A House Is a Home
A few more thoughts on why property taxes on the houses we live in
are different from taxes on other investments. Stocks, bonds, CD’s,
and savings accounts generate income, if we’re lucky, and we’re
taxed only on the income we actually make from them, not on their full
value. Capital gains taxes are assessed on the increased value of stocks
and bonds only once, when we actually realize those gains. By contrast,
unless homeowners rent out rooms, houses create plenty of expenses but
no income. But property taxes are levied on the full assessed value of
houses every year, and when those houses’ assessed value and the taxes
on them soar as they have been soaring in DC, homeowners pay
significantly higher taxes without realizing any additional income so
they can afford them.
High tax advocates are often indifferent to the problem that this can
cause homeowners. If house values rise and property taxes become too
high for homeowners to afford, the high tax advocates think, then the
old owners should simply sell their homes to new people who can afford
them, and take their profits. But that ignores the fact that houses aren’t
simply investments — they are where we live; they are our shelter; our
houses are our homes. We are attached to and sentimental about our homes
in a way that we aren’t about our stocks or our certificates of
deposit. We’ll cheerfully sell a nonperforming stock or switch a bank
account to another bank with a higher rate, but we don’t want our
government to tax us out of our homes, to force us to move, even if we’ll
make a profit when we sell. The high tax advocates who don’t
understand that have all the sympathy and warmth of the Eskimo villages
of the past that, when faced with straitened circumstances, put their
nonproductive elders on an ice floe with nothing but a few days rations
and a wave goodbye from the shore.
[An open letter to the DC Board of Elections and Ethics] I am writing
to inform you about my experiences attempting to vote in today’s
District of Columbia Democratic Presidential Preference Primary, at the
Ward One, Precinct 42 polling place at Mt. Rona Baptist Church. I
arrived with the intention of casting a ballot with my preferred
candidate, not listed on the ballot, written in. While I am aware there
was no write-in option on the ballot, many leading District Democrats,
including Mayor Williams and Delegate Norton, suggested writing in a
candidate or casting a blank ballot in order to participate and show
support for District voting rights. However, the ballot collection
machine would not accept my ballot. I told the polling official that I
had not filled out the ballot correctly by choice. I was given a second
ballot, and tried to write in a candidate in a different place on the
ballot. Again it was rejected. I was then given a third ballot, which I
attempted to cast unmarked, as per the recommendations of Williams,
Norton, and other supporters of District voting rights. The machine
would not take this ballot, either.
My husband, who is not a registered Democrat but who had come with me
to the polling place, then told the polling official that several
District leaders had suggested write-in or blank ballots, and that it
was implied they would be accepted for the tally, if not actually
counted. The polling official said she knew nothing about this. I was
then asked why I was attempting to cast a spoiled or blank ballot, if it
would not be counted. I did not think this was anyone’s concern but my
own, but I said I wanted to participate without choosing any of the
listed candidates. I was then asked what the point was if the vote would
not be counted. Again, I did not feel this was anyone’s business but
my own, so, frustrated, I began to leave, having been refused the right
to cast my protest ballot.
The polling official then complained to my husband (not to me, even
though I was the voter) that my efforts to cast my vote had led to three
spoiled ballots, for which they would have to fill out paperwork. Am I
supposed to be sorry my efforts to exercise my rights inconvenienced
them? Ironically, I was given an “I Voted” sticker, even though I
had been denied the right to vote. The entire experience was especially
ironic, considering the original purpose of the early District of
Columbia primary was to highlight the disenfranchisement of District
Special kudos should go to the DC Board of Elections and Ethics,
which appears to have sent out its Voter's Guide timed to arrive too
late to make any meaningful contribution to making an informed voting
decision. Ours arrived on the evening of primary day, after we had
already been to the polls.
I realize this won't be seen until after the primary, but I was
rather irked by the primary supporters' constant pleas that we all come
out to vote. They made little effort to remind voters that only members
of two political parties were eligible since DC has no open primaries.
Too often, DC is treated as a fully-owned subsidiary of the Democratic
Party. I've long thought DC would have full representation by now (and
maybe even statehood) if that was not taken to mean an automatic two
Democratic senators and extra Democratic member of Congress.
Also, five candidates opted out of DC's primary for fear of
alienating Iowa and New Hampshire. (Many did the same in Delaware four
years ago.) But the “major” candidate who stayed on the DC ballot is
leading the polls in both Iowa and New Hampshire! Clearly voters in
these states don't feel threatened by us or insulted by Dean's DC
participation. Perhaps in four years, DC will have a true
first-in-the-nation primary, and frightened candidates won't scurry
On January 13th, DC’s lack of voting rights was finally national
news. Nearly every major newspaper and media outlet in the United States
reported on the District’s disenfranchisement because of the primary
election we held to draw attention to the issue. DC’s plight was the
lead story in the New York Times national news section and even
the Wall Street Journal editorialized on methods to grant DC voting
rights. Coverage improved because DC voter turnout was double the rate
of our last presidential primary, and was substantially higher than the
Democratic voter turnout rate of Iowa’s much-hyped,
first-in-the-nation contest in 2000!
Governor Howard Dean won the primary with 42% with full election
results available at http://www.dcboee.org/Information/elec_2004.shtm.
But the most important results of the primary are that millions of
Americans, including the presidential candidates, now know about our
unequal status. In addition to the hundreds of articles nationwide
generated over the past year, the primary achieved the following:
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), a presidential candidate in the DC
primary, pledged to introduce a DC Statehood bill when Congress returns
later this month. Kucinich serves on the House Committee with oversight
over DC’s laws. Republican Congressman Tom Davis, who chairs the
Committee, has offered a proposal for DC voting rights in the House.
Eleanor Holmes Norton and many cosponsors are pushing a bill that would
give DC two Senators and a House member. Because DC continues to fight
for its rights in unique ways, Congress is paying attention.
Governor Howard Dean, during an appearance on WAMU’s "DC
Politics Hour" the weekend before the primary, pledged to put a
call for DC voting rights into his first State of the Union address if
elected President. In his victory speech to DC supporters on primary
night, Dean reiterated how much the primary has taught him and the other
candidates about DC’s causes. Reverend Al Sharpton taught millions of
Americans about our plight by raising the DC voting rights issue in the
nationally televised Democratic presidential debates. With the country
watching, Sharpton repeatedly challenged President Bush to "bring
democracy to our nation’s capital." All the candidates issued
detailed policy positions on DC issues ranging from voting rights to
education to the fiscal problems imposed by our relationship with
Finally, let me address some of the well-known challenges faced by
the proponents of the primary. DC Democracy Fund fought to make this
first-in-the-nation primary binding, so that the winner would receive
all of DC’s delegates at the Democratic nominating convention.
However, the local DC Democratic Party, under heavy pressure from the
Democratic National Committee, voted narrowly to make the primary
non-binding to avoid a conflict with party bylaws. Though we were able
to get some delegates, including our Shadow Senators Paul Strauss and
Florence Pendleton, pledged to the winner of the primary, the largely
non-binding nature of the election made it more challenging to attract
candidate and media attention. The other challenge to the primary had
more to do with politics than process. In late November, WTOP radio took
a poll testing the strength of all nine Democratic candidates in the DC
primary. The poll showed that Governor Dean had a nearly 3-1 lead over
his nearest rival, Wesley Clark, with most candidates polling in single
digits. Dean had the endorsements of nearly all the Democratic DC
Councilmembers and a massive grassroots organization. Not
coincidentally, five candidates dropped out of the race and pulled their
name off the primary ballot just as this poll came out.
Presidential politics dictates that it is better to drop out of a
primary than face embarrassment at the hands of the voters -- and this
is what these five candidates did. Unfortunately, much of the local
media took this as an indictment of the primary and the city, rather
than as a move of pure political expediency by the five who dropped out.
But no one said this would be easy. When the primary idea was hatched
exactly a year ago, pundits and politicians were nearly unanimous: “It
will never happen. DC will never go first.” But we did, and we
educated millions about our lack of basic civil rights. With this
momentum, DC Democracy Fund will continue to raise funds to donate to
Federal candidates who stand up for DC and its right to vote. I hope
that we can count on your continued support.
Absentee Ballot Was Wrong
Mary Alice Levine, firstname.lastname@example.org
In response to Bill O'Field's posting in the January 11 themail and
as a follow up to my posting on January 4, I can only assume that my
daughter was given the wrong computer screen when she voted her absentee
ballot on January 2. She was offered the choice of Joe Lieberman, John
Kerry, and Wesley Clark, among others.
I hope she can now be assured that her vote was counted.
The Big Lie(s)
Larry Seftor, Larry underscore Seftor at compuserve dot
I've come to the conclusion that conventional wisdom about what
matters does not often represent what a lot of people think. As an
example, I work in Virginia and am subjected to the painful and
worsening traffic problems in Northern Virginia. In my private
conversations and in the public media traffic is listed as a major
problem. But, faced with potential solutions, the people of Northern
Virginia back away. As noted recently in the Post, it turns out that
many people just don't care about traffic. Asserting that they do is a
I find the same to be true about voting rights for DC residents, as
demonstrated by the low turnout for Tuesday's DC primary (in which I
voted). People can sit at their keyboards typing messages about how the
whole thing was flawed. But the fact is that a strong turnout would have
made the national media in a significant way and would have made a
difference. Those who moved the primary to January and those who voted
made a difference. Those who discussed it rather than voting did not. I
suspect the real problem is that the average DC resident simply doesn't
care. Asserting that they do is another big lie.
Who Looks Bad?
Connie Ridgway, kaniru at aol dot com
Gary, who are you talking about who “took your vote away” in this
primary? The only people who did that are Terry McAuliffe and the DNC.
They're the ones who don't want to look bad, thus they didn't
“allow” us to have an actual primary.
Why do people choose to forget that the people who are not on the
ballot (Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards, Gephardt, Clark) voluntarily took
their names off? They did not want to be on the ballot because the DNC
threatened them (in so many words). Or because they did not want to
lose. Nobody made them take their names off.
As for the more bizarre names on the ballot, it is no different from
other years, where anyone can run for president (or for Governor of
[The DC Democratic State Committee agreed to and signed the
Democratic National Committee’s delegate selection plan, which
required that Iowa’s caucus and New Hampshire’s primary be held
before any other elections. Statehood advocates convinced the DC Council
to pass a law requiring DC’s primary to be held first. That put the DC
DSC in a quandary: break the rules of the Democratic party, set forth in
the agreement it had made with all the other state parties, or
disenfranchise the voters by turning the primary into a nonbinding
preference poll, and actually choosing its delegates in a caucus at a
later date. It put the DC Republican party, which had a similar
agreement under the auspices of the Republican National Committee, in a
similar quandary, which it solved by not participating in the primary at
all, but holding a later caucus. Who is responsible for the
disenfranchisement of voters, the DC politicians who voted to force this
dilemma on the state parties, or the national party organizations that
enforced the rules the state parties had agreed to? I know whom I blame.
Similarly, the Democratic candidates who withdrew from the DC primary
were simply following the rules of their party. — Gary Imhoff]
You must be a very unhappy person, to have such an inexhaustible
supply of venom. I wish you joy.
Great Downtown Developments
John Olinger, North Lincoln Park, email@example.com
The new movie theater on E Street is a great addition to downtown
life. After work on Tuesday evening I met a friend and we walked down to
the theater, picked up our tickets, stopped in at Chapters (around the
corner on 11th Street), a great, locally-owned independent bookstore,
walked over to 10th Street for dinner at Bisto D'Oc, a nice, little
southern French restaurant, and got back to the movie for the 7 p.m.
show. And when the show was over, we walked back on sidewalks full of
pedestrians. Downtown has been bustling for a while, and each new
venture provides another reason for sticking around after work and makes
DC feel a little more like a city.
Why We Don’t Want Real Estate Taxes to
Eric Rosenthal, Capitol Hill, eric.rosenthal at mac.com
Peter Luger wonders why many of us are reluctant to pay the District
more money in the form of property taxes, even though our homes have
increased in value. Here’s why, at least for me: everything
significant the District Government does -- schools, housing, public
health, foster care, policing, emergency services -- is a disaster,
really a tragedy, if you consider the impact it has. As expenditures
rise each year, there is no evidence that more money leads to improved
operations or services. From 2000 to 2004, for example, the District
operating budget increased from about $4.7 to about $5.7 billion. Did
anyone notice that services were 21 percent better? Combining all of its
budgets (operating, capital, highway) the District spends over $11,000
per resident per year. Does anyone think the money is well spent or that
it would be better spent if the District had more of it?
The Mayor, Council and School Board fiddle while life for our most
vulnerable citizens remains hopeless. They renew the contract for a
police chief who reliably delivers the worst-in-the-nation crime
statistics year after year. They play budget games with the school
system and fight about control while successive generations of students
learn little about reading, writing and math, wasting the potential they
were born with. They posture about health care services, shutting a
hospital here, starting a new one there, with no evidence of the serious
thought and planning required in a city with morbidity and mortality
statistics that rival many developing nations.
So I would happily pay taxes, even more than I do now, if the funds
were spent wisely and productively: if the eleven-year-old boy with mild
learning problems I know had a quality school to go to, if my neighbors
felt they could responsibly send their children to public schools, if
$100 million plus health care decisions were based on a demonstrated
need, rather than on a political need to quiet the squeakiest wheels, if
all parts of the city were safe so that children did not have to live
with the sounds of gunshots in the night. But absent evidence that
improvements follow increased expenditures, I see no point in giving the
District any more money to waste.
Three cheers for Peter Luger's posting from Georgetown on January 11!
Property has been the basis for much of the capital formation that has
made the US the richest nation in the world. The idea that our nation's
capital city should be passing laws against gaining wealth, or at least
against being taxed for that wealth, is ludicrous. Why not turn the
city's attention toward finding relevant uses for these newfound
revenues? How about earmarking all DC's residential property tax revenue
increases over 10 percent for use in underwriting affordable housing so
others in this city can become capitalists too? Why make houses more
affordable for those who already own them, at the expense of giving a
boost to first-time buyers who'd like to get on the American bandwagon?
Why favor old owners who want to keep their taxes and property (and
neighborhood) values down, over new owners who want to see their
investment (and our capital city) grow?
Is NARPAC Really a Commuter Lobby?
Richard Layman, Northeast DC, firstname.lastname@example.org
Until recently, I had always been impressed by the reportage and
analysis of Len Sullivan-NARPAC. However, I was troubled by a recent
post (themail, January 4, “New Year’s Notion for Commuters to DC”)
that I felt was unduly critical of DC residents. In the January 7 issue
of themail, NARPAC announces an analysis of the proposed K Street busway.
A number of the statements in the report are troubling. One section is
entitled: “Pedestrians are a major nuisance.” Another statement is
“Sidewalks are now used inefficiently due to the narrowing caused by
curbside trees with their root grates, etc.” And “Lost parking must
be accommodated (and expanded) somewhere. It is essential to get people
out of their cars downtown, but not by trying to get Americans to give
up their second most desired possession.”
On the latter point, I will say that the public space was not
originally created to provide parking for personally-owned vehicles.
Parking is a privilege, not a right, and providing parking spaces isn't
the primary development priority that suburbanites believe we should
take up. (Jane Jacobs would say something like, “You are asking the
wrong question. The question isn't 'why aren't there more parking
spaces?' The real question is 'why are there so many cars?', or 'why do
so many people want to drive knowing there aren't more parking
To truly be a transit city, we must constantly improve and expand
transit systems. It is encouraging to see the various initiatives of the
DC Department of Transportation to do so, such as via the proposed K
Street busway. Another is to encourage the use of transit by making less
preferred modes more difficult and expensive to use. Providing maximum
parking tears at the urban fabric and streetscape without encouraging
the use of transit. Parking tickets are a “positive” disincentive
that ought to encourage “rational economic-thinking” people to use
other modes of transit. Instead, people blame the ticketer or the
situation, instead of their decision to drive and park (perhaps
illegally) in the first place. This relates to a serious concern faced
by DC's advocates for a “livable city.” The US is dominated by an
automobile-centric planning and development paradigm. Most every person
in the region, including those who live in the city, has been imprinted
with that paradigm without realizing that it is but one choice. Just one
example is that there are plenty of people who think the solution to
revitalization of our neighborhood commercial districts is in the
demolition of the adjoining residential neighborhoods in favor of
parking. I fall into the trap of arguing with people about this lunacy,
rather than just walking away ruing the fact that they've never read
Jane Jacobs Death and Life of Great American Cities. The
“teachable moment” so often when the entire worldview of the
“student” is shaped by the automobile. It is troubling that
forty-two years after the publication of that book, people who allegedly
care about the city think that planning for the pedestrian and focusing
on urban design and the streetscape is a “nuisance” and that we
should be focused on making life simple and free for car drivers.
Interested in Starting a Jane Jacobs/Urban
Design Reading Group?
Richard Layman, Northeast DC, email@example.com
Now is a great time to focus on urban design and the city because the
City of Washington is ramping up for the next iteration of the
comprehensive plan. If you're interested in joining a reading group
focused on this, drop me an E-mail. A Monday evening is preferred on my
Signage and Other Metro Snafus
Ralph Blessing, firstname.lastname@example.org
Ann Van Aken questioned Metro's spending priorities, in that the
agency will spend $100,000 each to change the signage in two stations.
If they're spending that kind of money on signs, I hope that, at least,
they're getting a quality product (gold-plated, perhaps). Based on other
Metro projects, however, I'd be surprised if the end result is
satisfactory. About this time last year Metro rebuilt the four enclosed
waiting areas atop the Takoma station's platform. I'm not sure they were
in need of replacement, but I'll defer to the "experts" on
that matter. What I do know, though, is that two of the four were not
properly sealed; now every time it rains the benches inside the
enclosures are covered with puddles of water. In other words, they're of
little value on the days when they're most needed. I've contacted Metro
three or four times since last spring to report this problem. Each time
I was thanked profusely for bringing it to their attention, but to date
nothing has been done. My last communication was with the person
identified in the Dr. Gridlock column as the "go to" person at
Metro. She tracked down the office in charge and was told that Takoma
was on its list and would be taken care of shortly. That was two months
ago. Maybe a “Do Not Enter” sign would be easier to obtain.
The Family Study at Howard University Center is conducting research
to investigate factors contributing to hypertension and related health
conditions including diabetes, and weight gain in people of African
descent. This study is currently going on at Howard University, hoping
to enroll 350 families. In participating in this study you and your
family will be contributing to the effort of better understanding this
condition that surely has affected a family member or someone you know.
Eligibility requirements: must self identify as a person of African
descent (Black, African-American, Afro-Latino, etc.), must be at least
14 years of age (minors must have parental consent), consent and
participation from five or more blood relatives.
To be eligible, participants are not required to have the conditions
listed above. Information will be collected by questionnaires. Blood
pressure, weight, height measurements small amounts of blood and urine
samples will be collected. Glucose and cholesterol test results will be
provided. One visit is all that is required by each participant. All
information will remain confidential. Each participant will receive
$40.00 following completion of the visit.
You may be eligible. For more information on the Howard University
Family Study, please call Howard University, 806-6522 or 806-6524. The
Project Investigator on this study is Charles Rotimi, Ph.D.
CLASSIFIEDS — EVENTS
Dorothy Height Speech, January 20
Joe Libertelli, email@example.com
Please join us for an evening with Dorothy Height, who will speak on
her new memoir, Open Wide the Freedom Gates, on Tuesday, January 20.
6:00 p.m. , reception; 7:00 p.m., introduction by Charles Ogletree,
Jesse Climenko Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, and Chair,
University of the District of Columbia Board of Trustees; 7:05 p.m.,
address and book signing by Dorothy Height. The event will be held at
the UDC David A. Clarke School of Law, 4200 Connecticut Avenue, NW,
Building 38, 2nd Floor (Red Line UDC/Van Ness Metro Station; parking
under campus off Van Ness Street). Admission is free.
Social activist Dorothy Height was born in Richmond, Virginia, on
March 24, 1912. At an early age, she moved with her family to Rankin,
Pennsylvania. While in high school, Height was awarded a scholarship to
New York University for her oratory skills, where she studied and earned
her master's degree. Height began her career working as a caseworker
with the New York City Welfare Department, but at the age of
twenty-five, she began her career as a civil rights activist when she
joined the National Council of Negro Women. She fought for equal rights
for both African Americans and women, and in 1944 she joined the
national staff of the YWCA. She remained active with the organization
until 1977, and while there she developed leadership training programs
and interracial and ecumenical education programs. In 1957, Height was
named president of the National Council of Negro Women, a position she
held until 1997. During the height of the civil rights movement of the
1960s, Height organized "Wednesdays in Mississippi," which
brought together black and white women from the north and South to
create a dialogue of understanding. Leaders of the United States
regularly took her counsel, including First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, and
Height also encouraged President Dwight D. Eisenhower to desegregate
schools and President Lyndon B. Johnson to appoint African American
women to positions in government. Height has served on a number of
committees, including as a consultant on African affairs to the
secretary of state, the President's Committee on the Employment of the
Handicapped and the President's Committee on the Status of Women. Her
tireless efforts for equal rights have earned her the praise and
recognition of numerous organizations, as well. She has received the
Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Freedom
From Want Award, and the NAACP Spingarn Medal. She has also been
inducted into the National Women's Hall of Fame.
National Building Museum Lectures, January 22
Briana Hensold, firstname.lastname@example.org
The New York firm of McKim, Mead & White designed in a classical
style that became synonymous with the City Beautiful movement. Architect
Samuel G. White, great-grandson of firm partner Stanford White, will
discuss the firm's body of work, including the Boston Public Library and
the now-demolished Pennsylvania Station in New York. After the lecture,
he will sign copies of his book McKim, Mead & White: The
Masterworks (Rizzoli International). Thursday, January 22, 6:30 p.m.
to 8:00 p.m. Museum members and students, $10; nonmembers, $15.
Registration required at http://www.nbm.org.
Dr. Lee E. Gray of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte will
present a history of elevators and skyscrapers in the 20th century.
Focusing on the architectural and social impact of the elevator, he will
discuss the changing perceptions and expectations of riders, the impact
of new technologies, and the role the elevator plays in everyday life.
This lecture complements the exhibition Up, Down, Across, which will be
open for viewing. Monday, January 26, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Museum
members and students, $12; nonmembers, $17. Registration required at http://www.nbm.org.
Both events at the National Building Museum, 401 F Street, NW (Judiciary
Square Metro, Red Line).
Wardman Row House Bus Tour, February 1
Krista Schreiner Gebbia, DC Preservation League, email@example.com
The prolific developer Harry Wardman changed the face of residential
Washington, DC. On this bus tour led by architectural historians Sally
Berk, Laura Trieschmann, and Caroline Mesrobian Hickman, you’ll
discover the reach of Wardman’s work, the variety of styles he used,
and the nexus between early 20th century transportation and residential
development in DC. A box lunch will be provided. February 1, 10 a.m.-2
p.m., departing from the National Building Museum, 401 F Street, NW.
Admission $35 for DCPL members; $45 for nonmembers. Reservations
required. Note: this event was originally scheduled during Row House
Month, but due to Hurricane Isabel the tour was canceled.
CLASSIFIEDS — HOUSING
One bedroom co-op, 850 sq. ft., for sale in Dupont Circle! Open house
on Sunday, January 18, from 12:00 p.m.-4 p.m., at 1725 17th Street, NW.
Features spacious foyer with library, arched entranceways leading to
both living room and kitchen, large windows with southern and western
light exposures, kitchen has original built-in glass door hutch,
hardwood floors, high ceilings, ceiling fans in both the bedroom and
living room, spacious walk-in closet off the bedroom, front desk
attendant (from 5 a.m. to 5 p.m.), trash pickup at your apartment front
door every morning, meeting room, storage space and bike room in
basement, roof deck access, pet friendly building (dog park across the
street and fenced-in yards on premise, great neighborhood close to 16th
Street bus line and Dupont Metro. Price $290,000, co-op fee $362 per
CLASSIFIEDS — HELP WANTED
Charles Stevenson, Clc@geotrees.com
Geotrees.Com has a need for language instructors to work in suburban
Northern Virginia. We invite your attention. The languages are Spanish,
Korean, Vietnamese, Urdu, Persian/ Farsi, Chinese, and Arabic. People
with English as a Second Language experience are needed. The greatest
needs will probably be in Spanish and in ESL. Teaching experience is
required. The need for American Sign Language instructors is to be
determined, but we would certainly like to learn of you and keep your
resume on file. Please send us your resumes as soon as possible, not in
.pdf or HTML form. Searchable text or word processor files are best.
Do you know of any schools, organizations, NGOs, etc. who have people
with these skills, people whom we can help put to work? Please let us
know, or invite them to get in touch. If you're interested, please
contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org,
and include your resume. We look forward to hearing from you!
Legal Secretary, Immediate Opening
Jon Katz, email@example.com
Silver Spring, Maryland. Up to $40k plus benefits. Great work and
training, including criminal defense cases and trial work in caring
office. Requires minimum one-two years of private law firm experience,
sharpness, and fast-paced work. Fax or E-mail (in text form, without
attachments) resume (one to two pages) and persuasive cover letter to
Jon Katz, Marks & Katz, LLC: 301-495-8815, firstname.lastname@example.org.
For more information, visit http://www.markskatz.com/jobs.htm.
CLASSIFIEDS — SERVICES
Business Development and Government
Arthur Jackson, email@example.com
The AHJ Group is interviewing District of Columbia small, minority
and women-owned businesses for upcoming District of Columbia L.S.D.B.E.
Certified Contracts. Contact Bob Levin at 271-5522 or visit our web
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 firstname.lastname@example.org
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 email@example.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.