Politics
Schwartz to run as a write-in; at-large race gets more interesting
You've probably already seen that Carol Schwartz will run a write-in campaign to retain her at-large Council seat in November.
You already know GGW's opinion of Schwartz and the bad policy that came out of her chairmanship of the Public Works committee. As we've discussed before, Mara favors more bicycle infrastructure. But what about the person still favored to win, though a little less so this morning than yesterday morning: Michael A. Brown?
Brown (not to be confused with at-large Councilmember Kwame Brown or Shadow Senator Michael D. Brown) still has nothing on his issues page. His most recent events are from July. What kind of legislator would Michael Brown be? He's run for Mayor and for Ward 4 Council. For those of you who've been around longer, did issues that matter to this blog come up in those races?
Perhaps Jack Evans ought to consider changing his name to Jack Sea Foam Green, so that the Council isn't all Brown and Gray.
Comments
- Latest Metro map drafts add Anacostia parks and other tweaks
- DC Council makes major policy changes overnight
- Short-term Washingtonians deserve a voice, too
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Parklets give every block a little park
- Public land deals have both benefits and pitfalls
- PG planners propose bold new smart growth future







I fear that he'd just be another Kwame Brown; i.e. a go along to get along type. At least with Carol you get a fiscal watchdog whose worst positions (anti-smoking ban, anti-school takeover) were out-voted. Mara could go either way. He could easily be a tool of the Committee of 100, or he could turn into another Catania (which I know for some is even worse, but I'm not one of those some).
by Reid on Sep 16, 2008 10:35 am • link • report
by SG on Sep 16, 2008 12:14 pm • link • report
It is an organization of residents who advocate for "responsible planning and land use." In recent years the Committee's membership has shifted in the direction of those who take a more anti-change view, and in several cases, like parking, the Committee has been a leading force opposing positive improvements. The Committee did some excellent work in the past, including leadership in fighting freeways.
Reid: If Mara is bad, I'd guess it would probably be in a more pro-development way, supporting letting developers do almost anything in the name of economic growth. At least, under-regulating is the way Republicans generally lean when they are bad on land use, versus bad Democrats who lean toward over-regulating. (By the way, I'm sure very few (if any) members of the Commitee of 100 are Republicans.)
by David Alpert on Sep 16, 2008 12:19 pm • link • report
http://wwwsouthcapitolstreet.blogspot.com/2008/09/appearances-of-power-ruminations.html
by Douglas Willinger on Sep 16, 2008 12:37 pm • link • report
by Lance on Sep 16, 2008 1:06 pm • link • report
But rather that there is some connection with Mason Orders with Masonry undeniably having a long history of involvement with the planning of Washington D.C.
And that there was some force causing the Committee of 100 to go totally apostate with its opposition to Extending the Legacy and their sell out of the South Capitol Mall.
by Douglas Willinger on Sep 16, 2008 1:19 pm • link • report
Anyway, it's the FCC, not the Committee of 100, who have bankrolled Mara. The FCC and the Board of Trade, that is. I'm not sure how a rookie like Mara would be able to refuse their orders if he were to win.
versus bad Democrats who lean toward over-regulating
Woah, that's not true. Well, it might be sometimes true, but it doesn't take a long read through the bio of such machinists like Vincent Orange or Marion Barry to see how Democrats can go bad on development issues. Just look at Orange's work wrt Florida Market or Brentwood shopping center. The latter is just poor planning, the former is pure cronyism.
Do I have reason to think Michael Brown would be like Orange? Not exactly, but I have no reason at all to think he'd be like, say, Wells either. He's a blank slate. Add to it the fact that the only reason he's ever gotten a single vote is who his dad is, and you can have at least an inkling that he's not terribly opposed to cronyism.
by Reid on Sep 16, 2008 1:52 pm • link • report
At least, under-regulating is the way Republicans generally lean when they are bad on land use, versus bad Democrats who lean toward over-regulating.
by Jazzy on Sep 16, 2008 2:33 pm • link • report
I have gotten to know Patrick over the past couple of months. He's a guy with a core fiscal conservative philosophy, he's not going to be swayed just because someone gave to his campaign.
However, Michael Brown isn't a totally blank slate: we know he graduated from a fourth-tier law school.
Kris Hammond
Ward Five Republicans
kristofor1787@yahoo.com
by Kris Hammond on Sep 16, 2008 11:59 pm • link • report
Add a Comment