All comments to posts have to await approval. Please be aware that, depending on when I'm logged onto the internet, it may take me hours, even longer, to moderate comments, so if they don't turn up in a speedy fashion, they are still in the queue. Comments that cross a line I'm not comfortable with will not get approved. NOTE: Comments reflect the opinions of the person writing them and should not be assumed to reflect the opinion of the blog.
Saturday, June 1, 2013
Garodnick Fails to Answer Pivotal Questions and Gets Thanked For It
So, our councilman, Dan Garodnick, was publicly asked a couple of pointed questions on the TA Facebook page, amid a soft-ball one. The soft ball one he answered, but as to these others: "Why did you not scream from the rooftops cautioning fellow neighbors and constituents not to sign the agreement? Did you really believe that the 'fine print' was an altruistic attempt on the part of CW to show that they were somehow forced to add a statement about raising rents but would not?".... Well, in true politician/lawyer fashion, he requested that the rest of the conversation be held in private, between the questioner and himself. His response elicited a sincere thank you from the questioner, "grateful" for "all your hard work."
And so it goes.
UPDATE: Monday, June 3.
Our councilman was asked the question below in the aforementioned TA thread, Sunday morning. So far, no response.
Dan: Don't you think the Roberts attorneys - who were supposed to be representing tenants and their interests - should be called to account? The final "deal" the tenants' attorneys agreed to was, obviously, highly flawed and has now backfired on many in the Roberts class, while the attorneys enriched themselves. I know this may be a tad uncomfortable for you, given that you aligned yourself with the attorneys in this class action, but it is high time to discuss inconvenient truths: The Roberts attorneys blew it...!