It is no secret that I oppose a flood wall on Thieme Drive. And, the neighborhood association also does not want a wall. So when I am called an obstructionist by a certain neighborhood resident who lives at the end of Thieme Drive where it joins W. Washington – at an area that does not flood – he is also calling the rest of the neighborhood association obstructionists as well.
No one in his or her right mind would want a 10-foot high wall in front of his or her home. Perhaps that is the issue, since the vocal resident doesn’t have to worry about flooding and having an ugly wall in front of his home. That position shows a total lack of respect for others who are impacted.
I very seldom write specifically about another individual, but his inaccurate statements about me and his posturings on his blog require me to straighten out his misguided view of just how he thinks he is impacting our area. The elder gentleman who lives at the junction of Thieme Drive and W. Washington has deemed himself the savior of the neighborhood.
His blog touts how he thinks he has “called me out” and “stepped on some toes.” I guess as one gets older, the mind plays tricks with what actually happens. And, it isn’t my mind. Since he refers to the person he disagrees with as the “secretary” of the association, I guess that means everyone pretty much knows he is talking about me since I am the secretary.
First, Thieme Drive has been the subject of two separate studies. The initial study is a Section 14 Study that has looked at the area at the intersection of Thieme Drive and W. Washington Bloulevard where the elder resident lives. The edge of the river bank has eroded to the west of his house, and the Corps will eventually need to do repair work. I have no problem with that.
But what I do have a problem with is his attempt to lump that project with the second project which is a Section 205 Study of the “cup” area of Thieme Drive where I live. The two are separate projects, and cannot be lumped togther to create a false impression that the Section 14 repair work is being delayed by our efforts to preclude a building of a flood wall.
He even goes so far as to mislead by saying that my opposition and those who also oppose the wall led to the funds for the repairs in his area being diverted somewhere else. That simply is not true. Congress has not funded the repairs in his area; it has nothing to do with our opposition to a flood wall. Anyone can go to Corps website and see the information for the Section 14 Study. The City has continued to work on the other areas it had originally targeted.
The elderly man also doesn’t have good vision and apparently doesn’t know who did what to my house either. Here is a comment from what he calls his blog:
“I called her out on the selfishness of her position at a neighborhood association meeting, but apparently none of her neighbors were there to speak up, or if they were, they have some issue with not wanting to get crosswise with her. One of her arguments is that it would spoil the historic character of the neighborhood. I didn’t want to bring up in the meeting that her house is one of the worst-looking, most run-down ones on the street, with peeling paint, a junk-cluttered porch, and panels of historically unauthentic cheap discount-lumberyard lattice surrounding the porch and a bay on the side of the house.”
The elder appears to not have followed what has transpired over the past few years. The neighborhood association voted to oppose the wall, and he just can’t stand to think about it. And, as to my house, I didn’t put the lattice around the house. He needs to look around the neighborhood and get a new pair of glasses. My home is certainly not a run-down home.
This is my home – the one he refers to as one of the most run-down on the street. Since the above picture, I have replaced the front porch steps myself. During the summer, I have numerous people tell me how beautiful my front looks with my flowers in bloom.
I guess I am not sure why is so vindictive against me other than I disagree with his rantings.
A statement on the elder’s blog:
“I vented a lot of crap last night in my previous post and this morning I thought about editing it. For now, I’ll let it stand. Everyone tries to be nice at the neighborhood meetings, and I’ve tried to abide by that. The only ones who get strident are the obstructionists and status-quo advocates, and it’s hard to get heard.
Last night I stepped – no, stomped – on some toes. There was lots of backpedaling and whining on the part of the chief obstructionist. She also happens to be secretary for the association; it’ll be interesting to see how the minutes reflect the discussion. I probably ought to check her blog, too.”
Here is another statement the elder made:
“The neighborhood association meeting was this evening, too, so I went and called out the woman who has been an obstructionist against building a flood wall. I think I’ve met my first quarter quota for number of people I’ve pissed off.”
I truly am not sure how this man thinks he is so important. I dismiss his comments as those of a grouchy, old man. As to calling me out? He has to be kidding. An individual who works for the City explained that we were going to look at the modified version of a plan that we had all agreed to a couple of years ago. We had a civil discussion about the issue with no “calling out” whatsoever. To read this elder’s blog, you would think we were yelling and screaming at each other.
The elder also does a disservice to our neighborhood meetings. He makes statements that make it sound like he doesn’t get to talk because of the “obstructionists and status-quo advocates.” How he can in good conscience publish this false information is beyond me. He has always been able to talk at the meetings, and no one interrupts him or shouts him down as he would have others believe. This is truly a disservice to our meetings and to the efforts of all of us who believe that we have problems that need to be discussed.
The purpose behind neighborhood associations and neighborhood meetings to work on problems and issues that impact the neightborhoods. Not everyone will agree, and that is natural. The elder just doesn’t seem to be able to accept a different point of view than his.
At last month’s meeting his idea of modifying the Thieme Drive and W. Washington Blvd. intersection was accepted and the City is looking into taking his idea and implementing it. I am really puzzled that he would try to convince his few readers that he is denigrated, not allowed to talk, and, in general, drowned out.
I guess this is one of the downsides to internet blogging. People can say whatever they want, even if the statements are lies and those who read the lies do not know the difference.
I feel kind of sorry for the older gentleman. He is very bitter about his area not being repaired, so he thinks the only way to combat that is to spread lies and misinformation about my position as well as the rest of the neighborhood’s position.
Sorry, Mr. Elder, I and the rest of the neighborhood association oppose a 10-foot high wall along an historical drive. If that is something you cannot accept, that is no reason to personally attack me and villify me for a position I am entitled to hold. I have never once attacked you on my blog, so I am not sure why you feel you need to be so vindictive.