Riemer has received tremendous publicity in local media for several years regarding changes he has suggested in county and state liquor regulations. None of those reports indicated that Riemer had received a campaign contribution from at least one liquor license attorney. Riemer's initial proposals did not address public concerns such as the inability to purchase beer and wine at grocery stores in the county, but were more related to expanding the number of people eligible to obtain liquor licenses in the county, and being able to serve liquor without food in county establishments. Now, in this latest interview, Riemer is talking about getting the county out of the business altogether. Which I would welcome. In any case, it's been known for some time that the councilman is eager to change liquor regulations.
Fast forward to immediately after the reports aired. Hans Riemer conveniently was the only county councilmember interviewed for the follow-up report. I'm sure Roger Berliner, Marc Elrich or Nancy Floreen or any other number of councilmembers would have something to say about stolen liquor, and county employees allegedly drinking and driving. But they did not appear. No details have been given so far, but the rapid TV appearance suggests that Riemer was known to the reporters prior to the day the reports aired.
So to get back to the question of, "What did they know, and when did they know it," the News 4 report says the I-Team was following the trucks for several weeks. I think what the taxpayers have a right to know is, when was it known that County DLC drivers were allegedly drinking on the job, and stealing and reselling liquor? Before Election Day, or after? When was Hans Riemer alerted to these findings by News 4 - before Election Day, or after?
If the scandal had become public prior to Election Day, it would have been damaging to Mr. Riemer, County Executive Ike Leggett, and any other council incumbent on the ballot, as each one of them has oversight authority over the DLC.
What was the timeline?
92 comments:
DUN DUN DUN.
No, seriously, I think the county should get out of the distribution business and continue loosening other archaic laws concerning alcohol, but the idea this "scandal" is anything more than a couple of delivery guys committing a misdemeanor is beyond absurd.
The notion this "scandal" could possibly have affected someone's (much less tens of thousands of people's) vote is absurd, even more absurd is the libelous implication that councilmembers knowingly covered up this "scandal." This is soooo desperate of you, Dyer. Even more so than usual.
8:38 Glad you think it's not a big deal - so I assume if Mr. Riemer says this is worthy of a criminal investigation, then you'd agree bigger deals like Farm Road and the Silver Spring Transit Center deserve one, too. We don't know what Hans Riemer knew prior to Election Day; that's why I'm asking the questions.
Does anyone else suspect that this little fantasy culminates in the entire County Council resigning en masse on August 9, 2016?
As the headlines apprear in rapid succession on the teletype machine...
So he went on TV after the elections and it didn't affect voting. What's the issue here?
So if he had said it before the elections - what's the significance? I'm not sure I follow your implication in your blog post. Would it have been better or worse for his campaign? What's the questions about whether he knew before or not that this investigation was under way and talked about it on tv before or after the elections have anything to do with each other? Maybe in sense but can you make the connection explicitly? And how it matters? Thanks! Just don't follow. Not being a dick.
1:19: The issue is that going public with this right after the election did affect voting. And that, on his oath of office, Councilmember Riemer was required to report this matter to the public and authorities as soon as he was made aware of it.
1:28: I appreciate the civil response. The issue is that Mr. Riemer is required to report criminal activity involving taxpayer funds and resources to the public, and to the police, immediately. If he knew this before November 5, and kept quiet until November 6 about it, he has violated his oath of office and did it for political gain. It's something that can be quickly cleared up by Mr. Riemer and News 4 sharing the exact timeline of how this investigation went down. What did Mr. Riemer know, and when did he know it? And was there a specific reason why this story was run just after the election. It's highly relevant, because Mr. Riemer and the Council have oversight authority over the DLC. Such a revelation would have damaged the incumbents in the election. If we are a top county for open data, how could the DLC have missed the missing cases of beer? Again, that specifically would have hurt Mr. Riemer's claim to be a tech and data guru.
11:21: Only councilmembers who knew this was going on at DLC, and kept it from the public until after the election, would be in a position of having to resign.
12:51: Got to warn you to cease and desist with these type of harassing, cyberbullying and libelous comments. You are in violation of the comment policies of this website, and of Google's terms of agreement, as well as the law. Final warning.
Where does it list this requirement?
What would have happened it he reported it before elections?
Why would it have hurt the incumbents? I thought all of the incumbents were against the idea of county selling liquor? as a voter of this came out before elections it would have supported my vote to clean it up.
What's the hurt to a claim of a tech and data guru?
...so Dyer's implying - without any proof, mind you - that county councilmembers not only knew about this random employee drinking on the job, but went out of their way to strongarm the press into covering up the story until after the election? W...t...f...?
I'd love for Riemer to come back one of these days and just accuse Dyer of random, baseless shit. Not that he has any idea who Dyer is, but if he did, that'd be hilarious.
Dyer: you didn't even run a campaign. Why are you so butthurt over losing?
10:02: The requirement is right here, in the Oath of Office:
" I, _______________, do swear, (or affirm, as the case may be,) that I will support the Constitution of the United States; and that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of Maryland, and support the Constitution and Laws thereof..."
- Article 1, Section 9 of the Maryland Constitution
What would have happened if he had reported it before the election? First, law enforcement could have taken action against the suspects. Second, the voters would have been aware that county elected officials had failed to execute their oversight duties over the DLC, and would have factored that into their voting decisions.
10:04: I agree about the need to clean up corruption. But why would you vote for the elected officials who allowed it to happen on their watch?
10:04: The claim of being a tech guru hurts when the DLC you oversee doesn't have the basic electronic inventory records even Mom and Pop shops have today. Hurts when the government you oversee is caught still using Windows 2000 4 years after you were elected. Hurts when your political operative is rewarded with a $150,000 puff position and uses "tech" to run 95% of county food trucks out of business. And hurts when you are caught trying to preserve and help the tired county taxi service, while damaging innovative new apps like Uber and Lyft, and make them more expensive to use. Some tech "guru!"
10:44 OK, so when did Hans Riemer know about the criminal activity?
I never said he "strong-armed" the press. The question is, when did he know about the DLC crimes - before or after Election Day? The press can explain separately why they chose November 6 as the day to go public with the story.
Everything I've pointed out here is fact. You can't just make things up. Based on the facts of the story as I outlined them, it appears likely that both the TV station and Mr. Riemer were working on this story prior to Election Day. The big question is, why aren't reporters asking about the timing of this?
I didn't run a campaign? Where have you been the last 8 months?
I get your gist but that oath is a bit vague. Is there a rule requiring timing of reporting known infractions that anyone broke? Some guideline on reporting?
Also as a voter I would have seen it is a great sign if they had reported this before the election and done something about it and it would have increased my chances of voting for these guys that you said have been advocating against moco alcohol control already.
Paper inventory: yeah, terrible.
Windows 2000: as a tech person I would rather this than spend the money on windows 8. ;) but in all seriousness i get it, but where does the money come to pay for these upgrades? Upgrading OS will require upgraded hardware too. And for what? What are these county employees running? Maybe if the report said windows XP I might be more complacenct but yeah, windows 2000.... Crazy indeed. But what's the plan vs just saying they have old equipment?
What is the $150,000 puff position?
What "tech" did he use to run food trucks out of the county?
what is the county doing that is damaging new apps like Uber? I love Uber, and am not aware of the county making this harder for me to use. And as an Uber lover and taxi hater, I understand the need for fairness in regulation -or- deregulation.
I'm just asking. No formed opinions yet. Appreciate your upcoming fact based insights, Bobby. Thanks!
Shit happen under everyone's watch. While that's not an excuse, acting upon it, solving the problem, and advocating better changes and policies is generally construed as a good thing.
So yeah, unless this happened because of these guys or he allowed it to happen without effort, I consider trying to clean up the system a good thing.
Bob the problem people have with you is this.
Yes there's a lot of facts here. The news reported it after the elections. Reimer was the ony one interviewed. Corruption happened during his tenure. Etc.
But then you inject a huge heaping of conjecture and opinion attached to it. So while you have great news and scoops all the time that are factual, you put so much personal opinion and bias in that it slants your blog towards opinion versus news.
Which is fine of course, but then when people ask you about it you get very defensive about it. Insisting you are only reporting news, and that your opinion is the only correct answer.
Combining a defensive personality which nobody likes and tends to on vote bullying and ridicule (which we are seeing) and combining fact and opinion and presenting it as fact only can cause a lot of people to not like you. At all.
So that's why we are here today.
I hope you don't get discouraged and do continue to keep posting wonderful news, scoops, and opinion pieces. But please learn a bit about marketing yourself. Being like able may not be a requirement, but if you want to play this game (as evidenced by your continued posting and campaigns) then you have to be a lot more like able and not so stand-offish.
Bob is asking the tough questions. And reporting like only a life long Bethesda resident can.
Oh absolutely he asks good questions. But he is terrible at taking them.
And a good morning to you too, Ellison.
Who is Ellison? My name is Tom and I wrote that.
10:37 What question haven't I taken?
6:13 It did happen because of "these guys." Mr. Riemer's personal political operative was appointed Chief "Innovation" Officer, and is paid $150,000 per year to implement high-tech operations and increase efficiency. Mr. Riemer has claimed to be a national leader in data and tech. Yet, 4 years later, DLC is using paper forms and can't keep track of its own inventory? That is the council's fault.
6:05 Which part of "supporting the laws" do you find vague? Finding out Hans Riemer had presided over corruption facilitated by his oversight failure would make you vote for him?
6:20: You are advocating cyberbullying? That tells us something right there. What is the conjecture? I presented the facts, and now the question is, What did he know and when did he know it? Only Hans Riemer can answer that question. You seem to suggest that not criticizing the government is the only acceptable journalism. That might be so in China and Cuba, but not here. People want to know the facts of what's going on, not read a press release.
Brad, Chief Innovation Officer is the newly created puff position. He implemented a new system that kept food trucks from operating in the most profitable locations. There are 3 new bills pending that will make it far more expensive for Uber to operate, and thereby raise Uber's prices for you. For millennials, that indeed could restrict their use of Uber.
1:29: You've been warned about engaging in harassment and cyberbullying on this website.
Actually the chief innovation officer's position I find to be a great idea. Their open data initiatives helps with the idea of open government, gives entrepreneurs access to data, and breeds innovation, etc. Great for government and for business, wouldn't you say? Why do you say it's a puff position?
What is the system that kept food trucks from operating in profitable locations?
What is the legislation that will make Uber more expensive?
What is the law that directly applies in this situation? The exact law that you say he is breaking?
Oh no one says you don't take the questions. Just that you take them poorly. ;)
It's hilarious how he posts lengthy replies to comments that he deleted.
Who needs context, anyway?
Who is advocating cyber bully? Just explaining why no one likes you is why they post this idiotic crap in your comments.
Conjecture is insinuating Reimer had information he withheld prior to the election so that it would help his campaign. I'm not saying he didn't, but you sure as heck think he's guilty without response, investigation, or due process. Simply accusation. That's not journalism at all.
2:31 Based on your idea, anyone who defends himself is behaving poorly. Facts are stubborn things you can't wish away or delude yourself about - try as you might.
3:29 You acknowledge the comments are "idiotic crap." We're making progress. Only Hans Riemer and News 4 know the timeline - but the evidence points to a cover-up. Based on your definitions of conjecture and journalism, Nixon would never have resigned.
2:29 There could be several, but the one I'm pointing to at the moment is Article 1, Section 9 of the state Constitution.
Brad, I believe the duties of that position already fell under several existing positions in county government. We have high school students who could provide more coding innovation on a voluntary/internship basis. Food trucks were put under a new online map/social media system, which restricted their movement but ostensibly would help customers find them in the approved locations. 90% of food trucks in the county ceased operation within months of the change, and DC-based trucks no longer venture past the DC line. Seen the Red Hook Lobster truck at Bethesda Row recently? The legislation re: Uber are bills 53-14, 54-14, and 55-14.
So now News 4 is in on the conspiracy? Wow.
You just do it in a childish madman kinda way that plays poorly with readers, media, etc. Hence the reputation. Hence the attacks. Hence the fact we are even having this conversation.
Can you be more specific? What exactly does the rule state and how is he violating it (you're guess that he is, anyway, since all this is conjecture), and what are the legal requirements and processes? Not sure any of us (you and me included) have the legal understanding to actually pass judgement on this. Perhaps someone can help chime in to support bob's claim with legal perspective and expertise?
You mean circumstantial evidence? Without trial and evidence and facts and a case, etc.?
Sure it may sound fishy, but you insist that's the only possibility?
I've always said many of your commentors are idiots. I've posted that many times before. But you stoop to their level way too much. And if you think winning that battle is a positive...
"90% of food trucks in the county ceased operation within months of the change, and DC-based trucks no longer venture past the DC line"
The wheels are on the verge of coming off. And I'm not talking about the food trucks.
Which positions had the duty of the technological advances MoCo has made recently?
You seem to be the expert - what are the general points of 53-14, 54-14, and 55-14
What is the food truck map system? Would love to see it.
How does it force them to only operate in areas that hurts them? Do they *have to use the system only and are they forced into certain areas only? Were the areas they were in before places where they were legally operating?
@ 4:59 PM [Dyer Standard Time]
The food trucks website isn't even run by the County. It's run by the trucks themselves.
http://www.bethesdanow.com/2013/05/06/montgomery-county-food-trucks-start-website/
http://www.MocoFoodTrucks.com
It's funny how he has never mentioned this alleged suppresion of food trucks in Montgomery County, until now. There was no mention of this supposed issue in his coverage of the food truck rally in Westbard several weeks ago.
Bob is this the site you are talking about?
Here are summaries of the provisions of bills 53-14, 54-14 and 54-14.
They don't say what he claims that they do. Not in the slightest.
http://www6.montgomerycountymd.gov/Apps/Council/PressRelease/PR_detailsnew.asp?PrID=14205
Second instance of "54-14" should be "55-14", obviously.
If I read this correctly, it lowers regulation on taxis to be more fair with Uber. It adds some licensing to Uber to be more fair with taxis. What's the big problem here? Sounds like trying to level the playing field and be more fair to me?
So what does the council or tech officer have to do with that site and how is it they hurt good trucks?
@ 5:40 PM - That's how I read it. Attempting to create a level playing field by reducing the barriers to entry that protect Barwood's monopoly, and at the same time, promoting uniform regulation of car-for-hire services.
5:40, 6:27 The devil is in the details. Sure, the council is selling these bills as "leveling the playing field." The reality is quite different.
The bills do *not* do anything to allow Uber access - Uber already has access and has been operating here for quite some time. The bills do add new operating expenses that will be passed along to Uber customers ultimately. That will make Uber less competitive, not more.
At the same time, old-school taxis only gain from these bills. Ironically, while one Uber selling point is late-model vehicles, one bill allows Barwood to operate older vehicles. Riemer's bill requires an Uber-style online service to be created at taxpayer expense to help Barwood.
If Barwood wants to be Uber, they can change their business model.
There's no clamor in the public of Montgomery County to crack down on Uber. Residents are using Uber and prefer it to Barwood.
Is anyone on here actually joining the Council in defending taxis over Uber?
4:51: If you can read the English language, then Maryland Constitution should be straightforward for you. What part of upholding the laws don't you understand?
4:59, 5:03 et al: You seem to be confusing the online data and food truck "efforts" by the county with the private website. Please see the following links regarding county funds, personnel and resources expended on the food truck "reform":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MhNgQGV9og
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy8TrtIgE5U
In 2012, DPS said there was nothing the county could do to stop food trucks if not illegally parked. Then the innovation officer got involved, and most of the food trucks that used to be in downtown Bethesda ceased operations, or stayed in DC. You can go down to Mazza Gallerie at lunch and see them still going just over the DC line. It shows that the new county policy is more restrictive than DC's. So much for attracting millennials to work and live in the county (although the bigger problems remain lack of high-wage job growth and affordable housing).
It's pretty well known that food trucks are one of the things that millennial workers want. Yet the trucks are no longer stopping regularly in downtown Bethesda spots where the greatest demand was. Are you going to join with the government in opposing the "vibrant urban area" vibe that food trucks supposedly provide?
So a company that is already operating now is doing so without following existing rules and regulations that apply to other companies. Most generally agree that it's not fair, so they try to lower regulations for the regulated company and bring the unregulated company into some degree of compliance. Sounds like a pretty straight forward practical and reasonable attempt to me?
I'm a resident and I am all for a fair resolution. Whether that's unregulating taxis, regulating Uber, or meeting somewhere in the middle - which Montgomery County seems to try to be doing.
Yes, Uber costs might go up - but mind you they are currently operating unregulated in a regulated industry. I'm sure a whole lot of other industries could sell products and services cheaper if there weren't rules and regulations around it.
I don't think the issue is "defending" taxis - simply making things more fair for all parties involved.
I love Uber, but I agree it should be fair for all parties who are playing the same game (which Uber and Barwood are).
5:10 Pretty simple, actually. The Westwood Shopping Center event was on private property, not public streets. Food trucks often work events like that in the county. I'm talking about lunchtime on public streets in downtown Bethesda. Where'd they all go?
It's a simple, straightforward question. What laws did the Councilmen not uphold?
Tom, I think there's a significant distinction between Uber and Barwood. Uber is a ride-sharing service, and Barwood is a taxi for-hire.
A true balancing act would allow Uber to be hailed by pedestrians. They're not allowing that. But Uber is not even asking for that. In fact, Uber has grown a successful company without turning to the taxpayer for funding.
I don't see government crippling a successful ride-sharing business model, and giving breaks and taxpayer funds to taxis, as fair. It's a classic example of why companies don't move to Montgomery County. Again, I know a lot of people who use Uber, and they don't use taxis anymore. None of them have expressed desire to have government crack down or Uber, nor a desire to pay higher rates to use Uber.
The only complaint I've heard about Uber is from taxi companies - what a surprise.
If Barwood wants to be Uber, they can change their business model and be an Uber competitor - at their own expense.
8:13: Did you watch the News 4 reports? Allegedly stealing and reselling county inventory, and drinking and driving, open container, etc.
"Allegedly stealing and reselling county inventory, and drinking and driving, open container, etc."
The Councilmen did those things? LOLwut??
Hi Bob, please don't be a jerk. I'm simply asking which law specifically did he break?
--
You allege Reimer is in violation of Article 1, Section 9 of the Maryland Constitution because he intentionally withheld an earlier knowledge of the scandal before the scandal?
This is an allegation by you, yes or no?
Is there a specific law he allegedly broke, yes or no?
Is there proof that he allegedly broke a law, yes or no?
Have you brought this proof to the proper authorities, yes or no?
Is there a specific punishment listed for the alleged law that he broke, yes or no?
--
Sure, he may very well have done what you say, but until proven otherwise, this is still just your implied, unconfirmed, circumstantial, biased, opinion.
You may be reporting many true facts, but the allegation of impropriety is simply your opinion. That part is strictly and unequivocally *not* fact. So please be honest and separate the two.
I don't see significant difference between "ride-sharing service" and "taxi for-hire". It's a vehicle that picks me up from A and drops me off at B, for which I pay for that service.
Correct, Uber is not asking to be exactly equal to Barwood, and if they did they would surely face ALL of the same regulations that Barwood faces. So no, no one is seeking a true balancing act - only to make it "more" fair for all parties involved.
What is it that the government would do that would "cripple" Uber? What are you suggesting the goverment would be doing in a "crack down" of Uber?
Let's just ask ourselves this basic question. Do we think a transportation service should be regulated and to what degree?
-
There are plenty of complaints about Uber as well as taxis. Uber isn't perfectly (taxis certainly aren't).
Tom, actually "Anonymous" was asking for a distinction. Are you Anonymous?
I've presented the evidence, and hopefully the media will do their job and investigate. You do realize violating an Oath of Office, at minimum, results in being removed from said office?
Bob: "Pretty simple, actually. The Westwood Shopping Center event was on private property, not public streets. Food trucks often work events like that in the county. I'm talking about lunchtime on public streets in downtown Bethesda. Where'd they all go?"
And you're saying they aren't there any more because the government disallowed them to be there?
Can you provide a source that explains that? And was there a valid reason?
8:31 Users of Uber clearly feel that safety and insurance regulations are adequate now. What is the impetus for government to step in? Where is the mass call for these bills? I've only heard the taxi companies and their paid PR firm Chesapeake demanding these changes.
Bob, there are a lot of people writing in as anonymous. Surely you understand that, right? I do it often times too when I'm too lazy to enter more info - but given we are having a direct dialogue I'm taking the effort to make this thread more identifiable for conversation sake. We are, after all, just having a conversation.
If the facts you presented in your article are all you have, it's certainly all circumstantial. Do you agree to that?
Does the oath specifically say "you must report any known crime immediately to the authorities with 0 minute delay under penalty of removal of office"?
And besides, that's still an allegation you're implying he knew beforehand.
Tom, there wasn't anything announced publicly, beyond the Innovation Officer's statements regarding finding sites where they should operate. Truck operators mentioned on Twitter several times they were threatened, and told to move at some regular spots downtown, but the county never made a public announcement about that as I recall.
So the users finding safety adequate is enough?
What about drugs? Food safety? product safety?
Sure, government can get overly heavy handed with regulation, but just saying that the user of a given product finds it safe enough isn't always the best or only answer.
Do you agree to that, yes or no?
Bob: "Tom, there wasn't anything announced publicly, beyond the Innovation Officer's statements regarding finding sites where they should operate. Truck operators mentioned on Twitter several times they were threatened, and told to move at some regular spots downtown, but the county never made a public announcement about that as I recall."
Bob: "Hurts when your political operative is rewarded with a $150,000 puff position and uses "tech" to run 95% of county food trucks out of business."
--
So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that "Mr. Reimer had some unfair connection to the unnecessary position of Chief Innovation Officer who used technology to force food trucks out of business in the county."
Yet you say there is no evidence towards your claim? Only that truck drivers on twitter claimed they were "threatened" and by whom?
8:37 Hans and News 4 can easily resolve the questions by giving us the timeline. There's plenty of evidence to suggest this matter was known prior to Election Day.
Tom, I don't think county politicians were dumb enough to publicly state they were eliminating food trucks from downtown Bethesda streets, even as they claim they seek millennials to move/work here. The proof is that they aren't around their old spots at lunchtime anymore.
Bob: Tom, I don't think county politicians were dumb enough to publicly state they were eliminating food trucks from downtown Bethesda streets, even as they claim they seek millennials to move/work here. The proof is that they aren't around their old spots at lunchtime anymore.
That's circumstantial at best, hardly proof.
And what would the motives be anyway?
Again, are you claiming that News 4 was part of some sort of "cover-up"? Please answer "yes" or "no".
Bob: "Hans and News 4 can easily resolve the questions by giving us the timeline. There's plenty of evidence to suggest this matter was known prior to Election Day."
I think most everyone in Montgomery County could guess that DLC was shady and stupid prior to election day. That's hardly evidence.
What you're saying is that there's a possibility Hans knew beforehand, and if he did, he should have said something as soon as possible, is that correct, yes or no?
And please if you could answer the yes or no questions presented it would be really helpful to understand your point of view, which many of us are desperately trying to do.
Some commenters aside. Yes we know there are idiot commenters out there. No not all anonymous commenters are the same person. No not all anonymous commenters (or anyone with an opposition opinion as yours) are "political operatives" or work for opposing blogs and news sites as you often suggest.
From the Washington Post:
"How does the losing side cope
after Election Day is over?
How does the losing side cope after Election Day is over? David Catania stopped taking calls; Carol Schwartz danced. Others have gotten angry or even vulgar."
And some have gone bat-bleep crazy. Too bad you can't follow Carol Schwartz's example.
8:53/Tom, Yes, I'm saying if he knew, he should have reported it to the public and the appropriate authorities. The public was not aware of these specific alleged crimes prior to Election Day.
9:25: How is asking questions based on credible evidence "crazy?"
Ok so you are saying "if" - that's a big if. And that's the part folks are saying is not "fact".
So any and all improprieties that happened during Robert Dyer's blog reporting that he potentially might have known about in advance - Robert didn't report them right away! So what's to do now?
What is your evidence again?
2:39: Hence the need to find out. Given the evidence, it's a small "if."
3:40: I'm not an elected official, and have not taken an Oath of Office. I don't have oversight authority
You allegedly tried. There certainly was poor evidence of that.
Bob: 4:59, 5:03 et al: You seem to be confusing the online data and food truck "efforts" by the county with the private website. Please see the following links regarding county funds, personnel and resources expended on the food truck "reform":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MhNgQGV9og
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy8TrtIgE5U
In 2012, DPS said there was nothing the county could do to stop food trucks if not illegally parked. Then the innovation officer got involved, and most of the food trucks that used to be in downtown Bethesda ceased operations, or stayed in DC. You can go down to Mazza Gallerie at lunch and see them still going just over the DC line. It shows that the new county policy is more restrictive than DC's. So much for attracting millennials to work and live in the county (although the bigger problems remain lack of high-wage job growth and affordable housing).
It's pretty well known that food trucks are one of the things that millennial workers want. Yet the trucks are no longer stopping regularly in downtown Bethesda spots where the greatest demand was. Are you going to join with the government in opposing the "vibrant urban area" vibe that food trucks supposedly provide?"
Thanks for the further clarification. So you say that once the innovation officer got involved, the food trucks "coincidentally" stopped coming. But you have no hard evidence of the reason? Other than "funny timing"? Like your questions about the councilman's role in the liquor scandal? "Funny timing" seems to be your only so called "evidence". That's hardly proof.
Post a Comment