Vienna Citizen Sounds Off

Random and unsolicited feedback arrived yesterday in email from a Vienna citizen named "Rob". Below you can see the contents of his email and our responses:

"I was directed to your website and have enjoyed some of the content. Some is, quite frankly, ridiculous. For example, the original VPC [Vienna Presbyterian Church] building, now the chapel has stood on that corner since 1879. Anyhow, there is no reference to who “historicvienna.com” is. Don’t you think it would make you more credible if you disclosed your identities?"

We responded back in email: The fact that you can read, listen and view the content on historicvienna.com and come back with the statement that the content is "ridiculous" makes us wonder what exactly you refer to. Now, we can tell from your web site that you are details guy in a details business. If you wanted to drop off a quick rant offering no specifics, other than the VPC mention, that's fine. If you want to be taken serious or if you are looking for a serious debate, say something that actually counters the overall statements that are presented on historicvienna.com.

Rob responded back in email to our above email (we have interjected responses into his email response):

"Dear HV: It is obvious that your statement that there is 'nothing historic about Church St.' is incorrect. Pointing to a much needed expansion of a church, attached to a structure that has been painstakingly preserved by the members of VPC is at best a cheap shot and, yes, ridiculous."

It seems that you are responding to this post about "historic" signs on Church Street, but why don't you address the specifics of what we actually say? Why don't you have the church put on a national register then? Why not ask to have it put into a restrictive historic district that regulates what "painstakingly preserved" actually means? Or do you only want the ability to preserve things as you see fit with no governmental intrusion?

Rob continued in his email:

"I did not want to shoot off a 'quick rant', in fact, unlike you, I don't want to 'rant' at all. I happen, for the record, to agree with the overall point you are trying to make about the 'historic' district, its 'rules' and, quite frankly, the completely random way in which the Town's building ordinances are 'enforced.' There are numerous projects going on around town now and in the six years we have lived in Vienna that are clearly in violation of lot coverage restrictions, etc. If you are certain builders and grease the right skids, apparently you can do whatever the heck you want. As an American and property owner, I am deeply concerned about the continued erosion of our property rights in this country. If, in fact, there is no legal standing for the 'historic' district, its review board, etc. to exist, then clearly it should be eliminated."

It seems we have some common ground here. That is positive.

Rob continued in his email:

"I am in violent agreement with much of your content, however, the tone is one of something well beyond your garden variety anger and more like pure unadulterated open hostility. In fact, it is that hostility that led me to ask the obvious question, who are you guys at HistoricVienna.com? Apparently, you don't want to reveal your identity. The fact that you don't, I think, makes your site less credible."

Looks like the common ground may be crumbling! By hostility, for example, do you mean the verbal tirade launched by the former Chairman of the Historic Review Board? Is that what you mean? The intent of this website is not to punish the citizens who have recorded and posted the phony historic politics played out in Vienna. In the real world, political leaders exposed as corrupt typically seek retribution. And that is the real issue: Why are you not more concerned about the corrupt actions of numerous Vienna leaders? If you were actually in the firing line of having YOUR property rights abused by Maud Robinson, and this was more than just an intellectual exercise for you, would you be perhaps "hostile"?

Rob continued in his email:

"What axe do you have to grind with these people?

Let us get this straight. After reading this entire web site, after watching all of the videos, after telling us you are an advocate for property rights, you ask the question about what axe we have to grind? Are you not the least bit worried it's the other way around? The question is, 'what axe does the Town have to grind?'

Rob continued in his email:

What financial interest(s) are you trying to advance or protect?

Did it ever occur to you in your life that there is right and wrong? We fully understand some people can't comprehend standing on principle. For example, it's difficult to point out, in the face of seemingly wide-spread support, that a leader such as Maud Robinson is dishonest. However, the evidence is clear. Perhaps, Robinson runs her life in such a way that the historic district is her only contradiction. Perhaps, it is the only area of government where she abuses citizens and their rights. If that is true, it is even worse. That means she is using her "good name" to take actions (and give her cover) against a few.

Rob continued in his email:

"Knowing these things would allow a more thoughtful consideration of what you have to say. As it stands right now, it is obvious you are angry, perhaps with good reason, but without this information, you are just an angry coward. After all, I could have not used my firm email with my signature and url but I am not trying to hide my identity like you all apparently are. Too bad, because I think beneath all the invective, you make some good points. Kindest regards, Rob M."

The facts are not enough for you? You need "more" than just the facts?

Rob is a middle of the road guy. He is for property rights he says, but if you attempt to protect your property rights, if you attempt to point out corruption and cheating in governmental leaders, than by Rob's logic you are a coward. Amazingly, Rob is perfectly "hedged". He can go left, he can go right, but he has no true principle upon which he stands.