lol at cato,

would there be any substantial difference if a parking enforcement officer came by ran your liscense plate and then called it in? Pay by phone eliminates a labor ineffiency but things like this and other things like red light cameras always get brought up as "OMG They're invading our privacy" as if there is a substantive difference betweeen this and if the city/state had the ability to hire someone to watch a spot 24/7.

by drumz on Jun 22, 2012 8:44 am • link • report

@Drumz

Got to love that the people who want to cut every dollar they can out of federal spending, then pine that it would be okay if they were caught by a actual person, but being caught by some other more efficient method is a "nanny state"

Pathetic.

by Kyle W on Jun 22, 2012 8:52 am • link • report

About three blocks from the stadium, there were plenty of legal parking spots along the street and signs indicating how to pay for parking by telephone. It would cost $1.50 per hour or about $10 total – a steal compared to the $30-$40 being charged in the nearby lots

So basically the whole ordeal wouldn't have happened if he hadn't perpetuated the continued government subsidized parking. He even admits it's stealing! Next time he'll think twice and support the free market and park in a lot. Or better yet- not go see a game at a government subsidized stadium.

by jeff on Jun 22, 2012 9:35 am • link • report

A Cato blogger blames big government privacy intrusion for his car getting towed for unpaid tickets. He got the privacy issue wrong, but DPW did really fail in losing track of his car.

Oh, the cognitive dissonance. Cato folks love to rant about how many law-breakers are not held accountable because of government inefficiency, but when they themselves get caught just because the government was efficient, it's no good. That's because only other criminals need to pay the price.

“Looking at the numbers it looks to me that it will help pay for the cost of Dulles rail without burdening the rest of the county,” said Reid, who maintains that the Silver Line would not solve the county’s transportation problems.

More cognitive dissonance. Loudoun is a relatively small county, and the richest people live in the rural area that does not want to get taxed for the metro line. So, they create a special tax district. Well done uberrich. Seriously, there are people there that could pay for the whole freaking project and not feel it in their wealth, but they still do not wish to contribute to the county's future prosperity.

BTW: They're right that the Silver Line will not fix the county's congestion problems. How does Loudoun think they can fix the massive sprawl-induced congestion on US-50? They're widening it now, but that will not help a bit. I say: Build a metro or streetcar line all along US-50 from Arlington Cemetery (or the Mall) to (gasp!) Middleburg.

by Jasper on Jun 22, 2012 9:37 am • link • report

Hard to have much sympathy for the speeder who refused to pay his tickets until DC took the speeder's car. I wonder if he ever would have paid if DC had not taken his car?

1. Don't speed.
2. If you do speed pay your tickets.

Its too bad DC had the speeder spend a few hours looking for his car. I wonder if his attitude toward the Customer Service Rep made things worse. Cussing people out, when you have several tickets you apparently are not planning to pay is probably not the best way to get help finding your car.

What really gets me is the paranoia about privacy and information sharing. It is a good thing DC linked his speeding tickets to his license. I like it when government punishes scofflaws who would otherwise avoid penalty. Next time he drives in DC I am sure he will remember to slow down.

Also I'm glad the parking space was freed up for another driver.

by Turtleshell on Jun 22, 2012 9:48 am • link • report

Loudoun is a relatively small county, and the richest people live in the rural area that does not want to get taxed for the metro line. So, they create a special tax district. Well done uberrich.

The special tax district is actually a very efficient and fair way to pay for the Silver Line. The folks paying the special tax will still come out ahead because their property will increase in value substantially more than they will pay in special taxes. The special tax is a way of re-distributing the windfall gain that a small number of property owners will get from the Silver Line.

Not only is it more equitable to re-distribute windfall gains through a special tax, it increases support for future projects. The opposite case can be seen with the Purple Line. In that case, MD wants to fund the line with a gas tax that will affect everyone while only property owners near the stations will see a monetary benefit from the line. So, of course, the gas tax doesn't get implemented and there's no purple line.

by Falls Church on Jun 22, 2012 9:50 am • link • report

Regarding the Hine project: Aside from the architectural and design issues, the project has basically lost ALL of the space promised to non-profits provided the original, winning proposal from the developer, Stanton/Eastblanc. The were promising rehearsal space for the Shakespeare Theatre company; gone. They were going to provide room for the Tiger Woods foundation; gone. What is left is a small daycare (15 children), and spend $50 in spiffing up a play area across the street. How could this "table scrap" get more pathetic?

How to profit handsomely in redeveloping city-owned assets: Promise everything in the initial design, but let the community benefits drift away as the project works its way through the approvals, and replace them with tenants that pay market-rate rent.

by goldfish on Jun 22, 2012 9:57 am • link • report

Another benefit of special tax districts is that it reveals flawed projects. For example, if the Loudoun-Prince William outer beltway was paid for through special tax districts it would never happen. That's because the property value increases from the outer beltway are not sufficient to pay for the project. The only way the outer beltway could happen is if VDOT pays for most of it. If VDOT only pays 5% of the cost (as they are doing with the Silver Line), the highway will never happen because the local benefits don't exceed the costs that would have to be paid by localities.

by Falls Church on Jun 22, 2012 9:58 am • link • report

This kind of glibertarianism is the political philosophy of a 4 year old.

1)Something
a) unpleasant happened to me
b) pleasant happened to someone else and not me.

2) This made me have a sad.

3) Public policy rationalization to end this injustice!

+1 to everyone who pointed out that "government efficiency" is the goal until government gets efficient.

by oboe on Jun 22, 2012 9:58 am • link • report

Metro has improved its train-detection systems; it is in the process of replacing more than 1,500 track-circuit modules, with more work to be done. But trains will continue to operate in manual mode until more testing is completed, Stessel said. “We can’t yet say we’re totally comfortable with the control system, its integrity and its fail-safe characteristics,” Downey added.

Does this mean the track-circuit replacements are all done and they're now in the testing phase? Meaning that a return to automated control of the trains is coming soon?

by Falls Church on Jun 22, 2012 10:06 am • link • report

Maybe Hine neighbors shouldn't have fought so hard against a couple floors. Because if you plan on building 7 stories and are basically forced to only build 5 (I don't know the specifics) what are you gonna cut? The space meant to be rented out and actually pay for the building or the stuff that you said you would provide as a concession for more buildable room?

by drumz on Jun 22, 2012 10:06 am • link • report

Oh, the cognitive dissonance. Cato folks love to rant about how many law-breakers are not held accountable because of government inefficiency, but when they themselves get caught just because the government was efficient, it's no good. That's because only other criminals need to pay the price.

Yeah, these are the same people who rant about government needing to be run like a business - sorta like putting complimentary systems in place to achieve greater efficiency. And he'd bitch about government bloat and government-as-a-jobs-program if if DPW hired scores more parking enforcement officers.

I'd bet dollars to donuts that he was planning some generic Cato screed about how speed cameras are Big Brother reincarnated, and are an affront to God, Man and Ronald Reagan. For example,

http://www.cato.org/research/articles/balko-020206.html

Just delicious.

by dcd on Jun 22, 2012 10:07 am • link • report

@goldfish

The were promising rehearsal space for the Shakespeare Theatre company; gone. They were going to provide room for the Tiger Woods foundation; gone.

My understanding is that both of those tenants backed out. They might have been providing that space at a discount, but it wasn't going to be free. The economy tanked, and they changed their minds. Perhaps that's something you should take up with STC or the TW Foundation then.

How to profit handsomely in redeveloping city-owned assets:

How is profit relevant?

What kind of house/apartment do you live in? I'll bet it was developed for a profit when originally built. This is the process of development. That's how it works.

Oh, and you conveniently left out the large provision of affordable housing.

by Alex B. on Jun 22, 2012 10:08 am • link • report

@Cato-

The logic here is tendentious, at best. He says: "Be skeptical about initiatives like National ID or national databases sold in the name of public safety or health..." Isn't forcing scofflaws to pay their fines precisely in the public's interest?

by c2b16e on Jun 22, 2012 10:12 am • link • report

Promise everything in the initial design, but let the community benefits drift away as the project works its way through the approvals, and replace them with tenants that pay market-rate rent

Since getting anything done in this town apparently involves paying grift taxes to various interest groups and making a "donation" to the non-profits run by "community leaders", I can't say I shed to many tears when developers play the game of promising everyone their grift tribute and then conveniently forget about it after the opposition is defanged.

Trying to complain about Hine by saying, "we aren't getting the payoff we were promised!" isn't going to fly.

by Tyro on Jun 22, 2012 10:13 am • link • report

Tyro: a deal is a deal. What you are advocating is bad faith negotiation; this is very foolish, and you should consider how this affects your reputation in any future agreements you may make.

[Deleted for violating the comment policy.]

Regarding Hine: the concerned neighbors have hired a lawyer.

by goldfish on Jun 22, 2012 10:22 am • link • report

Tyro: a deal is a deal.

Show me the deal. I see lots of proposals and ideas. A deal takes agreement.

If STC had agreed, but then backed out on their own accord, how does that reflect negatively on the development? How is that negotiating in bad faith?

by Alex B. on Jun 22, 2012 10:28 am • link • report

Re: Cato. Libertarians whine about everything except when it happens to someone else.

Re: Bethesda. I've used the old post office at 7001 and it was always busy. It didn't have parking either. If the 7400 PO had parking it wouldn't have been much. many buildings on that side of the street in that direction have little or no parking.

by Rich on Jun 22, 2012 10:30 am • link • report

@Rich

Not sure the 7400 PO had parking. I walked from my office at 7500 Wisconsin, but isn't that the idea of a PO in a urban setting??

by Kyle W on Jun 22, 2012 10:32 am • link • report

@ Falls Church:Not only is it more equitable to re-distribute windfall gains through a special tax, it increases support for future projects.

What support? The support of people not paying? How are they supporting? The whole point of the special tax is to not support.

Infrastructure benefits everyone. That local road in California? Yeah, that's where that glass of wine that you're about to drink tonight came over. That's why infrastructure should be paid for by everyone. If not, you might as well privatize infrastructure. Which doesn't work.

by Jasper on Jun 22, 2012 10:43 am • link • report

@Alex B: I do not know if S/E had no intention of providing space they promised to the Shakespeare group and to the Tiger Woods foundation. Actually I doubt it. But on the other hand, they did not show much effort in getting equivalent tenants to replace them.

@Tyro: my friendly advice seems to have been deleted. But consider what other people may think when *you* advocate bad faith negotiation. Good luck.

by goldfish on Jun 22, 2012 10:53 am • link • report

What support? The support of people not paying? How are they supporting? The whole point of the special tax is to not support.

The people not paying are supporting by not pressuring their representatives to oppose it. For example, in Loudoun's case, the Silver Line needs support from 5 of 9 supervisors even though the line will only exist in 1 or 2 supervisors districts. Similarly, the Purple Line needs the support of the majority of the state/locality officials even though it will only exist in a minority of the area.

Infrastructure benefits everyone.

Yes, but direct monetary gains accrue only to the people owning land close to the infrastructure. Why should those people get all the monetary gains when the costs are shared by everyone? Shouldn't the gains also be shared? Otherwise, you perpetuate the corrupt cycle of developers contributing funds to politicians who turn around and spend public money for the primary benefit of the developers.

That's why infrastructure should be paid for by everyone. If not, you might as well privatize infrastructure. Which doesn't work.

What doesn't always work is trying to get everyone to pay for the infrastructure equally. That's why the Silver Line is happening but not the Purple Line (for the foreseeable future). A portion should be paid for by everyone (because yes, everyone receives some benefit) but a disproportion should be paid by the people getting a windfall gain.

by Falls Church on Jun 22, 2012 10:55 am • link • report

"@ Falls Church:Not only is it more equitable to re-distribute windfall gains through a special tax, it increases support for future projects.
What support? The support of people not paying? How are they supporting? The whole point of the special tax is to not support."

support as in vote for, support politically - not as in support financially.

"Infrastructure benefits everyone. That local road in California? Yeah, that's where that glass of wine that you're about to drink tonight came over. That's why infrastructure should be paid for by everyone."

Unless I drink australian wine exclusively. While a case could be made for simply financing all trans infrastructure 100% from federal funds, and a case could be made for full privatization, in fact the distribution of benefits is complex - some are to users (and could in theory at least be privatized, at least to some extent) and some are externalities, but usually NOT evenly distributed.

"If not, you might as well privatize infrastructure. Which doesn't work."

Without disputing the latter (though I note the US freight rail system has worked surprisingly well with relatively little public support, at least for the last few generations) I think there is clearly a range of intermediate solutions.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 22, 2012 11:02 am • link • report

@goldfish

I do not know if S/E had no intention of providing space they promised to the Shakespeare group and to the Tiger Woods foundation. Actually I doubt it.

Do you have any actual evidence?

http://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/stanton-eastbanc_revamps_plans_for_hine_site/2945

“Shakespeare Theater has decided to retrench,” said Ken Golding of Stanton-EastBanc, LLC, who won the rights to develop the site in September 2009. “The theater has decided, given the economy and the difficulty of raising money for nonprofits, that they are not going to move their rehearsal studio and costume shop.”

Or this:

http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/blog/2011/02/dcs-hine-school-project-tweaked.html

That means working around a parade of maybe-maybe not tenants. The Tiger Woods Foundation has decided not to build a learning center for D.C. youth there, Sternlieb said, while the Shakespeare Theatre Co. has opted not to consolidate its offices there — though it is expected to lease a number of residential units for its actors. And International Relief and Development will not to move its headquarters there.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. You can offer the space to various non-profits, but if they back out, that's their decision.

by Alex B. on Jun 22, 2012 11:04 am • link • report

@FC = the alternative model is to fund centrally, but logroll by financing needed projects across enough constituencies to gain a majority. In Mds case that would be the red line for metro baltimore, and the corridor cities thing for upper Moco. That will leave some opponents, but might work politically. Granted it doesnt look great right now, but then the LC Silver Line stations aren't a done deal yet either, and even phase 1 has a left a sour taste among many FFX citizens (due to the complexities of extracting the "rents" from the Tysons landowners). Both approaches can be difficult to implement in practice and have their advantages and disadvantages.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 22, 2012 11:06 am • link • report

@Alex B: Again I say: Once those deal with fell through, Stanton/Eastblanc did not show much effort in getting equivalent tenants to replace them.

by goldfish on Jun 22, 2012 11:07 am • link • report

And the equivalent tenant to the Shakespeare Theater Company's costume shop is... what?

Tenants change. This is how real estate works.

None of this even remotely looks like negotiating in bad faith. You seem to equate negotiation results you don't like with a bad faith process.

by Alex B. on Jun 22, 2012 11:10 am • link • report

@Alex B. I REPEAT. I have not accused S/E of negotiation in bad faith, only neglect.

There are lots of non-profits. S/E apparently could come to a deal with any of them.

The amenities that were promised when this public asset was replaced with a private one, are not being delivered.

by goldfish on Jun 22, 2012 11:14 am • link • report

@ Falls Church:The people not paying are supporting by not pressuring their representatives to oppose it.

That is the lowest bar for 'support' I have ever seen.

Why should those people get all the monetary gains when the costs are shared by everyone?

They are! Their property values go up, so their property taxes go up.

@ AWITC:I note the US freight rail system has worked surprisingly well with relatively little public support, at least for the last few generations

If you ignore the externalize that the privatization of freight killed passenger rail. If that had not happened, the US would be filled with high-speed rail lines that the French, Japanese and Chinese would be jealous of. Everybody knows that the US can do anything faster and bigger if it sets its mind to it.

by Jasper on Jun 22, 2012 11:33 am • link • report

autocopycorrecterror: externalize should be externality

by Jasper on Jun 22, 2012 11:33 am • link • report

"If you ignore the externalize that the privatization of freight killed passenger rail. If that had not happened, the US would be filled with high-speed rail lines that the French, Japanese and Chinese would be jealous of. Everybody knows that the US can do anything faster and bigger if it sets its mind to it."

A. I'm not sure what you mean by freight "privatization" Freight rail has been private in this country (except for a brief period during WW1) since the mid 19th c (when there was heavy public involvement in financing, but not in operation).
B. Passenger rail was not "killed" It has been in operation continually - though arguably not at the optimal level
C, its not clear how nationalizing the freight RRs would have been good for passenger, unless you mean that Freight RR profits should have paid for the investment in HSR. I think that would have been very bad for freight rail - HSR should be paid for by the general public, and if by any particular part of the private sector, by airport and road users, since its congestion and neg externalities in their modes that would be addressed by it.
D. In any case, my point was that freight rail has succeeded while being private. A point which stands. What you are speaking of is not an externality, but a source of financing. You might as well say that having a private trucking sector has an "externality" of not having well developed bike infrastructure, since we could have confiscated the profits of that sector to pay for bike infrastructure.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 22, 2012 11:46 am • link • report

"That is the lowest bar for 'support' I have ever seen."

I think this is a language problem. In English "do you support X?" often means "do you vote for X?" "do you politically support X?" - NOT "do you fund X?" they are different meanings of the same word, whose application must be sought in context. I thought FC's usage was clear.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 22, 2012 11:49 am • link • report

Re: what happened to the Cato blogger, the same thing happened to me BY MISTAKE. My car was picked up by DC for "unpaid tickets". Problem was, they got the plate numbers wrong. Nobody cared.

It took nearly a week to locate my car and they still forced me to pay over $1000 of someone else's fines in addition to towing and storage charges (even for the period they were looking for it) to bail out my car. It took over a year of phone calls, mailing copies of my registration and car title, and an even an in-person visit to finally get the fines refunded.

In addition, the car was damaged by the tow truck - thank goodness my insurance covered the cost of repairs, minus my deductable.

Now, whenever I drive to DC, I park in a lot whenever possible, regardless of the cost. I would rather pay $20-$40 to park in a privately-owned, job-producing, taxpaying parking lot that let those clowns from the driver-hostile DC "government" get their hands my one of my vehicles.

by ceefer66 on Jun 22, 2012 11:53 am • link • report

@ AWITC:I think this is a language problem.

Not in this case. I was refering to:

The people not paying are supporting by not pressuring their representatives to oppose it.

Support by not pressuring to oppose...

That is a very low bar. It's more 'not caring' than supporting.

by Jasper on Jun 22, 2012 12:33 pm • link • report

I have not accused S/E of negotiation in bad faith, only neglect.
There are lots of non-profits. S/E apparently could come to a deal with any of them

Who the heck cares? STC and Tiger Woods made a bunch of demands out of Hines because they figured that the Hines project was a resource for them to exploit in order to avail themselves of the sweet, sweet grift that everyone and his brother tries to extract from a private business owner who's "making money off of the community!", and when they backed out, Hines figured, "well, I'm glad we're done dealing with those blood suckers!" and moved on with their lives.

Just because a bunch of would-be dealmakers trying to take advantage of a situation the enrich themselves by threatening to hold up a development don't end up getting anything out of it isn't a reason I am going to cry over the situation. A bunch of gifters who tried to exploit the Hines situation for their own advantage ended up getting nothing for their trouble. So what?

by Tyro on Jun 22, 2012 12:55 pm • link • report

@Ceefer66

Could have taken Metro.. If it makes you feel better, by paying your $20-$40 to park in a private lot, you are still contribution $3.60-$7.20 to DC via the 18% tax on commutters such as yourself. Thanks for your contribution!

Regarding the issue with the damage and the fines, I would have gone to small claims court personally. You chose to handle it how you did, and seemingly got a result satisfactory to you, so it seems like all worked out well?

by Kyle W on Jun 22, 2012 12:55 pm • link • report

Another benefit of special tax districts is that it reveals flawed projects. For example, if the Loudoun-Prince William outer beltway was paid for through special tax districts it would never happen. That's because the property value increases from the outer beltway are not sufficient to pay for the project. The only way the outer beltway could happen is if VDOT pays for most of it. If VDOT only pays 5% of the cost (as they are doing with the Silver Line), the highway will never happen because the local benefits don't exceed the costs that would have to be paid by localities.

Amazing comment Falls Church! This should be shouted out from the rooftops. This should make sense to everyone regardless of political affiliation.

by H Street Landlord on Jun 22, 2012 1:16 pm • link • report

Why should those people get all the monetary gains when the costs are shared by everyone?

They are! Their property values go up, so their property taxes go up.

This may just be a fundamental ideological difference we have. I believe in progressive taxation. That means that people making a disproportionate share of income pay a disproportionate share of taxes. Simply put, that means while everyone else pays X% tax rate, the rich pay a X+Y% tax rate. The flat tax folks will argue that's unfair because X% of $500K is a lot more than X% of $50K, so in that sense the rich are already paying more tax (just like property owners near a Silver Line station will pay higher tax because their property appreciates, even if the percentage rate doesn't increase). But, the principle of progressive taxation says that that the people making disproportionate money, pay a higher rate.

The people not paying are supporting by not pressuring their representatives to oppose it.

That is the lowest bar for 'support' I have ever seen.

However, that's all that's needed. If the people not benefiting don't oppose, and the people benefiting are in favor, the project will get done. The surprising thing is that even though the bar is so low, it is often difficult to overcome.

by Falls Church on Jun 22, 2012 1:17 pm • link • report

@ Falls Church:This may just be a fundamental ideological difference we have.

No. It's about reality. Quite frankly, I don't know how Loudoun does its property taxes. But progressive taxation is not the matter at hand. The matter at hand is whether people who are benefiting from property value increasing are paying more. They are.

Also, if you're for progressive taxation, then you should favor the rural area of Loudoun paying more, cuz that's where the money is. Billions of it. Part of it grazing. And probably taxed less than you and me.

Example 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqueline_Mars

by Jasper on Jun 22, 2012 1:36 pm • link • report

The surprising thing is that even though the bar is so low, it is often difficult to overcome.

And now the circle is full. The reason why it is so difficult to get anything done in the US, is that there are simply way too many decision points, where politicians - newly elected or not - can cause mayhem.

Someone said: Elections has consequences. That is true. But so do previous obligations. Loudoun has long ago agreed to this trajectory, and to have the Silver Line. There is no way out.

by Jasper on Jun 22, 2012 1:40 pm • link • report

jasper - Yes, property taxes go up for people whose property increases in value due to a metro station. However normal property tax rates are so low that that captures a very small proportion of the increase in value.

As for loudoun county income distribution, while there are some superrich people with horsefarms in western loudoun, there are also quite a few people of modest means there, and some quite affluent people living in closer in eastern loudoun.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 22, 2012 1:42 pm • link • report

"And now the circle is full. The reason why it is so difficult to get anything done in the US, is that there are simply way too many decision points, where politicians - newly elected or not - can cause mayhem."

I dont think this is the place to discuss the relative merits of the US political system.

"Someone said: Elections has consequences. That is true. But so do previous obligations. Loudoun has long ago agreed to this trajectory, and to have the Silver Line. There is no way out."

but since the previous board did not actually obligate future funds, there IS a way out. LC BoS can simply vote not to spend the money.

This of course means LC is a less trustworthy partner to other jurisdictions, esp to FFX cty. it appears that at least some LC supervisors do not care.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 22, 2012 1:45 pm • link • report

@ AWITC:I dont think this is the place to discuss the relative merits of the US political system.

It is an argument I've been making. Same with Barry putting a resolution on the streetcar thing. DC is committed on streetcars. There is no point in slowing things down, other than extortion for personal gain.

It's funny that the people most in favor of small government - republicans - are the ones mostly using their options to blackmail and extort.

it appears that at least some LC supervisors do not care.

Exactly. That is bad. I hope LC (primary) voters remember that. They probably won't.

by Jasper on Jun 22, 2012 1:58 pm • link • report

@Kyle W,

Could have taken Metro..
-----

To go to a formal occasion on a weekend?

Yeah, right.

As for the smark re: "commuter tax" and "contributions", I was a DC resident at the time. Paying high taxes to support DC's dysfunctional "government" eventually got old enough to drive me to the 'burbs. The towing snafu was one of the last straws.

I still own my house in DC so I suppose that makes me vested enough in DC affairs to have an opnion. I hope you're OK with that.

Now you have a nice day.

by ceefer66 on Jun 22, 2012 5:55 pm • link • report

The new post office in Bethesda is a stunningly bad idea - though it is now VERY convenient to me.

Replace the old post office with parking to one without parking.
Replace the old post office convenient to the metro and the central business district to one convenient to neither.
PRESTO! No lines - no waiting!

by Capt. Hilts on Jun 23, 2012 10:40 pm • link • report

@Capt Hilts

Agree in principal, however, I believe there is a much larger mixed use development happening in that block. I think this PO was the victim of being in too good of a location. Having a one-story post office on that site was certainly not its highest and best use, and I commend the PO for having the foresight to sell some very valuable property here. They should have worked to see if they could be incorporated into the new building though.

@Ceefer66

To go to a formal occasion on a weekend?

Sure why not? Regarding your "contribution" yes, you mentioned a job creating parking garage, so I just wanted to point out that you are not getting the deal you think you are getting.

Regarding dysfunction, lets talk about the dysfunction of Virginia advocating state rape, and threatening to pull the plug on a 6 billion project over idealogical ridiculousness. All while giving $6 million to Dan Synder for a PRACTICE facility!

by Kyle W on Jun 25, 2012 8:58 am • link • report

Kyle W, I, too, think it was a wise business move for the PO to leave both sites for a better one. Not only is the real estate really valuable [the Arlington road lot is very large], but both sites had outgrown their buildings.

The new location is GREAT for me, but it really is unforgivable that they chose to replace a PO with parking with a location with no parking whatsoever. That, combined with moving farther from the business core and Metro, make this a very bad decision. And I think more poorly of both Mattress Discounter and Verizon for not coughing up some spots. Mattress Discounter is a dead business that could only benefit from the new neighbor.

by Capt. Hilts on Jun 25, 2012 9:06 am • link • report