Fun with Numbers
Dear Numeraticians:
Three fun numbers are in the news this week. Tarron Lively reports in
the Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20051118-110229-2958r.htm)
that October was a record-breaking month for the District; it collected
$2.9 million from its speed-camera tickets. The American Automobile
Association has designated the entire city as a “strict enforcement
area.” That sounds something like a speed trap, but without the stigma
of being a small Southern town.
Lena Sun and Lyndsey Layton report in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/19/AR2005111901310.html)
that Metro’s Transit Police have been underreporting crime rates on
the transit system and at Metro stations by not including any crimes
that are handled by other police forces: “During the 18-month period
reviewed by The Post, Metro counted 463 serious crimes at its
rail stations, but 98 other, similar incidents remained off its books,
according to local police department records. That raises by more than
20 percent the total number of serious crimes -- rapes, aggravated
assaults, armed holdups, pickpockets and purse snatches.”
And everybody reports that the city government and Major League
Baseball are at loggerheads over stadium financing, that MLB is balking
at guaranteeing at least $6 million in annual rent, and that city
officials will go through some big-league posturing and blowharding
before they settle on a way to disguise the fact that taxpayers will be
stuck with even higher costs. Why didn’t anyone on the city council
ever insist that finding “private financing” for the stadium didn’t
mean finding somebody for the city government to borrow the money from,
but finding somebody other than the city to bear some of the cost?
Gary Imhoff
themail@dcwatch.com
###############
Boards and Commissions Developments
Dorothy Brizill, dorothy@dcwatch.com
In recent weeks, Mayor Williams has forwarded to the council several
nominations to key boards and commissions that have regulatory
functions. His appointments will result in a wholesale turnover in the
composition of some boards, and will affect the composition of these
boards for the rest of the decade. For example, the mayor’s plan to
install meters in taxicabs to replace the zone fare system has been
frustrated by Taxicab Commissioners who have listened to the complaints
of east-of-the-river residents, who will be the hardest hit by resulting
fare increases. In recent weeks the mayor has forwarded to the council
the nominations of five new members and the renomination of two current
members of the nine-member commission. All of his nominees were from
west of the river, and all were expected to support a metered fare
system. Councilmember Carol Schwartz, concerned about the composition of
this group of nominees, persuaded the mayor to withdraw two of them and
to replace them with one east-of-the-river resident (who will be former
councilmember Sandy Allen), and another citizens who is a frequent cab
rider.
Last fall, Mayor Williams established a thirty-six member blue-ribbon
taskforce chaired by John Hill, the executive director of the Federal
City Council, to look at the future of the DC Public Library system.
Many of the members of the taskforce are not DC residents, were not
familiar with the library branches, and had to spend much of the past
year touring and being introduced to the various libraries. The mayor
has defended his appointees to the taskforce by saying that he had
specifically looked for individuals with "high net worth."
Last year, at the first meeting of the taskforce, chaired by Mayor
Williams, the mayor closed the meeting to the public, but committed that
the taskforce would hold some of its future meetings in public. The
taskforce will issue its final report at the end of this month, having
never held any public meetings and having had no public input or
comments. As a result, there is growing concern within the general
community, and especially among those in the library community, that
only developers interested in acquiring library land holdings have been
given access. The mayor’s agenda has long included closing the Martin
Luther King, Jr., Library, designed by Mies Van der Rohe, to make it
available to developers; and building a new central library as part of
the old Convention Center site. Information about the taskforce is on
the web at http://dc.gov/mayor/dcpl_taskforce/index.shtm.
These two boards are only examples of the concerns that citizens and
civic leaders are increasingly expressing about the performance of the
city’s boards and commissions. Complaints include questionable
qualifications of mayoral appointees to the boards; unprofessional and
unethical conduct by board members; illegal ex parte
communications in contentious pending cases between board members and
attorneys, representatives, and parties; and contempt and rudeness shown
by board members toward citizens and community groups that appear before
them. Now some ANC commissioners and community leaders are preparing to
make the performance of boards and commissions an issue in the 2006
mayoral election, focusing especially on the Board of Zoning Adjustment,
the Alcohol Beverage Control Board, and the Historic Preservation Review
Board. There is also growing concern about the secrecy in which other
boards do their business, especially the National Capital Revitalization
Corporation, the Sports and Entertainment Commission, the Anacostia
Waterfront Commission, and the Library Board of Trustees.
###############
Another Don Quixote?
Ed T. Barron, edtb@aoldotcom
Is this guy Fenty kidding, or is he tilting at windmills? Fenty wants
to have a referendum on a commuter tax for those who work in DC but live
in Maryland, Virginia, or the moon. A referendum is ludicrous. It will
cost a bundle to hold a vote and the results will be totally
meaningless. Congress controls the District and will never approve a
commuter tax. Get a horse, Adrian, and add DC statehood to your list of
windmills.
###############
Stadium Boondoggle Egregiously Lopsided
Compared with Others
Ed Delaney, profeddel@yahoo.com
Http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20051119-111339-4562r.htm:
“The larger context shows just how absurd MLB’s latest objection is.
As Neil deMause of Baseball Prospectus (and Field of Schemes) pointed
out earlier this year, private companies are paying for three-quarters
of the new $387 million Busch Stadium the St. Louis Cardinals expect to
use in 2006. The figures for stadiums in San Diego and Philadelphia that
opened in 2004 were two-thirds of $449 million and half of $458 million,
respectively. But for the Washington Nationals, just over one-tenth of
the $550 million cost (make that $607 million according to DC’s CFO if
the Deutsche Bank boondoggle is accepted as anticipated) will be
private. The city will handle the rest. So Washington’s stadium deal
— a deal in a much more promising market than any of the above —
works heavily in MLB’s favor, and against a decade’s precedent in
stadium finance.”
It’s nice of this rag to make a note of what a truly wretched and
unacceptable deal this is once they think the thing’s a fait accompli.
What makes this even worse is that all of those parks have all the
Camden-esque bells and whistles, yet DC will be paying over a hundred
million dollars (and who knows how much else) more for a cut-rate
“Buick or Ford” park with glass for walls due to the unworkable
costs at the untenable stadium site insisted upon and accepted by the
water-carrying press and the browbeaten council in sickeningly docile
fashion. The fact that so many issues could still be instantly resolved
by switching the stadium site to the RFK Stadium site — a site that
MLB was preparing to accept and found ownership groups completely
willing to maintain their bids — only to have the council too
willy-nilly and cowed by the pressure and deceit of the Brigade to
insist on a switch of sites makes each revelation like this an
indictment of their incompetence and lack of responsible oversight on
behalf of the city virtually amounting to gross negligence.
“In any event, Wall Street is forcing the issue — it has told
Washington to demand $6 million a year, or else lose investment-grade
ratings for the construction bonds. The District would waive this if it
could given its weak-kneed track record with baseball, but it cannot.”
That fact gets more pathetic with each reading. And the DC council still
wants us to believe that evidence of their worth as a body is sticking
with the terms of this boondoggle, all while MLB changes the terms
whenever it suits them from entire club levels to conference centers?
“The fact that MLB can balk at even this tiny a commitment with any
credibility is another indication of the sorry depths of these
negotiations. No sweetheart deal is good enough.” Perhaps if your rag
had reported on this issue with a critical eye out for the facts and,
dare I say it, with the interests of the community at large rather than
a handful of power-hungry incompetents known as the Brigade, this
boondoggle would have unraveled at one of the many opportunities it had
to fall by the wayside only to be incessantly coddled at every turn by
you and the Post with careful reporting that distorted the facts
to the benefit of the Brigade and to the detriment of the community at
large to an unwavering degree, of which the proof has been bountiful.
###############
How Baseball Will Impact Southwest
Andy Litsky, alitsky@aol.com
[An open letter to Mayor Williams] On Monday, November 28, at 7:00
p.m., the Southwest Neighborhood Assembly and ANC 6D will jointly hold a
Town Meeting, "How Baseball will Impact Southwest." The
meeting will be held at St. Matthew’s Church, located at 222 M Street,
SW. Last September, when you briefed our ANC on your stadium plan,
Robert Bobb promised us that our community would be "meaningfully
engaged" during all stages of this planning process and further
assured us that this project would "be managed holistically."
Mr. Bobb repeated that pledge at a meeting two weeks later attended by,
among others, Mark Tuohey, Andy Altman, Steve Green, Dan Tangherlini,
members of the leadership of the ANC, SWNA, and representatives of
Councilmember Ambrose’s office. However, during that intervening
period of time, we have been presented with only the broadest of
pictures, having no further opportunities to comprehensively engage
public officials on how this project is being managed, how our community
can maximize its positive aspects and or minimize the negative ones.
In several recent previous baseball stadium overviews, we have had
some of the parties involved in stadium development attend and field
audience questions. Unfortunately, we have observed that there is no one
single entity able to provide us the answers we seek. Although every
presenter seems relatively comfortable with "their piece,"
they are reticent to provide a more complete picture of aspects of a
project over which they have no control. Whether by design or default,
it has become apparent that baseball stadium project management is
balkanized. We’d like our November 28th meeting to provide an
opportunity for all parties under one roof to provide our community with
as complete a picture as possible of what is going on presently and what
we can expect moving forward. Timelines and, more importantly, a clear
delineation of who’s in charge, would be most welcome.
Specifically, we hope that this meeting will provide an opportunity
for government officials (not their consultants) to address a number of
critical issues: 1) DDOT: DDOT has not provided a stadium transportation
plan and analysis of how it integrates results of previous traffic plans
focusing on the SW Waterfront, South Capitol Street, the reopening of
Fourth Street, SW and the SE Federal Center. We must finalize a
discussion about how parking will be handled on-site, including bus
access, how two of the most dangerous intersections in the city (S.
Capitol and M Street, SW and S. Capitol and Eye Streets, SW) will be
impacted, and what residential parking plans are envisioned for
Southwest, Near SE and Capitol Hill. 2) WMATA: Metro has attended no
public forum on the stadium. They are a critical component of this
project and yet they have not been forthcoming. We need specifics from
them regarding Green Line capacity, Navy Yard station capacity and their
projections about how riders might use other lines to get to the site.
3) Anacostia Waterfront Corporation: most in the community have never
met Adrian Washington. A discussion of the recent RFP regarding the
parcel north of the site would be welcome as would a discussion of how
AWC plans to include our SW/Near SE community organizations in their
future planning processes. 4) Clark Construction: although they have
been awarded the construction contract, they’ve never met with the
SW/Near SE community. We would like assurances that, given the current
financial constraints, they will still able to build a green stadium. We
also hope to gain an understanding of their plans to train and hire
local workers and get a timetable for construction. Assurances that
their construction trucks will not traverse the streets of residential
SW would be welcome. 5) DCSEC: their agreement SWNA regarding certain
community benefits has never been acted upon. We need to know why. We
also need to know when and with whom they will address a wider
discussion of community benefits. 6) DOES: we need to know what specific
programs are being designed by the agency that will specifically benefit
residents of impacted SW/Near SE to provide training and employment on
the construction of millions of square feet of builds now underway in
our neighborhood. 7) If, by the date of this meeting, a stadium design
will have been made public, we’d like the supervising architect to
present. . . . Thank you for your attention to this during such a busy
time. All the best to you and your family for a wonderful Thanksgiving
holiday.
###############
I wanted to pass along information regarding an effort by Petworth
citizens regarding possible development of land at the Old Soldier’s
Home in northwest Washington. This situation — the secrecy of the
planning commission and the coziness of the make up of the planning
commission with at least one DC developer in particular — is an
outrage. The Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH) is currently planning
possible development of up to 160 acres of property, or 59 percent of
the federal land that makes up the Home. This includes a section of
green space that runs from the intersection of Illinois and Rock Creek
Church Road to Park Place, and along Park Place from Rock Creek Church
Road to the ponds. The Soldier’s Home and its planning committee that
Includes developers are rushing this plan to final approval in the next
few weeks. That will leave the community no more time to push for park
space or to assess the impacts of this heavy development on traffic,
pollution, and property taxes.
We view the property as important, not only because our nation’s
military heroes live there, but also because President Lincoln spent a
quarter of his presidency on the grounds of the Home. Lincoln’s
cottage is being restored as a significant historic site. Long after we
are all gone, hundreds of thousands of people will come to see Lincoln’s
cottage. We believe that this land must be treated as carefully as the
property around Washington’s Mount Vernon and Jefferson’s
Monticello. Unfortunately, what we have witnessed in this process thus
far is deeply troubling. The Old Soldier’s Home has excluded the
community from participation and enlisted developers to help decide
whether to develop the land, creating a possible conflict of interest. A
developer and her husband are leading its community outreach effort, and
the development plan is being developed in secrecy.
As is evident from the overwhelming majority of the comments held at
the three recent publicity meetings, the community has lost faith in the
process. As a first step to try to restore that faith, we request that
the Home’s officials answer the following important questions:
What specific criteria qualified people to serve on the community
planning committee? Leaders who represent neighborhoods near the Home
have been excluded from this panel that is helping you craft the
development plan. People who live miles away from the neighborhood have
seats on the committee. Park View’s United Neighborhood Coalition and
a number of Petworth civic and religious organizations have been
excluded, while neighborhood organizations unrelated to the AFRH
neighborhood, such as the Pleasant Plains Civic Association and the
African American Civil War Memorial, have been included on the
committee. Metropolis Development Company. and institutions that have
expressed a desire for land to develop have seats on the panel. The
historians restoring Lincoln’s Cottage and DC Parks have also been
excluded. You have refused repeated requests to add important
representation to this group.
What arrangement does the Armed Forces Retirement Home have with
Gotham Development LLC? The firm’s owner, Desa Sealy Ruffin, has
represented the Home at public forums to solicit neighborhood input. She
has answered questions on behalf of the AFRH about who was selected to
serve on the planning committee. Her husband, Joe Louis Ruffin, a former
city employee, has identified himself as the Home’s community outreach
coordinator. What kind of arrangement does the AFRH have with the
Ruffins? When Mr. Ruffin spoke to United Neighborhood Coalition about
the merits of development, he identified himself as a longtime city
resident and a former city employee. He did not tell the community group
he was the husband of a developer who is working on the Home project.
Mr. Ruffin has recruited people to serve on the planning panel, whose
members include his former boss and other former city employees. Did the
Ruffins determine the composition of the panel? Why are a developer and
her husband leading an effort to get community input on whether to
develop federal land? What steps has the Home taken to prevent a
conflict of interest? Ms. Ruffin previously oversaw construction of a
210-unit townhouse development in Washington. One of the major items
under consideration for your plan is the construction of a major
townhouse development. What, if anything, has Ms. Ruffin been told about
her possible role in such a townhouse development? Metropolis has
developed the five-story Langston Lofts on U Street. Have you taken
steps to ensure that developers such as Gotham and Metropolis, who are
helping you decide whether to build and what to build, won’t later be
eligible to profit from any development? If companies that are helping
you decide what to develop are also eligible to benefit from that
construction, it would be a conflict of interest.
How much money does the Home require from this development plan to
sustain its operations? You have said the driving force behind the
development plan is the need to secure enough money to sustain the Home.
Yet when the community asks you how much money the Home needs, you
refuse to answer. It is impossible for me and others to assess the
needed scope of this development plan if you refuse to disclose such
basic information. US government agencies do not hide their budget
needs. As a representative and employee of the US government, we view it
as your duty to provide such basic information to the public. You have
also refused the community’s request to open the community planning
committee meetings to the public. You have also yet failed to make
public the unedited minutes from those meetings, which you promised to
do during the October 24, 2005, meeting at St. Gabriel’s Church in
Washington.
###############
I join in the legions of dissatisfied and frustrated customers of
Comcast. Five times (yes, five!) they failed to show up at the appointed
hour for service. Twice they knocked on the door and literally ran away
before we could get to the bottom floor of a four-story house to let
them in (mind you, the repair was to be outside, at the pole). They were
very efficient in calling within fifteen minutes and advising that the
technician had appeared but left because no one was home. When I
indicated that I was present (both to answer the phone and fifteen
minutes prior), the caller lamented that it was not his job to
reschedule. Until the matter reached the higher levels of service
management, there were cheery promises that were broken repeatedly. I
solicit suggestions as to what entity to complain to where it would have
the most effect? Perhaps the DC Public Service Commission?
###############
Satellite Dishes
Gabe Goldberg, gabe at gabegold dot com
Gary Rice [themail, November 16] said that the place where he lives
now does not permit satellite dishes on the roof. I thought I’d heard
that the FCC prohibited such prohibitions, in the interest of increased
competition. Or maybe you can put them on your window/balcony but not on
common space like a roof; they’ll only be useful on your space if you
point in the right direction, southern sky, I think. And if you asked
the satellite TV vendor for service, I’d hope they would know the
regulations! In any case, I’ve certainly seen satellite dishes
blooming in housing developments where they’d previously been
prohibited. Http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/satellite.html
offers info, maybe it’s definitive, or points elsewhere for more
clues.
###############
Secondhand Smoke and Risk
David Sobelsohn, dsobelso-at-capaccess-dot-org
In the last issue of themail [themail, November 16], Ed Barron cited
a study that (according to Ed and to Gary Imhoff) suggests that making
public places smokefree might immediately cut heart-attack rates by
27-40 percent. As a strong supporter of smokefree public-place laws, I
find this claim at least superficially implausible. On this I agree with
Gary: the primary risk of secondhand smoke is cumulative and long-term.
But every breath hurts — every foul inhalation of polluted air
increases your risk. That’s why Congress passed the Clean Air Act. And
that’s why the people most endangered by secondhand smoke are those
who work in heavily smoke-polluted environments, like restaurants and
bars. Just as those workers need laws to guarantee them (for example)
accessible restroom facilities, those workers need laws to protect them
against the long-term, cumulative effects of prolonged exposure to
secondhand smoke.
After raising a valid question about the cited studies, Gary as usual
goes off the deep end on this issue: if restricting secondhand smoke
would really cut the heart-attack rate by 27-40 percent, then, he
argues, “banning cigarettes entirely would surely eliminate all heart
attacks.” So what? Even if “banning cigarettes entirely” would
entirely eliminate secondhand smoke — and it wouldn’t — only a
fool would suggest such a law. But Gary’s obviously more comfortable
countering foolish "straw-man" proposals than he is addressing
the serious arguments for making public spaces smokefree.
###############
CLASSIFIEDS — EVENTS
Window Ornament Design, November 27
Brie Hensold, bhensold@nbm.org
At the National Building Museum, 401 F Street, NW, Judiciary Square
stop, Metro Red Line, Sunday, November 27, 1:00-4:00 p.m. Window
Ornament Design, for kids. Create festive holiday window ornaments out
of Plexiglas and colorful cellophane. $4 per ornament. Ages 5 and up.
Drop-in program.
###############
The Bowl Is Already Broken, November 29
Debra Truhart, debra.truhart@dc.gov
Tuesday, November 29, 7:00 p.m., Takoma Park Neighborhood Library,
416 Cedar Street, NW. Author Mary Kay Zuravleff will lead a discussion
of her book, The Bowl Is Already Broken, with book club members.
Public contact: 576-7252.
###############
Toastmasters, December 6
Lavonda Kay Broadnax, lbor@dc.gov
Would you like to improve your public speaking skills? Build your
leadership skills? And learn parliamentary procedure? Attend the Lone
Star Toastmasters club’s special workshop meeting and learn Robert’s
Rules of Order, the most widely used parliamentary authority in the
United States. Tuesday, December 6, 7:00 p.m., at Young Chow Restaurant,
312 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE. Metro: Capitol South, Orange/Blue line.
Free of charge.
Lone Star Toastmaster’s club meets every Tuesday at 7:00 p.m. at
Young Chow. Visitors are always welcome.
###############
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.