Comments on: Council Defers Vote on Affordable Housing Project Financing

By: Andy Rankin (Falls Church)

Andy Rankin (Falls Church) — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 00:44:54 +0000

Lou, I should have been more clear. I wasn’t weighing in on what makes a newspaper or whether or not the FCT is a newspaper. My only point was that some (most?) newspapers, like the Washington Post, allow anonymous comments associated with news articles published on their web sites. Just click into pretty much any article from the Post’s web site and you should see a comments box buried with all the other junk on the right side of the page. I’m not sure if the Post does any moderation at all.

TFC and Richard, yeah if the tax credit deadline was Friday and the FCHC hadn’t met the requirements to get the credits then they should be gone. Or, if there’s some mechanism for applying for an extension then that’s fine. During the Council meeting on Thursday it sounded to me like there was some wiggle room related to the tax credits and one person was in control of how much wiggle room there was – and that’s what seems odd to me.

By: Lou Mauro

Lou Mauro — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 21:16:22 +0000

Andy, as the word implies, a newspaper’s primary job is dissemination of NEWS. Newspapers are subject to traditional and well-settled journalistic standards of accuracy, fairness, civility and objectivity. Also, there is supposed to be a clear distinction between news and opinion. Whether and how often papers meet those standards is of course debatable. But the point is that no such standards or distinctions even exist for blogs. As for anonymity, I believe you will find that most papers permit anonymous letters to the editor only rarely, and then only upon request asked for and granted, as in “name withheld by request.” I agree that the standards are looser for online newspapers but I don’t think they should be.

By: Richard Donnelly

Richard Donnelly — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 18:48:13 +0000

Andy, I agree….It might be one guy, but I think when the entire program say “have it done by July 31st”….and we aren’t done by July 31st……that pretty much only takes one guy to say “nope, you couldn’t do it…DENIED!”

By: TFC

TFC — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 18:17:01 +0000

Andy, it may be that the State guy has been sitting with funds marked “maybe for Falls Church” for some time? At some point funds have to be awarded.

By: Andy Rankin (Falls Church)

Andy Rankin (Falls Church) — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 16:20:47 +0000

Lou, I’m not sure how being a Newspaper vs. a Blog makes a difference when it comes to anonymous comments. The Washington Post (which I think still qualifies as a newspaper) and probably most (if not all) other online newspapers allow anonymous comments.

Charlie, it seems like Mr. Webb could have voted for Mr. Kaylan’s proposal and it would have had the same impact (the FCHC would be faced with making the project happen under the original terms). I guess the VHDA guy was bluffing a little bit, in an attempt to get the City Council to accept the FCHC’s proposal. Either that or the Council’s strong message that they can’t decide on these things convinced him to give the FCHC some more time to find some funding.

I wish I understood how the VHDA’s tax credit program worked. At the council meeting the FCHC and the City Manager made it sound like one guy at the VHDA could decide to yank the FCHC’s credits. Is that how it really works? Shouldn’t there be something more concrete when it comes to how that decision is made?

It will be pretty surprising if things are still alive come August 9th and Mr. Webb decides to vote for the FCHC’s proposal – but I suppose anything is possible.

By: Ron Peppe (Falls Church City)

Ron Peppe (Falls Church City) — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 16:20:21 +0000

I actually think each council member voted yea or nay based on sincere but differing opinions about the project itself and the proposed change.

I was lobbied for days from people in the community and heard valid points pro and con. I made up my own mind after all putting that information together with the discussion and back and forth at the meeting. As I said at the meeting, I thought I was in the minority but decided to support the request anyway because I thought it would lead to a better outcome for the city than denying the request. I understand the positions of those who don’t agree with my own assessment of the merits of the request. I was as surprised as anyone that the motion to deny the request failed, but I would not change my vote just to be in the majority.

I would have preferred a straight vote up or down either way. I know people are sick of hearing me talk about process, but I think it generally works better when you deal with things by using motions to do something rather than motions to not do something. A vote on a motion to do something passes or fails and you are done with it. You accept the decision of the majority and you move on. When you start instead with a motion to not do something, you can be left as we were here with a majority saying no to “don’t do it” and yet not willing to say “do it.”

Ron

By: Richard Donnely

Richard Donnely — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 14:24:22 +0000

Linda, Thank you for the clarification, your facts help keep me honest! I appreciate the info.

By: TFC

TFC — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 11:46:07 +0000

It’s like the country music song about one more last chance. My sense was the Mayor was pushing to get a decision Thur night…up or down, just put a fork in it and be finished. It’s like George bus…it has one more last chance.

By: Charlie Anderson, City of Falls Church

Charlie Anderson, City of Falls Church — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 03:48:47 +0000

Webb’s position was pretty clear to me – he would vote against approval but by not voting for outright denial, he allows the FCHC to find their own funding, which they should have done in the first place. How amazing is it that FCHC would wait to mention an alternative funding source until 9:30 PM. It’s almost like they were saying “it’s easier to get it from council, but if we can’t, then we’ll do the work necessary to get the funding.” Continued “the sky is falling” cries from FCHC are eventually going to me met with a deaf ear from even its most staunch supporters on Council.

By: Lou Mauro

Lou Mauro — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 03:26:46 +0000

Editors:
Thank you for your explanation concerning JAC’s comment. I need to point out, however, that item 4 of your policy, which addresses anonymous comments, does not distinguish between offensive anonymous comments that are personal in nature and those that are not personal. The fact that an anonymous comment is non-personal should not save it from removal if it otherwise contravenes the higher standards by which your policy measures anonymous comments.
I understand and appreciate that implementing your editorial policy can involve “tough calls.” I urge you to keep in mind, however, that you are a newspaper and not a blog, and that anonymous comments should accordingly be strongly discouraged in general and specifically by strict enforcement of the policy standards that apply to them.
Thanks again.