Monday, August 14, 2017

Bethesda construction update: George's Chophouse (Photos)

It looks like more than just a fresh coat of paint is being applied to the future George's Chophouse at 4935 Cordell Avenue. Yesterday, workers were attaching wood planks to the front facade of the building. The Loft at 4935 remains open on the upstairs floor of the building.




67 comments:

Anonymous said...

Quoting Dyer on Friday, June 23rd at 10:16: " childish response? Never! Childish would be Store Reporter stealing my scoop about Montross Crossing without attribution. By the way, there isn't a 'new steakhouse' opening, it's just a reboot of the existing restaurant. #FakeNews that was a total click bait fake news article and tweet."

Robert, will this be one of the first instances I've ever seen of you admitting that you got it wrong? Because it seems like this article and your comments from June about George's Steakhouse are completely wrong and backwards.

Roald said...

Looking forward to this place!

Anonymous said...

Is someone getting a ticket for that car's too-dark tinted windows?

Robert Dyer said...

9:34: I was totally correct in my comment. It is indeed a reboot in the existing space, with the same owner. The magazine tweet claimed a "new steakhouse" was opening in Bethesda, as if Jean Georges had leased the City Sports space at Bethesda Row. That was a clickbait, fake news tweet and headline. New business in a new space is a different kind of story than an existing owner rebooting with a new concept in the same location. In this case it should be great given who the owner is, but that doesn't excuse the magazine for trying to get clicks with a deceptive tweet and headline.

Anonymous said...

Why was more than one photo needed for this article? Photos #1 and #4 are the same photo, and the other three are shot from the same location. What was the point? What context was added?

Anonymous said...

Are you calling Alfred a liar since he said, "This is a complete rebrand. We’re changing the name; we’re changing the space. This is not a new name to 4935; this is a whole new restaurant.”

Anonymous said...

Dyer - so we don't mince words, are you calling the owner a liar? This is a great way to show that you're no friend to business owners if you're putting false words in to business owners' mouthes. Please address. Please, please take the high road and say you made a simple mistake. Don't lead this be a simple case of you saying 40,000 zombies voted for Councilman Reiner. Both appear to be false.

Anonymous said...

Love Alfred. He says it's a new restaurant though. "This is not a new name to 4935; this is a whole new restaurant.”

Anonymous said...

Makes sense!!

Anonymous said...

Robert Dyer regularly deletes direct quotes of himself, or links to his previous articles.

Robert Dyer said...

3:50/9:12: I never called anyone a "liar," those are your words. I said the magazine was misleading in claiming a new steakhouse was coming to town. In fact, it is a reboot with a new concept by the existing owner in the same space, which is being updated. It may be an all-new concept, but it is not a new owner or new location.

With all the voter fraud evidence coming in by the day, my claim of voter fraud against Hans Riemer just keeps getting more and more credible.

Anonymous said...

"Fake news out of Charlottesville", saith Dyer.

Anonymous said...

Reminds me of:
"I have people that have been studying it and they cannot believe what they're finding," Trump told NBC then.

Voter fraud evidence. Sure there is.

Anonymous said...

Saith Dyer on his Rockville blog:

"Just one of many examples: today's Washington Post gives a list of items thrown by Antifa at rallygoers - but falsely claims they were thrown at Antifa by the alt-right folks. Total BS. They were walking peacefully to the park, and Charlottesville intentionally withdrew their police escort and protection to ensure people would get hurt. Disgusting, and unconstitutional to boot. #FakeNews"

Robert Dyer said...

7:16: I'm studying it, and can't believe what I'm finding. More names on MoCo registered voters list than actual eligible people of voting age in the County. Severe voting results anomalies in the County Council at-large race in 2010 and 2014 in many precincts. Illegal campaign mailers sent out by Hans Riemer operative - were there others besides Randolph Hills yet to come to light? And now we have a woman who successfully registered in Maryland and DC, and voted in both! You can't make this stuff up, folks!

Poll watchers will be needed in 2018, especially in those questionable precincts with the skewed vote totals in previous years.

Anonymous said...

What actual law was broken by the Randolph Hills mailer?

Robert Dyer said...

7:31: Go ahead and read the article yourself. I believe it was in the Metro section. It doesn't help the cause to flat out lie about what happened. In fact, the initial reports in the Post on Sunday were actually fairly accurate compared to the cable news, really the only mainstream outlet that talked about the police being told by Signer and McAuliffe to stand down and let people get hurt. There's plenty of video online that you can verify all claims, true or false.

It's absolutely disgusting what happened, especially when you consider the same elected officials ensured an actual KKK rally went off with no violence a few weeks before. Crowd safety 101: You NEVER, EVER allow vehicular traffic into streets where crowds are gathered. You NEVER, EVER allow armed counter-protesters to engage with attendees of a protest. Period.

Robert Dyer said...

7:40: Using civic association funds to send out mailers that condemn or endorse a particular candidate. Illegal. Compounded by Mr. Hoffman declining to disclose that he had donated to and endorsed Hans Riemer, and was an operative for his campaign.

Anonymous said...

What law is that, Dyer? Please cite.

Anonymous said...

I guess we won't be talking about the not-a-new-steakhouse any time soon.

Robert Dyer said...

7:53: Campaign finance law requires a separate PAC to be established to endorse candidates. People then have to contribute to a separate account. Randolph Hills did not do that. That will get them in trouble with the IRS, in addition to the authorities. Big mistake.

Anonymous said...

Omg did you report this to the police and IRS? That sounds really bad. What did they say? Are they pressing charges?

Anonymous said...

Do you have a link to that law? I would like to investigate also and follow up, but can't find the specific law that applies to the newsletter he sent out. Thanks!

Anonymous said...

"Severe voting results anomalies in the County Council at-large race in 2010 and 2014 in many precincts." Sure there is.
What a torrent of flopsweat BS.

Anonymous said...

I see how you did that, Robert. Instead of admitting your original article was flat out wrong and that Bethesda Magazine got it right (first!) you redirect the conversation to one of your loony conspiracy theories. Yep, Hans didn't kick your butt, 40,000 dead people chose to vote for him. Lol. You're something, Dyer.

Anonymous said...

A political action committee for a citizens' association? Where on Earth are you getting this, Dyer?

Anonymous said...

Corporations and labor unions, yes.

Homeowners associations, no.

You're an idiot, Dyer.

Robert Dyer said...

6:20: You're the idiot - I'm the one telling you it's illegal for homeowners associations to endorse or condemn a candidate. You're the moron who keeps saying "is it illegal? Is it illegal?"

"If every letter requires a response, send 30,000 letters." - Saul Alinsky

Anonymous said...

You could shut the "Alinskys" up by just citing the relevant section of the law, Dyer.

But you won't, because you can't, because it doesn't exist outside your fevered imagination.

Robert Dyer said...

9:31: Wait a minute, you're claiming civic associations can endorse candidates, and use civic association funds to do so? You obviously know nothing about campaign finance rules. What a tool.

Anonymous said...

So far you're the single person saying it is illegal for a homeowner to write their opinion of a local political candidate in their neighborhood association newsletter. You say X. Many others are saying Y. You have yet to provide proof it is illegal other than you word.

Anonymous said...

Dyer, given your record of fabrication and outright paranoid delusion, no one gives you the benefit of the doubt anymore. Show us the actual law that you claim prohibits this.

Anonymous said...

If they are a 501(c)(3) (tax code for many charitable orgs including churches) they cannot involve themselves in any political activities.

But, if they are a 501(c)(4), a social welfare organization, they may get involved in some political activity. It just can't be their primary activity.

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/other-non-profits/political-activity-and-social-welfare

See the comparisons on this chart:
https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/common-tax-law-restrictions-on-activities-of-exempt-organizations

Now, delving further, it seems that clarifications, including Rev. Rul. 2004-6, 2004-4 I.R.B. 328 (revenue ruling) seem to indicate that a free community HOA newsletter, even if it includes some political activity, is not a violation of their non-profit status.

Maryland campaign finance laws agree with this assessment. (State campaign laws over-ride local jurisdictional campaign laws so I went directly to state statute)

So, it could be dependent on their IRS-approved code status when they were accepted as a non-profit. 9 times out of 10, a HOA is a 501(c)(4), and in that case, the mention in a community newsletter is allowable.

(BTW, I was already researching code sections this morning and took on this tangent. Sad, huh? My 6AM reading material? IRS code?)

Anonymous said...

"Sad, huh? My 6AM reading material? IRS code?"

Naah. Reading Robert Dyer, and as usual, needing to correct him, at 6AM is far sadder than IRS material. ;)

Anonymous said...

While we're debunking Robert Dyer's nonsense, here is another gem from his Rockville blog:

"A taxpayer-funded Spanish-language radio propaganda program used to promote Montgomery County Council incumbents to the Latino community was an even-greater waste of taxpayer funds this past Friday...No political challengers to the Council - Democrat, Republican, or Green - have ever been allowed to appear on this taxpayer-funded program, a violation of the FCC rules on equal time. The payment of taxpayer funds to WACA also raises serious ethical issues, as WACA provides news coverage of the County Council that is paying them."

AnonymousAugust 15, 2017 at 10:49 AM: "The Equal Time Rule applies specifically to candidates making campaign statements. It does not apply to every single comment made by elected officials on radio or TV, Dyer, you moron."

Robert Dyer August 15, 2017 at 11:14 AM: "10:49: Wrong. If they are featured on this radio program, they must give challengers equal time. This isn't a quote during a news report on something. It is a featured appearance during which they speak at length and with softball questions from a paid host, not acting as a journalist."

BTW, I love that Dyer's Rockville blog not only has time stamps set to the correct time zone, but also date stamps for every comment. And the same threaded commenting order for both the mobile and the desktop version. Why can't he do that here?

On the other hand, the white text on black background kinda blows.

Anonymous said...

Really great research, thanks for the followup and clarification on the rules.

Anonymous said...

Robert, can you address this professionally?

Anonymous said...

So it looks like it was ok to do?

Anonymous said...

Hoffman used a local Civic association to trash one candidate and abused his position to send this attack to every house. Sounds improper to me.
His mailing was classic election dirty tricks.

Anonymous said...

5:03 just showed it was not illegal.

Anonymous said...

How was Robert Dyer "trashed" or "attacked" in the newsletter? Or was he merely criticized?

Do Dyer and his sheepshill believe that having a negative opinion of Dyer violates federal election laws?

Anonymous said...

Dyer wrote: " today's Washington Post gives a list of items thrown by Antifa at rallygoers - but falsely claims they were thrown at Antifa by the alt-right folks. Total BS. They were walking peacefully to the park, and Charlottesville intentionally withdrew their police escort and protection to ensure people would get hurt. Disgusting, and unconstitutional to boot. #FakeNews "

So the peaceful Nazis and law-abiding White Nationalists were attacked by unlawful protestors; while the police stood by, not interfering because of orders from the (Democratic) Mayor and Governor.

I wish you were kidding, but I am sure you honestly believe this Alt-Right historical revisionism. Fortunately, there is no way anyone holding such beliefs could ever be elected to public office in Montgomery County, MD.

Anonymous said...

The hate for Dyer on here is astounding.

Anonymous said...

"Astounding" only if you're a Sheepshill.

"Perfectly understandable" to all other Bethesdians.

Anonymous said...

Robert Dyer on RockvilleNutz, August 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM:

"What I saw in Charlottesville was a violation of the 1st Amendment rights of the rally attendees - it doesn't matter what their message is; they are allowed to peaceably assemble and speak. The mayor of Charlottesville should be held criminally-responsible for all injuries and deaths that occurred Saturday, as he failed to provide security for attendees and counter-protesters. Any idiot knows events on public streets are to be totally cut off from vehicular traffic. The mayor failed to provide that most basic security precaution for political reasons, and now one person is dead and many others injured."

Just like Trump - Dyer can't speak ill of his fellow white supremacists.

Anonymous said...

I doubt it's legal to use HOA funds to send an attack piece in the mail targeting one candidate with lies.

Hoffman engaged in a dirty tricks campaign.

Anonymous said...

And 5:03 AM's patient and thorough explanation of campaign law goes in one of 2:44 PM's ears and out the other.

Also, waiting for proof that anything remotely critical of Robert Dyer is an "attack piece"?

Did any actual residents complain about the mailing? Or just Robert Dyer, the biggest sore loser ever?

Anonymous said...

The mailer targeted Dyer alone and lied about his positions. It was a campaign dirty trick by Dan and he was rewarded.

Anonymous said...

About which of Robert Dyer's positions did the Randolph Hills mailer "lie about"?

Please be specific.

Anonymous said...

So where is Dyer's response and acknowledgment that he was wrong about the legality of the mailer?

Robert Dyer said...

6:38: How was I "wrong?" - It's illegal to send out an endorsement or condemnation of a candidate using HOA funds. Period.

3:33: The sad part is, the mailer didn't actually detail my positions. Instead, without details, it simply said my positions weren't in the best interest of Randolph Hills (a completely false statement, because my positions on the questionnaire were all about PROTECTING Randolph Hills from the development in the White Flint area), and then lied further by claiming that instead of substantive answers, I had "attacked" other candidates." Total BS, unless you are like Nancy Floreen and characterize all criticism as an "attack."

Here's the beauty of it - it doesn't matter what HOffman said; sending the mailer condemning me while praising Riemer (whom he contributed money to but didn't disclose that in the mailer) is ILLEGAL. Period.

Robert Dyer said...

10:37: Someone who believes in the Constitution and 1st Amendment would be unable to win office in MoCo? Someone who opposes political violence against people simply because of their beliefs can't be elected in MoCo?

God help us if that's true!

Anonymous said...

"and then lied further by claiming that instead of substantive answers, I had "attacked" other candidates." Total BS, unless you are like Nancy Floreen and characterize all criticism as an "attack.""

OMG, really? She characterizes criticism as an attack? Wow. You both have that in common!

Would you be so hard-set in your opinion if it was, let's say, Riemer who'd been in your shoes?

Sounds like sour grapes.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
If they are a 501(c)(3) (tax code for many charitable orgs including churches) they cannot involve themselves in any political activities.
But, if they are a 501(c)(4), a social welfare organization, they may get involved in some political activity. It just can't be their primary activity.

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/other-non-profits/political-activity-and-social-welfare

See the comparisons on this chart:

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/common-tax-law-restrictions-on-activities-of-exempt-organizations

Now, delving further, it seems that clarifications, including Rev. Rul. 2004-6, 2004-4 I.R.B. 328 (revenue ruling) seem to indicate that a free community HOA newsletter, even if it includes some political activity, is not a violation of their non-profit status.

Maryland campaign finance laws agree with this assessment. (State campaign laws over-ride local jurisdictional campaign laws so I went directly to state statute)
So, it could be dependent on their IRS-approved code status when they were accepted as a non-profit. 9 times out of 10, a HOA is a 501(c)(4), and in that case, the mention in a community newsletter is allowable.
(BTW, I was already researching code sections this morning and took on this tangent. Sad, huh? My 6AM reading material? IRS code?)
5:03 AM

Anonymous said...

"It's illegal to send out an endorsement or condemnation of a candidate using HOA funds. Period."

No, it's not. Period.

Anonymous said...

This has been abundantly proved, Robert. It is not ilegal. Period.

Anonymous said...

Dyer, your willingness to completely misrepresent and fabricate what the law actually says, to your own benefit, most recently on HOAs engaging in political activity and the FCC's "Equal Time" Rule, indicates that you cannot be trusted with enforcing laws objectively, and therefore should never, ever be elected to anything.

Robert Dyer said...

4:29: You're the one who "can't be trusted," claiming that HOAs can use member dues to endorse political candidates in Montgomery County! Are you crazy?

Same with the Equal Time Rule, which has very clear provisions and distinctions for various types of programs. The program in question falls under the category of having to provide equal time.

4:10: I've never heard of any HOA in MoCo that was registered as a "social welfare organization," probably because HOAs are not social welfare organizations. Anybody who thinks it's possible to endorse candidates is cruising for an IRS bruising.

Robert Dyer said...

3:38: It was Riemer's operative Hoffman who executed the illegal mailing. I never engage in such illegal campaign tactics, so the situation would not be "reversed." I didn't even find out this had happened until after the election was over. I then checked the voting results for Randolph Hills and saw it did impact the results for me.

Anonymous said...

The mailing was not illegal, as there was no actual law that it broke. Please stop lying, Dyer. And there was nothing in it that wasn't true.

Anonymous said...

Hoffman played dirty campaign tricks and was rewarded. Not exactly something to be proud of.

Anonymous said...

5:30 sez baaaaaaa

Robert Dyer said...

5:23: Your whole comment is a lie, Saul Alinsky.

5:32: The $150,000 a year County job Hoffman was rewarded with isn't chump change.

Anonymous said...

Well then, Mr Dyer, what code section DOES the HOA operate under? You need to know that first. Before you can attribute ANY rules. There's an entire chapter on HOA and Tenant Associations, HERE, in the IRS booklet entitled IRC 501(c)(4) Organizations :

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopici03.pdf

See page I-25: bullet points 3 & 4
*Organizations exempt under IRC 501(c)(4) may engage in germane lobbying activities without the restrictions imposed on IRC 501(c)(3) organizations.

*Since the test for exemption under IRC 501(c)(4) looks to the organization's primary activities, an organization exempt under IRC501(c)(4) may engage in substantial non-exempt activities.

I stand my ground.
Signed, 5:03AM

Anonymous said...

Robert, if you think his researched info is a lie, can you provide some backing of your own other than simply "because I say so"?

Betsy said...

Really, Mr. Dyer, we asking very politely. 5:03 has evidence that it wasn't illegal. At this post you are simply insisting it is without proof. Can you provide some supporting evidence to back up your claim?

Anonymous said...

#DodgingDyer doesn't answer legitimate questions.