42°Mostly Cloudy

Morning Notes

by ARLnow.com December 23, 2011 at 8:00 am 3,474 85 Comments

Rosslyn Exxon Robbed at Gunpoint — The Exxon at 1824 Wilson Boulevard, in the Rosslyn area, was robbed early Wednesday morning. Police say two men robbed the gas station at gunpoint around 2:50 a.m. “The suspects were both African American men in their 30’s, around 5’10,” Arlington County Police said in the department’s daily crime report. “One subject was wearing a ski mask; the other had a medium complexion and a small mustache.”

Wag More Dogs Case Heading Back to Court — In a newspaper op-ed entitled “Arlington County Scrooges Need Bigger Hearts,” Wag More Dogs owner Kim Houghton says the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to hear her case early next year. Houghton, with the assistance of the Arlington-based Institute for Justice, is suing Arlington County over a dog mural painted on the side of her Shirlington doggie daycare business. The county has deemed the mural an illegal sign, while Houghton argues that it’s a work of art. [Washington Times]

D.C. Area Cars Are Getting Older — The average age of vehicles on Washington area roadways continues to rise. The average age of a car in the D.C. area is now 9.25 years — a one year increase since 2005.  “It is likely that the recession has had a strong influence on people’s interest in and ability to purchase new cars,” according to Arlington’s CommuterPage Blog. The blog also notes that the older car fleet has a “negative impact” on local air quality. [CommuterPage Blog]

Flickr pool photo by mj*laflaca

  • Zoning Victim

    Congratulations on winning your right to an appeal, Kim. I hope you win and get restitution for everything Arlington County Zoning has put you through. The fact that they have not reversed their decision, now that the zoning administrator position has been vacated by the curmudgeon who started this mess in the first place, proves that the contrarian culture of Arlington’s zoning administration was not and is not the act of one person but a policy of the Arlington County Government endorsed from the very top. The Arlington County Board are the ones responsible for the terrible disposition of the zoning administration and their propensity to operate outside both their own zoning ordinance and the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Here’s hoping that the state will have the guts to standup to and assert their authority over the morally bankrupt Arlington County bureaucracy.

    • charlie

      her sign (she calls it a mural) was illegal. while the past ZA was a nut job, other ZAs would have made the same determination.

      • Zoning Victim

        No, it isn’t, and I believe that will be proven in this case. Arlington County wanted her to make it their sign at her own expense, and then they were okay with it not being a sign for her business. Perhaps some people see that as a good compromise, but I see Kim as being well within her right to refuse to be muscled into providing a free gift to the county. They also told her that if she were to have painted ponies on it, it would have been okay. Anytime you are a government entity arguing that one subject makes it art and the other makes it a sign, you’re arguing artistic interpretation. They’re lucky it wasn’t me, because I’d have painted over it with the most offensive mural I could think of that didn’t have anything to do with dogs.

        The current people running/working in the zoning office are doing all of the same things the former zoning administrator was doing, which was the point I was trying to make. They consistently and purposely ignore the law and their decisions always go against the landowners whether they have legal basis or not. I’ve been dealing with them for years and I know this firsthand, not from some news story I’ve read. They know that there is very little you can do to force them to comply with the laws short of getting a lawyer and spending tens of thousands of dollars suing them. There is no other way to appeal to the Commonwealth when a bureaucrat simply makes up legislation however they see fit so they can deny your request.

        • charlie

          i’ll respectfully disagree.
          i don’t think our zoning office has lost many, if any, cases.
          our zoning ordinance and the sign component do have many weak points. but this is not one of them.
          we shall see what the courts say.

          • KalashniKEV

            It’s dogs painted on a wall facing a “canine recreation area.”

            It’s clearly a mural.

            The above referenced curmudgeon should do jail on the weekend for 2 years as punishment.

        • SomeGuy

          I haven’t followed this case extremely closely, but I think I fall on the side of Zoning Victim regarding who *should* win this case. It strikes me as inconsistent that they would have approved pretty much EVERY mural except the one that included dogs, particularly considering that the mural faces directly into a dog park. If she had owned a bakery though, the dog mural at the dog park would be fine?

          Arlington County has some very deep pockets to wage war on this though.

          Regardless, I’m happy to see this woman challenge the powers that be, who seem to operate with near impunity.

          • KalashniKEV

            “Regardless, I’m happy to see this woman challenge the powers that be, who seem to operate with near impunity.”

            The gears are turning against them though- they may not know it, but the case is being made. Their failure to perform due diligence and misappropriation of public funds for their own personal indulgences will eventually destroy them.

            The patterns of misconduct are being recorded- and the drum beat is actually picking up. The case is going to drop like a lightning bolt, and I really would be surprised if some of them *didn’t* serve some time in prison when it all shakes out…

          • SomeGuy

            Can you expound, KalishniKEV?

          • KalashniKEV

            At this time I’m just going to say that it’s clear that the County Board does not adequately pursue information or perform analysis, and does not entertain alternative courses of action- because due diligence and responsible stewardship are a barrier to what they want to do with our money.

            It would be wise for them to slow down and not rock the boat, but rather they have increased the pace of their scams and level of aggression- reference: ArtisFAIL, TrolleyFolley, OUThouse…

            The culture of corruption runs from elected officials, to department czars, to the minions.

  • Cars

    As an Arlington resident, there is one reason I haven’t traded in my old car — the annual car tax. It provides a pretty strong incentive not to buy a new car.

    • creative

      While not the sole reason, it’s been a factor for me as well.

    • AllenB

      Isn’t that no different throughout the state? Not sure how it affects Arlington more than anywhere else in VA.

      • my bad

        It is up to the individual counties in Virginia to determine the tax rate up to a maximum of 5% of assessed value and also to determine who to distribute the county’s share of the State provided car tax relief. Arlington chooses to charge the full 5% (go figure). Loudoun only 4.2% and Fairfax 4.57%. In other jurisdictions outside of Northern Virginia the rate can be far lower…such as Roanoke County where it is only 3.5%. So while not a massive difference, it does effect Arlington greater than in other jurisdicitions and potentially more significantly based on Arlington’s application of the State provided relief.

        • AllenB

          Interesting info here. Arlington exempts the first $3000 of value while other jurisdictions exempt only the first $1000.


          • Thes

            Do you mean to say that Arlington has a *lower* effective tax rate than some other jurisdictions? This is also true for the real estate tax, by the way. The Tea Party responds to this by saying that since Arlington land is more valuable than land elsewhere, Arlington has higher taxes, even though our rate is lower.

            Therefore, I am waiting for someone to write in to say that even though Arlington has a lower tax rate than some other jurisdictions, it’s really a higher tax because more people around here own Beemers and Mercedes than do people elsewhere in the state.

          • Done and Done

            Well, since the County couldn’t even spell ‘Loudoun’ correctly on their propaganda site, I don’t think I’ll take their word for it. If you look at the actual taxes for a $40,000 car – even with the larger exemption, you still end up paying more in Arlington than anywhere else except Falls Church. Do the math yourself. So it’s really a higher tax because of reality, but nobody expects you to admit that.

            The ONLY way you can make a comparison about effective tax rate is to compare the total PPT taken in and divide by the number of vehicles in the county. The point where it gets about even between Loudoun and Arlington is where the car valuation is $12,500, which is about the value of a 9-year old Honda Accord.

      • Capone Allante

        The average age of automobiles is increasing throughout the country, not just Arlington. It is directly related to the economy.

    • SomeGuy

      I am putting off buying a newer vehicle for a number of reasons, and the pending increase in my tax liability is among them.

    • jan

      Many of us who live in Arlington put little mileage on our cars. All our needs are close by. Some people even walk, bike or use mass transit!

      Why buy a new car, unless it’s a status symbol?

      • SomeGuy

        Spare me, jan. I put very little mileage on my vehicle. I use mass transit almost daily, and I ride my bike often when the weather is nice. Last I checked, my year 2000 “everycar” will hardly be mistaken as a status symbol, so please don’t pin that on me.

        It’s a matter of practicality for me to own a vehicle. And I WILL own one for that reason.

        The tax we’re discussing presents just one small incentive for me to keep my old “negative impact” vehicle on the road longer.

    • ShirliMan

      I recently got rid of my 12 year old dented up and worn out car. I bought a new car that is certainly safer for me to drive, arguably safer for those around me, probably better for the environment, and not an eyesore. My annual tax went from $0 to over $1,000. Where’s the logic in that?

      • Capone Allante

        Because you bought a new car you are apparently richer and can afford to pay the added tax.

        • ShirliMan

          HA…yeah, right. I’m no “richer” than the last several years when I paid $0 “car tax”.

    • Louise

      True! Our two cars are so old that for the past few years our car tax has consisted of the price of the sticker. It’s awesome.

  • Facepalm

    Too bad Cash for Perfectly Serviceable Cars has expired…

    • SomeGuy

      Wasn’t it awesome how people who were doing the right thing by driving fuel-efficient vehicles prior to “Cash For Clunkers” were excluded from the windfall, but the program rewarded people who had bought SUVs just a few years earlier (which were still newer than my auto), fuel-efficiency be damned?

      So much for positive reinforcement…

      • Facepalm

        Your question (I think it was a question) is full of assumptions pulled from thin air:

        “…people who were doing the right thing by driving fuel-efficient vehicles…” Who says that is the right thing to do? There is nothing wrong with having a less efficient vehicle, except in some people’s opinions.

        “…were excluded from the windfall…” How, exactly, was anyone excluded? Anyone wanting to trade in a used car for a new car could take advantage of this government sponsored waste of money.

        “…rewarded people who had bought SUVs just a few years earlier…” Based upon what data? Your opinions do not count as facts.

        Here is a fact, though. Cash for clunkers simply pushed the demand for new cars that were already going to be bought further to the left. After the program ended, new auto sales plummeted as all the people that were going to buy new cars in a couple of months simply bought them earlier. Net demand for new cars was the same, the national deficit increased unnecessarily, auto sales were distorted BUT the theory of demand-side command economics was again shown to be erroneous.

        You are not a better person because you drive a fuel efficient vehicle. You simply spend less money on gas.

        In fact, your holier-than-thou attitude about it may make you a worse person…

        • SomeGuy

          Oh. Nice leap.

          “The right thing” was used loosely because the government cited getting inefficient cars off the road as one of their goals. So I was doing “the right thing” by the standards the government encouraged. I’m surprised you took that out of context to think I was projecting a holier-than-thou attitude, but that’s your prerogative.

          I was excluded from the windfall because my existing car from year 2000 did not qualify for the program because it already met the fuel-efficiency threshold. However, if I had chosen to drive a fuel-inefficient vehicle for the prior 8 years or so, the government would have offered me $4000 (I think) to get a new car. Get it?

          As for rewards, my colleague is a perfect example of someone who drove a perfectly capable Ford Explorer (2002 maybe? not sure) and traded it in for a $4000 dollar stipend toward his new car. Going back to the “getting inefficient vehicles off the road” initiative of “cash for clunkers,” it’s not unreasonable to say he was rewarded with $4000 for owning an inefficient vehicle.

          So… all of my points are valid. And I was actually agreeing with you that the program was ridiculous for countless reasons, including the economics and misplaced incentives for the behavior the government said it was trying to encourage. I assumed from my agreement with you that I wouldn’t need to bolster every last point that I tried to simplify, because I thought you could deduce that, like you, I thought the program was stupid. I clearly overestimated your ability to deduce.

          I see that by simplifying my point, I’ve become a worse person in your eyes, but I hope I can go on.

          • Capone Allante

            Except that your point fails to realize the owner of the big gas guzzler SUV is paying more in gasoline tax, thus contributing more tax money than the individual who owns a 40 mpg Honda Civic.

          • SomeGuy

            No, it doesn’t fail to realize that.

  • Stillwell87

    From banks to gas stations, I’m not sure robberies are even news anymore. This is getting ridiculous.

    As for Wag More Dogs, while I’m usually all for the idea that individuals have a right to free speech and businesses don’t necessarily have one, I say good for Wag More. The idea that they cannot have a mural of dogs, simply because the business involves dogs is wrong. I hope they win their case.

    • Collection Basket

      BREAKING NEWS: Acting Arlington County Zoning Administrator bans stained glass windows in churches. Cites advertisement of religion. More to follow…

      • Stillwell87

        haha good one!

    • Sam

      So I guess you’d be ok with a mural of topless women on the side of a building where topless dancing is allowed?

      There is a reason that we, as a community, have convinced our government employees to put rules in place to balance what some people feel is “art” while others feel it’s “advertising”. If we don’t like it, then we need to show up and make changes – much like businesses have done regarding “sandwich board” signage. But, until we do, the rules are the rules and Wag More Dogs should have followed them like every other small business has had to do.

      If Wag More Dog’s mural looked less like their logo and more like “just art”; then this might be a little different conversation.

      Thanks Wag More Dogs for wasting our taxpayer money on defending a lawsuit that the County WILL win.

      • KalashniKEV

        I think they will lose. If you remember the mural before it was covered, there was no phone number, hours, or writing of any kind.

      • CCity Rocks

        Ah, yes. A mural advertising the Crystal City Restaurant would be nice at 23rd and Jeff Davis Highway. Liven up the Exxon and keep cabbies heading to airport entertained while stopped at the red light. Great idea.

      • Stillwell87

        As far as a mural of topless woman, I believe that goes beyond advertising and into indecency. As I said in my post, I do not believe in freedom of speech for businesses. I believe censorship to a point is necessary and right. However, in this particular instance, I do not believe the mural to be an advertisement. Sure, it brings the building to the attention of park goers, but it did not contain anything specifically advertising Wag More Dogs, simply dogs and bones. I don’t see how this looks like an advertisement:


        While I agree this is a waste of tax payer money, I believe it is the county that should realize that, and allow the mural to remain. As KalashniKEV points out below, the mural had no phone numbers, hours, or writing.

        Since we have a common law system, it is judges who can make exception and change laws. If it were to be the same for every instance then we would have a Civil Law system

        • Village Genius

          Female breasts are not indecent.

          The concept that female breasts are indecent suggests that there is something wrong with females and that society needs to be protected from females.

          Female breasts shown in National Geographic are not indecent, nor appearing when a baby nurses, nor on a beach in Europe. A female breast covered in a little slip of fabric is not also not indecent. Likewise a female on the Metro with no shirt or bra is NOT indecent.

          Females have breasts — it is not a big deal and it is definitely not indecent.

      • SomeGuy

        Sam, I think you’re missing part of the point. Let’s use your ridiculous example of the topless bar, and let’s assume that murals with topless women are generally acceptable to the community. This Wag More Dogs case is like the County telling bakeries and banks and sandwich shops that they can put topless dancer murals on the sides of their buildings. Pretty much every building in the county could be adorned with topless dancer murals EXCEPT the Crystal City Restaurant, whose topless dancer mural suddenly becomes an advertisement.

        I think there’s a fine line here, and I’m happy to see a citizen challenge the ruling.

        Your example remains ridiculous though, and any point you were trying to make is lost in hyperbole.

        • Stillwell87


        • KalashniKEV

          It would be really funny if small business owners made a graffiti stencil of a dog and put it on all their brick walls in protest.

          Arlington would be covered in dog art! (so long as no dog related business used the stencil)

        • Sam

          Actually, you miss the point.

          If it’s ok for one business to put a large mural on their building to advertise their business, then it has to be ok for all businesses to do so. Because we, as a community, have lobbied the county to restrict the size and type of business advertising in our community, the rules must be applied equally. Thus, if you allow a large mural of dogs on a dog-related business, you must allow a same size mural of bongs on a “pipe shop” or a large mural of women in their underwear for Victoria’s Secret.

          Remember, Wag More Dogs says this is free speech. Free speech must be applied equally for like-kind cases; and you can’t just say this one time it’s ok because I think it’s cute.

          Like it or not, you have to apply the rule equitably, and remember, this case really has nothing to do with free speech – the owner said in the very beginning that she decided to ask for forgiveness instead of permission before painting it – therefore, she knew darn well what she was doing and just hoped they would allow it to go through.

          IF she had made it smaller – IF she had made it look different than her logo- IF she had submitted the plans prior to spending the money – IF she had followed the rules like other small businesses do every day; this would not be an issue. Regardless of the point of view of people who think it’s cute or not (and I happen to think it’s very cute for cartoon dogs); the County should prevail in this issue because if they don’t, we will all end up with some very interesting business signage in our county.

          • SomeGuy

            “Like it or not, you have to apply the rule equitably…”

            I’m all for equitable rulings. So ban murals. Or even ban murals depicting dogs. I don’t care. Just pick something and be consistent about it.

            I don’t know her exact circumstances, so maybe she deserves to lose her case on certain grounds. My post above merely points out the absurdity of the position that murals on your business are A-Okay unless they have something to do with your business. In other words, the unrelated business down the street could paint the EXACT SAME MURAL and it’s fine, but if you do it, it’s illegal.

            Sam, you keep trying to attack this from the standpoint of “if we allow one mural, we have to allow them all… including on the Victoria’s Secret buildings.” That’s not the point. And you’re continuing to miss the point.

            We are talking about a DOG MURAL, which under normal circumstances, the county has deemed is a perfectly acceptable mural in the community. Not drug paraphernalia murals, not salacious lady murals (more hyperbole from you). The county is cool with this specific DOG MURAL as long as it’s on any building other than one that has a dog-related business tenant.

            Think about it this way, Sam: if this lady converted her business to a sandwich shop, should her troubles with this mural evaporate since it’s no longer related to her business? Because that’s kinda what the county’s position implies.

          • Sam

            My guess would be yes because it no longer advertises her business. The issue is the allowable signage area for a business. As long as a dog business is operating in the building, a mural of dogs is considered business signage.

            And the point is that this mural is a very large expansion of her logo – and the fact is that she had the logo created first and put on the building – see the photos from long ago….

            She had this done purely as an advertisement for her business. The county does not allow signs of this size. That is the point. It’s too big and doesn’t conform to the current rules. She has the exact same dogs on her door (or had – haven’t looked in a while), and her website, her business cards, etc. It’s a big ‘ole logo, not a dog mural for the sake of being a dog mural and of benefit to the community. They just came up with that when she didn’t get her way….

          • SomeGuy

            That’s a much more thoughtful response, Sam. And perhaps not too far off the mark. It’ll be interesting to see if the courts read it the way you do.

            Nonetheless, I’m happy to see the little guy/gal litigate for clarity, and I believe this case is a large reason why the county was browbeaten (somewhat) to review their policies, which all local businesses should appreciate the sentiment of… if not the outcome of.

          • bemused bystander


          • Capone Allante

            The wall was painted with artist renditions of dogs. No logo, nada. It is just paint on a wall. If the wall was painted with abstract art, would it be considered a sign for the Artisphere? Ridiculous.

          • Jealous

            she’s the one wasting county money
            Do you really think Arlington’s rules about signage are that different from any where else around here? You have to make limits, and set standards, regardless of whether you like the mural or not (and most if not all CB members have said they liked it). I have no sympathy for her–she has exagerated wht the County told her she could do and guestimated it would cost $7000 to add ONE thing the county suggested she do to make it illegal. The initial judge had this info and ruled fairly.

          • Jealous

            my +1000 was for SomeGuys comments

    • Arlwhenver

      Illegal mural depicting people fronting establishment serving people. No doubt the County will be tracking down Superintendent Murphy to pull down his illegal sign pronto.


  • John Fontain

    Regarding the dog park painting, there’s a fine line between art and signage. However, in this particular case the painting was a huge improvement over the appearance of the grey concrete block wall. It added some zest and fun to that blighted area.

    I wish the county would reverse their position and stop spending money to fight something that was most would agree was an improvement.

    • charlie

      so if it looks better it should be okay?

      • John Fontain

        As I made clear, yes IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

        • charlie

          but what if i don’t think it looks better?
          or what if in the future you don’t think it looks better.
          gets very arbitrary and zoning can’t be arbitrary.

          • John Fontain

            maybe you should become a politician in congress, because it sounds like you’d be great at causing gridlock while avoiding the basic application of reasonable judgment.

          • charlie

            actually i think you are better suited for Congress — making arbitrary judgements based on your taste.

            As for ZV below, if it is a Ford Dealer and it goes out of business and then the new place sells Chevy’s, don’t they want their own signs?

          • Zoning Victim

            That’s what I keep telling people at the zoning office.

            So what if there was a bakery leasing the building, and the building owner put up a mural of dogs. Then the bakery goes out of business and Wag More moves in there under a new lease, did the art just become a sign? Will the owner now have to paint over the mural (at great expense in both the cover-up and the loss of monies paid for the mural) so the dog related business can move in? How is it not arbitrary that any business having nothing to do with dogs can put up a dog mural but Wag More can’t?

    • FedUp

      The County should look into the mural across from Wag More Dogs, which is obviously advertising. There is website hidden in that mural. But of course those “bright” people in Zoning wouldn’t know. I’d say they retaliated against Wag More Dogs.

  • jimPB

    Cars last longer these days. I’m often surprised to learn the year of another person’s car — without exception, the cars are older than I thought from looking at the smooth, shinny bodies and sometimes from riding in them. And, do new cars generally offer features that are sufficiently better to warrant the outlay, and the big first year depreciation? More than ever, my inclination is to reduce the cost of car ownership by buying a thoroughly inspected used car, thereby saving the big first year depreciation and often a bigger than subsequently second year depreciation. And I might even try the “car-free diet,” renting a car when I absolutely have to drive. BIG potential $ savings. Big boost in healthy activity. Big downside: Increasing the risk of experiencing the array of Metrotrain, once first world, now third world, problems.

  • CrystalMikey

    Can we please stop wasting taxpayer dollars on this mural thing.

  • KalashniKEV

    Apparently Arlington County leadership would rather pay for Vagrants take a big long piss against their brick walls (it was like… 2 minutes long and at least 80 oz of urine.. I couldn’t believe it) than have them decorated with artwork.

    …which is funny because they’re paying a bunch of slackers to loaf around a Government Run Art Gallery that no one will ever visit at the very same time!

    It would be quite comical, if it weren’t so sad…

  • pay2pee

    didn’t know you could get paid to pee in arlington.

    • Facepalm

      In that case the county owes me $4 million.

      • Capone Allante

        Then they owe me $6 million.

  • Learned Elbow

    The County’s zoning rules are incomprehensible. Recently, I tried to help a neighbor who was running into a brick wall with zoning. I am an attorney who practices in the area of complex trade regulations, but found the zoning regulations bizarre to say the least. The rules are not set forth with any logic and are so inconsistent and vague as to be near useless. There is no reason the zoning regulations need to be written as they are. When even the zoning office cannot figure out their own rules that signals a big, big problem.

    I advised my neighbor to talk with a local attorney who specializes in zoning, but that approach did not help much because the local attorney is likewise stuck trying to dicpher the impossible.

    A complete rewrite of the zoning regulations is necessary so that they are logical and can be followed by both the citizens and the zoning office.

    • John Fontain

      I had an issue with the zoning office in recent years. They tried to apply a rule to me that wasn’t applicable in my situation. When I pointed out the specific language in the zoning rules that made it 100% clear that the rule didn’t apply to me, the zoning reviewer said he didn’t disagree with me but didn’t care and wouldn’t approve me anyway.

      I was shocked that he would completely disregard the regulations, but I also realized that fighting him on this issue could involve a significant amount of time and money. The zoning office knows this too, and that is why their staff is willing to flip the bird to people when they make incorrect determinations.

      • KalashniKEV

        It *should* be as simple as asking for his supervisor and sending him to the unemployment line.

        • Bluemontsince1961

          Exactly. It should be that way. If I did such a thing at my job as John Fontain pointed out, I’d get one warning and if I did such a thing a second time, I’d be one more figure in the unemployment line.

          • KalashniKEV

            Applying standards and discipline to subordinates would eventually force the same accountability for leaders- which is why it would be a death blow for government employees, teachers, police…

        • Zoning Victim

          That’s just it, this behavior comes from the top. Since there is no way to appeal to their arbitrary decisions to the Commonwealth other than a lawsuit, they are free to interpret the rules anyway they see fit, even if it doesn’t even jive with the English language or the Constitutions of the US and Virginia. They have no problem informing you of this when you press them on the law, as John found out. These people should all be charged by the Commonwealth’s Attorney with dereliction of duty or some other similar crime for their disregard of Virginia law.

      • charlie

        it does not cost ANYTHING to appeal a case to the BZA.
        you were incorrectly advised. sorry to hear that.

        • Zoning Victim

          You are completely incorrect, I have written the checks myself. Please reference the following:


          Appeals to Determinations of the Zoning Administrator – $548

        • Zoning Victim

          Oh, and I have thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees to go along with each appeal. In fact, when you come up against the zoning administrator, your attorney will most likely advise you to apply for both the appeal and a variance / special use permit. You schedule the variance / special use permit hearing first and hope you win the variance because it’s much cheaper than going through the appeal process, which is a more formal court hearing.

          • Charle

            You ever get your appeal at BZA? Over 20 years I’ve only seen a handful of appeals at BZA. And theyve all lost.
            I’m calling you out on this — very few appeals in Alington. I don’t believe you have ‘multiple’ .

  • JimPB

    Government regulations that go beyond public health and public safety should be limited to instances for which there is a compellikng need. In the case of the mural/advertising, where is the intersection with public health? public safety? the compelling need on other grounds? If there are no answers, get the government out of the mural/advertising and out of the wallet of taxpayers for the costs involved in this (and like) cases.

    • John Fontain

      what ^^he^^ said!!

    • Bluemontsince1961

      Amen, JimPB!

    • bemused bystander

      So are you running for the County Board?

      • charlie

        that would be too good to be true.
        (although someone may have to sell their gas guzzling truck….)

      • Zoning Victim

        I sure hope he does; it’d be nice to have somebody to vote for on the ballot.

    • KalashniKEV

      I should have put a write-in vote for JimPB. Sorry, novasteve!

  • soarlslacker

    If Wag More Dogs does not win its case, I hope that hideous caricatures of the Arlington County Board Members are painted in place of charming mural that exists today. Maybe Chris Zimmerman could be riding his trolley car sucking money out of the pockets of all Arlingtonians.

    • John Fontain

      Now that’s an idea I can get behind. That would be too funny! A painting with all of the Board’s follies! The trolly could go to an a boarded up artisphere.

    • Charle

      Love it.
      Or go Freudian and have it coming out of his mouth .. Barfing his trolley on the peeps of Arlington. And Walter could be there helping him breath… Let it out …
      Caricatures only.

  • ArlingtonCountyTaxpayer

    i guess the final word is… they should be embarrassed to call that paint-by-numbers thing “art”. it is ugly. and it is so amateur.
    ugh. hate it. do good art if you are.


Subscribe to our mailing list