Attracting Families Back
Dear Families:v
In the last issue of themail (August 4), I wrote about "The Childless
City,"
http://tinyurl.com/nggjgth, and agreed with
Joel Kotkin and Ali Modares that our city’s urban planning policies
drive families away from our central city. They attract young singles to
small, crowded, congested high-rise apartments, but have no attraction
for families with young children. Here are the top three things families
look for: safety, schooling, and personal green space. Living in DC, you
can get one or two out of three at an affordable price. But our city’s
planners make it hard to find all three. Safety is a difficult problem,
and crime rates go up and down in various neighborhoods throughout the
years. Schooling may be the most intractable problem to solve. But
personal green space, the ability to have a lawn and your choice of a
swing set or a small flower or garden patch, is actually easy to have.
There are several neighborhoods in the city in which the average family
can aspire to a single-family house, even at today’s inflated prices.
But our urban planners don’t like those neighborhoods. Those
neighborhoods are too like the suburbs for their taste. They waste
valuable urban space on yards and pocket parks, when that space could be
put to better use on more concentrated housing.
#####
The big news in the past few days is Jeff Bezos’ purchase of the
Washington Post. Here are four little-noticed aspects of that
purchase. Jeff Jarvis writes that Bezos doesn’t have a good relationship
with local advertisers. "One issue I’m surprised I haven’t seen
discussed regarding Jeff Bezos’ acquisition of The Washington Post
is what his tenure will mean to local advertisers. They don’t like him.
He’s helping putting them out of business. Haven’t you seen: retail is
in the tank. Stores have become showrooms for Amazon’s sales. Looking at
the golf club? Go to the pro shop and try it out and learn about it and
get advice about it, then go to Amazon and buy it for a better price.
Amazon is going into local markets with experiments in same-day
delivery. He will do that in competition with local merchants,"
http://tinyurl.com/lf8rhqm.
Michael Walsh, in National Review Online, comments on what the sale
means for the Graham family: "One has to read in full the Times’s
puff piece by Sheryl Gay Stolberg on one of the members of its exclusive
club of family-money and bien-pensant progressivism — really rich folks,
down for the struggle! — to get a sense of just how out of touch with
reality these people are. They’re like the effete late–Roman Empire
poets, impotent capons peeling grapes and arguing the nuances of
internal rhyme as the big ugly Germans come crashing through the gates,
barely bothering to look up as Alaric’s axe meets their heads,"
http://tinyurl.com/ll2c8kk.
DCRTV .com passes on an interesting comment from
WTOP’s Jim Farley: "So, what does Hubbard all-newser
WTOP’s vice president for programming, Jim Farley
. . . , think about the Washington Post’s sale to Amazon.com’s
Jeff Bezos for $250 million? We asked him and he texted us this
response: ‘Could be good. Newspaper business model slammed by disruptive
technology. Now they are owned by the best disrupter in the business.
Fresh thinking. Post.com will no longer play second fiddle to print. Web
and social media will grow at Post. More convergence. Amazing that Post
sold for a lot less than WTOP is worth. Look for
new owner to grow digital and make strategic alliances with
TV, radio, and cable. . . . Maybe they will try to
hire back John Solomon, pure speculation on my part, no facts to back it
up.’"
And an interesting tidbit on Bezos from the Post’s own
coverage of him, more interesting than its speculation on his political
leanings. Bezos reads three newspapers every day: the Washington
Post, the New York Times, and the Wall Street
Journal. But he doesn’t read any of them in print. He reads them all
online, and he expects that print newspapers will expire within twenty
years. Welcome to the future.
Gary Imhoff
themail@dcwatch.com
###############
The DC Board of Elections has posted on its web site the tentative
"calendar of important dates and deadlines" for the April 1, 2014, party
primary election and the November 4, 2014, general election ( http://www.dcboee.org/home.asp).
Candidates running in the April primary for the offices of Delegate to
the US House of Representatives, mayor, council
chairman, at-large member of the council, ward members of the council
for wards 1, 3, 5, and 6, Attorney General, US
Senator ("Shadow Senator") and US Representative
("Shadow Representatives") will be able to circulate nominating
petitions beginning Friday, November 8, through Thursday, January 2.
Independents and minority party candidates for the above offices as well
as candidates for the state board of education and advisory neighborhood
commissioners running in the November general election will be able to
pick up nominating petitions on June 13, 2014, and return them to the
BOE by August 6, 2014. Early voting centers for
the April primary will operate from March 22-29 and for the general
election from October 25-November 1.
Several key issues regarding the 2014 elections, however, will not be
decided until mid-September, when the council returns from its summer
recess. For example, at the last legislative session on July 10, Council
Chairman Mendelson had intended for the council to vote on the Primary
Election Date Emergency Act of 2013 (Bill 20-392), which would have
moved the primary date from April 1 to June, but he pulled the bill from
the agenda when it became apparent that there weren’t enough votes to
ensure passage. It is likely, however, that the bill will resurface now
that BOE has published the election calendar,
which will heighten concerns regarding candidate petitions having to be
circulated over the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays, as well as the
lengthy lead time between the April primary and the November general
election.
In addition, at the July legislative session, the council approved,
on first reading, the Elected Attorney General Implementation and Legal
Services Amendment Act of 2013, Bill 20-134. The Bill included an
amendment authored by Councilmember Jack Evans to postpone the first
election of DC’s Attorney General from 2014 to 2018. Councilmembers
argued that there were no announced candidates for the seat, and that
there was widespread confusion regarding the exact duties of the new
Attorney General post. The bill passed eight to five with Evans’
amendment. Since the July meeting, there has been considerable public
outcry, since DC voters had overwhelmingly approved a charter amendment
in 2010 (75.78 percent), that stated that DC residents would "elect the
Attorney General for a four-year term of office" in 2014. The Evans
Amendment will be debated again when the bill come up for its decond
reading in September.
Finally, there are several bills before the council that would alter
the District’s campaign finance and election laws. While there is
widespread concern regarding abuses in the 2010 mayoral campaign, there
is no consensus among the councilmembers about how to reform campaigns
in the District. Kenyon McDuffie, chairman of the council’s Government
Operations Committee, is drafting a single consolidated bill over the
summer that he will share with his colleagues when they return in
September. Even then, it is unclear which changes in the District’s
campaign and election laws and regulations will garner enough votes, and
which changes will or should be implemented during the 2014 election
cycle.
###############
Gary, "Driving Families Away," themail, August 4, was one of your
better editorials lately. We aren’t quite there yet, but it wouldn’t
take too much more inconvenience to cause families to leave, or not come
here. For one, families absolutely need transportation, with parking
near their home.
I don’t think that DC’s planners mean to have such an effect on
families, after all the city is spending huge amounts to make schools
work for new students. It’s just that they seem to be captured by a
particular strain of Smart Growth — the strain that overemphasizes
density of new construction, bicycles, fewer cars. I agree that cities
should have density, I agree that there should be a welcoming urban
place for people who don’t want to own a car, I agree that if people
want to bike around the city, they should have bike lanes (however
inconvenient it might be for me personally). What is missing is balance,
is consideration for people who live here now, who have lived here for
decades, and who want to continue to live here. Take their needs into
account as well. Your editorial I thought brought balance back into
play.
###############
DC United Soccer Stadium Deal
Anne Loikow,
aloikow@verizon.net
I started looking into the proposal between the District government
and DC United to build a new soccer stadium in southwest. I read the
term sheet and did a little research into the owners of the team. The
more I read the more concerned I got. Here is a quick list of the
issues: 1) Why are we subsidizing a rich Indonesian? The majority owner
of DC United is a very rich Indonesian by the name of Erick Thohir. He
also owns an interest in the Philadelphia ‘76ers and major interests in
other sports related businesses and media interests in Indonesia. His
family are incredibly wealthy. His brother is on the Forbes list
of billionaires. You can read more about Erick Thohir at
http://tinyurl.com/lz9skua/ My first gut
reaction is that this guy can easily afford to assemble the land he
wants for a stadium for DC United without government financial
assistance. Given the many needs in the District, it looks very
outrageous that we are devoting hundreds of millions of dollars for the
benefit of someone like him.
2) The term sheet looks very lopsided in terms of what each side is
obligated to do and on what timetable. The transaction agreements have
to be finalized by October 1, 2013, and the District government has
"obtain site control of the Stadium Site" and "obtain the necessary
legal approvals from the Council . . . and, if required, the United
States Congress" by January.1, 2014. For a deal that has only been
proposed since July 25, 2013, this is awfully fast for a very complex
and expensive — for DC taxpayers — deal. In addition, the District
government has until March 1, 2015, to complete the necessary
infrastructure work and utility relocation, demolish all existing
structures (except "necessary elements of the Pepco substation"),
complete its environmental remediation, and get approvals to close
streets and alleys needed for the project. If the District government
fails to meet this date, we basically have to arrange for DC United to
get RFK rent free. Why are the taxpayers picking
the costs of demolition and environmental remediation (in addition to
land in the form of street and alley closings, and possibly more, if I
am reading the maps of the site correctly)? In addition, the District
government has to "pursue resequencing options" to advance construction
of the streetcar line and construct a streetcar station at the stadium
and designate the stadium site as a "Designated Entertainment Area"
under Title 13, Chapter 8, of the DCMR. I don’t
know the ramifications of being so designated, but it bears looking
into. In contrast, DC United supposedly has until March 1, 2015, to
obtain all necessary Zoning and BZA approvals and
advance the design to at least the "design development completion
level." If they fail to meet that date, they have until March 1, 2017.
Similarly, the stadium is to be substantially complete and ready for
commercial operation by January 1, 2017, but if it isn’t, they have
until March 31, 2020, before the District has any legal remedies.
3) In addition, the District’s groundlease to DC United is only $1 a
year for the useful life of the stadium. The District government also
shall bear the costs of all fees, proffers, or deposits customarily
levied by District agencies (DCRA, DDOT, DOE, Office of Zoning, etc.)
during the permitting and approval process (another taxpayer subsidy!).
4). I haven’t fully parsed how the revenue sharing, "other revenue"
and real estate tax provisions work (paragraphs D, E, and F), but it
looks like we are giving up additional tax revenues, in addition to the
fees mentioned above, we should otherwise get and in many ways
ultimately subsidizing their operating losses.
5) Also, what are we giving away in authorizing DC United to "have
the right to undertake ancillary development on the Stadium site"? What
does this mean that they are getting? What is the cost to the government
and the taxpayer?
6) Why are we doing all this for a team that only played sixteen home
games in the District this year? At least the Nationals play 81 games
for twice the maximum size crowd (40,000 versus 20,000).
7) Finally, to avoid bumping up into the borrowing limit, it is
proposed that the District government give up some of its prime downtown
buildings in lieu of borrowing the money to purchase the site from
Pepco, Akridge, and Mark Ein. The buildings that have been mentioned as
possible targets of this land trade are the Reeves Center, One Judiciary
Square, and the Daly (MPD) Building. No mention
has been made of what the cost will be to the taxpayers of replacing the
office and other space we would be giving up and whether it would be in
anywhere as central and convenient a location as these buildings are. I
must admit this looks like another attempt to be "penny wise and pound
foolish" by getting rid of prime property for the benefit of private
companies and developers that the public would never be able to replace
with equivalent property. I know those proposing this will say the
buildings need renovation, etc., but that is because our
government routinely does not properly maintain our public assets. I
would much more prefer spending the funds necessary to renovate and
bring District property up to snuff than do these sales to private
companies at what often looks like bargain prices. In the case of the
Daly Building, it seems it would make much more sense to renovate the
building, using One Judiciary Square as swing space while we did so, so
that the police department’s headquarters could remain downtown, at a
Metro stop and next to the courts! The District’s holding cells are in
the Daly Building. Moving them somewhere in the city would start
creating all sort of complications and costs for getting prisoners to
court.
8) Since Pepco owns about half the site and has a major substation on
it that it just recently upgraded as part of a major reliability
improvement (see
http://www.pepco.com/welcome/news/releases/archives/2012/article.aspx?cid=1942.
If that substation has to be moved, where would it be moved, what are
the implications for power transmission in DC, and would DC ratepayers
end up paying for rebuilding this substation elsewhere (new Pepco rate
case here we come)?
9) Finally, in a market sense, I think the development of this area
does not need massive government investment and gifts to private
companies. This is a desirable area and many private developments are in
the works. This whole effort reminds me of the proposal several years
ago to give tax breaks and grants to Northrop Gruman, one of the world’s
largest and wealthiest defense contractors, which fortunately for DC
taxpayers didn’t go through.
Mr. Thohir can well afford to acquire and develop the land and build
a stadium for his team. He doesn’t need our subsidy.
###############
Corrupt Politicians Bring McMillan Development
Daniel Wolkoff,
amglassart@yahoo.com
Kim Williams, staffer in the Office of Planning, Historic
Preservation Office, wrote this great nomination for McMillan Park to
The National Register of Historic Places,
http://www.nps.gov/nr/feature/places/13000022.htm.
One can quickly understand from the description of the park, a memorial
to Senator McMillan, The Sand Filtration Plant, and it’s history, that
McMillan is a resource of national significance. Any city in the country
would gather the resources to restore and preserve it and return this
wonderful park to public enjoyment. This is just plain common sense. I
have been disappointed that the city council has not educated the people
in DC or even itself very well, while determining the future of this
incredible site, just as awesome as originally designed and landscaped
by the founder of American landscape architecture, Frederick Law
Olmsted, Jr.
Tragically, the DC government’s chosen developer’s plan will demolish
most of the historic structures, over crowd, and super urbanize the site
with a poorly coordinated and uninspiring plan for fifty buildings and
streets. The ten planning and design firms in VMP
(Vision McMillan Partners) are predictably failing, as the reworking of
any great design is always a mistake, substantially diminishing the
original intent and elegance. It’s presumptuous, even ridiculous, to
pretend that overbuilding the work of Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., with
condos, medical offices and a grocery store, can have some graciousness.
The design team’s response to community demands for more "park" has
resulted in a supposed 50 percent park space, really a big lawn.
VMP grudgingly carved the lawn out of their site
plan, but it has nothing to do with the historic engineering treasure
and shows how little understanding these current architects possess. Our
Historic Preservation Review Board criticized their disconnected,
discordant, and inappropriate designs throughout HPRB
hearings. Parks are not created by percentages of land remaining
unpaved, they are cultural, historic, or reflect the natural geography,
streams, valleys, hills, etc. In the privileged upper NW
section of DC, parks are community gardens, stream valleys and glens,
and Civil War Fortifications, while we in central DC are confronted by
the city government with an unhealthy deficit of natural areas, mature
trees, and real parks. We don’t want destructive compromises that are
are not comparable to McMillan, when specifically hiking and biking
trails, woods, and water features are desperately missing. Senator
McMillan planned an "emerald necklace" of parks, and green-space over
one hundred years ago and we have every right to see all of these
recreational areas fulfilled, so that our families enjoy the benefits.
McMillan, a spectacular, historic "great place," is a perfect
arts/performance/cultural Glen Echo type community campus and just one
element in the System of Parks needed from NOMA to
Woodridge, and Michigan Park. McMillan belongs to the people, not the
mayor or city council. Gray was elected by campaign fraud, flat out
electoral fraud, and Mayor Gray confronts us with wrestling our own
resources back from arrogant, crass, DC officials abusing their power. A
very small number of DC politicians are guilty of blocking public access
and fencing it off, in utter contempt of the residents for twenty-seven
years. There is nothing in this record of miserable, arrogant disservice
that recommends any DC official to run this development. Right now, as I
write this, Mayor Gray, under federal prosecutor’s investigation, is
declaring that "McMillan is no longer needed for any public use" as
required by law, as part of his process to "surplus" this billion dollar
25-acre park, and literally give away the land and a $319 million
taxpayer subsidy to the VMP. Ten developers,
architects, and planning companies, all set to feed on this pig trough
for years to come, at our expense. The barbed wire fence, and canceling
site tours organized by the neighborhood ANC shows
the mayor’s and his economic planning deputy’s hypocrisy, as if every
kid, teenager, family, parent with babies, senior citizen, wouldn’t be
enjoying McMillan Park and its views, breezes, strolling, jogging,
picnicking, urban farming, arts, music, movies, festivals, classes, our
place to exercise and "build community"
This is not an either or proposition, Full services like the City
Market can cleverly occupy the existing huge, twenty acres of
under-surface, fifteen-foot-high galleries, in adaptive reuse as the
entire surface park is restored, planted green, and active for all,
residents and visitors alike. This is not a delusion, and could have
been helping to build our community for twenty-seven years. It is
specifically the theft of multimillions in recreational value to the
community, lost for twenty-seven years, that should be added to the
crimes of the corrupt DC officials who brought you this failed
"redevelopment" scheme. All along, we have demanded an open process of
education, analysis, and proper public discussion of all options for
McMillan and a system of parks, for DC voters to decide. It’s called
self determination, Mr. Mayor.
We must demand our representatives on the city council, who openly
profess, not even knowing very much about McMillan, to reject the "surplussing"
of our park land. This "redevelopment" has had so many versions, and
agencies, and at present ten failing design partners as to be such an
overworked flop. And frighteningly, it is even the work of corrupt DC
officials imprisoned, indicted, convicted, and awaiting sentencing, for
bribery, fraud, theft, and this plan is being run by a mayor under
federal investigation for massive electoral fraud. WAMU
reporter Patrick Madden and Julie Patel are right now in the middle of
an expose of the "symbiotic" relationship between the DC government and
the developers, a relationship distorting our city’s brilliant L’Enfant
and McMillan Senate Parks Committee urban plan. A very tiny number of DC
"elected" and appointed officials who are hell bent on removing
wholesale our mature tree canopy, filling up every last sq. ft. with
curb-to-curb, mega-urbanization, right as devastating flooding of this
very section of DC is destroying our homes. Endless massive construction
is a delusion, and the most damaging thing there is to the environment,
as if the resources of the planet are endless and there is no imperative
to restore, reuse, and adapt existing structures, to conserve our
planet. Mayor Gray has produced a "Sustainable DC" plan aiming for DC to
be the "greenest city" in the country by 2032. But continuing right up
to 2032, exploiting every remaining open space, denuding the city of the
most valuable tree cover, paving over endless more land, and overloading
a failing antiquated infrastructure is not the path to this farcical
goal. The priority to keep the construction trade piping along at full
speed is not the way to the "green city" when these same construction
industries should be renovating, restoring, and helping dc residents,
especially seniors, improve their deteriorating houses and training the
young and underemployed for good careers, not lining up to a pig
festival of consumption, and pride in how many cranes mark the skyline,
a view soon to be blocked by even more irresponsible zoning. This is the
time, right now, right here in the center of our city, to put this
wasteful over-consumption under sensible control, and make this
incredible opportunity for a healthier quality of life to happen at
McMillan. It is twenty-seven years late.
###############
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.
|