Re: [columbia_heights] Re:A Rent Supplement Program for Very Low Income Families
- It would be unwise for us to dismiss as a matter of opinion the depth of
the quantitative and qualitative differences being discussed here. I
am judging Mr. Graham's performance in comparison to a different and
quantitatively and qualitatively higher standard than Chris and
yourself. I am comparing whether this community is on tract to meet
the redevelopment, social, economic and other plans/goals that "we"
layed out in planning for our rebirth. And whether Mr. Graham has
adequately played is role in helping us to achieve these plans/goals.
You guys are primarily concerned with whether he is a decent and
responsive council member, I don't in the main dispute this, just
whether this is enough. On many object measures has not been enough for
this community. In my view Mr. Graham has to hit on all cylinders, for
others of you he only needs to hit a few for a strong grade. And this
is not just subjective feelings there are concrete objects and time
tables that needed to be met to achieve the vision that was layed out
for this community. Why should this community be forced to lower its
standards and vision to meet Mr. Graham's level of performance, should
not we be demanding that he upgrade is performance to meet or at least
aim for the higher standard that we set for our redevelopment?
My goal here is to urge community members not to allow the standards and
expectations to be lowered to fit the performance, but to demand that
performance be raised to meet the standards as best as possible. The
problem I have with Mr. Graham is that he resorted to activitely
lowering the standards and goals we set for this community inorder to
meet his political interests. If this community as a whole decides to
lower the standards then we should have the necessary public forums and
do so. But we should not allow the standards to belowered via
superficial political gestures that are at best worthly of partial
credit. I just believe that too much as been invested to begin to
"grade on a curve" just because the Mr. Graham is popular.
Unfortunately, I am not readly to go along with saying that the lower
standard of performance for Mr. Graham is OK. Primarily, because I
know he is up to the task of helping us to meet the higher standard if
we demand it of him.
Glenn Greene wrote:
>I don't think it's a matter of holding the performance of Jim Graham
>(or any other councilmember) "sacrosanct." It's just a difference of
>opinion. There are people who think your criticisms are accurate, and
>there are people who don't. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
>If you tell people who disagree with you that their opinions are
>uninformed or naive, based upon a shallow and superficial
>understanding of the issues, it should not be a shock if they get
>defensive. That approach is not likely to win people over to your view.
>In my personal dealings with Councilman Graham's office, he and his
>staff have been incredibly responsive in terms of taking action and
>keeping me apprised of the efforts being made to address particular
>situations brought to their attention. I may not agree with him on
>every issue, but I agree with him enough to think that he has been and
>continues to be a good, effective member of the City Council. That's
>nothing more or less than my own personal opinion and it's worth as
>much or as little as it's worth.