, "Kytja Weir, the
paper’s tremendous transit reporter, says of the change: ‘It sucks.’ Nor
did she and her colleagues have any notion that it was in the works, she
says. (Even news editors were in the dark). With the Washington Times
having scaled back its Metro coverage over the years and The
Washington Post moving to a paywalled future, says Weir, ‘it’ll be a
lot harder for people to get accountability journalism.’ Or just the
news. On any given week, the Examiner heaved an enormous amount
of content, though often in very small installments. Reporters would
often have to shoehorn their copy into dispatches of 300-400 words. But
whatever: The local coverage has blanketed the region, with two
transportation beat reporters, two DC government reporters, a Maryland
state house reporter, a Virginia state house reporter, two crime
reporters and reporters covering Montgomery County, Fairfax County, and
Prince George’s County. That’s not counting around five people in
sports."
The Examiner had, and temporarily still has, some very good
local reporters and columnists, many more than Wemple mentions. Their
firing will leave a very big hole in local news coverage. The paucity of
local news coverage is even more stark than Wemple mentions. It is not
just the Washington Times, but also the Washington Post,
that has scaled back its Metro coverage. The Metro section of the
Post is thin, and its news hole smaller. Local television "news" is
devoted to sports, weather, crime stories, and funny animal clips from
Youtube; the recent Pew survey of local television news showed that,
nationally, only 3 percent of the time of local television news programs
is spent on coverage of local politics.
This puts a greater responsibility than before on the Internet, on
local bloggers and community listservs, to do the kind of reporting that
our traditional news sources are shirking and abandoning. As individuals
and members of community organizations, we have to share with others in
our city and our neighborhoods what is going on. Washington Times
columnist Jonetta Rose Barras has sent an E-mail today saying that, "I
have been contacted by numerous individuals concerned about the void
that may be created, particularly the absence of my twice weekly
columns. When the frequency of my writing in the Examiner
increased, I suspended my online column. Your E-mails and telephone
calls have helped me to decide to resurrect my online publishing.
Publication of The Barras Report will begin May 1, 2013." I hope that
many other local reporters and columnists will follow her example and
create their own outlets for local news on the net.
#####
Amid the coverage of the installation of Pope Francis, one commenter
on CBS said that his success as a leader is due to his humility and his
being a servant of the people. It sounds like good advice for anyone who
wants to be a leader of the people, not just in religion but also in
politics.
Gary Imhoff
themail@dcwatch.com
###############
There Is No Justice Here
Trish Chittams,
mintrish@gmail.com
On January 21, I received the type of call which can make a parent’s
blood run cold. In an icy calm voice our seventeen-year-old daughter
informed me that she was fine, but that someone had tried to rob the
friend she was with at the Potomac Avenue Metro. The perpetrator told
her friend, with my daughter and her twin sister standing there, "your
money or your life" and put his hand in his coat as if he had a weapon.
My daughter pulled her friend and her sister away and they ran.
Fortunately, the police came immediately and were able to arrest the two
perpetrators. I rushed to the scene. That was it. No one was hurt. The
kids were a bit shaken up, and while they waited in the police car for
their turn to speak with the detectives, they laughed and joked with
each other, a normal way to deal with shock. When they got home it was a
different matter, but it was over. The perpetrators were caught and all
that needed to happen was the prosecution. At least that was what we
were led to believe.
Unfortunately, they are being victimized a second time by the
Juvenile Justice System. Despite having three witnesses, the city
prosecutor’s office has offered one of the perpetrators a plea deal to
Attempted theft and miscellaneous threats. From my seat this was an
attempted robbery and felony criminal threat. Ms. Nada Paisant, the ADA
on the case, never even had the decency to contact the primary victim to
discuss it with the parent first. They never interviewed our daughters.
But this didn’t stop the Public Defender’s office from sending
investigators to my home to interview them, further victimizing the
girls, who were scared to death to receive a phone call from one of the
Georgetown law students telling her to open the door, as they were right
outside and wanted to talk to them. Later I learned from the victim’s
parent that the second perpetrator was never arrested. Six weeks after
the attempted robbery, after the parent continued to persistently call
the prosecutor assigned to the case, Nada Paisant, and the detective
assigned to the case, they finally provided the victim a photo array.
The photo array consisted of grainy pictures from a photocopier. They
couldn’t even do one with color photos because they don’t have color
ink. And this is the nation’s capitol. My daughters have still not been
interviewed.
Now, because six weeks after the incident, one perpetrator is still
on the loose, and the second individual may never be arrested, and these
individual’s have friends. My daughters, who are easily identifiable, as
they are identical twins, are hostages. They are hostages because for
safety reasons they cannot travel on their own throughout the city.
Simply because they did the right thing, they have to be ferried to and
fro by my husband, myself, or their grandparents. The best thing my
girls can do, and these are girls with a 3.8 and 3.0 GPA respectively,
who speak and read Latin, French, and English, who volunteer for their
church and community, is to graduate from high school and get the heck
out of DC, never to return.
I have found when speaking with other police officers, and parents of
other children victimized by juveniles, that the lack of justice is
commonplace. The police are not motivated because the Juvenile Justice
Division, headed by Jennifer White, just offers plea deals, and the
miscreants are on the streets before the paperwork is finished. No one
wants to testify or tell the police, because nothing will happen to the
juveniles who commit these and more egregious crimes. The "snitches" are
then targeted, and there is no protection for them. In fact, I had one
individual share that there is one judge within the Juvenile system who,
no matter what the individual before them has done, feels sorry for them
and puts them on probation again. The perpetrators know this and
continue to perform heinous acts of violence against the populace. There
is no justice for my daughters or for their friend. There is no justice
for the hundreds of victims of crimes perpetrated by juveniles in this
city and that is a damn shame. Liberal policies that give these
miscreants a pass because they are poor or because they are Black is no
longer acceptable. We have raised a generation of individuals who have
no fear of consequences; they know the system better that we do, and
they work it. Too bad the system doesn’t work for us.
###############
I sent this E-mail to our ANC commissioner, Brian Pate, who voted for
the proposal to allow developers to not include parking in new
developments of ten units or less, if built within half a mile of a
Metro stop. I don’t begrudge bicyclists their bike lanes, though it
surely makes driving a bit trickier. But I do think that this new
policy, which will put many more cars on the street in competition for
parking spaces with "incumbent" car owners, is very much anti-auto.
"Brian, thank you for your E-mail, and for your forthright
explanation of why you voted the way you did on the proposal to allow
developers to not include parking in new developments of ten units or
less, if built within half a mile of a Metro stop. I wish all public
officials were so forthright, and communicated so clearly and openly
with their constituents. Thank you very much for doing so. For what it
is worth, and if it is worth anything, it will have to do with future
tweaks on parking regs, I will comment on what you wrote about the
parking space proposals, knowing that at this point it doesn’t matter
with regard to the major policy issue, which is now set in stone.
"First, when you say that reducing reliance on vehicles is important
to the future of our city, I would argue that most of us who chose to
live in the city did so precisely because we did not want to rely on our
cars. I never wanted to commute by car; that’s why I chose to live in a
place in which I could walk to work. So if we have already chosen to not
rely on our vehicles very much, at least for work, but we still need our
cars for other things. Why chose a policy that might make it harder to
use cars for anything? In a comment discussion on Larry Janezich’s blog,
someone said that they didn’t need a car for shopping. I’m sure that
person is young. I’m not, and there are a lot of heavy items in most of
our grocery shopping. When I was younger, I’m not sure I did a good job
in putting myself in the shoes of my parents’ generation, either. You
make this point below: ‘The current mandatory minimums don’t alleviate
the problem of over-congestion and parking scarcity. My sense is that if
they did, we would not have congestion and parking scarcity on the hill,
or elsewhere in the city.’
"Isn’t this some kind of reverse logic? The current mandatory
minimums, which have kept cars from big residences off the street, don’t
alleviate the parking in the street congestion problem, so let’s make a
policy that puts more cars in the street. Did I miss something? I think
you take the (correct to me) view a bit later in your E-mail when you
added these words as an amendment: "ANC6B is concerned that in the
absence of a more well articulated policy framework and implementation
plan, elimination of parking minimums alone may only serve to shift the
burden of providing parking spaces from developers onto scarce public
parking resources, with the potential to adversely impact neighbors in
the process. Indeed, elimination of parking minimums alone may not
achieve the desired effect of reducing the number of cars on our city
streets." You also say: "The OP proposal does not prevent developers
from building parking spaces. If the market demands parking, then
developers will build parking spots." I agree with you entirely on this.
Developers will build parking spots when on the street parking becomes
so intolerable that people will pay a few hundred dollars a month over
market prices for residences in order to get a sure parking space. This
is what we are afraid of!
"Now, to a proposal. It is a proposal that takes aspects of three
existing programs. One of them is that you can get a disabled parking
spot in front of your house if you are a disabled driver (although we
are not, and hope not to qualify for that designation). The second
program is the tax program put in place circa 2000 to prevent the rise
of RE taxes for existing owners when DC RE values came close to tripling
from 1998 through 2005. RE tax increases (as opposed to valuation
increases) were restricted to no more than 10 percent annually, for
residents who owned their homes at the beginning of the period.
Grandfathering. The third is a break on your RE taxes if you are over
sixty-five or so and make less than one hundred thousand dollars
annually (if I remember the numbers correctly, I may not).
"Perhaps we could grandfather a parking space, in front of the house,
for people over age 65 at the time the new regulation is passed. That’s
the proposal. It is age-related, like the income tax policy. It
grandfathers only people already living here, like the policy
restricting increases in RE taxes to 10 percent annually. And it
parallels the existing disabled parking space policy, not that all
people over sixty-five are disabled, but let’s face it, most of us have
physical issues of some sort (I work out in addition to walking to work,
but I’ve had five knee operations and I now have a bad back. Not
complaining! Just illustrating the point.) With time, those spaces will
disappear, of course. The virtue of this proposal, in my eyes, is that
those who are least likely to be able to walk to the Safeway or Harris
Teeter for their groceries, or who might be most at risk if they have to
walk 4 blocks after parking their car at night (that already happens to
me once in a while) will know that they can park near their home. We can
deal with these issues at present: the issue is that this situation
could get a lot worse.
"So that is my proposal. I hope that it will be viewed favorably by
you, Brian, and by others. I have no doubt that there will be thoughts
on how to make it better, and thoughts that it should never see the
light of day. I would be very interested in what anyone might have to
add."
###############
FOIA Request Denied for West End Library
Agreement
Robin Diener,
rdiener@savedclibraries.org
A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officer has denied a request by
the DC Library Renaissance Project (DCLRP) for a copy of the final land
disposition agreement (LDA) between the Deputy Mayor for Planning and
Economic Development (DMPED) and developer EastBanc, LLC for the
controversial West End Parcels deal. An LDA is a contract of sale, often
referred to as a term sheet. When the case was heard recently at the
Court of Appeals, Judge Roy L. McNeese’s first question was "Where is
the final LDA?" EastBanc’s counsel, Deborah Baum, confirmed that only a
draft agreement was included in the record.
"The terms of a deal conveying valuable public property to a private
developer should be public," said DCLRP attorney Oliver Hall. "The
District’s refusal to disclose the LDA, in apparent violation of the
District’s open records law, raises serious questions about the
propriety of this deal." The DC Library Renaissance Project is suing the
Zoning Commission (ZC) over its decision to approve a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) of three pieces of publicly-owned land in the West
End, which the city is conveying to EastBanc in exchange for its
construction of a new library and firehouse. Among the points of
contention is the improper granting of a waiver of the affordable
housing required under the District’s Inclusionary Zoning law.
DCLRP maintains that prime real estate was substantially undervalued
and offered as an incentive to build the facilities, which the ZC then
failed to take into account when approving the Eastbanc waiver. In
addition, according to DCLRP, the new library/firehouse facilities are
being paid for by the city through the land transfer and they should not
count towards a waiver. DCLRP filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
request for the finalized LDA document after the Court of Appeals
hearing. On Friday that request was formally denied in an E-mail by
DMPED’s FOIA Officer Ayesha Abbasi "on the grounds that these documents
contain internal discussions and recommendations of a deliberative
nature as well as attorney client communications. These documents are
exempt pursuant to DC Official Code §2-534 (a)(4)." DCLRP plans to
appeal the denial of its FOIA request.
###############
Biennial Report Filing Fee for Corporations
and LLC’s
Richard Urban,
drichardurban@urbangrocery.com
Can anyone explain why the filing fee for corporations and LLCs has
increased from $150 every two years to $300 every two years? I have
contacted virtually all of the DC council offices, but all anyone can
say is that it is not their responsibility, that DCRA rulemaking set the
fees, and there is nothing they can do about it. Most states charge no
fee or only about $10 per year. I feel that this is just a blatant money
grab that especially affects small LLCs. I think that any business fee
increases need to be justified. Councilmembers voted to approve these
fees. Why was there no questioning about such a steep increase? Also,
does anyone know if these fees were previously set by the council, and
the DC Code changed to allow them to be set directly by DCRA?
###############
Lon Anderson an Embarrassment to AAA
Daniel Wedderburn,
danielwedderburn@cs.com
Lon Anderson continues to embarrass his employer, AAA. So many of us
grew up admiring AAA for being in the forefront promoting driving
safety. His anti-DC rhetoric that in effect promotes just the opposite
is astonishing. Never occurs to him that cameras have had and continue
to have a huge effect on reducing the number of deaths and serious
injuries not only in the District but in the suburbs. Does he not know
the overwhelming statistics about this? He seems completely unaware that
people get tickets only when they violate safety laws. It’s really
simple: People who obey the law do not get tickets. So sad he is unable
to put people’s lives above the dollar sign.
###############
CLASSIFIEDS — EVENTS
Follow the Money, Citizens Federation Assembly
on DC’s FY 2014 Budget, March 26
Anne Renshaw,
milrddc@aol.com
On March 26, 6:45 p.m.-9:00 p.m., at All Souls Memorial Episcopal
Church Hall, 2300 Cathedral Avenue, NW, Jennifer Budoff, the Budget
Director of the council of the District of Columbia, will outline the
city’s FY 2014 budget for the DC Federation of Citizens Associations.
Federation members are expected to question Ms. Budoff on the city’s
$417 million budget surplus (whether to bank or spend the surplus, or
cut taxes), DC’s bond ratings, CFO Natwar M. Gandhi’s approaching
resignation, agency budget hearings, DC’s $7.9 billion debt, federal
budget cuts (and their impact on DC) and the council’s financial
oversight of more than eighty million dollars to the DC Health Benefit
Exchange.
Last year, according to Administration officials, the 2013 Budget
contained "no tax increases," in line with the Federation’s established
position of "No New Taxes," adopted by the Assembly in 2011. What
happened to the pledge of "no tax increases" in 2013 and the possibility
of tax escalation (versus tax cuts) in FY 2014 will be central to the
conversation with Ms. Budoff. The Citizens Federation’s Assembly is open
to the public.
All Souls Memorial Episcopal Church is located at 2300 Cathedral
Avenue, NW, near Connecticut Avenue and the Woodley Park Metro (Red
Line). The Church parking lot is off Woodley Place, behind the church.
The entrance to the Church Hall is down the garden steps from the
parking lot. The door will open at 6:30 p.m.. Ms. Budoff’s presentation,
to include audience questions and answers, will begin at 7:15 p.m.,
following Federation announcements. For further information, contact
Anne Renshaw, President, DC Citizens Federation, 363-6880.
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.