A Knock on the Door

Dear Private Persons:

There’s a knock on the door. It’s the police, and they’re smiling and friendly and armed and threatening. “Hello, Mr. and Mrs. Resident,” they say. “We want you to let us in to search your house or apartment. We want to see what you keep in your drawers and laundry hampers and kitchen cabinets, and look through your closets and under your beds, rifle through the papers on your desk, look through your bookshelves to see whether you’re hiding anything behind your books. And can you give us the combination to that safe? Of course, this is entirely voluntary on your part. But if you don’t completely relinquish your privacy and open your house for us to look through all your things, you can see how that would make us awfully suspicious of you, don’t you? We might be inclined to take an increased interest in you if you don’t let us in. After all, if you’re not doing anything illegal, you don’t have anything to hide from us, do you? Now, let us assure you that we’re just looking for guns in order to confiscate them before the Supreme Court finds the city’s gun ban to be unconstitutional, but if we find anything illegal, guns or drugs or anything else, we’ll just take it away, and we won’t arrest you. You’ll have immunity.” They’re not saying that what they found wouldn’t provide evidence to go to court and get a search warrant, or that they wouldn’t come back another time with that warrant. If your teen aged son has some marijuana under the mattress they’ll have probable cause to come back in a month or two and see if he’s replaced his stash, so they can arrest him and you. Or the police could argue that your refusal to let them search your house is in itself probable cause to issue a search warrant, and they could easily find a judge whose ignorance of and contempt for the privacy rights of American citizens equals theirs to issue those warrants. Or they could say that they have a duty to report what they see in your home to DCRA or Child and Family Services. But what should you care? Your life should be an open book to the authorities, shouldn’t it? Or what do you have to hide? Don’t you think the police should have the right to rummage through everything you have? Isn’t all that nonsense about liberty and privacy, and your home being your castle, and freedom from invasive police surveillance, just a quaint, outdated relic of the past?

If you still cling to these antiquated notions, you live in the wrong town, and under the wrong administration. The Fenty administration has begun the “Safe Homes Initiative” (http://www.dcwatch.com/police/080312.htm) and says that these friendly and, of course, completely voluntary police home invasions — there’s no intimidation at all when armed police officers are at your door suggesting that it would be in your best interest to admit them — are all to protect you. The “Safe Homes Initiative” is for your benefit, don’t you see? I don’t know which is worse, my belief that the police will target home invasions against people whom they already suspect, but whose homes they have no good excuse to enter, or my fear that they will just conduct house raids randomly against completely honest and innocent citizens who will be rightfully afraid to deny them entry. In either case, Mayor Fenty and MPD Chief Lanier seem to be as hostile to the Fourth Amendment “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” as they are to the Second Amendment “right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

The Washington Examiner has published a hard-hitting editorial condemning this awful and, yes, un-American program, http://www.examiner.com/a-1299961%7EHalf_cocked_D_C__gun_searches.html, and WRC-TV has reported that in Ward 8 community leaders are urging residents to protect their rights and refuse access to the police who have no business intruding into their homes, http://www.nbc4.com/news/15688264/detail.html. The Fenty administration’s public relations agency, The Washington Post, has of course not uttered a single word of protest in defense of the citizens, although if the federal government Homeland Security Agency had instituted a similar program the Post would have published an editorial condemning it every day until the program was withdrawn. Instead, it has published a single column by Courtland Milloy (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032503206.html) in which he explains that the warrantless home searches are merely being done to help single mothers and grandmothers, and that Chief Cathy Lanier is only looking out for us, “Just like a big sister.” As Milloy acknowledges others have suggested to him, the correct phrase is not “just like a big sister,” but “just like Big Brother.”

Gary Imhoff
themail@dcwatch.com

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

Community United in Rejecting the Tenleytown PPP Proposals
Sue Hemberger, Friendship Heights, smithhemb@aol.com

Last week, the Janney Elementary School Improvement Team urged the rejection of all three responses to the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development’s amended Solicitation of Offers for a public-private project on its campus. Their letter to DMPED is available at http://www.janneyschool.org/PTASITPPP/Library%20development/sitresponseto3proposals-march2008.html. This means that a consensus has emerged within the community — neither the Advisory Neighborhood Commission nor the School wants to see any of these projects built. Hopefully, this will be enough to convince Mayor Fenty to pull the plug on this Request for Proposals. At the February meeting of the Tenleytown Neighbors Association (TNA), Fenty pledged that he would listen to the community once it spoke with a united voice.

Where consensus breaks down (perhaps even within the SIT, judging from the wording of the letter) is whether the next step should be a decision that the Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization (headed by Allen Lew of stadium fame) will be responsible for the Janney project (ideally on an earlier timetable than previously announced) or whether the whole RFP process should be restarted and done right this time, with well-defined limits on acceptable private development on the site and/or the re-inclusion of the library project and land. I’m strongly in favor of the OPEFM option. We’ve already explored the PPP-with-the-library-in-the-mix option. One of the three current proposals (LCOR’s) is based on that scenario, and it was rejected by both the SIT and the ANC. The notion that including the library’s land solves the problem is a mirage — Roadside’s unsolicited offer looked more acceptable than the newer proposals primarily because its site plan was predicated on a gross underestimation of Janney’s interior facilities needs (it contemplated a 10,000-13,000 square foot addition versus the 39,000 square feet actually required). In short, it left more playground space because it failed to build the necessary classrooms.

At this point the costs of doing a new RFP are much greater than they would have been (or maybe then they appeared to be) last summer, when DMPED originally decided to explore the PPP option. The library is substantially further along, and delaying its construction will be costly. Also, as this round of submissions demonstrated, a mixed-use project is likely to take four to five years to complete once a proposal is accepted. That means that a new PPP is unlikely to speed up Janney’s modernization. And a mixed-use project would be much more disruptive to both the Janney and St. Ann’s campuses than consecutive library and school modernization projects would be. So what would be the benefit of trying this again? The school gains nothing compared to an OPEFM modernization (no more land to work with, no faster timetable) and the library loses (its reopening would be delayed, its design compromised, and its construction costs increased). By now, we’ve thoroughly explored the PPP options at this site. Remember, this is the second time around. In 2003 Janney looked at a residential PPP and DCPL investigated the possibility of a mixed-use library project, and both ideas were ultimately rejected. It’s time to move on. The concept is clearly more attractive than the reality.

I wish that DMPED had done a better RFP in the first place because then its myriad screw-ups wouldn’t leave some people convinced that there’s some brilliant-yet-undiscovered PPP that could still happen at this site. In fact, I think that a better process would have shown from the beginning that, despite its Metro-accessibility, the size and layout of this site and our public facilities requirements leave no room for economically viable private residential development. But I’ve given up predicting what DC government will do. At a minimum, if a new RFP is to be issued, I hope that it will be based on a “plan first” model in which fairly comprehensive site-planning for the school precedes any solicitation of offers and in which the solicitation itself defines and limits the acceptable scale and location of private development on the site. Conducting another “fishing expedition” would be a waste of everyone’s time. Again, even if this isn’t your neighborhood, I urge you to follow what’s happening at Tenleytown. The privatization of public land over the strong objections of the local citizenry is a real and growing problem under this administration.

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

No Worry, Mate
Ed T Barron, edtb1@macdotcom

Public libraries in major urban areas are finding large numbers of homeless persons spending their days in the comfortable chairs, pleasant and safe environment provided in these libraries. There are about one hundred of these folks who daily inhabit the MLK Library here in DC. No worry though, mate, about that happening here in the Tenley Library. There is no Tenley Library.

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

DC Also Needs “Change We Can Believe In”
Dennis Moore, dennis@DCIndependents.org

Some say we now live in a city without a soul. Families continue to leave and homelessness continues to rise. Nevertheless, happy talk and hyping minor achievements will never hide the reality of life and living for many in the District of Columbia. Until the basic benchmarks and evidence of real results have been met, there is no reason to be impressed by the words of mayor Adrian Fenty and some DC councilmembers. This was clearly proven again in mayor Fenty’s 2008 State of the District report, which excluded attendance by most of the public and news media. What is Mayor Fenty hiding? The bottom line question for every District citizen is whether we are genuinely better off, and a truly better city, than we were before Fenty. Pretentious posturing, staged news events, photo ops, and the phony façade of action are not evidence of real results or truly effective governance. Neither is the fanfare over expensive new baseball or soccer stadiums that will not provide major revenue or a majority of jobs for District residents. Follow all the money, and the actual DC employment data.

There will be real reasons to cheer when Mayor Fenty’s promises of public education excellence, consistent fiscal competence, abundant local retail and jobs, truly affordable mixed-income housing, and a real family-friendly city actually comes to DC. A larger homeless population, rising random crime, fiscal instability, budget cover-ups, acceptable corruption, crumbling services, and other socioeconomic disruptions are clear signs of incompetent leadership and phony governance.

Right now, Mayor Fenty and his appointees prefer to promote ineffective action and questionable accomplishments as proof of their competence and leadership. The illusion of leadership is no substitute for real results. This is not an example of the “best practices” the Fenty administration allegedly learned from other cities. Meanwhile, the District of Columbia continues to become a bad bet for worried Wall Street investors. Many mixed-income families are finding their residency and tax dollars are better appreciated in Maryland, Virginia, or elsewhere. In this presidential election year, DC residents need local “change we can believe in.”

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

Almost Getting Run Down by Metrobus
Bob Levine, rilevine@cpcug.org

This is a comment letter that I sent to Metro tonight, and wanted to send to themail, or Metro will totally ignore the incident

At 8:10 p.m. on March 24, while crossing Wisconsin Avenue into O Street, at a crosswalk on a green light, bus # 2125 made a right turn out of O Street onto Wisconsin Ave. and almost ran me down in the crosswalk. I was forced to jump out of the way or I would have been run down. The driver, an African-American with long braided hair, was looking directly at me and didn’t even slow the bus down while making the turn. I was in a crosswalk and the light was green, giving me the right of way, or the bus would have been making the turn at this corner on a red light.

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

Cherry Blossom Festival Time
Dorothy Brizill, dorothy@dcwatch.com

No doubt you’ve heard that the annual Cherry Blossom Festival starts this Friday, March 29, and will run through April 13. There’s a lot more to do during the festival than taking that ritual early spring walk on the Mall and around the Tidal Basin. A lot of events are associated with the blooming of the cherry trees, and one of the most enjoyable involves food and drink, and takes place all around town. Many DC area restaurants create special seasonal dishes — main dishes, desserts, and cocktails — using cherries, cherry juice, cherry liqueurs, and even cherry blossoms themselves (imported blossoms, since picking blossoms from DC’s park trees is strongly discouraged).

When your out-of-town friends are thoroughly exhausted from viewing the trees, trying to see everything in the Smithsonian, and trekking to the national monuments, give them a restful evening by going to http://www.washington.org/cherryblossom/restaurants.html and choosing something intriguing from the wide variety of restaurants and dishes. Belga Cafe’s duck breast with cherry beer sauce and Charlie Palmer’s roasted lamb loin with bing cherries were particularly good at a preview tasting organized by the Festival and the Restaurant Association, and many restaurants have put their recipes online, so that you and your visitors can just stay home and make those special cocktails for yourselves.

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

Street Sweeping Has Resumed; Ticketing Begins March 31
Nancee Lorn, nanceelorn@yahoo.com

Daytime mechanical street sweeping resumed Monday, March 24, in heavily trafficked residential neighborhoods. Alternate-side parking restrictions in these areas will go into effect as well. Parking tickets, which carry a $30 fine, will be issued, beginning March 31, to vehicles parked during street sweeping hours in areas posted with “No Parking/Street Cleaning” signs. Additionally, parked cars may be towed to allow the sweepers access to the curbside. Generally, parking is prohibited for two hours while sweeping is underway.

When street sweepers are able to successfully complete their route, the pay off is tremendous. Based on a recent study, each mile swept mechanically removes ten pounds of grease and oil, three pounds of nitrates and phosphates, and one to two pounds of heavy metals. DPW street sweepers cover about four thousand lane miles monthly, removing litter by brushing it onto a conveyor system, which transports the material into a debris hopper. The sweeper also emits a fine spray of water to help control dust. Street sweeping is suspended during winter, as the sprayed water can freeze on the street and cause dangerous driving conditions. For more about the DC Department of Public Work’s street cleaning program, visit http://dpw.dc.gov.

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

Minimum Distance from an Intersection to Park (Again)
Jack McKay, jack.mckay@verizon.net

I noted here (January 18) that residents with Residential Permit Parking permits, on RPP-zoned blocks, can now park as close as twenty-five feet from an intersection, versus the standard forty feet. This used to be so only between 10 p.m. and 7:30 a.m., but it is now true “at all times,” courtesy of Law 16-0186, which went into effect in November 2006.

The no-parking signposts are placed at the forty-foot locations, so the twenty-five-foot provision permits parking up to fifteen feet beyond the signpost. Unfortunately, some of our Parking Enforcement aides cannot comprehend this. I’ve gotten two such tickets, which I’ve successfully denied. It takes the DMV folks six months to get around to ruling on parking ticket denials, but they do understand the law, when it’s cited to them.

Last week, another such ticket. I thought I could educate the Parking Enforcement aide by putting an explanatory note on the car, parked in the same location the following day. No such luck; she wrote me another ticket, neatly placed right next to my (evidently unread) explanatory note. Very well, I managed to track down this PE aide on her morning patrol, and tried to explain this matter to her in person, showing her the new law. No good; all she knew was that a) there was a no-parking sign, b) I was parked past it, and c) that was that. I said that, as an ANC commissioner, I knew something about this. She called her supervisor, relaying my protest. No good; said supervisor asserted that it was after 7:30 a.m., so the tickets were “good.” I pointed out that the new law says explicitly “at all times,” not just between 10 p.m. and 7:30 a.m. But they knew nothing of that, and were utterly impervious to my citing the text of the new law. Just how long does it take for a law to trickle down to, and be understood by, the people tasked with enforcement of the law? We’re at sixteen months and counting.

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

DC Gun Ban
Tom Blagburn, ztburn@msn.com

The Supreme Court, in rendering its far-reaching decision on the right of citizens to possess firearms, must not allow its ideological bent to pale the beauty of the US Constitution by ignoring the context of history and the will of the District of Columbia’s disenfranchised people. The ongoing Supreme Court arguments and ruling on lifting the city’s gun ban, a law since 1979, should not only focus on the constitutionality of the Second Amendment’s “right of the people to keep and bear arms.” This historic discussion must include a candid review of the mandated mission, policies, and allotted funding by the federal government (US Congress) to manage crime effectively in the nation’s capital. Throughout the District, large numbers of citizens still exist in some of the most blighted, underserved and inhumane neighborhood conditions in the nation. Interpersonal gun violence and street carnage are often connected to the intricate, unresolved problems of illiteracy, joblessness, substance abuse, and a plethora of untreated psychological health disabilities.

Our society has allowed the handgun to evolve as the most glamorized and desirable weapon of choice for human destruction, when it should be for hunting and target shooting. We lead the world in homicides resulting from handguns, with more than 11,000 deaths (men, women, and children) annually. “We the people” and each of the Supreme Court justices should not ignore the fact that our nation has been through a period in our history when everyone was allowed to carry a firearm because of the need for self defense. It was only because of the thoughtful leadership of town councils, sheriffs, US marshals and federal judges that lawlessness and gun violence, afflicting many jurisdictions across the United States, was eventually controlled.

Clearly, the notion of allowing every law-abiding citizen to possess a gun is as foolish a proposition today as it was during the era of taming the “Wild West.” And, when would residents of the District ever need a militia? We already have a well-paid, highly trained militia that is considered the best in the world. It would be judicial malfeasance to strike down a law that will quickly result in the addition of more legal guns into a city already awash with illegal firearms. Problems of crime and victimization have not been adequately confronted by local and federal governments because neither has been effective in addressing the pathology of firearm violence. The Supreme Court should realize that when the founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment there wasn’t a firearm in the nation capable of firing more than twice. How the lethalness of firearms and the times have changed!

Obviously, eliminating the District’s gun ban would result in the influx of a greater numbers of guns to be placed in the hands of a larger segment of the city’s population. This is not, in anyway, reasonable. It will create an even deadlier mix of illegal and legal firearms, and unfortunately lead to a continuing depreciation in the value of human life within the District of Columbia!

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

Against the Second Amendment
Qawi Robinson, qrobinso@lycos.com

[In response to Harold Foster’s “Heller v. District of Columbia,” themail, March 23] Thanks, Mr. Foster, for the history lesson and for telling your various affiliations. In reading what you wrote, it seems that you definitely have a balanced perspective at least on this case as it applies to DC in a historical sense. While you are waiting on Uncle Clarence Thomas and friends to deliberate, let me bring something startling to some of the statistics you mentioned. While it may be true that one legal handgun was involved in a violent crime in the twenty-two years before the ban in 1976, please be advised that many of the gun related crimes currently across this country, including the Virginia Tech massacre, were committed with legal firearms — three-day waiting period, background checks, and psychological checks be damned. The racial, political, and economic climate now is not the same as 1976. And with that, gun safety and other societal constraints provide a reason for evolution of the Second Amendment and its purpose. DC now probably has more in common with the colonies of eighteenth century, but by no means are we in a position where we have to defend ourselves against the government or a foreign entity. There are no Redcoats sailing up the Anacostia, nor are foreign soldiers marching in from Maryland or Virginia. And even if that were true, that is why we have our own militia, the DC National Guard. Even if we were defending ourselves from an oppressive government, the irony is that under martial law, citizen’s rights are pretty much abated anyway. The Second Amendment ensures that all citizens have the right to be armed and have the ability to defend themselves. Just because people have the right does not mean that they should or must exercise it. With that, I don’t think a blanket repealing of the law is going to resolve the gun violence in DC. If anything, it would encourage more vigilantes and others with a score to settle. Those hoping for a repeal are not merely handgun collectors, they are those who want functional ones to use. Let’s be honest, Mr. Foster. Guns have only one real purpose, to kill. And, yes, responsible gun owners may be punished by DC’s law, but anything that would keep one more gun out the hands of a potential criminal is something that we should not take for granted.

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

For the Second Amendment
Harold Foster, Petworth, incanato@earthlink.net

Mr. Robinson’s points [above] are valid. But, in my layman’s opinion anyway, they really do not contradict and certainly do not rebut what I found must unconstitutional about the District’s current gun control law. I would probably concede that the historical roots of and rationale for the Second Amendment that he lays out are reasonably accurate and probably not debatable.

However, his argument, that this particular amendment (as opposed to, say, the Fifth or Sixth or Eighth Amendment) should now juridically evolve to permit unconstitutional state proscriptions because those proscriptions reflect current social, economic, or even political or racial “realities,” is not dispositive of my major contention. Or that of the lower court in Heller v. DC. And that is that this law unnecessarily, impracticably and probably unconstitutionally criminalizes otherwise law-biding citizens for reasons that do not pass the standard and traditional Supreme Court test: are these extreme strictures (and even the mayor and others on the other side of this argument concede that this law is in some ways “extreme”) absolutely necessary to fulfill some compelling public interest? The greatest good for the greatest number, in other words. I contend, and suspect and hope the Court will find, that it is not necessary. And it could well be counterproductive in that it prompts citizens to violate the law simply to obtain and keep a handgun.

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

Dishing It Out
Bill Coe, bceedeec@gmail.com

Allow me to thank Ms. Anne Sullivan for including, in her submission to themail of March 23, a link to videotaped testimony made by her the previous week to the DC council at their oversight hearing on local Advisory Neighborhood Commissions. I went to the web site and viewed her entire exchange with the council — a colloquy that forms the basis of her subsequent attack on Councilmember Mary Cheh. That oversight hearing ran late into the evening, which prompted Ms. Sullivan to set aside some of her prepared testimony and concentrate on a couple of high-profile issues — first, her Commission’s opposition to any action supporting a public-private development on land connected to Janney Elementary School or Tenley Library and, second, their unhappiness over how the government (and the council) has allegedly mistreated them in its handling of this matter. Both verbally and in writing, Ms. Sullivan expressed herself quite forcefully and, in my view, antagonistically, with strong criticism aimed directly at the council and Councilmember Cheh. This performance was oddly impolitic, coming as it did from someone speaking for a subordinate advisory group to its elected overseer.

In her written testimony (those parts quoted at the hearing), I heard an echo of something implied repeatedly during arguments in this part of town over the Tenley PPP — the plain insinuation that Ms. Cheh has somehow colluded backhandedly with private developers to commandeer valuable public property, then ram an unwanted and unneeded project down the throats of a community who solidly oppose it. Naturally, none of this is ever stated explicitly and, in my opinion, none of it is true. Ms. Sullivan waxes one or two shades too purple in her complaint. She describes her suffering at the hands of Ms. Cheh with language which is not only intemperate, even inflammatory, but is as inaccurate and misleading as the testimony she submitted that night. Even if I agreed with what she had to say, Ms. Sullivan strikes me as naive to have presented herself so aggressively and negatively to members of the council while not expecting an equally vigorous response. That she got as good as she gave should not have surprised her or anyone else.

The councilmember from Ward 3 was not “abusive” or “outrageous” in her follow-up questions. Ms. Cheh was obviously displeased by remarks which implied dereliction (if not outright corruption) in the discharge of her official duties. She spoke firmly, but her stated intention was to allow the person representing ANC 3E to explain clearly (for a change) what is meant by words they wrote for the council and the public to read. On this score, I was (and still am) just as curious as the councilmember.

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

CLASSIFIEDS — EVENTS

Rapid Responsa, Obama’s Speech on Race, March 27
Joshua Ford, joshf@washingtondcjcc.org

This Thursday, March 27, the 16th Street J invites you to join us at 7:30 p.m. in the bricks and mortar world for a discussion about race, resentment, and the cultural moment signified by Barack Obama’s speech on race. We will use Obama’s speech as a “source text” and an opportunity to move beyond political advocacy or opposition to share our individual reactions, how it applies to our communities, adjacent and related communities and what we might have to say to one another. This is an attempt to step outside the predominant conversation of how Obama’s speech affects the campaign horse race, and rather respond to how the content of Obama’s speech reverberates, or falls short, with each other.

Initiating our discussion will be special guests Jonetta Rose Barras, political commentator for WAMU-88.5 FM, and Ira Forman, Executive Director of the National Jewish Democratic Council and Research Director of the Solomon Project. This program is free and open to all members of the Washington community.

Rapid Responsa is a new program of the 16th Street J. It seeks to provide a forum periodically, as public events warrant, to shape a quick, civil discussion on ideas that have immediate cultural relevancy and about which average citizens ought to be able to speak with one another. Responsa have a long history in Judaism, and concern themselves not only with religious matters, but increasingly with contemporary issues, beginning as early as the Fourteenth Century. What we are embracing with this title is not the stamp of authority that a responsa from a learned rabbi brings with it; rather we are embracing the dialectical approach which characterizes a great many of them. In these cases there is a willingness to discuss thesis and antithesis, a participatory Socratic method, and while we expect we will raise more questions than we answer, our hope is that something can be learned. RSVP to join the conversation to http://ga6.org/thejat16thandq/events/rapidresponsa1/details.tcl.

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

Monuments, March 31
Jazmine Zick, jzick@nbm.org

Monday, March 31, 6:30-8:00 p.m. Monuments: America’s History in Art and Memory. Author and architectural historian Judith Dupree presents a sweeping tribute to classic and contemporary American landmarks. A book-signing follows the lecture. $12 members; $12 students; $20 public. Prepaid registration required. Walk-in registration based on availability. At the National Building Museum, 401 F Street, NW, Judiciary Square stop, Metro Red Line. Register for events at http://www.nbm.org.

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

Talk for Change Toastmasters Meeting, April 2
Corey Jenkins Schaut, tfctoastmasters@gmail.com

Please join us Wednesday, April 2, at 6:45 p.m., for our next meeting of Talk for Change Toastmasters. We meet at the Teach for America offices, located at 1413 K Street, NW, on the 7th floor. At Talk for Change, we believe in the power of education. By following the Toastmasters curriculum, we have an opportunity to continue to develop and improve our leadership and speaking skills in a safe environment. Many of us our former teachers and alumni of Teach for America. Many of us are making a difference in our community through work in the nonprofit sector. And many of us just value the opportunity to keep learning. We welcome anyone to join our friendly, fun-loving group.

Are you curious what Talk for Change can do for you? We welcome you to join us at an upcoming meeting to see what we are all about. We meet on the first and third Wednesdays of every month. As your improved communication skills become obvious within the workplace, increased visibility, recognition and promotion will follow. Your improved presentation skills will win you the respect and admiration of your colleagues and employees — and make them wonder what you did to change! Leadership skills acquired through participation in Toastmasters will increase your management potential. You will acquire an increased ability to motivate and persuade, making you more effective as a supervisor or manager. You’ll have access to a wide range of educational materials, including books, CDs, DVDs and seminar programs, available at reduced cost through the Toastmasters International Supply Catalog.

We look forward to welcoming you as our newest member! If you have questions, feel free to send us an E-mail at tfctoastmasters@gmail.com.

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

District of Columbia Housing Authority Meeting, April 16
Aquarius Vann, vannaquarius12@yahoo.com

The regular meetings of the District of Columbia Housing Authority Board of Commissioners are held in open session on the second Wednesday of each month at 1133 North Capitol Street, NE. For more information, call 535-2775

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

CLASSIFIEDS — PETS

Beautiful Cat Ready to Adopt!
Pat Yates, PatEdCats@aol.com

Very sweet, extra petite, super affectionate one year old female, spayed with all shots and tests done. A little over a month ago, Elise (“Leesie”) was picked up by DC Animal Control in the Edgewood area, where she was foraging through a dumpster, trying to get her next meal. I’ve had her in my home for almost two weeks now. Leesie is so very pretty, with long, soft hair of muted brown/gray stripes, and one topaz toe. She loves to trail me around the apartment and get petted, and she gets along quite well with my husband, our dog, and our three cats. You can see her picture on http://www.washhumane.org (link to cats in foster homes) , or if a different cat appeals to you, that’s fine too. They all need good homes.

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

themail@dcwatch is an E-mail discussion forum that is published every Wednesday and Sunday. To change the E-mail address for your subscription to themail, use the Update Profile/Email address link below in the E-mail edition. To unsubscribe, use the Safe Unsubscribe link in the E-mail edition. An archive of all past issues is available at http://www.dcwatch.com/themail.