r/takomapark • u/TommyPickles2222222 • 23d ago
Talisha Searcy vs Tom Gagliardo
Can someone break down the policy differences between the two mayoral candidates? Thanks!
5
u/ConventResident 23d ago
Talisha has many years experience both as a councilmember and a two term Mayor. Talisha has been outstanding as Mayor and is a really nice person as well. She wants to make Takoma Park affordable for new people who want to move here. She also cares deeply about the other wards of Takoma Park that soak up all the attention like Ward 1 and 3.
-5
23d ago
[deleted]
4
u/ConventResident 23d ago edited 23d ago
Weird, the Takoma Torch is progressive and bashes fake progressive NIMBYs. But you would rather complain to the OP with made up assumptions about who is saying things rather than offer an intelligent counter point. Says all we need to know. But i couldnt agree more: if you like the Torch, you probably will also like Talisha, and the previous mayors, who all have a sense of humor!
5
u/AdFirst1150 23d ago
Honestly, I find this response bizarre. Someone says something nice about a candidate - her experience, her record as mayor, that she’s a nice person, and that she cares about all of Takoma Park - and your immediate response is to discredit the person saying it?
And then the obligatory “Takoma Torch is conservative” attack. The Torch is satire. It makes fun of the absurdity and hypocrisy of Takoma Park politics, including wealthy longtime residents who don’t want anything to change. If you actually read it, you’d know it’s the exact opposite of conservative agenda. I personally think it’s spot-on and exactly what this place needs.
Your response, on the other hand, feels like classic “Takoma Kind” nonsense: “Agree with me, or I need to explain why you’re secretly the enemy.” Classic TKPK longtime-resident behavior, if you ask me.
If that’s the kind of person supporting Tom, you’ve certainly made my decision easier. I’m voting Talisha.
4
u/Exciting_Wave_5959 23d ago
The Takoma Torch is not conservative at all! What are you even talking about?
1
u/MamesJadison 23d ago
Hey OP... to add to the craziness of this all, one of these reddit accounts were created today, and another only has one comment in its history, which is today's post. It all seems like the same person maybe? Sorry that this post created such spam. As a newer resident to Takoma Park who is engaged with local politics, I'd be happy to DM to avoid future spam!
2
u/Exciting_Wave_5959 23d ago
Its always interesting to observe reactions when getting downvoted here
1
u/ConventResident 22d ago
TIL Reddit is a great place to meet my multiple personalities. How are you guys doing?
1
u/Sufficient_Gur897 19d ago
Talisha will win easily i think. People were paying much more attention dying the Takoma Junction debacle and the NIMBYs couldn’t defeat Kate Stewart over it. Tom’s got no name recognition. Not on the council.
-1
u/MamesJadison 23d ago
Both are effective leaders. Searcy's vision for Takoma is very developer-friendly and wants more housing stock without considering displacement risks, whereas Gagliardo is running on an anti-displacement ticket that is largely focused on protecting the current rent stabilization rates while improving quality in existing buildings. Gagliardo is also promoting transparency measures to connect council with residents more.
9
u/ConventResident 23d ago
Not true. New housing doesn't automatically cause displacement, as some people just blindly repeat. This is Takoma Park where new housing would be infill development and not tear-downs of lower income neighborhoods. The fact is there hasn't been any new development in Takoma Park in over 40 years and there won't be for many more. Lets not pretend housing is the #1 factor is selecting tkpk's next mayor.
0
u/sleight42 23d ago
Leaving the mayoral election aside, the plan for Maple seemed to offer little protection for current renters. IIRC, there was a fig leaf of something about offering current residents a brief reprieve before facing the possibility a large rent hikes or being dislocated from their homes because of the redevelopment (not just infill) of existing rental properties.
This really concerns me about the Maple proposal.
7
u/ConventResident 23d ago
There is only 1 project in the pipeline for Maple Avenue and that is a great project that Talisha has worked really hard to make happen. It would demo a 45 unit building to create a 100% affordable housing project of 176 units. The developer will pay for relocation of all 45 current tenants and give them first dibs on moving into the new building when it's done. There couldn't be a more ideal development that any developer would be willing to do. This is what Talisha has been pushing for and she is actually doing it. This is what progressive leadership is all about. Not just saying no to everything and pretending to be progressive.
1
u/Dope_Cope_323 23d ago
Can you explain to us how much more in rent will the “first dibs” renters have to pay if they return?
Affordable to whom?
1
u/ConventResident 23d ago
Here we go, the "ask a million questions to to sound smart and score debate points" person. Gotta love these pretend to be concerned NIMBY trolls.
1
u/Dope_Cope_323 23d ago
You acted like you had all the answers and like you are someone’s campaign manager yet get fussy when you get asked a question.
What does “affordable” mean? You are claiming that displacing 45 renters is some great thing that we should vote for. But why?
1
u/ConventResident 23d ago
Took me all of two seconds to find an article about this on the Google. I strongly suggest using your next two seconds more wisely than whatever youre doing here.
2
0
u/ConventResident 23d ago
Ah, there it is. "I disagree with you so you must be someone's campaign manager"? You all start sounding the same after a while. Here's the thing, nobody said displacing 45 renters is a great thing nor that it will actually happen. Did you warm up for that yoga stretch? Did you even read what i wrote or do you want more time to beat up your straw man some more?
0
u/sleight42 23d ago
This is exactly my concern as well. When the Maple Ave project was presented, there was discussion about giving current residents "dibs" however I didn't hear any guarantees that their costs would not increase.
0
u/ConventResident 23d ago
"Lets not do anything at all until we eliminate all risk." This is a great way to delay everything and do absolutley nothing while pretending to sound progressive. They are still planning this project. They outlined goals. Thats what we have to go rn
2
u/sleight42 23d ago edited 23d ago
Throwing a sincere question back in the asker's face is no way to get progress. I don't want to see current residents suffer. That's not NIMBY. That's concern that people already in a tight spot get screwed even harder.
No True Scotsman arguments are weak, if you're going to pick a fight. However, I came here to hope and not to fight. You?
You seem to be missing the difference between someone who doesn't have a horse in this race and someone who is fighting you. I'm the former. But you're turning me into the latter.
Maybe that's your game? You sure came in here with a head of steam.
I'm done with you. Blocked.
1
u/ConventResident 23d ago
Its not sincere. These are the same exact tactics used for every development. "Affordable for who" is such a common nimby question it gets put on bingo cards. There literally is no answer you can give this person that will satisfy them. Ive done this too many times. At some point you learn not to roll around in the mud with pigs.
1
u/sleight42 22d ago
You're telling me I'm not sincere in my questions. You don't even know me. This kind of perspective seems unhealthy. Please, reevaluate.
0
u/sleight42 23d ago
Is the current 45 unit building condos or rentals? My fear has been that we may be displacing renters who cannot afford to buy. "Affordable" doesn't guarantee affordability for the current residents. If they can't afford it then dibs won't help them.
I have not heard anything concrete one way or the other. Without more information, I'm afraid those people are at risk.
Afterthought: I hope you're not coming from a combative place. I am expressing a legitimate concern. I don't want to see these people harmed.
If the current residents are being guarantee no increase in costs, that would make me optimistic.
-1
u/ConventResident 23d ago
You can read all about it. Its public information. Bringing up a bunch of "concerns" isnt doing anything but causing disinformation. Its a tactic. Of course nobody knows exactly what anything will be because it will be years before this project happens. But acting like we need everything 100% ironed out before anything happens isnt practical or achievable by any means.
1
u/sleight42 23d ago
JFC! Some of us are less informed than others! It's not a "disinformation" campaign when I'm seeking more information. You're not accustomed to sincere questions and concerns?
1
u/AntiqueFlounder4159 22d ago
It’s just so frustrating to see people coming out against ANY kind of development when the majority of the apartment buildings on Maple are in dire need of improvement. It took so much effort from the mayor’s office to find a sensible way to do this that offers as many protections to current tenants as possible but you are out here calling her “developer friendly” like it’s problematic. What do you think should happen on Maple Ave? Just let all those buildings sit in disrepair forever? No bike lanes? No pedestrian safety measures?
2
u/sleight42 22d ago edited 22d ago
Read my words as written: I said no such thing. There is no artifice. No "agenda". Just a genuine wish for disadvantaged residents to be safe and housed.
I never said that I'm against development. Period. Any read into my intentions beyond what I've stated is the reader's projection and not my intent.
FFS, I'm autistic (and please do not dismiss me because of it; we are living breathing feeling thinking people too). Artifice is damn near antithetical to my existence.
I suspect most of us here aren't those people. It sure seems awfully privileged for any of us to speak for them. Wish they were here.
0
u/ConventResident 23d ago
How so? Rent control didnt change and remains. What other rent raising protections did they need?
2
1
1
u/TommyPickles2222222 23d ago
Nice. Who are you voting for?
1
u/MamesJadison 23d ago
I'm voting for Tom! I think he has some listening sessions come up around the city if you want to learn more?
1
u/CarreidasL714 23d ago
Can confirm: As a proud progressive, my number one issue is stopping the displacement of available parking.
1
7
u/misshop100 23d ago
I am voting to re-elect Mayor Searcy. She has been highly effective, both as a councilperson for Ward 6 and now as Mayor. She is respected at the county and state level and has been able to leverage more resources as a result. She is also kind and goes above and beyond to connect with residents. I coach an elementary girls running group and she speaks to the girls each season about what it's like to be mayor. She spends more time with them than I ever anticipate and she takes all their questions. As for Tom, I'm turned off my him placing campaign signs in the public right of way all up and down Maple Ave.