On the eve of the final public meeting on the draft Braddock Road Metro Small Area plan, a few things to keep in mind:
First, the large group agitating to keep 1261 Madison Street as City-acquired open space has had the door firmly slammed in their faces. Their leader received the following communication from Vice Mayor Andrew Macdonald: "The consensus of staff and I'm afraid my colleagues is that it is too expensive to buy and not necessarily worth the price. That's the current situation."
The fact that our neighborhood is desperately short of open space or that our property taxes are funding the open space fund is apparently moot. Our tax dollars will presumably be spent acquiring the Old Dominion Boat Club or parcels in Del Ray. Meanwhile, we will have the privilege of paying an additional tax to support buses on Route 1 to carry commuters passing through to Ft. Belvoir or the Pentagon.
Second, though the Mayor and the other politicians may try to spin it tomorrow, EYA's redevelopment of the Adkins public housing project at Metro is kaput, DOA, off the table, as dead as Julius Caesar. There will be no redevelopment for at least a decade and possibly longer.
So what does this all mean? Why do we keep getting the shaft?
All the evidence indicates Alexandria's politicians and staff have spent the last five or 10 years quietly building up protected white enclaves of development at the expense of other more diverse neighborhoods like ours. Look at Cameron Station, Carlyle, Potomac Yard. They are getting luxury townhomes, huge swathes of open space, no public housing and little if any affordable housing. (The 60 units at Potomac Yard over the proposed firehouse have been carefully earmarked as "workforce housing," targeted at occupants with the highest percentages of median income.)
What do we get? We get to keep public housing and in turn get cheap stacked condos. And it isn't because condos represent the highest and best use of the land or because they constitute transit-oriented development. We now know density is a bogus argument, since the City isn't displacing public housing or promoting development completely around Metro — either at Potomac Yard or even at the 7-11 site. And research from the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments shows that politicians and bureaucrats like T&ES Director Rich Baier are well aware that Metro is nearing saturation. (See the diagram "Metro Stations and Platforms will be Packed" on p. 5.) They are simply hoping to be gone by the time the congestion issues reach crisis.
No, the reason the City wants condos is the same reason Alexandria's Council serves at-large and does not represent individual communities. It's a technique to keep residents here powerless or silent. Condo dwellers tend to be single and childless. They seldom engage closely with the community and thus pose no political threat. They are also a bargain in politicians' eyes because they are perceived as being cheaper to service than families in townhomes or single family homes with children and lifestyle demands. (It's no accident that this was part of Vallery Stylianoudis's testimony on behalf of the Payne Street condos: clearly she was briefed and rehearsed on this argument by Bud Hart and his master the Mayor.)
This area was treated badly for generations because it was a historically black neighborhood. Times may have changed and so has the neighborhood in terms of race and income. But turning the screw on this neighborhood has become such a reflex action that politicians are more than happy to do so, particularly if they can keep it in a weak or supine position.
That's also where Patricia Schubert and the ICCA comes in: the politicians are thrilled to have a sock puppet who withholds information from the community, refuses to battle on behalf of concerned Parker-Gray residents, and who can be counted on to endorse any back-room proposal no matter how injurious the impact to the neighborhood.
The only way out of this quagmire is for citizens to show up at this farcical public meeting and start hitting the politicians, planning commissioners and staff hard about the inconsistencies in policy and the hidden agendas. This is no time to be polite.
Tuesday, March 20 at 7 p.m. at Jefferson-Houston School, 1501 Cameron Street. Be there.
First, the large group agitating to keep 1261 Madison Street as City-acquired open space has had the door firmly slammed in their faces. Their leader received the following communication from Vice Mayor Andrew Macdonald: "The consensus of staff and I'm afraid my colleagues is that it is too expensive to buy and not necessarily worth the price. That's the current situation."
The fact that our neighborhood is desperately short of open space or that our property taxes are funding the open space fund is apparently moot. Our tax dollars will presumably be spent acquiring the Old Dominion Boat Club or parcels in Del Ray. Meanwhile, we will have the privilege of paying an additional tax to support buses on Route 1 to carry commuters passing through to Ft. Belvoir or the Pentagon.
Second, though the Mayor and the other politicians may try to spin it tomorrow, EYA's redevelopment of the Adkins public housing project at Metro is kaput, DOA, off the table, as dead as Julius Caesar. There will be no redevelopment for at least a decade and possibly longer.
So what does this all mean? Why do we keep getting the shaft?
All the evidence indicates Alexandria's politicians and staff have spent the last five or 10 years quietly building up protected white enclaves of development at the expense of other more diverse neighborhoods like ours. Look at Cameron Station, Carlyle, Potomac Yard. They are getting luxury townhomes, huge swathes of open space, no public housing and little if any affordable housing. (The 60 units at Potomac Yard over the proposed firehouse have been carefully earmarked as "workforce housing," targeted at occupants with the highest percentages of median income.)
What do we get? We get to keep public housing and in turn get cheap stacked condos. And it isn't because condos represent the highest and best use of the land or because they constitute transit-oriented development. We now know density is a bogus argument, since the City isn't displacing public housing or promoting development completely around Metro — either at Potomac Yard or even at the 7-11 site. And research from the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments shows that politicians and bureaucrats like T&ES Director Rich Baier are well aware that Metro is nearing saturation. (See the diagram "Metro Stations and Platforms will be Packed" on p. 5.) They are simply hoping to be gone by the time the congestion issues reach crisis.
No, the reason the City wants condos is the same reason Alexandria's Council serves at-large and does not represent individual communities. It's a technique to keep residents here powerless or silent. Condo dwellers tend to be single and childless. They seldom engage closely with the community and thus pose no political threat. They are also a bargain in politicians' eyes because they are perceived as being cheaper to service than families in townhomes or single family homes with children and lifestyle demands. (It's no accident that this was part of Vallery Stylianoudis's testimony on behalf of the Payne Street condos: clearly she was briefed and rehearsed on this argument by Bud Hart and his master the Mayor.)
This area was treated badly for generations because it was a historically black neighborhood. Times may have changed and so has the neighborhood in terms of race and income. But turning the screw on this neighborhood has become such a reflex action that politicians are more than happy to do so, particularly if they can keep it in a weak or supine position.
That's also where Patricia Schubert and the ICCA comes in: the politicians are thrilled to have a sock puppet who withholds information from the community, refuses to battle on behalf of concerned Parker-Gray residents, and who can be counted on to endorse any back-room proposal no matter how injurious the impact to the neighborhood.
The only way out of this quagmire is for citizens to show up at this farcical public meeting and start hitting the politicians, planning commissioners and staff hard about the inconsistencies in policy and the hidden agendas. This is no time to be polite.
Tuesday, March 20 at 7 p.m. at Jefferson-Houston School, 1501 Cameron Street. Be there.
28 comments:
I would suspect that the City bureaucrats are prepared for harshness and are writing their rebuttals for every possible point thats brought up....
They will most likely come up with a stage managed way to muzzle Plan disagreement or silence certain voices of outrage and dissent....
I certainly am interested in listening to their "explanations"
"Second, though the Mayor and the other politicians may try to spin it tomorrow, EYA's redevelopment of the Adkins public housing project at Metro is kaput, DOA, off the table, as dead as Julius Caesar. There will be no redevelopment for at least a decade and possibly longer."
If this is the case, then I hope someone would followup on several of the letters sent to the Gazette and Times and ask the mayor and bureaucrats how they plan to revitalize the neighborhood when Adkins is uch a source of many quality of life/walkability/livability issues....
Is there a larger plan to avoid the Alexandria tried and true, orchestrated to arrive at futility, small group "discussions" with reporting back of only those polite things the city wishes to hear?
I for one would prefer a knock-down drag out, open mic session where we could all individually express our frustrations on this issues that impact the Parker Gray neighborhood, including; the over concentration of public housing, increased and unmanageable traffic congestion, redevelopment that focuses almost exclusively on condos and not on in-fill that is designed to mimic existing single family town homes that are modern within but consistent with the existing "historic" neighborhood outside; the lack of a clear vision on how open space and pocket parks will be added/maintained as part of the plan, including sources of funds for these acquisitions, pervasive crime in the neighborhood, lack of school achievement and the inability of Parker Gray to currently use JH as a means to attract families to live and stay in PG, retail opportunities and the city’s plan within the redevelopment area--Monarch still has no tenants and the city has no visible plan to figure out this one, tax implications for single family home owners if we build it (all this condo development) and they don't come, tax implications of the continued subsidization of public housing that the city's budget structurally cannot sustain, the thousands of dollars the city plans to spend on the redevelopment of Charles Houston Rec Center that has been approved outside of this process, BRT concerns about both congestion and safety of pedestrians, etc. etc. etc.
Oh, and one last thing, let somebody tell me I hate the poor because I want Bland, the surrounding smaller developments and Atkins redeveloped, let them try. I agree this is no time to be polite nor is the Planning Commission meeting (April 3) that will follow this phase nor the City Council meeting (April 14) where this will be voted on in April—what a joke!!!
"If this is the case, then I hope someone would followup"
In fact I did with an unimpeachable source. Indeed ARHA initially considered a "trifold redevelopment" scheme including Glebe Park, Adkins and Bland. Bland because of the age of the units, Adkins for reasons of crime. EYA included redevelopment of the three properties in their initial proposal. The problems associated with Adkins' redevelopment, its removal from the current process, were "external to ARHA." In short, the problem is the city and planning staff.
ARHA alledgely was willing to redevelop Adkins using a low density, townhouse model. However the city, because of its want for high density development around the metro, would not compromise. While some wish us to believe Adkins' redevelopment is now ten years into the future most feel it permanently dead. Sources tell me the process included citizen input. In fact ARHA sponsored a citizen walking tour and two neighborhood meetings.
Citizens blew the negotiations, later permitting projects which could otherwise be leveraged to pass in advance of implementation of the Braddock plan. Had citizens been more collectively astute we maybe could have traded the FAR desired for Payne Street and The Monarch for less density at Adkins. As it now stands citizens gave the density away.
As for the city's long term want, I have heard speculation that planning staff wishes to bifurcate the Adkins block in order to extend Payne Street into the proposed Gateway community. Not unlike, I suppose, the city wanted to design The Madison so as to extend Montgomery Street. If the latter speculation is even remotely true, then cost benefit has taken on a new meaning.
Personally speaking, if ever I meet the citizens who participated in these closed door meetings, they will be stripped naked and left for Adkins misfits to manage.
Thanks to Mrs. Landis' heroic efforts, the city has replied as follows:
Let me clarify what a special tax
district is and what the draft language of the Braddock Road plan was intended to convey
1. I can understand the concern you and your membership have about the draft language (transportation section - page 19), and I think it
should be amended in any final plan language. The special tax district as it relates to the Braddock Plan is in the concept stage, so the language in the draft plan of "intends to establish" is ahead of where the City staff is at this
time. We will draft new language.
2. The possibility of a special tax district to help fund expanded
transit services has been included in the Potomac Yard CDD since its adoption by Council in 2003. The intent of that language was to match the higher level of transit services that would be in Potomac Yard with an incremental additional add-on tax to real estate tax bills (purely for illustrative purposes: such as an extra 5 to 10 cents added to the real estate tax rate
of 81.5 cents) in Potomac Yard. It was contemplated that special tax
> district revenues raised in Potomac Yard would be 100% used to fund capital or operating expenses of transit services in Potomac Yard.
3. What Rich Baier explained (and has asked me to address in this email since he knows that he knows transportation far better than tax and finance) at your meeting this past week was tax increment financing (TIF) which is different than a special tax district. A TIF takes some or all of the additional tax revenues generated by new development and uses those to
fund capital (and sometimes operating) expenses of public services or public infrastructure that is related to that new development. A TIF is most often used to incentivize new development that would otherwise not occur.
4. A special tax district in Potomac Yard has not been implemented, but has been in the planning stages concurrent with the planning of what the transit services would be. Since the Potomac Yard CDD was approved, there has been ongoing planning and community dialog about the nature and location of these transit services. As you are aware the direction is BRT which would serve not only Potomac Yard but also connect with the Braddock Road Metrorail station.
5. The costs of the BRT are such, and the practical limits of how much a special tax district rate could be, that the special tax district would be one of many revenues which would fund the BRT service. BRT is not likely going to be dependent on the creation of a special tax district. Special
tax district revenues would likely help the BRT service get started
earlier and have greater frequency of service than if there was not a special tax district.
6. With the BRT proposed connection to the Braddock Road Metro station, internally staff has discussed the logic of also extending any special tax district to the Braddock Road Metro station. Such as connection was NEVER
intended to cover all of the Braddock Road planning area (the draft plan language is not clear on this point), but only some of the to-be-developed properties (such as the Jaguar site) and existing commercial properties (such as the Braddock Place offices) between the Monroe Ave bridge and the Braddock Road Metrorail station. The exact boundaries and properties have
not been defined at the staff level at this point in time.
7. Neither the adoption of the CDD for Potomac Yard nor the adoption of the Braddock Plan means that a special tax district would be adopted. The adoption by City Council of such a district is a separate decision process that would entail numerous public meetings and input - most likely later this spring, and then Council consideration of such an ordinance and public hearing - most likely next fall or early winter. I hope that this explanation has been helpful. Let me know if you have any additional questions. I
will be at the Braddock area plan meeting next week and can also answer questions then.
Mark Jinks
Deputy City Manager
>
>
>
"
Oh, and one last thing, let somebody tell me I hate the poor because I want Bland, the surrounding smaller developments and Atkins redeveloped, let them try."
Oh, they will try. My guess is that because of the community outrage and the recent letter in the Gazette, ARHA will have its people front and center to try to quell the "rebellion" on public housing.... I am sure they have carefully scripted their rebuttals.
"In fact I did with an unimpeachable source."
Um....and what is this source's name/role? Name the source and earn creidbility. Otherwise you sound like an ARHA plant trying to deflect blame (the common ARHA damage control device)
"Sources tell me the process included citizen input. In fact ARHA sponsored a citizen walking tour and two neighborhood meetings."
What citizens are there? I am a "Loftie" and I was never consulted nor was anyone in our HOA.
"Citizens blew the negotiations, later permitting projects which could otherwise be leveraged to pass in advance of implementation of the Braddock plan. Had citizens been more collectively astute we maybe could have traded the FAR desired for Payne Street and The Monarch for less density at Adkins. As it now stands citizens gave the density away.
"
Sounds suspiciously like Melvin Miller's speech for tomorrow's meeting; he will attempt to turn the neighborhood against itself to cover up for ARHA incompetence.
THAT YOU MELVIN?
"The only way out of this quagmire is for citizens to show up at this farcical public meeting and start hitting the politicians, planning commissioners and staff hard about the inconsistencies in policy and the hidden agendas. This is no time to be polite."
Finally you said it....what you need to do is show collective rage at both the plan process and at the plan itself.
So when they hand you index cards, tear them up. If they try to silence you, SHOUT!. If they try to make you feel bad, tell them to shove it where the sun dont shine. Arm yourselves all with facts and figures (some from this great blog, surely) and hit them with the facts...anemic job growth, no commercial development, weak condo market, public housing madness, etc....Force them to justify the status quo and the "target vision" which seems to be as some kind of giant condo community.
Get someone from the Lofts to pick up some trash from around Adkins and Bland and bring it to the meeting. When the Mayor starts his prepackaged speech, get up and dump it on the floor. Do anything to get the Gazette and the Times and the Post writing. Yell at the Mayor. Disrespect the ARHA commissioners.
My guess is you can't stop the plan from being approved, but you can give the City a lot of bad press and open up the debate in the papers and around town about public housing, density, traffic, etc...
And one thing that Euielle will not want, or ARHA, or any of the other stakeholders in this plan's approval, is bad press and publicity.
Good luck!
"Um....and what is this source's name/role? Name the source and earn creidbility. Otherwise you sound like an ARHA plant trying to deflect blame (the common ARHA damage control device)"
Or maybe the reverse is true. Planning staff is portraying ARHA the devil.
"What citizens are there? I am a "Loftie" and I was never consulted nor was anyone in our HOA."
Why should Planning staff waste political capital cultivating Lofties vis a vis Adkins? Like Dalmatians and the fire bell, Lofties predictably respond: Any development is better than no development. So The Monarch and Payne Street pass easily, no political concessions required.
Don't blame Melvin Miller for the death of the Adkins redevelopment. ARHA was on board with it and so was EYA. It's only in recent weeks that the whole plan fell apart.
It looks to the Growler like the Adkins redevelopment has been killed by Planning & Zoning with assistance from Council and the Mayor. P&Z are the ones insisting on developing the whole block and demanding a high-rise which ARHA is shying away from (rightfully so). We never heard anything about the need to acquire the 14 private homes on West, Madison and Wythe to create a huge city block development before P&Z got involved.
Don't forget "opening the street grid" was one of Eileen Fogarty's obsessions. P&Z's fingerprints are all over this baby. And in fact, they are undoubtedly opening Payne and possibly Montgomery (and mulling over turning Fayette into an arterial) because they know that the massive development here is going to reduce local traffic to gridlock, even though they keep saying publicly that the only problem is the inevitable pass-through traffic on Route 1. Otherwise why open these long-closed streets?
OK, so why would the Council and Mayor kill the redevelopment? Because it's not going to pull in enough property tax revenue if its not big and dense. And now we know their motivation: they want to earmark that revenue for BRT, sending commuters through our Parker-Gray streets in comfort on their way to Ft. Belvoir and the Pentagon.
So if the Lofts HOA reps didn't get walk-throughs, who did?
"What citizens are there? I am a "Loftie" and I was never consulted nor was anyone in our HOA."
Lofties remind me of the caveman on the GEICO commercial. Need I say more? If you are a doubting Thomas then ask EYA for a copy of their original redevelopment proposal. The suggested reference to Adkins either will or will not be included.
"And in fact, they are undoubtedly opening Payne and possibly Montgomery (and mulling over turning Fayette into an arterial) because they know that the massive development here is going to reduce local traffic to gridlock,"
Careful, Growler, as the Payne Street scenario is speculation only. The change Fayette Street from a residential street to an arterial is noted in writing in the Plan's transporation chapter. No playing fast and loose.
From the Transportation Chapter of the final draft:
"A new street network with on-street parking is proposed to
be constructed as part of the redevelopment of this area
that will extend N. Fayette and Payne Streets through the
area, and create a new intersection at N. Fayette and Route 1."
The Administrative draft of the Braddock Road Metro Plan from last September describes the Adkins site as Development Opportunity Site G and on p. 125 notes:
DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT- SITE G
Extend North Payne Street through the site to enhance pedestrian connections, and accommodate access to loading and underground parking.
"Sounds suspiciously like Melvin Miller's speech for tomorrow's meeting; he will attempt to turn the neighborhood against itself to cover up for ARHA incompetence."
If that is the sum of your thinking then please stay home tomorrow night. We need well informed, articulate spokespersons to turn the Adkins issue around.
"DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT- SITE G
Extend North Payne Street through the site to enhance pedestrian connections, and accommodate access to loading and underground parking."
Okay, Growler, I'll yield. Maybe the Payne Street scenario is not speculation.
"The change Fayette Street from a residential street to an arterial is noted in writing in the Plan's transporation chapter."
If the want is to reclassify Fayette Street as an arterial, no longer a residential street, then Larry Robinson, Poul Hertel, Tom Culpepper and their Transportation Task Force will be met with violence.
"It looks to the Growler like the Adkins redevelopment has been killed by Planning & Zoning with assistance from Council and the Mayor. P&Z are the ones insisting on developing the whole block and demanding a high-rise which ARHA is shying away from (rightfully so)."
Not to point out the obvious, Growler, but this is falling into the same trap. ARHA shouldnt build a high rise, but frankly, ARHA shouldnt build anything or have anything to do with the block. The block should be sold to a developer and the funds used by ARHA to reduce public housing concentration. Even if P&Z agreed to less density, ARHA would still insist on the mixed model (like Chatham Square) that they are trying at Bland, and that doesnt seem to fix many of the issues around that area.
Better to take the funds and use it for vouchers or to improve existing public housing stock. The site needs to be torn down and destroyed, and then the issue of what goes there can be decided.
"Why should Planning staff waste political capital cultivating Lofties vis a vis Adkins? Like Dalmatians and the fire bell, Lofties predictably respond: Any development is better than no development. So The Monarch and Payne Street pass easily, no political concessions required."
I think what most lofties say is more along the lines of "You are building condos next to the set of Menace 2 Society 2? Have you lost your fricken mind"
There is not universal support for the idea of condos or development in those sites by Lofties, even among the people you automatically assume support it.
"OK, so why would the Council and Mayor kill the redevelopment? Because it's not going to pull in enough property tax revenue if its not big and dense."
Again Growler, if they just got off their rears and realized that Res. 830 is a failure, than the issue of density becomes moot. If you remove the requirements of "lets rebuild public housing and put some fresh paint on it" and just take the site and develop it, then density isnt required to generate revenue.
Although, technically, it all stinks. That site really shouldnt be that dense unless its some kind of mixed use, and even then it really should fit with everything else. And frankly, someone should ask the mayor how he thinks itas a good idea to proceed with 600 Payne and the Madison when you have a potential for even greater tensions on that block with the influx of new residents if Adkins stays as it is.
"Don't blame Melvin Miller for the death of the Adkins redevelopment. ARHA was on board with it and so was EYA. It's only in recent weeks that the whole plan fell apart."
Come Growler, u know better.... I thought it wasnt time to be polite....
ARHA's neighborhood vision is not shared by hardly anyone in this neighborhood, so lets call spades spades.
Lets ask Mel and Mayor for Eternity why, to pay for Quaker hill, they didnt sell Adkins off, you know , like how most PHA's are told to operate, like Chicago for example, when they operate in a deficit. When you cant pay your bills, you sell assets, you dont get taxpayer handouts from the City. Want a bridge loan for Bland redevelopment? Fine, sell Adkins off to come up with some cash collateral. Why must we subsidize their incompetence, Councilman Macdonald? Why dont you force them to sell some assets to come up with collateral/cash, Councilman Gaines?
Proterty tax revenue, Herr Mayor? Do you not think that you could get the same revenue from a public housing-free plot with small scale retail and some nice office space and townhomes mixed in. Anyone not think a coffee shop, deli, and cafe would work on Wythe, which is supposed to be PG's new "boulevard of dreams".
When is someone going to ask those questions? I see fault with P&Z and their Condos on Crack approach, but in the end, its always these damn housing projects and Council members blind faith in protecting them at any cost that kills anything around here. Take away 830 and you are finally able to redevelop the neighborhood, with the built in protections of housing vouchers giving public housing residents (on our dime) the ability to live in other parts of the city that have no public housing.
"Extend North Payne Street through the site to enhance pedestrian connections, and accommodate access to loading and underground parking."
I heard this at one of the Lofts HOA meetings, and I remember someone asking Eileen "Why the hell would you want to extend Payne and Montgomery? No one goes down those streets anyways; they are unsafe and dont fit normal traffic flows"
Eileen said she had to maintain a street grid because thats what the Council wants.
Someone ask Farrol Hamer tomorrow who goes down Montgomery to get to Fayette, other than thugs from Bland?
Ph: (703) 549-7115 Fax: (703) 549-8709
E-mail: WMDearman@email.msn.com
Contact: William Dearman, CEO
Operating Since: 1939
Staff: 72
Area Served: Alexandria City
Description:
The Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority's (ARHA) mission is to preserve and expand housing opportunities for low-income families. Its strategies for meeting this goal include the provision of 1,150 units of safe, decent and sanitary public housing for low-income families, the elderly and the disabled at affordable rents.
SAFE, DECENT AND SANITARY????
I like the idea of dropping the trash at tomorrow nights meeting. Someone should tell the Gazette and Times to show up just in case this happens!!
"That's also where Patricia Schubert and the ICCA comes in: the politicians are thrilled to have a sock puppet who withholds information from the community, refuses to battle on behalf of concerned Parker-Gray residents, and who can be counted on to endorse any back-room proposal no matter how injurious the impact to the neighborhood."
She comes cheap! Rumor has it that the Federation of Civic Associations declined to invite Ms. Schubert to fill their slot on AEDP's Board. Apparently the Mayor now has offered the pouting ICCA President with a seat on the same Board so long as she continues to deliver. Wanna bet retail still comes late to The Monarch?
"I heard this at one of the Lofts HOA meetings, and I remember someone asking Eileen "Why the hell would you want to extend Payne and Montgomery? No one goes down those streets anyways; they are unsafe and dont fit normal traffic flows"
Finally a Loftie who thinks, maybe.
If you are so unhappy, why don't you MOVE OUT!!!
"If you are so unhappy, why don't you MOVE OUT!!!"
If Council agrees to the density suggested Tuesday night including the newly unveiled metro proposal then an exodus is likely. Landmark near Van Dorn has long been known as condo canyon. Braddock is also becoming a canyon.
"If you are so unhappy, why don't you MOVE OUT!!! "
Well aren't you the polite one! And I guess I should go back to Mexico (3 generations removed) and my kids should go back to Africa!
If you have nothing PRODUCTIVE AND INTELLIGENT TO SAY, why don't you wait to say something until you do.
Not playing the race card just pointing out that those of us who live here HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO MAKE OUR UNHAPPINESS KNOW TO THE PEOPLE WE ELECTED AND TO THE PUBLICLY PAID STAFF WHO ARE EMPLOYED BY THOSE OFFICIALS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ENTIRE CITY.
My polite apologies for shouting.
Post a Comment