themail.gif (3487 bytes)

August 30, 2009

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

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

Homestead Audits
William Haskett, williamhaskett@hotmail.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.

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

So Many Broken Parking Meters
Pat Taylor, ptaylor.dc@verizon.net

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.

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

Time for Honesty
Martin Austermuhle, martin.austermuhle@gmail.com

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.

 


Send mail with questions or comments to webmaster@dcwatch.com
Web site copyright ©DCWatch (ISSN 1546-4296)