[RP TownTalk] Cafritz Vote

Tue Jul 10 18:18:25 UTC 2012

One of the most unpleasant things as an elected official is to read postings
that indicate that we are not listening.  I went back through my emails
because I remembered a very similar posting with similar sentiments (elected
officials not listening nor caring) in reference to the discussion about
Jey's Auto on 9/14 and 9/15.  I apologize for the repetition but I will
reemphasize what I attempted to communicate then on that issue:  I am
listening, I do take serious consideration of all viewpoints, and I never
assume my position is the right or correct one.  

Anyone who knows me understands that rather than shy away from conflict and
disagreement, I welcome it.  I try to surround myself with people whose
viewpoints are not necessarily the same as my own.  Be it my business
partners who are all Republicans to friends around town whose council I
sought on the Cafritz question (although I knew they were vehemently opposed
to the project); voices of opposition are healthy and necessary.

It is unfortunate that the Council's position on this question was seen that
this was a done deal - it wasn't - at least from the single vote I cast.  I
had very clearly communicated to the developers what it would take to get a
Yea vote and up until the last day or two before we voted that had not
materialized.  I voted Yes because the Developers acquiesced on key and
critical components of the negotiation.  I cannot speak for the rest of the
Council but I saw no indication from those that voted that their positions
were any different.  We would have voted to support the project in
November/December vs. giving up our holiday seasons to sit in almost nightly
meetings and negotiations if this was all a forgone conclusion.  

As I communicated last September, what people have to say on complex issues
does matter and will have an impact.  The first two things you learn when
sitting at the dais is that you never make everyone happy and that
disagreements are healthy in a democracy.  Over the last year there have
been some very public and very heated arguments between myself and my
colleagues.  This is not because anyone is right or wrong but because we
hold different viewpoints that each of us believe the facts support.  We as
a body however, have been very successful in arguing and defending our
viewpoints while still finding paths of compromise.  

In the Cafritz question, there is no right or wrong, winners or losers.  No
one at this particular point knows with absolutely certainty what the
outcome will be.  It seems that my call for continued involvement is seen as
disingenuous - it is not.  I will continue to encourage skeptics to stay
involved, to hold the developer accountable on the legally binding
restrictions, and provide the town leadership with continued input and
critiques of how the development should interface with RP.  People have
brought up very valid points in terms of other projects that had challenges,
successes etc.  One project's success or failure does not necessitate
another's.  It comes down to rudimentary execution of fundamentals and
learning from, not ignoring, other projects failures.  If people become
disengaged from the project it has a greater chance of being a failure,
something I hope none of us would wish for.

Yesterday in comments in the Washington Post article someone very clearly
indicated that our Council should be investigated for taking bribes and we
probably have opted out of Maryland Ethics Laws (which we haven't).  As a
public figure the recourse against defamation is limited; to win a
libel/slander case the statement must be made knowing it is false with
reckless disregard to its truth.  This one single issue however is what
keeps many good people from ever seeking elected office and performing this
very important public service.  It is entirely inappropriate to even hint at
impropriety regardless of the actions of others in the County or surrounding
states.   Argue a point, defend the merits of a belief, but no one should
have to defend their name or have their reputation sullied through veiled
accusations because of a disagreement or vote - it demeans the entire
community.

I did not vote for the project because of a dearth of ethics,  I voted for
it because I found logic in the zoning ordinance that supports the technical
arguments for rezoning ( my analysis can be seen here:
http://riverdalepark.patch.com/articles/chapter-five-cafritz-district-counci
l-hearing-picks-up-again-monday#pdf-9850200 ).  I only came across the
research after listening and considering the position the opposition to the
project used to support their argument.  

I hope many of you will either stay or get motivated to participate in the
next phases.  As always my door is always open for suggestions, criticism,
or comments.  Fair warning though, I love a good debate! J

Jonathan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20120710/355b793f/attachment.html>