Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [columbia_heights] Re: [southcolumbiaheights] David Alpert's Smart Growth Fraud?

Expand Messages
  • Richard Layman
    I think both you and David make the mistake of thinking the issues are race-based, when the specific issues are mostly about money and income and therefore
    Message 1 of 8 , Apr 1, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      I think both you and David make the mistake of thinking the issues are race-based, when the specific issues are mostly about money and income and therefore class.  This was my comment on the article:

      For what it's worth, Howard Gillette Jr. wrote a book on this verysame topic in 2006, with a much deeper period of analysis than the last couple years.
      but there are many more examples.
      It's really about income, not race. Poorer people care about different things than people with more money. Although my understanding is that the poor care a lot more about recreation centers than the unpoor, who are more likely to be members of private gyms, have facilities in their multiunit buildings, etc.

      As far as how real estate development and politics works in the city, there's no better source than ch. 4 of _Dream City_.  And for general understanding of the broader arguments, the "City as a Growth Machine" thesis, first written by Harvey Molotch and then expanded into a book with John Logan, _Urban Fortunes: Towards a Political Economy of Place_ is probably the best discussion of land use intensification in the former and the use value of place (ch. 4) I think, in the latter.

      The poor have a much greater reliance on informal relationships. People with money just buy what they need.

      From my blog:

      Types of Use Values*

      Daily Round: The place of residence is a focal point for the wider routine in which one's concrete daily needs are satisfied.

      Informal Support Networks: Place of residence is the potential support of an information network of people who provide life-sustaining products and services.

      Security and Trust: A neighborhood also provides a sense of physical and psychic security that comes with a familiar and dependable environment.

      Identity: A neighborhood provides its residents with an important source of identity, both for themselves and for others. Neighborhoods offer a resident not only spatial demarcations but social demarcations as well.

      Agglomeration Benefits: A shared interest in overlapping use values (identity, security, and so on) in a single area is a useful way to define neighborhood.

      Ethnicity: Not infrequently, these benefits are encapsulated in a shared enthnicity... When this occurs, ethnicity serves as a summary characterization of all the overlapping benefits of neighborhood life.

      (* From chapter four of Urban Fortunes: Toward a Political Economy of Place.)  While not citing this work, in Root Shock Fullilove makes the same kinds of arguments on the destruction of community and social networks as a result of urban renewal.

      From: "whj@..." <whj@...>
      To: southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com
      Cc: "southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com" <southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com>; "columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com" <columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com>; South Columbia Heights <southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com>; "AdamsMorgan@yahoogroups.com" <adamsmorgan@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Monday, April 1, 2013 12:25 AM
      Subject: [columbia_heights] Re: [southcolumbiaheights] David Alpert's Smart Growth Fraud?

       
       
      Alpert is exploiting the non-attributed quote for his own purposes to justify secondary priorities as serious community development, by attempting to take a moral and ethical high ground that does not exist. And hiding being race to do it.  I can't hold a city employee accountable if I don't know who he or she is.
       
      Alpert is no different than any other special political interest, my challenge with GGW is that supports undermining community participation. And ducks the hard work of equitable neighborhood development. Basically telling communities not to believe their lying eyes.
       
      The irony of it all is that Whites are being taken advantage of by the smart growth fraud as Blacks.
       
      -----Original Message-----
      From: "Byron Tau" <byron.tau@...>
      Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 10:17pm
      To: "southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com" <southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com>
      Cc: "columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com" <columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com>, "South Columbia Heights" <southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com>, "AdamsMorgan@yahoogroups.com" <AdamsMorgan@yahoogroups.com>
      Subject: Re: [southcolumbiaheights] David Alpert's Smart Growth Fraud?



      I love how Dave Alpert is the target of your ire when you have a city official that said:
      "White liberals in D.C. don’t give a [expletive] about social services because they’re not of that element"
      But it's Dave Alpert that's the problem with DC.

      Sent from my iPhone

      On Mar 31, 2013, at 8:28 PM, whj@... wrote:

      David Alpert's recent piece, "‘White liberals’ vs. D.C. social services?",  published by the Post is typical of what I call the Smart Growth or New Urbanist Fraud.  While rhetorically implying with Smart Growth we can progressively have it all, on the ground as in Columbia Heights Alpert and others aligned themselves with pay-to-play real estate interests seeking to undermine carefully planned and fought for neighborhood amenities whether parks, adequate parking resources, social services or maximized public transportation. As we now know from the WMATA and DC Board of Ethics reports, CM Graham abused his public office council seat, Metro Board seat and not focused on in the reports Council committee oversight of DDOT and WMATA, for his (Graham's) personal political interests.  My experience as an activist and ANC commissioner Alpert instead of working with the Columbia Heights community to achieve the full promise of so called Smart Growth, worked instead to gain political favor with CM Graham to force pet projects such as half-baked Performance Parking on Columbia Heights. And used his blog to at best to distort at worse deliberately misinform his readers about the issues facing Columbia Heights and communities struggling with the tough issues involved in neighborhood development.
       
      For example, one of the few issues in Columbia Heights which brought together Black, White, Latino, all income levels, renters, owners, residents and businesses was the need for adequate neighborhood parking and parking plans.  With the 1000 space DCUSA garage and 200 spaces at Giant, Columbia Heights was positioned to leverage parking as unifying resource instead Alpert and his ilk has pushed parking as an issue to divide the Columbia Heights community surrounding neighborhoods.  In fact, in working the various issues of development and racial, ethnic and income diversity in the heart of Columbia Heights, I can't think of one time that Alpert as been a positive influence in resolving the issues is has written about in the article.  Instead, has taken advantage to various neighborhood divisions push pet projects and score cheap political points.  Typically in his blog community members who fight for development balance are portrayed as NIMBYs.
       
      Alpert's piece is a fraud, we can't have it all at once with Smart Growth or whatever you call it.  Priorities need to be set, often there are no simple or easy answers. His piece is about justifying and exploiting  differences to sneak in pet projects and perpetuating a smart growth fraud.
       
      William
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       




    • whjmela
      First, race in America is as much an economic system as a social one. Race and Economics are so intertwined that it s silly to discuss them separately. Which
      Message 2 of 8 , Apr 1, 2013
      • 0 Attachment

         

         

        First, race in America is as much an economic system as a social one. Race and Economics are so intertwined that it's silly to discuss them separately.  Which why a so-called smart growth/community development approach that does not take seriously this dynamic is fraudulent.  Just as a paradigm that only considers race is flawed.

         

        Part of the Smart Growth fraud had to do with the shift from addressing suburban sprawl, to providing moral air cover for developers and their pay-to-play mates exploit neighborhoods, building fancy dorm rooms re-branded as luxury apartments, chopping up rowhouses into efficiencies and flipping pop-ups all for a quick buck.

         

        However, the big fraud with Alpert's Smart Growth worldview is the effort to justify a public policy which leverages public subsidizes to underwrite the conspicuous consumption of a few.  Then attempt to use our insecurities around race to muddy the waters.  In other words, under Alpert's Smart Growth conspicuous consumption is now a civic value maybe even a new civil right.

         

        William

         

         

         

        -----Original Message-----
        From: "Richard Layman" <rlaymandc@...>
        Sent: Monday, April 1, 2013 6:37am
        To: "columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com" <columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com>
        Subject: Re: [columbia_heights] Re: [southcolumbiaheights] David Alpert's Smart Growth Fraud?



        I think both you and David make the mistake of thinking the issues are race-based, when the specific issues are mostly about money and income and therefore class.  This was my comment on the article:

        For what it's worth, Howard Gillette Jr. wrote a book on this verysame topic in 2006, with a much deeper period of analysis than the last couple years.
        but there are many more examples.
        It's really about income, not race. Poorer people care about different things than people with more money. Although my understanding is that the poor care a lot more about recreation centers than the unpoor, who are more likely to be members of private gyms, have facilities in their multiunit buildings, etc.
        As far as how real estate development and politics works in the city, there's no better source than ch. 4 of _Dream City_.  And for general understanding of the broader arguments, the "City as a Growth Machine" thesis, first written by Harvey Molotch and then expanded into a book with John Logan, _Urban Fortunes: Towards a Political Economy of Place_ is probably the best discussion of land use intensification in the former and the use value of place (ch. 4) I think, in the latter.
        The poor have a much greater reliance on informal relationships. People with money just buy what they need.
        From my blog:
        Types of Use Values*

        Daily Round: The place of residence is a focal point for the wider routine in which one's concrete daily needs are satisfied.

        Informal Support Networks: Place of residence is the potential support of an information network of people who provide life-sustaining products and services.

        Security and Trust: A neighborhood also provides a sense of physical and psychic security that comes with a familiar and dependable environment.

        Identity: A neighborhood provides its residents with an important source of identity, both for themselves and for others. Neighborhoods offer a resident not only spatial demarcations but social demarcations as well.

        Agglomeration Benefits: A shared interest in overlapping use values (identity, security, and so on) in a single area is a useful way to define neighborhood.

        Ethnicity: Not infrequently, these benefits are encapsulated in a shared enthnicity... When this occurs, ethnicity serves as a summary characterization of all the overlapping benefits of neighborhood life.

        (* From chapter four of Urban Fortunes: Toward a Political Economy of Place.) While not citing this work, in Root Shock Fullilove makes the same kinds of arguments on the destruction of community and social networks as a result of urban renewal.

        From: "whj@..." <whj@...>
        To: southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com
        Cc: "southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com" <southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com>; "columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com" <columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com>; South Columbia Heights <southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com>; "AdamsMorgan@yahoogroups.com" <adamsmorgan@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Monday, April 1, 2013 12:25 AM
        Subject: [columbia_heights] Re: [southcolumbiaheights] David Alpert's Smart Growth Fraud?

        Alpert is exploiting the non-attributed quote for his own purposes to justify secondary priorities as serious community development, by attempting to take a moral and ethical high ground that does not exist. And hiding being race to do it.  I can't hold a city employee accountable if I don't know who he or she is.
        Alpert is no different than any other special political interest, my challenge with GGW is that supports undermining community participation. And ducks the hard work of equitable neighborhood development. Basically telling communities not to believe their lying eyes.
        The irony of it all is that Whites are being taken advantage of by the smart growth fraud as Blacks.
        -----Original Message-----
        From: "Byron Tau" <byron.tau@...>
        Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 10:17pm
        To: "southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com" <southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com>
        Cc: "columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com" <columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com>, "South Columbia Heights" <southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com>, "AdamsMorgan@yahoogroups.com" <AdamsMorgan@yahoogroups.com>
        Subject: Re: [southcolumbiaheights] David Alpert's Smart Growth Fraud?



        I love how Dave Alpert is the target of your ire when you have a city official that said:
        "White liberals in D.C. don’t give a [expletive] about social services because they’re not of that element"
        But it's Dave Alpert that's the problem with DC.

        Sent from my iPhone

        On Mar 31, 2013, at 8:28 PM, whj@... wrote:

        David Alpert's recent piece, "‘White liberals’ vs. D.C. social services?",  published by the Post is typical of what I call the Smart Growth or New Urbanist Fraud.  While rhetorically implying with Smart Growth we can progressively have it all, on the ground as in Columbia Heights Alpert and others aligned themselves with pay-to-play real estate interests seeking to undermine carefully planned and fought for neighborhood amenities whether parks, adequate parking resources, social services or maximized public transportation. As we now know from the WMATA and DC Board of Ethics reports, CM Graham abused his public office council seat, Metro Board seat and not focused on in the reports Council committee oversight of DDOT and WMATA, for his (Graham's) personal political interests.  My experience as an activist and ANC commissioner Alpert instead of working with the Columbia Heights community to achieve the full promise of so called Smart Growth, worked instead to gain political favor with CM Graham to force pet projects such as half-baked Performance Parking on Columbia Heights. And used his blog to at best to distort at worse deliberately misinform his readers about the issues facing Columbia Heights and communities struggling with the tough issues involved in neighborhood development.
        For example, one of the few issues in Columbia Heights which brought together Black, White, Latino, all income levels, renters, owners, residents and businesses was the need for adequate neighborhood parking and parking plans.  With the 1000 space DCUSA garage and 200 spaces at Giant, Columbia Heights was positioned to leverage parking as unifying resource instead Alpert and his ilk has pushed parking as an issue to divide the Columbia Heights community surrounding neighborhoods.  In fact, in working the various issues of development and racial, ethnic and income diversity in the heart of Columbia Heights, I can't think of one time that Alpert as been a positive influence in resolving the issues is has written about in the article.  Instead, has taken advantage to various neighborhood divisions push pet projects and score cheap political points.  Typically in his blog community members who fight for development balance are portrayed as NIMBYs.
        Alpert's piece is a fraud, we can't have it all at once with Smart Growth or whatever you call it.  Priorities need to be set, often there are no simple or easy answers. His piece is about justifying and exploiting  differences to sneak in pet projects and perpetuating a smart growth fraud.
        William






      • mailinnercity
        It is definitely about class, but also about age, and “investment” in the social fabric of a community. Pandering to the new demographics with desired
        Message 3 of 8 , Apr 1, 2013
        • 0 Attachment

          It is definitely about class, but also about age, and “investment” in the social fabric of a community.

          Pandering to the new demographics with desired amenities is short sighted.

          We already regionally have the worst commutes and air quality, so how is allowing sacred

          “market forces” to force people with lower incomes out going to improve the quality of life for all?

           

           

          From: columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com [mailto:columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Layman
          Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 6:38 AM
          To: columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [columbia_heights] Re: [southcolumbiaheights] David Alpert's Smart Growth Fraud?

           

          I think both you and David make the mistake of thinking the issues are race-based, when the specific issues are mostly about money and income and therefore class.  This was my comment on the article:

           

          For what it's worth, Howard Gillette Jr. wrote a book on this verysame topic in 2006, with a much deeper period of analysis than the last couple years.

          but there are many more examples.

          It's really about income, not race. Poorer people care about different things than people with more money. Although my understanding is that the poor care a lot more about recreation centers than the unpoor, who are more likely to be members of private gyms, have facilities in their multiunit buildings, etc.

           

          As far as how real estate development and politics works in the city, there's no better source than ch. 4 of _Dream City_.  And for general understanding of the broader arguments, the "City as a Growth Machine" thesis, first written by Harvey Molotch and then expanded into a book with John Logan, _Urban Fortunes: Towards a Political Economy of Place_ is probably the best discussion of land use intensification in the former and the use value of place (ch. 4) I think, in the latter.

           

          The poor have a much greater reliance on informal relationships. People with money just buy what they need.

           

          From my blog:

           

          Types of Use Values*

          Daily Round: The place of residence is a focal point for the wider routine in which one's concrete daily needs are satisfied.

          Informal Support Networks: Place of residence is the potential support of an information network of people who provide life-sustaining products and services.

          Security and Trust: A neighborhood also provides a sense of physical and psychic security that comes with a familiar and dependable environment.

          Identity: A neighborhood provides its residents with an important source of identity, both for themselves and for others. Neighborhoods offer a resident not only spatial demarcations but social demarcations as well.

          Agglomeration Benefits: A shared interest in overlapping use values (identity, security, and so on) in a single area is a useful way to define neighborhood.

          Ethnicity: Not infrequently, these benefits are encapsulated in a shared enthnicity... When this occurs, ethnicity serves as a summary characterization of all the overlapping benefits of neighborhood life.

          (* From chapter four of Urban Fortunes: Toward a Political Economy of Place.)  While not citing this work, in Root Shock Fullilove makes the same kinds of arguments on the destruction of community and social networks as a result of urban renewal.


          From: "whj@..." <whj@...>
          To: southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com
          Cc: "southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com" <southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com>; "columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com" <columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com>; South Columbia Heights <southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com>; "AdamsMorgan@yahoogroups.com" <adamsmorgan@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Monday, April 1, 2013 12:25 AM
          Subject: [columbia_heights] Re: [southcolumbiaheights] David Alpert's Smart Growth Fraud?

           

           

           

          Alpert is exploiting the non-attributed quote for his own purposes to justify secondary priorities as serious community development, by attempting to take a moral and ethical high ground that does not exist. And hiding being race to do it.  I can't hold a city employee accountable if I don't know who he or she is.

           

          Alpert is no different than any other special political interest, my challenge with GGW is that supports undermining community participation. And ducks the hard work of equitable neighborhood development. Basically telling communities not to believe their lying eyes.

           

          The irony of it all is that Whites are being taken advantage of by the smart growth fraud as Blacks.

           

          -----Original Message-----
          From: "Byron Tau" <byron.tau@...>
          Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 10:17pm
          To: "southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com" <southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com>
          Cc: "columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com" <columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com>, "South Columbia Heights" <southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com>, "AdamsMorgan@yahoogroups.com" <AdamsMorgan@yahoogroups.com>
          Subject: Re: [southcolumbiaheights] David Alpert's Smart Growth Fraud?

           

          I love how Dave Alpert is the target of your ire when you have a city official that said:

          "White liberals in D.C. don’t give a [expletive] about social services because they’re not of that element"

          But it's Dave Alpert that's the problem with DC.


          Sent from my iPhone


          On Mar 31, 2013, at 8:28 PM, whj@... wrote:

          David Alpert's recent piece, "‘White liberals’ vs. D.C. social services?",  published by the Post is typical of what I call the Smart Growth or New Urbanist Fraud.  While rhetorically implying with Smart Growth we can progressively have it all, on the ground as in Columbia Heights Alpert and others aligned themselves with pay-to-play real estate interests seeking to undermine carefully planned and fought for neighborhood amenities whether parks, adequate parking resources, social services or maximized public transportation. As we now know from the WMATA and DC Board of Ethics reports, CM Graham abused his public office council seat, Metro Board seat and not focused on in the reports Council committee oversight of DDOT and WMATA, for his (Graham's) personal political interests.  My experience as an activist and ANC commissioner Alpert instead of working with the Columbia Heights community to achieve the full promise of so called Smart Growth, worked instead to gain political favor with CM Graham to force pet projects such as half-baked Performance Parking on Columbia Heights. And used his blog to at best to distort at worse deliberately misinform his readers about the issues facing Columbia Heights and communities struggling with the tough issues involved in neighborhood development.

           

          For example, one of the few issues in Columbia Heights which brought together Black, White, Latino, all income levels, renters, owners, residents and businesses was the need for adequate neighborhood parking and parking plans.  With the 1000 space DCUSA garage and 200 spaces at Giant, Columbia Heights was positioned to leverage parking as unifying resource instead Alpert and his ilk has pushed parking as an issue to divide the Columbia Heights community surrounding neighborhoods.  In fact, in working the various issues of development and racial, ethnic and income diversity in the heart of Columbia Heights, I can't think of one time that Alpert as been a positive influence in resolving the issues is has written about in the article.  Instead, has taken advantage to various neighborhood divisions push pet projects and score cheap political points.  Typically in his blog community members who fight for development balance are portrayed as NIMBYs.

           

          Alpert's piece is a fraud, we can't have it all at once with Smart Growth or whatever you call it.  Priorities need to be set, often there are no simple or easy answers. His piece is about justifying and exploiting  differences to sneak in pet projects and perpetuating a smart growth fraud.

           

          William

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           




        • Joel Harder
          I think pandering to the new demographics with desired amenities is pretty awesome! But, the article is bullshit when the name of the black official isn t
          Message 4 of 8 , Apr 1, 2013
          • 0 Attachment

            I think pandering to the new demographics with desired amenities is pretty awesome!

            But, the article is bullshit when the name of the "black official" isn't stated. It's poor journalism that I'm going to ignore... And, where is the "data" that black and whites have any divide... it's divisive and pointless to state. 

            DC government fraud should be the unifying goal. And, everybody knows that it's not working.



            On Apr 1, 2013, at 11:59 PM, <elizabeth@...> wrote:

             

            It is definitely about class, but also about age, and “investment” in the social fabric of a community.

            Pandering to the new demographics with desired amenities is short sighted.

            We already regionally have the worst commutes and air quality, so how is allowing sacred

            “market forces” to force people with lower incomes out going to improve the quality of life for all?

             

             

            From: columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com [mailto:columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Layman
            Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 6:38 AM
            To: columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [columbia_heights] Re: [southcolumbiaheights] David Alpert's Smart Growth Fraud?

             

            I think both you and David make the mistake of thinking the issues are race-based, when the specific issues are mostly about money and income and therefore class.  This was my comment on the article:

             

            For what it's worth, Howard Gillette Jr. wrote a book on this verysame topic in 2006, with a much deeper period of analysis than the last couple years.

            but there are many more examples.

            It's really about income, not race. Poorer people care about different things than people with more money. Although my understanding is that the poor care a lot more about recreation centers than the unpoor, who are more likely to be members of private gyms, have facilities in their multiunit buildings, etc.

             

            As far as how real estate development and politics works in the city, there's no better source than ch. 4 of _Dream City_.  And for general understanding of the broader arguments, the "City as a Growth Machine" thesis, first written by Harvey Molotch and then expanded into a book with John Logan, _Urban Fortunes: Towards a Political Economy of Place_ is probably the best discussion of land use intensification in the former and the use value of place (ch. 4) I think, in the latter.

             

            The poor have a much greater reliance on informal relationships. People with money just buy what they need.

             

            From my blog:

             

            Types of Use Values*

            Daily Round: The place of residence is a focal point for the wider routine in which one's concrete daily needs are satisfied.

            Informal Support Networks: Place of residence is the potential support of an information network of people who provide life-sustaining products and services.

            Security and Trust: A neighborhood also provides a sense of physical and psychic security that comes with a familiar and dependable environment.

            Identity: A neighborhood provides its residents with an important source of identity, both for themselves and for others. Neighborhoods offer a resident not only spatial demarcations but social demarcations as well.

            Agglomeration Benefits: A shared interest in overlapping use values (identity, security, and so on) in a single area is a useful way to define neighborhood.

            Ethnicity: Not infrequently, these benefits are encapsulated in a shared enthnicity... When this occurs, ethnicity serves as a summary characterization of all the overlapping benefits of neighborhood life.

            (* From chapter four of Urban Fortunes: Toward a Political Economy of Place.)  While not citing this work, in Root Shock Fullilove makes the same kinds of arguments on the destruction of community and social networks as a result of urban renewal.


            From: "whj@..." <whj@...>
            To: southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com
            Cc: "southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com" <southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com>; "columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com" <columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com>; South Columbia Heights <southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com>; "AdamsMorgan@yahoogroups.com" <adamsmorgan@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Monday, April 1, 2013 12:25 AM
            Subject: [columbia_heights] Re: [southcolumbiaheights] David Alpert's Smart Growth Fraud?

             

             

             

            Alpert is exploiting the non-attributed quote for his own purposes to justify secondary priorities as serious community development, by attempting to take a moral and ethical high ground that does not exist. And hiding being race to do it.  I can't hold a city employee accountable if I don't know who he or she is.

             

            Alpert is no different than any other special political interest, my challenge with GGW is that supports undermining community participation. And ducks the hard work of equitable neighborhood development. Basically telling communities not to believe their lying eyes.

             

            The irony of it all is that Whites are being taken advantage of by the smart growth fraud as Blacks.

             

            -----Original Message-----
            From: "Byron Tau" <byron.tau@...>
            Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 10:17pm
            To: "southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com" <southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com>
            Cc: "columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com" <columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com>, "South Columbia Heights" <southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com>, "AdamsMorgan@yahoogroups.com" <AdamsMorgan@yahoogroups.com>
            Subject: Re: [southcolumbiaheights] David Alpert's Smart Growth Fraud?

             

            I love how Dave Alpert is the target of your ire when you have a city official that said:

            "White liberals in D.C. don’t give a [expletive] about social services because they’re not of that element"

            But it's Dave Alpert that's the problem with DC.


            Sent from my iPhone


            On Mar 31, 2013, at 8:28 PM, whj@... wrote:

            David Alpert's recent piece, "‘White liberals’ vs. D.C. social services?",  published by the Post is typical of what I call the Smart Growth or New Urbanist Fraud.  While rhetorically implying with Smart Growth we can progressively have it all, on the ground as in Columbia Heights Alpert and others aligned themselves with pay-to-play real estate interests seeking to undermine carefully planned and fought for neighborhood amenities whether parks, adequate parking resources, social services or maximized public transportation. As we now know from the WMATA and DC Board of Ethics reports, CM Graham abused his public office council seat, Metro Board seat and not focused on in the reports Council committee oversight of DDOT and WMATA, for his (Graham's) personal political interests.  My experience as an activist and ANC commissioner Alpert instead of working with the Columbia Heights community to achieve the full promise of so called Smart Growth, worked instead to gain political favor with CM Graham to force pet projects such as half-baked Performance Parking on Columbia Heights. And used his blog to at best to distort at worse deliberately misinform his readers about the issues facing Columbia Heights and communities struggling with the tough issues involved in neighborhood development.

             

            For example, one of the few issues in Columbia Heights which brought together Black, White, Latino, all income levels, renters, owners, residents and businesses was the need for adequate neighborhood parking and parking plans.  With the 1000 space DCUSA garage and 200 spaces at Giant, Columbia Heights was positioned to leverage parking as unifying resource instead Alpert and his ilk has pushed parking as an issue to divide the Columbia Heights community surrounding neighborhoods.  In fact, in working the various issues of development and racial, ethnic and income diversity in the heart of Columbia Heights, I can't think of one time that Alpert as been a positive influence in resolving the issues is has written about in the article.  Instead, has taken advantage to various neighborhood divisions push pet projects and score cheap political points.  Typically in his blog community members who fight for development balance are portrayed as NIMBYs.

             

            Alpert's piece is a fraud, we can't have it all at once with Smart Growth or whatever you call it.  Priorities need to be set, often there are no simple or easy answers. His piece is about justifying and exploiting  differences to sneak in pet projects and perpetuating a smart growth fraud.

             

            William

             

             

             

             

             

             

             

             

             

             

             

             

             

             

             

             

             

             

             

             

             

             

             






          • Richard Layman
            FWIW, regional commute times are irrelevant to DC residents.  DC resident commute times are relevant to DC residents.  DC resident commute times are at about
            Message 5 of 8 , Apr 2, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              FWIW, regional commute times are irrelevant to DC residents.  DC resident commute times are relevant to DC residents.  DC resident commute times are at about the national averages, which are significantly less than the regional average in the Washington Metropolitan area.


              From: "elizabeth@..." <elizabeth@...>
              To: columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Monday, April 1, 2013 11:59 PM
              Subject: RE: [columbia_heights] Re: [southcolumbiaheights] David Alpert's Smart Growth Fraud?

               
              It is definitely about class, but also about age, and “investment” in the social fabric of a community.
              Pandering to the new demographics with desired amenities is short sighted.
              We already regionally have the worst commutes and air quality, so how is allowing sacred
              “market forces” to force people with lower incomes out going to improve the quality of life for all?
               
               
              From: columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com [mailto:columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Layman
              Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 6:38 AM
              To: columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [columbia_heights] Re: [southcolumbiaheights] David Alpert's Smart Growth Fraud?
               
              I think both you and David make the mistake of thinking the issues are race-based, when the specific issues are mostly about money and income and therefore class.  This was my comment on the article:
               
              For what it's worth, Howard Gillette Jr. wrote a book on this verysame topic in 2006, with a much deeper period of analysis than the last couple years.
              but there are many more examples.
              It's really about income, not race. Poorer people care about different things than people with more money. Although my understanding is that the poor care a lot more about recreation centers than the unpoor, who are more likely to be members of private gyms, have facilities in their multiunit buildings, etc.
               
              As far as how real estate development and politics works in the city, there's no better source than ch. 4 of _Dream City_.  And for general understanding of the broader arguments, the "City as a Growth Machine" thesis, first written by Harvey Molotch and then expanded into a book with John Logan, _Urban Fortunes: Towards a Political Economy of Place_ is probably the best discussion of land use intensification in the former and the use value of place (ch. 4) I think, in the latter.
               
              The poor have a much greater reliance on informal relationships. People with money just buy what they need.
               
              From my blog:
               
              Types of Use Values*

              Daily Round: The place of residence is a focal point for the wider routine in which one's concrete daily needs are satisfied.

              Informal Support Networks: Place of residence is the potential support of an information network of people who provide life-sustaining products and services.

              Security and Trust: A neighborhood also provides a sense of physical and psychic security that comes with a familiar and dependable environment.

              Identity: A neighborhood provides its residents with an important source of identity, both for themselves and for others. Neighborhoods offer a resident not only spatial demarcations but social demarcations as well.

              Agglomeration Benefits: A shared interest in overlapping use values (identity, security, and so on) in a single area is a useful way to define neighborhood.

              Ethnicity: Not infrequently, these benefits are encapsulated in a shared enthnicity... When this occurs, ethnicity serves as a summary characterization of all the overlapping benefits of neighborhood life.

              (* From chapter four of Urban Fortunes: Toward a Political Economy of Place.)  While not citing this work, in Root Shock Fullilove makes the same kinds of arguments on the destruction of community and social networks as a result of urban renewal.

              From: "whj@..." <whj@...>
              To: southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com
              Cc: "southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com" <southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com>; "columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com" <columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com>; South Columbia Heights <southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com>; "AdamsMorgan@yahoogroups.com" <adamsmorgan@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Monday, April 1, 2013 12:25 AM
              Subject: [columbia_heights] Re: [southcolumbiaheights] David Alpert's Smart Growth Fraud?
               
               
               
              Alpert is exploiting the non-attributed quote for his own purposes to justify secondary priorities as serious community development, by attempting to take a moral and ethical high ground that does not exist. And hiding being race to do it.  I can't hold a city employee accountable if I don't know who he or she is.
               
              Alpert is no different than any other special political interest, my challenge with GGW is that supports undermining community participation. And ducks the hard work of equitable neighborhood development. Basically telling communities not to believe their lying eyes.
               
              The irony of it all is that Whites are being taken advantage of by the smart growth fraud as Blacks.
               
              -----Original Message-----
              From: "Byron Tau" <byron.tau@...>
              Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 10:17pm
              To: "southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com" <southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com>
              Cc: "columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com" <columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com>, "South Columbia Heights" <southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com>, "AdamsMorgan@yahoogroups.com" <AdamsMorgan@yahoogroups.com>
              Subject: Re: [southcolumbiaheights] David Alpert's Smart Growth Fraud?
               
              I love how Dave Alpert is the target of your ire when you have a city official that said:
              "White liberals in D.C. don’t give a [expletive] about social services because they’re not of that element"
              But it's Dave Alpert that's the problem with DC.

              Sent from my iPhone

              On Mar 31, 2013, at 8:28 PM, whj@... wrote:
              David Alpert's recent piece, "‘White liberals’ vs. D.C. social services?",  published by the Post is typical of what I call the Smart Growth or New Urbanist Fraud.  While rhetorically implying with Smart Growth we can progressively have it all, on the ground as in Columbia Heights Alpert and others aligned themselves with pay-to-play real estate interests seeking to undermine carefully planned and fought for neighborhood amenities whether parks, adequate parking resources, social services or maximized public transportation. As we now know from the WMATA and DC Board of Ethics reports, CM Graham abused his public office council seat, Metro Board seat and not focused on in the reports Council committee oversight of DDOT and WMATA, for his (Graham's) personal political interests.  My experience as an activist and ANC commissioner Alpert instead of working with the Columbia Heights community to achieve the full promise of so called Smart Growth, worked instead to gain political favor with CM Graham to force pet projects such as half-baked Performance Parking on Columbia Heights. And used his blog to at best to distort at worse deliberately misinform his readers about the issues facing Columbia Heights and communities struggling with the tough issues involved in neighborhood development.
               
              For example, one of the few issues in Columbia Heights which brought together Black, White, Latino, all income levels, renters, owners, residents and businesses was the need for adequate neighborhood parking and parking plans.  With the 1000 space DCUSA garage and 200 spaces at Giant, Columbia Heights was positioned to leverage parking as unifying resource instead Alpert and his ilk has pushed parking as an issue to divide the Columbia Heights community surrounding neighborhoods.  In fact, in working the various issues of development and racial, ethnic and income diversity in the heart of Columbia Heights, I can't think of one time that Alpert as been a positive influence in resolving the issues is has written about in the article.  Instead, has taken advantage to various neighborhood divisions push pet projects and score cheap political points.  Typically in his blog community members who fight for development balance are portrayed as NIMBYs.
               
              Alpert's piece is a fraud, we can't have it all at once with Smart Growth or whatever you call it.  Priorities need to be set, often there are no simple or easy answers. His piece is about justifying and exploiting  differences to sneak in pet projects and perpetuating a smart growth fraud.
               
              William
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               





            • mailinnercity
              Metro commutes are significant if lower income residents are relocated to the far suburbs where rents are lower, while their jobs are still in DC. From:
              Message 6 of 8 , Apr 2, 2013
              • 0 Attachment

                Metro commutes are significant if lower income residents are relocated to the far suburbs where rents are lower, while their jobs are still in DC.

                 

                From: columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com [mailto:columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Layman
                Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 7:08 AM
                To: columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [columbia_heights] Re: [southcolumbiaheights] David Alpert's Smart Growth Fraud?

                 




                FWIW, regional commute times are irrelevant to DC residents.  DC resident commute times are relevant to DC residents.  DC resident commute times are at about the national averages, which are significantly less than the regional average in the Washington Metropolitan area.

                 


                From: "elizabeth@..." <elizabeth@...>
                To: columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Monday, April 1, 2013 11:59 PM
                Subject: RE: [columbia_heights] Re: [southcolumbiaheights] David Alpert's Smart Growth Fraud?

                 

                 

                It is definitely about class, but also about age, and “investment” in the social fabric of a community.

                Pandering to the new demographics with desired amenities is short sighted.

                We already regionally have the worst commutes and air quality, so how is allowing sacred

                “market forces” to force people with lower incomes out going to improve the quality of life for all?

                 

                 

                From: columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com [mailto:columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Layman
                Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 6:38 AM
                To: columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [columbia_heights] Re: [southcolumbiaheights] David Alpert's Smart Growth Fraud?

                 

                I think both you and David make the mistake of thinking the issues are race-based, when the specific issues are mostly about money and income and therefore class.  This was my comment on the article:

                 

                For what it's worth, Howard Gillette Jr. wrote a book on this verysame topic in 2006, with a much deeper period of analysis than the last couple years.

                but there are many more examples.

                It's really about income, not race. Poorer people care about different things than people with more money. Although my understanding is that the poor care a lot more about recreation centers than the unpoor, who are more likely to be members of private gyms, have facilities in their multiunit buildings, etc.

                 

                As far as how real estate development and politics works in the city, there's no better source than ch. 4 of _Dream City_.  And for general understanding of the broader arguments, the "City as a Growth Machine" thesis, first written by Harvey Molotch and then expanded into a book with John Logan, _Urban Fortunes: Towards a Political Economy of Place_ is probably the best discussion of land use intensification in the former and the use value of place (ch. 4) I think, in the latter.

                 

                The poor have a much greater reliance on informal relationships. People with money just buy what they need.

                 

                From my blog:

                 

                Types of Use Values*

                Daily Round: The place of residence is a focal point for the wider routine in which one's concrete daily needs are satisfied.

                Informal Support Networks: Place of residence is the potential support of an information network of people who provide life-sustaining products and services.

                Security and Trust: A neighborhood also provides a sense of physical and psychic security that comes with a familiar and dependable environment.

                Identity: A neighborhood provides its residents with an important source of identity, both for themselves and for others. Neighborhoods offer a resident not only spatial demarcations but social demarcations as well.

                Agglomeration Benefits: A shared interest in overlapping use values (identity, security, and so on) in a single area is a useful way to define neighborhood.

                Ethnicity: Not infrequently, these benefits are encapsulated in a shared enthnicity... When this occurs, ethnicity serves as a summary characterization of all the overlapping benefits of neighborhood life.

                (* From chapter four of Urban Fortunes: Toward a Political Economy of Place.)  While not citing this work, in 
                Root Shock Fullilove makes the same kinds of arguments on the destruction of community and social networks as a result of urban renewal.


                From: "whj@..." <whj@...>
                To: southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com
                Cc: "southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com" <southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com>; "columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com" <columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com>; South Columbia Heights <southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com>; "AdamsMorgan@yahoogroups.com" <adamsmorgan@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Monday, April 1, 2013 12:25 AM
                Subject: [columbia_heights] Re: [southcolumbiaheights] David Alpert's Smart Growth Fraud?

                 

                 

                 

                Alpert is exploiting the non-attributed quote for his own purposes to justify secondary priorities as serious community development, by attempting to take a moral and ethical high ground that does not exist. And hiding being race to do it.  I can't hold a city employee accountable if I don't know who he or she is.

                 

                Alpert is no different than any other special political interest, my challenge with GGW is that supports undermining community participation. And ducks the hard work of equitable neighborhood development. Basically telling communities not to believe their lying eyes.

                 

                The irony of it all is that Whites are being taken advantage of by the smart growth fraud as Blacks.

                 

                -----Original Message-----
                From: "Byron Tau" <byron.tau@...>
                Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 10:17pm
                To: "southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com" <southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com>
                Cc: "columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com" <columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com>, "South Columbia Heights" <southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com>, "AdamsMorgan@yahoogroups.com" <AdamsMorgan@yahoogroups.com>
                Subject: Re: [southcolumbiaheights] David Alpert's Smart Growth Fraud?

                 

                I love how Dave Alpert is the target of your ire when you have a city official that said:

                "White liberals in D.C. don’t give a [expletive] about social services because they’re not of that element"

                But it's Dave Alpert that's the problem with DC.


                Sent from my iPhone


                On Mar 31, 2013, at 8:28 PM, whj@... wrote:

                David Alpert's recent piece, "‘White liberals’ vs. D.C. social services?",  published by the Post is typical of what I call the Smart Growth or New Urbanist Fraud.  While rhetorically implying with Smart Growth we can progressively have it all, on the ground as in Columbia Heights Alpert and others aligned themselves with pay-to-play real estate interests seeking to undermine carefully planned and fought for neighborhood amenities whether parks, adequate parking resources, social services or maximized public transportation. As we now know from the WMATA and DC Board of Ethics reports, CM Graham abused his public office council seat, Metro Board seat and not focused on in the reports Council committee oversight of DDOT and WMATA, for his (Graham's) personal political interests.  My experience as an activist and ANC commissioner Alpert instead of working with the Columbia Heights community to achieve the full promise of so called Smart Growth, worked instead to gain political favor with CM Graham to force pet projects such as half-baked Performance Parking on Columbia Heights. And used his blog to at best to distort at worse deliberately misinform his readers about the issues facing Columbia Heights and communities struggling with the tough issues involved in neighborhood development.

                 

                For example, one of the few issues in Columbia Heights which brought together Black, White, Latino, all income levels, renters, owners, residents and businesses was the need for adequate neighborhood parking and parking plans.  With the 1000 space DCUSA garage and 200 spaces at Giant, Columbia Heights was positioned to leverage parking as unifying resource instead Alpert and his ilk has pushed parking as an issue to divide the Columbia Heights community surrounding neighborhoods.  In fact, in working the various issues of development and racial, ethnic and income diversity in the heart of Columbia Heights, I can't think of one time that Alpert as been a positive influence in resolving the issues is has written about in the article.  Instead, has taken advantage to various neighborhood divisions push pet projects and score cheap political points.  Typically in his blog community members who fight for development balance are portrayed as NIMBYs.

                 

                Alpert's piece is a fraud, we can't have it all at once with Smart Growth or whatever you call it.  Priorities need to be set, often there are no simple or easy answers. His piece is about justifying and exploiting  differences to sneak in pet projects and perpetuating a smart growth fraud.

                 

                William

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 



                 




              • whjmela
                I must say that I m a little surprised that Richard is ducking the public policy and ethical consequences of the Smart Growth Fraud as we know it in DC. On
                Message 7 of 8 , Apr 3, 2013
                • 0 Attachment

                   

                  I must say that I'm a little surprised  that Richard is ducking the public policy and ethical consequences of the Smart Growth Fraud as we know it in DC.  On the ground of the Smart Growth Fraud you have the gentrification industry basically ripping off both the so called "New Demographic" as well the so called "Old Demographic" code for ripping of Black, White, Latino at all income levels.  And paying off our politicians via hyper play-to-play to subsidize the rip-off.

                   

                  I can't tell you the number of fairly well educated young people I've met, living in a group houses in Columbia Heights renting a room, paying more rent than I used to pay a 1 bedroom apartment.  Working for the government or a non-profit carrying student loan debt.  Then being forced to move once they want settle down here, because living here is so expensive and bar hopping is no longer enough.  Or those of greater means spending 10's of thousands of extra a year to build a bubble world around their family so they can live in diverse urban community.

                   

                  The alliance between some in the Smart Growth community and the gentrification pay-to-play machine is ripping off community and the public in the name of Smart Growth.  While some smart growth principles have value in theory, on the ground it's become a con.  And you know its a con, because my senior citizen neighbor pays more in property tax each year than Donatelli Development pays for Highland Park and Park Place combined sitting over to Metro Stations.  Our the government gives LaKriz and Alder a $2M loan to open a CVS, like there is a shortage of CVSs in DC. This is why Alpert is hiding behind race.

                   

                  William

                   

                   

                   

                   

                   

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: elizabeth@...
                  Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 8:02pm
                  To: columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: RE: [columbia_heights] Re: [southcolumbiaheights] David Alpert's Smart Growth Fraud?



                  Metro commutes are significant if lower income residents are relocated to the far suburbs where rents are lower, while their jobs are still in DC.

                  From: columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com [mailto:columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Layman
                  Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 7:08 AM
                  To: columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [columbia_heights] Re: [southcolumbiaheights] David Alpert's Smart Growth Fraud?

                   




                  FWIW, regional commute times are irrelevant to DC residents.  DC resident commute times are relevant to DC residents.  DC resident commute times are at about the national averages, which are significantly less than the regional average in the Washington Metropolitan area.


                  From: "elizabeth@..." <elizabeth@...>
                  To: columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Monday, April 1, 2013 11:59 PM
                  Subject: RE: [columbia_heights] Re: [southcolumbiaheights] David Alpert's Smart Growth Fraud?

                  It is definitely about class, but also about age, and “investment” in the social fabric of a community.

                  Pandering to the new demographics with desired amenities is short sighted.

                  We already regionally have the worst commutes and air quality, so how is allowing sacred

                  “market forces” to force people with lower incomes out going to improve the quality of life for all?

                  From: columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com [mailto:columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Layman
                  Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 6:38 AM
                  To: columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [columbia_heights] Re: [southcolumbiaheights] David Alpert's Smart Growth Fraud?

                  I think both you and David make the mistake of thinking the issues are race-based, when the specific issues are mostly about money and income and therefore class.  This was my comment on the article:

                  For what it's worth, Howard Gillette Jr. wrote a book on this verysame topic in 2006, with a much deeper period of analysis than the last couple years.

                  but there are many more examples.

                  It's really about income, not race. Poorer people care about different things than people with more money. Although my understanding is that the poor care a lot more about recreation centers than the unpoor, who are more likely to be members of private gyms, have facilities in their multiunit buildings, etc.

                  As far as how real estate development and politics works in the city, there's no better source than ch. 4 of _Dream City_.  And for general understanding of the broader arguments, the "City as a Growth Machine" thesis, first written by Harvey Molotch and then expanded into a book with John Logan, _Urban Fortunes: Towards a Political Economy of Place_ is probably the best discussion of land use intensification in the former and the use value of place (ch. 4) I think, in the latter.

                  The poor have a much greater reliance on informal relationships. People with money just buy what they need.

                  From my blog:

                  Types of Use Values*

                  Daily Round: The place of residence is a focal point for the wider routine in which one's concrete daily needs are satisfied.

                  Informal Support Networks: Place of residence is the potential support of an information network of people who provide life-sustaining products and services.

                  Security and Trust: A neighborhood also provides a sense of physical and psychic security that comes with a familiar and dependable environment.

                  Identity: A neighborhood provides its residents with an important source of identity, both for themselves and for others. Neighborhoods offer a resident not only spatial demarcations but social demarcations as well.

                  Agglomeration Benefits: A shared interest in overlapping use values (identity, security, and so on) in a single area is a useful way to define neighborhood.

                  Ethnicity: Not infrequently, these benefits are encapsulated in a shared enthnicity... When this occurs, ethnicity serves as a summary characterization of all the overlapping benefits of neighborhood life.

                  (* From chapter four of Urban Fortunes: Toward a Political Economy of Place.)  While not citing this work, in
                  Root Shock Fullilove makes the same kinds of arguments on the destruction of community and social networks as a result of urban renewal.


                  From: "whj@..." <whj@...>
                  To: southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com
                  Cc: "southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com" <southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com>; "columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com" <columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com>; South Columbia Heights <southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com>; "AdamsMorgan@yahoogroups.com" <adamsmorgan@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Monday, April 1, 2013 12:25 AM
                  Subject: [columbia_heights] Re: [southcolumbiaheights] David Alpert's Smart Growth Fraud?

                  Alpert is exploiting the non-attributed quote for his own purposes to justify secondary priorities as serious community development, by attempting to take a moral and ethical high ground that does not exist. And hiding being race to do it.  I can't hold a city employee accountable if I don't know who he or she is.

                  Alpert is no different than any other special political interest, my challenge with GGW is that supports undermining community participation. And ducks the hard work of equitable neighborhood development. Basically telling communities not to believe their lying eyes.

                  The irony of it all is that Whites are being taken advantage of by the smart growth fraud as Blacks.

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: "Byron Tau" <byron.tau@...>
                  Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 10:17pm
                  To: "southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com" <southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com>
                  Cc: "columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com" <columbia_heights@yahoogroups.com>, "South Columbia Heights" <southcolumbiaheights@yahoogroups.com>, "AdamsMorgan@yahoogroups.com" <AdamsMorgan@yahoogroups.com>
                  Subject: Re: [southcolumbiaheights] David Alpert's Smart Growth Fraud?

                  I love how Dave Alpert is the target of your ire when you have a city official that said:

                  "White liberals in D.C. don’t give a [expletive] about social services because they’re not of that element"

                  But it's Dave Alpert that's the problem with DC.


                  Sent from my iPhone


                  On Mar 31, 2013, at 8:28 PM, whj@... wrote:

                  David Alpert's recent piece, "‘White liberals’ vs. D.C. social services?",  published by the Post is typical of what I call the Smart Growth or New Urbanist Fraud.  While rhetorically implying with Smart Growth we can progressively have it all, on the ground as in Columbia Heights Alpert and others aligned themselves with pay-to-play real estate interests seeking to undermine carefully planned and fought for neighborhood amenities whether parks, adequate parking resources, social services or maximized public transportation. As we now know from the WMATA and DC Board of Ethics reports, CM Graham abused his public office council seat, Metro Board seat and not focused on in the reports Council committee oversight of DDOT and WMATA, for his (Graham's) personal political interests.  My experience as an activist and ANC commissioner Alpert instead of working with the Columbia Heights community to achieve the full promise of so called Smart Growth, worked instead to gain political favor with CM Graham to force pet projects such as half-baked Performance Parking on Columbia Heights. And used his blog to at best to distort at worse deliberately misinform his readers about the issues facing Columbia Heights and communities struggling with the tough issues involved in neighborhood development.

                  For example, one of the few issues in Columbia Heights which brought together Black, White, Latino, all income levels, renters, owners, residents and businesses was the need for adequate neighborhood parking and parking plans.  With the 1000 space DCUSA garage and 200 spaces at Giant, Columbia Heights was positioned to leverage parking as unifying resource instead Alpert and his ilk has pushed parking as an issue to divide the Columbia Heights community surrounding neighborhoods.  In fact, in working the various issues of development and racial, ethnic and income diversity in the heart of Columbia Heights, I can't think of one time that Alpert as been a positive influence in resolving the issues is has written about in the article.  Instead, has taken advantage to various neighborhood divisions push pet projects and score cheap political points.  Typically in his blog community members who fight for development balance are portrayed as NIMBYs.

                  Alpert's piece is a fraud, we can't have it all at once with Smart Growth or whatever you call it.  Priorities need to be set, often there are no simple or easy answers. His piece is about justifying and exploiting  differences to sneak in pet projects and perpetuating a smart growth fraud.

                  William






                   



                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.