Blogging Bayport Alameda

August 26, 2016

Amateur hour

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:06 am

Short post for today, since I’m on the topic of Jennifer Roloff anyway, found this little tidbit on her website rather amusing.

She addresses the issue of Rent Control by indicating that she is against the renters initiative (naturally) and that she feels that they shouldn’t have even been allowed to place their initiative on the ballot, writing:

And that’s why I don’t think the ARC initiative should be on the November ballot. It can only win or lose!

Yeah, winning or losing, that’s sort of the point of a yes or no ballot initiative, right?

But even better is one of her proposed solutions which is to have a mysterious rent subsidy program, she writes:

One of my goals is to have a subsidy program in place, but it takes a couple of years.

Very little details about this subsidy program, but kind of goes with the whole not understanding how government thing works problem with Jennifer Roloff in general.  After all she declared at the Democratic Club endorsement meeting that:

Yes, that’s precisely why we don’t have enough affordable housing, because all the non profit housing developers and public housing agencies just have looked hard enough for funding.

But here’s something amusing about the rent control post in general.  See the part about the renter’s initiative?  See how she labels that group as Alameda Tenants Coalition but then places the correct acronym at the end. It’s a pretty substantial error for someone who is seeking to run for a City Council seat and should know the name of the group she is dissing.  Or at least she should wonder why her acronym doesn’t seem to match the name.

Screen Shot 2016-08-25 at 3.03.16 PM



  1. Isn’t it great when a smart and capable private citizen runs for a political office which pays next to nothing and for no personal gain, only hoping to serve her community, and then has to suffer attacks on her intelligence, morality, and motivation? Gee, I wonder why more good people don’t step up to enter politics?

    Comment by Captain Obvious — August 26, 2016 @ 6:18 am

    • Running for public office is not for everyone. You put yourself and your ideas out there as being the most strategic and reasonable way to go, the electorate debates you and your ideas because ultimately you will be making decisions on our behalf. Some agree, others do not. That is what running for public office is!

      I do not know this candidate but from what I’ve gathered from her website, I would agree that she is not knowledgeable or sophisticated enough, at this time, to be an effective city council member. Her position on Preservation, in particular, struck me as simplistic:

      “I want us to live with the development on the books for a while in order to address the consequences of the changes that have happened and are still scheduled to happen…….”

      While I can certainly appreciate the “go slow” approach (and I agree with a lot of her value statements there), we do not have that luxury. Instead, we are blessed (and some would say cursed) with a booming economy — lots of people want to move here for the relatively high-paying jobs and they need housing. We are not producing enough housing, thus we have a critical shortfall that has many, many terrible societal ramifications.

      These are complicated and intertwined issues that have been studied and now require action, not a wait and see approach. And frankly, we are legally bound to produce our fair share of housing.

      I am not at all suggesting that we re-zone the entire island and start building high rises. That is extreme and unbalanced in the opposite direction.

      Change (and thus development) is very hard for many existing residents. Its very easy to say, no more development, because that is most comforting to most people — assuring them that very little will change. (I’m having a bad deja vu). But that is just not the reality of the times or the place that are living in. It takes someone with courage and fortitude to say, look, I’m going to roll up my sleeves, and we are going to figure out a way forward that allows us to meet our obligations in a way that is reasonable and balanced, that is holistic, and that is as fair as possible. That is hard because a lot of people may be left very unhappy about the changes, more people, maybe more cars, etc. etc. etc.

      Comment by Dya — August 26, 2016 @ 6:39 pm

      • What a novel idea having elected officials doing something that is most comforting to the most people. Where did you get your training, Gulag tech?

        Comment by jack — August 26, 2016 @ 7:10 pm

  2. Another negative, critical column from you. Is there another way you could serve your community in a positive light that promotes benevolence and people cohesiveness?

    You have a skill in writing and interest in detail and use it in a hurtful way. This act of superiority is hateful. I have noticed how you can twist and fabricate facts. What is upsetting is how your negativity and criticism is validating to others.

    To quote Rodney King, ” Can’t we just get along?”

    Comment by Hugo — August 26, 2016 @ 8:03 am

    • If you wanted positive posts maybe you could join a constructive neighborhood message board like NextDoor or something where we all know there are no complaints and critiques. Oh wait…

      Comment by Lauren Do — August 26, 2016 @ 9:28 am

    • Hugo, Lauren does best when she pisses people off. Makes them think, defines their interests, lambasts the fringe, and does it all with a certain flair. That’s called serving the community.

      Comment by jack — August 26, 2016 @ 7:38 pm

      • You must be young. Most of my life, saying mean things about people, publicly criticizing, poking fun at people’s flaws to entertain others was just plain rude. I guess now they call it bullying.

        To do the above is just wrong. There are values to promote the common good. You want real tolerance and acceptance, start being kind to people. There are other ways to educate and promote discussion. Or if you want to go more extreme for entertainment, why don’t we put flawed public servants in an arena with lions; that at one time was public entertainment.

        Comment by Hugo — August 27, 2016 @ 8:24 am

        • Evidently, you are cocooned in your own brain. Publicly criticizing, poking fun at people’s flaws to entertain others…especially if they’re running for some kind of public office, was, is and always will be an american sport and if you consider it “just wrong” you might consider deporting yourself to a more controlled environment where no first amendment sullies your observance,

          Comment by jack — August 27, 2016 @ 9:42 am

  3. Don’t want to be attacked? The candidate can’t be bothered to proof read her own election site. How can I be assured that she will be detail oriented enough to vet potential legislation? There are lots of folks who want to serve their communities, but when they show their motivation to be questionable and their follow through lacking then yes they’re going to be judged based on their performance. From the get-go Jennifer Roloff has been out of touch with the needs of working Alamedans. She can’t even be bothered to use the correct name of the Alameda Renters Coalition. I know with Donald Trump running it can make it seem like anyone can run for office, but maybe not everyone should.

    Comment by Angela — August 26, 2016 @ 8:07 am

  4. The best is that she doesn’t think the ARC initiative should be on the ballot. Not that she thinks it should be defeated democratically, just not on the ballot. Does she propose that the Council should not have followed the law and put it on the ballot after 7000 voters asked for their chance?

    Comment by BMac — August 26, 2016 @ 8:25 am

    • She doesn’t mean legally prohibited, she simply means it was not a good idea to put on the ballot, and explains why she thinks that. But you knew that already.

      Comment by dave — August 26, 2016 @ 8:59 am

      • I don’t know that. Nothing she has done so far has showed that she has a grasp on how things work. People asking to be put in charge of crafting laws should have some understanding of what words mean.

        Comment by BMac — August 26, 2016 @ 9:15 am

        • Had you actually read what she wrote, you would get it. Perhaps people judging those who wish to be put in charge of crafting laws should have some understanding of what words mean.

          Comment by dave — August 26, 2016 @ 9:43 am

        • Oh dear dave, I’ve read every sad word on that website. It is a giant mess. Borderline word salad.

          Comment by BMac — August 26, 2016 @ 10:31 am

  5. As long as we’re criticizing “using the wrong acronym”, let’s give equal time to dunning Malia Vella for mis-spelling Filipino on her website:
    Kinda weird to be mis-spelling the name of your own ethnic group.

    Comment by vigi — August 26, 2016 @ 9:06 am

    • Vigi, maybe you need to start breaking and entering into offices with computers that have more culturally relevant spell checkers.

      Comment by notadave — August 26, 2016 @ 9:35 am

  6. I always read the original source document or watch the unedited video version of a reported event, when available. Roloff’s comments make complete sense in context, and I understand where she is coming from. First off, it is a blog entry, not an editorial letter to a magazine or newspaper. That gives her a pass on the ARC acronym criticism leveled at her. Blogs are a more informal means of communications, and spelling or minor grammatical mistakes are more excusable in such a forum, unlike formal letters of announcement or editorials. Secondly, Lauren conveniently cut off the sentence following ” It can only win or lose”. In the follow on sentence, Roloff makes clear that she believes Rent Control is a very complicated issue with a lot of moving parts that require fine tuning, and probably a lot of adjustment over time. Making the ARC initiative a ballot measure makes it very unwieldy to adjust. Its an all or nothing approach. Roloff argues that should the initiative pass, every minor modification to it would require another expensive ballot initiative. In other words it is a very blunt instrument for a situation calling for speedy responses and greater flexibility. Regarding the comments criticizing Lauren for her negativity, I do appreciate the spot light she puts on Alameda Issues. After her recent blog entry on the Alameda Magazine article “The Meddlesome Mayor”, I sought out the piece and read it. I went into the article with a fairly neutral view of Mayor Spencer. I have emailed her on issues before and to my delight found her very responsive. After reading the Alameda Magazine article, I left a fan of the mayor, and with a greater understanding about Alameda governance. I am a long time resident, and simply didn’t understand the weak mayor system that we have on the Island. As a result, I am in favor of changing it, like Jerry Brown did for Oakland. Now on the issue of rent control, I completely disagree on this issue with Lauren, and enjoy commenting and countering her arguments, because I think the result of candid discussion is good policy. If the city wants to get involved in the price of housing, it needs to build a lot of housing to reduce the demand, and this will also allow it to control the prices of the housing it builds. If the city does not want to get overly involved into the business of building housing and being a major landlord on the Island, it can outsource the job via zoning regulation. Heavy regulation or “inclusionary zoning” will throttle more housing being built. Lighter regulation will result in a housing boom. The one thing the city or citizens should not do, is to restrict the amount of rent a private owner can charge for their property. Case history shows that doesn’t work. Palo Alto is experiencing the same rental sticker shock with 3 BR houses going for 7K, and costing upwards of 2 million dollars. There is not a whisper of “rent control” in the air there, because there is a realization that no one is “entitled” to live there. 100 meters away from Palo Alto lies East Palo Alto, with very affordable housing rates. We Alamedans are fortunate in that Oakland lies 100 meters away from us, with equally affordable housing rates. Better yet, more and more Alamedans are discovering San Ramon, and their superb schools and affordable housing. More housing on Alameda Island equals lower rent. Here is a link, by a real estate lawyer, that explains in baby talk, how the city of Alameda can control the supply of housing via regulation. Lauren and I disagree whether or not “housing” or “medicine” is a special good, and warrant special protections, but the law of supply and demand, like facts, are stubborn things, and more often than not prevail over political leanings.

    Comment by Alameda Landlord — August 26, 2016 @ 9:25 am

    • 100 meters away from Palo Alto lies East Palo Alto, with very affordable housing rates.

      East Palo Alto has a very restrictive rent stabilization program

      If the city wants to get involved in the price of housing, it needs to build a lot of housing to reduce the demand, and this will also allow it to control the prices of the housing it builds. If the city does not want to get overly involved into the business of building housing and being a major landlord on the Island, it can outsource the job via zoning regulation. Heavy regulation or “inclusionary zoning” will throttle more housing being built. Lighter regulation will result in a housing boom. The one thing the city or citizens should not do, is to restrict the amount of rent a private owner can charge for their property.

      Most cities and jurisdictions already get involved in the price of housing by having regulations, review processes, and laws like a prohibition on building multifamily housing. These are artificial restrictions on the “free market” of housing that most people are okay with. I don’t think anyone, even those most development friendly among us, would want to completely eliminate the regulatory process of development. Alameda already restricts the supply and the City Council majority is reluctant to even soften some regulations, like the second unit ordinance, in order to assist with the housing crisis. If the City Council is not going to ease the problem of rising housing costs by making it easier to add to the supply to meet the demand, it’s inevitable that after years, YEARS of renters getting pushed out and asking the City for help that the response from renters is to protect themselves the only way they have accessible to them since collaboration attempts have failed: through the ballot box.

      Comment by Lauren Do — August 26, 2016 @ 9:44 am

  7. Wow, these responses just validate my thoughts. A negative, critical blog is just creating more negative criticism. And to top it off, you are being involved in picayune menutia. Where is the substance and good?

    Comment by Hugo — August 26, 2016 @ 9:32 am

  8. Trish feels the great Rock of Lauren lifted off her shoulders at least till election day, then who knows.

    Comment by jack — August 26, 2016 @ 9:45 am

    • Jack, Lauren’s criticism is a far smaller burden for our mayor than all of the mayor’s sel-inflicted wounds (self-contradiction, an apparent inability to address the issues clearly and logically, her inability to work with staff or to run meetings effectively, and a seeming inability to keep her facts straight, among other things). And, sad to say, the mayor’s poor leadership has made a number of things worse in Alameda, so her self-inflicted problems hurt all of us. The “great Rock of Lauren” is merely the burden of the truth reflecting back at an elected official.

      Comment by Jon Spangler — August 29, 2016 @ 10:31 am

  9. Actually it’s but a small pebble.

    Comment by jack — August 26, 2016 @ 9:53 am

  10. We Alamedans are fortunate in that Oakland lies 100 meters away from us, with equally affordable housing rates

    Oakland has a very restrictive rent stabilization program.

    But you knew that already. I guess I was too subtle in using that example. The ugly fact is that the affordable parts of Oakland are ugly, as they are in East Palo Alto.

    Rent control has not worked for them. San Francisco, Berkeley and Oakland have rent control. The desirable parts of the city are crazy expensive. Then there are the affordable areas, not so desirable. The objective is to find a nice affordable place to live. It is NOT to make a nice place, affordable to live. Hence my suggestion of San Ramon and other places that are affordable AND nice. Due to the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act ( which the vast majority of Alamedans are unaware of, single family homes, new (post 1995) homes and condos are exempt from rent control ie they can charge what they want. That leaves a vast array of rental properties out of Rent Control. In an interesting aside, do we want Alameda to be a majority rental community? This is something that warrants a discussion in your blog. Towns that have changed to a population of transient renters, are not as invested in the schools and community. This example from the East Bay Times discusses the problems of having a surplus of renters in a town ( Most home owners do not want to live in a neighborhood that is largely composed of tenants because of transients, absentee landlords and less civil engagement. Lets face it, no one washes a rented car. Be that as it is, I fully expect the ARC resolution to pass this coming November. It is a promise of free ice cream in a majority tenant community. “Get to live on a beautiful island, 20 minutes from San Francisco, gorgeous beaches, blue ribbon schools at someone’s expense”, what is not to like about that?

    Comment by Alameda Landlord — August 26, 2016 @ 10:52 am

    • 1, post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning on rent control. Why do you think that rents are low in depopulating towns in South Dakota because of lack of rent control?

      2. I thought Alameda was a renter-majority town. The people who you view as undesirable second-class citizens seem to care about good schools too. Funny that.

      Comment by BC — August 26, 2016 @ 11:05 am

    • As a long time Alameda resident you should know that Alameda, as stated in the comment above, a renter-majority town. It has become less of a renter majority town (52.1% in 2000 Census compared to 51.9% in 2010 Census) as the housing crisis becomes worse.

      I believe that ARC’s rent stabilization ordinance is not an attempt to fix all housing issues, but rather to help those that are here continue to stay here. And by “here” I mean the city that they already live in and have invested their and their families lives in. I would imagine that for the economically vulnerable in rent control cities were to be asked if rent control worked for them, I think the answer would be “yes.” Those who say it’s not working are probably those whose housing has never been insecure and they’ve never been in danger of losing their housing.

      Comment by Lauren Do — August 26, 2016 @ 12:26 pm

      • M1’s passage will push a lot of landlords who can live with the City’s new rent control law to do things to things that will further reduce rental stock: sell, do a quick condo conversion, convert back to single family residences, etc. If the relocation benefits paid to those tenants, as well as the loss of their units, would be an example of M1 working, then I guess it’s worth ditching the City’s new rent control law.

        Comment by MP — August 26, 2016 @ 12:49 pm

  11. 6. your casual blog argument is an apologists smoke screen. There are plenty of really slick web sites on the Internets and that’s because it matters. This is Roloff’s campaign web site we’re talking about, right?

    10. also “We Alamedans are fortunate in that Oakland lies 100 meters away from us, with equally affordable housing rates”, right. If you can’t afford Alameda just move to Oakland. One problem, KQED had a show about how people who can’t afford Silicon Valley are moving out of state because Oakland is becoming unaffordable to people with professional incomes, despite restrictive rent legislation. Driving up Mandella Blvd to Emeryville the other night I spotted a Caucasian guy framing new stairs on an “ugly” Victorian. It used to be West Oakland had a smattering of people like Novella Carpenter scattered around ( this is a blog, not a web site for a campaign., but the whole of Oakland is rapidly gentrifying. Uber, Uber, Uber. East Oakland is a patchwork and may take longer, but in twenty years who knows. Everything west of High Street is up for grabs. $$$$

    Comment by MI — August 26, 2016 @ 12:24 pm

  12. I stand by my statement that blogs are a casual means of communications, written in an informal and conversational style, regardless of purpose. Can you imagine the punctuation and spelling Nazi’s going after our text conversations next, thanks to that wonderful invention called autocorrect. As for tenants being responsible for Alameda schools being good, one could make the argument that they would be great, if we had a larger owner population. Tenants enjoy the fruits of our school parcel taxes, but they are not responsible for paying for them. They do not wash the rental car. When the list of BEST public schools in the Bay Area comes out, Alameda is noticeably missing. We can do better. There is a lot of kvetching about the people leaving Alameda due to high housing costs. Our town is not dying, on the contrary it is growing, as it should be. The people that are moving in here are bringing a vitality and energy that I consider a great improvement over the past decade. Our town is moving in the right direction. I was just at Alameda Landing yesterday, surveying the unending horizon of newly built houses, and the wonderful location and neighborhood that we have created there. When the naval base closed down over 16 years ago, we lost a small city of workers and inhabitants. It has taken nearly 16 years for us to get back to that population level, and for the West End to once again rise up from the condition it was in after the base closed down. Gentrification is indeed a beautiful thing, if you are a property owner. As landlords have posted here, it is not a piece of cake renting your property in Alameda. It takes a great deal of expense to renovate units after tenants leave, and often months to attract new tenants if you are leasing at market rates. Maybe in another post we could discuss what is happening in the rental market in Alameda. Yes rents have gone up here, but there are a lot of reasons that I have not seen discussed in the media, informal or mainstream about why that is happening in our zip code. Does the city even know how many rental units we had as of January 1, 2016 and how many we have today, 8 months later, after Rent Stabilization was IMPOSED by the city council. I think many of you would be shocked at the lack of data the city has on the housing situation. Landlords do not register with the city when they rent their units. They do not notify the city when they pull a unit or opt to sell the house that they were formerly renting. As a landlord I have my thumb on the market. I talk and work with the realtors and property managers in our town, and they will all tell you that the Rent Control issue has made things worse for renters, and that is before the passage of the ARC resolution this fall. Nobody knows what the numbers are, and my feel is strictly anecdotal , but many of the houses that were for sale this summer, which I visited as a looky loo were rental units with tenants that resided there for a decade. The owners got a whiff of Rent Control, took a look outside and saw a sky high House Sales market, and evicted the families and sold the house, without a trace, because our beloved Island, doesn’t track that. The Realtors know the deal. They all told me to a person, this was a bad deal for tenants. Rental stock is declining according to them and that is with Costa Hawkins protection and without the ARC resolution even coming into effect. I’d love to discuss the nutroll that I had to go through, in terms of classes, legal implications, lawyer fees and the hours invested just plain understanding what the City Council’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance affected this March. A lot of property owners didn’t feel like making that investment and said “Hell with this” and sold. I’m waiting for November’s results, which I believe are a mere formality. After all, who votes against Free Ice Cream for All. Then I will decide to stay or pull the plug in the rental market. Apres moi, le deluge.

    Comment by Alameda Landlord — August 26, 2016 @ 1:54 pm

    • You really have no idea. Of course renters are paying for parcel taxes. Of course renters of cars are paying for the cars to be washed. Just because the transaction is different does not mean the costs are not passed on to the renter.


      Comment by BMac — August 26, 2016 @ 3:53 pm

    • “As for tenants being responsible for Alameda schools being good, one could make the argument that they would be great, if we had a larger owner population. Tenants enjoy the fruits of our school parcel taxes, but they are not responsible for paying for them. They do not wash the rental car.”

      Taxes are a cost to landlords, and like all businesses, they pass on as much cost as they can to consumers; in tight markets they can pass on more. It’s nonsense to suggest tenants don’t pay taxes. You really have a thing about rental cars. If you rented a car for eighteen years, I assume you’d wash it. I don’t clean hotel rooms I stay in, but when I was growing up we certainly cleaned our apartment. You can have a stake in a community without owning a physical piece of it, you know.

      And why would someone want a landlord like you who views them, being a tenant, as inferior to homeowners? Maybe the deluge will be better than vous.

      Comment by BC — August 26, 2016 @ 4:16 pm

  13. To the 20 or so people who are on this blog ( blog LMFAO) you can’t handle the fact that she actually answered the question. That is her position. Your all bottom feeding parasites . I literally glance at this blog when I take a shyt. Otherwise I’m out there talking to real people. I want to take two seconds to address Angela [ Hockabout ] who’s housing plan is primarily centered around the death of her husbands parents . I hope I can be a fly on the wall the day reality hits you. Angela , you are not a greedy landlord , but an opportunistic scavenger. You half a man husband can’t even provide for you .

    Comment by Master B — August 27, 2016 @ 9:14 am

    • The ROE on this blog are pretty lax so that parasites can get a fair shake.

      Comment by jack — August 27, 2016 @ 4:16 pm

  14. post #13, the true definition of a “TROLL”

    Comment by John P. — August 27, 2016 @ 11:35 am

  15. John P: I had some other terms but I guess troll will suffice. I’d say between 13 and Dave and the rest of the Alameda Coffee Party, also known as the Torch & Pitchfork crowd, a lot of panties are in a bunch because their candidate has formulated some wildly incoherent positions and they can’t hack the criticism.
    Gosh, Dave & the others would never point out the foibles in a candidate they disagree with, heavens to betsy not in a million years!

    Comment by Mike Benneberry — August 27, 2016 @ 12:36 pm

    • I deal in facts, Henneberry, as John P has said himself:

      I do not support Roloff, btw. I just read & understand before I speak.

      Comment by dave — August 27, 2016 @ 2:36 pm

      • Dave, at one point somewhere on this blog, I also said that no one can ever win an argument with you because you will just keep debating until they give up. can you find that one. ?? P.S. You are a very good debater and I love to try my best to argue with you, but at some point I have to eat. As for Jack, I’m a little fearful of him because we were on the same cruise and he said that he was trying to figure a way to throw me overboard. Mike aren’t you and I natives of this island, which neither off those coffee party guy’s are.

        Comment by John P. — August 27, 2016 @ 3:14 pm

        • I plead guilty to tenacity when I’m right. I also try my best not to speak unless I know wtf I’m talking about.

          Comment by dave — August 27, 2016 @ 3:34 pm

        • You needn’t worry about being deep-sixed off the boat John, they got lots of those little inner tube thingies that the good guys can throw at you.

          Comment by jack — August 27, 2016 @ 4:12 pm

        • For full transparency (since Jim Oddie did appoint me to the Sunshine Commission) I was born at Oakland Kaiser. Shortly after returned to San Jose ave. Been in Alameda, more or less, ever since. Thanks for asking John P. I guess that confers native status on me.

          Comment by Mike Henneberry — August 28, 2016 @ 1:41 pm

        • John P. better get your butt in gear.

          Mexican Riviera
          10 days Ship: Grand Princess
          Departure Port: San Francisco, California
          Number of Days: 10
          Departure Date: Sep 25, 2016

          Comment by jack — August 28, 2016 @ 1:56 pm

    • Mike,

      Your dying to matter in someway. Get in where you fit in ,Ha?

      Literally you don’t matter

      Comment by Master B — August 28, 2016 @ 7:12 pm

  16. That should have been Henneberry ya’ll.

    Comment by Mike Henneberry — August 27, 2016 @ 12:38 pm

    • Are you the oldest Henneberry kid or the youngest? And why didn’t you go to St. Joe’s? I have always wondered why I can’t find your name on the 1960’s class rolls.

      Comment by vigi — August 28, 2016 @ 4:08 pm

      • Mike, I think she is stalking you.

        Comment by John P. — August 28, 2016 @ 4:12 pm

        • No, Genius. When I went to St. Joes, it was chock full o’Henneberrys..But no Mike. So since this is Amateur Hour, just thought I’d ask. (I think our mothers were in PTG together, too)
          I am not implying that Mike is the black sheep of the family or anything.

          BTW, I love that post about Cyril Henneberry on Mike’s FB page. A venerable piece of Alameda history. Well done, Mike!

          Comment by vigi — August 29, 2016 @ 9:47 am

  17. 6, 10, 12: Sorry, Alameda Landlord, but blog posts are published writing: the commonly accepted definition of journalistic “publication” is that a piece of writing–electronic or in print–is sent to or viewed by about 20 people.

    And good writing in any publication requires that you get your facts and your proper names right, no matter where they appear. (This is just as important as not understating the rent in one of your leases by $1,000 a month, which I think you would **not** excuse as a minor or casual error…)

    A candidate’s campaign website is a primary source of information (or misinformation) about a candidate and it indicates the caliber of the candidate: sloppy writing (or the lack of careful editing and proofreading) indicate to me that a candidate is not properly informed, not thinking clearly, or is inarticulate. If a candidate wants to impress me with her or his thinking and positions, s/he needs to present positions and facts clearly and accurately.

    Ms. Roloff has failed that test–and indicated a certain lack of preparation and knowledge on her part–when she mislabels an organization whose proper name and acronym–correctly spelled–are widely known and easily available.

    Comment by Jon Spangler — August 29, 2016 @ 11:05 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at