Any Character Left?
• July 26, 2011

 

-To the editors:

Regarding the feature “Reviving Dead Space” [March 10 issue], do clients who “loved old buildings” or their architect, “an expert in period Georgetown buildings,” truly believe that gutting “the entire house” yields a “creation” that has any “good bones” or “character” left? Far too much original fabric of historic Georgetown buildings is being wantonly removed in the interest of reviving ”dead, crumbly cottages” into “spacious light-filled beauties.” With design features such as the now-commonplace “open floor plan, sparkling stainless steel, skylights, limestone, etc.,” are we certain the author is not describing a contemporary loft condo downtown?

I can only wonder what the (apparently very diminutive) previous occupants, circa 1810, would have thought of this “transformation” while huddled around their basement kitchen hearth in “the four-foot earthen windowless crawlspace.”

Douglas Rixey, AIA
Georgetown

The author is a partner at Rixey-Rixey Architects on M Street.

Liquor Moratorium Needs Loosening
•

 

-May we request a moratorium on, you know, the moratorium?

Meaning, of course, ABRA’s liquor moratorium for Georgetown, which begins at Wisconsin and N Streets and applies to every restaurant within a third-mile radius, and is now up for its five-year renewal later this year. Several weeks ago, the ANC gave its blessing to a renewal, with the recommendation that two more available licenses be issued in order to, as ANC 2E05 Bill Starrels put it, “dampen the bidding wars.”

Such a comment touches on the larger issue at stake: that any restaurant hoping to sell liquor within the heart of Georgetown must bid for a finite resource. Too finite, in our opinion. Currently, new establishments seeking a license must purchase it at a premium from defunct restaurant owners, who may hold onto their license as long as they like until they get the price they want.

You can see where simple economics comes into play. Demand is skyrocketing, while supply remains dismally low, not to mention hoarded for profit. A Georgetown liquor license nowadays goes for $70,000. And insofar that any restaurant larger than a take-out sandwich joint cannot hope to profit without liquor sales, we can expect any prospective eateries to set up shop elsewhere, where they won’t immediately be set back a hundred grand.

Which is a shame. As Ginger Laytham of Clyde’s remarks, “This is not just a restaurant issue, it’s a whole community issue.” We agree. With a struggling retail market that seems to only attract national chains, this neighborhood more than ever needs to facilitate the establishment of locally owned restaurants and bars where Georgetowners, their friends, and visitors alike can gather to socialize and enjoy the cachet unique to this community. While we are sensitive to the notion that establishments selling alcohol may be catalysts for disorderly conduct, we also point out that incidents like the recent Philly Pizza fiasco don’t always require getting liquored up.

Does all this necessitate a complete repeal of the moratorium, or the handing out of licenses carte blanche? No, but we believe the law could do with a bit of curtailing. We urge ABRA and the city council to issue more liquor licenses to Georgetown, and to enact legislation that would lower the value of those already issued — by adding expiration dates for defunct licenses, for instance — so they are less of a cash cow and more of a transferable, affordable resource.

A New Shade of Gray
•

Well, city council Chairman Vincent Gray has gone and done it.

After months of prodding and speculation in the media and among political types in the District, Gray has decided to take on incumbent Mayor Adrian Fenty and run against him.

He made his announcement at a spirited rally where the key rhetorical elements were “one city” and “we can do better,” which got the people in attendance at Reeves Municipal Center going, but didn’t give too many clues on substance or policy difference that Gray might have with the mayor.

Still, the announcement accomplished at least two things: it ended speculation about Gray and transferred it to speculation about who was going to run for Gray’s chairman position.

The one certain thing is that Gray will not be chairman next year, and that’s the big risk in his decision: that he could become Linda Cropp, the sitting council chair four years ago who decided to run for mayor and got soundly trounced by Fenty, managing to lose every precinct and ward in the city. Now that he’s opted to run against Fenty, Gray cannot run for re-election as council chair, an election he was a sure bet to have won. He could be a man without a job if he fails to unseat the sitting mayor.

Gray is obviously optimistic about his chances. On the surface, his is in the very least a serious candidacy, although the probabilities for success remain very, very iffy. Gray may have been encouraged by a recent poll that showed a decided unhappiness among voters with Fenty, but it was a poll from which you could extract mixed meanings.

Many district voters and residents, many of them in the poorer and majority black areas of the city such as Ward 8, 7, 6, 5 and 4 (Fenty’s own ward), are not happy with the way Fenty has governed, even if quite a few others praise his action-fueled ways, citing favorable homicide and crime stats, a major school takeover and reform effort that’s beginning to show favorable results in some areas and general quality of life improvements. It was a poll that seemed to say “we like some of what you’ve done, but we don’t like how you did it.” Which is to say that Fenty was perceived as distant, somewhat arrogant, a “does not play well with others” (especially the city council) kind of leader, often high-handed, secretive and single-minded. A poll also showed that in a one-on-one race against Fenty, Gray would narrowly win.

Yet these objections, while heated, also seem somewhat ephemeral — they’re not the sort of thing you on which you can place a big political bet. More troublesome may be the results of an investigation into Fenty’s bypassing the council in awarding contracts on parks and recreation projects. And just this week, the anger of residents where four people were killed in mass shootings was high after Fenty — rumored to be vacationing in Jamaica — failed to show up at the site. To be fair, the mayor’s presence at scenes of tragedy and trouble has been consistently high in the past.

Then there’s the question of how legislation will fare on the council when a number of its members are engaged in running for office, and that would be especially in the case of Gray. It’s budget time, and Fenty last week presented his budget for fiscal year 2011 to the council and to the public, a budget fraught with potential controversy, given its unsightly $500 million-plus deficit. At the meeting with the council, Fenty greeted Gray with a hug, the first time the two men apparently had seen each other or talked in months.

Fenty’s relationship with the city council — especially Gray — has deteriorated drastically, beginning with the choice of Michelle Rhee as public schools chancellor, the selection of which the Washington Post knew about before Gray was informed. Rhee’s own drastic reform efforts, which include high doses of national publicity, the mass firing of teachers and stalled contract talks with the teacher’s union, seemed to mimic Fenty’s style.

Such treatment obviously rankled Gray, especially after he supported Fenty in his school takeover effort.

But Fenty is also a tough, high-energy campaigner with a big war chest of nearly $4 million. This late in the game, that’s a lot to catch up with, although Gray is rumored to be trolling for support with the Cafritz family and folks like Judith Terra, a former Fenty supporter.

Then there’s Don Peebles, the bucks-rich developer who may yet run, which might distract the focus of voters, if not the contributors.

Gray — now dubbed Vince Gray on his campaign website — is a careful sort who likes building consensus. Fenty, at least if the polls are correct, is seen as someone who likes to act and make decisions and not look back or apologize.

Gray’s decision sparked a scramble among candidates looking at his council chairman seat in an increasingly volatile city council. Ward 2 Councilman Jack Evans, the council’s longest sitting member, has already unequivocally said he will run. Solid rumors have it that Kwame Brown, the appealing and popular at-large member will also run, and there are speculations about Phil Mendelson, another veteran at-large member who faces a re-election challenge, is also considering a bid for the seat.

That speaks to a certain instability on the new council, which recently celebrated its 35th anniversary under Home Rule. Six council members are up for re-election this year, many of them first timers. That makes this year’s budget deliberations a possible arena for political combat.

In this atmosphere, and with this late start, what are the odds on Gray’s run? It remains a long shot, but there are some things he can (and some that he must) do to give himself the best chance. The most difficult might be catching up in the financing sweepstakes. He (and Fenty) must also be careful to not let their differences create a have-and-have-not political climate. But Gray has to do more than complain about Fenty’s style. Fenty and Gray represent two different political generations in Washington, something that can favor Gray, who can draw support from folks used to being politically active. But he has to, at some point, make policy distinctions between himself and Fenty. It’s one thing to be prickly about Rhee and her methods, or Fenty and his methods. He’s got to show how a Gray administration would be different in substance, not just style. Both Vincent and Vince have to show up at the candidate forums which are a hallmark of D.C.’s election campaigns.

The Chief in Spring
•

On Easter weekend in Washington, the president became an avatar of spring, a burdened man who still led the way, like a pied piper, to greet spring with joy and a burst of activity.

In Washington, the tourists, too, are our avatars of spring, dropping out of the sky as the cherry blossoms did their magnificent thing.

But President Barack Obama showed the way, taking himself and his family not across the traditional way to St. John’s Episcopal in Lafayette Park but out to Southeast and Allen Chapel AME Church for an Easter service.

The visitation at a church, very much like the one he used to attend in Chicago, moved the congregation, the ministers, deacons, women, men and children there to the core. This is an area of the city where shootings are a regular part of the daily diet of woes that includes astronomic unemployment and a feeling that political leaders, from the mayor on down, had forgotten them.

But the president had not, and by attending and interacting, although not speaking, he brought with him — besides the circus of Secret Service and gawkers that go with him everywhere — some measure of renewed hope and energy. “This is a monumental moment for us as a community,” Church pastor Rev. Michael E. Bell Sr., said, as reported in the Washington Post. Ward 8 Councilman Marion Barry, a frequent visitor, and Mayor Adrian Fenty, not so much, sat quietly.

The president, like us, like the tulips, like the tourists, embraced spring, and dove into its duties with gusto — jump-starting egg hunt races at the White House were thousands of guests brightened up the lawn and the day afternoon on Sunday. No doubt, he forgave the children for getting a bigger kick out of teen rock star Justin Bieber, who sang and performed.

Later, he headed to the Nationals Ball Park, donned a red suit, and threw out the first pitch, a lob to the left, proving again that basketball was his game. On YouTube, you could hear a lone boo somewhere, but this was no tea party. This was baseball, the season initiated by the president, and the fans, who bring hope and begin their spring-summer-early-fall-to-October daily ritual of perusing the box scores as if they contained the baseball equivalent of Bible verses.

And that was spring in Washington, where the president lives by our leave, as do we. The Nationals, by the way, lost the opener 11-1, which does in no way diminish the fact that many, many games remain.

Point/Counterpoint: Georgetown’s Campus Plan
•

 

-Since November 2008, Georgetown University has met with community leaders and residents more than 10 times to discuss ideas and share information relative to the University’s proposed 2010-2020 campus plan. Unfortunately, and to the disappointment of everyone engaged in this process, the proposals discussed at the latest meeting on April 26 yielded little agreement on two primary points: graduate enrollment proposals, and on-campus housing for full-time traditional undergraduates.

The University’s 10-year plan does not propose any enrollment growth for full-time traditional undergraduates or medical students — the two student groups most likely to live near campus. It does propose modest growth of 104 nontraditional undergraduates — a group that includes students not likely to live near campus, such as commuters, veterans, students over 25years old, and second-degree nursing students who have returned to school.

The plan also includes targeted growth of 2,475 graduate and professional students. Critics of the plan have predicted dire consequences if this growth is approved. They claim this will lead to a new market for graduate group housing. We believe these concerns are unwarranted.

1370 of the new graduate students would come from the School of Continuing Studies which attracts professionals with full-time jobs, families and homes outside the surrounding area. The average age is 31 and, in 2009, only 77 SCS students lived in ZIP code 20007.

The other graduate programs are projected to grow by 1095 over the 10-year period of the plan. The total number of graduate students living in ZIP code 20007 has remained relatively constant since 2000, even as enrollment increased. In West Georgetown, the number went from 75 in 2000 to 58 in 2009. Again, in 2009, only a fraction of the graduate students in these programs reported living in ZIP code 20007. Their average age is 28, and many live alone or with one other person.

Our decision not to build additional on-campus undergraduate housing came after serious study and consideration. Because we can currently house 84 percent of the traditional full-time undergraduate population on our campus, and we aren’t proposing to increase this population, we felt that our resources are better focused on athletic, library and student activity facilities. Moreover, the last few 10-year plans have focused largely on additional student housing, adding nearly 3,000 beds to campus.

In relation to these proposals, our plan acknowledges and includes proposals to address traffic caused in the area by graduate students arriving after 4 p.m. It also includes proposals to strengthen off-campus programs to enhance the University’s ability to manage the impacts of students who live near campus.

Georgetown University’s campus plan is an honest and informed assessment of the institution’s needs and objectives that reflects a genuine interest in collaborating with our neighbors toward the betterment of our community. Over more than two centuries, the University has made significant contributions to the economic, cultural, intellectual and social fabric of both local neighborhoods and the larger Washington, D.C. region. These relationships are an important part of our identity and tradition and we take our role as good citizen seriously. It is with this in mind that we have developed our 2010-2020 campus plan. We invite everyone to read it and contact us with questions or concerns.

For more information, visit community.georgetown.edu/campusplan.html.

Linda Greenan
Associate Vice President for External Relations
Georgetown University

—

On Monday, April 26, Georgetown University presented their final campus plan for 2010-2020. Without substantive changes, the plan is bad for the community and the District of Columbia.

GU’s 2010-2020 campus plan doesn’t resolve existing objectionable conditions and will continue to negatively impact the surrounding communities. Specifically, GU states it plans to add 3,205 additional graduate students from 2009 to 2020, reaching a total graduate enrollment of 8,750. Currently, approximately 1,130 graduate students rent in ZIP code 20007 and, using GU’s numbers, we can reasonably project that at least 465 more students will seek housing in the nearby communities. This enrollment increase is likely to result in an increase of rental group homes and further compromise the housing stock and character of Georgetown and Burleith. We also have significant concerns about the University’s enrollment projections, since GU has greatly exceeded the enrollment numbers that it presented to the community and to the D.C. Office of Planning back in 2000, when it predicted a graduate student total of 3,873 in 2010 versus 6,275 actual students today. Nothing in the plan addresses the impacts of the wrong projections set forth by GU in the 2000-2010 campus plan submissions.

Community improvements and neighborhood conservation are nowhere to be seen in the plan. Instead, GU is planning to build 80 apartments and demolish townhomes on the 1789 block. This block was added to the campus in 1973. Finally, most issues raised by the community have been ignored or addressed by palliative solutions.

The D.C. city council adopted a new Comprehensive Plan in December 2006; it became effective in March 2007. According to the Comprehensive Plan, D.C. encourages the growth of universities in a manner that 1) supports community improvement and neighborhood conservation, 2) discourages university actions that would adversely affect the character or quality of life in surrounding residential areas, 3) requires campus plans to address issues raised by the surrounding communities, 4) encourages on-campus housing in order to reduce impacts on the housing stock in adjacent communities, 5) promotes the development of satellite campuses to relieve growth pressure on neighborhoods.

Georgetown University has been an integral part of Georgetown for many years. It’s an important and reputable academic institution. They plan for longer than just 10 years. The question for all to consider is how we, as residents and voters, GU, the city council and mayor envision the future of our neighborhoods.

GU cannot grow to the west or south and they are left with only two options: comply with the Comprehensive Plan and help improve our neighborhoods, or keep increasing growth pressure on adjacent communities, which could ultimately turn Burleith and Georgetown into college towns.
GU should reduce the number of students in the residential areas (starting from GU-owned homes outside of campus), re-adopt their goal of housing 100 percent of undergraduates on campus, desist from demolishing houses on the 1789 block, limit new construction to administrative offices, commit not to increase emissions from their smokestack, limit the traffic and parking impact on the neighborhood and link all enrollment increases to housing availability on campus.

Visit www.cagtown.org to learn how you can help ensure responsible growth for our neighborhood.

GU Relations Committee
Citizens Association of Georgetown

A Broken Blade
•

 

-The Washington Blade newspaper has announced that it has published its last edition. Needless to say, it came as a complete surprise to its loyal readers, not to mention its loyal staff, who just a few days previous were celebrating their 40th anniversary.

We once attended a gathering at the National Press Club where Ted Turner was the guest speaker. The CNN founder stated it was “all over” for newspapers, and predicted that they would soon be a thing of the past. This was in 1981.

People have been predicting that newspapers would soon be dead for years. And every year, several more die. Now people are predicting that print newspapers and magazines will be gone within ten years. Turner predicted print publications would be dead by 1991.

Okay, so he was a little off, but the fact remains that many major and minor newspapers and magazines have gone out of business over the past 20 years or so, and prospects for many other major dailies are not looking promising. Just look at our very own Washington Post. Its pages are diminishing every month. The City Paper has gone through equally tough times in recent memory.

In our five and half decades of service to the community, we have seen the Washington Evening Star go under, as well as a myriad of weekly and bi-weekly publications including the stately Uptown Citizen, The Hill Rag, O. Roy Chalk’s publication, and many more. ?Here at Georgetown Media Group we are encouraged that our advertisers and readers have been loyal.

We are now in our 56th year of publication, and while we have undergone several changes over the years, we are confident that our publication has a place in the community and we will remain a voice for the residents.

The Blame Game, Again
•

 

-Remember that big, rollout announcement that the Washington Teachers’ Union and Chancellor Michelle Rhee had finally reached an agreement on the teacher’s contract?

The pact announcement was a big feather in the caps of both Rhee and D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty, who are joined at the political hip in their quest for reforming District schools.

So what’s happened? Well, nothing, sort of.

The pact, which would need to have the approval of CFO Natwar Gandhi and the city council, as well as ratification by the teacher’s union membership, remains in limbo. The problem — actually, make that problems, are:

Among other things, the pact calls for 20 percent pay increases over 5 years for the teachers. Part of that money was supposed to come from private funding, the rest from DCPS.

Except it appears — and appears is the operating word — the money isn’t there. Not according to Gandhi, who’s also objecting to the private funding. Initially, Rhee had stunned everyone by announcing that there was a surplus in the budget, which led to a lot of acrimonious revisiting of the firing of nearly 300 teachers last fall.

But Gandhi says there is no surplus, and that there is, in fact, a deficit. Both Rhee and Gandhi testified last week, but could only offer uncertainties. Councilmembers complained that no one seemed to have a handle on the numbers.

Gandhi complained that the private funding comes with unacceptable conditions and allows the funders too much control.

Rhee and some council members blamed the CFO’s office for not providing accurate numbers. Union leaders fretted over the confusion, which holds up a contract vote.

All parties are searching for ways to cut the DCPS budget, and to find additional moneys.
Meantime, there’s recrimination — again — blame gaming and confusion. That’s certainly not a healthy way to conduct either contract negotiations or budget planning.

Let’s Save the Mall
•

America’s National Mall has problems. Look at the lawn. There are parts of the Mall where the grass is, well, not grass at all, but rather weeds. On some of the most visited areas of the Mall you can find several types of grass and weeds growing together in a most unappealing manner.

The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund has hired landscape professionals to show the public how the Mall should and can look by improving the grounds at and around the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. The irrigation system we installed in the early years of the wall is now fully operational. While it costs $30,000, there was no alternative but to repair the system. The millions of annual visitors and our fallen heroes deserve inspiring surroundings and greenery. Right now we are also undertaking weed control, aeration, seeding and other work. This is being paid for with private funds.

The total area we are repairing exceeds 13 acres, which includes the wall, the knoll to the east, the area around the park ranger kiosk and the future site for the education center at the wall. The plan is to keep this area privately maintained in perpetuity with quality care.

We have taken the initiative many times, in large and small ways over the years, to help take care of the Memorial and the site since 1982. We have designed and installed two different lighting systems. We have inscribed names and conducted engineering studies. We even keep an insurance policy on the Memorial in the event of damage.

The National Park Service does not need people to complain about the Mall; it needs people to be involved. The fiscal situation impacting the Mall is simply that there are billions of dollars in maintenance backlogs in our National Parks. Places like Yosemite, Antietam and wilderness areas need a lot of help. Do we light a candle or curse the darkness?
The foresight and boundless energy of President Teddy Roosevelt started our National Park System over 100 years ago. It is up to each and every one of us to do our share by visiting these parks and by giving back, if we have the resources, as volunteers or contributors.

As comedian Lily Tomlin wisely said, “I always wondered why somebody didn’t do something about that. Then I realized I was somebody.”

Jan Craig Scruggs is a Vietnam veteran and founder of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund.

‘Dismissive’ Columnist?
•

 

-To the editor:
I generally look forward to useful and interesting information regarding local real estate in your publication, but was surprised at the similarly dismissive responses from Darrell Parsons to consecutive readers’ questions, published in the 24 March 2010 “Ask the Realtor” column.

Responding to a reasonable question from Tenleytown’s Norma T. regarding recommended areas to focus her house improvement investment, Mr. Parsons seemed to go out of his way to avoid the question, while instead offering a rebuke to the reader, basing his negative remarks upon his own assumptions. Mr. Parson then added a bit of unsolicited interior design advice.

Maureen C. of Cleveland Park provided another chance for Mr. Parsons to make assumptions, while he again ignored the reader’s central question, which in this instance was about house design. Sight unseen, Mr. Parsons first assumed the price range of Maureen’s home, then suggested (twice) that she reduce her asking price!

Although I can certainly appreciate Mr. Parsons personal experience-based point of view,
I can’t help but empathize with the readers, as they might have hoped for a more sensitive ear and positive direction.

My suggestions might seem novel to the realtor: First, respect your readers, and if making any assumptions, assume that the readers are taking the time to ask because they really seek advice, and not because they wish to be made an example of Mr. Darrell’s assumptions and following conclusions, or that wish to be entertained rather than informed.

Second, when tempted to provide advice outside one’s area of expertise, refrain,
and instead provide the reader with a referral to a knowledgeable professional who might better address the reader’s concerns. If a question requests facts regarding return on investment, answer that, and leave the interior design advice to interior designers.
If a question is about house design, perhaps a referral to an architect or residential designer would be more appropriate.

Just as realtors hope to enjoy referrals from other professionals, realtors should know that sometimes, the best way to serve is through a wise referral to, or consultation with, someone who can directly address an issue.

In summary to Ms. T., Mr. Parsons promises future answers, if the readers can just “hang in there”, and signs off: “Good Luck!” I can’t wait.

Shawn Glen Pierson
Georgetown

The author is the founder of Architétc, a D.C.-based architecture and design firm.

—

Dear Mr. Pierson:
My answers to readers are subjective of course, but they are offered with the utmost respect and sensitivity to the situation of those asking the questions. Of necessity, the length of the answers is limited by the amount of space which can be devoted to these written answers. As a result, the answers are not as thorough as I would like them to be, and a certain amount of generalization is required. I can see that this might come across as making assumptions and/or being insensitive, so I will be more tuned into that as I answer future questions.

One of the downsides of writing rather than speaking face-to-face is that voice inflection and facial expression are left out. In answering Norma T., I was attempting to inject a little humor in the response. I can see that the “humor” came out like a bit of a smart-aleck. Not my intent, of course. Despite those things, my basic underlying advice is sound, and is very clear that it is important to have the work done by appropriate professionals. I disagree that suggesting neutral colors is straying into the area of “interior design advice.”

As I re-read my answer to Maureen S., I can see that she might have received my comments as dismissive. What I intended was to give her reassurance that though her house hadn’t sold yet, she shouldn’t despair, because it is taking longer for properties to sell in this market. Unfortunately, I had to guess at what she meant by “unusual design.” That required either a generalized answer or making more assumptions than I had already made. However, my attempt at relating her situation to music still raises a valid point. The more “unusual” a house is, the narrower the field of potential buyers. I did not suggest that she redesign her property, or that one design is better than other. My answer had to do with getting her house sold, and it is a common observation that a larger percentage of buyers are not looking for houses with unusual designs. Regardless of the state of the real estate market, when the potential buyer pool is smaller for a given property, it takes longer for that property to sell. This could be related to floor plan, exterior appearance, paint colors, amenities, or any number of other possibilities. My comments are not, for example, about the relative value of one color paint over another, but rather that there is a much larger field of potential buyers for a house painted in a “neutral” color than for one painted in bright orange. Skilled realtors know this sort of thing, and part of their job is to communicate it in a sensitive way to sellers.

I welcome any further comments or suggestions.

Darrell Parsons

The author is a Georgetown-based realtor and is the author of our biweekly “Ask the Realtor” column. He blogs at georgetownrealestatenews.blogspot.com.

Orange Returns to a Changed DC Council
•

The last time Vincent Orange had a seat on the city council in 2006 after representing Ward 5 for eight years, he decided to run for mayor. Adrian Fenty rolled over him, just like every other candidate in a knockout victory.

Now, Orange is back as the newly-elected at-large city councilman, winning a special election to fill the seat formerly held by Kwame Brown, who was elected council chairman last year in a race against Orange. Talk about perseverance.

Orange won a tight race, considering the low voter turnout citywide, that featured a strong challenge by Republican Patrick Mara, who was endorsed by the Washington Post and won impressive pluralities in Wards 2, 3 and 6. Orange, boosted by a strong lead in fundraising late in the campaign, name recognition and experience ended up taking 28 percent of the vote to Mara’s almost 26 percent. Orange won by a margin of over 1,000 votes.

Sekou Biddle, a Shepherd Park resident and Teach for America worker, was the nominal incumbent, having been appointed to fill the seat on an interim basis by the DC Democratic Committee, with support from Mayor Vincent Gray and Chairman Brown. Incumbency was not enough to push Biddle across the finish line in the lead. He finished third, winning 20 percent of the vote.

Bryan Weaver, a Ward 1 activist and ANC Commissioner, made a credible showing at 13 percent (he won a majority in Ward One), followed by Josh Lopez, the young Hispanic candidate who worked on former Mayor Adrian Fenty’s campaign and helped lead a write-in campaign for him.

Looked at from a distance, the results of this race appear to be almost a replay of the results in the mayoral race, which saw Gray upset Fenty by winning heavily in the primarily black wards of 8, 7, 4 and 5, while Fenty took a large majority in the primarily white wards of 3, 2 and 6. Orange scored big in the same wards as Gray, while Mara took large majorities as Fenty. What’s clear is that Mayor Gray’s campaign slogan of “One City” remains no more than just a slogan.

Voter turnout, as usual in such special elections, was not even respectable, coming in at 9.48 percent of eligible voters, according to DC Board of Election figures. Before DC voters again rail against interference from the federal government or for voting rights in congress, they might look long and hard at that figure: 43,208 voters out of 455,842 eligible voters voted in this election.

True, special elections don’t draw a heavy turnout, but for an election deemed critical by many observers, it’s a poor showing that needs to be improved.

Both Orange and Mara indicated they would not support a tax increase on the $200,000 plus earners in the city, something of a surprise from Orange, but not from a GOP candidate. The tax increase is a critical part of Mayor Gray’s budget and the election results probably doesn’t bode well for it. Expect a big budget fight ahead in the upcoming weeks.

What the results showed is that the city, while losing black residents, remains a deeply divided city. Mayor Gray, under a continually raining cloud over hiring practices and investigations from a variety of sources, has been so far unable to effectively lead. School reform was probably not a major issue, since there wasn’t a candidate that doesn’t support reform. The ethical scandals surrounding the mayor, the chairman and some members of the council, however, was a big talking point in the candidate forums.

Orange returns to a council that is different from the one that he left. Brown, the man who defeated him in the chairman race, remains chairman but is a considerably weaker leader almost in as much hot water as Gray and even more unpopular.

For Orange, it’s something of a major comeback and triumph. He won in spite of having lost convincingly in his last two campaigns. He won in spite of a majority of the council support for his opponents. That signals a divided council, which Orange may have difficulty in influencing. On the other hand, Orange brings one quality that is healthy in these tense times to the council: he is an unwavering enthusiast and optimist, not the worst attitude for an elected official.