Administrative Matters
Dear Mailers:
I'll repeat two rules and one recommendation, and one request for posting
in themail. 1) Slippery rule: don't get long-winded, for goodness sakes. Two or three
short paragraphs are the perfect length for this format, as it says at the bottom of each
issue. 2) Firm rule: sign the message. All messages have to be signed with a name as well
as E-mail address in order to be printed. 3) Recommendation: you're more persuasive if
you're less personal. Calling somebody else names doesn't help your case. 4) Request:
please write and tell us about what's happening on your block and in your neighborhood.
None of us alone knows all about what's going on in all of the neighborhoods of this city,
but together we have a pretty good idea.
Gary Imhoff
themail@dcwatch.com
###############
To those of you who have not stopped listening to what is happening in the
schools get a load of this: in an attempt to win the war against charter
schools, Ms. Ackerman has decided to requisition Bachus Middle School. Surely any
community would be glad to get a state of the art Math and Technology Magnet installed in
their neighborhood school. Not so. I attended a hastily called but well attended parent
meeting Tuesday night at Bachus, where I discovered that one more community has been
violated by La Ackerman. The school community at Bachus was never consulted about Ms.
Ackerman's choice of Bachus for a magnet, and they were very upset that they would be
losing their principal and teachers as well as adding ninth graders to their student body.
(They may not be losing principals and teachers but they will be required to reapply.) The
school is not being reconfigured because Ms. Ackerman is trying to fix an ailing school
but because she is waging war against Cecil Middleton at the Paul Charter School. Children
are the foot soldiers in her battle to keep her hands on the money. Not only will this
magnet school have new teachers and a new principal, but it has a new curriculum
you guessed it, designed with no input from the parents or school community it is intended
to serve. Why be so concerned about process? Aren't good schools the goal? No. Good
schools are only a means to an end. The goal is well adjusted, curious, prepared kids
ready to participate in their communities. The contempt that the congress holds for the
citizens of this city which is a contempt that their superintendent shares is a guarantee
that our school system won't turn around. It is very hard to be a good teacher while
sneering at your students and their families. No amount of money from the private sector
is going to subsidize the kind of love and attention parents, grandparents, and friends
can shower on a child when given a chance, yet Ms. Ackerman courts the business community
and leaves parents out in the cold.
The first step to fixing the schools is welcoming the parents in and
acknowledging them as the primary care-givers of the children. What we have at the helm of
our school system right now is a team that finds the children and their families, as well
as the communities, a distraction from their goal an exemplary school system. Oh
what an excellent system Ms. Ackerman could have if only the children would do better and
those lying parents would get out of her way. Unfortunately for Ackerman and
Brooks, research has shown that the more engaged the parents the better the student
outcomes. I want to remind you that Bachus is just another example of Ms. Ackerman's
management style. She was completely unresponsive to the Montessori program at Langdon
Elementary when they had problems with their administrator. Enrollment in that program has
dropped by almost 50%. Ms. Ackerman destroyed the African Centered School in a fit of
pique because parents dared to challenge her assertion that all her schools were ready to
open in the Fall of 1998. The parents who wanted a safe environment for their children
were painted as the bad guys.
Ms. Ackerman has done her best to destroy the learning community at Hearst
by neglecting problems with the former principal and by transferring key personnel.
Garrison playground became another battle Ms. Ackerman was required to wage in the
interest of our children. Having a parking lot for Metropolitan Baptist was in the
children's best interest. She has accomplished all this while spending more money, losing
good teachers to the surrounding jurisdictions because of her punitive management style
and her payroll problems, and failing to significantly improve test scores. While Ms.
Ackerman would have the Control Board and the Post believe there are just a few
unhappy parents and teachers out here, I can guarantee that that is not the case. An awful
lot of people are just too discouraged to keep trying to make things better. Paul's
defection speaks volumes about the support DCPS has to offer its good schools and
administrators. Last night the approximately four hundred parents and students at Bachus
felt that Ms. Ackerman had met her match and they are ready to fight back. We should all
plan to help them.
###############
Charter Schools Are Public Schools
Nelson Smith, DC Public Charter School Board, smith@dcpubliccharter.com
Even with 27 public charter schools enrolling 7,000 DC kids, there still
seems to be a lot of mythology making the rounds. Parents, neighborhood folks, and
reporters need to know some basic facts about the rules governing charter school
enrollment. If anything, charter schools are more public than the traditional
public school system where principals still get to select which out-of-boundary
students they'll accept. The law says: A public charter school may not limit
enrollment on the basis of a students' race, color, religion, national original, language
spoken, intellectual or athletic ability, measures of achievement or aptitude, or status
as a student with special needs. (DC Code:31-2853.16)
If charter schools get more applicants than spaces available, they must
conduct a random selection process i.e., a lottery. Charter schools can
give an admissions preference to siblings of current students. And conversion charters
(like Paul Jr. High) can give preference to students currently enrolled, their siblings,
and students who reside within the school's attendance zone. (Note: Under the terms of
Paul's charter application, as approved by this Board, the school will indeed give a
preference to neighborhood kids.) So despite what you may be hearing from
activists and those who are just confused, there are no entrance exams for
charter schools and there will be no screening on academic grounds.
###############
Richard Steacy is right. DC citizens should contact the Gore2000 campaign
in order to get a commitment from the candidate that as president, Al Gore will
aggressively seek a way to enfranchise DC citizens and give them control over their local
government (through statehood or the equivalent) as well as voting representation in both
Houses of Congress. We should also ask that DC statehood be a part of the Democratic Party
platform and that Candidate Gore become a national spokesman for correcting this
incredible injustice to over half a million American citizens.
The District of Columbia is the only part of the original 13 colonies
whose residents fought and died for American freedom and the right to govern themselves,
at all levels local, state, and national, and then lost all of the political rights
they had won in the war over ten years after the Constitution was ratified! As President
William Henry Harrison said at his inauguration in 1841: It is in this District only
where American citizens are to be found who under a settled policy are deprived of many
important political privileges without any inspiring hope as to the future. . . . The
people of the District of Columbia are not the subjects of the people of the States, but
free American citizens. Being in the latter condition when the Constitution was formed, no
words used in that instrument could have been intended to deprive them of that character.
If there is anything in the great principle of unalienable rights so emphatically insisted
upon in our Declaration of Independence, they could neither make nor the United States
accept a surrender of their liberties and become the subjects in other words, the
slaves of their former fellow-citizens.
As a Bradley delegate in Congressional District 2 (Wards 3, 4,
5 and 7), I like his suggestion that a good way to bring the point home to Candidate Gore
would be for DC's registered Democrats to vote for Bradley in the May Presidential
Primary. However, to do that, one would have to write in Bradley's name on the ballot.
Although we filed over 4,500 valid signatures to put the Bradley slates on the ballot in
both DC Congressional Districts, the DC Board of Elections and Ethics, on its
own initiative, removed the Bradley slates from the ballot, ostensibly to save on printing
costs.
###############
DCBOEE (or Is That DC Dem?) Funny Business
John Vaught LaBeaume, jvlab@yahoo.com
Richard Steacy, richard.steacy@gte.net,
urges DC Democrats to punch their cards for Bill Bradley, the only candidate to come
out fully for DC voting rights, in May's District Presidential primary election to
put pressure on presumptive nominee Al Gore to take up the cause of full DC voting rights.
A sound strategy. However, one that is no longer feasible. Much to the consternation of
those of us who stood out in the cold for hours petitioning for Bradley, the DC Board of
Elections has removed his name from the DC ballot! (http://www.dcboee.org/htmldocs/pickup.htm)
When I called the Board, I was referred to a public relations officer who informed
me that once a candidate suspends his campaign his name is removed by Board officials.
When I inquired as to why John McCain's name remains on the DC Republican ballot, the
officer contended that since McCain has yet to release the delegates already pledged to
him, he has not been removed. Curiously, I seem to remember Bradley taking that same route
when he suspended his campaign. (According to the AP and CNN, Bradley still retains
delegates: http://cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/primaries/cumulative.html).
To add insult to injury, the Democratic Presidential preference is the
only line on any ballot in DC that does not allow a write-in option. So, those registered
DC Dems who can not bring themselves to vote for that Dissembling Dixiecrat Al Gore have
no other option before them May 2 but the unpalatable choice of perennial trouble-maker
Lyndon LaRouche. A LaRouche Loonie found my name on a Bradley petition I circulated and
phoned me up to insinuate that Gore loyalists were behind this move. Considering the
source, the veracity of the LaRouchie's remarks are certainly open to question.
Nevertheless, the DC Dem State Committee is notorious for its reflexive circle the
wagons mentality. This blind devotion has not served the District well and there
there is ample evidence that wide swathes of the DC electorate now consider them out of
touch. The Dec. '97 at-large special DC Council election comes to mind, not to mention the
State Committee's comical public soul-searching afterwards.
So, those tireless agitators for the full enfranchisement of District
voters, on the vanguard of the Civil Rights movement as we enter the 21st Century, the DC
Democrats, find themselves in the peculiar situation of restricting our voting options
options and denying write-ins. What can be the strategy behind this? Since Democrats take
DC for granted (which makes a strong case for voting Green, Libertarian, or even
Republican in November), the one place where District voters could exert some influence on
the process would be a competitive DC Democratic presidential primary. Yet still, the
Nortons, Braziles, and lesser party apparatchiks scramble over each other to curry favor
with a candidate who has yet to endorse full voting rights! I am fixin' to raise a stink
about this. Is anybody else with me?
###############
DC Voting Rights
Kurt Vorndran, Kvorn@nteu.org
I have to take strong exception to Richard Steacy's comments against Vice
President Gore. The Vice President already has strongly committed himself to enfranchising
DC citizens. His record of support goes back to the days he was serving in Congress
representing Tennessee, a considerably less favorable climate than New Jersey, one of the
states that easily ratified the DC Voting Rights Amendment. Absent a silly and immature
game of expecting the Vice President to show his support for DC representation by telling
women's groups he is putting this issue above choice or labor unions he supports DC over a
minimum wage increase, we could not have a stronger advocate.
I fail to see how voting for a withdrawn candidate with an inferior record
sends any message other than you will never be good enough to earn our support so don't
even bother trying.
###############
Accuracy, Accuracy, Accuracy
Mark-David Richards, Dupont East, mark@bisconti.com
I was told in journalism classes many moons ago that this should be the
motto for journalists. I would also expect judges to consider accuracy important. Accuracy
is not easy, especially under deadline. And, there is also the power of myth
(in the falsehood sense). Once a myth is established, it takes on a life of
its own as a fact. There are a couple of myths about the creation of the national capital
that have been created and sustained for hundreds of years. These myths have been proven
inaccurate by scholars such as Kenneth Bowling (The Creation of Washington, D.C.
and Co-Editor, First Federal Congress Project at GWU) years ago. But the power of myth is
just too much, I guess, because they keep getting repeated in nearly all tourist
guidebooks, in our local press, and even of all places in Judge Oberdorfer's
memo on the voting rights lawsuits. Historians know this, and even this sociologist knows
it, but I'm going to repeat it again. The first myth is that D.C. was built on a swamp. In
fact, George Washington didn't pick a swamp, but rather a wavy hilly area with
lots of water for cleansing, some of which were wetlands. This was important for a healthy
city most cities up to this time had been built on the coast, where they suffered
from yellow fever. In my opinion, it is more accurate to say that Congress created a
swamp. And that leads me to the next myth trumpeted in a front page history article in The
Post recently.
This second myth was also repeated by Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer
(Opinion of Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer concurring in part dissenting in
part, p. 8-9), where he cites in support of the myth the very person
(Bowling) who disproved it. The myth as Judge Oberdorfer tells it is that, In 1783,
while meeting in Philadelphia, hundreds of angry Revolutionary War veterans surrounded the
State House and demanded compensation for their services. Neither the city of Philadelphia
nor the State of Pennsylvania acted to protect Congress from the disturbances. At the
Constitutional Convention in 1787, mindful of this so-called Philadelphia Mutiny, the
Framers sought to ensure that the national government would be free from interference by
any State government and from dependence upon any State for protection. I checked
with Bowling about this. He said exclusive jurisdiction was put in the Constitution
because of the mutiny. But the fact is the mutiny was aimed at the state government, and
the federal government wasn't even in session that Saturday. The federal government
involved themselves by calling an emergency session, going to the mutiny,
passing by the soldiers, and entering Independence Hall, which they shared with the state
legislature. Hamilton and his clever centralist friends basically saw the event as an
opportunity to argue that the federal government needed its own EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction
(early spin doctors!). Evidence suggests Hamilton set the thing up the soldiers
said they had been inflamed by three federal officials on Friday night before their
Saturday demonstration when they apologized for their behavior; somehow, Hamilton had
known about the timing. Centralists used the mutiny to muster support for a
stronger central government a controversial idea at the time, thereby creating the
myth that has been sustained for 200 years. The myth backfired in the short run, as many
Americans thought this just showed that the central government was incompetent. But in the
long run, as Bowling writes in a paper he presented to the German Historical Institute
Conference comparing Berlin and D.C., The centralists gained nothing in the short
run..., but the residents of Washington, D.C., have suffered the consequences for two
centuries because the event brought out of the centralist closet a new and important
constitutional idea: a federal government should have exclusive jurisdiction over its seat
of government as a means of protecting its authority and dignity vis a vis the states. The
concerns of the people residing under such jurisdiction were generally ignored as the idea
gained support in the 1780s. Fortunately few nations adopted the idea, and the most
prominent, Brazil and Australia, abandoned it in the 1980s.
This information doesn't change the fact that D.C. residents have been
disenfranchised by the federal government, which uses the Exclusive Jurisdiction (EJ)
clause of the Constitution to make their case. That clause does not say that D.C. citizens
should be stripped of political equality, but it gives Congress the right to take it from
them (should they be so dishonorable!). The Mutiny/EJ Myth shows the founders used clever
means to accomplish their goals. D.C. citizens have thus far not devised equally clever
means. D.C. can celebrate 200 years of being host to the national capital. But it's hard
to celebrate the lie that Congress needs EJ. Professor Charles Harris of Howard University
(Congress and the Governance of the Nation's Capital) says that the
Constitution could be amended to allow Congress to intervene only to protect statutorily
defined federal interests in the District. Currently, the federal interest consists of
whatever a majority of legislators are willing to say it is. A constitutional amendment
would allow District officials recourse to the courts if they felt that Congress had
overstepped the legitimate boundaries of the federal interest. Harris showed (before
the Control Board) that since the home rule government has been in place, the
federal government intervenes most often for reasons other than to protect a legitimate
national interest. Parochial interests motivate many of these intrusions. I like Tom
Sherwood's point, and I think this will be the concluding remark of my dissertation in
which I've tried to understand why D.C. doesn't have equal rights after 200 years (whether
it was a majority white or black area): The toughest problem is getting people to
care who could do something about it. The power structure is happy with the status quo and
feels no strong need to change. Democracy is a nice concept, not an imperative. That
nicely sums up 200 years of D.C. history. Yes, some D.C. citizens have always had hope and
struggled for political equality. But Americans are wearing federally sponsored rose
colored glasses they have been induced into a state of delusion in which local D.C.
is invisible. The key to the D.C.'s Bastille isn't lost. The question is about who will
use it.
###############
Ed Barron said: ...Be careful what you wish for. Who do you think
the likely representatives to Congress and the Senate would be if left to the electorate
of D.C.? Try Marion Barry and Jesse Jackson. That would set the District back ten years in
the eyes of the nation. Residents of D.C. who feel so disenfranchised should move back
across the border to MD or VA.
Hmm, let me think....sounds a bit pregidious to me. Hmm ... hmm. If those
same voters moved to MD or VA, would that mean that MD voters would vote for Marion Barry
and Jesse Jackson?
###############
Voting Rights Are for Whites?
Marc K. Battle, Howard University School of Law, nonchalant1906@hotmail.com
According to the logic of Mr. Barron, the citizens of
Washington, DC do not deserve the full protection of the constitution simply because
with full representation they may select congressmen and senators the likes
of Jesse Jackson and Marion Barry. It is difficult to interpret such backwards thinking as
anything short of unabashed racism at its worst. Perhaps, as gentrification inevitably
sweeps across Chocolate City, Barron will think the newer lighter-hued
residents more worthy of voting representation. I recall that the throngs of David Duke
supporters, during his bid for public office, were somehow worthy of casting a vote for
the candidate of their choice even as his life of racism, hatred and violence was on
display for all the world to see. Whew!! Even as I drew that analogy, I shuddered to think
that I was comparing two civil rights legends to a former leader of the KKK but the
incongruity only serves to make my point ever more clear. Citizens of this nation are
supposed to be guaranteed certain inalienable rights protected even when they elect
some of the most morally corrupt and intellectually challenged men and women ever to walk
the hallowed halls of Congress as this nation does time after time after time. But
according to Mr. Barron, DC citizens are somehow different. There is a litmus test (or
should I say, a brown paper bag test) that citizens of DC must pass in order to exercise
their rights. And their rights must be subrogated until the demographics of the electorate
reflect a likelihood to elect a non-Marion Barry or a non-Jesse Jackson type of leader. It
is this kind of arrogant racism that demonstrates very clearly how far we have NOT come
over the last 40 years or so. I can only thank Mr. Barron for voicing his ignorance so
blatantly that the socially naive in our community can no longer claim that racism exists
only in a card dealt from the bottom of the deck. It is alive and well in our own
backyard.
###############
Actually, Mr. Barron, Congressional voting rights are not reserved just
for residents of states in the US. Why do residents of federal lands have voting
representation in Congress but not DC residents? This was the argument in the Adams
v. Clinton lawsuit, of which you seem to have little or no knowledge. Leaving the actual
merits of the case aside for a moment, I question whether DC's image on national TV is the
most important thing for us DC residents to be concerned with. You are worried about
eyes of the nation? What about the right to control our own government? Do we
live in a democracy or a dictatorship?
You then imply that DC residents do not deserve voting rights, because we
will (you think) elect representatives of whom you disapprove. Are you seriously arguing
that an electorate has to only elect Ed T. Barron approved candidates in order to gain the
right to vote? Do you really think that DC residents are not as worthy as other US
citizens to have democratic rights because you didn't like our past mayor or shadow
senator? Should Chicagoans be disenfranchised because they elected Jesse Jackson's son to
Congress? This argument has been used endlessly by Republican politicians who want to deny
DC voting rights because they don't want two more Democrats in the Senate. But it is
irrelevant to the question of DC voting rights. Our (according to Mr. Barron) poor choice
of elected representatives is no excuse to deny us the same rights that other Americans
have. All we are asking for is equality with other taxpaying US citizens. Maybe it is you,
Mr. Barron, who should move to MD or VA (if you don't live in those places already) for
you obviously have much contempt for DC citizens.
###############
Ed Barron writes that we should remain excluded from the legislature that
collects and spends our federal taxes because we would likely elect Marion Barry and Jesse
Jackson to Congress. Let's pretend that's indeed likely. Well, I don't approve of (for one
example) Bob Barr; should I propose that Georgia be expelled from the Union and subjugated
to a federal junta? Come on. The District has been subject to an inherently unjust form of
government for 211 years; how did our overlords rationalize it before Marion Barry came
along?
But here's the solution Ed proposes: Residents of D.C. who feel so
disenfranchised should move back across the border to MD or VA. Move
back? I was born in this colony. And I was born in the middle class
unlike thousands of District natives who do not have the means to move. We are, however,
U.S. citizens, and we should not have to move from our home town in order to have a voice
in the allocation of our tax money.
###############
This replies to a suggestion made [in themail] that I somehow planned to
evict the tenants in the slum buildings in order to hand the buildings over, empty, to the
landlords for development. The statement indicates a complete lack of knowledge on your
part as to my involvement in this matter.
It is true that, once I had seen these buildings and walked through them,
I was unable to simply ignore the problems. It is also true that I pressured for action by
DCRA, something that no other public official had done before. It is absolutely true that
I wanted repairs to the pressing problems observed. I also met with the landlords who
would meet with me, and the tenants and the tenant representatives. My plan was to see
existing law enforced. All of this started months ago, long before there was any public
attention whatsoever. I then blocked the water being turned off at 1458 Columbia Road, in
favor of tougher action against the party responsible who, of course, was and is the
landlord.
What caused the first placarding at 1458 Columbia Road was gas leaks that
were uncovered by inspectors that I pressed to come to the building. Had they not come,
what would have happened? Would there have been serious injury or explosion? Although the
leaks were fixed, the matter was so serious that the first notice of condemnation went up.
The rest followed in suit. So the city went from complete inattention (1458 had been
inspected in January 1999, with no follow up until November) to the most extreme actions.
I am glad for the attention these matters are finally getting. I am hopeful that from this
attention will come improvements. And, rest certain, that the last people I am concerned
about are those who have exploited for years this vulnerable population.
Oh and one last point: The legislation which I will reintroduce on April 4
is not gratuitous. It is necessary because, if the buildings are closed, then
under existing statutory law tenant rights (such as that to first right of refusal to
purchase) would be extinguished. My bill which was drafted by tenant organizations
and landlord tenant legal experts will insure that does not happen.
###############
Grahams Emergency Housing Legislation Giveth
with One Hand and Taketh Away with the Other
Betty Sellars, David Conn, Tenant Action Network, sellersconn@erols.com
Ward 1 Council Member Jim Graham has introduced the Multi-Family
Housing Maintenance Emergency Amendment Act of 2000 allegedly to preserve tenant
rights if a building has been, or is in danger of, being closed by the District Government
for housing code violations that affect the life, health, or safety of the tenants, by
providing that the tenancy shall continue for two years after physical occupancy ceases.
Mr. Graham's proposed legislation would prohibit the owner from increasing rents under the
city's rent control law, but leads them to the door for filing a Hardship Petition.
What rights Mr. Graham purports to grant to District tenants living in
sub-standard housing, the proposed legislation eliminates by allowing owners to recoup
their expenses or payments to the Government in a form of a real estate tax against those
very same tenants. The Hardship Petition provision of the city's Rental Housing Act
provides that an owner with an equity investment in the property shall earn a rate of
return of 12% on the tax assessed value of the property minus any encumbrance, such as a
mortgage. The owner's earnings are calculated by subtracting valid expenses, including but
not limited to property taxes, real estate taxes, management fees, and interest payments,
from the maximum possible rental income of the property. Should an owner's expenses
increase during a one year period to make the income fall below the 12% rate of return,
the owner can file a Hardship Petition to increase the rents of all tenants to restore the
12% rate of return. Mr. Graham's legislation proposes to add to the owner's taxes, any
expenses the D.C. Government incurs for closing and securing a condemned building. This
will increase the tax expenses of the owner which can then be recouped against the
tenants.
While tenants can contest the proposed rent increases, if the Office of
Adjudication at DCRA does not render a decision within 90 days, the owner may implement
the proposed increase or an increase subject to an initial auditor's report on all of the
tenants, subject to a refund Order. Therefore, tenants may face such high rent increases
after 90 days, that they are forced out of the building and the owner will raise rents to
gentrify the neighborhood. We just reviewed a D.C. Court of Appeals decision, in which the
tenants at 1755 N Street, N.W., challenged the Rental Housing Commission's decision to
allow a 192% hardship petition rent increase to take effect. We recall seeing higher
hardship increases.
Anybody who proposes rewarding the owners of property in this city large
hardship petition increases for failure to keep the building up to the minimal standards
of the District of Columbia Housing Code is no friend of tenants. At best, the Graham
legislation gives the tenants fleeting hope with one hand, while it taketh away with the
other. At worst, the Graham bill falsely promises that tenants will be able to return and
remain in their rental home comfortably, when they are on the verge of having rents
increased well above affordability. It is time for knowledgeable groups to get together to
consider the best tenant legislation possible and not say the legislation offered by
Councilmember Graham is better than nothing. Tenants in the city deserve safe affordable
homes, free from housing code violations and the threat of outrageous rent increases. The
Graham Emergency Legislation does not do the trick!
###############
We should give ourselves credit here in themail for focusing attention on
the streets mess long before the Post and the Mayor did. But now the Mayor has declared a
digging moratorium, implying that it's the fiber optic firms that have done us wrong. This
seems to evade the issue of D.C.'s failure to repair the streets promptly after the
digging. That's the problem that should be of most pressing interest to taxpayers, not
whether new digging is delayed, although that may be welcome while D.C. gets its act
together. Has anyone heard anything resembling a street repair schedule?
Back to the mayoral mansion issue, we've been treated to
several posts on interesting possibilities, but has anyone commented on the rather strange
epic in the Post a few weeks back that blacks are concerned about Williams's
failure to buy a house? Apparently, whites or other ethnic groups don't deserve to be
consulted on this issue. And his basic reasoning wasn't questioned: that he hasn't had
time to buy property. Of course, we all make time for what is important; I've got to infer
he doesn't consider this important.
###############
In last Sunday's issue of themail, Paul Williams wrote that he had
noticed the large Metro electronic signs being installed in stations around the
city, and welcomed their use; to tell passengers when the next train is expected (like
London), what color train is approaching, delays, etc. Has anyone seen one of the
new Metro signs used for any of the purposes listed? Just curious. I have only seen Metro
promotional messages on the signs, but that may just reflect coincidence and the times I
use the Metro.
###############
I remember reading in themail someone's comments on the Metro rail system
wearing out. On Friday I noticed both escalators at the north end of Silver Spring's
platform were shut down. I asked the station attendant what had happened. He said they
were broken because they were 25 years old. If Metro decided to fix the two escalators, he
said, they'd have to completely rebuild them and shut down the north end of the platform
during the work.
###############
What's up with District Cablevision? I made a special trip to their office
and turned in my digital box and remote on December 23, 1999, and left with a receipt. I
was told that I would be receiving a $50.87 refund check in the mail. I called District
Cablevision in February to find out where my refund check was. I was told that the cable
installer had not gotten to my apartment building until January 22, 2000, to turn it off.
He turned in his report, which was then sent somewhere in Colorado. It would take 6-8
weeks FROM THAT DATE for the check to arrive.
It is now almost April and I have yet to receive the check. What has
happened to a cable company that's on the side of the consumer? Is District Cablevision,
despite everything that's wrong with it, so bad that I have to wait more than 3 months for
get a lousy refund check? Makes you wish you hadn't paid your bill in the first place so
you could owe them!
###############
CLASSIFIEDS EVENTS
Filmfest DC 2000 launches twelve days of new cinema from 30 countries with
the Washington, D.C., premiere of East is East, an award-winning feature by British
filmmaker Damien ODonnell. Headlining the New British Cinema series,
East is East is a hilarious and often poignant look at a Pakistani fathers attempt
to maintain his traditional culture while his seven children seek to become citizens of
the modern world and taste the counterculture in 1970s England. The screening will take
place at General Cinema Theaters, the city's newest, most modern film venue in Maze
Gallery (5300 Wisconsin Ave., N.W.). After seducing both critics and audiences at the
Cannes Film Festival, East is East has become a smash hit in the UK, recently receiving
numerous BATA nominations (England's equivalent of the Oscars), two awards from the
British Film Critics Circle and London's Evening Standard Award for Best British Film of
the Year.
ODonnell will attend the screening and celebration along with
representatives of the British Council and NBC4's Arch Campbell as Master of Ceremonies. A
Champagne and Dessert Gala featuring delicacies from the UK and Pakistan follows the
screening in the atrium of the Maze Gallery. Tickets for the Premiere and Gala are $40 and
will be available March 23 through Tickets.com (703-218-6500). Filmfest DC covers service
charges on all Tickets.com sales. Complete Festival information is posted on the new
Festival web site (http://www.filmfestdc.org) and
also available at 202-628-FILM . The festival catalog with information on the more than
100 screenings will be distributed as an insert in The Washington Post on Friday,
March 31. Most tickets are priced at $7.50.
###############
CLASSIFIEDS RECOMMENDATIONS
I am about to become a DC (Columbia Heights) to B'more (Inner Harbor)
commuter. I am looking for advice from people who have made this commute on a regular
basis. How is MARC Penn vs MARC Camden Yards vs. other options (I could drive, but I rue
the thought). Thanks for your thoughts.
###############
CLASSIFIEDS CITY PAPER PREVIEW
Dave Nuttycombe, webmeister@washcp.com
From washingtoncitypaper.com's LOOSE LIPS column, appearing this Friday:
POST POSITION: In his first year atop the D.C. government, Mayor Anthony A. Williams
forged a reputation as a ten-thumbed politico. Among Williams' bigger blind spots was an
apparent inability to lobby for his initiatives before the D.C. Council. Apparently
determined to get a head start on his New Year's resolution to shape up, the mayor rang up
a select group of councilmembers on Dec. 31. I thought he was going to invite me to
the White House, says one call recipient, Ward 2 Councilmember Jack Evans.
Actually, Williams was calling about something every bit as sexy: a plan to scrap the
city's elected school board and replace it with an appointed panel that would answer to
the mayor.
Read the entire Loose Lips column here: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/lips/lips.html
From washingtoncitypaper.com's CITY LIGHTS page, here are a few early
warnings for upcoming events:
SATURDAY: John P. Shaft, the model for the film and literary character, discusses his book
Shut Your Mouth!: The Real Story of the Black Private Dick Whose Heart Belongs to
Christ, at 7 p.m. at Good News Books, 428 Chesterfield Road NE. Free
TUESDAY, April 4-9: Washington Jewish Music Festival, at the District of Columbia Jewish
Community Center, 1529 16th St. NW. Free-$25.
More details and more critics' picks are available online at http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/pix/pix.html
###############
themail@dcwatch is an E-mail discussion forum that is published every
Wednesday and Sunday. To subscribe, to change E-mail addresses, or to switch between HTML
and plain text versions of themail, use the subscription form at http://www.dcwatch.com/themail/subscribe.htm.
To unsubscribe, send an E-mail message to themail@dcwatch.com
with unsubscribe in the subject line. Archives of past messages are available
at http://www.dcwatch.com/themail.
All postings should also be submitted to themail@dcwatch.com, and should
be about life, government, or politics in the District of Columbia in one way or another.
All postings must be signed in order to be printed, and messages should be reasonably
short one or two brief paragraphs would be ideal so that as many messages as
possible can be put into each mailing.