Dear Diligent Correspondents:
I’ve put my messages within the body of themail, because I’m
engaging in current topics. smoking prohibition and eminent domain law.
See you back in the intro next time.
On Monday, June 27, the city council’s Committee on Government
Operations will hold a hearing on contracting and procurement in the
District of Columbia. A major focus of the hearing will be the DC
Auditor’s report on sole source contracts awarded by the Executive
Office of the Mayor and Office of the City Administrator (http://www.dcwatch.com/auditor/audit050603.htm).
Attention should also be focused on the Project Labor Agreement (PLA)
for the construction of the new baseball stadium (http://www.dcwatch.com/govern/sports050616.htm).
One question that should be asked is whether the District actually
had a due diligence study prepared for the PLA, as required by law. City
Administrator Robert Bobb gave a sole-source contract to Oakland,
California, city councilmember Jane Brunner to do the due diligence
study. The PLA was announced and released on June 16. On June 17, on the
DC Politics Hour on WAMU-FM, I asked Bobb if he would release a copy of
the due diligence report that Brunner had done, and he said he would. I
got a copy of the report from his office on June 23 (http://www.dcwatch.com/govern/sports050620.htm).
It is dated June 20 -- four days after the PLA was finalized, signed,
and released. It is prominently stamped “draft,” and Mr. Bobb’s
special assistant said that “a more detailed report is in progress.”
It is only eight pages long, and it isn’t a due diligence report at
all; it is only a very general paper that describes what project labor
agreements are. It describes only potential benefits, and it does no
critical evaluation of any potential costs or drawbacks.
Mr. Bobb should also receive questions about the Inspector General’s
report on contracting by the District’s HIV/AIDS Administration (http://oig.dc.gov/news/view2.asp?url=release%2FHIV%5FAIDS%5FFINAL%5F6%2D16%2D05%2Epdf&mode=release&archived=0&month=00000)
and on his role in getting a sole-source contract for Rosie Rios,
another of his Oakland, California, associates, to work on the District’s
effort to acquire a major league baseball team (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/26/AR2005062600958.html).
I’ve paid more than my share of photo-based speeding tickets over
the last several years for which I’ve raised no complaints. Unlike
many who’ve raised the issue of “big government,” I have no
philosophical objection to efforts to enforce the law, including speed
But, when I recently received a speeding ticket for $50, my ire was
raised along with others, as reported recently in the press. It is
ridiculous to have a 25 m.p.h. speed limit on Michigan Avenue, near N.
Capitol Street, a four-lane highway. Selecting locations such as this to
locate the speed cameras leads to a disrespect for the DC government for
focusing on raising money from fines rather than using the resources
more productively for the public, in uses such as speeding on
Traffic Management Plans for Churches
Richard Layman, firstname.lastname@example.org
At yesterday’s DDOT presentation about the New York Avenue Corridor
Study, in response to the questions and answers I realized something.
Churches are matter of right uses in residential zones. That’s fine
(sort of, although I think blanket approval is problematic). I am not
even against church parking on the weekends. I am against churches
tearing down residences for parking because parking lots, by definition,
are blight, and create vacuums in the rhythm of the street. Negative
space draws out and encourages negative behavior, and parking lots are
negative space. We don’t gain by remaking our urban neighborhoods over
for the car. There is no reason not to require that churches provide a
traffic management plan that is regularly updated and monitored, in
order to mitigate the various negative impacts that car-centric
parishioners too often bring.
I do think that church needs and residence needs can be balanced. But
right now residents have no countervailing authority to get churches to
come to the table. Some churches are particularly enlightened. Many
others are not. I think this is something to think about and something
that ANCs can be involved in.
Giving to Each Other
Phil Shapiro, email@example.com
For the past few months I’ve been participating in a
“simplicity” discussion group where we talk about ways reducing the
material clutter in our lives and increasing the quantity of the
valuable intangibles. With my niece turning seven years old next week, I
had the chance to think about the kind of gift I could send her: A
physical gift bought from a store, or a homemade gift created by me? I
decided to opt for the latter. I then had a choice of writing a story
for her, writing a short play, creating something artistic or composing
a song. I chose to compose a song.
I ended up having far more fun composing this song than I would have
had shopping for a present for her. Meanwhile, she’ll remember this
song far longer than she’ll remember any physical gift I send her. I
sent my brother a copy of the song on an audio CD and another copy as an
MP3 audio file on a separate CD. He’ll copy the MP3 file to the
computers at his home, so even if the audio CD gets lost or broken, the
song will still be readily accessible. I also put the song on the
Internet. (See http://shorterlink.com/?QG77MO)
In what ways can we give to each other without running to the store to
make a purchase? Are we engaged in the right kinds of giving? Are there
ways of building stronger gift economies? Does a gift always look like a
gift? What impression can the right gift make when received at the right
time? Are the most valuable gifts tangible or intangible?
Mark Eckenwiler, themale at ingot dot org
In the last issue [themail, June 22], Gary expressed surprise that
Barbara Bullock’s tax-evading ways escaped notice for decades. For
what it’s worth, DC’s Office of Tax and Revenue has just published
its annual list of tax sale properties for which 2004 taxes remain
It’s an amusing read; on a quick pass, I spotted a former
councilmember, a former US senator, a local political gadfly (not Gary,
I might add), and a character who figured in a recent Post story
on scam artists cheating desperate homeowners out of their property (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24919-2004Dec24.html).
For the record, I don’t mean to make light of people who are really
up against it financially, especially those hit by the jump in real
property assessments. I have a lot less sympathy for the movers &
shakers who can’t get their act together. (Then again, with a 10
percent late penalty and 18 percent per annum interest on delinquent
amounts, I suppose they’re ultimately doing an extra measure of civic
RFK Parking Modified for Local Residents
Bill Rice, firstname.lastname@example.org
The District Department of Transportation (DDOT) announces the
following revisions to the RFK parking policy to protect residential
parking during RFK events. The RFK Stadium Special Permit zone will be
eliminated and replaced by Residential Permit Parking (RPP) throughout
the enhanced enforcement area around the stadium. Only cars with one of
the following will be allowed to park for the first two hours of a
Washington Nationals or DC United RFK home game: a) a valid Residential
Permit Parking permit (for Zone 6 or 7); or b) a RFK Special Event
sticker; or c) a valid RPP/RFK Stadium Visitor Pass.
Cars without one of these parking permits can park before and/or
after the first two hours of a home game for a maximum of two hours. The
boundaries for the RPP zone are: for Capitol Hill, Maryland Avenue and
Benning Road NE, the Anacostia River, Pennsylvania Avenue SE, and 13th
Street SE/NE; for River Terrace, East Capitol Street, Kenilworth Avenue,
Benning Road (all NE) and the Anacostia River.
This weekend, DDOT is mailing a visitor’s parking pass and an
explanatory letter to every household in the affected areas of Wards 6
and 7. The visitor pass, valid only during stadium events, is activated
once the resident includes a name and address on the pass. When there
are no scheduled stadium events, visitors are required to comply with
normal posted RPP regulations. DDOT is currently posting signs
displaying the revised restrictions. Enforcement of these regulations
begins July 15. Residents of blocks not currently designated RPP in
Wards 6 and 7 RFK Stadium enforcement zone must obtain a new automobile
registration from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). DMV is
prorating the $15 permit, based upon the date of regularly scheduled
vehicle registration. Residents needing additional Visitor Passes for
special activities involving several guests can borrow them from
neighbors or receive one-day visitor passes from the MPD’s First
District Substation, 500 E Street, SE (698-0068). For prolonged visits,
permits can be obtained from the MPD, as currently required.
The letter, a map of the enforcement area and a RFK event schedule
are posted at ddot.dc.gov, under Information. The contact for additional
assistance is Chris Delfs at 671-2740, or email@example.com.
Kelo v. New LondonPaul Wilson, Ward 6, dcmcrider at gmail dot com
DC has known all too well the sorts of eminent domain redevelopment
schemes that were rubber-stamped on Thursday by the US Supreme Court,
notwithstanding the plain language of the Takings Clause of the 5th
Amendment. Perhaps the most pernicious aspects of takings are those used
to reverse so-called “blight” and to use eminent domain for the
purposes of private redevelopment and “increasing the tax base,” as
if those were ends in themselves. In many ways it’s an attempt by
local governments to choose a citizenry more to their liking. As Bertold
Brecht presciently noted, the urge to abolish the people and elect a new
one is irresistible among local officials. Move out poor and lower
middle-class families, and replace them with higher-income young singles
and empty nesters. No more modest row houses, owned by Mr. and Mrs.
McGillicuddy and their eight kids who consume government services, like
schools. More often than not these “blighted” and
“underdeveloped” areas contain undesirable uses and older
nonconforming buildings. Much better to forcibly acquire these
properties, combine the parcels and hand them over to a developer that
will build it out to its “highest and best use.” The highest and
best use is as envisioned by our central planning bureaucrat overlords.
The undue deference shown by the courts to local government,
including our beloved DC government, on this issue is an affront to
liberty. Since the courts have taken a dive on this issue, it falls to
our local and state legislatures to rein in these abusive takings. Given
the DC Council’s insatiable appetite for creating quasi-public
“redevelopment corporations” with eminent domain powers, like the
newly minted Anacostia Waterfront Corporation, I’m not holding my
breath. SCOTUS has green-lighted another round of redevelopment takings
in DC. I guess we have learned precious little from the wholesale
destruction of neighborhoods in the 1950s and 60s. Unfashionable areas
of the city beware.
Eminent Injustice: No Sport in This Game
Gary Imhoff, firstname.lastname@example.org
Mayor Williams and other politicians across the nation are
celebrating the 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London
that gives governments virtually unchecked power of eminent domain to
seize homes and businesses from disfavored citizens in order to give
them to more favored citizens whom politicians believe can make better
economic use of the property. Be sure to read Justice O’Connor’s (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZD.html)
and Justice Thomas’s (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZD1.html)
powerful dissents, which state the case clearly.
Justice Thomas: “The consequences of today’s decision are not
difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful. So-called ‘urban
renewal’ programs provide some compensation for the properties they
take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these
lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted by
uprooting them from their homes. Allowing the government to take
property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the
concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal
guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor
communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely
to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the
least politically powerful.” It is this very prospect that makes local
politicians so happy -- the idea that there is now no check on their
ability to confiscate property from the poor and politically powerless
to give to the rich and politically influential. Politicians assure us
that we have nothing to fear from this because any large-scale eminent
domain expropriation will still have to go through the political
process. But the outcome is predetermined in any political process that
pits the poor and powerless against the well-connected friends of the
politicians. There is no sport in that game.
In Undernews, Sam Smith briefly outlines the DC history of eminent
domain for economic development (http://prorev.com/2005/06/eminent-domain-means-eminent-get.htm):
“The sad state of liberalism was revealed again in the applause of
some commentators of the ilk over the Supreme Court decision that allows
cities to seize people’s homes and small businesses in order to favor
big developers, often major contributors to the politicians making the
decisions. . . . The first great eminent domain case -- based on public
taking for private development, i.e., urban renewal -- was in Southwest
Washington in 1954. The design was hailed by planners and liberals; a
1955 report for the District was titled ‘No Slums in Ten Years.’ Not
everyone was so sanguine, however. In a 1959 report of the National
Conference of Catholic Charities, the Rt. Rev. Msg. John O’Grady said,
‘It is sad. It is not urban renewal; it is a means of making a few
people rich. Instead of improving housing conditions, it is shifting
people around from one slum to another.’ . . . Every subsequent grand
plan for Washington DC along with their eminent domain takings --
freeways, the subway system, the convention center, the Pennsylvania
Avenue plan, various urban renewal schemes -- shared a number of
damaging characteristics: 1) The uprooting of stable communities,
producing new long-term demands on the social welfare systems. 2) The
destruction of small business and the jobs it created. 3) The strong
support of the welfare fathers -- the Washington Post and
downtown business interests -- who, it inevitably turned out, were prime
beneficiaries of the projects they were boosting. 4) Some of these plans
were stunning disasters. Perhaps the single worst economic mistake was
DC’s participation in the construction of a subway system without, at
very least, a nonresident income tax. In effect, DC greatly subsidized a
convenient means by which workers could live in the suburbs while
employed in DC and not have to pay any city taxes other than those for
their lunchtime yogurt and salad. As a result, two out of three dollars
earned in the city are now exported tax-free each evening to the
“And what was the final payoff for the city after all its
"economic development’ schemes? Sales tax revenue grew at less
than the rate of inflation in the 1980s, and actually declined in the
1990s. Employment of DC residents has declined markedly, street traffic
has increased, badly needed intracity bus service has deteriorated along
with public schools and public health care. Yet not once did anyone in
power question whether the takings that supported these projects were a
good thing.” And they never will.
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
Clyde Howard, email@example.com
The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision ruled that local governments may
seize people’s homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for
private economic development. This was a decision fraught with huge
implications for many areas facing pressures of development and property
ownership rights. Cities now have wide range of powers to bulldoze
residences for shopping malls and hotel/motel complexes and stadiums in
order to generate tax revenue. Minorities in cities that have
unfavorable governments or are not part of the political process can be
ousted to accommodate wealthy developers. Even if they are compensated,
the beneficiaries would be those citizens with disproportionate
influence and power in the political process, including large
corporations and development firms.
Fortunately, Clarence Thomas voted with Justice O’Connor, Rehnquist
and Scalia against the decision.
This decision can be the tool to oust enclaves of minorities by
racist local governments all across this country and local governments
that are in the power of the high and mighty. And, where were our
so-called Black Leaders be on this one?
Reinventing the Route to the Diploma
Star Lawrence, firstname.lastname@example.org
Starting in fall 2006, the Washington DC public schools plan to offer
the option of a fifth year at its high schools -- with smaller classes,
tutoring, and other support services — for students who need more time
to complete their requirements. The goal is to provide flexibility to
teenagers who might be juggling school with job and parenting
responsibilities — and to retain students who, after falling behind,
might otherwise drop out well before twelfth grade. The district also
plans to establish a three-year track for students who want to graduate
early, reports V. Dion Haynes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/19/AR2005061900750.html).
School officials said those moves are part of an effort to reinvent high
schools. Other measures, they said, might include staggering class
schedules so some students can start and end their school day later;
expanding apprenticeship programs in various trades; and allowing
students to enroll in community college while in high school.
As I have noted in themail over the past few months, Mayor Williams
has forsaken actively running DC government for a life on the road. In
his position as president of the National League of Cities, in just the
last month, Williams has visited Beijing, London, Chicago, and, last
Thursday, Puerto Rico. Williams returned from Puerto Rico at 4 p.m.
Sunday afternoon and departs for Ocean City Monday morning to attend a
meeting of the Maryland Municipal League. The mayor’s future travel
plans include a trip to Honolulu on July 18 and a trip to Africa, most
likely in the fall.
When critics question the mayor’s extensive travel schedule and
devotion to ceremonial representation of the city instead of managing
its government, the mayor and his defenders argue that the city benefits
from his many trips. However, the mayor has never detailed what specific
benefits the city has received. He has made vague references to his
mentioning the District’s lack of representation in Congress in his
speeches and discussions, but the benefits to the city remain
Malcolm L. Wiseman, Jr., email@example.com
Dear Ms. Schwartz: Your proposed “Bill-Part II” in defense of our
worker’s health, “1st, 2nd, and foremost,” is brilliant [http://www.dcwatch.com/council16/16-unnum.htm].
I love it! Too bad I can’t buy you a drink in congratulations.
Glendora Walker (“Nanny Laws and Smoking,” June 22) cites smoking
sections in restaurants as the reasonable solution to problems with
smoking in such establishments. Perhaps she can explain how a cloud of
smoke is expected to notice when it is approaching the boundary between
the smoking and no-smoking sections and halt.
Walker writes, “The workplace policy of smoking outdoors, we all
agreed with that, both smokers and nonsmokers.” In fact, “take it
outside” is essentially what the smokefree workplace proposals call
for. This is not ideal either, because by now we are all familiar with
the clouds of smoke near the entrances of buildings. But there’s at
least better chance for the smoke to dissipate outdoors than inside a
restaurant, and in that situation the nonsmoker is entering or leaving
rather than lingering as one goes to a bar or restaurant to do.
I was not bothered at all by Carol Schwartz’s sarcastic use of
faux-legislation to make her point against the proposed smoking ban, but
neither was I persuaded. I cannot get drunk merely by being next to
someone who is drinking. Tobacco smoke is not similarly restricted to
the user. And given the prevalence of smoking in the District’s bars
and restaurants, exceptions notwithstanding, telling people who don’t
like it that they can choose not to go is not much of a choice at all.
Only a doctrinaire libertarian would treat any and all government
regulation as “nanny government.” In this case, the proposed
legislation is an entirely reasonable and proper response to public
Restaurant Smoking Inaccuracies
David Sobelsohn, dsobelso -at- capaccess -dot- org
In the June 22 issue of the mail, Gary praises Carol Schwartz’s
attempt to humorously equate public smoking with public drinking as
“dead-on and accurate satire.” Gary, do you deny that secondhand
smoke causes illness? This is a fundamental point. Am I just pretending
I get sore throats when I’m exposed to tobacco smoke? (You want to
look at my throat next time?) Or do you think that sharing a room with
someone who’s drinking directly causes harm to everyone in the room?
From what? Nobody’s drinking has ever directly caused me any physical
harm, or stopped me from going into a bar or nightclub. There’s a
fundamental principle of liberty that someone’s right to act ends when
it directly affects another’s freedom. But I can’t go into most bars
or nightclubs or many restaurants because of tobacco smoke. My freedom
is restricted now.
It used to be hard for me to fly. At one time people smoked at the
office and even in elevators. Now it’s illegal to smoke in those
places. To anyone who believes that I really do get sore throats when
exposed to tobacco smoke, Carol Schwartz’s attempt at humor was stupid
and misguided, hardly “dead-on and accurate.” Stupid attempts at
humor aren’t funny. (I’m not even considering the medical evidence
that moderate drinking promotes health, whereas no amount of tobacco
inhalation, however small, is healthy. It doesn’t matter, because the
tobacco regulation we’re now considering isn’t aimed to protect
smokers; it’s aimed to protect the rest of us from people who pollute
the air we breathe in enclosed spaces.)
In the same issue of themail, Glendora Walker complains about a
mythical proposal “to keep smokers from dining out.” What proposal
is that? No one I know proposes to keep smokers from dining out. We just
want to keep the tobacco smoke far away from us, outside enclosed
spaces, so we don’t have to breathe it indoors. People who smoke
already have to spend time without smoking indoors, in many contexts,
for example theaters and airplanes. Does the law that makes those places
smoke-free “keep smokers from” flying or seeing movies? Of course
not. Does a law that prohibits sex in public places keep sexually active
people from going out in public? Of course not. There’s a place and a
time for everything. Most smokers can deal with having to refrain from
smoking for the hour or ninety minutes it takes to eat dinner, just as
they have to deal with the many more hours they have to refrain on
airplanes or in theaters. But I can’t hold my breath that long.
Gary writes [themail, June 22] that the spoof legislation proposed by
Carol Schwartz in response to the anti-smoking bills being considered by
City Council is accurate satire. It appears that his definition of the
term is not the same as mine. For starters, I’ve never heard of anyone
getting a life-threatening disease from secondhand beer breath. But Ms.
Schwartz (and Gary too) must worry about that happening, as she
apparently thinks that beer and sex are as harmful to others as
The logic, for lack of a better word, behind her opposition to the
anti-smoking bills is that smoking is a legal activity, so why ban it.
Well, guess what? Using a power mower is a legal activity too; does she
think that folks should be able to saunter up to a bar with a mower
running at full throttle? Or maybe show up with their pet Rottweiler?
How about sitting down with a boom box blasting? All legal activities,
mind you, but I doubt that she or anyone opposing the anti-smoking bills
would think that these, or a million other legal but inappropriate
activities, should be permitted in bars or restaurants. So why smoking?
Even in those places that have segregated sections for smokers and
nonsmokers, we in the latter group inevitably must pass through the
smoking section either to get to our seats in the first place (and later
to leave) or to visit the rest room, should nature beckon. Not to
mention the Happy Hour specials in combined bar/restaurants where the
special only applies to customers at the bar, which also happens to be
the smoking section. I prefer to get to and from my table without having
to breath the carcinogens from other customers’ cigarettes. If they
are willing to smoke without exhaling, then I have no problem with it.
Otherwise, they should find some other place for their habit that doesn’t
prevent the rest of us from breathing clean air.
In the ongoing debate over smoking prohibition, I’ll cite Radley
Balko’s testimony to the city council on the smoking ban, http://www.techcentralstation.com/062405H.html.
“Here is what is not at issue today: This is not about the rights of
smokers to smoke in public. They are in an establishment someone else
owns. Any bar or restaurant in this city may voluntarily go smoke free,
and smokers would have no claim against them, except to take their
business elsewhere. Indeed, more than 200 businesses in Washington, DC,
have done exactly that. But this is not about nonsmokers rights, either.
You don’t have the right to walk onto someone else’s property,
demand to be served food or drink someone else has bought, and demand
that they serve you on your terms. Free societies don’t work that way.
This isn’t about worker’s rights. The idea that the Washington, DC,
city council is banning public smoking to benefit the city’s waiters,
waitresses, and bartenders is a canard. There are countless jobs and
professions that are far more dangerous than serving food or drink in
the presence of secondhand smoke. The people who choose those jobs —
cab drivers, fishermen, and police, for example -- take those jobs
full-well knowing the risks. The health risks associated with secondhand
smoke are debatable. But this simple fact isn’t: a waiter or bartender
who chooses to work for an establishment that allows smoking knows what
kind of environment he’ll be working in.”
To use another example that neither Carol Schwartz nor Balko uses,
most nightclubs in this city play music at what can accurately be called
an earsplitting level. There’s no doubt that prolonged exposure to
such high decibel levels can cause both temporary and permanent hearing
loss, and therefore that the employees of these establishments are at a
danger of hearing loss. Why doesn’t the city protect their health by
banning loud music? I don’t like overly loud bars and clubs; I’m
uncomfortable in them, and I can’t stay in them long. Why isn’t it
my right to go into any club in the city and enjoy the music that’s
being played there? Why doesn’t the city enforce my right to have a
healthy auditory environment wherever I go? And, while they’re at it,
why don’t they ban heavy metal, rap, go-go, and hip-hop, and require
clubs to play jazz, which I’d much prefer?
Because that’s not the way freedom works. I don’t have the right
to use government power to force other people to run their businesses to
please me. Even if I’m allergic to peanuts, I don’t have a right to
make Five Guys stop putting out paper bags of free peanuts or force Tara
Thai to stop serving satay. Businesses have a right to please people
other than me, and some of those people like obnoxiously loud music and
smoky air. I don’t know why they do, but I don’t have to go to the
places that cater to them. If that means that I don’t patronize most
nightclubs in the city, so what?
Yesterday’s Post had a letter to the editor by a restaurant
manager, opposing a ban on smoking in restaurants. I have a response to
that letter, as well as an analysis of the restaurant business market on
Barracks Row, in a Sunday entry in my weblog, http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com.
Also, there are a couple entries on the Giant-Horning Brothers Tivoli
Square street in the sidewalk controversy, which was covered in an
article in today’s Washington Post..
The host of the show "The Blackademics" recently posted the
audio of the show that was banned from Pacifica radio station WPFW on DC
Indymedia. Listen to it and judge for yourself. It’s an interview with
concerned WPFW current and former members, including me and others
concerned with recent happenings at WPFW and Pacifica Radio. See http://voxunion.com/realaudio/coupradio/WPFWTroubles...mp3.
CLASSIFIEDS — EVENTS
DC Public Library Events, June 28
Debra Truhart, firstname.lastname@example.org
Tuesday, June 28, 12:00 p.m. West End Neighborhood Library, 1101 24th
Street, NW. West End Film Club. Bring your lunch and enjoy a film.
Public contact: 724-8707.
Tuesday, June 28, 12:00 p.m., Martin Luther King, Jr., Memorial
Library, 901 G Street, NW, Room 307. The Washingtoniana Division will
feature the documentary Southwest Remembered as part of its
centennial celebration. The documentary is about how urban renewal
changed Southwest Washington, DC. All ages. Public contact: 727-1213.
Green Building Guidelines, June 28
Brie Hensold, email@example.com
Seminar on green building guidelines, June 28,
registration/refreshments 8:00-8:30 a.m., program, 8:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m.,
National Building Museum, 401 F Street, NW, Judiciary Square stop, Metro
Red Line. In this intensive seminar cosponsored with the Sustainable
Buildings Industry Council (SBIC), home builders, architects, and
remodelers will learn about sustainable home building design. Paul
Konove, president of Carolina Country Builders of Chatham County, Inc.,
will cover such topics as sustainable site planning, increased energy
efficiency, environmentally-sound building materials, and construction
waste management practices. Seminar participants receive a complimentary
copy of SBIC’s extensive manual Green Building Guidelines, worth $50.
For more details and to view the program agenda, visit www.nbm.org.
$100, Museum members, SBIC members and students; $130 nonmembers.
Prepaid registration required.
Speed Career Coaching and Mojitos with NAMIC,
Dorinda White, firstname.lastname@example.org
Join the Mid-Atlantic Chapter of the National Association for
Multi-Ethnicity in Communications, http://www.namic.com,
at 6 p.m. on Tuesday, June 28, at the Agua Ardiente Restaurant, 1250
24th Street, NW, as we host a career development seminar for those in
any industry or profession. You’ll hear from an HR recruiter from
Discovery and TV One as well as a life coach. You’ll also have an
opportunity to get your resume and career strategy reviewed by career
consultants. Cost is $10 for NAMIC members and $15 for non NAMIC
members, and includes one free drink, free food, and a session with a
career coach. You must RSVP at 301-625-3537 to get an appointment and to
An Evening with Howard Dean, July 12
Jeffrey Norman, Treasurer, DC Democratic Party, email@example.com
Everyone is cordially invited to spend an evening with Governor
Howard Dean on Tuesday, July 12, from 6-8 p.m. at Cada Vez, 1438 U
Street, NW (valet & Reeve Center parking available). General
admission: $50, senior citizens (60+) and students under 26: $25,
individual sponsors: $500, and PAC sponsors: $1000. (Because of the
McCain/Feingold law, we cannot accept contributions directly from the
treasuries of a corporation or labor union for this event.) For ticket
information and your registration form, please contact Mary Eva Candon,
Executive Director, DC Democratic Party, 223-2113, fax: 293-3388, or firstname.lastname@example.org
CLASSIFIEDS — HELP WANTED
Newspaper Seeks Sales Representatives
Alex A. Ormaza, email@example.com
Washington’s Voz, a new bilingual newspaper in the Washington
Metro area, seeks sales representatives. Help with costs and excellent
commission! Washington’s Voz is a product you’d love to sell!
For more information about the paper, visit http://www.washingtonvoz.com
or contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
CLASSIFIEDS — WANTED
Indoor/small-sized trampoline. Will accept new, nearly-new or
gently-used. Please contact email@example.com.
CLASSIFIEDS — RECOMMENDATIONS
At long last, after a number of not completed paint jobs on the
exterior of my home, and interviewing painter after painter, I made the
plunge. I had good vibes this was a hard-worker, honest painter. I think
I was right. He did everything we agreed on, within the time frame, his
price was very fair, he was pleasant to work with. I would have him
back, as a matter of fact, I am starting on phase two shortly.
His cell phone is broken this week, but if anyone needs a good
painter who can do light carpentry as well, send me a note at the above
E-mail and I’ll give him your contact info. I’ll try to remember to
post later when he is technologically intact again.
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.