If we want to make a donation, should we bring it in a plastic bag?

I kid, I kid.

by Fritz on Mar 25, 2010 5:24 pm • link • report

> Wells has been the strongest advocate for walkable
> neighborhoods, safe bicycling, performance parking,
> streetcars, and other key DC initiatives.

Such as keeping juvenile criminals out of confinement so they can commit further crimes.

A walkable neighborhood is not just a matter of brick sidewalks and traffic-calming roundabouts.

by Turnip on Mar 25, 2010 8:16 pm • link • report

David, Shouldn't the decision of who's the right person to represent Capitol Hill on the Council be left to the Capitol Hill voters? Frankly, I'd be upset if some newspaper or other media outlet from Capitol Hill started telling me who I should vote for as Councilmember for Ward 2.

by Lance on Mar 25, 2010 10:51 pm • link • report

I agree with Lance. I enjoy the policy discussions on here but I'm not a fan of the preachy pieces like this one. He might be a great guy and perfect for the job, but I feel like this isn't the place for his campaign to be advertised.

by Teo on Mar 25, 2010 11:05 pm • link • report

@Lance: Doesn't the Washington Post endorse candidates for office all the time?

by Michael Perkins on Mar 26, 2010 6:09 am • link • report

I'd actually appreciate seeing some GGW endorsements. The Ward 1 and mayoral races, for instance.

by Matt W on Mar 26, 2010 7:57 am • link • report

Those who seek walkable neighborhoods, streetcars, safe bicycling, and performance parking are advocating political positions. They need legislators who will support their goals and initiatives.

A basic rule in politics is that lawmakers always listen to those who support them and who can deliver some votes. They don't always agree, but the lawmakers always at least listen to what you have to say.

It is entirely appropriate for GGW to support candidates based on issues vital to GGW's goals. Otherwise, what's the point of advocating?

by Mike Silverstein on Mar 26, 2010 10:00 am • link • report

Roundabouts are not ped-friendly by the way, Turnip.

by Jazzy on Mar 26, 2010 10:08 am • link • report

@Michael. "@Lance: Doesn't the Washington Post endorse candidates for office all the time?"

The Washington Post purports to be unbiased in regards to issues/policies. When it endorses a candidate it is doing so as an 'honest bystander.' David doesn't purport to be unbiased. He openly says he advocates certain stands in regards to various types of policies including transportation policies. Because of this, when he endorses a candidate, it comes off as his asking voters to vote solely based on those issues, and not on overall issues. I.e., David is in interested party in regards to only certain facets of the Councilmembers' responsibilities. He can't come off as the 'honest bystander' like the Post can when it endorses a candidate.

by Lance on Mar 26, 2010 12:07 pm • link • report

So basically, groups or individuals interested in a political issue should never endorse any candidate for local office because it is somehow "interference in local affairs?" That's patently ridiculous.

If people want to see certain policies become law, they will support politicians who promote these policies and encourage their constituents to do the same. This is common sense.

by Phil on Mar 26, 2010 12:17 pm • link • report

@Lance You've got that exactly wrong. The Washington Post editorial board endorses candidates, and they make no attempt to be objective about it. The entire point of the editorial board is to have subjective opinions. It's the news department that purports to be objective, and they don't endorse candidates.

I think it's weird that anyone would have a problem with GGW endorsing a candidate. I've never considered GGW an unbiased, objective reporting site. It's an advocacy site with a clear bias.

by jcm on Mar 26, 2010 12:21 pm • link • report

@jcm "I've never considered GGW an unbiased, objective reporting site. It's an advocacy site with a clear bias."

and that's exactly what I'm saying. The Post on the other hand doesn't have a clear bias. When it looks at a candidate in whatever jurdiction (be it Ward or citywide) it looks at the candidate as being able to do an overall good job on ALL issues. GGW can't purport to be doing that because it acknowledges that it is biased. So, it comes off as interfering with the local politics of that jurisdiction (a ward in this case) rather than just giving an honest, non-biased, observer's opinion.

An anology would be a Russian petroleum trade association weighing in on the US presidential election because it felt one candidate would be more prone to support its interests vis-a-vis US regulations than another candidate.

by Lance on Mar 26, 2010 12:57 pm • link • report

Lance: GGW is not and has never been a Ward 2 specific site. This is like saying that the DC Preservation League can't weigh in on preservation of Meads Row on H Street because its headquarters are on Massachusetts Avenue.

by David Alpert on Mar 26, 2010 1:04 pm • link • report

Oops, it's the National Trust that's on Mass Ave and 18th (in one of my favorite buildings), but the Preservation League is downtown, and my point still holds.

by David Alpert on Mar 26, 2010 1:09 pm • link • report

David, I see your point in that it's GGW the metro org and not David the Dupont guy making the advocacy. But does that mean that we non-Capitol Hill folks get to counter that recommendation on this blog? It's a new medium ... and a new way of 'doing business' for all ... so, I guess I'm just not sure what the rules are.

by Lance on Mar 26, 2010 1:15 pm • link • report

You are certainly welcome to discuss in the comments your perspective on Tommy Wells and why you might not think voters should reelect him or people everywhere should go to his events and contribute to his campaign.

by David Alpert on Mar 26, 2010 1:21 pm • link • report

The rules are simple: GGW's mission is to improve the urbanism of the region, therefore it is within GGW's purview to endorse or oppose anyone or any topic that will make a difference to regional urbanism, as long as GGW does so on those terms.

It might be inappropriate to use GGW to endorse or oppose candidates based on unrelated topics (such as gay marriage, for example), but endorsing people who support what you are advocating for has always been one of the main points of advocacy.

by BeyondDC on Mar 26, 2010 1:26 pm • link • report

Thanks David. Hmmm do we really want to start talking about that bag tax again? ;)

by Lance on Mar 26, 2010 1:54 pm • link • report

sorry ... meant to say 'the Tommy Tax' ....

by Lance on Mar 26, 2010 1:54 pm • link • report

So, thanks to Tommy Wells we're going to be ridding the city of all bags (yeah right) and in their place getting chickens! Chickens and lots and lots of overhead wires!

Chickens:

http://dcist.com/2009/10/tommy_wells_wants_to_ease_urban_chi.php

Streetcar wires in Vancouver:

http://blog.allthedumbthings.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/bb.jpg

by Lance on Mar 26, 2010 3:09 pm • link • report

GGW should discuss and advocate policy it support for transit, but not discuss and advocate for politicians who support (and implement with laws) those actual policies? This is a bizarrely constructed divide being suggested here...

by Michael on Mar 26, 2010 6:18 pm • link • report

Going way back to the second comment, I do think that if you're going to endorse a candidate, you have to endorse everything he or she stands for, not just the portions of his platform you agree with.

And by endorsing Wells (and, if you choose to do so, Phil Mendelson), you're endorsing continued tolerance of criminality. How does that promote good urbanism?

And why does this blog, which purports its desire for a "Greater Greater Washington," ignore the truly important matters facing our city, namely the deplorable state of the schools and the pervasive criminality of many of its residents (abetted by many on the DC Council).

Adding bike lanes and reducing automobile usage should be about No. 1,984 on the city's list of priorities.

by anon on Mar 26, 2010 8:17 pm • link • report

@Anon, namely the deplorable state of the schools and the pervasive criminality of many of its residents (abetted by many on the DC Council).

While it's true that many of our schools have their challenges (due to a Teachers Union and School Board that for many years helped themselves to the cookie jar without contributing an iota to it), the 'criminality' part of your statement is way off base. Go check out the suburbs .. far far more crime happening there.

by Lance on Mar 26, 2010 11:53 pm • link • report