Deborah Brehony Weighs In on the Vienna Inn
Deborah Brehony, responding to this post about Maud's Vienna Inn destruction plan, states:
I don't think that ANYONE, including Mrs. Robinson, or any other Council Member or Vienna Citizen "wants to see the Vienna Inn torn down". Certainly, I do not "want" the Inn to come down...I ate there last night (highly recommend the filet mignon - It's as good as any at Mortons or Flemings and half the price..), AND, I ate there again this morning. We ALL love, it - WE DO, but the FACT remains that that building was built as a residential home that opened an ice cream parlor there in 1925. By 1958, it was called "Freddy's Cafe", and looked pretty much the same as it does today. Frank is on target - Can we accept that our beloved Inn might be in a a new venue in a perhaps mixed-use building, and still continue to serve us the beer and chili dogs that we love? That whole strip is so ripe for re-development. The buildings adjacent to the Inn are truly "caving in", and that entire area is better served by new, modern (and yes, you said it Frank) accessible commercial space. Parking accommodations, and possibly that needed garage should certainly be a part of the redevelopment. I do agree, that whatever considerations are being given to this particular area CAN and SHOULD be extended along all of Maple Avenue, from East Street up to Nutley. It only makes sense that what is fair for the goose is fair for the gander, and I agree that piece-meal is no meal at all. But let's not be short-sighted and cling to a residential structure that was built 82 years ago. Our chili dogs can (and WILL) be every bit as yummy in a new and more modern home!
There is inconsistency in Brehony's logic:
1. If the Vienna Inn is not worth saving as is, then all words "historic" should immediately be removed from this Town's vocabulary. Maud already led the destruction of Moorefield and the Vienna Inn (as is) is clearly the most historic structure, place, location - whatever you want to call it - in Vienna. If it goes, then the word "historic" should go too. Else we are all in la la pretend world. To not even hear the word HISTORIC mentioned along with the Vienna Inn shows the blatant hypocrisy of Maud Robinson, but we are sure the new fountain on the Town Green will be declared "historic" as soon as it is finished. Robinson is a historic con of the highest order.
2. Planning for Maple Avenue is a complete concept. It can't be done piecemeal. Council Member Edythe Kelleher has said this. We agree. To start "fixing" Maple Avenue by tearing down the Inn alone is pure politics and pure stupidity. We hope Deborah clarifies her position as it is not clear. Does she want redevelopment on Maple to start out of the gate for the whole stretch or does she want it to start with a singular focus on ripping the Vienna Inn down? Right now she is hedged. Take the hedge off please.
3. Brehony is wrong on Maud's intent toward the Inn. Maud Robinson's actions, not her spin or words, show clearly that she wants the Inn torn down. Bottom line, Jane and Maud are pretending to be in favor of redevelopment on Maple Avenue, but the reality is they have one tear down in their sights. That's deceptive leadership. That's the larger issue in play here. Governments should not be using the power of law changes to singularly benefit one person or group. Don't you think other property owners will want the same incentives granted to the Vienna Inn property owner?
NOTE: Deborah Brehony has clarified her stance. Read the comments for this post.
Comments
To Webmaster - Just a thought on your response to this post - If you read my original post, then your point number 2 makes no sense - I clearly state that "piece-meal is no meal at all", that what is fair for the goose is fair for the gander", and that same re-development considerations should extend to all of Maple Avenue from East Street to Nutley.
So there is no hedge there-You may want to edit a bit so that you don't look "consistently inconsistent" yourself...:)
Posted by: Deborah | February 24, 2007 09:17 AM
We saw your comment on "piecemeal". But we also saw a long story about how the Inn can go to a new building. There was no clear line in your statements. If you are saying that you support only a complete approach toward Maple Avenue then that is good. If you are saying you support a complete approach toward Maple, but a so-called *start* only with the Vienna Inn is fine by you, then that is bad.
Posted by: Historic Vienna | February 24, 2007 09:27 AM
A larger issue here? There are many more pieces of land in Vienna ripe for redevelopment with larger areas and better access that would give the greatest benefit to the greatest number of citizens. So why the singular focus on the Vienna Inn? Is everyone afraid to say that a crazy 85 year old lady with no planning expertise, but plenty of personal ambition to build monuments to herself, is out of control? The only reason she wants the Inn gone is because it is next to the Town Green.
Posted by: Historic Vienna | February 24, 2007 09:56 AM
Parking there?? Now the strategy is tear down The Vienna Inn and little stores that that have any of this so called Vienna Charm. A PARKING GARAGE THERE?? Now that is going to look spectacular. A true visionary. Oh that's right we have to have parking for the TG shrine.
Posted by: Unbelievable | February 24, 2007 10:55 AM
82 hell that's young. You want to keep Maud around don't you Deborah?
Posted by: frustrated citizen | February 24, 2007 11:08 AM
After reading the above posts, I have to agree with HV. People running for public office tend to try to please all of the people all of the time. But in reality, these issues are concrete issues, and they don't deserve to be muddied in rhetoric in ways to have both sides thinking you are on their side.
As the saying goes, DB, if you don't stand on principle, you will fall down. Respectfully, I suggest that you make your position(s) clear
The TOV desperately needs true leaders who are not there for the glory, the power, or just because it's "their turn to be anointed by Maud"... we need people who can deal with very important issues. We need people who are not afraid of saying what needs to be said even if it means you will lose a few votes here or there. The fact remains that if you DO get elected, we as voters, do not want to see the TOV behave like they can treat the residents like we are stuck on stupid, as this is the current relationship these people have with the electorate.
So playing den mother, as it is clear, that's your aim, is not really good for Vienna. We need a Margaret Thatcher, and you want to be a Mary Poppins. They are both good people, but we live in the real world, and Mary Poppins just won't be effective as our leader.
Posted by: The Mayor (not of Vienna, of Course) | February 24, 2007 12:03 PM
RE: Is everyone afraid to say that a crazy 85 year old lady with no planning expertise, but plenty of personal ambition to build monuments to herself, is out of control?
I'll say it: "She's out of control."
Posted by: The Mayor (not of Vienna, of Course) | February 24, 2007 12:15 PM
(Sung to the tune of the Beverly Hillbillies)
Come and listen to a story about a woman named Maud
A which millionaire, who was simply just a fraud,
Then one day she was thinking about her dream,
And up through the ground came a troublesome Town Green.
Monument that is, my legacy, MY Town Green.
Well the first thing you know ol Maud starts an awful din,
Vienna folk said "Maud let us keep our Vienna Inn"
Said "New England's the place you ought to be"
So she loaded up her limmosine and moved to Peabody.
Massachusetts, that is.
Well now its time to say good by to Maud and all her anointed kin.
And they would like to thank you folks fer voting new persons in.
You're all invited back again to this historic locality.
To have a heapin helpin of Vienna's hospitality...
HistoricVienna.com that is. Set a spell, Take your shoes off.
Y'all come back now, y'hear?
Posted by: The Mayor (not of Vienna, of Course) | February 24, 2007 01:11 PM
Deborah, enough with the mixed use nonsense. Why must we redevelop every square inch of Vienna? What's wrong with keeping a building that's 80+ years old. That's what gives it the "charm". Let's just rip down every old building and put in garages, ofc.condos, a Panera, blah, blah (yuck)! The Vienna Inn wouldn't be the same in a new building. Might as well go eat at the Noodle Co. It's a joint, it should stay a joint and be preserved (at the most, renovated). It's people with that same attitude who have destroyed other historic structures in Vienna. You just lost my vote! Argh!
Posted by: DebbieDebbieDebbie | February 24, 2007 05:59 PM
What's fair for the goose is fair for the gander.
Either ALL of Maple Avenue (from East to Nutley) should be allowed to re-develop, or NONE.
You can't penalize the owner of the Vienna Inn and the neighboring buildings.
And I quote(in reverse)- Don't you think the Vienna Inn property owner will want the same incentives granted the other property owners?
Wouldn't that be a bit (or a lot) like creating yet another Historic District (for the VI and surrounds) that keeps that owner from selling and realizing profits that he might otherwise secure?
Hope you take this all with a "Spoonful of Sugar"....
Posted by: Deborah B | February 24, 2007 07:14 PM
Thanks DB. The fact that you step up and clarify is to be commended. We agree with that position. We think most Vienna residents do too. It is the fair position.
Posted by: Historic Vienna | February 24, 2007 07:54 PM
This is a great example of someone with their head buried in the sand. It is also the political posture of the status quo. Said another way, "old people vote for us, we have the power to stop time!" Can you do better than that?
Posted by: Historic Vienna | February 24, 2007 08:01 PM
Absolutely.
Posted by: Deborah B | February 24, 2007 08:10 PM
Wonder if the Vienna Inn would host a debate of the candidates for town council?
Posted by: SE Vienna | February 24, 2007 08:35 PM
Head in the Sand? My post wasn't intended to be anti-development, or about penalizing anyone. If the owner of the property doesn't want to preserve and maintain the property, then so be it. If the owner wants to keep the Inn as is, that is his/her right too. My thoughts were not about stripping people of their rights, but about preservation. Why do we have to always create "historic districts" to preserve things? Why is this an "ALL" or "NONE" proposition? Look at VPC. Original bldg. was preserved along with the new bldgs. Hope you enjoy your chili dogs in the new 3rd floor suite overlooking the new parking garages.
Posted by: Head in the Sand | February 25, 2007 10:39 AM
VPC was "preserved"? You are in la la land. They have destroyed the whole block. And that's the bigger problem with an opinion like yours: it blows in the wind with no objectivity. You make your pronouncement, right or wrong, and run back to whatever. Don't you wish you could work with facts and less subjectivity?
Posted by: Historic Vienna | February 25, 2007 12:45 PM
1st my head's in the sand and now I live in la la land. Why must you always attack folks on this site. You wonder why no one other than the 3-4 like minded regulars post here.
Did I say anthying about the block? Nothing at VPC has been preserved you say? Hmmm? That's not accurate. Excuse my blowing, but I don't understand your inconsistent position, either. One moment you rail against others for tearing down historic structures and the next you're supporting Brehony's tear-down/mixed use approach. Which one is it Mr. factoid?
Posted by: La La | February 26, 2007 09:14 AM
How does supporting code to help restore Vienna's downtown AND wanting to save a historic landmark make this site inconsistent?
Saving the Vienna Inn (as the structure stands) can be done along side development.
Pretty much, I'd support tearing down ALL of Maple Avenue except the Vienna Inn.
No other structure has any historical or cultural significance to this town. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
Posted by: vienna mommy | February 26, 2007 09:44 AM
Maybe we should adopt a "demolition review" ordinance to protect potential landmarks like the Vienna Inn, ref.
http://www.nationaltrust.org/teardowns/Demolition_Review.pdf
Posted by: Vienna Native | February 26, 2007 10:55 AM
La La everyone has a different idea of "preservation" which is the problem isn't it? I agree that the Chapel has been kept, but attaching an enormous structure to it does not make preservation. Look at the strict rules and guidelines in Old Town Alexandria.
Posted by: Logic | February 26, 2007 11:25 AM
It's not that someone supports you, or some proposed code change, or the adoption of mixed used or form based code or not, the issue is true leadership. We need someone who truly comprehends these issues and is willing to stand up and take a stand that is unwavering and clear to everyone.
There is no doubt that Vienna is changing, and we need someone to realize that these changes can be guided in such a way that won't allow Vienna to end up like it was a free-for-all get what you can, or the usual special deals people like Bukont gets.
And the pathetic fact remains that Maud Robinson has been the ring leader who has left Vienna in this mess. She is either too rich to care about us ordinary home-owners, or too damn arrogant to care. She doesn't have a clue when it comes to anything historic. She has repeatedly shown that she does not care for Vienna as a community. She is selfish.
Posted by: The Mayor (not of Vienna, of Course) | February 26, 2007 12:34 PM
Just because the original 1,000SF VPC now has a five story 100,000SF tumor attached to it doesn't mean it hasn't been preserved. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
Posted by: La La La | February 26, 2007 07:12 PM
What a friendly bunch you are. Wasn't this post about the destruction of the Vienna Inn? So, for expressing my hopes that the Inn would be saved I get called names, accused of limiting property rights, blasted for not being 100% objective (is that in the ground rules for posting here?), and chided about my interpretation of preservation due to the fact that only a buidling (and not an entire block) was preserved. So much bitterness and anger here...I'll put my head back in the sand (it's nicer there).
Posted by: La La | February 27, 2007 09:25 AM
Follow these steps....
1.) State this website is "bad".
2.) State the people that post here are "bad".
3.) Ask a bunch of questions that you already have asked under a different alias.
4.) Don't discuss any of the video, TOV memos, or TOV meeting minutes.
5.) Don't stick to one topic.
6.) Protect Maud at all costs.
7.) Quote The Connection.
8.) Reiterate that the website is "bad".
9.) Reiterate that the people that post here are "bad".
10.) Make dumb joke about TOV videos.
11.) Click on "Post" button.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen | February 27, 2007 09:12 PM