Sitting on the Fence
Sitting on the Fence Decision-Making Never Works
Some recent feedback seen on the historic district mess from a member of one of Vienna's boards:
"The issue with OUR Historic Overlay District (And I do think everyone concentrates too much on "Historic", and not on "Overlay") is that there are not concrete and specific rules set down and written out for the residents. It is, believe it or not, arbitrary and capricious. If you want to paint your house, then you must go before the "Windover Heights Review Board", and they will look at your paint chip and study it, and decide if they like it or not. There is NOT a defined list of set colors that say this is what you can or cannot use to paint your house. So, I think that is the crux of the problem. No one truly knows what the rules ARE, because there are not rules. There is only opinion. I THINK that is why some of the people want out so badly. They don't want to build a high-rise building there. I THINK they would like to continue to live there; they just want to know what the rules are so that they are fair for everyone. Unfortunately, it has blossomed into almost a "Hatfields and McCoys" situation! Here's what I think. Lets have the Town Council go out, two by two, and meet with EVERY SINGLE property owner in the WHHD. Let's let every property owner have ONE and only one vote (Do it by property owners, not by properties). That way the rich don't get more votes than the not-so-rich. Then it's as easy as 1-2-3. Count up the votes, and if the majority like being in an Overlay District, then keep it so. If the majority wants to abandon it, then consider it yesterday's news."
- Thank you for acknowledging that there are no rules. Thank you for acknowledging that the situation is arbitrary and capricious. It is nice to have one of Vienna's power brokers finally acknowledge the truth.
- Unfortunately, your proposal to penalize people for being successful enough to own more than one property is economic egalitarianism. Does this mean that if there were, for example, 20 properties in the District, 19 owned by one person and one owned by the other person, they should have equal votes? The idea that you would first acknowledge that the entire District is arbitrary and capricious, then propose to "solve" it all by a "socialistic type vote" makes no sense. In your effort to "make people equal", which really has nothing to do with anything, you ignore the parade of abuses and injustices here. Why do you ignore these abuses and give the abusers another "chance"? What exactly are you even holding onto with this District? For example, there are no historic structures. Even if there were, nothing stops them from being torn down. The neighborhood has been torn and rebuilt since the 1979 District inception. What in blazes is the rationale as to why this "thing" is so important that it must be saved? Why do some smart people allow themselves to sound dumb defending it? What is the secret reason why this asinine law must be saved?
- Please quantify the term "rich" for us. You arrived at that number how?
- Please quantify the term "not-so-rich" for us. You arrived at that number how?
Comments
One property = one vote. Any other way is penalizing anyone who may own a majority of the land as your example reflected (19 pieces of land vs 1 piece being equal votes). The problem essentially here is the land buyers in the Historic District haven't bought enough land yet. So, who wants to sell next?!
Posted by: Vienna Mommy | May 19, 2006 06:19 PM
We must make sure that the rich do not get more votes than the not-so-rich! In addition, the Dungeon Master must deduct 10 hit points from a 12 sided die and decrease the magic level to a tinker bell level when traveling through the historic district.
Posted by: Robin Hood | May 19, 2006 06:21 PM
You pay taxes on all properties if you own multiple properties, right? Or are you saying that if you own multiple properties you can opt to pay taxes on only one of the properties? So if I get one vote, I pay tax on only one of my properties?
Posted by: Vienna Mommy | May 19, 2006 06:23 PM
Looks like the folks at historicvienna.com have come completely unglued. In the past two days they've called people commenting on their issues communists, socialists, Nazis, and invoked slavery. I especially like their series of comments condemning the democratic principle of one person, one vote. Did we really have someone running for town council who believes that she gets two votes if she owns two houses? Can I subdivide my fifth of an acre into 10,000 parcels and get 10,000 votes? By the way, that superhero fighter children comment was the funniest thing I've read in ages. Whoever wrote that gets my vote for any office!
Posted by: Cereal entrepreneur | May 19, 2006 11:10 PM
Good afternoon! It appears that some but not all of the comments above have been cut and pasted into another website, along with my photo! I'm so lovely! I am much thinner and younger than when I last saw myself! Thank you! - Looks like that exercise program and the Botox are finally paying off! Seriously though, in response - The question was raised as to why I would "penalize" (Did I spell that right? It looks funny...)someone for owning more than one property - i.e. - Why did I suggest that the individual property owners of WHHD each be allowed one vote yay or nay on the District, irrespective of the number of properties they owned therein....Well, hang me up, boys - I say it's the American Way! In ANY election (or poll) you get one vote, and one vote only for yourself and you alone - When you went to the Vienna Town Polls you got one vote - When you go to the State or National Polls, you get one vote. At no election that I am aware of do they say "hhummmm....Mr. X here owns 8 pieces of property....He has a lot of land. Therefore, we will give him 8 votes. Mr. Y only has one lot, and it is a mere quarter acre! Let's give him 1/4 of a vote...I don't agree that votes (or opinions) should be granted based on massing of land. It doesn't make sense that because you HAVE more, your opinion is WORTH more. What do I mean by "rich" and "not so rich"? Maybe a poor choice of words on my part. I just meant that those who have more land should not be counted as greater than those who have less....
Posted by: Blogger | May 19, 2006 11:12 PM
This voting nonsense is a misdirection play for those people who refuse to address the issues head on. Your fallacies of Argumentum ad populum and use of a red herring are transparent.
Posted by: Historic Vienna | May 19, 2006 11:23 PM
Agreed. And the suggestion that historic actually means overlay is silly, too. The signs and law (such as it is) say Historic District, not overlay district. The suggestion to vote about it demonstrates the same garden-club mentality that has led to the whole debacle in the first place... ad hoc governance on a whim with no legal basis... just like the Town Green, somebody's pet idea passed off as 'good for business!'. What would be good for business is a W&OD trail bridge over Maple Avenue to improve the flow of pedestrian and vehicle traffic in Town, and a nicely done low-rise multi-level public parking facility with an attractive brick facade and landscaping inplace of the Town Green to boost available parking in the center of the Town's business district.
Posted by: Town Resident | May 20, 2006 12:10 PM
Hhhhmmmm, Town Resident, I am unsure about one thing you said, I agree with one thing, and I disagree with the third. Maybe I AM sitting on a fence afterall.
I THINK, but am not 100% certain that legally it is an "Overlay District". "Historic" merely defines what TYPE of Overlay District. There are other types of Overlay Districts. I can't think of them all, but I believe there is somehting like an "Environmental Overlay District", and an assortment of others. So, legally, that is what it is at this point in time (Now,it could BE an illegal law, but none the less, right now, it is what it is...)
I am 100% in favor of a pedestrian flyway across 123 where the Bike Path crosses Maple. I was thinking about that just last week. Has anyone proposed that yet? NVRPA owns the path, and Maple Avenue traffic would benefit by one less light, so maybe they could share the cost. The only other place I can think of that one exists is the flyway across Broad Street in Falls Church. I wonder to whom we should speak about it?
I do not want a parking garage, however nicely landscaped in place of the Town Green. I really think the Town Green wil be a tremendous asset for the Town of Vienna. But I AM concerned about parking and hope the committee conducting the Maple Avenue Feasibility Study will find a solution. We desparately need a parking Garage, but I feel the location chosen for the Town Green is ideal, and the Town made a good move by securing that location.
Posted by: Deborah Brehony | May 25, 2006 05:01 PM
DB: You are not sitting on the fence. You ARE the fence!
Posted by: Both Sides | May 25, 2006 09:15 PM
MORE HHHhhhmmmmm - I am the FENCE?
Good Fences Make Good Neighbors... D
Posted by: Deborah Brehony | May 25, 2006 10:37 PM