Dear Securitized Residents of DC:
WRC political reporter Tom Sherwood questions the security measures
being taken for the inauguration in his current column (http://www.nbc4.com/politics/4074315/detail.html).
Of course, those in charge of security believe that every loss of
freedom is for our own good, and that the more restricted our liberties
are, the better off we will be, but Sherwood is right that it is the job
of both federal and local elected officials to battle against the loss
of liberty. Who among our local elected officials, among our
metropolitan area members of congress, or in the federal administration
is arguing against the heavy handed authoritarianism of the security
“Some folks are wondering how all this celebrates America: People
blocked from the homes and neighborhoods unless they brandish a
photo-identification card with their street address. Out-of-towners
treated as intruders not guests. Metro stations closed down even though
miraculously they’re actually in good working order. Metal detector
checkpoints three blocks from the Pennsylvania Avenue parade route. (And
don’t even get me started on the obliteration of 1600 Pennsylvania
Avenue that some believe ought to be renamed Fear Park). Soldiers,
heavily armed, cruising the streets of locked down garages, office
buildings and shops. The city’s rivers devoid of local boats, while
the skies overhead roar with weapons of war.
“One city official suggested that all of downtown be blocked off --
no one allowed except the parade participants. Then everyone could stay
home and watch it 1984-like from their homes. As one reader said, a
“If our grand public events have to be twisted into massive police
operations, perhaps its time to simply cancel them as relics of a
“Lord knows it’s a wild enough world that police and protective
services confront. But at what cost does it come to our communities, our
country and us? Police and security professional certainly should
propose all types of protective measures, but it’s up to civilian
leaders who lead our country, states and local governments to battle the
creation of a new security, industrial complex."
No Tickee, No Shirtee
Ed T. Barron, edtb@aoldotcom
If the Feds want protection and other services from DC, then they
should pay for them. Too bad we have already erected the reviewing
stands along the parade route. If I were the Mayor I’d cancel all
police and any other activities that were planned to support the
Inauguration next week. I wouldn’t have a city employee within five
blocks of the perimeter of the ceremonies. Let the Feds figure out how
to protect the President. Get Cheney to hire Halliburton.
DC ACT’s eleventh annual edition of What’s in It for Kids? is now
available. The main findings of this budget and policy analysis are
consistent: few gains have been achieved for children, youth, and their
families in the FY 2005 budget. Level and reduced funding means that
many young people and their families will once again go without basic
services such as mental health and shelter. For other families, services
that support work — such as subsidized child care and job training —
are scarce. The book is available by contacting DC Action for Children
at email@example.com and
Parking Signage, Posting, and Noise
Cecilio Morales, firstname.lastname@example.org
Ever since Sunrise Assisted Living built its monster building in the
5100 block of Connecticut Avenue, those of us who live on that block
have been experiencing incredible hassles, including nighttime noise,
inconvenience, and harassment from cops. In late summer and fall of
2003, I had to call the cops repeatedly because they were operating
noisy construction machines at 2 a.m. in the morning, right under my
bedroom, as if it were the middle of the day. This continues to happen
in the name of “street cleaning” at ungodly hours (past midnight.).
But now the cops refuse to intervene, no doubt bribed by someone.
For about a year, they tore up the sidewalk; they destroyed two bus
shelters, one on the northwest corner of Connecticut and Nebraska and
another directly across from the DC residence for the elderly a block
up. The one across the DC residence still isn’t there. It looks as the
stop is being decommissioned. So the poorer elderly now have to walk an
extra block for the benefit of the rich elderly. Not only that, but they
put in the parking signage wrong and it took two years to get the
District to put the signage back up. We had to pay the tickets or spend
insane amounts of time convincing officials who look the other way.
I just got a ticket for leaving my car out overnight on December 30,
on the grounds that street cleaning was going to take place between 10
p.m. and 5 a.m. This shouldn’t even be happening at that time (it didn’t
or I would have called the cops just to set the record straight. DC
officials don’t listen. Meanwhile there are taxes and fines for
citizens, and abatements for businesses like Sunrise Assisted Living. I
wonder at the traffic in bribes that must be going on.
I had already read the article in the New York Times that Gary
Imhoff refers to [themail, January 9], and it prompts me to wonder if we
can finally get some straightforward answers to questions about the use
of surveillance cameras: I had not previously been as aware of the Mayor’s
admission that the cameras at red-lights (since that is the core of the
NYT article) were not solely for safety (a very desirable goal) but also
for revenue: this seems a stretch: taxation is for revenue, police work
is not, because if it ever becomes that, we furnish a reason for random
and formal enforcement of an unreasonable law simply because it brings
in revenue. Government ought not to be in the business of raising a
revenue simply because it can. Revenue is admittedly raised by fees, but
that is for a public purpose, genuinely defined and uniformly
administered. Uniform fees are always regressive, of course, because
they are applied to the rich as well as to the poor, with massive
differences in proportions to income. The same argument applies to
levies founded on traffic regulation. We should mind it less, perhaps,
if it were frankly admitted, but we are too often told that the purpose
of the surveillance is public safety. The NYT article reports what
follows: for red-light surveillance, there is an almost equal increase
in rear-end collisions (as drivers slow down or stop quite suddenly to
avoid running the light) to offset a reduction in side-on collisions
between cars moving at right angles to one another.
Different, but broadly equivalent, arguments could be developed for
the use of the cameras at places other than red lights. How safe/unsafe
is the 25 mph District-wide speed limit, when the police’s own
"allowance" is 10 or 12 miles above that. Conversely, how
dangerous is a modern car, traveling at 36 mph on a clear and dry road,
in the middle of the day, with no obstruction to visibility?
[Interested readers should also see yesterday’s article by Jim
McElhatton’s in the Washington Times, “Mayor Says Traffic
Cameras Needed for Revenue,” http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20050111-120538-9615r.htm.
— Gary Imhoff]
I couldn’t resist responding to Sam Smith’s comments concerning
government’s disrespecting its citizenry [themail, January 9]. While
on vacation driving through western Nebraska this summer, I received a
speeding ticket in a very small town located there. I paid the fine and
court charges in a timely manner, and thought the matter was closed. Two
months later I received a notice from the Department of Motor Vehicles
telling me that my license to drive was to be suspended as a result of
“noncompliance with an out of state moving violation.” If I did not
voluntarily surrender my license, the letter threatened arrest and a
fine of up to $1,000. The alternative was to ”provide proof of payment
of the above mentioned violation. . . .” No instructions, no phone
number to call for more information, no nothing.
I had done nothing wrong, but no one at DMV seemed to care or could
explain to me why I was being targeted for something that was, plainly,
an error. I knew from experience that I was caught in a standard DC
Catch-22, so I responded to my government by doing what I thought they
wanted. I wrote them a letter explaining the error, sent them a copy of
their letter for reference, a copy of the traffic ticket, a copy of the
Express Mail label and tracking report showing the ticket was paid in
time, and a copy (front and back) of my canceled check. I sent all this
by certified mail just to make sure they got it and that I could prove
it. One week later I received a response from the city telling me that
my transaction was rejected because I did not include a copy of my
drivers license, nor did I enclose a copy of a receipt from the court.
Nowhere in the original correspondence does it mention that I needed to
send them these things. The woman I spoke to in the court in Nebraska
got a chuckle out of this — it seems they don’t do receipts and she
couldn’t understand why DC needed such a thing, as I had clearly paid
my ticket on time. They just assume your canceled check is enough. But
they came up with something for me and I sent it, and a copy of my
driver’s license, off to DMV (certified mail, again).
And the response from DMV? A copy of my five-year record, noting that
the “unpaid ticket violation” was “cleared.” Best of all? The
stationery from DMV has a watermark repeated over and over and over —
“The Drive to Excellence.” So I’m accused of doing something I
clearly didn’t do, had to document that I didn’t do it, had to guess
at what documents they would need or want, and, when they finally got
what they wanted, they didn’t even bother to write a letter telling me
that all was well again (much less admitting their error). So much for
innocent until proven guilty.
Trust No More, Baseball and All
Keith Jarrell, Capitol Hill, K.email@example.com
The lack of concern among our elected officials should tell you
something: that they don’t really care. They would have us think that
they are far more intelligent and far more savvy that we are about all
the things baseball and a new stadium can potentially do for DC. The
truth however, will come out when, just as with the new convention
center and other projects, the cost overruns and the new taxes take
place. What I find so personally insulting is the numbers game that the
mayor and so many members of our city council are playing. Why is it
that a true and accurate price tag hasn’t been placed on the project?
Why don’t we as voting citizens make sure that one is? Secondly, what
I find amazing is how the vote was pushed through the council in order
to accommodate the mayor’s wish not to have it run over into the new
council session. Why? Certainly it is that with the newly elected
members of council, it would never pass. Was justice served to the
citizens of the District? I don’t think so.
Several members will not run for reelection and so they have nothing
at stake. Others don’t care. It clear that one good person could bring
Jack Evans down and he could be replaced easily. Sam Brooks, running for
At-Large Councilmember against Brown, received more votes in Ward Two
than Mr. Evans did. Perhaps a recall on Evans is in order? It must be on
the minds of the people in his Ward. If not, then perhaps they deserve
yet another four years of his plan for our future. Ward 5 residents had
no help either on this issue or on many others from their esteemed and
less than intelligent Councilmember, Vincent Orange. After all, why
should he be trusted again for any office in this city when his
signature appeared on the petition supporting slots while he was on
vacation in Florida. When asked about this, he has offered no
explanation. He never will either, cause the evidence is clear who
really signed his name.
As voters, we have to become far more intelligent in whom we support
and whom we elect to manage the affairs and to govern our city. Thus
far, our report card is averaging about a D-, based on many of the
things discussed in themail in the past several months. It’s time for
more changes in our elected leadership in this city, and it’s time to
support further the councilmembers that listen and respond to the wishes
and needs of the citizens of the District of Columbia. Just as the
significant change was brought in this election cycle, we need to keep
this movement going and perhaps even strengthen it again in two years.
But today is the real time to start working together to being new faces
and new ideas with new approaches to our city and how it is managed.
“Hired in November as chief executive of the DC Sports and
Entertainment Commission, Allen Lew, 54, took over an operation still in
its first phase. An architect has yet to be hired. Stadium designs have
not been developed. And land has not been acquired from property owners.
Even the project’s ultimate cost — estimated at $440 million by
mayoral aides but raised to $530 million by the city’s chief financial
officer — is difficult to determine at this stage, Lew
So it was the stadium opposition that was clueless and out of line in
not abiding by the terms of a carefully crafted agreement between the
mayor and MLB (never mind that nonsense of the DC Council’s essential
role of shaping and approving any such deal, especially one of the city’s
most expensive ever and one done for the complete benefit and use of a
private monopoly), even though their laughable cost estimates (rarely if
ever questioned by the Baseball Brigade’s coconspirators at the Post)
were not based on a final design — since this article reveals that
such designs haven’t even been developed at this point — or any land
acquisition achieved, apparently making it “difficult to determine at
this stage” for the latest in what seems like a revolving door of DC
Sports and Entertainment Commission heads to come up with a
“ballpark” figure even here in 2005! I’d hate to think the
opposition to the stadium boondoggle and those “jackass council
members” that the CEO, I mean mayor, of the District might actually
have had a monopoly on the facts surrounding the issue and that it was
only political strong-arming from the Brigade and carefully tailoring
“coverage” from the Post and Times that cajoled and
intimidated the result they wanted out of the DC Council.
Referendum on Baseball
Art Spitzer, firstname.lastname@example.org
(in my personal capacity only)
Regarding the possibility of a referendum on the baseball bill, Lars
Hydle notes that “a DC Superior Court judge [recently] ruled that the
Smokefree DC initiative was not a proper subject for an initiative
because it violated the prohibition against a budget act because,
according to various critics of the initiative, it might have affected
DC tax revenue. . . . I believe Smokefree DC or its allies are appealing
to the DC Court of Appeals. My point is that this is a sweeping decision
which, if upheld, would make it hard for any referendum with any
budgetary implications to get off the ground.” [themail, January 9]
I agree with Mr. Hydle that the reasoning of the recent Smokefree DC
decision would prevent all but the most meaningless initiatives or
referenda from appearing on the ballot. But it’s only a decision by a
single Superior Court judge and is not binding on any other judge of any
court. Potential supporters of a baseball referendum shouldn’t be too
concerned about that decision; there are more than fifty Superior Court
judges and the judge to whom a legal challenge to a baseball referendum
would be assigned might well see things differently.
While it’s true that the DC Court of Appeals has interpreted
broadly the prohibition on ballot measures that “appropriate funds”
or “negate a budget act,” that court has never gone as far as the
Superior Court did in the Smokefree DC decision, and I have enough
respect for the Court of Appeals that I assume they’ll reverse the
Smokefree DC decision. (Not that I’ve never been wrong in the past!)
Also pending before the Court of Appeals, by the way, is an appeal in
the case involving the “Drug Treatment Instead of Jail Initiative,”
passed by the voters in 2002 but subsequently held invalid by the
Superior Court on the ground that it, too, was a law appropriating
funds. That appeal was argued in May 2004 and the Court of Appeals’
decision, which could come down any time, will presumably provide some
additional guidance in this much-litigated area.
I don’t deny the possibility that a baseball referendum might be
ruled out of order by the courts. But in my judgment there’s a better
chance that a carefully drafted referendum will be permitted. One key
provision in the referendum law is the provision allowing a referendum
on part of a law. It might be wise for opponents of the baseball bill to
submit more than one version of a referendum (one on the whole bill; one
on selected parts that seem most clearly appropriate), or to make clear
in their submission to the Board of Elections that if it (or a court)
views parts of the baseball bill as an appropriations act or a budget
act, then a referendum is desired on such parts of the bill as are not
within the prohibition.
I must weigh in on the issue of whether a baseball referendum is
appropriate ballot material. Lars Hydle is indeed correct [themail,
January 9] when he cites the very bad ruling issued by Superior Court
Judge Mary Terrell last spring. Terrell ruled that the smokefree
workplaces initiative was not appropriate for the ballot because it
would appropriate funds and unduly interfere with the Council’s
ability to set a budget. Under her logic, virtually any measure that has
a fiscal impact — positive or negative — would be deemed
inappropriate for the ballot, a ruling that pretty much throws the whole
ballot process out the window. It was clear by Terrell’s comments from
the bench that she just plain didn’t like the substance of the
initiative and was trying to find any way she could to keep this matter
far from voters. It is extremely unfortunate that she succeeded, because
had the matter been on the ballot in November, it most certainly would
have won (polls show that a majority of District voters want smokefree
workplaces.) It is important to note also that the Board of Elections
and Ethics unanimously found the smokefree workplaces initiative
appropriate subject material to go before voters. The case is on appeal,
but that could take a long time. We are hopeful that in the meantime the
Council will pass meaningful smokefree workplace legislation, because
all workers deserve to be protected from secondhand smoke.
The January 6 Washington Post had an article about new
security measures for DC’s subway for the upcoming inaugural (“Metro
Officers Keep a Keen Eye on Riders,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61700-2005Jan9.html).
The inaugural related subway security measures include behavioral
profiling, bomb sniffing dogs (to be loaned from the Transportation
Security Agency), explosive sniffing devices on loan from TSA, and
airport screeners to run the explosive sniffing devices, also on loan
So the obvious question is, with all the various past orange and
yellow national security alerts, how come we never saw any of these
security measures put in place for DC’s subway? The obvious answer is
complacency. It’s too bad that it will probably require a Madrid style
train bombing or some other biochemical attack to get local governments
to implement reasonable security in the subway.
A Washington Post editorial on Sunday, January 9 [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59777-2005Jan8.html?sub=AR],
recounted the ducking and dodging over a dedicated funding stream for
Metro. “In the face of those responses, it is important that Metro’s
main constituency — its ridership — weigh the disastrous
consequences of sticking with the status quo.” So, as a recent new
resident to the District, allow me to ask, to whom should I appeal if I
want to support a dedicated funding stream solution that will sustain
Virginia and Maryland won’t touch it and the District Council
claims it’s impotent. Suggestions?
Metro has to use service cuts and fare increases to increase its
financial viability. Removing seats is one such service cut. Why are
people whining so much? Would they rather have another fare increase?
Would they rather have longer platform waits? New York, Boston, and many
other systems have bench seating along the exterior walls of the trains
and strap hanging in between. It’s not the end of the world. DC’s
Metro trains right now are very inefficiently used. Nobody moves to the
center of the train. They just stand near the doors. I can understand
why Metro would want to try different seating configurations. This is
not disrespect, but belt-tightening.
Metro’s proposal to convert to a more practical seating arrangement
was a bad example for both Doug Neuman and themail to use as an
illustration of the District Government’s disrespect for its citizens.
Metro is mass transit, not a commuter railroad. At rush hours riders
have a choice of being crushed in the limited standing room space that
is available in the present car configuration or passing up a succession
of packed trains until one with adequate space arrives. The decision to
adopt a more realistic seat design reflects concern for the riders’
needs, not disrespect.
I respectfully disagree with linking WMATA’s proposals for the
reconfiguration of seating on subway cars to a broader and justifiable
concern about disrespect and how government treats the citizens it
purports to serve. While the sixteen-seat car may have been over the
top, the fact is that the subway cars use a train car seating
configuration, rather than a seating configuration common to high
capacity subway systems. The configuration at the entrances, with the
poles and the seats jutting out on the bias (angle) approach to the door
make ingress-egress difficult during high-use periods. Adding capacity
from seating configuration changes is much cheaper than adding subway
cars, and I think that would be something that all of us would want
WMATA to consider. In comparison, the New York City subway cars have
benches along the walls of the car, allowing for greater standing
capacity, and greater capacity per square foot of subway car space.
The WMATA system has both commuter rail aspects (trips from the
out-county ends of the system such as Shady Grove or Vienna) and more
traditional subway travel trips (Arlington, DC). Catering solely to the
distant riders provides far less capacity during peak periods.
From a PR standpoint, WMATA would have better served its purposes had
it included in its proposal (maybe they did, but it didn’t make the
papers) a comparison of seating configurations on other high usage
subway systems in North America (NYC, Boston, Toronto, etc.), and around
the world. Then we all would have had a better base of knowledge on
which to judge the various proposals.
Suggestion for the Metro
Michael P. Durso, email@example.com
There is an easy solution for Metro’s exploration into
high-occupancy rail cars. Put the high-occupancy rail cars in the middle
of the trains, but don’t create entire trains with the high-occupancy
rail cars. For example, if it is a six-car train, put two regular cars
at the front and back with the two high occupancy cars in the middle. If
you are a rider with a longer ride you would naturally move to the
either the front or back of the train and avoid the center cars.
However, if you are a quick transfer rider going only a couple of stops,
then the high-occupancy cars would naturally make better sense to use.
Is there really a need to sit down when traveling from Gallery Place to
Metro Center? Although our society is lacking respect, it is acceptable
to compromise from time to time.
Students Are Residents, Too
Sally Kram, Consortium of Universities, firstname.lastname@example.org
I’d like to respond to Mr. Bindner’s criticism of Fannie Mae’s
report on poverty in the District [themail, January 9]. First, Fannie
Mae has followed US Census Bureau standards in counting students as
residents of the jurisdictions where they are enrolled. In the past,
this has enabled the District to collect larger amounts of federal
dollars because its student population has remained constant, unlike
other segments of the population, such as families with children, which
have dropped drastically.
Second, students do not routinely benefit from “parents and
educational assistance.” As to parental assistance, the average age of
a college student in Washington, DC, is 26, meaning that most of them
are wage earners in their own households. As for educational assistance,
the District of Columbia is unique in the nation in that it provides no
financial aid assistance to DC students to attend DC institutions.
Given that students provide the steadiest stream of new residents
that the District can depend on, Mr. Bindner should appreciate that they
are counted in DC rather than throw them out. Students are residents
CLASSIFIEDS — EVENTS
DC Public Library Events, January 14-15
Debra Truhart, email@example.com
Friday, January 14, 10:00 a.m., Martin Luther King, Jr., Memorial
Library, 901 G Street, NW, Room A-5. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s
Timeless Legacy: A Prerequisite to Genuine Equality. A video
presentation about Dr. King by freelance photographer and film producer
Joshalyn Lawrence. The Black Studies Division of the D.C. Public Library
sponsors this program. Public contact: 727-1211.
Saturday, January 15, 9:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Martin Luther King, Jr.,
Memorial Library, 901 G Street, NW, Main Lobby. 6th Annual Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr., Scholastic Chess Tournament. Olympic Chess House
presents its annual chess tournament to honor Dr. King that gives
beginners to advance level players opportunities to compete for prizes.
Grades 1-12. Public contact: 727-5535.
Kakizome at the National Building Museum,
Brie Hensold, firstname.lastname@example.org
Saturday, January 15, 1:00-4:00 p.m. Calligraphy Creations. Kakizome
is the Japanese term for the first calligraphy of the New Year. Practice
with brushes and ink before creating a Kakejiku scroll. Presented in
conjunction with Five Friends from Japan: Children in Japan Today. $5
per project for Museum members; $7 nonmembers. Drop-in program.
Appropriate for all ages. At the National Building Museum, 401 F Street,
NW, Judiciary Square stop, Metro Red Line.
Women in Film and Video, January 22
Dorinda White, Women in Film and Video, email@example.com
Come and join Women in Film and Video as we discuss an issue that
crosses any and all professions . . . how to balance your family
obligations with your professional commitments. Join us on Saturday,
January 22, from 8:30 a.m.-1:00 p.m. at Discovery Communications, One
Discovery Place, Silver Spring, MD. It seems everyone these days is
dealing with the struggles of balancing work and family. Whether you’re
a seasoned professional looking for some insight, a new parent ready to
reenter the work world, or an employer wondering how to accommodate your
employees, you won’t want to miss this event. We have assembled an
extraordinary lineup of professionals. We have invited executives from
PBS, Discovery, Fox, PBS, Interface and Team Video to discuss how they
are addressing the needs of their working parent staff. Successful
freelance producers, writers, and technicians will share their stories.
At the end of our half-day, we will open the floor up to a discussion
with participants on future programs designed to support working
Our keynote address will be delivered by Ann Crittenden,
award-winning journalist and the author of the New York Times
Notable Book The Price of Motherhood and If You’ve Raised
Kids, You Can Manage Anything. She was a New York Times
reporter where she wrote on economic issues, initiated investigative
reports and authored a series on world hunger that was nominated for a
We have arranged childcare at a nearby location. You can bring your
very young child to the event. There will be space outside the
conference room where you can go if your child becomes noisy. Look for
childcare information, registration forms, directions, transportation,
and parking information at www.wifv.org
and by calling the WIFV office at 429-9438. WIFV members and Discovery
employees free before January 19, Nonmembers $10 before January 19.
Nonmembers and members $15 after January 19.
CLASSIFIEDS — HELP WANTED
New Orleans Funeral Jazz Band
Susan Doran, firstname.lastname@example.org
I am seeking a New Orleans-style jazz band to play at a mock funeral
procession and rally on January 20, in Washington, DC, to coincide with
Inauguration Day. The March and Rally are organized by The National
Mourning Day Project — a broad-based coalition of political, artist,
and theater groups from Washington, DC, New York, and Boston. The
pre-March rally will convene at Dupont Circle at 9 a.m. The legal,
permitted march will leave Dupont Circle and make its way to McPherson
Square at 11 a.m.
If you know a band that can play New Orleans-style funeral jazz,
please contact email@example.com
(296-4849). We have a very small budget, but should be able to offer
something in the way of remuneration.
Secretary and Legal Secretary
Jon Katz, jon at markskatz.com
Secretary, bilingual Spanish-English (complete fluency), Silver
Spring, MD. Full time or part time (all Thursday and Friday at
minimum.). Junior secretary/receptionist or full secretary. Unlimited
career and pay growth potential. Highly-ranked, caring and friendly law
firm in the news seeks bright team member thriving on fast pace. Paid
parking/Metro and training.
Legal Secretary, Silver Spring, MD. Do you seek a pay and benefits
boost and unlimited career growth at a highly-ranked caring and friendly
trial firm in the news? Are you experienced in litigation, bright and
efficient, and thrive on a fast pace? Join us now. Bilingual Spanish a
plus. Marks & Katz, fax 301-495-8815, markskatz.com.
CLASSIFIEDS — FREE
I have a complete set of the DC Register from January 1997 through
March 2003 that I would donate to any interested organization or firm
that will come and pick them up (on Capitol Hill). The Register is
online now, but back issues before 2003 are not. Please let me know by
Thursday or they will go in the trash.
CLASSIFIEDS — FOR SALE
Door Gym for Fitness at home. Adjustable doorway bar for pull-ups.
Also can be used for push-ups. New in box. $20. 686-6712.
CLASSIFIEDS — HOUSING
A group house in the burbs. Share living, dining, laundry, parking.
We have no furniture (the last roommate owned the furniture). The room
is sunny and fairly large. Three males and one female currently reside.
$660 plus 1/5 utilities. Located two blocks west of Connecticut and four
blocks east of Friendship Heights. E-mail firstname.lastname@example.org.
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 email@example.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 firstname.lastname@example.org,
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.