Surveillance
Dear Surveilled:
Mayor Williams and MPD Chief Ramsey were already entranced with the
idea of installing surveillance cameras throughout the city, throughout
the residential neighborhoods as well as in the federal sector, but they
have never been enthusiastic supporters of, or even much concerned
about, civil liberties. They don’t even recognize that there are any
civil liberties involved in the government’s organized spying on the
citizens in public spaces. Now they are using the London attack as an
excuse to promote expanding the surveillance camera system — see these
articles: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302186.html,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302186.html.
There are good civil liberties and privacy arguments against public
surveillance cameras, but the most powerful argument is the practical,
pragmatic one — the cameras don’t work for the purposes for which
Mayor Williams and Chief Ramsey are promoting them. As the London
bombings showed, and as thousands of robberies of convenience stores
over decades have proven, surveillance cameras are useless as tools of
crime prevention or deterrence. They don’t do anything to assist the
police to detect or stop crimes before they happen or while they are in
progress. As I argued here on Sunday, it’s good intelligence that
prevents crime — the Washington Post hasn’t installed any
surveillance cameras on the streets, but its reporters knew the
identities of the BORF graffitists long before the Metropolitan Police
Department did (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302448.html).
Surveillance cameras may sometimes help provide clues to solve a
crime or identify suspects after the crime is committed, but they should
not be sold as increasing public safety and security. They don’t; they’re
useless for that purpose, and it’s dishonest to sell them to the
public on that basis. If providing post-crime clues is worth the cost in
money, diversion of police personnel and resources, and loss of our
liberties, then Williams and Ramsey should make that argument. But they
should not falsely claim that their plans will increase our safety or
security.
Gary Imhoff
themail@dcwatch.com
###############
I just read in the Northwest Current that the City is
seriously considering equalizing the amount of property tax increase in
the first triennial group so that we don’t overpay in perpetuity. The
article credits Matt Forman with making this happen. As one of the few
participants in the property tax hearings, I can attest to Matt’s
diligence and dedication.
All you folks who sat back should really send Matt gifts of
gratitude.
###############
Ballpark Won’t Open Until 2009 or 2010
Ed Delaney, profeddel@yahoo.com
The Washington Times reports that bidders for the Nationals team
are assuming that the park won’t open until 2009, possibly 2010 (http://www.washingtontimes.com/sports/20050717-121146-7307r.htm):
“City officials insist the ballpark project is still on target for its
March 2008 opening, with formal offers to landowners in the stadium site
being sent out shortly. Quietly, many of the suitors feel differently
and have prepared financial models assuming the 2008 season will be
played at RFK Stadium, with some even thinking about part or all of 2009
without the new ballpark. The potential for problems with the stadium
also form part of the reason why the bidders are forming and
strengthening as many local political alliances as possible. ‘There’s
just so much to do down there. There’s no way it’s done for Opening
Day 2008,’ another Nationals bidder said. ‘You have land acquisition
issues, environmental remediation issues, political issues, design
issues. It’s going to be great when it’s done, but these projects
are always so complex that it’s shortsighted to simply assume it will
be done [in 2008].’”
What a shock; the biggest holdup is once again directly attributable
to the horrendous site selection and the issues therein! So not only
will the baseball brigade’s bullheaded insistence on the Anacostia
waterfront site (for a stadium that won’t even be facing the
waterfront, remember) result in the destruction of a number of existing
businesses and residences against their will, and cost hundreds of
millions of dollars more than the RFK Stadium site would, it will also
result in the delay of construction of the new ballpark. That would
result in the delay by a year or possibly more of the critical revenue
and economic development that a new ballpark is supposed to spur, which
also means the extension of the team’s existence in what’s supposed
to be the wholly inadequate RFK Stadium.
The universal anticipation of this delay as inevitable make it clear
that the District has no alternative but to reject the Anacostia
waterfront site on the grounds of cost and revenue as per the original
agreement, since insisting on the site would apparently result in the
loss of an entire year or more of promised revenue and economic activity
spurred by the stadium, drastically altering the revenue outlook and
payback schedule hoisted by the baseball boosters and putting a greater
burden on existing DC businesses and citizens being taxed for an
uncompleted ballpark. If the mayor’s office won’t take leadership on
this issue to insure the existing site is rejected and a new one found
(the RFK Stadium site being the only logical choice, especially in light
of the anticipated gift of the entire RFK Stadium/DC General/Reservation
13 site to the city from the federal government), then the DC Council
must as soon as possible in order to avoid letting the ballpark project
become even more of a debacle than it already is.
Insisting on the increasingly unworkable Anacostia waterfront site
would be for the potential of spurring a relatively small and unneeded
entertainment district that we hear would resemble MCI Center’s
rebirth as such, while ignoring the basic fact that MCI Center had the
existing restaurant and office space making such a development
inevitable — while this area has more true potential for low density
mixed-use redevelopment complementing the existing redevelopment
occurring nearby at the SE Federal Center site. However, the Anacostia
waterfront site does not have the existing resources and downtown
northwest location that the MCI Center had to capitalize upon. Instead,
it has more similarities to the RFK Stadium site than to MCI Center or
any of the sites for a stadium that were proposed closer to downtown
(such as L‘Enfant Plaza and the Mount Vernon Square sites) and thus
might have had a measure of justification for a higher development cost.
The sooner this site is rejected, the better for all concerned.
###############
BNA Gets a Walk
William M. Mazer, wmm@comcast.net
After BNA, Inc., had gobbled up DC’s ten-year property tax
deferral, they found to their horror that they would have to start
paying an annual tax bill of $6.7 million in a few years. So after
saving about $67 million in taxes during their stay here, and apparently
finding that DC does not require a payback period to regain some of its
largess, BNA scoots out of here. According to an article on this item in
the Post a few days ago [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/10/AR2005071001017.html],
the District has provided an enormous loophole that the company’s
moving vans can readily drive through, unless the reporters have not
done their homework. Even the military requires a follow-up service
period for the specialists it has trained at its own expense, for
example, medical doctors. If newly-minted doctors opt out, they have to
pay back the military’s expenses in training them.
The Post also reported that in their present DC location, DNA
employees had to “scurry” from place to place for meetings, and
“traipse” down a “well worn alley” between the company’s two
main locations. This sounds like the Post’s reporters,
as usual, only got one side of the story. Is the “scurrying”
required because of some stench or extreme peril to which DNA employees
are subjected on their way to meetings? As for the “well-worn”
alleys, find me an alley in DC that is not “well-worn.” And so what?
How is the condition of DC’s alleys related to BNA’s decision to
move? This description sounds like a self-serving pejorative comment
made by a BNA interviewee to a Washpost reporter, who decided it would
make a good read.
###############
Is it just me, or has there been a decline in the quality of Metro
bus service? It seems lately that bus drivers are ruder than before, or,
worse, they don’t seem to care at all. It’s getting dangerous to
board a bus, and it’s getting more difficult to ride a bus. Someone
will be seriously injured. Has anyone else noticed this? At least twice
a month I am on a bus where a driver is talking into a headset, yacking
it up on a cell phone call. (I take the 14th Street 52 and 54 buses).
Yesterday morning, while trying to board a bus, the driver closed the
door on my arm. I quickly jerked my arm back when I realized this, but,
to make matters worse, he didn’t open it again; he was driving away.
When I ran after the bus and knocked on the door he opened it, but his
look of contempt, derision, and condescension was palpable. (Maybe it’s
because I’m white, I don’t know.) I suppose it was possible he didn’t
see me — there was a passenger in front of me putting in her fare —
but, still, he could have taken two seconds to see if there was anyone
else about to board. He could clearly see when he stopped that there
were at least six people at the bus stop. This was an unnecessary,
dangerous situation. He injured me and put me in additional peril
because he didn’t care to do his job.
Additionally, it’s getting increasingly more difficult to stand on
a bus while in motion. I hang on tight, though I still have to bend my
knees and balance and anticipate the extreme motion. The
hurry-up-and-stop-method has often pitched me around and has also
careened other passengers and their belongings into me. The drivers seem
to put the gas pedal to the medal and then apply the brakes with the
same gusto. Yesterday’s driver did the same. A passenger even
commented "He’s driving like a taxi cab driver."
I’ve been riding buses in the District for over twelve years and it
seems to be getting worse. It’s getting increasingly unpleasant and
dangerous to take the bus. As for Gary’s latest question about if we
feel safe in the city, I’m not sure about safety overall (no, I do not
feel “safe”), but I do know that attempting to board and ride a
Metro bus is surely dangerous.
###############
In the same vein as Mr. Haskett’s posting [themail, July 13], I’m
puzzled why one of the new shuttle bus routes parallels the yellow/green
line going up 7th Street. I work in southwest a couple blocks from 7th
Street, but if I want to go to Chinatown, for instance, I’ll
inevitably hop on Metro rather than wait for the shuttle.
Where a shuttle system would make the most sense to me is to connect
target destinations with existing Metro stops. For instance, Dupont
Circle to Georgetown, Foggy Bottom to Lincoln Memorial, L’Enfant Plaza
or Smithsonian to the waterfront, Woodley Park to National Cathedral,
etc. Other cities have been operating such systems for years. Why is it
so difficult for DC to get it together?
###############
Outsourcing and Savings
Harold Goldstein, mdbiker@goldray.com
Outsourcing profitable and busy bus routes will always save money.
Period. Recall, though, that the reason we have WMATA is that the
private lines that preexisted it would drop lines that were not
profitable. And so, if the various jurisdictions outsource likely
routes, then WMATA will be more and more inefficient. Saving money on
individual routes may actually result in increased losses in the future.
###############
On April 6, themail posted my account of submitting mail-in
adjudication for a photo-radar citation, which I had believed was issued
in error. The infraction was photographed on February 16, at the 100
block of Michigan Avenue, NE, one of several locations where new mounted
cameras were being installed. Televised media reports and a Metropolitan
Police Department web site press release advised the public that until
March 21, citations from the newly installed cameras would generate only
warnings. I had dismissed the citation as a warning, and later received
a notice that the fine was doubled. On the day my message posted on this
forum, I received a courteous E-mail from a Department of Motor Vehicles
representative, who offered to ensure that my request was properly
adjudicated. Several hours later, the same representative E-mailed me a
second message to provide additional information, advising me that MPD
was operating bi-directional photo-radar at the Michigan Avenue
location, one of which was mobile radar that issued finable citations
instead of warnings. Oops. This information was omitted from the public
advisories, but later disclosed in an article published in the April 11
edition of the Washington Times and on televised news reports.
The second E-mail also stated, “Tickets issued from the new fixed
cameras between March 20th and April 20th are warning tickets.”
Last week, I received DMV’s response, (dated July 2), to my mail-in
adjudication request, (dated March 23), which begins with their
“Statement of Fact”: “Respondent denies asserting this ticket
should have been issued as a warning according to media reports.” This
“statement of fact” is not factual because I didn’t deny any such
thing. My response included copies of the press releases posted at the
MPD and WJLA web sites, and my statement, “According to widespread
media reports, enforcement of violations photographed at this location
did not go into effect until 21 March 2005, 32 days after the issue
date. The publicized reports stated that only warning notices would be
issued for violations prior to 21 March.” The fact is, complete and
useful information was omitted from public disclosure, and acknowledged
after citizens brought their questions to light on this forum, and in
televised media reports.
I am not opposed to traffic calming measures, or my being accountable
for violations. As a driver, it is my duty to operate a vehicle safely
and responsibly. This includes hands-on steering of a vehicle while
operating a cell phone — for which violators in DC are less likely to
be cited. However, I am opposed to a public safety campaign which
purports to serve the greater good, but irresponsibly disserves citizens
with misinformation. In this instance, flawed publicized information
created a false sense of relief for recipients of citations which were
actual fines — fines that could conceivably double if dismissed as
warnings.
[Regular readers of themail know better than to believe anything the
DC government says, but MPD seems to have achieved a new height of
mendacity and predatory treatment of DC drivers here. MPD advertised
that only warning tickets would be issued at a particular street
intersection during the introductory period for a new traffic camera,
and then wheeled in a mobile traffic camera at that very intersection to
issue finable tickets during that period. With deceptive tactics like
this, can there be any doubt that the primary purpose of the cameras is
to shake down motorists for money? — Gary Imhoff]
###############
I was shocked recently to learn that the Metropolitan Police and DC
Government do not have a deadline for sending you a ticket based on
those radar- and camera-controlled surveillance devices. I just found
this out the hard way recently, when I got a speeding ticket fifty-five
days after the alleged violation was supposed to have occurred. I
inquired about this delay in sending out this notice of Councilmembers
Cropp, Catania, Fenty, and Mendelson, and of Anne Witt, the motor
vehicles director. Only Fenty and Witt even bothered to respond to my
inquiry. Witt finally got a Captain Burke of MPD to send me an E-mail
that says, in relevant part, that MPD has an administrative cutoff of
sixty days, after which they will not mail out surveillance-based
tickets. Well. We don’t have sixty days to pay the ticket once we get
it. Why would the DC Government — DMV, DDOT, DPW, or MPD — give
itself twice as long to issue a ticket as we poor schlubs have to pay
it?
I thought, erroneously, as it turns out, that Councilmember Catania
had a commitment from then-public works director Leslie Hotaling that
the DC Government would give itself thirty days to issue these
surveillance-based speeding and red light tickets. If Hotaling, whom I
worked with for several years in the original DC DOT and who was a
fairly competent and able administrator, did, in fact, carry through on
that commitment, it appears it was an administrative limitation and not
something incorporated — as it should have been — in either District
of Columbia law or, at a minimum, in the DC Municipal Regulations. So it
apparently didn’t survive her tenure as public works director.
The Department of Public Works never responded to me, but my current
information from Fenty’s office is that that was because the
reconstituted DPW is now out of the traffic enforcement business. Actual
surveillance is shared between MPD and DDOT; and ticket issuance,
payment, and adjudication is the responsibility of the newly stand-alone
DMV.) Speaking of Fenty, he was campaigning in our neighborhood a couple
of weeks ago and I mentioned this gross inequity to him. He was,
however, extremely distracted (said he had eight more stops to make that
evening, three as councilmember and five as mayoral candidate) and
agreed in “Oh, yeah, that’s a shame” fashion that “something
will have to be done about that.” Something does have to be done about
that. We need to start writing, phoning, faxing, and E-mailing all
Councilmembers now — especially the candidates for reelection — and
demand that either DC Government limit itself to thirty days to issue
these radar- and camera-based traffic tickets, or motorists served with
these infractions should have the same amount of time to either contest
or pay these tickets as the DC Government takes to issue them. Sixty
days, ninety days, a year. Whatever.
And the same thing ought to be pressed on Fenty, Orange, and all the
other cast of thousands who want you and me to hire them as mayor and
then let them shake us down every time we trip one of these speeding
cameras by driving thirty miles an hour on a street that, although it
was designed for forty-five mph traffic, is restricted to a dangerously
inefficient twenty-five mph. After all, if it is sauce for the guy with
the radar gun or camera, it ought to be sauce for you and me as we motor
on by.
###############
[As Ed Barron warned in themail, July 13]: Just a heads up, make sure
you have proof of insurance in your car. A friend got the following
notice from his auto insurance company: “Effective July 16, 2005,
District of Columbia police officers will begin issuing $300.00 fines
for drivers who cannot provide proof of insurance when stopped. An
individual pulled over by District police officers must be able to
provide license, registration, and a current insurance card or a
citation will be issued.”
###############
Future of NY Avenue and Len Sullivan’s Post
Richard Layman, rlaymandc@yahoo.com
At the recent presentation on the New York Avenue Corridor study, I
was struck by Len Sullivan’s question about “where are the
provisions for trucks” [themail, July 13] because it reflected a lack
of understanding of the transportation modeling that goes on for every
one of these projects. All such plans and studies use the Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments software models. Granted, you might
disagree with the output, but the software system used is the same for
all the counties in the Washington region. Trucks are included in the
model.
The other thing is that it makes little sense to generalize from the
questions of the audience at the community presentation to what the
study is about. By and large, the audience was concerned about “little
picture” stuff, such as where should left turns (or not) be located on
specific streets. The actual study goes far beyond that. By making plans
to separate “through DC” traffic from intra-DC traffic, the plan
actually adds capacity without “adding one more lane.” Whether or
not the money can be garnered to put in a tunnel is another question,
especially because “value engineering” to reduce the costs is likely
to push for locating a tunnel entrance in a sub-optimal location rather
than the ideal.
And frankly, I think the study does a good job of balancing local
needs with the gateway aspects. Anyway, people can make up their own
minds by looking it up themselves at http://www.ddot.dc.gov/ddot/cwp/view,a,1247,q,560773.asp.
PS: Another way to address congestion would be to work to get more
trucks to deliver at night — Au Bon Pain, Starbucks, and Yes Organic
Markets stock their stores after midnight.
###############
Glad the Half-Hour Rule Rescinded
Star Lawrence, jkellaw@aol.com
I recently came back to DC and heard that lecture on the plane about
how we could not stand up for the last half hour and, if we did, the
plane would be rerouted. On that same flight, the doors had closed, then
someone knocked; they opened them, and an older woman with two little
kids came stumbling on dragging her luggage. The surprised-looking
flight attendant asked for her boarding pass and she waved him off
saying “they” had taken it. They seated her, but that same attendant
turned to his associate and said, very softly, “What’s up with
opening the door? And no pass? One of these days we are going to be
soooo f--ked.” Things like this happen, but oh, no, we can’t stand
up near Washington.
###############
An Accurate Assessment
Tom Blagburn, ztburn@msn.com
Gary: you are absolutely correct in your assessment of our inability
to deter and effectively manage a terrorist attack or a natural disaster
[themail, July 13]. Ask anyone today if they remember January 13, 1982.
It was the date of the Air Florida catastrophe. An airliner plunged into
the icy Potomac; we had a Metro subway train derailment and fires in two
separate tunnels, and more than fifteen inches of snow coming down. The
federal government called for a staggered personnel exodus, which
everyone ignored! It took commuters, those who tried, more than eight
hours to get from downtown to Greenbelt, Maryland. It was the worse
situation I had ever witnessed.
But this city responded in the most efficient and coordinated way
possible. In the aftermath, there were commendations given to police,
fire, and medical personnel. Even the hotel industry assisted. Rooms
were given out to anyone who wanted to stay in the city overnight at
substantially reduced rates. Automobiles were left abandoned all over
the city. Vehicles were not ticketed. The one major problem which I
think has now been corrected was the inability of agencies to
communicate because their radios were on different frequencies. I’m
not saying that there haven’t been substantial improvements, but the
key to protecting this city is broad-based inclusion of every citizen.
Today that doesn’t exist.
I have attended many of the citywide meetings held with highly paid
consultants, who didn’t know the difference or whereabouts of Martin
L. King Avenue and Queens Chapel Road! And most never heard of January
13, 1982! Managers and policy makers continue to ignore the District’s
most important and core resource: the residents of this city!
###############
CLASSIFIEDS — EVENTS
DC Public Library Events, July 19-20
Debra Truhart, debra.truhart@dc.gov
Tuesday, July 19, 12:00 p.m., West End Neighborhood Library, 1101
24th Street, NW. West End Book Club. Book discussion group Journey
from the Land of No: A Girlhood Caught in Revolutionary Iran
by Roya Hakakian. Public contact: 724-8707.
Tuesday, July 19, 6:30 p.m., Southeast Neighborhood Library, 403 7th
Street, SE. Capitol Hill Book Club. Monthly book discussion will be
about The Teammates by David Halberstam. Public contact:
698-3377.
Tuesday, July 19, 7:30 p.m., Palisades Neighborhood Library, 4901 V
Street, NW. Palisades Book Club. The book to be discussed is Without
Reservations: The Travels of an Independent Woman by Alice
Steinbach. Public contact: 282-3139.
Wednesday, July 20, 6:30 p.m. Martin Luther King, Jr., Memorial
Library, 901 G Street, NW, Main Lobby. Author Dr. Walter P. Kelley and
Illustrator Dr. Tony L. McGregor will discuss their children’s books, Victory
Week and Deaf Culture: A to Z. Both speakers are also the
founders of BuTo Ltd. Company, a publishing company for children’s
books on deaf culture. A sign language interpreter will be present.
Public contact: 727-2145 (TTY or voice).
###############
FairVote Celebrates Elbridge Gerry’s
Birthday, July 20
Linnea Meyer, linnea@fairvote.org
On Wednesday, July 20, at 3:30 p.m., in Room HC-7 of the Capitol
Building, FairVote will celebrate the birthday of Elbridge Gerry, the
father of “gerrymandering.” Congressman John Tanner and John
Anderson, 1980 Independent presidential candidate and FairVote board
chairman, are holding a press conference, and supporters of Tanner’s
Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act will speak about the need
for fair, nonpartisan redistricting standards in America. And of course,
birthday cake will be served! Free. Please contact birthday@fairvote.org
for the required Capitol pass. For more info, visit http://www.fairvote.org.
###############
Architecture for Humanity, July 21
Brie Hensold, bhenhold@nbm.org
Thursday, July 21, 8:00-9:30 p.m. Following last December’s tsunami
in the Pacific Ocean, the nonprofit aid organization Architecture For
Humanity (AFH) raised more than $500,000 in donations and pro bono
services to help rebuild critical infrastructure and community buildings
in the disaster region. AFH founder Cameron Sinclair will discuss his
recent travels to the devastated areas and the organization’s response
to global, social, and humanitarian crises through architecture and
design. Over the past six years AFH and its members have helped develop
transitional housing for returning refugees in Kosovo, worked with
community groups and advocates in inner-city America, and assisted with
mobile health facilities and youth sports facilities to respond to the
HIV/AIDS crisis in sub-Saharan Africa. $12 Museum members; $17
nonmembers; $5 students. Prepaid registration required. At the National
Building Museum, 401 F Street, NW, Judiciary Square stop, Metro Red
Line.
###############
themail@dcwatch is an E-mail discussion forum that is published every
Wednesday and Sunday. To subscribe, to change E-mail addresses, or to
switch between HTML and plain text versions of themail, use the
subscription form at http://www.dcwatch.com/themail/subscribe.htm.
To unsubscribe, send an E-mail message to themail@dcwatch.com
with “unsubscribe” in the subject line. Archives of past messages
are available at http://www.dcwatch.com/themail.
All postings should also be submitted to themail@dcwatch.com,
and should be about life, government, or politics in the District of
Columbia in one way or another. All postings must be signed in order to
be printed, and messages should be reasonably short — one or two brief
paragraphs would be ideal — so that as many messages as possible can
be put into each mailing.