Jordan is an anti-car transplant with a sophomoric sense of humor.
His petition could not articulate why it was bad for the neighbors to save the trees, so he resorted to immature attacks and sarcasm.
Looking at the comments to the unimpressive number of people who signed the petition, he ended up tricking some people into signing who did not support the real intent of the petition, which was just to be douchey to Eastmoreland.
What the heck was Sunnyside thinking when they elected
Jordan.
The text of the petition is snarky and immature. Strange that one neighborhood association president would be such a party-pooper when it came to a victory by another neighborhood group to save some old growth trees. Jordan can't articulate why he was so perturbed by the success of another group, so he resorts to unfunny attempts at sarcasm. Check out his twitter feed for anti-car rants. Yeah- he is troll.
As I thought about your explanation of the petition, it occurred to me that there are two possible narratives.
1. You really care about the homeless and you think a small lot on a residential cul de sac is a viable site. You choose not to contact the neighborhood association through the usual channels but to instead draft an insulting petition on the day they were celebrating a victory.
You also chose not to consult Right to Dream about their thoughts on the site and your efforts. This makes for a really dumb strategy. Doomed to failure.
2. You reflexively side with developers against homeowners, so the neighbor's victory bothered you. It was not important to listen to both sides (the trees could stay even if two houses were built). Instead, you thought you would be funny and promote your hilarious petition amongst the Bike Portland crowd. Ad hominem attacks are okay because your cause (no cars, yes tall apartment buildings) is just and the ends justify the means.
Look, either way the petition was a bad idea and you should take it down. It may in fact violate the http://change.org rules because I think it misled some of the signers. If you continue to suggest that the petition was a serious effort to advance the interest of Right to Dream and that your approach was okay, then I think your position is untruthful. And untruthful people should not be in any elected office.
Yeah, put it there!
His petition could not articulate why it was bad for the neighbors to save the trees, so he resorted to immature attacks and sarcasm.
Looking at the comments to the unimpressive number of people who signed the petition, he ended up tricking some people into signing who did not support the real intent of the petition, which was just to be douchey to Eastmoreland.
What the heck was Sunnyside thinking when they elected
Jordan.
Apropos of nothing--- I am writing in Blabby for City Council. Consistently good thoughts.
As I thought about your explanation of the petition, it occurred to me that there are two possible narratives.
1. You really care about the homeless and you think a small lot on a residential cul de sac is a viable site. You choose not to contact the neighborhood association through the usual channels but to instead draft an insulting petition on the day they were celebrating a victory.
You also chose not to consult Right to Dream about their thoughts on the site and your efforts. This makes for a really dumb strategy. Doomed to failure.
2. You reflexively side with developers against homeowners, so the neighbor's victory bothered you. It was not important to listen to both sides (the trees could stay even if two houses were built). Instead, you thought you would be funny and promote your hilarious petition amongst the Bike Portland crowd. Ad hominem attacks are okay because your cause (no cars, yes tall apartment buildings) is just and the ends justify the means.
Look, either way the petition was a bad idea and you should take it down. It may in fact violate the http://change.org rules because I think it misled some of the signers. If you continue to suggest that the petition was a serious effort to advance the interest of Right to Dream and that your approach was okay, then I think your position is untruthful. And untruthful people should not be in any elected office.