Thursday, June 15, 2017

Equity Residential unveils plan for new high-rise near Bethesda Metro (Photos)

A resigned but dissatisfied group of neighbors listened to Equity Residential VP Ben Stoll describe the company's plans to build a new high-rise addition to the Edgemont. While connecting to the existing building, and its amenities, it will stand as tall as The Christopher condos next door. The addition will be built on the corner lot at Edgemoor Lane and Woodmont Avenue, currently occupied by a single-family house and garage.

A 150' building with 15 stories (really quite low in height, if you consider it's right across the street from a Metro station), the Edgemont II will still sit even with The Christopher, due to the grading of the land there. The project will add a new underground garage section with about 75 new spaces to serve the 175 new apartments. New residents will access their spaces from the existing garage ramp.

No new curb cuts will be needed, as the new building will share the existing loading dock access.

Stoll acknowledged the ghastly pedestrian environment currently found on that stretch of Woodmont between Old Georgetown Road and Hampden Lane. Dark and - with the exception of Cesco at the Newlands Building - bound by uninviting building facades and retaining walls, it is a monument to failed planning in Montgomery County. With no retail and only one restaurant, it is utterly unappealing for pedestrians after dark.

Alas, retail is not in the cards for the Edgemont II. Stoll blamed the narrow width of the building design for their decision to omit retail space. I certainly would like to hear the Planning Department's explanation if they don't press for retail frontage, because this building will lock down that block for decades to come.

What Stoll did promise, is to make other efforts to improve that horrible pedestrian experience. Construction could begin in two years, Stoll said, and the company plans to file its Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan in July.

Most attendees were from The Christopher, and many expressed concerns about the new building, and even aired out some beefs regarding the existing Edgemont. One unhappy camper who couldn't believe this addition would be allowed by the County asked, "Does anyone on the County Council live in Bethesda?"

(Answer: No.)

The most primary concern was the impact on views from The Christopher. "I bought this unit because of the view," one Christopher resident said. Stoll said the glass-heavy facade of the new building could be made opaque, so Christopher residents wouldn't have to see their new neighbors. Residents quickly pointed out that they were more concerned about the new residents watching them from their balconies and windows.

Loss of sunlight, and construction staging and noise were among the other concerns. But some are already annoyed by the existing Edgemont building, which they declared has an "ugly" roof and noisy "generators" and air conditioning apparatus.

155 comments:

Anonymous said...

Do you actually interview people in these buildings? Are they against you using their names? Just of curiosity, the only time you ever quote someone and use their name is for the Westbard protests.

Anonymous said...

Much better use of space so close to the metro. Surprised it's not taller.

Do people actually think they are guaranteed their views in perpetuity for some reason?

No retail is indeed a shame. Would the county even have any say in it though as you suggest?

Anonymous said...

I agree that the lack of ground floor retail is disappointing. The newly approved master plan for downtown Bethesda supports the development of groun floor retail and lively streetscapes, so I imagine that the Planning Department will require some sort of imaginative design feature/s to enhance the project.

With respect to the building height: Equity Residential has no doubt concluded that 15 stories is the correct size to realize its return objectives.

Robert Dyer said...

6:23: Translation: You don't have the report on this story; criticize the guy who does. Your claim that I never quote anybody is laughable. Every development story with public comment has quotes in it going back years on here. Pathetic, failed attempt at criticism.

6:31: No real say, just interesting if they don't follow their own words about smart growth and activating streetscapes (hardly the first time, though!). Also interesting if they just passed a plan that doesn't require it that close to Metro. The Board ought not to make these statements if they don't actually believe what they're saying.

6:45: True, but it's kind of hard to believe that a TD Bank, or another Berlin Wall here, are what the market is clamoring for steps away from Metro.

Anonymous said...

6:31 here. Can the council really do anything though if they don't have a say? What statements did they make? Thanks.

Anonymous said...

6:23 here, so you misread my statement and called me pathetic. Thanks soon to be councilman, you sure have my vote. The genuine question was you use quotes in your writing, but never mention a name or who you are quoting. I was just wondering if the tenants you interviewed didn't want their names used? You have admitted before you make up quotes because the post does and I was wondering if this was the case as well.

Robert Dyer said...

7:13: That's a troll talking point - "He never interviews anybody." "He never quotes anybody." Total hogwash. You're correct that many people don't want their name printed. Other times they do, or they're testifying live, and I will use their name. Either way, the news is what matters. I'm going to deliver the news, rather than chase people all over a building to get a name for a quote I've already got on paper.

Anonymous said...

So you admit you made up the quotes of the residents being upset.

Robert Dyer said...

No, I do not admit making up quotes. If there are quotes around a sentence, it is an exact quote.

At 7:13, you claimed I've "admitted before you make up quotes." Total BS, liar. If you don't stop lying about me, I'm going to start telling the truth about you.

Anonymous said...

"Ghastly...unappealing...horrible pedestrian experience"

More over-the-top moaning from Dyer. I walk that street regularly, and it's not anywhere near being that. It's certanly not Westbard. Not every single block in downtown needs to be retail from one end to the other.

Robert Dyer said...

7:47: You would probably find Checkpoint Charlie charming. Meanwhile, the rest of us don't like long stretches of dark streets and blank walls where future Purple Line MS-13 gangsters can hide and mug people. Smart growth and new urbanism are all about activating streets and encouraging people to walk around the neighborhood. If the County is just lying about that, they should come out and admit it.

Anonymous said...

Not sure I understand your last sentence. If the county is lying about what, the definition of smart growth?

Robert Dyer said...

Yeah, if the goal isn't new urbanism, but just allowing a lot of high density development with no real design considerations, they ought to have the guts to just come out and admit it.

Anonymous said...

N-I-M-B-Y

Anonymous said...

"Dark streets and blank walls where future Purple Line MS-13 gangsters can hide and mug people."

Have you seen a psychiatrist lately?

Have

Anonymous said...

A while ago Dyer was arguing that the building should have been taller. Not that I disagree, but I'm sure the Christopher residents would have loved to have heard that.

Anonymous said...

"If you don't stop lying about me, I'm going to start telling the truth about you."

Haha, you sure told him. While you're at it, why don't you tell the truth about me as well? I can't wait to hear how I'm a spy/intern for Hans Riemer and Bethesda Mag!

Anonymous said...

How much control does the county have on design considerations? What would you suggest that they could enforce? Thank you.

Anonymous said...

"it is a monument to failed planning in Montgomery County"

And what are Norfolk Ave. and Bethesda Ave. monuments to?

Anonymous said...

Dyer can't seriously believe that block is headed in that direction can he?

Anonymous said...

So it is ok to develop Wisconsin and Woodmont, but heaven forbid someone wants to develop Westbard. NIMBY

Roald said...

I'm surprised anyone would defend the current pedestrian experience along that part of Woodmont. It's literally a concrete canyon. This building will improve it.

I do think condo owners should have more influence about adjacent development. Renters can just move or change units while many condo owners have a long term investment.

Anonymous said...

This isn't North Korea, the Planning Board shouldn't be "forcing" anyone to include retail in their development, especially on this stretch of street. Yes, the county failed to create an active pedestrian street, but at this point its a lost cause, unless they tear everything down and start over.

You need a critical mass of foot traffic for retail to work. If this the development were to include street retail, it's almost certain it would be empty for years or be occupied by liquor stores and nail salons.

Dyer talks both sides of his mouth. Claims to be pro-business and constantly talks about Virginia, but thinks the council and planning commission should legislate every single minute detail of development.

Anonymous said...

"Renters can just move or change units while many condo owners have a long term investment."

The issue with that is condo owners won't compromise. They're only interested in maximizing the value of their own unit. They would literally prefer a vacant lot next door over any sort of improvement.

It never ceases to amaze me that condo owners purchase units in growing urban areas and expect adjacent parcels to be vacant or underutilized in perpetuity.

Elm said...

@ Roald, What are you complaining about with walking along Woodmont? I think its a fine walk other than the patrons of Woodmont Grill who will stand in the middle of the sidewalk. That isn't the sidewalks fault, that is the people's fault.

Anonymous said...

"the rest of us don't like long stretches of dark streets"

Woodmont Avenue was well-lit when I walked along it at nighttime just a few days ago.

It's funny hearing a guy who wanders around at 3 AM, complaining about "dark streets".

Anonymous said...

"I do think condo owners should have more influence about adjacent development. Renters can just move or change units while many condo owners have a long term investment." - Roald

I disagree completely. If it's not your property, you shouldn't have any extra say. No one guaranteed you a view.

Anonymous said...

Ezra Klein: "If Trump realized the damage he was doing to himself, he could perhaps stop doing it. But so long as he sees his problems as the product of an unfair “WITCH HUNT,” he will continue to see his reckless, enraged reactions as a reasonable response, and so will continue destabilizing his presidency."

Trump and Dyer are soulmates.

Roald said...

My point is that the SFH neighborhood home owners seem to have more sway than condo owners.

I think this development is fine.
Having buildings close is nothing new. The south side of The Chase (down the street from this new development) has obstructed views once The Edgemoor Condos went up years ago (for example). Both are still great buildings.

Anonymous said...

I agree this building is fine. Just a shame there is no retail or otherwise activated street scape.

Richard Moss said...

Exceptionally interesting comments by the handful of disturbed people whose purpose in life is to denigrate Robert Dyer for his informative and thoughtful news stories. They usually confine themselves to vulgar abuse. This time they assault him for pointing out the uninviting nature of this stretch of Woodmont Ave. Surely every single resident of Bethesda knows that Dyer is right on this point. Evidently these people would hurl abuse at Dyer if he claimed that 2 + 2 = 4.

Dick Fungus said...

You created a Google profile just for that one comment?

Richard Moss said...

No. But thank you for your interest in the minutiae of my life. Do you have a life? And why do you hide behind a pseudonym?

Anonymous said...

I've noticed the nasty, negative comments are always from "anonymous".

Meanwhile, face to face in the Bethesda community, I only hear positive things about Robert Dyer's site. And the folks who actually use their names here online are positive as well.

Interesting!

Anonymous said...

Face to Face, I have asked a few people and they have no idea who Dyer is other than a former candidate.

Dick Fungus said...

I don't care about "the minutia of your life". I simply clicked on your Blogger user profile.

Anonymous said...

Lots of groups I interact with separately know Dyer by his blog and appreciate his great local Bethesda news but dislike his politics.

Anonymous said...

One of these days, Dyer is going to slip up and refer himself in the third person while commenting under his own name.

Roald said...

Dyer always signs his comments.

Roald said...

I'm being impersonated again.

Dyer signs his comments... approximately 40% of the time.

Robert Dyer said...

12:00: They definitely don't dislike my politics. Not many disagree with me that we need responsible growth with the infrastructure needed to support it, reduced traffic congestion, and universal Pre-K to address the achievement gap at failing MCPS. Everyone was also in agreement that we should not have twentysomething men enrolled as freshmen at MCPS, regardless of their position on immigration. Everyone also agrees with me that the County should actually pick up the trash on Trash Day.

In fact, voters in Westbard immediately had voter's remorse just 10 days after the election in 2014, when they realized they were about to be steamrolled by Riemer, Berliner and Equity One.

Anonymous said...

Dammit, who is the real Roald.

Anonymous said...

The Christopher wants another single story bank next door.

Anonymous said...

A few responses to the comments above:

1. Dense development in downtown Bethesda (Metro, 12 WMATA bus lines, circulator bus) is very different than dense development at Westbard (2 bus lines, no Metro.) I support the former and feel that the latter should be scaled back. That's rational and fact-based, not NIMBYism.

2. Dyer: I tremendously appreciate his reporting on local issues, but don't agree with his very conservative politics. Sorry, Robert.

3. Thank you, Richard Moss, for a thoughtful and polite comment.

4. Woodmont Avenue near the rear entrance to the Metro is unappealing and sterile, something that is true of much of downtown Bethesda. Robert is correct that the new urbanism philosophy, which is an excellent one, relies on activating pedestrian and retail activity. One of the tactics-- an exciting one-- is streetscaping to create an appealing environment. Streetscaping, pedestrian activity and ground floor retail have been endorsed by the downtown Bethesda sector plan and should be implemented.

Anonymous said...

8:59 AM: are you the time-obsessed person who gets upset when people post or work in the wee hours? You need treatment for that, or need to get back on your meds. These comments suggest an unhealthy fear of the dark.

Anonymous said...

You're right. My friends and I don't dislike your politics. What were we thinking having an opinion that doesn't match yours.

Anonymous said...

4:21 PM - 8:59 AM here. The comment from Robert Dyer @ 7:55 AM suggests some really unhealthy fears:

"[I] don't like long stretches of dark streets and blank walls where future Purple Line MS-13 gangsters can hide and mug people."

Robert Dyer said...

4:14: Universal all-day Pre-K is a "very conservative" policy? Rent stabilization is a "very conservative" policy? Expanding MARC rail service is a "very conservative" policy? Requiring development to be tied to infrastructure is a "very conservative" policy?

Anonymous said...

4:21 - Nothing wrong with darkness. It's dark all the way from 5 pm to 7 am here in wintertime. It's wandering around randomly at 3 am on weeknights, when decent Bethesdians are in bed, or working overnight shifts, that's weird.

Anonymous said...

It seems comments simply stating they disagree with Dyer's politics and personality got deleted. So that answers the question if this site is a journalistic site or a campaign site.

Anonymous said...

Dyer lives in Bethesda, so he's not confined to covering it only within bankers hours.

Anonymous said...

5:41 - Given that advertising on this site is not labeled as such, combined with the confusion over whether it is a news site or a campaign site, creates a potential violation of campaign finance laws.

Anonymous said...

That's a really good question. What are the rules?

Robert Dyer said...

6:26: Advertising on this site IS labeled as such, moron. I am not currently a candidate for public office, so no campaign finance rules apply. I have always complied with the rules in my past campaigns, so you have no standing to make defamatory accusations.

If you keep lying about me, you'll force me to "tell the truth about you," specifically about an illegal action by Hans Riemer's political operative, Dan Hoffman, in 2010.

Robert Dyer said...

5:31: I realize you are a carpetbagger supreme, but there's no such word as "Bethesdians."

Anonymous said...

Please tell us about the illegal actions!!! If it is true, no worry about defamation or slander!

Anonymous said...

@7:03 Robert Dyer,

Why is your facebook page "Elect Robert Dyer to Council at Large" still active if you are not a candidate?

Anonymous said...

"If you keep lying about me, you'll force me to 'tell the truth about you,' specifically about an illegal action by Hans Riemer's political operative, Dan Hoffman, in 2010."

Breaking news - 7 years after it happens!

Anonymous said...

Did someone finally figure out Hoffman doesn't do anything and asked him to leave?

Anonymous said...

Some guy named Dan McHugh likes every single post that Dyer makes on that page.

Robert Dyer said...

7:11: I've kept it going since 2014 to stay engaged with my supporters.

7:22: I actually reported it many years ago on this blog.

7:25: He may be headed to Mexico to avoid prosecution. No word if he's taking the drones taxpayers paid for with him.

Anonymous said...

So instead of summarizing a report from 2010, you are going to make me search through your blog to find it? I have seen someone posting an old article from around them about climate change you wrote and it might just be easier to summarize it.

Robert Dyer said...

7:59: Short version is Mr. Hoffman used Randolph Hills Civic Association funds to mail out a "voters guide" to every home in Randolph Hills. In it, he wrote that I did not have the best interests of Randolph Hills in mind, without disclosing that he was a paid contributor to - and operative for - my opponent, Hans Riemer. That is illegal.

Anonymous said...

That's really interesting. If you can help clarify a few things. Thanks.

So he donated to Hans' campaign? Or was a paid contributor how so?

Was Mr. Hoffman on the association board and had authorization to use the funds from that point of view?

Just curious where does it say it's illegal? Not arguing it, but some further information would help vs just your say so.

Thank you, Robert.

Robert Dyer said...

8:52: He contributed to Hans' campaign, and an operative for his campaign. He was president of the civic association. You can't use civic association funds for a political mailer with endorsements of candidates, or conversely, to say residents shouldn't vote for a particular candidate. I'm sure the Board of Elections could quickly confirm what I'm saying is true about election mailers from civic associations.

Hoffman was rewarded by Hans for this, and his herding of support for the White Flint sector plan, with the $150K County government job.

Anonymous said...

"4:14: Universal all-day Pre-K is a "very conservative" policy? Rent stabilization is a "very conservative" policy? Expanding MARC rail service is a "very conservative" policy? Requiring development to be tied to infrastructure is a "very conservative" policy?"

Cherry-picking a handful of your moderate positions doesn't change your overall political disposition. You ardently support Trump. End of story.

Robert Dyer said...

9:18: That's a pretty big "handful." Too bad for you that The Seventh State said I was running to the left of the Council in 2014. The fact is that I don't fit into whatever box you want to try and put me into, which is why the Council hates debating me.

Anonymous said...

Why is it bad for 9:18 that Seventh State said that you were "running to the left of the Council" in 2014?

Anonymous said...

Robert is a scared racist he said MS 13 on a dark street.. Your a pussy Bob and a racist don't be scared of the purple line no one will find you in your moms basement sucker!!

Anonymous said...

Hi Robert, thanks for the follow up.

I did a bunch of Google searching which obviously isn't the end all but I can't find anything stating civic association funds can or cannot be used for a mailer?

On that note, are you saying that once someone has donated to a campaign of a specific candidate they can no longer state their opinion on another candidate in a publication that is paid for by civic association funds? Like say my HOA puts out a weekly newsletter, am I not allowed to say something about you if I have donated to your campaign?

Anonymous said...

What are his other policies? I can think of new highways and a Potomac River bridge. What else?

Anonymous said...

Robert, were you able to rebut Hoffman's claim that you don't/didn't have the best interests of Randolph Hills in mind? Or was his claim actually correct?

Did you report this illegal activity to the FBI? I assume that the statute of limitations would have expired in 2013.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Looks like Robert Dyer didn't write about this until November 2012, two years later:

http://robertdyer.blogspot.com/2012/11/montgomery-county-hire-of-political.html?m=1

"Hoffman wrote a misleading and negative statement about at least one of their challengers"

And Dyer didn't mention that he was the subject of that statement. Weird.

Anonymous said...

I think we can all agree that Hoffman abused his position on a neighborhood association to go after one candidate with a mailing to every home. It read like an attack piece, not information for voters.

Barwood Sucks said...

Sounds like some dirty play from Hans! Dyer 2018!!!

Anonymous said...

If I take was a positive take on one candidate, would that be abuse also? Curious.

Is this explicitly not allowed? Haven't seen anything that actually says that.

Anonymous said...

10:56 - What did Hoffman's mailing actually say?

Anonymous said...

Probably illegal to use civic association funds to send a mailer to every home attacking a particular candidate. Interesting that Hoffman handled the negative Dyer write up himself- Dan really took it personally.

Why not just list facts of where Dyer stood on issues?
Hoffman is like the anonymous negative troll here.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone happen to actually have a copy of it or know what it actually said not speculation?

Anonymous said...

Interesting...Dyer is the only candidate that had a negative attack by Dan Hoffman on the document.

Anonymous said...

Probably or certainly? Anywhere to see the actual law being violated? Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Allegedly, we don't actually know if he was the candidate he mentioned or not.

Anonymous said...

1:38 PM Not sure if the illegal, but definitely improper. I think we can all agree on that.

Glad he's leaving government after accomplishing so little.

Anonymous said...

Hey, Dyer - what does this mailer from 2010, which you mentioned very obliquely in 2012 and again today - actually say?

Are you the one who's engaging in a crime, through scurrilous hearsay?

Anonymous said...

10:56 AM, 11:05 AM, 12:08 PM, 13:38 PM, 12:48 PM, 2:04 PM -

Hey Dyer, you coward hiding behind the keyboard - sign your own name and cite a direct quote from that mailer.

Anonymous said...

It was scurrilous for Dan to send a flyer out attacking one candidate with incorrect information and claim others are sparkling. There was no way for Dyer to respond to the lies.

Isn't this the type of election dirty tricks that people abhor? A suspicious flyer to homes with incorrect information. MoCo is better than that.

Anonymous said...

2:56 PM I wrote a few of those & I'm not Dyer. The flyer went out to the entire neighborhood and was indeed scurrilous (great word for it!).
I think this is what used to be called election "dirty tricks".

Anonymous said...

2:56 PM Dyer had it exactly right above:

Dyer wrote: "Short version is Mr. Hoffman used Randolph Hills Civic Association funds to mail out a "voters guide" to every home in Randolph Hills. In it, he wrote that I did not have the best interests of Randolph Hills in mind, without disclosing that he was a paid contributor to - and operative for - my opponent, Hans Riemer."

I verified this with a copy of the flyer I obtained. The way it was written it is clear Dan had something personal against Dyer and it doesn't disclose his conflict of interset. I mean, the star rating system, Dan? Weird.

Anonymous said...

How come none of Robert Dyer's supporters can provide a direct quote from that flyer?

Weird.

Anonymous said...

It doesn't really matter what he wrote unless it's illegal. No one has yet to have provided evidence that it is illegal.

Anonymous said...

Hey, 2:58, you reloaded and typed that amazingly fast. What was "suspicious" and "incorrect" about that flyer? No one, including Dyer himself, has posted the actual content of it.

Anonymous said...

Hans is your father. He is your boss. He owned you in competition. He had many, many thousands more votes than you. You didn't even give him a competition. Bow down to him.

Anonymous said...

The worst of Dan Hoffman with his election dirty tricks.

He might as well have written "I heart Hands Reamer. 4 stars. Two thumbs up, way up!"

Anonymous said...

Why are Dyer and his bots suddenly obsessing about this, seven years after it allegedly happened?

Anonymous said...

Would it be improper if he had praised Dyer?

Robert Dyer said...

5:04: It most certainly is illegal to use civic association funds to distribute election mailers that contain any type of endorsement, opinion, or attack. Period. Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Riemer violated the law and should have been charged.

7:06: You just read about one of Hans' many dirty methods of getting elected, and we haven't even discussed how the cemetery precincts came in strong for Riemer in 2010 and 2014. Anybody can win with tens of thousands of illegal votes. Now all the pieces are coming together on voter fraud in Montgomery County, from the illegal mailers of Hoffman, to the thousands upon thousands of illegal voters in MoCo unearthed by Judicial Watch. Riemer and Hoffmann should "bow down" to Burt Macklin, FBI.

Anonymous said...

So if I write a letter endorsing Robert to my HOA and they print it in our HOA newsletter, that's illegal?

Anonymous said...

Dyer, did you ever contact the FBI about that mailer? Because if there was actually any law broken by it, the statute of limitations would have probably expired in 2013.

Robert Dyer said...

6:13: I don't know what a letter would fall under, but this wasn't a letter - it was a voters guide, and was definitely illegal.

6:31: I don't believe the statute of limitations runs out on abuse of HOA funds, anymore than it runs out on embezzlement of an organization's funds. Hopefully, Bill Turque and the Post will be covering this energetically in 2018, after ignoring it in 2010 and 2014. A lot of voter fraud threads are finally coming together - illegal voters, illegal mailings, Wall Street money for Riemer to run for Podunk Junction county council...lots for Burt Macklin to dig through here.

Anonymous said...

...Or maybe the voters just don't like Robert Dyer that much.

Anonymous said...

@ 7:15 AM - Robert Dyer is not a fan of Occam's Razor.

Robert Dyer said...

Psh. There are more dead people voting for Hans Riemer than there are people who hate Robert Dyer.

Anonymous said...

More dead voters voted for Robert Dyer than for Hans Riemer.

Elm Street said...

To recap what it sounds like happened:

1. Dyer didn't align 100% to Dan Hoffman's personal vision. Hoffman lies and slanders Robert Dyer in HOA funded newsletter that goes to every home. Improper and probably illegal.

2. Hoffman and his endorsed slate of politicians swindle neighborhood with insane plans that promise a new dream city, rivaling Tysons Corner.

3. Hoffman gets rewarded for his election dirty tricks with county job where he accomplished zero.

4. Neighborhood is officially screwed and Hoffman packs up and moves out of state, as far away as possible, leaving this mess to residents in his old neighborhood.

Guy sounds like a real sob.

Anonymous said...

How was Robert Dyer "slandered"? No one has provided the actual text of the letter.

"Does not have in mind the best interests of Community X" is definitely not "slander".

Falsely accusing someone of violations of campaign laws and illegal use of funds, by someone who claims to be a journalist, is definitely libel.

Elm Street said...

10:51 AM Apparently, Hoffman lied on the flyer about Dyer and sent it to every home.
I don't know if it's illegal, but definitely outrageous and improper.

I think the newsletter was a bad idea.

Anonymous said...

"Hoffman and his endorsed slate of politicians swindle neighborhood with insane plans that promise a new dream city, rivaling Tysons Corner...neighborhood is officially screwed"

Willy Wonka just raised his eyebrow condescendingly.

Anonymous said...

#UnsignedDyer @ 10:57 AM - What did Hoffman actually say about Dyer in the mailer?

Robert Dyer said...

10:51: I'm the one who was defamed by Mr.Hoffman's false statements in his illegal campaign mailer in 2010, in which he used civic association funds to boost his boss Hans Riemer and reduce my numbers in Randolph Hills. #LockThemUp

The newsletter speaks for itself.

Anonymous said...

Dyer @ 11:09 AM - What did Hoffman actually say in the mailer? That would be helpful for readers who are not sure that you were defamed.

Also, why are you suddenly obsessed with this, seven years later, after you had only mentioned this once, briefly/in passing, in 2012?

Anonymous said...

Robert Dyer lost to Hans Riemer by over 83,000 votes in 2010. Randolph Hills has approximately 2,500 residents. Even if every single resident (including children), had turned out and voted for Robert Dyer, he still would have lost to Hans Riemer by at least 81,000 votes.

Anonymous said...

11:52 AM is trying hard to put Hoffman's campaign dirty tricks into perspective.

Anonymous said...

What was the "lie"?

Robert Dyer said...

11:52: Fortunately, Hans Riemer also had tens of thousands of illegal votes (there are extreme anomalies in voting machine totals in dozens of precincts countywide), cemetery precincts coming in strong, monopoly media coverage I was not given, tens of thousands in dirty money from Wall Street crooks and their K Street lobbyists, and full use of the County's 6 TV stations and Spanish language radio station. Not a fair election by any means.

Anonymous said...

Dyer @ 4:57 PM

1) What were the "extreme analomies in voting machine totals"?

2) Where are the "cemetery precincts" in Montgomery County?

3) You've mentioned several times that Hans Riemer received a $500 contribution from Bain Capital. Have you been able to document any other "dirty money from Wall Street crooks"?

Awaiting your response.

Also, do you ever plan on saying what Hoffman's letter actually said that was "defamatory" to you?

Robert Dyer said...

5:24:

1) I will be compiling a list of those precincts for review by the press, and those are also among the precincts where poll watchers will have to be deployed in 2018, to watch for suspicious activity and illegal voters. They are precincts where - to give just one example of an anomaly - 20 people voted only for one Republican, and all for the same Republican, in the At-Large Council race. That's statistically impossible without coordination. And they weren't the home precincts of any of the GOP candidates. If votes are being added and subtracted countywide, that would have a large numerical impact.

2) The cemetery precincts are the names of deceased voters being used by others to vote.

3) Search "Hans Riemer's K Street money machine" on Google, and watch the companion video on my YouTube channel for full details.

4) Hoffman lied about my positions vis a vis Randolph Hills, and in claiming I "attacked" instead of substantively answering the survey questions. Total BS. Cost me votes bigly in Randolph Hills.

Anonymous said...

You still haven't provided a direct citation of Hoffman's letter.

And you are becoming more and more detatched from reality with each passing post. Iurge you to seek treatment before this becomes a crisis (if it has not already). Is there a responsible adult who can look after your welfare?

Robert Dyer said...

8:42: You're the nutjob here - every thing cited above is fact. Anybody can look at Hoffman's illegal voters guide. Every 2010 resident of Randolph Hills is laughing at you right now, because they all got it in the mail, idiot.

The donations to Riemer are straight from the Maryland Campaign Finance database.

There are tens of thousands of dead and moved-away voter names on the active voter list in Montgomery County, and a Judicial Watch lawsuit is pending as a result.

Facts. You're a couple of cans short of a six-pack, my friend.

Anonymous said...

No, a Judicial Watch lawsuit COULD be pending only AFTER a thorough investigation of the unproven ALLEGATIONS.

Currently, NO lawsuit has been filed.
So far, of the 14 (that's fourteen) names on the rolls of deceased or moved people, NONE voted.

Report responsibly.

Robert Dyer said...

9:45: 14? There are THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of ineligible voters currently registered - dead, moved or non-citizens. That is why they are facing a lawsuit - there are more names on the active voter rolls in MoCo than there are eligible voters! If the Board of Elections doesn't even know who's dead or alive, they can't possibly claim they know if those names were used to fraudulently vote. You should be ashamed of yourself for telling such outright lies.

Anonymous said...

It's an incredible leap from "there are dead or moved-away persons still registered" to "thousands of those voted illegally for Hans Riemer and that is why Robert Dyer lost the election, twice".

Andy Van Slyke said...

"Anonymous" is all over the place here attacking Dyer as usual.

I guess I'll give Dan Hoffman *some* credit for putting his name on his Robert Dyer attack piece that he sent to every home. It was clearly a campaign dirty trick however. It certainly worked, but was unethical and part of Dan's legacy in Montgomery County.

Anonymous said...

Do we know who the ineligible voters voted for?

Anonymous said...

I concur

Anonymous said...

12:13 PM - What was the actual text of this alleged "attack piece"? It's very strange that this allegation keeps being made in the absence of any evidence to support it.

It's also very strange that Robert Dyer has been completely silent about this for seven years, then suddenly now he is talking about it 24/7.

Anna Van Horn said...

12:13PM Look at you showing EVERYONE what kind of person you are by making fun of my name.

Robert Dyer said...

8:55: Not strange at all. The media refused to look into the scandal back then. Not only will Hoffman's actions get a fresh examination in the new context of voter fraud in Montgomery County in 2018, but you'll remember I warned you that if you kept lying about me, I would start telling the truth about you and your gang in the MoCo cartel. So you caused Hoffmangate to come up, not me.

Baba Booey.

Anonymous said...

"The media refused to look into the scandal back then."

And you didn't report it, either.

What did the mailer actually say?

Robert Dyer said...

8:50: You mentioned several days ago in an earlier comment that I had indeed mentioned it in 2012 on this blog. It's getting a fresh look now, now that we've learned about additional voter fraud taking place in the county. By itself, it didn't change the outcome of the election. But combined with the new voter fraud scandals coming to light in the last few months, we now have to take another look at it in context. Together, these fraudulent efforts indeed may have changed the outcome in 2010 and 2014.

Anonymous said...

It seems unethical for a journalist to withhold a story for 7 years, then release it with the intention of damaging a political opponent's upcoming campaign.

Anonymous said...

And what did the mailer actually say?

Robert Dyer said...

9:32: You just said I wrote about it in 2012 on this thread earlier. Again, the story has gained greater significance in light of new voter fraud revelations. Mike Pence, the FBI, and the media may be interested in examining all of these Montgomery County voter fraud incidents.

Anonymous said...

Because Mike Pence is just a paragon of ethics.

Anonymous said...

Even if the names every single one of the 14 deceased or moved-away persons still on the voter roles had been used to cast illegal ballots, and if all of those votes had been cast for Hans Riemer, that would have accounted for only 0.06% of Han's Riemer's margin of victory over you.

How do you explain the other 99.94%?

Robert Dyer said...

11:35: Hey, moron - there are THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of deceased voters on the active rolls in Montgomery County. Citing a ridiculously fake number like 14 just makes you sound like a total clown, bro.

Anonymous said...

Oddly enough, not a fake number. Also. 17. Not a fake number. 17 is the number of people who voted in BOTH Maryland and Virginia in (I think) the 2014 election. Here's a few more not fake numbers. Look them up.
164
39
2
6

The burden of proof is on the accusers. Remember these are voter "registration" problems. Not the same as voter "voting" fraud.

Robert Dyer said...

5:42: Nobody has even examined to know who voted illegally yet. Fortunately, we have a lot of "proof" - from illegal 2010 mailers by Hans Riemer's operative to thousands of dead voters to precinct results anomalies. We'll take a look at all of that in 2018. Plus, we'll have to deploy poll watchers to catch illegal voters in the act at questionable precincts.

Anonymous said...

"Nobody has even examined to know who voted illegally yet."

Shorter: "I've got nothing."

"Illegal 2010 mailers by Hans Riemer's operative to thousands of dead voters"

Commas are your friends, Dyer.

Anonymous said...

One of those numbers ^^^ deals with dead voters.
Deceased people, still on voter rolls, all from one Montgomery County nursing home.
None voted.

Anonymous said...

"We've have to deploy poll watchers to catch illegal voters in the act at questionable precincts."

Or you could just take a long look in the mirror, finally figure out why the residents of Montgomery County don't believe that you are qualified to lead them. And either accept their verdict or make the approppriate changes to make yourself a more appealing candidate.

Seriously, how many "poll watchers" do you expect to be able to recruit?

Anonymous said...

The big problem isn't voter fraud.
It's voter suppression.
That's the basis for these accusations. To implement more restrictive voter identification rules, since those discourage voting by poor who are often democrats.

Do the voter rolls need to be cleaned up? Sure they do. But it's pretty crazy to infer the majority of those people voted.

Anonymous said...

Poll watchers = poll intimidation

Robert Dyer said...

6:36: Considering the dead voters ended up voting for Crooked Hans, it works either way.

6:49: If a real analysis had been done, there wouldn't be a Judicial Watch lawsuit pending over the MoCo voter rolls.

6:50: People have to see me in the press to know if I'm "appealing" or not. End the blackout. End the voter fraud. We'll need poll watchers at every suspect precinct.

6:57: Well, we have more names registered than actual eligible voters in MoCo, and anomalies in the precinct results. Then there were those illegal mailers sent out by Riemer's operative... A lot for Burt Macklin, FBI to sort through.

7:01: If you're not engaged in voter fraud, why would you be intimidated by poll watchers? Think about it.

Anonymous said...

"Nobody has even examined to know who voted illegally yet."

So there's no proof the supposed illegal votes went either direction you are saying?

Anonymous said...

7:01, here.
" If you're not engaged in voter fraud, why would you be intimidated by poll watchers? Think about it."
I have.
1) privacy.
2) intimidation.

See my comment @6:57

Anonymous said...

"Considering the dead voters ended up voting for Crooked Hans"

You saw the ballots? Really? I thought only election judges were allowed to see those.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps an investigation needs to be started to find out how Dyer saw the ballots! He did say it was a fact that they were for Hans.

Anonymous said...

Help! I'm in a cemetery district and I'm not dead.
Zombies. That's who must have voted. I'm surrounded by zombies.
FTWD.

Robert Dyer said...

5:22: Sounds like you're sitting on the Council dais, then.

9:41: How do poll watchers invade your privacy? How do they intimidate, if you're doing nothing wrong?

3:23/3:52/8:39: Uh, maybe we know the votes were for Hans because Hans won? Not exactly rocket science.

Anonymous said...

How do we know all the losing votes you got weren't from the illegals to try to close the gap?

See how without anyone knowing it could go any way.

Conjecture. All conjecture without any evidence.

Anonymous said...

One doesn't need to be doing wrong to feel a lack of privacy or feel intimidation.

Anonymous said...

Dyer's attitude shows why voter suppression is the biggest problem with voting.

Robert Dyer said...

7:15: Would that include giving up your 4th amendment rights to testify at a Montgomery County Council meeting, starting next month?

7:19: I agree - the voter suppression campaigns of the Washington Post are a huge problem in the region. Every article claims GOP can't win - why say that at all? Ratio of Dems to GOP is less challenging in MoCo than in NYC, yet Republicans have won as mayor with 5-1 and 6-1 registration disadvantages. So for the Post to claim it's impossible at 2-1 and 3-1 is clear voter suppression. They create false impressions in the minds of voters and reinforce them.

Their coverage of the VA governor race literally cost Corey Stewart the nomination. They falsely claimed he was tanking throughout the campaign, and had a ceiling of 20%.

In reality, he was neck and neck with Gillespie the whole time. #FakeNews

Mueller should be investigating the voter suppression of the Washington Post.

Anonymous said...

That's not how it works.
That's not how any of it works.

Can't discuss it, so you throw out distractions. Voter intimidation and you try to slide to unwarranted search and seizures.

Physical voter intimidation and you slide it to WaPo news.
It's that kind of ignorance that makes suppression the bigger problem.