Speaking of Wells...I find it a little weird that his pretty signficant 180 on the Bond Tax last week never made the links. Wells wrote the thing and was its primary proponent, then completely changes his mind?

by freely on Aug 17, 2011 8:59 am  

re: BART Cell Shutdown - Clearly illegal.

1. A prior restraint.
2. Public transit cannot be non-public forum by definition regardless of an ignorant S.Ct. case to the contrary.
3. The First Amendment trumps safety concerns about First Amendment activity.

by Redline SOS on Aug 17, 2011 9:19 am  

Oh "improvements", how I loathe that word... you can improve vehicular capacity, but that doesn't mean you improve the intersection. It just means you made "modifications".

by Bossi on Aug 17, 2011 9:24 am  

Re: Fairfax proposes deathtrap at Wiehle

I think that is a little over the top. The Wiehle Ave Metro station is likely to get a relatively high percentage of people who bike and walk to the station compared to most of the suburban Metro stations and they will adjust the planning for that.

I followed the link to the Fairfax county Dulles corridor transportation study viewgraph presentation and came across what to me were eyebrow raising stuff on slide #7 under "Road Improvements Assumed in 2030 Base".
-Widening of Route 28 to ten lanes including an HOV lane in each direction. Ten lanes wide? Gazooks, I remember when rt. 28 was mostly four lanes with traffic lights.
-An overpass across the Dulles Toll Road west of Wiehle Avenue (Soapstone Overpass). A dead end overpass to Sunset Hills Road? Really?

by AlanF on Aug 17, 2011 9:31 am  

as a civil rights lawyer who's litigated First Amendment cases, let me respond to Redline SOS:

1) Correct, and this is why it was illegal.

2) Probably incorrect. Public transit has never been held to be a public forum for speech/expression purposes. Not to say it couldn't happen, but it hasn't ever happened before.

3) Clearly incorrect. Safety concerns generally trump the First Amendment -- it's called a "reasonable time, place and manner restriction." To give an absurd example, if you sought a permit for 100,000 people to demonstrate on the platform at Farragut North at 5pm tomorrow, WMATA would have every right to deny the permit on safety grounds.

by Simon on Aug 17, 2011 9:31 am  

RE: Germantown Stop Signs

The stop signs were removed on account of expectancy, and I somewhat agree with that. The newfound nature of the road is something that either needs *more* stop signs at more regular intervals; or less. My experience with isolated locations like this is that stop sign running tends to be rather significant... at least if you *know* the person is not going to stop, you can plan for that; and with a median it's not generally too difficult to cross, though admittedly not as ideal as it could be for peds.

However, the summary leaves out a bit of info... the article concludes by stating that MCDOT will evaluate the corridor & intersection as it readjusts to the new travel patterns, potentially leading to a change in control at the intersection. Personally, I hope they consider a roundabout... while I'm not sure exactly how traffic volumes will change, my intuition is that this road might be rather conducive toward a 2-lane roundabout. Granted, I also somewhat wonder if a 4-lane cross-section was absolutely necessary along much of the length of the road...

by Bossi on Aug 17, 2011 9:41 am  

@freely:
We have discussed this with you before. The GGW contributors who work on links (David Alpert, Eric Fidler, and Jamie Scott) are all volunteers. They do not have the time to read every newspaper or online publication.

If you see something you think should be in links, SUBMIT IT AS A TIP. We have a handy form for that purpose:
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/tip/

Please assume that we have not seen it. And if it doesn't appear, it's likely because we did not see it.

So next time you see an article about Tommy Wells you think we should run, submit it.

Thank you for your understanding.

by Matt Johnson on Aug 17, 2011 9:41 am  

Someone should really check into the Kubly leaving bit.

Massive severance package for an at-will employee? You wouldn't believe the figure if I wrote it here. To top it off, DC taxpayers will be repaying the entirety of his student loans in Pennsylvania.

He really scored major. Guess the Gray administration aint so bad after all.

Streetcar where?

by Fred Phelps on Aug 17, 2011 9:46 am  

@Fred-

No need to write it here: just provide a link to your source material.

by Bossi on Aug 17, 2011 9:49 am  

Glad to hear Wells is OK. Now hopefully he can get back!

That BART case is going to make fascinating case study. It has a classic time, place, manner argument as well as the question regarding BART's responsibility to provide cell phone service. BART installed the repeaters. Clearly they could have chosen not to. But now that they have to they have a Constitutional responsibility to keep them running? I imagine they could shut it down for maintenance reasons, but what other exceptions are there? It's even possible out of this case the subways will have to provide cell phone service going forward.

by Steven Yates on Aug 17, 2011 10:08 am  

What would landscape architects do to Dupont? Its probably already the most perfect park in the city, I hope they just look at the urban and park design to emulate it rather than to mess with a good think.

by Erik Bootsma on Aug 17, 2011 10:12 am  

@Matt, Please assume that we have not seen it. And if it doesn't appear, it's likely because we did not see it.

Oh come on Matt! How is it possible that a l l of you saw the story on Wells hitting a deer but completely missed the almost week-old story on the bond tax reversal?

Sure, I know that you rely on us to send in links and that makes for a good bit of interaction. Now unless the breakfast links are "only" those submitted by us, it is next to impossible that this story (bond tax) was simply "missed."

It's one thing to say that you didn't want to post the story (which is likely) and an entirely different thing to suggest that you knew nothing about it, (especially since this is one of the reasons cited for why Brown gave Wells the boot.)

Come on Matt. Let's play fair and respect each other's ability to reason.

BTW, if the links are only provided by us, then I retract the above.

by HogWash on Aug 17, 2011 10:12 am  

What would landscape architects do to Dupont? Its probably already the most perfect park in the city, I hope they just look at the urban and park design to emulate it rather than to mess with a good think.
by Erik Bootsma on Aug 17, 2011 10:12 am

Hopefully they can water, amend the soil, and that sort of thing. I tend to agree with you on this park.

by Jazzy on Aug 17, 2011 10:23 am  

@Matt,

Ok, in the future I will. I just find it a little odd that considering how much of a fan base Wells has on GGW, and that his following includes keeping track of him hitting a deer states away while on vacation, but compltely missed him going 180 degrees on a contentious Bond Revenue matter that GGW wholeheartedly supported and that Wells wrote and pushed for, then completely abandoned here in the District.

@Fred,

Please link your material here. I had heard the same about DC not requiring him to repay his 6 figure MBA debt which even fortune 500's require of their employees if they don't stay for a prescribed time (1 year ain't it) I will have a serious problem if he is also getting a severance package, considering he is quitting of his own free will.

by freely on Aug 17, 2011 10:33 am  

@HogWash

Why dump your personal responsibility on someone else? If you want it in the links, submit it. Maybe one of the volunteers did see the story but didn't think to include it or there were better articles that day. But alleging some sort of conspiracy is just pointless. They take suggestions for links, so suggest a link if you want it included instead of whining about it after the fact.

Instead, you assume a bias and then use that as the proof that the article was ignored. Great reasoning there.

by MLD on Aug 17, 2011 10:35 am  

@HogWash, @Freely:
Let's do this: Next time you see a damning article about a public official we tend to support, submit it as a link. Then you'll know that we know about it (because you submitted it). If we don't then run it within a reasonable amount of time, you can call us on it.

You can do your own "gotcha" reporting via the comments.

I do appreciate the opinion you espouse, though, that we're omniscient. I wish I was, but I'm not. I also have nothing to do with Links posts. But the links editors aren't omniscient, either.

by Matt Johnson on Aug 17, 2011 10:36 am  

Flash mobs in Germantown? Nice job, Dave, mentioning news five days after it occurred.

by 20024 on Aug 17, 2011 10:56 am  

HogWash and freely are both obsessed with Wells as though stories about him are a "gotcha" against the stories of corruption and criminality from people like Thomas. HogWash is just trying to give an EOTR version of "you guys do it too!" to deflect from the genuine problems of the other council members.

by JustMe on Aug 17, 2011 10:57 am  

Do people just not pay attention when they cross the street? I ask because I never saw any issues with the crosswalks along N Glebe.

by Fitz on Aug 17, 2011 11:04 am  

Just for fits and shiggles, HogWash and freely, where was the story written up about Wells? I've been out of town and missed it. I assume it was an actual reportable story, and not just something "everyone knew"?

by Tim Krepp on Aug 17, 2011 11:07 am  

"Public transit cannot be non-public forum by definition regardless of an ignorant S.Ct. case to the contrary."

I confess I know almost nothing about First Amendment law. But I do know that where there's a Supreme COurt case on point, the law has been settled. An argument that something is illegal even though a very clearly wrong Supreme Court has said it isn't is not just unpersuasive, it's silly. (See, Al Gore, President of the United States, never been.)

The Supreme Court isn't last to act because they're always correct, they're correct because they're the last to act.

by dcd on Aug 17, 2011 11:21 am  

@Tim

In a small publication. Perhaps you've heard of it. I think its called something like the "Washington Post".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-wire/post/wells-revises-position-on-dc-bond-tax-supports-income-tax-hike-high-earners/2011/08/10/gIQASN5v6I_blog.html

@JustMe,

Considering you seem to know so much about me, you'll know I have been one of the loudest here railing against the juvenile, thuggish entitlement mentality and complete incompetance of the criminal activity of Thomas, "Fully Loaded", as well as Gray.

Wells isn't a criminal, I have nothing against him other than the fact that he also has no idea what he is doing and is completely useless on the Council.

by freely on Aug 17, 2011 11:24 am  

I tried to submit tips about transit that were from the conservative (but influential around DC) Weekly Standard, but they were never posted...

by Michael on Aug 17, 2011 11:41 am  

Well, freely, that's why I asked. Having been out of town, I had missed it. Thanks for posting it, interesting read. I assume you sent it into the GGW tip line seven days ago when it was written?

As to the article itself, this doesn't appear to be at all to be a "pretty signficant 180 on the Bond Tax", but rather a refinement on the issue. Which is what I expect and Councilmembers to do as they attempt to push legislation forward.

The bond tax is still there. It just would only apply to future purchases of bonds, not those who have already invested in out-of-state bonds. It looks as if there is also a call for an income tax bump at the $350,000 bracket.

So let me get this straight. Wells proposes a tax. Many folks feel that a certain portion of the tax (being retroactively applied to current bondholders) is unfair and speak out against it. Wells then listens to their input and revises his position.

Unless I'm missing something, that's sounds more or less how I want my government to work.

by Tim Krepp on Aug 17, 2011 11:50 am  

@Tim,

Which brings me to my last sentence in my previous posting:
"Wells isn't a criminal, I have nothing against him other than the fact that he also has no idea what he is doing and is completely useless on the Council".

The fact that the idea ever made it to paper shows how lost he is in his position.

And the outcry was fierce and immediate months ago. He didn't change his mind until he got demoted by the boss.

by freely on Aug 17, 2011 11:59 am  

<"But Wells is now urging that that tax only apply on future purchases of out-of-state bonds, even if it means more political headaches for his colleague, Council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3). ....

.... In the e-mail, Wells also appears to be ratcheting up the political pressure on Cheh to go along with the income tax hike, offering insight into the emerging rift between colleagues.

Interesting ... Could this be payback for Cheh's throwing him to the wolves earlier this summer?

by Lance on Aug 17, 2011 12:10 pm  

His boss are the residents of Ward 6, not the City Council Chair.

And I'm not sure I see your nexus with getting the boot on transportation and revising his position on the bond issue. Kwame Brown certainly doesn't want a bond tax of any sort nor any income tax.

It's clear that Brown and Wells will have, shall we a say, a strained working relationship. Why/How could Brown pressure Wells to do anything, much less a move Brown doesn't want in the first place?

I wouldn't say he's useless on the Council. I'd say the rest of the Council is useless and he can't save it.

And the whole discussion kinda undermines your original point, which was: "I find it a little weird that his pretty signficant 180 on the Bond Tax last week never made the links. Wells wrote the thing and was its primary proponent, then completely changes his mind".

by Tim Krepp on Aug 17, 2011 12:17 pm  

@Lance, I have no idea of the motivation, but Cheh certainly can't expect Wells to support her now, can she? You can't insultingly take advantage of a guy and hope for the best.

by Tim Krepp on Aug 17, 2011 12:20 pm  

@Matt, your response only seals my belief that the reason this story wasn't linked is because it's not a glowing, fawning article on Wells - the only type found here on GGW.

I don't think the article was "damning." Hell, it only stated that the had a reversal on the bond tax. Whether it's Wells, Brown, Gray or even Fenty, I don't think there was anything "damning" about the reversal. So your assumption that the reason I wanted "this" article posted is because it was damning to Wells is IMO an unwarranted knee-jerk reaction that isn't supported by facts. Every article that doesn't parrot Wells as a saint is not a "gotcha" article. This wasn't a "gotcha" article, it hasn't been reported as such. Yet, you apparently think that it is.

@Justme, there you go again. Telling me what I think even though I have told you time and time again that I have no problem saying exactly what I think, leaving none confused.

Also, I'm not sure what to make of your "EOTR version of 'you guys do it too' comment." There are 2 CM's EOTR and neither of them are currently facing any "genuine problems." So your belief that I'm here to detract from other CM's problems is not supported by one..single..fact. Just your over the top obsession with attempting to think for me. Only I can. If you are confused about something....ask. If you want my opinion...ask. Stop assuming.

I won't "assume" the motivations behind your EOTR quip. And that's why I just asked.

Try it sometimes.

by HogWash on Aug 17, 2011 12:24 pm  

@HogWash:
Okay, let's go over this again, briefly.

I have absolutely nothing to do with links. How I feel about them does not matter, because I neither pick them nor write them.

I used damning because it seemed to fit the way you were describing it. I have not read the article Freely is upset we did not include. I was in Minneapolis last week. It did not make the Star-Tribune. In fact, at the time I posted the comment, Freely had not yet linked to it.

Now, that being said, it is clear that nothing I say will convince you. That's fine.

It is also clear that you do not actually care that we include these articles. If you did, you'd take some initiative and submit them as tips. That's fine, too. But it defeats your purpose, I think.

I will not respond to any more comments about what we include or do not include in Links posts. Period.

If you want us to include a link, submit it as a tip. If you don't do that, you have no right to complain if it does not get included.

by Matt Johnson on Aug 17, 2011 12:41 pm  

"Do people just not pay attention when they cross the street? I ask because I never saw any issues with the crosswalks along N Glebe."

Cars run the lights at Carlyn Springs and Glebe quite frequently. It already has a brief 'shuffle' where all the lights are red for a few seconds while the glebe ok for ped crossing is on.

One of the problems is that there really should only be a crossing on one side of the intersection, the left turn from Carlyn onto Glebe always gets backed up. (and thus people run the light to make up for it) Alternatively, (but more expensively) a skywalk right from the 2nd floor of the mall to the other side of Glebe (as it is on the Wilson side). Though that could wind up looking like either a nice neighbor enterance gate or like Las Vegas Blvd

by Kolohe on Aug 17, 2011 12:47 pm  

How about a sign that says "STOP AHEAD", and again painted on the road a couple times before the stop sign? If a driver ignores that and blows through, give them a damn ticket. They'll learn real fast.

by Karthik on Aug 17, 2011 1:51 pm  

+1 Matt,

This is getting ridiculous.

by CJ on Aug 17, 2011 2:05 pm  

Stop Sign in Germantown

As someone who drives the new Fr. Hurley Blvd extension every day, I can see why this stop sign was removed. The very nature of that intersection has changed since the new bridge over the tracks has gone into service.

Prior the new bridge, everyone in that neighborhood had to use Dawsons Farm Rd to access Rt118 to get across the RR tracks. Now that the new bridge on Fr. Hurley is open, this old route is obsolete and more inconvenient. Once people adjust to the new routing, I would expect this intersection to be no different than any other along Fr. Hurley that doesn't need a traffic control device.

Besides, Rt 118 and Dawnsons Farm Rd has always been a collision zone. I would be grateful to have a new route to avoid that intersection.

by Cyclone on Aug 17, 2011 2:33 pm  

CJ: "Getting"? That implies there was a moment it wasn't.

by John on Aug 17, 2011 2:35 pm  

@Matt, yes, let's clear this up once and for all.

1)I'm not a child and haven't been one in years. Period!

2)Please note that in my most previous post, I gave you no personal responsibility for posting the links because you had just confirmed that you have nothing to do w/them.

3)I never said the article was damning. You did. I never insinuated that the article was damning. In fact, beyond stating that it wasn't a fawning article, there wasn't much to say.

4)I am just as "not" interested in the breakfast links as the (I'm sure) hundreds of others who never bother to submit a tip. So the same lack of initiative you chide me for is the same lack found among the rest of GGW commenters. There is no "purpose." If I wanted to make a stink about it, I would have mentioned it last week when the story first broke. I didn't.

5)No one asked "you" to respond to questions about the b'fast links. Looking back at the exchange, freely surely never mentioned your name - at all. Yet, you are the one who responded.

So let's be f-diamond clear. The only reason we're even having this convo is because you "chose" to respond to freely and posited that GGW didn't know about the Wells story. And that's when I responded. If you didn't want anyone to comment on that, then you shouldn't have responded, especially since you have absolutely nothing to do w/the breakfast links. You inserted yourself.

BTW, I (and 90% of this community) never submit articles for publication. Yet, we always complain/talk about what's written.

And again, no one asked you to respond. Period!

by HogWash on Aug 17, 2011 2:48 pm  

Re: Fairfax proposes deathtrap at Wiehle

AlanF,

"I followed the link to the Fairfax county Dulles corridor transportation study viewgraph presentation and came across what to me were eyebrow raising stuff on slide #7 under "Road Improvements Assumed in 2030 Base".
-Widening of Route 28 to ten lanes including an HOV lane in each direction. Ten lanes wide? Gazooks, I remember when rt. 28 was mostly four lanes with traffic lights."

VA 28 was two lanes with a couple of stoplights between Manassas and 7 when i was young. I do think 5 lanes each way with HOV seems a bit much.

"-An overpass across the Dulles Toll Road west of Wiehle Avenue (Soapstone Overpass). A dead end overpass to Sunset Hills Road? Really?"

Wiehle is a dead-end overpass to Sunrise Valley. I currently live in Reston, and spent several years off of Soapstone. With the opening of the Metro, another DTR crossing will be a huge asset for people coming from Glade Dr and the Soapstone corridor who want to get to N Reston, where most of the shopping and many of the restaurants are.

by dcseain on Aug 17, 2011 5:38 pm  

I had totally missed that Post article on Wells. His flip-flop on the retroactive bond tax hike exemplifies his flakiness and unreliability on some issues, as was mentioned (anonymously, of course) by one of his colleagues to the Post.

by Fritz on Aug 17, 2011 7:10 pm