Taking Initiative
Dear Initiators:
Arguments about political process are rarely about principle; they
are more often about jockeying for political advantage. This is
currently being illustrated by the debate over how to fill a Senatorial
vacancy in Massachusetts. Senator Kennedy argued passionately in 2004
that it was a moral imperative that the state’s law be changed to
allow citizens to vote for the successor — when it was possible that
Senator John Kerry would be elected president and that his successor
would be named by a Republican governor. This year he argued just as
passionately that the law should be changed back to allow the governor
to name Kennedy’s own successor, since it was a moral imperative that
the seat not remain vacant for the time it would take to have an
election — and since, not incidentally, the governor is now a
Democrat. Arguments about the superior virtues of representative versus
direct democracy are often made on the same opportunistic grounds. Few
really approach arguments over whether to have initiatives or referenda
on principled grounds; the arguments are really over whether advocates
think they can achieve their aims more easily from a vote of the
legislature or of the people. In DC, advocates of same-sex marriage know
with certainty that the city council will legalize same-sex marriages,
but they believe with good reason that the city council does not
represent the will of the people, and they fear what the result of a
popular vote would be. If these advocates believed that a majority of
the council opposed same-sex marriages, but that same-sex marriage had
popular support, they would demand that the people be allowed to express
their preference through an initiative. (For a principled argument
against the initiative process in general, see David Broder’s Democracy
Derailed: Initiative Campaigns and the Power of Money; for a
principled argument for initiatives, see Daniel A. Smith’s and
Caroline Tolbert’s Educated by Initiative: The Effect of Direct
Democracy on Citizens and Political Organizations in the American
States.)
Opponents of an initiative that would define marriage as between one
man and one woman also claim that that initiative must not be held
because same-sex marriage is a basic human right. But this claim assumes
what the conclusion of this public debate will be a few, or several,
decades, from now. A few decades ago, homosexual acts were not just a
crime, but a “crime against nature,” and the idea of gay marriage
was unthinkable, literally — it had not been thought of. The distance
between a crime against nature and a basic human right is a great one,
and the trip takes several intervening steps. Certainly, advocates of
same-sex marriage wouldn’t come close to getting a resolution
declaring it a basic human rights through the United Nations; only a
scant few nations would vote for it. Building a consensus in the United
States for gay marriage as a legal option, which is far short of being a
basic human right, will take many years and a good deal of work, and it
can’t be done by the imposition of courts or legislatures.
Members of the city council and the mayor may believe that the
majority of DC voters support same-sex marriage, though I doubt that
they do. More likely, they calculate that a dedicated minority supports
same-sex marriage zealously, and that the majority’s opposition is
much less ardent. They believe that the general public is concerned
about so many issues — crime, education, taxes, development — that
their position on this one issue won’t influence the votes of same-sex
marriage opponents, while it will determine the votes of same-sex
marriage supporters. But if the council and the mayor legalize same-sex
marriage and then forbid the public from voting on the issue, they will
sow the seeds of widespread voter resentment. They will show that they
share the opinion of activists about the citizens of the District —
that we are stupid, ignorant bigots who can’t be trusted with
self-governance.
Gary Imhoff
themail@dcwatch.com
###############
It is always alarming, and often quite precarious, to receive an
official letter from the Office of Tax and Revenue, and this was
certainly the case when I (and apparently nine thousand others) received
one that purported to require participation in an audit of eligibility
for receipt of homestead benefits from the District of Columbia, and
requiring the production of documentary proof of elementary things, most
of which are already in the possession of Tax and Revenue, and
accessible to them through their computers. The alarm, of course, stems
from this last fact, since it suggests an information deficit that ought
not to exist. It comes from an office that has, it seems, overlooked the
loss of millions of dollars over years, which casts doubt on its ability
to handle this considerable task of documentary justification for the
nine thousand.
There is also the little problem of the meaning of the words “and”
and “or,” which arises in the second paragraph and refers to the
requirement of documentary proof. It reads, word for word: “To assist
in our audit, please send a copy of the following documents: 1) District
of Columbia driver’s license and vehicle registration, 2) District of
Columbia voter registration card, and 3) District of Columbia individual
tax-return, or other documentation that would verify the property owner’s
domiciliary in the District.” It is surely clear that not everyone has
every one of these things (including the mysterious “or other
documentation”) such as drivers’ licenses or voter registration
cards, but a ten minute wait to consult the tax office over the
telephone confirmed that the “and” in the second paragraph quoted
was actually “and” and not “or,” as referring to each piece of
paper.
There is then a description of very evil consequences if the required
documentation is not received by Tax and Revenue by September 30, 2009.
This, despite the semi-obvious fact that that office already has some of
the paperwork already in its files, and could easily get the other
information from the Department of Motor Vehicles or the Board of
Elections. Checking what will amount to 27,000 items from the original
nine thousand persons who got this letter, assuming that a certain
percentage of the checking will result in an error-rate of some size, we
begin to wonder if we are not overburdening the Office of Tax and
Revenue staff by giving it the responsibility of doing this in addition
to all of its other functions. See the comments and reactions reported
in the Northwest Current on August 26 (http://www.currentnewspapers.com/admin/uploadfiles/NW%20Aug.%2026%201.pdf),
“Homestead Query Yields Confusion”).
###############
Welcome the Property Tax Audit
Lisa Swanson, melatar@yahoo.com
I see in today’s Northwest Current that there’s a brouhaha
brewing about the request to verify the basis for property tax
exemptions. A big audit is probably overdue, based on my observations
from neighborhood walks, when I see an apparently vacant and unkempt
residence, then in check the database to see the absent owner is
receiving the homestead deduction. (You can see the database, too, at http://otr.cfo.dc.gov/otr/cwp/view,a,1330,q,594345.asp.)
But the OIG is looking for multiple IDs to prove the residency,
including some it could have at its disposal, like DC income tax returns
showing primary residency. I hope that sensible heads will rule, so that
potentially millions of dollars in taxes and penalties can be
successfully recovered from property owners unlawfully claiming the
discount, while minimally bugging the legitimate ones.
[What most of the comments in the Northwest Current article
point out is that the OTR audit is requiring property owners to produce
documents that they are not legally required to have in order to live in
DC or to own a house: a driver’s license, vehicle registration, and
voter registration card. This certainly raises questions about who
designed the audit, and who gave final approval for it. — Gary Imhoff]
###############
Fenty Field Completed Days Before Columbia
Heights Day
Paul Diego Craney, pcraney@dcgop.com
Columbia Heights Day was on Saturday, August 29, and the DC
Republican Committee had a table with volunteers and literature
available for anyone who stopped by. We were happy to participate in
such a great event. On Monday, August 24, the Mayor held a ribbon
cutting ceremony at Harriet Tubman Elementary School, where Columbia
Heights Day was held. The occasion was to celebrate the new soccer field
the city opened with artificial turf and seating for 250 spectators. In
all, District taxpayers paid $558,000 for the new field. One obvious
observation on the field was that the mayor’s name stretched across
thirty yards on the field with the city’s name. When the mayor was
asked if it is common practice to place the names of elected officials
on fields, he said he didn’t know. One of the mayor’s staffers went
on to clarify that since the field is going to be used by residents and
the school alike, they decided to not print the school’s mascot and
instead put the mayor’s name with the DC logo.
Let me take a minute to clear the air here. It is not a normal
practice for soccer fields to place the name of an elected officials on
the field instead of the team’s mascot. My father played
quasi-professional soccer for Cruz Azul in Mexico City, I played growing
up for my high school, for club teams, and then in college, and it is
not common for elected officials to place their names on soccer fields.
The DC Republican Committee was quoted in the Washington Post
opposing the mayor’s placement of his name on the field. We argued
that if the field is for the community, the school, and for the kids,
then the Mayor should remove his name from the field. While we can all
appreciate the mayor’s office for sprucing up the field, I think we
also agree that interjecting politics into the District’s recreational
programs is a step too far. Most District residents know the new field
is in DC, most District residents know who the mayor is; we really don’t
need a reminder when our kids are playing on the city’s field.
###############
On Friday, August 28, at 3:00 p.m., at least five broken parking
meters were out of order in the single block of 7th Street, NW, between
Madison and Jefferson Drives. These meters are in great demand for
visitors to the National Gallery of Art, the Air and Space Museum and
the Hirschhorn Museum. Yet, when I tried to call the “Broken Meter
Report Line” in order to get permission to park at one of these
meters, I was on hold for more than five minutes before I gave up.
With the DC government now charging two dollars an hour for meter
parking, I would think my government would want to maximize its parking
meter revenues by having all its meters in working order. If not that,
then, at a minimum, why aren’t more workers employed to staff the “Broken
Meter Report Line”?
###############
Referendum or Initiative on Gay Marriage
Lars H. Hydle, Larshhydle@aol.com
DC law prohibits initiatives and referenda on changes to the DC Human
Rights Act. But the council and mayor, through regular legislation,
could change the Human Rights Act, either to narrow or broaden it. Why?
A change to DC marriage law made by the voters would have much more
credibility than one made by the council and mayor, especially if the
council acts without going through the normal legislative process, as it
did with the recent bill on recognizing gay marriages performed
elsewhere.
###############
Bob King again floats the “denial of voting rights” canard to
justify holding a referendum on marriage equality in the District. Mr.
King, you know just as well as every reader of this newsletter that
democracy is not absolute, nor has it ever been. We choose
representatives for a reason, and we trust that they will reflect the
will of their constituents. In those cases where we can directly vote on
matters ourselves, there are limits to what the majority can and cannot
do. It is wise that the District does not allow referenda on budgetary
matters or matters pertaining to the rights of District residents. Were
this not the case, a committed group of District voters could legalize
discrimination under the guise of “democracy.” Just because a
majority agrees to discriminate does not make it right.
The DC council debates and passes hundreds of pieces of legislation a
year, almost none of which are put to a public vote. I find it
interesting that you are only now demanding your democratic rights, but
failed to do so at any other point during the year while the council
debated other issues of significance for the District’s residents.
This has nothing to do with democracy, but everything to do with
discrimination. I only wish that you and others that submit commentary
here would just be honest — you don’t like the idea of gay couples
being able to share in the same rights and responsibilities as their
heterosexual counterparts.
Discriminating against gay couples who want to enter into a legally
binding contract is wrong, plain and simple. That minority that so
loudly protests and hides behind the argument that the council’s move
denies them their democratic rights is on the wrong side of a battle
against institutionalized discrimination. If that’s where they want to
be, fine. But at least be honest about it.
###############
Take It to the Ballot Box 2010
K. West, kap8082@aol.com
Take it to the ballot box in 2010! Don’t wait on the cavalry. While
there are many significant issues to ponder in the District of Columbia,
the right to vote on any proposals to redefine marriage must take center
stage. It is anticipated that the DC council will move legislation in
the fall to redefine marriage in the nation’s capital. No matter what
one’s position, the voters need to vote on any changes in 2010. There
are some that want to discourage the possibility of a 2010 voter
initiative during the time when people are about to vote for mayor,
council chair, delegate, and so forth. To sabotage or disrupt those
efforts, some individuals have chosen to play the race card and call
names. The verbiage is insulting, mean-spirited, and contrived. These
individuals seem to be disingenuously turning to civil rights movement’s
unique history to try to persuade people that they have the correct
position. They use a era that is dear to so many as a means to gain
sympathy and empathy and as an excuse to dismiss notions of having a
citizens’ voter initiative on the ballot in 2010. However, the race
card antics and other rhetoric are backfiring, as many DC residents see
it as merely a game plan and a smokescreen to hide behind to block the
emerging movement and momentum to put a citizens-driven voter initiative
on the ballot in the 2010 election. It is appalling to see that those
that profess to stand up for voting rights for DC are some of the first
to cry foul when broached with the subject of a voter initiative. Issues
of voting rights and statehood and all that good stuff go out the door
when it comes to advancing one’s own position and vested interests.
What a shame. There goes that selective democracy again. Democracy seems
to be sacred when it doesn’t go against someone’s agenda, whether or
not that agenda is good or bad or right or wrong. If the issue of
marriage wasn’t a historic and basic institution, one might look at
the efforts of a few as shenanigans, inconsequential, or selfish, but
the matter is too important and both sides of the issue must be heard
over the year as the city moves toward the acceptance of a ballot
initiative in 2010. Shouldn’t both sides of the equation be heard and
considered? The initiative is the way to go. Whoever is the victor wins
their slice of democracy. But ideally, maybe there should be a national
definition of marriage to follow and maybe the results of the ballot
measures across the country could be tallied to help make a decision on
what that definition should be.
Where is the cavalry? Where are the concerned citizens, political
parties, statehood activists, ANCs, politicians who campaign for our
votes relentlessly, community leaders, and national groups that will
stand up and say that the only way anyone will be able to attempt to
redefine marriage in the nation’s capital is with a ballot measure?
Take it to the ballot box. There should be a great push for a citizens’
initiative in the name of democracy, no matter what side of the issue
one takes. The results of the ballot measure will be the deciding factor
that gives the stamp of approval by a majority of the citizens and the
initiative will serve as a measure or best gauge of the will of the
people. Surely there is a candidate that voters will follow to the
ballot box that is courageous and independent enough to stand up for
democracy via the initiative even when this democracy has gotten
inconvenient and politically scary. Who will respect the voters enough
to hear them and give credence to the will of the people? What candidate
will ignore the “selective democracy” and call for a ballot measure
in 2010 and possibly risk losing the approval of some powerful, moneyed
groups and political stalwarts, determined to bypass the electorate for
their cause and ensuring that elected officials are on their side?
Whether or not a candidate supports a voter ballot measure may be the
litmus test for next year’s elections. And the people will not forget
that the leadership wanted to skirt the public’s input with the
smokescreens that is wrong to challenge their thinking when the citizens
elected them.
There definitely appears to be a full court press by DC leaders and
activists to redefine marriage without the advice and consent of the
electorate. Why not respect the process and give the initiative a shot?
Maybe there are enough voters that agree that marriage should be
redefined. But that should be their call at the ballot box next year.
There are advocates for changing the long-held definition of marriage
that refuse to permit an easy path to allowing voters and taxpayers to
be able to say they are for or against same-sex or other kinds of
marriage becoming the lay of the land in the nation’s capital. Some
proponents of redefining marriage try to maliciously discredit and shame
those that are determined to see democracy through in DC by demanding a
voter ballot initiative if someone wants to redefine marriage. They won’t
even agree to disagree; they just toss stones. Anyone remotely
knowledgeable about civil rights knows the value and price paid for
voting rights. When one thinks of civil rights experiences and other
unique struggles as the bases for redefining marriage without voter
input, anger, rage, and disappointment build because some find this to
be a callous exploitation of this city’s and the nation’s voting and
civil struggles. The opponents of a citizens-driven initiative seem to
be playing the race card as they hurl homophobic bigot blurbs.
Apparently they feel that within a predominantly Democratic, liberal DC
that this method of attack and persuasion will quiet any resistance or
movement toward an initiative or referendum. Apparently they have all
the votes cornered and don’t have to worry about a ballot measure when
they have the elected leadership on their side. However, the will of the
people will be heard and the powers-to-be should listen.
###############
CLASSIFIEDS — EVENTS
National Building Museum Events, September 8
Jazmine Zick, jzick@nbm.org
September 8, 10:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m.. Book of the Month: Pattern
Fish. Join us in the Building Zone for an interactive reading of
Trudy Harris’s Pattern Fish. Explore the world of patterns by
listening to this lively rhyme, finding patterns in the fish
illustrations, and creating your very own pattern. Free drop-in program,
recommended for ages 3 to 5.
###############
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.
All postings should 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.