Resolutions

Dear Resolutionists:

Over the past week, I’ve heard and read many news articles about how difficult it is to make New Year’s resolutions that can be kept, and how quickly most resolutions are broken. Therefore, I decided to make New Year’s resolutions that would improve my life, but would still be easy and enjoyable to keep. My first draft had the virtue of elegant simplicity: “Eat more. Drink more. Party more.” However, I realized that partying required effort and energy, which made it too much like work, and made success doubtful. Therefore I revised the first draft to give full tribute to sloth, and came up with my final list of resolutions, less elegantly phrased but more likely to be kept: “Eat more. Drink more. Watch more television.”

Lift a glass with me to the New Year.

Gary Imhoff
themail@dcwatch.com

###############

Not All Transit Is Subway
Richard Layman, rlaymandc@yahoo.com

Paul McKenzie writes in the last issue of themail [December 28] that a new Metro line is needed if the Government Services Agency decides to take over the Walter Reed campus for federal buildings. I have two comments. First, I think it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread for GSA to do this. It won’t help the Georgia Avenue area much, but at least it’ll get those boxy, anti-urban, no street connection, no retail, category 4 security set-backed from the street, big office buildings out of the central part of the city. In the post-9/11 era, federal buildings are a curse to making great places, even if commercial developers love the regular income. The design constraints required by security considerations mean that such buildings suck the life right out of the street. We can’t afford to wreck from the beginning areas that are now being targeted for such development, places like NoMa and South Capitol. Let it go to Walter Reed, which already doesn’t link to the surrounding community. However, in order to reduce those 7 a.m. and 3 p.m. traffic jams at Walter Reed, additional transit options are needed, as Mr. McKenzie indicates.

Second, the DC Transit Future studies (http://www.dctransitfuture.com) call for streetcar services (eventually) up Georgia Avenue, with an initial suggestion of bus rapid transit. If the GSA proposal goes forward, perhaps streetcar service could come to Georgia Avenue sooner rather than later. Installing streetcar service is a tenth (or less) of the cost of installing heavy rail services underground. If GSA does make Walter Reed a federal office building campus, perhaps there could be a streetcar spur to and from the Takoma Metro station as well. Or perhaps a MARC railroad stop could be allowed to be created at Takoma Station also, since it’s just over a half mile from that stop to the Walter Reed campus. Maybe people could walk the rest of the way.

Transit advocates need to think more broadly about the kinds of transit service that can be provided across the region, how much it costs to install, and the various constraints that the jurisdictions are operating under. Of course, speaking of the region, it doesn’t help to have a Maryland Governor that “hates transit.” So while you see a parallel streetcar effort in Virginia for Columbia Pike, there are no active streetcar planning initiatives currently underway in Montgomery or Prince George’s Counties. On the other hand, there is a very active toll road freeway plan (the Inter County Connector) moving forward.

###############

In Public Finance, Include All Costs
Edward Cowan, edcowan1114@yahoo.com

In his post arguing for approval of the baseball lease, Robert Marvin [themail, December 28] argues that the financing costs, $30 million, associated with the prospective issuance of DC bonds should be excluded from the reckoning of total cost of the ballpark. On his Web site, he argues that when people buy a house or car, they don’t add to the price they paid the future interest payments they will make on the financing.

Like most analogies, this one is flawed. Mr. Marvin is speaking of personal finance, how people spend their own money and how they reckon how much they are paying. That’s their business. On the other hand, the issue on the table is one of public finance, how much financial exposure DC taxpayers will take on to create the ballpark. The financing fees are as much a cost of the ballpark as are the steel beams and the restrooms. The only responsible way to present the deal to the taxpayers and their elected representatives is to take an inclusive approach. (One could present it both ways.)

As for the renovations to RFK, it depends what question one asks. Here’s one: What will be the cost to the taxpayers of bringing baseball back to Washington? The answer to that question includes renovation of RFK. To be sure, there were some revenues in 2005 and there will be some in future seasons. Before subtracting to determine net cost, the point to keep in mind is that costs are inevitably more certain than revenues.

###############

Saving Pinocchio and Baseball
William Jordan, whj@melanet.com

The other day I reread portions of Collodi’s The Adventures of Pinocchio (available online at http://www.pagebypagebooks.com/C_Collodi/The_Adventures_of_Pinocchio/) in hopes of finding a few clues about how our baseball story might come to a happy ending for us all. If Pinocchio could eventually become a real boy once he learned that hard work could produce success faster than schemes, then maybe it is not too late for our Pinocchio to achieve a similar result. Like the original Pinocchio, our Pinocchio finds himself trapped. Having said that the stadium project would cost no more than $535 million in public dollars, as well as that the cost would not be paid from the District’s general fund, one lie has required another until covering up previous lies blocks the best solution. The original Pinocchio found that his lie induced nose growth had left him trapped in a room, his arms too short to reach the doorknob with such a long and growing nose. Of course the irony was that the goal of the lies was to get out of that very door. Our Pinocchio finds himself in a similar situation, having agreed to the $535 million figure and keeping his hands off the general fund, knowing from the beginning that neither promise would hold up. Compounding his problems, our Pinocchio joins in with a misguided friend on an adventure to Toyland for promises of German named banks and false savings, and winds up with both turned into Donkeys and Asses.

Before we get too self-righteous about Pinocchio’s dilemma, remember it is not easy when you are made of wood and fall in with cats and foxes, be they from Northern Virginia, Maryland, Major League Baseball, or Congress offering solutions rooted in their self-interests. Our Pinocchio’s adventure to the Field of Wonders believing four coins can yield a thousand overnight by just putting them into the ground seems a reasonable one. How can we blame him? Who would want to work day after day trying to figure out how to leverage rising real estate values to improve schools, parks, libraries, and public safety, while addressing across -the-board housing needs, when you could spend your days traveling the nation, world, cutting ribbons, and holding press conferences as someone’s Marionette? The good news, however, is that in the end if the original Pinocchio can became a real boy, then so to can our Pinocchio.

What can our Pinocchio glean from the adventures of the original in order to save our field of wonders? The original needed a Good Fairy to help along the way; ours does not have a fairy, but he does have us as residents and stakeholders. Secondly, in order for fairy magic to work, Pinocchio had to have the courage to swallow ego, come clean, and admit to lies and folly along the way. So too must our Pinocchio come clean, swallow ego, and stop peddling economic hocus pocus while prioritizing schools, parks, libraries, public safety, and housing needs. Then we, like the Good Fairy, can support building that stadium even with public funds. And soon we will have baseball, a vibrant stadium district in southeast, as well as a real mayor. I know, The Adventures of Pinocchio is a fairy tale. Happy New Year.

###############

Electrical Code
William M. Mazer, wmmazer@comcast.net

Today I sent the following E-mail to Linda Cropp: ?The National Electrical Code, which has a new edition every four to six years, governs the electrical safety of our homes and offices. Of the thirty jurisdictions in this area, from Baltimore to the Eastern Shore, including DC, all but two have adopted the 1999 and 2002 editions.

“The District of Columbia still conforms to the ancient 1993 edition. This is incredible, since it means that DC does not conform to many Code innovations that enhance the fire and personal electrical safety of our citizens. I urge the DC Council to adopt the current National Electrical Code edition.”

###############

Creative Baseball Accounting
P. Walters, tmdcw@pwalters.com

A writer (Mr. Marvin) in the last edition of themail [December 28] suggests that stadium opponents have “unnecessarily added $110 million to the price” by including items “outside of the footprint of the stadium,” thus inflating the cost to $667 million when it should be, in that correspondent’s opinion, $557 million.

Why stop there? Since the place would be used for baseball only a few dozen times each year, then why not just call it something else and have done with the whole thing. Let’s just call the stadium exterior a retaining wall against possible floods on the Anacostia, the seating a largish bus shelter, and the parking lots rainfall capture ponds.

Tish tosh. Maybe our brilliant council people can wish the expenses away, but my wallet cares nothing for creative "accounting" when the tax collector calls. Face it: the relationship of governed to government is solely on a cash basis. A dollar wasted is a dollar wasted, and every buck in the stadium deal is waste, waste, waste.

###############

Gandhi Doth Protest Too Much
Dan Wedderburn, danielwedderburn@cs.com

Thanks for not letting DC Chief Financial Officer Natwar Gandhi get away with his shameful responses surrounding the Anacostia Stadium proposal. By law, he is required to provide independent financial analyses to DC government functions, but he has lost all pretense at this even as he doth protest otherwise.

A year ago, the costs of financing the issuance of bonds was included in the estimated ballpark costs he presented to the Council. This year Gandhi conveniently left these costs out and thought the public would not catch on. Also, this December he greatly exaggerated the costs of placing a new stadium at RFK to make it appear they were almost the same as the Anacostia site.

Because Mr. Gandhi is no longer providing independent financial analysis (he used to do so admirably), he is not performing his fiduciary responsibility and must resign. If he won’t, he should at least know that his posturing — as in his response to you — is seen for what it is.

###############

An Open Letter to the CFO
Ed Delaney, profeddel@yahoo.com

Dr. Gandhi, given your strong assertions of integrity and honesty at every turn to justify questionable figures on the ballpark project that conveniently and consistently meet with the agenda of the mayor’s office at every turn, perhaps you can straighten us out on one of the most perplexing figures your offices has ever forwarded associated with costs for the ballpark project. There are many items from the environmental estimates to the infrastructure comparisons for each site that have drawn questions from the public and the council, but let’s focus on one of the most basic items. The identical figure of $315.4 million given by your office this December for hard ballpark structure construction costs at each site does not hold up to even the most routine scrutiny. There is a critical and irrefutable design difference that is impossible to do at the Anacostia waterfront site due to the sewer line that could result in a savings of untold millions of dollars at the RFK Stadium site. Let’s first refer to the DCSEC’s 2002 site evaluation study, which notes that: “All of the five sites enable the field level to be constructed below existing grade, allowing fans to enter at concourse level and providing a baseball park that complies with the District’s height restrictions.” The March 30 Examiner reported that the $29.4 million estimate to relocate a 12-foot sewer tunnel at the current site was dealt with in this manner: “Chris Bender said if the stadium is built at or just below ground-level, the city would only need to protect the tunnel rather than relocate it. The cost for that is $2.3 million, according to the CFO’s study.” The CFO’s figure for protecting the tunnel inexplicably and conveniently shrank to $500,000 (with a laughable $5000 contingency) in the December 2005 estimate, despite all the talk of rising construction costs due to Hurricane Katrina.

As we know, the baseball Brigade — the mayor’s office and the DCSEC — chose to keep the sewer line in place (Post, 8/25/05). The ability for the ballpark to be built significantly below grade at the RFK Stadium site while the current stadium site is restricted by the sewer pipe issue must be factored into the ballpark costs, either by greatly reducing the hard costs at the RFK Stadium site or by increasing the costs at the already cost-crazy current site. Similar projects, including the Steelers’ football stadium, have noted the direct cost correlation: “[Steelers President Dan Rooney said that] the playing field will likely be eight feet below ground level. Some fans will walk down steps to get to their seats. One reason for the sunken field is to improve sight lines. Another is to reduce construction costs. ‘The more you go down, the less you have to go up,’ he said, meaning the outside walls don’t have to be as high and costs can be cut.” (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, February 6, 1999). Any analysis that reflects the tradeoff of the cost savings of not relocating the sewer pipe but does not reflect the cost increase caused by its lack of removal and forcing the project to be built significantly higher than had been anticipated is completely misleading and inaccurate. (The stadium‘s height might also be at issue at the current site with the above-grade building and the additional club level, though that matter has yet to be considered by the CFO’s office in site feasibility comparisons.)

It is also worth noting that the CFO’s revised estimate of $315.4 million for hard costs attributed the significant rise from previous estimates to “inflation, Katrina, District requirements and current conditions” once again totally hides the real culprits: Major League Baseball and the DC Sports and Entertainment Commission. The DCSEC’s own words, as reported in the October 7 City Paper, point out where the cost increases really came from: "On Feb. 28, 2005, the Sports Commission responded to a litany of requests by the Nationals with a memo explaining that it ‘cannot agree to changes that would result in an increase in the project budget.’ Among the Nats’ requests that the Sports Commission considered unreasonable: the addition of a 10,000-square-foot lounge for Diamond Club members, a 7,500-square-foot conference center, an increase in the number of glitzy Party Suites from 6 to 15, an increase in the capacity of each Party Suite from 24 to 40, and a mandate that every suite be in the infield dirt area.

“In a June 7 letter, the Sports Commission once again bridled at the Nationals’ requests for more premium seating. ‘The inclusion of eight Founders Suites will add [square footage] to the building and increase finishing costs,’ the missive explained. The Nats’ stadium consultant also wrote that the team ‘expected the Party Suites to be located on a separate level above or below the Suite Level.’ In a June 23 letter, the Sports Commission responded that ‘we believe that minimizing the number of separate levels is more cost effective than increasing the height of the section by adding another level.’” Of course, the baseball Brigade ended up incorporating all of these changes to the original agreement, and the costs soared just as they’d predicted! How the ballpark structure’s cost could skyrocket from $244 million in March to $337 million, per November 21st’s Post, became clear when factoring in the DCSEC’s accession to MLB’s demands. The Brigade has subsequently tried to act like the removal of the DCSEC’s offices from the ballpark plan has negated the cost increases. However, the building costs associated with the addition of an entire concourse level, even in the fused manner the Brigade has suggested the designers would pursue, could not be offset by the exclusion of the office space, and the DCSEC’s own words to MLB belie that.

Again, the identical figure of $315.4 million given by your office this December for hard ballpark structure construction costs at each site would appear to be the result of gross incompetence at best and agenda-driven deceit at worst. The facts that I’ve referenced are a matter of public record, and the lack of their reflection in the figures given by the CFO’s office lack of shows a lack of adequate analysis and inclusion of mitigating factors, which puts the credibility of the numbers in doubt as something the DC Council can use to determine actual costs of the ballpark at each potential site. Can you openly and honestly explain the exclusion of these factors in the figures released by your office? If you can make a satisfactory answer, fine. If we instead get more defenses of your character than direct answers, it would further seem to bolster the accurate portrayal of your actions that Gary Imhoff made based on the available facts.

###############

CLASSIFIEDS — EVENTS

National Building Museum Events, January 11-12
Lauren Searl, lsearl@nbm.org

All events at the National Building Museum, 401 F Street, NW, Judiciary Square stop, Metro Red Line. Register for events at http://www.nbm.org.

Wednesday, January 11, 6:30-9:00 p.m. The Museum presents the mid-Atlantic premiere of a captivating documentary, “Expo: Magic of the White City,” that examines the 1893 Chicago World’s Columbian Exposition. Narrated by Gene Wilder, the film (116 min., 2005) explores many of the great achievements in science, technology, and culture that were unveiled at this fair. $8 for Museum members and students; $10 for nonmembers. Registration required.

Thursday, January 12, 12:30-1:30 p.m. Ralph Bennett, president of Bennett Frank McCarthy Architects, Inc. and architecture professor at the University of Maryland, will discuss five keys for achieving affordable housing through smart growth. He will consider the current housing boom and offer solutions that are inextricably linked to land use policy. Free. Registration not required

Thursday, January 12, 6:30-8:00 p.m. DC Builds: Ballparks, Eminent Domain, and the Need for a DC Planning Commission. This symposium, cosponsored with the Committee of 100 on the Federal City, will examine other cities’ experiences with a planning commission and suggest how such an independent body could help DC align the expenditure of public funds with planning visions and economic development objectives. Symposium moderator Gary Hack, dean of the Graduate School of Fine Arts, University of Pennsylvania, will discuss the utility of planning commissions, with a focus on Philadelphia where he chaired such a group. Christopher Ronayne, chief of staff to the mayor of Cleveland and former planning director in that city, will analyze the Cleveland experience. Linda Cropp, chairman of the DC Council, will join the discussion. Free. Registration required.

###############

From Service to Justice, Part II, January 11
Martina Gillis, martina@legalclinic.org

The Fair Budget Coalition would like to invite you to attend From Service to Justice, part II, on Wednesday, January 11, 2006, 9 a.m.-1:30 p.m., at All Souls Unitarian Church, 2835 16th Street, NW. Service providers have become very skilled at dealing with the daily crises of those we serve while often working with the most slender resources. However, although the meeting of day-to-day needs is essential, it is equally important to take a deeper, broader look at how we work within our community. While providing a hot meal and bed is truly needed, how do we move beyond merely offering a helping hand to empowering “clients” to become active participants — and agents of transformation — within our organizations and communities? What does that exactly mean and how might it look within our organizations? And, at the same time, what lessons might we have to share with those who have been seeking justice, but perhaps lack the day-to-day connections to the marginalized necessary to realize their aims?

If we are ever truly going to have a just city, country, or world, we must work in a much more strongly coordinated effort, speaking in one voice, learning from one another. Join us at this conference to deepen the dialogue with service providers, community residents, and justice activists as we attempt to answer the questions of how to build power for justice while — and sometimes through — providing service. Registration is $12 for non Fair Budget members, no one turned away for lack of funds. For more information, contact Martina Gillis, 328-5513 or martina@legaliclinic.org.

###############

themail@dcwatch is an E-mail discussion forum that is published every Wednesday and Sunday. To subscribe, to change E-mail addresses, or to switch between HTML and plain text versions of themail, use the subscription form at http://www.dcwatch.com/themail/subscribe.htm. To unsubscribe, send an E-mail message to themail@dcwatch.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject line. Archives of past messages are available at http://www.dcwatch.com/themail.