Ms. Beatty, you will not be receiving my vote.

First, allow me to say how unimpressed I am with the ANC commissioners I have met thus far. I recently attended a community meeting in Ward 6 to discuss online gambling, and I was horrified when one of the ANC commissioners shouted at a black woman who asked a question: "That's a stupid question!" I had to turn around to look at the man, because I could barely believe that an adult would conduct himself this way in public.

Secondly, you mischaracterize the online gambling issue as an "egregious example" of lack of transparency. What you fail to mention, in your own self-interest, is that there was nothing opaque about the situation:

Michael Brown discussed the issue on TV before the Council even considered it, there was discussion of the provision in the Council, and the changes to the budget (which included online gaming) were highlighted in big bold print before anyone on the council approved the budget.

The only thing that didn't happen---and perhaps this is why you're so peeved about the situation---is that the ANC was not consulted first. From where does this overblown sense of self-importance arise? Even councilman Wells himself, who opposes the online gaming provision, has said that whatever goals the ANC hoped to accomplish in pre-approval public hearings can still be accomplished in post-approval hearings.

This pompous attitude is the last thing the D.C. council needs.

by M. Farber on Jan 23, 2012 2:42 pm • link • report

Would like to know if there is a possibility for someone (anyone!) on the ANC to take a look at addressing playspaces downtown?

by Sarah on Jan 23, 2012 2:56 pm • link • report

Ms Brooks,

Unlike the previous commenter, you WILL be receiving my vote.

Our neighborhood is markedly different because of your efforts -- I'm personally appreciative of the ANC getting the Lincoln Park Terrace condos built on the site of a liquor store which pretty much "operated" 24/7.

Smart growth + quality of life issues = a better DC.

by mch on Jan 23, 2012 2:59 pm • link • report

The limiting of the sale of singles has meant that distributors are selling alcohol as two-packs now.

by X on Jan 23, 2012 2:59 pm • link • report

My disappointment is that she highlights her signature accomplishments as being about liquor store regulation. Well and good, those were probably very good decisions! However, I don't see how a good track record of cracking down on poorly managed liquor stores translates to being a good city council member.

by JustMe on Jan 23, 2012 3:00 pm • link • report

And I worry that, even if cracking down on a specific liquor store was good policy, she would feel a moral obligation to limit everyone's access to alcohol.

by ChrisB on Jan 23, 2012 3:06 pm • link • report

Ms. Beatty,

You state that one of your "focuses" in the last few years has been transportation alternatives. Yet you give no examples of your positions in this arena. Nor does your website offer any information (you don't even list transportation as an issue).

Given that transportation issues are near and dear to the hearts of many GGW readers, could you please describe your position on various transportation issues, such as the integration of bike lanes, pedestrian safety, streetcars, etc.

Thank you

by rdhd on Jan 23, 2012 3:54 pm • link • report

@M. Farber, I'm curious. You note an incident where an ANC commissioner shouted at a black woman. Why is it important that the person being shouted at is black? If the behavior of the commissioner was rude, it's rude no matter what race he directed his comment towards.

I'm also confused as to why you oppose Ms. Beatty based on the actions of a fellow commissioner?

by Tim Krepp on Jan 23, 2012 3:59 pm • link • report

Create a plan to address litter and you've got my vote. In the meantime, I'll remain the crotchety 29 year old yelling at kids on my street for dropping their candy wrappers.

by Rayful Edmond on Jan 23, 2012 4:01 pm • link • report

I'd just like to remind folks of the trickery that got Michael A. Brown into that at-large seat. Brown, a lifelong democrat, ran as an independent to get around the rule limiting the at-large political representation to be only 3 of the 5 seats from one of the major parties. The rule was set up to avoid the terrible oversight-by-your-friends system that we have now.

I'm probably voting for the republican out of principle; they won't have even close to a majority on the council, they won't get any of their legislative priorities through, they can't hold up any legislation, but they can provide the oversight that comes from being an opposition party, and that is important for a functioning democracy.

by Will on Jan 23, 2012 4:07 pm • link • report

I'm not sure it's that easy to conclude that a closed liquor resulted in people no longer wanting to move to the burbs. While I can understand the quality of life argument wrt to liquor stores (the bad ones), your end assumption still seems like a stretch.

I don't frequent that area but after seeing the improvements, I always assumed that the master plan (streetcars, pedestrian improvements etc) is what opened the door to that entertainment district. Not that safety improvement didn't contribute.

Also, while "transparency" is a popular catch-all phrase, I realize that it's not really possible to talk about what you or any other candidate would do beyond what has already been proposed.

All in all, I don't think you made a good case why we shouldn't reelect Brown.

by HogWash on Jan 23, 2012 4:46 pm • link • report

@Will, I'm probably voting for the republican out of principle [because although] they won't have even close to a majority on the council, won't get any of their legislative priorities through, can't hold up any legislation, they can provide the oversight that comes from being an opposition party

So you're voting for a republican out of "principle" because a republican would provide better oversight?

That's odd.

by HogWash on Jan 23, 2012 4:51 pm • link • report

So you're voting for a republican out of "principle" because a republican would provide better oversight? That's odd.

Not really - can you think of one thing the council needs more than better oversight?

by dcd on Jan 23, 2012 5:13 pm • link • report

In a word, vapid. No concrete examples of bringing consensus. No real vision. She sounds like she's running for condo board, not citywide election.

by Rich on Jan 23, 2012 6:15 pm • link • report

Although Mary Brooks Beatty appears to be a decent candidate, I think she is picking the wrong opponent. Michael A. Brown is one of the few members of the council that is not corrupting the city.

by Marshall on Jan 23, 2012 7:00 pm • link • report

Silly question. In this type of article (aspiring politician writing a piece), do they or the GGW edit team pick the headline?

by charlie on Jan 23, 2012 7:39 pm • link • report

Hmmmm. I voted for Pat Mara because I like the idea of having a moderate republican on the council to balance out the lunacy of our council, but the candidate's platforms need to pass the smell test first.

I googled the 'National Enviromental Policy Institute' and the first thing that pops up is a website claiming its a front group for ExxonMobil, pushing anti environment issues that would make most GGWers weep. http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=56

Can you refute this or shed some light on environmental and transportation policies you'd pursue as a council member?

Also, what are your views on social issues? Do you support gay marriage, medicinal marijuana, or the bag tax?

Talking about transparency and city council moderation? You're singing my tune. But I need to hear a little more detail before I stick a campaign sign in my yard.

by Jim Ed on Jan 23, 2012 9:09 pm • link • report

@Jim Ed

Thank you.

by Adam L on Jan 23, 2012 9:27 pm • link • report

Ok well you shut down a liquor store... why was a perfectly legal permit given to a business person based on the current laws of Washington DC, based on accusing that business owner of illicit activities occurring around his store? I'm sorry but I feel bad for that guy, what if he was also a victim of these people that were conducting crime around him, perhaps strong armed? I'm sorry but everything is not black and white, and this sounds just like the same story that the right has been telling over the past 30 years. Anything that doesnt follow your religious beliefs is something that is destroying society.

Regardless of whether or not I believe that liquor stores bring down a neighborhood (which I do but I think the issue should be resolved with better planning, attraction of better jobs, and better police presence) the real point here is it sounds like a wolf in sheeps clothing. Someone has clearly informed her that smart growth and transportation are "the green of this year" and that she could attain better numbers from independents by pretending to comprehend these issues by simply spouting them as hot topics.

So please, do tell us, how would you help DC other than, ya know, getting rid of all the "unseemly looking people".

by Tysons Engineer on Jan 23, 2012 9:45 pm • link • report

Anyone else remember this Mary Beatty quote?

"There are a lot more serious problems that Ward 6 needs to resolve than bicycles and pedestrians."

This was from a Mike DeBonis article on the last Ward 6 primary election between Tommy Wells and Kelvin Robinson: http://goo.gl/URsPI

I was searching for the open letter Beatty and fellow Commissioner Gladys Mack wrote to Tommy Wells berating him for his emphasis on "livable, walkable" issues, but I can't seem to turn it up. Can anyone else?

by A cyclist remembers on Jan 23, 2012 9:55 pm • link • report

@Hogwash, "So you're voting for a republican out of "principle" because a republican would provide better oversight?

That's odd.

I took it to mean that Will was saying that having an opposition party in place would ensure better checks and balances (vs. 'oversight' in the sense that the DC Council uses it.)

In the parlementary countries (eg the UK) such opposition parties are an essential part of government because of the balance they provide ...i.e., the role they play in ensuring that even minority viewpoints are considered in a debate or discussion.

I agree with Will. Besides I'd hardly consider our Democrats here Democrats who are in it for their 'belief in their party's values'. They're Democrats because for years it's been the only 'party' (i.e., game) in town (no pun intended.)

by Lance on Jan 23, 2012 10:41 pm • link • report

Using regulations to drive people out of business, and you are a republican? Really? What part of the republican party platform do you ascribe to? It's clearly not their more libertarian side. Anti-drinking, anti-gambling, sounds like some kind of puritan throw back.

We do need ethics reform but all I see here just you stating that without defining any specifics on how you would like to see that accomplished. Not much different than the empty rhetoric we get from the current set.

by Doug on Jan 24, 2012 12:07 am • link • report

Does anyone know how Ms. Beatty feels about social issues - e.g. a woman's right to chose, gay marriage, needle-exchange etc.? I didn't find these positions on her website.

by ACG on Jan 24, 2012 8:21 am • link • report

@DCD/Lance, I'm consider myself a democrat with an independent streak. I would not decide to vote for a republican just out of "principle" because of some distorted notion that doing so will bring checks and balances. IMO, that makes little to no sense at all.

Conservative Democrat Ben "Cornhusker Kickback" Nelson initially voted against the healthcare bill out of "principle." And we see how that has played out nationally. Aligning yourself with the other party "just because" is not a winning party strategy.

I think there are enough competent democrats and independents to take the charge rather than stepping into republican territory just on "principle." IMO, this has more to do with rantings against the people in office rather than some serious vote on "principle"

by HogWash on Jan 24, 2012 10:26 am • link • report

Nobody likes Michael Brown less than I do, but Ms. Beatty’s life history is wrapped up in the Cheney-Bush mindset of Oklahoma, Texas, and K Street, working on behalf of polluters like Duke Energy and the “National Environmental Policy Institute” – dedicated to undermining things like the Clean Air Act that she has the temerity to mention in her post. Beatty’s style of transparency is a fun-house mirror.

So she’s against regulation that inhibits the oil and gas industry from polluting, but she’s all for regulating local, small businesses.

“Reform”? “Transparency”? “Fixing whatever is bothering you”? “Constituents”? It sure sounds like for her, these have nothing to do with the good of our city.

by Yersinia pestis on Jan 24, 2012 11:29 am • link • report

I miss Carol Schwartz... Come back from retirement in Florida, Carol!!

by SG on Jan 24, 2012 11:52 am • link • report

While I don't know that Mary's post is the best reflection of her, I want to say that I am supporting her because of her affirmative position on gay marriage, her commitment to streamlining DC government and lowering taxes, her understanding of the need for quality education for all children, and her energy towards ensuring that all residents basic need for personal safety are met.

While I could care less about ethics, I do care about my quality of life - and it seems to me that Michael Brown doesn't care about either.

by LEM on Jan 24, 2012 12:22 pm • link • report

It's always interesting that many of those in DC who clamor for "change" in the DC Government and want to "do away with business-as-usual" change their tune when confronted with an actual red-blooded alternative. They are the first to say, "ooo, ick, a Republican."

by Paulus on Jan 24, 2012 3:02 pm • link • report

Oh boohoo. The richest counties in the country are complaining about how the rich drive up rents.

by Ironchef on Jan 24, 2012 3:57 pm • link • report

Ick a Republican

by Ironchef on Jan 24, 2012 3:58 pm • link • report

. . . affirmative position on gay marriage, her commitment to streamlining DC government and lowering taxes, her understanding of the need for quality education for all children.

Great! So far, then, she sounds like a carbon copy of Michael Brown, Vincent Gray, Adrian Fenty, Marion Barry, Harry Thomas, and Rick Santorum, among several others. In a word, vague statements no one could disagree with ought to generate a collective “Whatever”.

Let’s remember too , that the pet party of corporations stands boldly against DC Statehood, Home Rule, health care, reproductive choice, science, fair taxation, public heath, and public education. Does Beatty want to disavow the local implications of all that, or just not talk about it for a little while?

by Sydney on Jan 24, 2012 4:15 pm • link • report

Is being "pro"homosexual marriage in DC a relevant position to have nowadays?

@Sydney, you forgot to add Barack Obama to that list.

@LEM, what has Michael Brown done on ethics that you disagree with?

by HogWash on Jan 24, 2012 4:34 pm • link • report

@HogWash, for starters he wants to keep CSFs. He is also in bed with John Ray and big taxicab companies. He was a sore loser when he didn't win his primary - though he still can't come to grips with the fact that he is now an independent, so he calls himself an Independent Democrat (what is that?!). He never takes a position to actually help the people he serves. He is an opportunist. Geez...the list keeps going.

I just want someone in office that I can trust will protect everything I value. I would happily let Mary Brooks Beatty watch my babies and know that they will be safe in her care. I would trust her to run my company. And I would trust her with my home.

by LEM on Jan 24, 2012 10:52 pm • link • report

So, your proudest accomplishments are getting rid of a liquor store and helping to stop the sale of single beers on H St. Who the hell cares?

I'm more concerned about people in your social class who go drinking in pubs on Barrack's Row, then hop in their Volkswagens, and go driving dangerously around my neighborhood!

Poor drunkards on the street are a lot less dangerous than uppity drunkards with vehicles.

What plans have you got for the city, besides limiting poor drunkards' personal freedoms? What plans have you got besides limiting all of our choice whether to gamble?

by Wunderlust on Jan 30, 2012 1:16 pm • link • report