Nickle Bags
Dear Baggers:
I’m using my space to rebut Martin Austermuhle’s disagreement
with my introduction to the last issue of themail, so I’ve demoted
myself to the body of themail.
Gary Imhoff
themail@dcwatch.com
###############
If you missed the December 3 walk-through of Franklin School (at 13th
and K Streets, NW) and are interested in that still-citizen-owned piece
of public property, check the slides of the interior that Cary Silverman
posted to his blog December 4,
http://www.theother35percent.blogspot.com/. What a jaw-droppingly
gorgeous space. Imagine: there was a time when we, the DC public, were
thought worthy of a gem like this.
There are gracefully proportioned classrooms with windows twelve feet
high and more. Views across Franklin Square and into the downtown.
Breathtaking attention to detail in dentil moldings, pressed-tin
ceilings, leaded glass, marble-tiled floors, wrought-iron balustrades. A
third-floor auditorium that’s been a space for public meetings, and
could be used for performance, waltzes, etc. What gorgeous condos it
would make.
The walk-through was held to help along the sale of Franklin,
proposed by our government, to private developers. The RFP is out and
responses are due January 19, 2010. There’s a group been formed, the
“Franklin School Coalition,” that wants to prevent the loss of
Franklin School. There’s more information about the school’s
historic significance at the Coalition’s web site, http://www.franklinschooldc.org.
Anybody who thinks that Franklin School should continue to belong to the
residents of the District can 1) message Deputy Mayor Valerie-Joy
Santos, dmped.eom@dc.gov, and Ward
2 Councilmember Jack Evans, jackevans@dccouncil.us,
and tell them to put Franklin School to public use (as a magnet high
school, community college, library, etc.) and 2) Message franklinschooldc@gmail.com
to join the effort and be placed on the Coalition E-mail list.
###############
Vote Tuesday on Public Property Bill Is One to
Watch
Parisa Norouzi, parisa@empowerdc.org
This Tuesday, the DC council will cast its final vote on Bill #18-76,
which reforms the manner by which the city “surpluses” valuable
public properties like DC public schools — many of which have
previously been turned into high-cost condos with little public input
and even less analysis of public needs. Currently, DC law does not
include a process for the city to review its own facilities needs nor
provide for transparent and accessible opportunities for community input
prior to the surplusing of public property. A Master Facilities Plan has
been required by DC’s Comprehensive Plan since 1986, yet the plan was
never created. Instead, the city enters into wasteful leases, renting
space for DC government functions, currently at a cost of more than $140
million per year. Bill 18-76 originally required a Master Facilities
Plan and laid out a process for its creation, but this provision was
stripped out during the committee process. Committee chair Mary Cheh
pledges to introduce separate legislation to address this piece; however
the Bill, which centers on the question of whether a property has “no
further public use,” has a gaping hole without it. Councilman Harry
Thomas (the Bill’s author) plans to introduce an amendment Tuesday for
its inclusion.
Meanwhile, valuable and limited public assets like DC Public Schools
are “surplused” and disposed of, for far below their value, to
politically connected developers who are often also afforded development
incentives and tax relief. Residents are rarely if ever consulted at the
front of the process, but rather are forced to respond to developers’
plans, already in place and already approved by the mayor’s office.
Bill 18-76 requires the mayor to hold a hearing in the evening or
weekend, in the vicinity of the property in question, prior to asking
the council to surplus a public property. It also requires that the
council pass a surplus resolution prior to the introduction of a
resolution to dispose of the property. This two-step process need not
take longer, but should encourage more thoughtful analysis by the
council, which is clearly missing from recent ramrods where the two
steps have been lumped together.
The People’s Property Campaign has rallied to call attention to
this issue for the past five years and has garnered support from
residents and civic organizations of all eight wards. Bill 18-76 is
commonsense legislation to improve the stewardship of public assets. Why
then is there apparent opposition from some members, such as Ward 6 rep
Tommy Wells? Wells clearly told supporters at a meeting months ago that
he did not agree with the fundamental position of the Bill, that public
property was not a limited asset — the city could always get more “by
eminent domain.” It’s a statement his staff has since tried to
distance themselves from, but clearly Well’s attempts to undermine the
bill, first in committee and then at first reading, stem from either his
warped thinking or from his desire to see development of DC General,
Hine Junior High, and other properties in his ward, without the very
basic elements of transparency provided for in the Bill.
Many councilpeople claim to understand the need for a Master
Facilities Plan and transparency, yet their actions show more concern
for getting pet projects rubber-stamped than about serving public needs,
saving taxpayer money, and proper stewardship of our generational public
assets. Tuesday is another litmus test. Please contact your
councilperson through the council switchboard at 724-8000 and urge his
or her support for the bill. Then join Empower DC for a rally and to
pack the hearing room this Tuesday, December 15, at 10:00 a.m. at the
Wilson Building, located at 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. For more
information, contact me at 234-9119.
###############
Gary’s reference to the $138 average “buy” at those California
cannabis clubs [themail, December 9] made me think of the old days when
a candy bar wasn’t the only thing you could get for a nickel (or a “nickel”).
Further research shows that nickel bags are still around, they’ve just
been incredibly shrinking: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/B001D4TRWO;
ABCs of Brooklyn, http://www.merkins.com/deadnancy/brooklyn/n.html.
Starting next month, the DC authorities will have brought us a new
meaning for “nickel bag” by putting a 5¢ tax on every “paper or
plastic” that we use to carry our purchases home. Presumably this will
even apply to those who score at any future cannabis clubs in DC. Don’t
forget to bring your own reusable nickel bag!
Whenever I go to the Arboretum or Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens, I see
distressing numbers of plastic bottles and metal cans in and around the
Anacostia River, and few if any plastic bags. There are beverage
container refundable deposit laws (http://www.bottlebill.org)
in all the Canadian provinces (except Nunavut), eleven states in the US,
and many European countries. When do you think such an environmental
advance will reach DC?
###############
Am I missing something? Why can’t the DC council, and the mayor for
that matter, have term limits? Is that unrealistic?
I am just tired seeing the same old a**holes year after year, and the
city getting worse. All of them need to go.
###############
Motorcycle Parking
Paul Wilson. dcmcrider at gmail dot com
In the December 9 issue of themail, Si Kailian wrote: “Recently we
got yet another in a long line of parking tickets for ‘fail disp multi
rcpt.’ I must say this is rather vexing. As our primary vehicle is a
motorcycle, there is no secure place to put a multi meter receipt. While
we appreciate the convenience of the new multi meters, especially the
fact that they take credit cards, it really seems unfair to motorcycles.”
I feel your pain, as I too ride motorcycles for transportation, and
it seems — in classic DC government “ready-fire-aim” fashion —
that they didn’t take into account vehicles that don’t have
dashboards for their “pay to park” system. There are a few
suggestions. 1) Stick the receipt in your tank bag, if you have one. 2)
Carry a small magnet and use it to secure the receipt to your tank. 3)
Use a binder clip to attach it to your windshield, if you have one. 4)
Write your tag number on it (thereby deterring theft — see below). 5)
Go here and print out the list of free and metered motorcycle parking
spaces around town: http://mayoreric.com/moto/parking.html.
I admit these suggestions are imperfect in one way or another. I also
agree with the poster that DC should do more to encourage motorcycle and
scooter, use commensurate with their fuel efficiency and small size. One
“fix” for the receipt problem might be the phone-in parking systems
that other cities have. Enter your tag number. No receipt to blow away
or have stolen. Also, one other point. I have had my bike ticketed for
“failure to park parallel.” DC has a law on the books that requires
all vehicles to park parallel to the curb, with no exception for bikes.
Chicago has a much more sensible law not only allowing, but requiring,
bikes to park 90 degrees to the curb, or as close as possible. Not only
does this conserve curbside parking space, it also makes the bike more
stable on the side stand. The City of Chicago has produced a nice,
comprehensive brochure on bike parking, including use of multi-meters.
Interestingly, they say to write your tag number on the receipt, and
they also use adhesive-backed receipts that are supposed to be adhered
to the headlight; see http://www.chicagoabate.com/MotorcycleScooterBrochure.pdf.
###############
On December 9, Gary Imhoff wrote: “We are a city whose core values,
whose major issues, are making it easier and safer to use hard drugs,
legalizing soft drugs, making abortions free, and getting the feds to
subsidize domestic partnerships. Yeah, that’s really going to advance
the cause of getting full Congressional representation or statehood for
the District. Let’s publicize our victory and our priorities far and
wide, for that will surely convince middle America that DC is the kind
of place that represents its values.” Since when did we have request
permission or seek approval from the rest of America for local
initiatives? District residents have enjoyed Home Rule since 1973, and
just as we don’t pretend to tell the residents of middle America how
they should run their affairs, we shouldn’t have to worry about what
they’ll think about how we run ours. Part of the fight for full
enfranchisement includes never feeling like we have to say sorry to
anyone for decisions that are made locally.
I’m also confused as to why you seem embarrassed by some of these
initiatives. It has long been known that needle-exchange programs are an
effective way to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS, a disease that the
District suffers in dramatic fashion. Public health advocates have long
accepted that people will use hard drugs regardless of the consequences
(just like young people will likely have sex even if they’re told to
abstain until marriage), so it’s important that steps be taken to
ensure that such use is as safe as possible. I’d rather a heroin
addict not also become a carrier of HIV/AIDS. As for medicinal
marijuana, well, it was 69 percent of District residents that voted for
the initiative in 1998. You’ve taken to advocating for a citywide
referendum on same-sex marriage, so why would you be opposed to an
initiative supported by two-thirds of District voters?
Finally, you claimed that medicinal marijuana, “isn’t distributed
to late-stage cancer patients, but to tokers who say they’re feeling a
bit peckish.” This is extremely offensive and grossly exaggerated. My
mother, who is in her mid-60s and has a PhD in chemistry, suffered from
a recent bout of breast cancer —- the second in her life. During her
chemo treatments she was unable to regain her appetite. Doctors offered
her a few medications to help resolve this problem, but they all had
side-effects that would have provoked other problems. So she used
marijuana briefly, and it worked. Once her chemo finished, she stopped
using it. She wasn’t feeling “a bit peckish,” Gary, she was
dealing with a particular painful side-effect of a difficult treatment
for a type of cancer many women suffer.
Just because some people in Los Angeles have taken advantage of that
city’s system of medicinal marijuana does not serve to condemn the
entire practice. (Remember, it’s still illegal in most places. What if
it weren’t? Would late-stage cancer patients choose it if a doctor
could prescribe it? A 2004 survey conducted by the AARP that found that
72 percent of respondents agreed that people should be able to use
medicinal marijuana if a doctor prescribes it.) And that you seem to
argue that the only people that want or would use medicinal marijuana
are pot heads with sore throats or headaches is beyond the pale. Have a
little compassion. That’s a value I think we can all agree on.
###############
Martin Austermuhle raises three disputes here. The first is whether
those who want full Congressional representation or statehood for the
District of Columbia should care about the national reputation of the
District, and should be concerned with what other citizens of the United
States think about us. Martin’s answer is no; we should demand that
they give us what we want, and we shouldn’t care about their opinion.
I liken DC’s quest for statehood to a courtship. We’re proposing
marriage, and the states can accept or reject our proposal. My advice is
to prepare for our date by taking a shower, combing our hair, dressing
neatly, and speaking nicely. Martin’s advice is to prepare by
tattooing our face with snakes, spiders, scorpions, and skulls, and to
word our proposal as, “You owe this to me.” Good luck.
The second dispute is over the role of voter initiatives. Martin
opposes a voter initiative over the definition of marriage because he
dislikes and distrusts DC voters, and fears that they will not vote to
support his preferences. On the other hand, DC voters voted to support
medical marijuana in an initiative, so Martin has no objection to having
let DC voters to vote on that issue. My position on voter initiatives,
unlike Martin’s, is consistent. I think voters should be allowed to
make decisions democratically, and that that includes the right to vote
on issues through an initiative or referendum. Voters can and will
occasionally make a mistake, but mistakes made through democratic
procedures can and will be rectified democratically. Denying the people
access to democratic procedures is an irredeemable mistake.
The third dispute is over whether the District government can and
will supervise “medical” marijuana dispensaries adequately, and
whether such dispensaries primarily serve seriously ill people or
recreational drug users. The LA Weekly articles that I cited
demonstrate that Los Angeles fails to supervise the dispensaries in that
city, and that the customers of such dispensaries are overwhelmingly
people who want to get high, not people with medical needs. You can
argue against that evidence by discrediting the LA Weekly’s reporting
or by citing other cities or nations where medical marijuana policies
are not routinely abused, but you can’t argue by simply recommending
that DC ignore the experience of other cities, or by claiming that the
personal experience of one patient who benefited from using marijuana,
even if that patient is your mother, proves that “medical” marijuana
dispensaries are good public policy in general.
In any case, elected officials in DC, at least, recognize the many
problems caused by a “medical” marijuana law, and are proceeding
very cautiously to determine how such a law would be administered in
this city, or even whether it should be implemented (http://tinyurl.com/yeuk5cx).
Will DC allow freestanding marijuana shops to operate like liquor
stores? Will DC allow marijuana to be dispensed without a doctor’s
prescription, as in LA? Or will DC allow only licensed pharmacies to
dispense marijuana? Will it require pharmacies to obtain the marijuana
from legal sources, or will it allow them to get their marijuana on the
street from gangs and smugglers? In my opinion, the Los Angeles example
is a cautionary tale that DC must take seriously in deciding what
controls it must place on “medical” marijuana, and in deciding
whether the DC government has the ability to regulate its sale and
distribution.
###############
This is to advise that the December 2009 online edition has been
uploaded and may be accessed at http://www.intowner.com.
Included are the lead stories, community news items, editorials
(including prior months’ archived), restaurant reviews (prior months’
also archived), and the text from the ever-popular “Scenes from the
Past” feature (the accompanying images can be seen in the archived PDF
version). The Selected Street Crimes feature will be updated in the
coming days, at which time we will send an advisory to our new content
upload notification list recipients.
The complete issue (along with prior issues back to January 2002)
also is available in PDF file format directly from our home page at no
charge simply by clicking the link in the Current and Back Issues
Archive. Here you will be able to view the entire issue as it appears in
print, including all photos and advertisements. The next issue will
publish on January 15 (the third Friday of the month instead of the
second Friday for this issue only, due to the customary first Friday
deadline date falling on New Year’s Day, necessitating moving that
forward by a week). The complete PDF version will be posted by the
preceding night or early that Friday morning at the latest, following
which the text of the lead stories, community news, and selected
features will be uploaded shortly thereafter.
To read this month’s lead stories, simply click the link on the
home page to the following headlines: 1) “Neighbors’ Ire Over 17th
Street Tree Removal Plan Results in DDOT Reversal and Satisfactory
Solution”; 2) “Corcoran Street Ginkgos’ Removals Reveal Failure by
DC to Follow its Rules;” and 3) “Huge Wall Mural New in Neighborhood
Park; Part of Anti-Graffiti Program.”
###############
CLASSIFIEDS — EVENTS
Community Forum on Race to the Top, December
15
Mary Lord, DC State Board of Education, Mary.Lord@dc.gov
Next Tuesday evening, December 15, the Office of the State
Superintendent of Education and the DC State Board of Education are
hosting a community forum to get public input and feedback on DC’s
proposals for winning a share of the $4.3 billion federal Race to the
Top funds. These are competitive grants, the most discretionary money to
transform teaching, learning and schools that the US Department of
Education has ever had to distribute. Secretary Arne Duncan has made it
clear that not all states — or groups of states — would get funding.
The rules also call for state boards of education and state education
offices to submit proposals together with governors or, in DC’s case,
the mayor. Here’s a link to learn more about the program: http://www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html.
I know it’s the busiest time of the year for most of us. However,
your input as education activists, parents, teachers, researchers, and
residents would be much appreciated. If we’re truly going to transform
public education, the public needs to be involved in the conversation.
The Race to the Top Forum will be held at the Friendship Public Charter
School, Chamberlain Campus, 1345 Potomac Avenue, SE (one block from the
Potomac Avenue Metro station), on Tuesday, December 15, at 6:30-8:00
p.m.
###############
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.
