Lloyd Jordan, a nominee of Mayor Vince Gray to the Board of Zoning Adjustment, is hopping mad about the previous post LL put up that references a 1999 City Paper story chronicling certain aspects of Jordan’s time as DCRA director.

“It’s not true,” Jordan says of the article. “This stuff is just crap.”

Jordan emailed LL with, basically, a paragraph-by-paragraph rebuttal of the original story, which was written by Erik Wemple. In the interest of time, here are Jordan’s complaints about the passages cited in LL’s previous post.

On his car controversy in St. Louis, Jordan writes:

First my evidence will show that I sued the alderman for his false allegations and he had to make a formal apology. My evidence will show that the car I was given in St. Louis was the same car driven by my predecessor. Additionally it will show that my statement about my hours and mileage was true.

This isn’t actually true. LL went poking through the archives and found story in which Jordan first responded to a St. Louis’s alderman’s complaints about Jordan riding around in a taxpayer-funded Grand Marquis sedan. The full quote from Jordan is: “If Mr. Shrewsbury worries about people having cars around the clock, he ought to know that I work around the clock. I’ve been averaging 14- to 16-hour days and put on about 400 miles a week. And since the flood situation began, it’s been 19-hour days.”

The Mr. Shrewsbury mentioned is former alderman James Shrewsbury, who is not listed anywhere in court records as ever being sued by Jordan.

When LL called Jordan to ask, Jordan said he sued another alderman who gave him a formal apology on a different matter. Shrewsbury never apologized for critiquing Jordan’s use of a Grand Marquis, says Jordan.

Moving on, here’ s Jordan on his alleged preference for a Grand Marquis over a Ford Taurus:

The evidence will show that I was never slated for a Taurus. More importantly the evidence will show that the 3 Marquis cost the District less than the Taurus. I believe tha cost was less than $10,000 for each. Further the second car did not go to a subordinate. Two cars were always used by other agencies or officials.

On the alleged underuse of DCRA’s fleet of new sedans:

The evidence will show that when I got to DCRA they were buying 52 car because they were buying the cars retail. I got 80 cars for the same cost. The cars were in Union Station for several reason 1) we did not have title to the all the cars because the manaufacture had gotten the cars for DCRA from several dealerships across the country and all the titles did not come with the delivery 2) at that time we were at 614 H Street and there was no place to put the cars and keep them protected.

And on the alleged $20,000 in spending on his new office:

My evidence will show that this is a lie. The evidence will prove that , I did not pick out one piece of furniture for my office or the agency. The Office Property Management along with a committee of staffers at DCRA and Health and I believe OTR, met and chose layouts, furniture etc. The evidence will show that when I got to DCRA plans for the move was already under way.

LL spoke with Wemple, who says he remembers spending a lot of time making sure he had the goods before writing the Jordan story. (One of Wemple’s editors in 1999 was Michael Schaffer, who is now one of LL’s editors).

“I just remember being very, very solid on everything we printed,” says Wemple.

Jordan, who wrote a lengthy letter to the editor after the original story ran, says he considered suing the paper back then, but decided against it. He left city government in 2000.

Jordan has now asked that the City Paper pull or “retract” both the original story and post linking to it.