Coverage
Dear News Hounds:
Dorothy, in the last item in this issue, comments on the general
dissatisfaction that many citizens who are involved in DC politics and
civic affairs feel about local press coverage of the issues that affect
us. Most of the time, the major complaint is that coverage is skimpy and
inadequate, and that important issues are buried or ignored, but in the
past week there have been several good articles that I’d like to
recommend.
Community newspapers have been beating the majors on reporting the
significance of the city council’s emergency bill on the West End real
estate deal, both for the West End neighborhood and for the future of
public property throughout the District. Elizabeth Wiener has written
two comprehensive articles on the issue in The Northwest Current,
“West End Deal Stirs Demand for Reform,” September 26, and
“Request for West End Reversal Stalls,” September 19. Both are
front-page articles linked from http://www.currentnewspapers.com/archiveweek.php?n=1&year=2007.
The InTowner provided equally good coverage in a front-page
article in its September issue by Anthony Harvey, “West End Library
Site Transfer to EastBanc Controversy Now Part of Larger Issue about
District’s Embrace of Public-Private Deals.” The issue is in the InTowner
archives, linked from http://www.intowner.com.
That article, by the way, includes without comment the best argument for
believing the EastBanc proposal — to build a fire station, a branch
library, and new condominium units on the same site — is ill-conceived
and not thought through. It shows the architect’s conceptual drawing
of the project, with the fire station on the first floor, the library on
the second floor right above it, and the condos on the upper floors
above the library. Can anyone hear the problem?
Several articles covered various aspects of DC government’s
continuing problem with government officials at the highest level who
are deeply interested in rewarding themselves and inflating their
salaries, at the expense both of the taxpayers and of their
subordinates. The DC Auditor’s report on the bonuses paid to top
officials in the Williams administration was well covered in two
articles in the Times, by Jim McElhatton (“Bonus Practice
Scaled Back, Under Review,” http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070928/METRO/109280093/1004)
and Matthew Cella (“DC Officials Got Improper Bonuses,” http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070930/METRO/109300051/1004).
Yolanda Woodlee got the front page in the Post for her article on
the Auditor’s report: “Report: Williams Officials Given Undue
Bonuses,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/29/AR2007092901512.html?hpid=moreheadlines.
Michael Neibauer had the field to himself on another aspect of the
government’s hiring policies, “DC to Crack down on Hiring
Outsiders,” The Washington Examiner, http://www.examiner.com/a-962159~D_C__to_crack_down_on_hiring_outsiders.html.
And Jim McElhatton had two other big articles. While the Williams
administration inflated top officials’ salaries using bonuses, the
Fenty administration just wants to raise the salaries themselves to
unprecedented levels: “Fenty’s Salary Scale ‘Scary,’” http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070927/METRO/109270059/1004.
And it continues to award contracts with questionable value to the
residents to friendly and well-connected insiders, “DC Runs up $1
Million Lobby Bill,” The Washington Times, http://www.currentnewspapers.com/archiveweek.php?n=1&year=2007.
Then there’s a well-written column that I think is fundamentally
wrong, but I’ve run on too long, so I’ll argue with it another time:
Colbert King, “Coming Soon: The Real Schools Battle,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801399.html?sub=AR.
Gary Imhoff
themail@dcwatch.com
###############
Another Frontal Lobotomy for an Oversized
Scapegoat
Len Sullivan, lsnarpac@bellatlantic.net
The notion that our national capital city can lower the
embarrassingly high crime statistics among its poor people (mostly kids)
by reshuffling the organization of its local police department seems to
me hopelessly simplistic. It ranks right up there with blaming teachers
for the lousy test scores of poor kids, and bailing out a failing
hospital as a panacea for DC’s third world health statistics. Chief
Ramsey was no technocrat and had few college degrees, but he came to
understand that he could not resolve the counter-cultural problems of
the poor with uniforms and cruisers on the street. He couldn’t stop
the crimes before they happened, and he couldn’t solve most of the
crimes after they happened when committed within the community of the
disaffected.
How will Chief Lanier’s reverted structure and whiter management
lower the incidence of crime rather than just move it around? How will
the changes raise the closure rate on serious crimes? Is anyone tracking
(or publishing) the paltry share of DC’s crimes that the MPD does
solve? What did we gain by the summer overtime splurge? The Fenty
administration appears to be instituting superficial, headline-grabbing
actions that are irrelevant to the slow and steady effort required to
change the culture of the disadvantaged. I wager that 4,500 less
unwanted, poorly-parented kids, and 4,500 more responsible, hands-on
fathers would do more to reduce all the city’s ills than reshuffling
its 4,500 hapless MPD employees, its 8,000 struggling poor-health
personnel, or its 11,000 frazzled school workers. It would surely beat
grotesquely overpaying DC’s agency heads and their senior deputies to
joust with the wrong windmills.
###############
How TOPA and Greed Killed
My Affordable Housing
Deborah Akel, dakel@earthlink.net
By now you’ve probably heard of the Tiverton, the last affordable
housing in the West End, which sits smack in the middle of the hotly
contested Square 37. This humble four-story walkup, built in 1929 (and
considered a high-rise in its day), is now dwarfed by surrounding
high-rise luxury condos and hotels. We’ve endured eight long, noisy,
dusty years of demolition and construction around us. Hundreds of new
condos were built, but not a single one within the reach of low- or
middle-income folks. I suppose it was inevitable that our days were
numbered.
Last year, our landlord put the Tiverton up for sale. Our tenant
association voted to exercise its rights under DC’s Tenant Opportunity
to Purchase Act (TOPA), which gives tenants the first right to purchase
their building if the landlord decides to sell or convert it. Tenants
soon got wind of the possibility of lucrative cash buyouts, and factions
began to form. There were long-term tenants who considered the Tiverton
home and wanted to stay. There were young, transient tenants with dollar
signs in their eyes. And there were the undecideds: recent immigrants
and those too busy or too intimidated to get involved, who relied on the
board for leadership.
We learned we could qualify for low-interest financing to purchase
the building ourselves. As owners, we could retain more control, value,
and affordability. But this option was dismissed. We were told it would
take too long and would limit our equity, and that not enough tenants
were interested in buying to make it viable. It was suggested that we
partner with a for-profit developer instead. Soon, the greed factor
reared its ugly head. A group of young tenants pressed the board for
quick, high cash buyouts. Some of them were planning to move out anyway
and didn’t want to wait any longer than necessary. They complained
when the board announced that buyouts would be based on length of
tenancy. Not fair, they said. So the board capitulated and decided to
give the same buyout to everyone, whether they’ve lived here for two
years or twenty years.
The results of three polls showed that tenants were evenly divided
among buying, taking a buyout, and renting. Yet the board saw its
mandate as negotiating for the highest cash payouts. In the end they
achieved their objective, but it came at the expense of those who wanted
to buy their homes. The developer has said he couldn’t offer us lower
purchase prices because the board was focused on maximizing buyout
amounts. And so, the buyout rules. It trumps both the discount offered
to purchase our homes and the value of staying as a renter.
Is this the outcome that the council intended when it enacted TOPA?
To emphasize high cash buyouts instead of affordability? To entice
tenants to vacate their homes with large sums of money? To give the lion’s
share of benefits to tenants with one foot out the door? Don’t get me
wrong -- I’m not suggesting that we eliminate TOPA. With rampant condo
conversions killing off affordable housing, we need tenant protections
more than ever. But TOPA needs to be amended to ensure that its goals of
creating homeownership, preserving affordable housing, and minimizing
tenant displacement are met. I would argue that high cash buyouts do not
accomplish these goals.
Furthermore, there seems to be little recourse for tenants who are
unhappy with the decisions of their board. The courts have ruled that
TOPA provides no individual rights outside the tenant association. This
can be problematic when your long-term home is entrusted entirely to a
board whose authority and decisionmaking cannot easily be challenged.
After this long, arduous process, I recommend the following
amendments to TOPA: 1) affordable homeownership should be favored over
high cash buyouts. While buyouts should remain an option, they should
not be emphasized at the expense of affordable purchase prices. 2) Some
degree of individual rights outside of the tenant association should be
granted. 3) Benefits should be based on length of tenancy. This will
help to discourage collusion and prevent short-term tenants from
capitalizing on cash buyouts over the interests of long-term tenants.
The deal is done. The Tiverton, which has provided affordable housing
to DC residents for almost eighty years, will soon be market-rate condos,
and the District has lost yet another affordable rental property. The
West End has officially become the dominion of only the very wealthy. As
we say goodbye to the last bastion of diversity and affordability in the
West End, I hope that our lawmakers will take note that even the
protections of TOPA are not enough to prevent tenant displacement or
stem the loss of affordable housing for low- to middle-income residents.
Long live the Tiverton.
###############
Roosevelt High Stadium Field Looking Good
Malcolm Wiseman, Washington Free DC, mal@wiseman.ws
Just now there are exuberant drum rolls and volleys coming on a warm,
south breeze from Roosevelt Senior High School to my back porch. Their
drumline practicing reminds me that I recently drove by the stadium on
Upshur and saw the beautiful athletic field that is coming into shape. A
full-scale soccer game was in session with bright-colored uniforms,
students and fans in the stands, etc. The turf is so green that it can’t
be grass! Or was it blue? Anyway, like I said, it’s beautiful. They
have something to beat drums about! Teach them statehood.
###############
Jack Evans Gets Paid $332,500 for Double
Dipping DC Taxpayers
Paul D. Craney, DC Republican Committee, press@dcgop.com
City Records show that DC councilmember Jack Evans (Ward 2-Democrat)
was paid $92,500 as a council member and reported earning a Patton Boggs
salary in 2006 of $240,000 a year, a raise of more than $50,000 above
what the firm paid him in 2005. Mr. Evans is chairman of the DC council’s
committee on finance, overseeing the DC Office of the Chief Financial
Officer, which is handling the lobbying contract.
Mr. Evan’s defense is that he doesn’t vote on issues pertaining
to Patton Boggs as a councilmember. The only catch is that DC council
has never voted on a Patton Boggs contract because the contract does not
exceed $1 million a year. "Mr. Evans is the chair of a committee on
DC council who oversees lobbying contracts all while working for a
lobbying firm who benefits from a lucrative DC lobbying contract. Mr.
Evans’ actions clearly demonstrate a conflict of interest that taints
our political system for personal gain," stated DC Republican
Committee Chairman Robert Kabel.
###############
I have been doing research on mail delivery in the District of
Columbia. Here’s what I have learned thus far. 1) Mail does not reach
the carriers until 11 a.m. 2) Although machines are supposed to separate
the mail, the machines often fail and letters for other parts of the
city are given to the carriers. 3) The supervisors force the carriers to
rush through mail delivery, typically allowing them about fifteen
minutes per block. This causes a lot of errors. If the carriers slow
down to insure more accuracy, they are written up. 4) Morale is very bad
and the absenteeism rate is very high and many carriers have quit their
jobs. Often the remaining carriers work nine-hour days, six days a week.
5) This is a system in crisis. Poor management insures that mail
delivery will be late and to the wrong addresses.
###############
Voluntary agreements negotiated as a condition for liquor licenses
are the worst form of legal blackmail that can be fostered on a business
owner. It is so demeaning and so binding that it borders on interference
with a for-profit corporation. In my mind that is grounds for a legal
challenge up to and including the Supreme Court. In one way these
agreements can be good for controlling businesses that refuse to abide
by the laws on the books, but in another way they can be nothing more
than vindictiveness put in legal form, designed to intimidate business
owners into kowtowing, bending to the ridiculous wishes of residents who
are out of touch with reality. These residents remind you of the ones
who move next to an airport and complain about the noise. These
agreements are also being used by residents to remove older, established
businesses from their neighborhood to be replaced by more upscale and
luxurious companies, hoping that will enhance the value of their homes.
Voluntary agreements instituted by the Alcohol Beverage Regulation
Administration, ABRA, against business owners by the residents are not
really voluntary in the strict sense of the word. How can an agreement
be voluntary if the business owner who refuses to sign it or negotiate
it is confronted by a penalty of not obtaining his or her liquor
license? Where does the voluntary part come in? Agreements in the most
part are arbitrary and can be racist, in that they are in the most part
directed at a particular class of business owner. And it seems that
business owners are normally at a disadvantage in that they are unable
to operate unless they are forced into these agreement. If this is how
the residents treat an owner who is trying to make a living, how can
they then expect that owner to support what they would like to do for
the community?
These problems have come to the forefront because to gentrification.
These complaints arose because the newcomers have expected a
country-club-style atmosphere that does not exist in a vibrant city.
Most of these entertainment businesses have existed for many years, and
they now find that their business is no longer wanted. There has been
instances where people of influence have generated, through closed door
meetings, special meetings, and clandestine meetings, grounds to stack
any formal meeting involving business owners in their attempts to
acquire liquor licenses or retain their liquor licenses. What these
voluntary agreements have done is to bring out the vicious venomous
behavior of residents who want to destroy a person’s business after
building it up and fighting to keep it going. I just want the ones who
have fought against business owner’s attempt to maintain their
business enterprises to remember that what goes around will come around.
###############
This city can find $600 triple large for a space-age playpen by the
river for millionaire players, multimillionaire team owners and the
suburban patrician wannebes that keep the Christians-and-Lions racket in
business. But somehow (frightfully sorry as the British would say), we
just cannot seem to scare up the $80 million needed to upgrade and
modernize the only full-service medical facility east of North Capitol
Street.
Yeah, right. Billions for baseball, not a penny for biopsies and
bedpans. When Rome got this silly, the Goths and Vandals were already
outside the gates, ready to put her out of her misery.
###############
As a Tenleytown resident who is grateful for the help of Robin Diener
in the fight for the Tenley Library, I am horrified by the many
inaccuracies in Mr. Coe’s post (“Keep Our Baby out of West End’s
Bathwater,” themail, September 26). Mr. Coe says with regard to the
much talked about Janney School-Tenley Library-Developer public-private
partnership (PPP), “No one in Tenley argues (as they do in West End)
that such an agreement would amount to a giveaway of public property.”
Huh? We Tenley residents are arguing exactly this point. The community
is to some extent split, but I would contend that most in our community,
save some Janney parents, politicians, and developers, think this is a
sweetheart deal for some lucky developer. And absolutely no one is
promising workforce housing, though this rumor is appeasing some of us.
Mr. Coe goes on to say, “the developer proposes to finish
rebuilding the library earlier than currently planned by the
District.” Wrong again. The developer has never claimed to be able to
finish the library before 2010, the year in which DCPL itself plans to
finish the construction. Analysts in the DC government say that such an
agreement would delay the library construction by at least two years.
And unless this agreement causes the Janney construction project to jump
the queue on the DCPS modernization schedule, there is no hope that
Janney will start its renovation before 2013, when it is slated for
renovation without the PPP. Considering the fact that the School Without
Walls PPP was nine years in the making, the Janney School renovation
could actually be delayed by hearings and other red tape involving the
PPP.
It is very true that the DC Public Library system is holding public
meetings on what should be included in the new Tenley Library. Chief
Librarian Ginnie Cooper is admirably going ahead with library plans as
though there will be no PPP. It’s wonderful. But all bets for a good
library that will serve community needs are off if the DCPL Board caves
or is forced to accept a deal with a developer. In that case, Tenleytown
may not ever see an adequate library, and we certainly won’t see one
in 2010 or anytime soon. I’d like to thank Robin Diener of the DC
Library Renaissance Project and all those in Empower DC and the People’s
Property Campaign for including Tenleytown in their fight.
###############
DC Auto
Gabe Goldberg, gabe at gabegold dot com
Bob Levine asked [themail, September 26] whether anyone knows “how
and to whom to report a car with District plates that is driving in an
unsafe manner.” I use a form on the Fairfax County police web site to
do just that: https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/police/traf_sfty_report.htm.
I’m told that filing a report causes a letter to be sent to the owner
of the reported vehicle and (I think) a record to be kept of the report.
I’m not sure how much effect that has on drivers who are reported, but
at least it’s something. I wish enforcement could be a bit more
severe, but I understand that there’s a limit to what can be done
based on something not seen by an officer.
###############
Richard A. Stack on Dead
Wrong
Phil Shapiro, pshapiro@his.com
On Saturday evening I attended (and videotaped) a spellbinding book
talk by American University professor Richard A. Stack, talking about
his book Dead Wrong: Violence, Vengeance, and the Victims of Capital
Punishment. The talk was given at The Culture Shop, a store on Cedar
Street, NW, right near the Takoma subway stop. For those who might be
interested, this book talk can be seen in two thirty-minute video
segments at http://tinyurl.com/yqbxqy.
I wish this book talk could be automatically downloaded to your
personal portable video viewing device, placed into the “local
authors” folder. That day is not too far off. An E-mail alert would
notify you that a new local author could be viewed on your device — at
a time and place that fits into your schedule. Do keep the rest of us
posted about local authors you know about that deserve our attention.
###############
Batting it back and forth with Larry Seftor [themail, September 26].
My point about consultants for transit was a little different from his.
I agree with him that getting consultants “too close” to the
contractee won’t necessarily yield the best outcome from the
standpoint of citizens. On the other hand, having consultants who don’t
know anything about transit won’t likely help too much either. I didn’t
feel that his original post acknowledged that, but maybe I just can’t
take a joke.
I don’t think WMATA is poorly run or rampant with featherbedding.
Yes, the pension stuff is an issue and should be addressed. But some of
the problems are a result of the odd governance and funding structure
and the overly politicized decision making structure that results, as
well as the first example of serious physical aging of the system. Not
to mention the militaristic organization that was created by Jackson
Graham.
Transit systems in many cities such as Chicago, Pittsburgh, and
Philadelphia are in financial crisis. WMATA needs more money, but it is
not on the ropes and suggesting massive service decreases, etc. Instead,
WMATA is experiencing ridership increases. Given the cost increases in
electricity, oil, and natural gas, I just don’t see why people think
that WMATA is immune from needing more money, or why WMATA would be an
exception compared to all the other transit systems across the country
that are faced with similar problems and issues, and seeking fare and
subsidy increases. I will say that like everyone else, I’d rather not
pay more for transit if I don’t have to, but I would rather have a
highly functioning system providing a great deal of service.
###############
More Fallout from City’s
Knee-Buckling to MLB and Developers
Ed Delaney, profeddel@yahoo.com
From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/27/AR2007092701932.html?sub=AR:
“Metro board voted yesterday to sell a parcel of land near the stadium
to the Akridge Co., setting up a confrontation with a competing firm
that could create transportation challenges for the opening of the
ballpark in the spring. But Monument Realty, which owns several acres
nearby, filed a formal protest. Company officials have said that
Monument was promised first dibs on the site by the DC government and
Metro several years ago when the company was named ‘master developer’
of the area and given the task of building an integrated ‘ballpark
district.’ Monument principal partner Jeffrey T. Neal has threatened
to file a lawsuit to stop the sale. In a letter to Metro last month,
Neal also said Monument might slow its renovation of the Navy Yard Metro
station, the closest stop to the ballpark, if the company does not win
Metro’s bus garage property.” Real leadership from the city should
have come immediately after District officials had received notice of
the threat from the developer to actively sabotage the completion of a
valuable and needed commodity such as a Metro station (with many of the
improvements designed to increase accessibility to the physically
challenged), assuring that the work would be completed on time and that
a private concern would not be allowed to sabotage it. Instead of
leadership, we’ve gotten silence on the specific matter despite its
being disclosed to the city in August, and we’ve gotten rhetoric from
Fenty instead of results from anyone: “We’re looking to finish the
Metro on time and steer as many people to public transportation as
possible. Having parking around the stadium is a critical, critical
issue, and we’re working beyond diligently to find as many areas as we
can for cars to park.”
The city’s latest parking solution features RFK Stadium’s parking
lot, which is just one of a plethora of reasons the RFK Stadium site
should’ve been chosen and not the current nightmare of a site that can’t
get the basics right and whose soaring costs resulted in the compromises
that yielded the cut-rate, concrete greenhouse look of the ballpark,
which seems more in line with the Public Storage building to its north
than the jazzier office buildings springing up around the area (let
alone looking like the most expensive ballpark in history) along with
the massive garages where a retail and entertainment district should’ve
been.
Monument’s claim is completely without merit, but that didn’t
stop their threatening approach to the matter. Being one of the AWC’s
designated “master developers” along with Cornish, Forest City, and
Western Development (Herb Miller’s outfit, which is suing the city on
equally dubious grounds), did not equate to a free pass around the
bidding process for land at or near Monument’s assemblage of parcels.
Monument and its people know this, but given the manner in which
developers were able to help prompt the destruction or long-established
private residences and businesses at what became the site of the new
ballpark, this developer is the latest to try the strong-arm approach
related to ballpark development, to the point that it clearly resembles
blackmail of the “do what we say and no one gets hurt” variety.
Not only is Herb Miller still sponsoring an extremely frivolous $140
million lawsuit which has been easily discredited with a glance at the
facts (see themail, September 17), but out-of-town developer Victor
MacFarlane rushed to use strong-arm tactics on the city government when
support for DC United’s stadium plan faltered. The ability of Miller
and other private interests to reportedly influence the DC council so
strongly into its midnight knee-buckle that ratified the horrible
baseball agreement basically as-is (despite the council’s tremendous
amount of leverage at its disposal to craft a vastly better deal for the
city) is no doubt contributing to the bullying and strong-arm tactics
that are now becoming commonplace.
Such tactics kept the current site in place with its lack of vistas,
parking, and infrastructure improvements compared to the RFK Stadium
site, where the city would have moved the project had developers not
howled with displeasure. It’s ironic that the city is now trying to
sell the supposedly unworkable and undesirable RFK Stadium site as an
appealing place to drive to for games and then shuttle from there after
having trashed its location compared with M Street, SE, in order to
prevent a move. The use of shuttles from other Metro stations and
parking lots because of the lack of parking, etc., also compromises a
key source of revenue that the ballpark was supposed to generate via
pre-game and post-game patronage of retail and entertainment options
surrounding the ballpark. If your trip to the ballpark has big enough
slices of time taken out with shuttles to and from a remote lot or Metro
station, you won’t be killing much time before or after a game by
spending time and money in the ballpark district, especially if your
trip to the ballpark coincides with rush hour. This of course presumes
that there would have been a ballpark district rather than the city’s
prime part of the district covered up with massive garages and most of
the adjacent development being office and residential development
already underway before the ballpark and spurred by the massive
revitalization of the area by the arrival of the DOT and the increase of
personnel at the Navy Yard.
Developers have failed the city by convincing them to keep the
current train-wreck of a site with all of its shortcomings over the RFK
Stadium site, which at least had an adequate Metro station, parking, and
the road infrastructure needed for a new stadium. I’d advise the city
to smack Monument back to reality over Monument’s blatant threats of
reprisal if they don’t get to bypass the bidding process in place to
acquire the WMATA garage property. Acting to drop Monument from the
master developer role would be a start. However, given the city’s
self-chosen role as anvil to the hammer of several developers and
private interests (especially MLB), I can see the city giving Monument
dibs on some other city asset just to keep things hunky-dory (and to
keep those individual campaign contributions coming).
###############
CLASSIFIEDS — EVENTS
The New District Government, October 3
James S. Bubar, Jbubar@aol.com
The DC Bar’s District of Columbia Affairs Section will be hosting a
forum on the largest change in District administration since Home Rule.
We begin the new fiscal year with new school leadership, a fully
constituted council, and a restructured administration, as we continue
to work for a vote in Congress. Come join the new mayor, council chair,
DC delegate, and others as we hear what they have to say at this
District-wide event honoring the new administration and recognizing all
of the changes.
The event will be held on Wednesday, October 3, 6:30 p.m.-8:00 p.m.
(doors open at 6:30 p.m., program begins at 6:45 p.m.) at the John A.
Wilson Building, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 1st Floor Foyer. The
event is free but you are requested to register in advance at outreach@dcbar.org.
Cosponsors include the Bar Association of the District of Columbia,
University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law, DC
League of Women Voters, DC Appleseed, DC Vote, Consortium of
Universities, ACLU-NCA, D.C. Bar Litigation Section and DC Consortium of
Legal Services Providers.
###############
Tenley and Anacostia Neighborhood Library
Design Community Meetings, October 3, 4
Archie D. Williams, archie.williams@dc.gov
The DC Public Library is hosting a second round of Community Meetings
to work with the community in designing and constructing the
neighborhood libraries. The Freelon Group, which has been retained as
the architects for the momentous task of designing two of the libraries,
is presenting its preliminary concepts to the community.
Preliminary Tenley-Friendship Neighborhood Library Design, Wednesday,
October 3, 6:00 p.m., Tenley-Friendship Interim Library, 4200 Wisconsin
Avenue, NW. Anacostia Library Design, Thursday, October 4, 6:00 p.m.,
Anacostia Interim Library, 1800 Good Hope Road, SE, at 18th Street, SE.
Please feel free to contact Archie D. Williams from DCPL, archie.williams@dc.gov,
if you have any questions regarding these events.
###############
The Local Press as Watchdog, October 4
Dorothy Brizill, dorothy@dcwatch.com
Practically daily, DC residents who are involved in city politics and
community affairs discuss the downturn in reporting local news,
particularly at the Post. The Society of Professional Journalists
will host a panel discussion on the press’ coverage of District issues
on Thursday, October 4, at 1:00 p.m. at Martin Luther King, Jr.,
Memorial Library, 901 G Street, NW. The program is being presented as
part of the SPJ’s national convention by its Project Watchdog, a
"national initiative designed to inform the public about how
members of the media do their jobs. Specifically, its goal is to educate
readers and viewers about the importance of a free and critical
press."
The panel will consist of Mark Segraves, WTOP radio; Harry Jaffe, Washingtonian
and Washington Examiner, and myself. After the panel
presentations, the bulk of the program will be a question-and-answer
session and dialogue with the audience. The program is free and open to
the public. For information about Project Watchdog, visit http://www.spj.org/projectwatchdog.asp,
and for information on the SPJ convention, go to http://www.spj.org/convention.asp.
###############
themail@dcwatch is an E-mail discussion forum that is published every
Wednesday and Sunday. To subscribe, to change E-mail addresses, 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.