themail.gif (3487 bytes)

June 26, 2005

Due Diligence

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.

Gary Imhoff


Due Diligence
Dorothy Brizill,

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 ( Attention should also be focused on the Project Labor Agreement (PLA) for the construction of the new baseball stadium (

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 ( 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 (  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 (


Speeding Enforcement
Ron Leve,

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 cameras.

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 neighborhood streets.


Traffic Management Plans for Churches
Richard Layman,

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,

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 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?


Adult Delinquency
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 unpaid: 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 (

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 good.)


RFK Parking Modified for Local Residents
Bill Rice,

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, under Information. The contact for additional assistance is Chris Delfs at 671-2740, or


Kelo v. New London
Paul 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,

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 ( and Justice Thomas’s ( 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 ( “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 suburbs.

“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,

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,

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 ( 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.


Still on the Road
Dorothy Brizill,

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 intangible.


Malcolm L. Wiseman, Jr.,

Dear Ms. Schwartz: Your proposed “Bill-Part II” in defense of our worker’s health, “1st, 2nd, and foremost,” is brilliant []. I love it! Too bad I can’t buy you a drink in congratulations.


Stop Right There, Smoke!
Rich Rosendall,

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 health concerns.


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.


Anti-Smoking Bills
Ralph Blessing,

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 cigarette smoke.

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.


Smoking Prohibitionism
Gary Imhoff,

In the ongoing debate over smoking prohibition, I’ll cite Radley Balko’s testimony to the city council on the smoking ban, “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?


Web Log
Richard Layman,

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, 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..


Banned at WPFW
Thomas Gomez,

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



DC Public Library Events, June 28
Debra Truhart,

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,

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 $100, Museum members, SBIC members and students; $130 nonmembers. Prepaid registration required.


Speed Career Coaching and Mojitos with NAMIC, June 28
Dorinda White,

Join the Mid-Atlantic Chapter of the National Association for Multi-Ethnicity in Communications,, 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 attend.


An Evening with Howard Dean, July 12
Jeffrey Norman, Treasurer, DC Democratic Party,

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  .



Newspaper Seeks Sales Representatives
Alex A. Ormaza,

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 or contact Office: 301-907-6515.



Dorcas C. Dessaso,

Indoor/small-sized trampoline. Will accept new, nearly-new or gently-used. Please contact



Linda Clausen,

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 To unsubscribe, send an E-mail message to with “unsubscribe” in the subject line. Archives of past messages are available at

All postings should also be submitted to, 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.

Send mail with questions or comments to
Web site copyright ©DCWatch (ISSN 1546-4296)