How Does Your Garden Grow
Dear Gardeners:
Here’s another reason suburbs are bad. Suburbs have lawns. Believe
it: some urban theorists don’t like lawns, and don’t think other
people should have them. They say that lawns are wasteful, unecological.
People water them and mow them, which uses water and energy. Lawns take
up space, and therefore reduce “walkability” and “transit
accessibility.” There is an ironic point for you; some “green”
advocates want less green space, and think people should live more
densely, without wanting or needing lawns. As a compromise, however, for
those unwilling to do without lawns completely, they propose that groups
of suburbanites should have communal lawns, shared by a few or several
families, which will allow for denser housing with less space wasted on
grass. Here are a couple articles that make this argument, pointed out
by Patrick Appel on Andrew Sullivan’s blog: http://www.samefacts.com/archives/urbanism_/2008/07/the_backyardigans_save_americas_suburbs.php,
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/environmentandenergy/archive/2008/07/27/the-future-of-backyards.aspx.
These articles exemplify the weakness of the arguments often made by
“smart growth” urbanists: the condescending attitude and tone of
moral superiority; the confusion of their lifestyle preferences with the
“right” and “correct” way to live; the eagerness to use
legislation and government power to impose their own preferences on
others; and the failure to respect other peoples’ values. Some
advocates of dense development are just unable to understand that people
want to live in different ways. Some people are happy living in
apartment buildings with little or no green grass, and certainly with
none that they have to maintain themselves. However, many other people
want a patch of earth of their own on which they can do what they want,
without having to get consent from a communal lawn committee. If
suburbanites are willing to refrain from campaigning against apartment
buildings in cities, why can’t urbanites refrain from campaigning
against single-family houses with yards in the suburbs?
These tendentious tendencies also show up in arguments over
transportation policy, and in the efforts of urban planners not to plan
for the most efficient and best use of automobiles, but instead to make
it increasingly difficult and expensive to own, use, and park cars in
central cities. The changes to the zoning regulations governing parking
proposed by the Office of Planning, which will be the subject of a
hearing by the Zoning Commission tomorrow (6:30 p.m., 441 4th Street,
Suite 220S), are a particularly bad example of these efforts. The latest
catch phrases in this craze are “walkable neighborhoods” and “optimal
mobility.” I’ll deal with walkable neighborhoods first. The number
of cars in urban neighborhoods has almost nothing to do with whether
they are walkable. Only three factors are important: compact
neighborhoods with short walking distances; wide, convenient, and well
maintained sidewalks; and things that are worth walking to. If these
factors are in place, plenty of people will walk, and the presence of
people on the sidewalks will make neighborhoods safe and attractive for
walking. If a neighborhood has stores, restaurants, entertainment, and
services, people will walk to them, and that has nothing to do with
whether cars are encouraged or discouraged or whether there is adequate
or inadequate parking for cars. However, if there isn’t adequate
on-street and off-street parking for people from other neighborhoods who
want to come to these facilities, stores, restaurants, and entertainment
venues will be unlikely to have enough customers to stay in business,
and they will close. Local government has two roles in creating walkable
neighborhoods: maintaining sidewalks and locating government services
— schools, libraries, parks — conveniently so that people can walk
to them. Ironically, this administration, which claims it wants to
encourage walkable neighborhoods, is engaged in closing smaller schools
and libraries that serve as residential neighborhood hubs, and
concentrating these services in larger regional schools and libraries
that serve several neighborhoods — thus reducing the attractiveness of
walking in the city’s residential neighborhoods.
The DC Office of Planning, which has proposed new regulations to
reduce available off-street parking spaces, has done so in the name of
“optimal mobility,” but in fact the regulations will reduce
mobility; they will make it more difficult, expensive, and inconvenient
to travel. Unless both the destination and starting point are within
walking distance of a subway stop, taking public transportation is
usually more inconvenient, time-consuming, and expensive than driving.
(And some are making a good case for the argument that mass transit may
even consume more energy per rider than individual automobiles; see
http://www.templetons.com/brad/transit-myth.html). Most people want to
be able to drive. They don’t want to stay only within their home
neighborhoods all the time. They want to move among urban neighborhoods
and between the city and the suburbs. They have friends whom they want
to visit and whom they want to visit them. They have places to go both
near and far, and they value the convenience and independence that cars
give them. Urban planners don’t want to plan to accommodate cars,
since that is not their transportation preference. As a result, when
people don’t take public transportation as much as planners want,
because busses and subways are too inconvenient, too expensive, and too
time-consuming, urban planners respond by trying to make car travel as
expensive, difficult, time-consuming, and inconvenient as public
transportation. Instead, they should be increasing public transportation
routes and options, reducing fares, and making public transportation
travel times shorter.
Making it ever harder to park in DC won’t force people to come here
on public transportation; instead it will simply discourage people from
coming to DC. If parking restrictions in DC make it too difficult or
expensive to park downtown, both DC residents and suburbanites will go
to shops, restaurants, and services in the suburbs, where ample free or
cheap parking is available. If office buildings can’t provide adequate
parking for their tenants, their tenants and the jobs they provide will
go to the suburbs. If new downtown apartment buildings can’t provide
adequate parking with their apartments, they won’t be able to sell or
rent their units, and the fledgling movement to make Washington a living
downtown will fail.
Gary Imhoff
themail@dcwatch.com
###############
It is surprising that the central square plan, which we have lived
with for years and which is similar to those done all over the world, is
so condemned by the very people whose children will benefit from trees,
grass, and truly open space. You can have your cafe, bookstore, and more
housing without taking the park down. You can have it all; just demand
it. If the DC Planning Office cannot facilitate sensible development
planning, they should step aside. I have no doubt that a freshman
architecture student down the block at Catholic University of America
can draw a landscape and renovation plan that serves our city better..
The Jim Abdos of this city do not need every park to make their
millions; let them build in creative and compatible ways.
Why can’t DC do anything in moderation? What city planning schools
did the clowns in our planning office graduate from? It’s not the same
one all other the other city planners went to. Any competent city
planning department would have made the Sand Filtration Plant a historic
park years ago. If that had been done, Brookland would have a
comfortable, breezy central square as good as in any town in this
country. Only the DC government would even consider bulldozing the
entire green space, cutting down the mature trees, building a series of
generic buildings out of Styrofoam, and blocking our sunset views. If
you call that progress, that is what you will get. I prefer to say, do
better.
I support a coherent area wide plan to renovate derelict properties,
expand upward over commercial properties and alleys, and develop the
dozens of church parking lots that surround the Metro. I support any
decent proposal that does not destroy the character of our community.
Development has to be done at a prudent pace to avoid over development,
traffic congestion, ground water and flooding problems, and pollution..
Development all over the place is not sensible planning, especially not
on the only green space with beautiful mature trees that buffers our
community from the Metro and could provide many valuable uses and
recreation. We could get to the same goals that the city proposes and
save our valuable natural features. The problem is that the DC
government operates for the developers, not for gracious planning. That
is why northeast has one fifth the parks as in northwest, street trees
are dying, and sewage pours into the Chesapeake and Anacostia every time
there is a heavy rain. This is their planning. We must say, Ms Tregoning,
go back and work out a plan that preserves the valuable things in
Brookland, like the Metro green space, all of it, and the Sand
Filtration Plant. We want creative, resourceful solutions to future
development.
###############
District Proposes Drastic Change in Library
Hours
Richard Huffine, Federation of Friends of the DC Public
Library, richardhuffine@yahoo.com
At the Board of Library Trustees meeting Wednesday night, July 23,
Chief Librarian Ginnie Cooper presented a grim picture of the FY2009
library budget and staffing plan. While the library budget will go up
slightly (by $16,000), that budget includes $5.6 million in earmarked
enhancements and the elimination of seventy-four library positions. This
is a 14 percent reduction in the staffing for DC Public Libraries. The
DC Public Library needs $2 million by October 1, or the Library will be
forced to drastically cut the hours of operation of all our libraries.
Mrs. Cooper laid out the changes to the Board and the community. They
include closing all libraries on Fridays, reducing basic operating hours
to 10:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. at all branch libraries and opening 12:00
p.m.-8:00 p.m. on days when libraries are open in the evening. Regular
hours at the Martin Luther King, Jr., Library would also change to 10:00
a.m.-8:00 p.m. All libraries would remain open on Sundays during the
school year but would all be closed on Sundays during the summer months.
These changes would have a number of impacts: community groups would
have difficulty holding meetings that must end by 8:00 p.m.; daycarers
and caregivers would have difficulty using their libraries in the
mornings when they open later or not until noon; seniors will not have
an opportunity to use the library consistently in the mornings; working
families would have reduced access to the library during the summers,
and commuters will find it difficult to get to their branches by 8:00
p.m. on the nights their library branches are open. The Library System
needs your help to appeal to the District council to find the two
million dollars that will avoid this calamity. A number of things
converged to create this problem and a number of promises have been
broken along the way by the council and the Administration. Our
communities should not have to suffer the mistakes of our leaders.
Please, write to your councilmember today. Share this message in your
community, and let’s make sure our libraries remain open and available
to everyone in our community.
###############
The Apple Doesn’t Fall Far from the Tree
Dorothy Brizill, dorothy@dcwatch.com
Unless you’re a subscriber to Legal Times or caught the
recounting of the story on the City Paper blog (http://tinyurl.com/6p79nk),
you haven’t heard that Garrett L. Lee, the interim Deputy General
Counsel to the mayor, has resigned after being disbarred on July 24.
While in private practice, Lee badly mishandled a divorce case and two
real estate disputes for a client — he repeatedly failed to respond to
motions, missed filings, and failed to respond to discovery requests.
When the client sued him for malpractice, Lee mishandled his own
defense, again failing to respond to the initial claim and not
replying to a motion for summary judgment. After appeal, the client was
finally awarded a million dollar judgment against Lee, and Lee consented
to disbarment (http://www.dccourts.gov/dccourts/appeals/pdf/08-BG-671.PDF).
Lee was first hired in DC government for Councilmember Adrian Fenty’s
committee staff, and then repeatedly promoted over two years to rise to
be interim Deputy General Counsel. The really troubling point is that
Lee’s hiring and entire career in government occurred after the
malpractice suit was filed, and that Lee says that Fenty was aware of
the suit before he was hired. Both the Legal Times and the City
Paper, however, fail to draw the obvious parallel to Lee’s case
that may have made Fenty sympathetic to him. On August 31, 2005, the DC
“Bar Counsel issued Fenty an informal admonition for failing to
provide competent, zealous, and diligent representation as
court-appointed fiduciary for a ward of the court, to file accountings
required by the court, and to take timely steps to the extent reasonably
practicable to protect a ward of the court’s interest following his
removal,” (http://www.dcbar.org/bprReports/informal_ads/Fenty_A.pdf).
Only Fenty’s zealous representation by Peter Nickles, Fenty’s first
General Counsel and now his nominee as Attorney General, kept Fenty’s
case from ending as badly for him as Lee’s did.
###############
Sidewalks in Construction Zones
Ralph Blessing, rblessin88@hotmail.com
What became of the new regulations passed earlier this year requiring
construction projects in DC to provide passageway for any sidewalks that
border the project? Initially I saw some adaptation to the regs, even if
it meant taking up a lane of roadway to allow pedestrian right of way
without having to cross the street. But in the last few days I’ve seen
a number of projects, such as those at 19th and K and at 20th and K
Streets, neither of which includes a passageway for pedestrians. Is this
just another DC law passed with much fanfare that ceases to be enforced
moments after it becomes law? Sure looks like it.
###############
Does anyone know what the problem is between the city government and
Verizon regarding the availability of FIOS in DC?
###############
In response to Jack McKay’s Single Sales Ban posting of July 27, it
is no secret that ANC 1D has been in the minority on a number of issues
in Mount Pleasant and will not follow the will of their constituents.
While ANC1D may vote against a single sale moratorium, they have yet to
explain how allowing single sales would benefit the community. Our
intent in seeking a moratorium and now the permanent ban was never meant
as a cure for alcoholism. We prefer to leave that to the professionals.
Alfredo Enriquez-Morales, Executive Director of Neighbors Consejo said,
“We believe that the single sales moratorium creates a better
environment for success for our clients who battle daily to overcome
alcoholism. The easy availability of singles exacerbates the problem of
alcoholism making it all too easy to consume and thus even greater
challenge for our clients to overcome alcohol abuse. Without the single
sales moratorium, such easy access to alcohol would be detrimental to
our success in fighting alcoholism in the community.”
The decision, made in 2000, to seek a prohibition on single sales of
beer and malt liquor was an easy one for Mt. Pleasant. We were compelled
to alleviate the problems associated with rampant public consumption of
alcohol on the street: littering, public drunkenness, loitering
panhandling, disorderly conduct, aggression, assaults, and public
urination, to name only a few. A moratorium on single containers of
alcohol was a logical next step in our attempt to lift the overwhelming
pall these symptoms cast over a small local business strip. Actually
implementing the moratorium proved to be time-consuming and arduous
task, as well. Local merchants were concerned about loss of business.
Some neighborhood activists claimed such measures just shunt the problem
to other neighborhoods. In any case, our neighboring communities, ANC 1A
and ANC 1C, either aren’t interested in or don’t see a need for a
single sale moratorium. That is enough evidence for us that the problems
we face were and are unique to Mt. Pleasant.
The moratorium obtained from the ABC Board eight years ago has
resulted in visibly reduced public drunkenness. The vastly improved
street environment and removal of a troublesome product from store
shelves also bolstered Neighbors Consejo in its efforts to help clients
fighting alcoholism in our community, and significantly reduced or
eliminated many of quality of life problems associated with public
drinking on Mt. Pleasant Street and nearby residential streets that we
had experienced for decades. Mt. Pleasant’s economic vitality has
improved, too. Many ABC-licensed businesses have responded positively by
sprucing up their stores, stocking better wines and cheeses, introducing
new products and cuisines, and improving displays. Where these
businesses previously made money selling singles to a troubled
clientele, they now serve more residents who previously avoided their
stores. We are proud to say that no one went out of business because
they were not allowed to sell singles. This speaks volumes.
We are also proud to say that not only did Mount Pleasant lead the
way and pioneer the first area-wide single sales moratorium in the
District of Columbia, but also that we have helped other neighborhoods
struggling to overcome problems similar to ours. We are grateful and
thankful to Councilmember Jim Graham for introducing a permanent ban in
Mount Pleasant. While the ban on single container sales in Mt. Pleasant
certainly isn’t the panacea for all of our neighborhood problems, it
clearly has improved our quality of life.
###############
I’d like to respond to Gary’s response [themail, July 27] to a
post I wrote for DCist on the recent news that Congress was looking to
stop in and overturn the District’s gun laws . . . Again. First, Gary
mistakenly assumes that I don’t think Congress has a role to play in
ensuring that constitutional rights are upheld and protected. Of course
it does, and I never said otherwise. What is key, though, is how it does
it. Congress does not step in and try to micro-manage the affairs of
cities, counties, and states like it does with the District. It uses its
many powers to ensure that federal laws are followed and applied
locally, including the threat of withholding federal funds, etc. For
example, federal law states that the drinking age is 21, but Congress
only forces states to comply by threatening to withhold federal highway
funds. But in this case, Congress, in which we have no full voting
representation and the overwhelming majority of the members are
unaccountable to us, has stepped in to directly rewrite local laws.
Congress can hide behind the claim that they are merely trying to
protect the constitutional rights of District residents, but that is
something that is left to the courts. (As to whether the court’s
decisions can be enforced, it’s interesting that the only case that
Gary could cite where a court’s decision was ignored dates back to
1832. The power of the judiciary is well institutionalized in the US,
and it’s rare to see cases where a city or state just refuses to
comply with a judicial mandate.)
Second, just because Congress has a right to do something does not
mean it should do it or that it is right that it be done. Local affairs
should be run by local officials who are elected and accountable to
local voters, period. I don’t accept any exceptions to that rule,
because even one exception opens the door for many more. Sure, Gary
might see this as the perfect time for Congress to step in and legislate
for the District, but what about the many other cases where it has done
so to our collective chagrin? How about the prohibition it long imposed
on needle-exchange programs? Just because Congress could impose one,
should it have? Local health advocates across the board said not. And
school vouchers? A flat tax? There are 535 members of Congress that
could use the power of the institution over the city for any number of
purposes, and it’s vital that District residents let them know that no
matter what the cause, it’s not okay that they substitute their
judgment for that of local residents and officials. If we say it’s all
right that they do this time, what will they say to us when we object
the next time?
In the Supreme Court decision, Justice Antonin Scalia even admitted
that the final contours of the court’s ruling would take years of
litigation to iron out. In fact, that’s pretty much how the limits to
every constitutional right have been established. While I feel that the
DC Council is dragging its feet needlessly, it would be dangerous to
shortchange its legislative approach by calling on Congress to act.
(Interestingly, and something that Gary doesn’t mention, is that the
current congressional push to do away with the city’s handgun ban
would also prohibit the city from registering guns. How does he feel
about this? How do District residents feel about this? Is it fair to
replace an outright ban on handguns with an outright ban on reasonable
restrictions on handguns?) Once the DC council endorses a new set of
regulations, it is up to the voters and the courts to decide on their
merit and their constitutionality. Sure, this process will be slow, but
that’s how democracy works. And when it comes to a decision that has
such an impact on public safety, slow and safe is much better than
sudden.
Postscript: It was only after I had written this that Dick Heller
filed a second lawsuit against the city, this one asking that a court
nullify a number of the regulations imposed by Mayor Fenty in the wake
of the Supreme Court’s decision. Heller’s got it right — he’s
taking his fight to the courts, not to Congress. As a District resident,
he is both running for office (he’s announced his intention to
challenge Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton) and using the courts to challenge
local laws he views as unconstitutional. We should applaud him and his
consistent use of existing democratic mechanism to right a long-standing
wrong.
###############
CLASSIFIEDS — EVENTS
Fun Family Films Under the Stars, August 1-3
John A. Stokes, john.astokes@dc.gov
The District’s Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) will hold
“Fun Family Films Under The Stars,” its 2008 Family Movie Night
Season, this summer. “Fun Family Films Under The Stars,” which
continues until late-September, will afford residents of all ages and
families of all sizes the opportunity to enjoy viewing the free,
family-oriented films in DPR’s outdoor settings. As in previous years,
viewers are invited to bring their own snacks, chairs, and blankets.
This year, District residents will have a greater selection of viewing
locations. Movies will be shown from 8:45 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.
Community members who arrive early enough for each screening will
have the opportunity to place a vote between two movies that may be
shown that evening. The movie that receives the most votes will be
shown.
Friday, August 1, Florida Park, 1st Street and Florida Avenue, NW
Saturday, August 2, Langdon Park Recreation Center, 2901 20th Street, NE
Saturday, August 2, North Michigan Park, 1333 Emerson Street, NE
Sunday, August 3, Brentwood Recreation Center, 2311 14th Street, NE
###############
National Night Out, August 5
Laurie Collins, mnpa@mtpleasantdc.org
On Tuesday, August 5, the Mt. Pleasant neighborhood will celebrate
National Night Out, a crime prevention and public safety awareness event
that is celebrated the same day throughout the country. This is a great
opportunity to meet your neighbors, businesses, and get to know your MPD
patrol officers who patrol your neighborhood. Sponsored by Third
District Metropolitan Police Department and the Mount Pleasant
Neighborhood Alliance, Tuesday, August 5, 6:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m., at Lamont
Park.
Are you good at face-painting? Would you like to help or make a
donation to this event? Can you donate chalk? Please let us know; E-mail
mpna@mtpleasantdc.org to
volunteer.
###############
Upcoming Talk for Change Toastmasters Meeting,
August 6
Emily Cohen, tfctoastmasters@gmail.com
Please join us this Wednesday, August 6, 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. We a
public speaking group that helps members improve their speaking and
leadership skills in a supportive and constructive environment. Some of
us are former teachers and alumni of Teach For America. Some of us are
making a difference in our community through work in the nonprofit
sector. All 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? Join us at an
upcoming meeting to see what we are all about. We meet on the first and
third Wednesdays of every month. 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.
###############
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.
