GREENSBORO, NC -- What value is an opinion formed on an incorrect understanding of the facts? Not much. So it is with the News & Record's Allen Johnson. In an opinion absolving city council woman Nancy Hoffman of zoning violations, he gets his facts completely wrong.
Johnson: "If she didn’t own the buildings at the time of
the citation, as it turns out, she shouldn't be held liable for their
condition at that point."
Fact:
Hoffman, with her partners as South End Partners, LLC, bought the buildings on October 23, 2013. They have sat in disrepair for nearly eight month, as Hoffman even admits, explaining the delay in making repairs by saying, "these things don't happen overnight." The citation was issued on June 6, 2014.
Johnson: "She is the owner now, and she has made prompt repairs. Case closed."
Fact: As noted, Hoffman has owned the buildings since October of last year. The code violations were documented in pictures on May 30, 2014 and June 3, 2014, and in the citation of June 6, 2014. If she has made repairs since, and that has not been reported or documented anywhere that I can find, eight months to make such repairs is anything but "prompt."
Johnson is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. In this case, his facts are unquestionably wrong.
We may have an antecedent problem here. The premise of Allen's quoted statement is "If she didn't own the buildings at the time of the citation." But there was no citation prior to her purchase of the building. There was, however, a warning, issued in July 2013.
ReplyDeleteSo when Allen says that Nancy Hoffmann shouldn't be held liable for the condition of her buildings "at that point," he appears to mean "at the time of the original warning." And he's right. She shouldn't be held liable for the buildings' condition before she owned them.
But once she bought them, she immediately became liable. And while we might criticize the pace of the process that's holding her liable, it appears to be moving along. So far, no proper citation has been issued. One was issued and then retracted when the city learned that Hoffmann and her partners hadn't received a warning. It then issued a new warning... and that's where we are.
I agree that Allen's comment about "prompt repairs" is off. If Hoffmann had made them, she wouldn't have been issued a warning last week. The most we can say is that she has 60 days from last week to make repairs. Only after she does so can we say "case closed."
ReplyDeleteSo now you're making excused for Allen too? He wrote "at the time of the citation," but you want us to let him of the hook because you divine that he meant something else.
ReplyDeleteAgain, our standards diverge.
Andy, too be clear, this post is about the horrible misunderstandings of the opinion editor of the News & Record — that he does not have his facts straight — not about Hoffman's culpability. Johnson formed an opinion from gross misunderstanding. Case closed.
ReplyDeleteBut, to the extent you suspect that I am concerned about the "pace of the process" that's holding Hoffman accountable. No, I'm not concerned with the pace of the process. I am concerned with the pace with which Hoffman, a creator and supporter of the ordinance, is bringing her properties into compliance with it.
What kind of elected official passes an ordinance then remains in violation of it for months on end, moved to action only after official action is taken against her? Who does that?
I'm not making excuses for anyone. Nor am I not "divining" what Allen meant, though I am drawing a reasonable inference.
ReplyDeleteIf, instead, you want to insist that by "at the time of the citation," he actually meant to refer to the improper-and-since-retracted citation, then you're insisting that he's speaking gibberish. Obviously she owned the buildings then, and everyone, including Allen, understands that. If that's what you want to hang your hat on with this post, be my guest. But it's weird.
Yes, I'll hang my hat on the record as opposed to your assumptions. I find your abandonment of your usual reason to be weird, explained only, perhaps, by your attachment to Hoffman as a campaign contributor.
ReplyDeleteOur standards don't actually diverge. I'm not suggesting that Allen shouldn't use the correct word, and I've suggested as much on his blog. I also agreed with your other point, which you might have noted.
ReplyDeleteOn the first point, however, I guess what I was saying was that media criticism can be more than playing gotcha, if one is willing to let it.
Ah, the Hartzman acorn doesn't fall far from the tree, eh?
ReplyDeleteYes, you've found me out.
By the way, I also don't disagree with the view that it's taken Hoffmann a long time to get her properties in good repair. I believe I noted that this looks bad and is political theater that she brought upon herself.
ReplyDeleteHartsman said he thought it was unfair that you mediated a debate between Hoffman and her challenger. His opinion for which he offered no evidence of you paying favorites.
ReplyDeleteHere, you are asking that we ignore what people wrote, substitute your inferences instead and characterizing my observations negatively. That's a departure from your usual no-nonsense approach. That you donated to Hoffman is not evil, it's not an indictment of any sort, but I think your support of her is a possible explanation for your views. Which is fine. You can make arguments for people you support, but when they are inconsistent with your reputation, I may notice.
I can't speak to what my reputation is, but I don't have a partisan litmus test for arguing in public. As a rule, I value due process over my side winning. I also value common sense and Occam's Razor over playing "gotcha." If you were to mischaracterize some facts about, say, Thom Tillis, I might notice.
ReplyDelete"playing" favorites.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between valid criticism and "gotcha" in this case seems to be decided by whether or not you agree with the criticism.
ReplyDeleteI don't see how this issue is even remotely partisan, either.
ReplyDelete"Partisan" doesn't necessarily refer to political parties.
ReplyDeletePoint taken.
ReplyDeleteAllen never had any troubles lying or misrepresenting facts... he represents the ones he protects well !
ReplyDelete