial and economic diversity by discussing black voucher recipients being a source of crime. This is what I've been saying all along and getting called a liar for my efforts. But, now it turns out that you agree this is what happened. Now you are also agreeing that the video that some posters are claiming exonerates him doesn't include crucial parts of his answer.

Yes, you are still dissembling.

He responded to a long, multi-part question about what he would do to increase racial and economic diversity in Ward 3 by addressing the fact that the primary government program to create that diversity, vouchers, is failing to provide proper supports to recipients, resulting in their inability to access jobs and mental health care, and resulting in increased crime in the buildings. The most you can criticize him for is that his answer is a criticism instead of an affirmative policy proposal.

That's what I've been saying. His reaction to increasing diversity was to focus entirely on black voucher recipients who he thinks cause crime. Why didn't he mention middle class, upper middle class, or wealthy black residents and what could be done to attract them to Ward 3? Does diversity only mean poor and black to him?

He was asked specifically about low-income african american residents and he responded by critiquing the program designed to bring low income residents to W3. So now you think he should have been talking about the black UMC? well you would not like that answer either, because it’s about schools and the lack of academic rigor and lack of discipline at Deal and JH.

No, he was asked about diversifying the Ward and responded with low income blacks on vouchers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was the question:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1527304661597683716

This was the answer:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1526981806859223040

Maybe someone can be so kind as to transcrube it all so that we can collectively dissect it.

I don't think it was a good answer to the question but YMMV.

omg. THAT is what they are trying to smear him with? He gave a really good, non-racist answer. Seriously wtf.

If this is the answer everyone is complaining about, DCUM's own Jeff Steele and a lot of other people owe Goulet an apology.

That is not his full answer. It is cut off at the end and doesn't include his allegation that black voucher recipients are a source of crime. That's why we deserve that the Chamber of Commerce release the entire video.

Seems really shitty of you, Jeff. Goulet is presenting a pretty sensitive description of the issue. For you to accuse him of later veering into some awful racist thing when you can't even tell us what he said is just gross. You're just lying and slinging mud here, Jeff. Is that the purpose of DCUM? To lie about candidates you don't like?

I would love to be able to provide an exact quote, but due to the cover-up being staged by Goulet and the Chamber of Commerce, I can't. It is pretty shocking that you are such a staunch supporter of suppressing the facts. You and I both know that I am not lying. Is it your position that Goulet didn't mention crime in his answer?

lol Jeff. there is no cover up Goulet posted a clip of the first part of his answer, and is on the record elsewhere with the second supposedly offensive part of his answer.

Fine, as I said above, we can both agree that Goulet replied to a question about racial and economic diversity by discussing black voucher recipients being a source of crime. This is what I've been saying all along and getting called a liar for my efforts. But, now it turns out that you agree this is what happened. Now you are also agreeing that the video that some posters are claiming exonerates him doesn't include crucial parts of his answer.

Yes, you are still dissembling.

He responded to a long, multi-part question about what he would do to increase racial and economic diversity in Ward 3 by addressing the fact that the primary government program to create that diversity, vouchers, is failing to provide proper supports to recipients, resulting in their inability to access jobs and mental health care, and resulting in increased crime in the buildings. The most you can criticize him for is that his answer is a criticism instead of an affirmative policy proposal.

That's what I've been saying. His reaction to increasing diversity was to focus entirely on black voucher recipients who he thinks cause crime. Why didn't he mention middle class, upper middle class, or wealthy black residents and what could be done to attract them to Ward 3? Does diversity only mean poor and black to him?

This makes zero sense.

It's amazing how much mileage people accusing Goulet of being racist have gotten despite everything they're saying having no basis whatsoever in fact. This is nothing more than a campaign dirty trick.

I guess if you also think "diversity" means poor black people who cause crime, it makes zero sense to you. But, other candidates were able to address the question is ways that demonstrated a more realistic vision of diversity.

jeff the question was **specifically about racial and economic diversity**. the answer was about DC’s program to create racial and economic diversity.

the only thing apparently acceptable to you is a taboo about discussing the shortfalls of government programs designed to create economic & racial diversity. can you explain why you think nobody should be able to talk about it?

Here is the gist of the question:

What is your strategy to balance the increase in affordable housing, increasing density in Ward 3, while protecting the property value of current homeowners? Moreover, how would you provide for neighborhoods that are racially, socio-economically, and generationally diverse?

Goulet's only answer was to suggest that programs that increased diversity had failed and led to increased crime. That can only be interpreted as an argument against trying to increase diversity. In what way did Goulet offer suggestions to balance affordable housing, increasing density while protecting current property values? What did he have to say about providing for neighborhoods that are racially, socio-economically, and generationally diverse?

A discussion about crime and poverty or the failure of government programs would be appropriate in some circumstances. As a response to a question about increasing diversity, it was not.

Sure, he could have given more detail, but likely he was limited to a few minutes. But how did we get from "he didn't have a proactive policy plan" to HE IS RACIST??

That was his error of omission. The racist part was his error of commission where his train of thought was: diversity -> vouchers -> black people -> crime.

I will ask again, if there was nothing wrong with what he said, why are he and the Chamber hiding it?

The voucher program is the PRIMARY PROGRAM INTENDED TO CREATE DIVERSITY. So basically what you're saying is that it is unacceptable to criticize the PROGRAM INTENDED TO CREATE DIVERSITY in response to a question about diversity in Ward 3. Makes sense!

The program is designed to end chronic homelessness. If you listen to Goulet's answer, he understands that. It would increase socio-economic diversity anywhere because the voucher recipients have assets or income. The program was grounded in evidence, but very poorly implemented by the DC Government. Goulet was a senior official in that government. Was he so powerless there to be unable to do anything to improve it?

And yes, it's a problem if you answer a question about increasing diversity by talking about black voucher recipients. Because it implies that there is no other way to increase diversity than to give black people vouchers. There are ample middle- and working class black people who live in DC. Would it be so hard to talk a bit about how to make it more attractive for them to move to Ward 3 also?

But the point shouldn't be whether what Goulet said was racist or not because that's a stupid argument for various reasons. We elect representatives to get stuff done well. To get things done as one member of a 13 member council requires tact and efficacy. The way Goulet behaves - and what we hear from his former colleagues - suggests he has none of that. He would be ostracized on the Council and for that reason would be a terrible advocate for the things that think you and I care about.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was the question:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1527304661597683716

This was the answer:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1526981806859223040

Maybe someone can be so kind as to transcrube it all so that we can collectively dissect it.

I don't think it was a good answer to the question but YMMV.

omg. THAT is what they are trying to smear him with? He gave a really good, non-racist answer. Seriously wtf.

If this is the answer everyone is complaining about, DCUM's own Jeff Steele and a lot of other people owe Goulet an apology.

That is not his full answer. It is cut off at the end and doesn't include his allegation that black voucher recipients are a source of crime. That's why we deserve that the Chamber of Commerce release the entire video.

Seems really shitty of you, Jeff. Goulet is presenting a pretty sensitive description of the issue. For you to accuse him of later veering into some awful racist thing when you can't even tell us what he said is just gross. You're just lying and slinging mud here, Jeff. Is that the purpose of DCUM? To lie about candidates you don't like?

I would love to be able to provide an exact quote, but due to the cover-up being staged by Goulet and the Chamber of Commerce, I can't. It is pretty shocking that you are such a staunch supporter of suppressing the facts. You and I both know that I am not lying. Is it your position that Goulet didn't mention crime in his answer?

lol Jeff. there is no cover up Goulet posted a clip of the first part of his answer, and is on the record elsewhere with the second supposedly offensive part of his answer.

Fine, as I said above, we can both agree that Goulet replied to a question about racial and economic diversity by discussing black voucher recipients being a source of crime. This is what I've been saying all along and getting called a liar for my efforts. But, now it turns out that you agree this is what happened. Now you are also agreeing that the video that some posters are claiming exonerates him doesn't include crucial parts of his answer.

Yes, you are still dissembling.

He responded to a long, multi-part question about what he would do to increase racial and economic diversity in Ward 3 by addressing the fact that the primary government program to create that diversity, vouchers, is failing to provide proper supports to recipients, resulting in their inability to access jobs and mental health care, and resulting in increased crime in the buildings. The most you can criticize him for is that his answer is a criticism instead of an affirmative policy proposal.

That's what I've been saying. His reaction to increasing diversity was to focus entirely on black voucher recipients who he thinks cause crime. Why didn't he mention middle class, upper middle class, or wealthy black residents and what could be done to attract them to Ward 3? Does diversity only mean poor and black to him?

He was asked specifically about low-income african american residents and he responded by critiquing the program designed to bring low income residents to W3. So now you think he should have been talking about the black UMC? well you would not like that answer either, because it’s about schools and the lack of academic rigor and lack of discipline at Deal and JH.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never met the man, but could it be that that was top of his mind because he gets an earful in Foxhall on those buildings at Q? It was the #1 topic for months for the prospective constituency. Until the schools. So I’m not jumping to any conclusions

But on the schools. Why so much pushback? Who doesn’t want a school? This is like another Safeway. What’s with this neighborhood?! Don’t they have plane noise to worry about?

Do you really want to go down that rabbit hole? But you ask an honest question and so I'll do my best to give you an honest answer.

There are probably not more than a dozen or so people who are leading the charge to oppose the schools. More in thr community are opposed, but this is based on misinformation spread by those original dozen.

The original dozen are largely white, elderly, and upper middle class. They have lived in the neighborhood for decades and view it as an enclave for white upper middle class people. They do not like the idea of their neighborhood changing, both because they romanticize the past and are threatened by notions of de-gentrification.

That is what the opposition to the schools is about. It has nothing to do with a park. Before the current proposal was put forth, the same people very publicly opposed a campaign that would have transferred the public building back to DCPS so that it could be used as a park. They were very explicit that the reason they did this us because they were scared that the park could be used as a public high school.

The original dozen could give a damn about the public elementary school. What they don't want is a public high school. They look at the Wilson / J-R high school and how rowdy they think the kids are and say they don't want that in their neighborhood. They are very explicit about that.

If you ask them, what they want (and what Goulet is falsely promising them) is for the old GDS site to be used as an elementary school and the high school to be moved somewhere else other than their neighborhood. Once MacArthur HS actually opens, much of the opposition to Foxhall ES will go away because they don't really care about it or the park.

It's base NIMBYism, but it's also tied in with whats going on in the apartments off Q street. They see the changes there and think that having a high school will accelerate those changes. That is, the neighborhood is being de-gentrified. To them, that's an existential threat to their way of life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never met the man, but could it be that that was top of his mind because he gets an earful in Foxhall on those buildings at Q? It was the #1 topic for months for the prospective constituency. Until the schools. So I’m not jumping to any conclusions

But on the schools. Why so much pushback? Who doesn’t want a school? This is like another Safeway. What’s with this neighborhood?! Don’t they have plane noise to worry about?

Do you really want to go down that rabbit hole? But you ask an honest question and so I'll do my best to give you an honest answer.

There are probably not more than a dozen or so people who are leading the charge to oppose the schools. More in thr community are opposed, but this is based on misinformation spread by those original dozen.

The original dozen are largely white, elderly, and upper middle class. They have lived in the neighborhood for decades and view it as an enclave for white upper middle class people. They do not like the idea of their neighborhood changing, both because they romanticize the past and are threatened by notions of de-gentrification.

That is what the opposition to the schools is about. It has nothing to do with a park. Before the current proposal was put forth, the same people very publicly opposed a campaign that would have transferred the public building back to DCPS so that it could be used as a park. They were very explicit that the reason they did this us because they were scared that the park could be used as a public high school.

The original dozen could give a damn about the public elementary school. What they don't want is a public high school. They look at the Wilson / J-R high school and how rowdy they think the kids are and say they don't want that in their neighborhood. They are very explicit about that.

If you ask them, what they want (and what Goulet is falsely promising them) is for the old GDS site to be used as an elementary school and the high school to be moved somewhere else other than their neighborhood. Once MacArthur HS actually opens, much of the opposition to Foxhall ES will go away because they don't really care about it or the park.

It's base NIMBYism, but it's also tied in with whats going on in the apartments off Q street. They see the changes there and think that having a high school will accelerate those changes. That is, the neighborhood is being de-gentrified. To them, that's an existential threat to their way of life.