Won comfortably because people were handed a blue piece of paper at the polls that said vote only for these candidates. So many voters didn't have a clue who they were voting for locally. That's what makes the Nov. election what it is for local D party.

When you win by 20% it's more than just party affiliation. There were stark differences between the two candidates: different records of service, different leadership styles, and different visions on how to move the city forward.

This is a legitimate landslide anyway you look at it. Euille won 25 precincts to 2 for Macdonald (and one of those was a one-vote win in Lyles Crouch). The only place where Macdonald won convincingly was City Hall, but even in the hotbed of the Waterfront issue, 40% of voters still supported the mayor.

You can try to spin it anyway you want, but the citizens have spoken and a significant majority clearly like the direction the city is headed in and they like the leadership the major has been providing.

Most Alexandrians have had a herd mentality for decades because the locals became out numbered by the liberal blow- ins that could not afford Georgetown prices and now inhabit our once great city!

In a town ruled by members of a single political party, only term limits will allow citizens new council members.

If our rulers would allow this periodic change of council members, then perhaps we'll get some with fresh visions even if they are de facto elected at the Democratic Party Primary.

What are you talking about? 2 of the 6 council members are incumbents. 4 of the 6 will have the "fresh visions" you want. There is no need for term limits.

>Most Alexandrians have had a herd mentality for decades because the locals became out numbered by the liberal blow- ins that could not afford Georgetown prices and now inhabit our once great city!

Violet, When did the liberal "blow-ins" start to arrive? Are you talking like 1950's? Because when I "blew in" 25 years ago they were already pretty well established here.

And I think that Alexandria is still a great city!

In a town ruled by members of a single political party, only term limits will allow citizens new council members.

"What are you talking about? 2 of the 6 council members are incumbents. 4 of the 6 will have the "fresh visions" you want. There is no need for term limits."

My rejoinder was not tightly phrased. My desire is for fresh visions selected by citizens; not by a political party by whatever label it chooses to describe itself.

If term limits are good for the governor of Virginia and for the president of the US, then why not for our fair city?

More: Of the four council members newly elected, two are retreads. Expect nothing fresh from them

Term limits for governor are not a good thing. Gov. McDonnell has done a good job running the state. He certainly should be allowed to run for a second term and the citizens of Virgina should be able to decide whether he deserves to serve another 4 years.

Getting back to the city, 4 incumbents ran for 6 seats. 2 won, 2 lost. One of the winning incumbents got the fewest number of votes of any of the elected candidates. There is clearly no need for term limits on council. If you forget, the "retreads" were defeated previously and it could happen again next time. Yes, the mayor has been around for awhile but he won again because he's doing a good job and was more appealing to most voters than his opponent was.

I am not seeking to persuade you to abandon your views. I will only posit that you, and others who share your objection to term limits, must not dismiss the power of incumbency. This phenomenon exists. it sucks the vibrancy from democracies.

Recall too that it was a popular president, FDR, who instigated them for the presidency.

Recall further how our nation and our state has benefited from able individuals who served us for set terms, and not a day longer.

Our mayor, unquestionably personable and dedicated, is a fine man. Had he been constrained from another term, I am positive no less than an equally fine person would have emerged as a viable choice for we, the voters

Fair enough Jim. Your points are well taken.

Certainly there is a "power of incumbency" but people seem so generally pessimistic and unhappy with government that it can also be a disadvantage. In 3 years, President Obama and Tim Kaine won't be on the ballot. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see some of the Democratic incumbents on council loose, as they did in 2009.

And the single term-limit for our governors has prematurely cut short some effective leaders - both Democrats and Republicans.

I'll make this my last comment. To make our Alexandria democracy pristine, we should--

1. Ban political party endorsements of candidates for any elected office. Instead, we should elect our representatives because they persuaded us they share our visions and possess the energy to achieve them on our behalf; not because they are a Democrat, Republican, Liberal or whatever

2. Institute term limits to ensure our elected officials don't fall prey to the intoxication of power one manifestation of which is to be always primed to say "yes," especially to large campaign donors or special interests

What's refreshing about VA is our governor doesn't need to curry favor with special interest groups by saying "yes" to their perpetual appeals for access to the state's treasury.

Not having to stand for re-election means our governor can do the right thing even it's certain to cause anguish among the politically well-connected. And four years later, we're guaranteed another able person will be at the helm of our state government

There's plenty of talent seeking to serve the public for any one person to hog an elected office as if it's their birthright.

You are correct Jim!
Unfortunately, Alexandria has been "Entitlement City" for many years. The Doers have always paid for theTakers!!! This does not inspire excellence or self reliance in any people.

First year ACPS teachers w/ a bachelors degree and a 197-day contract make 46.7K salary. I'm not sure how "summer's off" or benefits stand in the ACPS system but that's great pay for your first job with only a bachelors...

http://www.acps.k12.va.us/hr/compensation/salary-teach-2013.pdf

Truthfully, Lynn, you have to make over 70K as a single person to live in most places in Alexandria. Why do you think the "all that work in our city" are increasingly not firefighters, police officers, and teachers? A teacher's salary, even doubled with husband and wife earning that each as teachers, isn't enough for many. Lack of workforce affordable housing means more commute time for those who now have to drive to work in Alexandria from areas that are affordable. No city government can solve problems that are essentially national problems, like a bad economy, but we need to get serious in Alexandria about the very real fiscal crisis that is looming. We can develop the heck out of the place, we can raise taxes, but what are we are gaining from these measures?

Affordable housing is also apparently for the hundreds of cab drivers that line my street with their disgusting cabs, illegally park their personal or commercial vehicles on my property, disobey traffic laws, and litter. The sooner they demolish the affordable housing units the cleaner the West End will be...and for those of us who actually OWN property (not a condo) in the West End...the higher our property values will climb.

yeah, yeah, yeah. We heard this all summer. "pave over paradise", "sprawl like LA", "National Harbor II"... whatever.... you're obviously entitled to your opinion but the majority of Alexandrians do not agree with your assessment of the development proposals. And I don't know any place in Alexandria that looks like Crystal City.

Affordable housing? Are you a renter? It sure sounds like it.

It would seem to be that more and denser development would=less sprawl and more housing supply. Generally, more supply would equal more affordable housing.

Patrick- under your theory rents in rural areas would be much higher than in urban areas- we know of course this doesn't hold true

What's missing from the pro-density proponents is their end point; that is, when will they be satisfied that maximum density has been achieved?

Alexandria exists within fixed boundaries. It also has a finite number of roads, most of which cannot be expanded. Therefore, by adding density, the city becomes evermore congested and, I would argue, less livable

Defining and justifying the density goal would be helpful to the pro and to the anti-density argument. At a minimum, it will ensure both recognize that, just as a glass can hold only so much fluid, there are capacity limits.

Hi Neil-

I'm not sure I follow. My statement was based on supply and demand. For a variety of reasons, there is generally a much higher demand for housing in urban areas than in rural areas, so the price in the former would be higher.

Various building restrictions (zoning laws, rent control, height restrictions, et al) limit supply and thus create higher rents than would exist in their absence. Further, the inability to build more and denser housing in high demand areas due to restrictions leads developers to build out (i.e. suburban sprawl) because the outlying areas don't have the same restrictions.

Whether these restrictions (and the accompanying higher rents) are a necessary evil is certainly subject to debate. My sense with the Waterfront case is that it was a case of (mainly) wealthy Old Towners acting parochially to try to prevent development that would be a net positive to the city as a whole.

Maybe you disagree with this, and I'm open to the possibility that I could be wrong!

>What's missing from the pro-density proponents is their end point; that is, when will they be satisfied that maximum density has been achieved?

Come on...no one is looking for "maximum density". But we clearly need to make some changes. My "end point" (at least for my neighborhood) will be when the warehouses, dilapidated buildings and chain link fences are gone and I'll be able to walk along the river - unobstructed - from Oronoco Bay park to the Wilson Bridge.

My last, last comment:

The improvements you cite sound appealing to me too, even idyllic. Do they need to trigger a concomitant of greater structural, vehicular and human density in this space that you now find visually odious?

More facts would help. For example, based on its failure to respond to my requests, I can only conclude the city has no idea how many existing parking spaces there are in Old Town near the waterfront, much less how many parking permits have been issued to residents to use those spaces.

Seems like a germane pair of facts for any discussion about enticing evermore people and their cars into a historically fragile area, even if for a few hours.

What? We're talking about about tearing down warehouses and other structures that have no historic value. In fact, they were constructed during the horrible period you say destroyed Old Town's character and they blight the waterfront today. What does getting rid of them have to do with the destruction of the Marshall House and lower King Street? (which I agree was a terrible mistake). And gambling...???? No one has ever proposed that (or ever will). Please try to come back to reality.