20 | January 12, 2012 ALEXANDRIA TIMESOur ViewCriminals haveit easy at City HallGovernment employees have a target on theirbacks as the country wades slowly out <strong>of</strong> recession.Secure public sector jobs and guaranteedpensions anger people struggling to make livinglocally and nationally. A lot <strong>of</strong> that anger isunjustified; most public employees are everydayAmericans just trying to make a living too.But in <strong>Alexandria</strong>, where criminals have infestedCity Hall, anger is warranted — and changeis necessary.The City <strong>of</strong> <strong>Alexandria</strong> saw eight <strong>of</strong> its employeesarrested for an array <strong>of</strong> malfeasance in 2011.Taxpayers paid the salaries <strong>of</strong> eight people — ateacher obsessed with child pornography, a drunkdrivingpolice <strong>of</strong>ficer and embezzlers, to name afew — who broke the law and abused their <strong>trust</strong>.With a local unemployment rate <strong>of</strong> 4.5 percentand a national rate <strong>of</strong> 8.5 percent, plenty <strong>of</strong> lawabidingpeople would love to work for <strong>Alexandria</strong>taxpayers. And the issue is not only moral, butmonetary. Replacing disgraced employees costsstaff time and residents greenbacks. No one wins.But City Manager Rashad Young has a chanceto declare victory. He has inherited this serious,threatening problem, and fixing it could be part <strong>of</strong>his local legacy — if he takes action.Eight employees being arrested in one yearpoints to two problems: a reputation for leniency(<strong>Alexandria</strong> City Hall is the place to go if delinquencyis your desire) and a crisis in the hiringdepartment (the vetting process is broken). Oneformer employee, Timothy Wanamaker, was underinvestigation for stealing $30,000 from the Buffalo,N.Y. government while working at City Hall.Taxpayers paid for a consultant to do a backgroundcheck on Mr. Wanamaker that turned up clean.It took the <strong>Times</strong> a few hours and a few phonecalls to prove his reputation was questionable atthe time <strong>of</strong> his hire in <strong>Alexandria</strong>.Mr. Young must institute new hiring practiceswith more checks and balances. He was broughthere at a salary <strong>of</strong> $245,000 to make the localgovernment more efficient. If he does not take proactivemeasures, the embarrassing, wasteful anddistracting trend will only worsen.The answer is not more internal protectionsagainst embezzlement (new safeguards havealready been instituted). The answer is to nip theproblem in the nascent stages <strong>of</strong> the hiring process.To change culture at City Hall, Mr. Younghas an advantage: he’s new. He must put his footdown as an authoritative executive who will notaccept criminals on his team.Opinion“Where the press is free and every man is able to read, all is safe.”- Thomas JeffersonYour ViewsCovering Moran’s primary opponent is a waste <strong>of</strong> timeTo the editor:With the tough presidentialelection year facing <strong>Alexandria</strong>and America in 2012, itsurprises me the <strong>Times</strong> editorialwriters would think <strong>of</strong>diverting energy, money andresources to our local congressionalelection.Rep. Jim Moran (D-8)hasn’t been faced with a seriousprimary challenge in21 years because NorthernVirginia Democrats, independentsand thoughtfulRepublicans recognize theoutstanding and effective representationhe provides hisconstituency. An intransigentRepublican majority requireswe have Democrats acrossthe aisle who are experienced,knowledgeable, hard-workingand committed to the issuesand values <strong>of</strong> the 8th District.The editors should notforget Mr. Moran representsone <strong>of</strong> the most politically astutepopulations in the UnitedStates. If we don’t know whatwe are doing, no one does.Why should we waste our resources,in a presidential year,on an unnecessary diversionto consider — in a primarychallenge — an unpracticed,inexperienced, unelectablecandidate in Will Radle?Instead, leading institutionsthat want to advance ourgreat area will resist trivializingthe work <strong>of</strong> an intelligentrepresentative who is respectedby his colleagues and notchasing higher <strong>of</strong>fice. Competitionfrom credible, seriouscandidates is inherently good,but competition from trivial,frivolous candidates is notgood for the system. No doubtother opportunities will presentthemselves in the historicmonths ahead in which youcan assert thoughtful, matureand less capricious judgmentand leadership.- Susan L. Dawson<strong>Alexandria</strong>
ALEXANDRIA TIMES January 12, 2012 | 21Radle is wrong: Moran’s servicehas been exceptionalTo the editor:We were astounded to readthe negative and misleadingheadline, “Rep. Moran has donemore harm than good,” regardingCongressman Jim Moran inthe <strong>Alexandria</strong> <strong>Times</strong> on January5.Then we realized Mr. Moran’sopponent in the upcomingDemocratic primary wrote theopinion piece. The headline andarticle are patently absurd.Mr. Moran has served the8th District and its residentsand businesses admirably formore than 20 years. He hasTo the editor:As Aristotle said in “NicomacheanEthics,” “What is rightin matters <strong>of</strong> moral conduct isusually a mean between two extremes.”In the city’s case the twoextremes are an alternative waterfrontplan and the plan createdby City Hall. Hotels, asCity Hall defines their placeon the waterfront, would betoo intense. In the case <strong>of</strong> thealternative waterfront plan,having only parkland will costthe public a lot <strong>of</strong> money and Idon’t think residents are willingto take a tax hike during tougheconomic times.The compromise is to have ahigh-vibrancy area — set backfrom the waterfront so there isbeen a consistent advocate forfederal workers, promoted anenvironment friendly to job creationand tourism, and devotedhis time and efforts to make hisdistrict a great place to live andwork.We have lived in the districtand in <strong>Alexandria</strong> during hisservice as a councilman, mayorand in the U.S. House <strong>of</strong> Representativesand are proud toclaim him as our representative.- J. Howard andBetty Jo Middleton<strong>Alexandria</strong>Compromise for the common goodon the waterfronta continuous waterfront park —in the established commercialarea between Duke and Queenstreets, and for the North andSouth Robinson terminal sitesto have multifamily uses setbackfrom the waterfront (likeOronoco Bay Park), so there isa continuous park along the waterfront.This would give RobinsonTerminal parcels valuewhile helping to mitigate thecost <strong>of</strong> the parks. It also wouldcreate a continuous park alongthe waterfront.It is the city’s job to makethis compromise work. Hopefullythe city council can votefor the common good.- Chris Hubbard<strong>Alexandria</strong>Does personal financial gain trump citizens’interest?To the editor:From the moment I firstdrove down King Street,I have always loved OldTown — its historic streetsand architecture, the waterfrontalong the Potomacand the dog-friendly community.Recently, however, Ihave sadly become disenchantedwith how thistown is run. The waterfrontcontroversy made me realizehow unpleasant our localpolitical system reallyis. The fact that some <strong>of</strong>our council members havefull-time employment thatmight conflict with city decisionsis appalling. Evenmore worrisome, it is increasinglyapparent businessinterests appear to bedriving the decisions <strong>of</strong> thecity. Developer interestsappear to supersede those<strong>of</strong> taxpayers and votingresidents.Let’s look at what hasdriven and supported thecity’s proposed waterfrontplan, which involves rezoningto allow increaseddensity and hotels on ourwaterfront where neither islegally allowed. How didthis happen?First, the owners <strong>of</strong>the Robinson Terminalwarehouses sued our cityto force us to change thezoning. It seems they feltincreased construction densityand the approval <strong>of</strong>hotel development wouldallow them to earn a betterreturn when they sold theirwarehouses. Yet the RobinsonTerminal WarehouseCo. expert determined, ina letter to the <strong>Alexandria</strong>Planning Commission onApril 5, hotels were not viableon the waterfront. Despitethis finding, the proposedplan includes moredensity and allowance forhotels on <strong>Alexandria</strong>’s waterfront.The result? Businessinterests over those <strong>of</strong>residents.Second, a spurious andsmall group, known asWaterfront For All (probablybetter named as WaterfrontFor Business), beganto make noise in July,after hundreds <strong>of</strong> residentsrallied against the city’sproposed zoning changes.Which group claimsto have the best interests<strong>of</strong> “all <strong>Alexandria</strong>ns” atheart? The founders andsupporters <strong>of</strong> WaterfrontFor All are people whoown or are employed bybusinesses standing to benefitfrom waterfront overdevelopment:home builders,real estate developers,real estate agents, the PotomacRiverboat Co., localrestaurants and currentand past local Chamber <strong>of</strong>Commerce executives. Thegroup certainly has theright to support city plansthat will help its membersfinancially. But somethingis wrong when it misrepresentsits mission as one <strong>of</strong>residents’ interests as opposedto its financial interests.Finally, let’s look at thecomposition <strong>of</strong> the waterfrontplan work group, asappointed by the mayor. Itwas clear early on consensuswould not be reached:Four <strong>of</strong> the seven memberschosen by the mayor actuallywork for, or own, thefollowing types <strong>of</strong> firms:consultants in urban andlandscape planning/design,transportation consultingfor municipalities, real estatedevelopment, and realestate agents. The otherthree members, local residentswho opposed rezoning,are not affiliated withany business that couldbenefit from the proposedwaterfront redevelopment.Are business interestsoverriding those <strong>of</strong>our tax-paying and votingresidents? We have acity council election comingup. <strong>Alexandria</strong>ns, takenote.- Leigh Talbot<strong>Alexandria</strong>Waterfront For All? More like a waterfront for the businesses.To the editor:Two resident groups arebattling to influence <strong>Alexandria</strong>’swaterfront plan onwhich the city council plansto vote after a public hearingJanuary 21.One, the Citizens for anAlternative <strong>Alexandria</strong> WaterfrontPlan, has banded togetherbecause its members believethe waterfront is a publictreasure that should benefitall <strong>Alexandria</strong>ns. The groupoppose the emphasis the cityputs on commercialization <strong>of</strong>the waterfront (featuring threehotels and about 300 townhouses).CAAWP prefers anapproach emphasizing parks,open space, art and history.The second group, whichsupports the city’s plan, iscalled Waterfront For All. Butdo its supporters really meanwhat the name implies? Or isthe waterfront for the guests<strong>of</strong> high-priced boutique hotelsand the residents <strong>of</strong> expensivetown houses? The organization’smain activity seems tobe badmouthing opponents<strong>of</strong> the city’s plan. WaterfrontFor All has produced nothingcomparable to CAAWP’scomprehensive 200-page reportregarding the waterfront’sfuture.Bank rolling last September’slavish Waterfront For Allfete and the recent restaurantopen houses are people whostand to benefit financiallyfrom the proposed rezoning.If so, the organization is beingdeviously misleading incalling itself a resident grouprather than a lobby for real estatedevelopers.To dispel this impression,Waterfront For All <strong>of</strong>ficersand active supporters shouldpublicly pledge, like members<strong>of</strong> CAAWP are doing, thatnone has a financial stake inthe future <strong>of</strong> the area proposedfor rezoning. Their failure todo so would regrettably suggestthat ugly rumors circulatingaround town about conflict<strong>of</strong> interest are true.- Dennis Kux<strong>Alexandria</strong>
- Page 3 and 4: ALEXANDRIA TIMES January 12, 2012 |
- Page 5 and 6: ALEXANDRIA TIMES January 12, 2012 |
- Page 7 and 8: ALEXANDRIA TIMES January 12, 2012 |
- Page 9 and 10: ALEXANDRIA TIMES January 12, 2012 |
- Page 11 and 12: ALEXANDRIA TIMES January 12, 2012 |
- Page 13 and 14: ALEXANDRIA TIMES January 12, 2012 |
- Page 15 and 16: ALEXANDRIA TIMES January 12, 2012 |
- Page 17 and 18: ALEXANDRIA TIMES January 12, 2012 |
- Page 19: ALEXANDRIA TIMES January 12, 2012 |
- Page 23 and 24: ALEXANDRIA TIMES January 12, 2012 |
- Page 25 and 26: ALEXANDRIA TIMES January 12, 2012 |
- Page 27 and 28: ALEXANDRIA TIMES January 12, 2012 |