I wonder if the dairy lobby gave Kwame a ride in a Lincoln Navigator. A black one.

by ksu499 on Jun 21, 2011 9:07 am • link • report

Geoff Hatchard caught a couple not picking up after their dog at 17th and Pennsylvania, NW.

Sorry, but that is not normal behavior. If he was that concerned about the shit, he could have gone in an paid his own nickel for that bag and disposed of it.

by Lance on Jun 21, 2011 9:13 am • link • report

I wonder if Sears is bluffing in order to get Illinois to extend its tax breaks to remain in the state. Feels like the oldest trick in the tax abatement book.

by Eric Fidler on Jun 21, 2011 9:14 am • link • report

Did Lance just advocate for the purchase of a nickel bag?

by Denny on Jun 21, 2011 9:20 am • link • report

For the number of times inconsiderate pet owners have left their deposits on our sidewalks and tree boxes, I find this behavior somewhere between reprehensible and outright gross.

Thanks Geoffrey for raising the issue in a visible way.

by Andrew on Jun 21, 2011 9:22 am • link • report

So, just to be clear, the DC council wants to force one man (malmo) to sell a certain percentage of his stations in DC?

I am a little curious to WHY this would make such a difference. Clearly, gas prices have gone up more in DC - and stayed there -- than in MD or VA. Price stickiness, or other weird pricing artifacts?

by charlie on Jun 21, 2011 9:23 am • link • report

DC shouldn't even bother to compete for Sears, or any company in a similar position. Even if we "win" the competition, the lack of a commuter tax means it's not particularly important to DC where a business is, it's where its employees live. And that won't be here.

And that's before taking into account that we won't win. We haven't got much space that's suitable for Sears, and they're going to blanch at the DC corporate income tax rate. And even if those points could be finessed, they'd probably just move as soon as whatever incentives they got expired.

(It's a shame we can't get a grand tax bargain going, and reduce the corporate income tax rate in exchange for Congress agreeing to a commuter tax. Right now, the corporate income tax is critical if DC is to realize tax revenues from the many companies based in DC but that overwhelmingly employ commuters. But the status quo works to the benefit of suburbanites coming and going, so it'll never happen.)

by cminus on Jun 21, 2011 9:24 am • link • report

Holy terrible economics, batman, in the article about Mamo.

They compared gas prices in greater washington from a few years ago (2c difference) to gas prices throughout Virginia and Maryland more recently (much bigger difference). Surprise! Gas prices in rural areas of Virginia are cheaper than in urban areas where gas stations have higher real estate costs.

And that Watergate gas station is ridiculous. I think the only people who buy gas there are ones who are so desperate they don't even bother to turn the corner to see the one across the street that charges a dollar less per gallon.

The law doesn't address the actual (possible) problem. If Mamo has "too many" gas stations, the solution is not to force him to sell all of them to the operators (and force all distributors to sell to the operators), the solution is to require him to sell a portion of those stations to a different owner so that he does not have the claimed market power.

by ah on Jun 21, 2011 9:24 am • link • report

@Charlie - The DC bill would require Mamo to sell *all* of his stations, and would also require any other distributor to sell its stations as well. Guess who would likely buy them? Surprise, the gas station operators/lessees, who would have a fire-sale opportunity to buy.

by ah on Jun 21, 2011 9:28 am • link • report

Sorry, but that is not normal behavior. If he was that concerned about the shit, he could have gone in an paid his own nickel for that bag and disposed of it.

Weak trolling effort this morning, Lance. I don't think this one has legs.

by oboe on Jun 21, 2011 9:46 am • link • report

Andrew: No problem!

Lance: I'll start a fund to purchase bags for those who are clearly to destitute to do so on their own, but only if you'll promise to be the first person after me to donate funds to ensure its viability. Agreed?

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Jun 21, 2011 9:46 am • link • report

@Ah; because of vertical integration?

The CAP guy being quoted is actually in private practice -- so somebody is paying for his testimony. Bad.

I don't have a real grasp of that issue, but I think the CP article could be a lot stronger and explain this better.

My sense is most stations in DC are charging what the market will bear. They aren't a lot of them in NW, and when you need gas, you need it. NE along NY avenue prices seem very competitive.

by charlie on Jun 21, 2011 9:47 am • link • report

How about:

"Children who attend public schools should be *required* to drink full-fat chocolate milk. It's one of the cherished traditions of American public education. Indeed, it's through the sharing of cultural rituals like this that we become Americans. Parents who have a problem with it should home-school!"

Or:

"A good compromise for the gas price issue would be to require the station operators to lower the price they charge area drivers by $2 per gallon, but to use Circulator operating funds to pay the operators $2 per gallon to make up the difference."

by oboe on Jun 21, 2011 9:55 am • link • report

As last night's ATU Local 689 town hall, questioners seem mostly to have asked the transit union questions not particularly related to the union, such as about broken escalators, safety, and whether MTPD is becoming too militant. (Post)

Safety isn't particularly related to the union? I sure hope not...

by Dizzy on Jun 21, 2011 9:59 am • link • report

Full fat chocolate milk is a great drink. Much better than wasting money on various protein drinks or shakes.

I have a feeling it isn't the school food that is making those kids fat....

by charlie on Jun 21, 2011 10:06 am • link • report

@charlie:

My sense is most stations in DC are charging what the market will bear. They aren't a lot of them in NW, and when you need gas, you need it. NE along NY avenue prices seem very competitive.

Yeah, I agree. Whenever I hear a local politician talk about how we need to encourage more gas stations in DC, or investigate what they're charging, by BS detector starts buzzing. It's particularly a a non-issue when it comes to DC residents--has a single DC resident bought gas from the Watergate Exxon over the last decade? I thought we all paid cash at "Lowest Price" or just filled up in the suburbs while shopping at CostCo.

I dread the day I begin to obsess over gas prices. It's the surest sign of incipient old age.

by oboe on Jun 21, 2011 10:09 am • link • report

CORRECTION: It isn't the "National Institute of Peace," it is the United States Institute of Peace.

by DizzyComet on Jun 21, 2011 10:16 am • link • report

Sorry, but that is not normal behavior.

Lance, "clean up after your own dog" laws only work because there is a willingness of the public to point out and shame violators of those norms, much like people will shame you for eating or drinking on the metro.

by JustMe on Jun 21, 2011 10:30 am • link • report

@charlie - I'm not sure what you're asking re vertical integration, but here's the problem with the solution:

If the issue is concentration (i.e., market share), then there's no guarantee that if vertical integration is prohibited that a limited number of owners could not purchase all the gas stations. That could result in precisely the same problem as exists now, which is that Mamo has control of a large number of stations. (It may or may not be enough to increase prices above the competitive level, but I'm pretty sure the DC Council isn't undertaking a careful economic analysis). In fact, that's how Mamo got where he was-ExxonMobil was selling a lot of stations because they were getting out of the business so Mamo bought them. If Mamo is forced to sell them, someone else may come along and buy them as a whole.

The problem is not vertical integration but rather horizontal concentration. Vertical integration actually has its benefits (efficiencies), and despite David Balto's unsupported claims, several studies have shown (including by the US FTC and others) that where gasoline distribution and sales are vertically integrated, prices are lower than where they are not.

by ah on Jun 21, 2011 10:36 am • link • report

@oboe: "I dread the day I begin to obsess over gas prices. It's the surest sign of incipient old age."

It is not a sign of old age, but of how much you need to drive. If you buy more than about 30 gallons per week that extra $1/gal is enough to blow out a finely-tuned family budget.

Yeah I know you live in the city so you avoid a lot of driving -- you have traded gas expense for real estate. But not everybody has that choice. Moreover, the recent dip in the economy is probably from the increase in energy costs. People have been hurting.

by goldfish on Jun 21, 2011 10:37 am • link • report

Instead of paying a nickel for a bag Geoffrey should have driven to Virginia or Maryland to protest the tax that has destroyed DC business.

by Canaan on Jun 21, 2011 10:38 am • link • report

Canaan: You're right! (And I guess Lance wasn't serious about his statement, or he would have replied to my offer.)

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Jun 21, 2011 10:40 am • link • report

"(And I guess Lance wasn't serious about his statement, or he would have replied to my offer.)"

Or he's been, you know, working for the 54 minutes since you made the offer.

(Not that I'm a Lance Defender, but come on.)

by dcd on Jun 21, 2011 11:07 am • link • report

dcd: Chances are that you're right. But since Lance was so quick to denounce my actions this morning, I figured he might be equally quick to reply to the offer. He did start commenting after 9 a.m., so I figured he might be close to a computer at work. My apologies.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Jun 21, 2011 11:09 am • link • report

Gotta go with Lance here. Not picking up after your dog is douchey behavior. But acting the martinet and following people around trying to publicly shame them is worse. What's next? Going vigilante on jaywalkers?

The food/drink on the Metro is actually a good analogy. That's another mostly unnecessary law that it would only behoove the more OCD among us to freak out over and/or rat people out on. NYC lets food/drink on the subway, and it's a much more convenient service.

Proportion, people. If the existence of dog poo mortified you, say something to the couple, pick it up yourself (which would shame most anyone), and go on with your life.

by Kevin on Jun 21, 2011 11:11 am • link • report

@JustMe Lance, "clean up after your own dog" laws only work because there is a willingness of the public to point out and shame violators of those norms, much like people will shame you for eating or drinking on the metro.

We don't have a 'clean up after your own dog' law in the District ... Hence why Geoffrey's action is not supportable. Maybe he's under the impression we do, which would change my opinion of his actions. But what he did is no different than trying to shame someone for not throwing a dollar into a homeless person's cup. If there's no requirement that someone do something, you're trying to shame them into something you buy into on the assumption that they too should buy into it because you know best is a little scary.

by Lance on Jun 21, 2011 11:14 am • link • report

@Kevin, I'm 100% on board with what you said. I too think people should pick up after their dogs, but I think what Geoffrey did had a lot more to do with his wanting to excercise a measure of control over other people than it did with his really caring that there was dog poo on the ground. 'Cause if he was really concerned about the poo, he would have done exactly as you said.

by Lance on Jun 21, 2011 11:20 am • link • report

@Geoffrey ... re: the bag tax ... I guess you didn't get the jab I was making concerning that. I.e., You're the one that likes the bag tax ... so go pay for some bags and leave those poor World Bank workers alone. God! Imagine the bad impression you must have given them of Americans ....

by Lance on Jun 21, 2011 11:23 am • link • report

Lance: It would behoove you to do your research before accusing me of making up rules on my own based on any "assumption" that what I want is because I "know best."

Go here, open the Word document, and read section 900.7. I'll quote it for you here to save you time:

No person owning, keeping, or having custody of a dog, except a seeing eye dog, shall allow or permit the dog to defecate or urinate on public parking or any sidewalk or in any and each such person shall immediately remove dog excrement from any curb, gutter, alley or street.

What they did was against the law, Lance. You're free to apologize to me and tell everyone that you were wrong when you have time. I know you're busy.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Jun 21, 2011 11:24 am • link • report

As last night's ATU Local 689 town hall, questioners seem mostly to have asked the transit union questions not particularly related to the union, such as about broken escalators...

How are broken escalators "not particularly related to the union"? Does ATU-689 not represent those responsible for fixing the escalators?

by Stephen Smith on Jun 21, 2011 11:30 am • link • report

Gotta go with Lance here. Not picking up after your dog is douchey behavior. But acting the martinet and following people around trying to publicly shame them is worse.

I see what you're saying, but I would make the opposite calculation: not cleaning up after your dog's poo is worse than publicly shaming someone for not doing it.

I mean, there are circumstances where making a big deal out of douchey behavior is worse than the douchey behavior itself (eg, wearing a hat indoors). Not cleaning up after your dog isn't one of those circumstances.

But I guess I'll chalk up the lack of "curb your dog" laws in the District to one of those unique aspects of DC culture that we maintain "in keeping with L'Enfant's original vision," like 10 story buildings, a shortage of corner stores/neighborhood bars, and the approval of commercial activity only by neighborhood consensus.

by JustMe on Jun 21, 2011 11:32 am • link • report

Ah, thanks to that correction by Geoffrey, I am glad to find out that DC has modern, civilized laws on sidewalk cleanliness.

by JustMe on Jun 21, 2011 11:33 am • link • report

Actually, Lance, it wasn't. Read that section you posted more carefully -- it says sidewalk and public parking, later to include "curb, gutter, alley, or street." According to your blog post, the dog went in the tree box. That's a horse of a different color.

Anyways, to my mind whether or not the ordinance exists is beside the point. As I said above, and in my humble opinion, your wild-eyed poo vigilantism is more of a public menace than the douchiness of the original offenders. But maybe that's just me.

by Kevin on Jun 21, 2011 11:36 am • link • report

@Kevin, You beat me to the punch.

I was reading through the comments on Geoffrey's blog. Someone asked if Geoffrey was also concerned about squirrel and rat shit. The visual of his chasing after squirrels and rats as they're doing their business is just too funny!

by Lance on Jun 21, 2011 11:43 am • link • report

Kevin: I assume you meant the above for me, not Lance, but if you're familiar with the nuance of DC legalese, "public parking" doesn't mean "where you park your car on the street," but rather the area in front of buildings that is public property but isn't used for actual streets. 'Public parking' includes treeboxes, sidewalks, and the like within the L'Enfant city.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Jun 21, 2011 11:44 am • link • report

It appears that Lance was 100% wrong with his claim that "We don't have a 'clean up after your own dog' law in the District". It makes me wonder why he said it-- Lance wasn't claiming that this law didn't apply to the treebox, he claimed that there was no such law at all. Was he just trolling, ignorant, or what?

by JustMe on Jun 21, 2011 11:45 am • link • report

@JustMe:
Yes. All of the above.

by Matt Johnson on Jun 21, 2011 11:46 am • link • report

Lance: I was still right about there being a law on the books. Every time you post without acknowledging that fact means that you're too scared to say "I was wrong."

It's OK to be ignorant, Lance, but it's foolish to continue to choose to be ignorant in the face of facts.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Jun 21, 2011 11:46 am • link • report

Lance, Kevin, you guys should listen to yourselves. A citizen tries to take a stand for public responsibility and clean streets, and you actually manage to harp on it and criticize?

If calling people on leaving poop on the sidewalk is more obnoxious than actually leaving poop there (which I strongly doubt), then it's clear what's even more obnoxious: criticizing people in blog comments for calling folks out for leaving poop on the sidewalk.

Which, yeah, would make this comment the most obnoxious, seeing as it's haranguing commenters for criticizing people who call others out for leaving poop on the sidewalk.

by David Alpert on Jun 21, 2011 11:47 am • link • report

Gas prices are 20-30 cents/gal higher in DC than downtown Baltimore and I'm sure it is because of Mamo's both vertical and horizontal monopolies. Markets don't work in a vertical monopoly. It also leaves less room for local taxes.

Mamo's 15th & U station is pretty horrible for U Street. I wish it could be jettisoned for a mixed-use development.

by Tom Coumaris on Jun 21, 2011 11:52 am • link • report

@Geoffery 'Public parking' includes treeboxes, sidewalks, and the like within the L'Enfant city.

hmmm ... actually no. You're incorrect there. Public Parking is defined as that space between the sidewalk and the property line (which is usually the building line of a house or building in the older part of the city EXCLUSIVE OF all bays and stairs jutting out into and over that area.) It's legally defined that way because it is public property which the District has given the equivalent of 'limited common element' rights to the adjacent property owner to help make the sides of our streets more 'park like'. (And yes, 'limited common element' is a condo term ... but I think it helps get the point across.) Now the sidewalk and the tree boxes are a different matter. They are under the jurisdiction of DDOT and the adjacent property owners have absolutely no right in them other than that which DDOT may give them (e.g., DDOT sets rules on what you can plant in a tree box, how high etc. and the fencing that can be used.)

Now ... you might though be able to make the argument that 'technically' the term 'street' includes ALL that public property that goes between property lines ... i.e., everything from the facade of one house/building on one side of the road to the house/building facade on the other side. Though I doubt it was meant in that sense in this piece of legislation since if it was, why bother mentioning sidewalks and the like since they'd already be included in the definition of street?

by Lance on Jun 21, 2011 11:52 am • link • report

...and just so it's clear, I have no problem with being called a vigilante on this subject. Throw the labels at me all you want, Lance, I'll wear them with pride. But you can't deny that there is a law on the books.

Looking back at your comment, I see you already agreed with me, so I guess that's why you've been silent on this. You said, and I quote:

"We don't have a 'clean up after your own dog' law in the District ... Hence why Geoffrey's action is not supportable. Maybe he's under the impression we do, which would change my opinion of his actions."

So, since we do have a law, this changes your opinion of my actions. You are supportive of what I did. Says so right there.

Nuance the hell out of it, I don't care. The fact is that you are incapable of ever admitting you were wrong. That's fine, it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Jun 21, 2011 11:55 am • link • report

@David Alpert If calling people on leaving poop on the sidewalk is more obnoxious than actually leaving poop there ...

That's not what he did. He followed them around and then even took their pictures. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that falls under the laws of 'assault' ... i.e., causing these individuals to fear for their safety. As Kevin put it, Geoffrey's behavior was far worse than that couple's. I agree fully.

by Lance on Jun 21, 2011 11:56 am • link • report

trolly troll troll trolls and is trolly.

by Mazzie on Jun 21, 2011 12:00 pm • link • report

@Tom, 'Mamo's 15th & U station is pretty horrible for U Street. I wish it could be jettisoned for a mixed-use development.

A better use might be as a public park ... perhaps one with a dedicated purpose such as a permenant place for the 14th and U Farmers Market (i.e., let it be 7 days a week ... like at the Embarcadero's Ferry terminal in San Francisco) ... or maybe as a dog park. Large open spaces are rare in the District. When we have them, the first option looked at should be how to make better use of them without doing away with them as open spaces.

by Lance on Jun 21, 2011 12:00 pm • link • report

@last night's ATU Local 689 town hall, questioners seem mostly to have asked the transit union questions not particularly related to the union, such as about broken escalators, safety, and whether MTPD is becoming too militant.

Ironically, I said the same thing which led to the thought being dismissed by others.

Re: G.Hatchard, ok, after reading the story, that was a bit much and was wholly reminiscent of what Fox news perfected as "Ambush Journalism" but in this case it wasn't journalism, it's our citizens following people w/their cameras to photograph them not picking up their dog's shit.
While I understand the sentiment behind it, the practice should not be followed.

Fortunately, GH ambushed the right couple. Someone different could have led to different results

by HogWash on Jun 21, 2011 12:03 pm • link • report

@Geoffrey, as Kevin already pointed out to you, we don't have a law on the books that says people must pick up their dog's poo from a tree box. Also, as Kevin (and I) have pointed out, someone not picking up after their dog is a far far less egregious action than following people around and making them fear for their safety as you did.

by Lance on Jun 21, 2011 12:04 pm • link • report

Lance: Do you have proof they feared for their safety?

Is taking photos of people in public space against the law?

Are you an attorney?

Where you there?

I'm done with you. Have the last word. You do a fantastic job of playing the part of a bitter old man who is contrarian just for the hell of it.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Jun 21, 2011 12:06 pm • link • report

@David Alpert: Lance, Kevin, you guys should listen to yourselves. A citizen tries to take a stand for public responsibility and clean streets, and you actually manage to harp on it and criticize?

Well, it all depends on what you think the greater problem for the community is: (1) the occasional dog poop in tree boxes, or (2) citizens taking it upon themselves to harangue people in public -- and then posting pictures of them -- over what are ultimately petty misdeeds.

I personally find the weird martinet behavior much more troubling. You don't, so be it. But it has nothing to do with not hearing myself.

Anyway, I've said my two cents on this.

by Kevin on Jun 21, 2011 12:11 pm • link • report

Lance, I think it's pretty likely that tree boxes count as part of the sidewalk as used in the statutes. I haven't looked it up in the definitions section, but common sense would say that something that is illegal on the sidewalk, street, and public parking is probably similarly so in the tree box.

Also, "assault" is not generically fearing for one's safety, it's apprehension about an imminent battery. Cell phone pictures don't even come laughably close to the definition. In any event, if somebody standing several feet away taking a cell phone picture makes you fear for your safety, you probably have bigger issues. You're trying to characterize Geoff's actions as if he were running after them, screaming and trying to tackle them to rub their faces in their dog's excrement. He took their picture while they were standing in a public place. Before I ask you whether you think that should be illegal, let me ask whether you are employed by the Park Police.

I will now cease feeding the trolls.

by The AMT on Jun 21, 2011 12:16 pm • link • report

I grew up in the middle of nowhere. When people's dogs excreted places, the density of the excrement was generally not high enough to pose a problem.

In the city, on the other hand, it can create major problems. It can kill street trees, it can obstruct the sidewalk, it's unsightly, and much, much more. And what it represents is an unwillingness to be a responsible member of society.

I think the problem is that the penalties for allowing your dog to do its business and not clean up after it are not structured correctly.

• First offense: $50 fine.
• Second offense: 10 hours community service cleaning up dog excrement.
• Third offense: Confiscation of animal(s).

If you don't clean up after your pet, you don't know how to properly care for one, and you should therefore not have the privilege of owning one.

by Matt Johnson on Jun 21, 2011 12:19 pm • link • report

@Kevin I personally find the weird martinet behavior much more troubling.

I agree with you and I guess I take personal exception to Geoffrey doing this to this couple because he did something similar to me on here in prior posts. As David is fully aware, Geoffrey made a point of responding to me with a full last name attached ... which of course did nothing to help his argument in a debating sort of way. It was harranguement just like he did with this couple. And that's troubling.

by Lance on Jun 21, 2011 12:19 pm • link • report

Your name is in the public space, Lance. What's the problem?

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Jun 21, 2011 12:25 pm • link • report

On the treebox point, it seems to me that if the treebox is on the sidewalk, it would be covered by a law prohibiting certain behaviors on the sidewalk.

@goldfish: "It is not a sign of old age, but of how much you need to drive. If you buy more than about 30 gallons per week that extra $1/gal is enough to blow out a finely-tuned family budget."

If you're living in the District and buying more than 30 gallons per week, that's a commute well over 50 miles each-way per day. (Or 25 each way for two cars both leaving the District). Centreville, VA, Columbia, MD, or Dulles are in that description.

For most families, it seems like DC would not be the ideal place to live. But more on target, it also means that at least one of those drivers is heading well outside of the District, and can take advantage of the lower gas prices nearer to their destination.

by Jacques on Jun 21, 2011 12:46 pm • link • report

Trolly trolls amuse me today.

by greent on Jun 21, 2011 12:50 pm • link • report

'Go f*ck yourself' -- is my response in most citizen nanny patrol encounters. Seriously, telling someone to clean up after their dog?

by aaa on Jun 21, 2011 1:24 pm • link • report

@Jacques: the travel needs of some families involve much more than a single driver going back and forth to work -- e.g., multiple children, multiple schools and camps with two cars. You can easily consume 30 gals/week meeting these needs and never leave DC.

by goldfish on Jun 21, 2011 1:26 pm • link • report

Chocolate Milk = fully loaded milk

by SJE on Jun 21, 2011 1:48 pm • link • report

Does Mamo also have interests in the taxicab business or is it just a coincidence that most DC cabdrivers, who are his main customers, are also Ethiopian?

by Tom Coumaris on Jun 21, 2011 1:53 pm • link • report

Just to check, will there be a post where GGW reports on the questions solicited from the commentariat a few days ago that were asked to the union? I've been looking forward to it. Thanks!

Also, hopefully our elected representatives know better than to engage in fruitless beggar-thy-neighbor tax break wars.

by EJ on Jun 21, 2011 1:59 pm • link • report

you have traded gas expense for real estate. But not everybody has that choice.

Sure they do. They just decided to make another one.

by Juanita de Talmas on Jun 21, 2011 2:01 pm • link • report

WHO CARES!!!!!

by Al on Jun 21, 2011 2:01 pm • link • report

@goldfish at 15 mpg city (a rather inefficient car), that's 450 miles per week, or 64 miles per day. DC is at most 14 miles from end to end (top of Ward 4 to bottom of Ward 8) via car.

I'm not buying that a family can "easily" use more than 30 gallons</> per week while staying in DC, especially if they have at least one car that has any kind of decent gas mileage (20 mpg city means you're traveling 600 miles per week, all inside the district), or if they're like the 95% of DC residents who don't traverse the far ends of the District.

Is it possible? But to suggest that this would be regular usage strikes me as farcical. And given that the impetus for this discussion was gas prices, I hold to my previous statement, that anyone who's driving enough to rack up 500 miles in a week will not have a problem hopping over the border to Arlington, Montgomery, or PG Counties, to get cheaper gas.

by Jacques on Jun 21, 2011 2:32 pm • link • report

sorry about the extra bolding, my end tag apparently was missing a "b".

by Jacques on Jun 21, 2011 2:33 pm • link • report

@Juanita de Talmas: There are certain errands that can only be done by driving. Ergo, no choice.

by goldfish on Jun 21, 2011 2:40 pm • link • report

@Jacques: Cars sitting at a stoplight get zero mpg. If you can consistently get 20 mpg within the city, in real life (not printed on a sticker on a new car sitting at the dealer) you are driving a particularly small one that probably cannot haul that much gear or people.

Apparently you are not familiar with what it is like to bring up kids. Between two cars, two schools and daycare, swimming and soccer practices, meets and games, hockey, ballet practices and recitals, with travel from the extreme north corner down to THEARC in ward 8, a work commute down near the southern tip, and groceries, you can burn 30 gallons in a week very easily.

I know of quite a few families that do this.

by goldfish on Jun 21, 2011 3:01 pm • link • report

@oboe:

Weak trolling effort this morning, Lance. I don't think this one has legs.

I stand corrected.

The, "upbraiding someone who lets their dog take a shit on the sidewalk and doesn't pick it up is like yelling at someone for not putting a dollar in a homeless man's cup" was a pretty good recovery.

by oboe on Jun 21, 2011 3:13 pm • link • report

citizens taking it upon themselves to harangue people in public -- and then posting pictures of them -- over what are ultimately petty misdeeds.

I agree that public citizens commenting on other citizens' debasing of the public space is the definition of "douchebaggery".

Oh, wait, not "douchebaggery"... What's the word I'm looking for? Oh, right: "civilization".

by oboe on Jun 21, 2011 3:20 pm • link • report

Ok, aside from all the trolling, the reasonable approach should be that everyone picks up their dog's poop, regardless of the law. Now, most dogs owners to this, but even responsible dog owners get without bags occasionally. When that happens to me, I do my own community service by picking up some extra portions poop when I do get bags again - there's always some around. Overall, the neighborhoods wins when I forget my bags.

Anyway, back to this major event of significance in DC. It seems this couple was rather casual about not picking up their poop. Not cool couple! However, starting so follow someone and scream at them in the middle of the street is not cool either. So, final score: Couple -1 for not picking up poop. Geoffrey +1 for addressing the couple, -1 for following them, and -1 for screaming at them.

I call a tie of losers.

by Jasper on Jun 21, 2011 3:22 pm • link • report

Jasper: I never screamed at them. Never even raised my voice.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Jun 21, 2011 3:23 pm • link • report

@Jasper, you can make that last one -1 for taking their pictures and posting them on a blog without asking their permission (and that would have been -10 if the guy's badge actually was readable ...)

by Lance on Jun 21, 2011 3:57 pm • link • report

Thank goodness there are laws against taking pictures of people in public spaces! Good thing Lance isn't in a civics class, because he'd get an "F" on his final exam.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Jun 21, 2011 4:02 pm • link • report

I was just looking at the dog again in the pic ... Geoffrey is braver than I first gave him credit for. I mean, what if the dog saw Geoffrey holding the camera up to his head ... and thought it was some kind of attack weapon ... and jumped Geoffrey! .... dragging him to the grounds .... chewing and biting ...

Or ... if the chick decided to react similarly .... ;)

by Lance on Jun 21, 2011 4:02 pm • link • report

GH, although there isn't a law against taking pics of people in public places, I think that as a matter of practice (and consideration) we do ask for permission before we post other peoples photos online. TO be honest, that jarred me to a much greater degree than the dog shit because of it's ambush-like nature.

by HogWash on Jun 21, 2011 4:18 pm • link • report

In addition to being gross - and illegal - leaving dog poop in a tree box is bad for the Chesapeake.

by David C on Jun 21, 2011 4:19 pm • link • report

HogWash: I agree that the standard procedure would be to ask, but this was clearly a less-than-standard moment. :) I don't think 'ambush' is the right term, though. I didn't jump out of behind a bush, I stood on the corner, them looking at me, me looking at them, and I waited until no one else was in the frame to take their picture. They were aware of my presence the whole time, and they knew why I was doing it. No surprises.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Jun 21, 2011 4:21 pm • link • report

There are certain errands that can only be done by driving. Ergo, no choice.

You mean like having your oil changed or your tires rotated?

by Juanita de Talmas on Jun 21, 2011 4:35 pm • link • report

@Geoffrey, Do you honestly still not understand why your bahavior was a stratosphere worse than theirs?

by Lance on Jun 21, 2011 4:35 pm • link • report

Lance: Don't make this about me, honey.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Jun 21, 2011 4:37 pm • link • report

So what about all those photo's of people on Unsuck DC Metro that shame riders for their actions?

What about the video's posted online of metro popo wailing on the wheelchair guy?

My score:
Couple -1 for not picking up poop, -10 for not picking it up after being called out on it.
Geoffrey +1 for addressing the couple, -1 for following them, and +1 for the blogpost

by greent on Jun 21, 2011 5:16 pm • link • report

GH, I understand why you might feel that way. But based on the photos and your description of the actual event, ambush does seem like the proper term. "Harrased" works as well if that term sounds better.

I don't think its wise for us to advocate on behalf of this sort of "gotcha" thing that the internet has made all too common. It's a stretch too far and makes you, in the eyes of many, as bad as the people you criticize. IMO, there is nothing civil about posting photos of people w/o their permission. It's even worse when the offenders simply didn't pick up their dog shit.

Offender hitting a pedestrian and fleeing the scene? Sure.
Dog shit?

Really?

by HogWash on Jun 21, 2011 5:27 pm • link • report

HogWash: We'll just have to agree to disagree then.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Jun 21, 2011 5:31 pm • link • report

@Juanita de Talmas: Obviously most errands can be done by walking, but you are being provocatively obtuse, and I am not going to bite. Good luck with your next troll.

by goldfish on Jun 21, 2011 5:43 pm • link • report

The obvious disconnects between some of us readers on Geoffrey's actions ... and his own inability to understand how very what he did was ... I suspect points to what could be the 'dark side' of social media. I mean, that without our consciously noticing it, we have a whole generation coming around who have a whole different take on the very rules that allow society to function civily ... including 'expectations of privacy'.

by Lance on Jun 21, 2011 6:37 pm • link • report

Actually, Lance, I think that the nastiness toward Geoff here, someone who is trying to make the city a better place, shows the dark side of people sitting behind their computers and judging others. Geoff put himself out there explaining his experience, but he's getting a lot of criticism from other people who can very easily pick on others' behavior but in many cases rarely do much themselves.

by David Alpert on Jun 21, 2011 7:17 pm • link • report

DAl that's unfair dude, very unfair. I read all the posts and at it's maximum the nastiest thing said regarding GH's actions was that the poster would tell the citizen patrol to "go fk yourself" and it wasn't directed at GH specifically but a comment on the actions of those who act similary. Although the banter was icy between the two, Lance wasn't nasty.

As w/the poster mentioned above, most of the response to GH were regarding his actions...not him. More importantly, they were in keeping w/the tone you have set for the board when we debate the issue and not the person, which for the most part happened here.

The WPost and sometimes the WCP clearly shows the dark side of people sitting behind their computers. But, to paint the back and forth here as an example of the cyberdarkside seems a bit too far. We are all not the same and our differences on an issue like this shouldn't resort to one side considering the other members of the dark side - not over dog crap.

IMO, arrogance aside, I think this is one of the better blogs and feel as if you don't want it to be an amen corner per se. But as its founder, I also think it's wrong of you to exagerrate what really happened here. We're all interested in making this city a better place. I don't like (nor think funny) anyone taking photos of private citizens in a manner such as this and over this. There's nothing sinister behind that thought.

by HogWash on Jun 21, 2011 7:59 pm • link • report

@David, Geoffrey had no right to be judge, jury and executioner. Leaving those things to the proper authorities is fundamental to our society being civil. And I'm more than a little surprised that you allowed this post to go up. I know you view this as more an advocacy than a legitimate news source, but it does your reputation no good to be seen as acquiescing to vigilantism.

by Lance on Jun 21, 2011 8:18 pm • link • report

Lance: Who was 'executed'? There was no consequence for these people in the end. I asked them politely to do their civic duty. They decided not to. They watched me walk down the street behind them and take a picture - in public space, where there is no expectation of privacy.

I have as much right to have an opinion on this as you do. Why do you feel like these people were wronged so much? They've likely forgotten about this by now, given their level of concern about this from the get-go.

David didn't "allow" the post to go up, because it's a post on my blog. David doesn't tell me what to do, despite your belief otherwise. He linked to it. If you have a problem with him linking to my blog, fine, that's your opinion and you're welcome to it.

In the end, your tone strikes me as one of fear. Fear that us "young" adults are going to change the city in ways you don't like, both now, and after you're long dead and gone. We care about things, large and small, important and seemingly trivial. You can condescend as much as you want, you're not going to stop me from doing what I see as the right things in my city. Yes, Lance [REDACTED], this is my city too.

Why do you have such a problem with me, specifically? Why is it that every time I write something, you are knee-jerk opposed to what I write? There's a bitterness in your tone that sounds unhealthy.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Jun 21, 2011 9:19 pm • link • report

Sorry, I'm on Geoffrey's side. People who litteraly shit on the shared public space should come in for public shaming. They deserve the same scorn that folks who litter do. Again, that's "civilization". The idea that the two unrepentant public shitters are somehow "victims" here is ridiculous. I have less sympathy for them than I do the infamous "H Street Pooper" who was caught on Google Streetview a year or so ago.

Don't want to get called out for cretinous behavior? Don't be a cretin. Don't want me to take your picture? Don't shit in my neighborhood. And don't let your dog's shit go un-picked-up.

by oboe on Jun 21, 2011 9:46 pm • link • report

@Geoffrey:

This may all be a cultural misunderstanding. It's my understanding that in France, irresponsibly letting your dog crap pretty much wherever it likes, while leaving the poop for someone else to deal with is de rigueur.

http://omywordblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/paris-so-much-more-than-dog-poop.html

by oboe on Jun 21, 2011 9:54 pm • link • report

As far as taking pictures to publicly shame people, it is pretty common and probably more effective than fining them. In Austin they used to have "The John Show" on public access where they showed mug shots of men caught hiring hookers. MyBikeLane.com is basically an attempt at public shaming. You're free to take pictures of people. You're free to put their picture on the internet. You're free to tell a story that goes with it. If these people feel Geoffrey has lied about them, I suspect they can even sue him under current libel laws. Geoffrey is not making himself judge or jury or executioner. He's putting it on the internet and letting others judge for themselves. I'm sure he'd welcome a response from them.

by David C on Jun 21, 2011 10:19 pm • link • report

@David C He's putting it on the internet and letting others judge for themselves. I'm sure he'd welcome a response from them.

Really? What 'evidence' has he put out there? NONE. This is really disconcerting .... Has TV really warped the values of our young to the point where they think TV shows are something to be emulated? This is really bad ... and I mean REALLY bad. What Geoffery did is about as corrupt as one can get. And, honestly, if you can't see why ... that's scary. This is life. Not a 'reality TV show'.

by Lance on Jun 21, 2011 10:30 pm • link • report

What 'evidence' has he put out there?

His testimony.

I don't think "the John Show" would be a labeled a reality show. It was literally just mug shots and someone reading that persons name. That's more like C-SPAN.

by David C on Jun 21, 2011 10:56 pm • link • report

His testimony would need some corraboration, wouldn't it?

In any case, I want to amend what I said in that I know way too many people of Geoffrey's generation who wouldn't under any circumstances act like he did. Still I think there has to be a connection with the type of shows that made it seem okay to be 'judge jury and executioner' and the reprehensible actions we're seeing on some of these blogs. (And I don't think Geoffrey understands that this expression is shorthand for vigilantism and doesn't need to include a death execution ... but any type of execution of a judgement' .... like the one he performed by posting their pictures without their permission and with his unsubstantiated accusations.

by Lance on Jun 21, 2011 11:08 pm • link • report

His testimony would need some corraboration, wouldn't it?

No. It is unsubstantiated evidence, but evidence nonetheless.

by David C on Jun 21, 2011 11:12 pm • link • report

And just to give Geoffrey some 'food for thought' ... he has publically accused them of letting their dog poop in a public space without their having any opportunity to tell their side of the story ... which in our western tradition is called 'a trial'. Now Geoffrey, you don't even know for a fact that this was their dog ... You've made a lot of accusations based solely on your assumptions which could harm these peoples' reputations. And they've had no opportunity to defend themselves. (And no, they don't have to defend themselves to you.)

You really don't see what you've done is wrong? Honestly?

by Lance on Jun 21, 2011 11:22 pm • link • report

HogWash: You're right that these comments don't nearly sink to the level of nastiness of many forums, and I appreciate commenters keeping the namecalling out of it (I believe thanks to aggressive enforcement here).

Still, there's something that fundamentally bothers me about this discussion. While there isn't namecalling (Jasper's "tie of losers" comes pretty darn close), there's a certain personal nature to many of the comments.

Not all—some people are just expressing perhaps a certain discomfort with the whole situation, but others are making this about Geoff to a degree that's not appropriate. The rule isn't just not to use certain words, but to treat others with respect.

There are several contributors who wrote things on their own blogs in the last couple of days, some of which I linked to. Why didn't they crosspost on GGW? Different reasons; some didn't think the content was appropriate here, and some were right but others weren't. Some said they just didn't think about it.

But there are definitely contributors who feel uncomfortable crossposting or posting in general because they feel they get attacked, and attacked personally. The comments on Veronica's Capital Bikeshare article, for instance, were quite nasty despite not using namecalling. Michael Perkins had one a while back about a personal parking experience that really drew out the interpersonal hostility from some commenters.

And this one is also getting far more personal than I think is appropriate. Yes, Geoff also created a certain amount of personal-ness with the picture. And while my initial reaction had been to want to crosspost his story, and I hope he will submit things like this in the future, I probably would have suggested doing it without the picture.

But there seems to be more. Especially from Lance. Lance has a history of arguing with Geoff. Geoff used his last name a few times, which Lance took exception to; I've removed those instanced, at his request, including on Geoff's most recent comment above. I don't think it's appropriate to out people by bringing their personal indentity into things if they don't want it.

I also don't like it when people, David, repetitively use my name, David, in the online equivalent of jabbing one's finger in someone else's face, David. Lance did that a few times in the past and I did criticize it; Geoff is doing that here too and I'd rather it not happen.

But Lance really started this and has been far more personal and far more critical in this thread. I really do get the sense that he jumped in here in such a confrontational way because of his past clashes with Geoff, and has continued to press in that style we've all come to see, where he tosses every argument against a wall and ratchets up the intensity and frequency of whichever ones seem to get any traction with any other commenters.

I find Lance's accusatory tone thoroughly distasteful and inappropriate. The constant references to age seem to belittle. He's thrown around (baseless) claims of assault. Throughout the day it has become increasingly shrill and now he's calling it "about as corrupt as one can get." Seriously?

This kind of rhetoric doesn't advance a respectful discussion about when it is or isn't appropriate to confront people about their or their pets' misbehavior, or whether it's appropriate to post pictures; it just inflames anger in a very personal way.

I'm going to close this thread. I'm also calling for a Lance and Geoff time out. Please refrain from addressing the other in any threads. I will delete all comments by either person which mention the other person by name.

If you're both posting in the same thread, just stick to talking about the arguments. You don't have to specifically reference the other person's arguments by name. This is generally a good practice here, anyway; I've found that you can just about always simply make the point without talking to or about another commenter directly.

I've removed all occurrences of Lance's last name. But Lance, your right to be semi-anonymous does not mean you can personally attack or even obliquely disparage other people. I welcomed you and encouraged you to comment because at the beginning you were very good about just making points about issues and not people. Please stick to that or stronger measures will become necessary.

by David Alpert on Jun 21, 2011 11:58 pm • link • report