Incumbents Win

http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/eb/returns.htm

As it should be. The qualified candidates won.

Seriously, why don't you guys and gals (the 5 or 6 of you on this site) perhaps TAKE PART in the process, rather than whining about this and that? Why don't you try articulating what you think the problem(s) is/are, and then perhaps articulate (a) possible solution(s)?

All the black helicopter talk and contingent reasoning (see, e.g., the garbage about $10 million being spent on the Town Green, grounded on incalculable contingencies, i.e., future profits of some unnamed merchant) marginalizes you and does nothing but motivate those who support the individuals that you relentlessly attack.

Think about it: the people you are attacking win handily in every election, by a GREAT percentage point margin. That means that those in this town who care enough to vote -- the REAL consituents -- believe in these candidates, for whatever reason (whether you agree or not). When you insult, smear and attack THEIR candidates, you are attacking THEIR votes, i.e., THEIR beliefs. And when you attack someone's beliefs, you attack THEM. How do you suppose this makes you look? Yup, divisive. Yup, insulting. Yup, petty. Yup, on the fringe. Yup, laughable.

BTW, Mrs. Robinson didn't spend money on the Town Green, the Town did. Mrs. Robinson is one vote. As are the rest of them. I don't know what she did to upset [...] but whatever it was, you really need to get over it. You seriously sound crazy.

Have a good day, enjoy a nice cold beer, and perhaps take a few moments to reflect on how you can be CONstructive, rather than DEstructive. Just my two cents.

Now, edit away, flame away, or even decide not to post this up at all. Whatever.

Maud is the Queen. Maple Ave. will stay as beautiful as it always has been. We will lose the Vienna Inn and Safeway and perhaps establish a wax museum in the Magruder's building.

Not surprising. I got Susan Stich's automated phone message, which echoed some of the age-bashing I've seen here. When I got to the polls, I was the youngest person in the room by about 30 years. (I'm 37.)

Seems like Stich and this blog energized the electorate, but not in the way they were hoping.

It's a pity, because I think Stich and particularly Brehony have some good ideas. I just think the tone of Stich's campaign and the tone of this blog don't sit well with folks in this town.

I hope you'll take this as constructive criticism. I don't want to see the Vienna Inn torn down, either, so I hope we'll see more effective, more Vienna-friendly campaigning in the future.

The people have spoken and they said...we don't care (only 22% voted!). Maud crushed the so-called challengers despite their 100-1 advantage in signage (Maud might use them to build her 7-story parking garage). When "W" won by a whisker he thought he had a mandate; imagine what Maud will think she has here. Say goodbye to the Vienna Inn, videotaping TC meetings, new sidewalks, transparency in government, and the mulch pile channel on cable. Unless you're willing to up the ante and play the litigation card hard, you might as well shut down because you've just been rendered irrelevant by those who had a chance to make a difference today. Too bad, it was a fun read....

Murphy-
Look at the vote totals. This site had nothing to do with it.

Cooler Head is right on. There are some very legitimate arguments to be made regarding the construction on Maple Avenue, but this toxic venue is neither constructive nor educational. It only turns people off. This vote was a blowout, no one can deny this. We're talking 65/35, at the lower end 60/40. Hell, even Senator Byrd he can't boast those numbers. We might take this as a lesson. One, The Historic District Stays. Two, there are problems, but they should be addressed civilly.

The 22% turnout was sad, but not unexpected. Voting is one more activity to squeeze into a busy day. (When I voted, the youngest voter around was about 45, so I also doubt that voters were representative of TOV as a whole.) This does not mean that people do not care.

The Town Green is effectively costing each household at least $1,000. (There are just over 5,000 households in TOV and $5 million is a very conservative estimate for direct costs and lost tax revenue.) If there had been a referendum asking whether to spend $1,000 per household on the Town Green, the outcome would have been different. The Mayor has claimed that out-of-towners are partly paying for the Town Green through the restaurant tax. Even if TOV residents did not pay a penny of the restaurant tax, that is still a misleading claim. After all, the restaurant tax revenue could be used to lower property taxes (or be spent on other projects). When Town Council chooses to spend the money on the Town Green instead of lowering your taxes by $100, you are effectively paying $100 per year for the Town Green. Instead of spending on such an ill-conceived project, we would have been better served by a pedestrian bridge over Maple Ave. Many more people would use a pedestrian bridge than a Town Green, and the former also has the potential to save lives. The absence of a bridge induces more and more cyclists to hop onto Maple and Park to avoid the light. I hope it does not take another fatality to convince people to build the bridge.

3 challengers since 1980 have won. The losers since then all lose by the same percentages roughly.

Since when does having someone inside the election polling room all day instructing people they have to vote for a certain three people or else the new ones will win even come close to equating to the voice of the people?

If you think this form of corruption is fair, you are part of the problem.

depressing results. If I remember correctly, turnout in the last election was even worse. So voters who supported the status quo were energized to show up. I wonder--why is this election held in May & not on "real" election day in November? wouldn't turnout be better if it were combined with the regular election?

just my two cents, but this blog is one of the reasons I did not vote for Stich. to echo what cooler head said it comes across as petty and vindictive, and does nothing to raise the level of conversation.

'Bitterness is a poison we drink hoping someone else will die.'

Are you saying DB lost because of this site?

Also, I don't think the election, flawed as it was, was any referendum on the historic district.

You got what you want, and it may be good for the incumbents, but it's still not good for Vienna, no matter how you slice it.

There are some lessons to be learned here. those of us who want change need to work harder and smarter. this website is a start but 1)it probably turns off a lot of people and 2)it does not reach everyone. Let's strive for consensus-building rather than just blindly attacking the opposition.

The challengers lost this election because a lot of stupid people voted. A person voting for Maud who does not know that she had anything to do with the Town Green to which she objected speaks for itself. I know none of the above entries were written by Maud because she would have told you to "get out of town" if you don't like it. "Whatever" ending of one entry was telling. Were you at the NARFE debate?

Woaho,
Calling people stupid won't win them over. While you may not like it, you NEED these people if you want to win.

Let's look at Maud's last two elections:

May 2005...May 2007

Deborah T. Brehony 0...866
Dan M. Delinger 0...1,655
George E. Lovelace 454...1,633
Maud F. Robinson 452...1,416
Susan Yancey Stich 0...858

Registered Voters 10,249...10,523
In Person 551...2,286
Absentee 10...65
Total Votes 561...2,351
Turnout % 5.47%...22%

Well, it looks like something turned out the vote this round, and it sure wasn't the good weather. I'd say it was the competition. Thank you Brehony and Stich for participating! I appreciate your effort.

Given the motivated turnout, I suggest the incumbent base... the senior citizen garden club more or less... is 15% of the registered voters... about 1600... probably less considering many of the anti-base voters threw their third vote for an incumbent. That's hardly a safe number... and can not accurately represent the needs of the greater community of 10,000... that's just 1400-1600 people voting for their retiree interests... trash pickup, pharmacy, groceries, banking, doctor visits, and haircuts... a tidy fixed lifestyle with no surprises... and then you die leaving Viennaland to whomever. The future of Vienna is not their concern... that's why today our children still walk to school in the streets with the traffic.

Maud is the least popular incumbent by 15% of their vote... 1 in every 6 of those voters dislikes Maud enough to not vote for her. Imagine how many held their nose and voted for her anyway. If 600 new voters are recruited, the base begins to crumble. That is a very small order given the increasing rate of change that is descending on Vienna and the incumbents' history of doing very little to plan for and manage change... they are very good at doing nothing... not progressing... change will overrun them sooner than later. If they let Bukont rezone the Murmurring Pines neighborhood for his double-density townhouse complex, that will pickup an easy 190 plus voters next spring who will turnout to vote out incumbents Laurie Cole and Jane Seeman.

The real winner is again voter apathy. No surprise there.... just look at the gross incompetence our country put in the White House twice. Yup, voters are always right... qualified candidates always win! Colin Powell said it all when he quit the Bush administration.

>>Why don't you try articulating what you think the problem(s) is/are, and then perhaps articulate (a) possible solution(s)?

I will try much harder. Meanwhile, consider why nearly 40% of the voters voted equally against the base. Maud and company need to turn up their hearing aids! One out of three voters are not happy with the status quo and their base, unlike Maud's, is far from being tapped out.

I am too tired to fight the "nasty website" argument. It gets old. Maud's side is just as "nasty" as our side. In some ways, even nastier because of the election fraud which took place. I overheard numerous conversations yesterday where Maud pretty much called Susan Stich an evil/nasty/dirty person. This is the truth.

Maud has her way of doing dirty work/smear campaigns but at least our so-called dirty work is laid our there for all the world to see. We don't hide in the shadows and whisper behind closed doors. Our words are out there for anyone and everyone to rip apart if they choose. Maud doesn't even want the political discourse (however nasty you call it) to even take place.

But, I guess to the average voter, this site does just come across as petty and mean since you really, really do not want to believe that most of it may be the truth and your candidate is really, really crooked.

BTW, Mrs. Robinson didn't spend money on the Town Green, the Town did. Mrs. Robinson is one vote. As are the rest of them. I don't know what she did to upset [...] but whatever it was, you really need to get over it. You seriously sound crazy.

Do you really believe anyone other than Maud Robinson or Jane Seeman have power in Vienna? Ask Mike Polychrones if he ever disagrees with Maud. Why is he afraid to? Speak up, Mike. Scared Maud will tell her 85 year-old sheep not to vote for you next year? The fear is always looming overhead. Mother Maud can either be very, very good to you or very, very bad.

How about you, Edythe? I keep hearing you're the one who really wants to see stuff happen. But, you really don't want to push for our cable channel too hard, do you? Just enough so a few think you are serious. You don't want Maud to sick her lemmings on you, too. It probably would be embarrassing at this point to lose an election because you tried to cross Maud. Better to save face than stand up to her, eh?

There comes a time when the older generation passes the torch to the younger generation knowing that they are more than ready and capable to lead into the future. Believing that *you* are the only person capable of being in charge is egotistical and belittling to our intelligence. Acting like rules are complicated and laws are hard to comprehend for us "average" folk is just arrogant.

Listen closely Dan, George & Maud supporters: Maud Robinson really does think she is smarter than you. She is Maud Robinson and you are not. End of discussion.

I found it telling that Brehony's mailer and published comments politely distanced herself from "other candidates."

Also telling -- the old building across Park from VPC had signs for FOUR candidates. Everyone but Stich.

So I figured Brehony would do a bit better than she did. I was obviously wrong.

Some of the issues here are interesting, some aren't. But Cooler Head is right. This blog -- like Stich's ill-considered automated phone call -- comes off as petty and mean-spirited. You have more discussion of mean old Maud than you do of any legitimate issues.

If you want to see those issues addressed, I'd suggest finding a candidate with a little less baggage than Stich, then dialing down the vitriol here. You might also want to recognize that some of us are actually a bit excited about the Town Green, though it seems to have its share of design flaws.

One suggestion I'll offer for moving forward -- any reason a parking garage can't be built behind the Vienna Inn? That's just an ugly parking lot. An attractive garage might be useful there, though it's probably too far away to address the parking mess at the Chipotle/Noodles/Starbucks strip.

If anyone actually moves to tear down the Vienna Inn, you'll be able to mobilize opposition. No question. But learn a lesson from your big-time loss here -- you'll get nowhere by personalizing it on a blog with a bunch of unflattering, age-baiting pictures of an incumbent who just trounced your challengers.

Murphy, the need for you to crow is understood, but your political analysis is naive. The vote for incumbents and challengers is the same as it always is. Percent wise it is no different. Vienna Mommy makes a good point. This site was created to fight a nastiness that Maud Robinson created years ago. It is a nastiness that she used in the shadows yesterday to great effect. Have you met this woman? Is this someone you would ever sit down and share a coffee with or a meal with? She runs a political machine. That is her life. Trying to position Stich's "negatives" or this website's message as reasons for vote totals yesterday is silly. The percents were going to be the same no matter what and no matter who ran. If they had the machine blessing, they win. If not, they lose.

If Susan Stich's "baggage" hurt her so much, how come she only had a handful less votes than Deborah? They had the exact number of votes. Maud told her people to vote for George, Dan & her. Period.

>>just my two cents, but this blog is one of the reasons I did not vote for Stich. to echo what cooler head said it comes across as petty and vindictive, and does nothing to raise the level of conversation.

Only Brehony and Stich should care if this website caused them to lose an election. As I see it, their different campaigns each won an equal share of the non-base vote. That's a win in Vienna and this website did not detract from their outcome. Perhaps if Stich significantly lagged Brehony, you could blame this website, but that is not the case at all. In fact, Stich's equal showing alongside Brehony should concern those who are not happy with the public issues being freely discussed here.

Nice try, but trying to blame this website for the lose of a candidate you did not vote for only confirms that Brehony and Stich's lose is a negative which you are trying to exploit.

Garage Logic
From an urban design standpoint, a parking garage does not belong on the main street of a commercial district. From an economic standpoint, such land should be way too valuable to use for parking and should be used to strengthen the commercial base. From a political standpoint, it would be wrong for the town to build a garage to support one small strip shopping center (Chipolte/ColdStone/Noodles) at the expense of everyone in the town. That strip has a parking problem because there are too many restaurants in the mix. The town should not have approved the development as it stands and now it needs to figure out a solution that does not cost taxpayers millions of dollars, or takes more commercial land out of the tax rolls. A simple shared-parking agreement could solve the problem.

Doesn't seem anyone's learned any lesson here based on the descriptions of voters posted above. They were all:

"stupid people voted","lemmings", "old" "senior citizen garden club", etc.

The name calling and labeling continues. These voters aren't your enemies. This is politics. These people are your neighbors. You may disagree with them strongly on certain issues and you may point to words and deeds and individuals worth calling out. But name-calling isn't constructive and is bad politics: you might need to work with some of these folks tomorrow. I think you can be just as passionate and in the long run more effective without stooping to these levels. A different approach would be of more value, but I'm convinced the methods and approach won't change here - if you want civil & constructive discourse, it will have to occur on another blog/site.

EVS, you are right about some of the name calling. "Stupid" is not the best terminology. But I also wonder why you are SO sure that THIS side is the source of all acrimony?

Yesterday, in full ear shot of voters and other non-Vienna politicians, Tom Seeman (the Mayor's son), who was campaigning all day for Maud, started screaming at Susan Stich that she was a liar. Now this seems pretty bizarre, but then again when one realizes who this guy is and what he regularly says about minorities, its not surprising. So EVS, perhaps it is time to acknowledge the lack of innocence in your camp? And start cleaning up too?

>>senior citizen garden club

Perfectly characterizes the subset of eligible voters who are deciding how my tax dollars are administered. It's not my fault that they are one big homogenous voting block. And why is senior citizen and garden club such dirty terms for you? Politics is all about demographics... the dominant demographic in Vienna politics is senior citizens. And their administration is very faithful to its constituents, much like a club toward its membership. When Town Council starts making decisions in the interest of a greater and future Vienna, I'll stop seeing an exclusive club. And you need to see past the politics and speak to the issues.

I would be embarrassed to be seen passing out Maud Robinson literature when I heard what was being said at the booths. How do you support the voting fraud that was going on? Speak.

Anne Smith

Stupid works: given to unintelligent decisions or acts. Ignorant would be a more apt word to describe not only yesterdays voters but the general public who know nothing about what happens at town meetings. Check out how many citizens attend the budget sessions. Persons who would allow the town newsletter put out sham descriptions of actions three months after the fact have doubtful interest in the government operation. Whatever.

This site isn't the source - it's just where I see it most (I don't know or support Tom Seeman). I will certainly acknowledge that others use negative tactics as well. For either "side" I don't think it's very useful. Screaming & name calling helps no one.

By the way, I'm not in any "camp". Don't know why I'm always lumped into one if I disagree. I actually agree with some of your comments. I actually was hoping Brehony would win and perhaps infuse some new energy and ideas into the Council

Spirited debate, arguing ideas & feeling passionate about the issues is all good. Blasting me and calling me a "Maudite", a "moron", "silly", etc. doesn't encourage me to want to continue to participate here.

You have more discussion of mean old Maud than you do of any legitimate issues.

I guess I really do not understand when others do not understand that the ONLY issue is Maud. Nothing can/will get done without her approval. Ask anyone in the know. This is why this site exists. No substantial change will take place until she is gone. And, no, I am not talking about high rises or mega-condo complexes. I'm talking about basic things that many of us agree on and Maud does not:

• Bridge over Maple Avenue for the WO&D trail
• Wider and more sidewalks EVERYWHERE
• New zoning laws to provide incentives for replacing old and decaying buildings (Dan Dellinger even said our buildings look like poop)
• Brick wall or wrought-iron fence along Maple Avenue on the Town Green to protect children
• No more reckless spending for projects that are not necessary (re: fiscal accountability)
• Build upon our commercial district so the homeowners do not bear the burden of taxes in town (72% residential vs 28% commercial). Us homeowners pay for all the people who visit our town.
• Televise meetings on cable as soon as possible. This isn't brain surgery and it's not 250k per year. That is the figure floated so Maud can scare us all with the costs.
• Work on our crumbling infrastructures (sewer lines/water mains/etc.)

Also telling -- the old building across Park from VPC had signs for FOUR candidates. Everyone but Stich.

Huh? Do we all look to that dilapidated building owned by some photographer as the litmus test as to whether you are a worthy candidate? This makes no sense.

Spirited debate, arguing ideas & feeling passionate about the issues is all good. Blasting me and calling me a "Maudite", a "moron", "silly", etc. doesn't encourage me to want to continue to participate here.

EVS, let's get specific with three example questions so we can all understand your positions:

1. What is your position on the historic district in Vienna?

2. Do you favor our current zoning code that forever leaves the old Anita's across the street from Magruders "as is" with no redevelopment?

3. Do you favor leaving our current Post Office as is with no modifications or enhancements?

Seriously, why don't you guys and gals (the 5 or 6 of you on this site) perhaps TAKE PART in the process, rather than whining about this and that? Why don't you try articulating what you think the problem(s) is/are, and then perhaps articulate (a) possible solution(s)?

None of that is on this site? Or is the party line response back to us that you were so put off by "negativity" that you could not keep reading? And what exactly does "taking part in the process" within Vienna mean? Is that code for kissing Maud's ring to serve on one of her boards and do nothing?

EVS:

We're both home-town girls (we probably went to Madison together).

Did you see my post above? Was it nasty & mean spirited? Was I saying what needs to be done? Where is your point by point response?

>> Only Brehony and Stich should care if this website caused them to lose an election.

I'll disagree. I think there are legitimate issues to discuss in Vienna, and the tone of this blog doesn't help.

And if Brehony was dragged down through association with Stich (however phony that concept might be), then I think that's our loss as well. She seemed to be a good candidate. I saw far more yard signs for her than I saw for Stich, and some of my best neighbors supported her.

>> Murphy, the need for you to crow is understood

You're assuming whom I supported and the depth of that support. (Same mistake with EVS.) I've conceded the "he who is not with us is against us" line of "reasoning" in national political discussion, but I'm not willing to concede it in Vienna.

>> The name calling and labeling continues. These voters aren't your enemies. This is politics. These people are your neighbors. You may disagree with them strongly on certain issues and you may point to words and deeds and individuals worth calling out. But name-calling isn't constructive and is bad politics: you might need to work with some of these folks tomorrow.

Amen. And I think it's sad that the response has been, "Oh yeah? Well, Maud and the mayor's son do it!"

So apparently we're all supposed to be as nasty as Maud and the mayor's son, but not agree with them on any of the issues?

So apparently we're all supposed to be as nasty as Maud and the mayor's son, but not agree with them on any of the issues?

Thank you for acknowledging their behaviors. No one is saying that everyone needs to be as nasty as those two (no one can come close if they tried). But the notion that this little ole web site swayed an election with "negativity" when the powers that be rule with an iron fist using only "negativity" is transparent.

"Taking part in the process" means going to budget hearings and commenting on the proposed budget. I'm not aware of either "challenger" (both of whom post on this site, one seemingly with more regularity than the other, and both of whom have taken great issue with how town monies are collected and spent) attending a budget hearing this year and/or using their VOICE to critique the proposed budget. Keyboards, even more so than alcohol it seems, are the source of great but impotent courage.

"Taking part in the process" means applying to be on a commission ... and sticking with it -- not just resigning for this reason or that.

Most importantly, it means proposing a change and then offering PREMISES that support the conclusion that your proposal is a good one. THAT is debate; THAT is an ARGUMENT. Everything else, e.g., much of what I have read on this site, is FIGHTING. Sure, I saw a feeble stab at it with the whole "Cole and Bukont" are in bed together, but what all that amounted to was a bunch of incohesive "facts," with no connection between them. It was like a mathematical proof that was lacking every third step. In the end, it was, quite honestly, nothing more than question begging, circular junk. And really, it was clear that it was intended to be FIGHTING rather than an ARGUMENT.

Seriously, almost everything I've read here (and I admit, I haven't read this whole site ... there is a lot of material, and yes, much of it is a turn-off for the very reasons I'm discussing right now) is a bunch of spiteful rhetoric about someone with whom I suspect YOU and "vienna mommy" and "town green" have a personal issue or vendetta. I think I can guess what the vendetta is. Some of it is hereditary. Some of it is the product of having convinced yourselves of some horrid slight that likely never happened, but that in any case, certainly doesn't justify years of irrationally presented venom.

That is to say, calling Maud names and insulting her supporters and lying with statistics (and I use the term "statistics" loosely, as none have really been used) isn't exactly an "argument." It's a string of fallcies poorly woven together and presented self-gratuitously (yet ANOTHER fallcay) as fact.

I guess what I'm saying vis-a-vis what you should do to "tak[e] part in the process" is much akin to how Justice Stewart famously described pornography: I know it when I see it. And I don't see it here.

Anyway, you can continue to hate away, perhaps with the hope that more and more people will read it. What I've tried to explain elsewhere, however, is that it might not have the consequences that you hope for or even expect.

Take care.

"Cooler Head?" wow you got it all figured out! It s always interesting to see a truly angry and bitter person gripe that everyone else is bitter and angry. Many of your seemingly well thought out "visions" are not worth responding to, but you do make one rather thinly veiled accusation that will be addressed. Brehony served on the commercial ARB for a short period of time. There were no rules to this board. That left members of this board making decisions on the fly with no guidelines. Honest people generally don't like to be in those kind of situations. Same thing with historic district - no rules. Now that you have given us all two long preachy posts, maybe you could address the lack of guidelines on both architectural review boards in this town? Or should we all go seek to serve on these boards with no rules and force decisions on our neighbors not ground in any law? You are no cooler head. You are dishonest.

I just got off the phone with a senior citizen who was handing out Susie's materials and standing near Maud yesterday. She was upset and appalled at the lies that Maud was telling about Susie. Apparently, Maud was telling folks that Susie was going to build a 7 story condo building behind Giant, and charge people $850,000+ for each condo.

This woman confronted Maud about the lies she was telling people. Maud's response to her was that it didn't matter that it wasn't true -- and that "we old people need to stick together."

Good Lord. Why am I not surprised?

You asked what I meant by "taking part in the process." I told you what I meant. Now you're calling me "dishonest" and "preachy." I suppose that's your way of conceding that I'm right?

It's an ironic way to go about it, but I'll take it.

You're also flittering away from the subject at hand, but I just reviewed portions of the Town Code, in particular Chapter 4, available at www.viennava.gov. That Chapter does not strike me as "no guidelines," nor does it strike me as "no rules." It also -- in Sections 4-13 and 4-14 -- seems specifically to provide relief to citizens that feel aggrieved by decisions of the ARB and/or Council in the event that the citizen has exhausted his or her remedies under 4-13. That doesn't strike me as "forc[ing] decisions on our neighbors not ground in any law." Unless you believe that Maud ALSO has the entire Circuit bench on some under-the-table payroll. I'm quite sure you don't believe that, "Historic Vienna." Do you?

Don't answer that -- it's rhetorical.

I'm sorry if it comes off as "preachy" to you. I'm giving you my two cents, which you invited. I usually reserve the term "preachy" for bible-thumpers and the like, whose input I do NOT invite.

Have a nice evening. Seriously, try a cold a beer or a nice snort of single malt. Maybe a nice cigar. It's a relatively nice evening. Sit on the porch, enjoy both. Take a deep breath. RELAX. Sheesh.

HV,

Next thing you'll want me to bring you home to meet my mother. I'm not an expert on zoning laws/codes, so probably hope I don't get blasted, but my opinions as an "average" citizen are:

Historic District - great concept initially, but district wasn't established properly and has gone too far astray. Agree that the "historic" houses are few and far between in that district and think it's probably beyond fixing. Do think that the Town should find a way to preserve and protect any remaining historic structures or areas (e.g. Civil War cemetary), but clearly define and designate them as such - according to accepted stds. For the record, I abstained on the MWHCA vote on the district a while back (yes I was part of the "mob").

Zoning code - generally agreed with Brehony - would want to ensure there are some limits (e.g. in height) so that Vienna doesn't become something like a Tysons III.

Post Office - think the Town should've moved forward with the proposal you highlighted here some time ago. The current P.O. is too small, dated and poorly designed. The intersection is dangerous.

So, where do those responses leave me? Seems like I agree with many folks here and I disagree with some too. I'm jazzed for a Town Green - as flawed as it may be. I like some of the redevelopment that has occurred on Church St. I like recycling bins, I think Maple Ave looks nicer than it did. I don't blame the council for every problem in Vienna.

The point is that we can agree and disagree without name calling and the like. Hostile or friendly, does it even matter what any of us say or post on a blog, though?

Maybe some of this energy should be used for some action. Why not do something like establish a true historic society focused on preservation and education.

Let's participate more in Town meetings and continue to question our council members and hold them accountable. Get involved in your homeowners or civic association to represent your neighborhood or section of town. Lobby in those or other groups for improvements and use this site to raise awareness in a positive way in hopes of educating and informing voters by the time the next election comes around. Let's let Maud & the rest of them know we want action and remind them them all that, "you work for me" (my gosh I just quoted Sheryl Crow of all people).

Let's start all over with the advice of an old adage: "Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear." What I am suggesting is that you take yourself to town board and council meetings and make up your own mind. Persons on the boards for twenty years or more do not qualify as judges of the behavior that takes place. They are part of the problem. Now don't believe that just go see for yourself. You have a whole year before the next election. No excuses.

For those who are interested, Susan Stich's real Web site www.susanstich.com has a post election update.

Cooler Head?

Simply stated: Do you recognize who is responsible for the problems created by the redevelopment of the Southern States property? Goodnight.

That Chapter does not strike me as "no guidelines," nor does it strike me as "no rules." It also -- in Sections 4-13 and 4-14 -- seems specifically to provide relief to citizens that feel aggrieved by decisions of the ARB and/or Council in the event that the citizen has exhausted his or her remedies under 4-13.

Where are the rules that tell applicants what is architecturally acceptable by these boards and what is not? Have an answer or do you want to just keep yakking about drinking scotch and relaxing?

>>Spirited debate, arguing ideas & feeling passionate about the issues is all good. Blasting me and calling me a "Maudite", a "moron", "silly", etc. doesn't encourage me to want to continue to participate here.

Agreed! But look... it's human nature to inflict on others and it takes character and discipline to rise above that and to focus on the positive process of exchange. You can't police or censor public discourse and trying to do so implies ulterior motives, so why dwell on every imprudent detail and who wrote it... let people grow and learn to do better. Meanwhile, practice what you preach, skip the preaching, and drive the dialogue forward.

Blogs are self-regulating... people will read and participate if the content interests them. The moderator has the responsibility to both protect the discussion and to not violate the participants. The participants must post something worth reading. The combination will seek its own level. If the content is good and relevant, the blog will thrive. Given the natural need for a community to discuss its affairs, blogs such as this have a long and viable future.

I suspect this blog is doing well enough in its infancy. The garden club is very transparent these days... and they don't like it one bit. For instance, all of Vienna can now know that Mayor Seeman imported her rabid right-wing political activist son, Tom Seeman, from Leesburg to campaign outside of our polling place. Garden club politics are slimy and our Mayor continues to lead the way.

EVS -- If you start a blog, will you let everyone know? I'd read it.

Town Green -- I have a ton of experience with blogs, professional and personal. I don't buy the "self-regulating" idea. They tend to become gathering holes for like-minded people who get more and more hostile toward outside thought. They become enablers of hostility, chasing away anyone who dares espouse a contrary opinion. The blogger and the regular commenters start to believe "everyone" feels the same way. Then they're stunned when they step into the outside world and find that their definition of "everyone" is much narrower than they thought.

I'd read this blog if the folks here would just tone it down, cut out the name-calling and stick to legitimate issues. As it stands now, I'm going to check out for a few months now that the election's over. I think I've made my points, and when I check back down the road, I hope someone has taken the advice given here to heart.

Nice post EVS, thanks for laying out some issues. However, you also wrote:

Maybe some of this energy should be used for some action. Why not do something like establish a true historic society focused on preservation and education.

There are too many people who don't want that and who don't trust that. Any efforts to impose anything more "historic" on certain residents will be met with a scorched earth response. If you want historic labels, great. But make it voluntary. As of right now historic silliness in this Town is mandated and there is no benefit to it, only grief.

With your recent experience and based on recent history of the Town in allowing one historic structure after the next to be torn down, you may be right.

My intent wouldn't be to label or impose anything but don't would want to educate, inventory and promote good stewardship of historic sites, - so we can at least attempt to preserve some of our history. Snowball's chance you say? Maybe, but can't do much worse and it would be easy to do much better than that other so-called historic society in town.

Make it ALL voluntary and you can do historical anything to your hearts content. Do keep in mind, Maud and Jane already torched Vienna's only history. And why? No money supposedly! Plenty of money for Town Green, not money for Moorefield. Hypocrites to the nth degree? You bet!

>>Town Green -- I have a ton of experience with blogs, professional and personal. I don't buy the "self-regulating" idea. They tend to become gathering holes for like-minded people who get more and more hostile toward outside thought. They become enablers of hostility, chasing away anyone who dares espouse a contrary opinion. The blogger and the regular commenters start to believe "everyone" feels the same way. Then they're stunned when they step into the outside world and find that their definition of "everyone" is much narrower than they thought.

Self-regulation does not insure a healthy outcome. But so what, it is how intercommunication works. Yes, blogs can fail, but a censored blog will not succeed.

Perhaps a narcissist would be stunned, but you and I would not be stunned.

What you describe suggests a moderator's failure to moderate, which is typical of a blog since most blogs are personal endeavors and are all about what interests the blog owner. Such an outcome online is not unlike what can happen offline... you've described Vienna's garden club politics. But when our politicians and leaders fail, we vote, since self-regulation is clearly not enough. If you don't vote, the narcissists spend our tax dollars on themselves.

HV,

Yes, understand voluntary is is a big deal for you. Though do wonder how how you could preserve much if people voluntarily choose to tear-down their historic properties. Let's not get into that as I know how sensitive you are there (re: historic definitions, property rights, etc.).

Yep, Moorefield, the old Vienna firehouse on Church, most of Windover Ave., the list is long in terms of historic structures that have been demolished in Vienna. Meanwhile the local historic society still has it's garden tours and used books sales? They've preserved the those things and the fact that they seeminly do nothing. There's not a single mention on their website of what they've "preserved" or any iniatives, educational programs, etc. Just hosting quaint lil' events like Santa and Jamestown celebration (how sweet)!

Though do wonder how how you could preserve much if people voluntarily choose to tear-down their historic properties.

So after Jane and Maud have led the systematic destruction of anything so-called historic in Vienna (and yes it was them), after nearly every house in the current historic district has been torn down in the last 20 years with the so-called preservation ordinance in place, we are now going to arbitrarily force the few people with so-called historic something left to carry the water for that same group of phony historic Nazis who caused all the problems to begin with?

No thank you.

Find something better to do with your time then try and force people to be in the middle of corrupt historic politics. If the historic Nazis keep coming this way, the stove top is mighty hot, and the burn back will be more intense than anything seen to date.

"Where are the rules that tell applicants what is architecturally acceptable by these boards and what is not? Have an answer or do you want to just keep yakking about drinking scotch and relaxing?"

----------------

Wait a minute.

Have you read the town's Charter and/or Code? They're pretty clear, I think. I believe Section 8B of the Charter (don't quote me on that cite -- could be another Section number ... I read it this morning) deals with the ARB, and to answer your specific question, I trust you can read Section 4-15 of the Code. All of this took me about 10 minutes to do. Why haven't you done it yet?

Maybe you don't like what you perceive to be "open-ended" or "vague" provisions in 4-15? Well, I think you'd be hard-pressed to come up with anything more definite, particularly given the mandates of the Town Charter that no particular architectural style may be required . Moreover, you really wouldn't WANT to come up with anything more definite ... particularly with all those dirty rotten nasty snake-oil salesmen home builders running around town, looking to exploit (who, again??) for personal gain (GOD FORBID they turn a profit, right? I actually find some of the quasi-socialist ranting on this site peculiar, given that they're being voiced by, for the most part (if I'm right about who you are) by good ole conservative republicans). That is to say, the more an amateur shrinks or compresses a standard to close a perceived loophole or loopholes, the smaller the standard's scope, and the easier the end-run around that standard for the pro. Get what I'm saying? Mmmmm, maybe not, but I'm having a sale today on benefits of the doubt.

Like it or not, what you read in Section 4-15 is pretty par for the course as far as this type of legislative standard setting goes. Don't like it? Then go lose a decision, appeal to the Council, lose, appeal to the Circuit Court and argue that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. Take it to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and sue, claiming that the law is unconstitutionally vague -- the District Court has jurisdiction to hear a federal question like that (you'll get hammered, but don't let that stop you). Or, forget all that, you could start a blog and bitch about what you take to be an open-ended statutory scheme. (haha, I made a funny!)

I'm here to tell you that as far as your ARB "crisis" goes, it's pretty straightforward and clear -- Section 4-15 seems to me to be pretty run-of-the-mill and about as specific as one could hope for. Whether you like it, discretion is a hallmark of legal application, it seems to me at least. Moreover, friend, there is a three-tiered system in review in place, at least part of which calls for de novo review. It doesn't get much better than that. So what's the beef?

How about this: maybe you could draft what YOU take to be an appropriately detailed set of guidlines for the ARB. Post 'em up here. Bet you won't, though ... for more than one reason. But I'd be THRILLED if you would!! Who knows? Maybe, if you decided to take me up on this, it will become your springboard to winning a seat on the Council? Is that something in which you'd be interested?

Now, having dishonestly preached at you some more, and having issued one "challenge" to you (which I hope you'll meet), here's a question for you: exactly what is your problem, friend? Did you get rejected by the ARB on something? Did the Council affirm that rejection? Did the Circuit Court affirm the Council? Is it just that you're bitter and don't know where else to direct your disappointment and rage, having exhausted all your remedies? Or is it something else? (I'm guessing it's Option (B), "something else") But I'm just DYING to know what the spark was that lit your wick.

As for the "yakking and scotch drinking," I'm actually pretty much done "yakking" -- I'm already about 80% bored with with this stuff. I will say, however, that if you email me (I put my email address on my posts, so I assume you can see it), I'd love to get together with you and buy you a drink and pick your brain. Seriously. Just drop me an email -- it'll be my treat. But leave your videocamera at home, okay? (haha, I made another funny!!) On second thought ....

Toodles. Glad to have ANSWERED your questions and/or "challenges" -- maybe one day you'll return the favor ... either on here or on a bar stool. Hopefully that day is soon.

>>> I'd read this blog if the folks here would just tone it down, cut out the name-calling and stick to legitimate issues.

- Murphy

Nonetheless, here you are, time and time again.